The Tories are in Trouble – Let’s keep it that way!

Resignations mean deep crisis for Theresa May—now get her out

by Charlie Kimber

Mon 9 Jul 2018 –

Theresa May could now face a leadership challenge from Tory MPs

Theresa May could now face a leadership challenge from Tory MPs (Pic: Guy Smallman)

The resignations of Boris Johnson and David Davis have shattered Theresa May’s hopes of Tory unity.

She had hoped to assert her authority by forcing a Brexit deal through the cabinet last Friday. That plan lies in tatters.

Johnson and Davis’s resignations mean there have been seven cabinet minister resignations in as many months. This is another moment of deep crisis for May.

It is possible that May will now face a leadership challenge.

If at least 48 Tory MPs send letters to Sir Graham Brady, the chair of the backbench 1922 Committee, he would have to call a vote of no confidence. However, many of May’s supporters in the parliamentary party believe she could win it.

The Financial Times commented, “Davis’s departure—along with Steve Baker, a junior minister at the Department for Exiting the EU—is the greatest challenge to Mrs May’s standing since she failed to win last year’s snap general election”. That is even clearer after Johnson finally felt he had no choice except to resign if he was going to maintain his leadership ambitions.

Davis claimed that May had sold out to the European Union (EU) with her new “soft Brexit” strategy agreed last week. “We have given too much away, too easily,” he said.


Johnson said Britain was headed “for the status of a colony” if May’s plans were adopted. He had also said that attempts to sell the scheme were like «polishing a turd».

May had pushed the cabinet to accept that Britain would continue to follow EU rules governing manufacturing and agriculture after Brexit. This was the only way to deliver what big business wants—no obstacles to making profits.

In addition the European Court of Justice would be supreme in interpreting the British-EU rules.

Such moves are hated by substantial sections of the Tories. They want Britain to be able to make its own trade deals outside any EU influence. They also see leaving the EU as a way to force through even more racist immigration laws.

May’s deal represented a victory for multinational firms and bosses. But it has torn the Tories further apart.

It is unclear how the EU will react to the new turmoil. Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, tweeted, «I can only regret that the idea of Brexit has not left with Davis and Johnson. But…who knows?» Some EU leaders might want to squeeze the British government even more to make concessions because of the Tories» weakness.

Others may think they had better work with May for fear of seeing Britain leave the EU without any sort of deal, further destabilising the rest of the EU.

May’s deal represented a victory for multinational firms and bosses. But it has torn the Tories further apart.

Johnson will be replaced by the butcher of the NHS, Jeremy Hunt.

Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg said that there would now be a wider revolt against the Chequers plan and that May “will be dependent on socialist votes” to get her wishes.

Labour has said that Brexit is in chaos and that the Tories ought to go.

That’s right but the Tories will try desperately to cling on in fear of a Jeremy Corbyn victory if there is an election.

Meanwhile the open racists are looking for a new political opening. Nigel Farage, former Ukip leader, wrote in the Telegraph on Monday, «If the great Brexit betrayal isn’t reversed, I’ll have no choice but to return as Ukip leader.»

It’s urgent that the left offers a way forward, not by embracing the EU but by directing struggle against the rich and their political representatives.

Only much greater resistance can break the Tories. It’s time to increase the level of struggle to drive out May—and the whole rotten government.

We also need an anti-racist, anti-austerity Brexit that favours workers, not bosses—including nationalisation of industries and defending migrants’ rights.

Meet Dominic Raab—the new Brexit secretary who hates the poor and rails against “discrimination against men”

Dominic Raab, the new Brexit secretary, said last year that most food bank users are not “languishing in poverty”. When a disability activist told him “people are dying” under Tory austerity, he dismissed her calls for more funds as a “childish wish list”.

New Brexit secretary Dominic Raab

New Brexit secretary Dominic Raab (Pic: Chris McAndrew/Wikimedia commons)

In 2011 Raab complained of “blatant discrimination against men”. He said men should “burn their briefs” in protest and described feminists as “among the most obnoxious bigots”. He defended these remarks last week.

