Peoples' Socialist Movements

Gaddafi the populist socialist

Over and over again in our managed press stories are created to manufacture consent. Gaddafi a popular leader was portrayed as a bloody tyrant. A small group of religious fanatics and mercenaries were funded by the western powers to produce regime change. News reporting about this revolt was staged in almost move fashion. However, as reported on RT news network, and elsewhere, but this had little effect upon the opinion of the masses around the globe. The regime change has a chilling effect upon governments concerning their resistance to globalization and their moves to build a populist base. Libya’s populist government is the latest victim of the developed countries imperialism. It is part of the suppression of populist movements in the Middle East, suppressed because they oppose globalization. Gaddafi was a socialist Arab style. Below is a sample of his writing on socialism.

The Third International Theory or Third Universal Theory (Arabic: نظرية عالمية ثالثة) refers to the style of Government described by Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi in the early 1970s, on which his government, the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, was officially based. It was partly inspired by Islamic socialism and Arab nationalism and partly by the principles of direct democracy. It has similarities with the system of Yugoslav municipal self management in Titoist Yugoslavia, and the Yugoslav Third Way during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s as developed by Edvard Kardelj.[1][2] It was proposed as an alternative to capitalism and communism for Third World countries, based on the stated belief that both of these ideologies had been proven invalid.

The Higher Council for National Guidance was created to disseminate and implement this theory, and it found partial realization in Libya.

Key provisions of the Third International Theory are outlined in the Green Book (published from 1976–1979, see below article). It is a system of views which criticizes European-style democracy and Soviet Marxism in detail.

The theory rejects traditional instruments of government - parliaments, parties and referendums - and contrasts them to the concept of direct popular democracy based on people's congresses and people's committees. The General People's Congress, which passes laws on the state level, considers only those issues that have been discussed and proposed in the agenda of the Primary People's Congresses, which unite the entire adult population.

According to the Third International Theory, the legal system of a society can not depend on the political situation, and must be based on custom and religion. It also proclaims the need to abolish wage labor and to give employees the rights to the products that they manufacture. It professes to realize the ideal form of social coexistence, in which, along with social justice, there has to be a strong power, popular representation and national identity.

In developing this theory, Gaddafi relied on the theoretical writings of anarchist philosophers Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin combined with the egalitarian principles of Islam.

Nepal Moaist Movement

"Ultimately, we will have to fight with the Indian army. That is the situation. Therefore, we have to take into account the Indian army. When the Indian army comes in with thousands and thousands of soldiers, it will be a very big thing. But we are not afraid of the Indian Army."---Prachanda, leader of the Maoists of Nepal, in an interview to a Maoist journalist of Latin America

The Maoists of Nepal see their armed struggle, based on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, from three perspectives---the international, the Nepalese and the Indian.

While analysing the international situation, they admit that the proletarian movement all over the world has suffered a set-back, which, however, they consider as temporary, and that China, the birth place of Maoism, has been under the control of a counter-revolutionary group since the death of Mao. They attribute the set-back suffered by the international proletarian movement to international revisionism, modern revisionism, revisionism in China and Russian revisionism.

They are, at the same time, confident that the world would see in the medium term a revival of revolutionary fervour. According to them, the Shining Path guerillas of Peru sowed the seeds of this revival and, though they have suffered a set-back at the hands of the rightist opportunists, the spark of the revolutionary fire has since spread to Nepal and India from where it would set off a new prairie fire.

To quote Prachanda, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist): "Objectively, there is a dialectical relationship between the People's War in Nepal and the whole international situation and movement. And what we think, and I think, is that a new wave of revolution, world revolution is beginning, because imperialism is facing a great crisis. Some people are saying that economically and culturally imperialism is in deeper crisis than before the Second World War. There are so many symptoms of radical change that the people's movements are seeing around the world. And from an economic, cultural and political basis, we see that a new wave of world revolution is beginning. This is a fact. We have to grasp this question because just like Mao said, there will be 50 to 100 years of great turmoil and great transformation. From a practical point of view, the People's War in Nepal is contributing to making and accelerating this new wave of revolution. And it is contributing to the organization of the international communist movement on a Maoist basis."

They attribute the success so far achieved by them in Nepal to the correct lessons drawn by them by studying the experiences of the Maoist movements in India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Iran, Turkey and Peru.

Prachanda describes the influence of the international proletariat on their movement as follows: " In the whole process of this final preparation...there was consistent international involvement. First and foremost, there was the RIM Committee (Revolutionary Internationalist Movement). There was important ideological and political exchange. From the RIM Committee, we got the experience of the PCP (Communist Party of Peru), the two-line struggle there, and also the experience in Turkey, the experience in Iran, and the experience in the Philippines. We learned from the experience in Bangladesh and from some experience in Sri Lanka. And there was a South Asian conference that we participated in. At the same time, we were also having direct and continuous debate with the Indian communists, mainly the People's War (PW) and Maoist Communist Center (MCC) groups. And this helped in one way or another. It helped us to understand the whole process of People's War.

