Ukraine: A "just peace" is only possible if Ukrainian people can defend themselves

Ukrainian anarchists within Ukrainian Territorial Defence Force source: libcom.org

Lisbeth Latham

In their recent opinion piece in Green Left Weekly Peter Boyle and Alex Bainbridge argue that anti-war activists in Australia should be calling for negotiations in Ukraine and oppose any effort to expand the war. This is in response to Fred Fuentes’s call for support for the ability of Ukraine to defend itself. Boyle and Bainbridge make a number of arguments, similar to other sections of the Western left, which Ukrainian radical forces have rejected as being based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the geopolitical situation in Eastern Europe, particularly the role of Putin’s Russia as the regional imperialist power.

Boyle and Bainbridge express concern at the costs of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has had on human life and the potential for this to escalate as winter approaches. Flowing from this Boyle and Bainbridge conclude that the West’s provision of military support, in the form of weapons, equipment, intelligence, and training, to Ukraine risks unnecessarily prolonging the war and thus human suffering. Instead of supporting, or even demanding military support, as Fuentes, and the Ukrainian left, do, Boyle and Bainbridge argue that anti-war activists should instead be calling for negotiations.

This logic is fundamentally flawed. First, it ignores that the primary cause of suffering and death in Ukraine is the Putin government’s decision to invade. The risk of further loss of life and injury could be immediately avoided if Russian forces were to withdraw from Ukrainian territory unconditionally. For anti-war activists to demand negotiations or a return to diplomacy accepts that Russia has a right to intervene in Ukraine. Such a position echoes the debates in the movement against the Vietnam War. As Doug Lorimer wrote in his history of ‘The movement against the Vietnam War’, in reference to the Communist Party of Australia’s call for the US to “Stop the bombing, negotiate”:

“Almost alone, Resistance continued to support the "Out Now!" demand. We argued that "Stop the bombing, negotiate!" failed to recognise the Vietnamese people's right to national self-determination, the central issue underlying the war”.

Moreover, should negotiations occur between Ukraine and Russia, these negotiations would be informed by the balance of forces between Russia and Ukraine that exist at the time of those negotiations. The arming of Ukraine has allowed the Ukrainian people to initially blunt Russia’s invasion and subsequently launch counterattacks on a number of fronts. It is precisely this shift, in both the balance of forces and the momentum of the conflict, which has prompted some of Putin’s allies internationally, such as Trump, to call for negotiations to occur. However, as Volodymyr Artiukh and Taras Fedirko have pointed out, the Putin government has acted in bad faith around negotiations, primarily using them as “a smokescreen” for its aggression in Ukraine.

An important question that anyone calling on Ukraine to negotiate regarding its national sovereignty should answer is, what would the basis of negotiations be, when Putin and his allies deny the right of Ukraine to exist as a state? Calling for negotiations while Russian forces are on the backfoot but still holding significant amounts of Ukrainian territory would also place Putin in a position to demand ceding of Ukrainian territory as a basis for peace. Such an outcome could hardly be called a “Just Peace”, but more accurately the rewarding of criminal action.

Central to Boyle and Bainbridge’s argument is the imperial ambitions of the US and its allies to seek to maintain the US’s global imperialist hegemony. It is undoubtedly true that the US is seeking to use the conflict in Ukraine to undermine Russia’s attempts to re-establish itself as the dominant power in the territories which formerly made up the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire. In doing this they also hope to isolate China as it emerges as an alternative pole of economic and military power able to challenge US dominance.

Having said this, our assessment of US intentions should not be a primary determining factor in our attitude towards conflicts or popular movements. The orientation of revolutionary and progressive forces should be predicated on the needs and interests of popular movements, and not how imperialist powers might seek to maneuver in relation to those movements to protect their own interests. While many left forces have criticised the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) for accepting military support from the US, the Socialist Alliance (SA), which both Boyle and Bainbridge are in the leadership of, has historically defended the right of the SDF to receive weapons necessary to defend themselves. Indeed, SA and Green Left Weekly have taken a position calling for the enforcement of a no-fly zone in Northern and Eastern Syria - which is to be enforced by the US and Russia.

This begs the question, how the sending of arms to the SDF can be not just permissible but something that would be demanded, but we should oppose the Ukrainian people receiving arms to defend themselves? While our positions on different situations do not need to be, and shouldn’t be, identical, we should be able to explain why they are different, and I personally struggle to see how there is such a fundamental difference.

I believe that progressive forces should defend the right of both Rojava and Ukraine to defend themselves and that this means being able to obtain military equipment from whoever will provide it. Indeed, as has been made clear by the Ukrainian left, particularly the militants of Sotsialnyi Rukh, the defeat of Russia’s military aggression is a prerequisite for the democratic and social development of Ukraine and we should support their efforts to achieve that outcome.

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

This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.

Read more...

France: Indefence of the NPA's struggle against Islamophobia

The fight against Islamophobia: When Lutte Ouvrière Reverses the Hierarchy of Standards
by Julien Salingue, Christine Poupin, Ugo Palheta, Selma Oumari
Originally published February 2 on npa2009.org

On January 15, Lutte Ouvrière (LO) posted on its website[1] an (unsigned) article "The trap of the “fight against Islamophobia”", drawn from the most recent issue of their monthly magazine Lutte de Classe. Anyone who has followed the positions and analyses of LO concerning the "debates on Islam", which have regularly shaken up the French political field for the last fifteen years, would not have been surprised at the substance of the "Argument”. But LO's arguments and reasoning, not to mention its attacks on individuals and organisations, merit attention ... and deserve a response.

Fight against the fight against Islamophobia
We know LO's precision and rigor, and cannot fail to notice that the use of quotation marks in the title of the article is not trivial: "The trap of the "fight against Islamophobia ". The problem is not, therefore, the term "Islamophobia", the relevance of which LO has regularly challenged, but the "fight against Islamophobia" itself. This is confirmed by the content of the article, whose target is not those who defend the use of the term "Islamophobia" but those who intend to combat Islamophobic violence and discrimination.

It is indeed a novelty: even if LO continues to call the term "Islamophobia" "ambiguous", we are no longer in the phrasing of 2010[2], when we read that " Islamophobia often implies a rejection of all those who share the Muslim faith, which is a nonsense, not only when it refers to the attitude of the revolutionary communists, but even as regards the attitude of French imperialism and those who serve it at the highest level ". Indeed, LO recognizes the existence of discrimination against Muslims, and even adopts the formula "specific oppression": "A part of the French political class currently rejects and discriminates Muslims, at least the poor, those of cities and factories, for it certainly does not reject the billionaires of the Gulf theocracies. And it is understandable that many young people feel they are victims of a specific oppression, which does exist."

It will be noted here that some formulations remain "ambiguous", but even if LO does not recognize or explain this evolution, it is clear that from "the nonsense" to "specific oppression", the path has been traveled In recent years, probably because of the increasingly visible rise of Islamophobia, gained strength after the attacks of 2015-2016. But it is not the least of the paradoxes that we can not find in the rest of the text any analysis of the development of this oppression that constitutes Islamophobia, nor any concrete proposals to combat stigmatization, discrimination and violence targeting Specifically Muslims (or presumed as such). Instead, LO engages in a widely ignorant diatribe of debates and work on the issue [3], thus aiming to legitimize in advance those who are fighting these fights, and to propose as their only perspective the fight against religion in general, and Islamic fundamentalism in particular.

This was accompanied by recurring attacks against the Nouveau parti anticapitaliste (New Anti-Capitalist Party - NPA), which was accused of "demonstrating a good deal of demagogy towards Islam " and implicitly abandoning any framework of Marxist analysis.

Statements of intent and ill-adjusted attacks
In a first step, the article of LO undertakes to list various initiatives organized by the "anti-Islamophobia galaxy" (gatherings, meetings, conferences, etc.) and to demonstrate, by "presenting" that these initiatives were "forums for Islamist and communalist organizations", with the support of a part of the extreme left. LO specifies its objective: "These different initiatives do not necessarily lend themselves to criticism. The question is who organizes these initiatives, what ideas they express, and what activists who call themselves extreme left do and say at them. A mere declaration of intent, for even by reading the article carefully, one will never know "what ideas have been expressed" in these initiatives, nor what the militants of the extreme left "did or said".

Instead, a series of attacks on some of the organizations and individuals associated with these gatherings or rallies will be necessary, which, if they contain some of the criticisms we can share, testify above all to the profound ignorance regarding these organizations, or even a propensity for selectivity that borders on bad faith. Thus we learn that the Collectif contre l’islamophobie en France (Collective against Islamophobia in France - CCIF) could be summarized by the fact that one of its spokesmen, Marwan Muhammad, is a "former stock trader" who once held a common platform with a fundamentalist imam, signed texts with a leader of a conservative association and "[he] affirmed that polygamy did not concern him". That's all? That's all.

