Archives: Articles

NEW YORK City police officers were shown a movie called The Third Jihad which warns that ordinary Muslims are part of an age-old conspiracy to dominate the world. The police chief and his spokesperson participated in this “counter-terrorism training,” and then lied about their involvement. And Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who touts himself as a champion of religious tolerance, doesn’t plan to do anything about it.

This latest series of events that unfolded in late January only sheds more light on the depth of anti-Muslim racism in New York City. Home to about 800,000 Muslims, as well as the world’s largest police department, the Big Apple has become the crucible of entrenched Islamophobic policies enacted by the state since September 11.

“This is not stereotyping,” Talat Hamdani said at a January 26 press conference at City Hall.

Talat’s son Salman died on 9/11 as a first responder, but his sacrifice has never been officially recognized because police initially viewed him as a suspect in the attacks. “This is legal persecution of American Muslims,” Talat said. “This is our city, our state, our country.”

Almost a year ago, in January 2011, Tom Robbins of the Village Voice broke the story about the NYPD showing this racist film to its officers. At the time, police spokesman Paul Browne claimed the movie was only screened a few times, and that the clips of Ray Kelly in it were from old footageand not the police commissioner’s direct participation with right-wing filmmakers.

But when police were forced to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request from the Brennan Center for Justice, it came to light that the movie was a regular part of training for months, that more than 1,500 officers had viewed the film, and that Kelly had given a 90-minute interview for the pseudo-documentary.

After a year of denials and evasions, the truth was out, and it received some attention in the mainstream media. Yet this is only the tip of the iceberg.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

The Islamophobia network

The NYPD now wants to dismiss this film as a “wacky movie”–in Paul Browne’s words–and to distance themselves from it. Yet the list of interviewees for the film include a number of establishment figures, such as former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, former CIA Director James Woolsey, former head of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman and others. This pseudo-documentary is part of an effort by a well-established network of Islamophobic groups whose credibility is based on their connections to the security and political establishments.

The Third Jihad was produced by the Clarion Fund, which was previously best known for mailing millions of free copies of another anti-Muslim film called Obsession to swing-state voters just before the 2008 election.

The Clarion Fund received over $18 million from 2001 to 2009 from several wealthy right-wing organizations like the Richard Mellon Scaife Foundation, Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation and the Fairbrook Foundation, a pro-Zionist organization. These foundations also pour money into other Islamophobic organizations such as Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch, Daniel Pipes’ Middle East Forum and more.

The Islamophobic network believes there is a conspiracy by Muslims to take over the U.S. and to replace the constitution with Muslim or Sharia law.

“This is the true agenda of much of Islam in America…to infiltrate and dominate America,” says the narrator of The Third Jihad, as an image of the White House topped by a supposedly Islamic flag appears on screen.

In the time-honored tradition of demagogues, the narrator of The Third Jihad argues that the Muslims who “seem” to be decent ordinary people are the most dangerous of all: “Americans are being told that most of the mainstream Muslim groups are moderate, when in fact, if you look a little closer, you’ll see a very different reality. One of their primary tactics is deception.”

Any doubts the officers in training might have had about whether the movie reflected official police department views would have been dispelled by the appearance of Ray Kelly, who is interviewed in the movie about the threat of a nuclear attack.

It short, this is not a “wacky” movie by some fringe elements. Rather, it reflects the efforts of the security establishment and the political elite to create an atmosphere of fear and suspicion in order to win public consent for the “war on terror.”

This isn’t the first time that police have been subjected to these warped and racist views. A nine-month investigation by Thom Cincotta and Political Research Associates found that the Islamophobic network routinely holds counter-terrorism training sessions with law enforcement personnel around the country. The use of The Third Jihad to train NYPD officers is but the latest revelation of such practices.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Racial profiling

After a year of NYPD scandals and cover-ups over from the brutality unleashed on Occupy Wall Street protesters and an epidemic of corruption cases, it’s not earth-shattering news to most New Yorkers to hear that Ray Kelly and Paul Browne have been caught lying again.

But this latest deception is especially ominous coming on the heels of the revelation–also initially denied by Kelly and Browne–that the department worked with a CIA agent to create a “Demographics Unit” that has been spying on hundreds of mosques, Islamic bookstores and Muslim campus organizations.

According to the Associated Press, which broke this scandal, “[P]olice subjected entire neighborhoods to surveillance and scrutiny, often because of the ethnicity of the residents, not because of any accusations of crimes. Hundreds of mosques and Muslim student groups were investigated and dozens were infiltrated.”

To add injury to insult, Muslim Americans who had come forward to help law enforcement were also spied upon. As CBS News reported, “Some of the same mosques that city leaders visited to hail their strong alliances with the Muslim community have also been placed under NYPD surveillance–in some cases infiltrated by undercover police officers and informants.”

As the furor grew over the last week of January, Ray Kelly was finally forced to apologize for his participation and use of The Third Jihad. But the NYPD has announced no plans to find out who was responsible for showing the film or to give a corrective training for officers who watched it. Furthermore, Kelly has consistently defended the tactics of the Demographics Unit and the larger trend of what Associated Press reporters have called “the NYPD’s transformation from a police department solving murders and muggings to a domestic intelligence agency.”

As a result, a growing number of Muslim leaders and allies have called for Kelly’s resignation. Retired police sergeant Noel Leader explained the reasoning on Democracy Now!:

“Under the New York City Police Department Patrol Guide, under prohibited conduct, it clearly states that no member of the New York City Police Department can associate themselves with hateful organizations, hateful material or hateful individuals. Police Commissioner Kelly clearly violated this procedure, and he should resign. If he doesn’t resign, the mayor should terminate him.”

But Bloomberg says he supports his police chief: “I think it’s fair to say that there is a little bit of embarrassment that this film was made. I think anything like this doesn’t help credibility…You know, Ray Kelly probably visits more mosques than a lot of other people who believe in the faith and practice there.”

“A little bit of an embarrassment” captures well the billionaire mayor’s view of the issue. Bloomberg would rather his police department’s policies not be made public because he has spoken eloquently and often in favor of religious tolerance–most prominently voiced in 2010 regarding construction of the Park51 Cultural Center in lower Manhattan (the “ground zero mosque” to its opponents.)

Bloomberg didn’t do this for the 800,000 Muslims living in his city, whose civil liberties he has grievously abused. His chief concerns were his image as an “open-minded” politician and the image of New York as a cosmopolitan center free from the sway of ignorant bigots.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg hasn’t hesitated in defending the NYPD–even when its racist policies are exposed to the light of day.

For instance, in 2007, the NYPD Intelligence Division produced a report titled “Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat,” which argued that counter-terrorism efforts need to “shift focus to a much earlier point” than the plotting of violent acts. The report argues that police need to identify potential terrorists before violent thoughts have even entered their heads.

The report’s authors describe a four-step “radicalization process.” Police, they argue, need to stop this sinister sequence in the early “Pre-radicalization” and “Identification” phases, before it gets to the later “Indoctrination” and “Jihadization” phases.

Thus, the NYPD authors believe that the department’s focus should be on Muslims who don’t “seem like” terrorists and might not even know that they are terrorists, which makes the final section of “Radicalization in the West” almost identical to the central point of the The Third Jihad:

“The subtle and non-criminal nature of the behaviors involved in the process of radicalization makes it difficult to identify or even monitor from a law enforcement standpoint. Taken in isolation, individual behaviors can be seen as innocuous; however, when seen as part of the continuum of the radicalization process, their significance becomes more important…

The individuals are not on the law enforcement radar. Most have never been arrested or involved in any kind of legal trouble. Other than some commonalities in age and religion, individuals undergoing radicalization appear as “ordinary” citizens, who look, act, talk and walk like everyone around them.”

And it isn’t just the NYPD that has been involved in such activities. Around the U.S., Muslims and Arabs have been subjected to a form of racial profiling that has been referred to as “pre-emptive” prosecution. Muslims who have done nothing illegal are being targeted on the assumption that they might do something. Agent provocateurs have infiltrated mosques and Muslim communities to entice people into “terrorist” plots–when they aren’t entirely fabricated. Through this process, hundreds have been arrested and put in jail.

The net effect has been the demonization of an entire community. In the 1940s, more than 100,000 people of Japanese descent were put into concentration camps following the attack on Pearl Harbor and the beginning of the Second World War. Today, Muslim Americans are being targeted in the same way for the events of 9/11.

As Abdul Malik Mujahid, a leader of the Muslim Peace Council, put it:

“The Muslim community in the United States has been living in a virtual internment camp ever since 9/11. Since then, more than 700,000 Muslims have been interviewed by the FBI. That means nearly 50 percent of all Muslim households have been touched by this “investigation.” Practically all mosques have been “checked for nuclear bombs” or other fear-provoking reasons. That’s the level of trust we “enjoy” in the Muslim community.”

This is the standard way in which nations at war operate. In every instance, a menacing enemy must be found–whether it’s Germans who endured anti-German raids during the First World War or the Japanese internment camps during the Second World War.

Now, the “war on terror” has applied this same intense scapegoating to a conflict that is seemingly endless and borderless.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Fighting Back

The latest revelations are galvanizing Muslims and supporters of religious freedom to organize around the call for Ray Kelly’s resignation. A week after the initial press conference, hundreds marched to NYPD headquarters.

“This is the year of revealed truths,” Imam Al-Hajj Talib Abdur-Rashid, president of the Islamic Leadership Council of New York, told the crowd. “Around the world the purposely deceptive are being exposed…Now is the time to trust in Allah, break through fear, and stand for justice.”

Many speakers connected the NYPD’s lies and hostility towards Muslims with its daily humiliation and brutality towards African Americans and Latinos, including the fatal shooting of an unarmed Bronx teenager the day before the march.

These actions are positive first steps, building on several years of increased organization and activism against Islamophobia, from the rallies in defense of the Park51 Cultural Center, to the participation of 100 imams in an antiwar rally last April, to Muslim leaders’ boycott of Bloomberg’s interfaith breakfast last month.

As this movement builds in the coming weeks, we need to recognize that we are not just up against an isolated incident or misguided police policy. We are challenging the logic of a nation in semi-permanent war to dominate the world’s largest oil- and gas-producing regions, which happen to lie beneath the feet of woman and men who mostly practice Islam.

At the press conference, some city council people called for the police to continue fighting terrorism, but to do so without religious profiling. But as NYPD Confidential blogger Leonard Levitt wrote, “In the department’s best-publicized cases that have emerged from this spying, the suspects all seem to be people with mental problems, susceptible to being talked into plotting terrorism by well-paid informants.”

Trying to separate counterterrorism from profiling is like asking for an omelet without eggs–because the “war on terror” is not about keeping us safe, but about keeping us afraid, and therefore supportive of war–precisely through religious profiling. The image of the “Islamic terrorist,” which has been cultivated since the 1980s, is about creating a menacing enemy against whom endless war can be waged.

In this sense, it functions exactly as the “red scare” and the McCarthyism of the Cold War era functioned. Back then, Americans were told to spy on “reds” and radicals, who were seen as agents of the former USSR, bent on physically destroying the U.S. and the “American way of life.” Today, the “green scare” is about creating a Muslim enemy that acts as an agent of al-Qaeda or Hamas, and whose goal is to destroy the U.S. from within.

Just as McCarthyism created a climate of fear that made the prosecution of the Cold War much easier for the political elite, today, Islamophobia serves as the ideological handmaiden of the “war on terror.”

Whatever possibilities of terror attacks that do exist aren’t because Muslims are susceptible to some four-stage process of radicalization, but because their co-religionists have suffered grave offenses at the hand of the U.s. government. Any talk about counter-terrorism that doesn’t start with ending U.S. wars and occupations will inevitably strengthen the rhetoric of Islamophobia and the practice of racist scapegoating.

“When we talk about Muslims being stereotyped and criminalized, and I think that can’t happen to me, I’m completely wrong,” says Virgilio Aran, an organizer with Laundry Workers Center United. Virgilio and another Latino activist tried to attend the January 26 press conference, but weren’t allowed onto the steps of City Hall when they refused a request to produce identification papers, a request not made of other attendees.

“The struggle of our Muslim brothers is the struggle of every community,” says Aran. “That was a reinforcement of it in my consciousness.”

It’s time for all those interested in justice to break through fear and take a stand against the “war on terror.”

6 February 2012

By Deepa

@ empirebytes.com

This article first appeared on Socialistworker.org and is a co-authored work with Danny Lucia.

OVER the last few days, the media and representatives of certain governments traditionally committed to anti-Cuba subversion have unleashed a new campaign of accusations, unscrupulously taking advantage of a lamentable event: the death of an ordinary prisoner, which possibly only in the case of Cuba, is converted into news of international repercussion.

The method utilized is the same one as always: fruitlessly attempting, through repetition, to demonize Cuba, in this case through the deliberate manipulation of an incident which is absolutely exceptional in this country.

This so-called political prisoner was serving a four-year sentence after a fair legal process during which he was at liberty and a trial in accordance with the law, for a brutal physical attack on his wife in public and violent resistance to arrest by police agents.

This man died from multi-organ failure due to an acute respiratory infection, despite having received appropriate medical attention, including specialized medication and treatment in the intensive care room of Santiago de Cuba’s principal hospital.

Why did Spanish authorities and certain members of the European Union hasten to condemn Cuba without any investigation into the incident? Why do they always utilize pre-fabricated lies in the context of Cuba? Why, in addition to lying, do they censor the truth? Why is the voice and truth about Cuba openly denied the smallest space in the international media?

They are acting both cynically and hypocritically. How would they describe the recent manifestations of police brutality in Spain and a large part of “educated and civilized” Europe against the indignados movement?

Why is there no concern over the dramatic situation of overcrowding in Spanish jails with a high immigrant population – in excess of 35% of total prisoners in the country – according to the most recent report by the ACAIP prison union, dated April 3, 2010?

Who has made any effort to investigate the death in July of 2011 in the Spanish penitentiary of Teruel, of Tohuami Hamdaoui, an ordinary prisoner of Moroccan origin after a hunger strike of several months? Who has reflected the fact that he has insisted he is innocent?

Has the Chilean spokesperson slandering us by asserting that the dead man was a political dissident on his 50th day of hunger strike lost his memory and sense of reality? He must remember his days as a student leader linked to Pinochet’s troops, who massacred Chileans and instituted disappearances and torture throughout the Southern Cone via Plan Condor, while there have been no statements about the harsh repression of students peacefully demonstrating in defense of the human right to universal and free education. Is he one of those who supported re-labeling the Pinochet dictatorship a military regime in school textbooks? Has he made any statement about the repressive and arbitrary Anti-Terrorist Law implemented against Mapuche prisoners on hunger strike?

The United States government, the principal instigator of any effort to discredit Cuba in order to justify its policy of hostility, subversion and the economic, political and media blockade of Cuba, could not be missing from this campaign.

The hypocrisy of spokespersons for the United States, a country with a poor human rights record at home and abroad, is staggering. The UN Human Rights Council has acknowledged frequent serious violations in this country of women’s rights, in the treatment of persons, racial and ethnic discrimination, inhuman conditions in prisons, neglect of inmates, a differentiated racial standard and frequent judicial errors in imposing capital punishment, and the execution of minors and the mentally ill. This is compounded by abuses of the migratory detention system, deaths along the militarized southern border, atrocious acts against human dignity and the killing of innocent civilians by U.S. army troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries, not to mention arbitrary detentions and acts of torture perpetrated in the illegally occupied Guantánamo Naval Base.

It is barely known that three people died in the United States last November 2011 during a mass hunger strike of prisoners in California. According to testimonies from prisoners in adjoining cells, prison guards offered no assistance whatsoever and ignored their cries for help, as opposed to the abusive practice of force feeding hunger strikers.

A few weeks previously, African American Troy Davis was executed despite a large body of evidence demonstrating legal errors in his case. The White House and the Department of State did nothing about this case.

