Category Archives: Government Oppression

Its like this. I speak to a friend who went through the hard times of Nauru. He is a refugee. For several years he has been in Australia. He can work but he has few other rights. He does not have a permanent visa. He does not know what will happen to him next.

I cannot do what I want with my visa, he says to me. I cannot leave the country and see my beloved ones. My brother died a while ago and my mother is sick. I have to renew my visa every six months. My case manager calls me sometimes and starts threatening me: you will never resettle here.

I speak to another friend, similarly living in Australia on a temporary visa. For him it has also been like this for years. We have no rights here, he says. We have no right to defend our dignity when we are insulted. We have no right to defend ourselves when we are attacked. Because defending our dignity comes at the cost of detention for us, because we do not have equal rights with others.

In the traditional way of the world, in an election like the one just gone in Australia, it would be customary for the most important programs and priorities of the rival parties to be presented to the people so a vote could be held for the most desired option based on that program. In this way, the vision and perspective of a government can be identified.

Before the election, we very much hoped that the human rights of asylum seekers deported to remote islands would be a point of difference between the two rivals. As one of the people who spent their childhood to adolescence in the harsh conditions of the far islands, I was very optimistic. I hoped strongly that there would be a realisation of the legal rights of these oppressed people after years of exile and that our punishment would be considered.

All those of us who spent our childhoods and adolescence alone in the far islands and in the horrific environments of those areas, without trial and without sentencing, were also hopeful that at least one of parties would see us as the oppressed and finally offer to us some peace.

We hoped that they would offer permanent residence to those of us in the community, held in limbo with no crime to answer. Perhaps, after all these years and all the hardship we have endured, they would give those of us here some clemency.

Beyond that, possibly they would start to talk about compensation for how we were treated. For someone like me, who spent my childhood in detention, maybe there would be some acknowledgement of everything I have lost and will never get back, of all the cruelty and suffering.

In reality, the question of our human rights was given almost no attention. The Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, reiterated support for offshore detention. After winning, one of the first acts of the Labor government was to continue with the turnback of an asylum-seeker boat.

The readers of this article may want to remember that people like me came to Australia because we believed it would be wonderful to live in this country. We took the deadliest and most terrifying voyage across oceans, with very basic equipment, and suffered great psychological damage along the way. After escaping the wrath of the ocean, we had to pay the penalty of trying to reach this country.

What happened was unique in its kind and the decisions of the officials were unprecedented. We were imprisoned without end. Children, women and adults were taken to harsh and remote areas. Wherever we went became our cage.

There was no due process. I was 15 years old when I entered this detention and I was 24 when I left.

After this tragedy, I was very hopeful that the election might promise us some change. I was heartbroken and angry when it did not. What the two major parties completely forgot was that the inhabitants of their island prisons were all human beings. Like other human beings, we survived with hope and have the right to receive special attention in a country whose rule is based on democracy. Unfortunately, this expectation was not met. No chapter was dedicated to us or our oppression. I emphasise that ignoring this issue is contrary to the spirit of democracy that Australia has been so proud of for so many years.

How to appease and compensate for the losses inflicted on those who are really oppressed? What should happen now for the people who were most punished by this system? Is not this kind of long oppression a modern form of slavery?

Personally, I would say that Labor must finish what it started. For many of us, our detention began while Labor was in power. Now that they are in power again it is time to remove the refugees from Nauru and Manus Island and address the material and spiritual needs of the deportees.

Refugees, like many other citizens, have been involved in the development of Australia for many years in many ways. Unfortunately, because of the dire visa situation, instead of being praised for this development and assistance and useful work in Australia, we have spent our days in uncertainty and fear. I am settled in America now but many others are not. They spend their days in disarray. This took its worst form during the Coalition rule and especially when Peter Dutton was Immigration minister. It is a cruel irony that he is now leading the Liberal Party.

The situation of the people damaged by Australia must be taken care of. More than that, the few survivors who have been forgotten in offshore detention and have become the toys of some oppressors must be rescued as soon as possible.

We really have to use the word salvation, because they are in danger. We really hope that the Labor government will take serious and immediate measures to free the refugees abroad and to reform the refugee visas so that they can live in safety.

This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper onJune 11, 2022 as "Defending dignity".

A free press is one you pay for. Now is the time to subscribe.

Read this article:

Mehdi Ali Defending the dignity of refugees - The Saturday Paper

By Sarhad Melkonian

Editors Note: Sarhad Melkonian, a member of the AYF New Jersey Arsen Chapter, was one of six winners in the 2022 Junior Seminar Council AYF Camp Haiastan Campership Essay Competition. The winners were announced at Junior Seminar late last month. The winning authors received prize money and publication of their essays in the Armenian Weekly. Melkonians essay, which won first place in the middle group (ages 13 to 14), answered the following prompt: How has the recent Artsakh War affected the global Armenian nation? As AYF Juniors in the Diaspora, how can you help with the current state of Armenia?

Artsakh is an integral part of the Armenian nation. Artsakh is the heart and soul of our homeland. For my generation, we have only known a reality where we have had an independent Republic of Artsakh. However, today, we find ourselves in a new paradigm, a very dangerous new reality for the Armenian nation. The cataclysmic war in Artsakh in 2020 was devastating for all Armenians globally.

Our parents generation liberated Artsakh from the grip of oppression and near annihilation at the hands of Azerbaijan. That generation fought and proudly won a war where our nation faced huge disadvantages. Despite the disadvantages, they still triumphed and prospered. During the recent war, on the other hand, we did not face the major disadvantages that our parents generation faced, and still lost at the hands of the prime minister of Armenia.

Many in my generation have photos proudly posing in front of the sign that says Free Artsakh Welcomes You. Many of us, including myself, have friends, family in Artsakh, and some of us have even been christened in Artsakh. Sadly, today, this is not the reality; Artsakh is no longer free. Artsakh is no longer independent. All the efforts our parents generation had put into liberating Artsakh have gone to waste.

During the 44-day war, the government kept falsely reassuring us that everything is fine and that we will win this war, and we do not have many losses. It was only after the war when the truth was unveiled. The government of Armenia did not really fight this war to win. They fought this war to use as an excuse for why we lost land and why we lost young, innocent soldiers. Today we know the Pashinyan regime committed treason. Today, we suffer the consequences of the Pashinyan regime.

What did the Pashinyan regime do that set back the Armenian nation 30 years? We are in a worse state of affairs than we were 30 years ago. The regime ultimately dismantled the army, sold our indigenous lands and, still, after almost two years, hasnt brought back our POWs. Over five thousand young, courageous Armenian soldiers died at the hands of this regime. Today the Armenian nation is devastated. We are lost, hurt, confused and stumped.

For the past year, the Armenian nation has been in a haze as the losses sustained from the war were so severe that we did not know how to continue. Now the Armenian nation is on the brink of a rebirth. We have organized our thoughts and pulled ourselves together. The way that we can help our nation is not by mourning, but by working on a solution.

Now what is the solution to this problem? First and foremost is education. Educate yourself, friends, family and peers. Participate in local protests. Volunteer for Hai Tahd by engaging with government officials and organizing events in your communities that educate everyone about what Pashinyan is doing. We need to help the AYF in Armenia to get rid of Pashinyan. The way to do that is to make sure the diaspora understands the treason that was committed by this regime. It is the only way the diaspora will join the Zartnir Lao movement in Armenia that is led mostly by our AYF ungers in Armenia.

One of the most important things we need to do is to help our brothers and sisters in Artsakh stay in Artsakh. We have to help however we can by raising money and awareness so we can help them survive and thrive. If the people living in Artsakh leave, there will be no hope in regaining the land. Through thick and thin, through Azeri oppression, the people in Artsakh fight for their land by living in their hometowns. We have to do everything in our power to help them stay in our homeland.

Now more than ever Artsakh and Armenia need our help, and the diaspora has to do everything in their power to help our homeland. We have to work harder than ever to rebuild our government and rebuild our churches in Artsakh that were demolished by Azeris after Artsakh got signed away.

