home

Sunday, August 03, 2008

Colombia: Mercenaries freed, FARC carries forward fight for liberation

Fight Back! News

Analysis by Tom Burke

The Bush Pentagon and State Department are crowing after a raid in which 15 prisoners of war, including three American mercenaries, were freed. What they are not telling you is that the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) were preparing to unilaterally release the prisoners in early July 2008.

The FARC moved the prisoners of war from three separate jungle camps to one location, planning to transfer them by helicopter and release them to French and Swiss government envoys. It was a simple plan that would have given the FARC a platform to demand freedom for 500 FARC fighters in Colombian prisons. For FARC negotiator Ricardo Palmera and rebel Sonia (Anayibe Rojas Valderrama), held as hostages in U.S. jails, the raid and the refusal of the U.S. and Colombian governments to negotiate is bad news.

During its 44 years of fighting a guerrilla war in the countryside of Colombia, the FARC has unilaterally released prisoners a number of times, including seven months ago. These prisoner releases provide a rare opportunity for the FARC to present their political views and talk about pathways to social justice and peace in Colombia. At the prisoner release ceremonies, the FARC message sharply contrasts with the typical media distortions and censorship about them. In recent times, the U.S. strategy is to criminalize the FARC, to make it impossible for the FARC to negotiate with the Colombian government (or anyone else) and to deny the legitimate struggle of the peasants and workers.

The U.S. wants war without end. Bush wants victory, not prisoner exchanges and negotiations. The U.S. is frustrating all attempts at talks, while intensifying the war in Colombia. During his testimony in U.S. court, FARC negotiator Ricardo Palmera explained he was kidnapped by U.S. intelligence in Ecuador on his way to speak with a U.N. envoy three years ago. In January 2008, the FARC successfully released prisoners to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, but only after the U.S. and Colombian military spoiled the first attempt. In March this year, the U.S. was behind a high tech missile and bomb attack killing FARC Commander Raul Reyes and 24 others inside Ecuador. Raul Reyes was planning the next high profile prisoner release with ranking government officials from Ecuador, Venezuela and France. The U.S. tries to kill every effort.

The U.S. behavior is cold, hard and calculated. The U.S. is at war, no negotiations. The U.S. cannot stand for anyone to recognize the legitimacy of the FARC. The Bush officials were shaking with rage when Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said the FARC should be granted international legitimacy known as ‘belligerency status.’ For the same reasons, the U.S. government was flabbergasted when U.S. prosecutors were forced to repeat Ricardo Palmera’s trials. Most of the American jurors believed Palmera over the U.S. government, leading to mistrials.

In the recent prisoner handover, the FARC were willing to release Colombian soldiers, the wealthy reactionary politician and French citizen named Ingrid Betancourt and three U.S. mercenaries. The three American military contractors were paid by Northrop Grumman to help kill Colombians. In the Washington D.C. trials of FARC leader Ricardo Palmera, it was revealed that Marc Gonzalves, Keith Stansell and Thomas Howes provided ‘real time’ information from their high-tech airplane to the Colombian military in its war against the peasant fighters of the FARC. This direct involvement by U.S. soldiers of fortune in Colombia’s civil war is risky business. It shows the calm restraint of the FARC that the three returned to the U.S. in such good shape.

However, soldier of fortune Marc Gonsalves spoke strong words against the Colombian revolutionaries who are fighting to free their country from U.S. domination and war. Like the patriot-for-pay that he is, Gonsalves defensively repeated again and again the big lie of the Bush administration, “the FARC are not revolutionaries.” Poor Marc Gonsalves - his big story of abuse involves his captors making him carry a heavy backpack in the jungle while marching tied together with other prisoners and under armed guard. Compared to the treatment the U.S. military gives prisoners of war at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, one would think Marc Gonsalves and the others might appreciate their good health and fair treatment in someone else’s country.

The effect of the prisoner raid is that the U.S. seized the media spotlight away from the FARC. The fact the FARC was already releasing the prisoners is swept clean from U.S. news stories. This pleases the Bush White House to no end. Bush has just boosted Colombian President Uribe out of a sticky situation where the Colombian Supreme Court was questioning the legitimacy of Uribe’s last election.

Despite Bush’s support, President Uribe’s regime is shaky due to his personal and political ties to narco-traffickers and corruption. An old U.S. intelligence report ties Uribe to the infamous cocaine trafficker Pablo Escobar. So does Escobar’s surviving girlfriend. No matter to the White House, Uribe is their man. Uribe’s rule consists of death squad terror for peasants, trade unionists, student activists and human rights defenders. In the countryside deadly chemical poison is sprayed on countless acres of land where FARC support is strongest, driving peasants off the land. Only Iraq has a bigger refugee crisis. Poor Colombians are forced into shantytowns around the big cities. Police and right-wing paramilitaries patrol the shantytowns in tandem. Repression is all around for working and low-income people.

For sections of the middle classes and the rich oligarchy in Colombia, the situation is one of combativeness as they mobilize to support Uribe and the violence of the Colombian state. The wealthy elite who rule Colombia and sell off its natural resources to U.S. corporations are perfectly willing to ignore the repression and the terror in the countryside. They are happy to have U.S. Southern Command conducting the war in their country, but they are careful not to speak too loudly about it. There are 800 U.S. military advisors, 600 military contractors, and scores of U.S. Special Forces on Colombian soil to direct the dirty war.

The rich people who rule Colombia are bathed in the blood of tens of thousands of peasants, workers and leftists. U.S. taxpayers foot the bill to the tune of $5 billion. The Bush administration fully backs the corrupt, narco-trafficking, death squad government of President Uribe. Without this, the wealthy few who rule Colombia with a bloody hand would be chased from power, never to return. The Uribe regime would collapse in months. Death squad democracy would be history, revolution a certainty.

Nevertheless, due to the recent blows against the FARC leadership, American imperialists, Colombian reactionaries and fools of all stripes want to claim the FARC are collapsing or are ‘finished.’ Others who should know better, because they know how it feels to be hunted by assassins, are suggesting that the FARC should one-sidedly ignore the history of Colombia and surrender their weapons. This is wishful thinking. In Colombia, laying down arms is akin to suicide.

