Blog Archive

Popular Posts

Pageviews last month

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Rudd Supports Power Privatisation by John Tognolini


I'm not surprised by prime minister Kevin Rudd's support for the NSW government's plan to lease out power stations and sell all but the poles and wires assets of the state's power utilities worth $15 billion. "Premier Iemma has my complete support," he told journalists in Canberra.

Kevin Rudd did not say one word about privatisation of public assets in last November's federal election, nor did Morris Iemma in last March's state election.

Starting with Margaret Thatcher in the UK, we've seen over two decades of privatisation of basic services like energy, water and transport: the jury is now in. For the user, it means higher prices and less reliability, for the worker, less job security, for the environment, greater danger of pollution, but for the corporations, very, very fat and publicly guaranteed profits.

For us in the Blue Mountains how long would it take to get the power back on after storms with fewer workers and how much money would we pay?

Also as the Total Environment Centre and Nature Conservation Council have pointed out, public ownership of power is essential for developing renewable energy to challenge Climate Change. And Rudd was elected largely on workers' rights and Climate Change.

I've challenged state member Phil Koperberg and local ALP councilors to stand-by-side with the local community and publicly oppose their party leaders' sell off plans. After Rudd's support for privatisation I challenge federal member Bob Debus to do the same.

John Tognolini
Socialist Alliance candidate for Ward One Blue Mountains City Council

published in Blue Mountains Gazette 27-2-08

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

SOME THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT EXXON MOBIL! DID YOU KNOW…


Exxon Mobil has broken the record for the biggest profit in US corporate history for 3 years in a row (2005, 2006, and 2007). In fact, as far back as May of 2003, after the invasion of Iraq forced gasoline prices sky high, Exxon broke the record for the biggest quarterly profit ever made by a US corporation.

Exxon Mobil’s annual revenue surpasses the gross domestic product of all but the 25 wealthiest nations.

Exxon Mobil is the world’s largest privately owned oil company.

IF EXXON MOBIL IS DOING SO WELL, WHY DID THEY GO TO COURT IN THREE DIFFERENT COUNTRIES (THE UNITED STATES, UNITED KINGDOM, AND THE NETHERLANDS) TO FREEZE ASSETS WORTH $12 BILLION BELONGING TO VENEZUELA’S STATE OIL COMPANY, PDVSA?
Before Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution, when a popular government was elected, Venezuelan oil was sold to the highest bidder, with benefits from oil production mainly going to foreign companies and a few wealthy Venezuelan business leaders. Despite its huge corporate wealth, Exxon and other oil companies paid Venezuela royalties amounting to a just 1 percent of the value of extracted oil.

Since the Bolivarian Revolution, the Venezuelan government has decided that the people should share in the benefits of oil development. Oil profits have helped fund many new social programs, such as food subsides for 40 percent of the people; an educational system that provides services to almost half the population; and a health care system that is reaching millions of poor people. In fact, since 2002, the poverty rate has fallen from 54 percent to 38 percent. With health care and food subsidies taken into account, the rate is well below 30 percent.

Venezuela now consults indigenous and rural communities affected by new oil development and it requires steps be taken to repair environmental damage resulting from oil exploration—something Big Oil never did. Minimizing environmental damage and including affected communities in development decisions are two more reasons Venezuela insists Big Oil honor its oil sovereignty.

EXXON MOBIL DOESN’T CARE ABOUT DEMOCRACY OR SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITIS—IT WANTS ONE THING: OBSCENE AND UNJUST ACCESS TO OIL PROFITS!

Exxon Mobil is insisting that the Venezuelan government adhere to old agreements from past governments that ignored citizen needs in favor of Big Oil companies. Now that the people of Venezuela are demanding their fair share, Exxon Mobil is saying, “No—we want it all!”

Venezuela adopted a new Hydrocarbons Law in 2001, ratifying Venezuela’s sovereignty over its natural resources. In July of 2007, the Venezuelan government invited companies operating in the Orinoco Oil Belt to negotiate a smooth turnover of majority control to PDVSA. Chevron, BP, Total, ENI, Sinopec, and Statoil all cooperated with the handover, while Conoco Phillips and Exxon Mobil refused. Existing contracts provided for Exxon Mobil and Conoco Phillips to take the matter to international arbitration. While Conoco Phillips continues to participate in that process, Exxon Mobil has decided to pursue coercive and aggressive court actions, freezing PDVSA’s assets.

Whether in Venezuela, Iraq, or elsewhere, Exxon Mobil doesn’t want people’s needs or national sovereignty to get in the way of profits. For example, the US government is urging passage of an Iraqi Oil Law that would turn over 66 to 75 percent control of Iraqi oil fields to Exxon Mobil and the other biggest oil companies. Recent polls show that two thirds of all Iraqis oppose the oil law. In this regard, US government and Exxon policies are the same toward both countries--take what you can and don’t let anyone or anything—not even democracy—stand in the way!

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND EXXON ARE PARTNERS IN WAR, THEFT, AND ATTACKS ON PEOPLE’S CHOICE:

The people of Venezuela and Iraq both want to have the ultimate say about oil development in their nations. The Bush Administration’s and the US government answer to Iraq have been to choose war and occupation over justice and the popular will. Their answer to Venezuela has been to try to isolate the country internationally, to illegally fund electoral campaigns there, and to fund coup attempts, like the failed coup against the Venezuelan government in April, 2002.

Exxon Mobil CEO, Rex Tillerson was a major donor to the Bush-Cheney campaigns and to candidates that support administration policies toward both Iraq and Venezuela.

By maneuvering to freeze PDVSA’s assets, Exxon Mobil is effectively joining in US government efforts to once more try and destabilize Venezuela’s elected government.

EXXON MOBIL’S AGGRESSIVE ACTS TO FREEZE PDVSA ASSETS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO DO ANYTHING TO MAKE A BUCK—EXCEPT HONOR THE RIGHTS AND THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE! NO WONDER VENEZUELA’S PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ RECENTLY REMARKED:

“Never again will they rob us—the Exxon Mobil bandits. They are imperial, American bandits, white-collared thieves. They turn governments corrupt, they oust governments. They supported the invasion of Iraq.”

For more information: Australia Venezuela Solidarity Network
Read/download this useful information sheet.

Monday, February 25, 2008

Election Madness by Howard Zinn

Howard Zinn

There’s a man in Florida who has been writing to me for years (ten pages, handwritten) though I’ve never met him. He tells me the kinds of jobs he has held-security guard, repairman, etc. He has worked all kinds of shifts, night and day, to barely keep his family going. His letters to me have always been angry, railing against our capitalist system for its failure to assure “life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness” for working people.

Just today, a letter came. To my relief it was not handwritten because he is now using e-mail: “Well, I’m writing to you today because there is a wretched situation in this country that I cannot abide and must say something about. I am so enraged about this mortgage crisis. That the majority of Americans must live their lives in perpetual debt, and so many are sinking beneath the load, has me so steamed. Damn, that makes me so mad, I can’t tell you. . . . I did a security guard job today that involved watching over a house that had been foreclosed on and was up for auction. They held an open house, and I was there to watch over the place during this event. There were three of the guards doing the same thing in three other homes in this same community. I was sitting there during the quiet moments and wondering about who those people were who had been evicted and where they were now.”

On the same day I received this letter, there was a front-page story in the Boston Globe, with the headline “Thousands in Mass. Foreclosed on in ‘07.”

The subhead was “7,563 homes were seized, nearly 3 times the ‘06 rate.”

A few nights before, CBS television reported that 750,000 people with disabilities have been waiting for years for their Social Security benefits because the system is underfunded and there are not enough personnel to handle all the requests, even desperate ones.

Stories like these may be reported in the media, but they are gone in a flash. What’s not gone, what occupies the press day after day, impossible to ignore, is the election frenzy.

This seizes the country every four years because we have all been brought up to believe that voting is crucial in determining our destiny, that the most important act a citizen can engage in is to go to the polls and choose one of the two mediocrities who have already been chosen for us. It is a multiple choice test so narrow, so specious, that no self-respecting teacher would give it to students.

And sad to say, the Presidential contest has mesmerized liberals and radicals alike. We are all vulnerable.

Is it possible to get together with friends these days and avoid the subject of the Presidential elections?

The very people who should know better, having criticized the hold of the media on the national mind, find themselves transfixed by the press, glued to the television set, as the candidates preen and smile and bring forth a shower of clichés with a solemnity appropriate for epic poetry.

Even in the so-called left periodicals, we must admit there is an exorbitant amount of attention given to minutely examining the major candidates. An occasional bone is thrown to the minor candidates, though everyone knows our marvelous democratic political system won’t allow them in.

No, I’m not taking some ultra-left position that elections are totally insignificant, and that we should refuse to vote to preserve our moral purity. Yes, there are candidates who are somewhat better than others, and at certain times of national crisis (the Thirties, for instance, or right now) where even a slight difference between the two parties may be a matter of life and death.

I’m talking about a sense of proportion that gets lost in the election madness. Would I support one candidate against another? Yes, for two minutes-the amount of time it takes to pull the lever down in the voting booth.

But before and after those two minutes, our time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools. Our objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake whoever is in the White House, in Congress, into changing national policy on matters of war and social justice.

Let’s remember that even when there is a “better” candidate (yes, better Roosevelt than Hoover, better anyone than George Bush), that difference will not mean anything unless the power of the people asserts itself in ways that the occupant of the White House will find it dangerous to ignore.

