Alternatives International

Peoples' Social Forum 2014 and Beyond

Michel LAMBERT — 2014-09-01T16:17:02Z

Much has been said, for the most part very positive, about the incredible Peoples' Social Forum, which took place from August 21st to 24th in Ottawa. Naomi Klein's comment during her opening speech that the Forum was the most important meeting of social movements in Canada since the American Summit in April 2001 really resonated with me.

The comparison between these two events is striking given that the pan-American alliance of social movements that was born from a vast alliance in their struggle against the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) had a considerable impact in stopping that project in its track. Social movements in all countries involved in the FTAA (as well as Cuba) responded to this neoliberal assault by joining forces at the pan-American level to deploy a global strategy while they were at the same time actively mobilizing nationally and locally. This “movement of movements” so-to-speak was successful. But Naomi Klein also reminded us in that we were unable to put the necessary efforts to keep it alive in the future – which calls for vigilance at this important conjuncture!

In 2014, both the political and social success of the Peoples' Social Forum show the incredible will and desire of activists from multiple social movements to work together in developing a common strategy in response not only to the Conservatives' attacks on programs, but any government that might follow them. This mobilization is all the more pressing given that a potential reelection of Stephen Harper in 2015 would undoubtedly launch a new round of attacks on our movements.

Beyond the technical evaluations of the Forum, the fundamental questions we must ask ourselves are the following: How do we sustain what we started at the Peoples' Social Forum in 2014? How do we build new bridges and solidify the ties we created during the Forum? Beyond our respective commitment and solidarities, how do we really create a lasting alliance between First Nations, Quebec and Canada that is indeed able to have an impact on the Conservatives' agenda and policies? And how do we force other political parties to really distinguish themselves and propose real progressive alternatives?

Supporting the First Nations, Quebec and Canada Dynamic

The Peoples' Social Forum was a historic and very necessary meeting of progressives hailing from the traditional “three solitudes” of Canada. The opportunities for a strategic alliance on thematic issues like climate change and human rights, for example, were necessary and important, but we must also acknowledge and respond to the fact that, just like during the times of the FTAA, all these groups are attacked by a common enemy.

The 30-month long process that led to the happening of the Forum from August 21st to 24th allowed for doors to be swung open and for trust-building between movements and people within these three communities. But our past is a heavy burden and there is much left to do. It is imperative that we choose to continue opening up and to invest in this process. Building a movement of movements in Canada must rely on the alliance that is currently being built between progressive forces in Quebec, Native communities and Canada, most notably, the labour union movement in the rest of Canada. Any follow-up to the Forum must function with this logic both as a political foundation and as an ultimate goal.

Supporting the Movement Assembly Processes

Nineteen thematic assemblies took place on August 23rd. Although results varied greatly from one group to another, the majority of Assemblies adopted common strategic perspectives. The Assembly of Social Movements on Climate Change, for example, suggested meeting again in October (date and location to be determined). The Assembly on Education also suggested meeting again to build on its program. Same goes for the Media Assembly which hopes to meet again as early as September. Many others have expressed wanting to meet again as well.

Many solid campaigns were also put forth. The Assembly on Democracy suggested creating a social political platform to force political parties to think differently. The Assembly on Social Services is keen on making the fight to keep Canada Post alive, which is at the heart of its struggle, with ambitions to create a large coalition of public services inspired by the Coalition Red Hand of Quebec in 2009. The Assembly on Mines suggested a national day against extractivism. The Assembly on Social Economy wishes to deploy an inclusive campaign that makes social economy a positive choice in the upcoming federal election. The Assembly on Palestine suggested to all organizations that participated in the Forum to adopt the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) campaign against Israel. The examples are many. If, like the final declaration of the Assembly of Assemblies reads, we wish to actively involve our networks in blocking the Conservatives in 2015, we must immediately implement these suggestions, on inclusive and participatory grounds in the same spirit of the Forum.

A General Assembly on the PSF to be Held Soon

As all these activities are being put into motion and in order to ensure that the PSF be a long-term process, it is necessary that debriefs be done at technical and political level, as well as discuss the perspectives with as wide as possible participation from all those who supported the Forum and its process until August 2014. A General Assembly could be organized as soon as possible to reach this goal. We left the PSF feeling energized and it's important that we continue to put forth a global vision, shared by as many people as possible, of our process and our goals.

We must also consider other occasions for mass convergence, just like the Forum in August 2014. Perhaps a second Peoples' Social Forum in 2016? It's still too soon to speak of it, but during the second PSF General Assembly in July 2013, the delegates who participated agreed to move the PSF towards the West if a second edition were to take place.

Participating in the World Social Forum in Tunis in March 2015

An informal meeting of the International Council of the World Social Forum took place after the PSF on August 24th. The representatives of the organizing committee of the WSF of Tunis argued that the PSF's dynamic would be necessary in Tunis. Historically, Canadian participation of the WSF's different editions has largely been from Quebec. This time, it's important that we send a delegation that is truly representative of the movements active at the Peoples' Social Forum.

Peoples' Social Forum: 500 Workshops, 19 Assemblies, 5,000 Voices and a Declaration

Miriam Katawazi — 2014-09-01T16:14:06Z

After the Peoples' Social Forum (PSF) ended this weekend, tents at the University of Ottawa were left empty. Booths covered with art and information that lined the once busy streets had disappeared. There were no longer people standing on the corners of streets passing out magazines and independent film screening ads. But while the forum may be over, participants and organizers are hoping that its impact is ongoing.

The final event of the Peoples' Social Forum looked to the future. It was the Social Movements Assembly. The assembly established a non-partisan extra-parliamentary opposition in order to enable the spirit of the convergence to work beyond the forum.

The PSF hosted over 500 workshops led by various groups across the country. Over 5,000 participants flooded the University of Ottawa campus. Movement assemblies, gathered at the Peoples' Square, discussed various topics ranging from Indigenous Solidarity to Mining Justice.

