Archives: Articles

Many people are concerned about wars being fought in various parts of the world. Others are motivated by images of poverty and starvation locally or in distant parts of the world. Increasing numbers of people are inclined to take action in response to the ongoing climate catastrophe. And for some people, the issue that concerns them is violence against women, or refugees, or nuclear power, or species extinctions, or the occupation of Palestine or Tibet, or …The list of issues is endless. And yet, something connects them all. They are all manifestations of human violence. But human violence, in itself, is not an issue about which groups campaign. That is, until now.

On 11 November 2011, a new movement to end human violence was launched around the world. Simultaneous launches took place in Australia, Malaysia, the Philippines and the USA. This worldwide movement, which invites individuals and organisations to sign a pledge to work to end human violence in all of its manifestations, has already attracted individual signatories in 40 countries and organizational endorsements in 15 countries.

‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’ was conceived and launched by three Australians – Anita McKone, Anahata Giri and myself – based on several decades of research and nonviolent action. Tired of all of the violence we have experienced, witnessed and resisted throughout our lives, we decided to prepare and launch the Nonviolence Charter worldwide.

So what is unique about ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’? The Nonviolence Charter is an attempt to put the focus on human violence as the pre-eminent problem faced by our species, to truthfully identify all of the major manifestations of this violence, and to identify ways to tackle all of these manifestations of violence in a systematic and strategic manner. It is an attempt to put the focus on the fundamental cause – the violence we adults inflict on children – and to stress the

importance of dealing with that cause. (See ‘Why Violence?’ http://tinyurl.com/whyviolence) It is an attempt to focus on what you and I – that is, ordinary people – can do to end human violence and the

Nonviolence Charter invites us to pledge to make that effort. And it is an attempt to provide a focal point around which we can mobilise with a sense of shared commitment with people from all over the world.

In essence then, one aim of the Nonviolence Charter is to give every individual and organisation on planet Earth the chance to deeply consider where they stand on the fundamental issue of human violence. Will you publicly declare your commitment to work to end human violence? Or are you going to leave it to others? And what, precisely, do you want to do? And with whom? The Charter includes suggestions for action in a wide variety of areas; for example, by inviting people to participate in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’ – http://tinyurl.com/flametree – which is a simple yet comprehensive strategy for individuals and organisations to deal with the full range of environmental problems. It also provides an opportunity to identify and contact others, both locally and internationally, with whom we can work in locally relevant ways, whatever our preferred focus for action. In that sense, each participating individual and organization becomes part of a worldwide community working to end human violence for all time.

Since being initiated, the Nonviolence Charter has attracted considerable support from people in many countries and some of these have notable records of achievement for peace and justice already. Professor Chandra Muzaffar, Helen Ng and Nurul Haida Dzulkifli are key figures at the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) based in Malaysia, Dr Tess Ramiro heads Aksyon para sa Kapayapaan at Katarungan – Center for Active Non-Violence at the Pius XII Catholic Centre in the Philippines, and Tom Shea and Leonard Eiger have lengthy records as effective nonviolent activists, organisers and networkers at the Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action in the USA. Tom Shea co-organised the Charter launch in the USA

Other signatories include 1976 Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire, Nobel Peace Prize nominees such as nonviolent activists Kathy Kelly (USA), Father John Dear (USA) and Angie Zelter (UK); significant community leaders such as Ade Adenekan of the Pan-African Reconciliation Centre in Nigeria; the prominent human rights lawyer and consultant, Salma Yusuf, in Sri Lanka; religious figures such as Rev. Brian Burch of Canada and Rev. Nathaniel W. Pierce of the USA; prominent nonviolent activists like S. Brian Willson (USA); anti-war author/activist David Swanson (USA); as well as professors including Glenn D. Paige, founder of the Center for Global Nonkilling in the USA; Dietrich Fischer, Academic Director of the World Peace Academy in Switzerland; Raafat Misak, professor of desert geomorphology and head of the Kuwait Campaign to Ban Landmines in Kuwait; Mazin Qumsiyeh, Chairperson of the Palestinian Center for Rapprochment between People in Palestine; Bradley Olson and Marc Pilisuk of the Program on Violence, War, and their Alternatives with Psychologists for Social Responsibility in the USA; and Kevin P. Clements and Richard Jackson, Director and Director of Research respectively at the The National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Otago in New Zealand.

How long will this worldwide campaign take? It will undoubtedly take many years: ending human violence is no easy task. But the alternative – to tolerate human violence until we precipitate our own extinction is, surely, unthinkable. The Nonviolence Charter acknowledges our many differences, including the different issues on which we choose to work. But it also offers us a chance to see the unity of our overarching aim within this diversity. Hence, whatever our differences, we are given the chance to see that ending human violence is our compelling and unifying dream.

Would you like to consider joining the worldwide movement to end human violence? If so, you can read and, if you wish, sign ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’ online at http://thepeoplesnonviolencecharter.wordpress.com

By Robert J. Burrowes

09 August, 2012

Countercurrents.org

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘The Strategy of Nonviolent Defense: A Gandhian Approach’, State University of New York Press, 1996. His email address is flametree@riseup.net and his personal website is at http://robertjburrowes.wordpress.com

In the 1980s, the U.S. government began funneling aid to mujahedeen rebels in Afghanistan as part of an American proxy war against the Soviet Union. It was, in the minds of America’s Cold War leaders, a rare chance to bloody the Soviets, to give them a taste of the sort of defeat the Vietnamese, with Soviet help, had inflicted on Washington the decade before. In 1989, after years of bloody combat, the Red Army did indeed limp out of Afghanistan in defeat. Since late 2001, the United States has been fighting its former Afghan proxies and their progeny. Now, after years of bloody combat, it’s the U.S. that’s looking to withdraw the bulk of its forces and once again employ proxies to secure its interests there.

From Asia and Africa to the Middle East and the Americas, the Obama administration is increasingly embracing a multifaceted, light-footprint brand of warfare. Gone, for the moment at least, are the days of full-scale invasions of the Eurasian mainland. Instead, Washington is now planning to rely ever more heavily on drones and special operations forces to fight scattered global enemies on the cheap. A centerpiece of this new American way of war is the outsourcing of fighting duties to local proxies around the world.

While the United States is currently engaged in just one outright proxy war, backing a multi-nation African force to battle Islamist militants in Somalia, it’s laying the groundwork for the extensive use of surrogate forces in the future, training “native” troops to carry out missions — up to and including outright warfare. With this in mind and under the auspices of the Pentagon and the State Department, U.S. military personnel now take part in near-constant joint exercises and training missions around the world aimed at fostering alliances, building coalitions, and whipping surrogate forces into shape to support U.S. national security objectives.

While using slightly different methods in different regions, the basic strategy is a global one in which the U.S. will train, equip, and advise indigenous forces — generally from poor, underdeveloped nations — to do the fighting (and dying) it doesn’t want to do. In the process, as small an American force as possible, including special forces operatives and air support, will be brought to bear to aid those surrogates. Like drones, proxy warfare appears to offer an easy solution to complex problems. But as Washington’s 30-year debacle in Afghanistan indicates, the ultimate costs may prove both unimaginable and unimaginably high.

Start with Afghanistan itself. For more than a decade, the U.S. and its coalition partners have been training Afghan security forces in the hopes that they would take over the war there, defending U.S. and allied interests as the American-led international force draws down. Yet despite an expenditure of almost $50 billion on bringing it up to speed, the Afghan National Army and other security forces have drastically underperformed any and all expectations, year after year.

One track of the U.S. plan has been a little-talked-about proxy army run by the CIA. For years, the Agency has trained and employed six clandestine militias that operate near the cities of Kandahar, Kabul, and Jalalabad as well as in Khost, Kunar, and Paktika provinces. Working with U.S. Special Forces and controlled by Americans, these “Counterterror Pursuit Teams” evidently operate free of any Afghan governmental supervision and have reportedly carried out cross-border raids into Pakistan, offering their American patrons a classic benefit of proxy warfare: plausible deniability.

This clandestine effort has also been supplemented by the creation of a massive, conventional indigenous security force. While officially under Afghan government control, these military and police forces are almost entirely dependent on the financial support of the U.S. and allied governments for their continued existence.

Today, the Afghan National Security Forces officially number more than 343,000, but only 7% of its army units and 9% of its police units are rated at the highest level of effectiveness. By contrast, even after more than a decade of large-scale Western aid, 95% of its recruits are still functionally illiterate.

Not surprisingly, this massive force, trained by high-priced private contractors, Western European militaries, and the United States, and backed by U.S. and coalition forces and their advanced weapons systems, has been unable to stamp out a lightly-armed, modest-sized, less-than-popular, rag-tag insurgency. One of the few tasks this proxy force seems skilled at is shooting American and allied forces, quite often their own trainers, in increasingly common “green-on-blue” attacks.

Adding insult to injury, this poor-performing, coalition-killing force is expensive. Bought and paid for by the United States and its coalition partners, it costs between $10 billion and $12 billion each year to sustain in a country whose gross domestic product is just $18 billion. Over the long term, such a situation is untenable.

Back to the Future

Utilizing foreign surrogates is nothing new. Since ancient times, empires and nation-states have employed foreign troops and indigenous forces to wage war or have backed them when it suited their policy aims. By the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the tactic had become de rigueur for colonial powers like the French who employed Senegalese, Moroccans, and other African forces in Indochina and elsewhere, and the British who regularly used Nepalese Gurkhas to wage counterinsurgencies in places ranging from Iraq and Malaya to Borneo.

By the time the United States began backing the mujahedeen in Afghanistan, it already had significant experience with proxy warfare and its perils. After World War II, the U.S. eagerly embraced foreign surrogates, generally in poor and underdeveloped countries, in the name of the Cold War. These efforts included the attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro via a proxy Cuban force that crashed and burned at the Bay of Pigs; the building of a Hmong army in Laos which ultimately lost to Communist forces there; and the bankrolling of a French war in Vietnam that failed in 1954 and then the creation of a massive army in South Vietnam that crumbled in 1975, to name just a few unsuccessful efforts.

A more recent proxy failure occurred in Iraq. For years after the 2003 invasion, American policy-makers uttered a standard mantra: “As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.” Last year, those Iraqis basically walked off.

Between 2003 and 2011, the United States pumped tens of billions of dollars into “reconstructing” the country with around $20 billion of it going to build the Iraqi security forces. This mega-force of hundreds of thousands of soldiers and police was created from scratch to prop up the successors to the government that the United States overthrew. It was trained by and fought with the Americans and their coalition partners, but that all came to an end in December 2011.

Despite Obama administration efforts to base thousands or tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for years to come, the Iraqi government spurned Washington’s overtures and sent the U.S. military packing. Today, the Iraqi government supports the Assad regime in Syria, and has a warm and increasingly close relationship with long-time U.S. enemy Iran. According to Iran’s semiofficial Fars News Agency, the two countries have even discussed expanding their military ties.

African Shadow Wars

Despite a history of sinking billions into proxy armies that collapsed, walked away, or morphed into enemies, Washington is currently pursuing plans for proxy warfare across the globe, perhaps nowhere more aggressively than in Africa.

Under President Obama, operations in Africa have accelerated far beyond the more limited interventions of the Bush years. These include last year’s war in Libya; the expansion of a growing network of supply depots, small camps, and airfields; a regional drone campaign with missions run out of Djibouti, Ethiopia, and the Indian Ocean archipelago nation of Seychelles; a flotilla of 30 ships in that ocean supporting regional operations; a massive influx of cash for counterterrorism operations across East Africa; a possible old-fashioned air war, carried out on the sly in the region using manned aircraft; and a special ops expeditionary force (bolstered by State Department experts) dispatched to help capture or kill Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) leader Joseph Kony and his senior commanders. (This mission against Kony is seen by some experts as a cover for a developing proxy war between the U.S. and the Islamist government of Sudan — which is accused of helping to support the LRA — and Islamists more generally.) And this only begins to scratch the surface of Washington’s fast-expanding plans and activities in the region.

In Somalia, Washington has already involved itself in a multi-pronged military and CIA campaign against Islamist al-Shabaab militants that includes intelligence operations, training for Somali agents, a secret prison, helicopter attacks, and commando raids. Now, it is also backing a classic proxy war using African surrogates. The United States has become, as the Los Angeles Times put it recently, “the driving force behind the fighting in Somalia,” as it trains and equips African foot soldiers to battle Shabaab militants, so U.S. forces won’t have to. In a country where more than 90 Americans were killed and wounded in a 1993 debacle now known by the shorthand “Black Hawk Down,” today’s fighting and dying has been outsourced to African soldiers.

Earlier this year, for example, elite Force Recon Marines from the Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force 12 (or, as a mouthful of an acronym, SPMAGTF-12) trained soldiers from the Uganda People’s Defense Force. It, in turn, supplies the majority of the troops to the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) currently protecting the U.S.-supported government in that country’s capital, Mogadishu.

This spring, Marines from SPMAGTF-12 also trained soldiers from the Burundi National Defense Force (BNDF), the second-largest contingent in Somalia. In April and May, members of Task Force Raptor, 3rd Squadron, 124th Cavalry Regiment of the Texas National Guard, took part in a separate training mission with the BNDF in Mudubugu, Burundi. SPMAGTF-12 has also sent its trainers to Djibouti, another nation involved in the Somali mission, to work with an elite army unit there.

At the same time, U.S. Army troops have taken part in training members of Sierra Leone’s military in preparation for their deployment to Somalia later this year. In June, U.S. Army Africa commander Major General David Hogg spoke encouragingly of the future of Sierra Leone’s forces in conjunction with another U.S. ally, Kenya, which invaded Somalia last fall (and just recently joined the African Union mission there). “You will join the Kenyan forces in southern Somalia to continue to push al Shabaab and other miscreants from Somalia so it can be free of tyranny and terrorism and all the evil that comes with it,” he said. “We know that you are ready and trained. You will be equipped and you will accomplish this mission with honor and dignity.”

Readying allied militaries for deployment to Somalia is, however, just a fraction of the story when it comes to training indigenous forces in Africa. This year, for example, Marines traveled to Liberia to focus on teaching riot-control techniques to that country’s military as part of what is otherwise a State Department-directed effort to rebuild its security forces.

In fact, Colonel Tom Davis of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) recently told TomDispatch that his command has held or has planned 14 major joint training exercises for 2012 and a similar number are scheduled for 2013. This year’s efforts include operations in Morocco, Cameroon, Gabon, Botswana, South Africa, Lesotho, Senegal, and Nigeria, including, for example, Western Accord 2012, a multilateral exercise involving the armed forces of Senegal, Burkina Faso, Guinea, Gambia, and France.

Even this, however, doesn’t encompass the full breadth of U.S. training and advising missions in Africa. “We… conduct some type of military training or military-to-military engagement or activity with nearly every country on the African continent,” wrote Davis.

Our American Proxies

Africa may, at present, be the prime location for the development of proxy warfare, American-style, but it’s hardly the only locale where the United States is training indigenous forces to aid U.S. foreign policy aims. This year, the Pentagon has also ramped up operations in Central and South America as well as the Caribbean.

In Honduras, for example, small teams of U.S. troops are working with local forces to escalate the drug war there. Working out of Forward Operating Base Mocoron and other remote camps, the U.S. military is supporting Honduran operations by way of the methods it honed in Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. forces have also taken part in joint operations with Honduran troops as part of a training mission dubbed Beyond the Horizon 2012, while Green Berets have been assisting Honduran Special Operations forces in anti-smuggling operations. Additionally, an increasingly militarized Drug Enforcement Administration sent a Foreign-deployed Advisory Support Team, originally created to disrupt the poppy trade in Afghanistan, to aid Honduras’s Tactical Response Team, that country’s elite counternarcotics unit.

The militarization and foreign deployment of U.S. law enforcement operatives was also evident in Tradewinds 2012, a training exercise held in Barbados in June. There, members of the U.S. military and civilian law enforcement agencies joined with counterparts from Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Suriname, as well as Trinidad and Tobago, to improve cooperation for “complex multinational security operations.”

Far less visible have been training efforts by U.S. Special Operations Forces in Guyana, Uruguay, and Paraguay. In June, special ops troops also took part in Fuerzas Comando, an eight-day “competition” in which the elite forces from 21 countries, including the Bahamas, Belize, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uruguay, faced-off in tests of physical fitness, marksmanship, and tactical capabilities.

This year, the U.S. military has also conducted training exercises in Guatemala, sponsored “partnership-building” missions in the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Peru, and Panama, and reached an agreement to carry out 19 “activities” with the Colombian army over the next year, including joint military exercises.

The Proxy Pivot

Coverage of the Obama administration’s much-publicized strategic “pivot” to Asia has focused on the creation of yet more bases and new naval deployments to the region. The military (which has dropped the word pivot for “rebalancing”) is, however, also planning and carrying out numerous exercises and training missions with regional allies. In fact, the Navy and Marines alone already reportedly engage in more than 170 bilateral and multilateral exercises with Asia-Pacific nations each year.