A total of 90 prisoners have been executed since January 2010 to date in the United States, while a further 3,220 remain on death row. The government frequently brutally represses those who dare to expose injustices within the system.

This new attack on Cuba is clearly politically motivated and has nothing to do with legitimate concerns for the lives of Cuban men and women. It is fuelled by the complicity of the financial-media corporations such as the Prisa Group and the corporation running CNN en Español, in the finest style of the Miami Mafia. It is irrationally accusing the Cuban government without having made any investigation into the facts. Condemnation and judgment are made a priori.

It is apparent from the immediate and crude response of authorities and the apparatus in the service of media aggression against Cuba that they did not even take the trouble to confirm the information. The truth is unimportant if the intention is to fabricate and sell a false image of alleged flagrant and systematic violations of civil liberties in Cuba which could one day justify an intervention in order to “protect defenseless Cuban civilians.”

The attempt to impose a distorted image of Cuba meant to indicate a notable deterioration in human rights, to construct an allegedly victimized opposition dying in prison, where health services are denied, is evident.

The humanist vocation of Cuban doctors and health personnel, who spare no effort or the country’s scant resources – to a large extent the result of the criminal 50-year blockade imposed on the Cuban people – to save lives and improve the health standards of their own people and in many other nations is well known.

Cuba is respected and admired by many peoples and governments who recognize its social undertakings at home and abroad.

Deeds speak louder than words. Anti-Cuban campaigns will not inflict any damage on the Cuban Revolution or the people, who will continue improving their socialism.

The truth of Cuba is that of a country in which human beings are most valued: a life expectancy rate at birth of 77.9 years; free health coverage for the entire population; an infant mortality rate of 4.9 per 1,000 live births, a figure exceeding that of the United States and the lowest on the continent along with Canada; a literate population with full and free access to all levels of education; 96% participation in the 2008 general elections; and a democratic process of discussion of the new economic and social guidelines prior to the 6th Congress of the Communist Party.

The truth of Cuba is that of a country which has taken its universities and schools to penitentiaries holding inmates who had fair and impartial trials, who receive the same wages for work undertaken, and enjoy high levels of medical attention without any distinction in terms of ethnicity, gender, creed or social origin.

It will be demonstrated yet again that lies, however much they are repeated, do not necessarily become truths, because, as José Martí stated, “A just principle, from the depths of a cave, can do more than an army.”

Translated by Granma International

DAMASCUS, (SANA)_ Following is the full text of the Draft Constitution for the Syrian Arab Republic, to be put to referendum on February 26, 2012:

Preamble

Arab civilization, which is part of human heritage, has faced through its long history great challenges aimed at breaking its will and subjecting it to colonial domination, but it has always rose through its own creative abilities to exercise its role in building human civilization.

The Syrian Arab Republic is proud of its Arab identity and the fact that its people are an integral part of the Arab nation. The Syrian Arab Republic embodies this belonging in its national and pan-Arab project and the work to support Arab cooperation in order to promote integration and achieve the unity of the Arab nation.

The Syrian Arab Republic considers international peace and security a key objective and a strategic choice, and it works on achieving both of them under the International Law and the values of right and justice.

The Syrian Arab role has increased on the regional and international levels over the past decades, which has led to achieving human and national aspirations and achievements in all fields and domains. Syria has occupied an important political position as it is the beating heart of Arabism, the forefront of confrontation with the Zionist enemy and the bedrock of resistance against colonial hegemony on the Arab world and its capabilities and wealth. The long struggle and sacrifices of our people for the sake of its independence, progress and national unity has paved the way for building the strong state and promoting cohesion between the people and their Syrian Arab army which is the main guarantor and protector of the homeland’s sovereignty, security, stability and territorial integrity; thus, forming the solid foundation of the people’s struggle for liberating all occupied territories.

The Syrian society with all its components and constituents and through its popular, political and civil institutions and organizations, has managed to accomplish achievements that demonstrated the depth of civilizational accumulation represented by the Syrian society, its unwavering will and its ability to keep pace with the changes and to create the appropriate environment to maintain its human role as a historical and effective power in the march of human civilization.

Since the beginning of the 21st century, Syria, both as people and institutions had faced the challenge of development and modernization during tough regional and international circumstances which targeted its national sovereignty. This has formed the incentive to accomplish this Constitution as the basis for strengthening the rule of law.

The completion of this Constitution is the culmination of the people’s struggle on the road to freedom and democracy. It is a real embodiment of achievements, a response to shifts and changes, an evidence of organizing the march of the state towards the future, a regulator of the movement of its institutions and a source of legislation. All of this is attainable through a system of fundamental principles that enshrines independence, sovereignty and the rule of the people based on election, political and party pluralism and the protection of national unity, cultural diversity, public freedoms, human rights, social justice, equality, equal opportunities, citizenship and the rule of law, where the society and the citizen are the objective and purpose for which every national effort is dedicated. Preserving the dignity of the society and the citizen is an indicator of the civilization of the country and the prestige of the state.

Title I

Basic Principles

Chapter I

Political Principles

Article 1

The Syrian Arab Republic is a democratic state with full sovereignty, indivisible, and may not waive any part of its territory, and is part of the Arab homeland; The people of Syria are part of the Arab nation.

Article 2

The system of governance in the state shall be a republican system; Sovereignty is an attribute of the people; and no individual or group may claim sovereignty. Sovereignty shall be based on the principle of the rule of the people by the people and for the people; The People shall exercise their sovereignty within the aspects and limits prescribed in the Constitution.

Article 3

The religion of the President of the Republic is Islam; Islamic jurisprudence shall be a major source of legislation; The State shall respect all religions, and ensure the freedom to perform all the rituals that do not prejudice public order; The personal status of religious communities shall be protected and respected.

Article 4

The official language of the state is Arabic.

Article 5

The capital of the state is Damascus.

Article 6

The flag of the Syrian Arab Republic consists of three colors: red, white and black, in addition to two stars, each with five heads of green color. The flag is rectangular in shape; its width equals two thirds of its length and consists of three rectangles evenly spaced along the flag, the highest in red, the middle in white and lowest in black, and the two stars are in the middle of the white rectangle; The law identifies the state’s emblem, its national anthem and the respective provisions.

Article 7

The constitutional oath shall be as follows: “I swear by the Almighty God to respect the country’s constitution, laws and Republican system, to look after the interests and freedoms of the people, to safeguard the homeland’s sovereignty, independence, freedom and to defend its territorial integrity and to act in order to achieve social justice and the unity of the Arab Nation”.

Article 8

1. The political system of the state shall be based on the principle of political pluralism, and exercising power democratically through the ballot box;

2. Licensed political parties and constituencies shall contribute to the national political life, and shall respect the principles of national sovereignty and democracy;

3. The law shall regulate the provisions and procedures related to the formation of political parties;

4. Carrying out any political activity or forming any political parties or groupings on the basis of religious, sectarian, tribal, regional, class-based, professional, or on discrimination based on gender, origin, race or color may not be undertaken;

5. Public office or public money may not be exploited for a political, electoral or party interest.

Article 9

As a national heritage that promotes national unity in the framework of territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic, the Constitution shall guarantee the protection of cultural diversity of the Syrian society with all its components and the multiplicity of its tributaries.

Article 10

Public organizations, professional unions and associations shall be bodies that group citizens in order to develop society and attain the interests of its members. The State shall guarantee the independence of these bodies and the right to exercise public control and participation in various sectors and councils defined in laws; in areas which achieve their objectives, and in accordance with the terms and conditions prescribed by law.

Article 11

The army and the armed forces shall be a national institution responsible for defending the security of the homeland and its territorial integrity. This institution shall be in the service of the people’s interests and the protection of its objectives and national security.

Article 12

Democratically elected councils at the national or local level shall be institutions through which citizens exercise their role in sovereignty, state-building and leading society.

Chapter II

Economic Principles

Article 13

1. The national economy shall be based on the principle of developing public and private economic activity through economic and social plans aiming at increasing the national income, developing production, raising the individual’s living standards and creating jobs;

2. Economic policy of the state shall aim at meeting the basic needs of individuals and society through the achievement of economic growth and social justice in order to reach comprehensive, balanced and sustainable development;

3. The State shall guarantee the protection of producers and consumers, foster trade and investment, prevent monopoly in various economic fields and work on developing human resources and protecting the labor force in a way that serves the national economy.

Article 14

Natural resources, facilities, institutions and public utilities shall be publicly owned, and the state shall invest and oversee their management for the benefit of all people, and the citizens’ duty is to protect them.

Article 15

Collective and individual private ownership shall be protected in accordance with the following basis:

1. General confiscation of funds shall be prohibited;

2. Private ownership shall not be removed except in the public interest by a decree and against fair compensation according to the law;

3. Confiscation of private property shall not be imposed without a final court ruling;

4. Private property may be confiscated for necessities of war and disasters by a law and against fair compensation;

5. Compensation shall be equivalent to the real value of the property.

Article 16

The law shall determine the maximum level of agricultural ownership and agricultural investment to ensure the protection of the farmer and the agricultural laborer from exploitation and to ensure increased production.

Article 17

The right of inheritance shall be maintained in accordance with the law.

Article 18

1. Taxes, fees and overhead costs shall not be imposed except by a law;

2. The tax system shall be based on a fair basis; and taxes shall be progressive in a way that achieves the principles of equality and social justice.

Chapter III

Social Principles

Article 19

Society in the Syrian Arab Republic shall be based on the basis of solidarity, symbiosis and respect for the principles of social justice, freedom, equality and maintenance of human dignity of every individual.

Article 20

1. The family shall be the nucleus of society and the law shall maintain its existence and strengthen its ties;

2. The state shall protect and encourage marriage, and shall work on removing material and social obstacles that hinder it. The state shall also protect maternity and childhood, take care of young children and youth and provide the suitable conditions for the development of their talents.

Article 21

Martyrdom for the sake of the homeland shall be a supreme value, and the State shall guarantee the families of the martyrs in accordance with the law.

Article 22

1. The state shall guarantee every citizen and his family in cases of emergency, sickness, disability, orphan-hood and old age;

2. The state shall protect the health of citizens and provide them with the means of prevention, treatment and medication.

Article 23

The state shall provide women with all opportunities enabling them to effectively and fully contribute to the political, economic, social and cultural life, and the state shall work on removing the restrictions that prevent their development and participation in building society.

Article 24

The state shall shoulder, in solidarity with the community, the burdens resulting from natural disasters.

Article 25

Education, health and social services shall be the basic pillars for building society, and the state shall work on achieving balanced development among all regions of the Syrian Arab Republic.

Article 26

1. Public service shall be a responsibility and an honor the purpose of which is to achieve public interest and to serve the people;

2. Citizens shall be equal in assuming the functions of public service, and the law shall determine the conditions of assuming such functions and the rights and duties assigned to them.

Article 27

Protection of the environment shall be the responsibility of the state and society and it shall be the duty of every citizen.

Chapter IV

Educational and Cultural Principles

Article 28

The educational system shall be based on creating a generation committed to its identity, heritage, belonging and national unity.

Article 29

1. Education shall be a right guaranteed by the state, and it is free at all levels. The law shall regulate the cases where education could not be free at universities and government institutes;

2. Education shall be compulsory until the end of basic education stage, and the state shall work on extending compulsory education to other stages;

3. The state shall oversee education and direct it in a way that achieves the link between it and the needs of society and the requirements of development;

4. The law shall regulate the state’s supervision of private educational institutions.

Article 30

Physical education shall be an essential pillar in building society; and the state shall encourage it to prepare a generation which is physically, morally and intellectually fit.

Article 31

The state shall support scientific research and all its requirements, ensure the freedom of scientific, literary, artistic and cultural creativity and provide the necessary means for that end. The state shall provide any assistance for the progress of sciences and arts, and shall encourage scientific and technical inventions, creative skills and talents and protect their results.

Article 32

The state shall protect antiquities, archaeological and heritage sites and objects of artistic, historical and cultural value.

Title II

Rights, Freedoms and the Rule of Law

Chapter I

Rights and Freedoms

Article 33

1. Freedom shall be a sacred right and the state shall guarantee the personal freedom of citizens and preserve their dignity and security;

2. Citizenship shall be a fundamental principle which involves rights and duties enjoyed by every citizen and exercised according to law;

3. Citizens shall be equal in rights and duties without discrimination among them on grounds of sex, origin, language, religion or creed;

4. The state shall guarantee the principle of equal opportunities among citizens.

Article 34

Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the political, economic, social and cultural life and the law shall regulate this.

Article 35

Every citizen shall be subjected to the duty of respecting the Constitution and laws.

Article 36

1. The inviolability of private life shall be protected by the law;

2. Houses shall not be entered or inspected except by an order of the competent judicial authority in the cases prescribed by law.

Article 37

Confidentiality of postal correspondence, telecommunications and radio and other communication shall be guaranteed in accordance with the law.

Article 38

1. No citizen may be deported from the country, or prevented from returning to it;

2. No citizen may be extradited to any foreign entity;

3. Every citizen shall have the right to move in or leave the territory of the state, unless prevented by a decision from the competent court or the public prosecution office or in accordance with the laws of public health and safety.

Article 39

Political refugees shall not be extradited because of their political beliefs or for their defense of freedom.

Article 40

1. Work shall be a right and a duty for every citizen, and the state shall endeavor to provide for all citizens, and the law shall organize work, its conditions and the workers’ rights;

2. Each worker shall have a fair wage according to the quality and output of the work; this wage shall be no less than the minimum wage that ensures the requirements of living and changes in living conditions;

3. The state shall guarantee social and health security of workers.

Article 41

Payment of taxes, fees and public costs shall be a duty in accordance with the law.

Article 42

1. Freedom of belief shall be protected in accordance with the law;

2. Every citizen shall have the right to freely and openly express his views whether in writing or orally or by all other means of expression.

Article 43

The state shall guarantee freedom of the press, printing and publishing, the media and its independence in accordance with the law.

Article 44

Citizens shall have the right to assemble, peacefully demonstrate and to strike from work within the framework of the Constitution principles, and the law shall regulate the exercise of these rights.

Article 45

Freedom of forming associations and unions shall be based on a national basis, for lawful purposes and by peaceful means which are guaranteed in accordance with the terms and conditions prescribed by law.

Article 46

1. Compulsory military service shall be a sacred duty and is regulated by a law;

2. Defending the territorial integrity of the homeland and maintaining the secrets of state shall be a duty of every citizen.

Article 47

The state shall guarantee the protection of national unity, and the citizens’ duty is to maintain it.

Article 48

The law shall regulate the Syrian Arab citizenship.

Article 49

Election and referendum are the right and duty of the citizens and the law shall regulate their exercise.

Chapter II

The Rule of Law

Article 50

The rule of law shall be the basis of governance in the state.

Article 51

1. Punishment shall be personal; no crime and no punishment except by a law;

2. Every defendant shall be presumed innocent until convicted by a final court ruling in a fair trial;

3. The right to conduct litigation and remedies, review, and the defense before the judiciary shall be protected by the law, and the state shall guarantee legal aid to those who are incapable to do so, in accordance with the law;

4. Any provision of the law shall prohibit the immunity of any act or administrative decision from judicial review.

Article 52

Provisions of the laws shall only apply to the date of its commencement and shall not have a retroactive effect, and it may apply otherwise in matters other than criminal.

Article 53

1. No one may be investigated or arrested, except under an order or decision issued by the competent judicial authority, or if he was arrested in the case of being caught in the act, or with intent to bring him to the judicial authorities on charges of committing a felony or misdemeanor;

2. No one may be tortured or treated in a humiliating manner, and the law shall define the punishment for those who do so;

3. Any person who is arrested must be informed of the reasons for his arrest and his rights, and may not be incarcerated in front of the administrative authority except by an order of the competent judicial authority;

4. Every person sentenced by a final ruling, carried out his sentence and the ruling proved wrong shall have the right to ask the state for compensation for the damage he suffered.

Article 54

Any assault on individual freedom, on the inviolability of private life or any other rights and public freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution shall be considered a punishable crime by the law.

