Latest US move against Chavez?

Without wanting to get into the rights and wrongs of the FARC (or indeed of Hugo Chavez) at this point. It is still worth keeping an eye on the current provocations in the region.

The right in the US have been continously meddling in Latin America, and the latest incident involving an attack on a alleged FARC camp in Ecuador smells of “gringo”.

Hawks in the US regime have no interest in an end to the civil war in Colombia, and the killing of a potentially key negotiator does no harm to their agenda and their abilty to operate in the country.

Equally, provoking Chavez (and to a lesser extent Ecuador) is likely the latest move in their long game of destabalising left leaning governments in Latin America.

Elections and the lure of the “lesser evil”

In two current election campaigns the issue for the Green Party, and also for the Left of tactical voting has come up.

In the US presidential elections the “spectre” of a Nader candidacy has been raised, whilst in the UK the London mayoral elections and standing against the city’s left(ish) mayor Ken Livingstone has emerged as an issue for Greens and for the various groups of the Bristish left.

All of this assumes an enagagement with electoral politics in the first place. There is a perfectly valid argument against representative democracy that I have a great deal of sympathy. However, if we accept electoral politics as one strategy amongst many, then the issue of how best to tactically intervene appears.

In the US, I feel that a strong Green Party challenge for the Presidency can only be a good thing. I’m not yet sure whether Nader would’ve been the best candidate and now the alternative is split , but we’ll see how this develops. Sure, another Republican victory would be a disaster for the US and indeed for the rest of the world; and the prospect of an Obama victory is intriguing. But, let’s not forget that the last Democrat President dropped cruise missiles on a Sudanese pharmecutical factory – I doubt Obama would have any qualms about pursuing the US military’s foreign policy objectives.

In the UK, the debate is more nuanced. PR in the mayoral elections mean that it is perfectly possible for smaller parties to stand and then urge for a 2nd preference vote for Ken. The Green Party in London is currently debating whether to formally advocate this vote going to Livingstone.

I’d say no.

It is one thing accepting that proportional represenation allows parties like the Greens to stand and attract “safe” tactical voting, but to officially advocate a vote for the candidate of the ruling Party? Not for me. We need clear water between ourselves as a genuine alternative and the traditional Parties. Elections for me are one tactic amongst many and we mustn’t lose sight of what we really want to acheive.

A Convention of the Left?

http://conventionoftheleft.org.uk/

Yet another attempt at Left unity.

On paper it all looks good.

Yet already we see the Left in traditional form.

Arguments on the Socialist Unity blog about whether Parties should be admitted, accusations of sectarianism, pledges to gain support from trade union branches and student unions.

But, no real acknowledgment of the factors that caused the downfall of all the previous attempts the SLP, the Socialist Alliance and most recently Respect.

Its sad, because a new, united left is necessary and possible.

Until the British left can look at their failures honestly, history will repeat itself over and over

Nader for President?

Ralph Nader has declared that he will run for President again.

As yet it is unclear whether he will run as on official Green Party candidate. Although in the Green primary in California he picked up 61% of the votes.

What remains to be debated is whether raising the profile of the Green Party and offereing voters a genuine alternative is worth risking another Republican President.

No doubt as the campaign gets under way, we will return to this issue.

http://www.gp.org/index.php 

http://www.votenader.org/ 

57 organic varieties?

Ecosocialist, radical environmentalist, green left, libertarian communist, social ecologist, anarchist, libertarian municipalist…

All terms found when attempting choose the most appropriate label for this blog.

The truth is they all fit a little, but none completely.

Yet what was really startling was that they project the appearance of competing brands. The Social Ecologists and their critiques of ecosocialism, the anarchists and their rejection of Green Parties and so on…

Of course there are seemingly important differences in ideologies, but it was a bit of a reality check to see the reflection of the 57 varieties of Trotskyism and their interminable internecine squabbling reflected in our eyes.

 

Striking University workers march in Mexico City

Yesterday evening the streets around Mexico City’s Alameda were thronged with riot police as striking workers from SITUAM marched.

Black and red flags were prominent amongst the 1000 or so marchers who had been joined by members of the SME electricians union and a handful of APPO supporters and Communist Party of Mexico (Marxist-Leninist) militants.

China and Darfur

With China currently in the news defending it’s role in Sudan, it’s worth recalling what I wrote back in 2004…

Over the last 20 years civil wars in Sudan have led to the deaths of up to 2 million people. In the next 12 months up to a million more could die because of the conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan.

The current violence in Darfur began to flare up towards the end of 2002. As peace in the south of the country between the SPLA (Sudan People?s Liberation Army) and the Government became a possibility, war in other parts of Sudan escalated. Fighting between Government forces and the NDF (National Democratic Front) intensified in the East of Sudan near the Eritrean border. This seemed highly convenient for elements of the regime.

