Another left-wing election win in Latin America

El Salvador’s FMLN celebrates capturing presidency


FOR 12 years between, 1980 and 1992, the streets and hills of El Salvador in Central America ran red with blood as it endured a vicious civil war that claimed 75,000 lives and displaced thousands more. On 15 March last, its towns and villages were once again submerged in red, but this time it was the crimson banners, flags and T-shirts of the FMLN that provided the colour.
The FMLN’s popular candidate, Mauricio Funes, a 49-year-old former journalist and broadcaster, emerged victorious from El Salvador’s presidential campaign. He secured 51.3 per cent of the vote compared to 48.7 per cent gained by his opponent from the right-wing ARENA party, Rodrigo Ávila. The latter was a former police chief and protégé of outgoing President Elias Antonio Saca. He was also a former army sniper who killed FMLN Marxist guerrillas during the uprising and is a vocal supporter of the now deceased Roberto D’Aubuisson, the infamous founder of ARENA who commanded death squads responsible for the torture and slaughter of thousands.

GROUND-BREAKING
The election of Funes is ground-breaking in that not only does it end the 20-year dominance of ARENA but it also shatters the 130 years of military and oligarchic rule of El Salvador.
Funes inherits a country virtually bankrupted by the right-wing. ARENA privatised the country’s banks, pension system and telephone and electricity companies. The cost of basic foodstuffs have spiralled out of control and gang violence is a serious problem.
Wealth distribution is shameful with the share of income held by the top 10 per cent more than 57 times higher than the share held by the bottom 10 per cent. The precarious economy relies on the significant remittances sent home by the 2.5m Salvadorans in the US, some $3.7bn last year, the equivalent of one-fifth of the country’s GDP. El Salvador is one of the poorest countries in Latin America with 40 per cent of its population struggling to exist on $2 per day.

SHERATON HOTEL
In 1989, the Sheraton Hotel in the capital, San Salvador, was the venue of one of the most famous battles of the war, where left-wing FMLN guerrillas battled right-wing-controlled soldiers floor by floor. Twenty years on, it was in the same hotel that the FMLN’s Funes delivered his victory speech.
Funes showed caution with a conciliatory oration, emphasising the need for national unity, safe change and stability. He even pledged to keep his country in the Central American Free Trade Agreement and to retain the dollar as their currency. Although the FMLN became El Salvador’s largest political force last January, gaining 35 seats in the legislative election, the right-wing coalition possess 43. As neither grouping has enough to secure a two-thirds majority required to pass important legislation, compromise is a necessity.

BACKGROUND
For those on the right, Funes is no more than a popular figurehead who will be controlled by the communist hardliners in the FMLN. To critics on the left he is a moderate and opportunist. Funes is an open admirer of Brazilian President Lula (his wife Vanda Pignato is a Brazilian who represented Lula’s Workers’ Party in El Salvador).
Funes is the first FMLN candidate with no guerrilla background, although he lost his brother to Government forces and subsequently interviewed FMLN revolutionaries during the war. He stated that he wants to “end privilege for the few” and that “the time has come for the excluded, the opportunity has arrived for genuine democrats, for men and women who believe in social justice and solidarity”.
He also aspires to crack down on tax evasion and corruption and implement policies to help the poor. His right-hand man is new Vice-President Salvador Sánchez Ceren, a former FMLN guerrilla commander, and they will assume presidential office on 1 June for a five-year term.

OBAMA REACTION
In a notable shift in US foreign policy, the Obama administration in the United States promised to work with whoever was elected El Salvador’s new president, in stark contrast to the Reagan government who ploughed $7bn into attempting to crush the FMLN over a ten-year period and prevent the spread of “evil communism”.
Five years ago, former President George W Bush threatened to stop US aid to El Salvador in the advent of a FMLN victory as a continuing show of US support for ARENA, who reciprocated by sending 6,000 Salvadoran troops to Iraq, the last few of whom have just recently returned.

POIGNANT
It is rather poignant that Funes won the presidency by 75,000 votes, the same number of people who lost their lives in El Salvador’s bloody conflict.
With Funes and the FMLN, El Salvador now at last has a definite sense of hope after decades of arduous struggle and sacrifice in its quest for social justice and an end to repression.
The current political context would not have been achieved without the bravery and selflessness of those Salvadoran freedom fighters that died. Let their deaths not be in vain.

Viva el FMLN y el pueblo salvadoreño!

The British Miners' strike, 25 years on

PITTED AGAINST THE STATE

IT IS 25 years ago this month that Arthur Scargill, the leader of Britain’s National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), then Britain’s most powerful union, called a national strike in response to Margaret Thatcher’s government’s plans to implement coal pit closures.

This period pitted a mass working-class movement of striking miners fighting for just demands against a Tory political establishment adamant to crush workers’ rights to usher in their free market policies of privatisation and individual greed. Such a mobilisation of workers was unprecedented in Britain in modern times.

Writing in The Guardian last Saturday, for the first time since the strike, Scargill claimed that the NUM negotiated five separate settlements, four of them “sabotaged or withdrawn following the intervention of Thatcher”. Scargill was later informed by a former member of Thatcher’s Cabinet that the Government had “already agreed to end the strike on the union’s terms” until the pit deputies’ union, NACODS, called off its strike action despite 82 per cent of their national ballot opting in favour.

The strike actually began on 1 November 1983 in response to a leaked National Coal Board document revealing that up to 95 pits were earmarked for closure. The NUM adopted an overtime ban in response to the Coal Board’s refusal to negotiate wage increases for miners unless the union accepted job losses and pit closures as inevitable. Although this partial strike was effective in cutting production, the Coal Board confirmed that 20 pits would close, leading to the loss of 20,000 jobs.
The decision to close three pits in Yorkshire, Kent and Scotland ignited the strike, which ultimately led to the arrest of 11,000 strikers, injuries to 7,000 miners and the deaths of 10 people.

The miners’ strike of 1974 effectively brought down Edward Heath’s Tory Government. Thatcher, adamant that this would not happen again, deployed the full rigour of state forces against the miners, including the parliament, courts, police, and MI5, who were backed by an overtly right-wing media.

