Libya: Attacks Rise Against Imperialist-Backed Regime

By Abayomi Azikiwe
Editor, Pan-African News Wire
Published Feb 5, 2012 10:27 PM

A series of attacks have been launched against the U.S.- and NATO-installed National Transitional Council in Libya. The most significant events occurred on Jan. 23 when local forces still loyal to the former government of slain leader Col. Moammar Gadhafi retook the city of Bani Walid, located 120 miles southeast of Tripoli.

During the battles to reclaim the city, four people were reportedly killed and 20 others injured. Reports indicate that heavy weaponry was used by several hundred Libyan loyalists, including 106 mm anti-tank launchers.

The liberation of Bani Walid took place after a gun battle with the NTC rebels that lasted only a few hours. Immediately, green flags were hoisted. These flags are a symbol of the Jamahiriya government that was driven from power by a seven-month bombing campaign carried out by the U.S.-NATO forces.

NTC soldiers patrolling Bani Walid had recently arrested supporters of the former government, prompting outrage among the population. The city had been one of the last to fall during the war against Libya, which lasted for eight months and resulted in the wholesale destruction of the country’s infrastructure and the theft of its national wealth.

After holding out for many months against the U.S.-NATO forces and the NTC rebels, the local loyalist forces agreed to allow the Western-backed gunmen to enter the city. However, tensions have remained extremely high.

Just last November, gun fights erupted when NTC rebels entered the city in an attempt to arrest pro-Gadhafi supporters. On Jan. 23, loyalist forces attacked an NTC militia garrison, killing several guards before moving to occupy the center of the city.

Reports say it may be very difficult for the NTC to exercise authority over Bani Walid. Sentiments against the Western-backed “rebels” have not subsided.

Journalist Taha Zargoun wrote: “Taking back control of the town will be challenging because it has natural defenses. Anyone approaching from the north has to descend into a deep valley and then climb up the other side, giving defenders an advantage.” (Reuters, Jan. 23)

Bani Walid liberation
part of broader unrest

In various regions of Libya the NTC has been rapidly losing any semblance of control. Other attacks by loyalist forces have taken place in the eastern city of Benghazi, the base of the counterrevolution, and in Tripoli, the capital.

In Benghazi, pro-Gadhafi fighters mounted offensives against NTC rebels, killing at least three. In the capital of Tripoli, guerrilla units loyal to the former government launched attacks against NTC personnel in several neighborhoods across the city.

Overall dissatisfaction with the imperialist-backed regime is increasing daily. Even elements that supported the counterrevolution have rapidly grown disillusioned with the NTC regime, which has failed to rein in the militia groups that roam areas of the capital and other cities, committing atrocities against the people.

The Associated Press wrote on Jan. 23: “The bold attacks are the latest breakdown in security, three months after Gadhafi’s capture and killing. Protests have surged in recent weeks, with people demanding that the interim leaders deliver on promises of transparency and compensation for those injured in the civil war.”

There have also been reports of attacks launched by loyalist forces in the western Nafusa mountains. This has prompted the NTC rebel regime to heighten security in Misrata, setting up checkpoints in order to secure entrance into the city.

After the fall of Tripoli in August, many loyalist units took refuge in Bani Walid and other areas in the west of the country. Reports of clashes have been consistent from the area.

Imperialist media ignored
human rights violations

Since the beginning of the rebellion against the Gadhafi government last February, there have been gross human rights violations against people in Libya. Foreign nationals, Black Libyans and loyalist forces were subjected to harassment, beatings, illegal imprisonment, torture and deaths at the hands of the NTC rebels and their imperialist backers.

During the course of last year’s bombing campaign, 26,000 sorties and 10,000 air strikes were carried out between March 19 and Oct. 20. Estimates of deaths during this period range from 50,000 to 100,000.

At least 7,000 people remain imprisoned inside the country, including the son and heir-apparent to Gadhafi, Seif al-Islam. He was captured by the NTC in the south of the country late last year and has been held incommunicado since then.

Seif al-Islam reportedly had a hand severed and is not allowed to seek legal counsel. The International Criminal Court, which had indicted Gadhafi and Seif al-Islam for alleged war crimes during the bombing of the country, has now said that the son can be tried on Libyan soil under the purported laws of the NTC rebels.

A January report released by several human rights organizations says there are still widespread abuses, unjustified imprisonment and torture being conducted by the NTC rebel regime. The document, entitled “Report of the Independent Civil Society Fact-finding Mission to Libya,” reveals that there are victims of NATO and NTC war crimes in numerous areas throughout the country, including Tripoli, Sibrata, Khoms, ZIlten, Misrata, Tawergha and Sirte.

The authors of the report include the Arab Organization for Human Rights, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights and the International Legal Assistance Consortium. The document further confirms the deliberate targeting of civilians during the bombing campaign between March and October 2011.

Farirai Chubvu wrote of the findings: “The report exposes the human rights and democratic pretexts employed by the U.S., France, Britain and their NATO accomplices to carry out a colonial-style war of conquest. It makes clear that U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, imposing a ‘no-fly zone’ and arms embargo on Libya supposedly to protect civilians from repressive actions by Moammar Gadhafi, was in fact used to carry out a ruthless air war waged in coordination with ‘rebel’ forces on the ground.” (The Herald Online, Jan. 27)

Imperialist states cannot be relied upon to protect the basic human rights of peoples within countries where they are carrying out wars. When President Barack Obama boasted during his State of the Union address recently that the government of Gadhafi had been overthrown, no mention was ever made of the horrendous crimes committed by the U.S. and NATO against the people of Libya.

Anti-war, peace and social justice organizations in the U.S. and other Western countries must continue to speak out and organize against imperialist wars being waged against oppressed peoples. Despite their false claims of concern for human rights and civil rights, it is the Western states that are the main purveyors of violations of fundamental rights throughout the world.

Resist U.S. Imperialist War Threats On Iran

By Sara Flounders
Published Jan 18, 2012 8:48 PM

There is growing apprehension that through miscalculation, deliberate provocation or a staged false flag operation, a U.S. war with Iran is imminent.

The dangerous combination of top U.S. officials’ public threats, the Pentagon’s massive military deployment, continued drone flights and industrial sabotage against Iran provides an ominous warning. The corporate media have been more than willing to cheer industrial sabotage, computer viruses and targeted assassinations. War maneuvers with Israel scheduled for mid-January were suddenly postponed Jan. 15 until May or later.

The U.S. Congress overwhelmingly voted to include binding provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act, and President Obama signed the legislation Dec. 31 ordering Iran’s economic strangulation. These NDAA provisions demand that every other country in the world joins this economic blockade of Iran or face U.S. sanctions themselves. This itself is an act of war.

Iran has directly charged the CIA for the Jan. 11 assassination of physicist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, which has outraged Iranians. Roshan is the fourth scientist killed in five targeted assassination in two years.

Whether or not a war will actually erupt, it is essential to look at the powerful forces that lay the groundwork for such a conflagration.

A U.S. war would kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians and create regionwide destabilization. It would cause a wild, speculative hike in oil and gas prices, devastating fragile economies of the poorest countries and unhinging the increasingly shaky eurozone.

Revolutionary Marxists like Fidel Castro, political leaders in China and Russia, and even a hardened Israeli general have joined many political commentators to warn that a U.S. or U.S.-supported Israeli attack on Iran could quickly become a far wider war.

While defending its sovereign right to develop energy self-sufficiency, Tehran has made every effort to deflect U.S. threats and charges. Iran has submitted to years of intrusive inspections of its research and industrial facilities to confirm its compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

But Washington insists on stopping Iran’s development — and not only its nuclear energy development to assure its future as oil production declines. For decades Iran was forced to import refined oil. Washington has tried to stop Iran from importing parts to build oil refineries, as it has tried to stop all Iran’s development since the 1979 revolution.

The myth of stimulus from war

David Broder, Washington Post political correspondent for 40 years and news show pundit, described in an Oct. 31, 2010, article how Obama could deal with his weakened situation when the Republicans swept Congress. He argued that to fix the economy and regain popularity, the solution is obvious and unavoidable: “War with Iran.”

Broder had more than 400 appearances on “Meet the Press.” He even won a Pulitzer Prize. Broder could be counted on to reflect political thinking and planning in Washington. Only the war machine can pull the U.S. out of economic stagnation, Broder argued.

“Look back at FDR and the Great Depression,” wrote Broder. “What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II. [A showdown with the mullahs] will help [Obama] politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.”

Upon Broder’s death in March, Obama called him “the most respected and incisive political commentator of his generation.” (New York Times, March 9)

Broder’s statement shows an absolutely criminal mindset. It also shows a dangerous illusion. Broder calmly proposed the murder of tens of thousands of people, the devastation of entire cities, the destruction of a whole culture as a temporary economic fix to win a U.S. election.

Others commentators just as coldly argued with Broder that war with Iran would not be large enough, because all the weapons needed already exist and are in place. So no surge of military orders would follow. A larger war would be needed to give a big enough push!