One of the largest of these efforts took place in and around the Hawaiian Islands from late June through early August. Dubbed RIMPAC 2012, the exercise brought together more than 40 ships and submarines, more than 200 aircraft, and 25,000 personnel from 22 nations, including Australia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, and Tonga.

Almost 7,000 American troops also joined around 3,400 Thai forces, as well as military personnel from Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, and South Korea as part of Cobra Gold 2012. In addition, U.S. Marines took part in Hamel 2012, a multinational training exercise involving members of the Australian and New Zealand militaries, while other American troops joined the Armed Forces of the Philippines for Exercise Balikatan.

The effects of the “pivot” are also evident in the fact that once neutralist India now holds more than 50 military exercises with the United States each year — more than any other country in the world. “Our partnership with India is a key part of our rebalance to the Asia-Pacific and, we believe, to the broader security and prosperity of the 21st century,” said Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter on a recent trip to the subcontinent. Just how broad is evident in the fact that India is taking part in America’s proxy effort in Somalia. In recent years, the Indian Navy has emerged as an “important contributor” to the international counter-piracy effort off that African country’s coast, according to Andrew Shapiro of the State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs.

Peace by Proxy

India’s neighbor Bangladesh offers a further window into U.S. efforts to build proxy forces to serve American interests.

Earlier this year, U.S. and Bangladeshi forces took part in an exercise focused on logistics, planning, and tactical training, codenamed Shanti Doot-3. The mission was notable in that it was part of a State Department program, supported and executed by the Pentagon, known as the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI).

First implemented under George W. Bush, GPOI provides cash-strapped nations funds, equipment, logistical assistance and training to enable their militaries to become “peacekeepers” around the world. Under Bush, from the time the program was established in 2004 through 2008, more than $374 million was spent to train and equip foreign troops. Under President Obama, Congress has funded the program to the tune of $393 million, according to figures provided to TomDispatch by the State Department.

In a speech earlier this year, the State Department’s Andrew Shapiro told a Washington, D.C., audience that “GPOI is particularly focusing a great deal of its efforts to support the training and equipping of peacekeepers deploying to… Somalia” and had provided “tens of millions of dollars worth of equipment for countries deploying [there].” In a blog post he went into more detail, lauding U.S. efforts to train Djiboutian troops to serve as peacekeepers in Somalia and noting that the U.S. had also provided impoverished Djibouti with radar equipment and patrol boats for offshore activities. “Djibouti is also central to our efforts to combat piracy,” he wrote, “as it is on the front line of maritime threats including piracy in the Gulf of Aden and surrounding waters.”

Djibouti and Bangladesh are hardly unique. Under the auspices of the Global Peace Operations Initiative, the U.S. has partnered with 62 nations around the globe, according to statistics provided by the State Department. These proxies-in-training are, not surprisingly, some of the poorest nations in their respective regions, if not the entire planet. They include Benin, Ethiopia, Malawi, and Togo in Africa, Nepal and Pakistan in Asia, and Guatemala and Nicaragua in the Americas.

The Changing Face of Empire

With ongoing military operations in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America, the Obama administration has embraced a six-point program for light-footprint warfare relying heavily on special operations forces, drones, spies, civilian partners, cyber warfare, and proxy fighters. Of all the facets of this new way of war, the training and employment of proxies has generally been the least noticed, even though reliance on foreign forces is considered one of its prime selling points. As the State Department’s Andrew Shapiro put it in a speech earlier this year: “[T]he importance of these missions to the security of the United States is often little appreciated… To put it clearly: When these peacekeepers deploy it means that U.S. forces are less likely to be called on to intervene.” In other words, to put it even more clearly, more dead locals, fewer dead Americans.

The evidence for this conventional wisdom, however, is lacking. And failures to learn from history in this regard have been ruinous. The training, advising, and outfitting of a proxy force in Vietnam drew the United States deeper and deeper into that doomed conflict, leading to tens of thousands of dead Americans and millions of dead Vietnamese. Support for Afghan proxies during their decade-long battle against the Soviet Union led directly to the current disastrous decade-plus American War in Afghanistan.

Right now, the U.S. is once again training, advising, and conducting joint exercises all over the world with proxy war on its mind and the concept of “unintended consequences” nowhere in sight in Washington. Whether today’s proxies end up working for or against Washington’s interests or even become tomorrow’s enemies remains to be seen. But with so much training going on in so many destabilized regions, and so many proxy forces being armed in so many places, the chances of blowback grow greater by the day.

By Nick Turse

09 August, 2012

@ TomDispatch.com

Nick Turse is the associate editor of TomDispatch.com. An award-winning journalist, his work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the Nation, and regularly at TomDispatch. He is the author/editor of several books, including the recently published Terminator Planet: The First History of Drone Warfare, 2001-2050 (with Tom Engelhardt). This piece is the latest article in his new series on the changing face of American empire, which is being underwritten by Lannan Foundation. You can follow him on Tumblr.

Copyright 2012 Nick Turse

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood government has launched a crackdown after an armed raid at the Rafah checkpoint near the border with Gaza and Israel killed 16 Egyptian soldiers and wounded eight more. The action testifies to how closely the Brotherhood now works with Israel and the United States.

While both Egyptian and Israeli intelligence had been warned of an attack in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, Egyptian security forces apparently took no additional precautions. On Sunday evening, 35 masked gunmen launched an armed raid at Rafah. Several of the gunmen then seized two armoured vehicles and crossed into Israel. One of the vehicles exploded, apparently booby- trapped.

Israeli security forces, alerted by the Egyptian forces, then gave chase to the other, killing six men with aerial missiles. Most were found to be wearing explosive belts. Egyptian security forces killed and wounded a number of others who tried to escape into Gaza.

The raid follows an increasing number of attacks in the northern Sinai since the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak. There have been at least 15 attacks on the pipeline taking gas to Israel and Jordan, disrupting supplies. A few weeks ago, two Egyptian soldiers were killed.

Israeli intelligence chief Aviv Kochavi announced that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had stopped nearly a dozen recent attacks from the Sinai Peninsula.

Last August, Islamist militants crossed Egypt’s border into Eilat, in southern Israel, killing eight people, including two security personnel, and injured dozens more. Israeli forces chased the attackers across the border and kill at least seven people, including several Egyptian policemen.

Sinai’s 23,000 square miles is home to 600,000 Bedouin, many of whom are not registered as Egyptian citizens. Since the fall of Mubarak, some of the impoverished Bedouin tribes have begun to protest the tribal leaders and the Egyptian authorities. Others are believed to be making a good living through the smuggling of arms from Libya and Sudan for jihadist groups operating in the Sinai Peninsula, which is now awash with weaponry.

For some time, Israel has been ramping up the pressure on Egypt to mount a clamp down. A few weeks ago, Israel sent an official letter to the UN Security Council complaining about the security situation in Sinai. Last week, both Israel and the US warned their citizens not to travel to Sinai.

No group has claimed responsibility for the Rafah attack. Egyptian state TV said that the raid was carried out by foreign Islamic militants from a global jihad network with the help of Bedouins in the northern Sinai, who had entered from Egypt and Gaza.

Two leading officials in Fatah, the Palestinian ruling clique in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, accused its rival Hamas, which controls Gaza, of being responsible for the attack.

Hamas, a Palestinian offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, accused Fatah of using the attack to create divisions between Egypt and Gaza. It denied any responsibility for the attack and, along with its Egyptian parent and Hezbollah in Lebanon, condemned it.

Hamas also condemned the Egyptian authorities for not taking pre-emptive action in the light of the warnings and also blamed Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, who they said were trying to undermine the Egyptian government and worsen relations between Egypt and Gaza.

In recent weeks, Egypt’s President Mohamed Mursi of the Brotherhood has received both Khaled Meshaal, the exiled Hamas leader who has left Damascus and is now living in Dubai, and Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas prime minister in Gaza. He promised them that he would ease the tight restrictions at the Rafah crossing, the only one not under Israeli control. The tiny enclave of 1.7 million Palestinians has been blockaded by Israel for more than five years.

Aware of the deep anger of the Egyptian people at the role Mubarak played in sustaining the Israeli blockade, Mursi initially wanted to be seen as effecting some change in this regard.

Mursi responded to the raid on the Egyptian soldiers by calling it a “vicious attack” and vowed “those behind the attacks will pay a high price as well as those who have been co-operating with those attackers, be it those inside or anywhere in Egypt.”

He promised that the security forces would take “full control” over Sinai.

Additional pressure on Mursi was that he and Hisham Qandil, the newly installed prime minister, face accusations at home of involvement in the raid. Both attended the funeral prayers for the slain soldiers, where angry protestors chased Qandil, shouting, “You killed them you dogs” and chanted against the Brotherhood and Mursi. Neither man attended the military funeral on the advice of intelligence staff, who said they could not guarantee their safety.

Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak said the raid should be a “wake up call” for Egypt and demanded that Cairo take action. “The militants’ attack methods again raise the need for determined Egyptian action to enforce security and prevent terror in the Sinai,” he said.

Sources at Egypt’s presidential palace told Egypt Independent that the palace had received calls expressing concern about the security vacuum in Sinai, including one that suggested that Israeli “constraint” in the event of any further attacks emanating from Sinai could not be guaranteed.

Cairo dutifully fell in line, with Mursi allying himself in a joint offensive with Egypt’s Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) and with Israel.

Mursi sent in the security forces to close down its border with Hamas-controlled Gaza, the only one not under Israeli control, completely isolating the Gaza enclave. Heavy machinery was sent in to seal entrances to tunnels–believed to number 1,000– used to smuggle goods, fuel and weapons into Gaza.

Military forces launched a massive security crackdown, raiding hundreds of homes in northern Sinai to search for suspects, arresting several people, and deploying helicopter gunships to search out militants in their desert hideouts. After a number of armed clashes, the military launched aerial attacks on towns and villages in northern Sinai, killing at least 20 people. This was the first time Egypt has fired missiles in Sinai since the 1973 war with Israel.

Hours later, Mursi sacked Egypt’s intelligence chief and the head of the North Sinai governorate. General Mohamed Murad Mowafi was quoted in the Egyptian media as confirming that the intelligence services had received warning of Sunday’s attack. He had apparently only passed the information on, saying that the intelligence services’ job was only to collect information. Mursi also dismissed the commander of the presidential guard and several other top security officials.

These actions were taken in close co-ordination with Israel, who agreed to the deployment of additional troops in Sinai over and above that set up in the 1978 and 1979 Camp David Accords. Danny Ayalon, Israel’s deputy foreign minister, said that Israel and Egypt would increase security cooperation.

By Jean Shaoul

09 August, 2012

@ WSWS.org

The neoconservatives are back with a vengeance. While popular uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and other Arab countries had briefly rendered them irrelevant in the region, Western intervention in Libya signaled a new opportunity. Now Syria promises to usher a full return of neoconservatives into the Middle East fray.

“Washington must stop subcontracting Syria policy to the Turks, Saudis and Qataris. They are clearly part of the anti-Assad effort, but the United States cannot tolerate Syria becoming a proxy state for yet another regional power,” wrote Danielle Pletka, vice president of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute (Washington Post, July 20).

Pletka, like many of her peers from neoconservative, pro-Israeli ‘think tanks’, should be a familiar name among Arab reporters, who are also well aware of the level of destruction brought to the Middle East as a result of neoconservative wisdom and policies. Rarely though are such infamous names evoked when the ongoing conflict in Syria is reported – as if the main powers responsible for redrawing the geopolitical maps of the region are suddenly insignificant.

Pletka was the biggest supporter of Ahmad Chalabi, the once exiled Iraqi, who she once described as “a trusted associate of the Central Intelligence Agency (and) the key player in a unsuccessful coup to overthrow Saddam Hussein” in the 1990s (LA Times, June 4, 2004). Chalabi led the Iraqi National Congress, which was falsely slated as an authentic Iraqi national initiative. Eventually, members of the council, composed mostly of Iraqi exiles with links to the CIA and other Western intelligences, managed to sway the pendulum their way, and Iraq was destroyed.

Although the destruction of an Arab country is not a moral issue as far as the neocons are concerned, the chaos and subsequent violence that followed the US war in 2003 made it impossible for warring ‘intellectuals’ to promote their ideas with the same language of old. Some reinvention was now necessary. Discredited organizations were shut down and new ones were hastily founded. One such platform was the Foreign Policy Initiative, which was founded by neoconservatives who cleverly reworded old slogans. Matt Duss, wrote in ThinkProgress.org about the Foreign Policy Initiative inaugural conference on Afghanistan in March 2009: “I was struck by how very little that was said was controversial,” he wrote. “And that’s really the point — in the wake of Iraq debacle, for which the neocons are widely and rightly held responsible, it simply won’t do to bang the drum for American military maximalism. One has to be a bit slicker than that. And these guys are nothing if not slick.”

Slick, indeed, as neoconservatives are now trying to weasel in their version of an endgame in Syria. Their efforts are extremely focused and well-coordinated, making impressive use of their direct ties with the Israeli lobby, major US media and Syrian leaders in exile. They are being referred to as ‘foreign policy experts’, although their ‘expertise’ is merely confined to their ability to destroy and remake countries to their own liking – and even these are unmitigated failures.

Writing in CNN online, Elise Labott reported on a recent neoconservative push to upgrade American involvement in Syria: “Foreign policy experts on Wednesday (August 1) urged the Obama administration to increase its support of the armed opposition.” The ‘experts’ included Andrew Tabler of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), another pro-Israel conduit in Washington. It was established in 1985 as a research department for the influential Israeli lobby group, AIPAC, yet since then it managed to rebrand itself as an American organization concerned with advancing “a balanced and realistic understanding of American interests in the Middle East.”

Obama, of course, obliged under pressure from the ‘experts’. According to CNN, he signed a secret order “referred to as an intelligence ‘finding,’ allow[ing] for clandestine support by the CIA and other agencies.”

Still, the neocons want much more. The bloodbath in Syria has devastated not only Syrian society, it also brought to a halt the collective campaigns in Arab societies which called for democracy on their own terms. The protracted conflict in Syria, and the involvement of various regional players made it unbearable for the neoconservatives to hide behind their new brand and slowly plot a comeback. For them, it was now or never.

On July 31, AIPAC wrote all members of Congress urging them to sign on a bill introduced by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Howard Berman. Entitled ‘The Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (H.R.1905)’, the bill, if passed, “will establish virtual state of war with Iran,” according to the Council for the National Interest. The old neoconservative wisdom arguing for an unavoidable link between Syria, Iran and their allies in the region is now being exploited to the maximum.

A few days earlier, on July 27, fifty-six leading ‘conservative foreign-policy experts’ had urged Obama to intervene directly in Syria. “Unless the United States takes the lead and acts, either individually or in concert with like-minded nations, thousands of additional Syrian civilians will likely die, and the emerging civil war in Syria will likely ignite wider instability in the Middle East.”

The timing of the letter, partly organized by the Foreign Policy Initiative, was hardly random. It was published one day before the first ‘Friends of Syria’ contact-group meeting in Tunisia, which suggests that it was aimed to help define the American agenda regarding Syria. Signatories included familiar names associated with the Iraq war narrative – Paul Bremer, Elizabeth Cheney, Eric Edelman, William Kristol, and, of course, Danielle Pletka.

With the absence of a clear US strategy regarding Syria, the ever-organized neoconservatives seem to be the only ones with a clear plan, however damaging. In her Washington Post piece, Pletka’s argument for intervention, bridging countries, peoples, sects and groups of all kinds – as if the Middle East is but a chess game governed by delusional but persistent ambitions. In one single paragraph, she made mention of Iran, Hezbollah, Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, terrorists aimed at destabilizing Iraq, “puppet governments in Beirut” and “Palestinian terror groups dedicated to Israel’s destruction.”

Yet, it is this sort of ‘political expertise’ that governed US foreign policy in the Middle East for nearly two decades. Now that the short respite is over, the neoconservatives are back with their bizarre maps, bleak visions, and a fail-proof recipe for perpetual conflict.

By Ramzy Baroud

09 August, 2012

Countercurrents.org

– Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (Pluto Press, London.)

There is a horrible speculation that the insurgents in Syria may have seized hold of chemical weapons.

Apart from the catastrophically unthinkable havoc the rebels can wreak in Syria and in the region with the WMDs, the rhetorical question which remains is how these weapons of mass destruction have fallen into the hands of the insurgents who are chiefly composed of Wahhabi al-Qaeda mercenaries of different nationalities including Afghans, Iraqis, Turkish, Yemenis, Jordanians, Pakistanis, and Saudis.

The situation in Syria is assuming Orwellian ramifications and the possibility to clearly understand or dissect the situation in the country is not an easy task.