We will not know "what ideas" the CCIF defends in the initiatives complained about (against Islamophobia or the state of emergency), and one will not know either, which is not surprising coming from LO , Which is not in the habit of forgetting to propose class analyses, that this "communalist organisation" pronounced, last spring, against the Labor Law, and called for mobilisations against it . No mention was also made of the statement signed in April 2016[4] by the then CCIF spokesman Yasser Louati, who criticized Valls' anti-social policy and accused him of trying to "mask his budget" by a Speech stigmatizing Muslims. Finally, there is no mention of the article published on the CCIF website last November, whose explicit title should not have escaped LO: "Burkini fiasco: A distraction from the attack of El Khomri’s Work Law on workers.
A few lines are also devoted to the Union des organisations islamiques de France (Union of Islamic Organizations of France - UOIF), present during one of the incriminated initiatives: the meeting of 6 March 2015 "against Islamophobia and the climate of war security", during which, Let us specify it since LO forgets to do so, the UOIF did not take the floor. But LO does not need to talk about the slogans of the meeting, nor about the content of the speeches: only the presence among the signatories of the UOIF is sufficient. Again, the demonstration is a little short. Or it will be necessary for LO to explain why, in October 2004, one could find on its site an invitation to join a demonstration "against anti-Semitism, racism and all discrimination" whose appeal had been signed by many organizations, among others LO and ... the UOIF. Was it because LO felt that the issue was important and the slogans relevant? Probably. Does this mean that for LO the fight against discrimination against Muslims and against the "climate of war security" would be a lesser challenge? It would seem that the answer is yes.

False arguments, real pretexts
The "arguments" of Lutte Ouvrière are in fact very weak, and more resemble pretexts to justify non-involvement in the struggle against Islamophobia. The article is in fact incapable of reporting a single pronounced sentence or a single idea defended during these various initiatives, which would make it possible to qualify the latter as "communalist" or "Islamist" rallies. Obviously, it is not a question of adopting an acritic position in relation to the positions defended by these or other initiatives, but in this case LO ignores these positions - to take an interest in the "ideas which express themselves there". What were these ideas? A critique of the government's discriminatory, authoritarian and war policies, a denunciation of racism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, solidarity with oppressed peoples, etc. One reality, everyone will admit, poorly adjusted to the political and theoretical framework of LO. Unless it is the other way round?

We will spare ourselves here, even if we are tempted to do too much about the three lines devoted to the gathering organized on January 18 in Paris against Islamophobia:
"At the rally of January 18, 2015, young people waving flags Algerian, Turkish, Moroccan, panels bearing suras of the Qur’an, and a large banner: "Touch not my prophet". Commentaries worthy of an article by L'Express or the pitiful attempts to delegitimise, on the part of the Zionist mouth pieces, demonstrations in support of the Palestinian people. In this respect, one can not fail to notice that the method of trying to detect at any price the traces of "Islamic fundamentalism" within the fronts of the struggle against Islamophobia is, to be mistaken, similar to the methods of those who try to detect at any price traces of anti-Semitism within the fronts of fighting the policy of the State of Israel. "The current campaign should not make the revolutionaries lose any compass," LO told us at the beginning of his article. We can here only return the compliment to him.

Behind these pretexts, it is difficult not to perceive the total lack of will on the part of LO to mobilize concretely against Islamophobia and to participate in fronts alongside organizations whose anti-capitalists and revolutionaries can also be very distant. A policy which LO is able to carry out when the "cause" seems to him to be just, without requiring certificates of good conduct from all the components of the front, even if he sometimes renounces certain principles that seem suddenly intangible when he " Is working with Muslim organizations.

It will be remembered that on March 6, 2004, LO had the choice to parade, during the annual mobilization for the International Day for the rights of women, in the procession organized by the association Ni putes ni soumises (Neither whores nor subjects - NPNS), which had refused to sign the appeal of the Collectif national pour les droits des femmes (National Collective for Women's Rights - CNDF). Fadela Amara then explained: "Today, the priority is to defend the values of the secular Republic, not to stand against the government[5]. LO, who felt that the urgency of the day, in the midst of a "veil debate", was to express solidarity with women denouncing Islamic fundamentalism, decided to march with the "defenders of the Values of the secular Republic ", and Arlette Laguiller thus found herself, in the lead contingent, alongside, among others, Nicole Guedj, then Minister of the Chirac-Raffarin-Sarkozy government, known to stand on every occasion on the side of the exploited and the oppressed. Strange compass, that of LO ...

The "race" and "white feminism": theoretical confusion ... voluntary?
The "targeted attacks" of LO are, as we have seen, are very awkward and unconvincing, in particular in that they reveal indignations - and principles - of variable geometry, and ignorance of the actors and actions of the "galaxy of anti-Islamophobia ". It is probably to mask these paradoxes and ignorance that the article develops, in a second step, an argument that is more "theoretical", especially regarding the concepts of "race" and "white feminism", but also of the Marxist analysis of religious phenomenon.

Concerning race, LO pretends to believe that to speak of "racialised" implies to affirm the existence of the races in the biological sense, and thus to align themselves with the extreme right (although the extreme right has now swapped its biological racism for a cultural racism much more accepted in the political field). The social implications - both material and ideological - of racism, which are manifested in a systematic inequality of treatment between whites and non-whites, in other words the social construction of white domination and a division which tends to become structural within the proletariat, between those who suffer racist discrimination and those who, on the contrary, are not the object of it.

To deny these social implications is to deny racism and to refuse to see that, according to whether one appears white or not (and one knows how the fact of being identified as Muslim-Sarkozy had spoken of the " Muslim appearance"- can immediately shift to being non-white, access to a job (and especially to a properly paid, stable job, etc.), or housing, will be very uneven. They will not receive equal treatment from institutions (particularly by the police), suffering regular harassment, even humiliation, and so on. The non-existence of biological races in no way implies the absence of oppression and social divisions on the basis of skin color or religion.

Speaking of "racialised" or "social races", political anti-racist activists (but also many human and social scientists) say nothing other than the persistence of racism and material divisions which it creates, consolidates and reproduces within the very bosom of the popular classes. This is not a purely theoretical debate, because a practical consequence immediately follows from this: to put an end to these divisions, it is not enough simply to remove the word "race" with a stroke of the pen, or to banish it from its vocabulary "(as the LO article says); strange way, for so-called materialists, to believe in the power of words (or their absence). In order to put an end to "races" (in the social sense), that is to say, with racial divisions and discrimination, we must end racism as an institutionalized system!

If LO is incapable of admitting the persistence of racial groups (which are the products of racism), but also of structural inequalities of gender, linked to sexuality or disadvantage, it is probably that this simple fact denies the idea of a homogeneous working class that a party could embody through mobilization in the workplace alone. Far from concealing this domination under the carpet of workers' unity, denying or minimizing the implications of this oppression, anti-capitalists and revolutionaries must put them at the heart of their action in order to achieve class unity on the basis of an equality between its various components. This requires active support in the self-organization of the oppressed, as well as the defense of the democratic demands that emerge. Whether it is for women, people who are victims of homophobia, people with disabilities, transphobia, etc., our principle is the right to organise, and if they wish autonomously. The emancipation of the oppressed will be the work of the oppressed themselves!

This constant attention to oppression - in all its forms and in all strata of society, as Lenin argued[6] - is a strategic necessity for addressing the most oppressed but also often the most combative elements of the proletariat. In this sense, the existence and development of women-led feminist organisations, as well as other self-organisation, and therefore potentially autonomous, initiatives such as the decolonial camp, are encouraging signs for the movement that we want to build and for class unity. For this is never given; it is the product of a constant struggle against everything that, in a concrete capitalist society, works daily to divide those who should be united – workers - and to unite those who should be divided - capitalists and workers.

Any movement against oppression, even if its leaders do not pretend to pursue this objective, favors a higher level of unity of the exploited class, even when it appears at first to divide it . For it is by taking account of real divisions and by favoring the self-organization of the oppressed struggling to break down such divisions that concrete work is being done to create class unity and not by appealing for abstract unity around claims which, although they must obviously be defended and popularized, do not magically remove the inequalities and divisions within the class.

"Communism and religion"?
The developments relating to the Marxist analysis of the religious phenomenon are less surprising and original in that they echo much of the debates that we have already had, in almost identical terms, over the last fifteen years. It is essentially a divergence as to the practical consequences to be drawn from the contradictory nature of the religious phenomenon, as summarized in Marx's famous formula: " Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people" [7]

A contradiction which Lutte Ouvrière proposes to solve as follows: "Marx knew that religious prejudices were the consequences of oppression, and that they would not disappear before a profound transformation of society [...]. For all that, Marxists have always considered anti-religious propaganda indispensable. To be a communist is to be a materialist, and to be a materialist is to be an atheist. One can be an atheist and fight, in a strike, alongside a believing worker. But this does not mean that it is the duty of any communist revolutionary to not try to snatch the militants he wants to win over his cause, but even his comrades of work and struggle from the influence of religion. A proposition which is in reality only a negation of the contradictory character of the religious phenomenon.

For the whole problem is that "to be materialistic" is also to have a materialistic approach to the religious phenomenon. A materialistic approach which LO renounces, considering "religion" in an essentialist way, as a reactionary force everywhere and always, that it would be a question of fighting at all times and in all places by the dissemination of "anti-religious propaganda Independently of the political, economic, social and ideological forces. A materialistic approach summarised by Lenin in a 1909 article[8], in which he explains in particular that "the atheistic propaganda of social-democracy [= revolutionaries] must be subordinated to its fundamental task, namely: Class struggle of the exploited masses against the exploiters. Four years earlier [9], Lenin was already warning: "In no case should we be misled into the idealistic abstractions of those who pose the religious problem in terms of "pure reason", apart from the class struggle, as often radical democrats from the bourgeoisie".