DEMONISED
The miners were constantly demonised in the press whilst Scargill was vilified through smear campaigns. Thatcher also wanted to emasculate unions and introduced a raft of anti-union measures. Her government foresaw a national strike and prepared by stockpiling coal beforehand.

The height of the confrontation occurred in Orgreave in June 1984 where 10,000 striking miners were brutally confronted by over 8,000 riot police. In 1984, Thatcher castigated the NUM as “the enemy within” and said in parliament that giving in to the miners would be surrendering the rule of parliamentary democracy to the rule of the mob. In her eyes, ‘the mob’ was the striking miners struggling to keep their jobs and feed their kids by taking a defiant stance, not the baton-wielding police who were drafted in from around the country to boost their overtime pay.

The main criticism levelled at Scargill is the absence of a national ballot by the NUM deciding whether or not to strike. The fact that no national ballot was held has always been used to undermine the miners’ strike. Due to this, the High Court deemed the strike illegal, striking miners were not entitled to state benefits, and their children were refused free school meals and social security. This was a conscious attempt by the ruling capitalist class to starve the miners and their families and compel them back to work. However, the vast majority of miners voted with their feet by striking.

STRUGGLE A VICTORY
Though Scargill was and still is pilloried as a communist upstart and egotistical troublemaker whilst leader, he did not solely define the miners’ strike. He relied on the support of thousands of miners and their families who sacrificed everything in their battle to keep their jobs and improve their conditions. This strike was much more than just one individual. Women Against Pit Closures operated soup kitchens, distributed food parcels, organised fund-raisers and stood on picket lines.
The lack of support from the Trades Union Congress and the Labour Party severely dented the miners’ campaign. Steelworkers also failed to show their support. Miners themselves were divided, striking in Yorkshire but working in Nottingham as the latter enjoyed better conditions and wages and did not want to jeopardise those. It was a classic case of divide and conquer.

The miners returned to work in March 1985 after an extremely narrow vote after 12 months on strike. They leave an inspirational legacy and serve as an example of admirable solidarity and unrelenting bravery in the face of adversity. For Scargill, this was “the most courageous and determined stand by trade unionists anywhere in the world, arguing for the right to work”.

The struggle itself was a victory and directly challenged Thatcher’s announcement that there was no such thing as society, only individuals. The miners have not lost because the workers’ battle continues worldwide.

In praise of Maura Harrington

A chara,

I would like to express my outrage and indignation at yesterday’s sentencing to 28 days of Shell to Sea campaigner Maura Harrington. I had the privilege of meeting Maura during her 10-day hunger strike in protest at the construction of the infamous Shell pipeline in Mayo. She has taken a commendable stand against this project on the grounds that it is highly dangerous, will do irreparable environmental damage and will not benefit the Irish people one cent.

Frail Maura was sent to Dublin’s notorious Mountjoy Jail for ‘assaulting a Garda’ and has been ordered to undergo a psychiatric assessment. I myself have witnessed and been on the receiving end of Garda excessive force and thuggish behaviour while protesting peacefully there. Scores of protestors have been injured while not a single member of An Garda Síochána has faced any repercussions.

The gas in the Corrib and associated fields is estimated to be worth up to €50 billion. The Irish government has given our natural resources to Shell and co, and this is what Maura is campaigning against. While the Fianna Fáil/Green Party government bail out their ‘golden circle’ banker friends to the tune of billions, an unprecedented number of people are losing their jobs and their homes. Maura is a brave woman on the side of social justice; it is not her who needs a psychiatric assessment.

Is mise le meas,
Seán Ó Floinn

Peace in pieces?

Firstly, the British Army never had, does not have and never will have any legitimate reason to be in Ireland. The fact that there are still approximately 5,000 British Army personnel in the 6 counties is a major problem and concern. Though critical at times of, I am a supporter of the Peace Process. However with the major announcement of Óglaigh na hEireann (PIRA more commonly to most) in 2005 which stated unequivocally that their military campaign was over and decomissioning since independently and objectively verified, all British troops and military personnel should have been subsequently removed. Four years on and the British Army, although some barracks have been dismantled, still operate in the 6 Counties, using it as a base to send troops into the illegal and bloody occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. This is unacceptable.

I see the shooting dead of the two British soldiers as an attempt by the RIRA to provoke a violent reaction from the British establishment but also as an attempt to highly embarrass Sinn Féin and the Provisional movement. I feel that the killings were unproductive, but when put into the larger context these British soldiers were trained killers stationed on foreign territory. They were hours away from being deployed to Afghanistan, where countless innocent people have already been slaughtered by 'Her Majesty's Armed Forces'. The shooting dead of the PSNI officer was also damaging to the peace process, especially at a time when the vast majority of the republican community are working towards achieving a truly transparent and accountable police service.

Furthermore the recent deployment of the British Special Reconnaissance Regiment, without any consultation or broad agreement, as just recently announced by Hugh Orde, in the 6 Counties was a foolish and ill-advised decision. Their last most notable action was in the killing of innocent Brazilian national Jean Charles de Menezes in July 2005, of which there have never been any repercussions. More than enough innocent Irish people have already been victims of the British establishment's bullets. While there are peaceful and democratic avenues to be explored and utilised in bringing about the re-unification of our country, there is no need for further bloodshed. Unfortunately the British establishment have not fully reciprocated in response to the Provisional Republican movement's concessions.

A British Army return to patrolling the streets of the 6 Counties is in nobody's interest. An escalation of violence by small Republican armed groups without popular support is in nobody's interest. Peace is in everybody's interests, but not just a stagnant peace. All citizens on the island of Ireland deserve a progressive peace, one which will ultimately unite the country and transform the socio-economic conditions of today to ensure an egalitarian republic for all.

