Financially Pinched, Young Adults Lose Faith in American Economic System

March 9, 2010

Poll: Financially Pinched, Young Adults Lose Faith

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 5:15 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — Young adults are financially anxious, worried that they can’t meet their educational, housing and health care needs, according to a new poll that exposes a growing pessimism about achieving the American Dream.

The poll by Harvard’s Institute of Politics found that six out of 10 of those surveyed worry they may not meet their current bills and obligations. Nearly half of those attending college wonder whether they will be able to afford to stay in school. And more than eight out of 10 said they expect difficulty finding a job after graduation.

Fewer than half said they believe they will be better off than their parents when they reach their parents’ age.

With the country in the midst of a slow economic recovery with nearly 10 percent unemployment, the data finds a deep sense of gloom among 18-29 year olds. The grim mood could have immediate political consequences, and it could also shape that generation’s long-term faith in government and in its ability to improve their daily lives.

”We have a generation that is committed to their community, but unless they can restore their levels of trust in some of the big American institutions, we will have lost a great opportunity to engage some of the best and brightest,” Institute of Politics polling director John Della Volpe said.

Four out of 10 respondents described themselves as politically independent, 36 percent affiliated themselves with Democrats and 23 percent said they considered themselves Republican. But young Republicans displayed more enthusiasm for the 2010 midterm elections, with those who said they disapproved of President Barack Obama’s job performance saying they were more likely to vote than those who said they approved of his performance.

Still, Obama enjoys a 56 percent approval rating among young adults, even though majorities of 51 to 56 percent disapprove of how he has handled high-profile issues during his first year in office, including health care, the economy, the federal deficit, Iran and Afghanistan.

The distinction that these voters make between the president and the issues worries Democratic politicians who fear they will not benefit from Obama’s appeal.

Nearly four out of 10 of those surveyed said the country was on the wrong track. About as many said they were unsure about the country’s direction. Only 23 percent said the country was headed in the right direction.

The economy dwarfed health care and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as the issue that concerned young adults the most. Forty-five percent cited the economy as their top worry, while only 17 percent mentioned health care and 6 percent cited the wars.

Despite their immediate financial concerns, 51 percent of these young adults said the president and Congress should seek to keep the budget deficit down, ”even though it may mean it will take longer for the economy to recover.”

The poll surveyed 3,117 U.S. citizens between the ages of 18 and 29. It was conducted between Jan. 29 and Feb. 22, and it has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points.

The survey was conducted by Knowledge Networks, which initially contacted people using traditional telephone and mail polling methods and followed up with online interviews. Those chosen who had no Internet access were given it for free.
——
On the Net:

Harvard Institute of Politics: http://www.iop.harvard.edu/

ANCYL Leader Malema Responds to Charges of Excessive Wealth

Malema Responds to Charges of Excessive Wealth

African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL) president Julius Malema says if anyone can prove any wrongdoing against him, they should arrest him.

“I’m not above the law. If there is any crime I have committed, I’m asking to be arrested,” he told students at the University of Johannesburg on Tuesday.

Malema reiterated previous statements that he has never stolen from the poor, and said he would give the R140-million reportedly in his bank account to the less fortunate.

“If I have got R140-million, take that money and nationalise it,” he said, in an echo of his calls to nationalise the country’s mines.

“I’m giving you the permission to take everything else you find in that account and give it to the poor.”

Malema said the perceived “onslaught” against the youth league was not “an ordinary attack”. He said he would “never be ambushed” and never be “looted by anybody”.

Malema also said lifestyle audits were not a concept thought up by Congress of South African Trade Unions general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi. It was a practice carried out by the Scorpions and currently by the South African Revenue Service.

“Why should we be subjected to a factional lifestyle audit?”

Malema again charged he was the victim of forces out to get rid of the youth league. “It you want to kill a snake … hit it hard on the head, that’s what they want to do to me.”

‘Nobody will remove Zuma’

Meanwhile, Malema on Tuesday expressed support for President Jacob Zuma leading the ANC for a second term.

“Nobody will remove Zuma. If you want to serve in the ANC, support Zuma,” said.

“That [Zuma] is the only man guaranteed in 2012 for a second term.”

Malema also alluded to the youth league not wanting ANC secretary general Gwede Mantashe to be part of the party’s leadership in 2012, wanting him to replaced by Fikile Mbalula.

“But in that top six there is one man who will not be coming back … who has isolated himself from the ANC,” Malema said.