In 1939 reviving shuttered U.S. steel, rubber and textile clothing plants with government orders for tanks, ships, jeeps, helmets, uniforms and life vests for sale to Europe was a big stimulus. The entry of the U.S. into World War II in 1941 provided an enormous surge of productive capacity that pulled the U.S. economy out of a 10-year economic depression. What worked as an economic stimulus 70 years ago, before the existence of the gargantuan, bloated, high-tech military-industrial complex, is long past.

Today the U.S. has a military machine and a military budget larger than that of the rest of the world combined, exceeding $1 trillion a year in stated and hidden costs, even without another war. It is guaranteed to grow at a rate of 5 percent to 10 percent a year. This is built into the Pentagon’s budget projections even without cost overruns.

World won’t bow to U.S. dictates

Washington’s plans to easily conquer Afghanistan and Iraq and set up stable puppet regimes were frustrated. The U.S. plan for economic war on Iran has also exposed U.S. weaknesses.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner launched a tour of East Asian nations in early January to convince south Korea, China, India and Japan to cut their massive Iranian oil imports and abide by the sanctions.

China and India — both major economies — refused directly. China buys a third of Iran’s oil exports.

The Obama administration said that the U.S. would offer countries that applied for a temporary waiver to continue oil purchases from Iran while they made other arrangements. An Indian cabinet minister said India will continue to do business with Iran. South Korea said it would apply for a U.S. waiver because it planned to increase oil purchases from Iran.

Japanese officials, when meeting with Geithner, seemed to agree. But after his departure Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba backtracked, saying, “The United States would like to impose sanctions. We believe it is necessary to be extremely circumspect about this matter.” (AFP, Jan. 13)

Russia announced its refusal to comply with sanctions. So did NATO member Turkey. The European Union insisted on a six-month delay, due to fears of the economic consequences to debt-ridden Italy, Spain and Greece. The Greek government said it needs at least a year.

Saudi Arabia’s crude oil contains more sulfur than lighter Iranian oil and requires substantially higher refining costs. In a time of global capitalist recession, this added cost is no easy sell.

Even outright U.S. collaborators are refusing Washington’s demands. Pakistan, for example, refused to abandon a pipeline to transport Iranian natural gas into Pakistan and in the future even into India.

All of this would be good news. But the danger is that U.S. corporate power, seeing on every side its declining ability to ram through its dictates, is increasingly driven to military solutions.

This is exacerbated by U.S. setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan that have weakened the U.S. superpower’s dominance of Southwest Asia relative to Iran. The more the U.S. loses its grip on the region, the more desperate imperialism may become to risk all in a mad adventure to recoup its past position.

Every voice must be raised at this urgent hour against sanctions and war.

NDAA Means War on Bill of Rights

By Sara Flounders
Published Dec 23, 2011 8:47 PM

Dangerous provisions inserted into the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 (NDAA-2012) have created great alarm among civil liberties organizations, Muslim organizations, groups that defend anti-war activists and many activists of the Occupy Wall Street movement who have recently been targeted across the country.

The wording in the defense bill has created alarm because it is in explicit violation of basic rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and long considered untouchable, even in a time of rapidly growing political repression.

This article will examine the NDAA, investigate its relation to U.S. military expansion, look at the history of the Bill of Rights, and see how this can help point the way forward toward expanding rights and defeating repression.

What’s in the NDAA?

The controversial provisions in the NDAA grant the U.S. military authority to hold in secret and indefinite detention people deemed a threat to national security without recourse to counsel or a lawyer and without charges presented in a court of law or the right to a trial. Such police-state tactics have already been used against thousands of Muslim immigrants in the U.S. and around the world as part of the so-called “war on terror” since Sept. 11, 2001.

Across the U.S., press conferences, rallies and petition campaigns were quickly organized by a whole series of organizations on Dec 15. Ironically, passage of NDAA by a final conference committee representing both houses of Congress coincided with the 220th anniversary of the passage of the Bill of Rights on Dec. 15, 1791.

The bill’s provisions are an explicit violation of what is known as “habeus corpus,” the guarantee of the right to a hearing before a judge. They also violate the guarantee that the U.S. military will be kept out of all internal domestic areas. This is called “posse comitatus,” meaning the U.S. military cannot act on U.S. soil against U.S. citizens.

A statement released by the United National Anti-War Coalition sighted recent ominous national trends, including massive spying, entrapment and phony plots in the Muslim community, recent raids on homes of anti-war activists by federal agents and subpoenas to appear before federal grand juries, and the nationally coordinated, often violent police evictions of the Occupy movement around the country.

The statement also protested the refusal of the Chicago city government and the federal government to allow for peaceful protests when NATO and the G-8 countries come to Chicago in mid-May 2012 to hold summit meetings.

The Center for Constitutional Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Coalition for the Protection of Civil Freedoms, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, the International Action Center, the National Coalition to Stop FBI Repression, Occupy Wall Street, Muslim Peace Coalition and many other groups released statements and participated in organized protests and internet petition campaigns calling on President Barack Obama to veto the bill. This unified response is an essential first step in what is needed.

A veto is unlikely because the Obama administration requested the inclusion of this provision in the military budget bill, and has been actively involved in efforts to further restrict basic rights.

Unfortunately, many courageous civil rights organizations in attacking these reactionary provisions have made no mention or criticism of the NDAA itself. But highlighting this vital connection will help provide a perspective on how to fight back.

Military breeds repression

It is no accident that this assault on basic political rights long considered beyond the reach of government attack is part of the bill that funds the giant military machine. The military is the nut of the problem. This new unprecedented attack on civil rights at home cannot be seen in isolation to the ever-expanding role of the U.S. military on a global scale.

The NDAA is the annual bill that funds the bloated military. The U.S. military budget is already larger than the combined miltary budget of the rest of the world. The 2012 bill authorizes $554 billion for the Pentagon’s base budget and $115.5 billion for continuing the current wars and occupations. This appropriations bill funds 1,000 U.S. military bases in more than 150 countries around the world.

Other hundreds of billions of military expenditures hidden in the U.S. budget bring the war machine’s total cost to more than $1 trillion. This year’s NDAA further extends restrictions on the transfer of detainees out of Guantanamo, and it contains new threats and stricter sanctions on Iran.

The demonization and criminalization, spying and entrapment of the Muslim community, especially since Sept. 11, 2001, has been used to justify aggressive new wars of conquest and expanding military influence. Increasing the budget for police and prisons is the domestic reflection of the growing weight of the military.

The U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq represents a significant setback for U.S. strategic plans. But as this NDAA confirms, the U.S. military is hardly closing down. U.S. wars and the threat of military action across the globe, invasions, subversion, sabotage, increasing drone surveillance, deadly surprise assaults, kidnapping, secret rendition and targeted assassinations are all treated as acts of defense and national security.

The Pentagon serves the interests of the corporate ruling class. It secures global markets, loots natural resources and subjugates the workers of each country to the capitalist owners of all production. Its mission is to destroy any opposition to this domination from governments and popular rebellions.

The bill signals that no concessions are on the drawing boards, only further repression.

Bill of Rights & class struggle

Many appeals to President Obama to veto this defense bill because of the new repressive provisions have glorified and idealized what the Bill of Rights is, what it stands for and how rights are secured and maintained.

The Bill of Rights was never a sacred document of grand wisdom arrived at by the “founding fathers,” as presented in popular myth and school history books. Nor was it just an academic debate between federalists and anti-federalists.

The Bill of Rights was from the very beginning a reflection of the early class struggle in the U.S. It was not part of the original Constitution drafted in 1787. That document was designed to protect the propertied classes, balance their competing interests and centralize the authority of the state.

These ruling-class elements were meeting in haste after a broad uprising in 1786 throughout New England of indebted small farmers against bankers and merchants known as Shay’s Rebellion.

When the Constitution was originally drafted, any proposal to include any individual rights was overwhelmingly voted down. Land seizures, food riots, debt protests and enormous social ferment made it clear that a Constitution written by slave owners, merchants and land speculators would not pass without some rights guaranteed to significant section of the masses.

This was especially true because the masses were armed and in motion. The top 1% of 1787 — slave owners, plantation owners, wealthy merchants — made this belated and grudging concession after four years of intense political struggle in many of the newly minted states. They gave in because they were anxious to quickly organize a centralized federal state to deal with the growing assertion of grievances and rights by poor farmers facing ruin.

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution are called the Bill of Rights. They include freedom of speech, assembly, press, religion; freedom from torture or cruel and unusual punishment; freedom from warrant-less searches, excessive bail, seizures or imprisonment; plus the right to trial by jury and protection from a standing army. From the beginning they were a contradiction to the Constitution that protected property.

Despite its progressive side, it is important to recognize that the Bill of Rights did not mean rights for all people. Most people in the South were kidnapped African slaves who could be bought, sold, branded, beaten or killed without any protection. Indigenous peoples were targeted for expropriation, removal or extermination. Women were considered the property of their husbands and were granted no rights or protections. Thus the amendments guaranteed rights to a small minority of white men who owned property and were the only ones allowed to vote or assured of having rights.