In from the wilderness

After 22 tortuous years of being homeless, I've been there for 13, for Shamrock Rovers Football Club (Cumann Peile Ruagairi na Seamróige), this Friday the 13th has all but good omens. They are Ireland's most successful club amassing 15 league titles and 24 cups since their foundation in 1901. For just over six decades, Rovers delighted crowds at Glenmalure Park in Miltown on the southside of Dublin (from 1926 to 1987). In the fateful year of '87, the Club's owners the Kilcoyne family controversially sold off Rovers' spiritual home to property developers and since then the famous green and white hoops have been on the road in adopted 'home' stadiums of the RDS, the 'Santry Siro', Dalymount Park (Bohemians), Richmond Park (St Patrick's Athletic) and Tolka Park (Shelbourne).

During the 1930s Rovers enjoyed crowds of up to 30,000 in Milltown. Now regrettably attendances in the League of Ireland have dramatically fallen off. The advent of Sky and the Premiership has not helped as they continue to suck up the potential Irish fan base and the younger audiences, not to mention the English clubs draining the Irish pool of playing talent. Regrettably the vast majority of Ireland's footballing public seem to have more affinity with Manchester United, Liverpool or Arsenal then with their local club down the road. It's easy to be a 'barstooler' but any footballing fan worth their salt should have no qualms in travelling he 155 miles from Dublin to a blustery Ballybofey to watch their team scrape a draw on a cold Friday night against Finn Harps! This is what real football is about, the highs (Roll on Friday!) and the lows (f**k you Kilcoyne and co). You can't really be a 'fan' if you're just drip fed success on Match of the Day or Sky down the pub. Paying extortionate amounts each year to travel across the pond to a couple of games won't qualify you in my book either.

In 1987, a fateful and emotive year in Rovers' proud history, Louis Kilcoyne, who with his two brothers purchased the club primarily for business purposes seeking personal financial gain, announced that Glenmalure Park was to be sold. This caused outrage among the Rovers faithful and fans called for a boycott of Rover's home games.

With the ground and the club itself sold off, Rover's enjoyed brief success (a league title in 1994) amidst a sea of defeat and misfortune. In the mid-90s nascent plans for a stadium to be built in Tallaght were mooted. Planning permission was indeed granted but what followed were years of local and organisational objections, lack of funds, contractor and chairman corruption, failed promises, legal battles and broken deals. The long suffering Rovers fans were dismayed and their dream of a new stadium in Tallaght seemed unreachable.

In 2005 the club went into examinership facing massive debts. The 400 club, set up and run by loyal Rovers fans bankrolled the club during this period. An incompetent chairman was replaced by true Rovers people but the club suffered further, first points deductions then relegation, the first time in Rovers illustrious history. The 400 club successfully took control of the club and have since radically transformed the Hoops fortunes. In 2006 they came straight back up to the Premier Division after a long season in Division One, winning that league. The 'glamour' trips to Station Road in Kildare really tested the metal of most fans, but true to form the loyal ones stayed.

After a two year dispute with local GAA club Thomas Davis, who wanted use of the Rovers stadium, building finally recommenced and the Tallaght stadium became a reality. Shamrock Rovers are a truly unique club being run by and financed by their fans. This commendable achievement is rare in today's football of commercialism, greed and lack of loyalty. After years of the half-shell of a stadium providing an eyesore in Tallaght, Rovers, so long homeless, but kept going by their truly great fans, now have a place to call home.

Coiméad ag Hoopáil!!

Venezuela’s radical referendum

ON Sunday 15 February, the busy Venezuelan electorate will once again return to the polls to decide whether or not to alter the country’s constitution. The most controversial proposed amendment is that of removing the current two-term limit of the presidency and introducing unlimited terms, subject to electoral success. The fixed-term storm does not surface in Ireland though, despite a Taoiseach being able to serve as many times he or she is elected to. Regrettably, the proposed introduction of a six-hour working day has not made the headlines.

One of the criticisms launched at Venezuela’s President Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías is that he is debasing democracy and attempting to impose a dictatorship on the Venezuelan people. This is despite the fact that Venezuela, under Chávez and his Bolivarian Revolution, has had 13 elections in the past ten years. Chávez is enhancing, not destroying democracy. He is encouraging mass participative democracy and the last election witnessed a record voter turnout of 65 per cent. This has been aided by massive voter registration drives. Bolivarian legislation also ensured that half the candidates were women. According to Chávez himself “I doubt there is any country on this planet with a democracy more alive than the one we enjoy in Venezuela”.

OIL WEALTH
Chávez has used the country’s vast oil wealth, stolen by the previous corrupt rulers and the oligarchs, on addressing the plight of the poor. Under the true nationalisation of the country’s ‘black gold’, Chávez and his PSUV (United Socialist Party of Venezuela) have financed ‘Misiones’, which are ‘missions’ in healthcare, education and food provision. The Dublin government could learn a thing or two from this utilisation of natural resources for the welfare of its citizens.

Barrio Adentro, with the help of Cuban doctors, healthcare, including dental treatment, is now provided free to the population, some of whom have never seen a doctor in their lives before. In just four years it has saved an estimated 120,000 lives and has been praised by the World Health Organisation. Infant mortality has been drastically reduced and through a national chain of pharmacies, prescription drugs are being offered significantly cheaper, and free to AIDS and cancer sufferers.

Through Misión Milagro, also in conjunction with the Cubans, approximately 1.4 million people have had their sight restored. With around 20 per cent of Venezuelan children malnourished ten years ago, now more than four million eat three square meals a day courtesy of the Chávez government’s proactive approach to eradicating food poverty.

SUBSIDISED FOOD
Through Misión Mercal, cheap government-subsidised food is made available to the poor. 150,000 people living in extreme poverty are now able to eat at virtually no cost. In education, Misión Robinson has helped achieve full literacy with over 1.5 million Venezuelans learning to read and write.
A decade ago, Chávez inherited a wealthy country that was poor. The small corrupt minority enjoyed a luxurious lifestyle at the expense of the poverty-stricken majority. Chávez has confronted this inequality head-on through his “21st century socialism”. A victory in this referendum would be a victory for socialism.

What now for Guantánamo?

