The impending war has been started on Yemen!
It is reported that 100 Saudi war planes have bombed the Yemeni capital Sanaa, which had recently been captured by Houthi rebels, and approximately 150,000 soldiers are entering northern Yemen for the land offensive.
It is also reported that the Saudi offensive in Yemen is supported by Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Pakistan. According to reports the US is not involved in the offensive but is providing intelligence and logistic support.
In Yemen, with a population of 25 million and the poorest country of the region, the Houthi rebels had taken the capital Sanaa in January 2015 and installed a ‘Presidential Council’ of five members.
Reactionaries and imperialist powers that operate in the region always had a role in the conflicts in Yemen, which is on a vital strategic path of transferring the Gulf oil through the Red Sea. Nevertheless, interventions by regional reactionaries and imperialists have never been this direct.
Those that followed the developments in the region were aware that Saudi Arabia and the USA would not turn a blind eye to Houthi rule in Yemen.
A Houthi government in Yemen was especially a ‘Shiite knife’ in the back by Iran for Saudi Arabia!
The Yemeni Shiites, while making up the southernmost tip of the ‘Shiite Crescent’ in the Middle East, are also linked to majority Shiite population in the oil fields of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries. Therefore, when the Houthi rebellion in Yemen started, the discussion was “Whether Saudi Arabia or Iran will win in Yemen?” rather than “Who will rule in Yemen?”. Subsequently the Houthi grasping power in Yemen was seen all around the world as “the Iranian victory in Yemen”.
Without a doubt the victory by Shiite meant panic on the thrones of monarchs and kings in Saudi and other Gulf states because the considerable Shiite population in these countries are also the most oppressed and poverty stricken.
Furthermore, after the fall of Mosul, Iranian “Revolutionary Guard” and Iranian officials (including generals) are fighting as a part of the counter-offensive against IS. This means more than the “proximity in faith”; Iraq and Iran are becoming allies. It also means that, to the extent that the IS threat is expelled, Iraq will become a country under control of Iran. The US and other western powers are aware of this.
Therefore “Yemen is not just Yemen”, neither are the “Houthi just Houthi”! If that was the case this would have been only Yemen’s or at most Saudi’s problem. But that is not the case. On the contrary, the conflict in Yemen - from the perspective of the bigger picture the region has become the hot territory in the ‘Shiite-Sunni’ conflict. Hence, all 10 countries that make up the attacking “coalition” on Yemen are under Sunni rule. (*)
As expected, the Turkish Foreign Ministry have supported the operation. The statement “supporting Saudi Arabia’s military intervention in Yemen” has claimed that “the military operation will contribute to a legitimate authority in Yemen”.
Of course; it has many songs, many legends and Veysel Karani. What has Canakkale or Sarykamy over Yemen!
Especially when you consider that the conflict in Yemen will not be controlled so easily!
The United States, allied with Iraq and Iran in the northernmost tip of the ‘Shiite Crescent’ in the Middle East, is allied with Saudi Arabia against Iran in the southernmost tip of the ‘Shiite Crescent’!
This is not the contradiction that it might seem. It is nevertheless a sign of how fraudulent contradictions in the Middle East have become.
(*) Egypt and Turkey are at odds on the issue of the Muslim Brotherhood but this is a discussion, argument within Sunni Islam. They are united against Shiites.Evrensel Newspaper
The talks on Iranian Nuclear programme, between Iran and the P5 +1 (US, Russia, England, France, China and Germany) concluded on 2 April with a ‘framework agreement’. Sides have also agreed on the final agreement to be signed on 30 July 2015.
According to the agreement; Iran will reduce the number of centrifuges used in enriching uranium by two thirds and limit the enrichment levels to 3.7%. Iran will also shut down one of its two nuclear facilities and years allow the scrutiny of its nuclear programme by the West for the next 25!
In return the EU sanctions will be lifted immediately and the US sanctions gradually.
The agreement was met with ‘jubilation’ in Iran, ‘rage’ in Israel and with ‘anxiety’ in the Gulf countries and Saudi Arabia. Representatives of the P5 +1 countries were positive in calling the agreement a “historic step” and a “key step”.
Doubtlessly, the diplomatic-political situation created by the ‘framework agreement’ indicates to a course that will lead to important developments in both internal (economical and diplomatic) and external politics of Iran and the 36 year Iranian and Middle Eastern policies of Western imperialists.