Raab was a co-author of Britannia Unchained, a book published in 2012 by the Free Enterprise Group of Thatcherites in the Tory Party. The book described workers in Britain as “the worst idlers in the world”.

“Too many people in Britain, we argue, prefer a lie-in to hard work,” it said. It called for workers’ conditions to be cut to compete with the likes of China.

Until February this year he had been a member for years of a private Facebook group that called for the return of workhouses, NHS privatisation and the sale of all council homes.

Raab said he was not aware he was a member.

Raab appeared on the list of Conservative MPs accused of sexual misconduct, alongside the phrase “Injunction for inappropriate behaviour with a woman”.

He wrote on his website that “any insinuation that I have engaged in anything resembling sexual harassment, sexually abusive behaviour or lewd remarks” was “false and malicious”.

In 2011 Raab gave a speech to the Centre for Policy Studies called “Escaping the strait jacket”.

Its proposals included abolishing the minimum wage for those under 21 working for small businesses and making it easy to sack “underperforming employees”. He also wants to abolish restrictions on the use of agency workers, and repeal the working time regulations.

Posta under Capitalism, Europa, Our global world, Politic&Society | Merkt , , , , , , | Kommenter innlegget

Til den norske regjering: Trekk sanksjonane mot Venezuela!

Trekk sanksjonene mot VenezuelaFoto: Jorge Andrés Paparoni

Foto: Jorge Andrés Paparoni

Åpent brev til Utenriksminister Ine Eriksen Søreide: Norge bør innta en selvstendig og kritisk vurdering av situasjonen i landet, og ikke ukritisk følge etter USA og EUs sanksjons-regime. Norge burde heller stille seg nøytral eller opptre konstruktivt ved å bidra til dialog og forsoning i Venezuela.

Latin-Amerikagruppene i Norge fordømmer på det sterkeste innføringen av sanksjoner mot den demokratisk valgte regjeringen i Venezuela. Denne typen sanksjoner er å anse som en  innblanding i Venezuelas indre anliggende, som potensielt kan forverre situasjonen i landet.

Venezuela har de siste årene blitt rammet av en langvarig og dyp økonomisk krise, mye grunnet det drastiske fallet i oljeprisene. I tillegg har landet slitt med en voldelig og undergravende opposisjon, økonomisk sabotasje og storstilte forsøk på destabilisering, inkludert trusler om militær intervensjon, fra USA. Dette er ikke annet enn en målrettet kampanje for ulovlig regimeskifte.

Tross det enorme presset fra den økonomiske og militære supermakten har regjeringen de siste månedene klart å stabilisere situasjon i landet. Siden juli har tre valg blitt gjennomført der regjeringen har fått fornyet tillit fra befolkning. Etter gjentatte forsøk fra regjeringen så har begynnelsen på en dialog kommet i gang.

Samtidig har opposisjonen mistet oppslutning på grunn av dens voldelige og lite konstruktive framferd. Opposisjonskoalisjonen MUD er svekket av interne konflikter og viser seg ikke villig til å bidra til å løse problemene landet stå ovenfor.

Å ta part i en konflikt som er så sammensatt, med en part som har opptrådt voldelig og destabiliserende, er lite konstruktiv. At den norske regjeringen velger å blande seg inn i konflikten på dette tidspunktet er uforståelig.

Sanksjoner er normalt brukt som en sist utvei i meget alvorlige situasjoner med grove brudd på det internasjonale rettsordenen. Man kan derfor stille spørsmål ved hvorfor man vedtar sanksjoner mot Venezuela, samtidig som man ikke reagerer mot Honduras der det nylig ble begått statskupp, og der flere personer er drept av sikkerhetsstyrkene i forbindelse med protestene mot dette

Tidligere utenriksminister Brende uttalte at innblanding i andre lands politiske prosesser var «helt uakseptabel», i forbindelse med Russlands påståtte innblanding i valget i USA. USA har finansiert opposisjonen i Venezuela med over $49 millioner bare siden 2010. Vi håper derfor at utenriksministeren er konsekvent i å fordømme alle intervensjoner, uansett hvor de kommer fra.

