Tag: politics

Developments in Syria

5th December 2024

A statement from Liberation

Islamist forces in Aleppo

The capture of Aleppo by Islamist paramilitary forces has taken many across the Middle East and around the world by surprise and signifies once more the destabilisation of Syria as well as the rapidly deteriorating situation in the wider region, opening the door to further external intervention and a catastrophic war.

Liberation has received information from progressive forces inside Syria, critical of the Assad regime, but also opposed to outside intervention and the fragmentation of the country.

The progressive opposition in Syria have articulated a number of key points regarding the present situation with a call for negotiation on the basis of UN Security Council resolutions being central to their position.

Firstly, they have made clear that the currently in place “de-escalation” zones, despite their importance in stemming further bloodshed from the Syrian civil war, are not a sustainable solution over the longer term. Their function was to stop the bloodshed in order to move towards dialogue and negotiations to reach a real political solution that would reunite the Syrian people and the entire sovereign territory of Syria through the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2254. A real politically driven transition towards a new political, economic, and social system ultimately determined by the Syrian people is the desired outcome.

Secondly, the progressive opposition recognise that, over the past 13 years, Syria has endured cycles of extreme violence and destruction throughout the country, which the implementation of de-escalation agreements and zones brought to a halt. This led to a state of near-complete ceasefire by mid-2019, essentially a freezing of the conflict. After that, the economic phase of attrition began, both from at home as well as abroad. Thus, international sanctions served to deepen and exacerbate the brutal neoliberal economic policies overseen by the Syrian government. This led to a worsening of the Syrian tragedy and laid the foundations for the fall of Aleppo and the events currently being witnessed in the country.

The progressive opposition in Syria states: “The renewal of the cycle of violence and battles means that a political solution is more necessary today than ever before, and more possible than ever before. None of the sides concerned with sitting at the negotiating table can claim the ability to achieve a crushing victory that will destroy the other side, and this has been tried for many years at the expense of the blood and suffering of the Syrian people.”

Liberation is also very concerned regarding the implications of the events of the past week in Syria for the further destabilisation of the wider Middle East, including the prospects for what would be a catastrophic regional war – with global implications – were it to break out. We believe the developments in Syria have not taken place in a void removed from the events since last October, not least the apparent drastic weakening, if not dismantling, of the so-called “axis of resistance” forces’ capabilities – and, by extension, those of the Islamic Republic regime in Iran in the region – over more recent months. The cynical exploitation of, if not outright malign interference in, these developments by governments such as Israel and Türkiye, serve only to make a desperate and deteriorating security situation in the region as well as wider fallout much worse. Indeed, we note the comment made earlier today by Iraqi prime minister, Mohammed Shia’ Al Sudani in which he stated that his country will not remain just a “spectator” to the events unfolding in neighbouring Syria.

Liberation supports the calls for a comprehensive and binding political solution to the crisis in Syria, and one free of any kind of military intervention from outside forces or other infringement upon the country’s sovereignty. Thus, we add our voice to the growing call for the urgent implementation of UN Security Council resolution 2254 and a resolution to the crisis in Syria firmly grounded and based upon the will of the Syrian people, not the forces of outside intervention.

Developments in Syria: Liberation Statement

War Shadows Darken

21st November 2024

British PM, Kier Starmer, grandstands at the G20 Summit in Brazil

NATO’s undeclared war on Russia, fought through its proxy in Ukraine, took further steps towards escalation this week.  In the final desperate weeks of his presidency Joe Biden has upped the ante in the conflict in Ukraine by giving the go ahead for US missiles, with a range of up to 300 km, to be fired into Russian territory. Biden has also sanctioned the use of anti-personnel mines, widely discredited and subject to international agreements to prohibit their use, through the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, though neither the US or Russia are signatories.

Reports also suggest that British supplied Storm Shadow missiles have been used in recent days to hit targets inside Russia, increasing the danger of Britain becoming a target for retaliatory action.  The West continues to ignore peace proposals put forward by China and persists in pouring more fuel onto the fire of the conflict, through the continued supply of arms and aid to Ukraine. 

Britain alone has committed £12.8 billion to Ukraine since 2022 of which £5bn is financial support and £7.8bn is for military purposes.  Britain is the third largest donor of military equipment after the US and Germany.

Speaking at the recent G20 Summit in Brazil Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, said that there had already been “1,000 days of sacrifice” but that Britain would continue to ensure Ukraine has what it needs to fight the war “for as long as it needs”.

Without any apparent hint of irony Starmer went on to say,

“In this moment when global challenges are affecting us at home, I take the view that British leadership matters.”