For those who want social change in Colombia, the electoral road ends in the cemetery. The Colombian state murdered more than 4000 members, candidates and elected officials of the left-wing party, the Patriotic Union, in the late 1980s. In 1987, Patriotic Union political leader Ricardo Palmera went and joined the FARC, dedicating his own life to continuing the struggle. In his U.S. trials, Professor Palmera said, “My choices were death, exile, or joining the fight in the countryside.” In Colombia, those on the freedom road must carry arms if they are going to defend the people and reach their destination.

For sure, the FARC are reassessing their tactics in terms of releasing the small numbers of prisoners of war they still hold - mostly military officers. However, this is only one part of the FARC strategy. Mainly the FARC organize the masses of Colombian people to take control of their land, labor and lives to make revolution. It is slow, difficult, unglamorous work, but the FARC is a political organization and its strategy relies on the people. After 45 years of building the largest revolutionary army in the hemisphere, with tremendous growth during a period when much of the left was in retreat or capitulating to imperialism, the FARC is more political in its approach to making revolution than ever.

Millions of supporters of the FARC understand the long-term nature of the struggle for national liberation. The FARC is on a long march and expects to face both setbacks and advances. The goal is to wear down the Colombian state and its imperialist backers in the U.S. until conditions exist for the people to seize power. To the north, the American people do not like wars where Americans get killed, so the White House and Pentagon are limited in what they can do.

Plan Colombia is a U.S. war plan that brings poverty, misery and death to Colombians. In practice, Plan Colombia means more war, more repression and more drugs. Plan Colombia is the enemy of all people who want peace and justice. Like Bush and Uribe, the days of Plan Colombia are numbered. Plan Colombia cannot continue and the U.S. will soon need a new strategy or possibly go to war in Latin America.

The growing aggressiveness of the U.S. across Latin America is a sign of weakness, not strength. Bush and the U.S. empire are losing their grip. In Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador, the people are rising and attempting to build new societies. The U.S. wants to put a stop to the people’s movements and reverse their gains. If the FARC leads a successful revolution in Colombia, it is game over for the U.S. empire in that region. Like Iraq in the Middle East, Colombia is key to the U.S. strategy for dominating Latin America.

We should do everything in our power to expose the Bush administration and its war in Colombia. That is our responsibility.

The four trials of FARC leader Ricardo Palmera in Washington D.C. went a long way to exposing the phoniness of the War On Terror and the War On Drugs. The U.S. empire, with millions of dollars, could not defeat a lone revolutionary held in solitary confinement and denied many of the constitutional rights Bush claims to defend. Palmera beat the slick U.S. prosecutors on nine out of ten charges and the U.S. was forced to drop all the false drug charges. Professor Palmera is a good and decent man. He chose to do what hundreds of thousands of other Colombians have done before him, to pick up a gun and defend what is right, what is good and what is just. Palmera stands for the poor, against the rich, despite his own background.

We too should stand with Palmera, Sonia and the 500 FARC prisoners held by the proto-fascist Uribe. We should stand with all the Colombian workers and peasants yearning to be free from U.S. corporate dominance and U.S. military death and destruction. The U.S. is on the wrong side of the civil war in Colombia. We need to demand that the U.S. government and military pull out and bring all the troops home now! Stop Plan Colombia!

Labels: , , , , , ,


View Post

Thursday, May 08, 2008

Video: March on the RNC and Stop the War!



I'm reposting this video from Left Spot's Blog. On it you'll see the leaders of the anti-war movement talking about the importance of marching on the Republican National Convention.

ACTION ALERT: Tell Saint Paul Mayor Coleman and Twin Cities newspapers: "Anti-war protesters have a right to demonstrate at the RNC"

Please also check out:

Protest RNC 2008
Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War

Labels: , , ,


View Post

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Long Live International Wokers' Day!

May Day 2008: Long Live the Peoples’ Struggle!
By Freedom Road Socialist Organization

May 1st, International Workers Day, is a day of struggle. Around the world, working people will march against imperialist war, to defend the rights of immigrants and to fight to protect their jobs and communities. Here in the United States, May Day has been reborn as millions of Chicanos, Mexicanos and Central Americans, as well as other immigrants and their supporters, have poured into the streets to demand legalization, and an end to raids, deportations and militarization of the border.

Some of the largest protests for immigrant rights have been in Chicago, the city where May Day was born. On May 1, 1886, U.S. workers, many who were immigrants from Europe, struck for the eight-hour day. After a clash with police in Chicago’s Haymarket Square, four leaders of the workers movement, three of them immigrants, were executed. In honor of the U.S. workers fight for the eight-hour day and the anger at the executions, May 1 was declared International Workers Day.

May Day is a day to fight the system that brings ever-greater riches to a few while the vast majority of working people labor for less and less. Families are losing their homes right and left while the CEOs of the big banks that designed and profited from the bad loans walk away with tens of millions of dollars. Corporations are stepping up their layoffs while raising their prices, putting a double squeeze on working families. Now more and more state and local governments are cutting funds for schools, healthcare and the poor while billions are poured into the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The U.S. occupation of Iraq and war in Afghanistan have killed hundreds of thousands and forced millions to become refugees. The U.S. military is supporting a vicious campaign of ethnic cleansing and building walled ghettos in Iraq in a vain attempt to divide and conquer the Iraqi people. The United States and their NATO allies are losing ground in Afghanistan, where the U.S. is trying to increase their troops to prop up the corrupt and inept government set up by the Bush administration.

During the primary elections campaign, the Republican candidates have shown their true colors in calling for even more extreme attacks on immigrants in the United States. At the same time the Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) have mounted a growing number of raids on workplaces and even public parks to spread terror among Chicanos, Mexicanos and Central Americans who bear the brunt of attacks on the undocumented. Right-wing anti-immigrant forces have been working at the state and local levels to harass and intimidate immigrants.
Recession, war and immigrant bashing are symptoms of the monopoly capitalist system we live under. A system where the devastation of New Orleans and Mississippi are still not healed, a system that continues to plunder the earth, pollute our skies and oceans and threatens the entire world with unchecked global warming. It is a system that ultimately must be replaced by one that serves peoples’ needs, not profit: a socialist system.

May Day is not just a day to remember wrongs done, it is a day to be inspired by those who continue to fight no matter what the odds. From Palestine to Iraq to Afghanistan to Pakistan, the people are fighting U.S. and Israeli occupation and their puppet military regimes. From the Philippines to Columbia, the armed struggle against U.S.-backed governments of local oligarchs is intensifying. More and more countries are refusing to bow to U.S. domination of their countries, especially in Latin America where Cuba and Venezuela are but the tip of the iceberg of a growing movement for independence from the Yankee empire.