In addition to the active role the Saudi-backed Wahhabis, CIA and some western intelligence organizations are playing in Syria , there is one entity, namely Israel which is stealthily espying every single development in Syria .

For the first time, an Israeli spy official clearly stated that Israel supports regime change in Syria and that it really demands an end to the government of President Bashar Assad.

“I hope it will happen, even though I don’t know when or how,” Intelligence Agencies Minister Dan Meridor said on Tuesday.

The top spy chief implicated why Assad should go and how it would damage the Islamic Republic of Iran.

“I am not going to try to calculate when Assad’s end will come, but when it happens, Iran ‘s biggest ally will be gone.”

Taking it for granted that Assad is doomed to go, he said, “I hope the new Syria will understand that joining Iran is a mistake that brings isolation from the Western world.”

Such a feeble perception of the Syrian situation is indicative of one who is either too optimistic or one who is well aware of what is going on behind the scene and that which is not visible to the ordinary people with no intelligence savvy.

Furthermore, Dan Meridor does not seem to understand that the situation in Israel is spiraling out of control with people protesting against social injustice almost on a daily basis. Since last month, four Israelis have set themselves ablaze from an extremity of despair.

On August 5, John McCain and Lindsey O. Graham, both Republicans, who represent Arizona and South Carolina in the Senate, respectively and Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent, who represents Connecticut in the Senate advised the US government to directly and openly provide assistance, including weapons, intelligence and training, to the insurgents in Syria as they claim President’s Assad’s ‘brutality’ is no longer to be tolerated.

“It is not too late for the United States to shift course. First, we can and should directly and openly provide robust assistance to the armed opposition, including weapons, intelligence and training. Whatever the risks of our doing so, they are far outweighed by the risks of continuing to sit on our hands, hoping for the best.”

Another part of this sabotage axis against Syria is Turkey which plays a very treacherous role in snowballing the Syrian crisis. Turkey has supplied the rebels with dozens of man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS).

According to NBC, the missile supplies might have been provided by Turkey , Saudi Kingdom and Qatar monarchy, the three countries which have made strenuous and costly efforts to overthrow the government of Bashar Assad.

In a press conference at the United Nations in New York City , a Syrian UN representative announced that Turkey shipped US-made Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to rebels via Turkey , saying that Turkey was pleased with Kofi Annan’s resignation because Ankara and Washington were initially opposed to his six point peace plan.

In fact, Turkey should be grateful to Syria what it has done for it in the past. It is acknowledged by many pundits that it was Bashar’s father Hafiz Assad who made peace between Turkey and the Kurds living on both sides of the country, thereby vaccinating Turkey for years against any attacks on the part of the Kurds.

The antagonistic policies of Turkey have left President Bashar Assad with no choice but to grant autonomy to the Kurds in Syria who can foment dilemma for the Ankara government and get Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan into hot water.

The ongoing Kurdish insurgency has reportedly claimed the lives of at least 48000 over the past two decades.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is sharply aware of what a deep impact this decision can exercise on the security of Turkey .

He claimed the two groups had built a “structure in northern Syria ” that for Turkey means “a structure of terror.”

Turkey is making a tactical mistake by supporting terrorism in Syria and supplying them with weapons, military training and human resources. Turkey will certainly fall into the pitfall it has dug for Syria and the insecurity it envisages for Syria will ultimately recoil against the government itself.

As for Washington and NATO, they are making a selfsame mistake.

The two are fondling terrorism and extremism by throwing support behind the insurgents in Syria . They know that a popular uprising in the true sense of the word is not clearly discernible in Syria and that what has been taking place in Syria is a string of militancy and terrorist operations funded by the Saudis and the Qataris and some western countries who are waiting to reap the benefits of their atrocities in case Bashar Assad’s government collapses. Such a day, if it comes, will open a new chapter of horror in the Middle East with no end in sight.

The unfurling reality is that the hostile states and powers antagonizing Bashar Assad are gradually getting caught up in the labyrinthine Orwellian pitfall of their own folly and that they are consciously or unconsciously working in the best interests of the Zionist regime.

By Dr. Ismail Salami

09 August, 2012

Countercurrents.org

Dr. Ismail Salami is an Iranian writer, Middle East expert, Iranologist and lexicographer. He writes extensively on the US and Middle East issues and his articles have been translated into a number of languages.

Western and Gulf regime support for rebel fighters isn’t bringing freedom to Syrians but escalating sectarian conflict and war

Syrian women cooking in a school where they have taken refuge after fleeing their homes in the town of Kafr Hamra, six miles north of Aleppo. Photograph: Khalil Hamra/AP

The destruction of Syria is now in full flow. What began as a popular uprising 17 months ago is now an all-out civil war fuelled by regional and global powers that threatens to engulf the entire Middle East. As the battle for the ancient city of Aleppo grinds on and atrocities on both sides multiply, the danger of the conflict spilling over Syria’s borders is growing.

The defection by Syria’s prime minister is the most high-profile coup yet in a well-funded programme, though unlikely to signal any imminent regime collapse. But the capture of 48 Iranian pilgrims – or undercover Revolutionary Guards, depending who you believe – along with the increasing risk of a Turkish attack on Kurdish areas in Syria and an influx of jihadist fighters gives a taste of what is now at stake.

Driving the escalation of the conflict has been western and regional intervention. This isn’t Iraq, of course, with hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground, or Libya, with a devastating bombardment from the air. But the sharp increase in arms supplies, funding and technical support from the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and others in recent months has dramatically boosted the rebels’ fortunes, as well as the death toll.

Barack Obama has so far resisted the demands of liberal hawks and neoconservatives for a direct military assault. Instead he’s authorised more traditional forms of CIA covert military backing, Nicaragua-style, for the Syrian rebels.

The US, which backed its first Syrian coup in 1949, has long funded opposition groups. But earlier this year Obama gave a secret order authorising covert (as well as overt financial and diplomatic) support to the armed opposition. That includes CIA paramilitaries on the ground, “command and control” and communications assistance, and the funnelling of Gulf arms supplies to favoured Syrian groups across the Turkish border. After Russia and China blocked its last attempt to win UN backing for forced regime change last month, the US administration let it be known it would now step up support for the rebels and co-ordinate “transition” plans for Syria with Israel and Turkey.

“You’ll notice in the last couple of months, the opposition has been strengthened,” a senior US official told the New York Times last Friday. “Now we’re ready to accelerate that.” Not to be outdone, William Hague boasted that Britain was also increasing “non-lethal” support for the rebels. Autocratic Saudi Arabia and Qatar are providing the cash and weapons, as the western-backed Syrian National Council acknowledged this week, while Nato member Turkey has set up a logistics and training base for the Free Syrian Army in or near the Incirlik US air base.

For Syrians who want dignity and democracy in a free country, the rapidly mushrooming dependence of their uprising on foreign support is a disaster – even more than was the case in Libya. After all, it is now officials of the dictatorial and sectarian Saudi regime who choose which armed groups get funding, not Syrians. And it is intelligence officials from the US, which sponsors the Israeli occupation of Syrian territory and dictatorships across the region, who decide which rebel units get weapons.

Opposition activists insist they will maintain their autonomy, based on deep-rooted popular support. But the dynamic of external backing clearly risks turning groups dependent on it into instruments of their sponsors, rather than the people they seek to represent. Gulf funding has already sharpened religious sectarianism in the rebel camp, while reports of public alienation from rebel fighters in Aleppo this week testifies to the dangers of armed groups relying on outsiders instead of their own communities.

The Syrian regime is of course backed by Iran and Russia, as it has been for decades. But a better analogy for western and Gulf involvement in the Syrian insurrection would be Iranian and Russian sponsorship of an armed revolt in, say, Saudi Arabia. For the western media, which has largely reported the Syrian uprising as a one-dimensional fight for freedom, the now unavoidable evidence of rebel torture and prisoner executions– along with kidnappings by al-Qaida-style groups, who once again find themselves in alliance with the US – seems to have come as a bit of a shock.

In reality, the Syrian crisis always had multiple dimensions that crossed the region’s most sensitive fault lines. It was from the start a genuine uprising against an authoritarian regime. But it has also increasingly morphed into a sectarian conflict, in which the Alawite-dominated Assad government has been able to portray itself as the protector of minorities – Alawite, Christian and Kurdish – against a Sunni-dominated opposition tide.

The intervention of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf autocracies, which have tried to protect themselves from the wider Arab upheaval by playing the anti-Shia card, is transparently aimed at a sectarian, not a democratic, outcome. But it is the third dimension – Syria’s alliance with Tehran and Lebanon’s Shia resistance movement, Hezbollah – that has turned the Syrian struggle into a proxy war against Iran and a global conflict.

Many in the Syrian opposition would counter that they had no choice but to accept foreign support if they were to defend themselves against the regime’s brutality. But as the independent opposition leader Haytham Manna argues, the militarisation of the uprising weakened its popular and democratic base – while also dramatically increasing the death toll.

There is every chance the war could now spread outside Syria. Turkey, with a large Alawite population of its own as well as a long repressed Kurdish minority, claimed the right to intervene against Kurdish rebels in Syria after Damascus pulled its troops out of Kurdish towns. Clashes triggered by the Syrian war have intensified in Lebanon. If Syria were to fragment, the entire system of post-Ottoman Middle East states and borders could be thrown into question with it.

That could now happen regardless of how long Assad and his regime survive. But intervention in Syria is prolonging the conflict, rather than delivering a knockout blow. Only pressure for a negotiated settlement, which the west and its friends have so strenuously blocked, can now give Syrians the chance to determine their own future – and halt the country’s descent into darkness

Seumas Milne

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 7 August 2012 22.20 BST

Armed Forces Take Control of Salah Eddin Neighborhood in Aleppo, Terrorists Crossing Border from Lebanon Repelled

Aug 08, 2012

PROVINCES, (SANA) – The Armed forces assumed full control of Salah Eddin neighborhood in Aleppo on Wednesday and inflicted heavy losses upon the armed terrorist groups there, killing and wounding a large number of their members.

An official source told SANA reported that a large number of terrorists were killed, some of them of Arab and foreign nationalities, and that tens of terrorists were arrested while others surrendered and turned in their weapons.

The source said that large amounts of weapons were seized from the terrorists, and that the armed forces are still pursuing vanquished terrorists in the neighborhood and Saif al-Dawla and al-Sukari areas to which some terrorists fled.

In Bustan al-Basha area, an armed forces unit confronted a terrorist group, killing and wounding many terrorists, while another armed forces unit clashed with terrorists in Bab al-Nasr area and inflicted heavy losses upon them.

An armed forces unit also carried out an operation targeting a large weapon storehouse used by terrorists in Mayer area, destroying it completely along with seven trucks full of weapons and ammo which militants were unloading. Many terrorists were wounded or killed in this operation.

Tens of Terrorists Killed, Cars Equipped with Machineguns Destroyed in Aleppo

In Aleppo, the authorities carried out a “qualitative operation” against the armed terrorist groups in the area of Aghiour roundabout and al-Sighn street in the city of Aleppo.

SANA reporter cited a source in the province as saying that the operation resulted in the death and injury of tens of terrorists and the destruction of 3 SUV cars equipped with DShk machineguns.

Three Pickup Trucks  Equipped with DShK machineguns in Bab al-Neirab neighborhood in Aleppo

Authorities pursued an armed terrorist group riding three pickup trucks equipped with DShK machineguns in Bab al-Neirab neighborhood in Aleppo.

A source in the province told SANA correspondent that the authorities destroyed the three cars and killed the terrorists.

Authorities Repel Terrorist Infiltration Attempt from Lebanon

The authorities and the border guards on Wednesday repelled two terrorist groups as they were attempting to cross the border from Lebanon at the sites of Edlin and al-Ghaideh in the Talkalakh city in the countryside of Homs.

A source in the province told SANA reporter that the authorities inflicted heavy losses on the terrorist groups’ members killing and injuring most of them while other managed to flee back into the Lebanese territories.

The source also mentioned that the authorities last night ambushed an armed terrorist group that had attacked citizens blocked roads in the area between the towns of al-Shayahat and al-Zirae’ in the countryside of al-Qseir city.

According to the source, 10 terrorists were killed while others were arrested.

Authorities Inflict Heavy Losses on Terrorist Group in Lattakia Countryside

The authorities pursued an armed terrorist group which had been carrying out armed robberies and opening fire on passing cars at Mazyan junction near al-Qasatel village in Lattakia countryside.

The authorities inflicted heavy losses on the terrorists, destroyed a number of cars they had been using, and secured the road.

Authorities Storm a Terrorist Hideout in Salma Town, Lattakia Countryside

Authorities stormed a terrorist hideout in Salma town in Lattakia countryside which was used as a media and command center by terrorists.

An official source in the province told SANA reporter that the operation resulted in killing a number of terrorists and arresting the rest.

Terrorists Killed, Four explosive devices Dismantled in Homs

Armed forces clashed with a terrorist group in Jouret al-Shayah in Homs, eliminating its members and leader, the terrorist Obeida al-Naq.

Military engineering units dismantled 4 explosive devices planted by terrorists along the road linking the town of al-Houz abd Modan in al-Qseir countryside in Homs.

SANA reporter quoted a source in the province as saying that four barrels filled with explosives weighing between 50 to 60 kg were linked to each other with a primer and a wire and they were prepared to blow up all at once.

Meanwhile in Homs countryside, the authorities ambushed an armed terrorist group in al-Qseir.

A source in the province told SANA correspondent that clashes between the authorities and the armed terrorist group led to killing and injuring several terrorists.

Syrian Journalists Organize Solidarity Stand, Condemn Terrorist Act against Syrian TV

Aug 09, 2012

DAMASCUS, (SANA) – In condemnation of the terrorism targeting the national media, journalists from various Syrian media outlets organized on Wednesday a solidarity stand outside the General Organization of Radio and TV building which was targeted by a sabotage act on the sixth of the current month.

Journalists waved placards condemning the terrorist acts targeting the national media and stressing that any attack against the media is a direct attack against the society.

In a statement to journalists, Minister of Information Omran al-Zoubi expressed appreciation of the wide participation of journalists in this solidarity stand which expresses the feelings of free people who reject the sabotage act which targeted the General Organization of Radio and TV building.

He added that the sabotage act is aimed at silencing the Syrian national media which is broadcasting the complete truth to the people.

The Minister pointed out that the Syrian leadership has decision supported by the Syrian people to restore security and stability to all Syrian territories.

on August 6, An explosive device exploded inside the the third floor of the building of the General Organization of the Radio and Television in Damascus and caused a number of injuries.

Al-Zoubi said there is a real external aggression on Syria, adding that field military hospitals are sent from France to Jordan and gunmen from different nationalities to Turkey and South Lebanon, and recruitment offices are opened for what they call ”Jihad” in Syria.

He added that the issue has never been about reforms or change, but has been directly linked with the others’ desire to deprive Syria of its regional and international role.

Head of the Syrian Journalists’ Union, Elias Murad, said that these terrorist acts are attempts to silence national media, hoping that the kidnapped journalists would return to their families safe and sound.

Murad said that the Syrian Journalists’ Union and the Arab Journalists’ Union condemn such illogical terrorist acts, adding that the Union has sent messages to the Arab Journalists’ Union and international organizations concerned to condemn these acts.

He added that the Syrian journalists will continue their work in national media that represents the Syrian society and is open to all opinions.

Director of the General Organization of Radio&TV, Ramez Torjoman, said that the crime committed against the Syrian TV was plotted by some Western countries and funded by Arab countries involved in the hostile project against Syria, in a desperate attempt to silence the truth.

”We vow to remain at the front lines in defense of Syria under the leadership of President Bashar al-Assad,” he added.

Director of the Syrian TV, Maan Saleh, said that the morale of TV workers are higher than ever, adding that they are determined to continue their work as it is well known that the Syrian government and people are targeted.

Director-General of the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA), Ahmad Dawwa, said that the terrorist acts targeting the Syrian national media are attempts to deviate it from its national role, especially at a time when Syria is facing an all-out war, adding that terrorism won’t weaken the Syrian journalists and media. Dawwa added that there have been several attempts to hack SANA website from several Arab and foreign countries, including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, France, Belgium and Canada, adding that SANA has a qualified cadre that is capable of foiling these attempts.

Editor-in-Chief of al-Thawra newspaper, Ali al-Qasem said that the Syrian media has been a target for these armed terrorist groups as it succeeded in exposing lies and fabrications by satellite channels which became  proficient in shedding Syrian blood, in addition to revealing the schemes hatched to topple the Syrian state.

News anchor Ghadir Hassan from the Syrian al-Ikhbariya TV channel said that the response of the Syrian journalists to those killers is that they will continue their work despite the terrorists’ killing and kidnapping acts.

Political, social and cultural figures and youth groups participated in the sit-in. Director of Top News Media network, Former Lebanese MP Nasser Qandil said that the attack against the Syrian media came as an implementation of the Arab League political decisions and those taken on an internationallevel by countries which claimed to call for freedom and democracy.