The character of that “leadership” would appear to be little more that to kowtow to the diktats of US foreign policy, by supporting the war against Russia, rather than addressing the real needs of working class communities in Britain.  The billions that are going to pay for weapons of destruction in Ukraine could  more usefully be spent on winter fuel payments for the elderly, investing in support for the health and care services, or supporting the crumbling schools infrastructure across the country.

As priorities go the idea of  “British leadership” on the global scale is merely empty rhetoric as the Western military alliance, NATO, dances to the tune dictated by who pays the piper.  By far and away NATO’s biggest paymaster is the US and there is no way that the British tail will be allowed to wag that dog!

What Starmer really needs to address are the challenges “affecting us at home”, with the emphasis on the “us” being working class families and communities, who inevitably shoulder the burden of imperialist wars and the waste of public money on weapons of mass destruction, rather than socially useful programmes which will support well paid jobs and help communities thrive.  That however would require a true socialist perspective with planning for people at the forefront and the needs of the many put before the greed of the profit hungry few.

Instead the lobby for more money to be spent on the military is already underway with British chief of defence staff, Sir Tony Radakin, stating when interviewed by the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg that the government should provide more money for defence.

Interviewed on the same programme Treasury minister, Darren Jones, said the government wanted to increase defence spending from 2.3% to 2.5% of the national income but that the government would not commit to a deadline until it had completed its strategic defence review.

The review, led by former Labour minister and NATO head George Robertson, is examining the current state of the armed forces, the supposed threats that Britain faces and the capabilities needed to address them. It is due to be completed in the spring of 2025.  It is unlikely that Robertson’s review will conclude that threats could be minimised by not spending billions on fuelling conflicts, or by not renewing the Trident nuclear submarine programme, which will waste billions in public funds.

In a classic piece of government euphemism Jones in his interview went on to warn that increasing defence spending would mean “trade offs” with other areas of public spending.  It hardly needs spelling out that trade offs will mean cuts in those other areas of public spending which will impact upon the services that people really need, such as health and social care, housing, education and transport.  Having a few overpriced and essentially useless nuclear submarines at sea will not help any of that.

Starmer may feel his ego is boosted by puffing out his chest and grandstanding about supporting Ukraine at the G20 Summit.  He may think that is “leadership” but the reality is that such a position is one of supine surrender to the drive of US imperialism, to escalate the conflict with Russia and ultimately to turn its sights towards China. 

Working class communities in Britain will pay a heavy price if Starmer continues down that road.  The work of Stop the War, CND and those sections of the Labour Movement committed to peace and social justice is more vital than ever in mobilising opposition to the growing threat of increased military activity in Ukraine, the Middle East and the Far East.  The pro-war lobby must be stopped and it must be stopped now before the current conflicts truly do become worldwide.

US election – Resistance is vital

7th November 2024

Demonstrations will continue to oppose the reactionary policies of President Trump

The election of a new President in the United States is always a moment of international significance, given the role the US plays in world politics.  The Presidential election of 2024 has been described as the most consequential in a generation and there is no doubt that the re-election of Donald Trump will have profound repercussions both in the US and internationally.

Trump’s first term appointments of reactionary judges to the Supreme Court has already led to the reversal of Roe v Wade and the attack on reproductive rights in the US.  While each State can at the moment determine its own position there is no guarantee that Trump will not introduce nationwide anti-abortion legislation, under pressure from the hardline Christian evangelist lobby.

The belligerent stand taken by Trump in relation to the Black Lives Matter Movement also does not augur well for progress in the discrimination and treatment of the Black and Latino communities in the US.  While the media are making much out of the increase in Trump’s vote share amongst these communities, over the more socially liberal Kamala Harris, work is still needed to analyse the pattern of voting and the impact of many who stayed at home.

As a long standing advocate of gun laws being as relaxed as possible, US citizens cannot look forward to any action to restrain the gun lobby in the US, led by the fanatical National Rifle Association (NRA).  The consequence of lack of control over gun law in the US  saw nearly 43,000 people die from gun related violence in 2023 and any hope for that number to drop significantly under Trump is slim.

Trump has the backing of a shady grouping around the Make America Great Again (MAGA) campaign, called Project 2025: The Presidential Transition Project.

The blurb on their website states it’s mission:

“ It is not enough for conservatives to win elections. If we are going to rescue the country from the grip of the radical Left, we need both a governing agenda and the right people in place, ready to carry this agenda out on Day One of the next conservative Administration.

This is the goal of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. The project will build on four pillars that will, collectively, pave the way for an effective conservative Administration.”

Trump has also called for thousands of federal employees to be fired and to be replaced by workers who are appropriately vetted on the basis of their ideological belief in the limited role of federal government and personal loyalty to him, stating,

“I will require every federal employee to pass a new civil service test, demonstrating an understanding of our constitutional limited government.”