Here in the United States, struggles are also growing. For the first time in many years, more workers are joining labor unions. At the same time there are victories in electing new leadership that will fight for workers interests and not just cozy up with the bosses. The massive protests against the unjust prosecution of Black students in Jena, Louisiana, show the ongoing struggle of African Americans and other oppressed nationalities. Students on campuses from coast to coast are organizing and speaking out against the war, with a revitalized Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) taking the lead.

Over the past few months a record number of people have turned out in primary elections and caucuses, especially in the Democratic Party presidential campaign. This upsurge represents not only a rejection of the Bush administration’s policies of war, racism, service to the rich and powerful, but also the attraction of electing an African American or a woman to the nation’s highest political office. While the Freedom Road Socialist Organization supports a vote against the Bush and the Republican Party’s right-wing agenda, we know that a President Obama, and even less, a President Clinton can meet the people’s needs.

May 1 is a day to march. It is a day to build the fight back of the working class and the oppressed nationalities: Latinos, African Americans, Asian, Arabs, and Indigenous Peoples. These two forces can be seen in the last two years, where Chicanos, Mexicanos, Central Americans, and their allies, most of whom are workers, have revived the tradition of mass marches on May Day.

Long Live International Workers Day!
Legalization, not Raids and Deportations!
Stop the War, Withdraw All Troops Now!
Protect Our Homes, Schools, and Services, Make the Rich Pay!
Build Fighting Unions, No to More Concessions!


See Also:
Chicago: Huge Immigrant Rights march planned for May 1
Los Angeles: Mobilizing for May 1 Immigrant Rights Protest
Minnesota: March for Immigrant Rights May 1st

Labels: , , , , , , ,


View Post

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Freedom Road on Maoist Revolution in Nepal

Chairman Prachanda and Dr. Baburam Bhattarai with the People's Liberation Army
Maoists Sweep Constituent Assembly Elections in Nepal
Commentary by Josh Sykes

A new day had dawned in Nepal. After fighting a decade-long people’s war, which led to a coalition government replacing martial law imposed by the King of Nepal, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is leading the Constituent Assembly elections in Nepal. The vote counting is not completely finished, but at the time of this writing the CPN (Maoist) has won a total of 120 seats, with the opposition Nepali Congress Party coming in a distant second at 37 seats. The Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) won 33 seats, but following the their election defeat their ministers have resigned from the coalition government cabinet.

A total of 601 seats are up for grabs in a complex voting system. According to the Interim Constitution of Nepal adopted in 2006, a ‘mixed system’ must be utilized for elections to the Constituent Assembly. The ‘first past the post’ system determines 240 members of the Constituent Assembly while a proportional representation system determines the other 335 directly elected members. With 120 of the total 240 first past the post election seats, the Maoists should win at least 100 more seats through proportional representation emerging as the single largest party, much to the surprise of the western media who expected the CPN (Maoist) to come in third, behind the Congress Party and CPN-UML.

The purpose of the Constituent Assembly is to draft a new constitution for Nepal following the ouster of the monarchy as a result of the people’s war led by the Maoists. According to the CPN (Maoist), the elections represent the beginning of the New Democratic process for Nepal. This refers to a two-stage revolutionary process, wherein a bloc of progressive classes, led by the CPN (Maoist), first intend to move through a ‘New Democratic’ phase of the revolution, build a People’s Republic of Nepal and eliminate the vestiges of feudalism and imperialism before moving on to the construction of socialism.

According to Dr. Baburam Bhattarai, one of the main leaders of the Maoists, the victory of the CPN (Maoist) in the constituent assembly election is the direct result of the protracted people’s war. “The people were looking for total change. We advanced the political agenda for total change during the decade-long people’s war. We have people from different castes, ethnicities, genders and people from different regions. The main agenda of the people’s war was to restructure the state. It took ten years of the people’s war to establish our political agenda. The people felt that the country’s socio-political and economic structure needed a complete overhaul. So we couldn’t look at things through our old lenses. The media and the elite missed the picture. As a result, the CA results surprised many. The ground realities had changed and they helped us to emerge as the largest party."

The CPN (Maoist) waged armed struggle against the Nepali government from 1996 to 2006 based on the military theories developed by Mao Zedong through the course of the Chinese Revolution. The Nepali’s strategy for people’s war, called Prachanda Path, after the founder and Chairman of the CPN (Maoist), Prachanda, involved combining the strategy of surrounding the cities from the countryside with insurrectionary actions in the urban centers. During this process, the CPN (Maoist) established its immense popularity among the masses of workers and peasants of Nepal through radical agrarian reform, fighting with determination for the rights of women and oppressed nationalities, labor organizing and student mobilizations. (For more information about the people’s war in Nepal, see Movement fights poverty and oppression in Nepal, September/October 2005.)

The people’s war was able to advance relatively quickly because the U.S. has been tied down elsewhere, most notably by the resistance in Iraq, and has been unable to intervene to the degree that it has against similar struggles in the Philippines and Colombia. The U.S. has given some military aid to Nepal’s monarchy but has not been able to commit a sizable number of troops. Because of the U.S.’s overextension, these and other movements, such as the people’s war being led by the communists in neighboring India, have been able to make advances.

Following King Gyanendra’s dissolution of the parliament and seizure of absolute power in early 2005, the CPN (Maoist) joined with other parties in an alliance to oust the king and establish the constituent assembly elections that are now taking place. The CPN (Maoist)’s People’s Liberation Army grouped their military forces and arms into ‘cantons’ under the supervision of U.N. monitors, in 2006 as part of the peace process.

The repressive measures instituted by Gyanendra were very unpopular and at this time only a handful of Hindu fundamentalists tied to the old feudal system still support the king.

Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, whose Carter Center has been observing the elections, said that he hopes the United States will drop the CPN (Maoist) from its terrorist list and recognize the Maoist government.

The U.S. is driven by its own interests however - the maintenance of an empire in service of a corporate elite - and it is possible that it may attempt to intervene against the democratically elected Maoist government, as it did when Hamas was similarly elected in Palestine.