Qandil said that Syria proved that it possesses an army qualified to face wars and showed that brain washing failed in destroying the Syrian people’s vision of their future and homeland. He added that they thought that Syrian media is dead and they were surprised at its strength and capability for confrontation.

The youth Shebli Roumiyeh, from Damascus voluntary youth team, said that the Syrian media is free and honest and these terrorist acts will not undermine its determination to convey the truth.

In Tartous, journalists and workers in the media institutions in the province staged a sit-in in front of Tishreen newspaper office in the province to condemn the terrorist attack which hit the building of the General Organization of Radio &TV on August 6th.

The participants stressed that the criminal sabotage acts which serve the West’s interests and schemes to fragment the region will consolidate the Syrians’ strength and steadfastness in the face of the conspiracy.

Head of Tishreen newspaper office in Tartous, Mohammad Omran said that targeting the Syrian media reflects the bankruptcy of the western powers in their war against Syria.

In Lattakia, journalists and workers in the media institutions denounced the terrorist attack against the Radio &TV Center in Damascus, stressing  their determination to reveal misleading claims circulated by satellite channels to shed Syrian blood.

They stressed that this terrorist act will not dissuade the Syrian journalists from performing their duties to overcome the attack launched by Arab and western powers to undermine Syria’s people, state and stance.

Chief of the Journalists Union branch in Lattakia and Tartous, Dawood Abbas, said that these terrorist acts aim at silencing the voice of truth and hiding the reality of events taking place. R. Raslan/M. Ismael/F.Allafi/al-Ibrahim

Turkey’s Republican People’s Party Leader: Erdogan Responsible for Situation in Syria

Aug 08, 2012

ANKARA, (SANA)_Leader of the Turkish Republican People’s Party, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, held the Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, responsible for the situation in Syria, urging him to respond to the accusations against his government of arming the opposition and sending gunmen to Syria.

Kilicdaroglu said that the Turkish people who waged the first national liberation war in the region cannot accept their government’s interference in the internal affairs of other countries, indicating that his party will hold Erdogan’s government responsible by the constitution even if he doesn’t attend the emergency meeting to discuss the situation in Syria and south east Turkey, where fighting rages between the Turkish army and the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK) members.

The Turkish authorities have denied media access to the area where the Turkish army is using F-16 warplanes and heavy artillery against the PKK members

Ahmadinejad: Only Way out of Crisis in Syria is Through Political Solutions Based on Syrian People’s Interests

Aug 08, 2012

TEHRAN, (SANA) – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stressed the need to resolve the crisis in Syria through political solutions based on the interests of the Syrian People.

During his meeting in Tehran on Wednesday with Special Envoy of the Pakistani President, Sughra Imam, Ahmadinejad criticized the interference of some regional countries in the Syrian countries which further complicates the situation.

He affirmed that earning people’s freedom and the right to vote isn’t achieved through war, and that the upcoming meetings of the foreign ministers in Tehran and of the leaders of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in Mecca represent an opportunity to adopt political and local solution to the Syrian crisis rather than armed conflicts.

Salehi: Consultative Meeting on Syria will Discuss Ending Violence

Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said that the consultative meeting on Syria will be held on Thursday, attended by 12 or 13 countries from Asia, Africa and Latin America, adding that the number of participating countries might reach 15.

In a statement to the Iranian News Agency on Wednesday, Salehi said ”The main topic of Tehran meeting will be ending violence and national dialogue in Syria,” adding that Iran is focused on putting an end to violence as soon as possible and the importance of starting national dialogue.

On the 48 Iranian visitors kidnapped by armed terrorist groups in Syria, Salehi said that efforts are underway to release them.

Iranian Assistant Foreign Minister: Consultative Meeting in Tehran on Syria Aims to Help Syrian People Overcome the Crisis

Iranian Assistant Foreign Minister for Arab and African Affairs Hossein Amir Abdullahian said that the consultative meeting in Tehran on the situation in Syria aims to help the Syrian people overcome the current crisis.

Mehr News Agency quoted Abdullahian as saying that the meeting is due to be held in Tehran on Thursday, with the participation of a big number of influential Arab and regional countries.

”The participants in the meeting aim to stress rejection of violence as a means to settle disputes,” Abdullahian said, indicating that Tehran meeting will be held for enhancing regional and international efforts to help the Syrian people overcome the current crisis.

He said that the participants in the meeting believe that national dialogue is the best way to restore stability to Syria and pave the way for reaching a solution that is satisfactory to both sides.

Abdullahian said his country sees that the political solutions put forward by the UN envoy to Syria, Kofi Annan, pave the way for ending violence in Syria, adding that the meeting embodies the political will of the participating countries to solve the crisis peacefully.

Russian Defense Ministry Refutes News on Assassinating Russian General in Syria

Aug 08, 2012

MOSCOW, (SANA) – Russian Defense Ministry and a security source on Wednesday said that Gen. Vladimir Cugiev, claimed by Syrian opposition to have been Killed in Syria, is safe and sound and lives, since he retired, in Moscow with his family.

The Ministry described the allegation of the so-called ‘Syrian opposition’ as flagrant lies, adding that such reports are aimed at provoking the Russian military personnel.

In the same context, a source at the Russian security forces said that Cugiev had worked as a consultant to the Defense Minister but he has not visited Syria since his retirement in 2010.

Gen. Cugiev: I am Safe and Sound, Rumors Provoke My Homeland

For his part, Gen. Cugiev told Russia Today Channel that these rumors are not only personal provocations, but also provocations against his homeland.

He stressed that he is in good health, and he lives in Moscow , expressing resentment over the rumors of his killing which have frightened his friends and relatives who started to call him asking about his health.

Russian Embassy in Damascus Refutes News on Assassinating Russian General in Syria

The Russian Embassy in Syrian on Wednesday dismissed media reports alleging that a Russian General was assassinated in Syria.

Novosti News Agency quoted a diplomat at the Embassy as saying that these reports are baseless.

In the same context, a Russian security source said that the retired Gen. Cugiev, claimed by Syrian opposition to be Killed in Syria, is safe and sound in Moscow.

Archbishop Hanna: Syria will come out of the Crisis Victorious

Aug 08, 2012

Qunaitera, (SANA)- Archbishop THEODOSIOS Attalla Hanna, Archbishop of Sebastia of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of the occupied Jerusalem underlined that Syria will come out of the crisis victorious, and will remain the Arab compass as it represents history and civilization.

During a visit to the Occupied Syrian Majdal Shams town to congratulate on the release of prisoner Yousef Shams on Wednesday, Archbishop Hanna called on the Syrians to engage in a constructive dialogue to realize a solution that prevents the Homeland form destruction and chaos.

He reiterated the Palestinians and the occupied Golan citizens’ support to Syria, as leadership and people, to overcome this crisis.

The liberated prisoner Yousef Shams and Sheikh Naseeb Farhat appreciated the support of Archbishop Hanna and the Palestinian people for Syria, stressing that the citizens of Golan will remain the faithful soldiers for the Homeland in the face of foreign plots.

Iranian Foreign Ministry Denies News on Connection between Kidnapped Iranian Visitors in Syria and Iran’s Revolution Guards

Aug 08, 2012

TEHRAN, (SANA) – Senior source at the Iranian Foreign Ministry denied news that claim connection between the Iranian visitors kidnapped by the armed terrorist groups in Syria and the Iranian Revolution Guards.

The source dismissed news on the killing of a number of the kidnapped Iranian visitors as completely baseless.

In the same context, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi called for exerting more efforts to release the kidnapped Iranians in Syria and Libya.

In a letter addressing the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Salehi drew attention to the abduction of 48 Iranian visitors by terrorist gangs, which call themselves “the free army”, on Damascus International Airport road.

Salehi added that unknown gunmen kidnapped 7 members of Iranian Red Crescent visiting Benghazi upon invitation from the Libyan Red Crescent on July 31st.

He expressed the concerns of the Iranian government and families of the kidnapped over the health and security conditions of the Iranian nationals.

He called upon the UN Secretary General to cooperate to release the kidnapped Iranians, considering that the use of these people as human shield violates all international conventions and the human rights.

Iranian Official Affirms that All the Iranians Abducted in Syria are Alive

Director of the Middle East Department at the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Mojtaba Ferdoussipour, affirmed that all the Iranian hostages abducted in Syria are alive, and that Tehran is working to release them.

Ferdoussipour told al-Alam TV that communiqués regarding the fate of the hostages confirm that they are all alive and that there is nothing to confirm that any of them died, saying that news being reported in this regard are incorrect and inaccurate.

He said that intense efforts are being made by countries involved to release them and return them to Iran and that Iran began making contact to this end since the abduction took place, which includes exchange of letters with the US administration, in addition to the visit of Iranian Foreign Minister to Turkey and his meeting with his Turkish counterpart .

He added that due to the relation between the armed groups in Syria and Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, Iran demands that these countries exert efforts to release the abductees.

Syria, China Review Boosting Electrical Cooperation

Aug 08, 2012

DAMASCUS, (SANA) – Minister of Electricity Imad Khamis reviewed with the Chinese Ambassador in Damascus Zhang Xun means of boosting future electrical cooperation between Syria and China.

The two sides discussed standing cooperation projects, contracts and memos of understanding with a number of Chinese companies in the field of electricity generating, importing electrical equipment and enhancing electrical system in Syria.

Minister Khamis and the Chinese ambassador discussed the two sides’ vision to enhance bilateral cooperation and overcome potential difficulties.

The minister expressed the Syrian government’s desire to boost cooperation in electricity and renewable energy investment projects.

Minister Khamis called for finding a mechanism to communicate with Chinese companies to present their bids for establishing investment projects in Syria.

For his part, Ambassador Zhang Xun stressed the deep Syrian-Chinese relations, particularly in the field of electricity, adding that the Export-Import Bank of China, the main funder of the Chinese economic investments and projects, is studying possibility of investment in renewable energy in Syria.

He reiterated China’s commitment to contracts signed between the two countries and following up on implementing projects in Syria.

The ambassador added that the Embassy is organizing a visit for businessmen and companies specialized in electrical energy to Syria to discuss available investment opportunities and enhancing bilateral cooperation

Primakov: Russia’s Position on Syrian Crisis is Moral

Aug 08, 2012

MOSCOW, (SANA) – Veteran Russian politician Yevgeny Primakov said that Russia’s position regarding the crisis in Syria is a moral one, the essence of which is preserving the lives of millions and guaranteeing the stability of an important region, warning than any external interference in Syria’s internal affairs will increase violence.

In an interview with Russkaya Gazeta  newspaper, Primakov said that Russia’s position is based on political interests and gains and that this position is the only valid one in this situation.

He also affirmed that external forces are taking part in the events by supporting the armed opposition and facilitating the entry of mercenaries and training and arming them to fight the Syrian state, noting that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding militants while Turkey provides them with great support.

Primakov said that the orders given by US President Barack Obama to the CIA to support the Syrian opposition is blatant interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign country that poses no threat in any way to the United States or other countries.

He said that the west’s claims of supporting the Syrian opposition because of its desire to achieve democracy and stability in the region are completely false, because the toppling of the Syrian state will not result in democracy nor stability, adding that Al Qaeda’s involvement in the events in Syria alongside the opposition reveals the west’s intentions towards Syria.

For quick reference, this article contains the following sections:

Introduction: Christmas at Grafitos

Part I: The Birth and Development of Plan Socialist Guayana

i) Venezuela’s Worker Control Movement

ii) The Nationalisation of Sidor and the Birth of Plan Socialist Guayana

iii) So what is the PGS?

iv) The Progress of Plan Socialist Guayana 2009 – 2012

Part II: The Promise, Politics and Problems of the PGS

i) Venezuela’s Worker Control Debate

ii) The Political Forces Opposed to Worker Control in Guayana

iii) 2012: Increasingly Public Conflict over Plan Socialist Guayana

Conclusion

An outdoor worker assembly in Alcasa, August 2011 (Prensa Alcasa)

Introduction: Christmas at Grafitos

Walking into the plush corporate style boardroom, I greeted workers from the Grafitos del Orinoco factory before sitting down to conduct the interview. On the white board next to the door, the latest decision of the workers’ factory assembly was still in evidence: whether to pay themselves an end of year bonus. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the workers had reached an almost unanimous consensus, with only one of the factory’s’ fifty-five workers not in favour.

Grafitos workers enjoying their Christmas party in the factory yard, December 2011 (Ewan Robertson)

The sound of meat sizzling on the barbeque, salsa music and laughter drifted in from the factory yard below. It was the December 2011 Christmas party for workers and their families, and they had plenty to celebrate. By their own admission, after a long struggle against the former boss and a trial and error learning process in self-management, the workers at Grafitos had succeeded in consolidating one of the most advanced and successful worker-run factories in the Guyana region, eastern Venezuela. I had previously visited the factory with activists in April 2011, and as part of an investigation into the worker control movement in the region, had returned to see how the workers at Grafitos were getting on.[i]

The struggle for worker control in Grafitos began in early 2009, when the former boss refused to negotiate a new collective contract with the workers’ union and tried to close the factory, taking the machinery with him. In response, the workers began a factory occupation which lasted eight months. For economic reasons many workers had to abandon the struggle, with only 18 remaining in occupation when the Venezuelan government intervened in favour of the workers. The Venezuelan labour ministry released a “decree of temporary occupation for the reactivation of the company”, which in effect awarded the factory to the workers to manage as they saw fit.

The workforce then debated how the factory should be run, and decided that the aim should be a model of collective self-management by the workers themselves: worker control. “We said that worker control was that workers controlled the factory”, explained Henry Escalon, the elected company president. Escalon’s position exists only to fulfil the legal obligation of having a company president, as he himself likes to make clear.

A Grafitos worker, April 2011. His overall reads, “Grafitos del Orinoco: Under Worker Control”. (Ewan Robertson)

A workers council was installed, which from September 2010 debated how to organise the workers’ control of the factory. Escalon and the other workers described to me how at first they had been unprepared for self-management. One of the mistakes that had been made was the attempt to make every decision in a factory assembly with all the workers, which is the “sovereign” decision making body at Grafitos. This proved inefficient and “wore out” workers, with Escalon emphasising that “holding an assembly to agree to buy a screw, no, that’s falling into the abyss”. Yet, in the process of debating and trying different models “we learnt as we went along”.

Through this process of trial and error, the Grafitos workers arrived at their current model of collective management. While the factory assembly of all workers remains the sovereign decision making body, committees are chosen from among the workers to focus on specific areas of the factory, such as finance and production. A commission can also be set up to look into a specific issue or problem. Escalon himself has a committee of eight workers watching over his actions to ensure accountability. Every three months the factory assembly meets, where the commissions and the company president report back to the general assembly, and the factory trade union can also introduce proposals, for example on pay and conditions.

The key decisions are made in the assembly, and every worker has a voice and a vote. Cited examples of decisions taken include making an investment into buying a bus to provide transport for the workers, and agreeing on costs upon which the graphite parts the factory produces will be sold to the nationalised Sidor steel plant, Grafitos’ main client. “It’s to say that here, nothing is done without the workers, all the workers have a minimum or maximum level of participation,” explained one of the committee members, Cesar Barreto. Also, every worker is paid the same (before, the factory boss earned 15 times that of a worker), from the “president” to the cleaner, and workers can change positions if they wish, helping to overcome the division between manual and intellectual labour.

Indeed, the workers feel they have managed to develop a management model that allows workers to democratically organise themselves, and they are willing to support other factories in a similar position, as part of Venezuela’s wider worker control movement. “There are other experiences of fellow comrades on the national level, [but] I think we are one of the most important worker controlled companies in Venezuela, and we are available to accompany fellow workers in the same conflict to keep advancing this idea [of worker control],” said Cesar Barreto.

Sitting comfortably in the boardroom where in the past they could only enter with the permission of the factory owner, workers described economic, psychological and community benefits to the democratic worker control model of factory management, compared with the old hierarchical capitalist model under the boss. Spurred on by a sense of common ownership, the workers have been able to raise production (they informed me in April 2011 that they had just broken their production record). With this, and equal and rising pay enjoyed by each worker, their material quality of life has increased. Workers have, for the first time, managed to get mortgages for a house or own a car, and have enjoyed new benefits such as Christmas bonuses and benefits to buy toys for their children.

Yet more than just material benefits, there have been value-based gains and an increase in the quality of the working environment, including a growing sense that the workers are part of a common project linked to the wider industries of the region. “We no longer come just to sell our labour power for eight hours. We’re part of a hub that boosts the production of the basic industries [of Guayana]…we have raised consciousness, and gained a sense of belonging,” said Escalon. Cesar Barreto conveyed how the relationship between workers had changed, saying “before there was persecution by the boss. Now there is freedom. The sense of fellowship, in comparison with other companies, has been strengthened”. To illustrate their point the workers gave me the example of when one of their colleagues suffered an accident in November 2011. All workers gave two days salary to help him with his recovery, a gesture “from the heart,” as one worker present put it. In the opinion of Barreto “this solidarity and comradeship that’s been constructing itself is really valuable and important” for working life in the factory.