Norge bør innta en selvstendig og kritisk vurdering av situasjonen i landet, og ikke bare ukritisk følge etter USA og EUs sanksjons-regime. Norge burde heller stille seg nøytral eller opptre konstruktivt ved å bidra til dialog og forsoning i Venezuela.

Publisert første gong 21.12.2017 av

Posta under Latin-Amerika, Politikk, samfunn, Vår globale verd | Merkt , , , , , , , , , | Éin kommentar

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) Wins in Mexican Historic Election

Mexico’s «Bernie Sanders» Wins in a Huge Historic Landslide With Mandate to Reshape the Nation

AMLO is definitely the Bernie Sanders of Mexico.

Published on
 Presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador arrives to cast his vote during the Mexico 2018 Presidential Election on July 1, 2018 in Mexico City, Mexico.

MEXICO CITY, MEXICO – JULY 01: Presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador arrives to cast his vote during the Mexico 2018 Presidential Election on July 1, 2018 in Mexico City, Mexico. (Photo by Pedro Mera/Getty Images)


Progressive anti-Trump candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador has been elected president of Mexico on Sunday in an apparent landslide victory.

Exit polls gave AMLO, as his supporters call him,  ­a huge lead over his two closest competitors, and both of them conceded the race shortly after polls closed on Sunday night. Official results were due to be announced later on Sunday night with AMLO supporters expected to flood Mexico City’s main plaza, the Zócalo, to celebrate his anticipated victory.

The New York Times reports:

«Mr. López Obrador’s win puts a leftist leader at the helm of Latin America’s second largest economy for the first time in decades, a prospect that has filled millions of Mexicans with hope — and the nation’s elites with trepidation.

«The outcome represents a clear rejection of the status quo in the nation, which for the last quarter century has been defined by a centrist vision and an embrace of globalization that many Mexicans feel has not served them.»

Journalist Gwynne Dyer, writing on Common Dreams Sunday:

«It will also annoy Washington greatly. López Obrador is promising that all 50 Mexican consulates in the United States will help to defend migrants caught up in the American legal system. «Trump and his advisers speak of the Mexicans the way Hitler and the Nazis referred to the Jews, just before undertaking the infamous persecution and the abominable extermination,” López Obrador wrote just after the Great Distractor’s election.» It’s quite likely that within a year the US intelligence services will be tasked with the job of finding ways to bring him down.

John Feffer writing on Common Dreams Friday wrote:

«AMLO is definitely the Bernie Sanders of Mexico. He was the mayor of a city, like Sanders, though Mexico City is quite a bit bigger than Burlington, Vermont. He governed in the same pragmatic way that Bernie did, often partnering with the business community. As Jon Lee Anderson writes in The New Yorker, AMLO “succeeded in creating a pension fund for elderly residents, expanding highways to ease congestion, and devising a public-private scheme, with the telecommunications magnate Carlos Slim, to restore the historic downtown.” The latter is reminiscent of Sanders’s deals to revive Burlington’s waterfront.»

The Guardian reported Sunday night:

Leading members of Latin America’s left voiced hope Amlo’s election might revive the region’s rapidly ebbing ‘pink tide’. “It will signal the return of progressive winds to Latin America!” Gleisi Hoffmann, the president of Brazil’s embattled Worker’s party, predicted.

Brazil’s impeached former president Dilma Rousseff said an AMLO win would “not just be a victory for Mexico but for all of Latin America”.

Argentina’s former president, Cristina Kirchner, tweeted: “Andrés Manuel López Obrador represents hope, not just for Mexico but for the entire region.”

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

See final election results here

Posta under Latin-Amerika, Politic&Society, Politikk, samfunn | Merkt , , , , , , , , , , , | Kommenter innlegget

Huge Public Protest Against Fascistoid Trump!

Hundreds of Thousands Take to Streets to Protest Trump’s «Zero-Humanity» Policies

Sister demonstrations were held in London, Munich, Paris, Hamburg, Tokyo, and others cities around the globe.