To think of the religious phenomenon is to think of the material reality in which it is inscribed: Marx and the Marxists have repeatedly explained this by stressing that ideas, including religious ones, do not exist independently of the social forces that take it. "Religion can thus express different and even contradictory social and political dynamics: would it come to anyone's mind to pretend that" the "Catholic religion had the same meaning and the same significance, during the years 1960-1970, for the workers of Northern Ireland and for the dignitaries of the Franco regime? Obviously, no. Leon Trotsky[10] said nothing else in 1933 about the United States: "The baptism of a Black man is something totally different from the Baptism of a Rockfeller. They are two different religions. "

The same goes for Islam today: Islam practiced, even claimed, by certain categories of the population residing in France, cannot be considered on the same level as the Islam of the Saudi regime or the Iranian regime, even if, in the last resort, it were the same "religious dogma". In one case, Islam is a religion oppressed by the state; In the other, it is a tool of oppression of the state: this should not leave indifferent militants fixing for task the overthrow of capitalism and its institutions.
Let us go farther: in many cases - as analyzed in particular by F. Engels, R. Luxemburg or A. Gramsci [11] - religion has been the source of popular revolts, the language in which the will of the oppressed was expressed To overthrow the world, and thus the vehicle of their progressive and even revolutionary aspirations. From primitive Christians to liberation theology in Latin America, to the fringes of Christian youth in France in the 1960s and 1970s, the "dogma" could be interpreted in an egalitarian and militant sense, inclining to an action Aimed at bringing a world free from exploitation and oppression to life here without expecting any salvation in the hereafter.

When LO defends the reversal of the hierarchy of norms
Do not the Marxists have to give up fighting in France the influence of the currents of fundamentalist Islam? Obviously, no! But this struggle must be part of the existing relations of forces, and in the specific configuration of the class struggle in France: to paraphrase Lenin, this struggle is subordinated to the development of concrete mobilizations against the bourgeoisie and its capitalist state. The question thus arises: in France in 2017, the development of groups fighting against the authoritarian and warlike forward flight of the state and against discrimination that not only decimates the existence of millions of people but which, moreover, weaken the whole of our social camp, is it a positive or negative element on the scale of the global power relations between the classes? The answer is, from our point of view, in the question-LO's anti-religious obsession led the organization to refuse to participate in fronts that are nevertheless so many corners buried in the "historic block" that the French bourgeoisie is trying to consolidate by rallying to its cause entire fractions of the wage worker in the name of the "fight against terrorism". In this field, LO actually practices a reversal of the hierarchy of norms, subordinating the development of the class struggle to anti-religious propaganda and the struggle against fundamentalism. To reject a priori any specific alliance around a question - racism, here in the form of Islamophobia - which profoundly structures capitalist societies, and this in the name of so-called "materialistic principles", is to refrain to act in concrete terms in the relations of political and social forces.

Forgetting, in passing, one of the fundamental achievements of Trotsky, of which LO loves to claim, which explained in 1928, about the hypothetical alliances with the Chinese Kuomintang: "For a long time it has been said that agreements that are not binding on us in any way and create no political obligation, may, if it is advantageous at the moment, be concluded with the devil himself. But it would be absurd to demand at the same time that on this occasion the devil should convert completely to Christianity ... "[12]. Let us not be mistaken here on the reference to this metaphor of Trotsky: we do not wish to convert anyone to Christianity! But it must be emphasized that in other contexts, Marxists had the opportunity, when they felt that the situation required it, to come to terms with various currents, even very distant, without this signifying That they renounced their independence.

The fronts in which the NPA is participating are not in any way the frameworks in which we clasp our hands, nor the systems of alliance that would oblige us to abandon our criticism of religious fundamentalism, whatever it may be. Contrary to what LO suggests, an initiative involving an individual or a current claiming to be Islam is not mechanically a proselytizing initiative (such as the authors of the law of 15 March 2004, who claim absurd that the mere wearing of a religious sign is in itself an act of proselytism). Unless we consider that the Muslims would be, independently of the positions they defend and of what they say - since, let us recall, LO does not say a word about the content of the initiatives criticized in the article, by their nature proselytes.

Muslims, therefore fundamentalists according to LO?
It seems that according to LO, an alliance between Muslims and Marxists necessarily means that they [Marxists] are "making concessions", never questioning whether the Muslims do not also strongly admonished for having accepted to join initiatives where there are also atheists, even communists. This is the case, however, with fundamentalist currents which subordinate all activity to "Islamisation" and bluntly criticize those Muslims who are accused of compromise: a striking symmetry with the LO's invective towards a part of the far left.

And it is a rather striking element that this essentialisation of Muslim anti-racist militants as necessarily non-Marxists or necessarily from backgrounds resistant to the political culture of the radical left. Where LO only sees in Bibimoune Nargesse as a veiled woman (and according to LO as a "voluntary slave"), we also know from her that she is part of a generation of radically anti-capitalist militants whose Theoretical references are Frantz Fanon and Angela Davis. As she recalls in her book Confidences à mon veile[13]: "Tell them it is not you who pay us twenty-five percent less than men, tell them you are not responsible for the fact that one puts on eighty percent of domestic work, tell them that the polemic against you is again to question the appearance of women without ever focusing on their reflection ".

LO criticizes the NPA for putting forward community issues. But is it not to introduce the identity theme - and contribute to Islamophobia - to assimilate an anti-racist militant to Islamic fundamentalism on the pretext that she wears a headscarf? These remarks have nothing to envy to those held by so many ideologists - from Fourest to Valls, through Finkielkraut, Zemmour and Badinter - who have been working since the mid-1990s to transform secularism and / or feminism into instruments of stigmatization and exclusion of Muslims, and particularly Muslim women.

A large part of the Left and the Far Left - including LO - has been involved in promoting identity themes and in the development of Islamophobia over the last 15 years, Exclusion and disregarding for the words of the people concerned (in particular place Muslim women). We inherit this situation, and the weakness of our social camp, as well as the rise of reactionary and extreme right-wing forces of all kinds, is also an effect of our inability to struggle against the offensive Islamophobia that has been raging for so many years.

Conclusion
To conclude this reply, it should be noted that LO's article received the enthusiastic welcome of Fourest and Clavreul - supporters of Manuel Valls and defenders of a fundamentalist vision of secularism, clearly turned against Muslims - but also of Natacha Polony, a figure of neo-conservative thought. Obviously, we have the friends and the enemies that we deserve. But the essential is not there: it is in (at least) three important divergences between our two organizations.

1. The first divergence concerns Islamophobia itself. Contrary to what LO wrote at the beginning of its article, Islamophobia goes far beyond a simple "illusion", "diversion" or "smoke screen". Moreover, as Pierre Tevanian reminds us, "for all those who are not smoking, who do not take this smoke in their mouth, it has the only effect of preventing them from seeing a part of reality. But for those who take this smoke in the face, it is dangerous, it is toxic, for veiled girls, for their families, for Muslims in general. This law not only reduces their field of vision, but reduces their field of life, turning them from school, dropping out of school, desocialising them, humiliating them, brutalizing them at an age where one is fragile. [...] If there is a smoke screen, let us not also forget that it smothers, it poisons a part of the population " [13].
   
   Islamophobia, then, is an oppression and, first of all, as an oppression, it must be combated because it has immediate consequences - material, ideological and psychological - for the lives of millions of people (in France and elsewhere), the vast majority of whom belong to the working classes. Indeed, it is not simply a "smokescreen", but an oppression that arouses and reproduces real divisions among the working classes, that it can play so central a role in the strategies of the French ruling class. For the last fifteen years, it has been on Muslim (but also immigrant), and therefore on the identity and racist grounds, that successive governments have sought the consent of one party to the less workers to the capitalist order - where, on the social ground, workers remain massively opposed to the neo-liberal purge and austerity policies.[14]
   
2. A second divergence concerns the relationship to the first ones concerned by this oppression. The offensive of last summer around the "burkini" was a lesson of things from this point of view: it is always women who impose clothing injunctions, one way or another. But these injunctions are part of the oppression of women, of the control that some try to assume over their bodies. That is why last August, by protesting at the Port-Leucate beach against the municipal decision to prohibit the port of the burkini on the beaches (a decision which was rejected by the Council of State) We sang "too much covered or not enough, it's up to the women to decide". To put it another way, like almost all the feminist movements in the predominantly Muslim countries, sometimes mass movements that LO chooses to superbly ignore, we are equally opposed to those who want to impose on a woman to wear such or such a garment as to those who wish to force her to remove it.
   
   More broadly, we consider that self-organization is not a slogan for feast days: anti-capitalist and revolutionary militants do not have to patronize the oppressed on the best way to lead their struggles. The latter did not wait for LO to defend their interests, and they could have waited a long time, - as we have seen – as LO is more anxious to denounce the fight against Islamophobia than to contribute to it . What can we, as activists and as an organization, do is to make the best allies of the struggles of the oppressed, by popularizing their slogans, demands and proposals when they appear to us to go in the direction of a policy of emancipation and the fundamental interests of our social camp.
   
   It is only by participating in common organisations and common battles that we can convince ourselves that in order to really put an end to oppression we must build class unity and break down capitalist power by revolutionary means. In this struggle for the emancipation of humanity, what counts is not the opinion of the exploited and oppressed on God, salvation, or the origin of the world. As Lenin asserted, "the unity of this truly revolutionary struggle of the oppressed class fighting to create a paradise on earth is more important to us than the unity of opinion of the proletarians over the paradise of heaven." [15]
   
3. A third divergence is, finally, in the conception of politics for a revolutionary organization. As illustrated by its presidential campaign, LO is characterized more than ever by a very narrow vision of the political struggle, largely reduced to conflicts in the workplace, to the defense of an emergency program composed of essential demands, but strictly economic (wage increases, prohibitions of dismissals, etc.) and an abstract propaganda for "communism" (of which LO does not say much if one pays attention to it). As we have said above, this economic reductionism is a thousand leagues away from the political practice of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky or Luxemburg. If a revolutionary organization revels in a position of guardian of the dogma and in a routine essentially destined to self-replicate, showing henceforth incapable of contributing actively to the political battles currently being waged against Islamophobia, Urgency or imperialist wars, what could be its usefulness to really change the balance of power in favor of the exploited and the oppressed?