Nepal: socialist movement fights monarchy

NEPAL: Parliament drags feet on abolishing monarchy Eva Cheng: from Green Left Weekly, June 7, 2006. at www.greenleft.org Having been revived after four years on the back of a mass people’s movement, on May 18 Nepal’s parliament proclaimed a series of measures to downgrade the power of the country’s king. However, the measures stopped short of abolishing the monarchy, as many participants in the movement had demanded. On May 24 there were already criticisms within parliament that the announced measures were being carried out in a half-hearted manner.

Having been revived after four years on the back of a mass people’s movement, on May 18 Nepal’s parliament proclaimed a series of measures to downgrade the power of the country’s king. However, the measures stopped short of abolishing the monarchy, as many participants in the movement had demanded. On May 24 there were already criticisms within parliament that the announced measures were being carried out in a half-hearted manner.

The measures look impressive on paper — they stripped the king of his supreme command over the army, removed his legal immunity and allowed the parliament to debate, and a court of law to challenge, his decisions. They allowed the king’s private property and income to be taxed, and allowed the parliament to decide on the royal household’s expenditure and security arrangements. The proclamation also dissolved the king’s advisory council and authorised the parliament to decide on the question of royal succession. Nepal’s “Hindu state” status will go and it will become a secular state. “His Majesty’s Government” will become the “Government of Nepal”. Similarly, the Royal Nepal Army will become the Nepalese Army, with its chief being appointed by the parliament. King Gyanendra unconstitutionally suspended Nepal’s elected government in early 2002, but was forced by the mass democracy movement to reinstate it in April this year. The mobilisations were led by the “Seven-Party Alliance” — all of which have representation in parliament — in conjunction with Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), which has been waging an armed struggle for the last 10 years. The SPA is headed by the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist). It is clear that the SPA is fragile. In parliament on May 24, CPN(UML) MP Ishwar Pokharel questioned why, despite the May 18 proclamation, the king’s chief secretary had been able to appoint cabinet members under the monarch’s orders. He said that this was a “gross violation of [the House of Representatives’] proclamation”. Lilamani Pokharel, an MP from the Nepal’s People’s Front, which is also in the SPA, told parliament that Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala must reveal what occurred at a May 21 meeting between the PM and the king. He said that the meeting can’t remain a “secret”, according to May 25 report by Kantipuronline.com. At the last election in 1999, the parties that make up the SPA won 194 out of 205 seats. The Nepali Congress won 113 seats, but lost 40 MPs when a group split away to form the Nepali Congress (Democratic) in May 2002 (the split group is also part of the SPA). The CPN(UML) won 68 seats in the elections. The party was founded in January 1991 out of the 1990 people’s movement, which forced King Birendra to allow the formation of a parliamentary government. In 1994 it briefly formed a minority government. The other three members of the SPA are the Nepal Workers and Peasants Party, the Nepal Goodwill Party (Anadi Devi) and the United Left Front. The ULF was formed in October 2002 out of five of Nepal’s many splinters from the Communist Party of Nepal. Two mergers brought the ULF’s component parties down to three — the CPN (Unified Marxist-Leninist-Maoist), CPN (United Marxist) and CPN (Marxist-Leninist). The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), which runs a parallel government in an estimated 80% of Nepal, expressed disappointment that the aspiration of the people’s movement to abolish the monarchy hasn’t been fulfilled. A 12-point agreement made last November between the CPN(M) and the SPA had an anti-monarchy basis and, together with the Maoists’ voluntary ceasefire at important conjunctures, is seen as crucial to having maximised the striking power of the people’s movement. The CPN(M) has extended its ceasefire since parliament reconvened, but in light of the parliament’s half-hearted anti-monarchy measures has expressed second thoughts. “Now [the parliamentary parties] want to marginalise us, to bypass us”, CPN(M) chairperson Prachanda was quoted as saying in the May 23-29 ML Update, an Indian publication. Meanwhile, a key objective of the people’s movement — the election of a constituent assembly to rewrite the 1990 constitution along anti-monarchy lines — has made little progress. A complicating factor is differences between the SPA and the CPN(M) on whether local government bodies should be revived. The SPA is inclined to reviving those bodies soon, however the CPN(M) has objected strongly. Lekhraj Bhatta, a CPN(M) central-committee member, was quoted by the May 31 Himalayan Times as saying that “the Maoists have a hold over 80% of the country where we have our People’s Government. So, there is no need for new local bodies and if local bodies are revived, it will only invite conflict ... when [peace] talks are taking place, and when people are waiting for the chance to take part in writing a new constitution, one should not show eagerness to revive small issues.”