He, however, dismissed reports of plans to oust Mantashe at the ANC’s September national general council, saying all current leaders would complete their five-year term.

Malema claimed that whatever the youth league pronounced on would be the outcome of the 2012 leadership race.

He condemned accusations against some ANC leaders made by Cosatu, as well as criticism by the union federation of Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan and Zuma.

Malema expressed concern over the “apartheid regime of the Western Cape” under the premiership of Democratic Alliance leader Helen Zille.

He accused her of demolishing churches in Khayelitsha and dragging the elderly out of their places of worship.

“Helen Zille, who is suffering from Satanism, has gone all out to demolish the churches in the Western Cape. She is exposing herself … people there will know they voted for a monster.” — Sapa

AFL-CIO Passes Resolution Against Obama’s Endorsement of Mass Firing ofRhode Island Teachers

Unions Plan Political Work Despite Strained Relations With Obama

By David Moberg
In These Times
March 2010

After Obama earlier this week supported the
mass firing of 93 teachers and other staff at the
troubled Central Falls High School in Rhode Island, the
AFL-CIO executive council, already meeting in Orlando,
fired off an unusually harsh resolution.

Labor leaders said they were “appalled” by the
“unacceptable” and “disappointing” presidential
statements, especially since the local superintendent
fired the teachers rather than negotiate over how to
continue the recent academic improvement at the working-
class community’s school.

It was a mini-PATCO moment-echoing faintly President
Reagan’s decision to fire striking air traffic
controllers-in the increasingly frayed relations between
organized labor and a president who has at times seemed
distant from the labor movement, yet at other times
seemed more pro-union than any president in many
decades.

AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka said Obama’s comment
was “a bad call” based on “wrong facts,” but that it
happened at all caused him “concern, deep concern.”

Union reaction to the administration is increasingly
ambivalent. Partly it reflects frustration-mainly in not
getting adequate legislation passed to deal with the
multiple crises of working Americans (jobs, incomes,
health care, worker rights and more).

But that unease is tempered by satisfaction-mainly in
administrative actions.

This complex relationship was on display with two
speeches to the executive council-both somewhat
defensive, if not apologetic. Vice-president Joe Biden
was received lukewarmly with pointed questions about
broad administration policy afterwards. Labor Secretary

Hilda Solis received a much more enthusiastic reception,
partly as a result of her efforts to enforce existing
laws better and to develop more pro-worker regulations
(such as on occupational safety and health).

Labor leaders know their frustration primarily stems
from Republican obstruction, right-wing demagoguery, and
the anti-democratic rules of the Senate. (Asked if the
theoretically bipartisan labor movement would endorse
any Republicans this year, Trumka said, “We’re hoping.
None come to mind at this point.”)

But the unreliability of a significant bloc of
conservative Democrats slowed or stopped progress even
when the Democrats could claim the magic number-60-in
the Senate. In a plan first hatched by a group of big
unions from the AFL-CIO and Change to Win several weeks
ago, organized labor-from the state federation to the
AFL-CIO threw its support behind Arkansas Lt. Gov. Bill
Halter in a primary challenge against Sen. Blanche
Lincoln, a Democratic nemesis of unions. Communications
Workers, Service Employees (SEIU), AFSCME (public
workers), and the Steelworkers each pledged $1 million
for his campaign.

Lincoln, known as the Senator from Wal-Mart, rejected
labor law reform, opposed the public option in health
care reform, and refused to vote for cloture on the
appointment of labor lawyer Craig Becker to the National
Labor Relations Board. Halter is no labor tribune: he
says he doesn’t support the original labor law reform
involving majority sign-up, but leans to a compromise
that would hold NLRB representation elections more
quickly.

But “maybe something like this will send a message” to
other Democrats, says AFSCME president Gerald McEntee.
“I think it does represent a new strategy. We’re going
to take into consideration records on issues facing the
people. There’s always the danger [of losing a
Democratic seat]-we do want to support Democrats-but
when people are as recalcitrant as this, you have to do
something or you’re not a labor movement.”

There are other ways to deliver the same message.
McEntee says the AFL-CIO coordinated political program
will be even bigger this year than in the 2008
presidential election (partly because it will be
necessary to spend heavily in some normally blue states
like California and Illinois to erect a firewall
protecting vulnerable Democratic seats). But AFL-CIO
political director Karen Ackerman says that despite that
effort many Democrats may not get a labor endorsement or
get an endorsement with no money. “Those who’ve not
proven themselves will not get our support,” she says.