Published on
Yes We Care

NEW YORK, NY – Yes We Care – Tens of thousands of people march in support of families separated at the U.S.-Mexico border on June 30, 2018 in New York, New York. Across the country marches under the banner «Families Belong Together» are being held to demand that the Trump administration reunite thousands of immigrant children who have been separated from their families after crossing into the United States. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Hundreds of thousands took to the streets Saturday to protest against Donald Trump and his immigration policies in big cities and small towns across the 50 states.

Trump, who spent the day playing golf at his resort in New Jersey, took time to tweet an attack on what he called the «radical left,» who he said were behind calls to disband Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency central to his hardline immigration approach.

More than 750 «Families Belong Together» marches took place in all 50 US states and Twitter showed sister demonstrations in London, Munich, Paris, Hamburg, Tokyo, and others cities around the globe.

Posta under Our global world, Politic&Society | Merkt , , , , , , | Kommenter innlegget

New victory for the leftists in the Democratic Party – But, how far can they go?

How far can the left go in the Democratic Party?

June 28, 2018 –

Alan Maass and Elizabeth Schulte analyze the upset victory of socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — and look at some of the questions for the left that it raises.

NO ONE predicted the stunning victory of a 28-year-old Latina socialist in a New York City primary election for Congress on Tuesday.

But in retrospect, this political bombshell is a sign of the times — especially the deep desire for an alternative to the meek and compromised Democratic Party leadership that usually goes unanswered.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won the primary vote against Joe Crowley, a 10-term member of the House of Representatives, where 97 percent of incumbents running for re-election won in 2016. The last time Crowley faced any primary opponent at all, Ocasio-Cortez was 13 years old.

Not only that, but Crowley is the fourth-most powerful Democrat in the House and was thought to be a possible future House Speaker. He had plenty of money: According to Politico, Crowley spent $1.1 million on his primary campaign between the beginning of April and June 6. Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign spent $128,140 in the same period.

Left: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; right: Democratic leaders in Congress, with Rep. Joe Crowley (at left)
Left: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; right: Democratic leaders in Congress, with Rep. Joe Crowley (at left)

One of the top national leaders of the Democratic Party was beaten decisively by a card-carrying member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

Ocasio-Cortez sounded the Bernie Sanders-inspired themes like Medicare for All that some liberal Democrats, even presidential hopefuls, have adopted. But she went further, calling, for example, for the abolition of ICE — in pointed contrast to Sanders’ feeble refusal to do so.

The New York Times seemed astonished to point out in its post-election analysis that “[d]ays before the election, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez had unexpectedly left New York entirely to travel to Texas to protest the ongoing separation of children from their parents who crossed the border illegally.”

And it wasn’t even close: Ocasio-Cortez won by a 15 percentage point margin.

Even more revealing is the fact that Crowley — the powerful “Queens County Democratic Party boss,” as the media continuously referred to him on Wednesday — managed fewer than 12,000 votes in a congressional district with a population of 712,053 as of 2010. That’s a sign of the hollowness of the political status quo that also drove support for Ocasio-Cortez.

OCASIO-CORTEZ wasn’t the only progressive figure to triumph on Tuesday or in primaries earlier this year. For example, Ben Jealous, the former NAACP president, won the Democratic primary for the Maryland governor’s race with an anti-Trump message that went against the grain of the party establishment.

But Ocasio-Cortez’s victory rightly captured attention because of its historical significance. In a district where Republicans have no real chance in November, she is almost certain to break some barriers: the youngest woman elected to the House; one of the first young Latinas; the first member of a socialist organization in generations.

Beyond that, her success runs counter to the media’s conventional wisdom about this election cycle: that liberals and radicals inspired by Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential primary campaign may have energized the Democratic Party, but they aren’t winning elections.

There’s some truth to this. Before Tuesday, of 80 candidates endorsed by Sanders’ Our Revolution organization, fewer than half had won their primary contests. The party apparatus has been successful in a number of smear campaigns against progressive primary challengers.

Ocasio-Cortez’s left-wing campaign cut through that. In a campaign video that went viral on the internet, with more than half a million views, she said: “It’s time we acknowledge that not all Democrats are the same. That a Democrat who takes corporate money, profits off foreclosure, doesn’t live here, doesn’t send his kids to our schools, doesn’t drink our water or breathe our air cannot possibly represent us.”

Her victory reasserts the lesson of the 2016 election: that millions of people who loyally vote Democratic want an alternative to the conventional candidates they reluctantly cast a ballot for every two or four years.

Ocasio-Cortez has been especially effective in countering narratives that pit race against class. “I can’t name a single issue with roots in race that doesn’t have economic implications, and I cannot think of a single economic issue that doesn’t have racial implications,” she said. “The idea that we have to separate them out and choose one is a con.”

Don’t expect the Democratic honchoes who take the corporate money and all the rest to be convinced of any of this, of course.

They may have to accept that one of their favorites got taken down by a socialist upstart, but they won’t make it easy for Ocasio-Cortez to use a seat in Congress and prominence in the party to project a left-wing message that runs counter to what they stand for.

Thus, Ocasio-Cortez’s victory is significant for everyone on the left, including those, like us at Socialist Worker, who stand for an independent alternative outside the Democrats.

Her victory should inspire anyone who doesn’t buy the party line that a radical message will alienate people, rather than unite and galvanize them. Ocasio-Cortez proved that left-wing politics are a source of strength, not weakness.

And she showed that left-wing politics shouldn’t be limited to appealing for votes, but should embrace protest and activism outside the polling booths — as far outside them, in fact, as the detention facilities along the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas are from the 14th congressional district’s precincts in the Bronx and Queens.

BUT AS significant as this victory is, the odds are still stacked against those, like Ocasio-Cortez, who hope to transform the Democratic Party — because the party establishment is dead set against being transformed. A case in point has been playing out this month.

After the 2016 election, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) established a “Unity Reform Commission” to supposedly heal the differences between Hillary Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters. But the DNC’s definition of “unity” is something out of George Orwell.

At its meeting in Providence, Rhode Island, in June, the commission wasn’t much interested in addressing the concerns of Sanders supporters, like the unfair superdelegate system. It was interested in drafting new rules to keep someone like Sanders from running.

According to a new requirement passed in Providence, candidates who would like to run in Democratic presidential primaries “shall affirm, in writing, to the National Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee that they: A) are a member of the Democratic Party; B) will accept the Democratic nomination; and C) will run and serve as a member of the Democratic Party.”

In other words, self-identified “democratic socialists” need not apply.

Maria Cardona, a veteran party strategist who worked for Clinton in 2016, explained that this was really all about “unity”: “It was done to ensure that the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party is actually a Democrat. The entire committee backed this. It was unanimous.”

So it turns out the “unity” commission did find unity — in opposition to interlopers trying to bring non-corporate-approved ideas into the party.

The DNC commission was so united that when a Sanders supporter turned up to observe the meeting, they accused her of being a spy…for the Russian government.

Selina Vickers, who traveled to Providence to attend the meeting on her own dime, told the Washington Post why she was there:

I was so frustrated with the superdelegate issue after the convention. Being able to go to the meetings and live-streaming them for others who can’t attend and talking to members about my concerns gives me a way to do something, rather than be at home, disconnected and powerless…I feel that my presence has a positive effect.

But DNC member Bob Mulholland had some less-than-positive feelings about Vickers’ presence in Providence: He accused her of working for a foreign government, like Russia.

PARTY LEADERS may have nice things to say about Ocasio-Cortez today, but their actions speak louder than words.

The party establishment tolerates left-wing outsiders — to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the circumstances — but it will do anything to maintain its iron grip on the party apparatus. This means making up the rules as they go along, and breaking them whenever it’s convenient.

Don’t forget the dirty tricks carried out against Sanders by Clinton allies in the supposedly neutral DNC. Or the tens of millions of dollars funneled to Clinton’s campaign through state parties, as the Las Vegas Review-Journal recently reported.

Sanders was a victim of the party machine during the primaries, but after Clinton won the nomination, he was one of the loudest voices calling for his supporters to quell their concerns and criticisms, and get behind a neoliberal, pro-corporate candidate they despised.