At the final event, in order to represent the diversity of forces engaged in the PSF, each of the 19 movement assemblies presented a three-minute report on their conclusions., and the assemblies came together to build a unified front against austerity.

All the groups taking part in the forum were told that there would be a process involving movement assemblies that would culminate into a declaration. Workshops held on the last two nights of the forum fleshed out the details of the declaration.

The Call to Action declaration, handed out to attendees on Sunday, noted that the forum has given people brighter outlooks. "This forum has given us hope in our capacity to surpass our limits and to, together, overcome. We are politically united and shall be active in every corner of the territory where we are present," it said.

The declaration added that participation in the social forum was the result of the urgent need to stop attacks on democracy, and to free societies of neoliberal capitalism, imperialism, patriarchy, colonialism, racism, heterosexism and corporatism. It noted, "The Peoples' Social Forum process has allowed us to intensify a convergence of an unheard diversity between our movements."

The ultimate purpose of the social forum was to create political discussion and powerful networking.

"It was to give a chance for people who don't work in the same sector to meet and put their ideas together and then try to have a process where all the various assemblies would feed into the final assembly," said PSF organizer Roger Rashi said..

The forum, he explained, had a moral impact because it showed the determination of many social movements that are involved in daily struggles across the country. "It's a show of intent, it's a proposal to unite people in a common struggle rather than going about it alone," he said.

Creating a united front would help with present battles against austerity, but it would also enable people to look beyond the established system, added Rashi.

"There is an absolute necessity to unite and struggle together for a better world," he said.

Activism and resistance is part of a historical continuum, said Christine Jones of the Canadian Peace Alliance.

"We're inheriting histories of resistance, we're building on the back of others."
"The reality is," said Jones, "That no matter where we are situated in this struggle and resistance we are all somehow working together. There is somehow a grand choreography of resistance that happens."

Photo: Elizabeth Littlejohn

Source: http://rabble.ca/news/2014/08/peoples-social-forum-500-workshops-19-assemblies-5000-voices-and-declaration?utm_content=buffera93ea&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#.U_9q27IJgTM.facebook

Palestinians support resistance in post-Gaza reality

Alternative Information Center (AIC) — 2014-09-01T16:11:25Z

This growing Palestinian support for resistance as the recent Gaza conflict evolved demonstrates the failure of Israeli tactics, which targeted Gaza's civilian population in order to weaken Hamas.

Palestinian officials report that Israel began implementing the terms of the ceasefire agreement signed in Cairo as life began returning to a new normal in Gaza. Palestinian farmers returned to their fields and fishermen began venturing out to the sea again as the Israeli imposed buffer zones on the sea and land have been drastically reduced.

Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, Ismail Haniyeh, greeted thousands of Palestinians in a massive victory rally following signing of a long-term ceasefire agreement with Israel. He hailed the people of Gaza and the resistance for their steadfastness in battle.

"The war began with fire on Haifa and ended with fire on Haifa," Haniyeh said, adding “it is not possible to express this victory with words and speeches".

"The victory is beyond the limits of time and place. This battle is a war that lacks a precedent in the history of conflict with the enemy," he said, stating that “Palestinians who couldn't celebrate Eid al-Fitr because of the fighting, today celebrate the celebration of victory".

The Palestinian news agency Ma'an reports that as of Wednesdaym an opinion poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion showed overwhelming Palestinian support for the firing of rockets into Israel and the belief in Gaza that the resistance had increased its deterrence capacity.

This show a radical change in the attitude of most Palestinians, specifically in Gaza, toward the question of confrontation with Israel.

A public opinion survey conducted by the Washington Institute on June 15-17, just a few days after the current crisis began with the kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers showed the Palestinian public broadly supported a nonviolent approach. In this survey, 70 percent of Gaza residents expressed their wish that Hamas would maintain a ceasefire with Israel in both Gaza and the West Bank.

This growing Palestinian support for resistance as the recent Gaza conflict evolved demonstrates the failure of Israeli tactics, which targeted Gaza's civilian population in order to weaken Hamas. These polls shows that despite the heavy civilian casualties suffered in Gaza, where the UN estimates that 70 percent of the over 2,100 killed were civilians, Palestinian public opinion rallied around resistance organizations toward the end of the conflict.

Nonetheless, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a televised press conference on Wednesday that Hamas had achieved none of its demands.

"Hamas was hit hard” he said, claiming the Islamic organization “has not suffered such a defeat since its creation”.

“We destroyed attack tunnels, killed nearly 1,000 enemy combatants, including senior officials in the movement, destroyed thousands of rockets and hundreds of command posts," he added.

Source: http://www.alternativenews.org/english/index.php/politics/politico/8415-palestinians-support-resistance-in-post-gaza-reality

Israel Ramps up Pressure on PFLP

Elizabeth Austwick — 2014-09-01T16:09:30Z

Following Tuesday morning's detention of 12 leaders from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the party has declared that Israel is conducting a clear campaign against it.

The arrests took place just one day before the 13th anniversary of the assassination of PFLP general secretary Abu Ali Mustafa by Israel on 27 August 2001.

The Ma'an News Agency reports that party leaders Ahmad al-Haj Muhammad Abu al-Nimr and Zahi Khatatba were detained from their homes early Tuesday in the Nablus-area town of Furik.

In Nablus soldiers are reported to have carried out break-ins into several homes before arresting Kamal Ibrahim Abu Tharifa, Dr.Yousef Abdulhaq Abu Shaddad and Musa Salameh.

Amjad Hamayel was detained from his home in Beta and Mustafa Orabi Nakhla (Abu Wadee) was detained from the al-Jalazun refugee camp in northern Ramallah.

In Jenin soldiers reportedly entered the firing rounds of live ammunition before raiding the homes ofFadaa al-Zugheibi, Muhammad al-Zugheibi, Abdullah al-Afif, Alam Sami Masad and Jaafar Abu Salah and arresting them.