The elections paint a very different picture of the Maoists than a group of ‘terrorists’ as the U.S. government insists. The elections demonstrate that the CPN (Maoist) has been very popular in Nepal throughout the difficult period of the people’s war, and additionally gives the lie to claims that the guerrillas ruled the countryside through terror and intimidation. It demonstrates clearly that there is a call from the people of Nepal to end imperialism and feudalism and to work toward the possibility of a socialist future.

Josh Sykes is a member of Freedom Road Socialist Organization.

(Originally posted on the FRSO website: http://www.frso.org/about/statements/2008/nepal.htm)

Also from FRSO:
Resolution in Solidarity with the Revolutionary Movement in Nepal and Against U.S. Intervention (May 2007)

From Fight Back! News:
Movement Fights Poverty and Oppression in Nepal (July 2005)
On the Verge of Revolution in Nepal (April 2006)

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,


View Post

Thursday, April 17, 2008

On the Conflicts in SEIU

Fight Back News Service is circulating the following statement from the Labor Commission of Freedom Road Socialist Organization.

On the Conflicts in SEIU

Take a stand for class struggle unionism, union democracy and solidarity

By the Labor Commission of Freedom Road Socialist Organization

Over the past months, two conflicts have been heating up involving one of the most important unions in the U.S. - the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). It is important to understand the issues at stake. These are our thoughts on what the key issues are and what approach we think workers should take toward these conflicts.

One conflict is internal to SEIU, in which SEIU’s 150,000-member United Health Workers-West has spearheaded a rank-and-file movement within SEIU against the increasingly business-unionist direction of the national union; the second is fighting for more internal democracy in the union. They say they will bring proposals to SEIU’s national convention this summer for ‘one person, one vote’ for offices in the international union, including the presidency.

The other conflict is between SEIU and the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee (CNA/NNOC), with the flashpoint being a deal SEIU reached with the management of the Catholic Healthcare Partners hospital system in Ohio.

SEIU and CNA/NNOC have had conflicts in other states too, such as Nevada. In Ohio, SEIU had reached a deal with the management of the Catholic Healthcare Partners hospital for nurses to have a quick election under unusual rules where the employer petitions for the union that it wants to be voted in (in this case SEIU), without requiring any workers to actually sign cards saying they want that union. In the face of this agreement between SEIU and hospital management, CNA/NNOC actively encouraged the nurses there to vote against SEIU, which caused SEIU to back out of the elections. Now both unions are actively and publicly denouncing each other in the sharpest terms while actively working to undermine each other.

This conflict came to a head on Saturday, April 12 at the Labor Notes conference in Dearborn, Michigan, a gathering where over 1000 progressive, rank-and-file union activists from hundreds of unions around the country met at a conference to 'put the movement back in the labor movement.'

In an incident on Saturday night of the conference, during the dinner banquet, hundreds of SEIU staff and members came in buses and crashed the conference to protest the presence of CNA president Rose Anne DeMoro - though she had actually canceled her appearance there and just sent a message to the conference via video.

The SEIU protesters came in to intimidate and disrupt the most important conference for progressive rank-and-file labor fighters in the country. They engaged in pushing and shoving anyone in their way, forcing their way into the hotel where the conference took place and then trying to muscle their way in to disrupt the packed dinner reception. At least one union sister was dealt with a head injury.

SEIU’s action at Labor Notes was beyond the pale. The escalation to attempted mass intimidation and physical confrontation against hundreds of rank-and-file progressive union activists must be condemned.

These points put forward our basic orientation on the struggle within SEIU and the conflict between SEIU and CNA/NNOC. We encourage comments and dialogue on how honest fighters in the labor movement can make sense of these conflicts and push the unions forward to fight for workers’ interests.

1. We support the reform movement in SEIU. We support their call for ‘one person one vote’ on contracts, bargaining committees, local officers and international officers, including the president.

2. SEIU has been moving more and more toward business unionism. For example, in their deals with the nursing homes, in which they signed no-strike pledges, allowed the owners to choose which homes would be unionized and pledged that the union wouldn’t criticize the treatment of workers. Andy Stern says that class struggle unionism is a thing of the past - we don't agree.

3. Regarding Ohio: We don’t support what CNA did in their ‘vote no’ campaign at the Catholic Healthcare Partners hospitals. On the other hand, what SEIU did there - using an employer petition to the Labor Board for an election without the involvement of workers, and in which the employer identifies their preferred union - is a terrible direction for the labor movement.

4. SEIU and CNA have gone to war with each other. This is destructive and we don’t support the actions by either side that weaken the labor movement.

5. A mob of staff and workers forced their way into the Labor Notes conference in order to disrupt the speech by Rose Anne DeMoro, head of the CNA. Their pushing and shoving resulted in at least one person having to be taken to the hospital after falling and hitting her head. Also, an SEIU member was seen lying on the sidewalk with blood from a head wound. DeMoro had already canceled her speech in order to avoid provoking SEIU; SEIU knew she had canceled and they carried out this physical assault on the conference anyway. Labor Notes is the largest gathering of progressives in the labor movemen, and everyone knows it. What SEIU did at the conference has to be condemned.

6. Workers need to organize and fight against the attacks from the capitalists. Unions that help do that are doing the right thing. Unions that don’t fight against the attacks on workers need to be challenged by their members and changed. Leaders that won’t change should be replaced. Class conscious workers don’t want their unions to fight each other in these scorched-earth turf battles.

http://www.frso.org/about/statements/2008/seiuconflicts.htm

Eyewitness Detroit:

SEIU rank and file leader blasts attempt to disrupt Labor Notes conference

Detroit, MI - Six busloads of SEIU staff and members attempted to force their way into the Labor Notes conference here, April 13. The attack, which injured several trade unionists, was a part of the what the SEIU International calls a ‘war’ on the California Nurses Association.

