Report on the CodePink delegation to Pakistan

by Joe Lombardo, UNAC co-coordinator

I arrived in Islamabad at 2:30 am on October 3 with about 7 other members of our delegation after a grueling flight from New York. We were part of the Code Pink anti-drone delegation to Pakistan. On arrival in Islamabad, we were amazed to see a large group of people welcoming us from the Aafia Siddiqui movement. This is a movement in support of Aafia Siddiqui who is in solitary confinement in a Texas prison serving an 86 year sentence. Aafia, like other Muslims in prison in the U.S. as part of the phony “War on Terror,” is guilty of nothing. I will explain more about her case later in this report.

After arriving at our guest house where the entire delegation was staying, I had about 1/2 hours sleep before meeting the rest of the delegation at our orientation. Others on the delegation include Col. Ann Wright, who quit the military and her diplomatic post over the invasion of Iraq, Medea Benjamin, the dynamic leader of Code Pink, Leah Bolger, president of Veterans for Peace and UNAC administrative committee member, Judy Bello of the Upstate NY Coalition to Ground the Drones and End the Wars and UNAC administrative committee member and a host of other wonderful activists and individuals, including 3 other members of the Upstate New York Coalition. We were 31 people in all.

On our first day in Pakistan, we met with the acting U.S. ambassador, Richard E. Hoagland, who made the fantastic statement that no civilians have been killed by the drones since 2008 (the year Obama became president). At another time he said the civilian casualties were in the 2 figures (< 100).

We also held a meeting with a leading human rights fighter and with Fowzia Siddiqui, Aafia Siddiqui’s sister.

Aafia Siddiqui is a young Pakistani woman who was educated in the U.S. She did undergraduate work at MIT and got doctorate from Brandeis. She eventually returned to Karachi, Pakistan where her family lives. She had 3 children, 2 born in the U.S., making them U.S. citizens. In 2003, Aafia took her 3 children, ages 6 months to 6 years, on a trip to Islamabad and disappeared. The U.S. and Pakistani government both denied having her in custody. Five years passed and her family feared she and her children were dead when they got word from a reporter that she was alive and at Bagram Air base in Afghanistan. NBC news also confirmed this and the U.S. government finally admitted they had her in custody. She was taken to the U.S. and tried for assaulting a U.S. soldier in Ghazni, Afghanistan while she was in custody waiting to be interrogated. During this alleged incident, 4'11" Aafia was shoot twice. She was convicted and is now serving 86 year in solitary confinement at the notorious Carswell prison in Texas. Her family has had almost no contact with her and have been denied the right to visit. Her son Ahmed, a U.S. citizen, was found in 2008 in Ghazni, Afghjanistan. He was then reunited with Aafia’s sister, who heads her defense campaign in Pakistan. Aafia’s daughter, Maryum, also a U.S. citizen, was mysteriously dropped off in April 2010 near her aunt’s house in Karachi after being missing for 7 years. When dropped off, the only language she knew was English, which she spoke with a perfect American accent. Aafia’s youngest child, a boy, remains missing and is feared dead.

At night, some of us met with members of the newly formed Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) chapter of Pakistan. We had a good discussion. One of the themes that came out and that I have heard from others progressive people in Pakistan was that maybe the drones are not that bad. They only hit the "militants" who are violent themselves, and if they were not used, the Pakistani military would have to attack the "militants" and many more would be killed. We explained our view that the so called "militants" were there because of the war in Afghanistan. If you want to end the "militant" actions, you need to stop the war. This theme of the drones not being so bad is one that we heard a number of times in Pakistan from the secular progressive movement who is against the U.S. wars. People we met from the left, such as the Labour Party of Pakistan (LPP), were clear that they were totally against the drones and the wars but they also held a position against the “militants.” I had long discussions with them on this. The secular left and the conservative Islamic movement, while agreeing on the need to fight U.S. imperialism, have been mortal enemies and, at times, have physically battled each other. Our delegation got a hint of this at a meeting that the LPP set up for our delegation with the Bar Association of Islamabad, which I will report on later in this article. The people from the LPP whom I spoke with understood why, in the U.S., our focus is totally on U.S. imperialism.

On our second day in Pakistan, I spent a lot of time apart from our delegation. In the morning, Judy Bello and I spoke at a press conference with Fowzia Siddiqui and people from the Committee of the Disappeared. As in Latin American under various dictatorships, people in Pakistan were disappeared as happened to Aafia Saddiqui. Judy and I spoke at the press conference along with Aafia’s sister, the woman who heads the Committee of the Disappeared and a couple of other people. There were a lot of media, and they asked a lot of good questions. Outside the press conference, about 100 people, mostly women and children who are family members of the disappeared were waiting for us. We met with them. They wanted to be with us, many were crying. They carried pictures of their loved ones in the hope that it would help them find them. It was one of those situations where you just feel helpless, and there is nothing that you can say.

After the press conference and our meeting with the disappeared, we met up with the rest of our group and attended a press conference with Imran Khan. The press conference was huge and had media from all across Pakistan, from the U.S. and around the world. Medea spoke for our group. It was clear to me at this press conference how important our tour to Pakistan was and how glad I was that

Code Pink had the ability and political clarity to organize it. Our tour raised the profile of the drone issue in Pakistan, the U.S. and other places. It was a big blow to U.S. war policy and put the U.S. on the defensive on this issue. It happened at the very time that a study from Stanford and NYU and another study from Columbia on the use of drone warfare came out condemning drone warfare and explaining the affects on the civilian population. Since then, there have been a number of articles in the corporate media questioning the use of drones.

That night I went to the home of one of the people from the Labour Party of Pakistan (LPP) and met with about 10 people. We had a long informal exchange of ideas. They wanted to know everything about the antiwar movement and the left in the U.S. They told me about their merger plans with two other secular left parties in Pakistan, the Workers Party and the People’s Party. This merger is big news in progressive circles in Pakistan, and we heard about it in several places.

On April 9, 2011, when UNAC held demonstrations against the wars in New York and San Francisco, the Labour Party of Pakistan organized solidarity actions in several cities in Pakistan

After our discussion, I was taken to the office of the Tribune newspaper, where I met the staff and editors and had a long interview.

On our third day in Pakistan, we met with a number of men who had had family members killed in drone attacks. They all were from North Waziristan. Before they came, our hosts told us that they may be uncomfortable in a room with both men and women and may not make eye contact with the women out of respect. Most of the talking was done by one man who lost his son and a brother in a drone attack. He was a Malik, a tribal leader. (On the way back from Waziristan I was able to spend over an hour talking to this man one-on-one.)

According to the introduction to the Federal Administrated Tribal Areas (FATA) given by our hosts, these are areas that are part of Pakistan but are autonomous. They have their own governing bodies. The highest governing entity is the jirga, which is a meeting of tribal officials. The main language in Pakistan is Urdu, but in this area the main language is Pashto. The FATA areas of North and South Waziristan are where the drone strikes have taken place, two-thirds of them in North Waziristan.

We learned that drones fly overhead 24 hours a day. People are afraid to congregate, fearing they we be seen as a gathering of “militants” and will be attacked. Children no longer go to school because of fear that they will be attacked. This has caused a lot of psychological disorders in this area, and for the first time in their communities they are seeing instances of suicide. At one point, the regional jirga was targeted and 54 people were killed. Typically, the U.S. and Pakistan don’t give compensation when someone is killed by the drones, but in this case they offered $6,000 for each family. This is a lot of money for these people, but it was refused by everyone. They said they want justice, not money.

Also at the meeting was a journalist from North Waziristan who has been documenting the drone strikes. When there is a strike, he gets notified and goes to the site and records who is killed and takes pictures. Some of these pictures were blown up and put on our busses as we rode towards Waziristan the following day. Because of their customs, he is unable to take pictures of women or even record their names, but he has recorded the time and place where 670 women have been killed by the drones. This is far different than what we heard from the ambassador. I tend to believe the journalist from North Waziristan rather than our government who lied to us about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

After this meeting, we went with these men from North Waziristan to a rally against drones organized at a close-by shopping area by the youth group of Imran Khan’s Justice Party.

We then went back to our hotel to get ready for our journey north to Waziristan the following morning. Before leaving for Waziristan, the U.S. government made one last attempt to stop us. The ambassador called and told us that they had received “creditable reports” that if we were to go to Waziristan, we would be attacked. To me, this indicated the power of our march to Waziristan. All three tribal leaders in South Waziristan wanted us to come. They said we were their guests and would be protected. This march included Americans and Pakistanis and was supported by those in the tribal areas. It indicated that we all want peace, so it raised the question, why do we have war?

On Saturday morning we boarded our busses to meet up with Imran Khan’s convoy to head to South Waziristan. Almost immediately, everything fell apart. We were supposed to by right behind Imran Khan, but never quite got into that position. At times on the way north, we seemed to lose the caravan and then would meet up with it again later. The caravan went through poorer rural areas and beautiful landscapes. At times when we were separated, our hosts got concerned and asked us to close the curtains on the busses and make sure that the women had their heads covered.