The unprecedented policies of the New Deal-Social Security, unemployment insurance, job creation, minimum wage, subsidized housing-were not simply the result of FDR’s progressivism. The Roosevelt Administration, coming into office, faced a nation in turmoil. The last year of the Hoover Administration had experienced the rebellion of the Bonus Army-thousands of veterans of the First World War descending on Washington to demand help from Congress as their families were going hungry. There were disturbances of the unemployed in Detroit, Chicago, Boston, New York, Seattle.

In 1934, early in the Roosevelt Presidency, strikes broke out all over the country, including a general strike in Minneapolis, a general strike in San Francisco, hundreds of thousands on strike in the textile mills of the South. Unemployed councils formed all over the country. Desperate people were taking action on their own, defying the police to put back the furniture of evicted tenants, and creating self-help organizations with hundreds of thousands of members.

Without a national crisis-economic destitution and rebellion-it is not likely the Roosevelt Administration would have instituted the bold reforms that it did.

Today, we can be sure that the Democratic Party, unless it faces a popular upsurge, will not move off center. The two leading Presidential candidates have made it clear that if elected, they will not bring an immediate end to the Iraq War, or institute a system of free health care for all.

They offer no radical change from the status quo.

They do not propose what the present desperation of people cries out for: a government guarantee of jobs to everyone who needs one, a minimum income for every household, housing relief to everyone who faces eviction or foreclosure.

They do not suggest the deep cuts in the military budget or the radical changes in the tax system that would free billions, even trillions, for social programs to transform the way we live.

None of this should surprise us. The Democratic Party has broken with its historic conservatism, its pandering to the rich, its predilection for war, only when it has encountered rebellion from below, as in the Thirties and the Sixties. We should not expect that a victory at the ballot box in November will even begin to budge the nation from its twin fundamental illnesses: capitalist greed and militarism.

So we need to free ourselves from the election madness engulfing the entire society, including the left.

Yes, two minutes. Before that, and after that, we should be taking direct action against the obstacles to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

For instance, the mortgage foreclosures that are driving millions from their homes-they should remind us of a similar situation after the Revolutionary War, when small farmers, many of them war veterans (like so many of our homeless today), could not afford to pay their taxes and were threatened with the loss of the land, their homes. They gathered by the thousands around courthouses and refused to allow the auctions to take place.

The evictions today of people who cannot pay their rents should remind us of what people did in the Thirties when they organized and put the belongings of the evicted families back in their apartments, in defiance of the authorities.

Historically, government, whether in the hands of Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals, has failed its responsibilities, until forced to by direct action: sit-ins and Freedom Rides for the rights of black people, strikes and boycotts for the rights of workers, mutinies and desertions of soldiers in order to stop a war.
Voting is easy and marginally useful, but it is a poor substitute for democracy, which requires direct action by concerned citizens.

Howard Zinn is the author of “A People’s History of the United States,” “Voices of a People’s History” (with Anthony Arnove), and most recently, “A Power Governments Cannot Suppress.”

Published on Sunday, February 24, 2008 by The Progressive
from http://www.commondreams.org/

Naomi Kiline's Shock Doctrine, The Rise of Disaster Capitalism


I thought Stu Harrison’s review of Naomi Kline’s new book, The Shock Doctrine, The Rise Of Disaster Capitalism From: Cultural Dissent, Green Left Weekly issue #739 13 February 2008. was great, but I think it was far too brief for such a major work and I disagree with him when he wrote, “A must for all economics students and those that are yet to grasp the devastating nature of capitalism.”

Kline’s Shock Doctrine illustrates to me what Karl Marx said — that the highest form of economics is politics. Kline has written an enormous political work that is a must for any socialist, unionist, environmentalist, human rights activist, solidarity activist, and anyone who gives a thought about any concept of justice and humanity’s survival on this planet.

It is in the league of other major political works such as John Pilger’s New Rulers of The World and A Secret Country, Noam Chomsky’s Necessary Illusions and Hegemony or Survival: America’s quest for global dominance and Tariq Ali’s Clash of Fundamentalisms, Bush in Babylon and Pirates of the Caribbean — Axis of Hope.

Kline spent three years researching and writing this book and has 400 footnotes to back up everything she writes, exposing the ruthless and inhumane nature of Milton Friedman’s Chicago school of economic policies that is the ruthless capitalist mantra of privatise, deregulate, cut government services and destroy unions.

I would also encourage people to go on the Facebook group, Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein — ready to discuss it, where I’ve posted Harrison’s review and http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine. I look forward to seeing the film Shock Doctrine, by Alfonso Cuaron and Naomi Klein, directed by Jonas Cuaron.

John Tognolini Katoomba, NSW

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Why Cuba Will Never Go Back, Watching the US Presidential Campaign from Havana By FIDEL CASTRO

That Tuesday there was no fresh international news. The modest message I wrote to the Cuban people on Monday, February 18, was widely and easily disseminated. As from 11 o'clock in the morning I started to receive concrete news. The previous night I had slept like never before. I had a clear conscience and I had promised myself a vacation. The days of tension, awaiting the proximity of February 24, had left me exhausted.

Today I will not say a single word about persons very dear to me in Cuba and in the world who in many different ways expressed their emotions. I also received a great number of opinions collected in the streets through reliable methods, which almost without exception and in a very spontaneous way conveyed the deepest feelings of solidarity. Someday I shall discuss that issue.
Right now I am focusing on the adversary. I enjoyed watching the embarrassment of every United States presidential candidate. One by one they all felt compelled to exact urgent demands from Cuba to avoid the risk of losing a single vote. Anyone could have thought that I was a Pulitzer Prize winner interviewing them on very sensitive political and even personal issues for the CNN from Las Vegas, a place where the logics of the games of chance prevails, and that should be humbly visited by anyone running for President.

Fifty years of blockade seemed too little to the favorites. Change! Change! Change! They all cried in unison.

I agree. Change! But, inside the United States. Cuba changed long ago and will now follow a dialectical path.

We will never go back to the past! Cries our people.

Annexation! Annexation! Annexation! Responds the adversary. That is what it really means when it speaks about change.

José Martí, unveiling the secret of his silent struggle, denounced the voracious and expansionistic empire that his brilliant intelligence had discovered and described more than one century after the enactment of the revolutionary Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies.

The end of a historical period is not the same as the beginning of the end of an unsustainable system.

All of a sudden, the weakened European powers, allied to that system, are exacting the same demands. In their opinion, the time has come to dance to the music of democracy and freedom, which since the times of Torquemada, they never really knew.

The colonization and neo-colonization of entire continents, from which they get energy, raw materials, and cheap labor, are a moral discredit to them.

An illustrious Spanish personality, once an impeccable socialist and minister of Culture, who for some time now and even today has been advocating for the war and the use of weapons, is the synthesis of sheer nonsense. Kosovo and its unilateral declaration of independence are now hunting them as an impertinent nightmare.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, men of flesh and blood wearing the United States and NATO uniforms continue to die. The memories of the USSR, which disintegrated in part because of the interventionist adventure in Afghanistan, are chasing the Europeans like a shadow.

Bush senior endorses McCain as his candidate, while Bush junior declares in some country of Africa -where man originated yesterday and which is a martyr continent today- where no one knows what he was doing, that my message was the beginning of the road towards freedom in Cuba, that is to say, the annexation decreed by his government in a huge and thick text.
The day before, TV networks from all over the world showed a group of state-of-the-art bombers performing spectacular maneuvers, giving full guarantees that any bombs could be launched, that the aircraft that carried them will not be detected by radars, and that this will not be considered a war crime.

A protest raised by some important countries had to do with the imperial idea of testing a new weapon under the pretext of avoiding the possible fall on the territory of a foreign country of a spy satellite, one of the many artifacts that the United States has put into the planet orbit for military purposes.

I had thought not to write a reflection at least in 10 days, but I had no right to remain silent for so long. We need to open ideological fire against them.

I wrote this on Tuesday at 3:35 pm. Yesterday, I reviewed it and I will deliver it today, Thursday, in the afternoon. I have begged that my reflections be published on the second page or any other of our newspapers, never on the front page, and that brief summaries of them should be published in other media in case they are long.

I am now fully devoted to the effort of casting my full-slate vote in support of the Presidency of the National Assembly and the new State Council, as well as on the right way to do it.
I thank all readers for having waited so patiently.

Friday, February 22, 2008

Venezuela: Socialists discuss struggle for revolutionary party by Federico Fuentes, Caracas

Since January 12, more than 1600 delegates to the founding congress of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) — along with thousands of local socialist battalions (branches — have been discussing the new party’s program, principles and statutes, and in large part the future of the Bolivarian revolution.

The PSUV was initiated by President Hugo Chavez following his reelection in December 2006 in order to unite the many groups and individuals who back the revolution. Chavez spoke of the need to unite militants from the grassroots in a democratic mass party in order to overcome the problems of opportunism and bureaucracy that have developed within the revolution, hindering its advance.

Since January 12, more than 1600 delegates to the founding congress of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) — along with thousands of local socialist battalions (branches — have been discussing the new party’s program, principles and statutes, and in large part the future of the Bolivarian revolution.

The PSUV was initiated by President Hugo Chavez following his reelection in December 2006 in order to unite the many groups and individuals who back the revolution. Chavez spoke of the need to unite militants from the grassroots in a democratic mass party in order to overcome the problems of opportunism and bureaucracy that have developed within the revolution, hindering its advance.