Notes
1 Lutte Ouvrière, ‘Le piège de la "lutte contre l’islamophobie"’, Lutte de classe n ° 181, February 2017, http://mensuel.lutte-ouvriere.org/2017/01/22/le-piege-de-la-lutte-contre-lislamophobie_75202.html
2 Lutte Ouvrière, ‘Communisme, religions et intégrismes’, Lutte de classe No. 126, March 2010,
http://mensuel.lutte-ouvriere.org/documents/archives/la-revue-lutte-de-classe/serie-actuelle-1993/article/communisme-religions-et
3 These include Abdellali Hajjat and Marwan Mohammed, Islamophobia . Comment les élites françaises fabriquent le "problème musulman", 2013.
4 Yasser Louati, “Vous revoilà encore, Manuel Valls, avec vos obsessions sur l’islam…”, Libération, 14 avril 2016.
5 Charlotte Rotman et Blandine Grosjean, « Un voile sur les combats féministes », Libération, 6 mars 2004, http://www.liberation.fr/debats/2016/04/14/yasser-louati-vous-revoila-encore-manuel-valls-avec-vos-obsessions-sur-l-islam_1446168
6 LO is far removed from the political tradition in which it claims to be registered. In What was to be done? Lenin opposed the revolutionary Social-Democrat (the word used in Russia at the time) to the trade union secretary (in other words, the trade unionist): "The secretary of a English trade unions, for example, constantly helps the workers to carry out the economic struggle, organizes revelations about the life of the factory, explains the injustice of laws and provisions hindering freedom of strike, freedom of picketing (to publicise the existence of strike in a given factory); It shows the bias of the arbitrator who belongs to the bourgeois classes, etc. etc.  and in a nutshell, every trade union secretary leads and helps to lead the '' economic struggle against the bosses and the government ''. [...] The Social-Democrat must not have as his ideal the secretary of trade union, but the popular tribune who is able to react against any manifestation of arbitrariness and oppression, wherever it occurs, whatever the class or the social stratum is experiencing it, knowing to generalize all these facts to compose a full picture of police violence and capitalist exploitation, knowing to take advantage of the slightest opportunity to expose before all its socialist convictions and claims To explain to everyone the historical significance of the emancipatory struggle of the proletariat ".
7 Karl Marx, Contribution to a critique of Hegel’s philosophy of the right, 1843, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm.
8 Lenin, The attitude of the workers party to religion, 1909, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm
9 Lenin, Socialism and religion, 1905, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm 
10 Leon Trotsky, The Negro question in the United States, 1933, https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1940/negro1.htm#prinkipo.
11 Michael Löwy, “Opium du peuple ? Marxisme critique et religion”, Contretemps.eu, 7 février 2010, Contretemps.eu, 7 February 2010, http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article28811.
12 Leon Trotsky, The Third International after Lenin, 1928, https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1928/3rd/index.htm.
13 Nargesse Bibimoune, Confidences à mon veile, 2016.:
14 “À propos de Dévoilements : du Hijab à la Burqa. Entretien avec Pierre Tévanian”, Contretemps.eu, 24
https://www.contretemps.eu/a-propos-de-devoilements-du-hijab-a-la-burqa-entretien-avec-pierre-tevanian/
15 Lenin, Socialism and religion, op. Cit.

Read more...

Palestine - WFTU denounces the Zionist Israel

World Federation of Trade Unions
Originally published 10 July, 2014

The World Federation of Trade Unions true to its internationalist solidarity to the Palestinian people which is being expressed with moral and practical means in a day to day basis denounces the murderous policy of the Israeli Government, the attacks, the kidnappings and the expansion of the settlements in the Palestinian territories.

There is no law or argument that can make these bloody attacks acceptable. The blood of the innocent and the injustice over the Palestinian people is not only in the hands of the Zionist Israel but also those who support it like the USA and the European Union and those who do not do anything to put an end in their torment.

We express our solidarity, support and brotherhood to the WFTU affiliate the GUPW [General Union of Palestinian Workers], to the Palestinian workers and the Palestinian people for a free, independent and sovereign Palestine.

Read more...

How the Left’s Defence of Assange Promotes Rape Myths and Misogyny (and what this says about the left)

- Lisbeth Latham

Trigger Warning: This article will discuss at length how publications have trivialised rape and tried to undermine survivors. It contains references to apologist material.

The question of how to respond to the allegations of rape and sexual assault against Julian Assange has been controversial amongst left-wing and progressive people. Most of Australia’s far-left would argue that they have adopted a nuanced and sophisticated approach which combines standing up for the rights of women and defending the work of Wikileaks from interference from the US government and its allies. A closer reading of Green Left Weekly and Socialist Alternative’s publications Red Flag and Socialist Alternative however reveals a different picture. Whilst they may argue that you “need to take the allegations seriously”[1], the articles they publish fail to support the rights of two the Swedish women “A” and “W” who have brought allegations. Instead, they fall into a range of problematic approaches that tend to trivialise and minimise the allegations against Assange, and, importantly, do nothing to combat the widespread misogyny articulated by Assange’s supporters, whilst placing the most emphasis on defending Assange’s reputation and interests. This failure is important, as these far-left organisations (through the articles published in their papers and on their websites) are helping, rather than combating rape culture, and as a result are creating an environment that is damaging to all survivors of rape and abuse.

A major problem with both Green Left and Socialist Alternative’s coverage of the case against Assange is that many of the articles do not mention, or gloss over, the allegations against Assange; or immediately go from talking about taking the allegations seriously to discussing how the state has a long history of misusing rape allegations[2]. In the first article in Socialist Alternative on the case in early December 2010, Ben Hillier stated that Assange would be “unlikely to receive a fair trial” in Sweden”[3].  This tends to erase the fact that the extradition proceedings initiated by Sweden are part of an investigation of rape, and instead create the impression that these proceedings are part of a formal process to extradite Assange to the US to face espionage charges. While this possibility is a core argument mobilised to oppose any extradition, there is a significant difference between acknowledging that the US government, and many of its allies, don’t like Wikileaks or Julian Assange – that these governments view the allegations against Assange as being useful in undermining him – versus proving that in the current process he is ”targeted because of his political actions, not his personal affairs”[4], or that the extradition to Sweden would “let the US get hold of Assange”[5].


Trivialising Allegations
Green Left has run three articles that state that what was has been alleged did not constitute rape. One of these entitled “Don’t let lying dogs sleep over Assange, Ecuador”, a speech by the Marxist historian Humphrey McQueen, was prefaced by a statement critical of McQueen’s assertion stating:

“Green Left notes that, while most of McQueen’s speech is an entirely justifiable defence of Assange and WikiLeaks, McQueen makes an argument in the case of the allegations of rape against Assange that Green Left strongly rejects. Green Left believes allegations of rape are very serious and should not be dismissed or minimised as simply “misconduct” -- as McQueen does. At the same time, we reject the hypocritical use of these allegations by the US government and its allies as a smokescreen to attack Assange and WikiLeaks”[6].

The disclaimer also stated that the speech did not reflect Green Left’s views and we feel it is important to address this matter among Wikileaks’ supporters[7]. However, Green Left, while also joining in criticisms of British Respect Party MP George Galloway for making similar comments, has not offered similar disclaimers accompanying two other articles that made the same claim that were published prior to McQueen’s speech; nor has the paper been critical of the fact that Assange’s defence team unsuccessfully argued that the Swedish charges did not constitute rape under British law as part of his unsuccessful appeal against extradition[8]. 


 Denying Rape (proceed with caution- this is particularly awful)
Green Left has run several articles that state that the sex between Assange and the two Swedish women was consensual:

“Both complainants admit consenting to sex and that consent to sex was not removed at any stage. The allegation made is that Mr Assange did not immediately inform the complainants that a condom had split or that he was not wearing a condom”[9] 

And:

“Both the women involved said they had consented to have sex. On the facts alleged, no crime would have been committed in Britain”[10].

By arguing that the sex was consensual, the authors argue either that what happened was not rape, or that Sweden has brought ridiculous allegations against Assange, a common argument by Assange’s supporters seeking to paint Assange as the victim of Sweden’s “overly harsh” rape laws. The reality is that no-one has argued that no consensual sex occurred between Assange and the two women – what has been argued that some of Assange’s actions were non-consensual and constituted rape. This should not be too difficult to understand, unless you are of the incorrect view that once a person consents to sex once, you don’t need seek consent in the future.

It is important to understand that while Sweden’s laws around rape are different to those of Britain or Australia, they are not stricter, indeed unlike in Australia or Britain, where consent is central to the definition of rape. In Sweden the key question is the use of force, or threat of the use force[11].

Distorting the facts of the case
There are number of key facts around the case that are frequently misrepresented by Assange’s supporters. Beyond the question of the nature of the charges, US intentions and how these relate, and which decisions were made to prosecute Assange and seek his extradition – are the questions of how the investigation was run, including whether the prosecutors sought to interview Assange prior to him leaving Sweden and motivations behind the bringing of the charges. Writing in June 2012, the editors of Green Left Weekly state,
“When the allegations first surfaced, Swedish prosecutors dismissed the case and repeatedly refused Assange’s attempts to meet with them for an interview. Months later, a different, politically-appointed Swedish prosecutor reopened the case and applied for Assange’s extradition from Britain”[12]. This argument fits with the narrative put forward on websites such as Wikileaks Citizens Alliance Australia and Justice4Assange. However, it doesn’t bear up very well when compared with the timeline of events and the evidence presented at the various court hearings in Britain and the findings in those hearings.
August 20: an arrest warrant was issued for Assange.