JUST HOURS after taking the presidential reins last week, new United States President Barack Obama ordered a 120-day halt in all pending cases in the highly-controversial war crimes tribunals in the Guantánamo Bay detention camp. This first measure is highly significant and Obama has since confirmed that he intends to fulfill his pre-election promise of closing Guantánamo within the year. During his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama labelled Guantánamo as “a sad chapter in American history” and now he has the power not only to close this tragic chapter but return the whole Guantánamo ‘book’ back to its rightful owner, Cuba.

The orange boiler suits and menacing shackles worn by inmates at Guantánamo have become synonymous with the former Bush administration’s over-the-top ‘War on Terror’.
The detention centre was opened for the purpose of holding suspected Taliban and Al-Qaeda members in 2002. Bush and his cronies denied POW status for these ‘enemy combatants’ and stated that they did not deserve protections enshrined in the Geneva Human Rights Conventions. They essentially turned the centre into America’s Long Kesh and employed internment without trial.

MODERN-DAY GULAG
US techniques at the camp have evoked widespread indignation and condemnation throughout the world. They have used sensory and sleep deprivation, beatings, ‘water-boarding’ (a simulated drowning technique), sexual degradation, humiliation, drugging and force-feeding of prisoners on hunger strikes. The United Nations, European Union and a plethora of international NGOs have called for its closure. Amnesty International has called it the “gulag of our times”.

Despite former Vice-President Dick Cheney commenting in 2005 that the prisoners “are living in the tropics” and are “well-fed”, having “everything they could possibly want”, life in Guantánamo for these prisoners, the vast majority there without trial or charge, is a living hell on earth. There have been four reported suicides with numerous other attempts (it’s difficult to say exactly how many as this information has been deemed classified). The Americans have further contravened international law by detaining children at this camp.

Obama’s first move has sown seeds of hope for these prisoners who will unlikely have to face the infamous military commissions that were set up in a 2006 Act.
These ‘trials’ lack adequate legal protections for defendants as evidence can include mere hearsay and information extracted through torture. They are akin to Dublin’s Green Street Special Court in recent decades with their unjust processes. Of the approximately 245 suspects who remain in Guantánamo, less than 20 have been charged. Some have been detained here for up to seven years without ever facing trial. In Guantánamo, you are guilty until proven innocent.




SO WHAT NOW?
Many commentators have pointed to the problem of what to do with the current prisoners there. Of the current remaining prisoner population, around 50 are said to be extremely reluctant to return to their native countries due to fear of persecution or further imprisonment.

Firstly, in my view, they should be given access to legal representation of their choice and if there is any concrete evidence against them, receive a fair trial in the United States.

Secondly, those who are found innocent should be repatriated. If they choose not to be they should have the option of asylum in the United States. Maybe they could even stay with George W Bush in his new $2.1m Dallas home.

There has been much furore over how to send these prisoners to trial but few words have been uttered in relation to demanding the trial of the perpetrators of such vile interrogation techniques against these prisoners, the vast majority who are reportedly innocent.

If Obama is sincere in his words that “America is not for torturing” he should not only fulfill his promised investigation into the torturous atrocities that were committed there but also bring the torturers to justice. In a seismic shift in foreign policy, his promise to close down the numerous similar centres that the United States military and intelligence services have throughout the world (the so-called ‘ghost prisons’) has to be welcomed. An estimated 27,000 prisoners are held from Poland to South Africa, even on 17 floating ‘prison ships’ at sea.

ILLEGAL OCCUPATION
The US has Guantánamo as a result of an imperialist land grab. After the 1898 Spanish-American war, the US simply replaced Spain as the ‘owners’ of Cuba. The Platt Amendment gave the US the right to intervene militarily at any time in Cuban affairs. When US troops were removed from the rest of Cuban soil, they conveniently annexed 115 square kilometers at Guantánamo Bay to be used as a naval station.
In 1934, President FD Roosevelt changed this control to a 99-year lease, due to expire in 2033. However, the devil was in the detail and the lease can only be terminated with the agreement of both Cuba and the US.

The US continues to hang on to Guantánamo Bay despite half a century of pleas and demands from the Cuban Government to return this land to the Cuban people. Cuba’s government repeatedly refuses to collect the $4,000 per annum rent on the Bay as they deem it an illegal occupation.

Guantánamo (or ‘Gitmo’, as the Americans like to refer to it), is home to around 7,000 US personnel. It is cut off from the rest of the tropical island by trenches, barbed-wire fences and watch-towers, and with 75,000 landmines it is the most heavily-mined area on earth.

While Gitmo’s US residents gorge on happy meals in the local McDonalds and sip lattés in the nearby Starbucks, for the last seven years hundreds of detainees have been beaten and tortured in the camps. Not only should President Obama close down these cages of torture, preferably a lot sooner than 12 months, he should seek justice for those wrongly detained and ensure their safety, and also give Guantánamo Bay back to the Cuban people and withdraw all US troops and personnel from the area.

Un otro mundo es posible - Another world is possible

MORE than 100,000 political activists from 150 countries flocked to the Amazonian city of Belém in Brazil in the last couple of weeks for the 9th World Social Forum. Braving torrential downpours and sizzling temperatures, people attended meetings, discussions, workshops and cultural events over a six-day period.

The World Social Forum was set up in 2001 as a huge eclectic gathering of progressive leftists: from socialists, environmentalists, indigenous, anarchists and Amazon tribes to name but a few.

While no binding decisions are made at this event, it is a crucial opportunity for grassroots activists and movements to engage and organise. Although conceived and reared as a purely grassroots, non-governmental movement, this year saw the attendance and participation of five of South America’s – in fact the world’s most progressive and radical – presidents, namely Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, Rafael Correa of Ecuador, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Fernando Lugo of Paraguay and the host, Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who notably shunned by that other gathering in Davos, the World Economic Forum.

This overtly political and governmental participation was criticised by some of those in attendance, however it must be acknowledged that these presidents have come to power due to the very support of grassroots movements. They are simply government manifestations of all those groups gathered in Belém, a political culmination of all their agitation.