Every step forward in rights took enormous and often bloody struggles. The struggle for the abolition of slavery only began to be resolved by the Civil War. And 100 years later the monumental Civil Rights Movement struggled for decades for the right to vote and win formal equality.

Even when the rights to freedom of assembly, speech and trial by jury were assured, they did not exist for working people. It took strikes, shut-downs, plant takeovers to win the right to unionize. It took 80 years of marches and mobilizations for women to even gain the right to participate in political life.

It is important to remember this history of struggle to expand rights in order to understand how to push this fight forward today.

OWS & fighting to expand rights

Defending the right to freedom of speech, assembly and the press is important in the class struggle today — in order to have a voice to fight for the right to a job, the right to health care, the right to an education, the right to housing, the right to a safe and clean environment, and the right to oppose endless wars. Given the fabulous ability of technology to provide for all, these basic rights to a full life must be asserted, demanded and won.

But given the crisis of capitalism, all these basic human rights run counter to corporate survival.

Occupy Wall Street’s great contribution in this period of contracting capitalism is its focus on the 1% who have benefited from all government bailouts and policies at the expense of the 99%. This popular formulation is a leap forward in class-consciousness on a national scale. Occupy Wall Street has also found creative new forms of mass participation and inclusion. Though imperfect, they are a big step forward.

For these very reasons, the large legal and overwhelmingly peaceful protest assemblies that erupted across the country were threatening to U.S. corporate power, the police and the military, who want only fear and compliance and are driven to shut down all forms of activism.

On a national scale through the Department of Homeland Security, every major OWS encampment was targeted with mass arrests. HS coordinated local police attacks. Even Democratic Party forces, which had originally embraced OWS as an antidote to the Tea Party, complied with police crack-downs.

But the past three months of mass struggles since Sept. 17 confirm once again that the best way to push back reactionary provisions in the NDAA is to raise the level of resistance. Defend the courageous young OWS activists who have opened new political space, build solidarity with the Muslim community against the broad-scale attacks, and challenge racist police practices of stop and frisk. Unity, solidarity and resistance point the way forward.

Egyptian Masses Defy Military

By John Catalinotto
Published Nov 22, 2011 9:43 PM

Nov. 21 — The masses have opened a new chapter in the Egyptian revolution. They have stood strong in Tahrir Square for nearly four days against bullets and gas demanding that the military regime, which succeeded President Hosni Mubarak last Feb. 12, step down.

As the day ended in Egypt, the Health ministry reported that 23 people had been killed and more than 1,500 wounded by the Egyptian army and police. But the people keep filling Tahrir Square.

As a result of the mass determination to stay in the streets, as well as the spread of the struggle to other Egyptian cities, the civilian government — that is, the politicians who provide a civilian cover to the U.S.-backed military — offered to resign. It was an important concession to the strength of the mass movement.

The struggle comes at a tense time politically because national elections are scheduled to begin on Nov. 28. People expect the Muslim Brotherhood to do well in the elections, since it is the best organized of the many groups that opposed Mubarak.

For this reason, the Brotherhood, after calling the first protest demonstration in Tahrir Square on Friday, Nov. 18, then called its organized forces off the streets so as not to give the military government a pretext to postpone the elections, according to an AP report today.

However, the reports in the U.S. corporate media are unreliable. Until WW can get reports from independent, working class sources, it is best to review information that is reasonably reliable.

Last January and February, a massive uprising upended the Mubarak regime, surprising the world. The imperialist governments, in this case mainly the U.S., supported the general staff of the Egyptian army, with whom the Pentagon has had close relations since the late 1970s.

The New York Times calls the Egyptian army “longtime American allies and beneficiaries whose power survived Mr. Mubarak’s departure.” (Nov. 21) Washington looked to the officer corps to make cosmetic changes but to keep the old system virtually intact. It may be possible for the mass movement to win over the rank-and-file soldiers, but the upper officers are tied to the ruling class and to imperialism.

Now U.S. officials are worried. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said earlier in November that “If, over time, the most powerful political force in Egypt remains a roomful of unelected officials, they will have planted the seeds for future unrest, and Egyptians will have missed a historic opportunity.” (New York Times, Nov. 21)

Along with the military, the Muslim Brotherhood, as the best organized force and one that did not challenge property relations, is expected to play a role in the new government.

There is also a secular opposition both to Mubarak and to the military regime. This opposition has some elements that are conciliatory to imperialism and others that are decidedly anti-imperialist, and includes a minority of Marxist and other pro-socialist forces.

The imperialists and the Egyptian military have often tried to incite hostility between the Islamic and secular forces, or between Muslims and Coptic Christians. However, the latter have blamed the government, not the Muslims, for attacks that led to deaths within their community, like the dozens killed by security forces Oct. 9.

In this latest demonstration, secular forces joined the demonstration originally called by the Muslim Brotherhood. Coptic Christians stood guard in Tahrir Square against the army while the Muslim demonstrators took time out to pray. (New York Times, Nov. 21)

Both inside and outside these organizations are the tens of millions of workers and other poor people in Egypt, in unions or not, who have been the motor force of the revolution. None of their basic demands, that is, the social demands for higher wages, more social benefits, etc., have been won yet.

These powerful mass forces impact on all the organizations. Their demands cannot be won through any government that conciliates with world imperialism. This next phase of the Egyptian revolution has just begun.

Major Political Forces in Yemen

From: Xinhua News Agency

SANAA, Nov. 23 (Xinhua) -- When North and South Yemen reunified in 1990, Yemen became a democratic republic enjoying political pluralism. At the beginning, about 60 parties were formed and the number decreased to 23 officially recognized parties in 2003. Most of these parties have no representation in the parliament.

Here are the major political forces: the General People's Congress (GPC), the ruling party, and the Joint Meeting Parties ( JMP), the main opposition bloc that includes seven parties.

The GPC was founded in August 1982 by President Ali Abdullah Saleh based on the ideology of the 1962 revolution. It was founded according to the real Yemeni cultural, intellectual and organizational needs and is seen as one of the important parties with Arabism and moderate Islam trends.

The GPC continued to be the only party till 1990. Other parties in north Yemen remained under its umbrella or practiced their activities secretly because the GPC banned political activities.

Most of the JMP parties were within the GPC till 1990 when the north and the south reunified. The GPC has the majority in the Yemeni House of Representatives with 229 members according to the 2003 elections. With the goal of ensuring the participation of the parties in the parliament, the JMP was formed on Feb. 6, 2003.

The JMP included the main opposition parties in the country, including those which remained under the GPC till 1990.

The principal agreement of the JMP called for serving the main goal of the bloc, increasing their representation in the parliament, and banning competition among these parties and coordination with other parties.

The JMP included seven parties: the Yemeni Congregation of Reform Party; the Yemeni Socialist Party; the Nasserite Unionist People's Organization; the National Arab Socialist Baath Party; the Haq Party; the September Congregation Party; and the Popular Forces Union Party.

The Yemeni Congregation of Reform Party (Islah Party) was recognized on Sept. 13, 1990. It became an opposition party in May 1997.

In the first parliamentary elections after the unity, this party won 64 seats, in the 1997 elections 53 seats and in the 2003 elections 46 seats out of 301, the total seats of the parliament.

The second important party within the JMP is the Yemeni Socialist Party, which was founded in 1978 in South Yemen. Several deadly events took place in the south that badly weakened its organizational and internal structure as well as its popularity.

In 1990, it was a partner in the reunification of the north and the south. After the civil war in 1994, this party lost its popularity due to some reasons including the separation war and ideology that conflicted with the culture and religious fanaticism of the Yemeni society.

It participated in the 1993 elections and won 56 seats, boycotted the 1997 elections, and resumed its participation in the 2003 elections and got seven seats.

The third main party within the JMP is the Nasserite Unionist People's Organization, founded in 1965.

With an Islamic ideology, the party dates back to 1952 when the Arab revolution against colonialism started in Egypt. The " Nasserite" in its name refers to Gamal Abdel Nasser, the former Egyptian president who founded the Arab Nasserite movement.

This party continued to expand and exist despite that political activities were banned in south and north Yemen before the unity. It was the first party to be officially recognized as an opposition party in 1989.

It struggles to deepen democracy, build a new civil Yemen, achieve social justice and defend the Yemeni unity within the path of achieving an Arab unity. In the 1993 elections it won a single seat, and in the 1997 elections three seats.

Another main party in Yemen is the Arab Socialist Baath Party, which dates back to the 1950s. Its ideology is a combination of socialism and Arabism. In 1972, the party divided into two groups: the Baath Party and the Popular Front.

The Baath Party then held two names: the Arab Socialist Baath Party of Iraq and the National Arab Socialist Party of Syria. The first is now an ally of the GPC and the second is one of the JMP components.

In the 1993 elections it won seven seats, and in the 1997 elections two seats.

Other parties have no major ideological and organizational differences as they struggle to exist and be active in the political landscape in Yemen.

"Wall Street elites funding US-led wars": PressTV interviews Caleb Maupin

Click Here for Video

A political analyst says Wall Street elites are major initiator of US-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and financially supporting the occupying regime of Israel.