Union leaders-and likely many members and other workers-
are upset with a variety of Obama policy choices, such
as dropping the public option and imposing an excise tax
on high-cost health insurance policies (and were
disappointed even with the improvements Trumka and other
negotiated) or going easy on the big banks. (As blogger
Michael Whitney noted, there were no mass firings of
bankers.)

But people’s biggest frustration, especially among the
broader base of Obama voters, is that so little is
getting accomplished and that-even if Republicans and
blue dogs and filibusters are largely at fault-that
Obama doesn’t seem to be fighting hard enough. “People
get demoralized when they don’t have a vehicle to fight
back,” Ackerman says. Or when their representatives
don’t fight, adds UNITE HERE (hotel and restaurant
workers) president John Wilhelm . “There’s no fight
visible to the average worker,” he says.

Demoralization will make it harder to mobilize the Obama
voters this fall, even though the union political
operation is much more effective than in 1994, when
union member and working class disillusionment with Bill
Clinton’s NAFTA deal and his health insurance reform
failure helped Republicans take control of the House.

Yet Wilhelm says, “It will be extremely tough. Our folks
are seriously disappointed not to see significant
changes since the Democrats took control. That was the
promise. Especially the response to the job problem has
been so anemic….Our members may not vote for
reactionaries, but they may not vote.”

“I think Rich Trumka is right,” Wilhelm continues. “The
conversation has to be about jobs.” And the plan this
year, far more than ever, McEntee says, is to lead into
the election battle with an issues fight over job
creation, including taxing the financial services
industry both to pay for reconstructing the jobs and
economy its executives destroyed and to discourage
speculation over investment in the future.

Winning that fight means pushing the president and many
Democratic lawmakers and officials beyond where they
want to go as well as defeating Republicans. At a time
when even many union members are disillusioned, and
right-wing scare tactics are powerful, the political
challenge for organized labor this year is extraordinary.

U.S. Imperialism and the War Against Zimbabwe

US declares war against Zim

By Tichaona Zindoga
Zimbabwe Herald

It is a war. Last week United States president Barack Obama announced he was extending US sanctions on Zimbabwe for another year as his country continued with the “national emergency” against Zimbabwe that, he repeated, posed a “continuing and extraordinary threat to US foreign policy.’’

“I am continuing for one year the national emergency with respect to the actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Zimbabwe and other persons to undermine Zimbabwe’s democratic processes or institutions,” Obama said in a statement.

“The crisis constituted by the actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Zimbabwe and other persons to undermine Zimbabwe’s democratic processes or institutions has not been resolved,” he added in an apparent reference to President Mugabe, his party and perceived sympathisers and supporters.

He declared: “These actions and policies continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of the United States.

“For these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to continue this national emergency and to maintain in force the sanctions to respond to this threat.”

US sanctions, enabled by the sanctions law, the so-called Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act passed by George W Bush in 2002, bars US public and private citizens from doing business with Zimbabwe.

It instructs top US officers at multilateral lending institutions like IMF and World Bank to deny Zimbabwe access to funds or cancellation of indebtedness.

Sanctions also bar certain Zimbabweans from entering the US or having investments there.

This also applies to some journalists who have been questioning US’ unfair treatment of Zimbabwe.

On the other hand, US sponsors what it terms “pro-democracy” organisations and individuals, who loosely defined are overthrow activists and reactionaries against veteran President Mugabe and his nationalist liberation movement, Zanu-PF.

Obama’s latest move is his second in a space of a year, having renewed the sanctions last March.

It also follows hard on the heels of the 27-member EU bloc’s recent resolution to extend sanctions on Zimbabwe by a further year, nominally easing the restrictions by removing nine companies and certain persons — who passed on — from the list comprising of around 200 individuals and companies.

While there could be little surprise regarding the latest round of sanctions on Zimbabwe, there are a number of interesting points of Western involvement in Zimbabwe.

One of these is the contempt for, or perhaps impatience with, the inclusive Government of Zimbabwe, predicated on the Global Political Agreement.

The agreement, signed by Zanu-PF and the two MDC formations in September 2008, set the tone for political, economic and social reform in the country.

The country’s main political parties, Zanu-PF and the two MDC formations, have been implementing the reforms, albeit painstakingly, and still continue to do so.

Ironically, the West, which has been publicly proclaiming support for Zimbabwe in this reform agenda, has been subverting the same.

Sanctions, which the GPA says should go in all their forms, are not only undermining the economic recovery efforts but have also been a divisive element in the Government which has been trying and, largely successfully so, to eliminate polarisation in both society and the body politic.

The circumstances under which the US has renewed sanctions lately have an edge of keenness.

US’ recent extension of sanctions came at a time when Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai appeared to have finally found the voice to join President Mugabe and Deputy Prime Minister Professor Arthur Mutambara in calling for the immediate and unconditional lifting of sanctions on Zimbabwe.

Last week, Tsvangirai told visiting Danish Development Co-operation Minister Soren Pind that sanctions were affecting the full implementation of the GPA and should thus go.

Parliament has since unanimously agreed on an anti-sanctions motion.

It will be recalled that July 2008, after the parties had just signed the Memorandum of Understanding, which begot the GPA, the Bush regime in Washington extended the embargo on Zimbabwe.

When Obama extended the sanctions on March 4 last year, the inclusive Government was just a couple of weeks old, with the euphoria of that momentous achievement having barely died down among people of all walks of life.

Sadc, the African Union and many countries across the world support the inclusive Government.

But perhaps the most critical point in US relations with Zimbabwe lies in the statement peddled since March 6, 2003’s Executive Order 13288, repeated by Obama on Monday that it was “necessary to continue this national emergency and to maintain in force the sanctions to respond” to Zimbabwe’s “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the foreign policy of the United States.

The extension is pursuant to its International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 USC 1701-17-06).

The 1977 Act allows freezing of assets, limiting of trade, and confiscation of property during a declared emergency.

The US is thus virtually in a war situation with Zimbabwe.

Authorities define a “state of emergency” as a governmental declaration that to suspend certain normal functions of government, alert citizens to alter their normal behaviour, or order government agencies to implement emergency preparedness plans.

Such declarations, renewable by the Executive, are usually common during times of natural disasters, civil disorder, or following a declaration of war.

The US has issued emergency declarations with respect to issues in the Middle East, Iran, September 11, among others.

Violators of emergency declarations face punishment, and in the case of Zimbabwe, American individuals and companies stand to pay thousands of dollars in fines if they engage Zimbabwe.

Apart from the overarching imperialist goal and the country’s characteristic importation of Britain’s bilateral wars, US policy towards Zimbabwe seems to border on something between lies, deception, hypocrisy and intrigue.

One of the basic questions is how little Zimbabwe can pose a continuous and extraordinary threat to the foreign policy of America.

If the US — just like the EU — predicate their re-engagement with Zimbabwe on the fulfilment of the GPA, it is to be wondered how Zimbabwe’s domestic situation, which the GPA largely is, stand to pose or not pose a threat to US foreign policy.

It is also to be wondered how the alleged “actions and policies of certain members of the Government of Zimbabwe and other persons to undermine Zimbabwe’s democratic processes or institutions” can amount to a threat to the foreign policy of America.

The wording and tone of Obama’s latest contribution to America’s blitz on Zimbabwe shows that part of America’s foreign policy has not changed, just as been seen elsewhere, from the regressive, aggressive and senseless Bush era.

This also shows Obama’s hypocritical side.

When the Obama administration got into office, it promised a new era of relations with those aggrieved by George W Bush’s style of government, but it has been largely Zimbabwe — whose doors have always been open to negotiations — that Obama has continuously shunned.

Despite the fact that the US has manifested itself to be a continuous and extraordinary threat to Zimbabwe through economic and political strangulation of the country, Washington has managed to lie to its people and the world that actions of certain Zimbabweans are a threat to America.

(This is of course besides the point that the actions of Zimbabwe in empowering its people that have suffered colonial injustice set the tone for empowerment initiatives by oppressed peoples of the globe.)

Propaganda is also very much a component of US war on Zimbabwe.

Apart from the American administrations’ misleading and oft hysterical language in justifying the war, they have created, funded and hosted individuals and organisations that while systematically sanitising US aggression towards Zimbabwe, they also say and do things that necessitate American self-serving interests.

The so-called independent media, analysts and pro-democracy groups have been part of the intricate propaganda machinery.

And in the cover of the big lie about wanting to see democratic institutions and processes, the US with the help of the aforementioned acolytes has maintained its stranglehold on Zimbabwe.

Yet if truth be told, the US has subverted and bastardised Zimbabwe’s institutions and processes for the whole existence of sanctions.

