Categories

Category Liberation

La estrategia del terror de EEUU y sus aliados (I)

GARA.NET

Iñaki Urrestarazu | Economista

Desde que el imperialismo norteamericano cogió el relevo del inglés tras la II Guerra Mundial, y durante seis décadas, ha seguido la estrategia diseñada a comienzos de los 50, basada en que «la política de EEUU ha de ser una lucha constante y perpetua por el poder mundial». Esta política se ha mantenido inalterable desde entonces, tanto durante la etapa de confrontación con la URSS en la Guerra Fría como durante los dos decenios en los que EEUU ha ejercido como única superpotencia mundial tras el desmoronamiento de la Unión Soviética, con todos y cada uno de los presidentes, incluido Obama, el genocida carnicero de Libia y tantos países.

Uno de los principales estrategas estadounidenses, Zbigniew Brzezinski, impulsor de la guerra anticomunista de Afganistán (1979-1989) y de la utilización de los integristas musulmanes, los muyahidines, como mercenarios de guerra al servicio del imperialismo -de donde surge Al Qaeda, que será ampliamente utilizada después-, en su conocida obra «El gran tablero mundial», marca unas pautas que van a adquirir un gran peso en la estrategia norteamericana:

1) Voluntad hegemónica mundial de los EEUU. 2) Control, especialmente, del llamado Corredor Eurasiático, donde se hallan los mayores yacimientos de petróleo y gas y las principales rutas comerciales. Comprende el Mediterráneo y Norte de África (Argelia, Libia, Egipto…), el Cáucaso (Azerbaiyán…), Oriente Medio (Siria, Libano, Irak…), el entorno del Indico, es decir, el Cuerno de África (Somalia, Etiopía…) y el Sur de Asia(Afganistán, Irán, Pakistán…), Asia Central (Kazajistán, Turkmenistán…) y Sudeste asiático (Indonesia…). Es más o menos lo que en otros proyectos se ha solido denominar como el Gran Oriente Medio o la Ruta de la Seda. 3) Hegemonía militar absoluta de los EEUU. 4) Establecimiento de alianzas diversas, basadas en lo político, económico y militar, por zonas, siempre bajo la hegemonía de los EEUU y vendiendo «seguridad», «paz», «libertad», «democracia» y «desarrollo».

Apartir de ahí, todos los planes y proyectos norteamericanos, incluido el gigantesco fraude del autogolpe del 11-S han ido en la línea de fortalecer su poderío y hegemonía militar, de lograr una impunidad absoluta en la rapiña de recursos y en la dominación de los pueblos, de crear una auténtica estrategia terrorista de liquidación, desestabilización, división, desgaste, debilitamiento, confrontaciones de todo tipo -religiosas, étnicas, territoriales…-, caos, muerte y desolación, con gigantescas intoxicaciones mediáticas. Y es el caso también de Siria.

Los últimos meses, en Siria, EEUU y sus lacayos han continuado la misma política de acoso y derribo de un régimen, que junto con Irán y el Libano de Hezbolah, bloquea los planes expansionistas del imperialismo, posee un territorio de una gran riqueza de hidrocarburos en su subsuelo y es un enclave estratégico en la geopolítica de los oleoductos.

En julio de este año se produjo una de las operaciones más sangrientas y brutales de todo el conflicto, la denominada «Volcán de Damasco y terremoto de Siria». Un atentado contra altos responsables del ejército y la seguridad sirios, un atentado de inteligencia de alto nivel, acompañado de una masiva ofensiva de mercenarios, unos concentrados en Damasco y otros, formando columnas, procedentes de todas las fronteras sirias. Ello acompañado de una brutal campaña mediática intoxicadora y de guerra psicológica, de la fuga del presidente del Parlamento, y en vísperas de otra reunión del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU. Una operación que fracasó estrepitosamente, por una parte, por la respuesta contundente del Ejército sirio y por el gran apoyo de la población al mismo, y por otra, por el doble veto chino y ruso, a la propuesta de condena de Siria en el Consejo de Seguridad. Una vez más, el origen de los detenidos y muertos de los «rebeldes», mostró su origen internacional y mercenario: Jordania, Egipto, Irak, Afganistán, Libia, Jordania, Turquía, Arabia Saudita, Chechenia, Líbano, Somalia… E igualmente la sofisticación y potencia de las armas y su origen occidental: EEUU, Israel, Alemania… La siguiente fase fue una nueva ofensiva, esta vez en Alepo, tras la reorganización de los restos de los mercenarios, que también fracasó, aunque fue un combate más largo, dado que los «insurgentes» utilizaban a la población civil como escudos humanos.