No information has been realised about the arrests. It is likely that they will be put under administrative detention over the coming days.

Speaking to the Alternative Information Center (AIC), Khalida Jarrar, a Palestinian Legislative Council Member who recently received a deportation order, says this is part of a clear campaign against the PFLP. "They want to punish or use some kind of measures such as arresting or deporting people" she said, to enforce a form of control in the West Bank.

"This attack on a prominent Palestinian political leader comes now in response to the PFLP's active role in Gaza resistance" says Nassar Ibrahim, a Palestinian political activist. "It is part of the occupation's ongoing attacks on the elected Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), and its targeting of Palestinian resistance in general", added Ibrahim.

Jarrar reported how dozens of soldiers raided her own home in Ramallah last week, delivering a military court-issued deportation order to Jericho on the basis of undisclosed ‘intelligence information'.

Jarrar refused to sign the order and has set up a tent in Ramallah outside the Palestine Legislative Council, where she vows to remain. The Parliamentary Union and Palestinian Legislative Council have sent letters to the court in protest of the decision, whilst the Palestinian government has issued a statement against the deportation order. Jarrar states that the Palestinian people will "continue fighting with pride in the frontline against the Israeli occupation and its attacks on the Palestinian people."

In a statement on these recent arrests and expulsion order the PFLP stated that "the enemy believes that if it escalates arrests across the occupied West Bank, that it will frustrate our determination and keep us from the front lines in the defence of proud, resilient Gaza against the heinous crimes of the occupier, and from confronting the attacks on Palestinian rights on the entire land of Palestine."

Jarrar added that "the PFLP will continue their struggle with actions against the occupation."

Thursday 27 August marked the 13th anniversary of the Israeli assassination of PFLP General Secretary, Abu Ali Mustafa, in his Ramallah office building, with a US-made missile, in 2001.

Israel openly executes Palestinian political and military leadership, aiming to liquidate Palestinian resistance under the guise of fighting terrorism.

The PFLP state that ‘The aim (of extrajudicial executions) is to destroy our people's leadership and their will and determination to struggle, remain, and live." However Khaled Barakat, Palestinian writer and activist, states to combat this ‘is to keep the legacy of our martyred leaders alive by making them immortal….commemorating the martyrs, the legacies of their struggle and their political vision."

Source: http://www.alternativenews.org/english/index.php/politics/politico/8414-israel-ramps-up-pressure-on-pflp

The Futility of Not Talking to Pakistan

Siddharth Varadarajan — 2014-09-01T16:06:16Z

Modi has erred greatly by cancelling talks instead of pursuing an enlightened internal Kashmir policy

India is perhaps the only major power in the world to regard dialogue with an adversary as a form of surrender, or at best, a reward to be granted on pain of good behaviour. As a corollary, the Indian establishment believes that not talking is a form of punishment, perhaps even of coercive diplomacy, which will accomplish for the country what dialogue cannot.

Just how misplaced this belief is can be seen from the number of times in the past 20 years that India resolved not to talk to Pakistan because it was unhappy with something Islamabad had done or was doing, only to back off with its primary goals unmet. Each time, the decision to start talking was correct— Lahore (1999), Agra (2001), Islamabad (2004), Thimphu (2010). And each time a decision was made to end the dialogue—rather than merely suspending it for stocktaking following a terrorist incident or provocative event—India found itself compelled to move away from rigid conditionalities and maximalist demands and settle for nothing more than a declaration of good intent by the Pakistanis.

The reason India did this was not because it was weak or lacked an appetite for diplomatic brinkmanship—these are hardly accusations that can be made against the likes of Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Brajesh Mishra, or indeed M.K. Narayanan or Shivshankar Menon—but because it recognized both the utility of dialogue for the pursuit of tactical and strategic objectives vis-à-vis Pakistan, and the futility of not talking. So, even as every bilateral crisis or relatively minor disturbance invariably generated hawkish political headwinds against dialogue, the realist, professional instincts of the Indian diplomatic and security establishment would eventually assert themselves.

From the point of view of statecraft, realism means having a clear understanding of one's strategic goals, and using the most effective tool at one's disposal for the pursuit of those goals. As far as India-Pakistan relations are concerned this means being clear about three things: (1) Using diplomacy and dialogue to influence Pakistani behaviour and thinking directly and via third countries, while seeking win-win gains on the economic and trade front; (2) strengthening border management, intelligence and policing capabilities so that India has more than the cold comfort of Pakistani assurances to rely on in the event of continuing cross-border terrorism; and (3) pursuing domestic political initiatives and reforms in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) so as to undercut the influence of Pakistan and pro-Pakistan elements such as the Hurriyat in the Valley.

While the Vajpayee government made progress on all three fronts, as did Manmohan Singh, the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government neglected the first and third because it lacked the political courage to take the sort of initiatives that would have made a difference. Now, Narendra Modi, who began his prime ministership on a promising diplomatic note, has taken a huge step back by trying to use a diplomatic tool—the cancelling of dialogue—as a substitute for enlightened internal Kashmir policy.

The Modi government has defended its decision to cancel the 25 August meeting between the foreign secretaries of the two countries by saying the Pakistani high commissioner's invitation to separatist leaders from Kashmir “raises questions about Pakistan's sincerity, and shows that its negative approaches and attempts to interfere in India's internal affairs continue unabated”. Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokespersons also say it is irrelevant that Hurriyat leaders met Pakistani diplomats and leaders on the eve of all major India-Pakistan encounters during the Vajpayee and Manmohan years. Just because something wrong happened then is no reason to allow it now, they argue.

Such logic is misplaced for two reasons. First, successive governments have tolerated Pakistan's irritating confabulations with the Hurriyat not because they were weak or indecisive but because knew those meetings made no difference to the texture of the India-Pakistan talks which followed. Second, it is no secret that Pakistan has a “negative approach”, that it “interferes in India's internal affairs”, and that it wishes to detach Jammu & Kashmir from India — a goal the Hurriyat also has. But this was surely known to Modi when he invited Nawaz Sharif for his inaugural, and when he gave his nod for the two foreign secretaries to meet in the first place. Indeed, this is precisely why India needs to talk to Pakistan — to drive home the point that since all efforts at altering the territorial status quo have failed, Islamabad must get real and work with New Delhi towards crafting a new solution and a new relationship.