Podcast

Hear Fight Back!’s interview with Joe Iosbaker, member of the SEIU Local 73 executive board, who was present during the assault.

http://www.fightbacknews.org/2008/04/seiulabornotes.htm

Labels: , , , , , , ,


View Post

Sunday, March 02, 2008

Fallen Comrade Raúl Reyes: A Death Weightier than Mount Tai


"All men must die, but death can vary in its significance. The ancient Chinese writer Szuma Chien said, 'Though death befalls all men alike, it may be weightier than Mount Tai or lighter than a feather.' To die for the people is weightier than Mount Tai, but to work for the fascists and die for the exploiters and oppressors is lighter than a feather." - Mao Zedong
Statements from U.S. Leftists:
Party for Socialism and Liberation: Colombian government assassinates Raúl Reyes

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,


View Post

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Anti-War Unity Advances at Protest RNC Organizers Conference

Workers, oppressed nationalities, and other progressives in the U.S. and around the world are looking forward to huge antiwar protests at the Republican National Convention, and for organizers this provides a rallying point, in my opinion, for a great leap forward in the growing unity of the U.S. antiwar movement. The organizing conference that took place in Minneapolis, which brought together all of the major antiwar coalitions under one banner, was held only just days after the local coalition won an important part of the battle for permits.

I'm reposting the following article which includes some excellent podcasts from the RNC protest organizing conference that took place recently. And FYI, you can see some video coverage of the conference here.

Voices from the RNC protest organizing conference
Listen to some of the key speeches

Minneapolis, MN - Activists from around the country gathered here Feb. 9-10 for an organizing conference to plan the anti-war protests at the Republican National Convention.

The conference brought together more than 60 organizations and included the major centers of the anti-war movement, including United for Peace and Justice, International ANSWER and the Troops Out Now Coalition. Also present was Carlos Montes of Latinos Against the War.

The event was organized by the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War.

Podcasts available

Click on the names below for the mp3 of that person's speech, or right-click on a name and select 'save as' to save the mp3 on your computer.

Jess Sundin speaking for the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War. Sundin is a founding member of the Twin Cites based Anti-War Committee. She has participated in or coordinated solidarity trips to Iraq, El Salvador and Colombia.

Leslie Cagan coordinator of United for Peace and Justice, an anti-war coalition with more than 1400 member groups.

Sara Flounders representing the Troops Out Now Coalition. She is also co-director of the International Action Center.

John Beacham representing International ANSWER, a coalition of hundreds of organizations with organizing centers in scores of cites and towns across the country.

Angel Buechner a leader of the Welfare Rights Committee.

Carlos Montes of Latinos Against the War.

(reprinted from Fight Back! News)

Labels: , , , , , , , ,


View Post

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Victory to the Iraqi Resistance!

The contradiction between imperialism and the peoples of the oppressed nations is the principal contradiction on a world scale. The main front of this contradiction is in Iraq, where the Iraqi national resistance is in the process of defeating U.S. imperialism. Below you will find some articles about the resistance in Iraq and why they need and deserve the support of the antiwar movement. The Iraqi Resistance is a national liberation movement struggling against occupation for justice, peace, and self-determination. While "TROOPS OUT NOW" must remain the central and unifying slogan of the antiwar movement, raising political support for the Iraqi national resistance as the sole legitimate representative of the Iraqi people is one of the main tasks of Marxist-Leninists and of all genuine anti-imperialists in the movement today. This is true solidarity with the Iraqi people.


Voices of the Iraqi Resistance:
Leaders of the Iraqi National Resistance Speak at an International Solidarity Conference

By Kosta Harlan

Chianciano, Italy - An historic conference with leaders of the Iraqi national resistance was held here last week. It was the first time that representatives of the Iraqi resistance have been able to speak in the West. Organizers had previously attempted to hold the conference in the fall of 2005, only to have the Italian government withhold visas from the Iraqi participants after intense pressure from the United States government. The scope of the conference extended beyond Iraq to include the resistance movements in Palestine and Lebanon, as well as representatives from the antiwar and liberation movements in countries from around the world.

(read the rest: http://www.fightbacknews.org/2007/03/voices.htm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. anti-war activist on speaking tour, tells of meeting with Iraqi resistance

By staff

In March, U.S. antiwar activist and Freedom Road Socialist Organization member Kosta Harlan attended a historic international solidarity conference in Italy with leaders of the Iraqi resistance ( see “Voices of the Iraqi Resistance,” Fight Back!, March 2007). Since returning to the United States, Harlan has traveled to college campuses and cities across the South, speaking to hundreds of students and antiwar activists about the Iraqi resistance. He spoke at the University of North Carolina at Asheville, Chapel Hill, and Charlotte; at Winthrop University in South Carolina; at the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa and at community centers in Winston-Salem and Minneapolis, Minnesota.

(read the rest: http://www.fightbacknews.org/2007/06/antiwartour.htm)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petraeus, Bush vow to continue war
Movement to end war grows
By Josh Sykes and Staff
Reporting to Congress Sept. 11, General David Petraeus confirmed what most in the anti-war movement have long been saying: The U.S. has no intention of getting out of Iraq anytime soon - unless it is forced to.
In the course of the testimony and questioning before congress there was talk of the occupation continuing another five years or more. Figures in the Bush administration have compared the occupation of Iraq with the U.S. military presence in south Korea, an occupation that has extended more than half a century. In a speech two days later, Bush endorsed Petraeus’s recommendations, including a plan to ‘draw down’ U.S. troops to pre-surge levels. Practically, this means that the current number of U.S. troops, about 168,000, may be reduced to about 130,000 to 140,000 by next summer. The key phrase here is ‘may be.’ What’s certain is that the Bush administration and the Pentagon are planning an indefinite occupation of Iraq and that Bush is delivering on his promised ‘war without end.’

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Iraqi Resistance is Just and Should be Supported:
A Reply to Phyllis Bennis
Kosta Harlan
August 11, 2007

In the four years of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, public debate within the U.S. antiwar movement on whether to support the Iraqi resistance has rarely taken place. Consequently the recent polemic between Alexander Cockburn and Phyllis Bennis (a leader in the United for Peace and Justice Coalition) is an extremely positive development and should be welcomed. It is an important debate that needs to take place at all levels within the U.S. antiwar movement.