The proclamation also dissolved the king’s advisory council and authorised the parliament to decide on the question of royal succession. Nepal’s “Hindu state” status will go and it will become a secular state. “His Majesty’s Government” will become the “Government of Nepal”. Similarly, the Royal Nepal Army will become the Nepalese Army, with its chief being appointed by the parliament.

King Gyanendra unconstitutionally suspended Nepal’s elected government in early 2002, but was forced by the mass democracy movement to reinstate it in April this year. The mobilisations were led by the “Seven-Party Alliance” — all of which have representation in parliament — in conjunction with Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), which has been waging an armed struggle for the last 10 years. The SPA is headed by the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist).

It is clear that the SPA is fragile. In parliament on May 24, CPN(UML) MP Ishwar Pokharel questioned why, despite the May 18 proclamation, the king’s chief secretary had been able to appoint cabinet members under the monarch’s orders. He said that this was a “gross violation of [the House of Representatives’] proclamation”.

Chiness workers riot

China's Worker Protests A Second Wave of Labor Unrest? Wong Kam Yan is the pen name of a Hong Kong-based labor solidarity activist and researcher. From www.solidarity-us.org, by Against the Current.

Wong Kam Yan is the pen name of a Hong Kong-based labor solidarity activist and researcher. From www.solidarity-us.org, by Against the Current.

THERE HAS BEEN a 30% rise in collective riots in China in recent years. Whereas in 1993, there were 10,000 reported cases with 700,000 participants, in 2003 it jumped to 60,000 with 3 million participants. Among these examples, labor unrest has been quite outstanding, though it is difficult to get official statistics. The first wave of labor protest was mainly by workers in the State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) against outright privatization or restructuring into modern enterprises. It started in the early 1990s, and by the turn of the twenty-first century it became sharper and involved more workers.

The DaQing oil field and the LiaoYang example have been the most widely reported cases. In March 2002, 50,000 oil workers at the DaQing oil field protested for many days against downsizing. The oil industry had undergone immense restructuring to compete with foreign oil giants in the domestic market. Earlier, in 2001 a metal plant in LiaoYang, located in the North East as is the DaQing field, went bankrupt with public property looted by management and local officials. Workers took to the streets to protest.

Whereas the DaQing case was outstanding for the large number of protesters and their call for independent trade unions, the LiaoYang case was spectacular for its effort in trying to link up with other factory workers to fight against privatization.

Both cases were severely suppressed by the authorities, and LiaoYang had its two central leaders sentenced to between four and seven years imprisonment. The Liao Yang factory was subsequently bankrupted. For the oil industry, eventually 600,000 oil workers were sacked.

There may be hundreds or even thousands of cases of SOEs workers fighting back in the last ten years, but generally they have lost the battles. Up to 30 million SOEs workers were sacked, and women workers were generally the first to go. Between 1993 and 2003, SOEs industrial output in relation to total industrial output went down from 47% to 38%. Under the policy of "retaining the large (SOEs), letting the small go" (in fact many medium SOEs have been let go as well), many medium and small enterprises had been privatized. As for big SOEs, they have been restructured as commercial entities whose ultimate ambition is to transform themselves into Trans National Corporations (TNCs) and compete in the global market with Mobile, or Fords. Whether they can succeed is another matter.

Mexico, 1 Million Demonstrate Over Election Fraud, 9/16/06

From Green Left Weekly, September 27, 2006. Visit the Green Left Weekly home page. MEXICO: Convention elects AMLO as legitimate president Neville Spencer