Press TV has conducted an interview with Caleb Maupin from International Action Center to further discuss the US occupy movement.

The following is a rush transcription of the interview:

Press TV: Caleb Maupin, we have seen now Police brutality accruing in Berkeley, clashes there resulting in many arrests, and then the deaths of two people.

What do you think this turn of events means for the protest movement, in particular the way the police have handled it which has been cited with violence?

Maupin: Well, these accusations that are being made by the powers that be that Occupy Wall Street is violent, need to be taken in context, because the Occupy Wall Street movement is not the source of violence in this world.

The biggest occupiers in this world are the Wall Street class of bankers. They are occupying Iraq and Afghanistan; they give 18 million dollars every day to Israel to occupy Palestine. There are many people in the US, people of color who they feel their communities are being occupied, as violent police brutality goes on every day.

These are the occupiers; these are the source of violence. And it does not surprise me one bit that the ruling class who has been happy to bomb NATO, happy to threaten war against Iran, it does not surprise me that they would be threatening and they doing this kind of horrific violence against people who demonstrate against them.

They are motivated by profits. And people are standing up and saying they do not want to be sacrificed for the bankers' greed. So they are going to come down and they are going to attack because of they are the vicious banker class they are.

Press TV: Let me turn our attention to another point here Caleb Maupin, that is on something that I wasn't aware of, maybe you could shed light on it. Since we started talking about unemployment in the United States, when it reached peak levels months ago at 35 million, the figure is now up towards 45 to 50 million people in the United States, Americans who are on food stamps.

And it's come to my attention that actually the food stamps are now used by debit cards, debit cards that are issued by JP Morgan, of which JP Morgan, whether those food stamps are used or not makes the profit out of that. Isn't there something fundamentally wrong in that?

Maupin: What we are seeing now more than anything is we are seeing capitalism at a dead end, the system where profit comes before people. It is continuing the go on, and millions and millions of people have been cast a side, by this system as useless.

They've been- This system, you know, you can only survive under capitalism if you sell your labor to a boss, to a capitalist. And right now, the capitalist system through, trying to make profits, by doing everything they can- number one to produce as much as possible, and number two to hire as few people as possible, and pay them as little as they possibly can- has created a situation where people can't buy back these products they're producing, and it has been glutted with unemployment.

And they've come up with all kinds of schemes to try and save a naturally unstable system that is what we are seeing right now. JP Morgan Chase, Wall Street, they are trying to maintain their power amid a system that cannot continue to go on and that's why these uprisings continue as people see that in this situation where so much suffering is going on, JP Morgan's doing fine, the bankers are doing fine, the food stamps are being cut off, and profits keep flowing into the hands of the rich, while so much suffering continues.

They are doing everything they can to shut down this movement but this movement is a result of the crisis people are facing, and the only thing that is going to stop the suffering people face is going to be when people stand up and eventually take control of the banks and the factories and we don't have this profit run system any longer.

Press TV: Caleb Maupin, we had [another speaker on the show] Paul Street talk about the number of Americans that are at or below the poverty line, on the flip side of the coin, within the Senate Democrats, the majority party, they posses about 80% of the wealth, Republicans 78% percent.

I'm sure you know this perhaps. I didn't know it's to this extent. Doesn't this need to change some how? How can these people be sympathetic lawmakers to the 99% when they are this rich themselves? Something in that configuration needs to change, don't you think?

Maupin: Congress is just a cast of hired actors, hired by the one percent to trick us into thinking we actually have power in this country. Power lies with the bankers who own and operate the banks and the factories.

And what is so glorious about this moment is that the trick has been exposed. People are out on the streets in huge numbers, and they realize that this game they have been playing for so long of walking into the ballot box and voting for a Democrats or a Republican and thinking that is going to win them a better future, is a fixed game and they are done playing it.

And now they are voting with their feet, they are voting by occupying and taking over squares, taking over any place and they are saying they are going to continue to fight and we are not going to allow business as usual to continue, until we get the justice that we have been wanting for so long.

This is the richest- we have the richest ruling class in this country of any country in the world, yet all the money that could be used to help people goes to bomb people in other countries, goes to fund wars, goes to just lie in the pockets of the rich.

Now, people are in a fighting mood for once and it's a fighting mood that is going to keep going, because it is the only thing that's ever made a difference. Social security, all these programs they're now talking about cutting are won on the streets, things like the Flint sit down strike, you know.

These were the victories that won changes that we won in the past and we are reviving the forgotten traditions of fighting for our class, not phony patriotism, not saying my country is better that your country, but saying we are workers and we are going to stand up to these corporations and bankers and we are going to fight for our class.

The class struggle that is the glorious tradition that has been forgotten and it is being revived stronger every day.

PressTV: 'Bankers Using Police To Pin Protesters", Interview With Caleb Maupin

Click Here to Watch the Clip

A prominent political analyst says Wall Street bankers and big businesses are using the police to crackdown on peaceful protesters during the “Occupy Wall Street” movements.


Press TV has interviewed Caleb Maupin with International Action Center to ask his opinion on this issue.

The following is a transcript of the interview.


Press TV: Last week's clashes often were the most violent. Just yesterday, there were 80 arrests. There were injuries including with both police and protesters. How would you evaluate the way the police exercise themselves in terms of the way of their tactics? Is the escalation in the police tactics a sign that it would lead to a violent police crackdown in other states? As it looks, it's hard to differentiate between some of these scenes that we see and incidents with other scenes going on in countries in the Middle East, for example in Bahrain. And, of course, there it has led to mass social unrest to say the least.

Maupin: I would say that what we're seeing right now is a glorious uprising of the people. Youth from the working class are standing up to Wall Street and the bankers, and they're doing it very heroically.

And just like it's the police that are throwing working people out of their homes all across the US, and just like it's the same Wall Street funded military that's been bombing Libya, threatening war against Iran. And just like the Wall Street class, they own the government - lock, stock, and barrel - and they're sending the police down to attack the youth. It's the same kind of thing; the police serve the banker class.

And the people are standing up, and this repression isn't threatening them. They're mobilizing and they are coming. And every time they come down, the demonstrations are bigger. They grow stronger. And that's what we're seeing, the people are standing up.

The more they come down and the more they attack, it just shows the fear that they have, that the people are standing up and demanding what they need. I say it's time we take this “Occupy” movement to a global thing.

And it's time we say it's time we occupy for jobs. Millions have been given to these bankers and bailouts but they're not creating jobs. There's mass unemployment. People can't survive in this society. They can barely get by. Food stamps are getting cut off. The tear gas these police are throwing at demonstrators, the pepper spray, the mace, the orange nets they come at us with, they're not going to fill the stomachs of hungry children who are losing their food stamps right here in New York city. Their batons are not going to cure the problem.

The only thing that's going to solve the crisis we're in is people standing up. People are standing up heroically, and that's what we're seeing. And I'm proud to be a part of the generation that is fighting for once and is no longer passively sitting back while this banker, Wall Street class continues to wage its wars, continues to attack people around the world and continues to get rich off the wealth of not just the people in this country but with people from all over the world who are enslaved by the bankers.

Press TV: We're looking at the Democrats and the Republicans, and it doesn't seem like they are the ones that are representative of the 99 percent that's out there. Obviously, the one percent is the one that's running the country. If that's the case, who is going to represent the 99 percent, can there be a third party, in your opinion, that reflects the aspirations of the 99'ers?


Maupin: I think if you look at the history of this country, the elections have always been a dead end. When people go and try to put their hopes into ballot boxes, they get ruined. They don't see the points, the hope that's coming.

But the future for this movement is for being in the streets and organizing. That's how the Vietnam War was ended. The Vietnam War was not ended by voting for democrats or republicans.

The union movement was a heroic struggle. It wasn't won by people voting, it was won by people going in and sitting down and the workers who took over the banks and sat down. That's what makes history. History is made by the people, by the 99 percent.

When I think of the 99 percent, I think of those who sell our labor to survive. Wall Street owns the banks and the factories. But the rest of us, the 99 percent, we sell our labor, we are the workers. History is made by us.

Even in the wars, one of the banners we had down there is Wall Street is “war street” because from the time the system has begun, it's always been one class. The Wall Street class that sends people to die in the wars and makes the profits from the wars. But it's always us, the working class, who dies in these wars that the capitalists are waging.

This is such a great moment in US history. For so long there's been such a feeling that when are people going to wake up? Well, people are waking up! Millions of people are out on the streets right now standing up to the true enemy of humanity, the banker class.

And I don't think we need to chain ourselves to the democrats, the republicans, or some party or other. I think this is the moment where we can write our own program. We can say a job is a right. We can say education is a right. We can demand that student debt, the crime that punishes students for getting an education, we can say that that be eliminated and that free college be provided like it is in many countries throughout the world, and write our own program for the first time.

We don't need democrats and republicans. We can do it. This is the moment. We're making history! Not with a ballot box but with our feet. We're making history, and I'm so excited about it. And I don't think our answer is to chain ourselves to some politician or some other, I think this is the moment we can actually save the earth from these bankers with their profiteering greed.