Founded in 1933, The Armenian Youth Federation is an international, non-profit, youth organization of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF). The AYF-YOARF Eastern United States stands on five pillars that guide its central activities and initiatives: Educational, Hai Tahd, Social, Athletic and Cultural. The AYF also promotes a fraternal attitude of respect for ideas and individuals amongst its membership. Unity and cooperation are essential traits that allow members of the organization to work together to realize the AYFs objectives.

See the article here:

Unveiling the truth and rebuilding after war - Armenian Weekly

The entire shopfloor at the Urals Compressor Factory (UKZ) in Yekaterinburg, Russia, walked off the job on Tuesday in protest against the failure of the companys owners to pay them several months worth of salary. The plants 316 employees, who make parts for medical and military equipment, are owed in total 13.4 million rublesabout $233,000in outstanding wages.

The strike is just the latest action taken by workers in the assembly, foundry, heat treatment, tool and mechanical sections at the enterprise, which since October 2021 has repeatedly failed to pay salaries. In March 2022, workers laid down their tools and then again in May 2022, resuming work only after UKZ promised to give them their pay, as ordered by the local prosecutor. They have gotten nothing, however, for two months, apart from 1,000 rubles last week out of 100,000 they were supposed to receive.

We dont have enough money to even get to work, one worker told the press. You cant even get on a bus for a ruble.

The plant, which has holes in the roof, is evidently falling apart. In a video posted on the Telegram social media channel Ural Mash, one can see piles of rubble on the factory floor. You get refreshing drops of rain on your head, one worker reported.

The company claims it is owed millions by customers and is saddled with massive debts, having failed to pay its taxes and for supplies. Workers report a steep fall in production, with daily output recently dropping to just two units a day from 60.

But UKZs insistence that it suddenly does not have the means to pay its employees just because of poor market conditions and government taxes is unconvincing. I worked there, wrote one person on Telegram. The suits looted it and this is the sad result. Let the epaulets [an ornamental decoration pinned to the uniform of a high-ranking person] dig into them. Then theyll find the salaries, the [money for] the utility bills and everything else, said another. Referring to the wholesale theft of publicly-owned industry by the newly-emerging rich in the 1990s, one worker declared, Its time to take back the plants and factories.

The strike in Yekaterinburg follows walkouts and slowdowns in April and May by sanitation workers in Novosibirsk, doctors, nurses, and emergency medical technicians in Bashkortostan, taxi and delivery drivers in Tver and Moscow, and poultry workers in Sakhalin.

In the former Soviet country Georgia, which borders Russia to the southwest, workers at a mineral water bottling company are also on strike. They too have not been paid for two months. The entire 800-person workforce at two Bojomi plants walked off the job on May 31, demanding payment of back wages, a 25 percent wage increase, a collective bargaining agreement, an end to what workers describe as blackmail and threats of layoff for those who criticize the company, and the reinstatement of 50 personnel previously laid off for protesting.

On Tuesday, laborers threw eggs at police cars that sought to bring strikebreakers into the plant. Workers say the company is offering their jobs to Georgians from other parts of the country, as well as Ukrainians and Russians, attempting to attract them with promises of a salary that is three to four times what they currently pay in order to break the strike.

The day before the conflict with police broke out at Bojomis factory gates, Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili announced that the government would be buying a majority stake in the concern, taking over ownership of the company from the Russian-based Alfa Group, whose head, Mikhail Fridman, is under anti-Russian sanctions, the immediate cause of the financial crisis at the company.

Georgias head of state insisted that it would ensure the end of the suffering and oppression at Bojomi, a dubious promise given that Georgias average monthly salary is $356 a month, more than 20 percent of its population lives in poverty, and its major industries, such as mining, are well known for being death traps.

In the countrys capital on Tuesday, medical workers protested against terrible working conditions and low wages. Senior emergency personnel make about $61 a shift, junior staff about $48, and drivers just $36. Doctors, nurses and ambulance teams are demanding a 100 percent wage increase and the reinstatement of a monthly bonus, about $180, that had been stripped from them because the government in Tbilisi recently declared the COVID-19 crisis to be over, terminated all public health measures, and ended all extra payments for health care employees. Workers insist, however, that the number of emergency calls has not decreased.

Refusing to increase wages, the Georgian Ministry of Health is instead proposing that emergency health care employees hours be changed such that they work 12-hour days, as opposed to 24-hour days spaced 3 days apartin other words, that they trade one misery for another.

Discontent among workers is widespread throughout the former Soviet sphere. Over the last seven months, thousands of health care employees, taxi drivers, railway, fertilizer plant, oil and agricultural workers have protested and gone on strike in countries such as Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.

Conditions are only worsening due to the US/NATO-Russia war in Ukraine. Whatever claims the governments of these states, particularly the Baltic countries, make about the willingness of their people to sacrifice to wage war against Moscow, millions of workers cannot and will not accept the ruin of their livelihoods so that Russia can be carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey and handed out to the rich.

Russia too is facing a growing jobs crisis, despite the Kremlins insistence that the unemployment rate is the lowest ever. The countrys Central Bank just acknowledged Wednesday that job vacancies have been declining for the past several months, with March showing 17 percent fewer available positions compared to the previous month. HeadHunter, a labor market analysis firm, reported the next day that one-third of Russias workers are fearful they will lose their jobs.

Layoffs continue to be announced at industrial enterprises across Russia. Volkswagen is trying to dismiss hundreds of employees at its plant in Nizhni Novgorod by offering them six wage payments if they voluntarily leave. In Tikhvin in Leningrad Oblast, a car plant and an IKEA facility employing 7000 people will close. The Barnaul Machine Tool Plant in Altai is going to let go 500 workers, more than previously planned. In Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Region, 1,200 workers at the residential construction company Sibpromstroi will lose their jobs.

Sign up for the WSWS Health Care Workers Newsletter!

Read the original here:

Factory and health care workers strike, protest in Russia and Georgia - WSWS

When confronted with systemic racism and state violence, its important to call things what they are. Around a month ago, as the sun rose over Jenin refugee camp, Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Aqleh was murdered by the Israeli military. Four days later, when mourners tried to carry her coffin through the streets to the Christian cemetery in Jerusalem, they were attacked and beaten by border guards.

At the time of her murder, much of the western media reported that Abu Aqleh had been killed in crossfire, and repeated Israel Defense Forces (IDF) claims that she had actually been killed by Palestinians. The New York Times ran with the headline: Shireen Abu Aqleh, Trailblazing Palestinian Journalist, Dies at 51. The BBC reported there had been clashes at her funeral. You have to wonder what either of these outlets would have done if it was one of their journalists who had been shot in the head while wearing a press vest, and if their colleagues at the scene had all corroborated the same story: that the bullet had come from an IDF gun.

Two weeks ago, on a sunny morning in East Jerusalem, I and a small group of Labour MPs went to Abu Aqlehs house and met her family. It was a deeply moving experience. The room was covered in floral tributes, and her fluffy white dog ran around it, seemingly unaware of the grief of the people around him. Our translators, both Palestinian women activists, wept as they relayed the conversation between us and Abu Aqlehs brother, niece and nephew. Abu Aqleh was a national icon, and a household name across the Middle East. It feels like were mourning our own deaths, they explained, because if it could happen to her, it could happen to any of us and it does, regularly.

I was struck by the extent to which Abu Aqlehs family was determined to use her death to fight for structural change. Rather than view the occasion purely as a moment for an outpouring of grief, they handed us a letter, outlining what they wanted us to do: to support the International Criminal Courts investigation of Israeli war crimes; to call for an independent investigation into Abu Aqlehs killing; and for there to be accountability, not just for the shooter but for the wider military apparatus. These demands ought to be so common-sensical that they would barely need to be campaigned for.

This is Palestine, however, where injustice and state violence is a part of daily life. Along with four other Labour MPs, I went to the West Bank on a tour organised by the Council for Arab-British Understanding (CAABU) and Medical Aid for Palestinians. Although we were there for only a few days, we were constantly bombarded with an apparatus of segregation and oppression. One afternoon, we visited the bail hearing of a 14-year-old who stood accused of rock-throwing. His dad waved and gestured a thumbs up to his son, a child being tried by a military court. In the end bail was granted, but this, we were told, is unusual.