August 21: warrant withdrawn, senior Stockholm prosecutor Eva Finne saying “I don’t think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape,” but prosecutors indicated they would continue to investigate lesser chargers that did not warrant arrest.

August 31: prosecutors interviewed Assange in Stockholm formally informing him of the allegations against him.

September 1: Swedish Director of Public Prosecution, Marianne Ny (who is also head of the department which oversees sex crimes), announced that she was reopening the rape investigation “There is reason to believe that a crime has been committed, considering information available at present, my judgement is that the classification of the crime is rape”[13]. 

The argument that prosecutors did not try to interview Assange until after he left Sweden, originated with his Swedish lawyer Bjorn Hurtig, who stated this in his witness statement to the February 2011 extradition hearing in the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court. Hurtig had also provided this information to expert witnesses that Assange’s defence team called during the hearing. However, under cross-examination Hurtig was forced to admit the following timeline:
September 21 or 22: Ny had contacted him to arrange a follow up interview with Assange.

September 27 9.11 am: Ny contacted Hurtig, who indicated he had not been able to Assange. Ny indicated that she would let him know shortly what action they would take given the inability to arrange an interview. Sometime that day Assange reportedly leaves Sweden.

Sometime between September 27 and September 30: Ny informed Hurtig that she intended to arrest Assange.

Ny continues to attempt to interview Assange, including on October 6th as he was scheduled to holding a public meeting in Sweden. However, this meeting never occurred and the interview was unable to occur[14].

October 18: Assange was informed that his request for residency had been denied.
November 18: the Stockholm District Court Approved “approves a request to detain Mr Assange for questioning on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. Sweden’s Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny says he has not been available for questioning”.

November 20: Swedish police issue an international arrest warrant for Mr Assange via Interpol[15].

Ny has been subject to a range of inconsistent attacks regarding her motivations in deciding to initiate a rape investigation against Assange. While both Green Left and Socialist Alternative argue that the investigation it is part of a politically motivated agenda against Assange, a range of pro-Assange websites including Wikileaks Australian Citizens Alliance and Justice4Assange have, drawing on the “expert testimony” of Brita Sundberg-Weitman, a retired Swedish Judge, have additionally argued that Ny has brought the charges because she is a radical feminist who “regards the prosecution of men, even without sufficient evidence, as in the public interest”[16].

Sundberg-Weitman’s assertion that Ny is a radical feminist is based on comments quoted in a 2001 report for the Act to Protect Women. These are:

“Women who are subject to repeated violence often feel ashamed. They think that they themselves are to blame for what happens. This makes the kicks and blows logical – the victim develops a strategy to explain what she has to go through”[17], 

and

“If the police and prosecutor get enough evidence during the initial investigation, the matter goes to prosecution. Legal proceedings place the responsibility on the persons who resort to violence. Marianne Ny is of the opinion that such proceedings have a beneficial effect in protecting women, even in cases where perpetrators are prosecuted but not convicted”[18].

Sundberg-Weitman interpreted these comments to mean that Ny is “biased against men and takes for granted that everyone prosecuted is guilty ... She is so preoccupied with the situation of battered and raped women that she has lost balance”[19]. Even under cross examination, when it was put to Sundberg-Weitman that Ny’s statements could be taken as meaning “there is a public interest in prosecuting, where evidence justifies prosecution, even if the case results in an acquittal”[20], Sundberg-Weitman rejected this as a possible interpretation .

It is important to remember that in Sweden, like in Australia, there are real problems with low reporting rates of rape and real problems with attrition rates with rape cases being dropped by police and prosecutors prior to cases going to court. The approach advocated by Ny, who has also been involved in policy discussions to strengthen Sweden’s rape laws, would help to address this problem.

Failure to confront misogyny of Assange Defence campaign
Assange’s case has become a cause celebre not just with the far-left but also with significant layers of Men’s Rights Groups. Indeed, the official Justice4Assange site has an entire section on “Gender Politics” or more precisely, how Sweden is a place where crazy feminists have taken over. The introduction to the section states “Gender politics in Sweden has also been decisive in shaping the Swedish Sexual Offences legislation that criminalises conduct that is considered legal in the UK as long as it is consensual (which is the case in the alleged conduct involving Julian Assange)”[21]. 

Assange also very early in the process argued that feminism was a problem. In a December 2010 interview he told The Australian that “Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism” and that he had fallen into a “hornet’s nest of revolutionary feminism”[22]. This denigrates the experiences of both “A” and “W”, and promotes a wide range of inconsistent rape apologism and rape myths. However, Green Left, while asserting that allegations of rape need to be taken seriously and that attempts to trivialise rape need to be debated amongst Assange supporters, has not published any articles that sort to seriously challenge the use of such examining this ugly aspect of the Assange’s support base - beyond saying

“This type of argument hurts the struggle against sexual assault,  where women often face a difficult battle to receive justice.

“Allegations of sexual assault and rape are a serious matter. What is concerning about Assange’s case is
that the serious problems of sexual assault and rape, which do not receive the attention they deserve, are being used in an attempt to discredit an organisation that is a threat to powerful interests.

“The singling out of Assange for severe treatment (such as the initial denial of bail in Britain and ongoing extradition attempts for a man not even charged with a crime), amounts to dangerous abuse and trivialisation of a serious issue”[23].

In addition they have published articles critical of feminists who have raised concerns about the trivialisation of rape by Assange’s supporters, accusing them of “not having a nuanced analysis”[24].

Socialist Alternative has not been as coy on this question. In a November 2012 article, Louise O’Shea argues that:

“Phoney concern about women’s oppression has been instrumental in giving various policies of the ruling class legitimacy over the last decade or more. In addition to helping win support for the invasion of Afghanistan, some feminists have contributed to anti-Muslim racism by advocating a ban on Islamic dress have refused to support the rights of fly-in-fly-out mining workers on the basis that they can be sexist and have opposed defending Julian Assange against the US government because he has been accused of rape. The mindset that much of the left has, that any attention to “women’s issues” must by definition be a good thing, is wholly inappropriate for the times”[25].

A central element in the logic that is applied to justify the downplaying of rape allegations against Assange is the way in which a hypothetical conspiracy between the Swedish and US governments is treated as fact. It is unquestionably the case that the US government, and many of its allies have condemned Wikileaks and Julian Assange, and have sought to undermine Wikileaks. It also undoubtedly the case that these governments view the allegations against Assange as being useful in undermining both him and Wikileaks, however, this doesn’t mean that it can be said that “Whether or not the claims are true, he is being targeted because of his political actions, not his personal affairs”[26], or extradition to Sweden would “let the US get hold of
Assange”[27].

Calling for no trial to occur
Although both Socialist Alternative and Green Left, have published articles that argued “that it’s not possible to know what occurred in Sweden, and the need to take allegations seriously”, Green Left and Socialist Alternative[28] have run articles calling for the Australian government to push for Assange to be brought home to Australia or be freed, which would make justice for both “A” and “W”, impossible – but then again I don’t think they ever cared about that.

These statements are not just an attack on “A” and “W”, but on all survivors – it sends a message that survivors cannot expect the far-left to consistently stand up for survivors, and if your abuser is a member of the left you can expect the left to mobilise rape myths against you and apologise for the perpetrator “for the good of the movement”, Anyone who is serious about supporting the rights of women needs to support survivors. This involves accepting survivors’ stories and combating the rape apologism and victim blaming that legitimises and normalises sexual violence. If we are to achieve a world where rape is viewed as abhorrent we need to fight rape apologism wherever it is found. 