Some weeks ago Alexander Cockburn wrote of the need for the U.S. antiwar movement to openly support the resistance ("Support their troops?," CounterPunch). In her reply, "Why the Anti — War Movement Doesn't Embrace the Iraqi Resistance", Bennis correctly argues that the basis of unity in the movement should not be "Victory to the resistance", but the demand "Troops out now". But Bennis goes further and argues that anti — imperialists have no responsibility to raise support for the Iraqi resistance. Bennis says that the Iraqi resistance is illegitimate (with some arrogance, she refers to the Iraqi resistance in quotation marks) and is therefore undeserving of support. This conclusions rests on a number of erroneous arguments, concentrated here in one paragraph of her article:

(read the rest: http://www.mltoday.com/Pages/IraqWar/Harlan-ReplytoBennis.html)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interview in Madrid with Abu Muhammad, spokesman of the patriotic and nationalist Iraqi Resistance

“The Iraqi Resistance is the legitimate and sole representative of Iraq”

CEOSI, Madrid, 8 October 2007
IraqSolidaridad (www.iraqsolidaridad.org),
10 December 2007
Translated from Spanish for IraqSolidaridad by Sabah Assir, revised by Ian Douglas

“The Iraqi Resistance has no relation with Al-Qaeda, which has its own vision, strategy, purposes and resources. One part of the assassinations that are now taking place in Iraq are executed by Al-Qaeda and another part by the militias and death squads linked to the political parties [invested in the US-imposed political process and] related to the occupation, but which also count on the assistance of Iran through its intervention in Iraq. […] The objective of the Iraqi Resistance is to achieve a total liberation. When the occupiers leave Iraq we will establish a national democratic, multiparty system, based on free elections; a regime in which all Iraqis that believe in collective rights will participate.”

(read the rest: http://iraqsolidaridad.org/2007/docs/10-12-07-Entrevista_Abu_Mohamad_ingles.html)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraqi Resistance Demands U.S. Withdrawl and Recognition

Published Oct 20, 2007 7:16 AM

Workers World managing editor John Catalinotto participated in interviews in Madrid on Oct. 10 with Abu Muhammed, a spokesperson for both the post-invasion Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party in Iraq and for the Supreme Command of the Front for Struggle [Jihad] and Liberation in Iraq (FSL), whose formation was announced Oct. 2. This front is one of the major coalitions or fronts of organizations that participate in the Iraqi National Resistance (INR) to the U.S. occupation.

This was the first set of interviews by an official representative of a major coalition of the Iraqi resistance outside the Middle East. He came to Spain at the invitation of the group CEOSI (iraqsolidaridad.org) and held media, political and institutional meetings.

(read the rest: http://www.workers.org/2007/world/iraq-1025/)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'US is the main irritant in Iraq'
By Ahmed Janabi
Sheikh Harith al-Dhari, head of the Association of Muslim Scholars, is arguably one of the most influential Iraqi Sunni leaders today. His unequivocal opposition to the US-led occupation and criticism of the Nouri al-Maliki government attracted threats against his life and forced him into exile.

In an interview with Al Jazeera, al-Dhari says the slight improvement in the security situation in Iraq "is due to a decision by the Iraqi government to reign in its death squads".
(read the rest: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/358F4592-A9B6-4BBC-8C3A-4FBC700C0BBC.htm)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraq - Eye to Eye with the Occupation • Chapter III: The Historical Roots of Resistance

First published in French and Dutch in May 2004, Iraq: Eye to Eye with the Occupation by Mohamed Hassan, former Ethiopian diplomat and Middle East specialist, and David Pestieau, Belgian journalist (www.solidaire.org) has now been translated into German, Italian and Turkish.One of the first books on the occupation of Iraq, it gives facts and analysis on the historical, political and social roots of the Iraqi resistance against the US army and its allies.

(read the rest: http://www.solidaire.org/scripts/article.phtml?section=A3AAABBSBA&obid=26821)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FRSO Fifth Congress Resolution:
Victory to the Iraqi Resistance

As the U.S. occupation of Iraq enters its fifth year, the Freedom Road Socialist Organization salutes the Iraqi resistance in its heroic struggle to liberate Iraq from imperialism and colonialism. We join with progressive forces around the world in recognizing that the victory of the Iraqi resistance is the only possible path towards a just peace in Iraq.

FRSO condemns the U.S. occupation of Iraq as a crime against humanity. Millions of people are suffering daily under the boot of military dictatorship. Hundreds of thousands have died in the four years of occupation. Millions live as refugees, both in and outside of Iraq. The U.S. has established a sectarian puppet "government," bound hand-and-foot to Washington, and calls it "democracy." FRSO calls on the antiwar movement to refuse any support to this puppet regime and recognize the national resistance as the sole legitimate representative of the Iraqi people.

(read the rest: http://www.frso.org/about/5congress/resolutioniraq.htm)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Movement Against War in Iraq:
A New Period and Our Tasks

By Freedom Road Socialist Organization

Lessons From 17 Years of Aggression and Resistance

Iraq has been under attack by the United States government and military for the past 17 years. The current war and occupation has lasted for four years, and the U.S. faces military defeat by the Iraqi resistance. The American people do not support the war and want the troops brought home. It is an important time to look back at the movement against the war, try to learn some of the lessons that are available and look ahead to the tasks for the U.S. anti-war movement.

(read the rest: http://www.frso.org/about/statements/2007/antiwartasks2007.htm)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FRSO Fifth Congress:
Main Political Report 2007
International Situation

Introduction
Since 2004, the international situation has continued to develop in a way that is extremely favorable for the world’s peoples to make gains. In fact, the imperialist centers have been dealt heavy setbacks. On a general level we can say that the four basic contradictions are sharpening–between imperialism and the peoples of the oppressed nations, between the imperialist powers, between the working class and the capitalists, and between socialism and capitalism–and that this intensification of the basic contradictions exists in the context of the long-term decline of U.S. imperialism. (1)

The principal contradiction in the world today is between the peoples of the third world (2) and imperialism. The U.S. is the preeminent imperialist power in the world today and as such it is the main danger to the world’s peoples.

(read the rest: http://frso.org/about/5congress/mpr2007.pdf)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meeting Resistance: A Documentary Film about the Resistance in Iraq

What would you do if America was invaded?

(check it out: http://www.meetingresistance.com/)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Labels: , , , , , , , ,


View Post

Saturday, June 03, 2006

Revisionism and Capitalist Restoration: Contribution to the debate on the line of Freedom Road Socialist Organization

Some interesting discussion of revisionism and antirevisionism has come up lately, particularly in relation to the position put forward by Freedom Road Socialist Organization [Marxist-Leninist]. (People are using brackets these days it seems to distinguish by ideology the two groups that use the same name, the other being FRSO [Left Refoundationist]).