Another change has been the role of the factory in the community. As Barreto explained, “Apart from improving the workers’ quality of life, we want to contribute to society, seeing that the resources we produce are geared toward society”. Along with supplying Venezuela’s nationalised industries and politically supporting other worker control projects, Grafitos allocates a portion of its resources to various community and social causes. These include grants to community groups, funding for school equipment, and donations to international causes such as helping refugees in Haiti after the January 2010 earthquake.

Beyond the sometimes tricky process of developing their worker control model, the factory has faced economic, political and legal challenges. Economically, the factory needed a great deal of investment after the former owner declined to invest for years while running the existing machinery into the ground. As a consequence, some of the factory’s machinery is out of date and workers have had to put a great amount of capital into upgrading it. Politically, Escalon explained that as a result of ordinary workers “from below” assuming administrative tasks and the overall responsibility of running the factory, often outside figures dealing with the plant have treated workers with a lack of recognition and respect. “They practically said to us, “get lawyers [to deal with legal or administrative matters], you aren’t capable of this”. Well, we showed them otherwise. This is one of the most successful factories and experiences in Guyana” he stated, with murmurs of agreement from around the table.

The legal issue for the workers was that ultimately their position rested upon a temporary decree from the government’s labour ministry, albeit renewed several times, which left the possibility of a takeover by a private owner at some point in the future. What the workers wanted was full nationalisation: where the factory was owned by the state to prevent buyout, but run by the workers without interference. As chance would have it, this measure was announced by the government a few days after my December 2011 visit to Grafitos, with the workers communicating to me that they were satisfied with the arrangement. Indeed, now with legal protection from the state, the factory is still running strong under its worker control model.

A last question I had for the workers regarded their views on whether it was possible to have a democratic society without democracy in the economy. Cesar Barreto offered to answer, stating:

“I think that historically in our countries we’ve been sold a false idea of democracy, a democracy where the minority take the economic decisions that affect the great majority. I believe that socialism comes to democratise the economy, that is to say, where everyone is involved in decision making over resources, of the state and its institutions: not continuing to be managed by a minority that takes advantage of the resources produced by the majority. Right now we see in Spain, in Europe, resentment in society against the cases of “democracy” that exist there. Here in Venezuela we’re making an important effort to substitute these relations, the old democracy, with a much more democratic system: so that the decisions are transmitted above from below, not imposed downward from above. I think this is the key to truly begin to change things”.

Part I: The Birth and Development of Plan Socialist Guayana

i) Venezuela’s Worker Control Movement

The National Meeting of Workers for Worker Control, May 2011, Sidor (Prensa Sidor)

As was alluded to in the Grafitos interview, the experience of worker control in the Grafitos factory is one of a number of worker control experiments across Venezuela. This article investigates the development of this movement in recent years, in particular through the Plan Socialist Guayana, and what Venezuela’s experience of worker control means for the Bolivarian revolution and radical social change more generally.

The worker control movement forms one of the most radical social movements in the Venezuela, pushing for a transformation of the existing mode of production and class relations, the division and hierarchy of labour, and decision-making within the economy. Interestingly, the movement has emerged as a political force later on during Venezuela’s Bolivarian revolution, the process of social, political and economic change led by President Hugo Chavez since his election in December 1998. The contemporary worker control movement has its beginnings in the oil lockout December 2002 – January 2003, when bosses tried to shut down the country’s oil industry and economy in order to oust Chavez from power, after a failed coup d’état in April 2002. This attempt at economic sabotage, while causing huge damage to the economy, failed when workers in various industries, including oil, temporarily took over the running of factories in a bid to keep the economy moving and maintain Chavez in power.

In 2005 the first worker controlled factories came into being when the Chavez government expropriated paper factory Invepal and valve factory Inveval in January and April of that year respectively, after workers launched occupations against the former owners. The factories were established in “co-management” with the state, whereby workers owned 49% and the state 51% of the factory and administration was shared between the two. Of the two factories, Inveval developed the deepest worker participation, with decisions made in weekly worker assemblies and a factory council formed in January 2007.[ii]

Key to this process was the relationship between the government and workers struggling for worker control. In 2005 President Hugo Chavez began to promote the idea of worker control as a means of recovering and putting into productivity factories closed by recalcitrant members of the business class, launching his call “company closed: company occupied”. Meanwhile the government’s labour ministry supported the organisation that year of the first “Latin American Meeting of Recovered Companies”.[iii] This was part of a left-turn by the Bolivarian movement after successfully defeating numerous destabilisation attempts by the country’s right-wing opposition, with Chavez announcing in 2005 that the goal of the Bolivarian revolution was the construction of socialism. His government then set about nationalising strategic sectors of the economy such as telecommunications, energy, and food supply chains, and promoting grassroots organisation through communal councils among other mechanisms of participation.

From 2005 a range of factories have been occupied and put beneath various forms of worker control in Venezuela, including state-owned Aluminium factory Alcasa from 2005, Invetex, Central Pío Tamayo, Sideroca, Tomatera, Caisa, Central Cumanacoa (2005/6), Sanitarios de Maracay (2007), Grafitos del Orinoco (2009/10), food chain Friosa (2010), coffee producer Fama de Amerca (2010), and many more. Not every model established since 2005 has remain intact and the process has been fluid and at times uneven, yet the general trend has been a growing number of concrete examples and the popularity of the idea of worker control among Venezuela’s working class. Thus, despite the number of factories under worker control representing only a small part of Venezuela’s economy, by mid-2011 the Bicentenary Front of Companies Under Worker Control (FRETCO) was able to declare: “Currently, the Bolivarian revolution has entered a critical point in which the bourgeoisie has lost control over the exploited. The workers have been acquiring an ever greater level of political consciousness and are organising themselves to respond to the capitalists’ attacks”.[iv]

In their analysis, the FRETCO tie the growth of the worker control movement to the overall fate of the Bolivarian process, arguing:

“We are living in times never before seen in our history. There are factories that have been in the hands of their workers for five years, occupied and operated by them. There aren’t any historical references [in Venezuela] in which this situation has been able to sustain itself for so long without one of its parts being defeated. In other times the bourgeoisie would have used all the power of the state to suppress the worker and grassroots movement”.

ii) The Nationalisation of Sidor and the Birth of Plan Socialist Guayana

Indeed, the relationship between the Venezuelan state and differing sectors of Venezuela’s organised working class has been a key factor in determining advances and setbacks in Venezuela’s worker control movement. Nowhere has this been more marked than in Guayana. This region, sitting alongside the great Orinoco River, enjoys a wealth of natural resources which have given rise to a set heavy industries extracting and manufacturing iron ore, steel, aluminium, bauxite, gold, and more. The most strategic of these industries are owned by the state and the majority are overseen by the government’s Venezuela Guayana Corporation (CVG), and the (former) Ministry of Basic Industries and Mining (MIBAM).[v] After oil, this set of industries is the second industrial motor of the Venezuelan economy and groups together around 30,000 workers.

Guayana has become the key battleground for Venezuela’s worker control movement over the last three years due to the launch of Plan Socialist Guayana (PGS), a joint plan between the Venezuelan state and organised workers in the CVG industries to develop a project of worker control for the entire state-owned industrial complex in the region.

The idea of putting the Guayana state industries under the control of its workers sharply gained momentum with the nationalisation of Sidor in April 2008. The steel plant had been privatised in 1997 under the neoliberal Caldera government, and sold to Argentinian company Techin. According to Sidor union activist Jesus Pino, who spoke with myself and other activists and journalists in April 2011, among other adverse effects on working conditions and safety under the decade of privatisation was the reduction of the numbers of workers under direct employment by Sidor. These workers, who enjoy the benefits of the full collective contract, dropped from 11,000 to 5,000 while the number of subcontracted workers (those who perform the same work but under worse pay and conditions) rose to 9,000.[vi] In early 2008 a fallout between Sidor workers and management over the negotiation of a new collective contract escalated into an all-out struggle by collective and sub-contracted Sidor workers for the re-nationalisation of the plant. However, Sidor’s transnational management was supported by the pro-Chavez governor of Bolivar state Francisco Rangel Gomez, and Chavez’s labour minister Jose Ramon Rivero, who ordered National Guard troops to attack workers.

In one of his key political moves with regards to Venezuela’s labour movement, Hugo Chavez then took the side of the workers, firing his labour minister Rivero and announcing that Sidor would be nationalised. By this point many workers felt that just nationalising the plant was not enough. A Sidor union activist, Juan Valor, said at the time that along with nationalisation and incorporating all sub

contracted workers onto the full payroll “we are proposing that from the start of the productive process worker control exists, because if there isn’t worker control here things will be the same as before, where there wasn’t control of production, of sales, of nothing”.[vii]

After this, workers from across the CVG factories began meeting to discuss the future development of the state industries. Meanwhile Chavez established the Guayana Presidential Commission with representatives from the national executive and links with the workers to debate the same issue. Then on May 21 2009, over 400 workers from across the CVG factories divided into ten working groups, and met with Chavez to present their proposals for the socialist transformation of Guayana’s basic industries under worker control.

The Venezuelan president supported the plan, launching his now famous cry “I play on the side of the workers!” and announced the launch of Plan Socialist Guayana (PGS). He further argued, “It cannot be that you are working in a company, and you aren’t clear on its overall functioning…from the beginning, to sales, the whole productive process must under worker control”.[viii] The workers’ working groups were then set the task of developing the PGS alongside Chavez’s labour minister Maria Cristina Iglesia and planning and development minister Jorge Giordani. From 22 May to 7 June 2009 these ten working groups, comprising over 600 workers, fleshed out the PSG into its final form, which was presented to Chavez on June 9 as Plan Socialist Guayana 2009 – 2019, becoming the blueprint for the future development of Venezuela’s state owned industries in Guayana.

The final report of the plan claims that since public planning of industry in Venezuela began “never before has a plan for the development of public companies been developed like this”.[ix] Meanwhile Elio Sayago, former worker-president of CVG Alcasa, later termed Chavez’s public siding with the regions’ workers and the launch of the PGS as “a launching of the advance of the revolution in the economic sphere”.[x]

iii) So what is the PGS?

The Plan Socialist Guayana June 2009 report introduces the PGS by stating “the aluminium, iron and steel workers of Guayana, alongside the Bolivarian government, have decided to take a step forward in the construction of socialism, by assuming direct control of the production of the region’s heavy industries”.

In pursuit of this aim, and to develop the industries in the manner designed by the workers, the PGS contains nine strategic goals. The first of these is “control of production by the workers”, which calls on workers to convert themselves into guarantors of the state’s social property and stipulates that the construction of “Bolivarian socialism” requires democratising the management and decision-making of companies. The second goal is the development of a revolutionary theory and action that puts workers in active and participatory control of production. This focuses on promoting “socialist values” through collective leadership mechanisms as well as a focus on health, safety and care for the work environment.

The third, significantly, is the integration of all CVG industries into two mega companies, one integrating the iron and steel production process, the other, the aluminium process. A truly massive project, the report argues that integrating production will create a wider consciousness beyond workers’ commitment to their particular company, to the wider Guayana region and Venezuelan society. Other PGS reports further explain that this integrated vision is also aimed at Venezuela’s productive and technological sovereignty, reducing export of primary materials abroad where transnational companies make great profits on Venezuela’s natural resources, and instead producing more goods domestically to address the needs of Venezuelan society, for example in housing construction. This is in line with the government’s own national development plan. Reducing the environmental impact of the region’s industries is another motive behind this strategic goal.

The fourth goal states the importance of the “ideological-political and technical-productive development of workers”, stipulating that factories should guarantee the human development of workers by offering educational opportunities under the principle “every factory is a school”. This is also held as giving workers the necessary political and practical tools to assume control of production. The fifth goal calls for the collective ownership of technology by workers, and the sixth for the guarantee of healthy working conditions (health and safety), in industries which are often dangerous to work in. The seventh aim is the financial viability of projects proposed by workers, stating that every worker has the right to participate in the formulation of projects for implementation in his/her workplace. The eighth is to ensure energy availability for new projects and conduct reviews for how to save energy, key in the context of Venezuela’s 2009 electricity crisis. The final goal is to establish codes for public accountability of the management of the CVG factories.[xi]

The rest of the PGS report sets out detailed policy proposals for the realisation of each of the above goals, a list of projects for the 2009 – 2012 Investment Plan developed by the working groups, and the legal and constitutional framework within which the plan functions. The report concludes by stating that workers must be the main actor in the process of revolutionary change and that “only wide and democratic participation is capable of avoiding bureaucratic monopolisation and distortion of revolutionary processes”.

The emergence of the Plan Socialist Guayana draws attention to the nature of the process of social change underway in Venezuela and the prospects for a transition to socialism here. While there have been dramatic improvements in the guarantee of social rights, an increase in grassroots organisation and empowerment, and innovative economic forms such as cooperatives, social property companies, and others, the Venezuelan economy is still largely based on capitalist social relations. These take the form of either private ownership of production or state ownership, the latter albeit often having different strategic aims such as providing a service (health and education) or fulfilling a social need (housing construction) rather than maximising profit. However, in terms of creating a society based on new relations between human beings, how goods and services are produced, who owns production and how economic decisions are taken, ownership by the state in itself does not necessitate a challenge to hierarchical capitalist power relations, with state appointed managers and bureaucratic officials often replacing the role of private owners. As such, the worker control movement and the PGS mark an important development in Venezuela, particularly if one considers the argument on the nature socialism and democracy: that one requires the other.

The general argument is that socialism, as an emancipatory theory that seeks the removal of all barriers to full human development, requires participatory decision-making mechanisms in both public and economic life. As Marx put it, the aim of a future society should be “where the free development of one is the condition for the free development of all”. This requires active participation in all areas of public and economic life, in order to give people the chance to contribute to decisions affecting them and develop themselves as human beings. Such mechanisms also avoid the formation of elite groups which exploit and wield power over others, and can lead to the bureaucratisation of revolutionary processes. Meanwhile democracy is seen as requiring socialism, as the key principle of democracy is that of “political equality”, the right of all members of a group to have an equal role in decisions taken by that group. Whereas liberals quickly shy away from this principle and argue that political equality can only be applied in a limited fashion on the level of a whole society, through an elected parliament or congress, many socialists take a more holistic and radical stance, pointing out that it is hard to maintain any notion of equality in decision-making in societies where there exist large scale private ownership of the economy and economic decision-making by a privileged elite. As such, in order to realise any meaningful notion of democracy in society, democratic ownership and decision-making is required in the economy, for example through worker control, community councils and communes, and, at minimum, a far-more democratic control over state power than only periodic elections to a parliament: i.e., some form of socialism is required.

Therefore, worker control in Venezuela can be seen as one of the key efforts underway in the country ‘from below’ to introduce mechanisms of democratic decision-making in the economy, laying the basis for radical societal transformation. However, while in Grafitos del Orinoco it has been demonstrably possible to democratically run a factory with a workforce of around 55, how could this be done in a factory with thousands of workers and a more complex production process?

In developing the PGS, the workers proposed a “worker council” model. It has four basic structures to ensure workers’ participation from the factory floor to top level administration. These are Workers’ Councils, Coordination Committees by Productive Process (CCP), the General Management Council, and the Workers’ Assembly. The workers’ councils are the basic unit of participation, with workers forming a council for their section of the productive process, and taking decisions or proposing initiatives related to their work area. The next level of organisation is the Coordinating Council by Process, which works in synergy with all worker councils in a given productive process (i.e. the production of steel bars), and according to a report by one of the PGS working groups “will make visible, manage and articulate all policies approved by the workers’ councils”.[xii] The next level is the general management council, which has representation from the workers, the company presidency (also elected by the workers), the state, and the local community via communal councils. Other mechanisms of participation are health and safety committees, trade unions, specific work commissions, and a PGS spokespersons council, with all bodies accountable to the general workers’ assembly. A diagram of the model is available on the January 2010 PGS report here.[xiii]

iv) The Progress of Plan Socialist Guayana 2009 – 2012

Alongside the launching of the PGS in May 2009, the Venezuelan government nationalised five important iron and steel briquette companies for integration into the planned Iron-Steel and Aluminium socialist corporations. This was seen as a sign of the government’s commitment to the PGS, with Chavez declaring that “these companies must be under worker control. That’s how it must be”.[xiv] After its launch, the workers’ working groups in liaison with Chavez’s ministerial team led by Maria Iglesias and Jorge Giordani were charged with carrying the plan forward. As part of this process the workers formed technical-productive working groups which drew up projects for the PSG investment plan.