On September 16 — Independence Day — 1,025,724 registered delegates and many thousands of others gathered at the National Democratic Convention in Mexico City’s main square, the Zocalo. Accusing right-wing president-elect Felipe Calderon of usurping power through electoral fraud, they elected Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (known as AMLO) as Mexico’s legitimate president. The official result announced following the July 2 presidential election put Calderon 0.58% ahead of AMLO, who stood as the candidate of the left-leaning For the Good of All coalition. AMLO accused the National Action Party (PAN), to which Calderon and current president Vicente Fox belong, of orchestrating widespread fraud. Evidence was produced of fraud in many polling places and a full recount of the vote was called for, though even this could not have resolved problems such as destroyed or stuffed ballot boxes. Following a series of massive protests, the Federal Electoral Tribunal agreed to recount only 9% of polling places, resulting in only minor changes to the official tally. The call for the National Democratic Convention was made by AMLO when it became clear that no significant action was going to be taken to address the charges of fraud. In spite of rain, an estimated 1.5-2 million turned out. Even the sizeable Zocalo could not contain the crowd. Part of the convention was the endorsement of a “plan of resistance”. This includes numerous protests, not just against the electoral fraud, but also against a variety of different threats to the wellbeing of Mexico’s workers and poor posed by a new PAN government. A national day of action against the privatisation of energy is part of the plan. The PAN has proposed privatising electricity and the state oil company Pemex. Pemex is one of the world’s largest oil companies. The nationalisation of oil, which took place in the 1930s, has been a source of national pride for Mexico. Until the neoliberal turn of the 1980s, it was also a source of funding for some of the social benefits that Mexico had at a level above the standard of most Third World countries. A week of action is planned for October around the defence of free state education. The central act of the convention was the recognition of AMLO as the legitimate president. An alternate proposal, that he be “head of resistance”, was not as well supported, the argument given being that this would give too much legitimacy to Calderon’s election. It was decided by the convention that AMLO would form a government and a swearing-in ceremony would be held on Mexico’s Revolution Day, November 20. This would put it ahead of Calderon’s swearing in on December 1. A mass mobilisation is also planned for that day to try to prevent Calderon being installed as president. The convention itself was a continuation of the existing campaign against electoral fraud that began soon after the July ballot. The Zocalo had already been the site of earlier demonstrations, including the largest demonstration in Mexico’s history on July 30. The crowd at that demonstration was estimated at up to 2.4 million. The Zocalo and surrounding area had also been under a continuous occupation for several weeks prior to the convention, with AMLO directing the campaign from a tent in the square. On September 1, deputies from the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), of which AMLO is a member, disrupted Fox’s attempt to give the annual state-of-the-nation address to the parliament. Instead it was handed out in written form. Fox was also forced to avoid protesters the night before the convention. It is traditional for the president to give the “grito” from a balcony of the National Palace overlooking the Zocalo the night before Independence Day. With the Zocalo full of demonstrators, Fox stayed away. Although the convention set the stage for a continued mass movement, it is still quite possible that the movement will fade. The convention marked the lifting of the occupation of the Zocalo, even though new plans for protest were made. The PRD, which is the dominant component of the For the Good of All coalition, is a generally social-democratic party used to not rocking the boat too much. Another PRD leader, Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, was also robbed of a probable victory in the 1988 presidential election. He chose not to try to mobilise any resistance for fear that it might lead to violence. Both AMLO and the movement around him at least seem to be in a more combative mood than that. A letter from Cardenas was read out at the convention opposing the idea of declaring AMLO president and calling for the institutional order to be respected. The reaction of the crowd was one of anger. The alternative government to be formed by AMLO is not going to actually exercise any power but will primarily be symbolic, though it could act as an organiser of ongoing opposition. Even if protests fail to force Calderon from power and fade away, the mood of militancy will at least be notched up over the coming period.

The official result announced following the July 2 presidential election put Calderon 0.58% ahead of AMLO, who stood as the candidate of the left-leaning For the Good of All coalition.

AMLO accused the National Action Party (PAN), to which Calderon and current president Vicente Fox belong, of orchestrating widespread fraud. Evidence was produced of fraud in many polling places and a full recount of the vote was called for, though even this could not have resolved problems such as destroyed or stuffed ballot boxes. Following a series of massive protests, the Federal Electoral Tribunal agreed to recount only 9% of polling places, resulting in only minor changes to the official tally.

The call for the National Democratic Convention was made by AMLO when it became clear that no significant action was going to be taken to address the charges of fraud.

In spite of rain, an estimated 1.5-2 million turned out. Even the sizeable Zocalo could not contain the crowd. Part of the convention was the endorsement of a “plan of resistance”. This includes numerous protests, not just against the electoral fraud, but also against a variety of different threats to the wellbeing of Mexico’s workers and poor posed by a new PAN government.

Pro-business Bureaucracy & Venezuelan Socialism

From Green Left Weekly, September 27, 2006. Visit the Green Left Weekly home page. VENEZUELA: Chavez speaks on the revolution’s challenges Stuart Munckton In an exclusive interview with the September 10 Spanish-language daily Diario Panorama, Venezuela’s socialist President Hugo Chavez spoke about the challenges facing the Bolivarian revolution — as the process of social transformation his government is leading is called.

In an exclusive interview with the September 10 Spanish-language daily Diario Panorama, Venezuela’s socialist President Hugo Chavez spoke about the challenges facing the Bolivarian revolution — as the process of social transformation his government is leading is called.