He has continued to call for progressives to work within the party to transform it, but his own actions this year have disappointed supporters.

There are reports of turmoil within Our Revolution itself, and local organizers say they are frustrated that the national organization has made decisions about what candidates to endorse without consulting them.

As for Sanders, he angered supporters with his refusal to the join the calls — popularized by people like Ocasio-Cortez, who he endorsed — to abolish ICE.

And in New York, where Cynthia Nixon is running for the party nomination for governor against incumbent and establishment mainstay Andrew Cuomo, Nixon has the endorsement of Our Revolution — but Sanders has failed to formally endorse the self-identified progressive challenger.

THE DISCUSSION about Ocasio-Cortez — what led to her victory, what it says about the Democratic Party, whether the party can be a vehicle for DSA members like her, how much they can accomplish toward their socialist goals — should continue on the left. There is much more to be said.

One thing is certain: The reaction of the Democratic establishment may be mostly respectful now, but it won’t stay that way.

Party leaders are investing everything in a strategy of running to the center for the 2018 elections. Thanks to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s strategy of recruiting candidates that stand well to the right of most base voters, Ocasio-Cortez will be a radical exception — by a long ways — among 2018 Democratic House candidates.

There will be a lot of pressure put on Ocasio-Cortez to shift her message — and especially to blunt her criticisms of other Democrats, all in the name of “stopping the Republicans.”

The same tired arguments about not driving away swing voters or giving Republicans an opening will be the justification, and Democratic operatives have shown no shame about going after anyone who rocks the boat.

Ocasio-Cortez has given no indication that she will be intimidated or fall into line.

Her response to an overconfident Crowley — when he demanded to know during one debate whether she would endorse him in the general election — was a declaration of very different loyalties: Ocasio-Cortez told Crowley that she was accountable to social movements…and would have to get back to him with their decision.

The Democrats won’t let that be the end of the matter, of course. Especially after November, if she wins, the party leadership will have a lot of means to keep her lonely among fellow House Democrats, unable to project, or find allies for, her proposals. In the best of circumstances, she will be one person up against a big machine.

As Sanders himself acknowledged recently: “There is not a lot of love, frankly, for either the Democratic or Republican Party and many people are discouraged with both. They’re turning away from both.

“So I think it is not a bad idea to have somebody who says, ‘I understand that. I am an independent…I have had to run against Democrats. But I want you, as independents, to come into the Democratic primaries and transform the Democratic Party.’”

This is the call that Ocasio-Cortez answered with her campaign against Crowley, and her victory is a testament to the appeal of a left political alternative that speaks to the concerns of working-class America, not the demands of corporate sponsors.

People organizing in struggle to confront the ICE terror machine, the Supreme Court’s assault on civil liberties and public-sector unions, and the misery and violence of a system run in the interests of profit and power will hopefully feel greater confidence in working toward that alternative.

But the left must, at the same time, examine whether Sanders’ promise of transforming the Democratic Party is a way forward — and if not, how we can build an independent force inspired by the kind of socialist ideals that Ocasio-Cortez expressed.

Posta under Our global world, Politic&Society | Merkt , , , , , , | Kommenter innlegget

Right wing social democrat Nato leader Stoltenberg likes Erdogan wins!

Election win in Turkey solidifies Erdogan’s rule

Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg meets Turkeys president Recep Tayyip Erdogan in April

Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg (left) meets Turkey’s president Recep Tayyip Erdogan in April (Pic: Nato/Flickr)

Tue 26 Jun 2018 –

Recep Tayyip Erdogan claimed re-election as Turkey’s president on Sunday in a triumph for his tactics of repressing opposition forces and gagging the media.

Provisional and only semi-official results on Sunday suggested that Erdogan had taken about 52 percent of the vote.

This was just enough for him to avoid a second round run-off that could have threatened his continuing rule.

If he is confirmed as president, Erdogan will inherit increased presidential powers.

These include the power to issue decrees with the force of law, and to appoint the cabinet and vice-presidents, as well as senior judges. In his victory speech he adopted an aggressive and threatening tone.

The candidate of the CHP right wing social democrats came second for president with around 31 percent of the vote.