Federico Fuentes, a member of the Green Left Weekly Caracas bureau, has interviewed a number of elected spokespeople from local battalions and delegates to the congress. Many have come from previously existing revolutionary parties and have now thrown their weight behind constructing the PSUV, forming left currents to wage a struggle against more right-wing forces seeking to transform the new party into an instrument of bureaucratic and opportunist sectors.

One such current is the Assembly of Socialists (AS), which brought together more than 20 revolutionary organisations in November 2006 as a step towards a united party. AS became a current inside the PSUV after Chavez announced its formation. Another current is Socialist Wave, formed by activists from a Trotskyist background previously involved in the Party of Revolution and Socialism, which had a strong base in the National Workers Union (UNT). Below are some extracts from interviews with a range of these activists. The full interviews will soon be available on the site of e-journal Links, http://links.org.au/
@question = What is the importance of this founding congress of the PSUV for the future of the revolution?
Ana Elisa Osorio, battalion spokesperson, AS — The revolution needs a party, a united party, a party that brings together revolutionaries, that outlines the principles of the Bolivarian revolution and marks out a program towards socialism … towards a confrontation, an offensive against imperialism … a party that can convert itself into a dynamic axis of ideological debate and formation.
Gabriel Gil, president of CatiaTV, AS — The importance of the founding congress has to do with the fact that we are going to have a democratic party, which has already declared itself socialist. Its importance lies in the fact that it unifies not only a great part of the left parties that previously existed, but has also incorporated many individuals actively into the ranks of the party, in a situation where a strong anti-party culture existed.
This culture exists around the world, and in Venezuela was very strong. But now the idea that you need a political party that can truly lead and organise the revolutionary process is being revived.
Sergio Sanchez, alternative congress delegate, AS — This is the founding congress of a mass party, which is very important. I think that Chavez has taught those of us on the left a lesson: the left has always had the policy of a “cadre party” — we here in the Assembly of Socialists think it is a trap.
It is not a choice between a cadre party or a mass party, rather it should be a party of millions of cadre — the people make the revolution and we need people to be involved politically in revolutionary activity.
Gonzalo Gomez, congress delegate, Socialist Wave — The congress is a step forward in structuring a political force closely tied to this revolutionary process — renovating it, allowing the coming together of the different tendencies, currents and forces within the revolutionary process. To have this united framework is a grand conquest.
@question = But can the PSUV be a useful vehicle given the number of problems we have heard about?

Gil — There are many opportunist and right-wing tendencies that will continue to try to control the party. I think one of the things we have to do is organise ourselves to prevent the party from being kidnapped and ensure it remains a democratic party.
Generally, the democratic structures and debate have been maintained. Our proposal is to defend and deepen the structures for debate and participation. I think that the people are participating [in the PSUV] and we have to be present, working with them.

Gomez — There is a process that has opened up valuable democratic space, although with methodological vices, problems and dangers. But there is a discussion among the grassroots.
The fact that we are discussing the principles, program and statutes of the party — that we can put forward positions about the way in which we should elect our leadership and select candidates for elections — is very important.

Osorio — I view it with a lot of expectations, with hope. That’s not to say that I agree with everything that is occurring, but I think that the party will be cleansed through the course of the ideological debate and it will be strengthened — above all by strengthening a current within the PSUV that is truly socialist.
We believe that we have to be inside the party. We need to continue working towards the unity of the left, but [also realise] the party we have is an expression of the reality of the Venezuelan people — it is an expression of the Venezuelan reality.

Sanchez — In the battalion in the barrio where I live, I remember in the first meetings people would come to blows over silly things — that someone looked at them in a funny way, that she did such and such. The level of experience of political organisation is very, very low.
Creating a party culture will take some years. Any sector of the left that thinks the socialist revolution is around the corner is mistaken, because the people still lack a lot of experience in political organising.
@question = What do you think will be the key debate at the congress?

Gil — The fundamental point is the program, more so even than internal elections because one of the things we need is a collective leadership, and to accomplish this it is fundamental that we have [a good] program. It is not about having 13 learned people sitting next to Chavez, not knowing what they think. We need to have everyone, including the 2 million [PSUV] militants, together with Chavez, united behind a single program discussing the way forward. Those who veer away from the program will be seen as being outside the party line, and outside the party.
Of course there is also the issue of the organisational structures — that it remain democratic, and the people that who are elected to leadership bodies be those who are the most in tune with that program.

Sanchez — I have been receiving reports from the congress and they were saying that “Hell, the Marxist-Leninist sector in the PSUV have expressed themselves with a lot of force!” It is in a disorganised manner but this sector has control of the discourse at the congress, and the right is disorganised and don’t know what to.

The problem is that the [left] is disorganised [as well]. The left hasn’t made any written proposals. For instance, the left hasn’t evaluated the statutes. So because they don’t have a proposal, everything is left a bit in the air.
For me, the issue is not whether the ideas of the left prevail at this congress, but if we have the capacity of controlling the organisational aspects. This can occur only if the left converts itself into a current.
Gomez — One of the fundamental points put forward, but not taken up in a fully satisfactory way but in a partial manner, is the methodology of the congress. The directives for the congress come from [the support commission, and before that the technical commission, appointed by Chavez]. But it turns out that the PSUV has been adopting structures such as battalions, circumscriptions, with spokespeople, delegates, etc.
This commission, which is not made up of delegates, should have been transferring control over the congress — and the process of construction of the party — to the body of delegates, without this implying the marginalisation of the members of these commissions.
What is occurring is that we have been discussing some documents, in a rushed manner, that have not been discussed in the grassroots [as is supposed to occur]. It is not clear what mechanisms will be used to give them a final form, so that they the final documents truly emerge from the discussions in the grassroots and not from these types of commissions.
@question = What is the weight of the left within the PSUV?

Gomez — There is a very important layer of delegates strongly tied to the social and popular movements, in tune with the grassroots. It is a critical sector, a sector that appears to be very firm in confronting corruption and bureaucratism.

This sector proposes that PSUV commissions be formed to revise the situation among high-level state functionaries, governors, mayors etc, in order to ensure that no one who has been corrupt or is implicated in violations of human rights be allowed in its ranks.

Carlos Luis Rivero, battalion spokesperson, AS — There are a number of sectors inside the PSUV that are fighting for more profound changes and for the PSUV to be the expression of vast sectors of the people and not the expression of the cliques that have formed within the Venezuelan process.

There is a debate and that is positive. In this debate I think the correlation of forces is on the side of those fighting to deepen the revolutionary process. However, these positions could be defeated rapidly because of the lack of organisation. But all this is part of the debate, and part of the weakness of the actual process.

We cannot simply decree our strength and decree the organisation of the people. We are trying to take steps forward, and the AS is an effort in that direction in the PSUV.
From: International News, Green Left Weekly issue #740 20 February 2008.

Apology is a start — now for justice! The thoughts of Five Indigenous activists in the Socialist Alliance


Five Indigenous activists in the Socialist Alliance share their responses to the Australian parliament’s apology to the Stolen Generations on February 13. All five attended the protest against the racist intervention into Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, held on the eve of the apology.

Lara Pullin, ACT
“The intervention has to go. Sorry means nothing without an end to the NT intervention. “Other governments around the world are using the Australian intervention as a model of how to attack their Indigenous people.

“People are not going to accept just “sorry”. They want a sorry that means something, a sorry that includes the “c” word that nobody seems to be able to get out, a sorry that does not divide people. We are not going to be divided like that.”

Natasha Moore, Perth

“I think it is a start. By apologisng [Kevin Rudd] is acknowledging and recognising the Indigenous people as the first people on this land.

I think it will be part of a healing process so other Australians and Aboriginal people can come together and form alliances and partnerships on issues facing communities in the various cities around Australia.

“I think it is just a stepping stone to getting more Indigenous issues addressed.

“For the Stolen Generations, I feel for them. It has been a long time coming and governments have not acknowledged them as being stolen from their families and placed in institutions or foster homes. For them it is very important for those words to be said by our government, but I also think it is only the start of a much bigger process that needs to happen.”

Sam Watson, Brisbane

“We are sending a pretty clear message to Mr Rudd and his government: Don’t say sorry, say sovereignty. “He can say sorry tomorrow, and certainly there will be a huge number of senior people and elders in the chamber to receive his apology, but people will also have to note that inside this parliament of Australia there is not one single Aboriginal person. In the House or the Senate. So, again Aboriginal people are hostage to a political system in which we have no control and in which we have no real representation or capacity to influence or exert any pressure.”

Lindi Dietzel, Geelong

“I hope it is not hollow and I hope that it gives an answer for a lot of people who have a lot of grief. It is a great place to start but let’s see. We’ll watch this place.” Jakalene X-treme, Sydney “It is long overdue, it needs to be done. One of the main things I am concerned with is that they get compensated even though nothing is going to take away the trauma or pain what they’ve gone through.”

From: Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #740 20 February 2008.

Catching the last tram home by John Pilger

A tram at Bondi Beach in the 1960s.

In his latest column for the New Statesman, John Pilger catches a ghostly tram to returns to where he grew up in Australia, the scene of his first encounter with the brutal, though enjoyable world of newspapers.

Perhaps journalism, for me, began on a Bondi tram on a Saturday. This was the day Bondi’s adult males would vanish. They would put on narrow-brimmed panama hats and head for the races at Randwick or The Hill at the Sydney Cricket Ground, Australia's finest. Or they would go direct to long-tiled pubs called the Royal and Tea Gardens and Billy the Pigs, and to the Returned Services League clubs where the “Last Post” was played every sunset, straight after the chook raffle. It was a joyful exodus. I would watch as the men packed the toastrack trams that had running boards and swung perilously at speed and had run over two of my dogs. My ambition was to work the trams.