Title III

State Authorities

Chapter I

Legislative Authority

Article 55

The legislative authority of the state shall be assumed by the People’s Assembly in accordance with the manner prescribed in the Constitution.

Article 56

The People’s Assembly term shall be for four calendar years from the date of its first meeting and it may not be extended except in case of war by a law.

Article 57

Members of the People’s Assembly shall be elected by the public, secret, direct and equal vote in accordance with the provisions of the Election Law.

Article 58

A member of the People’s Assembly shall represent the whole people, and his/her commission may not be defined by a restriction or condition, and shall exercise duties under the guidance of hi/hers honor and conscience.

Article 59

Voters shall be the citizens who have completed eighteen years of age and met the conditions stipulated in the Election Law.

Article 60

1. The system of electing members of the People’s Assembly, their number and the conditions to be met by the candidates shall be determined by a law;

2. Half of the members of the People’s Assembly at least shall be of the workers and farmers, and the law shall state the definition of the worker and the farmer.

Article 61

The Election Law shall include the provisions that ensure:

1. The freedom of voters to choose their representatives and the safety and integrity of the electoral procedures;

2. The right of candidates to supervise the electoral process;

3. Punishing those who abuse the will of the voters;

4. Identifying the regulations of financing election campaigns;

5. Organizing the election campaign and the use of media outlets.

Article 62

1. Elections shall be held during the sixty days preceding the expiry date of the mandate of the People’s Assembly term;

2. The People’s Assembly shall continue its meetings if no other Assembly is elected and it shall remain in place until a new Assembly is elected.

Article 63

If the membership of a member of the People’s Assembly is vacant for some reason, an alternative shall be elected within sixty days from the date of the membership vacancy, provided that the remaining term of the Assembly is no less than six months. The membership of the new member shall end by the expiry date of the mandate of the Assembly’s term, and the Election Law shall determine the cases of vacant membership.

Article 64

1. The People’s Assembly shall be called to convene by a decree issued by the President of the Republic within fifteen days from the expiry date of the mandate of the existing Assembly or from the date of announcing the election results in case of not having such an Assembly. The People’s Assembly shall be definitely convened on the sixteenth day if the call-to-convene decree is not issued;

2. The Assembly shall elect, at its first meeting, its speaker and members who shall be annually re-elected.

Article 65

1. The Assembly shall call for three regular sessions per year; the total of which should not be less than six months, and the Assembly’s rules of procedure shall set the time and duration of each of them;

2. The Assembly may be invited to extraordinary sessions upon the request of the Speaker, one third of the members of the Assembly or the Assembly’s office;

3. The last legislative session of the year shall remain open until the approval of the state budget.

Article 66

1. The Supreme Constitutional Court shall have jurisdiction to consider appeals related to the elections of the members of the People’s Assembly.

2. Appeals shall be submitted by the candidate within three days from the date of announcing the results; and the court shall decide its final judgments within seven days from the expiry date of submitting appeals.

Article 67

Members of the People’s Assembly shall swear-in the constitutional oath mentioned in Article 7 of the Constitution.

Article 68

The emoluments and compensations of members of the People’s Assembly shall be determined by a law.

Article 69

The People’s Assembly shall put its rules of procedure to regulate the manner of working in it and the way of exercising its functions, and define terms of reference of the Assembly’ office.

Article 70

Members of the People’s Assembly shall not be questioned in a civil or criminal manner because of events or opinions they express or during a vote in public or private meetings and during the work of the committees.

Article 71

Members of the People’s Assembly shall enjoy immunity for the mandate duration of the Assembly. Criminal proceedings against any member of them shall be taken after having a prior permission from the Assembly unless caught in the act. In non-session cases, permission shall be taken from the Assembly’s office, and the Assembly shall be notified by any action taken at its first meeting.

Article 72

1. No member may take advantage of membership in any business;

2. The law shall specify the business which may not be combined with the membership in the Assembly.

Article 73

1. The speaker of the People’s Assembly shall represent the Assembly, sign and speak on its behalf;

2. The People’s Assembly shall have special guards under the authority of the Speaker of the Assembly; and no armed force may enter the Assembly without the permission of its Speaker.

Article 74

Members of the People’s Assembly shall exercise the right of proposing laws and directing questions and inquiries to the cabinet or a minister in accordance with the rules of procedure of the Assembly.

Article 75

The People’s Assembly undertakes the following functions:

1. Approval of laws;

2. Discussing the statement of the cabinet;

3. Perform a vote of no-confidence in the cabinet or a minister;

4. Approval of the general budget and final accounts;

5. Approval of development plans;

6. Approval of international treaties and conventions related to the safety of the state, including treaties of peace, alliance and all treaties related to the rights of sovereignty or conventions which grant privileges to foreign companies or institutions as well as treaties and conventions entailing additional expenses not included in its budget; or treaties and conventions related to loans’ contract or that are contrary to the provisions of the laws in force and requires new legislation which should come into force;

7. Approval of a general amnesty;

8. Accepting or rejecting the resignation of one of the members of the Assembly.

Article 76

1. The Prime Minister shall present the cabinet’s statement within thirty days from the date of its formation to the People’s Assembly for discussion;

2. The cabinet shall be responsible for the implementation of its statement before the People’s Assembly;

3. If the Assembly is not in a regular session, it shall be invited to convene an extraordinary session.

Article 77

1. A vote of no-confidence can only be conducted after the cabinet or one of its ministers is questioned in the Assembly; a vote of no-confidence should be upon a proposal made by at least a fifth of the members of the People’s Assembly and it must be obtained with a majority of the members;

2. If a vote of no-confidence is obtained, the Prime Minister shall submit the cabinet’s resignation to the President, so should the minister who got a vote of no-confidence.

Article 78

The Assembly might form temporary committees from among its members to collect information and find facts on the issues related to exercising its authorities.

Article 79

1. For every fiscal year there shall be one budget; and the beginning of fiscal year shall be determined by a law;

2. The law states the method of preparing the state’s general budget;

3. The draft budget should be presented to the people’s Assembly at least two months before the beginning of the fiscal year.

Article 80

1. The Assembly votes on the budget title by title; and the budget shall not enter into force unless approved by the Assembly;

2. If the Assembly did not complete the process of approving the budget until the beginning of the new fiscal year, the budget of the previous years is used until the new year budget is approved and the revenues are collected in accordance with the laws and regulations in force;

3. Appropriations cannot be transferred from one title to another except according to the provisions of the law;

4. The Assembly might not increase the estimates of total revenues or expenditures while examining the budget.

Article 81

The people’s Assembly might, after approving the budget, approve laws which could create new expenditures and new revenues to cover them.

Article 82

The final accounts of the fiscal year shall be presented to the People’s Assembly within a period not longer than one year as of the end of this year. The final account is done by a law; and the same procedures in approving the budget apply to the final account period.

Chapter Two

The executive authority (1)

The President of the Republic

Article 83

The President of the Republic and the Prime Minister exercise executive authority on behalf of the people within the limits provided for in the constitution.

Article 84

The candidate for the office of President of the Republic should:

1. Have completed forty years of age;

2. Be of Syrian nationality by birth, of parents who are of Syrian nationality by birth;

3. Enjoy civil and political rights and not convicted of a dishonorable felony, even if he was reinstated;

4. Not be married to a non-Syrian wife;

5. Be a resident of the Syrian Arab Republic for no less than 10 years continuously upon being nominated.

Article 85

The nomination of a candidate for the office of President of the Republic shall be as follows:

1. The Speaker of the People’s Assembly calls for the election of the President of the Republic before the end of the term of office of the existing president by no less than 60 days and no more than 90 days;

2. The candidacy application shall be made to the Supreme Constitutional Court, and is entered in a special register, within 10 days of announcing the call for electing the president;

3. The candidacy application shall not be accepted unless the applicant has acquired the support of at least 35 members of the People’s Assembly; and no member of the assembly might support more than one candidate;

4. Applications shall be examined by the Supreme Constitutional Court; and should be ruled on within 5 days of the deadline for application;

5. If the conditions required for candidacy were met by only one candidate during the period set for applying, the Speaker of the people’s assembly should call for fresh nominations according to the same conditions.

Article 86

1. The President of the Republic shall be elected directly by the people;

2. The candidate who wins the election for the President of the Republic is the one who gets the absolute majority of those who take part in the elections. If no candidate receives that majority, a rerun is carried out between the two candidates who receive the largest number of votes;

3. The results shall be announced by the Speaker of the People’s Assembly.

Article 87

1. If the People’s Assembly was dissolved during the period set for electing a new President of the Republic, the existing President of the Republic continues to exercise his duties until after the new Assembly is elected and convened; and the new President of the Republic shall be elected within the 90 days which follow the date of convening this Assembly;

2. If the term of the President of the Republic finished and no new president was elected, the Existing President of the Republic continues to assume his duties until the new president is elected.

Article 88

The President of the Republic is elected for 7 years as of the end of the term of the existing President. The President can be elected for only one more successive term.

Article 89

1. The Supreme Constitutional Court has the jurisdiction to examine the challenges to the election of the President of the Republic;

2. The challenges shall be made by the candidate within 3 days of announcing the results; and the court rules on them finally within 7 days of the end of the deadline for making the challenges.

Article 90

The President of the Republic shall be sworn in before the People’s Assembly before assuming his duties by repeating the constitutional oath mentioned in Article 7 of the Constitution.

Article 91

1. The President of the Republic might name one or more deputies and delegate to them some of his authorities;

2. The Vice-president is sworn in before the President of the Republic by repeating the constitutional oath mentioned in Article 7 of the Constitution.

Article 92

If an impediment prevented the President of the Republic from continuing to carry out his duties, the Vice-president shall deputize for him.

Article 93

1. If the office of the President of the Republic becomes vacant or if he is permanently incapacitated, the first Vice-president assumes the President’s duties for a period of no more than 90 days of the President of the Republic’s office becoming vacant. During this period new presidential elections shall be conducted;

2. If the office of the President of the Republic becomes vacant, and he does not have a Vice-president, his duties shall be assumed temporarily by the Prime Minister for a period of no more than 90 days of the date of the President of the Republic’s office becoming vacant. During this period new presidential elections shall be conducted.

Article 94

If the President of the Republic resigned from office, he should address the resignation letter to the People’s Assembly.

Article 95

The protocol, privileges and allocations required for the office of President of the Republic shall be set out in a law.

Article 96

The President of the Republic shall insure respect for the Constitution, the regular running of public authorities, protection of national unity and survival of the state.

Article 97

The President of the Republic shall name the Prime Minister, his deputies, ministers and their deputies, accept their resignation and dismiss them from office.

Article 98

In a meeting chaired by him, the President of the Republic lays down the general policy of the state and oversees its implementation.

Article 99

The President of the Republic might call the Council of Ministers to a meeting chaired by him; and might ask for reports from the Prime Minister and the ministers.

Article 100

The President of the Republic shall pass the laws approved by the People’s Assembly. He might also reject them through a justified decision within one month of these laws being received by the Presidency. If they are approved a second time by the People’s Assembly with a two thirds majority, they shall be passed by the President of the Republic.

Article 101

The President of the Republic shall pass decrees, decisions and orders in accordance with the laws.

Article 102

The President of the Republic declares war, calls for general mobilization and concludes peace agreements after obtaining the approval of the People’s Assembly.

Article 103

The President of the Republic declares the state of emergency and repeals it in a decree taken at the Council of Ministers chaired by him with a two thirds majority, provided that the decree is presented to the People’s Assembly in its first session. The law sets out the relevant provisions.

Article 104

The President of the Republic accredits heads of diplomatic missions in foreign countries and accepts the credentials of heads of foreign diplomatic missions in the Syrian Arab Republic.

Article 105

The President of the Republic is the Commander in Chief of the army and armed forces; and he issues all the decisions necessary to exercise this authority. He might delegate some of these authorities.

Article 106

The President of the Republic appoints civilian and military employees and ends their services in accordance with the law.

Article 107

The President of the Republic concludes international treaties and agreements and revokes them in accordance with provisions of the Constitution and rules of international law.

Article 108

The President of the Republic grants special amnesty and might reinstate individuals.

Article 109

The President of the Republic has the right to award medals and honors.

Article 110

The President of the Republic might address letters to the People’s Assembly and make statements before it.

Article 111

1. The President of the Republic might decide to dissolve the People’s Assembly in a justified decision he makes;

2. Elections for a new People’s Assembly shall be conducted within 60 days of the date of dissolution;

3. The People’s Assembly might not be dissolved more than once for the same reason.

Article 112

The President of the Republic might prepare draft laws and refer them to the People’s Assembly to consider them for approval.

Article 113

1. The President of the Republic assumes the authority of legislation when the People’s Assembly is not in session, or during sessions if absolute necessity requires this, or in the period during which the Assembly is dissolved.

2. These legislation shall be referred to the Assembly within 15 days of its first session;

3. The Assembly has the right to revoke such legislation or amend them in a law with a majority of two thirds of the members registered for attending the session, provided it is no less than the absolute majority of all its members. Such amendment or revocation shall not have a retroactive effect. If they are not amended or revoked, they shall be considered approved.

Article 114

If a grave danger and a situation threatening national unity, the safety and integrity of the territories of the homeland occurs, or prevents state institutions from shouldering their constitutional responsibilities, the President of the Republic might take the quick measures nictitated by these circumstances to face that danger.

Article 115

The President of the Republic might set up special bodies, councils and committees whose tasks and mandates are set out in the decisions taken to create them.

Article 116

The President of the Republic might call for a referendum on important issues which affect the higher interests of the country. The result of the referendum shall be binding and come into force as of the date of its announcement; and it shall be published by the President of the Republic.

Article 117

The President of the Republic is not responsible for the acts he does in carrying out his duties except in the case of high treason; and the accusation should be made through a People’s Assembly decision taken by the Assembly in a public vote and with a two thirds majority in a secret session based on a proposal made by at least one third of the members. He shall be tried before the Supreme Constitutional Court. (2) The Council of Ministers

Article 118

1. The Council of Ministers is the highest executive and administrative authority of the state. It consists of the Prime Minister, his deputies and the ministers. It supervises the implementation of the laws and regulations and oversees the work of state institutions;

2. The Prime Minister supervises the work of his deputies and the ministers.

Article 119

The allocations and benefits of the Prime Minister, his deputies and the ministers shall be set out in a law.

Article 120

The Prime Minister, his deputies and the ministers shall be sworn in before the President of the Republic when a new government is formed by repeating the constitutional oath mentioned in Article 7 of the Constitution before they start their work. When the government is reshuffled, only the new ministers shall be sworn in.

Article 121

The Prime Minister, his deputies and the ministers shall be responsible before the President of the Republic and the People’s Assembly.

Article 122

The minister is the highest administrative authority in his ministry, and he shall implement the state’s public policy in relation to his ministry.

Article 123

While in office, ministers shall be barred from being members of the boards of private companies or agents for such companies and from carrying out, directly or indirectly, any commercial activity or private profession.

Article 124

1. The Prime Minister, his deputies and the ministers shall be responsible for their acts, from a civil and penal perspective, in accordance with the law;

2. The President of the Republic has the right to refer the Prime Minister, his deputies and the ministers to the courts for any crimes any of them commits while in office or because of such crimes;

3. The accused shall be suspended from office as soon as an indictment is made until a ruling is passed on the accusation made against him. His resignation or dismissal does not prevent his trial. Procedures are conducted as stated in the law.

Article 125

1. The cabinet shall be considered as resigned in the following cases:

a. Upon the end of the term of office of the President of the Republic;

b. Upon the election of a new People’s Assembly;

c. If the majority of the ministers resigned.

2. The cabinet carries on in a care taker capacity until a decree is passed naming a new cabinet.

Article 126

An individual can be a minister and a member of the People’s Assembly at the same time.

Article 127

Provisions applying to ministers apply to deputy ministers.