Tras el fracaso de esta gran ofensiva, la estrategia mercenaria volvió a ser la habitual: brutales atentados contra líderes religiosos, sectores cristianos, alauitas o drusos para fomentar la segregación religiosa; ataques terroristas contra sunitas no radicales, líderes sociales, periodistas o personajes relevantes de la sociedad siria, a niños y sectores sociales sin más, o a sectores partidarios del Gobierno; ataques a instituciones o edificios del Gobierno, y miembros de la Policía y el Ejército. Todo esto, siempre alimentado por un flujo constante desde el exterior, de nuevas remesas de mercenarios, y de grandes cantidades de dinero para pagar sus salarios, y de armas, proporcionadas por Arabia Saudita, Qatar y las potencias occidentales.

Lo que hay en Siria no es una guerra civil, la población no se involucra con los llamados «rebeldes», sino todo lo contrario. Es una guerra del Gobierno contra las potencias terroristas occidentales y sus mercenarios, que no tienen nada que ver con el pueblo, y que lo que pretenden es derribar el Gobierno o desgastarlo, para volver a intentarlo más adelante. Kofi Annan dimitió antes de plazo como delegado de la ONU para la Paz, seguramente viendo que no se cumplían las expectativas de derrumbar el sistema que tenían él y las potencias occidentales. Fue sustituido luego por el argelino Lakhdar Brahimi, que tampoco parece que vaya a lograr nada, como no lo hizo ni siquiera en el intento de alto el fuego en la fiesta del Cordero.

Cuando no son los atentados, son las amenazas de intervención por la presunta intención de Siria de usar armas químicas, o las provocaciones de Turquía, con sus bombarderos, persiguiendo a los kurdos, o los supuestos conflictos en la frontera. Y esto, cuando está siendo la retaguardia y refugio de los mercenarios en sus correrías en Siria, cuando está montando auténticos arsenales de tanques y misiles -ahora quieren introducir los poderosísimos Patriot- en la frontera, o está tratando de crear en la zona fronteriza una zona de exclusión aérea, que sería el preludio de una intervención. Ha estado a punto, varias veces, de entrar en guerra con Siria, a pesar del rechazo de su población y de una buena parte de su parlamento. La marcha atrás de la OTAN, de momento, seguramente por cálculo estratégico, es la que ha frenado la guerra y ha llevado a Turquía y a su descerebrado presidente al borde de una crisis de nervios. Y para colmo, y para terminar de enredar las cosas, aparece Israel, también con amenazas. O la UE, que quiere armar -más- a la «Contra».

La cuestión es que la inmensa mayor parte de la población siria, tanto los partidarios del gobierno como los críticos que quieren solucionar los problemas por vías pacíficas y de negociación, en donde entran también los kurdos, están hartos de la intromisión exterior y del terrorismo mercenario -apoyados por muy escasos sectores sirios de salafistas y de los archirreaccionarios Hermanos Musulmanes-, que están bloqueando toda salida a los problemas de Siria. La responsabilidad fundamental del impasse es del imperialismo, que quiere derrocar el Gobierno por sus ambiciones expansionistas, y de sus mercenarios del islamismo ultra, que no pretenden otra cosa que una Siria islamista radical, sectaria, antilaica, capitalista y basada en la Sharia. La suspensión del trasiego de armamento, mercenarios y dinero, haría fácil, una salida digna y negociada a los problemas políticos, económicos y sociales de Siria.

Advertisements

Are the General Strikes in Europe today an investment rather than a cost?

The reactionaries will no doubt focus on passengers have missed flights as a consequence of today’s General strikes in Southern Europe.
They will divide the GDP of each country by 365 days and claim that that one day’s worth of Gross domestic product was “lost”.
They will ask: can we afford to lose this wealth in the middle of such a crisis.