Tax cuts for the rich and cuts in public services for the rest are likely to be the reality of Trump’s policies.

On the world stage the US military industrial complex will be looking forward to continued profits as Trump will undoubtedly continue promoting the sales of US weapons and technology worldwide.

In relation to the ongoing Israeli action in the Middle East, in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and Iran, Trump has made clear his unswerving support for Benjamin Netanyahu and the ongoing incursions by the Israel Defence Force (IDF), resulting in thousands of deaths over the past year.  Trump’s election victory was greeted enthusiastically by Netanyahu and his supporters in Tel Aviv.

In his first term as President, Trump tore up the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in relation to Iran, which constrained Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for a relaxation of sanctions.  Given Trump’s belligerent tone towards Iran, allied with his support for Israel, there is a clear danger of escalation of the conflict in the Middle East.  

In relation to Ukraine Trump has been more ambivalent but the strategic objectives of the US and NATO, in encircling Russia in order to contain its influence, remain real.  However any settlement regarding Ukraine is arrived at in the short term, this wider objective will remain.

In the Indo-Pacific the military built up to counter the so called ‘threat’ of China continues, with ongoing economic and military support for Taiwan being key, along with the threat to peace in the region posed by the AUKUS alliance of the US, UK and Australia.

Any moves towards rapprochement with Cuba, mild as they were under the Obama administration, were ditched during Trump’s first term.  Cuba was added to the US state sponsors of terrorism list.  To the shame of the Biden administration this position was not reversed and the ongoing illegal blockade against Cuba, imposed by the US, will continue under a new Trump Presidency.

The ongoing CIA campaign to undermine progress in Venezuela, a long running effort to install a US friendly regime in that country, is unlikely to change under Trump,  while a clampdown upon migration from Latin America in general will reinforce the jingoism which has been a hallmark of Trump’s policies.  Trump has vowed to oversee the largest mass deportation in US history for example and has repeatedly stated that immigrants are “poisoning the blood” of the country.

The Trump administration may not be characterised as fascist yet but Trump does have form.   According to John Kelly, former White House Chief of Staff, during a 2018 trip to Paris to commemorate the end of World War I, Trump told him that Hitler “did a lot of good things.”

Much of the United States will be waking up to the hangover of a second Trump administration.  The broad anti-MAGA coalition will continue to mobilise against the reactionary legislation Trump is bound to introduce. The Communist Party USA is calling for a renewed resistance movement to build the anti-fascist front that has been developing over recent years.  Resistance is not only possible but vital, for the people of the US and the world.

Peace the Middle East priority

12th October 2024

A Palestinian girl carries a child through the rubble of houses destroyed by Israeli bombardment in Gaza City 

The extent to which Israel is prepared to go it alone in a threatened strike against Iran was made clear this week in reported discussions between the Israelis and the United States.  US President, Joe Biden, and Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, discussed issues relating to Israel’s expected provocation against Iran in their first call in over a month last week.  The White House has said that Biden emphasised the need for “a diplomatic arrangement” to allow Israeli and Lebanese civilians displaced by fighting to return to their homes; urged Israel to minimise civilian casualties in airstrikes against Beirut; and discussed “the urgent need to renew diplomacy” on achieving a cease-fire in Gaza.

Clearly Biden’s words have had little impact with the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) carrying out its heaviest bombing raids so far on Thursday night, just over 24 hours after the Biden/Netanyahu conversation.  The strikes included attacks upon United Nations peacekeeping positions, reinforcing the rogue status of Israel in the Middle East.

It is apparent that the US is frustrated by being repeatedly caught off guard by Israel’s military actions in Gaza and Lebanon, but appears incapable of summoning the political will to head off further escalation.  There was some hope that the US would learn more about what Israel was contemplating when Israeli Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, and US Defence Secretary, Lloyd Austin, were scheduled to meet at the Pentagon last week.  However, Netanyahu blocked Gallant from going to the US as Israel continued planning its Iran operation.  As it stands the US claims not to know either the timing of the strike or what Israel might target.

It is known that Army Gen. Erik Kurilla, who heads US Central Command, with responsibility for US military operations in the Middle East, has met with Gallant and top Israeli military commanders, to warn against striking Iran’s nuclear sites or oil facilities.

Gallant is widely seen in the West as the Israeli leader most responsive to the US concerns about Israel’s prosecution of the war in Gaza, especially regarding increasing humanitarian aid and creating a plan for postwar governance.   However, it is evident that Netanyahu’s desire to cling to office, and take advantage of the hiatus which the pre-election period in the US represents, outweighs any wider strategic concerns for him and the religious fundamentalist backers in his government.