But we were also bombarded by an inspiring sense of resistance and humanity, and a struggle for justice which is shared by progressives across the world. In Hebron, I met a womens collective fighting for emancipation both from the occupation and from patriarchy. In Ramallah, I spoke with a group of young activists who gave me their perspective the state of class politics in the West Bank and on the Palestinian Authority, which often draws criticism from the Palestinian left for being a de-facto sub-contractor of the occupation and a corrupt and authoritarian one at that. Its a government by the super rich, and in the interests of the super rich, as the young activists in Ramallah put it.

A report from Amnesty International published earlier this year sets out in plain language what Palestinians and campaign groups have been saying for decades: that whether they live in Gaza, East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank, or Israel itself, Palestinians are treated as an inferior racial group and systematically deprived of their rights. From healthcare to justice to education, I witnessed a system of oppression that seemed to consume every aspect of Palestinian life. We must be willing to call that system what it is: apartheid.

And that system doesnt belong just to Israel. It has been allowed and at times encouraged to take form by western governments, as well as by companies that have made major profits from the subjugation of the Palestinians. The UK has played an appalling historical role in Palestine, both as colonial power (against both peoples: at various points forcing the displacement of Palestinian communities from their homes, and blocking the arrival of Jewish refugees from the Holocaust), and as an ally of reactionary Israeli governments. British companies including JCB, whose bulldozers regularly demolish Palestinian homes profit from the occupation.

That history gives us a special responsibility to act, and an opportunity to do so by targeting our own government and capitalists. Now that Im back, I will do everything I can to push the UK government to support the demands of Abu Aqlehs family. But, as they told me, one of the most frustrating things about the Wests treatment of Palestine is that it sees cases like hers as individual tragedies rather than as the product of systemic oppression. They want her killing to mark a turning point in the UKs treatment of Israel, and as a spur to action for all of us. For me, that means a campaign of divestment against companies which support and profit from the occupation, most prominently the arms trade, and sanctions against the Israeli government.

Solidarity means rooting our campaigns in ties with the left and progressives in Palestine, where socialists, feminists and LGBT activists are waging a struggle for basic rights and against their own rulers and bosses. And while Israeli politics is generally dire, I was inspired by the co-resistance of Israeli and Palestinian civil society groups. Israeli socialists, feminists and anti-racists are also key to a lasting, just peace. Organisations like Standing Together and BTselem stand in a long tradition of resistance to the occupation. Peace Now, another Israeli campaign group, took a bulldozer to the West Bank settlement Homesh last month with the aim of dismantling it.

I have rarely felt angrier than when confronted with the realities of the occupation in Palestine, but I have also been inspired by the hope and resilience of the activists I met. I intend to turn both of these feelings into action at home.

Nadia Whittome is the Labour MP for Nottingham East.

Read the original post:

I Met Shireen Abu Aqleh's Family And Here's What They Want From the UK - Novara Media

The recent events that include the sudden outrage shown by the Islamic nations against the BJP spokesperson, the narrative developed by Pakistan on Kashmir attracting US Secretary of State Blinkens statement that the United States was monitoring the rise in human rights abuses in India by some officials, the continuing attacks on the government for allegedly its pro-right wing approach and the NATOs narrative on the Ukrainian conflict indicate that media is now assuming the role of the decisive factor in international relations. The speed with which the statement of the BJP spokesperson was disseminated which attracted reactions by several Islamic nations suggests the indomitable force of media in impacting international ties. Crucially, the spokesperson says the interview was edited to give an impression that she used derogatory language for the Prophet that attracted severe criticism for the Islamic nations. She apologised and the Indian government stated that the statement came from the fringe element in a damage control exercise.

The controversy over CAA, temple-mosque issues were projected by Pakistan and its supporters as attacks on the minority which often drew adverse comments from Islamic countries and OIC. The communal situation is projected as oppression of minorities. The Islamic religious leaders even justify violence e.g. the Qazi of Kanpurs statement. Similarly, the NATO narrative on the Ukrainian situation is dominating while the Russian narrative hardly gets mentioned in the electronic media. While 100 nations either remained neutral or sided with Russia and only 93 nations supported the NATO, the latters narrative is well-publicised. There is no case to support the Russian invasion but this is yet another example of the media role. The big media giants and channels are either owned or under the influence of NATO and its allies.

All the above incidents indicate the prowess of media in international relations: media is the king in international ties and dominance in this sphere gives an upper hand over others. The battlefield of international politics has shifted from geographical and physical levels to communication levels with modern media tools playing a crucial role in perceptions and image-making role turning the domestic population as a weapon of adversaries.

It is over 30 years since debate on the relationship between the TV news coverage and consequent decisions to intervene for humanitarian purposes, occupied a good deal of scholarly debates as also political attention. It was then termed as the CNN effect that included all electronic channels like Al-Jazeera and BBC etc. They were seen as the driving force for humanitarian intervention in Somalia (1992-93) and Bosnia (1995). However, soon the view changed as they could generate public opinion forcing the governments to take some particular action including mobilisation of forces. These channels were addressing majority of population at the same time resulting in developing perceptions based on media stories. Media pressure could trigger the air power intervention in Bosnia in 1995 and Kosovo in 1999. The intervention in Northern Iraq in 1991 is only partially considered as the result of media pressure to protect the Kurdish refugees as the strategic consideration played the dominant role. This was the period which saw 24-hour channels describing the operations against Saddam.

The proliferation of new communication technology, such as portable satellite broadcasting, equipment and the emergence of digital cameras contained within mobile phones, Internet of Things including World Wide Web brought to the world events around the globe practically in real time to a large section of the world population. Any event can be captured on camera and that information then passed around the world instantaneously via the internet or global media. The channels found that they could project their stories with conviction. The dependence on the official sources diminished for the channels and social media. At the same time, social media platforms began to play a major role in public diplomacy. Diplomats and governments began to use the social media for their outreach. The social media is used by national governments for promoting trade, cultural linkages and national image.

Realising the power of the media channels, governments and terrorist began to use media for justifying their policies. Notwithstanding negligible evidence, in 2002-03, the US projected that Saddam Hussein had WMD and that he could use it within 45 minutes. The UK JIC in a coordinated manner placed its intelligence assessment in the public domain on this issue, which was very sketchy and did not indicate that Iraq at that time possessed WMD. But this was an exercise in projecting a view point to change the perception of the people world over to justify the operations of the US and its allies in Iraq. Obviously, the objective was control over oil in the region. This was one of the most important exploitations of information channels for projecting a pre-determined objective. The terrorists also began to use Internet of Things to propagate their ideology based on violence.

This was the time, when operations against the Taliban were started after the 9/11 attacks. Operations in both in Afghanistan and Iraq were placed in the narrative of War on Terror, justifying the operations designed to eliminate the threat from the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. It did not matter that the US had been supporting the Islamic fundamentalists against the USSR in that region, through Pakistan.

China towards the end of the 20th Century came up with Three Warfares doctrine to strengthen its claims over neighbouring regions and criticise the US and its allies. These included psychological warfare, media warfare and lawfare. Using these, it ensured to create artificial islands and weaponised them. It keeps on trying to change the LAC to its advantage ignoring all the previous agreements. The Sino-Pak axis is operating against the Indian interests. They are strange bed-fellows-one communist and other Islamic fundamentalist, reflecting national interests can bring the two ideologically opposite nations together. Al Qaeda has joined Pakistan in threatening attacks in India, reflecting continuing nexus with the Pak Establishment.

More harmful is their joint effort to target the civil society in India. Pakistan is not concerned about oppression of Uyghurs: it only propagates against Indian policies based on manufactured lies. The influence operations based on carefully designed plans after collecting big data are aimed at manipulating the perceptions of population against the current government.

India had been targeted by Pak-based terrorist outfits which are radicalising youth in India particularly in J&K. This is continuing currently where a campaign to terrorise Hindus is going on. This is part of a well-planned operations involving not only Pakistan but other countries too, which consider the rise of India against their interests. Those nations were observing developing close relations with some of the West Asian countries with awe. This coupled with Indias rise as reflected in Quad meetings, Indias firm approach towards the Ukraine-Russia conflict and deepening of relations with South East Asian nations could only generate fears among the established powers of losing their hold on the international structures.