It was not that I was unhappy delivering newspapers piled in a fruit box that ran on ball bearings, hauling it along streets of liver-bricked flats that stank of the daily cabbage quota. The trick was bowling a rolled-up Australian Women’s Weekly, a formidable missile, so that it missed the milk cans, some with lace doilies, and the dog shit. It was hard. No one applauded and a lot complained. But on the trams it was different; this was the glamour job held by newspaper-boys who were not boys. They wore big old sandshoes and had roll-your-owns permanently stuck to nicotine-stained lips; and they leapt on the running boards between Waverley cricket oval and Nick the fruitologist’s, and when the tram was belting along they leapt off it like skydivers. They never hesitated and they had style. On Saturdays, when they sold the morning editions of the evening papers, the Sydney Sun and Mirror, they yelled out, “Hereyar, Sunormirror, all the starters and riders and somethingtasiton.”

I walked along the Bondi tram route the other day. The trams are long gone, but not their phantoms. I started down at the beach, where I had begun to find my freedom climbing pyramids of green rolling waves, or on lascivious business thereabouts. In tight-lipped times, beaches provided our hedonistic alter egos. In Sydney, their uniqueness is that they are not resorts and are all public spaces, unlike in California and Europe. Beyond today’s bathers, untanned and often fat, there is a glimpse of the down-at-heel city that Sydney was: the same peeling paint and worried eyes of refugees, squinting through lace curtains in semis where no one seems to turn on the light.

I found a stretch of the tramline and stared at it as you do at an archaeological dig. I lost it in the climb up to Denham Street and the Royal, where the trams had disgorged drinkers for the Six O’Clock Swill (the pubs closed at six). As a newspaper-boy, I was allowed into pubs. My mother, being a woman, was barred, apart from the ladies-only room in the back. On Saturdays, my father would bring her out a shandy or, if they had things to discuss, a DA (dinner ale).

“Hereyar, Sunormirror,” I would yell, “all the starters and riders or somethingtasiton.” And when I came home that Saturday, with my clothes torn and knees bleeding, I had to finesse my story, knowing that falling off a tram flat on my face, with my Suns and Mirrors blowing away in a southerly, was worth it. As the tram driver checked my limbs, a woman came out of the Manhattan Flats with a cup of tea and said that I was lucky to be alive. “You’re Elsie’s son, aren’t you?” she said. Then I thought I was dead.

The other day, at the same Manhattan Flats, their grime timeless, I knew I was near to home. Past where the art-deco picture house used to be, there was Moore Street. It was silent now, a former trench of domestic warfare, with bodies and bottles thudding against thin walls, and opaque-eyed men back from the war against the Japanese, their ribcages protruding, and sorrowful women in aprons. The dazzling green of the South Pacific was unchanged, though no longer framed between smoking chimneys and sturdy dunnies.

I stood outside the tiny, dark house in Moore Street where I grew up. The corrugated-iron roof had gone, otherwise little had changed; even the old wooden box containing the gas meter, where I liked to sit waiting for people to come home, was there. I stared at it, and at the same window frames, and the same peeling window ledges, and at the front door; and I failed to find the courage to knock on it.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

The American Empire:Pax Americana or Pox Americana?by John Bellamy Foster and Robert W.McChesney

On June 10, 1963, President John F. Kennedy delivered a commencement address at American University in Washington, D.C., in which he declared that the peace that the United States sought was “not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.” His remarks were a response to criticisms of the United States advanced in a recently published Soviet text on military strategy. Kennedy dismissed the charge that “American imperialist circles” were “preparing to unleash different kinds of wars” including “preventative war.”

The Soviet text, he pointed out, had stated, “The political aims of American imperialists were and still are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries and, after the latter are transformed into obedient tools, to unify them in various military-political blocs and groups directed against the socialist countries. The main aim of all this is to achieve world domination.” In Kennedy’s words, these were “wholly baseless and incredible claims,” the work of Marxist “propagandists.” “The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war.”*

Despite such high level denials, the notion of a “Pax Americana” enforced by American arms was to become the preferred designation for those attempting to justify what was portrayed as a benevolent American Empire. Thus, in his widely read book, Pax Americana, first published in 1967 during the Vietnam War, Ronald Steel wrote of “the benevolent imperialism of Pax Americana” characterized by “empire-building for noble ends rather than for such base motives as profit and influence.” A chapter of Steel’s book on foreign aid as an “element of imperialism” was entitled “The White Man’s Burden,” hearkening back to Rudyard Kipling’s celebrated poem calling on the United States to exercise an imperialist role in the Philippines following the Spanish-American War of 1898.* Such explicit imperial views, largely suppressed in the United States after the U.S. defeat in Vietnam, have now resurfaced in a post–Cold War world marked by U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and by a permanent U.S.-led “War on Terrorism.” Once again we hear establishment calls for the “defense of Pax Americana” and even renewals of the old cry to take up “the White Man’s burden.”

Kennedy had depicted the global military expansion of the United States as an attempt to contain Communism. Today the Cold War is over. The Soviet Union is no more. Yet at the beginning of the 21st century the United States is viewed more than ever by the world population as an imperialist power, enforcing its will unilaterally by force of arms. Since the fall of the Soviet Union we have seen the largest military interventions by the United States in Europe since the Second World War. The U.S. war machine has waged full-scale conventional wars in the Middle East. The United States now has military bases in locales such as Central Asia that were previously beyond the reach of the American Empire. In the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Washington made it clear that it was conducting a preventive war in light of the potential threat represented by weapons of mass destruction that could be used against the United States. The fact that there was no evidence of the existence of such weapons prior to the war did not seem to matter because a declaration by the administration that such weapons existed was deemed sufficient. Nor did it seem to matter after the war that no such weapons were found since once the invasion had taken place the new reality on the ground in Iraq dictated all. In this way imperialism provided its own justification.

Rather than breaking with earlier U.S. history these most recent military actions represent the continuation and acceleration of an old pattern—going back at least to the second half of the 1940s. Major U.S. interventions, both overt and covert, include: China (1945), Greece (1947–49), Korea (1950–53), Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Indochina (1954–73), Lebanon (1958), the Congo (1960–64), Cuba (1961), Indonesia (1965), the Dominican Republic (1965–66), Chile (1973), Angola (1976–92), Lebanon (1982–84), Grenada (1983–84), Afghanistan (1979–1989), El Salvador (1981–92), Nicaragua (1981–90), Panama (1989–90), Iraq (1991), Somalia (1992–94), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1995), Yugoslavia (1999), Afghanistan (2001–present), and Iraq (2003–present). The enormous scale of U.S. military engagement is evident in the fact that its military bases gird the globe. Chalmers Johnson has written in his Sorrows of Empire, “As distinct from other peoples on this earth, most Americans do not recognize—or do not choose to recognize—that the United States dominates the world through its military power. Due to government secrecy, they are often ignorant of the fact that their government garrisons the globe. They do not realize that a vast network of American military bases on every continent but Antarctica actually constitutes a new form of empire.”*

The primary goals of U.S. imperialism have always been to open up investment opportunities to U.S. corporations and to allow such corporations to gain preferential access to crucial natural resources. Inasmuch as such expansion promotes U.S. hegemony it tends to increase the international competitiveness of U.S. firms and the profits they enjoy. At the same time U.S. imperialism promotes the interests of the other core states and of capitalism as a whole insofar as these are in accord with U.S. requirements. Such goals, however, frequently put the United States in conflict with other imperial states since an empire by definition is a sphere of exploitation in which a single imperial power plays the dominant role. Moreover, the logic of empire militates against all attempts to change the status quo in the periphery of the system—if not in the center as well.

For these reasons militarism and imperialism are inseparable for U.S. capitalism, as they are for capitalism as a whole. Although spending almost as much on the military as all other states combined, the United States finds itself constantly in need of more armaments, more new weapons systems, and more soldiers. As it relies increasingly on the military to maintain, and where necessary restore, its economic and political hegemony on a global scale the problem of imperial overstretch becomes chronic and insurmountable.

By the end of the Vietnam War the mask had been torn off the American Empire. In 1970 Steel issued a revised edition of Pax Americana with a new final chapter entitled “No More Vietnams?” The main thrust of this new chapter, written in a period marked by the looming U.S. defeat in Vietnam, was entirely opposed to the chapters that preceded it. “After Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, and the Greek junta,” Steel wrote, “it is not so easy for an American President to speak with a straight face of the nation’s foreign policy being based on the ‘liberation of man’ or the ‘survival of liberty.’”* Pax Americana was revealed as imperialism pure and simple.