As we passed through towns on the way north, we were met by crowds of members of Imran Khans party. The convoy stopped at several of these towns and held anti-drone rallies. Because we were not up front near Imran Khan in the convoy, we did not hear or participate in these rallies, but the crowds remained, knowing that our busses would pass by them. When we did pass them, they cheered and flashed peace signs.

We reached our destination for the night very late, around midnight. We stayed in the compound of a big farm about 10 km (around 6 miles) from the border with Waziristan. Outside and inside the compound were crowds of people spending the night, getting ready for the trip across the border. As we walked from our busses into the compound, we were treated like heroes. People shouted welcome and peace. Everyone wanted to take a picture with us. We were fed a meal at midnight and held a meeting. Some were concerned that the security that we were supposed to have on our ride to the border never materialized and wanted to make sure that it was rectified in the morning.

That night we learned that the military had blocked the roads into Waziristan with big storage containers and would not let us cross the border. They said that this was for our own safety. Imran Khan was determined to make an effort to cross the border despite the containers. In the morning he met with our group and leaders of his party, and our hosts encouraged us not to go with him the extra 6 miles to the border. If we were stopped by the containers, they understood that it would be difficult to turn all the cars in the large caravan around, and there would be a massive traffic jam.

In this situation our safety might be of concern. Instead, before leaving they organized a big rally at the compound where Imran and Medea spoke to cheering crowds shouting “Welcome,” “Peace,” and “Stop, stop, stop drones attacks.” This rally was held on October 7, the 11^th anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan as demonstrations were taking place in the U. S. and other parts of the world.

It was understood that the political power of this trip with our delegation had already been achieved, and therefore, the risk was not worth it at this point. So after the caravan cleared out of the compound heading north, we left and headed south accompanied by a police escort all the way back to Islamabad.

On the way back to Islamabad, we stopped at a rural college that was built by Imran Khan. This was a college of engineering and computer science he established primarily for those who might otherwise not have access to higher education. Ninety percent of those attending are there on scholarship. It was meant to be the first of many schools accessible to everyone within a “city of knowledge” envisioned by Imran Khan. We also were told about a cancer hospital he’d built at which anyone could obtain treatment, whether they could afford it or not.

After returning to Islamabad, we rested. The next day, Monday, was a slow one. We did have a follow-up meeting with the Ambassador. Only six of us, including me, attended this meeting. We asked him to hear the evidence we had of Pakistani civilian deaths from U.S. drone attacks. He said he would. Some people in our group felt the Ambassador opened up to us more on this occasion than is usual. At times, he asked us to turn off the recording devices so he could say something off the record. However, he stuck to the line that there were almost no civilian deaths and that if there were, they were anomalies. I did not have much hope that our talk with the Ambassador would advance our cause at all.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, Judy Bello and I separated from the group to spend a day in Karachi with the Aafia folks and another in Lahore with the LPP folks. When we got off of the plane in Karachi, we were met by a group of people holding a big banner stating, “Welcome to our honored guests, Joe Lombardo and Judy Bello.” We were taken by car to Aafia’s home to meet her mother and children. All along the road, we saw banners and wall writing in honor of Aafia Siddiqui. My favorite sign said, “86 years to Aafia – bullshit.” At one point, there was a truck in the middle of the road surrounded by people and cars. The truck had speakers on it that were playing a song sung in Urdu. It was a popular folk song written about Aafia. Our car fell in behind the sound truck and started a caravan to Aafia’s house. As we got closer, the road became packed with people welcoming us, waving, chanting, giving peace signs, and throwing flowers. The major road we were on was taken over by this crowd, and our car went along with them at a slow pace. At one point I got out and walked with the crowd. The police escorted us and smiled and waved at us. As we got closer to Aafia’s home, we saw that her entire street had been plastered with huge pictures of demonstrations held across Pakistan and in other countries demanding her release. There was one picture of a demonstration in Pakistan that we were told was attended by over a million people.

We held a well-attended press conference at Aafia’s house and met her mother and her son and daughter. As always, they fed us till we could not look at food anymore.

After meeting the family, we were taken to the University of Karachi, where Judy and I spoke to a lecture hall full of students and answered questions. It was a very good exchange, and they were friendly and happy to see us, but the questions brought home once again how much people hate the U.S. government and don’t understand why it does such terrible things.

After the University meeting, we were taken to meet the Pakistani 1%. We were brought to an exclusive club on the ocean and sat at a table with the big owners of the textile mills and other industries in the industrial city of Karachi. Aafia’s sister, Fowzia, explained that they hoped to get money from these people for their campaign. These people knew about our delegation and the trip to Waziristan with Imran Khan. They were very interested in what we had to say, and they too expressed confusion and anger towards the policies of the U.S. government.

On the way back from this meeting, we were taken to a commercial area near the docks. There we found the sound truck again playing Aafia’s song and a crowd of young men demonstrating for her freedom. Once again, we were greeted like heroes. We all got out of the car and marched with the protesters. We carried lit torches through the streets.

On the last day of our trip, October 10th, we flew to the city of Lahore, near the border with India. Members of the LPP met us and took us to a hotel, where we rested for a few minutes before we were picked up by Farooq Tariq, one of the LPP leaders.

We were taken to the Lahore headquarters of the LPP, where we had an informal discussion with a group of members, and then went to a meeting with the Punjab Union of Journalists. We were also interviewed by some journalists from U.S. media. But the meeting had to be cut short because, as the world knows, on this last day of our trip, which had gotten daily headlines in the Pakistani media, a 14 year old girl, Malala Yousufzai, was shot by the Taliban. Demonstrations against the shooting were quickly organized. Judy and I attended two of them organized by the LPP and other groups in Lahore. At the same time, the rest of our group attended a similar demonstration back in Islamabad.

One other incident occurred with our group back in Islamabad while Judy and I were in Lahore. Lawyers who are members of the LPP organized a meeting for the group at the Bar Association in Islamabad. There had been some tension among members of the Bar Association, some of it centered around a case that some of the lawyers were defending. A while ago, the governor of Punjab province came out publically for getting rid of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. After this, he was shot and killed by a police officer. The police officer was caught and is now on trial. Some of the conservative lawyers supported the action of the police officer and are defending him. These lawyers decided that Americans should not come to the Bar Association and tried to block the group. There was a verbal confrontation but they backed down and the meeting went on over their objection.

While we were on our way to Waziristan on October 6th and 7the, there was a meeting held in Lahore with 100 representatives of progressive secular groups from Pakistan and Afghanistan. There were around 80 people from Pakistan and 20 from Afghanistan at this meeting. The people from the LPP saw this as a very important meeting, as did I. They told me that they want to work closely with the U.S. antiwar movement.

The trip to Pakistan was very important, in my opinion, in building the U.S. and Pakistani movement against the drones and the wars. It showed people in Pakistan that not all Americans are bad. We got tremendous publicity throughout Pakistan and were even able to break into the U.S. corporate media as well as media around the world. Drones are now on people’s radar (no pun intended) as never before inside the U.S. and Pakistan. Our 31 activists can now bring this message of peace and no-drones back to our communities and build a stronger movement. Code Pink is to be applauded for organizing this trip, and we all need to read Madea Benjamin’s book, Drone Warfare, Killing by Remote Control, to further arm ourselves for the struggle ahead.

click here to donate to UNAC

Click here for the Facebook UNAC group.

PHOTOS

The 2012 Sacco and Vanzetti Commemoration March and Rally

This year marked the seventh annual Sacco and Vanzetti Commemoration March and Rally on the streets of Boston. Our march was lively and noisy, with puppets supplied by Bread & Puppets, but we had to march this year without a marching band because of an unforeseen schedule confict. We also learned at the last minute that the band Vanzetti would not be able to perform. However, we made up for this with the addition of an excellent musical performance of radical songs by Jake and the Infernal Machine and heartfelt labor songs by Bill Bumpus accompanied by his concertina.

The Boston City Council passed its annual resolution declaring March 26th Sacco and Vanzetti Commemoration Day. The resolution was introduced before the Council by Councilor Charles Yancey. This year’s event was co-sponsored by the Society and, for the first time, the IWW, and was formally endorsed by the Lantern Collective, the Bread and Roses Heritage Committee, Common Struggle, and the Socialist Workers Party. The event was dedicated to all political prisoners and victims of state repression under the slogan "Justice Crucified No More!"

Speakers made frequent references to the political prisoners held at this moment by the United States including Tarek Mehanna, Chuck Turner, Bradley Manning, Mumia Abu Jamal, Leonard Peltier, the Puerto Rican political prisoners and, in particular, Oscar Lopez Rivera, the Guantanamo war prisoners, and many others who have been the target of state repression. Among those who spoke were historian Bob D'Attilio, representing the Sacco and Vanzetti Commemoration Society, and Sergio Reyes, who read a short message sent by Chuck Turner from prison and who made reference to the City Council Resolution. From the IWW we heard Geoff Carens and SteveKellerman, from the Bread and Roses Heritage Committee, Linda Siegenthaler, Al Johnson from the Bradley Manning Defense Committee, and Sarah Ullman, U.S. Senate candidate from the Socialist Workers Party.