GMA/AZ

Communist Workers Party of Tunisia: Statement on the Elections

Declaration on the Elections to the Constituent Assembly
On the evening of October 27, 2011, the Superior Independent Election Commission (ISIE) published the provisional results of the elections to the Constituent Assembly. The Ennahdha movement came out on top, followed respectively by the Congress for the Republic (CPR), the Democratic Forum for Labor and Liberties (FDTL), the People's Petition for Freedom, Justice and Development… the Communist Party of the Workers of Tunisia (PCOT) won only three seats, in Sfax, Kairouan and Siliana.

The PCOT has noted that these elections, the first since the revolution, were pluralist, open to all parties and all political and ideological trends. However, it cannot help pointing out the irregularities that tainted them, in the interests of truth, far from the hypocrisy of the Ben Ali era, which excels in praise and conceals the truth from the people.

1. According to the official figures of the ISIE, the rate of participation did not exceed 48.9%, which means that the majority of voters (3,867,197 out of 7,569,824 voters) did not take part in the election. One should question what are the causes of this low participation, particularly in view of the general political and social circumstances in which the vote took place.

2. Money played a dirty and dangerous role in these elections, by "political advertising" which did not escape anyone, by large-scale corruption in the form of "gifts" to the electors and “charitable and social services". These acts persisted up to the day of the elections and in the face of which the ISIE proved impotent.

3. The media still under the control of the agents of the former regime, including the public media, promoted certain political forces to the detriment of others. They did not allow public opinion to understand the issues in the elections to the Constituent Assembly; rather, they focused on secondary themes and sowed confusion about issues relating to religious beliefs.

4. During these elections religion has been seriously exploited in the mosques and public spaces. For example, most of the sermons on Friday, October 21, only two days before the elections, called implicitly or explicitly for a vote for certain parties against others, under the pretext that they represent the religion or that their members pray, which reminds us of the practices of the Ben Ali era.

5. The exploitation of religion goes along with base campaigns of slander against the revolutionary and democratic forces, such as our party. Orchestrated by reactionary and counter-revolutionary forces, these campaigns diverted the attention of the people from the real political, economic, social and cultural issues but also their division based on religious criteria.

6. Several irregularities were committed on the day of the vote, including by members of the polling stations. Private buses and cars were used to transport voters, especially those who were not registered voluntarily, the election campaign continued until election day, including in front of the polling stations to encourage people to vote for certain lists, food and drinks were distributed inside the polling stations, etc.

Reported by watchdog agencies, independent reports and observers, these violations of the principles of democratic elections sully the honesty and transparency of the elections. One way or another they influenced the results of the elections. The attempt of the ISIE to minimize their importance reveals its inability to thwart them.

7. The successive reports of the announcement of the results call into question the transparency of the elections. The coming days may reveal the causes of these multiple postponements.

8. The PCOT, which participated in this election, was the first to call for the election of a Constituent Assembly to break with the tyranny. It led a clean campaign on the financial and political but also ethical plane. It focused on its proposals and programs, relying on the will of its activists. It was also faced with a very defamatory campaign and suffered from a flagrant media blockade.

The results obtained by the PCOT are weak; they do not reflect its involvement on the ground, its roots, its militant history and its vanguard role in the Tunisian revolution against the dictatorship. While it is true that these results are related to the above-mentioned general climate, the organs of the party never failed to evaluate and analyze our responsibilities.

9. Besides these results, the PCOT will continue to fight tirelessly, alongside the workers and the popular strata, for the fulfillment of the objectives of the revolution and the establishment of a genuine democratic, patriotic and popular change.
In this campaign, the PCOT was able to win many supporters, convinced by its program, its positions, its credibility and its principles; they will form the solid basis of a new start in order to meet future challenges.

On this occasion, the PCOT wishes to thank all those who supported it and gave it their vote, it assures them that its representatives in the Constituent Assembly will strenuously defend the mission for which they were elected.

Communist Party of the Workers of Tunisia
44, rue de Palestine
1002 Tunis, Tunisia

Free Tarek Mehanna!

By Frank Neisser
Boston
Published Oct 24, 2011 9:44 PM

Dr. Tarek Mehanna is a 28-year-old Muslim, an Egyptian-American and a graduate of the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences. He has been held in solitary confinement 23 hours a day since his arrest in 2009.

Mehanna’s trial begins with jury selection on Oct. 24 at the Moakley Federal Court House in Boston. The Free Tarek Mahanna Support Committee is calling on supporters to pack the court on Oct. 27 at 9:00 a.m. Supporters can get information on the defense campaign at www.freetarek.com

Mehanna’s supporters say he is a respected leader in his community who has done nothing other than be critical of the foreign policy of the United States, particularly as it impacts Muslim countries and the Muslim community. Because of his stature in the Muslim community, he was repeatedly pursued by the FBI to be an informant on others in the community.

When he steadfastly refused, he was arrested in 2008 and charged with making “false statements to the FBI.” Arrested again in 2009, the charge was “material support for terrorism,” with no new information about any actions on Mehanna’s part.

The sum total of actions Mehanna is charged with involve having conversations, translating books, traveling to the Middle East and posting to websites. Yet he faces life in prison if convicted. He has been denied bail twice, even though the FBI released him to the community after his first arrest and presented no information as to why or how he had since become so much more dangerous.

The entire case follows the alarming pattern of persecution of Muslims that has emerged since 9/11: the use of secret evidence; inflammatory accusations fed to the press by government prosecutors in advance of trial; manipulation of informants and cooperating witnesses through threats and rewards; and the use of “material support of terrorism” charges to criminalize dissent.

Mehanna’s case has garnered wide community support. Supporters have packed each and every hearing on the case over the last two years. On Sept. 24 at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, the case was featured in a program presented by the National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms. Mehanna’s brother Tamer explained the case.

Supporters are urged to call 617-748-3159 or fax 617-748- 3694, the office of U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz, to express outrage at this fraudulent prosecution and to demand that all charges be dropped.

Similar cases involving the FBI’s pattern of preemptive prosecution and Cointelpro-style entrapment, lying and brutal mistreatment, including “special administrative measures” and Communication Management Units, were presented by Project SALAM and family members of the victims.

Articles copyright 1995-2011 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

The "Iran Plot" - Psywar for a New U.S. Aggression?

Published Oct 13, 2011 8:45 PM

From: Workers World

Washington’s slanderous campaign against Iran for an alleged assassination plot lacks evidence and fails every test of logic. Many people have raised questions as to its truth. But there’s an even more important question to ask: Why is the U.S. government desperate to use an unbelievable pretext to begin a campaign of sanctions and possible war against Iran?

Remember that U.S. imperialism has been openly hunting and killing its alleged enemies around the world, breaking international laws to do so. It uses drone airplanes to fire rockets at cars and houses. It kills admittedly innocent people along with those it calls “terrorists.”

These, and not any unproven and illogical charges against Tehran, are the real crimes against international law.

The U.S. government, with or without its NATO allies, has also in the past 13 years unleashed four wars against sovereign countries: Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Its troops still occupy the first three countries. In each case, for each country, there was a lie. A phony "massacre." In Iraq, the phantom "weapons of mass destruction.” This is accompanied by coordinated demonization of the leaders. And then the brutal bombing campaign begins, and an invasion.

The Pentagon and/or CIA also carry out drone attacks against targets in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. They kill nationals of those countries and, in a recent case, even a U.S. citizen. All this is supposedly justified by nothing but the government’s own statements based on reports from the same CIA and military intelligence organizations.

The charges of an Iranian-inspired assassination plot against a Saudi diplomat -- which Tehran emphatically denies -- come from this same U.S. rogue government, which makes military strikes and invasions all over the globe and regularly lies to justify its aggression.

So we repeat: The real question is why is the U.S. government now raising a campaign against Iran? Why is this happening soon after the Iranian government made a conciliatory move by releasing two U.S. citizens supposed to be just hikers?

Does someone in the U.S. establishment want to keep the confrontation with Iran burning? Is it even possible that the U.S. regime is preparing for yet another aggressive war?

For those in the U.S. who struggle against war, as well as those now fighting for jobs in the occupations from Wall Street to the main plazas of U.S. cities large and small, it is important to see these unfounded charges against Iran for what they are: an attempt by a totally discredited U.S. government to find a new scapegoat. There is no reason that an accusation from this government should be accepted as having any resemblance to the truth.

Stay alert. Be ready to struggle against another aggression. And stay in the streets against Wall Street and Washington.

An Anti-Imperialist, Marxist Perspective: Why U.S. Wants Regime Change in Syria

Published Oct 14, 2011 10:59 PM

Following are excerpts from a talk given by Joyce Chediac at a Workers World Party forum in Detroit on Oct. 1.

The U.S. government claims it supports the huge social explosion rocking the Arab world and northern Africa. A closer look shows that it is trying to take advantage of these struggles to consolidate its stranglehold there.

U.S. “support” of movements opposed to Arab governments is selective. The government of Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen killed 100 people last week. It was a massacre, but no U.S. administration official called Saleh “a monster murdering his own people.” There was no move in the United Nations for a no-fly zone. In fact, U.S. drones regularly bomb Yemen, a U.S. client regime located on strategic waterways. Instead, in his U.N. speech on Sept. 21 Obama made the mildest of comments and called for “seeking a path that allows for a peaceful transition” in Yemen.