To be sure, Modi is a politician and has his sensitivities about the negative optics the Hurriyat's meeting with Pakistani diplomats would generate, especially in the Jammu region where his BJP hopes to win a large number of seats when Jammu & Kashmir goes to the polls later this year. In that case, he ought to have picked up the phone and spoken to Sharif—a leader with whom he struck a close personal rapport during and after their 27 May meeting—to find a quiet way around this. Who knows, the two leaders might have agreed to postpone the meeting given the mass unrest that was planned in and around Islamabad. In the event, cancelling the foreign secretaries meeting for the reasons stated was the worst possible outcome.

A final point. Modi knows that the military in Pakistan is a reluctant recruit to Sharif's desire to normalize relations with India. It is possible that as a result of this week's internal developments in that country, the military establishment will gain the upper hand over Sharif. But that cannot be an argument for Modi doing his bit to undermine a leader who has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to take political risks in favour of improving relations with India.

Siddharth Varadarajan is a senior fellow at the Centre for Public Affairs and Critical Theory, Shiv Nadar University, New Delhi.

Source: http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/JTupybRgrrYsw6qY7Kj63H/The-futility-of-not-talking-to-Pakistan.html?utm_source=copy

Understanding the Civil War in Ukraine

David Mandel — 2014-09-01T16:03:31Z

The Ukrainian conflict, like most political phenomena, is multi-dimensional and highly complex. As such, it calls for a holistic – dialectical, if you wish – approach. But to judge by American and NATO spokespersons and by their mass media, there is only one really decisive factor that explains everything: Russia's imperialism, Vladimir Putin's determination to dominate and further dismember the Ukraine as part of his plan to restore the Soviet empire. In this simplistic view, Ukraine, with benevolent support from the West, would be quite capable of dealing with its problems and would soon be on its way to becoming a prosperous, Western-style democracy.

My view is quite the opposite: the roots of the Ukrainian conflict are domestic and profound; outside intervention, while significant, is a secondary factor. Given limitations of space, I will, therefore, focus on the internal situation. But I will necessarily, if more briefly, also address the international dimensions of the conflict. This is also the more necessary since the Canadian government has been particularly zealous in its support for the Ukrainian government and in condemning Russia as solely responsible.

My goal is to offer a framework that can help in understanding and evaluating the mass of information about the conflict coming from governments and the media.

A Deeply Divided Society

Ukraine is a deeply divided society – along lines of language, culture, historical identity, ethnicity, religious affiliation, attitudes to Russia, as well as real and perceived economic interests. Since Ukraine became independent in 1991, these divisions have been manipulated and fostered by corrupt economic and political élites with the aim of distracting popular attention for their criminal activities and to gain advantage in intra-élite competition. This manipulation, on the background of widespread poverty and economic insecurity, has prevented popular forces from mobilizing to oppose this oppressive ruling class, the so-called ‘oligarchs', who have run the economy into the ground while fantastically enriching themselves. Since independence, Ukraine has lost over 13 per cent of its population, down to 45 million. Of those, several million are working abroad as cheap labour in Russia and the EU.

About half of Ukraine's population speaks Ukrainian in everyday life; the other half – Russian; and practically everyone can speak both languages well enough. The three western, overwhelmingly ukrainophone, regions joined the rest of Ukraine in the 1940s after two centuries under oppressive Austro-Hungarian, then Polish, rule. The southern and eastern parts first became part of Ukraine at the end of the Russian civil war in 1920. Until 1991, Ukraine had never existed as a state, except for a very brief period during the civil war.

The population of the western regions is deeply nationalistic; and at the centre of that nationalism at present is a profound fear, mixed with hatred, of Russia and, to varying degrees, of Russians. The eastern and southern regions, mostly russophone, have strong cultural and ethnic affinities, as well as political sympathies and economic ties, with Russia. The situation in the centre is mixed. Historical memory plays a big role in the divisions: the heroes of the west collaborated with the German occupation in World War II and participated in its crimes; the heroes of the east and south fought against fascism and for the Soviet Union. In fact, there is hardly any major historical event or figure going back centuries upon which the two poles agree. There are also economic interests: the east is more industrial and closely integrated with the Russian economy, by far Ukraine's leading trading partner; the western is dominated by small towns and is more agrarian.

These differences express themselves in opposing political positions, in which irrational fears play a not insignificant role. The population of the west, with some support in the centre, has generally been more active politically and has sought to impose its culture, which it considers the only truly Ukrainian, on the rest of the country. People from the western regions constituted a disproportionate part of the Maidan protesters. Opinion surveys consistently show the Ukrainian population to be split on major issues, although most, both east and west, have perceived the successive governments as corrupt and dominated by oligarchs. The major issue of contention has been the legitimacy of the central government. The one formed after Victor Yanukovych's overthrow has strong support in the west and, to a significant degree, also in the centre, which has seen a nationalistic upsurge; the population in the east and south widely despises and fears the government, which it considers illegitimate.

What was Maidan?

The initial issue in the Maidan protest was the fate of an economic agreement that the then President Yanukovych had been negotiating with the European Union. Yanukovych, who was identified with the russophone east and south, decided (wisely in my view) to suspend the negotiations and accept Russia's offer of a $15-billion loan. But when he resorted to repression against the protesters, the protest was transformed into a protest movement against the government itself, its repressive, corrupt nature. Armed neo-fascist elements from the West increasingly became involved, further radicalizing the protest, attacking police, occupying government buildings, and finally convincing Yanukovych to flee on February 21.