Article 128

The mandate of the Council of Ministers is as follows:

1. It draws the executive plans of the state’s general policy;

2. It guides the work of ministers and other public bodies;

3. It draws the state’s draft budget;

4. It drafts laws;

5. It prepares development plans and plans for upgrading production and the exploitation of national resources and everything that could support and develop the economy and increase national income;

6. It concludes loan contracts and grants loans in accordance with provisions of the constitution;

7. Concludes treaties and agreements in accordance with provisions of the constitution;

8. Follows up on enforcing the laws and protects the interests and the security of the state and protects the freedoms and rights of the population;

9. Passes administrative decisions in accordance with the laws and regulations and oversees their implementation.

Article 129

The Prime Minister and the ministers exercise the authorities provided for in the laws in force in a manner that does not contravene the authorities given to other authorities in the Constitution, in addition to the other authorities stated in its provisions. (2) Local Councils

Article 130

The Syrian Arab Republic consists of administrative units; and the law states their number, boundaries, authorities and the extent to which they enjoy the status of a legal entity, financial and administrative independence.

Article 131

1. The organization of local administration units is based on applying the principle of decentralization of authorities and responsibilities. The law states the relationship between these units and the central authority, their mandate, financial revenues and control over their work. It also states the way their heads are appointed or elected, their authorities and the authorities of heads of sectors.

2. Local administration units shall have councils elected in a general, secret, direct and equal manner.

Chapter III

The Judicial Authority (1)

The Courts and Attorney General’s Office

Article 132

The judicial authority is independent; and the President of the Republic insures this independence assisted by the Supreme Judicial Council.

Article 133

1. The Supreme Judicial Council is headed by the President of the Republic; and the law states the way it shall be formed, its mandate and its rules of procedures;

2. The Supreme Judicial Council insures the provision of the guarantees necessary for the independence of the judiciary.

Article 134

1. Judges are independent and there is no authority over them except that of the law;

2. The judges’ honor, conscience and impartiality constitute the guarantees for people’s rights and freedoms.

Article 135

The law regulates the different branches, categories and degrees of the judicial system. It also states the rules for the mandates of different courts.

Article 136

The law states the conditions for appointing judges, promoting, transferring, disciplining and dismissing them.

Article 137

The Attorney General’s Office is a single judicial institution headed by the Minister of Justice. The law regulates its function and mandate.

Article 138

1. Judicial rulings are made in the name of the Arab people of Syria;

2. Not implementing judicial rulings or obstructing their implementation is a crime punished in accordance with provisions of the law.

(2) Administrative Judiciary

Article 139

The State’s Council is in charge of Administrative Judiciary. It is an independent judicial and advisory body. The law states its mandate and conditions for appointing, promoting, transferring, disciplining and dismissing them.

Title Four

The Supreme Constitutional Court

Article 140

The Supreme Constitutional Court is an independent judicial body based in Damascus.

Article 141

The Supreme Constitutional Court consists of at least seven members, one of them shall be named president in a decree passed by the President of the Republic.

Article 142

An individual cannot be a member of the Supreme Constitutional Court and a minister or a member of the People’s Assembly at the same time. The law states the other jobs that cannot be done by a member of the Court.

Article 143

The duration of membership of the Supreme Constitutional Court shall be four years renewable. Article 144 Members of the Supreme Constitutional Court cannot be dismissed from its membership except in accordance with the law.

Article 145

President and members of the Supreme Constitutional Court shall be sworn in before the President of the Republic in the presence of the Speaker of the People’s Assembly before they assume their duties. They repeat the following oath: “I swear by the Great Almighty to respect the Constitution and the laws of the country and to carry out my responsibilities with integrity and impartiality”.

Article 146

The mandate of the Supreme Constitutional Court is as follows:

1. Control over the constitutionality of the laws, legislative decrees, bylaws and regulations;

2. Expressing opinion, upon the request of the President of the Republic, on the constitutionality of the draft laws and legislative decrees and the legality of draft decrees;

3. Supervising the election of the President of the Republic and organizing the relevant procedures;

4. Considering the challenges made to the soundness of the measures of electing the President of the Republic and members of the People’s Assembly and ruling on these challenges;

5. Trying the President of the Republic in the case of high treason;

6. The law states its other authorities.

Article 147

1. The Supreme Constitutional Court is charged with control over the constitutionality of the laws as follows:

a. If the President of the Republic or a fifth of the members of the People’s Assembly object to a law before it is passed, on the grounds of its unconstitutionality, it shall be suspended until the Court rules on it within 15 days of the date of lodging the objection at the Court. If the law is urgently needed, the Court shall rule on it within 7 days;

b. If a fifth of the members of the People’s Assembly object to a legislative decree, on the grounds of its unconstitutionality within 15 days of it is being presented to the Assembly, the Court shall rule on it within 15 days of lodging the objection at the Court;

c. If the Court ruled that the law, the legislative decree or the bylaw was unconstitutional, the items found to be unconstitutional shall be annulled with retroactive effect and all their consequences shall be removed.

2. Considering the claim of the unconstitutionality of a law or a legislative decree and ruling on it takes place as follows:

a. If an opponent making a challenge claimed the unconstitutionality of a legal text applied by the court whose ruling is being challenged, and if the court considering the challenge found that the claim was serious and should be ruled on, it halts the proceedings of the case and refers it to the Supreme Constitutional Court;

b. The Supreme Constitutional Court shall rule on the claim within 30 days of being entered in its register.

Article 148

The Supreme Constitutional Court shall not consider the constitutionality of the laws put by the President of the Republic to a referendum and obtained the approval of the people.

Article 149

The law regulates the principles of considering and ruling on the issues under the mandate of the Supreme Constitutional Court. The law states the number of its staff and the conditions which need to be met by its members. It also states their immunity, responsibilities, salaries and privileges.

Title Five

Amending the Constitution

Article 150

1. The President of the Republic, and so does a third of the members of the People’s Assembly, might propose amending the Constitution;

2. The proposal for amending the Constitution shall state the text proposed to be amended and the reasons for making the amendment;

3. As soon as the People’s Assembly receives the proposal for amendment, it sets up a special committee to examine it.

4. The Assembly discusses the proposal for amendment. If it approved it with a three quarters majority, the amendment shall be considered final provided that it is also approved by the President of the Republic.

Title Six

General and Transitional Provisions

Article 151

The Preamble of the Constitution is considered part and parcel of the Constitution

Article 152

No person carrying another nationality, in addition to the nationality of the Syrian Arab Republic, might occupy the office of President of the Republic, Vice-president, Prime Minister, deputy prime ministers, ministers, members of the People’s Assembly or members of the Supreme Constitutional Court.

Article 153

This constitution shall not be amended before 18 months of coming into force.

Article 154

The legislation in force and passed before approving this Constitution remain in force until they are amended in accordance with its provisions, provided that the amendment is done within a period of no longer than 3 years.

Article 155

The term of office of the current President of the Republic terminates after 7 years of his being sworn in as President. He has the right to stand again for the office of President of the Republic. Provisions of Article 88 of this Constitution apply to him as of the next presidential elections.

Article 156

Elections for the first People’s Assembly under this Constitution shall be held within 90 days of the date of its being approved through referendum.

Article 157

This Constitution shall be published in the official bulletin and enters into force as of being approved.

Damascus… 2012

President of the Republic

Bashar al-Assad

Source: The Embassy of Syrian Arab Republican in Kuala Lumpur.

[Intro : I grew up in New York City, and have traveled and lived in different parts of the world, including about 18 years in the “Peachtree State” of Georgia. For almost as long as I lived there, I’d heard of Cynthia McKinney—the first African-American woman to represent Georgia in the U.S. House of Representatives. To be honest, a great deal that I heard from the Mainstream Media was negative, portraying Ms. McKinney as a crazy shrew, an over-the-top black radical who questioned the official story of 9/11; opposed the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan–and, recently, in Libya; opposed Israeli policies, and supported Palestinian demands for statehood. About three years ago, I heard McKinney speak at a conference at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. Instead of a crazy firebrand, I heard an intelligent, measured, if passionate, presentation of why she challenged US war policies.

When I returned to Geogia, I wrote a friend in the UK about my hope to interview McKinney. My friend related a story about the “Dignity” ship, carrying food and medical supplies to Palestine, in 2008, rammed by the Israeli Navy in international waters. McKinney was on that ship, and when it was rammed, she turned to my friend’s brother and said, “David, I can’t swim.” Nothing I had ever heard about McKinney revealed her character more succinctly. This is a woman willing to put her life on the line in support of her principles. Missing from the Mainstream Media depictions were the human and humane aspects of her character. The MSM has too-often portrayed the struggle for justice as irrational, or even fanatical. I needed to know more.—Gary Corseri]

GC: Let’s start with a big one… about the day that changed everything—9/11.

[And, for a sense of the very sharp way McKinney performed her duties—and the People’s business– in the US House of Representatives, while on the Budget Committee, I recommend checking out this 9-minute 2006 YouTube video of her grilling Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, General Meyers, and Tina Jonas about 9/11 and related matters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px1t1-a9uxk&feature=player_embedded ]

In 2004, you signed the 9/11 Truth Movement statement, calling for new investigations of “unexplained aspects of the 9/11 events.” More than 7 years have passed since then. What would you say are some of the more egregious “unexplained events”?

CM: … How is it that the people of the United States can invest trillions of dollars in the military and Intelligence infrastructure—and it failed four times in one day? … That singular question has never been answered.

GC: Staying with 9/11. … Distorted as they have been by the Mainstream Media, your views have caused uninformed Americans to question your patriotism. In 2005, you held Congressional briefings on the official 9/11 Commission Report—

CM: Yeah. … the only official briefing on that subject held on Capitol Hill, period!

GC: Well… The Atlanta-Journal Constitution editorialized that—

CM: Oh… you mean, The Urinal-in-Constipation !

[General laughter in the room. …]

GC: … They editorialized that—

CM: You call them legitimate? I won’t even legitimize them with a response! Whatever they say is bogus! You got another quote from somebody?

GC: No… well, hear me out. …

CM: I’m not going to respond to anything they say!

GC: Well… you did, in fact, respond to an editorial they wrote when they editorialized that the briefings you were holding were to determine whether the Bush administration had prior knowledge of the attacks. That was their editorial! You replied…, but they refused to publish your response. …So… how did you respond? Can you tell us now?

CM: Oh, I can’t even remember back that far…, but, I think the record now reflects what Bush knew… and I’m sure that part of what I said is that I would never try to go inside George Bush’s brain to see what’s there!

GC: Too many maggots?

[Laughter. …]

GC: So, your main question is, Where was our air force, why didn’t they prevent it—

CM: We know where they were. … The question is, Why didn’t they follow standard operating procedures?

GC: And the other questions about buildings free-falling into their footprints… Building 7—

CM: Look… I spent last September ’11 in the home of a woman who is afflicted with cancer… because she lived near the World Trade center. And all of that dust came into her apartment… and she had to clean it up. … She will never figure into any of the statistics about who has been affected—her situation will never count… but it counts to me, and to all of the other memebers of the 911 Truth Community.

GC: Let’s explore another controversial issue linked to you. … Ms. McKinney, what does the number “88794” signify for you?

CM: That was the number that was assigned to me by the Israeli prison system when—on my second attempt to get into Gaza—I was kidnapped on the high seas in international waters and taken against my will to Israel and put in prison. … David Halpin, the UK physician, and I sat next to each other because the volunteers—the activists that were on the boat—were international and spoke different languages… so I sat next to the English doctor… and he railed, he railed, he railed as the warship came close to us…, then backed off…, then approached us again—very quicly and very quietly–in this cat-and-mouse game. … And he cursed my government… because it was with the assistance of the United States that those engines had been provided to the Israeli military so that they could do what they were doing to us. …

GC: Did you join him in the cursing?

CM: No. … In fact…, I do a lot of apologizing! I can say this: In the struggle for human rights, I consider prisoner # 88794 a badge of honor that I’ve acquired as a result of what I have chosen to do to assert my own right to recognize the human rights and the dignity of other people. …

GC: Let’s continue with this theme of recognizing other people’s human rights. … More recently, this past year, you were in Tripoli when NATO bombed Libya. What were you doing there… and can you describe that experience?

CM: I voluntarily went to Libya. … Any time the War Machine rolls—I have to oppose that! Libya was a special case, a personal case… because I had just been to Libya. … I had taken a delegation of independent journalists to go to Libya… because I did not believe the explanation that was given to the public about the necessity to bomb Tripoli and other cities in Libya. … While we were there… we experienced what “shock and awe” is all about. The individual who went to the UN with allegations of thousands dying at the hands of Colonel Gaddhafi and the Libyan government—when he was pressed to substantiate his claims, he couldn’t.

GC:That reminds me of the allegations made against the Iraqis in Kuwait, back in 1990–that they were taking babies out of incubators and throwing them on the floor!

CM: It’s also a situation similar to that of the Cuban-American community congregated down in Miami… right after the Cuban Revolution in 1959 where we had a community of expatriates who were willing to unleash terror on their own country… and, a similar thing was happening in Libya… with the United States providing financing for these individuals willing to lie about what was happening.

This information is available on the Internet. Julien Teil interviewed the individual making these false claims at the UN. The interview can be found at www.laguerrehumanitaire.fr . …It’s on YouTube, as well. Julien also interviewed the woman at Amnesty International who had claimed that “African mercenaries” were supporting Gaddafi’s repression of his people; but, when challenged—and this was all after the devastation—she admitted that it was “just a rumor.”

My colleague, David Josue, and I had been in Libya to attend a conference for Africans on the continent as well as Africans in the diaspora. And what the Jamahariya government had devised was a call to Africans in the diaspora who were unhappy with their treatment at the hands of white Americans or white Europeans, etc.—to come back home to Africa and to help Libya rebuild Africa and rebuild itself.

[Interviewer’s NOTE: (from Wikipedia): “Jamahiriya” is a term coined by Gaddafi, usually translated as “state of the masses.”]

… That was the purpose of this conference I had attended. … And it was at that conference that the Jamahiriya committed 90 billion dollars to help in the creation of The United States of Africa. … That would also include a million-person army for continental Africa to drive back the attempts of AFRICOM and others to occupy the African continent. … That was in addition to the proposal for a gold-backed dinar for all of Africa. … The daughter of Kwame Nkruma was at that conference; the son of Patrice Lumumba was at that conference… the grandson of Malcom X was there. … The atmosphere was electric with the idea of the re-building, the re-kindling of the movement that these African leaders—or their forebears—represented. Well… that was all put to an end by NATO’s bombing. …

[Interviewer’s NOTE (from Wikipedia): The United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) is one of nine United Combatant Commands of the United States Armed Forces.]

The attack on Libya was an attack on Africa! It was an attack on my aspirations as a person of African descent to have a free and independent Africa. That’s what was attacked!

GC: I’ve never had as complete a picture of that. … I’d heard that Gaddafi wanted to set up a gold-backed dinar. … In fact, people like Ron Paul even talk about using gold-backed currency… so I’ve heard that as a rationale for what we were doing there—trying to prevent any challenge to the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency. … But…, nobody has described the situation as completely as you have.

My final question on Libya is this: You have praised Colonel Gaddafi’s GREEN BOOK and the kind of “direct democracy” advocated therein. Can you give us a brief lesson as to how that “direct democracy” differs from our “representative democracy”?

CM: Our “democracy” is neither democratic nor representative! But… let’s start with what the Jamahiriya means to me. … The only stake that I have is that I want to see a free and independent Africa…, but the type of government that Libya has should be determined by the Libyan people. I don’t really have a say in that. … And I shouldn’t have a say in how they dispose of their governmental form. … Therefore, it’s inexcusable to ask another country to bomb your fellow countrymen if you really care about your country!

The Jamahiriya–which had the highest living standard in all of Africa–had free education up through the Ph.D. level; free health care; free utilities, subsidized—and free, if you were poor—housing; subsidized food; subsidized transportaion, including car expenses… and so, the necessities of life were paid for by the direct democracy known as the Jamahiriya.