Many of the gains of the revolution are well-known, with a growing number of social missions redistributing the nation’s oil wealth and resulting in significant drops in poverty. Revolutionaries inside Venezuela are pointing to the dangers of a strongly entrenched state bureaucracy that remains largely unchanged from before Chavez was elected that works to sabotage the process of change — in particular the transfer of power to the poor, a key stated aim of the revolution. {This parallels the cause for the failure of the elected socialist government in Great Brittan and during the 1930s—jk.}

A number of this layer have joined the pro-Chavez camp for opportunist reasons. A number of self-proclaimed Chavistas in positions of power, referred to as “counter-revolutionaries in red berets”, are criticised by the popular movements for continuing the same bureaucratic and often corrupt practices as before the revolution. Chavez has been at the forefront of calling for moves to give more power to the poor, and has sacked a number of high-ranking public officials and ministers for failure to adequately tackle corruption.

Asked by Diario Panorama about the risks facing the revolution, Chavez stated: “The biggest threat is inside; there is a permanent, bureaucratic counterrevolution. I spend my time with a whip because all around me is the enemy of an old and new bureaucracy that is resisting change.” Chavez said that it was important to make sure policies are carried out and not “derailed or minimised by this bureaucratic counterrevolution that is inside the state”.

“The state has been transformed at a macro level”, Chavez explained, “but the micro levels remain intact. It is necessary to think about right now a new package of laws [to facilitate] the transformation of the political and judicial framework right down to the most micro levels of the state to overcome this resistance.

“The counterrevolution of corruption is the sister of the bureaucratic counterrevolution. This is another terrible threat, because it appears where you least expect it ... it is like a demon that has to be exorcised.” Chavez explained this is why, among the key strategic goals for the revolution to be fulfilled if Chavez, as is widely expected, is re-elected in December, is the development of a “socialist ethic”.

Humanitarian World Trade

HUMANITARIAN TRADE (NOT FREE TRADE) PRACTICED IN VENEZUELA CHAVEZ' COMMENTS: STRATEGY OR RAVINGS OF MADMAN? Greg Palast reporter for the Manchester Guardian at www.GregPalast.com September, 21, 2006 "I've known Hugo Chavez for years, let me tell you that man knows a diablo when he sees one." -- Greg PalastWatch my recent exclusive BBC interview with President Chavez"Finding Bolivar's Heir" (Large File)"Finding Bolivar's Heir" (Small File)

"I've known Hugo Chavez for years, let me tell you that man knows a diablo when he sees one." -- Greg PalastWatch my recent exclusive BBC interview with President Chavez

In the free trade system, the resources are in corporate hands, the profits flow to the owners of corporations, and the income from the national resources are dispersed accordingly. There is a trickle down benefit for the people of the nation. With a government ran economy committed to first serving the public weal, much more of the income is used for humane ends--jk.

Nicaraguans vote for Sandinistans

Quite a bit early to celebrate, for the Sandinistas have formed a broad political alliance with conservatives. This will likely result in policies similar to that of the government of Brazil, which has disappointed the peasants--jk. From Greenleft.org.au NICARAGUA Nicaraguans’ vote for Ortega shows identification with ’79 revolution Phil Cournoyer 2 December 2006Nicaragua’s Sandinistas will never forget the night of November 5 and the four days of street celebrations that followed. The first official results of the election came in around 11pm. They foretold that Daniel Ortega, presidential candidate of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN), would win on the first round. Partisans of the Sandinista movement, which led the popular revolution of 1979, had waited 16 long, trying years for this day, ever since the Sandinista government went down to bitter defeat in February 1990.

2 December 2006Nicaragua’s Sandinistas will never forget the night of November 5 and the four days of street celebrations that followed. The first official results of the election came in around 11pm. They foretold that Daniel Ortega, presidential candidate of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN), would win on the first round. Partisans of the Sandinista movement, which led the popular revolution of 1979, had waited 16 long, trying years for this day, ever since the Sandinista government went down to bitter defeat in February 1990.

“Ortega pledged to keep Nicaragua in the US-sponsored Central American Free Trade Agreement and to abide by Nicaragua’s international commitments to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). He also assured the business sector than his “national unity” government would fully respect private property and would block any moves towards land occupations” (above). Assuming these promises to be sincere, and given his vice-president’s role in a pro-business political party, this isn’t a victory for the masses or socialism—jk.