Nonetheless, the American Imperium did not fade away with this loss of “face.” The momentum behind such imperialism remained. Washington held on to its empire awaiting new opportunities for expansion. The empire struck back in the late 1970s and ’80s under Carter and Reagan. The rapid decline and fall of the Soviet Union at the beginning of the 1990s opened up the way to a full-scale U.S. military intervention in the Middle East for the first time, with the onset of the 1991 Gulf War between the United States and Iraq. No longer simply intervening against revolutionary movements, the United States, now the sole superpower, gave notice to the world that a substantial departure from the global status quo in any direction would be met with overwhelming force. Noting this, Harry Magdoff and Paul Sweezy wrote in a July-August 1991 article entitled “Pox Americana”:

The United States, it seems, has locked itself into a course with the gravest implications for the whole world. Change is the only certain law of the universe. It cannot be stopped. If societies are prevented from trying to solve their problems in their own ways, they will certainly not solve them in ways dictated by others. And if they cannot move forward, they will inevitably move backward. This is what is happening in a large part of the world today, and the United States, the most powerful nation with unlimited means of coercion at its disposal, seems to be telling the others that this is a fate that must be accepted on pain of violent destruction.*

With the rising death toll of both Iraqis and U.S. soldiers during still another war and occupation, with the atrocities and torture inflicted by the United States in Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere leading to protests across the globe, with the barbarism of the U.S. intervention in Iraq in all of its aspects increasingly evident, it is more difficult than ever to maintain the illusion of the “benevolent imperialism of Pax Americana.” The American Empire has truly become a Pox Americana in the eyes of the world, and exposure of its inner workings has become an urgent necessity. If the United States seems bent, as Magdoff and Sweezy suggested more than a decade ago, on playing “Samson in the temple of humanity” at least now there is a growing world awareness of that fact. The immediate task is to deepen this critical understanding in ways that will help equip humanity for the major anti-imperialist struggles that lie ahead.


Of related interest: Pox Americana: Exposing the American Empireedited by John Bellamy Foster and Robert W. McChesney


Notes


* John F. Kennedy, “Commencement Address at American University,” June 10, 1963 http://www.jfklibrary.org/j06163.htm; V. D. Sokolovskii, Soviet Military Strategy (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963), 149; originally published in the Soviet Union in 1962 under the title Military Strategy. In his speech Kennedy substituted ellipses in the main part of the quotation offered here. Here we quote from the same passage, replacing the ellipses with the actual text.


* Ronald Steel, Pax Americana (New York: Viking Press, 1967), 16–17, 268, 336.


* Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy and the End of the Republic (New York: Henry Holt, 2003), 1.


* Ronald Steel, Pax Americana (New York: Viking Press, 1970), 334.


* Harry Magdoff and Paul M. Sweezy, “Pox Americana,” Monthly Review, 43: 3 (July–August 1991), 1–13.

Monday, February 18, 2008

Venezuela resists ExxonMobil’s blackmail by Kiraz Janicke, Caracas


“This is pure judicial terrorism”, Venezuelan energy minister Rafael Ramirez told reporters in Caracas on February 8, in response to court injunctions obtained by US-based ExxonMobil Corp. — the world’s largest oil corporation — in January.

The injunctions froze more than US$12 billion worth of assets of the Venezuelan state-owned oil company PDVSA in Britain, the Netherlands and the Dutch Antilles. ExxonMobil, parent company in Australia to Esso and Mobil, has also frozen $300 million of PDVSA funds held in a US bank account. “If they think that with this they will get us to backtrack on our nationalisation policies, well, gentleman from ExxonMobil, you are dead wrong again”, Ramirez declared.

As part of a drive to recover full sovereignty over its natural resources, the Venezuelan government of socialist President Hugo Chavez nationalised ExxonMobil’s 41.7% stake in the Cerro Negro project in the Orinoco oil belt in May last year with an offer for compensation. Other major oil companies including US-based Chevron Corp., France’s Total, Britain’s BP PLC, and Norway’s Statoil negotiated deals with Venezuela to remain on as minority partners in the Orinoco oil belt projects following the May 2007 nationalisations.

As well as ExxonMobil, US-based company ConocoPhilips also rejected the nationalisations, but has said it is seeking an “amicable resolution” with Venezuela. ExxonMobil, however, rejected an initial compensation offer from Venezuela and has demanded arbitration. Although the oil giant has not specified how much it wants in compensation, it said its investment in the project was valued at $750 million at the time the assets were taken over. The injunctions were solicited by ExxonMobil in anticipation of an arbitration ruling by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes over a compensation claim.

The court cases are ongoing, and the next hearing in London is scheduled for February 22. The Venezuelan parliament has passed a motion declaring the injunctions illegitimate, claiming it violates Venezuelan sovereignty using the argument that only Venezuelan courts should decide on issues relating to Venezuelan resources. Ramirez accused the US company of using the legal case to destabilise Venezuela, by creating panic over its finances.

The country’s dollar-denominated bonds have experienced their sharpest drop in six months because of fears the government could face a protracted legal battle. PDVSA is a crucial source of funds for the Venezuelan government’s social programs that provide free education and health care to the poor. In 2006, the company spent $13.3 billion on such programs, up from $6.9 billion in 2005. Ramirez said Venezuela was “being attacked by a transnational corporation”, and insisted that Venezuela would not back down from its policy of full oil sovereignty. He declared that “we are going to beat them in this battle”. During his weekly television show, Alo Presidente, on February 11, Chavez argued that ExxonMobil’s actions were part of a US government-backed “economic war” against Venezuela. “They will never rob us again, those bandits of ExxonMobil”, Chavez said.

He described the corporation as “imperialist bandits, white collar criminals, corrupters of governments, over-throwers of governments, who supported the invasion and bombing of Iraq and continue supporting the genocide in Iraq”. Chavez threatened that unless the injunctions were dropped, Venezuela would cease selling oil to the US. Venezuela accounts for 12% of US crude oil supplies, according to US energy department figures from November. Chavez said: “If the economic war continues against Venezuela, the price of oil will reach $200 [per barrel]. Venezuela will take up the economic war and more than one country is inclined to join us.” Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega offered his support to Venezuela, claiming the moves were “a clear imperialist offensive against Venezuela”, and that Venezuela “can count on the unconditional solidarity and approval of the Nicaraguan people”.

On February 12, PDVSA issued a statement explaining that it was freezing all its business dealings with ExxonMobil in retaliation against the injunctions. The previous day, PDVSA instructed its traders to deposit oil receipts with the UBS bank in Switzerland in a move to protect its assets. The actions by ExxonMobil have been roundly rejected by the vast majority of Venezuelans, who rightly see this as an attack on their national sovereignty and right to control their own resources. Protests have been occurring all around the country, including by the oil workers at the nationalised Cerro Negro plant (now renamed Petromonagas).

On February 14, thousands of Venezuelans turned out in the rain at PDVSA headquarters in Caracas to reject Exxon’s imperialist aggression. Many people spoke of the need to mobilise against US aggression, to deepen the struggle for socialism, and to defend the democratically-elected Chavez government. Further demonstrations outside the US embassy have been called, and there are plans for massive mobilisations across Venezuela. Journalist Mari Pili Hernandez, who spoke at the February 14 demonstration, said the most significant thing was that for the first time in ExxonMobil’s history — since its origins as Rockerfeller-owned Standard Oil in the 19th Century — an entire country has stood up to the corporate giant.

There is a real sense of national pride in this defiance. There has also been a sense of anger among poorer sectors towards the reaction of the pro-capitalist opposition — based on the elite that governed Venezuela before Chavez came to power — who have largely sided with ExxonMobil in the dispute. The US-funded opposition have gloated over the freezing of PDVSA’s assets and blamed the government for its nationalisation policies — once again exposing them as lackeys of US imperialism, as well as revealing their hostility to policies that benefit the majority of Venezuelans. Luis Carvajal, a union leader at the Cerro Nero/Petromonagas plant said: “This transnational has exploited our wealth, our workers and violated our rights — all the workers in the Orinoco oil belt support the nationalisation.”

[Kiraz Janicke is a member of the Green Left Weekly Caracas bureau. This article is largely compiled from articles originally posted on Venezuelanalysis.com. The Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Network has produced an online sign-on statement in solidarity with Venezuela against ExxonMobil’s attacks, which calls for ExxonMobil to withdraw its legal actions.

The AVSN is also seeking to initiate an international day of protest against ExxonMobil and in defence of Venezuelan sovereignty for February 29. To sign the statement, and for details of protest actions, visit http://www.venezuelasolidarity.org/?q=node/2397.]

From: International News, Green Left Weekly issue #740 20 February 2008.

Musharraf’s Playbook is the Same as the Bush Administration’s by Naomi Wolf and Shahid Buttar

This post was informed by Shahid’s participation in a National Lawyer’s Guild-led delegation to Pakistan last December. The delegation, which consisted of four lawyers and four law students from around the U.S., visited several areas across Pakistan in early January and interviewed over 50 engaged participants in Pakistani government and civil society throughout the country, including jurists, elected officials, lawyers, journalists, civil servants, political party representatives, candidates for public office, international diplomats, students and activists.

The delegation’s preliminary report, “Defending Democracy: U.S. Foreign Policy and Pakistan’s Struggle for Democracy,” is posted here. Most of the Bush/Musharraf parallels in this post were drawn by Shahid; I (Naomi) have contributed some additional thoughts about the situation in the U.S. and Bush’s negative influence on the world.

As we know well in this country, elections are a time for reflection. They are a time to consider who we are as a nation and what we want to become. Sometimes it is appropriate to stop and think about how lucky we are to have the freedom to make these kinds of choices. We should also think about the fact that there is no guarantee these freedoms will remain forever.

Take Pakistan, for example. Having endured a U.S.-backed military coup, martial law, and the assassination of their most visible opposition leader, Pakistanis will head to the polls on Monday to select members of their National Assembly in elections already plagued by widespread allegations of illegitimacy. Observers across the political spectrum have noted persisting restrictions on the press, politicized election administration at both the local and federal level, and the conspicuous lack of an independent judiciary to resolve electoral disputes.

Sadly, the United States is doing very little to help the situation in Pakistan and may well be making it worse. The Bush administration has consistently pressed for these elections to proceed despite security concerns and various allegations of unfairness. Not surprisingly, from an administration installed by a controversial Supreme Court ruling, its view appears to be that elections confer legitimacy on whichever regime emerges victorious, regardless of complaints about how the votes were tallied.