Can you imagine…? I have a cousin who is $120,000 in student debt in the U.S. She has a Master’s degree as a social worker. Now, if she had been born in Libya—she would have no such debt. … I went to a university outside of Tripoli and asked the students about their tuition fees… and the word didn’t translate. I asked them about what they paid to attend the university. … It was $9.00 per year!

When I was in Congress, one of my allies was Senator Mike Gravel… and Senator Gravel’s initiative is about “direct democracy.” He had been to Libya… and he supported the establishment of the revolutionary committees which was the way Libyans determined how they would use their oil money.

A question under discussion when I attended the conference there was whether the subsidies for gas/petrol or the subsidies for education would be increased! (In the US, under “austerity” measures, people are being told which programs will be eliminated or eviscerated; in Libya, they were voting on which programs would get increased subsidization!)

What I have said publicly is that what we have been seeing is the Israelization of US policy. You know… the only reason the Libyans took any interest in me was that someone in Libya, looking at their television, saw me having all these problems trying to get into Gaza… and they said, “We want to know her!” That’s why I was invited to attend this conference on THE GREEN BOOK—to explain what I was trying to do in Gaza. And what I observed in Libya was the same kind of collective punishment I observed in Gaza. People supporting their own governments were being punished by outsiders who opposed those governments!

This is the kind of thing that happens in the absence of ethics in jouralism. … Because… we don’t have journalists in the Mainstream—I call it the Special Interests Press–to educate and provide information to citizens so they can make a critical analysis of issues. That is absent. … We need ethics in scholarship; ethics in journalism, as well. …The journalistic community has gone along with the kind of death and destruction that has been visited upon Libya… and so many other countries. We’re setting up drone bases all over Africa… and people here don’t even know… don’t begin to understand. …

GC: You’ve mentioned many potent issues, including the “Israelization of US policy.” I’d like to explore that, and also explore the theme of alliances—even unlikely alliances. …

In the 2002 election to the House of Representatives, people like your father and the editor and commentator Alexander Cockburn alleged that your defeat by Denise Majette was a consequence of out-of-state Jewish organizations and Jewish money working against you—

CM: That’s not an allegation—that’s a fact! I was informed that I had been targeted by the pro-Israel lobby by the media. … I read about it in the papers! … and the evidence is readily available. …So, the fact of being targeted by the number-one special interest lobby in the United States means that there is an engagement in every aspect of one’s political life. …

GC: Well, ah, let’s tackle this head-on: Are you anti-Semitic?

CM: Well, I’m, ah… I’m no more anti-Semitic than than any of the anti-Zionist Jews who I work with on an almost-daily basis to correct US policy. And, I would suggest that the real Semites are the Palestinians. And, therefore, I would suggest that I’m not anti-Semitic, but that there are people who are anti-human rights, and there are some people who are anti-peace, and there are some people who are pro-war… and no matter who they are, I will always be against that… because I. … You see what my… my button says?

(She points to a button she is wearing on her blouse). My button says, “I’m a peace-keeper” And, this one says, “War is a crime!”

GC: “Blessed are the peace-keepers. …”

CM: When I was in Congress, I organized a Press Conference with organizations like “Jewish Workers for Peace,” “Not in My Name, Women in Black [www.womeninblack.org]— we had about ten organizations at that press conference… and it was fantastic. …

That night, the Atlanta news criticized me for associating with “fringe Jewish elements”! Now… what’s a “fringe Jewish element”? It was the Anti-Defamation League that was casting this aspersion!

Now, the Anti-Defamation League that I knew about is supposed to be a Civil Rights organization. But… the Anti-Defamation League, in practice, filed an amicus brief with five white racists to dismantle the district—my district!–that provided an opportunity for black people in the black belt of Georgia to have representation! Those are the people who sent me to Congress to represent them! … I stand on their shoulders, and I did my darnedest to represent them—and I was rewarded by the Anti-Defamation League filing an amicus brief and a lawsuit to dismantle that district and take representation away from those poor, black people.

GC: I can certainly understand your indignation. And I don’t want to hammer this issue. … But, this is on Wikipedia… and, as one researches you—this is what one comes across:

About that election with Majette, your father, a former state representative in Georgia, stated that “Jews have bought everybody… And then he spelled it, “J-E-W-S. …” Now…, personally, I always make a distinction between Jews and Zionists—and you just did. … I try to distinguish between people who follow a religious tradition and those who assert a political-nationalist ideology. … And, ah… I think writers like Gilad Atzmon, for example, have been very clear about making that distinction in his recent work like The Wandering Who? . …

CM: I haven’t read that, but—

GC: I haven’t read it, but I’ve read about it—

CM: Gilad is coming to Atlanta this month—

GC: Is he? I’d like to meet him. …

CM: Yes. … You must come—

GC: I will! But, ah, anyway… do you think, in retrospect, you might recommend changing the terminology a bit– just to broaden the dialogue and widen the base of opposition to inhumane practices?

CM: Well… let me tell you something. … I want to talk to you about. … The first time my daddy got into trouble was when he said, “racist Jew.” And, I had a Jewish friend who was trying to smooth things over. And I asked her, “Is Jew a bad word? I didn’t know “Zionist”—I didn’t even know that word at the time… because… here’s the thing: the Anti-Defamation League says that they represent all Jews—that’s what they tell us. AIPAC, also. So… I didn’t know that there was a word called “Zionist” until I became involved with the Betrand Russell tribunal on Palestine. … And there was a famous Jewish lawyer who was one of the leaders in that tribunal, and I went to him and I said, “Daniel, how does your family feel about your being in this tribunal?” and he said, “My family are anti-Zionist Jews.” And I said, “I don’t know what that is!” I was 50-something years old, and I’d never heard the language! Now, of course, I’ve been exposed… and I’m more sensitive that there’s a difference. … Now… I have marvelous Jewish friends… and I understand the difference between Judaism and Zionism. Whoever prays to whatever God is fine with me…, but, a political ideology is quite different. … I know I have a lot to learn when it comes to Zionism and Judaism. … I’m not very religious… but I am spiritual… and I’m very interested in people’s beliefs… but, I’m more interested in the way people behave. … So, I would always say, Judge me on what I do more than on what I say. … And, I acknowledge that I can be wrong about what I say. … And, my father can be wrong about what he said. …

GC: Thank you very much. … I think you’ve clarified that for a lot of people. …

Now… this idea of building alliances. … I’d like to discuss current events, namely, the Presidential election

CM: Um-ha. …

GC: First, a re-cap: In 2008, disgusted with the Democratic Party, you were the Green Party candidate for president. That same year, you joined a press conference held by 3 rd party and independent candidates, including Ralph Nader and Ron Paul. The participants agreed on 4 basic principles:

1. An early end to the Iraq War, and an end to threats of war against other countries, including Iran.

2. Safeguarding privacy and civil liberties, including repeal of the Patriot Act, the Military Commisions Act and FISA legislation.

3. No increase in the National Debt.

4. A thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System.

My question is this: If these different elements of Independent thought could come together on these 4 basic principles in 2008, why can’t they unite behind the same principles in 2012?

CM: They can. …

GC : Isn’t it possible to conceive a party that speaks for the majority of Independents, that unites Independents? The 4 principles that united Independents then are still very much with us—and in many ways the dangers are greater—the possibility of war with Iran looms larger now, and there’s the National Defense Authorization Act, as well as the other intrusions on privacy and civil liberties. More Americans classify themselves as “Independents” than as Republicans or Democrats. How can the varied strands of Independents work together to defeat the Republicrats?

CM: The answer to that question goes to the core of the kind of change we hope to initiate on a policy basis. … So… how do we do that? I think the first thing is that we have to be willing to talk to each other. We have to recognize that there’s commonality despite difference. So… the thing that allowed Nader and me and Paul to come together is that we were at least willing to see areas of commonality. We should be able to do that across the political spectrum. And, in fact, when I was in the Congress, I was forced to do that. … As a Southerner, I—and as someone who had to get votes—not lose them—I needed the endorsement of a leader in the community… and he was a Klan member… and I had no choice. … I asked him for his support—and I got it! (After I sat there for over an hour and he described to me how “confused” the people were because of the way they judged the Ku Klux Klan to be racist!)

[Here, CM gives a strong, hearty guffaw!]

And… I sat there and found a place where we could have a meeting of the minds—and I did it!

GC: Related question then: I’ve been criticized because I wrote an article, about a month ago—“The Lion and the Ox”– praising Ron Paul’s stance on ending the wars, ending the Empire, auditing the Fed. I also think his views on our antiquated, absurd and minority-punishing drug laws are far more enlightened than anyone else’s—with the exception of 2012 Green Party candidate, Jill Stein’s. Paul makes a distinction between Capitalism and Corporatism—an important distinction. Now, I’m not a Libertarian; I don’t agree with “unregulated” Capitalism to the extent Paul and Libertarians do. But, I wonder: Given various points of convergence, how can the Green Party and Libertarians work together to overturn what we have in America today—basically, a one-party system, a Corporate Party system, abetted by corporate media?

CM: Well, one thing is that the Libertarians and the Greens could join forces—kind of a united front. So… I’d like to see if those kinds of talks could get anywhere.

GC: A friend of mine suggested a Paul-McKinney ticket. …

CM: That was your friend, huh?

GC: Well, you know… when I first heard that, I thought, “That’s crazy!” But… I thought about it, and I thought, “Why not? We live in crazy times. …”

CM: Yeah… we do. …

GC: I mean… look what we have to choose from: Santorum, Michelle Bachman, Hermain Cain, Gingrich, Romney–all these crazy people. …

CM: Every time there’s a vote, it gets more outrageous, doesn’t it?

GC: It does! Well… what do you think about Paul-McKinney?

CM: Well… we’re not there yet, so I don’t have to think about it at all!

GC: Well. …

CM: Let me put it this way. … We do have overlapping constituencies. … So… it would be wonderful if the two circles could expand beyond their points of intersection. …And I’m not just talking about Paul. … I’m talking about people on the Left in general. … Because, there’s no more Left and Right. It’s only Right and Wrong now… and the old “Right” is Wrong… and the old “Left” needs to be more Right… does that make sense?

GC: Yes. …

CM: Yeah, because the Left is being co-opted. … So, the Left needs to be more Left!

GC: There needs to be a convergence where the Greens and the Libertarians can meet—

CM: And the militia! You know… I have to deal with the militia, too. I’m from Georgia, right? They participate in the political system—to the extent that they do—and somebody needs to be talking to’em… because, ultimately, they’re a part of the 99%. … And that’s the gift that the Occupy Movement has given to us—they’ve given us a way to self-identify. Now we know—it’s not about color, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation—all of those things. At the end of the day—if you’re part of the 99%, you’re part of us… and if you’re part of the 1%–you’re part of them!

GC: Related question: Okay…also about Current Events: this is about the Occupy Movement, then. …

CM: Okay. …

GC: We live in a Surveilance State. Our license plate numbers are routinely recorded; we’re finger-printed for jobs, our Social Security numbers serve as National I.D.’s, our e-mails are monitored for “code” words or phrases, our homes are surveiled by satellite mapping systems of Google, Yahoo, etc. Those who protest, as in the Occupy Wall Street movement, are arrested, booked, and more closely watched. Now they have “records” that affect their employment. … My question is: how do we battle this pervasive system? Do you get discouraged? What do you do when you are discouraged? Who are your “heroes”? To whom do you turn for inspiration?

CM: Do I get discouraged? Yes! What do I do when I’m discouraged? … find other people who are not yet discouraged!

Who are my heroes? Everybody! Everybody who has a tough row to hoe in life! Those are my heroes. Those are the people who give the most! When I was running for Congress back in 1992–for the first time—I was running to represent the second poorest district in Georgia… and, what I learned was that the poor people gave the most! The people who had… didn’t give as generously as the people who didn’t have! So… my first campaign theme was, “Warriors don’t wear medals, they wear scars!” So… my heroes are the community and neighborhood warriors who have a whole lof of scars, a whole lot of dignity.

GC: I’d like you to talk specifically about what used to be called the Black Liberation Struggle. As a young, white man, I was inspired by the works of black writers like Richard Wright, James Baldwin, Leroi Jones (now called Baraka), Eldridge Cleaver, W.E.B. DuBois, and poets like Langston Hughes. Martin Luther King and Malcom X were inspirational leaders for all people; Rosa Parks was a woman of quiet, dignified courage. But, now, with the election of Obama, and with the prominence of people like Bill Cosby first, and Oprah Winfrey, the billionairess—the great struggles of the past almost seem quaint. What’s your take on this? Who are the great black leaders today? What is the struggle about today?

[Note:There are 7 million Americans now under “correctional observation.” More African-Americans’ lives intersect with our prison-industrial-surveillance complex than there were African-American slaves in 1850!]

CM: You asked me who are my heroes. … One of my heroes is Glen Ford, who writes for The Black Agenda Report [http://blackagendareport.com/]. I view him as the most astute political observer of our times.

There’s a whole lot of pundits who are in our faces every Sunday morning who think they are political observers…, but they are not astute! And they’re also not independent. Glen Ford is independent, he’s been through the wars and he has no special interests to kow-tow to. … He just wrote a piece… “Can the Proud African-American Progressive Legacy Survive Another Four Years of Cowing to the Corporate Servant in the White House?” That’s strong stuff…, but right on point!

We have a situation now… it was the Black struggle that really defined morality in the United States. It defined the moral imperative. And the character of the country was measured by how well it answered the call of Black people for justice. But what happens when Black people stop asking for justice? I think you get exactly what we’ve got now—a President who is dropping bombs on Africa… which is un-thought-of; I mean, it would have been un-thought-of four years ago that Africa would be bombed—routinely! But it’s a routine matter now that the United States Africa Command [AFRICOM] would actively establish itself and militarize the US relationship with Africa. AFRICOM represents a kind of US imperial occupation of the continent that we haven’t seen since the days of outright colonialism of the Europeans. We are being told about issues that are “important”…, but we’re ignoring the real issues that are important! Henry Kissinger said that he couldn’t believe the amount of good will that was embodied in this president! But… what people like Kissinger don’t “get” is that this president sits on top of the historic Black struggle that characterized the United States to the world! People around the world thought that Barack Obama characterized the New United States! But… far from it! A lot of people got tricked and fooled and now… as philosopher Michel Foucault has observed—the every-day actions of ordinary people actually entrap them in “powerlessness”. … So, to break out of your powerlessness, you’ve got to break out of your existing paradigm. So, as long as Barack Obama is representative of the existing paradigm, this is what we’re going to get… because the existing paradigm is war and more war!

GC: How do we “break out”? How do we fight the Mainstream Media that’s constantly projecting that paradigm and hammering it into our brains?

CM: The literature suggests that people have to be confronted with a “disorienting dilemma” that causes them to reflect on what they’ve just experienced. …

GC: Cognitive dissonance?

CM: That’s right. … Reflect on what you always assumed… and what you’ve been confronted with that contradicts your assumptions. … For some people, it was the murder of JFK; for others, it was the murder of Malcom; for others, it was the murder of MLK; for a whole bunch of others, it was the murder of RFK; and for some people who began to look and pay attention like me… it was the murder of all of them and then add onto it the murder of the members of the Black Panther Party—who were attacked by our own government. …

You could say that for me, my first “disorienting dilemma” was when I realized that I was black. I realized that the world around me was not like me, and that it didn’t value my black skin! That, for me was when I began to pay attention and wake up!

GC: How old were you?

CM: Seven or eight. …You know… for some people it’s religion, it’s race, it’s gender, it’s, maybe, sexual orientation. … Everyone has their moment of reckoning.

I think, ultimately… it’s about the love we have for humanity and how we see something is wrong and we have to stop it!