On 8 August 2008 workers once again met with Chavez, the result of which was the approval of the Intensive Therapy PGS investment plan. Chavez approved US $313 million for the plan from the government’s Venezuela – China Fund (FCCV), on the condition that this money was administered by the workers. Workshops on health and safety and ensuring accountability were also held, with the participation of 200 workers each.[xv]

A report was published in January 2010 for the attention of President Chavez summarising the progress of the implementation of the PGS. It confirmed a “progressive advance” in worker control over financing with the money from the FCCV, which acted as a morale booster to workers involved in the PGS project. However, it also drew attention to contradictory behaviour by the existing upper and middle management in the CVG companies, which the report charged as paying lip service to the PGS while attempting to ignore the working groups and block the implementation of the plan. Examples cited included individual company managements ignoring the Venezuelan government’s and the PGS’s policy of fusing all industries into two larger corporations, instead each planning their own 2010 budgets and without the participation of the workers. Meanwhile, instead of looking to reduce sale of primary materials to transnationals, several companies were signing contracts committing them to sell material to the Glen and Noble group years into the future. The report also included 28 recommendations for the continued implementation of the PGS, including reducing the sale of primary materials to transnational clients and to use improvements in production to benefit the national health, education and housing sectors, while increasing protection of the environment. It also recommended the working groups, and the workers in general, assume control over the decision-making in the CVG companies, as stipulated in the PGS.[xvi]

The Plan Socialist Guayana moved into a new phase on 15 May 2010 with the appointment of the “worker-presidents” who were nominated by their fellow workers to run the presidencies in each of the CVG companies and sworn in by President Chavez. These included Elio Sayago to Alcasa and Carlos de Oleivera to Sidor (the latter also a member of PGS working group 1). Chavez also announced a series of measures that seemed to be influenced by the PGS working groups, including that CVG industries would reduce high export levels of primary materials and divert their use to local and national projects, and the nationalisation of the system of transporting primary materials, both recommendations of the PGS January 2010 report. Chavez also warned against reluctance on the part of managers and administrators to implement such decisions, declaring that “it’s necessary to defeat such resistance to change,” and that some management positions were occupied by “enemies of the revolutionary process”.[xvii]

Nevertheless, according to a member of PGS working group 1, Blanca Garcia, some decisions made in May 2010 opened the way for bureaucratisation within the PGS. A “Special Sub-Commission” of the PGS was created with nine spokespeople named by the working groups, three government ministers, a National Assembly deputy, and the worker-presidents. While such a body may have helped bring coherence and political weight in the PGS’s implementation, Garcia argues that this opened the path to the formation of a new elite within the PGS, contrary to the need to transform the capitalist social division of labour. Furthermore, Garcia criticises the creation of a “technical secretariat” of the PGS with power being taken away from workers at the base.[xviii]

Nevertheless, through 2010 and 2011 the workers of the CVG industries continued to organise and push forward the PGS. In May 2011 a significant step forward for workers both in Guayana and the national worker control movement occurred, when the first National Meeting of Workers’ Councils met in the Sidor plant. Organised by various groups including the National Union of Workers (Unete), the meeting brought together over 900 worker-activists representing over 100 factories and 21 of Venezuela’s 24 regional states. Participants discussed the progress, strengths and weaknesses as well as how to advance the worker control movement. A common theme at the meeting was a concern that bureaucratic sectors of the state were undermining the implementation of worker control projects. It is important to keep in mind, as US academic Peter Brohmer noted after a recent research trip to Venezuela, “[the term] bureaucracy in Venezuela includes corruption, favouritism, clientalism, nepotism, incompetence, indifference, and needless red tape, etc”.[xix]

At the conference, Elio Sayago drew attention to attempts at destabilising the Alcasa factory and removing him from office, centred around opposition to worker control by the pro-Chavez, yet reactionary, governor of Bolivar state (where the CVG industries are located), Francisco Rangel Gomez.[xx] From this meeting a plan was also agreed to constitute a national platform for the worker control movement, with several follow-up meetings taking place. According to worker control advocate and CVG Ferrominera worker Alexis Adarfio, “From the meeting came the preparation of a document to strengthen the bases of worker control, with a philosophy, an organisation, basically a working agenda emerged from the meeting to strengthen ourselves throughout Venezuela”.[xxi]

The entrance to Ferrominera, which states the company is a “Socialist Corporation” (Ewan Robertson, April 2011)

In August 2011 CVG Alcasa was able to report progress both in the implementation of worker control and in other strategic goals of the PGS, when the factories’ worker assembly approved a plan which allowed for the investment of national clients into Alcasa in order to increase production to meet domestic needs, part of a policy of ending aluminium exports to transnational clients. The plan was elaborated by the Coordination Committees by Process with participation from the workers councils.[xxii]

Another sign of progress during 2011 included the formation of the PGS General Assembly in May 2011. This assembly was formed as a space for workers across the Guayana industries who support the PGS to meet weekly to discuss the PGS’s implementation and support the efforts of the PGS working groups.

Other developments included consolidating, in several CVG industries, the “Jesus Rivero” Bolivarian Workers University, a key institution for workers’ political and technical education, defining the structure of CVG corporations to comply with their status as “socialist companies”, and in October 2011 the creation of an organisation for purchases and sales in the iron – steel and aluminium sectors.[xxiii]

In December 2011 I caught up with Alexis Adarfio for an interview. A member of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) and supporter of Chavez, he has an intimate knowledge of the PGS, driving forward the implementation of the PGS in CVG Ferrominera from his position as coordinator of social-political education in the iron-ore company.

He reported that in Ferrominera and other industries a process of debate among workers (which I’d observed underway in April 2011) was culminating, which had formed the norms and rules for the functioning of workers councils, the philosophy of worker control, the theory of changing the social relations of production, etc. Of 7,000 workers in Ferrominera, 5,000 had participated in this debate.

With the norms and rules agreed for the functioning of workers councils and other bodies, the timetable for the implementation of worker control in Ferrominera was, first, for the diffusion of norms in the first months of 2012, followed by an internal electoral process for workers councils and implementation of the worker council model by June 2012. Adarfio argued that the workers councils “will allow internal democracy in the company, the democratisation of decision-making, by making decisions in councils and [worker] assemblies, all of the decisions: over production, consumption and distribution inside the industry”. He said workers councils will be formed by spokespeople elected in worker assemblies, which will become the decision-making bodies in the company. To avoid professionalisation of spokespeople, positions will be rotational and held for one year, and can be recalled by the workers assembly during that time.[xxiv] As of June 2012, the spokespeople’s elections have taken place in Sidor, CVG Venelum (aluminium) and Cavelum (aluminium), with the norms and rules still being established in advance of elections in the other CVG companies.

Part II: The Promise, Politics and Problems of the PGS

While the Plan Socialist Guayana has developed as described in part I of this article, the project for a socialist transformation of the region’s industries has been subject to a wider debate and political battle. The nature of the arguments, political factions and dynamics of conflict that surround the PGS and the worker control movement have important ramifications for understanding the nature of the Bolivarian revolution and for the wider debate on revolutionary social change in general. To cover these issues, part II of this article addresses (1) the debate in Venezuela around worker control and the PGS, (2) the various factions opposed to the PGS and the role they have played in attempting to prevent its implementation, and (3) the course of the conflict around the PGS in 2012.

i) Venezuela’s Worker Control Debate

Supporters of worker control and the PGS offer a number of arguments in favour of the idea. On the level of political values and ideology, worker’s control is generally held to be opposed to capitalist relations of production. Adarfio declared in May 2010 that the PGS represents a “declaration of principles in the war against capitalism,”[xxv] while former worker-president of CVG Alcasa, Elio Sayago, argues, the PGS involves “a deepening of the search to intervene in the mode of production…aiming to develop productive forces and transform the social relations of production”. This is explicitly promoted in the PGS reports, which advocates workers replacing a hierarchical management model with collective decision-making and ending the division of labour between intellectual/managerial and manual labour positions. Alcasa union activist and safety officer Denny Sucre explained to me that this aims for a situation where “the workers in the company don’t feel like an object, but rather an active subject in decision-making…in control of the productive process, but also the administrative process”.

Part of this project is the attempt to change dominant values from an individualistic to a more cooperative outlook. Sayago states his opinion that collective decision-making helps create a “collective work culture” where workers labour together to produce for the benefit of society. Collective and equal participation also make for better decision making, where “the best actions are decisions taken when you work in a group, with respect and cooperation. This action brings together all the knowledge from all the different variables involved…therefore a better decision will be taken”. [xxvi]

Politically, worker control and the PGS have implications for power relations in the Guayana industries, where a set of vested interests already enjoys economic and political power over the CVG. This includes state bureaucrats and managers in the Guayana industries, the CVG management and Bolivar state governorship, transnational companies who buy primary materials, and a “labour aristocracy” in the union movement. A common argument put forward by workers in favour of worker control is that the PGS “sentences to death” the power of such groups, including according to Adarfio “a labour elite [that] has held crumbs of political power, which it always uses for its individual interests in detriment to the rest of the people”. As such, the PGS is widely seen as initiating a “battle inside the companies,” for the future political and productive development of the industries.[xxvii]

Worker control is also argued as necessary for gearing industry toward producing for social need over private profit. Sayago, Adarfio, and the PGS reports make clear that worker control is linked to reducing or ending the export of primary resources to transnational companies, to instead manufacture primary materials inside Venezuela to produce for domestic needs, from health to housing. It is also sometimes argued that increasing production is not a priority as Venezuela’s primary resources should be conserved, along with controlling energy use and protecting the environment.[xxviii] As such, workers point to concrete successes achieved by the PSG working groups despite opposition from other political sectors to the plan’s implementation. Geanes Córdova, a member of PGS working group 4, explained how the PSG working groups in Sidor dealing with subcontracted labour and energy issues have both introduced successful projects, with the first achieving the incorporation of 6,800 cooperative members onto Sidor’s collective contract and the latter succeeding in constructing two thermoelectric plants that helped solve the nations’ 2009-2010 energy crisis.[xxix] Meanwhile, Denny Sucre described to me how Alcasa was planning to begin producing profiles for housing construction in support of the Venezuelan government’s mass housing building program launched May 2011.[xxx]

It’s worth keeping in mind that workers in favour of the PGS also have differing notions of how radical worker control should be. Lisa Maria, who works in the social development department of Ferrominera, felt that worker control is more of a consultative exercise, “that they [translator: it is assumed that “they” refers to company management or administrative staff] take us into account with decisions they make over investments”.[xxxi] Meanwhile Ruben Dario Morales, of Ferrominera’s legal and community department, argued that the PGS should construct “a new management model where workers can truly participate in the decision-making of the future of our company,” however he also argued that this process “doesn’t have any other objective than guaranteeing the productivity and permanence of this company”.[xxxii]

Other workers, especially those participating more deeply in the design and implementation of the PGS, see worker control of the CVG industries as a more radical project, acting as a step in the construction of socialism and the assuming of political power by the Venezuelan working class. Denny Sucre of Alcasa expressed his opinion that:

“This process has to do with participation in all if its aspects, where involvement doesn’t have limits: it has to break barriers, and go further still, because this process we’re determined to construct… is going to give vanguard signals from Alcasa, from Bolivar state, that yes the workers are capable of going much further than the transformation of productive processes. It’s not just about the transformation of productive processes anymore, but about how the workers also have the power of the state, we’re going to take power”.[xxxiii]

The view that workers are collectively capable of assuming more than just the running of factories was also voiced in Grafitos del Orinoco, with Carlos Becerra stating his hope that the PGS could “be a launching pad in the construction of socialism …to begin to direct the factory and in the not too distant future, direct the state too”.[xxxiv]

There are also arguments posed against both worker control in Venezuela in general, and the PGS in particular. State bureaucrats and managers, and sectors tied to the transnationals and the conservative political opposition, argue that workers don’t have the capability or consciousness to run their own factories. This was even expressed in a limited way by Ferrominera worker Lisa Maria who indicated her opinion that some workers don’t understand what worker control is.[xxxv] A more sophisticated argument made by reformist sectors within the Bolivarian process argues that Venezuela is an oil based economy without a developed working class, and so the Bolivarian project is in fact a “transition” to creating a national bourgeoisie and developing the forces of production. The Bicentenary Front of Companies Under Worker Control (FRETCO) organisation rejects the latter argument as “reactionary, and not revolutionary,” and based on hypocrisy, given that those making such arguments are defending their existing political and economic interests in the state apparatus and actively conspiring to make experiments in worker control fail.[xxxvi]

An argument made by some leftist currents is that worker control as conceived within the PGS is flawed as it is formed in conjunction with the state, given that the influence of the government and state-appointed managers in the industries can lead to a bureaucratisation of moves toward full worker control. When the PGS was launched, Orlando Chirino, a leader of the National Union of Workers (UNETE) union federation, urged workers to fight to make sure nationalised companies don’t continue

on as capitalist companies in the hands of the state, and that “worker control is not limited to the workers participating in the election of managers”.[xxxvii]

Advocates of the PGS with whom I spoke to took a pragmatic approach to the issue. Denny Sucre argued that “co-responsibility” with the state is necessary because the CVG industries depend on the state for subsidies and parts, however that “when we reach our production capacity then we will be independent from the state”. In this context, it is worth mentioning that although the PSG project has experienced a complicated and often prejudicial relationship with the Venezuelan state, almost all workers advocating worker control I spoke to (in Sidor, Alcasa, Ferrominera, and Grafitos del Orinoco) were supportive of the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez. They saw him as backing worker control and the PGS, given his public support of worker control and the PGS project, and concrete actions taken such as in May 2010 to push the plan forward.

A view worth mentioning is that of Damian Prat, a Guayana based-journalist who also writes for Tal Cual, a newspaper associated with the right-wing opposition. In an interview I had with him, he gave voice to criticisms that production and safety records in some CVG industries had not improved or had even worsened under state management, which he argued pointed to the incompetence of the Chavez government. He also dismissed the PGS as a government mechanism “to control the workers, making them believe that now it’s they who govern, to eliminate their labour rights…what a marvel, how are you going to complain [to the state] if you’re the owner of the company?”.[xxxviii]

While Prat’s criticisms of problems in production and management faced by the CVG industries may hold weight, his political analysis of their root cause does not. As member of PGS working group 1 Blanca Garcia points out, those fighting for worker control are themselves critical of the fact that the CVG industries are in a “critical state” of operation. However, Garcia explains that the reasons for this are “political not technical”.[xxxix] To put it another way, the problems within the state industries are not simply due to a bureaucratic form of state management that would be solved by privatisation, as Pratt seems to suggest. Rather, they are rooted in the reality that the CVG industries have become the site of an intense political conflict in which the nature of the Bolivarian revolution and the future of the worker control movement in Guayana are being contested. Furthermore, the way in which vested interests within the Bolivarian camp (in state institutions, the CVG, and the Bolivar state governorship) have tried to prevent the implementation of the PGS makes the notion that the PSG is a government plan to control workers unlikely to say the least.

ii) The Political Forces Opposed to Worker Control in Guayana

As mentioned, both the Plan Socialist Guayana and the wider worker control movement challenge existing power relations. In particular, the advance of the PGS in the CVG industries has provoked opposition from a range of groups, from the country’s right-wing opposition and multinational companies, to corrupt or reactionary politicians, mafias, trade union bureaucrats, and state managers within the Bolivarian camp. The internal conflict over worker control between different groups identifying themselves with the Bolivarian revolution has revealed one of the sharpest existing contradictions in the revolution at present.

More radical groups in favour of worker control, such as the pro-government UNETE and the FRETCO, highlight reactionary and bureaucratic elements within the Bolivarian revolution as a as one of the greatest threats to the advance of worker control and the revolution as a whole. Sections of the UNETE have described these sectors as “counterrevolutionary” and a “fifth column” which are “as dangerous as imperial aggression and economic sabotage by big business” for the continuance of the Bolivarian revolution.[xl]

Former worker-president of Alcasa, Elio Sayago, succinctly explained the issue at stake in an interview October 2011. He argued that in the first ten years of the Bolivarian revolution, some people took advantage of the popularity of the process by proclaiming their support for Chavez and the revolution in order to get into positions of influence and power, however, are not genuinely committed revolutionaries. “Now they have these privileges and don’t want to lose them,” he said.

For Sayago, what worker control and the Plan Socialist Guayana has done is to present vested interests within the revolution the question: “Are you ready to share power with the workers and the people?” This issue is creating confrontation within the process. Sayago thus stated his opinion that by resisting the advance of worker control:

“[Political opportunists and state bureaucrats] are potentially converting themselves into enemies of the revolution, because the revolution means a real process of transformation…this is what is being put to the test within our own government; who is prepared to share power with the workers and organised communities, and who is trying to continue with the same structure of “I command and you obey”.[xli]

Resistance to the implementation of the Plan Socialist Guayana by elements within Venezuelan state institutions, including the former Ministry of Basic Industries and Mining (MIBAM), and the Venezuela Guayana Corporation (CVG), the government’s steering organisation in Guayana responsible for the administration of the state-owned heavy industries, has been reported by pro-PGS activists.