_______________________________________________


Notes

1 Pemberton, A. ‘Anti-WikiLeaks campaign undermines anti-rape campaigns’, Green Left Weekly, 24 Aug. 2012, para. 14, <https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/51992>, accessed 6 Jan. 2014.
2 Ausburn, K. ‘Why feminists and the left must defend Julian Assange’, Green Left Weekly, 12 Jan. 2011, para. 18, <https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/46421>, accessed 6 Jan. 2014
3 Hillier, B. ‘Truth is a crime in an empire of lies’, Socialist Alternative, 3 Dec. 2010, para. 20, <http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=4148:wikileaks-truth-is-a-crime-in-an-empire-of-lies&Itemid=543>, accessed 7 Jan. 2014.
4 Hillier, para. 20
5 Green Left Weekly, ‘Assange is right to seek asylum’, Green Left Weekly, 23 Jun. 2012, para. 4,  <https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/51428>, accessed 6 Jan. 2014.
6 McQueen, H. ‘Humphrey McQueen: Don’t let lying dogs sleep over Assange, Ecuador‘, Green Left Weekly, 22 Aug. 2012, para. 2, <https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/51975>, accessed 6 Jan. 2014..
7 McQueen, para. 5.
8 Pemberton, A. ‘Anti-WikiLeaks campaign undermines anti-rape campaigns’, Green Left Weekly, 24 Aug. 2012, para. 12, <https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/51992>, accessed 6 Jan. 2014.
Wikileaks, ‘WikiLeaks: Assange’s detention unfair, dehumanising’, Green Left Weekly, 20 Jun. 2011, para. 9, <https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/47960>, accessed 6 Jan. 2014.
Pilger, J. ‘John Pilger: ‘Getting’ Assange and the smearing a revolution’, Green Left Weekly, 11 Oct. 2011, para. 3, <https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/49029>, accessed 6 Jan. 2014.
9 Wikileaks, para. 6.
10 Pilger, para. 3.
11 Amnesty International, Case Closed: Rape and Human Rights in the Nordic Countries – Summary Report (2010)   <http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT77/001/2010/en/5ba7f635-f2c3-4b50-86ea-e6c3428cf179/act770012010eng.pdf> , 9, accessed 2 Sept. 2012.
12 Green Left Weekly, para. 7.
13 BBC News, ‘Timeline: sexual allegations against Assange in Sweden’, BBC, (16 Aug. 2012) <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341>, accessed 8 Jam 2014.
14 Riddle, H. The Judicial Authority in Sweden v. Julian Paul Assange, (City of Westminster Magistrates Court, 2011) <www.judiciary.gov.uk%2FResources%2FJCO%2FDocuments%2FJudgments%2Fjud-aut-sweden-v-assange-judgment.pdf&ei=iS7OUripDNHYkgWO04HIAg&usg=AFQjCNEkM4qYA0FOEwSC4QWBdbn_Aw4zUQ&bvm=bv.59026428,d.dGI>, 7-8, accessed on 3 Sept. 2012.
15 BBC NEWS.
16 Riddle, 2.
17 Sundberg-Weitman, B. Exhibit to Expert Report of Brita Sundberg-
Weitman, <http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CC8QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.howardkennedyfsi.com%2Fcms%2Fdocuments%2FExpertOpinionofBritaSundbergWeitmanExhibitBSW1.pdf&ei=uzLOUpSKL8X5kgW2k4DADQ&usg=AFQjCNHY3DgYQCywePwlkgo-NIeLVkXerg&bvm=bv.59026428,d.dGI>, 7, accessed on 7 Jan. 2014.
18 Sundberg-Weitman, 8.
19 Riddle, 2.
20 Riddle, 2-3.
21 Julian Assange Defence Fund. ‘Gender Politics’, Justice4Assange [webpage], (n.d.) <http://justice4assange.com/Gender-Politics.html> para. 1, accessed 7 Jan. 2014.
22 Colvin, M. ‘Wikileaks Founder Baffled by Sex Assault Claims’,
Australian, 27 Dec. 2010, para. 16, <http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/wikileaks-founder-baffled-by-sex-assault-claims/story-fn775xjq-1225976459286>, accessed 8 Jan. 2014.
23 Pemberton, A. ‘Assange: ‘Gillard must bring me home’, Green Left Weekly, 13 Feb. 2011, paras. 17-19, <https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/46706>, accessed 10 Jan. 2014.
24 Ausburn, 2.
25  O’Shea, L. ‘Jill Meagher, Reclaim the Night and the political right’, Socialist Alternative, 22 November, 2013, para. 26, <http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=7577%3Ajill-meagher-reclaim-the-night-and-the-political-right&Itemid=542>, accessed 6 Jan. 2014.
26 Hillier, 20.
27 Green Left Weekly, para. 4.
28 Pemberton, A. ‘Assange: ‘Gillard must bring me home’, Green Left Weekly, 13 Feb. 2011, <https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/46706>, accessed 10 Jan. 2014.
Bolger, C. ‘The battle over Wikileaks has only just begun’, Socialist Alternative, 23 Dec. 2010, para. 15, <http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=4129:the-battle-over-wikileaks-has-only-just-begun&Itemid=543>, accessed 10 Jan. 2014.


This article originally appeared in issue #3 of the Dealing with an Unsafe Left zine. Check them out on tumblr and facebook > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more...

Gaddafi falls, let the people decide

Statement by the NPA, 21 August 2011
Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste (NPA)
From International Viewpoint


On February 15 and 16, 2011 after the fall of Ben Ali and Mubarak, it was the turn of Libya to see a popular movement develop against a 42 year old dictatorship. The arrest of a human rights activist in Benghazi led to riots to demand his release, which Gaddafi met with violent repression. This was the opposite effect which happened: resistance, the liberation of Benghazi from the yoke of Gaddafi’s representatives and the extension of the revolt to the neighbouring towns and regions.

The revolutionary processes underway in Tunisia and in Egypt gave courage to resist repression. Over the last six months, the revolt has spread while, one month later, under cover of a resolution from the UN, the member countries of NATO attempted to hijack the process underway by an aerial military intervention. The NPA condemned this intervention. Its objectives were clear: to cover up for their support until the end, past and present, of the dictatorships in place, while getting their hands on a country rich in oil and gas resources.

The fall of the dictator Gaddafi is good news for the peoples. The NPA is entirely in solidarity with the revolutionary process which continues in the Arab region. To finish this process the peoples will need to vanquish the two faces of the counter revolution: that of the dictatorships, starting with that of Bashar al Assad in Syria, and that of the confiscation of their destiny by the imperialist powers.

A new life opens for the Libyan people. Freedom, democratic rights, the use of the wealth originating from natural resources for the satisfaction of the fundamental needs of the people are now on the agenda.

August 21, 2011.

-The Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste was founded in February 2009, on the proposal of the LCR, French section of the Fourth International. As a broad anti-capitalist party it is not itself linked to any international current. The members in France of the Fourth International are in the NPA.

Read more...

Libyan Developments

By Gilbert Achcar
March 19, 2011
Znet
[Gilbert Achcar grew up in Lebanon, and is currently Professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) of the University of London. His books include The Clash of Barbarisms: The Making of the New World Disorder, published in 13 languages, Perilous Power: The Middle East and U.S. Foreign Policy, co-authored with Noam Chomsky, and most recently The Arabs and the Holocaust: The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives. He was interviewed by Stephen R. Shalom.]

Who is the Libyan opposition? Some have noted the presence of the old monarchist flag in rebel ranks.

This flag is not used as a symbol of the monarchy, but as the flag that the Libyan state adopted after it won independence from Italy. It is used by the uprising in order to reject the Green Flag imposed by Gaddafi along with his Green Book, when he was aping Mao Zedong and his Little Red Book. In no way does the tricolor flag indicate nostalgia for the monarchy. In the most common interpretation, it symbolizes the three historic regions of Libya, and the crescent and star are the same symbols you see on the flags of the Algerian, Tunisian and Turkish republics, not symbols of monarchism.

So who is the opposition? The composition of the opposition is -- as in all the other revolts shaking the region -- very heterogeneous. What unites all the disparate forces is a rejection of the dictatorship and a longing for democracy and human rights. Beyond that, there are many different perspectives. In Libya, more particularly, there is a mixture of human rights activists, democracy advocates, intellectuals, tribal elements, and Islamic forces -- a very broad collection. The most prominent political force in the Libyan uprising is the "Youth of the 17th of February Revolution," which has a democratic platform, calling for the rule of law, political freedoms, and free elections. The Libyan movement also includes sections of the government and the armed forces that have broken away and joined the opposition -- which you didn't have in Tunisia or Egypt.

So the Libyan opposition represents a mixture of forces, and the bottom line is that there is no reason for any different attitude toward them than to any other of the mass uprisings in the region.


Is Gaddafi -- or was Gaddafi -- a progressive figure?

When Gaddafi came to power in 1969 he was a late manifestation of the wave of Arab nationalism that followed World War II and the 1948 Nakba. He tried to imitate Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, who he regarded as his model and inspiration. So he replaced the monarchy with a republic, championed Arab unity, forced the withdrawal of the U.S.'s Wheelus Airbase from Libyan territory, and initiated a program of social change.

Then the regime moved in its own way, along the path of radicalization, inspired by an Islamized Maoism. There were sweeping nationalizations in the late 1970s -- almost everything was nationalized. Gaddafi claimed to have instituted direct democracy -- and formally changed the name of the country from Republic to State of the Masses (Jamahiriya). He pretended that he had turned the country into the fulfillment of socialist utopia with direct democracy, but few were fooled. The "revolutionary committees" were actually acting as a ruling apparatus along with the security services in controlling the country. At the same time, Gaddafi also played an especially reactionary role in reinvigorating tribalism as a tool for his own power. His foreign policy became increasingly foolhardy, and most Arabs came to consider him crazy.

With the Soviet Union in crisis, Gaddafi shifted away from his socialist pretensions and re-opened his economy to Western business. He asserted that his economic liberalization would be accompanied by a political one, aping Gorbachev's perestroika after having aped Mao Zedong's "cultural revolution," but the political claim was an empty one. When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 under the pretext of searching for "weapons of mass destruction," Gaddafi, worried that he might be next, implemented a sudden and surprising turnabout in foreign policy, earning himself a spectacular upgrade from the status of "rogue state" to that of close collaborator of Western states. A collaborator in particular of the United States, which he helped in its so-called war on terror, and Italy, for which he did the dirty job of turning back would-be immigrants trying to get from Africa to Europe.

Throughout these metamorphoses, Gaddafi's regime was always a dictatorship. Whatever early progressive measures Gaddafi may have enacted, there was nothing left of progressivism or anti-imperialism in his regime in the last phase. Its dictatorial character showed itself in the way he reacted to the protests: immediately deciding to quell them by force. There was no attempt to offer any kind of democratic outlet for the population. He warned the protesters in a now famous tragic-comic speech: "We will come inch by inch, home by home, alley by alley ... We will find you in your closets. We will have no mercy and no pity." Not a surprise, knowing that Gaddafi was the only Arab ruler who publicly blamed the Tunisian people for having toppled their own dictator Ben Ali, whom he described as the best ruler the Tunisians would find.