Ted Grippo at the Boston Public Library

As part of this year’s commemoration of Sacco and Vanzetti, the Society also organized two presentations by Theodore Grippo, author of the book "With Malice Aforethought, the Execution of Sacco and Vanzetti." A well attended lecture at the Boston Public Library followed by another informal talk at the Dante Alighieri Italian Cultural Center focused on new information regarding the miscarriage of justice carried out by both the judge and prosecution.

For a photo album click here.

Veterans and Allies Arrested in New York as Afghanistan War Enters Year 12

Twenty-fine people, most of them U.S. military veterans, were arrested while laying flowers at a war memorial in New York City Oct. 7. They were engaged in a peaceful vigil to honor those killed and wounded in war and to oppose the U.S. war in Afghanistan as it entered its 12th year.
The vigil was held at Vietnam Veterans Memorial Plaza in lower Manhattan and began with a program of music and speakers including Vietnam veteran Bishop George Packard, Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Chris Hedges, and Iraq combat veteran Jenny Pacanowski. At 8:30, the protesters began reading the names of the New York soldiers killed in Vietnam who are commemorated at the plaza and the military dead in Afghanistan and Iraq.

VFP board member Tarak Kauff reads names of soldiers killed in Vietnam Oct. 7. To his left is Jay Wenk, ringing a gong as flowers are laid at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Minutes later, both had been arrested. Photo by ELLEN DAVIDSON

At 10:15 pm, the police informed the group that the park was officially closed and that if they remained they would be arrested. Many chose to continue reading names and laying flowers until they were handcuffed and taken away. One of the arrestees was Word War II Army combat veteran, Jay Wenk, 85, from Woodstock, NY.
The veterans had four aims:

• Demand an end to the 11-year war in Afghanistan
• Demand an end to all U.S. wars of aggression
• Remember all those killed and wounded by war
• Stand up for our right, and duty, to assemble and organize

Vietnam veteran Mike Hastie is arrested Oct. 7. Photo by ELLEN DAVIDSON

Photojournalist, poet and Vietnam veteran Mike Hastie was the first arrested, after appealing to police not to force the veterans out of the war memorial: “This is a sad day. I was a medic in Vietnam. I watched soldiers commit suicide. I had soldiers’ brains all over my lap. How can you do this? How can you arrest me for being at a war memorial?”
Former VFP President Mike Ferner said, “I bet a lot of the arresting officers tonight were also military veterans; a number of them didn’t look too happy with the job they were told to do.”
“War is a public health problem, not only because of those killed directly, but also for the lingering trauma it causes,” said leading health care activist Dr. Margaret Flowers. “Ending war would be a good preventive health care measure.”
Poet Jenny Pacanowski read part of her poem “Parade,” which began “The funeral procession from Syracuse airport to Ithaca NY was over 50 miles long./Dragging his dead body through town after town of people, families and children waving flags./The fallen HERO had finally come home./I wonder how many children who saw this, will someday want to be dead HEROS too./I did not wave a flag that day or any day since my return.” She went on, “I live in a dream called my life. Where the good things don’t seem real or sustainable./I live in the nightmares of the past called Iraq and PTSD that never run out of fuel./Is it better to be dead hero?/Or a living fucked up, addicted, crazy veteran?”
“As long as we keep exposing the truth about these wars, then these people will not have died in vain,” said VFP board member Tarak Kauff.
Video by Will Holloway
Video by Fred Nagel
Link to more photos by Ellen Davidson
Articles about October 7
Kevin Zeese
Margaret Flowers
Micah Turner
Jefferson Siegel
Link to poem read by Mike Hastie
Link to poem read by Jenny Pacanowski
Link to Nate Goldshlag’s video of reading of names
Link to Nate Goldshlag’s video of Mike Hastie getting arrested
Link to Crystal Zevon’s video of Iraq vet Javier Ocasio
Link to Crystal Zevon’s video of Kevin Zeese
Link to Crystal Zevon’s video of Watermelon Slim
Link to Crystal Zevon’s video of Jenny Pacanowski
Link to Crystal Zevon’s video of Doo-Occupy “Oh Holy Planet”
Link to Crystal Zevon’s video of David Rovics
Link to Crystal Zevon’s video of Mike Hastie
Link to Crystal Zevon’s video of Doo-Occupy “The Pretty Ugly”
Link to Sandi Bachom’s video of Chris Hedges
Link to Sandi Bachom’s video of GI resister Sgt. Micah Turner
Link to Crystal Zevon’s video of Tarak Kauff
Link to Crystal Zevon’s video of Paul Appell
Text of Chris Hedges’ remarks

Radio interview with Tarak Kauff, Mike Hastie, and Ellen Davidson

Back to home page

Issue 82 • March-April 2012

---

Year one of the Egyptian Revolution

Mostafa Ali, a member of Egypt’s Revolutionary Socialists and journalist for Ahram Online, talked about the first year of Egypt’s revolution—and what comes next.

ONE YEAR ago on January 25, a rebellion began in Egypt that in a matter of 18 days toppled the U.S.-backed dictator Hosni Mubarak after 30 years in power. Egypt has been transformed—but the revolution still faces many challenges. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), which has ruled Egypt since Mubarak resigned, has stepped up its repression against left-wing organizations. The SCAF has new allies as well—the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations that won a large majority in the new Egyptian parliament. However, the army’s attempt to use the 74 deaths at a soccer match in Port Said on February 1 backfired; rather than prompting calls for greater security, it has increased the level of anger and suspicion toward the Egyptian military.

JANUARY 25 marked the start of the Egyptian Revolution one year ago. Where do things stand today, one year later?

THE TURNOUT for the demonstrations for the one-year anniversary of the revolution have been quite massive—much larger than most people expected given the line in the media about how support for the revolution has weakened within the population.

There must have been at least 1.5 million people in Tahrir Square. Not only the square itself, but the bridges leading into Tahrir were packed with people. Some of the feeder marches were three to four kilometers long. There were people in some neighborhoods who hadn’t even left yet while those at the beginning of the marches had already reached Tahrir.

I’m saying this because in the weeks and months before January 25, the mainstream media here have been pushing the idea that most of the population is fed up with the revolution and fed up with protests, and wants things to go back to normal—they want the wheel of production to get going again.

So the turnout was a blow to the months and months of propaganda by the military council and government newspapers who claimed most people would stay away from Tahrir. In reality, this demonstration was larger than any protest against Mubarak during the 18-day uprising.

One year ago, I’m sure that 99 percent of the people who were celebrating in Tahrir on February 11 when Mubarak fell left the square believing that the military council supported the revolution. The slogan repeated over and over again was that the army and the people were one hand.

Most people didn’t return to the square after February 11 because they believed their job was done, and that the army supported the revolution and would bring about the reforms that would achieve its demands. This allowed the military council to set the tone in the months that followed the revolution.

A year later, after everything that happened throughout this year, you can see that there’s a new generation of people, many of them young people, that has developed a very sophisticated radical consciousness. As we can see in the demonstrations on the anniversaries of last year, this new generation understands now that the military council is part of the old Mubarak regime and is opposed to the revolution.

WHAT CONCLUSIONS have people reached about the military council?

THERE IS a growing consciousness that the military council acted in the way that it has because it is a key part of the ruling class, controlling somewhere between 25 and 40 percent of the economy—that the generals are beholden to U.S. imperial interests and to the neoliberal policies that impoverished people over the last 30 years.

It took a whole year for this process of radicalization to develop. But you can see that, as a result of the victories and the defeats of the past year, this new generation of people is quite convinced that you can’t continue the revolution without taking on the military council and the entire military establishment.

On the other hand, to be realistic and sober about the situation, the country is also much more divided than it was last January. There are millions of people who support the revolution and want it to continue, but there are also have big sections of the middle classes that supported the ousting of Mubarak last year, but who have jumped ship and turned against the revolution. This is exemplified by the victories that the Muslim Brotherhood achieved in the parliamentary elections.

Last year, the Muslim Brotherhood was part of the uprising against Mubarak—its leaders may have hesitated, but the organization was pulled into the struggle. This year, in Tahrir, the Muslim Brotherhood was part of the demonstrations, but it is trying to play the role of being the political arm of the military council.

If you enter Tahrir today, you’ll find thousands of Muslim Brotherhood supporters who are in the square to prevent the demonstrations from challenging the military council. This actually caused a physical confrontation between thousands of protests and the Muslim Brotherhood, on the anniversary of the first Friday of protests.

The Muslim Brotherhood came to Tahrir to celebrate the first anniversary of the revolution, but the vast majority of the protesters who were in the square and the people who support the revolution refuse the idea that this should be a celebration. They say that the revolution has not achieved its goals, and so we shouldn’t celebrate. As some newspapers pointed out, that was one of the most popular chants on the demonstration: “This is a revolution, not a celebration.”