To which we can respond by asking them to calculate:

a) the potential wealth-generation of half of the youth willing and able to work but unable to find a post
b) the potential GDP of 26% of Spain’s unemployed and the vast multiplier effects as each Euro earned changes hand several times
c) the continual loss in revenue by governments as they allow Multinationals to get away with not paying taxes
d) the health, psychological and social costs of cuts, loss of jobs and livelihoods and homes to live in caused by the current policies.

Whether the general strike is enough on its own or not, the fact that Greeks took to the streets meant that vulture bond holders had to take a severe haircut on their worthless bonds.
The more the fightback by Europe’s peoples, the more likely the governments will abandon this 1930’s era of Cuts and austerity for the majority and replace it with a 21st century strategy of creating decent jobs, reducing inequality and moving to an innovative, Green economy.
In that sense, strikes act as a long-term investment in the future of economies by attempting to stop the current madness.
Docility can no longer be the zeitgeist of this generation. Action and a call for an alternative way of thinking is fast becoming the dominant paradigm of the population.

Should we limit top execs pay to be no more than 6.5 times that of the lowest paid worker?

Democracy is not limited to voting. You have to spread the income, wealth and power evenly.
For economic democracy and reduce the feudal levels of inequality we have in England (because of our slavish adherence to the American model of globalisation), we have to put limits on the disparity of incomes between top and bottom.

Is this possible in the real world?
Mondragon, the Basque cooperative, set up during the dark days of Franco’s dictatorship by a Catholic priest shows it is not only possible, it is real and it is happening now.

The maximum disparity in incomes cannot be more than 6.5.

But coops are small things aren’t they?
Sure, if you think a annual revenues of $20 billion and a work-force of 83,000 is small…….

We keep saying we need an alternative.
Well, it’s staring us in the face… Perhaps we can’t quite believe that it is possible.

Is Mondragon a real alternative to Kapitalism?

There is no alternative (“Tina”) to capitalism?

Really? We are to believe, with Margaret Thatcher, that an economic system with endlessly repeated cycles, costly bailouts for financiers and now austerity for most people is the best human beings can do? Capitalism’s recurring tendencies toward extreme and deepening inequalities of income, wealth, and political and cultural power require resignation and acceptance – because there is no alternative?

I understand why such a system’s leaders would like us to believe in Tina. But why would others?

Of course, alternatives exist; they always do. Every society chooses – consciously or not, democratically or not – among alternative ways to organize the production and distribution of the goods and services that make individual and social life possible.

Modern societies have mostly chosen a capitalist organization of production. In capitalism, private owners establish enterprises and select their directors who decide what, how and where to produce and what to do with the net revenues from selling the output. This small handful of people makes all those economic decisions for the majority of people – who do most of the actual productive work. The majority must accept and live with the results of all the directorial decisions made by the major shareholders and the boards of directors they select. This latter also select their own replacements.

Capitalism thus entails and reproduces a highly undemocratic organization of production inside enterprises. Tina believers insist that no alternatives to such capitalist organizations of production exist or could work nearly so well, in terms of outputs, efficiency, and labor processes. The falsity of that claim is easily shown. Indeed, I was shown it a few weeks ago and would like to sketch it for you here.

In May 2012, I had occasion to visit the city of Arrasate-Mondragon, in the Basque region of Spain. It is the headquarters of the Mondragon Corporation (MC), a stunningly successful alternative to the capitalist organization of production.

MC is composed of many co-operative enterprises grouped into four areas: industry, finance, retail and knowledge.
In each enterprise, the co-op members (averaging 80-85% of all workers per enterprise) collectively own and direct the enterprise.
Through an annual general assembly the workers choose and employ a managing director and retain the power to make all the basic decisions of the enterprise (what, how and where to produce and what to do with the profits).

As each enterprise is a constituent of the MC as a whole, its members must confer and decide with all other enterprise members what general rules will govern MC and all its constituent enterprises. In short, MC worker-members collectively choose, hire and fire the directors, whereas in capitalist enterprises the reverse occurs.
One of the co-operatively and democratically adopted rules governing the MC limits top-paid worker/members to earning 6.5 times the lowest-paid workers.
Nothing more dramatically demonstrates the differences distinguishing this from the capitalist alternative organization of enterprises. (In US corporations, CEOs can expect to be paid 400 times an average worker’s salary – a rate that has increased 20-fold since 1965.)