US failure to act decisively is frustrating the international community as it is clearly the major supplier of arms to the IDF.   Israel, can only continue to prosecute the wars it has initiated on multiple fronts, because of its dependence on the US military. Over the past year, it has not only relied on supplies of American munitions, but benefited from US help in shooting down missiles and drones, as well as the rapid deployment of American naval and air forces to deter more substantial Iranian attacks.

In turn the US has had to modify its strategic priorities, which were focussed on ramping up conflicts with China and Russia, to adapt. Struggling to head off an all-out Middle East war, the Pentagon has deployed two aircraft carrier battle groups to the region for much of the year.

Against this background the threat of further escalation once the IDF attack Iran is significant, for the region, for world peace and for the people of Iran themselves.

Inside Iran the theocratic leadership of the Islamic Republic is walking a political tightrope having seen its adventurist foreign policy in the region at least temporarily crushed, following the overkill of the Israeli response to the Hamas attack of the 7th October last year.  Leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah have been assassinated, key targets have been hit, disrupting operations, and the Israelis have even reached into Tehran itself to undermine the Islamic dictatorship’s reliability on its own security apparatus.

Evidence in both Gaza and Lebanon would suggest that the Israelis are not inclined towards acting with restraint, as the death toll on both fronts mounts, along with the increasing unrest in the occupied West Bank.  Iran’s response to the strikes against Hezbollah in Lebanon have so far not inflicted significant damage upon the IDF but have been sufficient to give the Israelis justification, in their eyes, to strike back.

It is clear from the evidence of the past year, the years of illegal Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank and the repeated incursions into Lebanon by the IDF over the years, that there is not a military solution to the issues in the Middle East.  The only solution can be a diplomatic one, starting with the right of the Palestinian people to self determination and a state of their own.

The failure of the international community, primarily the United States and Britain, to enforce United Nations resolutions, which would compel Israel to negotiate, and to continue to supply weapons to sustain the IDF, are the key drivers of the current situation.  Until peace is at the top of the strategic objectives of all players the people of Gaza, Lebanon and Iran, will continue to suffer.

Blatant Biased Content (BBC)

4th October 2024

BBC International Editor, Jeremy Bowen

Reporting by the BBC on current conflicts demonstrates the bias of the corporation and the extent to which, in spite of its regular emphasis upon impartiality, the BBC is anything but  when it comes to its international coverage.

The Russian incursion into Ukraine in February 2022 was undertaken in order to protect communities who had expressed a wish to become part of Russia, but had suffered at the hands of Ukrainian forces since 2014, resulting in 14,000 deaths.  The Minsk Accords, signed in 2015 to  halt the fighting, were later admitted by Western governments to be a mere ploy to give Ukraine time to re-arm.

The Russian intervention is nevertheless unfailingly referred to by the BBC as a full scale invasion and the wider context, including the CIA backed coup in Ukraine in 2014, conveniently overlooked.

Even after the intervention by Russia, a peace agreement mediated by Turkey in March 2022 was on the brink of being signed by Ukraine, until the United States persuaded then British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, to deliver the message to President Zelensky that the “collective West” would not support the agreement.

In an item given widespread coverage by the BBC in the last couple of days, Khalil al-Hayya, the deputy leader of Hamas, was interviewed by BBC international editor Jeremy Bowen.  On each occasion al-Hayya was introduced as someone whose views may be abhorrent to many.  Bowen was asked to justify why the interview had taken place and why al-Hayya should be given air time.

Bowen dutifully trotted out the BBC line on impartiality and the need to hear all sides in a crisis situation.  All very well, but the briefings by Israeli Defence Force (IDF) representatives, committing genocide in Gaza, killing medical teams in the West Bank and currently invading neighbouring Lebanon are not given the same caveat, even though many will find both their views and their actions abhorrent.

It is also noteworthy that the invasion of Lebanon by the IDF is described by the BBC as an ‘incursion’, a characterisation they may struggle to hold onto as the death toll inevitably mounts.

The BBC attempts to protect the illusion of impartiality in other ways too.  John Simpson is regularly given his own half hour, titled Unspun World, in which Simpson interviews various BBC correspondents who invariably give a particular spin on events in the part of the world that are covering.  The title is not meant to be ironic.

Then there is the BBC Verified branding.  Presumably it is the BBC themselves who are undertaking the verification, which is a bit like the police investigating themselves or students marking their own homework.  Are they really trying to kid us that a new logo is a guarantee of impartiality and objectivity?

How the Tories can continue to bleat on about the BBC being run by ‘Lefties’ and not toeing the line on issues is laughable.  Apart from the odd moment of mild criticism the BBC knows quite clearly on which side its bread is buttered.  Sadly it is not the side of investigative journalism, truth and objectivity.