ALIVE
Chávez, who delivered a lengthy and powerful speech, praised the World Social Forum as “the most important event of the year”. Whilst the political elite of the wealthy, so-called developed nations were meeting with their capitalist cronies in the exclusive Swiss resort of Davos in Switzerland to attempt to save their beloved capitalism, Belém was alive with those activists and presidents who are proposing and developing a true alternative to the current economic capitalist system, which has gone into freefall.

The over-riding theme of the World Social Forum is that ‘Another World is Possible’; this year’s event focused on ‘Saving the Amazon’. Chávez said:
“In Davos, the world that is dying is meeting; here, the world that is being born is meeting.”

The midwives of this new world, a socialist and environmentally sustainable new order, are everywhere and now is a crucial time for all to act and ensure that this new world not only lives but flourishes to deliver social justice to the masses.

Historical background to Gaza slaughter

Understanding what’s behind Israeli onslaught on Gaza

THE barbaric war being unleashed on the Palestinian people by Israel in Gaza is not, of course, isolated. It should be understood in the larger context of the Zionist regime’s determination in crushing the justified and legitimate struggle of a besieged Palestinian people, who have been forced to endure second-class citizenship on their own land.

Progressive opinions agree with the view that what lies at the root of this conflict is Zionism: the rigid belief that Jews are only secure in a Jewish homeland in Israel and have a divine right to claim this land. It is a myth that Palestine was empty when Jewish settlers came. In 1878, almost 97 per cent of the total population was Muslim and Christian Arabs; a mere 3.2 per cent were Jews. The years between 1882 and1914 saw the immigration of 65,000 European Jews.

Despite mainstream right-wing media and political bias that this is a conflict between warring religious factions, between Muslims and Jews, or one instigated by inherently bellicose Palestinians with a penchant for extreme violence against Jews merely protecting themselves, the fact is that the Jews once flourished in the Arab world while they were being persecuted in Europe. There was no historical enmity between Arabs and Jews.

BALFOUR DECLARATION
Following the First World War, Jewish immigration increased under British rule and Britain implemented the Balfour Declaration, committing to a Jewish homeland in Palestine. However, this proposal contradicted an earlier agreement promising self-rule for Arabs throughout the region, yet another devious about turn from British imperialism, which was extremely supportive of the Zionist cause. In 1922, Jews made up 11 per cent of the total population.

It was not until the 1920s that the first acts of violence erupted between Palestinians and Jews, as a result of the latter forcefully taking over locals’ land. In the early 1930s, over 100,000 Jews fled to Palestine; another approximately 120,000 additional Jewish immigrants arrived between 1937 and 1945 at the time of Hitler’s brutal Nazi policy of Jewish extermination.

In 1947, the conflict spiralled out of all control, which resulted in Britain washing its hands of the region and handing over the problem to the United Nations. The UN drafted a plan to divide the territory into two states. The one that was to be ‘given’ to the Arabs consisted of just 43 per cent of the land despite the fact that they made up 69 per cent of the population and owned 92 per cent of the land. The UN allocated a disproportionate 56 per cent of the region to the Jewish population which, at that time, was just 31 per cent of the total population and owned 8 per cent of the land. The Jewish population was to be given the most fertile land.

At this stage Zionists started to occupy the large Palestinian cities. The 1948 war entailed a planned expulsion and genocide of Palestinians. Some 300,000 Palestinians were expelled while many fled. After Israel declared itself a state, Arab soldiers from neighbouring countries were sent in but were still outnumbered by the 90,000-strong Israeli forces. The new Israeli state encompassed more than 78 per cent of Palestine, with the Gaza Strip coming under Egyptian control and the West Bank under Jordanian control. Over 700,000 Palestinians became refugees overnight. Another war broke out in 1967 in which Israel occupied the remainder of Palestine, most notably the Gaza Strip and West Bank, displacing over 400,000 Palestinians in the process.
The Israeli theft of Palestinian land continued unabated whilst the Arab nations support for Palestinians was merely vocal.

INTIFADA
Palestinians responded with resistance through intifadas, literally ‘shaking offs’. The first intifada took place between December 1987 and December 1993. The initial intifada petered out at the end of 1993. The next seven years witnessed the Oslo Peace Process between Palestinians and Israelis. However, despite these peace efforts, the Palestinian plight deteriorated. The number of Jewish settlers doubled to 400,000.

In 2000, the Israelis ‘offered’ Palestinians 95 per cent of the West Bank, but this has been likened to a prison analogy whereby the prisoners make up 95 per cent of the prison but the real power lies with the prison officers and governor (i.e. the remaining 5 per cent in control), in this case the Israeli Government. In January 2006, Hamas won enough votes to form a majority government but have never been recognised by the two great ‘champions of democracy’, namely the United States and Israel.

Israel enjoys virtual international immunity due to its close relationship with the US. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which is the pro-Israel lobby on Capitol Hill, has donated almost $44m since 1978 to candidates who vote favourably towards them in Congress. The US funds Israel to the tune of $7m per day, with Israel receiving one-third of the total aid the US gives on an annual basis. Although Israel is currently the most persistent and extensive violator of UN Security Council resolutions, the US has used its veto no less than 40 times to defend Israeli breeches of these resolutions. In fact, according to international law, the entire Israeli occupation is illegal, and the Israeli state continues to fly in the face of the Fourth Geneva Convention which stipulates against constructing settlements, building illegal roads and impoverishing people through economic damage. Put simply, Israel could not continue violating human rights and oppressing the Palestinian people without the financial and political support from the US.

ISRAEL’S MILITARY MIGHT
Israel is one of the most militarily powerful and consistent abusers of human rights on the planet. It is the fifth largest nuclear power in the world, possessing around 250 warheads. The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) have nearly 4,000 Merkava tanks and over 360 F-16 fighter jets, second only to the US, not to mention their Apache attack helicopters, powerful navy fleet and cluster bombs readily at their disposal. With this sheer military might, Israel continues to squeeze the Palestinians on a daily basis, constantly curtailing their freedom of movement through a myriad of IDF checkpoints and indiscriminately murdering them at any given opportunity. One in two Palestinians are unemployed with three quarters living in poverty, according to the World Bank.