A provisional government was then formed by not altogether constitutional means. It consisted exclusively of politicians identified with the western, nationalist regions and included several neo-fascists. Politicians identified with the west, including some oligarchs, were put in charge of eastern regions, whose population widely viewed the new government as hostile.

Donbass Insurgency

Copying the Maidan protest and earlier actions in the western regions that had been directed against Yanukovych's government, groups of local Donbass citizens already in February began to occupy government buildings, calling for a referendum on the region's autonomy and possibly its secession and annexation to Russia. These groups were initially unarmed, nor were they for the most part separatist. As their compatriots in the west had done earlier against Yanukovych, they were demanding local autonomy as a measure of protection against a hostile central government.

Kiev's reaction only confirmed the worst fears and prejudices of the Donbass population. Under the impression of Russia's annexation of Crimea and spurred on by its own fervent nationalism, the new government in Kiev made no serious effort to reach out to the population of the east. Instead, almost immediately it declared the protesters “terrorists” and launched a so-called “anti-terrorist operation” against them. There was no genuine desire to negotiate, but to crush militarily. And since the Ukrainian army was a mess and had little taste for fighting its own people, the government created and armed a National Guard, consisting of poorly trained volunteers that included ultra-nationalists and neo-fascists. As if that were not enough to confirm the fears of the easterners, some 45 anti-government protesters were massacred in Odessa on May 2, a crime for which Kiev blamed the protesters themselves, as well as unidentified Russian provocateurs.

None of this changed fundamentally after the presidential elections of early May. President Petro Poroshenko has also made no serious effort to negotiate an end to the conflict. The indiscriminate shelling of civilian centres in Donbass by the government only confirmed its illegitimate, alien nature in the eyes of the local population.

There is not much that is known for sure – at least by myself – about the relations between the local population and the armed insurgents in the Donbass. Moreover, these relations undoubtedly evolved over time. But it is clear that the insurgents were, and still are, in their majority local people and that, at least until relatively recently, they enjoyed varying degrees of sympathy among the population, most of whom, however, did not want to separate but only a measure of self-rule. I imagine that today the local population mostly wishes only for an end to the fighting and a measure of physical security.

The insurgency itself underwent radicalization over time, especially with the influx from Russia of Russian nationalists. In any case, although the government in Kiev has made an offer of amnesty to those who have not committed serious crimes, the militias no doubt fear only the worst if they were to surrender.

The Central Government

Ukraine's political regime differs from Russia's in that in Ukraine the oligarchs dominate the state and the mass media. In Russia the regime is ‘Bonapartist', that is, the political élite dominates the oligarchs, even while serving their interests. That is essentially why there has been more political pluralism in the Ukraine. Whether that has been more beneficial to Ukraine's working-class is another question. As for the economic and social situations, Ukraine is basically Russia but without oil and gas.

A glance at the political career of president Poroshenko, billionaire owner of a confectionary empire and auto plants, offers some idea of the nature of the regime. Poroshenko was a founding member of the Party of Regions in 2000, the political machine that eventually brought Yanukovych to power in 2010. But a year later, Poroshenko left the party to become a leading financial backer of Our Ukraine, a party closely identified with the western regions and with Ukrainian nationalism. He backed the so-called Orange Revolution at the end of 2004 that brought to power Viktor Yushchenko, a staunch pro-West Ukrainian nationalist. Poroshenko became his Foreign Minister, advocating NATO membership (a position rejected by a strong majority of the population). But he lost his job in 2010 when Yanukovych won the presidential elections. Poroshenko nevertheless returned in 2012 to serve Yanukovych as Minister of Trade and Development. But he left that post after eight months to return to parliament as an independent. In short, this is the career of an inveterate political opportunist, who, like the rest of his class, subscribes to the Russian adage: “Where my fortune lies, there lies my heart.”

Poroshenko, to the extent he has principles, does not belong to the more extreme wing of Ukrainian nationalism, although he has called the Donbass insurgents “gangs of animals.” (Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, beloved by Western governments, has called them “subhumans.”) But in any case, Poroshenko shares power with a cabinet and parliament that include extreme right-wing elements. And because of the army's weakness, he has had to rely heavily on ultra-nationalist paramilitary forces to prosecute the war. For example, the cease-fire, to which he agreed to on June 21 and apparently wanted to prolong while pursuing negotiations, was cut short after a demonstration by so-called “volunteeer” battalions, recruited largely from ultra-nationalist far-right elements. Then there are people like the multi-billionaire governor of Dnepropetrovsk region, Igor Kolomoiskii, who payrolls his own army, the Dnipro Battalion; or the increasingly popular parliamentary deputy, the right-wing populist thug, Oleg Lyashko, who has personally commanded volunteer battalions in the Donbass. Poroshenko also has to consider the upsurge of nationalist sentiment in the wake of Crimea's annexation and the massive propaganda campaign against Russia in the oligarch-controlled media that has gone well beyond the typically nationalist elements of Ukrainian society. Finally, the war and national emergency are needed to distract popular attention from very harsh austerity measures that are really only in their first stages.

International Dimension

Although the conflict is fundamentally a civil war, external forces have played a significant role. The “West” (U.S., EU, NATO) bears a heavy responsibility for its unflinching support and encouragement of the Ukrainian government in its pursuit of an exclusively pro-Western political and economic orientation. In view of Ukraine's deep internal divisions, that policy is fatal to the integrity of the state and the peaceful development of the society. Moreover, from the moment the internal divisions assumed the form of an armed confrontation, the West has unflinchingly supported both the actions and the propaganda of the Kiev government. That propaganda portrays the Russian government as solely responsible for the conflict and is silent about Kiev's own intransigence, its serious war crimes against the non-combatant population of Donbass and the serious economic suffering it is imposing on the entire population.