Racism – a real problem in Britain today

10th August 2024

Daily Mail headlines fuel the anti asylum seeker narrative

Demonstrations across Britain this week, deemed anti-immigration protests by the media but actually pro-racism mob violence, have been met with stalwart resistance from local communities determined to resist fascist attacks.   This has ranged from a 3,000 strong turnout in Newcastle upon Tyne’s West End to defend a centre for asylum seekers, to the City Centre clean up in Sunderland following a night of vandalism and looting. Similar actions have been reported from across the country.

Such shows of working class community solidarity are vital to quashing the misinformation spread by the far Right that Britain has an ‘immigration problem’.  Such language and provocations are the natural territory of the far Right but the collusion of much of the mainstream media, including the BBC, in regarding immigration as a problem to be solved gives the claims of extremists more credibility in the eyes of the most gullible.

Coventry South MP, Zarah Sultana, recently posted on X a montage of Daily Mail headlines which fuelled the anti-asylum seeker narrative.  Sultana also suffered hostile questioning on ITV’s Good Morning Britain this week, from presenters Ed Balls and Kate Garraway, for suggesting that the violence over the past week should be called out as Islamophobic.

Balls in particular was quick to defend Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper (his wife), and Labour leader Kier Starmer for acknowledging that the violence was fuelled by racism but refused to accept that they should call it out as Islamophobic.  To her credit Sultana stood her ground and has come out of the encounter with more credit than either Balls or Garraway.

While the Labour government has been quick to point the finger at social media and mobilise the state apparatus of the police and the courts there has not been any recognition, from the Front Bench at least, that these measures are only dealing with the symptoms and not the cause.  There is no argument about jailing fascist thugs or addressing any of the shortcomings of the Online Safety Bill.  However, at root the issues of poverty, disaffection, and a sense of disconnection from a hugely unequal society are the causes which need to be tackled.   

Those at the sharp end of the impact of capitalism and its endemic crises are the most likely to fall prey to the easy solutions presented by the demagogues of the far Right and the so-called populist rhetoric of the likes of Reform MP, Nigel Farage.  It is no coincidence that the worst violence has been seen in areas of the greatest poverty, or that the previous Tory government placed asylum seekers in hotels in these areas. 

Preventing a repeat of the scenes which have taken place over the past week will require robust action to tackle poverty, low wages and exploitation.  It will require massive attention to the housing issues faced by many working class communities.  It will require greater investment in the local government services which many working class communities rely upon.  It will require a stronger approach to tackling wealth inequality and how resources are distributed across society.

It will require Labour politicians to be seen on the frontline with threatened communities showing their active support.  It will also require Labour to reject the narrative that immigration is a problem to be solved and turn that round to make it clear that a major problem to be solved in Britain today is racism.

Divide and rule has always been a key tool of ruling class strategy and the recent activity across Britain has shown how some sections of working class communities can be persuaded by the far Right, while others will stand firm in the face of fascist violence.

Any strategy which is to ultimately succeed however has to be based upon a recognition of the class interests of those communities most threatened and that solidarity between black and white working class communities is the only way forward.  In short it will require a strategy which not only deals with the symptoms but begins to tackle the causes of racist violence in Britan today.  

Superficial change

5th July 2024

The keys to the door – Kier Starmer about to enter 10, Downing St

Having smuggled the metaphorical Ming vase across the threshold of 10, Downing St, Kier Starmer and his team need to decide whether its fragility is worth preserving or whether they just smash it and take advantage of their massive 170 seat majority to effect real change.  Given the character of Starmer and his team the prospect is that the vase will sit quietly on the mantelpiece ready to be dusted off in 2029.

The scale of the Labour majority may give the illusion that the politics of Starmer and the Labour leadership have swept the country and that they expect to be hoist aloft on the shoulders of the people.  The reality is not so clear cut.

Interviewed on Radio Four today architect of New Labour, right wing Labour henchman Peter (now Lord) Mandelson, described the Labour victory as ‘efficient’.  Mandelson pointed out that Labour did not just stack up votes in safe constituencies but managed to gain seats in more marginal areas too.  However, much of this was as a result of Reform splitting the Tory vote in some areas with the Lib Dems taking votes from the Tories in others.  The collapse of the fractured and fractious SNP in Scotland was also a contributory factor.

The national turnout was low at 60% with Labour only gaining 35% of the votes across the country, slightly up on the 33% achieved under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership in 2019 but well down on the 40% share Corbyn achieved in the 2017 General Election.   Jeremy Corbyn retaining his seat as an Independent in Islington North was a small victory for the Left and the election of four other Independents on the back of Labour’s weak position on Israeli genocide in Gaza signalled to Starmer that there will be more progressive voices of dissent in the House of Commons.