The key point is that in the current media environment the adversaries have acquired power to use domestic population to oppose the government polices even if they are right by creating an adverse perception. This demands well-informed policy debates involving citizens. Experts should be involved in projecting the flaws in the adversaries arguments calmly preferably in informed debates and in writings. Our adversaries have well-oiled and controlled media outlets like Global Times and several other research journals to project their point of view. Heated arguments on the electronic media or social media platforms, and the hate-speeches must be stopped. The government may start a dialogue with the Opposition, which is suffering form the loss of power and is easily playing into the hands of adversaries.

Views expressed above are the author's own.

END OF ARTICLE

Read the original post:

Growing role of media as a driving force in international relations: From CNN effect to influencing oper - Times of India

Knock LA is a media project of Ground Game LA, which endorsed the Peoples Summit for Democracy.

Starting today, June 8, our city will be the host of the Ninth Summit of the Americas. The event, organized by the Biden administration and the Organization of the American States, will discuss all of the pressing matters facing the region today such as economic recovery, sustainability, and democracy.

Our Los Angeles will be held up as one of the models of the sustainable, resilient and equitable future we wish to see across the Americas. But is it really?

Every year, new weather records are set across the United States thanks to climate change. The recording-breaking temperatures and severe drought conditions that have characterized the summers in Los Angeles and Southern California over the last several years have forced many to open their eyes to the devastating reality of the global climate emergency. In 2021, wildfires destroyed 2.5 million acres of land in California, and almost 4 million acres in 2020.

While studies show that there is an unequivocal connection between climate change and increases in frequency and severity of the heat waves in the Pacific Northwest, this has not stopped the Biden administration from announcing a record-breaking Pentagon budget proposal of over $800 billion dollars. With the U.S. military being one of the largest climate polluters in history, how will $800 billion dollars protect us from a world on fire?

Meanwhile, our citys history as an abundant source of oil for extraction continues to have detrimental effects on working-class neighborhoods. Researchers have found that in Los Angeles, approximately 75% of active oil or gas wells are located within 500 meters (1,640 feet) of sensitive land uses, such as homes, schools, child care facilities, parks, or senior residential facilities. Many of these active wells are in majority Black and brown neighborhoods, whose communities have been affected by impaired lung function and consequential health complications due to the drilling.

Beyond climate destruction, the values of equity and democracy seem hollow in the face of police harassment and structural oppression, which affect a significant number of LA residents, particularly the Black, Latino, and immigrant communities.

Since the year 2000, the LAPD has killed almost 1,000 people, and LA is home to the largest jail system in the United States, with around 13,000 people incarcerated on any given day. In spite of this, or maybe because of this, the City Council just decided to give an $87 million increase to the LAPD budget, making it a whopping $11.8 billion budget for the 2022-23 fiscal year.

Workers who were once called essential, such as service workers, domestic workers, day laborers, and street vendors, are some of the primary targets of the citys public force. Although street vending is an essential part of LAs economy, due to the expensive cost of permits, inspection fees, and authorized equipment under restrictive street vending laws, most street vendors are regularly targeted and harassed by law enforcement. Citations can cost up to thousands of dollars and vendors argue that the criminalization of street vending creates a cycle of disadvantage and poverty.

Domestic workers have also been left unprotected by most policies that regulate other traditional forms of work. In 2020, California governor Gavin Newson vetoed a bill that wouldve required state regulations over domestic services and protections for domestic workers. In an April 2020 survey, almost 75% of domestic workers reported to have lost their jobs because of the pandemic.

The expiration of Californias Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP), which provided tenants with some protections against evictions and allows them to apply for assistance, is another cause for concern. The program has been slow to release funds, with more than 300,000 LA tenants waiting to receive aid. LA already has a homeless population of 66,433 and the ending of ERAP will only exacerbate this crisis.

In spite of the high levels of homelessness, the criminalization of poverty, and discrimination against the immigrant community in LA, the citys government has shown where its priorities lie. Instead of using the $680 million in COVID-19 relief that was transferred to LA in 2021 to combat any one of these issues, the city gave $317 million to the Los Angeles Police Department.

Despite the negligence, oppression, and destruction of our environment and communities, the working people of LA have now and historically shown the true meaning of resilience. Los Angeles has been a center of internationalist, working class organizing for the past several decades, from the Watts uprising to the Justice for Janitors campaign.

Los Angeles also has a rich history of international solidarity with other working people in the Americas, and opposition to US imperialist interests in the region. Renowned organizations like CISPES, CARECEN, and CHIRLA were founded in the heat of the struggle to support liberation movements in Latin America and fight for the rights of migrants in Los Angeles.

These organizations have always held at their core the necessity to connect the discussion about the inhumane treatment and conditions faced by migrants to the actions of the US in the region. It is the same military interventions and economic strangleholds imposed by the US that force people to migrate in the first place.

To carry forward this legacy and represent true democracy for the people of Los Angeles and the people of the Americas a coalition of trade unions, grassroots and national organizations, cultural groups, and others have come together to organize the Peoples Summit for Democracy.

The Peoples Summit will also be held in Los Angeles from June 8 to June 10. This convening will bring together diverse voices from across Latin America and the United States to discuss and debate what true liberation and unity in the Americas can look like.

We, the people of Los Angeles, have a critical stake in this debate, and must understand that our liberation cannot be achieved while we are divided. Unity amongst the people of the Americas is not a question of rhetoric or sentiment it is a question of survival and dignity for all.

Kenia Alcocer is an undocumented mother of two and an organizer with Unin de Vecinos/the Los Angeles Tenants Union and the Poor Peoples Campaign. Kenia has been organizing since high school, fighting for the rights of undocumented students to have access to higher education. Since 2003, Kenia has developed years of experience organizing, and has dedicated herself to organizing for housing and immigrant rights.

Jodie Evans is the co-founder of CODEPINK and the after-school writing program 826LA, and serves on the CODEPINK Board of Directors. She has been a visionary advocate for peace for several decades.

The rest is here:

People's Summit for Democracy: alternative to the Summit of the Americas - Knock LA

Skip to a section:

The past, as they say, is never truly past. In recent months, Soviet nationality policy, a topic many thought consigned to academic backwaters and communist happy hours, has been thrust into the forefront of public conversation. The war raging in Ukraine has brought to the forefront questions about the borders, languages, and ethnicities of the country. How did they get that way, who is responsible, and how do these questions impact the causes and consequences of the current crisis?

The conversation, however, has been something of a battle of dueling nationalisms. In response to far-right Ukrainian nationalism, Russian President Vladimir Putin has spun his own nationalist views, blaming the Bolsheviks for setting the stage for tensions between Russia and Ukraine today.

Taking the two sets of critiques, one might be led to believe that the Soviet Union was some sort of venal, brutal empire that held the just aspirations of its various nationalities and ethnicities captive, manipulating national borders to generate fake nations and false national consciousness.

The truth is far from the stories told by both the Ukrainian nationalists and Putin. The Soviet Union was the most advanced attempt at addressing national oppression, racism and discrimination at a country-wide level. Among many other things, the USSR was the first nation to engage in widespread affirmative action at levels no country before or since has reached.

The Soviets took hundreds of nationalities and brought them under one governmental authority that took on economic backwardness and cultural repression to open up a liberatory future for peoples who had spent centuries under the yoke of the Tsars imperial ambitions.

In fact, the depth of the tragedy afflicting Eastern Europe right now can only be fully understood in light of the decades-long Soviet effort to put an end to national antagonism and forge a future based on the unity of working and poor people for their collective benefit and that of humanity.

The prison house of nations

The Tsarist empire was known, in certain circles, as the prison house of nations. From the 11th to the 19th century the various Tsars from Ivan the Terrible to Catherine (and Peter) the Great, took control of a vast territory stretching from the Pacific into Central Europe and from the Arctic Circle to the Black Sea and Central Asian steppe. Under its banners fell nearly 200 nationalities and ethnicities and a veritable Tower of Babel of languages.