So… by the time I got to Congress… I had had my “reckoning,” and I had had my “break-out” moments, and I guess this gave me strength and vibrancy… and there were people who didn’t like it. I wore my hair differently, I dressed differently from the other people in Congress. There was even a segment of the Capitol Hill police that didn’t like that. …

GC: What year was that?

CM: 1993. …

GC: Wasn’t there a much more recent incident with the Capitol Hill police?

CM: No, no, no. … It happened for twelve years! … Twelve years of harrassment from the Capitol Hill police! They considered it a “sport” to harass me! … It’s available on the Internet… if you go to YouTube and you put in “The Last Plantation.”

GC: The infamous incident is when you apparently struck back at the officer who was harassing you. … Is that correct?

CM: The officer had no business putting his hands on me! … And I reacted like any normal person would react when being attacked by some great big, huge guy from behind! … This was a “hit.” It was a “hit”—a “sport”–for the white officers. You’ll see if you go to that “Last Plantation” site that I had been targeted because I had written a letter of support for the Black Capitol Hill police officers.

GC: And this most infamous incident… that was the same day as House Majority Leader Tom DeLay was indicted?

CM: That’s right. … The Mainstream Media didn’t want to lead with that indictment, did they? It was much more sensational and distracting to lead with the story of a black Congresswoman attacking a Capitol Hill police officer!

[Laughter]

GC: You’re a pretty brave woman, aren’t you?

CM: Everybody can be brave… they just need that break-out moment of recognition. … I’ve stood on some big shoulders. … As I said before—my campaign theme: “Warriors don’t wear medals… they wear scars.”

By Gary S. Corseri

20 February 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Editor, teacher and writer Dr. Gary S. Corseri has taught in universities in the U.S. and Japan, and in public schools and prisons in the U.S. His articles, poems, fiction and dramas have appeared at Countercurrents, CounterPunch, InformationClearingHouse, CommonDreams, The New York Times, The Village Voice , and hundreds of other venues worldwide. His dramas have been produced on PBS-Atlanta, and he has performed his work at the Carter Presidential Library. His books include novels and poetry collections. He can be contacted at gary_corseri@comcast.net .

Since 2009, the climate change movement has been losing momentum. But failure should not be taken as the whole story of Copenhagen and its aftermath, argues Elaine Graham-Leigh

In the planning stages, the demonstration at the climate talks in Copenhagen in December 2009, and the associated protests in cities around the world, were often discussed as if they were the culmination of all previous years of campaigning against climate change. Almost two years on, it is easy to look back on them as the apogee of the movement, meaning that from then on it has been all downhill.

The comparison between the movement in the UK before and after Copenhagen is as instructive as it is depressing. The protest at Copenhagen itself was made up of at least 100,000 people, while Stop Climate Chaos’ The Wave demonstration in London culminated in 50,000 people encircling the Houses of Parliament; the largest ever climate protest in the UK. During and immediately after Copenhagen, there was talk of new alliances between environmental groups across Europe, and the possibility of creating a wider, stronger movement which could take the energising experience of the Copenhagen protests and use it to take the campaigns against climate change forward. While there have been some excellent attempts to turn this promise into reality, such as the Climate Alliance, the position now in early 2012 is not what anyone would have hoped for in January 2010.

In one view, the movement is simply the victim of unfavourable objective circumstances. The furore over ‘Climategate’, the hacked emails from climate researchers at the University of East Anglia, along with the contemporaneous accusation of mistakes in IPCC reports, empowered a new wave of climate change denial, while the failure of world leaders to come up with a meaningful deal at Copenhagen dealt a significant blow to the idea of climate change as a solvable problem. Despite efforts by the likes of Chris Huhne and Lord Stern to present the 2011 Durban climate summit as a success, the agreement to have an agreement for climate change reductions is hardly sufficient to reverse this Copenhagen effect.

That Climategate and Copenhagen were a difficult double whammy for the green movement is fairly uncontroversial, but there is another argument which sees climate change campaigns as the authors of their own misfortunes, actually damaging the agenda they are seeking to promote. This is not solely a post-Copenhagen contention, but it has been given extra impetus by the sense of crisis after the failure of the Copenhagen summit. Since early 2010, criticisms have been levelled at climate change campaigners by figures who could be seen as having come from within the movement, and who were certainly widely respected in it, such as Mark Lynas and George Monbiot. These arguments seem both to come out of and foster the sense of failure post-Copenhagen and create the context in which the next steps for the movement are considered. It’s worth therefore examining them in some detail.

The most obvious point of contention between Lynas and Monbiot on the one hand and many greens on the other is the issue of nuclear power. For Lynas, nuclear power is a clear necessity, so much so that he states in his latest book, The God Species, that ‘anyone who still marches against nuclear today…is in my view just as bad for the climate as textbook eco-villains like the big oil companies.’ [1] Monbiot is less unequivocal than Lynas in his nuclear position, but he increasingly regards nuclear power as a least-worst, necessary replacement for coal. [2]

Lynas and Monbiot are clearly coming from different places politically, but they are united by what seems to be an appeal to pragmatism. In different ways, all these arguments present the idea that one of the major problems with the green movement is that it has become too ideological, and that ideological nature is preventing it from simply embracing what might work to deal with climate change. [3] This is not restricted to the nuclear issue; for Lynas in particular, the root of the problem lies in the fundamentals of what he characterises as green thinking.

The central opposition for Lynas is between green desires for untouched nature, secured from human influence, and those who, like him, appreciate the primary importance of human society. It is true that the idea of a pristine natural world is impossible. It results both from our alienation from nature under capitalism, and a failure to appreciate the dialectic between human society and the natural world, shaping and being shaped by each other. Lynas is not however asserting the importance of understanding this dialectic, but making the extremely undialectical argument that what matters is the irreversible status of man’s domination over nature.

That this is real domination is shown by the metaphors used to describe it: for Lynas, we need to embrace our role as the conquerors of the world and realise that ‘the first responsibility of a conquering army is always to govern’. [4] This expression of human dominance of nature in military terms is telling in the context of Lynas’ argument that greens have allowed a straightforward message about climate change to become contaminated by other political agendas. Given the involvement of many greens in campaigning against imperialist wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in recent years, the characterisation of humans in general as a conquering army comes across as a very definite statement of position; a challenge to the totality of what the green movement might be thought to stand for.

The idea that all environmentalists pursue the separation of nature from humans is of course highly debatable, but framing the argument in these terms provides as a starting point the implication that the green position is to be opposed to any technical innovation to deal with climate change. The debate is thus portrayed as between on one side a green view which sees energy-saving austerity and cuts in living standards as the only way to reduce emissions, and on the other the sane, balanced thinkers who perceive that modern technology can do the job on emissions while enabling us to keep the lights on. As Lynas says: ‘Global warming is not about overconsumption, morality, ideology or capitalism. It is largely the result of human beings generating energy by burning hydrocarbons and coal. It is, in other words, a technical problem, and it is therefore amendable to a largely technical solution, albeit one driven by politics.’[5]

The notion that greens in general are opposed to using technology to reduce emissions is at the very least difficult to sustain. One would be hard put to find green opposition to the concept of renewable energy, for example, or to the development and improvement of these sorts of technologies. The problem with the technofix is not the use of technology itself, as opposed to the return to the pre-technology age for which greens are supposedly nostalgic, but the attempt to use technology as a alternative to making changes in the way the current system works. Lynas’ argument is essentially that solutions to climate change can only be found within the current system, and they can therefore only be technical ones.

Given this basic assumption, it is not surprising that Lynas views greens who are critical of the system as actively unhelpful as well as misguided. They drive away those who have a stake in the current system, who need only to be convinced that dealing with climate change does not mean consorting with hairy lefties. This is important because Lynas has to explain why, for all the eminent solvability of climate change within the current system it has not, in fact, been solved. The technofixes may be easily available, but evidence for their large scale imminent deployment is sadly lacking. If this failure cannot be laid at the door of counterproductive green campaigners, the only option is to conclude that the system is not able to respond to climate change by introducing measures to combat it directly.

George Monbiot, while writing from a more generally left-wing perspective than Lynas, seems to have a similar take on the movement, in that the perspective now is one following a significant setback. Monbiot’s adoption of a broadly pro-nuclear power position can be seen as a study in his move towards a view of the green movement which holds that it has been damaging its own cause by not adopting a pragmatic view on what is possible now. This is because, while it is possible to trace in Monbiot’s recent writing a move towards more enthusiastic support for nuclear power, it is clear that he remains far from the wholehearted nuclear enthusiast which Lynas appears to be. For Monbiot, nuclear power remains a far from ideal solution, but is the solution which is both available now, and is significantly better in climate terms than fossil fuel power stations.

That this is a capitulation to the status quo is demonstrated by the fact that Monbiot does not dispute that it would be theoretically possible to decarbonise energy generation, noting that Zero Carbon Britain and others have shown how this could be done in principle through a combination of renewable energy generation and energy efficiency. [6] The barriers to a large-scale shift to renewable energy are not physical but political: the additional costs of managing the grid with a significant proportion of electricity from renewable sources, the time it would take to construct the new infrastructure, and local objections to new renewable installations, particularly to wind farms and to the new power lines they would require. [7]

It is interesting that for Monbiot, protestors against wind farms are a political reality whose views have to be accommodated, even to the extent of abandoning the idea of a decarbonised energy system derived from renewable sources, yet anti-nuclear protestors simply have to accept their error of their ways and stop their opposition to this best available answer to climate change. Why both groups of protestors do not have equal weight is not clear. The other arguments in favour of nuclear as opposed to renewable energy also work only with the assumption that the system, and therefore the rules within which the different options for low-carbon energy generation are considered, cannot be changed. Defenders of capitalism often attempt to portray its workings as immutable, natural laws, [8] but in fact, given sufficient motivation, capitalist economies can move remarkably quickly, as for example the US economy’s ‘turn on a dime’ on entering the Second World War.

However, since Monbiot effectively rules out any such dramatic shifts in the current economy, the task of shifting energy generation to renewables appears an impossible one. Unlike Lynas, Monbiot remains unconvinced by the possibility of responding to climate change within the current system, yet for him no solution which looks beyond the current system is possible. It is small wonder that he sees the green movement as lacking in answers, given the unanswerable conundrum this reasoning sets up, nor that his writing on energy generation throughout 2010 and 2011 has become steadily more pessimistic. This sense of pessimism is very much in keeping with the idea that Copenhagen and Climategate added up to a defeat for the movement, but it is clearly related here to the assumption that a practical response to climate change means not looking beyond the status quo. It is therefore worth examining quite why Copenhagen is now assumed to have been such a defeat for the climate movement.

That the Copenhagen summit ended without the agreement of a follow-up deal to the Kyoto Protocol was of course a serious setback to hopes that governments could get together and agree a rational response to climate change, barely ameliorated by the agreement at Durban to try again to get an agreement. This is not the same however as saying that it was also necessarily a serious setback for the climate change movement. Concluding that the climate movement was defeated because the Copenhagen summit did not result in a deal is rather like the argument that the Stop the War coalition failed in 2003 because it didn’t prevent the war in Iraq: an argument levelled at it by opponents which completely ignores how the activities of the anti-war movement shifted general opinion against the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan and eventually led to the resignation of Tony Blair. However, it is true that there appeared to be considerable opportunities arising from the demonstrations around the world and in Copenhagen, along with the Copenhagen alternative summit, for creating a wider, more united movement against climate change, which to date have largely failed to come to fruition.

In part, capitalising on the links made by activists at Copenhagen would have required both energy and optimism, and it’s possible to speculate that the very discourse of failure in the media coverage of the summit played its part in the sense that campaigns against climate change had suffered a serious setback. There is a sense in which this perception of failure could have become self-fulfilling: the green movement was defeated at Copenhagen because after the fact it decided that it had been.

It is important not to underestimate this retrospective sense of failure, but it is equally important not to take it as the whole story of Copenhagen and its aftermath. This would, after all, be to see the movement as divorced from its objective circumstances. Understanding an event or a period as a success or failure can indeed help to make it so, but the progress or otherwise of a movement does not happen solely in the heads of its participants. Aside from the discourse of failure, Copenhagen did objectively herald a change for the movement. Even if groups had been able to grasp the opportunities for working together, it would have had to have been in a very different way from the approach to campaigning in the lead up to the summit.

The demonstrations around the annual climate summits have tended to work as protests calling for government action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with the specific slogans comparatively muted by this general message. Although the issues around climate change have moved on, the idea of calling for government action, pretty much any government action, on climate change, has remained in some ways a meeting point for the movement. It has been the point at which those who believe in market solutions, lifestyle changes or revolution have come together to demonstrate for action, with the precise nature of said action in the small print. With the demise of the hope of concerted government action within the current system, the green movement is left between two poles – system change or the profitable technofix – without the point at which it was able to cohere in the middle. It is easy to see why this might be disorientating for the movement, but more than that, it could call into question the need for a mass movement specifically and solely on climate change at all.

The strategy of building a mass movement on climate change contains the assumption that climate change can usefully be seen as a discrete problem for which there are solutions available within the current system, regardless of how difficult a political task it would be to compel governments to adopt them. Copenhagen however emphasised that climate change is an issue arising from the workings of the system itself, and so is not amenable to amelioration by statute. This is not to argue that climate change campaigners should simply widen their remit. This would be unlikely to be a successful strategy, and in practice would be difficult to do. It has been suggested that part of the reason for Climate Camp’s decision to release its participants for other projects was the difficultly in moving from an understanding of themselves as activists against climate change specifically to more general anti-capitalism within the Climate Camp framework. Climate Camp could not itself take on the entire system, but there seems to have been an increasing sense that concentrating only on the climate change aspect of the wider problem was not enough. [9]

Climate change campaigns may not be able to bring down the system on their own, but what we can do is place ourselves at the centre of the movements which are taking on capitalism at the sharp end – campaigns against austerity, against cuts, against unemployment, against the war. If we understand climate change as not a technical problem but an integral part of capitalism then joining these campaigns is fighting for climate action, just as much as marching on a climate change demo, and it is concentrating the fight where we have the greatest chance of building a genuinely mass movement. Placing climate change at the heart of these campaigns also brings a necessary international focus to campaigns which can risk becoming parochial, plus many of the transitional demands which we fight for against austerity are climate change demands as well. The call for a million green jobs to create the necessary low carbon infrastructure is just one example.

Lynas and Monbiot in many ways are correct: under the current system, the only response to climate change is to find the commercially-profitable technofix, and if you don’t think that sounds like a good idea, then there are no answers at all. But the current system is not immutable, and if we don’t see privatised sky mirrors as the answer for global warming, the movement against the ConDem cuts may actually be the best place to continue the fight.

By Elaine Graham-Leigh

29 January 2012

@ Counterfire.org

Notes

[1] Mark Lynas, The God Species. How the Planet Can Survive the Age of Humans, (London 2011), p.10.

[2] See the range of articles on nuclear power reposted on www.monbiot.com.

[3] See for example George Monbiot and Chris Goodall, ‘The moral case for nuclear power’, http://www.monbiot.com/2011/08/08/the-moral-case-for-nuclear-power/.

[4] Lynas, The God Species, p.12.

[5] Ibid., p.66.

[6] George Monbiot, ‘Nuked by friend and foe’, http://www.monbiot.com/2009/02/20/nuked-by-friend-and-foe

[7] See for example George Monbiot, ‘’The lost world’, http://www.monbiot.com/2011/05/02/the-lost-world

[8] As Lukacs points out, the bourgeoisie ‘must think of capitalism as being predestined to eternal survival by the eternal laws of nature and reason.’, Georg Lukacs, History and Class Consciousness. Studies in Marxist Dialectics, trans. Rodney Livingstone, (London 1971), p.11.

[9] My thoughts on the wind up of Climate Camp owe much to Sophie Lewis’ excellent The rise and fall (and rise) of the Camp for Climate Action UK : notes on interventions in challenging carbon democracy, unpublished ms, (Oxford University, 2011). However, my conclusions and any misapprehensions are my own. Also interesting on this point are comments made by some of the interviewees in the 2011 film Just Do It on their thoughts on the climate change movement post Copenhagen: http://justdoitfilm.com/.