Although Israel unilaterally withdrew its 8,500 settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005 under Ariel Sharon’s government, the following year it increased its settlers by 12,000 in the West Bank. Israel further strengthened their illegal stranglehold on the region with the construction of the infamous ‘separation wall’. Standing at twice the height of the Berlin Wall and meandering four times longer, it tears through villages separating people from their farms, children from their schools and patients from hospitals. It was constructed as a part of Israeli confiscation of Palestinian land rather than the pretext of aiding Israeli security. Regrettably, the oppressed have become the oppressors.

For news on activities supporting the people of Gaza and Palestine, log on to the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign website at www.ipsc.ie

Fidel - the defiant survivor

2007 marked the 40th anniversary of the death of Che Guevara, icon of the Cuban revolution and an inspiration to freedom fighters across the globe. The anniversary occurred at a time when Che’s comrade in arms and leader of the Cuban revolution President Fidel Castro, was recovering from illness and had transferred responsibilities to the country’s First Vice-President, younger brother Raúl Castro.

SEÁN Ó FLOINN looks back at the fascinating career of Cuba’s defiant 81-year-old leader who has survived nine US administrations, several of which have attempted to kill him.

Since spearheading the Cuban revolution to triumph in 1959, Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz has become the most controversial political leader of our time. He has remained a constant thorn in the side of the United States and been a champion of the poor and the oppressed throughout the world. He has outlived nine US presidents and though currently ill, the longevity of Fidel’s life has received much attention. When presented with a Galapagos turtle whose average life expectancy was 150 years, Fidel retorted “That is the problem with pets, you become attached to them and then they die”.

Fidel was born on a sugar plantation in the Holguín province in Cuba in 1926 to a servant mother and wealthy father. Rebellious from a young age he helped organise a workers’ strike on his father’s plantation in his early teens. After coming to power he led by example and nationalised his parents’ sizeable plantation as part of agrarian land reform.

A bright student excelling at sports, he became involved in politics in the forties, joining Partido Ortodoxo (the Orthodox Party) aspiring to free Cuba from the imperialist chains of the United States and introduce social reform. Fidel married twice, having six sons and a daughter.

In 1950 he graduated as a lawyer and represented the underprivileged. As most of his clients could not afford to pay him, he was constantly short of money. Fidel’s frustration at the inequalities that existed in Cuban society grew.

In 1952 Fidel decided to contest an upcoming election, which his party were likely to win. However, General Fulgencio Batista had other plans for Cuba and seized power in a coup, subsequently cancelling all elections. Batista, backed by the US, ruthlessly, crushed dissent. Fidel became convinced that armed revolution was the only way to free Cuba. On 26 July 1953 he led over 100 men and women in an attack on the Moncada Army Barracks. The plan to overthrow Batista failed and around half the rebels were killed. Fidel was imprisoned and sentenced to 15 years, by chance avoiding execution. Released two years later as a result of an amnesty, he immediately began to prepare the ground for the Cuban revolution, using Mexico as his base. Movimiento 26 de Julio was born. It was here that Fidel first met Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara, who was to have a profound impact on his political views.

Fidel and 82 other revolutionaries set sail for Cuba in 1956. On reaching the Carribean island they were ambushed by Batista’s forces. Only a fraction survived. Taking to the Sierra Maestra mountains, they set about spreading the revolution and redistributed land among the peasants. After three long years of struggle the Cuban revolutionaries overthrew Batista, who fled to the Dominican Republic.

Cuba, for so long a den for the American Mafia and wealthy capitalists, was to change irrevocably. The doors of brothels, casinos and seedy night-clubs were shut and radical new reforms were announced. The socialists implemented land redistributions, nationalised companies, expropriated properties from major US corporations, undertook a massive literacy crusade and abolished separate facilities for Blacks and Whites.

In 1960 Fidel signed an agreement to purchase oil from the Soviet Union. When US-owned refineries refused to process it they were nationalised. Relations between the US and Cuba became frosty. Fidel went on to sign a variety of economic and military agreements with Soviet leader Khrushchev. The new Cuban government was extremely popular with the poor but over one million of the middle-classes and privileged fled to Miami, Florida which is still used as a base in plotting against Fidel.

In April 1961, the US supported a 1,400 strong armed force of Cuban exiles to invade the island. Commonly referred to as the Bay of Pigs, the adventure was a disaster. The invaders proved no match for Fidel’s army.

Some months later Fidel publicly declared his adherence to Marxism-Leninism and stated that Cuba was following a Communist path. In early 1962 the US administration imposed an economic embargo on Cuba, which to this day drastically curtails the rights of American businesses and their subsidiaries from trading with Cuba and means virtual travel ban for Americans wishing to visit the island. That same year the Cold War between the US and USSR nearly exploded in nuclear conflict with the Cuban Missile Crisis. Khruschev, with Fidel’s blessing, placed nuclear missiles on Cuban soil to deter the US from another invasion of the island. The world’s two superpowers were on the brink of a cataclysmic confrontation but after tense negotiations the warheads were eventually removed.

Successive US governments have attempted to remove Castro from power. It is estimated that Fidel has been the subject of 638 assassination attempts. In 1960 the CIA offered the Mafia $150,000 to kill Fidel. There have also been anecdotes of exploding cigars, poisonous food and even a plan to contaminate Fidel’s body to make his beard fall out. Fidel has previously remarked that he would win the gold medal if surviving assassination attempts were an Olympic event.

Arguably the toughest challenge Fidel and Cuba have faced came with the destruction of the USSR. By 1991 Cuba’s economy had virtually collapsed, as eighty-five per cent of its trade had been with the USSR. In 1994 the ‘Special Period’ was announced as Cubans had to endure harsh food and medical supply shortages to maintain the socialist revolution. In addition with this economic catastrophe, the US embargo tightened the noose around Cuba’s neck. However Fidel introduced brave measures and the island looked to tourism to survive.

The achievements of the Cuban revolution have been remarkable. Cuba was transformed from a playground for wealthy Americans to exploit to an island that guarantees all its citizens basic requirements of cheap food, the right to employment, social security protections and free comprehensive healthcare and education. There is one doctor per 165 inhabitants, boasting the best doctor-patient ratio in the world. The World Health Organisation recognises the Cuban health care system as one of the best in the world, which is quite an achievement as the whole budget for the system is equal to that of Dublin’s Beaumont Hospital.