However, perhaps because of the lack of military capabilities of the NDF, fighting in the East remained low key. Tension remains high though. The Sudanese accuse the Eritrean Government of aiding the NDF (to the extent of lending them tanks and heavy artillery); in return the Eritrean government alleges that the Sudanese regime is behind a series of recent bomb attacks in Western Eritrea.

The current Sudanese Government came to power in a military coup in 1989. Being forced to the negotiating table by the SPLA after losing briefly losing the garrison town of Torit in the autumn of 2002 was a serious loss of face for the military. The government was also under pressure from increasing dissent in the government controlled North of the country. During late 2002 students at several Sudanese colleges rioted. There were disturbances when the state controlled bread prices rose and I even witnessed clashes in the Souk in downtown Khartoum between very jumpy paramilitary riot police and people shopping in the market.

Outside the capital opposition was also making itself heard. The University at Shendi in the North of the country had been surrounded and carved up with razor wire fences in a bid to prevent further disturbances. In the town of Wad Medani school pupils took to the streets to demand peace in the South, whilst people talked jokingly about joining the South if the SPLA won independence.

The resistance continues. In June this year three people were killed, including two students, and 12 others wounded, when police fired at student demonstrators who earlier torched government offices in Babanousa, in central Sudan’s West Kordofan state.

Towards the end of 2002 I began to hear rumors from people that ?American sailors? (i.e. Marines or Special Forces) had been seen in hills of Darfur. Around the same time there were reports of what the Sudanese media described as ?tribal violence? coupled with mass executions of ?bandits?. 18 months later we have what has been described as the worst humanitarian crisis in world today.

The ?Janjaweed? militia has received much publicity in the West recently, yet collaboration between the Sudanese military and the militias has been commonplace in Sudan?s wars. The Sudanese Army?s rail supply route to garrisons in the South has become known as the ?Slave Train? because of the activities of the militia that are employed to guard it. These militia (in return for escorting the train through SPLA controlled territory to Government enclaves) are permitted to rape, loot and pillage villages en route, taking slaves to sell in slave markets in the North.

Away from Darfur in the Shilluk region, supposedly covered by the ceasefire with the SPLA, militia attacks have currently displaced around 75 000 people.

These connections extend to the oil companies working in Sudan. A Christian Aid report (http://www.christian-aid.org.uk/indepth/0103suda/sudanoil.htm) details how companies such as the Chinese National Petroleum Company (CNPC), Sweden?s Lundin Oil and Austria?s OMV employ local militias and Sudanese military forces to both protect their installations and also to clear the surrounding land. A practice condemned as a ?scorched earth? policy.� More recently I heard accounts that the CNPC were using prisoners brought from China to clear and destroy villages. In return, these prisoners were promised their freedom upon return to China.

The oil companies have also been allowing the Sudanese military to use their infrastructure in their ?jihad? in the South. Airstrips, roads and trucks belonging to the oil companies were used to launch attacks against villages in the South.

Although no British companies are directly involved in oil extraction in Sudan, they are heavily implicated in Sudan?s oil industry. The Christian Aid report names Rolls Royce and Weir Pumps of Glasgow as providing essential services to the industry.

Regarding Weir the report states: ?Weir’s contract to provide the pumping stations for the first pipeline to the Red Sea is worth �20 million. It is currently building stations with which Khartoum hopes to boost its production from 185,000-200,000 barrels per day to 400,000 – doubling at a stroke the revenue available from oil?.

Rolls Royce meanwhile has been providing engines, maintenance and support to the Sudanese Oil industry.

BP also has its greedy fingers in the oil pie, with millions of dollars invested in the CNPC and a heavy presence amongst the British diplomatic and expat scene (to the extent that the British Embassy?s drinking club is sponsored by the oil company).

Without the oil industry the Sudanese government would never have been financially able to prolong its war in the South. Indeed, there would not been as much incentive to attack and destroy villages in the oil fields.

However, it is neither easy nor cheap to develop oil fields in the midst of a war zone. The SPLA has repeatedly attacked the oil industry and declared it a ?legitimate target?. �The U.S., who are eager to grab a share of the action, has heavily pushed the current peace deal.

Yet, Sudan and its undeniably oppressive fundamentalist regime remains part of their ?axis of evil?, the American Embassy has been an uninhabited fortress decorated by a ?wanted? poster of Bin Laden. Indeed the Sudanese people remain in fear of further American bombings such as the one that that destroyed an aspirin factory (there are, however, arms factories in Sudan ? such as the one developed by the Chinese at Giad, and disguised as a car factory, which is an open secret in Sudan. �

The conflict in Darfur is both far away from the oilfields and a stick to beat the Sudanese dictatorship with.� A million people could die for this convenience.