The White House, Congress and the Pentagon are going after the few Arab governments with some independence from imperialism: Libya, and now Syria.

In Syria there is a great deal at stake for the workers and rural poor as there is throughout the Middle East. Syria is in a strategic anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist alliance with Iran, with Hezbollah in Lebanon, and with Hamas in Gaza. This alliance is crucial in holding back the predatory Zionist state [of Israel] from taking over the whole area. Washington would like to break up this alliance and move against them all.

Yet some progressives in the Middle East are opposed to the Syrian government, much as some were opposed to Gadhafi. Why is this so?

Marxist political perspective needed

Governments like those in Syria are called “bourgeois nationalist” by Marxists. They are nationalist because they seek to develop their countries free from imperialist domination. They are bourgeois because they are ruled by an exploiting class — capitalists. Marxists support these governments against imperialism because they are manifestations of self-determination of the oppressed. This does not mean that Marxists support every policy of these governments.

Marxists also recognize that these regimes have a dual character. They are bourgeois nationalist because they seek to push out the imperialists so they can better exploit their workers. But they have common interest with their workers when imperialism threatens the country’s sovereignty. These governments cannot consistently fight imperialism, as the working class can.

For example, Syria is a “front line state” with a border with Israel. This fact affects every aspect of Syria’s history, has made it an object of constant imperialist and Zionist pressure, and links the fate of the Syrian people to the Palestinian struggle.

Syria’s nationalization of a U.S. oil pipeline precipitated the 1967 war, with Israel attacking and occupying Syria’s Golan Heights, the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip, and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. The Golan Heights has since been annexed by Israel.

While Syria plays a regionally progressive role right now, this was not always the case. In 1976, the Syrian government intervened in Lebanon’s civil war on the side of Lebanon’s fascists, who were armed by Israel, against a revolutionary Palestinian-Lebanese alliance. The Syrian capitalists feared that a revolutionary Lebanon might lead to their overthrow by Syrians dominated by the Arab Socialist Baath Party. The current head of state in Syria is Bashir Assad.

Relentless pressure from the U.S. and Israel, and Israel’s refusal to return the Golan Heights, has Syria’s rulers back towards an anti-imperialist stance.

Syria, like other bourgeois nationalist governments, has neither broken with the capitalist world market, nor has the perspective to do so. Instead, it seeks a better deal in this market, which is completely dominated by Western banks.

During economic downturns, nationalist governments like Syria are forced by Wall Street to make economic concessions which attack the workers and establish a pro-imperialist elite, a comprador bourgeoisie, which undermines the government’s independence from imperialism and isolates it from the workers.

In 2006, Syria adopted an International Monetary Fund plan calling for austerity measures, a wage freeze, opening the economy to foreign banks, and privatizing government-run industries. For workers this has meant unemployment, inflation and deterioration in social conditions. These policies have benefited a group of elite businessmen close to the Assad family.

Nature of imperialist intervention

“The Syrian state once brought electricity to every town, but … can no longer afford the social contract of taking care of people’s needs.” (New York Times, April 30) The social contract among religious minorities has been “We will protect you but stay out of politics.” The government apparatus has been run by the same family, the Assad family, for 40 years. Those who disagreed suffered repression.

Many Syrians are fed up with the Assad government, and for good reason. But imperialism has not imposed sanctions on Syria because the government there has impoverished the workers and because few have a voice in the government.

U.S. imperialism hates Syria for hosting leaders of the Palestinian resistance; for refusing to give up its claims to the Golan Heights; for refusing to sign a peace treaty with Israel; for refusing to end its relationship with Hezbollah, the Lebanese resistance movement and with Iran; and for refusing to be part of the attack on Iraq in 2003.

In short, imperialism is sanctioning the Syrian government and increasing pressure on it not for the bad things it has done, but for the good things.

Imperialism is a thoroughly reactionary and oppressive system. When the imperialists come to “help,” it is to help themselves. Imperialist intervention is always meant to benefit the imperialists, whose interests are diametrically opposed to those of workers.

Just look at what NATO’s “help” for the people of Libya has meant: The destruction of the civilian infrastructure and economy; cancer-causing radioactive residue from depleted uranium weapons; and using Libya to get its predatory Africom military command on African soil.

A U.S. and NATO intervention in Syria would be the worst thing for all the oppres­sed people in the Middle East and must be vehemently opposed. A win for imperialism abroad emboldens the capitalists in their attacks on workers at home.

Obama Threatens U.S. Intervention in Syria

By Sara Flounders
Published Aug 25, 2011 10:35 PM

President Barack Obama on Aug. 18 demanded that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad step down, saying that his days are numbered. The governments of Britain, France and Germany joined in this demand.

This threat is blatant imperialist interference in Syria’s internal affairs. More than that, it is an open threat to again intervene militarily in the region, just as the U.S. and its European allies have done already in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Somalia.

Two weeks earlier, Russian NATO envoy Dmitry Rogozin told the media that NATO was planning a military campaign to overthrow the Assad government. In an interview with the Russian daily Izvestia, Rogozin added that the Western imperialist military alliance also may have plans to attack Iran. (Xinhua, Aug. 5)

When imperialism states its intention to bring down a government or movement, as the U.S. is doing now to Syria, it is cowardly to stand on the same side as the imperialists who seek to dominate the world, or even to be neutral. This has been an ABC in class-conscious workers’ movements for 150 years, since Karl Marx. Whatever one’s assessment of the government under attack, imperialist intervention, whether through sanctions or armed attack, must be opposed.

Obama’s double standard

The Obama administration has called on the governments of Libya and Syria to resign, as though they were the only ones using force against a portion of their population.

Look across the Atlantic to Washington’s closest ally. The British government just sent 16,000 police against the rebellious people of London and other cities. After hasty trials, some people were sentenced to four years in prison for sending messages with their Blackberries. Even before the recent rebellions there, the police had killed 333 civilians in England and Wales over the last 13 years. (Report of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, reported in The Guardian, Dec. 3, 2010)

In May police of the Spanish state fired rubber bullets at people camped out in Plaza de Catalunya in Barcelona protesting an austerity budget. The Greek government has repressed many strikes and demonstrations in the past year. Washington cheers on the state power in all three allied capitals for punishing legitimate rebellions.

Even more blatant is the repression in Bahrain, a country of half a million people that hosts the U.S. Fifth Fleet. There was not a word of criticism from Washington when the monarchy killed dozens of protesters and arrested and tortured hundreds more, or when Saudi troops invaded the island to help put down the uprising.

The threat to Syria is connected to the social explosion shaking the Arab world. U.S. imperialism and all the old regimes tied to it in the region are trying desperately to manage and contain this still unfolding mass upheaval into channels that do not threaten imperialist domination.

The U.S. and its collaborators are also trying to divide and undermine the two main wings of the forces resisting imperialist domination — the Islamic forces and the secular nationalist forces — which together overthrew U.S.-backed dictators in Egypt and Tunisia. There is now a concerted effort to turn these same political forces against the two regimes in the region that have opposed U.S. domination in the past Libya and Syria.

U.S. diplomatic cables revealed by Wikileaks showed that the U.S. campaign to overthrow Assad began years ago under President George W. Bush. (“U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups,” Washington Post, April 18)

Now Obama’s open declaration against Assad makes it no longer necessary to see secret cables to know where U.S. imperialism stands.

Flounders is co-director of the International Action Center. For more on Syria see: www.iacenter.org/nafricamideast/syria050611.

Libya: NATO Escalates Bombing As "Rebels" Enter Tripoli

By Abayomi Azikiwe
Editor, Pan-African News Wire
Published Aug 22, 2011 9:54 PM

A six-month-old war against the government of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya has reached a new stage as NATO escalated its intervention with air power, naval power, strategy and intelligence to push the Transitional National Council’s armed units into the capital, Tripoli.

On Aug. 21, the TNC moved into at least three areas of Tripoli and its surrounding suburbs. Meanwhile, NATO warplanes flew coordinated military actions aimed at toppling the government.

By nightfall in Libya, the corporate media began to repeat claims that Tripoli, a stronghold of the government, had largely fallen to the TNC forces. Reports indicated that the airport was under TNC control and that three sons of Gadhafi had been taken into custody by the armed opposition.

Beginning early on Aug. 22, there were reports of fierce fighting in several areas of Tripoli between government loyalists and the TNC forces. Although Western media claimed Tripoli’s Green Square was under TNC control, rebels and journalists embedded with them were forced to retreat from the central section of the city.

These developments followed fierce battles in and around Zawiya, Zlitan, al-Brega and other areas in the west of the oil-producing country. NATO has intensified its bombing of Libya in efforts to facilitate a takeover of Tripoli ahead of the upcoming United Nations Security Council deliberations on the renewal of the military operations that the U.S. and NATO first launched on March 19.