This is an important development in terms of consciousness. Last year, the overwhelming number of people left it to the military council to carry out the revolution. This year, millions of people—not a majority of the population, but a significant minority—have come to believe that they must organize themselves and take matters into their own hands. They understand that the only way to continue the revolution is to organize grassroots movements and reach out to wider working-class communities.

WHY WAS the Muslim Brotherhood able to dominate the recent elections in Egypt?

ONE OF the best ways to understand the Muslim Brotherhood is to think of the Democratic Party in this country. It’s an organization that is perceived as being reformist, but it’s committed to capitalism. There are major differences, of course, but that’s a good way to understand how the Brotherhood is viewed in the eyes of many of its supporters.

The Muslim Brotherhood never really opposed, on principle, any of the economic policies of the Mubarak regime over the last 30 years. It criticized some of the excesses—for example, Mubarak’s privatization programs that impoverished millions of people. But the Brotherhood has never on principle been against privatization.

The Muslim Brotherhood and its leaders are very committed to capitalism—much more so even than Mubarak’s own former ruling party, the National Democratic Party, or NDP. They believe even more strongly in free market policies. But they did have to criticize some of the most flagrant portions of Mubarak’s economic policies in order to continue to connect with their own base.

After February 11, there were many struggles and demonstrations in Tahrir, with more and more of them developing into protests against the military council. The Muslim Brotherhood boycotted 90 percent of these demonstrations and explicitly told its supporters to stay out of Tahrir. Ironically, It was funny—some of the Muslim Brotherhood people who were in Tahrir on January 25 hadn’t set foot in the square since February 11 of last year.

Many people now look at the Muslim Brotherhood and understand that it wants to play the role of being the political wing for the military council. The ruling class in this country has the military council as the physical force protecting the system, and now the Muslim Brotherhood, with its Freedom and Justice Party, the largest party in the country, is the new political wing of the ruling class. People call them the NDP with long beards—the saying goes that we have the NDP again with NDP policies, but carried out by a man in a beard with a Koran in his hands.

But there’s also a contradictory situation. Clearly, millions of people voted for the Freedom and Justice Party and support the Muslim Brotherhood.

There were two types of votes. There are some people who voted for the Muslim Brotherhood on an ideological basis—who see it as a party that will push the values of Islam. But there are also many people who voted for the Muslim Brotherhood because they believe it will bring about social justice.

The Muslim Brotherhood was an opposition party for so long. It was repressed by Mubarak, and thousands of its cadre were imprisoned and tortured, so many people look at them as fighters and militants. Moreover, the Brotherhood leaders are Islamists, so they are perceived as not being as corrupt as Mubarak—and because they were kept out of power, they don’t have any involvement in the corruption and exploitation of the regime.

Many of those who voted for the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist parties believe these parties will redistribute the wealth, fight poverty, improve education and health care, and go after all the corrupt businessmen who destroyed this country—because, after all, they are honorable good Muslims. A lot of people will say they voted for the Muslim Brotherhood to give them a chance, and if they don’t deliver, we will vote them out, and go back to the streets and continue to fight for the demands of the revolution.

So the vote for the Muslim Brotherhood was not a reactionary vote. Many of the people who voted for the Brotherhood support the revolution, but they haven’t yet reached the consciousness of the younger generation that has radicalized over the course of the year and that understands that going through the parliamentary process won’t fulfill their social and economic interests.

This is very important. There’s not a simple split between a reactionary part of the population that follows the Muslim Brotherhood and those who support the revolution against the Brotherhood.

WHAT KIND of effect is this contradictory situation having within the Muslim Brotherhood?

THE MUSLIM Brotherhood leaders are under tremendous pressure to deliver on a number of issues, now that they are the main party in parliament. The expectations are actually quite wild—that the Muslim Brotherhood will really turn this system upside down. So the leaders understand that they must, on the one hand, deliver very quickly on a number of issues, but on the other hand, figure out a way of dampening expectations.

At the same time, a lot of young people in the Muslim Brotherhood are very unhappy with the obvious alliance between the leadership of the organization and the military council. The military council has attacked everybody in the revolutionary camp over the past year, from leftists to liberals to workers. The only people the army hasn’t attacked, either ideologically or physically, is the Muslim Brotherhood—instead, the military council has met with the Brotherhood and allowed it a smooth ride to take control of parliament.

In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood’s daily newspaper has been attacking the Revolutionary Socialists and other left-wing organizations with articles meant to incite people against the left. There was a headline in the lead-up to the anniversary that warned people about the anarchists who plan to burn down Egypt on January 25. This caused an uproar—that the Muslim Brotherhood paper looks exactly like a Mubarak paper used to.

Many members of the Muslim Brotherhood are therefore aware that their leadership has entered into an unholy alliance with part of the Mubarak regime that repressed the organization for so long—and they aren’t happy at all. Especially on their Facebook pages and the Internet, young members tell people that they feel ashamed of what some people in their leadership are doing, and they distance themselves from the outright reactionary politics.

So the Muslim Brotherhood is facing pressure from many different directions. But it’s clear that the Brotherhood leaders will move ahead in certain ways. The organization and its political party are controlled by a large number of big businessmen who are very committed to neoliberal politics and policies. The millionaires who control the Brotherhood are now, according to the media, in negotiations with former Mubarak economists and ministers.

In other words, the Muslim Brotherhood is not only in alliance with the military council, but it has opened channels of communication with Mubarak’s old NDP. All that is going to increase tensions and opposition, even within the organization.

HOW HAS this new generation that you’ve talked about developed its consciousness about the tasks of the revolution?

I THINK people cut their teeth in a number of very important grassroots campaigns over the summer. These were mostly defensive campaigns. The biggest was “No to Military Trials”—thousands of people have been organizing around the country against the fact that the military has put 12,000 people on trial—three or four times more than the number of people subjected to a military trial during 30 years of Mubarak’s rule. Thousands of people participated in that campaign, and it began to develop people politically.

Another activity was a popular grassroots media campaign called “Kazeboon,” which means “Liars.” A short film, about 10 or 11 minutes, was made a couple of months ago about the crimes of the military council, and some of the activists who gained a lot of experience in the No to Military Trials campaigns, started bringing projectors and screens into working-class neighborhoods to show the film.

Hundreds of people would turn out in dozens of poor neighborhoods to watch the film. So this became a medium to reach poor and working-class people and initiate political discussion. Many of those film showings were attacked by supporters of the military council, and so people had learned how to defend the film showings.

This was very useful actually in the lead-up to the anniversary of the revolution. Thousands and thousands of people got to watch what the military council was doing. They got to watch how the army attacked people in Tahrir over and over again, and singled out women especially for abuse.

It was really a brilliant tactic, because the mainstream media is still controlled by the government and the same ruling class, and it’s still spewing lies about the revolutionaries and demonizing them—so we have to break out of that and create a new form of grassroots popular revolutionary media.

Those campaigns in the last few months were defensive campaigns, but they allowed all these young people to channel their energies, develop their skills and reach out to working-class communities, where they could build roots.

Part of the consciousness that has developed is that we can’t stay in Tahrir Square and hold sit-ins and wait for the army to come in and massacre us. This allows the army to isolate us, politically and ideologically. Tahrir is very important as a symbol of the revolution, and we will always go back there for big events, but we have to take the revolution into every single working-class neighborhood in this country.

WHAT ABOUT the working-class movement that was so important to the overthrow of Mubarak?

IT HAS definitely been impacted by the general political situation and the last four or five months of massive attacks by the military council against the left and against working-class resistance. That, I think, dampened many people’s confidence. Strike activity, which hit a high point right before February 11 and definitely helped shove Mubarak out, suffered a lot in the fall.

But in the last few weeks, a more sophisticated and more confident revolutionary movement has begun to rebuild itself, and I think that has had an impact in giving workers the confidence to begin to strike again.

So, for example, in the wake of mass protests at the end of January, sections of labor have announced that they plan on organizing strikes on February 11 to coincide with the deadline set by left organizations for when the military should return to the barracks. So far, port workers at Ain Sukhna on the Red Sea and Suez Canal workers are set to join the stoppage. Transport workers in Cairo, textile workers in Mahalla and ports workers in Alexandria are also discussing the possibility of striking.

On the other hand, another reason for the drop in strikes was the same as why the Muslim Brotherhood did so well in elections—that many workers are willing to wait for the new parliament to act on their demands. There are still many illusions that have to be overcome. But as a result, I think we can expect workers to start returning to protest to show that they expect their demands to be met. Only this time, they won’t be protesting the NDP and Mubarak, but a parliament controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood that is continuing the old regime’s attacks on the working class.

All of this is part of the radicalizing consciousness, which is most advanced among a lot of young people who understand now that winning this revolution is not going to be an easy matter. They recognize that mass demonstrations in Tahrir aren’t enough, and that that the ruling class is much more violent and oppressive, and willing to do whatever it takes to hold onto power.

I think this realization has set in with a lot of people, and it will help them to pace themselves for a longer-term fight. They know you can’t rely on the military council or the Muslim Brotherhood, and repeat the same mistake of last year when everybody left the square and went home thinking that someone else was going to finish this revolution. There is a new generation that believes that its own self-activity will be the key to continuing the struggle.