First Pottawatomie Creek (henceforth PC) struck at the line of the Marxist-Leninist FRSO (the publishers of Fight Back! Newspaper) with his article, FRSO [Fight Back!]'s Decent into Revisionism? to which Left Spot (LS) responded polemically in Debate on FRSO and Revisionism. Celtic Fire (CF) chimed in with Understanding Revisionism in an attempt to reopen the debate.

I'll summarize the debate thus far as I see it:

PC began by basically equating "revisionism" with not upholding the Left Refoundationists' Crisis of Socialism document, upholding the DPRK and the PRC as a socialist countries, and by referring to 1989 events in China as an attempted counter-revolution.

LS took note of these central points, and in my view, did pretty well at addressing them in his article.

Regarding the "Crisis of Socialism," LS addresses the defeatism of the statement.

While the statement makes some good points, its overall verdict on socialism in the 20th century is defeatist and is fundamentally wrong. The worst error of the Crisis statement is that it sums up all the efforts of socialist revolution in the 20th century as an overall failure. I quote: “overall the experience of building socialism in the Soviet Union must be summed up as a failure. All subsequent socialist revolutions have drawn to a great extent from the Soviet model, and the crisis of socialism is not confined to the Soviet Union.” This is straight-up wrong, and is drenched in the confusion and defeatism that much of the U.S. left succumbed to around 1991 when the statement was first adopted.

Regarding the socialist countries, LS notes some confusion regarding the Left Refoundationist line on the question.

And if they believe that Cuba is socialist [I understand there is a resolution put forward by FRSO [LR] to that effect], I would ask what FRSO [Left Refoundationist] sees as the distinction between the political economy of Cuba and that of, say, Vietnam, and why one is allegedly socialist and the other is allegedly capitalist.

And regarding the 1989 counter-revolutionary events at Tiananmen Square:

As for Tiananmen in 1989, would anyone deny that there were forces prominent, including some of the leadership, in the 1989 student movement that were aiming for Western-style capitalism? And that forces within the Chinese Communist Party that supported moving toward Western-style capitalism were working very closely with, and supporting, the protests?

He summed it all up, saying:

FRSO [ML] has successfully steered away from the many varieties of revisionism that have confounded many other groups. I think that compared to the alternatives, FRSO [ML] is the most advanced revolutionary organization in the US. FRSO [ML] is grounded in proletarian internationalism and Marxism-Leninism, incorporating key contributions of Mao Zedong and the Chinese revolution. FRSO [ML] engages in dynamic mass work using the mass line better than anyone else on the US left (to be fair, FRSO [Left Refoundationist] has some mass work I’m familiar with that is also very good). FRSO [ML] maintains a regular bilingual publication (Fight Back Newspaper www.fightbacknews.org) that highlights advanced experience in mass struggles around the country and world. And FRSO [ML] sees the need for Leninist organization and is building toward a new communist party to lead revolution in the US. That is not revisionism – that is Marxism-Leninism.

That's the essense of it.

Time I made my little contribution.

I think we've been messing around with secondary contradictions for too long in these debates. Lets get down to principal.

While some want to contest that while FRSO does some really good mass work, it isn't communist mass work. This seems to be, from what I've heard, because of a percieved lack of ideological content in Fight Back! I presume this to be the case, as I don't think those who have raised this have encountered much of FRSO's mass work first hand. I've worked along side some of these people for a while though, and I'd say that its very revolutionary, and that while Fight Back! may not be tailored for a petite bourgeois "communist" readership, it does well as a mass line publication to build the struggle among rank & file workers.

But that's not the crux of the matter.

Again and again on the blogs (not only the above mentioned blogs, but on Burningman's as well) we see the problem as coming down to the question of giving support to actually existing socialism. This gets to the heart of the issue: what is revisionism and what is capitalist restoration and how are they related? The crux of the argument seems to revolve around whether revisionism in command equals capitalist restoration, and further, what role is played by the dialectical relationship between relations of production and superstructure.

I would want to look at the history of the USSR and CPSU to get at this. Of course since we're talking about antirevisionism we'll have to get into the PRC and CPC as well. While it would be simple enough to use some of the documents from the Workers Party of Belgium which have dealt with the issue very throughly, I've done that here before and the trend is to dismiss them, apparently because they aren't "Maoist" in RIM sense of the term or because they don't see Mao as having surpassed Stalin. So, instead, I'll jump off of an article put out by the Communist Party of the Philippines (a group recognized around here as firm antirevisionists) in their theoretical journal Rebolusyon, number 2, series 1992, April-June. The article is "Stand for Socialism Against Modern Revisionism," by Armando Liwanag (some say this is the nom de guerre of Jose Maria Sison). It should be noted that this document represents the line of the organization at that time is approved by the Central Committee of the CP Philippines. I have the relevant issue in pamphlet form so I'll summarize the relevant passages, give page numbers, and quote where necessary.

Here (pp. 17-36) Liwanag outlines the "process of capitalist restoration" in the USSR through three stages:

The first stage is the Krushchev regime (1953-64). Ideologically this began with the secret speech to the XXth Congress of the CPSU - the slanderous diatribe against Comrade Stalin, successor of Lenin and architect of the world's first socialist society. Liwanag notes this "inspired the anticommunist forces in Poland and Hungary to carry out uprisings" and gave the green light to other Eastern European Rightists to "adopt captialist-oriented reforms." This was more or less the coming to power of an almost identical line as that put forward by Bukarin and the Right Opposition in the late 1920s and early '30s, which was defeated in the intra-party struggle by the Stalin-led party majority. This Rightist line meant putting "NEP style" reforms (liberalization and privatization of industry and agriculture and a turn toward a preference of light industry, that is, consumer goods, over heavy industry which had long been the backbone of socialist construction) in place.

Subjectivism reigns in the "blogosphere" where everyone really values their "independence" and a lot of claims and terms are thrown around like boulders without much of an attempt to scientifically think them through or back them up. "Brezhnevism" is one of those terms. Whereas it was once applied to those parties who were considered "puppets" of Soviet "Social-Imperialism" (as the Chinese called it) under Brezhnev, it is now thrown at anyone who thinks the Soviet Union during the Brezhnev period was still socialist. It is worth noting that if that is your charge (and it isn't mine), it must be leveled here against Liwanag, who considered the Breshnev regime (1964-82) to be the second of the three stages. While Liwanag states that in this period "socialism was converted fully into state monopoly capitalism" he goes on to say that the Gorbachav regime (1985-91) "marked the third and final stage in the anti-Marxist and antisocialist revisionist counterrevolution to restore captialism and bourgeois dictatorship." Here liberalization was extended from the base to the superstructure, with the legalization of the bourgeois parties, the institution of multi-party contested elections and the eventual liquidation of the CPSU and the USSR and the overturning of the socialist revolution. This marks the completion of a counter-revolution that took over 30 years.