A key figure to oppose the PGS has been United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) governor of Bolivar state, Francisco Rangel Gomez (himself a former CVG president), who is considered to represent a reactionary wing within the Bolivarian process. From the beginning of the plan’s implementation in 2009, Rangel has worked to undermine the PGS with an informal alliance of bureaucrats and reformists within the MIBAM, CVG and the Bolivarian Workers Force (FBT) trade union.[xlii]

In giving an overview of the advance of the PSG, Alcasa union activist Denny Sucre said that from some public state institutions, such as the CVG and MIBAM, there had been “obstructive factors…which have not allowed the advance and progress of what we are driving”.[xliii] PGS activist in Sidor Blanca Garcia reported that Jose Khan, appointed minister of MIBAM in April 2010, stopped meeting with the PSG working groups in December 2010, essentially side-lining their proposals.[xliv] Elio Sayago himself complained in October 2011 that the US $403 million approved for Alcasa by President Chavez in 2010 still hadn’t materialised, seemingly frozen by the bureaucracy of the CVG and MIBAM.[xlv]

When the Sidor steel plant held trade union elections in October 2011, the Revolutionary Marxist Current (CMR), a radical grouping within Venezuela’s United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), accused government figures Jose Khan, Venezuelan vice president Elias Jaua, and labour minister Maria Cristina Iglesias of attempting to influence the election to try and get a candidate considered as less committed to the PGS elected as head of the Sidor trade union.[xlvi] Meanwhile on 6 October 2011, perhaps reflecting a hardening stance among those opposed to the PGS, Elio Sayago found himself barred from entering a PGS Sub-Commission meeting with government ministers and CVG company presidents, apparently at the behest of Khan, Cristina Iglesias, foreign minister Nicolas Maduro and planning and finance minister Jorge Giordani.[xlvii]

After a period in which the worker control movement had made many advances, including receiving “constant support” from President Hugo Chavez, the FRETCO organisation warned in July 2011 that “reformist sectors are grouping themselves together once again to intervene against the working class…they’ll do it to demonstrate that workers can’t administer companies, let along societies…it’s at this point in the struggle that the interests of the bourgeoisie and state reformists and bureaucrats are the most similar”.[xlviii]

A similar warning was expressed by the Alcasa Socialist Workers Front in January 2012, who issued a communication that the “internal right-wing” faction based around Francisco Rangel Gomez and the FBT union was engaged in a campaign to gain control the CVG companies. According to the statement, the aims of this faction were to make the PGS “unworkable”, and to achieve “the elimination of worker control,” and “the removal of Sayago,” replacing him with Angel Marcano, an ally and personal friend of Rangel Gomez, as Alcasa president. In the view of the Alcasa union, if the Rangel faction were to achieve these goals “all the achievements of the Bolivarian Revolution in the basic industries would be brought down”.[xlix]

Some trade union bureaucrats and reformist unions have also opposed the PGS. According to pro-PGS activists, this sector of the union movement have employed tactics such as collaborating with state bureaucracy, overtly attacking worker control experiments, and setting up alternative “working groups” to usurp the process from within.[l] As Jorge Martin argues, the reason for many union bureaucrats’ opposition to worker control is that under current labour relations “having control of the union in any of these companies gives these bureaucrats power, privileges and access to key information,”[li] a position threatened by a more participatory form of management.

The role of the FBT union, in league with state governor Rangel Gomez, has been particularly notorious in undermining worker control. One of the most extreme examples of this was in Alcasa in January-February 2011, when the FBT led a thirty-four day closure of the Alcasa factory, with the involvement of Angel Marcano. Sayago himself was beaten up when he tried to enter the factory.[lii]

Unions tied to Venezuela’s conservative opposition have also acted to undermine the PGS worker control experiment. Benjamin Moreno, the coordinator of PGS working group 1, related in a recent interview how, as the PGS began to advance, a “Machiavellian” plan was employed whereby certain union members formed alternative ‘working groups’ to undermine those originally constituted, with members of the Homeland for All (PPP) opposition-aligned party involved in this move.[liii] Ferrominera worker Ruben Dario Morales also expressed to me in December 2011 his hope that the worker control model would be sufficiently strong enough by the October 2012 presidential elections, as sectors aligned with the political opposition “aspire to generate a convulsion or chaos inside of our company”.[liv]

Mafia networks within the basic industries are also resistant to the PGS, with the greater accountability and openness entailed in the plan acting as a threat to the operation of networks profiting from the sale of contracts and stealing of products for sale on the black market. This issue became prominent in June 2011 when the head of sales at Sidor, “King of Bars” Luis Velazquez, was arrested for heading a mafia that stole steel bars from Sidor and sold them on the black market for a higher price. Worker-president at Sidor Carlos Oliviera and revolutionary trade unionists were involved in finding proof and alerting the authorities.[lv]

Opposed to any and all efforts at worker control are the influential multinational corporations that buy primary materials from the CVG companies. This is unsurprising, as the PSG aims to obtain better terms of contract from multinational companies and aspires to reduce exports to multinationals overall. These corporate interests were directly attacked by Alcasa under the presidency of Elio Sayago, which stopped complying with disadvantageous future sales contracts with Swiss-based commodities trader Glencore and then took steps to cut off Aluminium exports to the multinational altogether.[lvi]

iii) 2012: Increasingly Public Conflict over Plan Socialist Guayana

The conflict over the PGS has intensified in 2012. This reflects in particular the exacerbation of the conflict within the Bolivarian revolution between the bureaucracy and reactionary political sectors, and those forces genuinely committed to further radical transformation.

In a surprise announcement, on 25 February Venezuelan Vice-President Elias Jaua announced that, by order of President Chavez, Elio Sayago was to be replaced by Angel Marcano as president of Alcasa. The release of the $403 million due to Alcasa was also announced. Chavez was in Cuba undergoing treatment for cancer at the time.

Alcasa workers reacted with fury to the news, designating the move a “state coup” against the PGS, and accused the Rangel faction of taking advantage of Chavez’s moment of weakness to get him to sign Sayago’s dismissal in an “underhand” manner. They further called upon organised communities and social movements in Guayana to resist what they termed as a “disastrous” strategy by the government.

Sayago himself said he had not been previously informed of the move, and that given Marcano’s role in the Alcasa factory lockout the previous year, termed his appointment a “contradiction in terms”. He continued, “It is my responsibility to inform you all that this is not a person taking control of Alcasa, but rather a political and economic group…that for practically two years has tried to obstruct efforts to consolidate worker control [in Alcasa]”.[lvii]

The press conference announcing the formation of the Patriotic Collectives of Popular Revolutionary Resistance in Guayana, February 2012 (Tribuna Popular)

In response to Sayago’s dismissal, a large network of organisations and individuals representing the more radical wing of the Bolivarian revolution grouped themselves together into an organisation called Patriotic Collectives of Popular Revolutionary Resistance in Guayana. The Patriotic Collectives, also linked through their participation in the Great Patriotic Pole, a coalition of social movements in favour of Bolivarian revolution, declared their support for the “deepening” of the revolutionary process led by Chavez while opposing “bureaucratic and counter-revolutionary” decisions being taken from the Bolivar state governorship, the CVG and certain union leaders.

In a packed press conference on 29 February, a spokesperson for the group accused this bureaucratic faction of having “taken advantage” of Chavez’s absence in order to take control of the Guayana industries. The spokesperson further argued that the decision by Alcasa not to sell more aluminium to transnational companies was the “sin” that cost Sayago his post.

The spokesperson, Yasmin Chaurán, an Alcasa worker herself, also reported that since taking the Alcasa presidency Angel Marcano had already begun undermining the structures of worker control in the factory, not attending factory working group meetings, and instead setting up a “parallel apparatus” with six vice-presidents who were naming other posts “at their fingertips”.[lviii]

After the press conference, on 2 and 7 March, the Patriotic Collectives released a “National Communication from Guayana on the Situation of the Basic Industries”. The document received wide coverage, with publication on the Aporrea alternative news website and a centre-spread in Tribuna Popular, the Venezuelan Communist Party’s paper.

Its long list of signatories also revealed the Patriotic Collectives’ depth of support, including: the National Union of Workers, the Venezuelan Communist Party, the National Movement of Bolivarian Socialist Lawyers and Judges, Adel El Zabayar (a PSUV deputy to Venezuelan’s National Assembly from Bolivar state), the PGS General Assembly, revolutionary workers’ organisations in the CVG industries and beyond, and community council, community media, student and GPP organisations in the Guayana region.

The document is a public criticism of what the Patriotic Collectives term the “internal right-wing” within the revolution in Bolivar state, warning that “harmful bureaucratic actions” emanating from the Bolivar state governance is “grinding down the revolutionary process” in the region.

Accusing this faction of working with transnational corporations, trying to retain control of state industries in the region and to “kidnap” the PGS, the statement exhorts Chavez to ignore “reformist voices” that want to see the PGS project fail. They further declare that “irreverence” and “self-criticism” are indispensable for the revolution, and call on Chavez to support the PGS, which is “without a doubt, with all its strengths and weaknesses…the minimum program of the revolutionary working class in Guayana”.

The Patriotic Collectives end their National Communication by setting a hard tone against the political faction they identify as working against the PGS, declaring “in Guayana we are closing ranks against the right-wing agenda of destabilisation and from our humble but determined trench of struggle we put ourselves to the front of the battle for the reinvigoration of Plan Socialist Guayana”.[lix]

A response came on 8 March when a spokesperson for the political team of the PSUV for Bolivar state, allied with Rangel Gomez, insisted that the decision to replace Sayago with Marcano was endorsed by Chavez and should be respected.

The spokesperson was Jose Ramon Rivero, the labour minister fired by Chavez in 2008, who had then gone on to work for Rangel Gomez. He proceeded to read out two pages in which very little was said that addressed the content of the Patriotic Collectives’ criticism, but rather attacked both PSUV National Assembly deputy Adel El Zabayar and others for allegedly breaking party codes of conduct. “This type of behaviour that attacks the governor Francisco Rangel Gomez and his work team, we can’t tolerate it because there exist principles that the PSUV and revolutionaries committed with the process must follow,” he declared.

The Legislative Council of Bolivar state, whose majority support Rangel Gomez, also backed the appointment of Marcano to the Alcasa presidency. Without dealing with the substance of concerns raised by Sayago’s dismissal, Legislative Council member Zulay Benacourt said that individual positions should not be taken in the revolution, and that Sayago should re-think his criticism of Marcano’s appointment.[lx]

The conflict spilled onto the national level in late March when PSUV deputy Adel El Zabayar asked Venezuela’s Attorney General, Luise Ortega Diaz, for a psychiatric examination of Rangel Gomez, on the grounds that the behaviour of Rangel in attacking El Zabayar and the Patriotic Collectives represented “an abuse of power, xenophobia, and exclusion” toward those with a different viewpoint than him.

El Zabayar quoted as evidence the abuses uttered against him by Rangel Gomez on the state governor’s weekly radio show, when Rangel said that in response to criticisms of his actions “that have absolutely no proof” from El Zabayar, “now I’m opening fire, and we’re going to face off in the street: you’re a deputy and I’m a state governor, so let’s face off in the street coward deputy!”

El Zabayar described Rangel Gomez’s conduct as using him to “intimidate the [Patriotic] collective…who have been submitted to all of his excesses without having restrained himself in this exercise of power, due to which I believe a psychiatric examination is prudent”.[lxi]

Therefore in 2012 the worker control movement in Venezuela, and in Bolivar state in particular, finds itself in a key moment. The many achievements by workers in taking over and collectively running individual factories, and in driving forward a project of worker control for the state owned heavy industries in Guayana, have generated a backlash, not only among the US-backed conservative political opposition, transnational companies and private bosses, but also among a reactionary and bureaucratic faction within the Bolivarian revolution itself.

This is because progress made by workers threatens those who only support Chavez for personal gain and political opportunism, and see their special privileges or vested interests threatened by worker control: there is little need for state managers or union bureaucrats if workers eliminate hierarchies and operate factories themselves in a participatory democratic manner. It also undermines those who hold a more restrictive view of what socialism is and argue that workers are ‘not ready’ to operate factories themselves. Indeed, there are those in the government that hold socialism to be little more than state ownership of industry and central planning from above, with little participation from workers.[lxii] Thus, while in many individual examples like Grafitos del Orinoco workers continue to deepen their worker control model, and in several CVG factories elections for workers councils are underway, in others, this reactionary faction is successfully undermining the PGS. This is particularly evident in Alcasa, which was considered by many as the most advanced of the CVG factories in implementing the PGS.

The role of President Hugo Chavez himself has displayed contradictions. Through both his discourse and action, Chavez has given important on-going institutional and moral support for the PGS and worker control in general, and it is not for nothing that he enjoys strong support among worker control activists. However, the Venezuelan president has also made decisions in response to differing political pressures and depending on the balance of forces in a particular situation, as highlighted in his dismissal of his right-wing labour minister Rivero in 2008, and his acceptance of the dismissal of Sayago in January 2012.

Chavez has not directly intervened in the conflict in Bolivar state over the PGS in recent months. The Venezuelan president only fully re-emerged onto the public scene in late May after successfully undergoing several stages of radiotherapy treatment for cancer in Cuba. In light of presidential elections on October 7, and an opposition united behind candidate Henrique Capriles Radonski, it is quite possible that Chavez has his eye focused on the national strategic objective of keeping the right wing opposition out of power and continuing as the head of the Bolivarian revolution.

Indeed, during a speech to mark the 10th anniversary of the brief coup against him 11 – 13 April 2002, Chavez exhorted supporters to “maintain unity…and above all, more unity,” and to strengthen that unity with “debates and criticisms”. This message likely makes sense in many areas of the country, where differing factions within the Bolivarian camp can come together during the presidential election campaign to see off the (albeit distant) electoral threat posed by the conservative Table for Democratic Unity (MUD) coalition. However, this is more difficult to maintain in Bolivar state, where a reactionary faction within the revolution poses one of the active threats to worker control in the heavy industries and the continued progress of the Bolivarian revolution in the Guayana region as a whole.

Conclusion

The course of the struggle for worker control in Venezuela has highlighted important characteristics of the Bolivarian revolution, as well as containing important lessons for movements for radical social change globally.

One of these characteristics is the on-going, and perhaps growing, internal contradiction in the Bolivarian revolution between the bureaucracy and politically reformist elements which, both consciously and unconsciously, act to slow continued social, economic and political transformation, and a more radical wing committed to a deeper process of revolutionary change.

On a positive note, the coming together of the Patriotic Committees in Guayana demonstrated the extent to which grassroots organisations in the region are working together and are able to unite to resist attempts to undermine the Plan Socialist Guayana. That said, these groups were unable to prevent the dismissal of Elio Sayago from Alcasa, showing that the bureaucracy have the power to put the PGS in real danger from being realised.

It is important to point out that the worker control movement is one part of a varied and exciting process underway in Venezuela, encompassing community councils, communes, community media, women’s, LGBT, afro-descendent and indigenous groups, and radical government policies domestically and internationally, from social programs to solidarity-based international alliances such as the ALBA (Alliance for the Bolivarian Peoples of our America). The political spaces available to push the worker control movement forward will be partly determined, not only by workers’ ability to organise and struggle, but also by the general direction the revolution takes in the coming months and years.

Author Steve Ellner has observed how the Bolivarian revolution can be characterised by cycles of radicalisation, often driven in response to successfully fighting off attacks from the opposition.[lxiii] Will a strong election victory for Chavez in October mark a move against internal barriers to further radical transformation in Venezuela? In the election campaign on 26 July, Chavez highlighted his awareness of the problems of bureaucracy in state institutions, when he spoke of the importance of self-criticism and the need to correct existing errors in the revolutionary process. He personally addressed the bureaucracy, saying that “the office, the meetings, the analysis, the air conditioning, the chauffeur and the good salary; that’s not worth anything, what matters is the commitment with the people, that’s why we’re here”.

Finally, by what has been achieved so far, Venezuela’s worker control movement demonstrates to the world that workers can indeed collectively self-manage their factories and workplaces, and that capitalist hierarchies and divisions of labour are not the only, nor best, way of organising economic life. By running production in a collectively democratic manner, workers’ alienation from their labour and the unfair distribution of produced resources can be overcome, while leading to the greater education and consciousness of workers. Such a model can also benefit society as a whole, as production is geared toward the needs of society and not profit for capitalists, and lays the basis for deeper economic and social transformation. In the context of austerity being imposed by an elite upon peoples across Europe and North America as a result of the latest crisis of capitalism, worker control in Venezuela is another example of not only how another, better, world is possible, but also what that world could look like.