An analysis of Western interests and motives is beyond the scope of this presentation. But it is quite obvious that since the fall of the USSR, the U.S., with more or less active support from Europe, has followed a course aimed at maximally limiting Russia's geopolitical influence and at surrounding it with unfriendly states. Despite solemn promises made to Mikhail Gorbachev, these states have been integrated into NATO, from which Russia is excluded. Where integration into NATO has not been possible or desirable, regime change has been pursued. That has been the West's policy in Ukraine. The EU's association proposal, which was at the origins of this crisis and which contained clauses pertaining to defence policy, forced this deeply divided country to choose between Europe and Russia. (A national poll from December 2013 found that 48 per cent agreed with Yanukovych's decision not to sign and 35 per cent disagreed. In western Ukraine, however, a full 82 per cent disagreed.)

The Russian government saw the very open and active support for the Maidan protests and then for the provisional government and its policies as being in direct line with that policy of “containment.” The annexation of Crimea, that does not appear to have been long in the planning, was, at least in part, a message to the West: only so far!

Ukrainian and Western claims notwithstanding, Putin does not aim to further dismember Ukraine, nor does he plan to recreate the Soviet empire. While it may not be his preference, he is prepared to accept Ukraine's neutrality and its closer economic ties with Europe. What he does not want is a hostile, exclusively Western-oriented Ukraine. European Russia, which has the bulk of its population and industry, shares a 2500 kilometer border with Ukraine. Given the history of the twentieth century, Russia's sensitivity to this question should not be too hard to understand, even apart from the deep historical, cultural, ethnic, family and economic ties that bind the two societies.

But Russia is not without its own responsibility in this conflict. I take issue with some on the left (including the Russian left), who support the annexation of Crimea and Russia's involvement in the civil war as justified anti-imperialist policies. Meanwhile, others on the left have taken the opposite position, essentially embracing Kiev's version of the conflict.

It goes without saying that Western condemnation of the annexation of Crimea is profoundly hypocritical in view of the West's longstanding and continuing history of imperialist aggression and disregard for international norms. One thinks of the detachment of Kosovo from Serbia and the invasion of Iraq, as only two recent examples of this. There is, moreover, no doubt that the vast majority of the population of Crimea, which never felt itself to be Ukrainian, was happy, many even overjoyed, with the annexation. Local Crimean governments have wanted as far back as 1992, only to be rebuffed by Russia. In every national election, Crimeans have voted overwhelmingly for pro-Russian Ukrainian parties.

As a citizen of Canada, a NATO member with a right-wing government that has been a zealous cheerleader for Kiev, I admit that my first instinct was to support Putin as acting in defense of his country's national interests against Western aggression. But that is a mistaken position.

If the annexation of Crimea was not part of a master plan to restore the Soviet empire, neither was it motivated primarily by legitimate concern for Russia's national interests. Indeed, one has to wonder what might constitute a national interest in a class-divided society where vast wealth is concentrated in the hands of so few and which is dominated by a corrupt, authoritarian government.

In any case, Putin himself has not explained the annexation in terms of geopolitical interest. In his speech in March dedicated to Crimea and in another in early July at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, he referred instead to the duty to protect Russian populations outside Russia's borders. This is an appeal to ethnic nationalism. And it (as with the wars against Chechnya and Georgia before) has been extremely successful in boosting Putin's popularity, at the same time as it narrowed the already limited space for opposition to his regime.

But even from the point of view of geopolitical interest, the annexation of Crimea appears incredibly short-sighted and harmful to Russia. The annexation, along with Putin's justification, gave a major boost to anti-Russia nationalist paranoia in Ukraine. At the same time, it encouraged the armed resistance in Donbass to Kiev. So while Russia, sincerely I believe, has consistently called for a cease-fire and a negotiated settlement, the annexation, in fact, has fed the armed conflict. And Russia is also directly contributing to the conflict, since the groundswell of nationalist sentiment in Russia forces Putin to allow an unofficial, limited flow of combatants and arms to the Donbass, even while Putin has no intention of intervening in force to rescue the militia. (I could be proved wrong but I strongly doubt it.)

And so instead of protecting the Russian population of Donbass, Putin has in fact contributed to the deterioration of its situation and has undermined Russia's ability to effectively defend its interests.

But the annexation has also been very injurious to Russia's own situation in the world. By giving a major boost to anti-Russian nationalism and the government in Kiev, Putin ensured that Ukraine will henceforth be firmly within the Western camp and hostile to Russia. He has also helped to solidify NATO as a hostile alliance aimed at containing a supposedly expansionist Russia. And he has deprived Russia of what had been its fundamental argument against U.S. and NATO aggression: respect for the international norms of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states and for their territorial integrity.

Some make the argument that Putin had to secure Russia's naval base in Sevastopol. But the threat was only potential – although over the years high Ukrainian officials have spoken of handing it over to NATO – and its securing hardly outweighs the geopolitical damage to Russia incurred from the annexation. (Putin seems to have miscalculated Europe's, especially Germany's, willingness to follow the U.S. in a crusade against Russia.) Moreover, if Sevastopol were really threatened, the base could have been moved to Russia's Black Sea port in Novorosiisk. The cost of the move would probably not be much greater than the losses that will be incurred from the Western sanctions.

Conclusion

The solution, in principle, has always been evident: a cease-fire monitored by international observers, followed by negotiations, on the sole condition of acceptance of Ukraine's territorial integrity. The subject of negotiations would be the delegation of power to regional and local elected governments. This is the famous “federalization,” supported by Russia and most of the population of Donbass but rejected by Kiev and the West, who claim it is merely a cover for separation of Ukraine's east and its annexation by Russia.

But in so deeply divided a society, federalism can, in fact, be an effective measure against separatism. (If Canada were not a federal state, Quebec would have separated years ago.) But things might have probably already gone too far. Kiev, backed by the West, will not hear of a cease-fire. It wants a full surrender or decisive military victory. And, although unlikely, domestic pressures might finally convince Putin to intervene directly. In any case, the future does not appear bright for a unified Ukrainian state. •

David Mandel teaches political science at the Université du Québec à Montréal and has been involved in labour education in the Ukraine for many years.