Gaddafi resorted to threats and violent repression, claiming that the protesters had been turned into drug addicts by Al Qaeda, who poured hallucinogens in their coffees. Blaming Al Qaeda for the uprising was his way of trying to get the support of the West. Had there been any offer of help from Washington or Rome, you can be sure that Gaddafi would have gladly welcomed it. He actually expressed his bitter disappointment at the attitude of his buddy Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, with whom he enjoyed partying, and complained that his other European "friends" also betrayed him. In the last few years, Gaddafi had indeed become a friend of several Western rulers and other establishment figures who, for a fistful of dollars, have been willing to ridicule themselves exchanging hugs with him. Anthony Giddens himself, the distinguished theoretician of Tony Blair's Third Way, followed in his disciple's steps by paying a visit to Gaddafi in 2007 and writing in the Guardian how Libya was on the path of reform and on its way to becoming the Norway of the Middle East.

What is your assessment of UN Security Council resolution 1973 adopted on March 17?

The resolution itself is phrased in a way that takes into consideration -- and appears to respond to -- the request by the uprising for a no-fly zone. The opposition has indeed explicitly called for a no-fly zone, on the condition that no foreign troops be deployed on Libyan territory. Gaddafi has the bulk of the elite armed forces, with aircraft and tanks, and the no-fly zone would indeed neutralize his main military advantage. This request of the uprising is reflected in the text of the resolution, which authorizes UN member states "to take all necessary measures ... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory." The resolution establishes "a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians."

Now there are not enough safeguards in the wording of the resolution to bar its use for imperialist purposes. Although the purpose of any action is supposed to be the protection of civilians, and not "regime change," the determination of whether an action meets this purpose or not is left up to the intervening powers and not to the uprising, or even the Security Council. The resolution is amazingly confused. But given the urgency of preventing the massacre that would have inevitably resulted from an assault on Benghazi by Gaddafi's forces, and the absence of any alternative means of achieving the protection goal, no one can reasonably oppose it. One can understand the abstentions; some of the five states who abstained in the UNSC vote wanted to express their defiance and/or unhappiness with the lack of adequate oversight, but without taking the responsibility for an impending massacre.

The Western response, of course, smacks of oil. The West fears a long drawn out conflict. If there is a major massacre, they would have to impose an embargo on Libyan oil, thus keeping oil prices at a high level at a time when, given the current state of the global economy, this would have major adverse consequences. Some countries, including the United States, acted reluctantly. Only France emerged as very much in favor of strong action, which might well be connected to the fact that France -- unlike Germany (which abstained in the UNSC vote), Britain, and, above all, Italy -- does not have a major stake in Libyan oil, and certainly hopes to get a greater share post-Gaddafi.

We all know about the Western powers' pretexts and double standards. For example, their alleged concern about harm to civilians bombarded from the air did not seem to apply in Gaza in 2008-09, when hundreds of noncombatants were being killed by Israeli warplanes in furtherance of an illegal occupation. Or the fact that the US allows its client regime in Bahrain, where it has a major naval base, to violently repress the local uprising, with the help of other regional vassals of Washington.

The fact remains, nevertheless, that if Gaddafi were permitted to continue his military offensive and take Benghazi, there would be a major massacre. Here is a case where a population is truly in danger, and where there is no plausible alternative that could protect it. The attack by Gaddafi's forces was hours or at most days away. You can't in the name of anti-imperialist principles oppose an action that will prevent the massacre of civilians. In the same way, even though we know well the nature and double standards of cops in the bourgeois state, you can't in the name of anti-capitalist principles blame anybody for calling them when someone is on the point of being raped and there is no alternative way of stopping the rapists.

This said, without coming out against the no-fly zone, we must express defiance and advocate full vigilance in monitoring the actions of those states carrying it out, to make sure that they don't go beyond protecting civilians as mandated by the UNSC resolution. In watching on TV the crowds in Benghazi cheering the passage of the resolution, I saw a big billboard in their middle that said in Arabic "No to foreign intervention." People there make a distinction between "foreign intervention" by which they mean troops on the ground, and a protective no-fly zone. They oppose foreign troops. They are aware of the dangers and wisely don't trust Western powers.

So, to sum up, I believe that from an anti-imperialist perspective one cannot and should not oppose the no-fly zone, given that there is no plausible alternative for protecting the endangered population. The Egyptians are reported to be providing weapons to the Libyan opposition -- and that's fine -- but on its own it couldn't have made a difference that would have saved Benghazi in time. But again, one must maintain a very critical attitude toward what the Western powers might do.

What's going to happen now?

It's difficult to tell what will happen now. The UN Security Council resolution did not call for regime change; it's about protecting civilians. The future of the Gaddafi regime is uncertain. The key question is whether we will see the resumption of the uprising in western Libya, including Tripoli, leading to a disintegration of the regime's armed forces. If that occurs, then Gaddafi may be ousted soon. But if the regime manages to remain firmly in control in the west, then there will be a de facto division of the country -- even though the resolution affirms the territorial integrity and national unity of Libya. This may be what the regime has chosen, as it has just announced its compliance with the UN resolution and proclaimed a ceasefire. What we might then have is a prolonged stalemate, with Gaddafi controlling the west and the opposition the east. It will obviously take time before the opposition can incorporate the weapons it is receiving from and through Egypt to the point of becoming able to inflict military defeat on Gaddafi's forces. Given the nature of the Libyan territory, this can only be a regular war rather than a popular one, a war of movement over vast stretches of territory. That's why the outcome is hard to predict. The bottom line here again is that we should support the victory of the Libyan democratic uprising. Its defeat at the hands of Gaddafi would be a severe backlash negatively affecting the revolutionary wave that is currently shaking the Middle East and North Africa.

Read more...

Egypt's Joy: Toppling the Autocrat

Tariq Ali
CounterPunch
February 11-13, 2011

A joyous night in Cairo. What bliss to be alive, to be an Egyptian and an Arab. In Tahrir Square they're chanting, "Egypt is free" and "We won!"

The removal of Mubarak alone (and getting the bulk of his $40bn loot back for the national treasury), without any other reforms, would itself be experienced in the region and in Egypt as a huge political triumph. It will set new forces into motion. A nation that has witnessed miracles of mass mobilisations and a huge rise in popular political consciousness will not be easy to crush, as Tunisia demonstrates.


Arab history, despite appearances, is not static. Soon after the Israeli victory of 1967 that marked the defeat of secular Arab nationalism, one of the great Arab poets, Nizar Qabbani wrote:

Arab children,
Corn ears of the future,
You will break our chains.
Kill the opium in our heads,
Kill the illusions.
Arab children,
Don't read about our suffocated generation,
We are a hopeless case,
As worthless as a water-melon rind.
Don't read about us,
Don't ape us,
Don't accept us,
Don't accept our ideas,
We are a nation of crooks and jugglers.
Arab children,
Spring rain,
Corn ears of the future,
You are the generation that will overcome defeat.

How happy he would have been to seen his prophecy being fulfilled.

The new wave of mass opposition has happened at a time where there are no radical nationalist parties in the Arab world, and this has dictated the tactics: huge assemblies in symbolic spaces posing an immediate challenge to authority – as if to say, we are showing our strength, we don't want to test it because we neither organised for that nor are we prepared, but if you mow us down remember the world is watching.

This dependence on global public opinion is moving, but is also a sign of weakness. Had Obama and the Pentagon ordered the Egyptian army to clear the square – however high the cost – the generals would probably have obeyed orders, but it would have been an extremely risky operation for them, if not for Obama. It could have split the high command from ordinary soldiers and junior officers, many of whose relatives and families are demonstrating and many of whom know and feel that the masses are on the right side. That would have meant a revolutionary upheaval of a sort that neither Washington nor the Muslim Brotherhood – the party of cold calculation – desired.

The show of popular strength was enough to get rid of the current dictator. He'd only go if the US decided to take him away. After much wobbling, they did. They had no other serious option left. The victory, however, belongs to the Egyptian people whose unending courage and sacrifices made all this possible.

And so it ended badly for Mubarak and his old henchman. Having unleashed security thugs only a fortnight ago, Vice-President Suleiman's failure to dislodge the demonstrators from the square was one more nail in the coffin. The rising tide of the Egyptian masses with workers coming out on strike , judges demonstrating on the streets, and the threat of even larger crowds next week, made it impossible for Washington to hang on to Mubarak and his cronies. The man Hillary Clinton had referred to as a loyal friend, indeed "family", was dumped. The US decided to cut its losses and authorised the military intervention.

Omar Suleiman, an old western favourite, was selected as vice-president by Washington, endorsed by the EU, to supervise an "orderly transition". Suleiman was always viewed by the people as a brutal and corrupt torturer, a man who not only gives orders, but participates in the process. A WikiLeaks document had a former US ambassador praising him for not being "squeamish". The new vice president had warned the protesting crowds last Tuesday that if they did not demobilise themselves voluntarily, the army was standing by: a coup might be the only option left. It was, but against the dictator they had backed for 30 years. It was the only way to stabilise the country. There could be no return to "normality".

The age of political reason is returning to the Arab world. The people are fed up of being colonised and bullied. Meanwhile, the political temperature is rising in Jordan, Algeria and Yemen.

Tariq Ali’s latest book “The Obama Syndrome: Surrender at Home, War Abroad’ is published by Verso.

Read more...

Union Statements on Tunisia

The following are some statements by unions and international confederations regarding events in Tunisia. The statement by French confederations is a rough translation of the text published on Solidaires website.