This is because sanctions, which by the US’ own admission were designed to “make the economy scream”, are by their very nature anti-people yet somehow the US and its partners have transferred their culpability to the “certain individuals” in Zanu-PF.

By funding political and media activities in and outside Zimbabwe, the US has also manipulated and suffocated Zimbabwe’s political space, institutions and processes.

The US just does not have the moral ground to play god or disciple in matters of democracy and democratic institutions.

Washington’s actions in Zimbabwe and elsewhere confirms such, and its economic war on Zimbabwe, which is known to stem from the desire to reverse indigenous ownership of natural resources, is as evident as it is evil, unjustifiable, and undesirable in any democratic and peace-loving society.

Zimbabwe Celebrates International Women’s Day

Zimbabwe celebrates Women’s Day

By Richmore Tera
Zimbabwe Herald

THE National Art Gallery of Zimbabwe in collaboration with the embassies of Canada and Spain, recently held a series of arts events as part of commemorations to mark International Women’s Day.

International Women’s Day is observed on March 8 every year to celebrate the achievements that women the world over have made in the areas of politics, economy and the arts, among others.

Various women artistes from all walks of the Zimbabwean life took turns to showcase their art works while at the same time speaking on issues affecting them as women.

A film screening held under the theme “It’s Time African Women Join Hands to Fight Domestic Violence,” exposed the ugly sides of domestic violence. The late female sculptor Colleen Madamombe was remembered through a posthumous sculpture exhibition dubbed “A Brief Life,” featuring some of her works. She was one of the few local female visual artists who put Zimbabwe on the world map before her untimely death.

That women are also as good as their male counterparts when it comes to playing musical instruments like the mbira and saxophone was evident when various artistes took to the stage to thrill the audience.

Gifted mbira player Hope Masike was in fine form, while Praise Nyandimu and Jazz Kisses Band from Mutare, also impressed.

Born Free, Misfit, Sister Xapa, Oasis, Aura and Cynthia vented women’s concerns through their poetry, hip hop and dance performances.

As what has become a norm, renowned filmmaker and author Tsitsi Dangarembga and fellow writer Virginia Phiri stimulated interesting debate on the theme of the day with their incisive presentations.

Fashion, that is an integral part of women, also came under the spotlight with various designers including those from Zimbabwe Fashion Week taking turns to showcase their various designer-wares.

“The Portrayal of Women in the Mainstream Media” was another thought-provoking discussion in the way that the speakers probed the various facets through which women are often projected in a stereotypical way in the media.

Canadian Ambassador to Zimbabwe Barbara Richardson gave the opening remarks while her Spanish counterpart delivered the closing speech.

Workers World Interview With Youth Leader: Country-wide Struggle UnitesStudents, Workers, Community

WW interview with youth leader: Country-wide struggle unites students, workers, community

Published Mar 7, 2010 11:12 PM

Hundreds of thousands of students, teachers and other education
workers demonstrated, rallied, sat in and marched across the United
States on March 4. Protesting cuts in education budgets and layoffs,
they raised the powerful demand that education is a right of the
working class. A national leader of this action is Larry Hales of the
youth organization Fight Imperialism, Stand Together. Hales had
mobilized for the national action and co-chaired a rally of 2,000
people outside New York Gov. David Paterson’s office in midtown New York City. Hales spoke with Workers World managing editor John Catalinotto and explained the issues propelling this new movement, how the mobilization grew and what’s next.

Workers World: What were the issues driving this massive student-led demonstration?

Larry Hales: The movement to defend education comes at a critical
time. Youth unemployment, at depression levels for a long time among young people of color, has again spiked drastically. In inner city areas the buildings are dilapidated. Functioning schools are being closed and privatized. Young people know they need education to get jobs. The education crisis combines with the economic crisis to compel this struggle.

People in the streets are questioning the system. They raise
“education is a right” and they see they are being denied that right.
Unemployed youth believe going to school will help them get a job. In
New York’s City University [CUNY], enrollment has actually grown as
much as 40 percent. Now that right to education is being attacked.
This is the main motivation.

How much of the country was involved in the movement?

We have reports of 126 actions in 33 states. There might be more we
haven’t heard from yet. There were hundreds of thousands in California alone. In New York 2,000 people rallied outside Gov. Paterson’s office, including a good contingent from the Professional Staff Congress, representing the city university workers and teachers. Most marched to the Fashion Institute of Technology to join an action the Transport Workers Union had organized. Thousands took part.

What was behind the dramatic action of Baltimore high-school students who besieged the detention center?

The Baltimore Algebra Project called this action. The group is a
peer-to-peer tutoring organization with a political component. It
promotes the interest of students and young people, like fighting
school closings and for funding for student and youth jobs.

I had attended a meeting where BAP planned to demand the government take the funds they use to lock people up and use it for jobs. We gave out flyers for March 4. They invited me to meet with them and I did, along with a Workers World Party comrade from Baltimore, Stephen Ceci.

They were pushing a national student bill of rights. A week after we
met, they told me they would organize a meeting in front of the
Juvenile Detention Center, demanding $100 million to create jobs for
young people.

A thousand mainly high-school youths marched on the center; 13 pushed inside and occupied the building. There were no arrests. The youths made their point in this courageous and militant way for jobs, not jails.

This struggle had opened up in California last fall after Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger announced drastic cuts. How did it become a
country-wide action?

It piqued interest when people saw large numbers of California
students willing to fight. When education workers joined this struggle
it provided the push needed to call out people from other parts of the
country to defend their rights to education. It couldn’t have happened
without the young people in California, where this struggle is most
advanced.

We first raised the idea of a national demonstration at a Workers
World Party conference in November, at a FIST workshop with 75
students and youths. We had to win people over to the idea, but by the end of the workshop activists there from other organizations picked up the idea with enthusiasm.

We talked to students from CUNY, from Students for Educational Rights at CCNY, the CUNY Campaign to Defend Education; to national leaders of Students for a Democratic Society; to Students Taking Action to Reclaim Education at the University of Maryland and Connecticut Students Against the War.

From then it grew toward a national conference call with 42 people in
December. We had found out before that California had planned to call a March 4 statewide action and we successfully motivated that same date for a national action, which was in solidarity with the
California action and complementary to it. It was clear that the
action had potential.

What role did FIST play in building the demonstration?

FIST mobilized actively behind the March 4 national action, playing an
especially strong role in New York City, North Carolina, Detroit,
Cleveland and Boston. Connecticut SAW took on building a Web site, and we used the Internet to spread the world. But you can’t build an action like this with the Internet alone.

We issued a national call when the California organizations issued
their statewide call, making both calls public around the same time.

I personally traveled and spoke to college and high-school students
and other youths in Boston, Michigan, North Carolina, Baltimore and
around New York. Everywhere I went, the high-school and college
students and their parents were all for it. There was a mood to
struggle and a need to do it based on the cuts they all were facing.

What was the role of teachers, other workers and the community?

The Professional Staff Congress at CUNY, K-12 organizations like
Teachers for a Just Contract and Grassroots Education Movement in New York; and other organizations of community leaders and educators, like Coalition for Public Education, also were enthusiastic and did a lot of organizing. The powerful Transport Workers Union here had demands that complemented those of the high-school students.

Many students and youth, who may not now be working, come from
working-class families and know their future is as workers — if there
are jobs. Most youths value their teachers. They don’t want their
teachers to lose their jobs or get pay cuts. There was a lot of mutual
solidarity.

FIST encouraged this solidarity in our literature and organizing, but
the economic crisis was the objective basis for solidarity. Teachers
saw the rebellious students as allies. There is even more reason for
there to be mutual solidarity as the attacks continue and the movement grows.

In New York, for example, the move to eliminate student passes on
subways and buses creates a basis for solidarity between the youths
and the workers in the Transport Workers Union, who are threatened
with layoffs.

Police tried to pen in the marching youth as they approached the TWU rally at Fashion Institute of Technology. What happened then?

Even as we marched along Lexington Avenue, police tried to confine the marchers to the sidewalk. There wasn’t enough room. We stopped and said we would stay there if we didn’t get the streets. The marchers started shouting, “Whose streets? Our streets.” The police negotiator decided to cede the streets to the marchers.

Near FIT, the youths chanted, “We want unity” with the TWU. The police tried to surround the marchers. Some TWU workers began arguing with the police, saying they wanted the students with the workers. Finally we suggested the students go around the barricades and across the streets to the rally at FIT. Some, who the police blocked with mopeds, managed to cross Seventh Avenue and then cross back to rejoin the rally. They refused to be penned in.

What’s next?

Since March 4 we’ve gotten lots of email messages saying we need to keep the momentum up and call for another day of national action.
That’s under discussion.