Women in Tunisia: The Struggle for Equality is Not Over

Messaoud Romdhani — 2014-09-01T15:58:44Z

On August 13, 2014, Tunisian women commemorated the 58th anniversary of the promulgation of the Personal Status Code (PSC) that transformed married and family life in Tunisia. In fact, the PSC allowed women to acquire essential rights they were deprived of for centuries, such as the free choice of a husband, legal divorce, ban of polygamy and setting a minimum age of marriage.

The text of the PSC has been unique in the Arab world as it implemented the emancipation project carried by generations of reformists: from khaireddine and Ibn Abidhief in the nineteenth century to Tahar Hadded and President Bourguiba, later.
However, the struggle is far from being over. Tunisian women as well as democratic forces face a double challenge: on the one hand, to preserve the reforms achieved through the personal code from the subversions of political Islam and its various components that try to roll back the clock on essential women's rights and on the other ,to continue the fight for achieving full gender equality.

Everyone remembers the struggle led by active civil society concerning article 28 of the draft constitution in 2012. The stakes were high: the Islamist Party, constituting the majority of the National Constituent Assembly, tried to have “the complementarity of roles between men and women within the family” set forth in the new constitution.”The formulation inspired from conservative literature and patriarchal beliefs aims to gloss over the principle of gender equality. Luckily, the attempt failed owing to the widespread mobilization of feminist associations and democratic civil society, which have succeeded, ultimately, to impose the clear mention of equality and that of women's rights protection.

There is, however, no reason for complacency. It is true that there are significant steps taken forward. Article (40) of the new Constitution, for instance, stipulates that “work is the right for every citizen, male and female. The state shall take the necessary measures to guarantee work on the basis of competence and fairness.”It is, also, true that thanks to the spread of education, the participation of women in public life is more and more conspicuous: they represent 49% of the executive ranks in public service, 72% of the number of pharmacists, 42% of the medical staff, 40% of university professors.

Yet, effective equality is still far off: women's unemployment rate is twice that of men (21.5 to 11.5%).Rural women suffer from precarious unemployment and poor working conditions: 73% of those who work in the agricultural sector do not have a working contract…

In addition, women still suffer all forms of violence, whether “verbal, economic, sexual or psychological,” according to Mrs. Neila Chaabane, Secretary of State for Women and Family, citing the scary number of 47.6% of women between the ages of 18 and 65, who suffered violence during 2013. (Al-Maghreb 22 May 2014)

But there are other types of violence. Those peddled by speeches that devalue women. This year commemoration of PSC was a great opportunity for Mr. Rached Ghannouchi, President of the Islamist Party, Ennahda, to mix religion and politics, acting, as usual, as a political leader and a religious preacher. He, who had said not so long ago, that “the modernism of Bourguiba is nothing but a blind fascination of the West” (Approches du sécularisme et de la société civile, 2011), took everybody by surprise when he expressed his full support for the CPS, while adding a personal touch: he calls on young people to follow the example of the Prophet and marry “divorced and elderly women.”

It must be assumed that “spinsterhood” observed in the growing number of single women is one of the most recurrent themes of the Islamists, too much attached to the traditional image of the family , viewing the social and cultural phenomena related to the changing attitudes and evolving mores all over the world as an anomaly.
A further illustration of the disparity between the theory of the texts and the actual reality is the parity issue. The decree law 35 of 2011 , concocted by the High Commission for the Realization of the Objectives of the Revolution (2011) established the principle of parity in the electoral lists.

But there is many a slip between the cup and the lip:

The relatively important presence of women in the hemicycle should not delude us. Their large majority belongs to Ennahda and they systematically adopt the position of their party, united and in solidarity like one…man. We have seen them defend the idea of “complementarity” against the principle of equality and drag their heels when it comes to the ratification of the CEDAW.
Also, the limited number of women who are at the head the electoral lists in all political parties is very significant. It shows the huge gap between words and actions, even among the “advocates of modernity and gender equality”, those who, not so long ago, defended horizontal and vertical parities.

In conclusion, few would doubt that legislations such as the Personal Status Code and other laws have helped improve the status of women and stimulated their participation in public life. It is, also, important that the principle of equality be enshrined in the new constitution despite resistance from Islamism then in power.

But old patriarchal habits die hard. The chaos that followed the so-called “Arab Spring” has brought outdated thinking back to life, trying to confine women to the role of procreation and sex .That's why the battle is not yet won; but we can guarantee one thing: we will stand, along with other democratic forces and civil society, by the side of equality.

Messaoud Romdhani is from the Committee for the Respect of Liberties and Human Rights In Tunisia

Why Moral Perversity of U.S. Position in Gaza is Stunning

Roger Waters — 2014-09-01T15:52:40Z

I think it's safe to say that if U.S. neighborhoods were living under siege, folks like Rand Paul wouldn't take it

The carnage in Gaza continues after the latest collapse of cease-fire talks and over four weeks of asymmetrical bombardment by Israel. With the death of more than 2,000 Palestinians, and the displacement of hundreds of thousands more, the complicity of the American government has been exposed to the world as never before. Yet the mantra repeated ad nauseam by the U.S. government and media alike remains the same: Israel has a right to defend itself.

The moral perversity of the U.S. position is stunning. How can the U.S. government ask Israel to be more careful about civilian lives while simultaneously arming and then rearming the IDF so it can more effectively inflict such devastation on an imprisoned and occupied people?

The U.S. could act to stop the senseless slaughter but it won't. Instead, it's cheerleading. Members of Congress are mindlessly parroting Israeli talking points without a thought given to the Palestinian perspective or to preserving human life. Brimming with righteousness, they argue for turning Israel loose – Sen. Rand Paul in particular – and invoke Israel's right to self-defense, despite the fact that, as the occupying power, Israel has an obligation to protect the Palestinians it rules, not massacre them.