THE PORT Said massacre on February 1 has created a great deal of anger, not just among the ultras—avid soccer fans—by among millions of Egyptians who are angry over the deliberate lack of security. What has been the political fallout from it?

THE ULTRAS, especially those who belong to the two most popular teams Ahly and Zamalek, have become politicized in recent years and played an important role in the uprising against Mubarak last year on January 25, 2011, and again during the battle of the Camel on February 2, when pro-Mubarak thugs launched an armed attack on Tahrir square. Throughout the year, they took part in demonstrations against the military; several of their members faced military trials; and they taunted the police with huge political banners and songs at every soccer game. Just a few days before the massacre, the Ahly Ultras chanted against the Field Marshal Tantawi at a regular league game.

Meanwhile, the government owned media and most sports commentators (who are pro-old regime) subjected the Ultras to a vicious slander campaign for months calling them hooligans and bums because they refused to respect the authority of the police.

Many believe that the SCAF at least had word that someone was preparing a big attack on the Ahly Ultras at the Port Said stadium to punish them for their role in the revolution and let it happen. On the day of the massacre, the police opened the doors of the field to groups of armed individuals before and during the match. The military police, which has been present in most major games to back up regular forces, disappeared from the vicinity of the stadium that day. Army tanks stood by less than half a mile away while 74 people were slaughtered in less than 20 minutes.

It was a watershed moment for the revolution. Thousands of fans, led by soccer players, bid farewell to the fallen in processions that chanted against the SCAF and held it responsible for the blood of many young people.

The choice of Port Said by those who orchestrated the massacre was quite on target for the purposes of punishing revolutionaries. Port Said is a symbol of resistance to British colonialism; popular committees have fought the British and Israelis there over the decades. And, in recent months, students and industrial workers in Port Said have showed growing willingness to take part in more protests against SCAF.

Transcription by Karen Domínguez Burke and Rebecca Anshell Song. The greater portion of this interview first appeared on www.socialistworker.org on February 2, 2012

WikiLeaks, Sex and Imperialist Law

A presentation by Roxanne Baker of the International Bolshevik Tendency at a debate on the Julian Assange case with the Alliance for Workers Liberty (AWL) hosted by the Anticapitalist Initiative in London on 9 October 2012. Both speeches were originally published on anticapitalists.org.


The persecution of Julian Assange, which is presented as an issue centring on questions of rape, sexual assault and the rights of women, is in fact essentially an attack on democratic rights – in particular, freedom of the press. Differences on the left over the Assange case do not revolve around ‘taking rape seriously’ but rather subservience to ruling-class pressure and the willingness of some ‘revolutionaries’ to act as mouthpieces for imperialist propaganda.
Everyone knows that Assange and WikiLeaks antagonised the leaders of the ‘free world’ by publishing hundreds of thousands of classified documents and pieces of diplomatic correspondence that laid bare the inner workings of imperialist diplomacy and exposed the monstrous crimes committed in the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Of particular concern was a video entitled ‘Collateral Murder’, released by WikiLeaks in April 2010, that showed American soldiers in an Apache helicopter gunning down Iraqi civilians (including children and journalists).
The savage persecution of Bradley Manning, the young soldier who is accused of providing WikiLeaks with documentation of the crimes of the US military, stands as an object lesson in how ‘enemies of the state’ are treated in ‘the world’s greatest democracy’. Manning has been held in solitary confinement for more than two years without a court hearing’, a blatant violation of the supposed right to a speedy trial. Socialists demand the immediate release of Bradley Manning.
The attack on Manning and Assange provides dramatic evidence of the erosion of democratic rights in the American security state and its partners in Sweden, Britain and elsewhere. I believe we should applaud the decision by the Ecuadorean government to grant asylum to Assange and I note with pleasure that William Hague has had to backtrack on earlier threats to invade the embassy to seize him. Assange, as everyone knows, has not even been charged with a crime. The Swedes ostensibly want him for questioning in connection with accusations attributed to two women with whom he had sex during a visit to Sweden in August 2010. Assange is willing to answer questions from Swedish authorities, but not to be extradited to Sweden, from whence he could be whisked to the US to face charges under the Espionage Act that could result in life imprisonment or even execution.
It is impossible to know with certainty what, if any, legitimacy there is to the allegations against Assange. But there are many indications that the whole case is essentially a stitch up. The two women supposedly originally approached police in an attempt to compel Assange to get tested for sexually transmitted diseases. The lead complainant, Anna Ardin, who had invited Assange to Sweden and organised his trip, proposed to the other alleged victim, Sofia Wilen, that they go to the police after they compared notes about their sexual encounters with Assange. Ardin accompanied Wilen to the police station, having already set up an appointment with a policewoman who was a personal friend. Ardin herself was subsequently interviewed by telephone.
When Wilen learned that Assange was going to be charged with rape on the basis of her statement to the police, she terminated the interview and refused to read or sign the transcript. The officer who uploaded the transcript to the police data system apparently amended it subsequently at the request of her superior. Despite Wilen’s objections to the whole proceeding, the Swedish tabloid press immediately began publishing lurid allegations that Assange had been accused of double rape.
A senior prosecutor who reviewed the case declared that there was not enough evidence to go forward, and dropped it. In a very unusual move, this decision was reversed through the intervention of Chief Prosecutor Marianne Ny. There have been plenty of suggestions that this resulted from political string pulling from on high.
Ardin has connections with an anti-communist Cuban group called Ladies in White, which has received funding from the US government and is supported by Luis Posada Carriles, a CIA asset convicted of killing hundreds of people in terror attacks. Ardin’s brother ‘works in Swedish intelligence, and was a liaison in Washington to US intelligence agencies’, according to an account that appeared in Counterpunch on 7 December 2010.
Unfortunately, several socialist groups in this country have lent legitimacy to the campaign against Assange. The Socialist Workers Party [SWP] proposed that: ‘if the Swedish authorities were serious about investigating [the charges], they would guarantee that Assange would not be extradited to the US. That could clear the way for him to face his accusers’ [Socialist Worker, 21 August 2012]. Such a ‘guarantee’ is not on offer, but if it were it would not be worth the paper it was printed on, and Assange would be a fool to accept it.
The naiveté of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty [AWL] is even more breathtaking: ‘The Swedish state’s legal system is independent and does not simply deliver verdicts at the whim of Swedish politicians or, still less, Washington. Swedish law requires evidence showing “probable cause” for believing the crime was committed, before any extradition request can be made. In other words we have every reason to believe Assange has a serious case to answer’ [Solidarity, 22 August 2012]. The AWL claims ‘to argue both against extradition to the US and at the same time for a fair trial in Sweden on the rape charges’ [Solidarity, 11 July 2012]. They might want to consider the fate of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad Alzery, two asylum-seekers who were immediately sent back to Egypt from Sweden in December 2001 following a request from the CIA. In that case, the magnificent machine of impartial Swedish justice sent these two unfortunates to Mubarak’s torture chambers without even bothering to notify their lawyers.
Assange has no chance of receiving a ‘fair trial’ (in Sweden or any other US ally). The sensationalist and prejudicial press coverage of the allegations against him reflect the implacable hostility of the ruling elites of Sweden, Britain, America and all their imperialist allies towards the man behind the WikiLeaks revelations. A leaked memo from the American private strategic forecasting firm, Stratfor, includes a comment by a former deputy chief of the US Department of State’s counterterrorism division for the Diplomatic Security Service on how to go after Assange and his friends:

‘Ferreting out [Assange’s] confederates is also key. Find out what other disgruntled rogues inside the tent or outside. Pile on. Move him from country to country to face various charges for the next 25 years. But, seize everything he and his family own, to include every person linked to Wiki.’
(http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1056763_re-discussion-assange-arrested-.html)

Another Stratfor analyst casually remarked: ‘Charges of sexual assault rarely are passed through Interpol red notices, like this case, so this is no doubt about trying to disrupt WikiLeaks release of government documents’. So you do not have to be left-wing to understand what is underway here.
Much of the discussion around this case has swirled around questions of what constitutes rape. Leaving aside the politically motivated character of the charges and the virtual impossibility of determining exactly what transpired, on a more general level the key issue in cases of rape and/or other forms of sexual assault is that of informed consent. It is, for example, clearly criminal to engage in unprotected sex when consent has been made conditional on the use of a condom.
As there is no chance of Assange getting a fair hearing in Sweden on these allegations, socialists must oppose all attempts to extradite him. To do so is not to downplay the seriousness of the crime of rape or any other sort of sexual abuse. In an article headlined, ‘We are Women Against Rape but we do not want Julian Assange extradited’, published in the Guardian on 23 August 2012, two experienced anti-rape campaigners correctly pointed out: ‘The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will, usually to increase their powers, this time to facilitate Assange’s extradition or even rendition to the US.’
Assange is being hunted by America for daring to shine a light on some of the crimes of imperialism, a capital offense in the eyes of the oppressors. He is no Marxist – he is a liberal who considers himself a realist, and he has serious illusions. Speaking from the Ecuadorean embassy on 19 August, he said: ‘I ask President Obama to do the right thing: the United States must renounce its witch-hunt against WikiLeaks.’
Assange is certainly aware that the US ruling class will not cease its attempt to make an example of him. The reason he is reduced to calls on bourgeois authority figures to reform themselves is because any notion of the potential of class struggle lies outside his political framework. We must defend Assange because he is an advocate of freedom of the press whose revelations have helped the working class and other victims of capitalist rule. Only by defending the rights and liberties won through the difficult struggles of past generations – which the capitalist class often tries to reverse during times of reaction – will it be possible to go forward to win new gains and lay the basis for overturning the entire system of global oppression and mass murder that imperialist rule entails.