The single word which characterised Labour’s campaign and was the title of its manifesto was Change.  Starmer spent much of the campaign not just emphasising the word change in the context of change for the country but change in the context of the Labour Party itself.  The purge of many on the Left, over recent years, is certainly testament to Starmer’s efforts at internal change.  This was characterised by the imposition of Starmer friendly candidates in many constituencies, ensuring a House of Commons that will be largely compliant and reliant on the largesse of the leader.

The reality of the next five years is going to be one in which the adjective ‘superficial’ could precede the change mantra which is Starmer’s watchword.   The pledge of Starmer to ‘unite the country’, in his first speech outside Downing Street, presupposes that the country can be united, Irish Republicans and Scottish Nationalists will disagree, or that the interests of conflicting classes can be harmonised.  There is no evidence that Labour will do anything to stop the rich getting richer or that they will fundamentally challenge the causes of poverty which are endemic to capitalism as a system.

For the working class however, there is no doubt that getting the Tories out of government is a step forward.  A Labour government at least gives the possibility of more progressive policies with the prospect of influence from the Left, from the trade union movement and from mass extra parliamentary action, potentially shifting Labour in a more positive direction.

Once the flurry of excitement about the Tory meltdown subsides the job of ensuring Labour is more focused on the issues in towns and backstreets, rather than the City of London, must be a priority.  The rise of so-called populism, in the form of the Reform vote, offering the illusion of easy answers to complex problems, will need to be tackled in working class communities. 

The importance of the need for real change, socialist change, as the only answer to really address the needs of working class communities will need to be articulated.   There is certainly no sense that the Labour leadership under Starmer will do this but until it is part of Labour campaigning, simply repeating the mantra ‘change’ will not be enough to make it happen.

Iranian election sham will not fool the people

30th June 2024

‘Supreme Leader’ Khamenei votes in Iran’s election sham

The Presidential election in Iran, following the death in a helicopter crash of President Raisi in May, has borne all the hallmarks of manipulation by the theocratic dictatorship under the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader, Ayotollah Ali Khamenei.

The death of Raisi, along with the ongoing wave of protests against inflation, poverty and corruption across Iran, have wrongfooted the regime.  While the hardline Raisi maintained his position through the force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and his close relationship with Khamenei, popular support was always at a low ebb.

The response of the regime, in an election where all candidates are closely vetted by the Guardian Council, was to come up with a ‘safe’ candidate to add to the ballot paper, in order to appease so called moderates within the regime, and to head off any further protests from excluded opposition parties, trade unions, women and youth groups. 

To that end the inclusion of 69 year old former Health Minister, Masoud Pezeshkian, in the list of candidates approved by the regime was a calculated and deliberate tactic, in order to create a superficial and cosmetic change, without affecting the power structure based on the theory of “political Islam”.

The reformist faction within the regime urged public participation in the election and encouraged people to vote for Pezeshkian.  Their rationale is that the prospect of “building trust with the regime” is one which has more chance if a less hardline candidate occupies the presidency.  However, such tactics have proven to have failed in the past, with so called reformist candidates such as Muhammad Khatami (1997-2005) and Hassan Rouhani (2013-2021) failing to make any significant difference to the theocratic power structure which underpins the Islamic Republic.

Decades of experience with reformist movements, including the Green Movement for political and cultural openness and the teachers, workers, and retirees movements for better wages, livelihoods, and working and living conditions, have shown that hoping for the possibility of reform within the ruling structure is unrealistic. The emergence of the Women, Life, Freedom movement, in response to the murder in detention of Mahsa Amini in September 2022, has been the latest expression of this desire for structural, rather than cosmetic, change in Iran.

In spite of the efforts of the regime’s public relations machine in the lead up to the poll last Friday, desperate to increase participation in the election given the less than 50% turnout in recent votes, only 40% of voters turned out.  The depth of opposition supporting the boycott of candidates was widespread, further undermining the regime’s claims that the elections demonstrate democratic legitimacy. 

A run off vote with the two highest polling candidates, Pezeshkian and Saeed Jalili will be held on 5th July. However, with ultimate control over foreign and military policy remaining in the hands of the Supreme Leader the role of President in Iran can often be little more than ceremonial.

There is certainly no chance of either candidate challenging the corruption which is an endemic part of Iran’s economy, addressing the increasingly adventurist foreign policy in the Middle East, reflected in support for Hamas and Hezbollah, or addressing the lack of political and social rights of the Iranian people.