Do congressional leaders ever stop to wonder what they would do if they were born Palestinian, had their homes and private property stolen from them, and were forced to live without freedom under an illegal Israeli occupation for 47 years? Do they know what it means to be on the receiving end of Israel's barbaric “mow the lawn” euphemism? Scarcely a word is said about the rights of Palestinians who are being pummeled from the sky and shot dead in their neighborhoods by the region's most powerful military. What, I wonder, would Americans do if it were their neighborhoods being invaded and if they were the ones living under siege? I think it's safe to say Americans wouldn't stand for it.

Despite these realities, it's far more advantageous in Washington to come down like a ton of bricks on the Palestinians and maintain that they are the cause of their own suffering. No politician's career has ever been hurt by blaming Palestinians or by applauding Israel's illegal occupation, colonization and war crimes.

Pressure on American politicians to conform to the party line is abetted by skewed media coverage. For instance, CNN, while purporting to be a news channel, relentlessly churns out Israeli propaganda.

It is easy for those of us who do not live under the tyranny of the occupation to condemn the military wing of Hamas for using randomly fired rockets that might cause civilian casualties in neighboring Israel, and I do unreservedly condemn it. Having said that, an occupied population has the legal right to resist the military of the occupier. The occupier has a legal obligation to protect the occupied. Under these circumstances the reporting on CNN is biased beyond all belief.

Numerically, one can readily see the bias. Far more pro-Israel guests than pro-Palestinian experts are invited on air to make their case.

An exception to that general rule, and obviously not on CNN, is Henry Siegman, a prominent Jewish voice and a former national director of the American Jewish Congress, who recently got the opportunity to expose the shortcomings of Israeli talking points. Siegman was interviewed fairly and in depth by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! Sadly Democracy Now! is not mainstream media. If only it were!

Contrast that appearance with the reception Yousef Munayyer received during an extraordinarily “unfair” Fox News interview by the execrable Sean Hannity. Actually, to dignify Hannity's rude and infantile shouting and finger pointing as an “interview” would be wrong.

If only CNN – or Fox, for that matter – would sometimes rely for their analyses on someone as intelligent and humane as Siegman. Unfortunately, however, CNN persisted for weeks with the extremely biased analysis of Israel's former ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren. Even CNN appears to have recognized how biased a contributor Oren was as it recently changed his title from CNN analyst to former ambassador.

Staunchly pro-Israel voices like Oren's have resoundingly proclaimed: Any resistance, violent or nonviolent, in fact any criticism of Israeli colonization and denial of Palestinian rights, is off limits. What they are advocating, in essence, is perpetual armed conflict until greater Israel is a fait accompli, and complete Israeli domination over any surviving Palestinians is accepted as a reasonable status quo. Commentators such as Oren feign interest in a two-state peaceful solution but they and the state they represent resist all attempts to implement such a plan.

On a positive note, I take heart from the fact that support for Jewish Voice for Peace has skyrocketed over the last month as members of the American Jewish community, appalled at Israel's actions, have looked for a place to register their concern. JVP advocates for an end to occupation and the siege on Gaza, for Palestinian rights – as dictated by international law – and peace with justice for Palestinians and Israelis alike. It primarily does so by educating people with basic facts and by using the tools of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions to apply pressure on Israel to cease its human rights abuses.

Additionally, we welcome Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz to the swelling ranks of celebrity dissenters. Their courageous stand is a beacon to us all. We need many more like them if we are to shift the discourse and persuade the American and Israeli governments to adopt more realistic, humane and hopefully fruitful policies. To paraphrase Siegman, “If you want to stop the rockets, end the siege of Gaza and the occupation of both Gaza and the West Bank.” He sounds like a sage but this is just common sense. If I might stick in my two pennies' worth, why not then engage in serious conversations with the Unity Palestinian Government, which up to now Israel has seemed determined to destroy.

The U.S. Congress, far too beholden to the right-wing Israel lobby, will be the last to figure out this tragic jigsaw puzzle and human catastrophe and grasp the critical need for a political solution. And mainstream media, if unchallenged, will continue to distort reality and embolden the counterproductive, AIPAC-driven unrealistic position that it portrays as fact.

On a personal note, I am pro-human rights for all peoples all over the world. I am pro-peace for all Israelis and Palestinians. I am not singling out Israel. I deplore all abuses and violence, whether in Syria, China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, England, the USA, Egypt, Libya, wherever. That said, international law was designed to protect against such human rights violations and should be applied fairly to all.

In the case of Israel/Palestine, legal channels have yet to be seriously pursued. Consequently, change will continue to be led by popular efforts. Specifically, the growing nonviolent BDS campaign offers the best chance of successfully pressuring Israel to alter its ways and allow for Palestinian freedom and rights. Despite major efforts to destroy it, more and more people are joining the BDS movement. It is this growing momentum that gives me hope that, together, the people of the world will eventually help deliver what governments have been unwilling to secure: justice and a lasting peace between Palestinians and Israelis.

I wrote a short poem a few days ago that I have been encouraged to append here.

It is called “Crystal Clear Brooks.” Although it expresses my feelings, I cannot but think that the children in Gaza would give anything but their birthright and their pride and their basic human rights for a glass of crystal clear water. And, I think too, of the Bakr children, the sons of fishermen, who were slain while playing on a Gaza beach.

Crystal clear brooks
When the time comes
And the last day dawns
And the air of the piper warms
The high crags of the old country
When the holy writ blows
Like burned paper away
And wise men concede
That there's more than one way
More than one path
More than one book
More than one fisherman
More than one hook
When the cats have been skinned
And the fish have been hooked
When the masters of war
Are our masters no more
When old friends take their whiskey
Outside on the porch
We will have done well
If we're able to say
As the sun settles down
On that final day
That we never gave in
That we did all we could
So the kids could go fishing
In crystal clear brooks.

Published on 25 August 2014

Source:http://www.salon.com/2014/08/25/pink_floyds_roger_waters_why_moral_perversity_of_u_s_position_in_gaza_is_stunning/