1. International Trade Union Conderation Statement on Tunisia - January 12
2. Statement by CGT, CFDT, FO, FSU, UNSA and Solidaires - January 13
3. Statement of the National Executive Bureau of the Tunisian General Labor Union (UGTT) - January 15
4. Statement of the Executive Bureau of the Tunisian General Labor Union - January 17



1. ITUC Calls on Affiliates to Mobilise against Repression of Demonstrations
12 January 2011: The International Trade Union Confederation has called on its affiliated organisations around the globe to mobilise against the violent repression of demonstrators by the Tunisian security forces. According to trade union sources, over fifty people are thought to have died in clashes between the security forces and protestors, and many more have been injured.

The wave of demonstrations was unleashed when a young street vendor from Sidi Bouzid committed suicide on 17 December 2010 following the confiscation of his merchandise by the authorities. In four weeks, the protest movement has spread beyond Tunisia’s socio-economically disadvantaged central region, reaching the capital, Tunis, and other towns across the country.

On Monday 10 January, President Zine El Abidine pledged to create 300,000 jobs in 2011 and 2012 to curb unemployment, and described the protests as "terrorist acts". The ITUC is calling for concrete measures to fulfil the welcome jobs pledge as well as an immediate halt to the violent repression and the opening of a genuine dialogue with the Tunisian people, to promote more equitable development. The ITUC has joined with its Tunisian affiliate the UGTT in expressing solidarity with the people of Tunisia and supporting the call for a development model guaranteeing equal opportunities, the right to decent work, and job opportunities providing a stable income capable of meeting their needs.

"The opening of a genuine dialogue is urgently needed in Tunisia," said ITUC General Secretary Sharan Burrow. "The demonstrators are desperate young people just looking to make ends meet. It is up to the Tunisian authorities to take every action to help them. It must also ensure that those detained be immediately released. The government must fulfil its obligations under international law to respect trade union rights and fundamental liberties such as freedom of expression."

The ITUC supports the general strike planned in the 3 regions by the UGTT and condemns the police blockades at the UGTT offices in several towns and the use of force to prevent trade unionists from organising peaceful protests.

2. Statement Thursday, January 13, 2011 at a meeting of the Labour Exchange in Paris

With the Tunisian central union UGTT, the French trade unions CGT, CFDT, FO, FSU, UNSA and Solidaires, denounce the repressive policy of the Tunisian government. They condemn the shoot to kill policy in Thala, Kasserine and Ar-Reqab and denounced the raid that destroyed the premises of the UGTT in Kasserine.

The wave of anger triggered three weeks ago in Sidi Bouzid by self-immolation of the youth Mohamed Bouazizi express in Tunisia a vast movement of demands for jobs and a decent life.

The regime responds by force and killing. According to a provisional report, some 50 people in the cities of Kasserine and Thala, died. , we must add those killed and injured in other regions, the exact count of victims is not yet clear.

The army was deployed yesterday to the capital and major cities and a curfew is introduced. Faced with such a policy we fear the worst.

With the UGTT, French unions call for immediate withdrawal of the military from towns, the end of the state of emergency affecting some areas and the release of all prisoners.

The six French organizations demand, with the Tunisian trade unionists that those who opened fire on demonstrators are prosecuted and punished. They support the request of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to the UN for a transparent and credible inquiry.

The current announcements of the regime are not credible. The Tunisian Government declares the freeing of all detained since the start of movement and proceeds at the same time to more arrests. Without significant action and concrete commitments, promises of job creation, vague recognition of corruption or changes of ministers are just manifestations of a helpless regime that this crisis has called into question.

French trade union organisations declare solidarity with the Tunisian central union in claiming that a country's development model should meet the basic needs of the population, based on regional balance and for which the state and the public sector must ensure their investment function.

Tunisian workers claim a right to a decent job providing a steady income allowing everyone to meet their needs and providing guarantees in the event of loss of employment. We therefore support the request of the Tunisian central union to create an unemployment fund.

The French unions say they are also supportive of the claims of unionists and the Tunisian people who aspire to democracy, respect for civil liberties, the press and media, independence of the judiciary and respect for union rights to demonstrate and strike. Many rights violated by a regime that takes breath, year after year has reinforced repression and authoritarianism.

The six French organizations also wish to express their indignation at the statements of some members of the French government supporting President Ben Ali denying the authoritarian nature of the Tunisian regime or opting for cooperation with the Tunisian authorities to maintain order.

Also, they ask the government to cease its support for the police regime of Ben Ali, who is now unable to receive the explicit or implicit guarantee of democratic governments.

They also call upon the EU to demand that the Tunisian government respects the clause on respect for democracy and human rights and fundamental freedoms of association in the Accord with Tunisia. It must be the same in the negotiations leading to a partnership of the European Union with this country.

They finally call on the French and European authorities to demand the release and amnesty of prisoners and those convicted following the social movements, including those of 2008 in the mining area of Gafsa.

3. Statement of the National Executive Bureau of the Tunisian General Labor Union

The Executive Bureau of the Tunisian General Labor Union held a meeting on Saturday, January 15, 2011, after examining the outcome of the social and political conditions in the country and the resulting struggles of workers, trade unionists and the general public, in addition to the confirmed ability of our comrades of the Tunisian General Labor Union to regulate the movement of strike and to make it succeed. The Executive Bureau:

1 - Greets the general public, for its struggle to oppose injustice, oppression, persecution and all forms of corruption and misconduct. It renews the condemnation of the great campaigns of genocide and assassination that have targeted innocent and defenseless people who were demonstrating for the right to decent work in a society characterized by freedom, democracy and human rights and the fundamental rights of workers represent an integral part of these characteristics.

2 - Praises the role played by the Tunisian General Labor Union in embracing the workers, led by trade unionist and sectoral structures, and in its success in embracing the rest of the segments of the population, protecting and defending them and their social interests.

3 - Calls for the need to apply the Constitution, respect the chapters relating to the mechanisms to get out of the crisis and the formation of a national coalition government composed of intellectual, political and social figures and which should not include persons from the dissolved government. The task of this government is to work to protect the citizens and families of all forms of robbery and assault and to ensure their safety.

4 - Emphasizes the need for the immediate formation of the following committees:
A) A fact-finding commission to prosecute all the people involved in the assassination of citizens either by shooting or by giving orders to do so.
B) A follow-up Committee to capture the corrupt, the manipulators of people's money and those who caused corruption in whatever form. The commission should include independent figures and jurists selected through consultation with the components of civil society.
C) A national committee to review the Constitution and the Electoral Code and all the laws relating to political reform in order to ensure the preparation for democratic elections that reflect the aspirations of our people and respond to the demands of the strikers in order to give the possibility for the parliamentary government to establish the rule of law and institutions.

5 - Calls for a real freedom of the media through the dissolution of the High Council for Communication and the Tunisian Agency for External Communication and the formation of an independent commission to direct the media in our country.

6 - Calls for the immediate dissolution of the professional divisions and the professional federations that they created, because they represented one of the causes of tension within the institutions of production and work sites.

7 - Stresses the need to uphold the enactment of a general legislative amnesty.
8 - Calls for the separation between the political parties and the state structures and to an in-depth review of the concept of security and its structures and functions.

9 - Affirms the right to peaceful demonstration and emphasizes the freedom of association away from any pressures or restrictions.

10 - Draws the attention to the need to preserve the public and private properties and the peaceful and free expression and invites business owners and retail stores to return to their economic activity and to open their shops to meet the needs of citizens in order to reduce some aspects of looting and robbery carried out by groups of suspicious identity.

11 - Calls the regional and local trade union structures to form committees to protect the headquarters of the unions, the public properties and institutions and to protect families and citizens and the general public from all the forms of robbery and assault.

The General Secretary

Abdessalem Jerad

4. Statement of the Executive Bureau of the Tunisian General Labor Union

The Executive Bureau of the Tunisian General Labor Union held a meeting on Sunday, 16 January 2011 under the chairmanship of the General Secretary comrade Abdessalem Jerad to follow the latest developments in our country asthe existence of a gang whose relationship with some symbols of the former regime was confirmed. This gang attempted to instill fear and chaos among the population. The Executive Bureau of the Tunisian General Labor union:

1 - Calls for an immediate freeze on all assets of the former President and all the bank accounts of his family and in-laws and to prevent any attempt to leave the Tunisian territory until the outcome of the investigation that will be led by an appointed commission entrusted with revealing all financial excesses, all forms of corruption and the attacks on people's property.

2 - Calls the officials and the responsible charged with forming a coalition government to provide people with minute information about what is happening in our country like organized sabotage, the attempts to spread terror among the citizens and the rapid and urgent actions to be taken to preserve the safety of all families.

3 - Addresses all the trade union structures, the workers and the entire population:

Dear trade unionists
Dear workers
Dear citizens

Our country is witnessing a situation that includes attempts of some people, whose relationship with the former regime was confirmed, to spread terror, fear and chaos among the population. In order to face the crimes committed against our people and their properties, against the gains achieved over the long process of national and the social struggle and to stop doubting in the path that we want to build with all the components of civil society and all the national forces in addition to opposing the revitalization of black market, the Executive Bureau of the Tunisian General Labor Union calls all the workers to resume working and all tradesmen to open their shops starting from Monday, 17 January 2011

Let us have another date with history,
Let us be united in defending the interests of our people, our institutions and our work

Let us be a strong unit in confronting all attempts of spreading confusion and organized terrorism against our people.

The General Secretary

Abdessalem Jerad

Read more...