Across all nations, exploitation and inequality were rampant. Ninety percent of non-Russian peoples across the empire were illiterate 75% of Russians were in the same situation. In an effort to create a successful divide and rule strategy, the Tsarist autocracy reserved higher education for the more privileged group of Russians, meaning most doctors, teachers and other professionals in the oppressed nationality regions were almost exclusively Russian. In Bashkiria, nestled between the Volga and the Urals, only 10 of the over four thousand secondary students were Bashkirs. In major cities, oppressed nationalities filled the ranks of the lowest paid workers. It was once said that every shoe black in Moscow was from the Caucasus region and that one-third of all Tatars were janitors, porters and rag pickers.1

The Tsars used land grants and colonization on the lands of oppressed nations by Russians as part of a broader effort of Russification designed to eliminate national languages and cultures. For instance, Karelians speak a language close to Finnish, but selling a bible in Finnish was punishable by exile and schoolchildren were forbidden from speaking Karelian. The deeply anti-semitic rulers deployed a KKK-style regime of terror against Jews, known as the Black Hundreds, whose murderous rampages were so notorious the term pogrom became known across the world. Ghettos were the norm in many of the cities and towns as the various nationalities were shunted into Russias developing capitalist enclaves.

Opposition to ethnic and religious intermarriage also went along with the official racism and bigotry. In addition, the Tsars were not above pitting various nationalities against one another over land and economic opportunities. National oppression, then, was also multi-layered, with some ethnic groups also oppressing others while still facing great Russian chauvinism.

This created a unique oppositional culture, particularly among communists. There were radical nationalists, representing the desire of national elites for economic supremacy in their own territory, connecting liberation to formal independence. There were socialists who believed nationalist antagonisms to be of secondary importance, stressing the unity of all workers against the Tsarist ruling class. There were other types of socialists and communists who believed that radicals should organize based on nationality, and by extension, in federations of nationalities. And then there were the Bolsheviks, who preached multinational unity of workers and peasants against the Tsar and the ruling capitalists and landlords while also placing extensive focus on militant opposition to all forms of national oppression and bigotry.

Their overall approach was rooted in an understanding of national oppression as an outgrowth of capitalism and imperialism. The process of gobbling up nations by Tsars was linked to a hunger for land, resources and labor to grow their riches and compete with other imperial forces seeking the same.

Their main conclusion was that it would never be possible to build a coalition of the oppressed and exploited, and overthrow the rulers, without foregrounding that true liberation required total destruction of national oppression and replacing capitalism. As such, a major part of the Bolshevik program was the right of nations to self-determination. While stressing, as communists always have, that socialism and communism require multinational unity transcending the national borders set up by rival capitalists, they stated that their commitment to national liberation was such that if secession was what it took for oppressed people to feel free, they would support it. These would be the basic principles that would help bring them to power, and provide the foundation for the Soviet approach to nationalities.

Dawning of a new era

Following the 1917 revolution, addressing national oppression was among many deeply complex challenges: ending participation in WWI, feeding the starving population and redividing the great estates among the peasants. This was all happening in the context of extreme hostility from imperialism. Fourteen capitalist nations sent troops to try to, as Winston Churchill would later say, strangle Bolshevism at its birth. The same nations also sent arms, gold and other equipment of war to every would-be ruler as long as they hated communism.

This immediately created a new set of issues as it concerns nationalities, principally that (as the Bolsehviks had long noted) the national struggle and the class struggle were intertwined. This meant that it quickly became weaponized by various forces looking to overthrow Soviet power.

Further complicating matters was the fact that the conglomeration of ethnicities and peoples, emerging as they did from the pre-capitalist world, rarely had a clear history of national borders. Meaning that the struggles kicked off by the 1917 revolution were as much about defining (and debating) the relationship between language, culture, religion and territory as resolving them. Many struggles for national liberation in the post-1917 period were also struggles over how a given area should be governed, and whether that was better done as formally independent states or a part of a broader Soviet federation uniting the various nations into a socialist project.

This led to a complex set of events that cannot be fully summarized here, but essentially boiled down to divisions between elements of oppressed nations who preferred to go-it-alone in alliance with imperialist powers and Tsarist revivalists, and those already part of the Bolsehvik movement or attracted by its anti-racist and pro-poor policies. In most cases these issues were settled by force of arms.

This led to a range of different struggles, between nationalists and communists (Ukraine), communists and nationalists vs. feudal lords (Bukhara), Bolsehviks vs. Mensheviks (Georgia) and just about everything in between. At the end, tens of millions of non-Russian peoples attached their homelands to the broader socialist federation that was the USSR.

By the mid-1920s the shape of the USSR, until Word War Two, was set most of the Tsarist empire minus the Baltic states and elements of the western republics that went to various Central European empires. The next decade or so would be a time of experimentation, followed by a consolidation of the overall model that would remain for the rest of the Soviet period.

Socialism against oppression

Facing underdevelopment, lack of resources and without a roadmap, the Soviet leadership nonetheless set out to try to rapidly address the challenges of centuries of national oppression. Soviet policy emphasized supporting self-determining national forms that were also calibrated to exist within the broader framework of socialist construction. This process wasnt without contradiction.

A socialist project is tasked with marshaling the resources of society in order to meet its democratically-determined collective needs and wants. But in the context of deep underdevelopment, almost everything becomes a trade-off. Do you build a bridge or a dam? And where? If illiteracy is high, but you only have the resources for so many schools, teachers and books, who gets priority? In other words, the dilemma was how to balance overall improvement in collective wellbeing while also closing the differential gaps between oppressed nations all at varying levels of development/underdevelopment.

Over the years of the Soviet Unions existence these issues were never fully resolved, but the core elements of the Soviet approach were: the creation of national territories, promoting national languages and cultures, and extensive affirmative action policies. Emphases on various aspects of these policies varied over time and across space, but generally held true and reflected the broader goals of the revolution to lift up the overall standard of living, while also significantly integrating oppressed nationalities, particularly into the scientific-technical intelligentsia.

As one study of the issue from 1991 noted: the growth of mobility opportunities has been the highest among nationalities with the lowest levels of socio-economic attainment.2

For instance, by 1975, Jews, Georgians, Armenians, Estonians, and Azeris were the top five ethnic groups as it concerned specialists with a higher education.3 As the table below reflects, the equalization over time speaks to Soviet priorities.4

Relatedly, in 1970, the top six nationalities in terms of enrollment in higher education were: Estonian, Georgian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Russian and Kazhak. In Soviet Central Asia, what had been arguably the most undeveloped part of the Tsarist empire, by 1982 there were more doctors per population than any non-communist country except Israel and more college students per population than Japan, plus a higher proportion of women.5 In the Soviet Arctic the first real educational system was set-up by the 1930s and by 1975 in the Chukchi National Territory 99.1% of all Indigenous children were enrolled in school through high school.6

In 1978, there was one Indigenous doctor per every 1,000 people, the same year in the United States, there was only one Indigenous doctor for every 16,000 people.7 In Moldavia, before World War Two, there was one person with a PhD by the early 80s there were 2,200. Moldavians increased 110% in professional and paraprofessional occupations between 1959 and 1973.8 Similarly, from 1950 to 1975 in the 14 non-Russian Union republics (Kazakhstan, Georgia etc.), the annual growth of scientific workers was 54% higher than among Russians.

The largest three nationalities in the USSR were by a significant margin Russians, Ukranians and Belorussians. By the 1960s all three were underrepresented in the Supreme Soviet the main national legislative body while Uzbeks, Georgians, Tajiks, Azeris, Armenians, Kirzighs, Turkmens, Latvians, Estonians, Lithuianians and Komis, among others, were all overrepresented.

One examination of the 1989 Soviet budget noted that government policy trended towards the redistributive principle, relaying how in 1989 the budget transfers funds from more developed to less developed republics, and further, less developed republics have received higher rates of investment than their level of economic development would predict. And per capita expenditures on health and educational programs have been relatively equal among republics.10

In 1920, Azerbaijan imported almost all products except oil. By 1958, they were exporting 120 different industrial goods and produced per capita more electricity than Italy and France, more steel than Japan and Italy, plus they had a larger catch of fish than France.11

On top of that, the national legislature had two tiers. In addition to the Supreme Soviet, there was also the Soviet of Nationalities, which had to approve all legislation for it to become law. Even if this body was a rubber stamp as is often alleged, the general thrust of nationalities policy clearly reflects that the very existence of multiple layers of affirmative action, language access and social uplift reflect they were putting a rubber stamp on relatively anti-racist policies.