Endnotes

[i] Information on Grafitos gathered during interviews in April and December 2011, Ciudad Guayana. All direct quotes from December 2011 interview.

[ii] Azzellini, D. (2009) Economía Solidaria, Formas De Propiedad Colectiva, Nacionalizaciones, Empresas Socialistas, Co- y Autogestión en Venezuela, Org & Demo, Marília., vol. 10 n. 1/2 (En – Feb), p17-18

[iii] Brulez, S. & Esteban, F. (2010) El Laboratorio del “Socialismo del Siglo XXI” Sigue Buscando l Fórmula Adecuada (Parte I), Viento Sur, n. 112 (Oct), p28

[iv] FRETCO (July 2011): El Frente Bicentenario de Empresas Bajo Control Obrero, Lucha de Clases

[v] In November 2011 MIBAM was restructured, with most heavy industries managed by the new Ministry of Industries, and mining operations administrated by the new Ministry of Petroleum and Mining.

[vi] Interview with Jesus Pino in Sidor, Ciudad Guayana, April 2011

[vii] Riera, M. (2008), Nacionalización y Control Obrero: Entrevista con Juan Valor, El Viejo Tope, n. 249, pp64 – 68

[viii] FRETCO (July 2011)

[ix] Informe Final (6/06/09), Plan Socialista Guayana 2019 , Periodo 2009 – 2012, p 4

[x] Lucha de Clases & Sayago, E. (October 2011), Workers’ Control, Challenges and the Revolutionary Government: An Interview with Elio Sayago, President of CVG Alcasa, translated by Venezuelanalysis.com

[xi] Informe Final (6/06/09), Plan Socialista Guayana 2019, pp7 – 11

[xii] Presentation of Plan Guayana Socialista by Working Group 1: “Organisational Model of the Iron-Steel and Aluminium Socialist Companies”, p24

[xiii] Informe de Mesas Tecnicas del Plan Socialista Guayana 2009 – 2019 (January 2010), p11

[xiv] (22/5/2009) Venezuela Nationalises Gas Plant and Steel Companies, Pledges Worker Control, Venezuelanalysis.com

[xv] Garcia, B. (September 2011) Plan Socialista Guayana Postrado por la Technocracia del CVG y MIBAM, Aporrea.org

[xvi] Informe de Mesas Tecnicas del Plan Socialista Guayana 2009 – 2019 (January 2010)

[xvii] (16/5/2010), Worker Self-Management Introduced in Primary Industry Companies in Guayana, Venezuela, Venezuelanalysis.com

[xviii] Garcia, B. (September 2011)

[xix] Brohmer, P (June 2010), Venezuela: The Revolution Continues, Bolivarian Perspectives

[xx] With information from Larsen, P. (9/6/2011), Venezuela: 900 Representatives of Factory Committees Meet to Strengthen the Fight for Workers’ Control, PeopleResist.net, and (24/5/11), First National Meeting of Socialist Workers’ Councils Takes Place in Bolivar, Venezuela, Venezuelanalysis.com

[xxi] Interview with Alexis Ardarfio, Ciudad Guayana, December 2011

[xxii] (19/8/2011), Trabajadores de CVG Alcasa Aprueban Recibir Inversiones de Clientes Nacionales, Prensa CVG Alcasa / Aporrea.org

[xxiii] Adarfio, A. (25/10/2011), ¿Cómo Avanza el Plan Socialista Guayana?, Aporrea.org

[xxiv] Interview with Alexis Ardarfio, December 2011, Ciudad Guayana

[xxv] Adarfio, A. (9/5/2010), Plan Guayana Socialista 2019, Aporrea.org

[xxvi] Lucha de Clases & Sayago, E. (October 2011)

[xxvii] Adarfio, A. (9/5/2010)

[xxviii] Information from Sayago and Adarfio interviews, & PGS Jan 2010 report.

[xxix] (26/3/2012), Plan Socialista Guayana no Prende Motores, Primicias24

[xxx] Interview with Denny Sucre, Ciudad Guayana, December 2011

[xxxi] Interview with Lisa Maria, Ciudad Guayana, December 2011

[xxxii] Interview with Ruben Dario Morales, Ciudad Guayana, December 2011

[xxxiii] Interview with Denny Sucre, Ciudad Guayana, December 2011

[xxxiv] Interview in Grafitos del Orinoco, Ciudad Guayana, December 2011

[xxxv] Interview with Lisa Maria, Ciudad Guayana, December 2011

[xxxvi] FRETCO (July 2011); Interview with Jesus Pino in Sidor, Ciudad Guayana, April 2011

[xxxvii] (22/5/2009), Venezuela Nationalizes Gas Plant and Steel Companies, Pledges Worker Control, Venezuelanalysis.com

[xxxviii] Interview with Damien Pratt, Ciudad Guayana, December 2011

[xxxix] Garcia, B. (September 2011)

[xl] FRETCO (July 2011); Unete Anzoategui /CMR, (15/10/2011), ¡Por un Congreso unitario de trabajadores, pobladores y campesinos que elabore un programa de lucha para defender y completar la revolución!, Aporrea.org

[xli] Lucha de Clases & Sayago, E. (October 2009)

[xlii] Federico, F. (22/7/2009), Venezuela: Class Struggle Heats up Over Battle for Workers Control, Green Left Weekly, Issue 804

[xliii] Interview with Denny Sucre, Ciudad Guayana, December 2011

[xliv] Garcia, B. (25/9/2011)

[xlv] Lucha de Clases & Sayago, E. (October 2011)

[xlvi] Corriente Marxista Revolucionario (4/11/2011, An Initial Assessment of Trade Union Elections at Sidor, translated by Venezuelanalysis.com

[xlvii] Lucha de Clases & Sayago, E. (October 2011)

[xlviii] FRETCO (Julio 2011)

[xlix] Frente Socialista de Trabajadores de Alcasa (18/01/2012) Rangelismo culpable que la derecha se crezca en el sector aluminio de Guayana, Aporrea.org

[l] Interview with Alexis Ardarfio, December 2011; Interview with Ventura Nuñez, Ciudad Guayana, December 2011; Lucha de Clases & Sayago, E. (October 2011); Garcia, B. (25/9/2011) .

[li] Martin, J. (July 2011), Venezuela and Revolutionary Vigettes, Part I: Workers Control vs. Bureacrats, Mafia and Multinations in Bolivar, In Defence of Marxism

[lii] Ibid; Sayago (October 2011)

[liii] (26/5/2012), Plan Guayana Socialista no Prende Motores, Primicias 24

[liv] Interview with Ruben Dario Morales, December 2011

[lv] Martin, J. (July 2011)

[lvi] Lucha de Clases & Sayago, E. (October 2011); (29/02/2012), Designaciones de la CVG: “irrespeto” al control obrero y Plan Guayana Socialista, Diario de Guayana

[lvii] (27/2/12), Dismissal of Worker-President in Alcasa, Venezuela, Provokes Outrage, Venezuelanalysis.com

[lviii] (29/02/2012), Designaciones de la CVG: “irrespeto” al control obrero y Plan Guayana Socialista, Diario de Guayana

[lix] Remitido Público Nacional desde Guayana: Sobre la Situación de las Empresas Basicas, Parte I y II, (2 y 7 Marzo 2012), Aporrea.org,/Tribuna Popular

[lx] (27/02/2012), Angel Marcano viene a reforzar el Plan Socialista Guayana en Alcasa, Primicias 24

[lxi] (23/03/2012), Piden examen psiquiátrico para el gobernador Rangel Gómez, El Diario Venezolano

[lxii] Federico, F. (22/7/2009), Venezuela: Class Struggle Heats up Over Battle for Workers Control, Green Left Weekly, Issue 804

[lxiii] See E., Steve. 2008, Rethinking Venezuelan Politics: Class, Conflict, and the Chavez Phenomenon (Lynne Reinner)

By Ewan Robertson

08 August, 2012

Venezuelanalysis.com

On August 5, a Sikh temple in Southern Wisconsin was attacked. Six worshippers lost their lives before the gunman was killed. There was an outbreak of condemnation – rightly so. President Obama ordered flags at public buildings to be flown at half-staff and Mrs. Clinton called her Indian counterpart. Mitt Romney offered his prayers to the families of the victims. Left ignored, was the burning down of a mosque in Missouri – predictably so. Worship in America is a political prerogative in sink with U.S. policies.

But India and Indian Sikhs have privileges; so why were Sikh worshippers targeted?  It may well be that the perpetrator, Wade Michael Page who allegedly had links to the white supremacist movement ignored the political relations in favor of his ideology — white supremacy,  articulated by President T. Roosevelt who said of America: “ Democracy has justified itself by keeping for the white race the best portion’s of the earth’s surface .”

Or perhaps, as CNN opined , “Sikh’s “unfairly” mistaken for Muslims and targeted.” This would not be the first time, and as Public Radio International (PRI) has reported, since the events of 9/11, Sikh men have been targeted as Moslems .  Even the cordial relations with India could not prevent the perception that an Indian Sikh resembles a Moslem and fair target.

Scapegoating Moslems had been planned as early as 1991 (see full article here ).   The end of the Cold War had left neoconservatives fearful that with the demise of the Soviet Union, and the splintering of the America ‘s right wing faction, there would no longer be an unconditional support for a U.S.-Israel alliance.  The threat of communism was replaced with the threat of Islam.  The promotion and branding of Islam as an enemy came to fruition with the events of 9/11.

In line with this neoconservative strategy, the mainstream media in the US framed September 11 within the context of Islam, ignoring all other inquiry, including the fact that a new U.N. Human Rights Council assigned to monitor Israel was calling for an official commission to study the role neoconservatives may have played in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (New York Sun [i] ).   As neocon Bernard Lewis was busy teaching the concept of ‘ jihad’ versus‘crusade’ [ii] Moslem bashing, Moslem killing, and Mosque burning became fair game.

The strategy of demonizing Islam was so successful that in 2008 the presidential candidates centered their qualification for Office on Moslem-bashing.  Former New York mayor and the hero of 9/11, Rudy Giuliani, made the threat of ‘Islamic terrorism’ the centerpiece of his campaign.  Podhoretz also joined Giuliani (later he joined McCain), as did John Deady who resigned after it came out that he said the following of Giuliani: “He’s got, I believe, the knowledge and the judgment to attack one of the most difficult problems in current history and that is the rise of the Muslims. Make no mistake about it, this hasn’t happened for a thousand years, these people are very dedicated and they’re also very, very smart in their own way. We need to keep the feet to the fire and keep pressing these people until we defeat or chase them back to their caves or, in other words, get rid of them.”  Renowned Evangelical Pat Robertson gave Giuliani his endorsement [iii] .

Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, allegedly dissuaded contender Mike Huckabee from “reaching out” to the ‘Muslim world’.   Mitt Romney, a contender in 2008 and the 2012 GOP presidential hopeful, raised eyebrows when he suggested that mosques be wire-tapped [iv] .   For almost a decade, U.S. military officers were being taught to wage a ‘total war’ on Islam and target civilians.

The Sikh Temple shooter, Wade Michael Page, a former U.S. Army veteran, is condemned for the violent and meaningless murder of innocent worshippers, but is he alone responsible for this act of insanity?  If these killing were truly a case of mistaking Sikhs as Moslems,  should those who implement seeds of hatred not be held accountable aslo?

Who will persecute those who taught army officers to kill Moslems –  the  Commander-in-Chief hopefuls and their advisors who promoted hatred and persecution of Moslems, and the neoconservatives who planted the seeds of hatred among us?  Will their deeds be buried with Page? As Jonathan Swift said: “I never wonder to see men wicked, but I often wonder to see them not ashamed.

By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

08 August, 2012

Countercurrents.org

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is a Public Diplomacy Scholar, independent researcher and blogger with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups.

[i] Eli Lake , “U.N. Official Calls for  Study of Neocons’ Role in 9/11”,  The New York Sun , 10 April 2008

[ii] Bernard Lewis, ‘Learning the Lingo. Jihad vs. Crusade. A Historian’s Guide to the New War’, Wall Street Journal (27 Sept. 2001).

[iii] “The Religion Card; GOP Candidates Play on anti-Muslim Sentiments”The Progressive, Biography Resource Center , USC Feb 2008

[iv] The Religion Card, Ibid.

As soon as news came of a bomb attack that killed Israeli tourists in Bulgaria on 18 July, US President Barack Obama condemned it in the most strident terms – even though, then, as now, the perpetrator and his motive remain unknown.

Obama’s statement left no room for ambiguity:

I strongly condemn today’s barbaric terrorist attack on Israelis in Bulgaria. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of those killed and injured, and with the people of Israel, Bulgaria, and any other nation whose citizens were harmed in this awful event. These attacks against innocent civilians, including children, are completely outrageous. The United States will stand with our allies, and provide whatever assistance is necessary to identify and bring to justice the perpetrators of this attack. As Israel has tragically once more been a target of terrorism, the United States reaffirms our unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security, and our deep friendship and solidarity with the Israeli people.

Such sentiments at the killing of innocent people are understandable. But why has Obama so far refused to condemn in equally strong terms Wade Michael Page’s murderous rampage that killed six people at the Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin yesterday?

Obama won’t call it “terrorism”

In one White House statement yesterday, Obama called the Wisconsin massacre “a senseless act of violence.” In another, he called it “a tragic shooting.”

It has since been confirmed that the FBI is treating the attack as “domestic terrorism” and it has now become clear that the killer has a long history of white supremacist views and activism.

Yet in further comments today, Obama treated the attack as just another (all too awful) mass shooting as happened in Aurora, Colorado on 20 July.

As ABC reports:

President Obama said today that he is “heartbroken” by the deadly shooting at the Sikh religious center in Wisconsin and renewed his call to reduce violence across the country.

“I think all of us recognize that these kinds of terrible tragic events are happening with too much regularity for us not to do some soul searching and to examine additional ways that we can reduce violence,” the president told reporters in the Oval Office when asked about the gunman who killed six people in Oak Creek Sunday.

The president made similar remarks after the deadly shooting in Aurora, Colo., last month, but is not proposing any additional gun controls. “What I want to do is bring together law enforcement, community leaders, faith leaders, elected officials at every level to see how we can make continued progress,” he said today.

Obama reluctant to point to racism

Obama continued, according to ABC:

“We don’t yet know fully what motivated this individual to carry out this terrible act. If it turns out, as some early reports indicated, that it may have been motivated in some way by the ethnicity of those who were attending the temple, I think the American people immediately recoil against those kinds of attitudes,” the president said. “It will be very important for us to reaffirm once again that in this country, regardless of what we look like, where we come from, who we worship, we are all one people and we look after one other and we respect one another.

The president’s comments came as he signed the “Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act” at the White House.

Page was a veteran of the United States Army.

Silence in the face of racist incitement

Obama’s shameful timidity in forthrightly condemning what happened in Wisconsin is hardly surprising. After all, this is a president with a “kill list” for Muslims including Americans.

But even for show, could he really not muster the kind of outrage he did for Israelis, for his own fellow citizens?

Is it appropriate that Obama condemned what happened to Israelis in Bulgaria as “barbaric terrorism” while he is merely “heartbroken” at the slaughter in Wisconsin, as if he is a mere bystander and not the president of the United States?

When Obama declares that “we are all one people” who must look after one another regardless of what we look like, it is he who needs to practice what he preaches.

Obama has been consistent in his refusal to confront the racism unleashed by his candidacy and subsequent election that came atop post-9/11 Muslim-bashing and dehumanization of people of color inherent in warmongering abroad.

His reponse to accusations that he’s Muslim is never ‘so what if I were?’ but always along the lines of ‘no, no I’m a Christian like you.’

Two summers ago, right-wing activists invented the fake “Ground Zero mosque” controversy to generate fear and hatred in the run-up to the 2010 mid-term elections. What I always found more frightening than the noise from Islamophobic clowns was the silence of elected officials, especially Democrats who purport to uphold liberal and inclusive values.

With their silence, they gave consent, and the crescendo of racist fearmongering – that targets more than just Muslims – has continued to rise.

Neither Sikhs nor Muslims are collectively guilty

Sikhs were among the first victims of the racist backlash after 9/11. It is common to say they are mistaken for Muslims who are the real targets of such attacks. This is wrong. Muslims are no more collectively guilty than Sikhs or any other group. But more importantly violent racists are not interested in distinctions.

In 2010, when he traveled to India, Obama refused to visit the main shrine of Sikhism, the Golden Temple in Amritsar, because he did not want to be photographed wearing a Sikh headcovering and be confused for a Muslim by illiterate Americans back home.

Obama was pandering to racists then, as he is despicably doing now. The difference now is that blood has been spilled in Wisconsin, and the time for this kind of cowardice ought to have passed.

By Ali Abunimah

08 August, 2012

@ Electronic Intifada

Ali Abunimah is a Palestinian American journalist and co-founder of Electronic Intifada and author of One Country: A Bold-Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse