CP of the Russian Federation, G.Zyuganov”s Article about NATO
————————————————-
From: Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Wednesday, 17 November 2010
http://www.kprf.ru , mailto:zabirov@duma.gov.ru
==================================================

Gennady Zyuganov
Chairman CC CPRF

NATO: Wolf in a Sheep’s Skin

Why should Russia join the North Atlantic Alliance?

Against the background of the global crisis into which Russia was sucked deeper than other leading countries dangerous new phenomena can be observed in the policy of our country’s leadership. I am referring to plans of further sell-off of strategic enterprises, commercialization of education, healthcare and culture and the drive to bring Russia into the World Trade Organization.

Recently, the long stalled negotiations on Russia’s entry into NATO were suddenly resumed. Pro-government experts and journalists are at pains to prove that it is a necessary step. Chairman of the Board of the Modern Development Institute (INSOR), Mr Yurgens, publicly aired the idea of dragging Russia into NATO at an international forum in Yaroslavl in September. The Chairman of INSOR’s Board of Trustees is the Russian President. Could it mean that Mr Yurgens launched his initiative with a nod from the Presidential Administration? The Russian President himself intends to take part in the NATO summit in Lisbon on November 19-20. During a recent meeting with NATO’s Secretary-General Anders Rasmussen, Dmitry Medvedev said that the Lisbon meeting would not only “give a fresh start to the relations between NATO and Russia but will mark modernization of the mutual relations”. There is nothing new about these “fresh starts”. The road to rapprochement with the West on capitulation terms was opened by Mikhail Gorbachev with his “universal human values”. Flirting with the US and its allies had dire consequences for our country. However, Russian leaders have failed to draw any lessons from that.

Yeltsin agreed to the first wave of NATO expansion towards the Russian borders. He backed NATO’s aggression against Yugoslavia, our own ally in Europe. But towards the end of Yeltsin’s rule it became clear that the “partners” had been cynically leading us by our noses. Incensed, Yeltsin sanctioned the famous march of a Russian airborne troops company towards Pristina, the capital of Kosovo, but that was it. Before long Mr Putin started everything from scratch.

One of the first steps of the new President was to have the State Duma ratify the infamous START-II Treaty that could lead to the dismantling of our heavy missiles. Russia’s strategic nuclear forces were only saved because the US Congress refused to ratify the Treaty. The Russian authorities then gave a virtual consent to the second wave of NATO expansion, this time to the Baltic countries. Soon, under the pretext of taking part in an international anti-terrorist coalition, Mr Putin effectively contributed to the establishment of NATO bases in Central Asia. Simultaneously vital Russian bases on Cuba and in Vietnam were liquidated.

However, after six years of tireless efforts aimed at strengthening the relations with NATO, Mr Putin suddenly discovered that the West did not intend to reciprocate but continued to present ever new demands, threatening to take the Russian leadership to international court over its war in Chechnya. So in February 2007 the Russian President delivered his famous anti-NATO Munich speech in which he expressed profound indignation over the perfidy of the “partners”. Now President Medvedev is being egged on to follow the same path. Some major preparatory steps have been taken on the eve of NATO’s Lisbon session. Another “disarmament” treaty with the US has been signed. Moscow has backed tougher sanctions against Iran and tore up the contract to supply defensive anti-aircraft systems to Teheran. Some ill-advised verbal attacks were made on North Korea. The relations with Belarus were aggravated without any cause. A big gift was presented to Norway, the closest US NATO ally, which was given control over large parts of the Barents Sea over which our country has never recognized foreign sovereignty. Now it looks as if the relations between Russia and NATO are going to be taken to a new level as a step towards joining that aggressive bloc.

NATO: From European to Global Policeman

It will be recalled that the Alliance was created on April 4, 1949 allegedly to protect Europe against an invasion of the “Red hordes” from the East. And yet one of NATO’s leaders admitted at the time that the bloc’s true aim was “to keep America in, Germany down and Russia out”.
The Soviet Union has been destroyed. It would seem that there was no reason for NATO to exist any more. But the alliance lives on and indeed is expanding and building up its muscle. The true meaning of the preservation of NATO was highlighted by the brazen interventions against friendly Yugoslavia and then in Iraq and Afghanistan. It became clear that NATO is still an instrument that promotes the global ambitions of the US and its allies. As a matter of fact Western strategists agree that NATO’s role is growing.
The balance of forces in the world is changing rapidly. In 1999 when the NATO members enthusiastically adopted a new Strategic Concept which turned NATO from a defensive European alliance into an offensive bloc with a world-wide zone of action there was no resistance to this, and it had never been expected. Russia lay in the ruins of “reforms”, while China had yet to assert its political and economic might.

Today, as the crisis has shown, the writ of the world oligarchy whose centers are North America and Europe, is shrinking. Under the influence of Communist China the countries of Asia, whose role until recently has been to supply natural resources and cheap labour for Europe and the US, are emerging as key factors in world politics. Similar processes are taking place in Latin America. The countries of the “black continent” until recently a boundless field for plunder by transnational corporations (TNCs) are uniting in an anti-colonial African Union. The Middle East and the Islamic world as a whole are locked in tough confrontation with the West.

The fight for leadership is intensifying. The economic crisis further weakens the capitalist system. The international oligarchy comprises the planet’s wealthiest people, more than 500 powerful TNCs which have a capital of 16 trillion dollars and account for more than 25% of the world industrial output. That “elite” has no intention of relinquishing its hegemony over the planet gained during centuries of wars of conquest. Hence the new series of military conflicts, an aggressive stance with regard to Iran and the DPRK and the growing pressure on China.

The West seeks greater consolidation in order to perpetuate its dominance. While in the 1990s the issue of whether NATO had any meaning was debated, today the oligarchy, concerned about the changing balance of forces in the world, is vigorously building up NATO as world policeman. It sets the task of deploying systems of global control over land and sea surfaces and being able to deliver strikes on any spot in the planet. NATO is emerging as a supranational body which seeks to overturn the system of international law that took shape after the Second World War and subjugate the UN.

Back in 1993 Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book “Out of Control” openly declared that if America wanted to control the world, as it did, then it must establish its preeminence over Eurasia, especially over the ‘Western periphery’ (the European Union), its heartland (Russia), the Middle East, Central Asia and its oil reserves. According to prominent American analyst John Kaminski, American troops are not fighting for freedom. This is a fight for corporate profitsÅ  the army exists to capture and plunder other countries and peoples.

At the Lisbon meeting its participants are to approve a new NATO strategic concept to replace the one adopted in May 1999 when the bloc declared it had the right to global interventions. The new concept is likely to confirm that NATO will continue its expansion to the East. It will keep the American tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. It will create a European missile defense system together with the US which obviously is directed against Russia.

The oligarchic capital, aware of the threat to its world hegemony coming from Asia, Latin America and the Middle East, is trying to counterattack. But its resources continue to shrink.

Russia is being dragged into the war in Afghanistan

What is NATO’s greatest worry? The fact that it does not have enough “cannon fodder” for its colonial expeditions. NATO is feverishly casting about for allies. There are today about 150,000 troops from 47 countries deployed in Afghanistan. Many former Soviet republics have been dragged in: Estonia has sent 160 troops, Latvia 170, Lithuania 245, Azerbaijan 90, Armenia 40, Ukraine 15 and Georgia 925.

Our recent Warsaw Treaty allies have been presented with demands to increase their contribution. Thus, Poland has 2630 troops in Afghanistan, Romania has 1750, Hungary 360, Bulgaria 540, the Czech Republic 500 and Slovakia 300. Even Mongolia has been made to send almost 200 of its soldiers there. Is there any doubt that Russia would be asked to make a more “worthy” contribution to the “fight for democracy” in Afghanistan?

What is the meaning of Article 5 of the NATO Charter? It means that all the bloc’s members must come to the defense of any other member that has been attacked. The nature of the attack is not spelled out. It could well mean the “terrorist threat” which is being made such great play of in the West. Those who are dragging Russia into NATO must understand that Russia will be obliged to protect the alliance’s collective interests. And not only in AfghanistanÅ 

Apparently Washington reasonably believes it inadmissible that the Russian government is still evading doing what is the “sacred duty” of all the US partners, i.e. fighting for American interests. Ever louder calls for intervention in Iran are heard in Washington. More and more “cannon fodder” will be needed.

The Western public rejects the futile war in the Middle East, especially since the “noble” goals of “fighting international terrorism” are fast losing their luster and the cost and the number of coffins flown from Afghanistan are soaring. It is therefore extremely important for the NATO leaders to create the impression that this war has broad international support. In general, this is a favourite American trick: having its allies share responsibility for its colonial adventures. This was the case in Korea in the 1950s and in Vietnam in the 1960s. This is what is happening in Afghanistan.

The NATO Secretary General is openly speaking about sending Russian helicopter pilots to that country and in a meeting at the Pentagon several months ago the US Secretary of Defense raised with Mr Serdyukov, the Russian Defense Minister, the question of sending Russian airborne and special units to Afghanistan. We have not heard a resolute refusal of the Russian side to do so.

On the other hand, we know that Russia-NATO military ties were fully restored during the trip to the bloc’s Brussels headquarters by the chief of the General Staff N.Makarov early this year. Several agreements were signed on regular command-and-staff exercises to practice troop compatibility and interoperability, to exchange servicemen for training and other activities aimed at integrating the Russian armed forces into NATO structures.

Western strategists agree to admit Russia to the alliance only as a rank-and-file member, making it clear that the bloc has only one boss, the US. Russia would turn from a dangerous rival to be kept out of Europe into a docile vassal. In other words, the formula is changing. Now NATO’s main purpose is “to keep the US in and Germany and Russia down”.

Consequences of Russia’s entry into NATO

If our country joins the alliance its independence in world affairs will be dramatically diminished. It will have to coordinate its actions with the NATO top brass, or, in practical terms, seek its permission for every international initiative. It will get a “common enemy”. We should all be aware that in the event Russia joins NATO our southern and far eastern borders may first become zones of high tension and then a field of battle.

Like all other members of the alliance, Russia will face “friendly occupation” with the appearance on our territory of NATO bases and rapid deployment forces, and free transportation of NATO military supplies across its territory. As a result of this transformation Russia’s Eurasian geopolitical role will change. So for Russia to join NATO would mean a prologue to its self-destruction.

For the Russian economy the move would sound the death knell for our military-industrial complex which has long been the mainspring of spectacular scientific and technological achievements and had the most advanced forms of organization of labour. We will inevitably be forced to switch to NATO standards and to buy foreign military hardware. The process is in full swing. We have already bought English rifles, Israeli drones, Italian armored vehicles and a “contract of the century” will see the Russian Navy buy French helicopter carriers that it has absolutely no need for. General Ivashov estimates that in the coming years Russia will get at least 30% of its military hardware from NATO countries and from Israel.

Meanwhile the virtual halt of the production of TU-2004 and IL-96 planes means that we are not only becoming totally dependent on the West for passenger planes, but also that we will soon be unable to produce our military transport planes. In the event of conflict we will have no spare parts or capacity to repair passenger planes which have always been a standby reserve.

The destructive “reform” of the Armed Forces falls into the same pattern. It is associated with the name of Mr Serdyukov. But apparently his activity has the support of the country’s leadership. Sad experience of such “reforms” exists. The once strong armies of the former Warsaw Treaty countries – Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania – have now been turned into “contingents” totally incapable of defending their countries and their populations but providing mercenaries for America’s colonial wars.

The same fate was suffered by the once powerful People’s Army of Yugoslavia. After the government coup in October 2000 when power in Belgrade was seized by the pro-Western forces a series of “reforms” of the Yugoslavian Army turned it into a pale shadow of the real force which only recently was capable of repelling NATO’s land invasion.

The Russian authorities have destroyed the science and the defense industry they had inherited from the USSR to such an extent that we have lost the capacity to produce enough of our own armaments, let alone develop new ones. The army which was once feared by its enemies, demoralized and disarmed by the “reformers”, is no longer able to defend Russia.

Reorganization of the Armed Forces structure, the adoption of the brigade system, purchases of foreign military hardware, joint exercises in the US and Europe, refusal to admit cadets and attendees to military higher education institutions is nothing if not a drive to prepare a military module for docking whatever remains of the Russian Army and Navy with the expeditionary forces of the US and NATO.

The message is clear: Russia voluntarily forfeits its status of a leading world power and becomes subordinate to the most aggressive forces. Does our victorious people deserve such treatment?

Can one trust NATO’s friendliness?

Facts are stubborn things. They attest that NATO is quietly continuing to prepare an invasion of Russia. Our troops on the European theatre are outnumbered by 10-12 times by those of NATO. In Europe alone NATO has 36 divisions, 120 brigades, 11,000 tanks, 23,000 pieces of ordinance and 4500 war planes. What is the purpose of having such huge military might? To fight international terror which today is held up as the main justification for the existence of NATO?

Meanwhile specialists believe that 70% of all the operational activities, exercises, command-and-staff games conducted by NATO rehearse entry into the initial period of a large-scale war, waged to gain air superiority and carry out offensive operations. Today NATO has no other enemy against whom large-scale operations could be launched, except Russia. One can safely say therefore that NATO wants to occupy us.

NATO is building up its presence everywhere. Russia is being strategically surrounded. A belt of states unfriendly to Russia is being created. US bases are springing up in Poland, Bulgaria and Romania on the Black Sea coast. The Baltic countries are already under NATO control. Naval bases and military airfields capable of hosting up to 200 war planes at any one time, including nuclear carrying planes, have been modernized there. And yet Estonia is within 200 km of Leningrad. NATO aviation can launch its missiles even without entering our air space.

Ukraine and Moldavia are waiting in the anteroom to join NATO. Georgia is already in NATO’s pocket. Azerbaijan is gradually drifting towards NATO. The bloc’s air bases are located in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. The new members of the alliance, including the Baltic countries, are not limited in deploying nuclear weapons on their territories, are not covered by the CFE limitations, which makes it possible to create strike groups on their territories.

There is constant work to establish control over our Northern Fleet, Russia’s most powerful group of marine nuclear forces. NATO uses tracking stations in Norway and the Baltic countries, and radio electronic monitoring posts on Spitzbergen. Acoustic buoys, satellites and Orion reconnaissance planes track all the movements of our nuclear submarines. NATO’s reconnaissance aviation along our borders is becoming more and more active.

What is behind the attempts to drag Russia into NATO?

The Russian elite has long been trying to become part of the world oligarchy. But it has been given to understand that the only pass to the “club” is through the NATO military organization. The message behind it is, first fight for us, spill the blood of your citizens for the sake of Western values and then we will think about admitting you to the “club”.

The “sudden” surge of interest in joining NATO is further proof of the fact that the elites of Russia and the NATO countries have the same class nature. The group that rules Russia today is not so much modernizing as “Westernizing” Russia.

Preparation for “Westernization” has been underway for a long time. Russia’s pro-Western elite keeps saying that Russia has no enemies. With the exception of mythical “international terrorists”. Our foreign policy makers refuse to admit the obvious fact that the West’s historical goals have not changed and that Russia is still seen as a source of cheap commodities and a market for goods that have outlived their sell-buy date.

The march of NATO columns through Red Square on Victory Day on May 9, 2010, a day sacred to all Russians, has shown that NATO and Russian elites are moving towards becoming “soul mates.” They are trying to impress upon us that the people which was the first to send its son – Yuri Gagarin – into outer space is only capable of picking up crumbs off Western tables. The comeback of rabid liberalism when more than 900 enterprises, including some strategic ones, are about to be privatized, means that the country’s national security is sacrificed for the sake of gain and selfish interests.

Incidentally, the Russian elite continues to display inconsistency. While strongly opposing the admission of Ukraine and Georgia to NATO, Moscow suddenly declares that it intends to join the bloc itself. Russia’s Military Doctrine names NATO as our main enemy. Are we going to integrate into our main enemy’s organization? Of course, under Russia’s Yeltsin constitution, the President determines the country’s foreign policy. At the same time, the Russian leaders should not forget the constitutional principle which says that the source of power in Russia is its people. Apparently a sharp change of the country’s historical course requires the consent of the people. The mechanism for getting such consent is well known. It is the referendum.

If the present Russian authorities feel that they are infallible, let them put the question of joining NATO to a referendum. The chances are that they will not do so. They know very well that the people preserve in their genes the memory of the previous “visits” to Russia by our European neighbours, be it in the form of the Polish intervention during the Time of Troubles, Napoleon’s great army or Hitler’s hordes with SS legions which represented almost all the present NATO countries.

Russia has already paid for its security with millions of lives in the Second World War having liberated Europe from fascism. To strengthen Russia’s security we should not beg to be admitted to NATO, but develop our industry, education and science. We must revive our armed forces. We must restore the circle of our friends and allies among the member countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Collective Security Treaty Organization. Above all, we must seek to create a union of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine which would bring together the potential of the three Slavic peoples. This is the most reliable guarantee of our security. This has been the case for centuries in our common state. So it will be in the future.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/152166.html
Press TV
November 23, 2010

In an article published on Tuesday, the former Cuban president called
the Western military alliance an “aggressive institution” that ignored
“billions of persons suffering from poverty, underdevelopment and food
shortages.”

Castro also dismissed plans unveiled by Western leaders in the Lisbon
summit last week to hand over security in Afghanistan to local forces
by 2014.

He said he believes that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) will be forced to “hand over power” to the Afghan resistance
“in defeat.”

Castro’s comments come only days after Afghan President Hamid Karzai
signed an agreement with NATO in the recent Lisbon conference,
ensuring the presence of US and NATO forces there even beyond 2014 – a
self-declared deadline for the end of NATO military operations in
Afghanistan.

US President Barack Obama has meanwhile said that American forces
will remain in Afghanistan even after other Western countries withdraw
their troops, by far backtracking on an earlier pledge of a major
drawdown from the war-torn country by July 2011.

“Obama already admitted that his promise to withdraw US soldiers from
Afghanistan may be postponed….After the Nobel Prize, we would have
to award him with the prize for ‘the best snake charmer’ that has ever
existed,” Castro said.

Led by Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, the Western military
alliance started the Afghan war nine years ago under the pretext of
rooting out Taliban militants.

However, NATO has admitted that the militants have increased their
power in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion.

———-

KOMINFORM

http://www.kominform.eu/

By Mazin Qumsiyeh, PhD

http://www.qumsiyeh.org/apalestinianamericanviewofnatostrategypaper/

The new NATO Strategy was adopted last week at a meeting in Portugal by
heads of state of the 28-member NATO alliance while outside over 10,000
marchers shouted “no to war, no to NATO”. Internally, I heard that career
officers of NATO were not happy either. I am a citizen of the USA as well as
Palestinian who lives under occupation. The US, the only remaining
superpower (although declining rapidly) played the key role in forming the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and still largely shapes its
policies. Thus, as a US citizen, I am entitled to question the document and
examine it in detail. But as a human being we should all care what
politicians plan for our ailing planet.

The document states innocuously in the beginning that “NATO member states
form a unique community of values, committed to the principles of individual
liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law” [1]. Many citizens of
NATO countries wondered where were these lofty ideals of individual
liberties, human rights, and democracy in the past 10 years. Guantanamo,
extraordinary rendition, secret CIA torture camps around the world,
kidnapping, extrajudicial executions and more were practiced by our
countries. All the data are now available for anyone to confirm these. If
these were aberrations and mistakes, why has no high officials (Bush, Blair,
others) paid for them? And why the strategy paper does not state that
member countries are committed to these liberal principles both inside and
outside their borders? Why do many NATO countries fund and support
dictators (for example in Egypt) if they are sincere about democracy?

The new strategy affirms that “the Alliance is firmly committed to the
purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and to the
Washington Treaty, which affirms the primary responsibility of the Security
Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.” So how
come NATO member countries have not pushed for implementation of any of the
passed 35 UN Security council resolutions that deal with Israel? And how
come they allowed one member state of NATO to veto dozens of other security
council resolutions that attempt to secure international peace? Israel
regularly violates the UN charter and even its own commitments when it was
allowed into the UN (e.g. to accept UN resolutions including the right of
return to Palestinian refugees). So if NATO is committed to this charter
why not ask the US (the chief sponsor of the rogue state of Israel) to
insist that Israel complies with International law? But then again, the US
was forced by Israel’s lobby to invade Iraq, an act clearly in violation of
the charter of the UN [2].

The new strategic concept paper adopted states that “NATO will actively
employ an appropriate mix of those political and military tools to help
manage developing crises that have the potential to affect Alliance
security, before they escalate into conflicts; to stop ongoing conflicts
where they affect Alliance security; and to help consolidate stability in
post-conflict situations where that contributes to Euro-Atlantic security.”
I kept thinking of one word not mentioned anywhere in the document but
clearly in the minds of those drafting it: Afghanistan. Any rational
reading of the role of NATO in Afghanistan would have to conclude that it
decreased not increased stability. The war on this impoverished country was
ill-advised from the beginning. The rulers of Afghanistan had simply
demanded from the US proof that Osama Bin Laden was involved in the 9/11
attacks. The US refused to put-out any evidence and chose to occupy the
country. Here we are, nearly 10 years later and Osama Bin Laden is
supposedly now in Pakistan (itself destabilized by the NATO actions) and the
Taliban insurgency is stronger than ever. Some 2/3rd of Afghanistan is
actually now under the rule of the resurgent Taliban. The puppet government
of Karzai in Kabul is corrupt and is maintained only by Western support and
by bribes to corrupt war lords. Heroin trade, nearly decimated by 2001
under the Taliban rule, is now flourishing. NATO forces regularly use
unmanned aircraft to bomb civilians and hatred of all Western countries
increased round the Middle East. Now copy-cat “Al-Qaeda” cells are
sprouting like mushrooms in places like Somalia, Yemen, Morocco, Algeria,
and sub-Saharan Africa. An average citizen like me asks the question: is
this the employing of “an appropriate mix of those political and military
tools to help manage developing crises” or is it what creates crisis?

Then the strategy paper gets even more bizarre by noting that “Terrorism
poses a direct threat to the security of the citizens of NATO countries, and
to international stability and prosperity more broadly.” It is bizarre
because it does not bother to define what “terrorism” is. One can only
deduce that terrorism is left to those with big sticks to define. State
terrorism seems excluded. Freedom fighters or even non-violent resisters to
occupation and colonization can be labeled as terrorists. International law
that guarantees rights of resistance can be dismissed. NATO leaders add
that “Extremist groups continue to spread to, and in, areas of strategic
importance to the Alliance, and modern technology increases the threat and
potential impact of terrorist attacks, in particular if terrorists were to
acquire nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological capabilities.” But the
paper does not explain WHY “extremist groups continue to spread”. There are
really only two scenarios, the one promoted by the Zionist media around the
West (that Islam is the cause) and the one academic researchers and
strategists showed that it had to do with western policies (pressured by the
Zionists themselves). If Islam is the cause of extremism spreading, then
NATO should explain why now (not 400 years ago) and what they plan to do
about it other than follow the script prepared for them in Tel Aviv.

Later in the document it states NATO will work to “enhance the capacity to
detect and defend against international terrorism, including through
enhanced analysis of the threat, more consultations with our partners, and
the development of appropriate military capabilities, including to help
train local forces to fight terrorism themselves.” But this is what NATO has
been doing for 10 years and it does not seem to be working. Is it not time
to dig a little deeper in the analysis for example by examining the role of
the Western implanted state of Israel and the World Zionist Organization in
fostering hatred and anger in the Arab and Islamic world and in false-flag
operations that are then blamed in Muslims?

Then we see these even more vague assertions: “Instability or conflict
beyond NATO borders can directly threaten Alliance security, including by
fostering extremism, terrorism, and trans-national illegal activities such
as trafficking in arms, narcotics and people” and “Crises and conflicts
beyond NATO’s borders can pose a direct threat to the security of Alliance
territory and populations. NATO will therefore engage, where possible and
when necessary, to prevent crises, manage crises, stabilize post-conflict
situations and support reconstruction.” Indeed, but why does NATO chose to
get involved in Afghanistan and its key members (US, Britain etc) choose to
get involved in Iraq? Why not get involved in Israel? Will NATO
strategists objectively examine these interventions to decide what could
have happened if alternative strategies were pursued? Will they objectively
examine why most people see the hypocrisy of causing the death of over 1
million civilians in Iraq for alleged violations of a couple of UN Security
Council resolutions while giving billions to Israel (a habitual violator of
International law)?

Need anyone comment on this next pearl of wisdom from NATO other than to say
“show me how, where, and when”: “The best way to manage conflicts is to
prevent them from happening. NATO will continually monitor and analyse the
international environment to anticipate crises and, where appropriate, take
active steps to prevent them from becoming larger conflicts.” But wait, they
maybe giving us a hint: “Where conflict prevention proves unsuccessful, NATO
will be prepared and capable to manage ongoing hostilities. NATO has unique
conflict management capacities, including the unparalleled capability to
deploy and sustain robust military forces in the field. NATO-led operations
have demonstrated the indispensable contribution the Alliance can make to
international conflict management efforts.” If all you have is a hammer,
surely everything looks like a nail. Is NATO thinking of intervening in
Iran and Venezuela instead of Israel and Columbia? How many areas in the
world will NATO be willing to send troops to? And if NATO keeps
misdiagnosing the etiology of the problems they are facing (minor symptoms
of a more systemic disease), then how can they design effective therapies or
even give people a hope of a reasonably decent prognosis?

More ominous statements are included in the new strategy that is revealing:
“All countries are increasingly reliant on the vital communication,
transport and transit routes on which international trade, energy security
and prosperity depend. They require greater international efforts to ensure
their resilience against attack or disruption. Some NATO countries will
become more dependent on foreign energy suppliers and in some cases, on
foreign energy supply and distribution networks for their energy needs. As a
larger share of world consumption is transported across the globe, energy
supplies are increasingly exposed to disruption.”

One wonders what does this mean. Who will determine “threats” to “supplies”?
Where is the mention here of free trade and supply and demand? Will these
NATO countries dependent on getting natural resources from other countries
be entitled to NATO defense to ensure their supply is not disrupted if
sellers get better offers from other buyers?

The NATO document vagueness gets rather scary:

“Deterrence, based on an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional
capabilities, remains a core element of our overall strategy. The
circumstances in which any use of nuclear weapons might have to be
contemplated are extremely remote. As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO
will remain a nuclear alliance.” and NATO will work to “sustain the
necessary levels of defense spending, so that our armed forces are
sufficiently resourced”.

Madness is indeed continuing on a path that produced more destabilization,
doubled the number of countries with nuclear weapons since 1950, and
increased global insecurity. With the economies in Europe and North America
struggling, one wonders what is going on in the heads of these politicians
as they promise to keep pumping more resources into the bloated military
budgets. Even seasoned NATO officers (many retired) are questioning this
logic. The US spends half its discretionary budget on its military, a
military that already has enough weapons to obliterate life on earth many
times over. The Nonproliferation Treaty that all these countries signed
stated that they would work to reduce and then completely eliminate nuclear
weapons. Yet, they proliferate them to their client states (Israel, then
India and Pakistan as examples). And what does it mean that “as long as
nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance”? How will they
cease to exist if those with the biggest stockpiles write such bizarre
statements?

The document also claims that the alliance will work to foil “cyber
attacks”. But will this include such cyber attacks as clearly carried out
by US and Israeli intelligence agents against Iran’s civilian nuclear
facilities (facilities regularly inspected by the IAEA and certified
annually to be in compliance with international treaties)? And what message
is sent to any country (friendly or not-so-friendly to the US and Israel if
the rules of the game do not apply to powerful countries and the rules are
discarded to punish smaller countries on the whim of the powerful?

Other issues seemed positive but again vague:
-“increased cooperation with UN”: Does this mean NATO member states like the
US will now obey the UN charter and stop invading and undermining
sovereignty of other countries
-” fully strengthen the strategic partnership with the EU, in the spirit of
full mutual openness, transparency, complementarity and respect for the
autonomy and institutional integrity of both organisations”: The EU has
human rights and other treaties central to its operations but NATO does not
do that. What is the way to reconcile the differences?

The document ends by reiterating that “Our Alliance thrives as a source of
hope because it is based on common values of individual liberty, democracy,
human rights and the rule of law, and because our common essential and
enduring purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members.
These values and objectives are universal and perpetual, and we are
determined to defend them through unity, solidarity, strength and resolve.”

And what about the most egregious violations of these principles by the
fifth strongest army in the world (an army with a state called Israel)?
Where is the insistence on individual liberty, democracy, human rights and
the rule of law? Why is a key NATO country giving this rogue nation 20 of
the most advanced jet aircraft? [3]. As a colonial apartheid regime, the
Israeli violations of all these principles indeed foster instability that
affects NATO member state security at every conceivable level. Further, the
presence of strong Zionist lobbies in NATO key members has pushed these
states (e.g. Britain and the US) to engage in elective and costly wars (e.g.
on Iraq) that undermined global security. And most significantly, where is
the honesty about how the misplaced priority of NATO governments makes the
rich richer and the poor poorer in these countries? Where is the discussion
of people’s rights to economic security? Isn’t the job of government to
ensure people have a future worth living or is the job of governments to
secure corporations and wealthy aristocrats in their endless greed that is
already destroying our planet? Isn’t global warming a more important threat
to our survival than some manufactured threat from a bearded man in
Afghanistan (or is it Pakistan or is it Langley base)?

I ask these questions since I am a US citizen (a NATO country). What of
non-NATO countries? I am also a Palestinian citizen and thus can equally
criticize the Palestinian government which like many non-NATO countries is
intimidated into silence about issues that affect the welfare of people
around the world. Our representatives (whose tenure had ended but still
remain in office without elections) are not even allowing a discussion of
options going forward [4]. But the more I look into machinations of
politicians in this new world order, the more convinced I am of my life long
persistence in trying to effect change at the grass-root level. After all,
that is how real change happens in society not because of political leaders
but in spite of them (see women’s rights, civil rights, worker’s rights,
environmental regulations, ending the war on Vietnam, ending apartheid South
Africa etc). Thus I felt friendship to those 10,000 people on the streets
in Lisbon and I felt sorry for those politicians with the body guards and
the shiny suits shaking hands in well guarded buildings. History will show
indeed that we, the people, hold the answers.

By Zoltan Zigedy

As the number of Debt Commissions multiplies and media gasbags generate hurricane-like forces and hysterical fears of government insolvency, I’ve decided to surrender to the madness and propose a fresh, creative approach to debt reduction. My approach has the added value of requiring no budget cuts or tax increases. Instead, the solution will be found in cutting waste and acquiring new revenue sources hitherto unexplored.

And all of these revenues are generated by tapping the hidden potentials of the market place, a solution that will endear this plan to the vast majority of free-market economists and policy jockeys.

In its essence, my program exploits the vast assets currently wasted in our two-party political system. Instead of holding costly primary elections, I propose that we auction off the candidacies for the two parties with all proceeds going to the Federal budget. And instead of holding costly electoral campaigns, we adopt a system based upon cash votes: one vote for every dollar spent. The nine months currently devoted to canned speeches, staged rallies and meaningless debates could serve as an ongoing telethon with the dollars (votes) pouring in with a huge surge near the end. Again, all proceeds would go to the Federal budget. The beauty of this scheme is that the process is totally transparent and the results very likely close to the ones we usually get with the current electoral system.

But there is more: We could sell the naming rights to all of the House and Senate seats. The 18th Congressional District of state X might become the Halliburton or Goldman Sachs seat. The Delaware Senate seats could be sold to Dupont and the credit card industry. The possibilities are endless.

Likewise, the naming rights to departments, public buildings, airports, parks and roads might well generate millions to the Federal government. Admittedly, this might result in some awkward moments – the Richard Nixon Justice Department, the Strom Thurman Equal Rights Commission, etc. – but a small cost for market efficiency!

Instead of all the lobbying money currently wasted on campaign coffers and personal graft, we might consider installing turnstiles in government offices and agencies, charging lobbyists by the hour or earmark.

We might also consider marketizing the judiciary by selling judgeships and auctioning decisions. Undoubtedly, the legal profession would object since there would be little need for private attorneys, but the resultant revenues could go directly to the Federal budget, thus aiding widows and orphans.

The market-based solutions to the widely acclaimed deficit crisis are limited only by our imagination. Instead of slowly choking public education with privatization schemes (charter schools), why not simply construct a government fee schedule that allows youth to buy their way into a future career or profession? Of course, their fees would be refunded if they failed to meet the standards minimally necessary for performance in their fields. Doctors who consistently harm their patients would be asked to purchase a new profession more consistent with public welfare. Surely this would meet the requirements of market rationality.

For those without the funds to bid on prestigious professions, a government lottery could sort out those relegated to low-paying service jobs, those destined for prison, and those unhappily cast out as redundant. As always, the proceeds of this process would go to ease the deficit.

The beauty of this debt-reduction scheme lies in its total transparency. There are no hidden agendas, secret meetings, under-the-table deals; all transactions are in the open. While it produces virtually the same results that current practices deliver, it dispenses with the hypocrisy that infects the present political system. Moreover, the funds currently absorbed by our parasitic class of consultants, political staffers, office holders, campaign professionals, media moguls, etc. are shifted to debt reduction. It is no exaggeration that this market-based approach could produce billions of revenue to bolster the Federal budget.

Some may object, citing the absence of democracy in this approach. But this is a petty complaint, given that the results would most likely be the same as our current way of doing things. Social scientists call this an isomorphism: The processes may appear different, but operate the same and produce the same outcomes. Less kindly, Marxists call our current political system “bourgeois democracy,” a political doctrine that postures as democratic while functioning to produce and reproduce rule by wealth and power.

Undoubtedly, those who persist in defending the current two-party system will be outraged, condemning this proposal as cruelly cynical. Indeed it is. But the option is to reject the vulgar entertainment we accept as democracy and fight for a third peoples’ party or a new democracy. Anything less is rotten with hypocrisy.

Zoltan Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com

—
Posted By zoltan zigedy to ZZ’s blog at 11/24/2010 08:15:00 AM

Reflections of Fidel

THAT is what the G20 meeting that began yesterday in Seoul, capital of the Republic of Korea, has turned into.

“What is the G20?” many readers, inundated with initials, will ask. Yet another monster of the powerful empire and its richest allies, which created the G7: the United States, Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy and Canada. Later on they decided to admit Russia into the club, which was then called the G8.

Subsequently they deigned to admit five important emerging countries: China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa. Then the group increased with the admission of various OECD countries – more initials, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development – Australia, the Republic of Korea and Turkey. Saudi Arabia, Argentina and Indonesia were added to the group, taking it to 19. The twentieth member of the G-20 was none other than the European Union. One country, Spain, has boasted the unique denomination of “permanent guest” since 2010.

Another important high-level meeting is taking place almost simultaneously in Japan, that of the APEC. If our patient readers add to the previous group the following countries: Malaysia, Brunei, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Hong Kong, Chinese Taipei, Papua new Guinea, Chile, Peru and Vietnam, all with important trade exchanges and all of them bathed by the waters of the Pacific, they have what is called the APEC: the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, the complete jigsaw. They would only need the map; a laptop could perfectly well provide one.

At such international events fundamental aspects of the economy and finances of the world are discussed. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, with decisive power in financial affairs, have their master: the United States.

It is important to recall that, at the end of World War II, the industry and agriculture of the United States were intact; those of Western Europe were totally destroyed apart from exceptions like Switzerland and Sweden; the USSR was materially razed and with enormous human losses in excess of 25 million people; Japan was conquered, ruined and occupied. Approximately 80% of the world’s gold reserves had moved to the United States.

From June 1 to July 22, 1944, in an isolated but spacious and comfortable hotel in Bretton Woods, a small location in the state of New Hampshire, northeast United States, the Monetary and Financial Conference of the recently-created United Nations Organization took place.

The United States had the exceptional privilege of converting its paper money into an international currency, convertible into gold at the fixed rate of $35 per Troy ounce. As the overwhelming majority of countries deposit their currency reserves in United States’ banks, something equivalent to a considerable loan to the richest country in the world, its convertibility at least established a ceiling to the unlimited printing of paper money. And it at least signified a guarantee for the value of the countries’ reserves deposited in its banks.

On the basis of that enormous privilege and insofar as the printing of bills had the limit of their convertibility into gold, the powerful country increased its control over the riches of the planet.

The military adventures of the United States in alliance with the former colonial powers, particularly the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Belgium, Holland and the recently-created Western Germany, led them into military wars and adventures that placed the monetary system born in Bretton Woods in crisis.

In the era of the genocidal war on Vietnam, a country in which the United States was at the point of using nuclear weapons, the U.S. president took the shameful unilateral decision of suspending the convertibility of the dollar. From that moment the emission of paper money had had no limits. He abused that privilege in such a way that the Troy ounce gold value passed from $35 to figures already in excess of $1,400; in other words, no less than 40 times the value that it maintained for 27 years, until 1971, when Richard Nixon adopted that disastrous decision.

The worst of the current economic crisis currently hitting U.S. society is that the anti-crisis measures of other moments in the history of the imperialist United States capitalist system have not succeeded in restoring its normal march. Submerged in a state debt that is approaching $14 trillion; in other words, as large as the GDP of the United States, the fiscal deficit remains; the enormous outlay to save the banks and the reduction to almost zero of interest rates have barely been able to reduce the unemployment level to under 10%, nor the number of families whose homes are being repossessed. The gigantic budgets channeled into defense – which exceed those of the rest of the world put together – are growing, and graver still: those directed toward war.

The president of the United States, elected barely two years ago by one of the traditional parties, has suffered the greatest defeat recalled in the last three quarters of a century. Frustration and racism are mixed together in that reaction. The U.S. economist and writer William K. Black coined it with a memorable sentence: “The best way to rob a bank is to own one.” The most reactionary sectors of the United States are sharpening their claws, making their own an idea that would be the antithesis of that of the Bolsheviks in October 1917: “All power to the extreme right of the United States.”

It would seem that the government of the United States, with its traditional anti-crisis measures, has had recourse to another desperate decision: prior to the G20 meeting the Federal Reserve announced that it was to buy $60 billon U.S. dollars.

On Wednesday, November 10, one of the most important U.S. news agencies announced: “President Barack Obama has arrived in South Korea to take part in meetings with the 20 principal economic powers of the world.

“Tensions over monetary policies and commercial interests have been notable prior to the G-20 Summit. The atmosphere remained heated due to a U.S. decision to pump $600 billion in cash into its sluggish economy. The maneuver has infuriated leaders around the world.

“However, Obama has defended the measure taken by the Federal Reserve.”

The same agency communicated to world opinion on November 11:

“A strong sense of pessimism shrouded the start of an economic summit of rich and emerging economies on Thursday, with President Barack Obama and fellow world leaders arriving in Seoul sharply divided over currency and trade policies. “Founded in 1999 and elevated to summit level two years ago, the Group of 20 (G20, a forum that covers developed countries like the United States and Germany, as well as emerging giants like China and Brazil) has become the centerpiece of government efforts to reactivate the global economy and avert another world financial collapse…”

“Failure in Seoul could have severe consequences. The risk is that countries would try to keep their currencies artificially low to give their exporters a competitive edge in global markets. That could lead to a destructive trade war.

“Countries might throw up barriers to imports — a repeat of policies that worsened the Great Depression.”

“But agreement appeared elusive as the summit began, divided between those such as United States that want to get China to allow its currency rise in the face of other currencies, in order to reduce the enormous trade surplus of the Asian giant with Washington by pushing up Chinese exports and cutting U.S. imports.

“Other countries are irate over U.S. Federal Reserve plans to pump $600 billion of new money into the sluggish American economy, effectively devaluing the dollar. They see that move as a reckless and selfish scheme to flood markets with dollars, driving down the value of the U.S. currency and giving American exporters an advantage.”

“The G20 countries […] are finding no common ground on the most vexing problem: how to address a global economy that’s long been nourished by huge U.S. trade deficits with China, Germany and Japan.”

“Brazil’s president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, warned that such policies would “bankrupt” the world.

“If the rich countries are not consuming and want to grow its economy on exports, the world goes bankrupt because there would be no one to buy,” he told reporters. “Everybody would like to sell…”

“The summit began with a certain pessimism for Obama and the South Korean president, Lee Myung-bak, whose ministers were not able to reach agreement on a free trade treaty, bogged down for some time and for which there were hopes that it could be solved this week.”

“The G20 leaders met on Thursday night in Seoul’s National Museum of Korea for the dinner marking the official start of the summit.”

“Outside, a few thousand protesters rallied against the G-20 and the South Korean government.”

Today, Thursday 12, the summit concluded with a statement of 20 points and 32 paragraphs.

As one would suppose the world is not constituted of the total of 32 countries which make up the G-20 or the APEC on its own. The 187 which voted in favor of eliminating the blockade of Cuba, as opposed to the two that voted to maintain it and the three that abstained, add up to 192. For 160 of them there is no tribunal whatsoever where they can voice one word about the imperial plunder of their resources and their urgent economic necessities. In Seoul, the United Nations Organization does not even exist. That distinguished institution will not even say a single word?

During these same last few days really dramatic news arrived concerning Haiti – where, in a matter of minutes, an earthquake killed approximately 250,000 people in January of this year – via the European news agencies:

“Haitian authorities are warning of the rapidity with which the cholera epidemic is extending through the city of Gonaives, in the north of the island. The mayor of this coastal locality, Pierreleus Saint-Justin, confirms that he personally buried 31 persons on Tuesday, and expected to inter a further 15 corpses.

“‘Others could be dying as we speak,’ he has declared. […] Since November 5, 70 corpses have been buried in the urban nucleus of Gonaives alone, but ‘there are more people who died in rural areas’ close to the city.”

“…the situation ‘is becoming catastrophic’ in Gonaives […] flooding caused by Hurricane Tomas could make the situation worse.”

“On Wednesday, the health authorities in Haiti raised the total of victims throughout the country due to the disease to 643 up until November 8. The number infected with cholera in the same period is 9,971. Radio stations are noting that figures to be announced on Friday could talk of more than 700 dead.” “…the government is now confirming that the disease is seriously affecting the population of Port-au-Prince and threatening the suburbs of the capital, where more than one million people are still living in tent cities in the wake of the January 12 earthquake.”

Today, the news agencies were talking of 796 dead and 12,303 people affected.

More than three million inhabitants are threatened, many of them living in tents and in the ruins left by the earthquake, without drinking water.

The principal U.S. news agency informed yesterday:

“The first portion of U.S. reconstruction money for Haiti is on its way more than seven months after it was promised to help the country rebuild from the Jan. 12 earthquake.

“… will transfer $120 million – about one-tenth of the total amount pledged – to the World Bank-run Haiti Reconstruction Fund in the next few days, U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said.”

“Having completed the process as outlined in the appropriation, we are now moving aggressively to commit that money to Haiti’s reconstruction,” Crowley said.

“A State Department aide said money destined for the fund would go toward rubble removal, housing, a partial credit guarantee fund, support for an Inter-American Development Bank education reform plan and budget support for the Haitian government.”

On the epidemic of cholera, a disease that has already affected many South American countries over the years, and could extend throughout the Caribbean and other parts of our hemisphere, not one word is being said.

Fidel Castro Ruz
November 12, 2010
8:49 p.m.

Translated by Granma International

By Fidel Castro Ruz and Michel Chossudovsky

Note: Go to the URL for the complete report

URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21892

Global Research, November 13, 2010

Introductory Note

From October 12 to 15, 2010, I had extensive and detailed discussions with Fidel Castro in Havana, pertaining to the dangers of nuclear war, the global economic crisis and the nature of the New World Order. These meetings resulted in a wide-ranging and fruitful interview.

The first part of this interview published by Global Research and Cuba Debate focuses on the dangers of nuclear war.

The World is at a dangerous crossroads. We have reached a critical turning point in our history.

This interview with Fidel Castro provides an understanding of the nature of modern warfare: Were a military operation to be launched against the Islamic Republic of Iran, the US and its allies would be unable to win a conventional war, with the possibility that this war could evolve towards a nuclear war.

The details of ongoing war preparations in relation to Iran have been withheld from the public eye.

How to confront the diabolical and absurd proposition put forth by the US administration that using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran will “make the World a safer place”?

A central concept put forth by Fidel Castro in the interview is the ‘Battle of Ideas”. The leader of the Cuban Revolution believes that only a far-reaching “Battle of Ideas” could change the course of World history. The objective is to prevent the unthinkable, a nuclear war which threatens to destroy life on earth.

The corporate media is involved in acts of camouflage. The devastating impacts of a nuclear war are either trivialized or not mentioned. Against this backdrop, Fidel’s message to the World must be heard; people across the land, nationally and internationally, should understand the gravity of the present situation and act forcefully at all levels of society to reverse the tide of war.

The “Battle of Ideas” is part of a revolutionary process. Against a barrage of media disinformation, Fidel Castro’s resolve is to spread the word far and wide, to inform world public opinion, to “make the impossible possible”, to thwart a military adventure which in the real sense of the word threatens the future of humanity.

When a US sponsored nuclear war becomes an “instrument of peace”, condoned and accepted by the World’s institutions and the highest authority including the United Nations, there is no turning back: human society has indelibly been precipitated headlong onto the path of self-destruction.

Fidel’s “Battle of Ideas” must be translated into a worldwide movement. People must mobilize against this diabolical military agenda.

This war can be prevented if people pressure their governments and elected representatives, organize at the local level in towns, villages and municipalities, spread the word, inform their fellow citizens regarding the implications of a thermonuclear war, initiate debate and discussion within the armed forces.

What is required is a mass movement of people which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of war, a global people’s movement which criminalizes war.

In his October 15 speech, Fidel Castro warned the World on the dangers of nuclear war:

“There would be “collateral damage”, as the American political and military leaders always affirm, to justify the deaths of innocent people. In a nuclear war the “collateral damage” would be the life of all humanity. Let us have the courage to proclaim that all nuclear or conventional weapons, everything that is used to make war, must disappear!”

The “Battle of Ideas” consists in confronting the war criminals in high office, in breaking the US-led consensus in favor of a global war, in changing the mindset of hundreds of millions of people, in abolishing nuclear weapons. In essence, the “Battle of Ideas” consists in restoring the truth and establishing the foundations of World peace.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG),

Montreal, Remembrance Day, November 11, 2010.

——————————————————————————–

“The conventional war would be lost by the US and the nuclear war is no alternative for anyone. On the other hand, nuclear war would inevitably become global”

“I think nobody on Earth wishes the human species to disappear. And that is the reason why I am of the opinion that what should disappear are not just nuclear weapons, but also conventional weapons. We must provide a guarantee for peace to all peoples without distinction

“In a nuclear war the collateral damage would be the life of humankind. Let us have the courage to proclaim that all nuclear or conventional weapons, everything that is used to make war, must disappear!”

“It is about demanding that the world is not led into a nuclear catastrophe, it is to preserve life.”

Fidel Castro Ruz, Havana, October 2010.

————————————————-
From: Communist Party of Greece, Monday, 15 November 2010
http://inter.kke.gr , mailto:cpg@int.kke.gr
==================================================

Second round of the regional and local elections

An expression of anger at the policies of the government (PASOK-ND) and the EU

On the 14/11 the second round of the regional and local elections took place. The anger of the Greek workers over the measures of the social democratic PASOK government, which are imposed with the support of the EU and IMF, was made very clear.

We should bear in mind that in the 1st round of the elections the KKE, which was represented by the lists of “People’s Rally”, was the only party which increased its percentage (+3.3 % compared to the parliamentary elections of 2009), reaching 11% and receiving almost 600,000 votes (592,977), about 80,000 more than in last year’s parliamentary elections. This result is particularly important for us, when we take into account the increase in abstention (turnout was 61%).

The KKE had 41 regional councilors elected and over 500 municipal councilors.

In the second round the KKE was represented in only 2 municipalities, Petroupolis (a working class area of Athens) and Ikaria. In the rest of the municipalities, where the forces of the 2 big bourgeois parties (PASOK-ND), the various “independents” and the representatives of parties which support the EU, the KKE called on the people to cast white or spoiled ballots.

The results show that in the 2nd round participation was even lower than in the first round (about 45%) while there was also increase in spoiled and white ballots.

In the municipality of Petroupolis, the candidate of the KKE received 21.6% and in the second round won with 55%.

In the municipality of Ikaria, where the KKE traditionally has good results (in last year’s parliamentary elections it received 35% of the vote), the representative of the KKE received in the 1st round 43.9%. Nevertheless his opponent, who was supported by all the country’s other political forces (social democratic PASOK), conservative ND, opportunist SYN/SYRIZA, nationalist LAOS), was victorious. The final vote which the communist candidate received was 48%.

The KKE will continue the struggle immediately after the end of the election fight without taking any time to rest. It is organizing massive demonstrations on Monday the 15 of November, in Athens, Thessalonica and other cities, on the occasion of the visit to Greece of the representatives of the troika (EU, IMF, European Central Bank).

Statement of the GS of the CC of the KKE Aleka Papariga concerning the results of the local elections.

The GS of the CC of the KKE, Aleka Papariga, made the following statement late on Sunday night, concerning the results of the 2nd round:

“The second round of the local elections for the local government bodies made the message sent in the first round of the elections even stronger, which expressed chiefly the anger of the people concerning the policies of the government and also the policies of ND. And when we talk about anger and discontent we are not talking about the manner in which they handle and manage governmental power, but that it reflects the discontent of the people concerning the worsening of its position, the loss of whatever gains had remained in recent years due to the memorandum and its utilization as a pretext.

The discussion concerning abstention is something that concerns us as well. As you know we are against abstention, we are in favour of active participation and we learn with a sense of satisfaction that a large section of those who voted for People’s Rally on the first Sunday went and spoiled their ballot papers in the second round. The question is this: Those who shed tears over the abstention are hypocrites. Who demobilized the people? Who mocked the struggles, organized participation, in popular assemblies in the neighbourhoods and workplaces? Who scoffed at the strikes? Of course, when a large part of the people is found outside of the organized workers’ and people’s trade union activity, it is natural that at election time when they are discontented they choose to stay at home. Who has fostered the notion amongst the people that there is nothing beyond the one-way street of the EU and the monopolies?

We are of the opinion that the current of anger and discontent will get stronger. We can see positive processes in the consciousness of the people despite the fact that this process is incomplete. We are ready to meet with those who voted against ND and PASOK, with those who abstained for political reasons despite the fact that we do not agree with this form of protest. We are ready to meet with them in order to build an all-people’s current of organization and struggle above all in the workplaces and also in the neighbourhoods.

If you like, the demonstration which we are organizing tomorrow is not an end in itself but a starting point. The systematic counterattack must be organized against the new harsh measures which are on the way and will be implacable, difficult for the human mind to fully comprehend. We are, nevertheless, in a position to understand where things are going, and now there exist the possibilities and they must be utilized not through abstention, but through active participation so that we can prevent some of the measures and if you like for there to be some gains. There is a way out.

Nothing has ever been inevitable in the history of this country, or in the history of the world for that matter.

The crisis will deepen, in Greece and in the EU. The signs are clear. And so the people through struggles over urgent issues like unemployment and social security must schedule a radical overthrow of the balance of forces above all in the trade union movement. In the bodies where the trade union labour aristocracy is dominant, compromised people, who wish to assimilate the people and not liberate it. There is no other solution, other than the change in the balance of forces from below, so that it is changed at the top. An element of the crisis which will intensify is the discussions, concerning scenarios of cooperation, deliberations, conferences etc. We have made our position clear: no consent with any party which supports the policies of the EU, the memorandum, and of the monopolies. No consent with parties and forces which submit in the name of realism and try to dampen down and obstruct radicalism. We are open to common action with the criterion that this common action must be based on the interests of the working class, the small businessmen, of the small and poor farmers. Above all we need a clearly defined social alliance and it is there that a change in the balance of forces will be created.

The discussion concerning these various scenarios is not accidental. We may well see some developments. Today there are some parties and politicians who are ready to legitimize the policies of the government or to help ND recover. We want to form a people’s social front form below. This is the path which guarantees everything.

Only when the people become the protagonist, will we discern a real hope for a way out. Everything else they talk about aims to keep the people in their houses and to wait on their sofas for parties ( washed-up in terms of their stance in relation to the people), to solve the problems or for the appearance of “new” faces on the political scene. The old and the new should exist only in the confrontation between the dominant political power and the people.”