Given that MC has 85,000 members (from its 2010 annual report), its pay equity rules can and do contribute to a larger society with far greater income and wealth equality than is typical in societies that have chosen capitalist organizations of enterprises. Over 43% of MC members are women, whose equal powers with male members likewise influence gender relations in society different from capitalist enterprises.

MC displays a commitment to job security I have rarely encountered in capitalist enterprises: it operates across, as well as within, particular cooperative enterprises. MC members created a system to move workers from enterprises needing fewer to those needing more workers – in a remarkably open, transparent, rule-governed way and with associated travel and other subsidies to minimize hardship. This security-focused system has transformed the lives of workers, their families, and communities, also in unique ways.

The MC rule that all enterprises are to source their inputs from the best and least-costly producers – whether or not those are also MC enterprises – has kept MC at the cutting edge of new technologies. Likewise, the decision to use of a portion of each member enterprise’s net revenue as a fund for research and development has funded impressive new product development. R&D within MC now employs 800 people with a budget over $75m. In 2010, 21.4% of sales of MC industries were new products and services that did not exist five years earlier. In addition, MC established and has expanded Mondragon University; it enrolled over 3,400 students in its 2009-2010 academic year, and its degree programs conform to the requirements of the European framework of higher education. Total student enrollment in all its educational centers in 2010 was 9,282.

The largest corporation in the Basque region, MC is also one of Spain’s top ten biggest corporations (in terms of sales or employment). Far better than merely surviving since its founding in 1956, MC has grown dramatically. Along the way, it added a co-operative bank, Caja Laboral (holding almost $25bn in deposits in 2010). And MC has expanded internationally, now operating over 77 businesses outside Spain. MC has proven itself able to grow and prosper as an alternative to – and competitor of – capitalist organizations of enterprise.

During my visit, in random encounters with workers who answered my questions about their jobs, powers, and benefits as cooperative members, I found a familiarity with and sense of responsibility for the enterprise as a whole that I associate only with top managers and directors in capitalist enterprises. The easy conversation (including disagreement), for instance, between assembly-line workers and top managers inside the Fagor washing-machine factory we inspected was similarly remarkable.

Our MC host on the visit reminded us twice that theirs is a co-operative business with all sorts of problems:

“We are not some paradise, but rather a family of co-operative enterprises struggling to build a different kind of life around a different way of working.”

Nonetheless, given the performance of Spanish capitalism these days – 25% unemployment, a broken banking system, and government-imposed austerity (as if there were no alternative to that either) – MC seems a welcome oasis in a capitalist desert.

This article was written by Richard Wolff in the Guardian earlier in 2012.

Young Greens ask: do you believe in Transnational lists in Europe?

The advocates of Transnationalism suggest that these lists “for the European Parliament are needed in order to develop the concept of pan-European citizenship”.
The majority of Europeans will prefer a continent at peace with itself. In England, we unfortunately term the mainland of Europe as “the Continent”, betraying an alliegence to historic mistrust, rather than willingly accepting that we are an island within a Continent and have centuries of common ground with regards to history, culture and ideals.
Being European is therefore relatively easy to agree with.
Nevertheless, the Federalist agenda is to bind us into one specific version of Europe.. A version which we as a Party are opposed to in many aspects.
One of the fundamental problems of a Brussels-led vision has been its cavalier idea that citizens can forget deep-set political beliefs and artificially adopt this version of European identity.
Moreover, there is no guarantee that democratic accountability would be improved.
Europeans already disenchanted with the lack of democracy within the EU would find pan-European parties a step in the wrong direction.
If we say we champion diversity, then I cannot see how transnational lists can possibly help. .

Widening the scope, our Green Party (EU111), we say that “European institutions must be designed with care and with mechanisms to prevent the drift towards centralism that has repeatedly been seen in history”.

As Green activists, we have the freedom to have our own personal beliefs. As an MEP, on any occasion where those personal beliefs differed from Party Policy, I would be bound by the principle that I could state them only if it was made clear that they were NOT party policy, and then immediately state the latter.
In terms of voting, I would follow Party policy because the mandate given by voters and “implicit contract” with Green Party activists is to pursue the policy and platform on which we had stood.

Farid Erkizia Bakht

Why are Greens so quiet on Migration?

Perhaps because the policy is too honest, too human and too decent?
Or because some feel it’s just too radical and therefore a vote loser?
Well, a huge percentage of young people are generally fed up with the anti-immigrant hysteria.
In the UK, a third of Labour supporters are similarly turned off by the steady drift towards UKIP’s racist agenda.
So, for a party which gets 4% in England and barely into double figures in France & Germany, it makes good arithmetic sense to court up to 30% of the electorate as well as stand up for Green ideals.

Have a look at the key points of the EGP (and by extension English & Welsh Green) policy on immigration:

Stop the detention of asylum seekers, minors and vulnerable persons!

Remove or amend of the Dublin Convention in order to lighten the burden of Border States of the EU!

Share responsibility between EU member states, to allow refugees or persons granted temporary protection to move from one Member State to another!

Asylum seekers who are not able to return within three years should be granted a permanent residence permit!

Regularise rejected asylum seekers or irregular migrants who cannot be deported back to their country of origin!

Regularise irregular migrants who have lived a life similar to the one of citizens of the host country!

Limit the use of detention to last resort cases, such as irregular migrants refusing to help with identification procedures and are about to be deported!

Foster other solutions than detention!

Respect human dignity and fundamental rights of irregular migrants!

Ensure the right to an individual and fair assessment of the claims of all asylum seekers and ensure access to asylum procedure to asylum seekers trying to enter the EU!

Grant asylum seekers the right to work while their application is processed!

Equal EU-citizenship for citizens from the “new” Member States!

Full access to labour market and education for all residents in the European Union!

Free movement for migrants after three years residence in a Member State!

Blue card also for less skilled and unskilled workers!

European minimum standards on social rights for labour migrants!

Temporary labour migrants must have the chance of getting a permanent residence permit!

For a generous policy of readmission, short-stay visa, facilitation of remittances!

Access to basic provisions for irregular migrants and regularisation after a certain term!

Nationalism threatens the European status quo

I am not saying that it’s a bad thing.
What I am concerned about is the position or non-position among the more progressive and green parts of the spectrum in England.
Many activists might be unaware that the European Greens work together with the European Free Alliance, a group of Nationalist parties, including Plaid & SNP to EA in the Basque country and beyond.

Yesterday, Belgium via its Antwerp election took a giant step to a split.
On Sunday, 21st October, the Basques go to polls where it looks like the nationalists will win two thirds of the vote.
Catalonia has a referendum on independence on November 25th.

But I have yet to witness any debate within the Green movement on what happens if Europe splinters into new states. Wallonia anyone? Catalunya?
The EU can forget about basking in the halo of a Nobel Prize (!). The position of Brussels would need to be resolved if Belgium split.

2014 looks to be a pivotal year..

a) Scottish referendum on Independence
b) 200th anniversary of Catalan subjugation into a Spanish state & elections
c) Belgian general elections
d) European elections

Europe is changing before our very eyes. We had better recognise this and adapt or state our position.
The fight against austerity is very much linked to rising nationalism. The English question may not be being asked right now, but it will. Much sooner than we think.
What I am very afraid of is that we leave those questions to be asked by the right wing who then go on to frame a debate which focuses on exclusivity, a barely-veiled racism and an immoral economic system which unites all three mainstream Unionist parties.

Farid Erkizia Bakht

P.S>
AFP reports the Belgian bombshell election this way:
Flemish nationalist leader Bart De Wever scored a breakthrough election win Sunday and immediately urged Belgian Prime Minister Elio Di Rupo to radically re-shape the federal state.

Hailing a “historic” victory for himself in Antwerp with big gains right across Dutch-speaking Flanders in local polls, De Wever said Di Rupo and his coalition partners should “assume your responsibility.”

With results from Antwerp almost all in, De Wever’s New Flemish Alliance (N-VA) bagged 37.7 percent and Socialist incumbent mayor Patrick Janssens 28.6 percent, and the win was underpinned by scores of 20-30 percent across the territory of six million people.

With backers readying for a party in City Hall, De Wever demanded negotiations “to enable both Flanders and Wallonia to look after their own affairs.”

In the run-up to tense 2014 general elections, he wants to turn Belgium into a “confederation,” effectively seeking fiscal independence for the Dutch-speaking north and French-speaking south although sharing areas like defence.

Only this, De Wever said, would allow Belgium as a whole to “find a path of solidarity,” which could also affect the future of Brussels, the largely Francophone EU, Belgian and Flemish capital.