To quote Liwanag:

To restore capitalism, the Soviet revisionist regimes had to revise the basic principles of socialist revolution and construction and to go through stages of camoflaged counterrevolution in a period of 38 years, 1953 to 1991. It is a measure of the greatness of Lenin and Stalin that their accomplishments in 36 years of socialist revolution and construction took another long period of close to four decades to dismantle. Stalin spent 20 years in socialist construction. The revisionist renegades took a much longer period of time to restore capitalism in the Soviet Union. (ibid. p.17)

This is more or less the same line on revisionism and capitalist restoration put forward by the WPB (see, for example, the International Communist Seminar 1999 Declaration, On Certain Aspects of the Struggle Against Revisionism (.doc), and Breznjev and the National Democratic Revolution for a few samples) and by the Marxist-Leninist FRSO. Revisionism is a real danger and counter-revolution is a lengthy process.

This means we are at the point where we must clearly define socialism. I'll use as a working definition the one put forward by Lenin in his Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Theoretically, there can be no doubt that between capitalism and communism there lies a definite transition period which must combine the features and properties of both these forms of social economy. This transition period has to be a period of struggle between dying capitalism and nascent communism -- or, in other words, between capitalism which has been defeated but not destroyed and communism which has been born but is still very feeble.

Now, some (mostly Maoists, and I count myself among those who uphold Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao) argue that the instant persons come into power who take a revisionist line (who Mao and the Leftists in China called "capitalist roaders" for their desire to set the party and the state on the captialist, rather than the communist, road) capitalism is restored. In the past, we called this "Great Man Theory" and recognized it as metaphysical and unmarxist, but we'll put that aside for now (if you want a debate on Great Man Theory, please see the interventions put forth by LS in this debate on the role of Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung in North Korea that took place on Burningman's Blog). Surely we all know that the masses are the makers of history.

And this theory of instant capitalist restoration seems to discount the experience of the Cultural Revolution (GPCR) more than uphold it, contrary to what the proponents of this theory would like to have us believe. It is very clear that the call in 1966 was in fact to "bombard the headquarters" and to criticize and expose those "persons in power taking the capitalist road." The GPCR was also seen as an extension of the socialist revolution given the theory of "two line struggle" - the view that there are two roads in contradiction during the socialist transition to communism - the contradiction between captialist and communist relations of production - and thus two lines at odds with one another in the party at all times during the socialist revolution. This means that the Chinese understood this in such a way that revisionism in command did not mean an end to the socialist revolution and capitalist restoration.

So, my contribution to the debate - two questions:

Is it the case that capitalist restoration means restoration and consolidation of capitalist relations of production, or does it mean the comming to power of revisionist leadership in the party? I don't think, from a materialist point of view, that one could argue that these things are equivalent.

The question that follows this one is what does that mean for us?

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,


View Post

Monday, April 24, 2006

On the Verge of Revolution in Nepal

As of April 24, Nepal's King Gyanendra appears to be nearing his last days in power. Huge mass protests of hundreds of thousands of people are defying a shoot-to-kill curfew after 19 days of a general strike. Massive crowds are gathering on the outskirts of the capital, Katmandu, and attempting to move slowly into the city in the face of the Royal Nepal Army shooting into the crowds. Presumably the protesters are trying to get to the center of Katmandu to the Royal Palace, which was cordoned off a couple days ago with barbed wire and military troops.
The Nepali people have taken up in a mass way the demands of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) - an end to the monarchy, the creation of a constituent assembly and the formation of a democratic republic. Nepal is one of the poorest countries in the world, run by a semi-feudal monarchy that is dominated by imperialism.
The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has led a powerful people's war that has liberated large parts of the countryside over the past ten years. Last February, King Gyanendra seized absolute power, dissolving the country's parliament and arresting many leaders of the country's seven main legal political parties. After months of appealing to the king in vain to restore the parliament, the seven parliamentary parties finally made an alliance with the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), forging a 12 point agreement. So far the alliance has held and the seven parties called a general strike a little over two weeks ago with the tacit support of the Maoists.
While hundreds of thousands of people take the streets around Katmandu, the Maoists have launched large military attacks in the countryside, including a bold attack just 60 miles from Katmandu where hundreds of rebel soliders of the CPN(M)'s People's Liberation Army simultaneously attacked an army barracks, a telecommunications tower and several government buildings in Chautara.
Last week on April 21, with hundreds of thousands of Nepalis in the streets demanding his ouster, and with his imperialist sponsors in the US and India threatened to pull the plug on him, King Gyanendra made a speech in which he offered to "restore democracy". What he meant was that Nepal would return to the parliamentary monarchy setup that Nepal has had since 1990 and that he had dissolved in February 2005 when he took total power. King Gyanendra offered this proposal to save himself from certain defeat, under sharp pressure from the US, British and Indian governments, which all immediately lauded the King's offer as a breakthrough.But for the people of Nepal, it appears to be too little to late. There were already hundreds of thousands of people in the street demanding an end to the monarchy entirely, not a return to a parliamentary monarchy.
On April 17 the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) put out a statement urging the masses and the political parties to reject any such offer should one be forthcoming, and instead to follow the masses in demanding an end to the monarchy and the creation of a new government. According to the statement, "The time has come to see off from the stage of history the royal fascist elements...by dispensing a decisive last blow now." The seven parliamentary parties rejected the king's offer and have continued the mass protests. At the same time, imperialist powers are continuing to work overtime to try to broker a deal between the king and the parties to try to save the king and keep the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) out of power.
For now it seems a deal to save the king is unlikely and the future of Nepal is being written by the masses of people in the streets. It appears to only be a matter of time, and a short amount of time at that, before the protests make it to the palace and the king either gets out in time and lives out his life in exile, or he doesn't get out in time and meets a less pleasant future.

Labels: , , , , ,


View Post