One writer relayed a story from an encounter a conversation with a professor of the Gagauz peoples of Moldavia (population 125,000 circa 1977) whose written alphabet was created in Soviet times. The professor noted:

We have artists, we have composers, we have our own poets and writers: those who write on the basis of folk themes and those who collect our folklore. Among scholars we have linguists and historians. The anthropology of the Gagauz is being studied in Moscow we have Comrade Guboglo.

The writer further relayed that:

I admit, I was surprised to learn Guboglo was Gagauz; I had translated articles of his into English so one of the Soviet Unions leading anthropologists, a man who theorizes on matters far beyond the bounds of his own nationality, is a member of a people who did not even have an alphabet little more than 20 years ago.12

The same author notes: In Dagestan, a tumbled Soviet mountain vastness of only a million and a half people, northwest of Iran, school is presently taught in nine languages USSR-wide instruction is in 52 distinct tongues.13

In an effort to address the pervasive Russification in Ukraine, Soviet authorities pursued an aggressive effort at linguistic Ukrainization in the 1920s where literally hundreds of thousands of people were put through courses in Ukrainian. In 1923, 37% of newspapers were in the Ukrainian language, by 1928 63% were. Fifty-four percent of books printed in Ukraine were Ukrainian in 1928, 31% had been in 1923.14

In 1991, the Soviets held a referendum on whether to break up the country or not, notably for our purposes, the vote in Russia was lower than all of the oppressed nations where the referendum took place. In the Central Asian republics over 90% voted to keep the USSR together, for instance, as opposed to the 73% in Russia. Notably, the national regions within the Russian socialist republic mainly saw higher pro-Soviet percentages than Russia writ-large, with 9 out of 16 voting over 80% in favor of not breaking up the USSR.15

Another way to look at this is through the lens of historical memory. In 2013, Gallup polled people in some of the former Soviet republics asking them if they felt the break-up of the Union did more harm than good to their current country. Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine all had a larger percentage of those saying it caused more harm than good than Russia, with Tajikistan just 3% behind Russia.16

In 2005, a survey was done in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, asking people if they agreed or disagreed with the statement: The Soviet government responded to citizens needs. 82.4% of Kazakhstan agreed that the Soviet government did indeed respond to citizens needs. 87% of those in Kyrgyzstan felt similarly, 70.2% in Uzbekistan concurred.17

In a Reuters article from 2011, Soviet nostalgia binds divergent CIS states, a 46-year-old beauty salon owner from Kyrgyzstan told the newswire: Maybe our wages werent that good, and I hated the Iron Curtain most of all, but there was stability. There were the brotherly republics nearby, and you felt the shoulder of your neighbor.18

In the same article, Saijon Artykov, a 67-year-old retired geologist, reflected that: We had good wages and I bought an apartment in Dushanbe, Now we struggle to survive. Saying further that: The Soviet Union gave me a first-class education, for which I did not pay.19

Challenging changes

The varying contradictions of the Soviet model impacted heavily on the issue of nationality. Particularly bedeviling for the Soviets were issues of land, resource distribution and language. While national impulses were seen as natural, they were not seen as inherently good. As socialists, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was looking to build an internationalist society in keeping with socialist values.

Marxism posits that nationalism is ultimately a creation of capitalism, the struggle of rising capitalists to create a consolidated, politically distinct territory to conduct their commerce. The process of marking off boundaries within which languages, cultures and natural features combine to create smoothly working systems of buying and selling with unified weights and measures (money, taxes, etc.) is the process of nation-building.

Socialism, and ultimately communism, seeks to transcend capitalism by, among other things, eliminating these artificial barriers to better facilitate the use of the deeply interlinked world market to democratically meet the needs and wants of the people as opposed to serving the whims of profit reaped by a tiny handful as exists under capitalism.

The Soviets then viewed their task in erasing national oppression as a bridge to a multinational state embodying the broader socialist principles. So that meant having the essentially simultaneous imperatives of erasing national oppression, celebrating national cultures and situating them within a new all-union culture based on collective economic uplift of the working class and peasantry who now commanded the resources of society.

On the language front, this created some clear challenges. The brutal history of the Tsars had already made Russian the common language for the broader Soviet population. However, this Russification was imposed through the brutality of the tsarist economic churn. It also came with the chauvinist conception that Russian culture represented a higher form of civilization related to modern, urban culture in which many working-class people were integrated into to some extent. This was an issue of greater import given that one major area where society leapt forward after the revolution was opening up the traditional cultural realms to millions locked out before by dint of class status.

This meant that even among oppressed nations there could be resistance to new language policies among urban workers in particular, who associated national languages with the rural and often reactionary culture of the peasants.

The USSR and the preceding empires covered a vast territory, and as mentioned earlier, Russians were often given land grants in which to settle by the Tsar among various oppressed peoples. This policy intentionally created a favored population of settlers who often held preferential tracts of land. This laid the basis for sharp conflict over who rightfully belonged where and who held political power. It also led to serious questions about land as a resource, and moving forward, who had a right to veto who lived where if it conflicted with development needs.

An issue which bled into the deeper point of how exactly to distribute limited resources was that the Soviet Union was racing to reach a level of at least rough parity with the West in many regards as a safeguard against invasion and overthrow by those same hostile powers. These would become the faultlines of nationality policy in the USSR. Ultimately they were all resolved by leaning more towards the all-union side of things, than the national side of things. This meant conciliating to a degree with the existing all-union elements, which were mainly leftovers from the forced semi-homogenization of the Tsars time.

On language, this meant ultimately a step back from ambitious efforts at requiring use of various national languages, more or less limiting them to where it was most feasible: elementary education, national cultural activities, which were expanded and promoted heavily, and where voluntary adoption was taken up. This meant Russian remained the dominant language of the Union, but that previously suppressed national languages were in frequent use.

This was obviously a major step forward from tsarist times, and led to a fuller flowering of many more languages than had ever been possible previously. However, it did tend to mean that Russian culture remained ascendant to a degree, remaining the main language in which the crucial social, economic and political affairs of the country were conducted. For instance, this meant it would be easier for Tchaikovsky to become popular in Tajikistan than for a Tajik opera to take off in Moscow. Although it also meant a hugely expanded scope for Tajik opera in Dushanbe.

From a land perspective, ultimately the contextual realities of the USSR favored a less modified status quo. Until 1927, the Soviets closed vast swaths of territory, especially in central Asia, from any sort of new settlement. This, however, became untenable based on considerations related to food, economic development and national security.

The basis for sovereignty in the modern imperialist world is ultimately control over what you eat. Nations that cant feed themselves are always at a great disadvantage. Many national territories contained land far beyond what could conceivably be farmed by simply those already there. And, even in more dense rural settings, sometimes the most productive land was inhabited by settlers. Additionally, the Soviets, haltingly then in a forced march, wanted to change the structure of agriculture away from large estates and atomized small farms and replacing them with a cooperative and collective sector. The imperatives introduced by these various issues could easily collide.

Firstly, if the overall level of food production for the entire country could be raised by having more of X people in Y place, that is a strategic imperative ensuring both development and equitable distribution that might end up reinforcing demographic changes favoring one nationality over another. A similar issue might arise if, for instance, an area of Ukraine that is roughly 45% ethnically German, and prior to the revolution that population controlled 75% of the land, but during collectivization the Germans more rapidly adopted collective policies. That might mean that the position of the Germans on the best lands would continue. In the wake of WWII, the total destruction the Nazi war machine levelled against the USSR meant that the only way to really revive production was to open up new lands, which of course might also exacerbate historical tensions.

Or you might have a situation where a certain population close to a border or key natural resource where imperialist scheming represented a special danger to the broader national security of the USSR required special policies to ensure these issues were not exploited.

These various issues related to land use are the underpinning of many of the more brutal policies implemented against portions of or entire national populations in the Stalin era. Nationalist themes often became rallying points for various grievances and especially where they concerned perceived national security interests that resulted in collective punishments like mass deportations.

Without a doubt many of these actions are without justification, but they are often falsely represented as anti-national when nationality was really secondary. Peoples were targeted because they were seen as oppositional to a particular goal of the leadership.