On 31 July last year Fidel transferred his responsibilities to his younger brother Raúl, after undergoing intestinal surgery for a problematic digestive disease. Fidel’s once dominant frame may be more frail, his beard may be greyer, his voice may be weaker, but his revolutionary message remains strong. Fidel is akin to a socialist David who has stood up to a capitalist Goliath just 90 miles off his coast.

Letters to the Irish Independent - Chávez and Venezuela

Venezuela leading way
Irish Independent 13 February 2006

Just last week, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld audaciously made a comparison between Adolf Hitler and Venezuela's current left-wing president, Hugo Chavez, mentioning that they were both elected by the people.

With Latin America very much an active politically radical volcano, Rumsfeld and the US administration are petrified by the likes of Chavez, who has prioritised the health and education of his people over the interests of transnational corporations.

Before Chavez's democratic rise to power in 1998, 80pc of oil-rich Venezuela's 24 million population lived in poverty.

Instead of acting like President Bush, who sends thousands of troops to be killed or maimed in Iraq, Chavez, under Plan Bolivar in 2000, sent troops to repair roads, schools and to construct health clinics whilst also distributing food.

The US government has also criticised an agreement between Chavez and Cuba which involves Cuban doctors treating Venezuela's previously neglected poor, and Cuban teachers teaching Venezuelans how to read and write.

Under Chavez, Venezuela aspires to be a healthy, educated and independent country not a fascist dictatorship which soaks countries in blood to capture their resources. Mr Rumsfeld, it is not Chavez who is the fascist.

Seán Ó Floinn


Reader's response
Irish Independent 21 February 2006

Venezuela leading way? With relation to Seán Ó Floinn's letter 'Venezuela leading way' on February 13, while the author is right to attack Rumsfeld's comments about Chavez, his praise of the Venezuelan president is flawed.

Chavez is not a fascist or a dictator but his presidency has been mired in incompetence and corruption.

Despite the extreme poverty rate of 86%, Chavez bought 100,000 assault rifles and Russian combat helicopters to protect against the non-existent threat of a US invasion.

His increasing paranoia has led to diplomatic isolation and the fermenting of relationships with some of the most repressive regimes in the world, Iran and Cuba being the most notable.

Corruption is a major problem in the country,with the Corruption Perceptions Index on 2005 giving Venezuela a rating of 2.5 out of 10, leaving Chavez's state more corrupt then the likes of Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe and Afghanistan.

So while Chavez's attempts to improve his country's education and health infrastructure are to be admired, Chavez's reign of seven years has achieved only economic mishandling and political instability.

Chavez is simply another in a long line of charismatic but illiberal leaders that find acceptance from the world's 'liberals' because of his strict opposition to the American government and capitalism.

Fearghall Barry,
Castelmartyr,
Co Cork


My response
Irish Independent 9 March 2006

In response to Fearghal Barry's recent letter regarding Venezuela. He accuses Chavez of economic mishandling. However decades of economic neglect and recent employer lockouts have caused the real damage.
Chavez has succeeded in reducing unemployment, cancelling school fees, improving child nutrition and reducing infant mortality.

If this is 'corruption' then George W. Bush is a Christian!

How can Mr Barry be so naive in criticising the Venezuelans arming themselves against what he calls the "non-existent threat of US invasion"?

Call Chavez paranoid, but I think his military purchases are quite essential remembering what happened in Allende's Chile, Sandinista Nicaragua or the invasion of Guatemala. I would say there is quite a high chance of the US invading an oil rich country, wouldn't you?

Seán Ó Floinn

Una entrevista con un ex-rebelde Guatemalteco - An interview with a Guatemalan ex-rebel

Revolution flows through the veins

NESTLED directly below Mexico lies Guatemala, a country of over 13 million people and boasting 37 volcanoes, three of which are active. However, its political history is even more temperamental and explosive than these natural phenomenons which contribute to its uneven landscape. In contemporary times, Guatemala leaned Left with the election of Juan Arévalo as president in 1945, who established the country’s first social welfare system, introduced public healthcare and paid genuine heed to indigenous concerns. Colonel Jacobo Arbenz was elected to replace him and continued leftist policies, promoting agrarian reform, prising land out of the tiny, exploitative elite’s hands and distributing it among those who worked it. This elite had close connections with the United States and Arbenz’s policies alarmed the North American government so much that they initiated a CIA-led covert invasion from neighbouring Honduras, which eventually toppled Arbenz, consistent with US interventionist policies in Latin America.Incidentally, Che Guevara was in Guatemala at this time and events left an indellible mark on young Ernesto as he witnessed at first-hand Yankee imperialism at play in overthrowing democratically elected governments. Several ruthless military dictatorships followed, inflicting decades of oppression on the Guatemalan people. As a direct result, in the 1960s, left-wing revolutionary guerrilla groups were formed. There were four main armed groups who, in 1982, joined under the umbrella of URNG, Union Revolucionario Nacional de Guatemala/ Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity (URNG), and collectively took on the might of the brutal, US-backed Guatemalan Army. The Government responded with the violent repression of mainly rural, poor, indigenous areas, usually strong bases of support for the guerrillas. Thousands were slaughtered and numerous ‘disappeared’.