Elaine Graham-Leigh lives in London, UK, where she divides her time between writing and political activism, particularly on climate change

A new twist in the turbulent saga surrounding a proposed roadway through indigenous land has reignited a debate raging throughout Bolivia since the middle of last year.

The controversial highway ― which would cut through the Isiboro-Secure National Park and Indigenous Territory (TIPNIS) ― has been at the centre of protests and counter-protests. It has polarised Bolivian society and divided indigenous groups that are the heart of the Evo Morales government’s social base.

Morales, Bolivia’s first indigenous president, was first elected in 2005 on the back of a wave of anti-neoliberal uprisings. An elected constituent assembly drew up a new constitution, adopted by referendum, that grants unprecedented rights to the nation’s indigenous majority.

But the task of transforming the poor Andean nation, the victim of hundreds of years of colonial pillage, comes with serious obstacles. The TIPNIS dispute, in which different sectors of the indigenous population have competing views and interests, reveals one such challenge.

The source of renewed debate was the February 9 decision by parliament to pass a law approving a process to consult indigenous communities within TIPNIS about the roadway. This places the future of the project, which the government views as a strategic necessity to develop Bolivia, in the hands of those that will be most affected.

The government has also called on Bolivia’s main social organisations to help draft a new law to set the legal parametres for future consultations, a right enshrined in the new constitution.

The aim is to set up a framework for greater popular participation and overcome the rising number of local conflicts of various development projects.

These moves may help rebuild fractured alliances and expand forms of participatory democracy. Or they may deepen rifts among Morales supporters.

A key factor will be how well the government isolates increasingly intransigent forces on both sides of the debate.

Two marches, two laws

The conflict first erupted in July last year. The TIPNIS Subcentral the legal bearers of the TIPNIS collective land title that is home to Yuracare, Chiman and Moxe indigenous communities said it would march onto the capital La Paz to oppose the proposed roadway.

Community leaders raised the lack of consultation and concerns over the impact the road could have on local communities.

The proposed march quickly gained support from two important indigenous organisations: the Confederation of Indigenous Peoples of Bolivia (CIDOB), which unites 34 lowland indigenous peoples, and the Council of Ayllus and Markas of Qullasuyu (CONAMAQ), comprised of 16 small indigenous communities.

After almost 70 days and a police attack, the march reached La Paz in October. Protesters succeeded in getting parliament to approve a law banning a highway through TIPNIS.

On enacting the law, Morales said his government was making good on its slogan of “governing by obeying”. He said those within TIPNIS who supported the highway would have to take their views up with their community leaders.

By December, a counter-march had been initiated by the Indigenous Council of the South (CONISUR), which groups some of the indigenous communities within TIPNIS and in “Poligono Seven” (a zone within TIPNIS but not part of the collective title).

Poligono Seven, whose population greatly outnumbers that of local indigenous peoples within the rest of TIPNIS, is mainly home to outside indigenous campesinos (peasants) who, searching for land to till, have settled in the area.

The CONISUR march received support from Bolivia’s three main national indigenous campesino groups and nearby coca-grower unions. All said the highway is essential to providing their communities with access to basic services and markets at which to sell their produce.

When the CONISUR march arrived in La Paz 39 days later, the government encouraged leaders of the first march to meet with CONISUR representatives to try to resolve the dispute.

When the request was rejected by CIDOB and the TIPNIS Subcentral, parliamentarians began meeting with CONISUR to discuss a new law to allow TIPNIS communities to decide the project’s fate.

However, critics of the new law, including CIDOB and TIPNIS Subcentral leaders, say the purpose of the consultation process is to reverse the government’s decision after the first march and open the way to allow the road to be built.

CIDOB leaders have pledged to organise another march to La Paz to oppose the recent moves. They have ruled out taking part in drafting a general law on consultations.

Let the people decide

The TIPNIS dispute reveals two key dilemmas the Morales government faces in making the concept of “governing by obeying” real.

Bolivian vice-president Alvaro Garcia Linera said in a November 28 speech: “To govern by obeying is to affirm every day that the sovereign is not the state. It is the people, who express themselves not only every five years by the vote, but each day they speak and put forward their needs, expectations and collective requirements.

However, as Garcia Linera noted and the TIPNIS dispute reveals, “the people are not something homogeneous. There are social classes, there are identities, there are regions. The people are very diverse.

There is a dilemma arising from tensions created when a project strategic to overall national development encounters resistance from those who will be locally affected.

Few in Bolivia, including those opposed to the current proposal, question the need for a roadway to connect Bolivia’s isolated northern Amazonian region with the country’s centre and west.

Given this, Garcia Linera said the role of those in government is not to substitute for the people but to harmonise the voices of the people, to synthesise its concerns.

Analysing the government’s handling of the TIPNIS dispute, Garcia Linera said February 4 the government had made two errors. These were, first, not consulting communities about the highway, and then failing to consult communities on the law that banned any highway through TIPNIS.

He said: “We have to correct both errors, and what is the best way to correct both errors? Let the [people] that live there decide… that is the most democratic, the most just manner …

“The [people] there, those that suffer, should decide if there should be a roadway.”

Such an approach, combined with calling on Bolivia’s social movements to help draft a general law on consultation, stands in stark contrast to the record of previous neoliberal governments.

However, implementing this complex and difficult task will require overcoming two immediate challenges.

Challenges and opportunities

The first is confronting the growing alliance between some indigenous leaders opposed to Morales government policies such as the roadway and elements of Bolivia’s traditional elites. These elites were behind the wave of violence unleashed against indigenous peoples during the first Morales term.

While quick to denounce the Morales government, CIDOB leaders recently praised the right-wing Santa Cruz governor. They signed an agreement providing the indigenous organisation with a post in the Santa Cruz governorship.

The agreement has drawn fire even from CIDOB allies. On January 26, TIPNIS Subcentral president Fernando Vargas publicly rejected the move, saying CIDOB leaders had “put their foot in it” by signing such an agreement.

But CIDOB’s deal with the Santa Cruz governor does not seem to be an aberration. A recent string of events point to a burgeoning union between these traditional enemies.

This includes the alliance forged between indigenous deputies and right-wing parties in the Santa Cruz departmental council against the Morales-led Movement Towards Socialism (MAS), a favour repaid with more than US$3.5 million for development projects in CIDOB communities.

There was also the comment by CIDOB leader Lazaro Tacoo on December 14 that indigenous people should “forgive” the Santa Cruz elite for its violent attacks against them, “as only now are they recognising the importance of indigenous peoples”.

The government faces the challenge of isolating those forces seeking alliances with the violent right wing and rebuilding a strong alliance with lowland indigenous groups.

However, Pablo Stefanoni, a critical sympathiser of the Morales government, wrote in a February 13 Pagina Siete article that this will require confronting “the idea held by a sector of the government of imposing a strategic defeat on the lowlands indigenous peoples in order to advance with development projects”.

This perspective is seen in the continued insistence of some government officials that the only possible path for the roadway is the one proposed.

However, Pablo Solon, a former Bolivian ambassador to the United Nations and critic of the government’s treatment of the TIPNIS issue, said it is incumbent on the government to prove that there is no alternative route. This is needed to show the consultation process is being carried out in good faith.

Solon proposed a commission made up of representatives from the TIPNIS Subcentral, CONISUR, the governors of Beni and Cochabamba and the government, along with engineers and environmentalists.

Such a body could study all possible alternative routes, taking into consideration the economic, environmental and social impact of each one.

“Only on the basis of all these alternatives is it possible to then carry out a serious and responsible consultation,” Solon said.

Such a move would complement other positive steps that have been taken towards defusing tensions. These include the February 14 announcement by the president of the Bolivian senate that the consultation process will not involve outside indigenous groups that have settled in Poligono Seven.

Instead, the process will be coordinated in agreement between the government and the three indigenous peoples within TIPNIS.

The proposal to directly involve different social movements in collectively debating how best to carry out consultation represents a further advance in expanding decision-making powers to local communities and social movements.

It may also prove an important step in broadening the necessary debate on how to flesh out the constitution’s provisions on indigenous autonomy and land reform.

This entails dealing with complex issues, such as how best to tackle poverty and develop Bolivia’s economy while protecting the environment and the rights of indigenous communities.

By Federico Fuentes

20 February 2012

@ Green Left Weekly

Federico Fuentes is a member of Australia’s Socialist Alliance and is based in Venezuela as part of Green Left Weekly’s Caracas bureau.

Public anger at the 2008 Wall Street bailout, concerns about debt, and a deep and pervasive fear that another financial crash is just a matter of time create an important moment of opportunity for a long overdue public conversation about the purpose of financial services and the necessary steps to assure that the financial sector fulfills that purpose.

Much of the recent discussion of financial reform has centered on limiting Wall Street excesses to curb fraud and reduce the risk of another financial crash. This is vitally important, but it does not address the issue raised by Sheila Bair shortly before she stepped down last year as FDIC chair:

“In policy terms, the success of the financial sector is not an end in itself, but a means to an end—which is to support the vitality of the real economy and the livelihood of the American people. What really matters to the life of our nation is enabling entrepreneurs to build new businesses that create more well-paying jobs, and enabling families to put a roof over their heads and educate their children.”

It is very straightforward. The proper purpose of the financial services sector is to serve the real economy on which everyone depends for their daily needs, their quality of life, and their opportunity to be creative, contributing members of their communities.

By this standard of performance, Wall Street does not serve us well. Indeed, Wall Street’s most lavish rewards go not to those who enable others to create wealth, but rather to those most skilled and ruthless in expropriating the wealth of others—behavior condemned as immoral by every major religion. To justify their actions, Wall Street players and their apologists turn reality and logic on their heads by treating growth in the size and profitability of the financial sector as an end in itself, and a measure of increasing sector efficiency.

Because financial services are a means, not an end, they are properly treated as an overhead cost to be minimized. By this reckoning, growth in the size of the financial sector as a percent of GDP represents growth in Wall Street’s overhead burden on the real economy from a highly efficient one percent in 1850 to a grossly inefficient 8.5 percent in 2010:

The following graph gives us a similar perspective on the growth in Wall Street profits. From 1929 to the mid-1980s, profits of the financial sector tracked right along with those of the profits of non-financial (read real economy) corporations. As Wall Street became increasingly predatory in the 1980s, its profits relative to profits in the real economy began to grow exponentially. That may look like an increase in efficiency from a Wall Street perspective. From the perspective of the society, however, it is another measure of Wall Street’s increasing overhead burden.

Market advocates correctly note that markets have a wonderful ability to self-regulate in the public interest. When market advocates go on to argue, however, that the solution for market failure is to get government out of the way, they demonstrate remarkable ignorance of basic market economics. Markets self-organize in the public interest only if incentives align with the public interest.

As Nobel Economist Joseph Stiglitz correctly observes: “When private rewards are well aligned with social objectives things work well; when they are not, matters can get ugly.”

As the 2008 crash revealed, Wall Street’s reward system renders it incapable of self-regulation in the public interest. Furthermore, Wall Street financial institutions have become so over leveraged and so interconnected that the collapse of one threatens the collapse of all—and thereby potential total collapse of the global economy. Corrective action necessarily falls to government, which can deal with Wall Street’s failure to self-regulate in one of four ways.

1. Continue to bail out failed banks at taxpayer expense.

2. Build a countervailing external regulatory system equal to or greater than the size and power of the financial system, spell out detailed lists of prohibited behaviors, and impose fines and jail sentences for each violation sufficient to make good behavior more attractive than bad behavior.

3. Implement a system of taxpayer funded financial incentives for good behavior to achieve the same outcome, or

4. Create a system of incentives that drive a reorganization of the financial system and a realignment of its internal rewards to favor transparency, accountability, and public service. A basic framework for such a reorganization is spelled out in the New Economy Working Group report, Liberating Main Street from Wall Street Rule.

The first option rewards ever greater risk-taking and will ultimately bankrupt even the wealthiest government. Options two and three are enormously complex, set up an intense competition between private and public institutions, invite massive corruption, and require huge public expenditure.

Only the fourth option can create a system that is adaptive, self-regulating, and relatively inexpensive to maintain with modest government oversight. Here are two examples.

>> Basic Banking Services. This need is best met by a system of small and locally owned banks that function as well-regulated public utilities supported by deposit insurance and access to low cost credit. To provide appropriate incentives to keep individual banks relatively small, insurance fees, interest rates, and reserve & capital requirements should be based on the bank’s total assets. Larger banks will pay higher fees and interest rates and be required to maintain higher reserves and capital to loan ratios—thus giving an inherent competitive advantage to banks that remain small. Banks organized as cooperatives, such as credit unions and cooperative banks directly accountable to those they serve, might enjoy especially favorable terms to encourage cooperative ownership.

 >> Proprietary Trading. If a group of investors or money managers chose to join together to create a firm to engage in proprietary trading, they could do so. The firm must, however, be organized as a partnership with all debts and losses backed by the personal assets of the partners to provide a powerful incentive for responsible self-regulation. Propriety trading would be its only allowed function. Such firms would not enjoy any government guarantee or tax incentive and they would be prohibited from accepting investments from retirement or other funds held and managed in trust.

The Wall Street experience has demonstrated why it is important to confine different financial functions to separate smaller institutions that hold managers accountable to those who bear the risk.

Get the system’s internal incentives right and the priorities and risk calculations of the financial sector will shift dramatically, its size will shrink, real efficiency will increase, and regulatory costs and failures will plummet. Restructuring to get the internal incentives right should be a foundation of all future financial reform efforts.

By David Korten

6 February 2012

@ YES! Magazine

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License

David Korten (livingeconomiesforum.org) is the author of Agenda for a New Economy, TheGreat Turning: From Empire to Earth Community, and the international best seller When Corporations Rule the World. He is board chair of YES! Magazine and a founding board member of the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies.

The secret NATO report, “State of the Taliban 2012,” commissioned by the US and NATO was never supposed to see the light of day. Unfortunately for the US war party it was leaked to the press and the New York Times has published many of its observations and conclusions (“Taliban Captives Dispute U.S. View on State of War” 2-2-2012).

The report was based on information taken from 4000 prisoners, Taliban and others, that have fallen into the hands of US forces. To the surprise of the US the prisoners are rather upbeat about the progress of the war and think they are actually winning it. The report says that while the US thinks it is winning and is about to start winding down its own participation the interviews of the captives shows, according to the NYT, “a Taliban insurgency that is far from vanquished or demoralized.” The same issue of the Times reported the optimistic statement of Defense Secretary Panetta that the US would set 2013 not 2014 as the date for ending US combat in Afghanistan. This was later corrected by the ground commanders in Afghanistan– 2014 is the date– and we may still remain after that date for a long, long time. They wish.

The report says the prisoners state that in those areas where the US forces withdraw and turn over control to the Afghan Army, that army begins to cooperate with the Taliban– as do the local Afghan government officials. “Many Afghans are already bracing themselves for an eventual return of the Taliban.” The report also says that while the Afghan government says it will carry on the war after the US withdraws “many of its personnel have secretly reached out to insurgents, seeking long-term options in the event of a possible Taliban victory.” Well of course, all options should be kept on the table.

The report gives the impression that the war is lost and the government can’t deal with this reality. Lt. Col. Jimmie E. Cummings a US-NATO spokes person had this to say about the information gotten from the prisoners. “This document aggregates the comments of Taliban detainees in a captive environment without considering the validity of or motivation behind their reflections. Any conclusions drawn from this would be questionable at best.”

Wait a minute. We captured these people and interrogated them to get information about the enemy. We don’t like the information we get so then say due to a “captive environment” the conclusions are “questionable.” But all interrogations of prisoners take place in a “captive environment” and are therefore “questionable.” So why bother? It appears that if the government likes the information it gets its credible otherwise its “questionable.” This is completely intellectually dishonest and we should not believe a word we are told by the military unless we have independent third person verification.