The scale of discontent within the country is underlined by the reports from the Union of Metalworkers and Mechanics of Iran (UMMI) that outsourced project workers in the country’s refineries, oil and gas installations and power plants have walked out in protest at their wages and conditions of service.  The workers are demanding a change in shift patterns including a ‘14 days on, 14 days off’ rotation for oil and gas workers and to “de-casualise” workers’ contracts.

An estimated 3,000 workers joined the strike on the first day and the ongoing action may well inform attitudes towards the Presidential election.  More recent reports suggest that the number of companies and workplaces affected by the action now stands at 80, involving at least 18,000 striking workers.

The scale of the suppression of political, democratic and human rights in Iran continues to be widespread an is an endemic feature of the regime.  Activists across the spectrum of the protest movements in Iran do not see either of the presidential election candidates having a plan to respond to their real democratic and just demands.  Even if this were the case, the theocratic structure would not allow for the opportunity to realise the implementation of democratic reforms.

Activists across the progressive opposition in Iran, who continue to advance democratic demands, continue to call for a country wide boycott of the election, in order to show that neither candidate represents the will or the aspirations of the Iranian people.

Progressive activists in Iran will continue to call for the development and deepening of the protest movements, seeking greater co-operation which can lead to the integration and convergence of different sectors.

Such a development will allow the true voice of the Iranian people to come through, not simply an echo manipulated through a sham election process.

Ukraine – adding fuel to the fire

15th June 2024

It’s a deal – Zelensky and Biden, partners in crime

The recently signed 10 year security pact, agreed between the United States and Ukraine marks a further ramping up of NATO’s proxy war against Russia.  The deal, signed on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Italy last week, aims to commit future US administrations to support Ukraine, even if former President Donald Trump wins November’s election.  The G7 nations also agreed to a $50 billion loan for Ukraine backed by profits from frozen Russian assets.  US President, Joe Biden, asserted that the G7’s message to Russian President, Vladimir Putin, is “You cannot wait us out. You cannot divide us.”

The deal is widely seen as a step towards NATO membership for Ukraine and a further move towards the encirclement of Russia by NATO nations.  Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, has been pushing for full NATO member ship for some time.  NATO regards any attack launched on one of its 32 members as an attack on all, under its Article Five clause, so membership is seen as a trump card by Ukraine in pressurising Russia.

Even without NATO membership the deal contains some clauses which point to potential US intervention in the current conflict.  For example, in the event of an armed attack or threat of such against Ukraine, top US and Ukrainian officials will meet within 24 hours to consult on a response and determine what additional defence needs are required for Ukraine.  Under the agreement, the United States restates its support for Ukraine’s defence of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The agreement also outlines plans to develop Ukraine’s own defence industry and expand its military.

The text of the deal allows the two countries to share intelligence, hold training and military education programmes and combined military exercises, which will clearly be a provocation to Russia.  The deal also asserts that Ukraine needs a “significant” military force and sustained investments in its defence industrial base, consistent with NATO standards. All of which is tantamount to a blank cheque for the US military industrial complex to make massive profits from the arrangement.

The deal also comes against the backdrop of Biden having recently shifted US policy against allowing Ukraine to use American weapons for attacks inside Russia, in effect permitting Kyiv to fire long-range US missiles against Russian targets near the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv.

In the press conference convened to announce the deal Biden said arrangements were being made to provide Ukraine with five Patriot missile defence systems, saying: “Everything we have is going to Ukraine until its needs are met.”  Biden also added that his administration is “intensifying” its pressure on Moscow, including by warning banks earlier this week that they risk US sanctions should they do business with Russia.

The agreement between the US and Ukraine is the 16th such bilateral agreement Ukraine has now reached. As an executive order, it could be undone by a Trump administration, should Joe Biden fail to win the US election in November.  However, the intention of the current US administration is that the accumulation of agreements collectively adds up to a form of security assurance that, although short of full NATO membership, will strengthen the hand of the military alliance in its provocations against Russia.

A unilateral so called, Global Peace Summit, takes place in Switzerland this weekend (15/16 June), initiated by Ukraine, to which Russia is not invited.  The summit is little more than a vanity project initiated by President Zelensky in an attempt to galvanise international support around his right wing nationalist agenda.  US President, Joe Biden, will not attend, sending Vice President Kamala Harris.  China will not attend, as the Chinese Foreign Ministry has said it believes a peace conference should involve both Russia and Ukraine.  Under half of the 193 United Nations member countries are planning to attend.

Russia remains keen to build upon a draft peace agreement negotiated in the early days of the war that included provisions for Ukraine’s neutral status and put limits on its armed forces.  Ukraine continues to focus upon a 10 point plan drafted by Zelensky in 2022, which focuses upon the withdrawal of Russian troops and denial of the legitimacy of  Crimea being part of Russia.