The leftist and pro-Kurdish People’s Democratic Party (HDP) suffered many jailings of its activists and elected officials, and daily attacks during the campaign. Yet it reached the 10 percent threshold to win MPs.

By winning over 11 percent of the national vote it will have 67 MPs.

The HDP’s success means Erdogan’s AK Party will rely on the far right MHP for its parliamentary majority.


Posta under Capitalism, Our global world, Politic&Society | Merkt , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Kommenter innlegget

Historia om «den iskalde tid» med Russland – Og om dette endar med konflikt?

Er det slik ein kan førestille seg den «vesle istid» Vesten no har med Russland? Som tre stakkarar (NATO, USA og Europa) flytande åleine på eit isflak, utan meir kontakt med «land og folk»? Foto: Istockphoto 2011

Forumet European Leadership Network (ELN) publiserte i august 2015 ein rapport med tittelen Preparing for the Worst: Are Russian and NATO Military Exercises Making War in Europe more Likely?

Rapporten tek føre seg opptrappinga og spenninga mellom Vesten/NATO og Russland. Spesielt vert det i dette skrivet trekt  fram dei store militærøvingane på begge sider det året.  I øvinga «Allied Shield» som NATO gjennomførte i Det baltiske hav i juni 2015, deltok 15.000 personar. Dette liknar på ein tilsvarande dei hadde 2014 haust i nordområda. Og året før det, og åra før det, osb., osb. Slik held Vesten og NATO på. Russland på si side gjennomfører sine øvingar dei også, dei har også sikkerheit i tankane må vite. T.d. hadde dei ei stor øving i mars 2015 der 80.000 personar deltok som byrja i nordområda, men tok føre seg etterkvart heile Russland frå vest til aust.

Eg har før skreve på bloggen om korleis Vesten økonomisk og NATO militært har «sneke» seg meir og meir inn i tidlegare austblokkland og dermed «gjerder» inn Russland. Dette er ei høgst levande kjensle hjå mange russarar. Ukraina er eit siste døme på dette. Der Vesten og spesielt USA over lang tid ville ha eit regimeskifte, til eit vestvenleg eitt. Med økonomiske midlar og hjelp til organisering av endringsvillige miljø (då meiner eg ikkje dei radikale og sosialistiske rørslene i Ukraina, dei fekk ingen hjelp frå Vesten), fekk dei til slutt oppstanden til å virke og dermed endringa i jan/feb 2014. Midt oppe i dette annekterte Russland Krim og helvete var i gong. Ei lang historie med Ukraina som barken mellom Aust og Vest toppa seg.

No er økonomiske og politiske sanksjonar mot Russland for lengst gjennomført og ny kald krig etterkvart eit faktum. Om det også endar med ein «varm krig» sett i høve til seinare tids opptrapping og gjennomføring av militærøvingar, kan mange ulike faktorar avgjere. Ein ting er Russland sitt problem med si eiga interessesfære i regionane, ein annan ting er Vesten sitt svar på det og dobbelmoralen i høve det å intervenera på sine premiss som i Ukraina i 2014.

Noregs medverknad til å eskalera ei konflikt

Atomvåpenproblematikken og NATO er som eit par, tett knyta til kvarandre i avskrekkingsterror, trugsmål i førstegangsbruk og milliardbeløp i vedlikehald og fornying av atomvåpna. Dette gjer også at motpartane Russland og Kina opprettheld og rustar opp sine arsenal. I tillegg er India og Pakistan med sine atomvåpen ein farleg miks som kan smelle av under potensielle eskaleringar.

Noregs medverknad til å eskalera faren for storkrig i Europa, i kjølvatnet av Ukrainakonflikta, er også med i dette biletet. Også Nord-Korea sitt atomvåpenpotensiale må det forhandlast om gjennom FN, og ikkje truge dei med militærøvingar og økonomiske strupetak. Det er då det kan gå riktig gale! Alt dette understrekar viktigheita av at den norske regjeringa sluttar seg til FN-resolusjonen om ein internasjonal konvensjon mot atomvåpen.

For Noregs del tyder det at inntil vi melder oss ut av NATO, må Noreg arbeide for at NATO endrar sin atomdoktrine og avstår frå førstebruk av atomvåpen og frå at NATO sin atomvåpengaranti skal gjelde for Noreg. Noreg må også arbeide for at USAnske atomvåpen ikkje skal vera stasjonert i Europa, heller ikkje i samband med rakettskjoldprosjektet eller dei krigsfremjande tiltaka NATO har iverksett, m.a. i Ukraina.

Den internasjonale kampanjen for forbod mot atomvåpen (ICAN) fekk Nobels fredspris i 2017. I staden for meir krigshissing må den norske regjering skrive under på denne kampanjen. Internasjonal konvensjon mot bruk av og forbod mot atomvåpen, NO!

Noreg er heilt knyta opp til USA. Dette visast tydeleg ved val av F-35 kampfly som ei rekke våpenanalytikarar meiner er dårleg tilpassa forsvaret av Noreg. Og det er endå meir tydeg i vår puddelsvinging i det siste. Den sokalla «rullerande» usanske troppetilværet i Noreg er tull og manipulering frå ende til annan. Det har lenge vore frykta av mange at dei soldatar som ifølge den blå-svarte regjering berre skulle vera på Værnes i korte periodar, no vert her permanent. Det liknar veldig på ein byrjande usansk minibase. Basepolitikken til Noreg, som har vore fast i over 70 år og forankra i ingen utanlandske basar på norsk jord, står i alle fall på spel, om ikkje for fall i det heile. Det er omlag 350 usanske soldatar som til ei kvar tid er på Værnes. No føreslår regjeringa i tillegg utstasjonering av usanske soldatar i Troms. Tal? Omlag 350 det også. Om ikkje dette er å gå lenger vekk frå tidlegare basepolitikk enn nokon gong, ja, så veit ikkje eg kva opptrapping og spenning er!

Her er endå eit døme på kva Noreg gjer for å terge Kreml og tekkast vår addiksjon til Washington:  I månadsskiftet oktober-november 2018 arrangerer NATO ei stor militærøving i Midt-Noreg. Truleg med så mange som 35 000 soldatar, tusenvis av køyrety og 150 fly og 70 skip. Denne gigantøvinga kalla Trident Juncture 18 vert den største øvinga i Midt-Noreg på minst 15-20 år. Ein mindre del av øvinga skal gå føre seg i Sverige, Finland, på Island, og i Austersjøen. Noreg er altså vertsnasjon.

Militariseringa av Skandinavia og Norden er i full gong og dermed spenningsdrivande!

Mens me naive nordbuarar ser og kosar oss med Fotball VM i Russland, tenkjer dei militære strategar sitt. På begge sider for berre å presisera det. Mens me naive nordmenn burde prøve å forstå og å verte litt klokare på Russlands historie, kultur, mentalitet og korleis russarar oppfattar verda generelt og ser på vestleg aggresjon spesielt, ja, så vert det ofte ingenting ut av den øvinga. ME SØKK BERRE DJUPARE OG DJUPARE NED I FJERNSYNSTOLEN, MENS ME SER FOTBALL VM OG GLEFSER I OSS FEITE SAKER OG DRIKK OSS VEKK, OFTE.

Er det eit håp for at den «vesle istida» mellom Russland og Vesten tinar, om ikkje med det første? Ja, det er det, men då lyt minst halvparten, eg sa minst halvparten, av vestlege leiarar og folkevalte bytast ut, og det straks, med avspenningsvenlege politikarar som forstår seg betre på Russland. Og så lyt minst halvparten og meira til av folket kreve dette, velje nye og tenkje at det er mykje, mykje betre å snakke med vår store nabo i aust, vera i dialog og lage venskap, enn det er å terge, tie ihel og konfrontera naboen. Det er berre å håpe dette hender før noko alvorleg inntreff. For å vera oppmerksame på dette har me alle eit ansvar.

Ivar Jørdre
Posta under Europa, Imperialisme, Kapitalisme, Politikk, samfunn, Vår globale verd | Merkt , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 kommentarar