NICARAGUA Nicaraguan voters defy US threats Nicole Colson 10 November 2006Despite a relentless campaign by the Bush administration to derail his election, Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega won Nicaragua’s November 5 presidential election. Ortega, the candidate of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) and the country’s president from 1985 to 1990, won almost 40% of the vote in his race against four other candidates. That was more than enough to avoid a runoff against the US-backed candidate, Harvard-educated banker Eduardo Montealegre. For weeks, US officials pulled out all the stops to try to derail Ortega’s victory, including pressuring the country’s right-wing parties to come together behind a single candidate. But when conservatives remained divided between Montealegre and ruling party candidate Jose Rizo, the US turned to making dark threats in the event of an Ortega victory. US ambassador Paul Trivelli warned Nicaraguans not to vote for Ortega, promising some “surprises” in the run-up to the election. Republican member of Congress Dana Rohrabacher threatened an economic embargo against the impoverished country, while other politicians warned that the US might take action to block Nicaraguans living in the US from sending money home to Central America’s poorest country. But if anything, the anti-Ortega rhetoric and threats may have prompted more Nicaraguans — particularly the poor — to vote for Ortega as a protest against US intervention. Historically, the US not only propped up the brutal dictatorship of Anastazio Somoza, it also funded and armed the right-wing paramilitary contras, who carried out a bloody war against the left-wing Sandinista government following Somoza’s overthrow in 1979. The Bush administration even sent former White House aide Oliver North — best-known for his role in organising the secret illegal funding and arming of the contras during the Reagan administration — to warn Nicaraguans that an Ortega government would be faced with the cut-off of the country’s estimated US$220 million in annual aid. “Imagine Osama bin Laden visiting the United States 10 or 15 years from now”, wrote Mark Weisbrot, a Latin America expert at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, “telling Americans who to vote for if they want to avoid getting hurt”. Today, Ortega insists that he is a “pragmatist” in favour of “reconciliation”. That was evident during his campaign, when he chose Jaime Morales — a former political opponent and contra supporter — as his running mate. Ortega has also held back from criticising the US, and promised that he would not institute drastic reforms that would threaten business interests. In the days leading up to the election, he supported a vote for a ban pushed by the Catholic Church outlawing all abortions, even when a woman’s life is in danger. The measure passed. Despite this, Ortega’s victory is worrying to the US for a number of reasons — especially his ties to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. “Though Ortega … is a pale shadow of his former self, having jettisoned his leftist rhetoric and hostility towards his northern neighbor, nevertheless, Washington must now recognize that it has patently failed to isolate Chavez diplomatically”, wrote author Nikolas Kozloff in an article on the CounterPunch website. “Ortega will be hampered in bringing about radical change, but will at least look upon Venezuela as an important regional ally and friend.” [From the US Socialist Worker, newspaper of the International Socialist Organization. Visit Socialistworker.org>.] From: International News, Green Left Weekly issue #690 15 November 2006. For more articles of a similar flavor

10 November 2006Despite a relentless campaign by the Bush administration to derail his election, Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega won Nicaragua’s November 5 presidential election.

Ortega, the candidate of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) and the country’s president from 1985 to 1990, won almost 40% of the vote in his race against four other candidates. That was more than enough to avoid a runoff against the US-backed candidate, Harvard-educated banker Eduardo Montealegre. For weeks, US officials pulled out all the stops to try to derail Ortega’s victory, including pressuring the country’s right-wing parties to come together behind a single candidate. But when conservatives remained divided between Montealegre and ruling party candidate Jose Rizo, the US turned to making dark threats in the event of an Ortega victory. US ambassador Paul Trivelli warned Nicaraguans not to vote for Ortega, promising some “surprises” in the run-up to the election. Republican member of Congress Dana Rohrabacher threatened an economic embargo against the impoverished country, while other politicians warned that the US might take action to block Nicaraguans living in the US from sending money home to Central America’s poorest country. But if anything, the anti-Ortega rhetoric and threats may have prompted more Nicaraguans — particularly the poor — to vote for Ortega as a protest against US intervention. Historically, the US not only propped up the brutal dictatorship of Anastazio Somoza, it also funded and armed the right-wing paramilitary contras, who carried out a bloody war against the left-wing Sandinista government following Somoza’s overthrow in 1979. The Bush administration even sent former White House aide Oliver North — best-known for his role in organising the secret illegal funding and arming of the contras during the Reagan administration — to warn Nicaraguans that an Ortega government would be faced with the cut-off of the country’s estimated US$220 million in annual aid. “Imagine Osama bin Laden visiting the United States 10 or 15 years from now”, wrote Mark Weisbrot, a Latin America expert at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, “telling Americans who to vote for if they want to avoid getting hurt”. Today, Ortega insists that he is a “pragmatist” in favour of “reconciliation”. That was evident during his campaign, when he chose Jaime Morales — a former political opponent and contra supporter — as his running mate. Ortega has also held back from criticising the US, and promised that he would not institute drastic reforms that would threaten business interests. In the days leading up to the election, he supported a vote for a ban pushed by the Catholic Church outlawing all abortions, even when a woman’s life is in danger. The measure passed. Despite this, Ortega’s victory is worrying to the US for a number of reasons — especially his ties to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. “Though Ortega … is a pale shadow of his former self, having jettisoned his leftist rhetoric and hostility towards his northern neighbor, nevertheless, Washington must now recognize that it has patently failed to isolate Chavez diplomatically”, wrote author Nikolas Kozloff in an article on the CounterPunch website. “Ortega will be hampered in bringing about radical change, but will at least look upon Venezuela as an important regional ally and friend.” [From the US Socialist Worker, newspaper of the International Socialist Organization. Visit Socialistworker.org>.]