On the resource front, it is true as some have noted that there was never any official mechanism to direct a specific percentage of national resources to oppressed nations. On the other hand, there was often one-off levies in yearly budgets to address these issues, and as the overall record shows, the general thrust of Soviet policy meant that investment in the various oppressed nations was often equal to or greater than those in Russia on a proportional basis. In fact, its widely noted by scholars that dissatisfaction among Russians that they were being disadvantaged as compared to various nationalities was a major factor in driving anti-Soviet sentiment.

Similarly, the general thrust towards equality paradoxically created more competition between newly empowered national elites over the still relatively scarce resources of the USSR. Ironically enough then, the very success of the Soviets in lessening national oppression started to create new tensions on national lines that contributed to the Soviet collapse.

Towards a socialist future

All of the various issues mentioned here of course merit fuller discussion. However, its possible to draw some broad conclusions. Firstly, the USSR embarked on the greatest experiment the world has ever known to draw peoples together across national boundaries for collective uplift. They eliminated the pogroms, allowed many languages to grow and bloom, put real resources behind promoting national cultures and made it a top national priority to place people from the formerly oppressed nations into positions of influence and power.

Secondly, they did this in the context of raising the living standards for the entire country far above what they had been in tsarist times, above every nation in the developing world, and achieved a rough parity with the most advanced nations on Earth with remarkable speed.

In that context, the inability of the Soviets to totally eliminate national antagonism has to be seen in a different light. Ultimately, how likely was it that they would succeed in that goal absent a broader transformation on a world level? Thousands of years of national oppression bound up in the material realities of capitalist development and feudal land ownership were never going to be unraveled in what, ultimately, was just a handful of decades in the historical sense.

Further, in the context of a massive campaign by the worlds most powerful nation to destroy the USSR, how is it possible that the USSR would not experience distortions imposed upon it for its own survival? That would also impact elements of policy from the social to the national.

Not just in nationalities policy, but in issues concerning everything from womens rights to wages, Soviet policy backtracked from often pioneering (for the entire globe) policies to consolidate a greater sense of national unity around the socialist project or to solve practical problems with old methods when experimentation might risk losing more than would be gained.

The war in Ukraine further confirms just how tragic the Soviet collapse was, despite all its challenges and problems. The cultural-national pluralism of the Soviets has given way to the zero-sum agenda of the capitalist-oriented nationalists on all sides. These post-Soviet ruling classes have every reason to press claims (and not all without justification) that gain them territory, and ultimately the space to secure their profits in an actual commercial sense or as it concerns territorial integrity.

Twenty-seven million Soviets of all nationalities died in WWII. Despite the vigorous attempts by the Nazis to use nationality as an anti-communist weapon, they failed and multinational socialist unity powered the Soviet war machine to victory a very fitting anti-racist funeral director to bury Nazism.

Socialist unity has collapsed into capitalist barbarism, which should not be a surprise. It is in fact what the genuine communist forces in the USSR always predicted would happen should the country collapse. Now more than ever it is important to remember the shining example of the Soviet Union in confronting hatred, bigotry and xenophobia, as we look for new paths to a more peaceful, sustainable and socialist future.

Sources

Read the original post:

Nations and Soviets: The National Question in the USSR - Liberation

Kathy Willens / AP

This year marks the 53rd anniversary of the modern U.S. LGBTQ+ Pride movement. Gains from the movement have made it possible for many of us to celebrate our queer identity and to enjoy rights that we have been historically denied.

But what does it mean to celebrate Pride at a time when many of these gains seem to be threatened? Physical gatherings have become commonplace again, and the feeling ofmaking up for time lost is palpable.

In what ways can we honor those who lost their lives and continue toto the virus, illness, and to all of the life-threatening issues that didnt go away as the pandemic raged on? How can we support those who have been left behind by a government that time and time again has prioritized capital over the wellbeing of its people?

Now that vaccines have become availablehow universally is debatableweve each come to terms with the levels of risk vs. reward that we feel comfortable with as we engage in social activities.

As I cautiously re-establish the physical connections that have facilitated my own expression of queer joy, I realize that the world has changed in many and big ways. I cant shake a new feeling of deep mourning and dread. It bubbles up when Im listening to records with friends, dancing over a sticky floor, or pulling in someone close for a kiss. And how can I shake this feeling when so much life has been lost, stolen, and when queer people, specifically trans people, are increasingly disrespected, injured, and murdered? Black trans women struggle the most to remain housed and are often the target of horrific violence. Queer people are called predators.

The ultra-right, once hidden in dark corners, has stepped into mainstream media, poisoning our friends, families, co-workers, and neighbors. I realize that I cant let this dread steal more of my time that could be spent enjoying beautiful moments with my community. I cant let the ugliness of this world continue to claim so many of my trans and queer siblings lives.

The rise of fascism in this country and the utter failure of our government to really protect us in a time of crisis pose an existential threat not only to queer people but to all Black, Indigenous, and people of color. The only way to protect our communities is to fight fascism and its root causes head-on.

My queer joy does not feel genuine if Im not contributing to the liberation of all of my comrades because our collective liberation is inseparable from queerness. Its the foundation of Pride.

Its impossible to ignore the anti-establishment roots of LGBTQ+ Pride. Modern Pride marcheslater paradesevolved directly from anti-police and anti-establishment demonstrations. This history has resurfaced in mainstream media in recent years, thanks to the fallout of 2020s national uprising against racist police violence and to the consistent advocacy of queer Black, Indigenous, and people of color.

The first big, popular Pride demonstrations can be traced back to the Stonewall Uprising, which erupted in response to police brutality in the summer of 1969. The modern U.S. Gay Liberation movement came about directly from this collective show of force in New York and other major cities after decades of harassment and violence by police. Any gains made from the Gay Rights Movement are due to the collective and consistent organizing of activists, most notably Black trans women.

Colleen Walsh summarizes, in her 2019 piece for the Harvard Gazette, the McCarthyist policies of the 1950s that targeted, threatened, and terrorized not only Communists but anyone who deviated from white American patriarchal and puritanical culture, including anyone engaged in deviant sexual behavior.

Walsh refers to the Vietnam War, the womens equality movement, and the Black Panther Party as cultural elements of the 1960s that contributed to the conditions that led to the Stonewall Uprising. However, the revolt eventually transformed into a primarily white, cis, gay-led movement for marriage and legal equality. While these gains are crucial for liberation, the systemic oppressive forces of the 1960s have not evaporated. While McCarthyism is no longer a blatant focus of congressional hearings and American society, many of its sentiments have resurfaced as anti-trans and anti-leftist culture wars.

Significant gains in trans, gay, and womens rights made in recent years have emboldened the ultra-right. The modern rise of fascism threatens the legal and cultural gains of the queer liberation movement, as well as our lives.

A crucial part of celebrating Pride is continuing to chip away at the oppressive systems that activists have been fighting. Queer Black, Indigenous, and people of color have often faced the ugliest and most intense manifestations of this countrys systemic oppression of poor people.

Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera formed the Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries (STAR) in 1971, which provided housing and other basic resources to trans people disproportionately denied the gains of the civil and gay rights movements. Trans people, especially trans women of color, have always been at the forefront of Pride. Theyve asked for the bare minimum of this country, to be treated with respect and to have basic needs met, and have instead been met with a lack of resources and support, and with violence.

The foundation of Pride lies in the protection and solidarity with trans and genderqueer siblings of color, and the dismantling of the oppressive systems that have created the perfect conditions for the rise of fascism.

This country has seen a concerted move by the right to curtail the bodily autonomy of trans people. Fringe opinions in fascist spaces have spread so far and wide that trans youths participation in sports has become a national debate. Providing minors with gender-affirming care has become a crime in several states.

Anti-transgender bills currently exist in Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, Florida, South and North Carolina, and New Hampshire. Manufactured bathroom panic has turned into calling queer people predators outright, and punishing by law any mention of LGBTQ+ subjects in schools. The imminent repeal of Roe v. Wade and all the new anti-abortion bills throughout the country demonstrate this highly organized effort by conservatives and the ultra-right to deny women and queer people their bodily autonomy.