A U.S.-NATO war of destabilization and conquest

Since Feb. 17, at least a half-dozen imperialist states operating under a NATO banner have supported and supplied weapons for a series of attacks against the Libyan government by armed groups.

The imperialist role became obvious when France, Britain and the U.S. passed U.N. resolution 1970 through the Security Council allowing a naval blockade of Libya, allegedly to stop arms, and U.N. resolution 1973 on March 19, giving a pseudo-legal cover to military intervention.

Since March 31, U.S.-NATO air power carried out 19,877 sorties, which included approximately 7,459 rocket or bomb strike sorties. These bombing operations grew more devastating when 105 struck the capital and its environs on Aug. 20. (Center for Research on Globalization, Aug. 22) Later, on August 21-22, there were additional bombings of specifically targeted civilian areas of the capital.

“Tripoli has been the object of extensive bombings of residential areas, creating an atmosphere of panic. Rebel forces are not the decisive factor. The decisive forces are the extensive NATO bombings and the support provided by NATO to the rebels,” reports Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya from Tripoli. (CRG, Aug. 22)

“Operation Mermaid Dawn,” aimed at taking Tripoli, began on the evening of Aug. 20 with the armed actions of TNC cells involving several hundred people. Flaunting U.N. Resolution 1970, a NATO warship anchored off the shore of Tripoli delivered heavy weapons and additional TNC rebel forces. Government and medical sources said 350 deaths and 3,000 injuries took place that night.

“Fighting started again during the night. There were intense firefights. NATO drones and aircraft kept bombing in all directions. NATO helicopters strafed civilians in the streets with machine guns to open the way” for the opposition forces, writes Thierry Meyssan for CRG, Aug. 21.

Meyssan also reports that a convoy of governmental officials came under fire, and they eventually headed to the Hotel Rixos, where foreign journalists are based. By 11:30 p.m. in Libya, the Health Minister said that the hospitals were full of wounded and injured people.

NATO forces have been the most important factor in the war aimed at regime-change in Libya. According to the Aug. 22 New York Times, U.S. military aerial surveillance proved crucial in the recent fighting. Unnamed U.S. and NATO officials told the Times that “coordination between NATO and the rebels, and among the loosely organized rebel groups themselves, had become more sophisticated and lethal in recent weeks, even though NATO’s mandate has been merely to protect civilians, not to take sides in the conflict.”

The Pentagon and the CIA’s deployment of predator drones enhanced the ability to pinpoint targets for air strikes that allowed rebel forces to advance from Zawiya to the capital of Tripoli. “At the same time, Britain, France, and other nations deployed special forces on the ground inside Libya to help train and arm the rebels, the diplomat and another official said.” (New York Times, Aug. 22)

NATO’s bombing operations attacked thousands of targets, including rocket launchers, tanks and military installations as well as national infrastructure that severely damaged the ability of the Libya government and military to coordinate its response to the intensified air strikes and TNC attacks. “The cumulative effect not only destroyed Libya’s military infrastructure but also greatly diminished the ability of Colonel Gadhafi’s commanders to control forces, leaving even committed fighting units unable to move, resupply or coordinate operations.” (NYT, Aug. 22)

The TNC leaders credited NATO with providing an opportunity to advance in the eastern and western parts of Libya. In earlier battles on their own, the TNC forces were quickly sent running when in battle with the government forces, even after NATO warplanes had eliminated much of the government’s armor.

It was thus not these ragtag “rebels” that stormed Tripoli, but the combined force of Britain, France, Canada, Italy and the United States — and the support of more of the old colonialist allies. This most powerful military and economic alliance supplied air forces, intelligence and special forces as well as warships that have supplied the TNC with weapons, training and transportation to fight an oppressed African country of 6 million people.

Implications of the U.S.-NATO war against Libya

As of Aug. 22, the situation in Libya still remains fluid militarily and politically. A major aspect of the war against Libya has involved psychological operations and media-generated propaganda that seeks to demonize the Libyan leader Gadhafi, his family and government.

Much of the information circulated about the political and military situation in Libya has been designed to turn both the people inside the country and the international community against the Libyan government. International conferences convened by the imperialist states have bestowed “recognition” to the TNC rebels as the sole legitimate forces representing the country.

Nonetheless, the people of Libya and throughout the regions of North Africa, the Arabian Peninsula and the Persian Gulf can only be alarmed by the Western military assault against the Libyan people. It is now possible to deploy U.S. and NATO ground forces into Libya, should the TNC forces appeal for “boots on the ground” to purportedly restore “stability” to the country.

Africa and the Middle East have a long history of struggles against colonialism, neocolonialism and imperialism. The uprisings throughout the region have set off panic among the ruling classes of North America and Western Europe due to the strategic minerals that are supplied to the world capitalist markets from various countries, especially oil.

However, the workers and oppressed of the region will not benefit at all from these imperialist military interventions. In all of the countries that are allied with the U.S. and other capitalist states in the region, the conditions of the masses of people have worsened.

As these conditions deteriorate along with those of the workers and oppressed in the imperialist countries, greater opportunities will arise for international solidarity among people throughout the world.

British Government Steps Up Repression

by Abayomi Azikiwe
Editor, Pan-African News Wire
Published Aug 17, 2011 4:58 PM

By Aug. 15, some 2,800 people in Britain had been detained in connection with an Aug. 6 through Aug. 9 rebellion there. Police used photographs and news reports to target people in coordinated home invasions and arrests. Courts were kept in operation through the night in several cities so that people could be charged and imprisoned for various alleged crimes.

The four-day rebellion swept through various regions of England in response to police brutality and the worsening economic crisis facing the country. The spark was lit in Tottenham, North London, after police actions resulted in the death of 29-year-old African-Caribbean Mark Duggan. By the third night of the disturbances Black and other working-class youth had risen up in Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol, Nottingham and other cities.

On Aug. 15, allheadlinenews.com reported that some 1,300 people had been charged. Furthering the repressive measures, Work and Pension Secretary Iain Duncan Smith has warned that those convicted would lose their welfare benefits, like unemployment, disability and housing, even if they do not get a custodial sentence. (Aug. 15)

London Mayor Boris Johnson has requested that the government permit the courts to send youth aged 11 to 15 to pupil referral units — alternative schools that some teachers consider to be dumping grounds for youth. Meanwhile, the city of Manchester reportedly prevented those suspected of involvement from entering 400 downtown stores. People who have family members charged with participating in the rebellion are already being evicted from social housing.

The rebellion proved to be an extreme embarrassment to London’s Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition government, which has imposed austerity measures on youth and the working class through increased layoffs, cutbacks in social spending and the raising of educational costs.

Creating even more embarrassment for the political elite, many of the leading ministers in the government, including Prime Minister David Cameron, were on holiday when the cities erupted. They were forced to return to London after images of the “shopping for free” and the burning of businesses and police cars were shown across the world.

Law enforcement agencies were completely overwhelmed by the sheer mass anger, generated by years of pent-up frustrations stemming from an unjust, racist class society.

Cameron was compelled to convene an emergency session of the British Parliament on Aug. 11. Rather than acknowledge the deep social and racial cleavages that have historically plagued British society, the prime minister denounced the people involved in the rebellions, who were predominantly Black and working class but also included more affluent sectors of the population. He backed his words by placing 16,000 cops on London streets and thousands more in other cities. Mass arrests took place even after calm was restored on Aug. 11.

Racist, class-biased response

Cameron’s address to Parliament dismissed any link between the outbreaks of demonstrations and rebellion and the social conditions inside the country. Cameron said: “It is criminality pure and simple. And there is absolutely no excuse for it.” Cameron has pledged to wage what he calls an all-out war on “gangs.”

With racist undertones, Cameron asserted: “This is not about poverty. It’s about culture. A culture that glorifies violence, shows disrespect to authority, and says everything about rights but nothing about responsibilities.” He stressed that “we will not let any phony concerns about human rights get in the way of the publication of these pictures and the arrest of these individuals. We need to fight back and a fightback is underway.”

In efforts to clamp down on the unrest throughout the country, the British government is looking for assistance from the United States. Cameron has requested the consultation of the so-called “supercop,” Bill Bratton, who is known for conducting massive law-enforcement sweeps as police chief in New York and Los Angeles.

Cameron has said that the police models used in Los Angeles during the 1990s and in Boston since would be examined for application in Britain. These statements have increased existing tensions between the government and the police over the handling of the rebellion.

The Metropolitan Police in Britain have faced tremendous pressure ever since members were accused of selling information to the tabloid press owned by Rupert Murdoch. The police commissioner and his deputy were forced to resign several weeks ago amid revelations of corruption.

Several police officials took exception to Cameron’s criticism of the police for not utilizing proper tactics to curb and suppress the disturbances. Former British senior officer Brian Paddick stated that Bratton’s invitation “adds insult to injury at Scotland Yard. Bratton’s style of policing would probably not have stood up against the European Convention on Human Rights, which may be one of the reasons why some on the right wing of UK politics want to abandon the law.” (CNN.com, Aug. 15)

The emphasis on heavy-handed police tactics and blaming the victims of state policy and the economic crisis for the social ills of capitalist society has created a sharpened racist atmosphere within British public opinion.