What could be more comical than NATO spokespersons attempting to refute their own report once it became public. The State Department has also gotten into the act. The report mentions the fact that the Taliban has strained relations with their “Pakistani patrons.” But Pakistan is supposed to be a US “ally.” How foolish does the US look when the money it lavishes on the Pakistanis is redirected to the Taliban and used to kill US troops. How can you even dream of winning a war when you are all tied up in these contradictory circumstances? The State Department realizes how bad this looks and also played down the significance of the NATO report, saying it was “in no way designed to impact our on going efforts to be back on track with Pakistan.” Were we ever “on track” with Pakistan or just being used by the Pakistanis after they realized we didn’t know what we were doing in Afghanistan?

For example, the Pakistani government, according to the report, “is thoroughly aware of Taliban activities and the whereabouts of all senior Taliban personnel.” And, “There is a wide spread assumption that Pakistan will never allow the Taliban the chance to become independent of ISI [the CIA/FBI of Pakistan-the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate] control.” Yes, lets get back on track– the US is at “war” with the Taliban, the Taliban is controlled by Pakistan therefore….. draw your own conclusions.

An important conclusion of the report, that NATO and the US really don’t want people to know about, is the following: “Taliban commanders, along with rank and file members, increasingly believe that their control of Afghanistan is inevitable. Though the Taliban suffered severely in 2011, its strength, motivation, funding and tactical proficiency remains intact.”

Where does the funding come from? It comes from us! Money from the US to Pakistan goes to the Taliban. Trucks and weapons we give to the Afghan Army are sold off at bargain basement rates, or “donated”, to the Taliban by corrupt elements in the Karzai government. The Taliban’s strength is intact– we are withdrawing. Their motivation is intact– we just want to get out as soon as possible (sooner). Their tactical proficiency is intact, we are turning operations over to the Afghan Army many of whose troops would rather shoot us than the Taliban. Is it really too hard to see how all this is going to end? Oh, I forgot to add that besides the ISI, the report says the Afghan intelligence agency also supplies the Taliban with information about where American troops are located so that they can be attacked.

So there you have it. We are spending 2 billion dollars a week to support the war against the Taliban and both our “ally” Pakistan and the Afghan government we set up and are “defending” are on the side of the Taliban. General Petraeus retired just in time. If he runs the CIA as well he did the war in Afghanistan the decline of US imperialism will be well underway.

By Thomas Riggins

6 February 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Thomas Riggins is the associate editor of Political Affairs and also writes for the People’s World.

Hong Kong – It was somewhat cute – that Valentine’s Day get-together at the White House between US President Barack Obama and China’s likely next leader, Xi Jinping.

Tall, affable, self-confident, always ready to smile, with a pop star as second wife (People’s Liberation Army singer Peng Liyuan), a daughter studying at Harvard, and hooked on Hollywood war movies, Xi couldn’t display a more graphic contrast with the departing Hu Jintao, who always looks like he’s frozen at Madame Tussaud’s.

But what’s love got to do with it, a remixed Tina Turner would say? Not much. While Chinese media was splashing in their front pages that “the eagle and the dragon” must strive to attain “strategic mutual trust”, Xi – like a lover scolded on a blind date – was lectured by Obama on the devaluation of the yuan, human rights and the Middle East.

Obama spars with Xi over trade and Syria

In slightly over a year, Xi Jinping becomes China’s new president – in fact a first among equals among the ultra-tight, nine-member Politburo standing committee in Beijing; that is, the people who have approved all crucial policies contained in the latest Chinese five-year-plan, which started in 2011.

It’s been a long and winding road since the US fell in love with the Little Helmsman, Deng Xiaoping, during his famous 1979 trip to the US. When he came back to Beijing, Deng – inspired by Singapore but also by much of what he saw in his trip – unleashed his reforms with a bang, “crossing the river by feeling the stones”, but always with a laser-focused goal: “To get rich is glorious.”

A little over three decades later, Chairman Mao’s intellectuals forced to live as peasants were replaced by turbo-capitalist urban plutocrats. China is the second-largest economy and the factory of the world, an emerging superpower, and the United States’ top creditor. And Xi is the man either Obama or Mitt Romney – if he does not become roadkill, courtesy of a legion of irate right-wingers – will have to deal with directly. But how?

There’s the rub – because obsessed-with-China Washington elites remain eminently perplexed about the dragon. Washington demands anything and everything from China – but one never knows what Washington is willing to offer. So is this a partnership – “strategic mutual trust”, as Beijing would like it? Or is this outright strategic competition, openly confrontational? Will they shape, together, the 21st century multipolar world; or are we already in the fog of a New Cold War?

Barack’s blues

Since late last year, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been peddling the US’ Pacific Century. And in early January – in the Pentagon, no less – Obama announced the US’ new defence strategy, immediately dismissed by the War Party for being a “lead-from-behind” failure.

The new US defence strategy is cleverly deceptive. It may be easily interpreted as the blueprint for a New Cold War, this time fought in Asia. When Beijing looks at it, it sees encirclement – not mutual trust. Pentagon “power projections” abound – from the Persian Gulf to the South China Sea.

As for the much-lauded “pivoting” from the Middle East to Asia, in fact it implies a long-term stop in Southwest Asia – as in Iran. The top three US Middle East mantras remain unchanged; blind support for the six monarchies/emirates of the Gulf Cooperation Council (forget about Arab Springs in the Gulf); “standing up for Israel’s security”; and most of all containment of Iran.

A “pivoting” can certainly be identified in the special emphasis on preventing Iran – as well as China – from going asymmetric, as in electronic and cyber warfare, and developing top-class ballistic and cruise missiles as well as sophisticated air defences.

What the Pentagon calls “rebalancing” towards Asia-Pacific – sometimes described as “repositioning” – centres on outright manipulation of mixed emotions, especially in India and Japan and across the South China Sea, about China’s spectacular rise.

China is described as “assertive” and also “revanchist” – in both cases implying a threat. The scene is set for Washington to come to the rescue – posing as the benign outside power providing regional security.

This will hardly be taken seriously in most parts of Asia. Not with the US national debt (now bigger than the whole US economy) at over $15tn and counting. And not with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the ten ASEAN countries being progressively integrated into China’s economy.

Moreover, Beijing is extremely flexible; its official policy is to create “win-win” trade and commercial situations all across Asia-Pacific, such as the “10+1” (ASEAN members plus China) in Southeast Asia.

As a gathering of expat bankers in Hong Kong commented, in half-jest, the overall impression is that empires don’t roll over and die; they just pivot from dominating one backyard (the Middle East) to another (East Asia).

Mitt’s opera buffa

Now let’s focus on a potential Mitt Romney presidency. Mitt is widely perceived as a candidate of the cream of the one per cent; his mega-wealthy top supporters include executives at Bain Capital (his former firm), Goldman Sachs bankers and hedge fund moguls.

Among his foreign policy team, those in charge of Asia-Pacific policy are Evan Feigenbaum, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for south and central Asia during the second Bush administration; Aaron Friedberg, a former deputy assistant for national security affairs and director of policy planning under Dick Cheney; and Kent Lucken, managing director at Citigroup Private Bank in Boston.

Romney’s foreign policy white paper is titled An American Century. Apart from the fact that it mirrors the exact same Obama/Hillary rhetoric, it’s a neo-con masterpiece. No wonder: Almost word for word, it repackages the neo-con agenda of the defunct Project for the New American Century (PNAC) – that collection of warmongers who brought us the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The key author of Romney’s paper is no other than Eliot Cohen, currently a professor of strategic studies at the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins – the ultimate neo-con training school.

Cohen, a protégé of the infamous Paul Wolfowitz, was one of PNAC’s creators in 1997. Immediately after 9/11 he reportedly came up with the notorious concept of “World War IV”, connecting Saddam Hussein with 9/11 and describing Iraq as “the big prize”.

Dick Cheney helped him to land a job as counselor to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2007. Confirming once more that Washington is the eternal gift that keeps on giving, Cohen is now one of Romney’s top advisers.

Predictably, the Cohen paper – Mitt’s foreign policy roadmap – is an orgy of pristine neo-imperialism. Call it the Bush III administration. Yet to give an idea of the current Republican foul mood, it’s not even hardcore enough for those armchair warmongers who pontificate in the editorial pages of the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.

“Unilateralism may be over – but it’s more than alive and kicking in the official roadmaps of both Obama and Romney.”

Here is an example of the average Mitt Romney foreign policy shtick. Cohen the ventriloquist has led Mitt to stress that “the United States will apply the full spectrum of hard and soft power to influence events before they erupt into conflict” (that’s music to the practitioners of the Pentagon’s Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine).

Mirroring Obama’s new doctrine, on China, “the United States should maintain and expand its naval presence in the Western Pacific” and should close off “China’s option of expanding its influence through coercion”.

The icing on the cake is, of course, “a robust, multi-layered national ballistic-missile defense system to deter and defend against nuclear attacks on our homeland and our allies”. It does conjure up images of Tim Burton’s Mars Attacks.

Romney has not antagonised China in his campaign trail as much as the other Republican contenders, roadkill or not – at least not yet. But he’s unmistakable; a President Romney will rush to war on Iran – because Eliot Cohen said so. Of course he’s not telling unsuspecting voters that a war against Iran is a war against China – with the vortex of unpredictable consequences included.

In real life, geopolitically, a remix of the classic balance of power among a group of nations, in an arc from East to West, is already emerging. Unilateralism may be over – but it’s more than alive and kicking in the official roadmaps of both Obama and Romney. As Xi Jinping starts to cross the river by feeling the stones, the last thing he sees under these muddy waters is “strategic mutual trust”.

By Pepe Escobar

20 February 2012

@ Al Jazeera

Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent for Asia Times. His latest book is named Obama Does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

Source:

Al Jazeera

Athens was in flames. But, stock markets felt relieved. The Greek bank-friendly elites denied to recognize people’s plight and “honorably” embraced humiliating conditions to honor debt.

People in Greece are in anger and anguish. Within 10 hours, about half a hundred buildings were set ablaze in the Greek capital, an act of desperation that germinates as public space is encroached by banks, as democracy in a society is dictated and distorted by global finance capital, and people lose breathing space. Broader section of people was protesting peacefully and violent scenes raged the capital while the Greek parliament was passing a bank-dictated austerity plan to make banks happy. The fact got exposed: bankers pushing for austerity, market welcoming austerity, people standing against austerity, and, bankers standing against people. And, austerity is, in actual sense, pressing down labor, robbing labor.

As the Greek parliament passed the austerity measures demanded by its lenders stock markets rallied. In Athens, shares in Greek banks leaped by 10%. The FTSE 100 went high, Germany’s Dax climbed, in New York, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose up, the French Cac was up, the Italian MIB bought a higher position, and the euro took upward journey before taking a shallow dip. In the secondary bond markets, 10-year securities issued by Italy, Belgium, Portugal and Spain felt strong. In London, Lloyds Banking Group led the upward jump. The creditors felt assured that their debtor, Greece, is an obedient honorable soul that stands by promise. The Greek government will express their irreversible written assurance within days to avoid bankruptcy. A high moral standing in creditor-debtor relationship where creditor has all the rights to rob and dictate debtor!

The EU welcomed the Athenian parliamentary practice as EC Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs Olli Rehn called the vote a show of Greece’s determination to address its finances. And, he condemned the violence. However, the disciplined Greek MPs’ yeah votes were not enough to make bank bosses fully happy. It failed to ensure delivery of second rescue package to Greece. A banker, according to Bloomberg TV, reminded Greece to maintain its credibility with its international partners. It was an exercise with democracy: financiers telling people’s representatives what to table and how to vote!

But that democratic practice was not enough. Athens have to initiate “Additional measures” – more cuts worth 325m euro. Germany has warned: The vote is not enough to guarantee that Greece receives its bailout money. The Bundestag, the German parliament, will take the final decision on Greece. A report on Greece from the Troika – the IMF, EU, ECB – must reach the Bundestag before it decides whether to approve the bailout fund. Moreover, the euro group finance ministers will observe Greece’s compliance with the terms, and there should be conclusive understanding with private creditors over debt restructuring. Legislature of a country supervises legislative doings and wrong doings of another country! It is financiers’ global capital-sovereign practice.

To rationalize passing of the austerity bill, the Greek prime minister Papademos warned that banks would collapse and schools and hospitals would be left without funds unless the bill passed. He straightened fact partially while a partial fact was ignored. Without the austerity measures finance capital would feel uneasy. But Greek schools and hospitals, as main stream media report regularly, are passing through problems for long.

Financial problems, in usual manner, crept into Greek politics. With appointment of unelected ministers under the premiership of unelected Papademos, a banker turned academic turned politician, in the reshuffled cabinet the Athenian bankruptcy-bail out comedy has generated a neo-democratic model in Greece. Parliament members standing against the austerity bill have been expelled. Earlier, before tabling the bill, MPs were warned of not to oppose the austerity bill. The next crisis, as conservative New Democracy party head Samaras told parliament, is likely to come with the coming election within months. He likes to renegotiate the agreements with the troika following the elections. His signing of the pledge to bankers is uncertain although he voted for the bill. Vassilis Korkidis, the head of the National Confederation of Greek Commerce, said in a statement: The country’s political system is failing.

Along with democracy-drama in Greece two interviews carried by German press revealed interesting observations by powerful actors on the world stage. George Soros in an interview has criticized German chancellor Merkel for “leading Europe in the wrong direction”. He warned of another great depression unless funds are not pumped now instead of cutting spending. He was frank. Profit margins will be under pressure, he said. Soros admitted: Markets do not correct their own excesses. He told point blank: Germany was among the first countries to break the euro-zone rules. The Germans were not exactly innocent. Everybody broke the Stability Pact rules. Germany has mishandled the rescue operation by providing the bailout at penal interest rates, which then led to an increase in the indebtedness of Greece. It is only a policy failure on the part of Europe and particularly of Germany, because Germany is in charge. That is why today Greece is beyond rescue. Soros added: People like German finance minister Schäuble don’t seem to understand that the heavily indebted countries are now at a severe disadvantage, because they have basically become heavily indebted in a foreign currency, the euro. Soros tried to identify the root: The euro crisis is a direct continuation or consequence of the 2008 crash. This crisis isn’t over yet and we will have to spend more state money in order to stop the skidding. Otherwise we will repeat the mistakes that plunged America into the Great Depression in 1929. Angela Merkel simply doesn’t understand that. He told in a simple voice: I am concerned about my own interests. Nevertheless, I think that I perhaps understand the financial system better than some of the people who are in charge. In the interview conducted by Georg Mascolo, Gregor Peter Schmitz and Martin Hesse Soros expressed his ambitious intention: I am trying to change [Angela Merkel’s] mind.

More talks are there. Guido Westerwelle, the German foreign minister, in an interview said: Germany occasionally shows a tendency to boast. He was concerned with the attitude. Westerwelle wants a European Germany. He said: We should not believe that we will always be the strong man of Europe. Westerwelle expressed his dissatisfaction with the political impasse in Greece in recent weeks. The German minister told: Greece’s future is in the hands of the Greeks. However he advised the Greeks: [The Greeks] have to demonstrate that they are serious. It isn’t enough to adopt reform programs. Instead, [those] have to be implemented without delay – not at some point in the future, but now. In the interview conducted by Konstantin von Hammerstein and Ralf Neukirch the German minister reminded Greece in a stern voice: There will be no more advance payments. Only actions count now.

Greece, its elites, has to discipline itself, in the manner bank capital likes. But, there is another voice, the voice of the people. Graffiti on Athens walls said: “No IMF-no new [austerity] measures”, “No more IMF! Stop the intervention in Greek sovereignty. If you don’t give democracy a chance, you should expect US!”, “Bosses are killers of the people”. This voice will complicate finance capital’s democratic politics in Greece.

Dhaka-based freelancer Farooque Chowdhury contributes on socioeconomic issues.

14 February 2012

@ Countercurrents.org