Even worse, these electoral similarities are only the tip of an iceberg reflecting deep connections between the agenda of the Bush administration and the Musharraf regime. While criticism has abounded of Musharraf’s various abuses of the rule of law, observers have generally overlooked the means Musharraf has taken to squelch dissent of his administration, and how they resemble some of the tactics Americans have seen domestically. As one prominent anchor of a major Pakistani television news program suggested when discussing the threats to democracy in his country, “Musharraf’s playbook is the same as the Bush administration’s.”

This is especially disturbing to me, as I have written recently about how the Bush administration seems to be following the playbook of twentieth century leaders, such as Stalin and Mussolini, who shut down democracies in their own countries. It is painful to think that the Bush administration is filling a similar role, making the United States of America an example for would-be tyrants.

At a broad level, both Bush and Musharraf have consistently magnified real threats to security in their public communications in order to promote fear and intimidate political opponents. In America, fear of another catastrophic attack in the wake of 9/11 was used to justify the round-ups of material witnesses, domestic spying and the PATRIOT Act. Meanwhile, in Pakistan, the threat of armed fundamentalists was cited as the reason to sack the Supreme Court and restrict the press.

In carrying out this governance by fear, both administrations have claimed that domestic checks on their agendas have given comfort to the enemy, effectively (if not literally) saying that “You’re either with us, or against us.” Nor have these accusations been confined to civil society.
Musharraf has framed Pakistan’s former Supreme Court — which he sacked with U.S. support in November for the second time last year — as having interfered in his counter-terrorism efforts. Similarly, in addition to accusing opponents of the War in Iraq of undermining “our troops,” officials in the Bush administration have derogated other branches of the federal government in order to aggrandize the executive branch.

For instance, the White House has refused to provide Congress with documents necessary to understand the legal basis of the administration’s torture policy, and when faced by challenges brought by detainees, sought to evade the jurisdiction of appellate courts such as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, from which a prominent conservative judge resigned in alleged protest.

The detainee cases are especially poignant. Both Musharraf and Bush have assaulted civil liberties, arguing against habeas corpus rights for detainees and resisting judicial efforts to ensure impartial trials. Student activists from Balochistan were imprisoned and even “disappeared” by Pakistani agents, while hundreds of detainees were imprisoned without trials for years at Guantanamo Bay.

Recently, the Bush administration announced that six of these detainees would be tried in military court for their alleged involvement in 9/11, despite the fact that much of the evidence to be used against them was obtained as the result of torture and abuse.

While Musharraf’s attack on judicial independence took the form of sacking the Supreme Court, removing the majority of its justices and jailing several of them, Bush has also compromised judicial independence, though in a more subtle fashion. When vacancies emerged on the U.S. Supreme Court, Bush nominated a pair of Justices whose principal qualification was prior service in the Reagan-era Department of Justice, where they championed aggressive theories aggrandizing executive power.

Chief Justice Roberts even violated ethical rules by interviewing with the White House for his Supreme Court appointment at the same as he sat in judgment on White House detainee policy in the Hamdan case, in which he cast a deciding vote for the administration — before the Supreme Court later reversed the decision.

Both Bush and Musharraf have largely ignored the real security threats they use to promote fear. Bush started a war in Afghanistan only to then grow distracted by an Iraq conflict whose only relation to terrorism was to encourage more of it. Musharraf has ignored his regime’s ongoing support for militants despite the threat they pose to his own government, instead spending U.S. money on high-tech force structure (such as F-16s) for a hypothetical war with India.

Both presidents practice belligerence in their foreign policy decisions. Musharraf launched a war in the Himalayas before seizing power in 1999, for which he derived massive public support. The invasion of Iraq was similarly used by the Bush administration to rally support behind its other agendas.

And, perhaps most significantly, both Presidents have taken strong measures to intimidate the press. Musharraf removed entire channels from the air, while banning certain personalities from appearing and censoring what little content remained. Those journalists who challenge the media blackout — at least in Urdu-language outlets most watched by Pakistanis — are subject to intimidation and personal threats. In the U.S., journalists who have exposed state secrets (such as the domestic spying program revealed by The New York Times) have been threatened with prosecution.

President Bush once promised that his administration would spread freedom around the world. Instead, he is apparently teaching other world leaders how to promote fear and diminish freedoms in order to assume and maintain power. He has nothing to share, but fear itself.
Shahid Buttar is a civil rights lawyer, hip-hop MC, grassroots community organizer, and independent journalist. His commentary has appeared in various print and broadcast outlets, including The Washington Post; The New York Times; Bloomberg; Hannity & Colmes on FOX News; The Laura Flanders Show on Air America; TomPaine.com; Alternet; Common Dreams; and Democracy Now! on NPR, which named one of his public addresses among “The Best of 2004.”

Naomi Wolf is the author of The New York Times bestseller “The End of America” (Chelsea Green) and is the co-founder of the American Freedom Campaign.

Published on Saturday, February 16, 2008 by Huffington Post

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Ground-Truthing the Surge, Is the US Really Bringing Stability to Baghdad? By PATRICK COCKBURN

To judge from the talk in Washington, the 'surge' that put 30,000 more US troops on the ground in Iraq has succeeded in bringing stability to a nation still riven by ethnic, religious and tribal conflict. Life, the Pentagon boasts, is returning to normal. But the truth is a very different story.
People in Baghdad are not passive victims of violence, but seek desperately to avoid their fate.

In April 2004, I was almost killed by Shia militiamen of the Mehdi Army at a checkpoint at Kufa in southern Iraq. They said I was an American spy and were about to execute me and my driver, Bassim Abdul Rahman, when they decided at the last moment to check with their commander. "I believe," Bassim said afterwards, "that if Patrick had an American or an English passport [instead of an Irish one] they would have killed us all immediately.


"In the following years, I saw Bassim less and less. He is a Sunni, aged about 40, from west Baghdad. After the battle for Baghdad between Shia and Sunni in 2006, he could hardly work as a driver as three-quarters of the capital was controlled by the Shia. There were few places where a Sunni could drive in safety outside a handful of enclaves.


What happened to Bassim was also to happen to millions of Iraqis who saw their lives ruined by successive calamities. As their world collapsed around them they were forced to take desperate measures to survive, obtain a job and make enough money to feed and educate their families.
In the US and Europe, the main measure of whether the war in Iraq is "going well" or "going badly" is the casualty figures. The number of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians being killed went down to 39 US soldiers and 599 Iraqi civilians in January. The White House is promoting the idea that the United States is finally on the road to success, if not victory, in Iraq.


On the back of this renewed optimism about the war, Senator John McCain, the premier hawk among the Republican candidates for the presidency, has been able to revive his foundering campaign and is set to be his party's nominee. Despite the skepticism of many US journalists permanently stationed in Iraq, television and newspaper newsrooms in New York and Washington have largely bought into the idea that "the surge"--the wider deployment of 30,000 extra US troops since February 2006--has succeeded.


But any true assessment of the happiness or misery of Iraqis must use a less crude index than the number of dead and injured. It must ask if people have been driven from their houses, and if they can return. It must say whether they have a job and, if they do not, whether they stand a chance of getting one. It has to explain why so few of the 3.2 million people who are refugees in Syria and Jordan, or inside Iraq, are coming back.


At the time we had our encounter with the Mehdi Army in Kufa, Bassim was living in a house in the mixed Sunni-Shia area of Jihad in south-west Baghdad. He loved the house, which had a sitting room and two bedrooms, because he had built it himself in 2001. "I didn't complete it because I didn't have enough money," he said. "But we were so happy to have our own home."
He was living there in the summer of 2006 with his wife Maha, 38, and his children Sarah, 13, Noor, eight, and Sama, three, when Shia militiamen took over Jihad.


The struggle for the capital had begun on February 22 when Sunni insurgents blew up a revered Shia shrine in Samarra. Bassim fled to Syria with his family and, when he returned to Jihad three months later, he found pictures of Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia nationalist cleric who heads the Mehdi Army, pasted to the gate of his house.


Neighbors told Bassim to get out as fast as he could before the Mehdi Army militiamen came back and killed him. He drove with his family to his father-in-law's house in the tough Sunni district of al-Khadra, where he and his wife and three children were to live in future in a single small room.


He did not dare go back to his old home, but he heard about it in the summer of 2007 from a friendly Shia neighbour who said it had been taken over by militiamen. "They accused me," says Bassim, "of being a high-rank officer in the former intelligence service and because of that they got a permit [from al-Sadr's office] to take it over."


Two Shia families moved in for a couple of months and, when they left, they took all his remaining belongings. They left the house unlocked, and soon the wooden doors and other fittings were gone. The permanent loss of his home, his only possession of any value apart from his car, was a terrible blow to Bassim and his wife.


"I have nothing else to lose aside from my house," he wrote to me in a sad letter in the autumn of 2007, "and because of what happened I had a heart attack. I worked as a taxi driver for a few days, but I couldn't do it any longer because of the dangerous situation and I had no other way of earning a living. Finally, I sold my car and my wife's few gold things and I will try to go to Sweden even if I have to go illegally."


I thought his plan to travel to Sweden was a terrible one, as Bassim spoke only Arabic and had not travelled outside Iraq, apart from a few trips to Syria and Jordan. But there was nothing I could do to dissuade him. I did not see or hear from him for six months, though I heard from his friends that his bid to reach Sweden had failed and that he was stuck in Kuala Lumpur.