Mark Cancian, senior adviser for the International Security Programme at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said he expects many attendees to remain neutral on the war.

“Zelensky will want to turn the conference into an anti-Russian coalition,” he said. “However, some of the attendees may want to explore end states that are short of what Ukraine wants — for example, some sort of in-place cease-fire.”

While the summit is unlikely to achieve anything significant, without the participation of Russia or China, the signing of the 10 year deal between the US and Ukraine will ensure that the NATO strategy of encircling and provoking Russia remains in place and that the suffering of both the Russian and the Ukrainian people continues.

Peace proposals put forward by both Russia and China have been rejected out of hand by the West, which continues to increase the militarisation of Ukraine and pour weapons into the conflict, adding fuel to an already raging regional fire and increasing the threat of global war.

Ambition for real change?

9th June 2024

On the buses – but will Labour commitments short change?

While the political boomerang that is Nigel Farage, newly re-installed as leader of the Reform Party, wants the looming General Election to be about immigration, that will not be the major issue concerning working class people in Britain.  Farage has for many years now pedalled his own xenophobic agenda and, while he has succeeded in fooling some of the people, some of the time, he will not fool all of the people all of the time.

Net migration into the UK is running at around 650,000, hardly a massive issue for a nation with a 65 million population and a responsibility to those it has forced to become migrants due to its complicity in bombing Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and Iraq in recent years.  The least the British government can do is to give those displaced due to imperialist wars a place of shelter.

The real issue underlying everything facing the British electorate is, as ever, the economy.  Capitalism is not a system designed to help, support or alleviate the suffering of the working class.  It is a system based upon the exploitation of that class by a property and land owning autocracy, fronted by the Church of England and the Monarchy.   Its representation in Parliament is ostensibly through the Conservative Party, although the occasional safe Labour administration is allowed to slip through the net, while the Tories untangle themselves from a political mess of their own making, or have simply been in government so long that people desire a change.  The current point finds the Tories under pressure for both reasons, hence the likelihood of a Labour government on 5th July.

In which case, what will Labour do about the economy?  The Labour leadership is absolutely committed to capitalism, so that will not change.  The Labour leadership is committed to renewing Britain’s weapons of mass destruction, in the form of the Trident nuclear submarine programme, so less scope for spending on desperately needed schools and hospitals. 

Labour’s manifesto will commit to the creation of GB Energy, a publicly owned green power company.  It will commit to 40,000 more NHS appointments per week and the recruitment of 6,500 new teachers to shore up the flagging education workforce. It will even contain a commitment to recognising a Palestinian state, as part of the peace process.

Yet as positive as these pledges sound, there is still no real commitment to invest in order to grow the economy or address the issues of job insecurity faced by working class families.  Sharon Graham, general secretary of UNITE, one of Labour’s biggest trade union backers, has said that she cannot endorse the document as the union has reservations about Labour’s position on hire and fire practices and zero hours contracts.

Shadow Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has been the standard bearer of economic caution, promising not to spend more than the economy can allegedly afford and not to boost public spending.  The reality is however that to address the needs of working class people, in order to improve their lives, public spending is essential.

A recent report by the Resolution Foundation think tank suggests that the next government will have to make £19 billion of annual cuts to unprotected departments by 2028-29 if budgets are to be sustained without new tax rises.  Both the Tories and Labour are committed to military spending increasing to 2.5% of GDP, an area both will protect, while local government, the deliverer of key services to help working class families survive is afforded no such protection. 

There are ways to raise additional funds, quite apart from not buying weapons of mass destruction in the first place.  A wealth tax of 1% to 2% on those with assets of more than £10 million, just 0.04% of the population, would raise £22 billion annually.  That would pay for 75% of the entire social care bill for a year.  In 2020 the Wealth Commission recommended a one off wealth tax for five years, which could raise a tidy £260 billion.  Recent YouGov polling suggests that 78% of people support an annual wealth tax on the super rich.  Clearly not a vote loser!

No one is expecting a Labour government led by Kier Starmer, Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves to make a call to build the barricades and tear down the capitalist system.  However, it is disingenuous of all three to suggest that there is not money there to support working class people and to make their lives more bearable.

Electing a Labour government on 4th July remains a necessity but, with a majority which could be nothing short of monumental, that government ought to be firmer in its commitment to challenging the clear inequities in the system and putting in place policies to challenge them.  Such a small step would make a minor dent in the edifice of capitalism but could make a huge difference to the lives of many working class families.  Pressure must remain upon the Labour leadership to be more radical and to see getting the keys to 10, Downing St as the beginning of an ambition for real change, not the conclusion.