FATHER MURDERED
Tino was only seven years of age when he first became aware that his uncles were left-wing guerrillas. In fact, revolution flowed through his family’s veins: 21 of his relatives were active guerrillas, one was killed, and two more served prison sentences. At the age of 10 his father, who was a campesino (peasant) leader, was abducted by the Guatemalan Army and murdered. The raw emotion was still clearly etched on Tino’s face as he tentatively relayed this atrocity. This callous act was to engulf young Tino’s heart with rage and he pledged to gain revenge.During his early teens, Tino travelled to Mexico and Cuba to train and he became more politically aware. During his trip to Castro’s Cuba he learned all there was to know about radio broadcasting and preparation. While openly admitting he was filled with fear, now aged 18, Tino actively engaged in battle for the first time with the Guatemalan Army. This teenager, armed with just a small pistol, stood bravely with his comrades in combat during a battle which was to last three hours. Tino, who doesn’t regret his actions and decisions as a left-wing guerrilla, stated that at the time there was no alternative as peaceful political gatherings and protests were violently repressed. The guerrillas had no option but to take up arms and organise in the mountains. Extraordinary means are justified in extraordinary circumstances for any true revolutionary. Tino distinguishes clearly between left-wing guerrillas and the right-wing Guatemalan Army. The former took up arms to fight for equality and to ensure that every Guatemalan was awarded the same opportunities. They struggled to achieve the right of all to health, education, food, housing and safety. The army was there simply to protect the rich elite and to maintain the status quo.At that time, a mere 10 families essentially controlled Guatemala, while around 90 per cent struggled in poverty.

REBEL RADIO
Tino was instrumental in forming Voz Popuar (Popular Voice), which was broadcast on Radio Rebelde (Radio Rebel). The guerrillas’ radio base was situated on Tajumulco Volcano, Central America’s highest, and its environs. They managed to evade detection for almost a decade. Tino and one of his compañeros cycled back and forth over the Mexican border with an 8 metre secret aerial on one bicycle. They dressed as campesinos but had grenades in their bicycle bags and were prepared to use them if detected by the military. Despite the fact that Tino was now driving a car for nine years, he could not ride a bike and literally took a crash course over two days. To this day, Tino is still involved in radio and is adamant that his microphone is more powerful than any weapon he has held in his hands in the many battles he participated in. The former guerrillas are responsible for the setting up of 27 community radio stations which employ local people and broadcast progressive programmes, ranging from politics and culture to education and health. Some of the radio stations are broadcast in indigenous languages, both extremely impressive and important as over 70 per cent of Guatemala’s population is indigenous. Peace accords were eventually signed on 29 December 1996, bringing an end to Guatemala’s civil war, which spanned over three decades. Tino strongly believes that, despite the tragic and brutal reality of this conflict, major advances were made. Without the actions of the guerrillas there would be no schools, hospitals or roads in many areas, not to mention the process of land redistribution. While Tino admits that the war is finished, he concluded his interview with An Phoblacht by stating that the struggle very much continues.

The legacy of George W Bush -

Letter to The Guardian 20 January 2009

After eight years of arguably one of the world's most unpopular presidencies, I am relieved that George Bush's time in office has finally come to an end. He leaves behind a detestable legacy. His kneejerk reaction to the September 11 atrocity in 2001 has ensured that the world has become a more unstable and volatile place. His administration with its "war on terror" has caused thousands of innocent deaths in Afghanistan and continues to drown Iraq in a sea of innocent blood. As a consequence the Taliban has remerged more powerful and Iraq has been exposed to civil war. He has supported the torture of alleged Taliban and al-Qaida prisoners at Guantánamo Bay.

Domestically he leaves behind 40 million Americans without access to healthcare and an economy on the brink of collapse. In my opinion it was very fortunate only a pair of shoes was thrown at him.
Seán Ó Floinn

Film review: Che Part One - The Argentine

AS the trailer to Steven Soderbergh’s two-part biopic on Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara states, this is “the epic story of the man behind the icon”. It has been aptly released this month to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the Cuban revolution. As Walter Salle’s excellent Los Diarios de Motocicleta (The Motorcycle Diaries) almost perfectly captured Che’s earlier years, it was a logical step for Soderbergh to follow on from there and focus on Che’s pivotal role in the Cuban Revolution and in the second part his ultimately doomed Bolivian experience. As the director says: “Somebody did Act One for us.” The basis for this film is Che’s Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War, and after seven years of research the film is slick, entertaining and captivating. The sole criticism I would have of the film is that, for the non-political audience, it is largely bereft of background information. Unfortunately, while a lot of people are familiar with Che, the T-shirt and poster icon, they are clueless about Che the man and Marxist revolutionary.

UNCANNY LIKENESS
The lead actor is Puerto Rican Benicio Del Toro, who was instrumental from the start in making this film happen. Bearing an uncanny physical likeness to Guevara, with his piercing eyes and serious countenance, he really brings Che to life. Demián Bichir has Castro down to a tee, with his charisma, gesticulation and even the famous protruding wagging finger of El Comandante en Jefe. Soderbergh employs colourful wide-screen to portray Cuba and newsreel monochrome to cover Che’s 1964 speech to the UN in New York, which results in a feeling that you are watching genuine archive footage. Che is akin to a movie star while in the United States but never loses his revolutionary spirit, sarcastically expressing gratitude for the Bay of Pigs invasion to an American political sycophant who greets him at a party. The first part covers the now historic initial meeting between Fidel and Che in an apartment in Mexico with not a beard between them. After the sailing of the Granma boat to Cuba, it then chronicles the three years of the Cuban Revolution. Here Del Toro excels as Che, showing his leadership qualities commanding and disciplining his troops; his unswerving bravery leading by example from the front line; his empathy towards the plight of poor campesinos (peasants); his determination in struggling with his debilitating asthma; his passion for education and instructing companeros to learn to read and write and also his ruthlessness in executing former comrades who broke sacred revolutionary codes.

THE BEARDED ONES
The film follows Los barbudos (the bearded ones) far up into the Sierra Maestra, through the verdant and sticky terrain of the Cuban countryside. Che’s future wife, guerrilla Aleida March, is played by Catalina Sandino Moreno and appears captivated by Che and his revolutionary zeal, persistent on helping the cause. The first part climaxes with the defining battle at Santa Clara where the guerrillas overpower Batista’s troops to secure the success of the revolution and finally the glorious victory parade back into the capital Havana.Even after the jubilation on the way to Cuba’s capital, Che maintains his revolutionary discipline reprimanding fellow guerrillas under his command for ‘expropriating’ a former Batista general’s flash automobile, insisting they take it back and travel in a guerrilla jeep, insisting that the revolution does not steal. Hasta la segunda parte!