Then, on February 1, he appeared at the door of my hotel room in Baghdad, looking shrunken and miserable, and told me of his strange and disastrous odyssey.


I had originally hoped that his plan to travel illegally to Sweden was a fantasy he would never try to realize, but everything he had said in his letter turned out to be true. He had sold his car, his wife's gold jewellery and some furniture for $6,500 (about £3,300) and borrowed $1,500 from his sister and the same amount from friends. Of this, $6,900 was paid to Abu Mohammed, an Iraqi in Sweden, who provided Bassim and a friend called Ibrahim with Lithuanian passports (these turned out to be genuine, but one of Bassim's many fears over the next three months was that his passport was a fake and he would be thrown in jail).


The two men went first to Damascus and then, instructed over the phone by Abu Mohammed in Sweden, they flew to Malaysia.


This would seem to be the wrong direction, but Malaysia has the great advantage of being one of the few countries to give Iraqis entry visas at the airport. Bassim and Ibrahim took rooms at the cheapest hotel they could find in Kuala Lumpur.They were then told by Abu Mohammed to get a plane to Cambodia and take a bus to Vietnam.


Though their money was fast dwindling, they did so. Somehow, still speaking only Arabic, they made their way from Phnom Penh to Ho Chi Minh City. The plan was to get a ticket to Sweden by way of France (Bassim now thinks that this was a mistake and it would have been better to travel first to Lithuania, posing as citizens returning home, but this would have left the two Iraqis with the problem of explaining to officials there why they did not speak Lithuanian).


In the check-in queue at the airport in Vietnam on January 5 this year, Bassim was desperately worried he would be detected. He had staked all his remaining money and his family's future on getting to Sweden. In fact, he and Ibrahim had little chance of being allowed on to the plane. Too many Iraqis, claiming to be citizens of small East European states, had tried this route before. Suspicious Vietnamese immigration officials took them to an investigation room where Bassim felt ill and asked for a glass of water, which was refused. He and Ibrahim continued to protest that they were Lithuanian citizens and demanded to be taken to the Lithuanian embassy, knowing full well that Lithuania is unrepresented in Vietnam.


It was all in vain. The officials guessed that they were Iraqis. They sent Bassim and Ibrahim back to Cambodia. Half-starved because he did not like the local food--"I was used to Iraqi bread," he recalled later--and with his money almost gone, Bassim made his way back to Kuala Lumpur by the end of January. He last saw his friend Ibrahim heading for Indonesia in a small boat.


Abu Mohammed in Sweden became elusive and, when finally contacted by phone after six days, admitted that "for Iraqis, all the ways from Asia to Sweden are shut". He did not offer to return Bassim's $6,900. Demoralized, and hearing that many Iraqi refugees trying to get to Europe through Indonesia simply disappeared, Bassim used his last few dollars to fly to Damascus and took a shared taxi across the desert to Baghdad. "The journey took three months but it felt like 10 years," he said. "I have lost everything."


Life in the Iraq to which Bassim has returned is said by foreigners and Iraqis alike to be getting better. Perky pieces in the foreign media breathlessly describe how Sunni children are once again playing football in al-Zahra park near the Green Zone, where they would have been murdered a year ago. "The problem," complained one American correspondent in Baghdad, "is that newsrooms back home have two mindsets--'War Rages' and 'Peace Dawns'--and not a lot in between."


Previous claims of an improvement in security by the US or the Iraqi government had been wholly false. I remembered Paul Bremer, the US viceroy during the first year of the occupation, claiming that the Sunni insurgents were a doomed remnant battling against "the new Iraq". When Bremer left in 2004, he was shown on television clambering into one helicopter and then, when the cameras departed, scuttling on to a second aircraft in case those same insurgents might shoot him down.


In contrast to the spurious turning-points of the past, the most recent political changes in Iraq, which had led to the fall in American and Iraqi casualties, are quite real. But they differ significantly from the way in which they are portrayed in the outside world, and have less to do with al-Qa'ida and the US than the continuing struggle for power between Sunni and Shia in Iraq.


From the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003 to the summer of 2006, the five million-strong Sunni community had battled the US and the Shia-Kurdish Iraqi government. Then, quite suddenly, last year many of the Sunni rebel groups switched sides and allied themselves with the Americans, formed the "al-Sahwa" or "Awakening" movement and declared war on al-Qa'ida.
Dramatic changes of side when enemies embrace each other are not unknown in Iraqi politics and may stem from its traditions of tribal warfare.


I was in Iraqi Kurdistan in 1996 when the Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani, many of whose family and tribe had been murdered by Saddam Hussein, called in Saddam's tanks to capture the city of Arbil and to repulse an offensive by the rival Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani, now president of Iraq.


The US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and the US ambassador, Ryan Crocker, are cautious about claiming too much success. But the White House and the Republicans have been quick to suggest that a turning point had been reached in the war. As in 2003, after the American overthrow of Saddam, both the Democrats and much of the American media could be easily intimidated by the fear that they were being unpatriotic or defeatist when military victory was in sight.


"The problem in Iraq is that the agenda is driven not by what is really happening, but by the perception in America of what is happening," Ahmad Chalabi, veteran of the opposition to Saddam and one of the most astute observers of the Iraqi scene, told me. A problem is that US politicians and commentators assume far greater American control of events in Iraq than is the case. The US is the most powerful player there, but it is by no means the only one.


The dramatic change of sides of Sunni guerrilla organizations such as the "1920 Revolution Brigades" and the "Islamic Army" came about for many reasons. In Anbar province west of Baghdad (perhaps one-third of Iraq by area), the Sunni tribes had become enraged by al-Qa'ida's attempt to establish total dominance, and to replace or murder traditional leaders and set up a Taliban-type state. But the Sunni community could also see that, although its guerrilla war was effective against the US, it was being defeated by the Shia who controlled the Iraqi government and armed forces after the elections of 2005.


The only source of money in Iraq is oil revenues, and the only jobs--four million, if those on a pension are included--are with the government. The Shia, in alliance with the Kurds, controlled both. "The Sunni people found that the only way to be protected from the Shia was to be allied to the Americans," said Kassim Ahmed Salman, a well-educated Sunni from west Baghdad.


"Otherwise we were in a hopeless situation. For the last two years it has been possible for Sunni to be killed legally [by death squads covertly supported by the government] in Baghdad."
The "surge"--the 30,000 extra US troops implementing a new security plan in Baghdad--has helped to make Baghdad safer. In effect, they have frozen into place the Shia victory of 2006.


The city is broken up into enclaves sealed off by concrete walls with only one entrance and exit.
Areas that were once mixed are not being reoccupied by whichever community was driven out. Bassim can no more reclaim, or even visit, his house in the Jihad district of Baghdad than he could a year ago. He can still work as a taxi driver only in Sunni areas. The US military and the Iraqi government are wary of even trying to reverse sectarian cleansing because this might break the present fragile truce.


"People say things are better than they were," says Zanab Jafar, a well-educated Shia woman living in al-Hamraa, west Baghdad, "but what they mean is that they are better than [during] the bloodbath of 2006. The situation is still terrible."


Baghdad still feels and looks like a city at war. There are checkpoints everywhere. "You seldom see young girls walking in the streets, or in restaurants," adds Zanab Jafar, "because their families are terrified they will be kidnapped, so they send private cars to pick them up directly from school." New shops open, but they are always in the heart of districts controlled by a single community because nobody wants to venture far from their home to shop.


For all the talk of Baghdad being safer, it remains an extraordinarily dangerous place. One Western security company is still asking $3,000 to pick a man up at the airport and drive him six miles to his hotel in central Baghdad. The number of dead bodies being picked up by the police every morning in the capital is down to three or four when once it was 50 or 60.


"People are being killed in the back streets and alleyways but not in the main roads as they were 12 months ago," says one Shia leader with a network of contacts throughout Baghdad. "About twice as many people are being killed as the government admits."


This figure is still well below what it was 18 months ago, and is unlikely to return to its previous level as long as al-Qa'ida does not resume its suicide bombing campaign, using trucks loaded with a ton of explosives detonated in the middle of Shia markets or religious processions, killing and wounding hundreds. If the attacks on the two bird markets in Shia areas on February 1, killing 99 people, are repeated, then Shia death squads will start a fresh cycle of tit-for-tat killings of Sunni.


The new element in Iraq is the development of the Awakening Council, or al-Sahwa, movement. Suddenly there is a Sunni militia, paid by the US, that has 80,000 men under arms. This re-empowers the Sunni community far more than any legislation passed by the Iraqi parliament. But it also deepens the divisions in Iraq because the leaders of the Awakening do not bother to hide their hatred and contempt for the Iraqi government.


At the end of January, I visited Abu Marouf, one of the leaders of the Awakening, in his headquarters near Khan Dari, halfway between Abu Ghraib and Fallujah. Asked about his attitude to the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Abu Marouf, until recently a commander of the 1920 Revolution Brigades, said: "Maliki has got 13 divisions [in the army] most of whom are Shia, and half are from militias controlled by Iran."


In his State of the Union address, President Bush spoke of the 80,000 Awakening Council members--also labelled "concerned local citizens", as if they were respectable householders who have taken up arms against "terrorists".


The picture Bush evoked is similar to that often seen in Hollywood Westerns when outraged townsfolk and farmers, driven beyond endurance by the crimes of a corrupt sheriff or saloon owner and their bandit followers, rise in revolt. In reality, in Iraq the exact opposite has happened. The Awakening Council members of today are the "terrorists" of yesterday.