November 2012

Walkouts Show Potential for Class Struggle

Walmart “Black Friday” Strike Actions,
Protests Called at Stores Across U.S.


Protest by Walmart strikers and supporters at Pico Rivera, California, a center of walkouts, October 4.
(Internationalist photo)

Walmart, the Arkansas-based commercial empire founded by Sam Walton, is the largest private employer in the United States (with 1.3 million employees), Mexico (175,000), Latin America (325,000) and the world, with a total of over 2 million “associates” around the globe. It is also almost completely non-union, and that’s no accident. Walmart management has been found guilty of systematically keeping women and racial minorities in low-paying positions, locking night-shift workers in its stores, bribing governments, exposing workers to serious health hazards, paying less than the minimum wage and keeping workers in part-time positions to avoid paying for health care. Walmart workers complain of endless abuse, and are unable to make ends meet without food stamps and Medicaid for their children. Now on “Black Friday,” November 23, the day after Thanksgiving and the biggest shopping day of the year, protests have been called at up to 1,000 Walmart facilities around the U.S. Supporters of labor rights should join in.

The stage has been set by unprecedented actions this fall when Walmart workers walked off the job in several states beginning in September in Illinois and Southern California. In early October, walkouts hit 28 stores in 12 states. Then on November 15 workers struck at a warehouse in Pico Rivera, California, in Seattle, Washington and Dallas, Texas. The strikers threw down the gauntlet to Walmart, challenging the long-held belief that Walmart is too powerful (or “too evil”) to organize. But in doing so, workers have also challenged the hidebound labor movement, which so far has failed miserably to unionize the retail giant. Instead of doing the hard work of signing up workers and showing they are prepared to defy anti-labor laws, the unions (notably the United Food and Commercial Workers) have relied on consumer boycotts and legislation seeking to keep the low-wage chain out of key metropolitan centers.

Such softball tactics are doomed to fail in the long run. Labor’s gotta play hardball to win. Walmart can be unionized – it just can’t be done playing by the bosses’ rules. Virtually every effective tactic of workers’ struggle has been declared illegal. That just means that workers have to stand up to cops and courts as well as a vicious anti-union company. Rather than being an unbeatable monolith, Walmart is a fluid chain of distribution centers and outlets, whose “just-in-time” distribution system depends heavily on the work of just a few employees to make the gears turn. A disruption at one part of the system has consequences throughout the whole. Rather than concentrating our efforts on boycotting Walmart in favor of other companies who also exploit their workers, the unprecedented strikes carried out by warehouse and retail workers so far have shown that the power to bring Walmart to its knees lies with the workers themselves.

“Every strike reminds the capitalists that it is the workers and not they who are the real masters—the workers who are more and more loudly proclaiming their rights. Every strike reminds the workers that their position is not hopeless, that they are not alone.”

–V.I. Lenin, “On Strikes” (1899)

The recent, first-ever strikes against Walmart in the U.S. were only partial stoppages, which rather than shutting down whole shops slowed things down considerably. Yet they have had a significant impact on Walmart … and the conventional wisdom of labor officialdom. They have broken through the logic that Walmart is too tough to organize, the excuse used by union bureaucrats to justify their policy of lobbying politicians rather than organizing workers. Although workers who participated in the walkouts are backed by unions, they aren’t recognized by management. Their work stoppages therefore fall outside the many legal snares that workers with contracts often face. UFCW has lately changed its tune regarding Walmart, urging workers to organize their own store actions and walkouts through the Organization United for Respect at Walmart (OUR Walmart) campaign. But organized labor has never used its muscle to shut down Walmart.

The walkouts demonstrated also how sections of seemingly unconnected workers can quickly act in concert with each other. Warehouse workers near Riverside, California sparked a wave of rebellion among Walmart workers when they walked off the job to protest working conditions in early September. Limber Herrera, a warehouse worker in Riverside describes her workplace, “So many of my coworkers are living in pain because of the pressure to work fast or lose our jobs. We often breathe a thick black dust that gives us nosebleeds and headaches. We want Walmart to take responsibility and fix these bad working conditions” (Warehouse Workers United, 9 August). In early September, in what came to be known as the “WalMarch,” dozens of workers who are supporters of WWU marched for six days from San Bernardino County to downtown Los Angeles demanding that their employer address working conditions and safety.

The workplace action quickly spread. Warehouse workers in Elwood, IL backed by the United Electrical Workers (UE), struck retail giant Walmart’s largest distribution center on September 15. They demanded better working conditions and an end to wage theft on the part of Walmart contractor, Roadlink. The Walmart strikers spoke at strike rallies of the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU), which pointed out that the Walmart foundation supports the privatization of schools. The warehouse workers complained of erratic work hours, low pay and unsafe working conditions, where they are often asked to hand lift extreme loads and work without shin guards or proper masks. Like many Walmart workers, the warehouse staff don’t work directly for Walmart, but are hired instead through subcontractors. The strike ended after two weeks, with Roadlink promising to end all retaliation against employees who speak out. However, recent reports are that the intimidation tactics have continued.

But the Riverside and Elwood workers lit a spark that inspired solidarity strikes at several Walmarts in several states in the weeks that followed. Under the leadership of OUR Walmart and backed by UFCW, a group of 200 supporters disrupted Walmart’s annual investors meeting in Bentonville Arkansas. The workers have given Walmart a deadline: meet our demands for better pay and working conditions and stop all retaliation against workers who participate in workplace organizing, or there will be a strike on Black Friday, November 22-23. Walmart has now retaliated by lodging a complaint against the UFCW with the National Labor Relations Board and threatening to sue the union. Meanwhile, Walmart “associates” have been ordered to report for work as early as 3 p.m. on Thanksgiving Day, provoking angry complaints from workers who intend to spend the traditional holiday with their families.

Hardnosed Walmart execs won’t stand idly by as they lose millions in potential profits, and they won’t stop at lawsuits if their past actions are any indication of future actions. Their labor practices traditionally include bare-knuckle intimidation, firings, and in the most successful organizing situations, mass layoffs and store closures. The first Walmart store to be unionized in North America was in Jonquière, in northern Québec in 2004. We traveled there to report the story (see “Attention Wal-Mart Workers: Union Victory in Quebec,” The Internationalist No. 20, January-February 2005). But the multinational retail chain retaliated by shutting the store. With Walmart facing a cross-country campaign, they may resort to new and even more ruthless efforts to squash any efforts to organize or unionize their stores. Workers will need the support of labor and community allies if they intend to bring down the behemoth.

In the face of mass unemployment, capitalists figure workers will be so desperate to hold onto a job, no matter how poorly paid, that they will be to afraid to unionize. But desperation can also produce militancy. It’s happened before. In January-February 1937, auto workers occupied the Fischer Body No. 1 plant in Flint, Michigan. Running off the cops and facing down National Guard machine guns, the sit-down strike won after five weeks. This electrified labor. In March, 110 women workers sat down at the Woolworth 5-and-10 chain store in Detroit, protesting against nickel-and-dime wages. Women workers at the Woolworth store in New York’s Union Square followed suit. Within seven days, as union leaders threatened to call a national strike, the company gave in to the strikers’ demands. What was key was the example of militant action by the Flint auto workers, the enthusiastic support of unions, and refusal to be intimidated by the bosses’ laws. Naturally, two years later the Supreme Court ruled sit-down strikes illegal.

As Black Friday 2012 approaches, activists in a number of cities are planning solidarity actions. But consumer boycotts almost never work (the claim that the United Farm Workers won with the grape boycott is a myth), because they fail to mobilize labor’s power. A real strike would aim at Walmart’s supply chain, and would require solid mass pickets that no one dares cross. Walmart workers can’t do that on their own, but a serious mobilization of unions can. If hundreds of unionists are on the lines, Teamsters and even many non-union truckers would honor the picket lines. These are the kind of tactics necessary to challenge the corporate monster. What’s effective in stopping the chain from bleeding communities dry is not “withholding our dollar” from the store, but “withholding our labor” from the shop floor. But that requires a willingness to defy cops, courts and capitalist politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, to whom the sellout labor bureaucracy are beholden.