Leftist Wins in Ecuador

GREENLEFT.ORG.AU ECUADOR Leftist candidate wins Ecuador election Duroyan Fertl 6 December 2006 The Latin American left had its fifth electoral victory of the year on November 26, when Rafael Correa, a supporter of Venezuelan socialist President Hugo Chavez, won Ecuador’s presidential run-off election with the largest margin in almost 30 years.

The Latin American left had its fifth electoral victory of the year on November 26, when Rafael Correa, a supporter of Venezuelan socialist President Hugo Chavez, won Ecuador’s presidential run-off election with the largest margin in almost 30 years.

Correa, a former finance minister and economics lecturer, received 57% of the vote, defeating Alvaro Noboa, Ecuador’s richest man, a fierce anti-communist, banana-plantation owner and advocate of neoliberal economics, and despite a slander campaign and outright bribes (including hand-outs of cash, computers and wheelchairs). The mass mobilisation against Noboa by numerous social movements, and accusations by the New York-based Human Rights Watch and other organisations that the billionaire used child labour and strike-busting gangs on his plantations also helped to turn what looked like a close race into a rout. Against the right-wing Christian populism of Noboa (who claimed God had sent him to defeat the “communist”, “terrorist” Correa), his 43-year-old leftist rival advocated a platform for radical change — a “citizens’ revolution” that promises to fundamentally change the Ecuadorian political landscape. Correa’s campaign pledges echoed many of the radical policies being implemented in Venezuela and Bolivia, as well as the demands of Ecuador’s powerful indigenous movement for independent national development and social justice. He opposed a free trade agreement with the United States, advocated renegotiating contracts on Ecuador’s vast oil reserves, as well as increased social spending on health, education, the environment and housing. Correa called for raising the minimum wage and the closure of the US military base at Manta. Significantly, Correa, who describes himself as a “humanist, leftist Christian”, has echoed Chavez’s call for a “socialism of the 21st Century”, advocating both a regional currency and Latin American integration on the basis of social, rather than purely economic, needs. He is also fiercely critical of US President George Bush, the Iraq war, and of “free trade”, which he describes as a “fraud”. While Ecuador is the second largest supplier of oil from the region to the US, over 60% of its 13 million inhabitants live below the official poverty line. The country has long been hamstrung by an enormous foreign debt, amounting to 35% of its GDP, and suffers from a decaying infrastructure. Correa has said that Ecuador may have to default on some or all of its debt in order to provide essential services and repair its infrastructure. Correa has also proposed renegotiating oil contracts in order to recuperate 85% of profits for social spending, and rejoining Ecuador to OPEC, which it left in 1993. Ecuador’s oil industry is nationally owned, but foreign companies such as the US-owned Occidental Petroleum have been exploiting that wealth while terrorising indigenous communities and causing massive environmental damage. Correa has also pledged to convene a constituent assembly to rewrite the country’s constitution to give the president the power to fire the Congress, a body that Correa calls a “sewer” and that 97% of Ecuadorian voters consider to be mired in corruption, and to make all elected officals recallable. He has already initiated a referendum to this end, which would put power in the hands of community-based movements that represent Ecuador’s excluded majority, rather than the traditional political parties, run by the small wealthy elite that has dominated Ecuador for decades. The challenge facing Correa is significant, however, as his Alianza Pais (Alliance Country) movement ran no candidates for the unicameral Congress. Facing a hostile Congress controlled by his right-wing opponents who could block proposed legislative reforms, and possibly impeach him, Correa is reaching out to potential allies in other parties who favour systemic change. Correa’s policies place him on a direct collision course with Ecuador’s racist and wealthy elite, a course that he can only maintain with the support of the popular movements, which have overthrown three presidents in the past decade. The strongest of these, the CONAIE federation, which represents the country’s 40% indigenous population, has lent Correa conditional support. Its reservations stem from the betrayal of the previous president, Lucio Gutierrez, who broke similar promises, and was overthrown in April last year. Many Ecuadorians remain sceptical about the ability of electoral politics to bring about meaningful reform — despite compulsory voting, 10% of ballot paper were left blank. Since his election, however, Correa has maintained his radical stance. He has promised to halve the presidential salary, and warned that if Congress tries to block proposed reforms he will convoke mass demonstrations to force it to obey the popular mandate From: International News, Green Left Weekly issue #693 6 December 2006.