The May 1 Coalition had participated in our last three meetings in
NYC. Many students look to that action, not only to support the
initiative of the workers and especially the many immigrant workers in the coalition, but also to include demands from the student movement in the May 1 protest at Union Square.

The students see the need to join with the workers. The May 1
Coalition workers saw the strength of the student movement. We are
hoping that the upsurge of the student movement will give a further
push to May 1 in 2010, along with the immigrant and other workers.

There may be lots of local actions too. In some states there were lots
of arrests — in University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, in California,
some in New York, in Texas — and there will be actions in solidarity
with the arrested students.

Our next conference call will decide the exact next step. What we saw
on March 4 is the desire of young people to revitalize a movement of
young students and workers. We plan to go forward in the militant
spirit of the March 4 actions to the next steps in the struggle for
education and jobs — for youths and for all workers.
——————————————————————————–
Articles copyright 1995-2010 Workers World. Verbatim copying and
distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without
royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Page printed from:
http://www.workers.org/2010/us/hales_0318/

Guinea Sets Presidential Poll Date

Sunday, March 07, 2010
23:21 Mecca time, 20:21 GMT

Guinea sets presidential poll date

Camara is recovering in Burkina Faso after an attempt on his life by a
close aide

Guinea’s rulers have said they country will hold a presidential
election on June 27, the first since a military coup in December last
year.

The main electoral commission proposed the date last month and the decree was signed by General Sekouba Konate, the country’s interim leader on Sunday.

“The transition president, [the] interim president of the republic,
sets the date of the first round of the presidential election for June
27,” the decree said.

The commission said a second round should be held on July 18 if no candidate got an absolute majority.

It also proposed that campaigning run from May 17 to June 26.

Military coup

The interim government was established with the help of international mediators in the wake of an assassination attempt on Captain Moussa Dadis Camara, the then-leader of the country’s military government.

Camara, who was shot in the head by an aide, is recuperating in
neighbouring Burkina Faso.

Ahead of the assassination attempt Guinea had been thrown into
political turmoil when a security force crackdown on September 28 saw the massacre of 156 protesters.

A United Nations report released in December blamed Camara for the massacre.

The killings occurred as opposition supporters staged a rally amid
concerns that Camara - who seized power in 2008 after the death of
Lansana Conte, Guinea’s long-time ruler - was planning to renege on a pledge to hold civilian elections.

Besides scores who died after soldiers opened fire in the city’s main
sports stadium, more than 100 women were reportedly raped during the incident.

Source: Agencies

U.S./NATO Offensive Unravels in Afghanistan

U.S./NATO offensive unravels in Afghanistan

By Sara Flounders
Published Mar 7, 2010 11:07 PM

The Pentagon offensive against the Afghan city of Marjah was public-relations media hype from the very first day. The sole purpose of the offensive in Marjah was to convince the U.S. population and increasingly tepid NATO allies that this imperialist war is winnable.

U.S. involvement in Afghanistan is now the longest foreign war in U.S. history, on both the air and the ground. The Pentagon described the Marjah offensive as the biggest military operation in more than eight years of occupation, but now calls it a prelude to a larger assault on the city of Kandahar.

In U.S. counterinsurgency warfare, such an offensive means dropping heavily armed troops in an area seeking to draw enemy fire. The troops then call in air support, long-range artillery fire, machine-gun fire, rockets, white phosphorous bombs and anti-personnel bombs. The latter cover the ground with bomblets that emit thousands of razor-sharp fragments.

Tens of thousands of civilians were driven from the villages of Helmand Province, and the town of Marjah was partially evacuated. But thousands of Afghans were unwilling to leave their homes and animals in the cold of winter for the hunger, instability and flimsy shelter of refugee camps. Many are too poor to leave. They ended up as targets of Pentagon weapons.

The Marjah offensive’s stated goal was to introduce a ready-made, U.S.-created local regime, staffed by an Afghan puppet administration totally dependent on U.S. power. With cynical and racist arrogance, NATO commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal said, “We got a government in a box ready to roll in.” (New York Times, Feb. 12)

Afghan casualties unrecorded

Throughout this war, the Pentagon and corporate media have never counted and scarcely mentioned Afghan civilian deaths, injuries and trauma from bombings, fires and destruction. Tens of thousands more die of starvation, cold and infections in crowded refugees camps, swollen cities and isolated villages.