The fight to organize the unorganized has always been a watchword of revolutionaries in the labor movement. Today that task is as urgent as it has ever been, but neither “normal” trade-union or liberal pressure tactics can fulfill it. What is required is genuine class-struggle unionism, the potential for which is shown by the recent victory of immigrant workers at the Hot and Crusty bakery/restaurant in New York City. “If you play by the bosses’ rules, you’re bound to lose,” read workers’ signs during 55 days on the picket line. The struggle culminated in an inspiring labor victory with a groundbreaking contract that includes a union hiring hall, virtually unprecedented in the “restaurant sweatshops” staffed by hundreds of thousands of super-exploited immigrants. Having participated intensively in this struggle, the Internationalist Group has stressed that the Hot and Crusty victory could spark major new struggles in the area and beyond (see “Hot and Crusty Workers Win with Groundbreaking Contract,” at www.internationalist.org).

Only by fighting to build a class-struggle opposition in the ranks of labor, together with the support of other workers and the oppressed, will it be possible to shatter the stranglehold of the “labor lieutenants of capital.” Old-style business unionism and even reformist “social justice unionism” won’t work in these times of all-sided capitalist attack on working people. Life on the Walmart plantation is hell. What’s needed is to break the chains that bind wage slaves to the modern slave masters, to build a workers party to fight for a workers government. Solidarity, one section of workers defending another and recognizing that our interests are the same, isn’t just a nice idea: it’s the only possible way in which workers at Walmart, or anywhere else, can fight back effectively and win. Courageous actions by Walmart workers can lead the way forward, and demonstrate that what it takes to win is class struggle. ■

---

To contact the League for the Fourth International or its sections, send an e-mail to: internationalistgroup@msn.com

Presidente de "Abogados sin fronteras" solicita a Obama clemencia en caso de Los Cinco

24 de noviembre de 2012

SR. Presidente de los Estados Unidos de América

Dr. Barack OBAMA

S. / D.

Concurro en el presente estadio, a formular especial petición de Clemencia, ante Usted, en su carácter de Presidente de los Estados Unidos de América y máxima potestad, a los efectos de resolver lo que considero respetuosamente es una cuestión de carácter humanitario. Sepa Usted Sr. Presidente OBAMA, que no me moviliza en lo personal y en lo institucional como PRESIDENTE DE LA FUNDACION DE ALTOS ESTUDIOS ABOGADOS SIN FRONTERAS, sito en la calle ESMERALDA N° 517, PISO 3°, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, República Argentina, ningún interés político. Los actos que dan origen a esta respetuosa pretensión, se enmarcan en una clara convicción que se ha iniciado un ciclo de necesaria conectividad entre los pueblos de América toda; para transitar el definitivo camino de la integración y de la paz necesaria, como herramienta del desarrollo y cumplimiento de los supremos objetivos que nuestros pueblos hermanos deben trazarse, entonces, es que concurro ante Usted, a formalizar, con acuerdo a lo estatuido en la Ley Máxima de Vuestra Nación, su Constitución Nacional, este pedido de Clemencia o Perdón, consignado en el artículo II de la Sección II (Cláusula de Perdón).-

Es así, que sin rodeos y habiendo valorado en su justa dimensión, ante quien me dirijo, formulo, este pedido de clemencia a favor de Gerardo Hernández NORDELO, Antonio GUERRERO RODRIGUEZ, Fernando GONZALEZ LLORT, Ramón LABAGNINO SALAZAR- como Usted comprenderá, dentro del marco legislativo de las Leyes Penales Americanas, otrora fueron condenados hace catorce (14) años, después de un prolongado período de detención preventiva, y un juicio con Jurado ante el Tribunal Federal de Distrito en Miami, Florida que duró casi siete meses (7), " los cinco" (5) fueron declarados culpables en junio de dos mil uno (2001), en un total combinado de veintiséis cargos (26). Entre ellos: Actuar y Conspirar por actuar como agentes no registrados de un gobierno extranjero, el fraude y el uso indebido de la identidad de documentos y en el caso de tres de los acusados, CONSPIRACIÓN para reunir y transmitir información de Defensa Nacional.

Los hombres fueron condenados en Diciembre de dos mil uno (2001) a penas de prisión que van de quince (15) años a CADENA PERPETUA, ejecución de la pena que se encuentra en cumplimiento, y de la que tengo entendido, se llevan a cabo en penitenciarias Federales del Condado, Dade Miami, Florida, Estados Unidos, habiendo alcanzado René GONZALEZ SEHWERERT el estatus de libertad condicional con sujeción a permanecer en Territorios de los Estados Unidos de América.

En este paso de marcha, es dable destacar que no es función de este ABOGADO poner en crisis y/o cuestionar, valorar jurídicamente, si el proceso llevado a cabo, a los ciudadanos cubanos, lo fue en sentido de lo JUSTO dejando ello a las eventuales interposiciones de recursos, apelaciones y pretensiones procesales,

que puedan llevar a cabo quienes hoy detentan el cargo de Legítimos Defensores de Confianza.

En los primeros días de OCTUBRE del corriente año, en mi carácter de hombre de leyes, concurrí, al XI Encuentro Internacional de Ciencias Penales 2012 que se llevó a cabo en la Ciudad de La Habana, Cuba, en calidad de DISERTANTE, y allí Señor Presidente, en la VOZ de un sin número de colegas, que concretaron ponencias de distinta materia de las Ciencias Penales, volví a tomar contacto con LA HISTORIA "de los cinco", de estos hombres y con prescindencia de las acertadas posiciones, en pos de cerrar esfuerzos y acciones tendientes a materializar la Libertad de estos hombres y para que ellos puedan volver a reunirse con sus familias, concebí y expuse, esta posición personal. Así fue, como disertante y hombre del Derecho puse en conocimiento esta acción de Clemencia espontáneamente ante el auditorio de aquel Encuentro Internacional donde como le reitero, más de quinientos cuarenta y seis (546) delegados, hombres de Derecho de todo el mundo, consintieron, tácitamente, que la hora era propicia para que fuera de toda estrategia procesal que escapa a mi acción, impulsara en mi persona, esta acción de Clemencia. Posteriormente me reuní con el Fiscal General de la República de Cuba, Dr. Darío DELGADO CURA, ante quien detenida y lo más claramente posible explicité, mi posición estrictamente personal haciéndole saber también que la misma no se emparentaba en coincidencias o en disidencias políticas con gobierno alguno. "Los políticos, a mi entender, tienen ideologías, LOS PUEBLOS tienen necesidades¨. Inmediatamente después, me reuní con las cinco (5) familias de los Ciudadanos Cubanos detenidos en su país, y les explique la única razón movilizadora de esta acción, consistente, en privilegiar la libertad en pos de cualquier decisorio que nos permita cerrar una página de esta historia y abrir la más importante de todas ellas, que es la del reencuentro sincero de estos hombres con sus afectos y su pueblo. Sin triunfos ni derrotas y volverlos a reunir con los suyos.

Un singular número de personas a través de la historia Presidente OBAMA, son elegidos para cambiar los cursos de la misma, esos como dice el escritor Bertolt BRECHT "esos son los necesarios" y cuando el mundo decidió que en Usted se encontraba la máxima expresión que ostenta un ser de PAZ, lo consagró como un líder de la PAZ, lo nominó como PREMIO NOBEL DE LA PAZ, y a esa Paz la lidera, se percibe que Ud. detenta la mayúscula capacidad de entender que la PAZ, no se consigue simplemente con un Acuerdo Bilateral entre dos Naciones o fracciones disidentes las que, a la hora de un día deciden un "Alto al Fuego", la PAZ importante, no se basta ni con el avance, ni con el retroceso de las tropas de ningún lugar ni de ningún territorio. La construcción de la PAZ, a través de los XXI siglos de ESTA HUMANIDAD y de este pequeño planeta del universo y de esta única expresión de vida que conocemos, se expresa y se consolida con la libertad.

Por eso, es que concurro a peticionarle desde la VOZ de los PUEBLOS en libertad que será un gran aporte a la unidad de esta América toda, que en su juicio de valor considere oportuna y detenidamente, la concesión de este Pedido de Clemencia. Entiendo, que ésta, mi carta introductoria podrá ser el vehículo previo a la formalización de los documentos que adjunto para dar cumplimiento a la viabilidad y estudio de esta Petición de Clemencia. La Clemencia, a la luz del pensamiento de George Washington es la situación por el cual, un

CIUDADANO, que lamentablemente se ha vinculado con el sistema penal de un país y ha recibido una respuesta a través de una condena, le solicita a quien PRESIDE esa sociedad, al PRESIDENTE, sin más atributos que su condición de hombre a su favor se estudie una Petición de Clemencia.Usted, ha sabido enarbolar los Principios de las Garantías Universales, de los Derechos Civiles y Políticos de los Ciudadanos, ellos consagrados en la Declaración Universal de los Derechos del Hombre, Naciones Unidas mil novecientos cuarenta y ocho (1948). Usted, Presidente OBAMA, ha sabido concretar esfuerzos extraordinarios a favor de los procesos Nacionales e Internacionales y de Cooperación entre las personas, por el desarme nuclear, además de finalizar la guerra con Irak, y de firmar el tratado START III por el control de armas en Rusia, entre otras misiones.