So what has and can be done to counteract this wave of conservative legislation and a concurrent rise of fascism? A widespread collective shift onto movement-building is essential at this crucial point in history. Conservative efforts to codify anti-women, anti-queer, and racist bigotry must be stamped out at the source. Oppressive imperialist systems rooted in white supremacy and patriarchy have led to the rise of fascism in this country by design. Its crucial to understand that there is a key intersection between limits on reproductive rights, anti-trans legislation and violence, worker exploitation, racially motivated violence, and an urgent shortage of housing for working people.

We cant work toward liberation in silos. Housing, healthcare, worker protections, and bodily autonomy are queer issues. Our collective actions to combat state-sponsored violence and our governments ever-growing alignment with capital over people are essential.

As we celebrate Pride this year, lets learn, remember, and honor the roots of Pride. Lets continue our struggle for liberation by supporting our comrades of every stripe in our collective actions to build power, whether at a localized, communal scale or in statewide and national campaigns and movements. Lets find comfort and energy in engaging with our communities struggles.

Much work is to be done at the local and state level. Tenant rights organizing, local budget reallocation efforts, union organizing, labor strikes and boycotts, socialist political campaigns, reproductive rights campaigns, community safety initiatives, localized food production, are just a few of the many radical community-building efforts that grow stronger every day.

And in this election year, it behooves us all to fully engage with the process, as voters, volunteers, and contributors. I urge you to celebrate your queer joy by continuing to practice love and empathy through liberation.

As with all op-eds published by Peoples World, this article reflects the opinions of its author.

Continued here:

Pride 2022: A rooted and engaged celebration of queerness - People's World

Kashmir issue is basically a territorial conflict between India and Pakistan .according to demographic division 55% area of Kashmir is controlled by India, and,30% of Pakistan,15% by China. Kashmir is a landlocked region located southwest of the subcontinent. It covers 85,806 square miles, of which 31,643 square miles are occupied by India and 12,387 square miles are under Pakistan. The state of Kashmir is larger than the 140 member states of the United Nations in terms of population and 112 in terms of area.

The Kashmir issue is one of the longest-running disputes in the world which has affected 1.5 billion people of the sub-continent. The presence of nuclear power on both sides of the conflict is making the Kashmir dispute a flashpoint, which can in danger the life of ten million people. Pakistan and India have three wars fought in 1947, 1965, and 1971 on the Kashmir issue and also limited Kargil war 1999. India and Pakistan are once again at war over the Kashmir issue, which has been unresolved for 73 years. After independence from Britain, two independent states, Pakistan and India, came into being. States and princely states were given the power to decide to join any country according to the will of their people. Kashmir had a Muslim majority. But its Hindu Ruler did not make any decision in time.

The Ruler of Kashmir Maharaja Hari Singh appealed to Viceroy Lord Mountbatten for military assistance in response to the local uprising and the incursion by the armed tribes of Pakistan, which he rejected, saying that we can not help unless the state decided to annex India. So Maharaja Hari Singh decided Kashmir to merge with India against the will of people.

The state of Jammu and Kashmir was annexed by the Indian government on 27th October 1947, contrary to the wishes of the Kashmiri people, the Indian Army occupied the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The war had begun. According to the Indian rulers, the state of Pakistan which became independent a few months ago is not capable of withstanding the aggression of the Indian army. But with the full support of the tribal people, Pakistan resisted the Indian forces and liberated about 35% of the state of Jammu and Kashmir from the control of the Indian forces and laid the foundation of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir government. When India saw that the Pakistani people were easily defeating the Indian forces, the Indian government took the Kashmir issue to the United Nations on January 1, 1948, and requested a ceasefire. In this way, the United Nations declared a ceasefire between the two countries and a unanimous resolution was passed that the Kashmir issue would be resolved in a democratic manner through a referendum.

The ceasefire line between the two countries was called the Line of Control. The United Nations passed several resolutions on the Kashmir issue in 1947-48. According to the resolution of the Security Council dated April 21, 1948, the basic principle was that India would resolve the Kashmir issue through a referendum. In addition, on August 3, 1948, and January 5, 1949, India was forced to comply with UN resolutions. The resolution said that the state of Kashmir was geographically, economically, linguistically, culturally, and religiously closer to Pakistan and therefore should be included in Pakistan.

During the Kashmirs struggle for Pakistans annexation in 1947, more than half a million people were martyred all over Kashmir. However, it is very unfortunate that this situation has not changed even in modern times. Today Occupied Jammu and Kashmir have become a nightmare of atrocities, with 14, 15, and 16 battalions of Indian forces stationed there, totaling more than 10 lac who are involved in serious human rights violations. This means that for every 8 Kashmiris, an average of one soldier is deployed. Kashmiris sacrificed millions of martyrs for independence but due to the hypocrisy of the world powers this war of independence has not only led to oppression and violence but Valley has become a military camp -a picture of fear, despair, and darkness.

Now the BJP government in India has a much tougher stance on Kashmir and has lost the special status of Kashmir under this government. Experts say that the possibility of resolving the Kashmir issue has now become more complex.On August 5, 2019, Articles 370 and 35-A of the Constitution became ineffective and Kashmiris started to become a minority and a never-ending lockdown was imposed on them. Kashmir had a special status under Article 370A of the Indian Constitution. The abolition of this special status is part of the manifesto of the BJP. Modi has forcibly abolished 370A and 35A and removed the constitutional justification for occupied Kashmir to remain with India.However, expressing solidarity with Kashmiris once or twice a year will not solve the Kashmir issue. The world is playing the role of the silent spectator on the ongoing state atrocities in Occupied Kashmir. There will be no other way but armed struggle.

The international community should take notice of Indian atrocities in occupied Kashmir and play its role in a lasting solution to the Kashmir issue. Pakistanis around the world demand that Kashmiris be given the right to self-determination to secure peace in the region and that the Muslim world, including the international community, play a role in preventing Indian atrocities in Kashmir.

View original post here:

The Unresolved Kashmir Dispute - The Nation

While Rome burns or, rather, Trinidad and Tobago, we continue to be distracted and allow our leaders to play tit for tat and set the bar lower each day.

A respected senior in the legal profession recently took to social media and posted race baiting by the PNM is picong, by anyone else... its seditious. Let us not fall into the trap designed to distract us from the daily dangers we face.

Our colonial oppressors must be sitting, sipping on hells finest cocktails along with the big, red guy himself, and sharing a hearty laugh at us dotish Trinidadians for allowing further division in our society while our problems worsen.

How is it possible that we still have C and N word problems when we BOTH suffered cruelty and hardships from Western oppressors? Are we in 2022 or the early 1900s?

How is it acceptable to have media personalities and columnists make fun of the names of our people? I went through the school system here and my surname (of East Indian heritage) was also ridiculed and made fun of. Does that not end when you leave school?

Lest we forget, we have a failed education system where pupils go to school to get dismembered and attacked, daily home invasions, we have more potholes than roads, to access foreign exchange in this country is like winning the lottery, corruption and nepotism plague major Government institutions with no recourse and, best of all, our leaders, who are entrusted to pull us out of this mess, mount petty platforms, decked up in arrogance and egotism, to call one another names.

One has to wonder if historians such as Froude and others, who claimed Caribbean people were incapable of governing themselves and would need the firm hand of the Crown to survive, were possibly on to something.

Our diversity is OUR strength. We must not allow anyone to use it conveniently to make minor political gains, to the detriment of our unity and peace.

As I opened my eyes and thanked God for another day, sadness and anger filled me to think about the state of our country.

Oppression comes in many forms, and when we think of the quality of life we lead, the failed healthcare system, crime, stifling economy... it makes one wonder who our oppressors really are.

Reminiscent of George Orwells Animal Farm, when the animals were able to get rid of the oppressive humans, who became the oppressors? Perhaps all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

We must unite and demand better from our leaders.

Let Einsteins definition of insanity no longer apply to us. Trinidad and Tobago will prosper for it.

Rishi ND Tripathi

attorney and former senator (temp) in the 11th Republican Parliament

Read the rest here:

The diversity of our people is our strength | Letters to Editor | trinidadexpress.com - Trinidad & Tobago Express Newspapers