The British Broadcasting Corp. coverage of the rebellions has fostered increased hostility toward Black, Asian and working-class communities. On the BBC’s News Night program, London-based historian David Starkey used racist and class-biased slurs to denigrate the social character of millions of people in England.

Starkey indicated that he had been reading British politician Enoch Powell’s 1968 “Rivers of Blood” anti-immigration speech, in which Powell predicted civil war in England if more Caribbean people were allowed to enter the country. He said, “What happened is that substantial sections of the Chavs [classist derogatory term for working-class people without social skills and perceived to be without ambition] that you wrote about have become black. The whites have become black.” (NewsDay.co.zw, Aug. 15)

On another BBC program, longtime African-Caribbean activist and writer Darcus Howe was insulted by network presenter Fiona Armstrong. During an Aug. 9 interview Armstrong asked Howe: “You are not a stranger to riots yourself I understand, are you? You have taken part in them yourself.” (Telegraph, Aug. 10)

Howe responded saying: “I have never taken part in a single riot. I’ve been part of demonstrations that ended up in a conflict. You just sound idiotic — have some respect.” The government-controlled news service was later forced to apologize as a result of public outcry.

Forces throughout the international community have expressed solidarity with the rebellion. In Tehran, Iran, hundreds of Iranian students protested outside the British embassy on Aug. 14 against what they called the “savage aggression” used by the police.

The Iranian students chanted, “Death to England!” “Where are your human rights?” and “Protesters, we will support you!” The students were denied a meeting with the British ambassador to Iran.

In Libya, leader Moammar Gaddafi, who is fighting to defend the North African government against U.S., British and French military assaults, called upon Cameron to resign. Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe condemned the hypocrisy of the British government, urging London to “put out its fires first and to leave us alone.”

The Bail Out the People Movement issued a national call for demonstrations in defense of those being arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned. On Aug. 15 a picket line was held outside the British Consulate in New York.

A BOPM statement points out that “[Cameron‘s] government of bailouts for the rich and cutbacks for the poor has done so much to create an environment ripe for rebellion. Cameron and other establishment politicians are whipping up a lynch-mob atmosphere against rebel youths.

“In conditions of deepening poverty, joblessness and racist repression, it is inevitable that people will rise up. What happened in London could happen tomorrow in New York, Los Angeles or any other U.S. city.”

Solidarity With Libya Grows

By Abayomi Azikiwe
Editor, Pan-African News Wire
Published Aug 14, 2011 10:34 PM

Although the corporate-controlled media in the U.S. has been full of propaganda against the Libyan people and their government, international solidarity with that North African state grows daily.

Since the bombing campaign initiated on March 19 by the Pentagon and NATO has failed to weaken the resolve of Tripoli, false reports of rebel advances have become even more absurd.

On Aug. 5 the rebel Transitional National Council (TNC) claimed Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s youngest son was killed in a NATO airstrike. However, Khamis Gadhafi, in charge of one of the leading military brigades against the imperialists and their allies, was unharmed in the recent wave of attacks.

Solidarity meetings draw crowds across U.S.

Inside the U.S., where the Obama administration and its diminishing congressional supporters have sought to shape public opinion in favor of war against Libya, rallies and mass meetings across the country are growing in attendance and militancy.

In Los Angeles on Aug. 5, more than 300 people came out to hear Cynthia McKinney, who recently visited the war-ravaged country with the Dignity delegation. John Parker of the International Action Center and Rosie Martinez of the southern California trade union movement also spoke.

The audience was mainly people from the oppressed African-American and Latino/a communities. This meeting confirms widespread opposition to the war on Libya by key sectors that have been the electoral base of the Obama administration and the Democratic Party.

Boston held a similar meeting on Aug. 6, at which people from the African-American, Haitian, Cape Verdean and Latino/a communities joined with labor unionists and anti-war forces in packing a hall to hear the former Georgia congressperson describe the resistance of the Libyan people to NATO’s bombs.

In Detroit the Michigan Emergency Committee Against War & Injustice is building a citywide meeting for Aug. 27 at the University of Michigan Detroit Center. The event has generated excitement since it will provide people with an opportunity to hear directly from McKinney on the illegal war being waged against this oil-rich African state that has long supported continental unity and development.

The Michigan Chapter of the National Conference of Black Lawyers, the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization, Freedom Road Socialist Organization, the Green Party of Detroit and Michigan, and Workers World Party Detroit Branch are co-sponsoring the Detroit meeting.

Inside the U.S., polls show only 30 percent support for the war on Libya. The U.S. House of Representatives and Senate have failed to pass any resolutions endorsing the war, even though both legislative branches have approved funding for its continuation.

U.S. Congressperson John Conyers Jr. of Detroit is a co-plaintiff in a lawsuit citing the Obama administration for violating the War Powers Act, which says the White House cannot wage war without the approval of Congress. Conyers has been invited to attend the Aug. 27 meeting.

Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe condemn NATO

Although in July the Libya Contact Group, a coalition of NATO states and their allies committed to regime change, recognized the Western-backed TNC opposition forces as the legitimate political force inside Libya, a growing number of organizations and governments are expressing support for the Libyan people in their struggle against this imperialist war.

On Aug. 4 Cuban President Raul Castro Ruz received Libyan Minister of Finance and Planning Abdulhafid M. Zlitni in Havana. Zlitni carried a message from Gadhafi detailing the government’s plans to battle the campaign of isolation fostered by the U.S./NATO states.

According to Granma International on Aug. 4, “Raul reiterated Cuba’s most energetic condemnation of the NATO military aggression against Libya, in particular the bombings of civilian facilities resulting in the death of innocent people. He also demanded an immediate cessation of these acts in order to facilitate moves toward a peaceful solution, with full respect for the country’s independence, territorial integrity, sovereignty over its natural resources and the self-determination of the Libyan people.

“The Cuban president also expressed his support of efforts being made by African Union leaders to achieve that.” The African Union has opposed the rebel insurgency and the U.S./NATO bombings since the beginning of the war.

On Aug.1 Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez said the Bolivarian Revolution would not recognize the rebel groups claiming to be the legitimate government in Libya. He defended Gadhafi as Libya’s legitimate leader and urged the government to stand firm against the rebels and the imperialist forces.

The Venezuelan president said of Gadhafi: “I respect him a lot. He’s resisting there. Long live Libya. Live and be victorious. We’re with you.” (alarabiya.net, Aug. 3)

An al-Arabiya article reported, “President Chávez — one of Latin America’s most outspoken critics of Washington’s foreign policy — has repeatedly condemned what he calls ‘indiscriminate bombing’ by the U.S. and its allies in Libya, saying their military attacks are unjustified and will only unleash more bloodshed.”

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe on Aug. 8 blasted the U.S./NATO war against Libya, calling the alliance a “terrorist organization.” The president of this Southern African state, whose ruling party fought a war of national liberation for its independence from British settler-colonialists during the 1960s and 1970s, noted that his country must protect its people and territory in light of imperialist aggression on the continent.

“Zimbabwe must be in a state of preparedness,” said Mugabe. “It is clear that NATO wants to topple Gadhafi. It is not protecting civilians as it claims.” According to Mugabe the war is only designed to seize the largest oil reserves in Africa. (Deutsche Press-Agentur, Aug. 8)

Journalists hit bombing of Libya TV

In London a leading media organization, the International News Safety Institute, called for an investigation into NATO attacks on Libyan television satellite dishes, which were bombed during the first week of August. INSI asked U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to assess whether the airstrike, which reportedly killed three people and injured 15, was a violation of the 2006 Security Council resolution prohibiting attacks on journalists.

On Aug. 3 the International Federation of Journalists also condemned the attacks on Libyan television and requested an investigation.

NATO claims the attacks on media outlets are in line with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, which has served as the pseudo-legal rationale for the war. INSI director Rodent Pincer said these bombing operations could not be justified “on the basis that you disagree with the point of view of the news organizations. NATO forces in Libya are acting under a Security Council mandate to protect civilians and journalists are civilians.” (Associated Press, Aug. 5)

In early August, a delegation of fashion models from Italy visited Tripoli as an act of solidarity with the government. Libya was formerly an Italian colony.

NATO & rebels in disarray

Criticism against the war is also building within NATO countries. In a recent article published in Gulf News, Simon Jenkins notes, “Britain’s half-war against Libya is careering onward from reckless gesture to full-scale fiasco. As it reaches six months’ duration, every sensible pessimistic forecast has turned out true and every jingoistic boast false.” (gulfnews.com, Aug. 8)

Whether the imperialist states withdraw sooner or later from Afghanistan and Libya, their failures in these theaters of war have exposed the contradictions in the military strategy of the U.S. and Europe. Facing the worst capitalist economic crisis since the Great Depression, the Western alliance seems incapable of moving beyond its political dilemma.

It will take an international movement of the working class and oppressed to end all imperialist wars and to rebuild the economies of the world. Capitalism is proving incapable of providing the basic needs of the people in the industrialized states as well as the developing countries.
Articles copyright 1995-2011 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.