A la luz de las graves crisis que aún no hemos podido resolver, como ciudadanos de esta gran NAVE, que es el Planeta Tierra, advierto claramente que por lo menos en toda esta región continental, estamos viviendo un NUEVO clima de la política internacional, con clara pertenencia en la independencia originaria de todos los pueblos, la preservación de sus costumbres, el respeto a sus historias y la no intromisión en sus decisiones gubernamentales.

Entiendo Querido Presidente OBAMA, que Usted conocerá, la gran expectativa, que generó en millones de jóvenes de mi América Latina, el justo y preciado TRIUNFO de su última reelección como PRESIDENTE DE LOSESTADOS UNIDOS DE AMERICA, eso debe hacerlo sentir orgulloso, porque millones de jóvenes a los que usted seguramente no conoce, confiaron un voto desde su espíritu a miles de kilómetros de distancia, para que Usted, continuara dirigiendo los intereses de esa importante Nación del mundo, por lo tanto se ha transformado indubitablemente en el PORTAVOZ de ellos y quienes tomaron para sí y en todo su esplendor, el mensaje movilizador de "change we can believe in" (cambio que podemos creer) y " yes we can" (si todos podemos).

Esas dos expresiones que claramente lo definen a Ud. Presidente OBAMA, son precisamente las que me movilizaron aquella mañana del pasado cinco de Octubre (5) ante aquel auditorio del Congreso de Ciencias Penales. Entendí que el cambio, es que se debía solicitar este Pedido de Clemencia, que éste era el tiempo y por eso "se puede".

Mis colaboradoras, Dra. Violeta Muratorio y la Dra. Roxana Ranni me acercaron, una emotiva carta que Ud. escribiera a sus hijas "Malia y Natasha" y seguramente cuando un padre escribe a un hijo, sabe que cada palabra cristalizada en el papel, conlleva un mensaje de amor, una línea de acción y una expresión de deseo, que lo hacemos con mucho respeto porque sabemos que los niños y los jóvenes, rara vez se equivocan, sabemos que en esa carta que escribimos como la que Ud. le escribió a sus hijas, el tiempo será el Juez.

Mi edad me permite retener claramente a dos hombres sensibles a la historia de los Pueblos de América, de uno de ellos el Presidente John F. Kennedy, un cuadro en tamaño natural, preside el ala derecha de mi despacho de trabajo. Kennedy solía decir "hay personas, que ante una dificultad se preguntan ¿cómo?, yo vivo pensando en hechos que me parecen imposibles de realizar y me digo porque no" JFK. El otro, dejó su vida en Memphis Alabama, luchando

por los derechos de unos americanos muy americanos, el Pastor Martin Luther King, el que en la marcha sobre Washington, dejo para siempre y para ser valientes una visión de libertad permanente que ya nadie podrá quebrantar "hoy tuve un sueño".

Pareciera Presidente OBAMA que sin querer, supra magnificar la cuestión, si el Presidente de los Estados Unidos de América, después de un análisis detenido y profundo de la cuestión que pongo en su conocimiento, decidiera conceder el pedido de CLEMENCIA en favor de Gerardo HERNANDEZ NORDELO, Antonio GUERRERO RODRIGUEZ, Fernando GONZALEZ LLORT, Ramón LABAGNINO SALAZAR y René GONZALEZ SEHWERERT, estamos construyendo aquel ¿ por qué NO? de JFK, en el sueño de Luther King es considerar que el Presidente de los Estados Unidos de América, concede este pedido de clemencia como una Contribución a la PAZ, al encuentro definitivo de los pueblos de Cuba y Estados Unidos, quebrantando los justos o injustos intereses que suelen trazar a veces las barreras políticas, la que muchas veces han servido para mejorar sensiblemente la situación social de los mas postergados y algunas otras para que intereses mezquinos sometan o cercenen a hombres y mujeres con niños que no han elegido donde nacer ni donde vivir y quedan sujetos a la decisión inaceptable de una posición política que aunque satisfactoria internamente se contrapone contra los intereses de la humanidad.

Pensar que la concesión de este pedido de CLEMENCIA es el triunfo de un proyecto político de Nación alguna, es equívoco. La intercomunicación, la globalización, la necesidad imperiosa de armonización de todos los Pueblos del Mundo en función del universalismo es imperativo, entiendo que todas las acciones que tienden al reencuentro y a la efectiva PAZ, concretan el proyecto de realización de la raza humana.

Quiera Señor Presidente OBAMA que, se comprenda objetivamente el legítimo y genuino interés que me moviliza, las fórmulas legales, los ordenamientos doctrinarios judiciales, me imponen el deber de nominar y personalizar esta petición, pero entienda Usted que, sin pretender jamás arrogarme representación alguna, son millones los que acompañan mi pedido. Así lo han manifestado un sin número de presentaciones de destacadas personalidades del país que dignamente preside, del ámbito artístico, escritores, de mundo de las artes, diez Premios Nobel, el ex presidente James Carter. En el igual sentido, se han expresado a través de sus escritos – Amicus Curie – de académicos y asociaciones jurídicas de todo el mundo, haciendo públicos votos para que pueda revertirse esta situación. Además, deben sumarse, numerosos colegios de abogados de su país y del mundo, el Senado de México, Grupos Parlamentarios de Europa, América Latina, Grupo de Trabajo sobre la Detención Arbitraria de la ONU, Amnistía Internacional, sindicatos, organizaciones de mujeres, entre otros, han apoyado la libertad por estos cinco prisioneros. Todos ellos, hombres y mujeres de buena voluntad, que seguramente y con idénticos y legítimos intereses, han agotado diferentes presentaciones desde distintas ópticas y análisis de las Ciencias Jurídicas.- El Consejo de Derechos Humanos también ha analizado el presente caso; debatiéndose el mismo en el seno del sesenta y siete (67) período de sesiones. ¨Los cinco¨ tienen a su favor que los argumentos para un posible perdón, fueron vertidos por la propia jueza Joan Lenard, y el Fiscal General de Estados Unidos en donde en varias oportunidades dio un veredicto

negativo sobre la conducta de los periodistas en la sede del tribunal, expresó además que el jurado se sentía atemorizado por los periodistas, dicha situación fue motivo de un esbozo de Habeas Corpus. Este fue el precedente que llevó a tres jueces de la Corte de Apelaciones de Atlanta a declarar nula la vista judicial en Miami, por no ser una comunidad neutral. Por su parte el Grupo de Trabajo de Naciones unidas sobre detenciones arbitrarias, determinó que la privación de libertad de ¨los cinco¨ viola la Convención Internacional sobre libertades Civiles y Políticas.

No obstante, entiendo que este pedido conlleva por primera vez una pretensión de CLEMENCIA y de que aquí en mas, se sabrá entonces que esta decisión, ya no está solo en manos de los jueces del caso, en la opinión de los legítimos Fiscales AMERICANOS que en cumplimiento con órdenes, instrucciones y evidencias o no, elevaron un dictamen acusatorio que el Tribunal Federal de Distrito en Miami, Florida, concretó en la sentencia que ¨ut supra¨ señalara, esta decisión deberá ser adoptada con la sabiduría y el criterio del hombre al que la humanidad consagró como PREMIO NOBEL DE LA PAZ, la que millones de AMERICANOS pocas horas atrás volvieron a confiar los destinos de esa Nación, que es Usted Presidente Barak OBAMA.-

Sin otro particular, y a la espera de una respuesta favorable a mi petición lo saludo con mi consideración más distinguida.

DR.MIGUEL ANGEL PIERRI, ABOGADO

Raising Resistance: Solidarity with the Unist’ot’en, November 27th

Raising Resistance: Solidarity with the Unist’ot’en, November 27th

Nov 26

Posted by Enaemaehkiw Túpac Keshena

In inspiring resistance this past week, the Unist’ot’en and Grassroots Wet’suwet’en have, yet again, evicted pipelines from their territories!

On November 20th, Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chief Toghestiy intercepted and issued an eagle feather to surveyors from the Can-Am Geomatics company who were working for Apache’s proposed natural gas Pacific Trails Pipeline (PTP). In Wet’suwet’en law, an eagle feather is used as a first and only notice of trespass. The surveyors were ordered to leave the territory and the road leading into the territory has been closed to all industry activities until further notice. The materials that were left behind by the work crew are being held until Apache and PTP agree to open up appropriate lines of communication with the Unist’ot’en and grassroots Wet’suwet’en according to the Free Prior and Informed Consent protocol and laws of their unceded territories. The Unist’ot’en are against all pipelines slated to cross through their territories, which include Enbridge Northern Gateway, Kinder Morgans northern proposal, Pembina, and Spectra. Read the rest of this entry →

Posted in Ecological Struggles, Indigenous Struggles, Internationalism & Solidarity

Leave a Comment

Tags: Indigenous Solidarity, Kanada, Kanadian Pipeline Development, Unist’ot’en