During the U.S. offensive in Marjah, U.S. deaths in Afghanistan reached the milestone of 1,000. This total confirms that youth are paying the price of the lack of education and job opportunities in the U.S. In addition, suicides among returning soldiers now exceed combat deaths and injuries are about four times the deaths.

Gen. Barry McCaffrey at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point warned of sharp increases in U.S. troop casualties in the months ahead. “What I want to do is signal that this thing is going to be $5 billion to $10 billion a month and 300 to 500 killed and wounded a month by next summer. That’s what we probably should expect.” (Army Times, Jan. 7)

As the two-week offensive officially ended in Marjah, bombs exploded in one of the most secure areas of Kabul. Some reporters described it as a sophisticated and well-coordinated operation in the heavily guarded capital. A car bomb targeted housing of employees from countries connected to the occupation, apparently with the aim of undermining international support for the Afghan war.

During the offensive came the announcement on Feb. 21 that the Netherlands coalition government had fallen apart, due to heated opposition of a coalition party to keeping Dutch troops in Afghanistan. This sealed the planned withdrawal of 2,000 Dutch troops from NATO forces in Afghanistan, as of next August.

The Netherlands was the first NATO member to announce that it is quitting. The announcement was a big setback for the U.S. and NATO, and has prompted wide media speculation of other possible NATO withdrawals from the deeply unpopular war.

A Los Angeles Times editorial on Feb. 24 stated that the Dutch “withdrawal is likely to raise concerns about a fracturing of the international commitment to Afghanistan, and about the Afghan government’s ability to provide security in the long term . … The Dutch decision should serve as a warning to the Obama administration.”

The majority of the people in almost all the NATO countries opposes the war and wants their troops out. This has become a major issue in domestic politics and elections in many countries. Canada has announced the withdrawal of its forces by the summer of 2011.

Anti-war mood undermines NATO militarism

Following the Dutch announcement, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in a speech at the National Defense University told NATO officers and officials that public and political opposition to the military had grown so great in Europe that it was directly affecting operations in Afghanistan and impeding the alliance’s broader goals. “The demilitarization of Europe — where large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it — has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment. … Right now the alliance faces very serious, long-term, systemic problems.” (New York Times, Feb. 24)

Gates also reminded NATO officials that, not counting U.S. forces, NATO troops in Afghanistan were scheduled to increase to 50,000 this year — from 30,000 last year.

The total 43-country International Security Assistance Force, including U.S. soldiers, is presently at 140,000 troops in Afghanistan.

As journalist Rick Rozoff summed up a year ago: “The Afghan war is also the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s first armed conflict outside of Europe and its first ground war in the 60 years of its existence. It has been waged with the participation of armed units from all 26 NATO member states and 12 other European and Caucasus nations linked to NATO. …

“The 12 European NATO partners who have sent troops in varying numbers to assist Washington and the Alliance include the continent’s five former neutral nations: Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland. The European NATO and partnership deployments count among their number troops from six former Soviet Republics — with Azerbaijan, Georgia and Ukraine tapped for recent reinforcements and the three Baltic states … including airbases and troop and naval deployments in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and the Indian Ocean (where the Japanese navy has been assisting).” (rickrozoff.wordpress.com, March 25, 2009)

Military units from Australia, New Zealand, Jordan, Colombia and South Korea are also stationed in Afghanistan.

Afghans have right to resist

Despite all these occupation forces, Afghanistan has become an imperialist quagmire with no stability, no security and no end in sight.

The resistance in Afghanistan has gained ground and broad support as it becomes clear to the whole population that U.S./NATO forces have brought only racist arrogance, corruption, repression and greater poverty. While occupation forces label all resistance as terrorism and Taliban-inspired, increasingly Afghans see resistance as a right and a patriotic or religious duty. It is essential in the period ahead that the anti-war movement supports the right of the Afghan people to resist this criminal occupation and increases the effort to bring all troops home now.

Articles copyright 1995-2010 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Page printed from:
http://www.workers.org/2010/world/afghanistan_0311/

West African farmers receive boost from UN organic food exporting initiative

Some 5,000 West African farmers are reaping the rewards from a United Nations scheme aimed at helping them export produce to the growing organic food market in the industrialized world.

UN and aid partners call for $60 million to help 110,000 Congolese refugees

The United Nations and its partners today launched an appeal for just under $60 million to help more than 100,000 refugees from the northwest of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) who have fled ethnic violence and are seeking refuge in neighbouring Republic of Congo (ROC).