Even the police chief of Fallujah, Colonel Feisal, the brother of Abu Marouf, cheerfully explained that until he was promoted to his present post in December 2006 he was "fighting the Americans". Abu Marouf is threatening to go back to war or let al-Qa'ida return unless his 13,000 men receive long-term jobs in the Iraqi security services. The Iraqi government has no intention of allowing this because to do so would be to allow the Sunni and partisans of Saddam Hussein's regime to once again hold real power in the state.


Bizarrely, the US is still holding hundreds of men suspected of contacts with al-Qa'ida in Afghanistan and elsewhere, while in Iraq many of the Awakening members are past and, in many cases, probably current members of al-Qa'ida being paid by the US Army.


"I knew a young man, aged 17 or 18," says Kassim Ahmed Salman, "who was a friend of my brother and used to carry a PKC [a Russian light machine-gun] and fight for al-Qa'ida. I was astonished to see him a few days ago in al-Khadra where he is a lieutenant in al-Sahwa, standing together with Iraqi army officers."


The present state of Iraq is highly unstable, but nobody quite wants to go to war again. It reminds me of lulls in the Lebanese civil war during the 1970s and 1980s, when everybody in Beirut rightly predicted that nothing was solved and the fighting would start again. In Iraq the fighting has never stopped, but the present equilibrium might go on for some time.


All the Iraqi players are waiting to see at what rate the US will draw down its troop levels. The Mehdi Army is discussing ending its six-month ceasefire, but does not want to fight its Shia rivals if they are supported by American military power. Al-Qa'ida is wounded but by no means out of business. Four days after I had seen Abu Marouf, who was surrounded by bodyguards and maintains extreme secrecy about his movements, al-Qa'ida was able to detonate a bomb in a car close to his house and injure four of his guards.


Protestations of amity between Shia security men and Awakening members should be treated with scepticism. My friend, the intrepid French television reporter Lucas Menget, filmed a Shia policeman showering praise on the Awakening movement. He introduced two of its members, declaring enthusiastically to the camera: "You see, together we will defeat al-Qa'ida." Back in his police car, the policeman, lighting up a Davidoff cigarette and shaking his head wearily, explained: "I don't have a choice. I was asked to work with these killers."


Iraq remains a great sump of human degradation and poverty, unaffected by the "surge". It was not a government critic but the civilian spokesman for the Baghdad security plan, Tahseen Sheikhly, who pointed out this week that the city is drowning in sewage because of blocked and broken pipes and drains. In one part of the city, the sewage has formed a lake so large that it can be seen "as a big black spot on Google Earth".


In the coming weeks, we will see the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq by American and British forces on March 19, and the fall of Saddam Hussein on April 9. There will be much rancorous debate in the Western media about the success or failure of the "surge" and the US war effort here.


But for millions of Iraqis like Bassim, the war has robbed them of their homes, their jobs and often their lives. It has brought them nothing but misery and ended their hopes of happiness. It has destroyed Iraq.


Patrick Cockburn is the author of 'The Occupation: War, resistance and daily life in Iraq', a finalist for the National Book Critics' Circle Award for best non-fiction book of 2006. His forthcoming book 'Muqtada! Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia revival and the struggle for Iraq' is published by Scribner in April.

Friday, February 15, 2008

The Obama phenomenon in perspective Editorial from US Socialist Worker



BARACK OBAMA is edging ahead of the one-time “inevitable” Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton--on the strength of a campaign that has tapped into mass discontent with the status quo and the desire for a genuine and fundamental alternative.

In the caucuses and primaries after Super Tuesday, Obama went eight for eight, winning by a resounding margin in every case. Adding in the results before February 5 and the split decision on Super Tuesday itself, a majority of media estimates had Obama with a slight, though definite, lead in overall convention delegates.

More striking than details like the delegate count, however, is the intense excitement generated by Obama's campaign--most obviously among African Americans and young voters who are turning out for the primaries in record numbers, but now reaching across the different categories of the electorate.

If you look more closely at his actual positions and proposals, Obama is firmly within the moderate mainstream of the Democratic Party and largely indistinguishable from Clinton. But the resonance he has found for his calls for “change” has set him apart.
Increasingly, Obama's campaign has sought to portray itself as a movement, building from the grassroots.

As Los Angeles Times columnist Rosa Brooks pointed out, “Obama aired a 30-second Super Bowl ad that drew unabashedly on the iconography of the American left...[offering] images of rallies and protest marches, of poverty and environmental destruction, of the devastation of war and of beaming, hopeful, multiracial crowds...

“Whatever the causes, Americans seem eager to reclaim a spirit of idealism that many thought ended with the 1960s, to embrace a heritage that acknowledges conflict and struggle, but also hope and progress.

“Obama's Super Bowl ad represented a gamble: a bet that the symbolism of past social movements is now more likely to give Americans a thrill than a chill. And the matter-of-factness with which his ad was greeted--and Obama's electoral success so far--suggest that his campaign correctly read the national mood.”

Brooks is right, and there's more to the point she makes. By pressing on the idea that ordinary people, rather than political leaders, have made the difference in history, the Obama campaign is legitimizing ideas of struggle and grassroots mobilization--something missing from U.S. politics for many decades.

Coming after the cynicism and demoralization bred by years of stagnating living standards for working-class people and the political dominance of the Republican right, this is a breath of fresh air.

Plus, there is the historic significance of Obama's campaign--that an African American could quite possibly become president of a country that was founded on slavery, and where an apartheid system reigned across the U.S. South a few generations ago.

At the same time, it is important to remember that Obama is not a radical. He is dressing his campaign with the trappings of social movements of the past, but his goal is not actually to build a new movement, but rather to win an election.

If he does get the nomination, Obama will be the representative of a political party that has always put the interests of the business and political elite first, before the demands of the majority in society--and his own record shows no sign that he would defy this history, whatever his rhetoric on the campaign trail.

Anyone committed to fighting for change today should see how Obama's campaign has raised hopes and expectations. People are becoming convinced of that most basic sentiment at the heart of all the great struggles of the past: that what we do matters--and that could mean more in the future than the candidate trying to employ this sentiment to gain votes.

But there is another lesson to be drawn from all the social struggles invoked by Obama's campaign--the civil rights movement, the fight for women's suffrage, the struggle for unions. Their strength rested on the willingness to remain independent and mobilize for justice, no matter what president was sitting in the White House.

SO WHAT happens now?

Clinton can't be counted out by any means. Still, her strategy seems increasingly desperate: hold on through Obama's victories in this month's primaries; hope that her current opinion-poll lead holds up in Ohio and Texas, the biggest states voting on March 4; and use a victory then to get party leaders to put pressure on Obama to accept Clinton as the winner and give up on the race.
But even if Clinton does win Ohio and Texas, it's likely that Obama will still be ahead in “pledged delegates”--that is, delegates to the August national convention awarded on the basis of the candidates' share of the vote in the actual primaries and caucuses.

At that point, Clinton's claim that she should be the nominee would rely on her edge among the “superdelegates”--the nearly 800 party leaders who have been given a vote at the convention based on their holding office now or in the past, or their position within the party apparatus.
Under this set-up, the convention vote of, for example, Georgia's U.S. Rep. John Lewis, a superdelegate who supports Clinton, will count for as much as a pledged delegate from Georgia won by Obama--each of which represents the preferences of more than 10,000 Georgia voters in the February 5 primary.

As Donna Brazile, the former campaign manager for Al Gore in 2000, put it, “One person, one vote? Forget about it. Some votes are worth more than others.”

Still, pro-Clinton party leaders would have a hard time winning on this basis alone. For one thing, the legitimacy of the Democratic Party would be called into question. If party big-wigs were seen as ramming through the nomination, it would undermine the enthusiastic support during the primaries for both Obama and Clinton, perhaps to the extent of jeopardizing the more-than-likely Democratic victory in November.

Also, despite his rhetoric, Obama is far from a radical outsider in the Democratic Party. He has plenty of support among party leaders, including Sens. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle--all superdelegates themselves. To some degree, Obama's campaign has become a rallying point for factions of the Democratic establishment that are tired of the Clintons and their supporters running the party apparatus for the last two decades.

The superdelegates are bound to no one, so if Obama continues to have the edge in upcoming primaries, the majority of superdelegates who have yet to declare themselves for either candidate could go to him, erasing Clinton's advantage--for that matter, the superdelegates currently pledged to Clinton could switch sides.

But there is a flip side to this: If Obama calculates that he can't overcome Clinton's superdelegate advantage, he is far more likely to give in and accept her nomination--perhaps in return for the vice presidential nomination or some other accommodation--than try to challenge the party rules by mobilizing pressure from his base.

The related question is how low the Clinton team could sink as the convention approaches. They've already used dirty tricks--like Bill Clinton's race-baiting before the South Carolina primary in an effort to marginalize Obama as “the Black candidate,” or the string of supporters who found some reason to refer to the ancient history of Obama's drug use.

The Clintons aren't used to losing and won't concede defeat unless they think they've tried every avenue--whether it's the high road or the low.

DESPITE THEIR differing styles and rhetoric, Clinton and Obama are much closer to each other politically--and even to the Republicans they promise to oppose--than they are to the mass of people who are voting for them in the hopes that they will bring fundamental changes to Washington when they take over the White House.

But Election 2008 is important in a wider sense--it has provided further evidence of the mass popular rejection of George Bush and his Republican agenda, and it has raised the hopes of millions of people for something new.

Those hopes will be important in the struggles of the future--after the election and before it, too--to fight for a real alternative to a world of war, poverty and injustice.