Socialist President elected in Ecuador

From Green Left at http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/695/36103 For the kind of news and straight reporting our businesses community ran press will not give. Equador: Ecuador's Correa calls for socialist Latin America By Duroyan Ferti, 19 January 2007 On January 15, Ecuador’s new president, Rafael Correa Delgado, was sworn in, promising to build “socialism of the 21st century” to overcome the poverty and instability of the small Andean country.

On January 15, Ecuador’s new president, Rafael Correa Delgado, was sworn in, promising to build “socialism of the 21st century” to overcome the poverty and instability of the small Andean country.

The previous day, Correa attended an indigenous inauguration ceremony in Zumbahua, the small Andean town where he did volunteer social work in his twenties. The presidents of Venezuela and Bolivia — Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales — were present as special guests. Correa, a 43-year-old economist, used his inauguration to call for a “citizens’ revolution”, using wealth to meet social and environmental needs, rather than maintaining the current “perverse system” that has led to over 60% of Ecuador’s 13 million people living in poverty and forced more than 3 million to emigrate in search of jobs. “The long night of neoliberalism is coming to an end”, said Correa, “A sovereign, dignified, just and socialist Latin America is beginning to rise.” In a speech laced with the indigenous language Quichua and references to revolutionary figures Simon Bolivar and Che Guevara, Correa called for Latin American integration on the basis of cooperation and complementarity, and called on governments to create regional legislation to protect workers’ rights. Correa’s radical program for change has already begun. On January 16, Ecuador signed an energy agreement with Venezuela. Venezuela will refine Ecuadorian crude oil, and invest in developing new refineries there. Ecuador, despite being one of Latin America’s largest oil exporters, currently has to import fuel at unfavourable prices. Correa has also promised to renegotiate contracts with foreign oil companies, in order to free up money for spending on health, education, the environment and housing. The potential benefits for Ecuador are enormous: the oil company Oxy had its contracts cancelled a year ago, and the government has since made US$1.1 billion from those oilfields alone. Another priority for Correa is Ecuador’s foreign debt, estimated in November last year at over 25% of the country’s GDP. Correa has suggested that at least part of the debt may be illegal, and is planning to renegotiate, or possibly default on it. He has also called for an international debt tribunal to prevent the exploitation of debt-ridden countries and has threatened to cut ties with the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. On January 17, agriculture minister Carlos Valejo declared the government’s intention to redistribute idle arable land. Ecuador’s vulnerable agricultural sector was a key issue in mass protests last year against a proposed free-trade agreement with the US. Correa is firmly opposed to such an FTA, preferring to focus on national development and Latin American integration. The most important part of the new president’s platform for change is the promise to convoke a Constituent Assembly to rewrite the constitution to allow the recall of elected officials and greater participation by social movements and community sectors in government, weakening the traditional party system and making his reforms possible. Correa, whose Alianza PAIS party ran no candidates for the Congress, faces a hostile legislature. His opponents in Congress, which is almost universally regarded to be run by a corrupt and inept “partyocracy”, formed a bloc of 76 out of 100 law-makers to oppose Correa’s reforms. Correa threatened to call mass protests and to use his executive powers to bypass the Congress, but on January 12, the second largest party in Congress, the Patriotic Society Party (PSP), led by ex-president Lucio Gutierrez (who was overthrown in 2005), changed sides on the issue, giving Correa a temporary majority. This was not before Gutierrez had expelled his own wife and another member of Congress from the PSP for supporting Correa’s proposal. Neither Correa nor many of the social movements, such as the indigenous federatation CONAIE, trust Gutierrez and the about-face is widely seen as proof of the corruption of the current political system. Assuming it is approved, there will now be a referendum on March 18 to endorse the initiative, and a Constituent Assembly of 87 members will be elected soon after from provincial, national and immigrant sectors of the population. The assembly will have 180 days to rewrite the constitution. The task facing Correa is a challenging one. Previous governments that have promised reforms along similar lines have been unable or unwilling to carry them out, making only small reforms in the hope of placating big business and the people alike. In response, mass popular mobilisations, especially by the indigenous movements, have led to the overthrow of the last three elected presidents. The hope is that Correa has broken the mould. “We’re not talking about little reforms, about making things less bad”, he said during his inauguration. “Latin America isn’t living an era of changes”, he explained. “It’s living a change of eras.” From: International News, Green Left Weekly issue #695 24 January 2007.