The ‘reformist government’ of Ruhani - receiving their mandate with electoral victory over Ahmedinejad - will move to open a new page in their relationship with the West, as well as trying to change the economic conditions that affect the population deeply. Hence, to say that steps to liberalise the economy will be taken along with neoliberal political decisions, akin to the kind of economical programme after the crisis in 2002 in Turkey, would not be wrong. This tendency will surely strengthen the Ruhani government, liberalise the squeezed Iranian economy, and with the lifting of sanctions and external support, introduce some policies that make the lives of Iranians easier. In short, the steps that follow the agreement will lead to a ‘benefit for both sides’ by causing an ‘awakening’ in the Iranian market and opening it up to Western profit. Of course by ‘benefit’ we mean the benefit of the Iranian ruling classes and imperialist capital. It may look likely to bring some relief to the Iranian public celebrating in the streets but with this agreement imperialist exploitation will become stronger and wider spread and the rule of the mullahs will be prolonged; providing the basis for their continued rule. Since 2 April lots of discussions have taken place regarding the ‘framework agreement’; the questions on “Who won what?”, “Who lost what?”, “What will happen now?”, “Could Iran be trusted?”.. .etc are argued from different perspectives. It seems that these arguments will continue up to and even beyond 30 June. Because the tangible discussion is about the ‘nuclear capabilities of Iran’ and western inspections of it but in reality the discussion is much more extensive.
Hence this discussion cannot be comprehensively understood unless the close link between the following is understood clearly;
1. Activities of IS, Al-Qaeda and Islamist terror organisations in Iraq and Syria, civil wars that have now spread also to Yemen, the infighting in the Middle East including the military offensive against Yemen led by Saudi Arabia with the active support of Egypt,
2. Iran’s position within these developments, its increasing influence within the ‘Shiite Crescent’ that extends from Iran to the southernmost tip of the Arab Peninsula, its close relationship with Russia and China to extent that it might interfere with Western plans in the region,
3. The ever burdensome outcomes of western interventions in the region and the redrawing of regional borders; and determining areas of activity for imperialists and the reactionary forces in the region.
Regional diplomatic-political and military dimensions of the problems raised by the agreement, as well as the now obvious ‘futility’ within these developments of the ‘lone’ Turkish foreign policy will be discussed below. ‘Futile loneliness’ has hit also the Iranian wall!
It is clear that, following the ‘framework agreement’, the Iranian government can breathe easy in terms of its regional and internal policies and implementing its economic policies. Saying that, countries ‘on the other side of the agreement’, especially USA, England, France and Germany have gained a great advantage in their plans that include a redrawing of the borders in the region. This advantage is the normalisation of their relationship with Iran! This will make it easier to intervene in the region, as they can now directly communicate with Iran, and create the opportunity to put Iran forward against Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey; all rivals of Iran in the fight for ‘regional power’.
Considering Iran’s influence among regional Shiites, and that it is a side in the conflicts in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, this development will severely limit any initiative that Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt have against western imperialists.
In considering statements past and current, while speaking about the regionally historic step taken by Iran - the biggest and oldest rival of Turkey and its biggest neighbour in the region - and the attempts to change borders in the region, we have not spoken about Turkey at all. There was no need to! This means that Turkey is not going to be as important for the West in reorganising and redrawing borders in the region. Of course, if the new Ottoman foreign policy is insisted upon; if as “big brother” and “defended intervention in internal affairs of regional countries are continued; if games with the use of Islamic terrorist gangs in the region is continued; if the role of diplomacy is reduced to the covert operations of MIT!
These are the conditions under which President Erdogan went for a one-day ‘working visit’ to Iran, celebrating the ‘framework agreement’.
On his way to Iran, Erdogan failed to make the traditional President’s statement at the airport! On this visit where energy and economics will be discussed, it is stated that Turkey’s attitude on Yemen will be delivered to Iran directly by the president.
It is also known that Turkey’s attitude on Yemen is not particularly welcome in Iran. Indeed, Turkey’s support for Saudi Arabia in attacking Yemen, and the inflammatory statements on Iran’s policies on Iraq, Syria and Yemen that ‘overstep diplomatic language of courtesy’ had caused a reaction in Iran. As such, 65 Iranian MPs had called on President Ruhani to defer or cancel the visit of Erdogan.
We will have to wait and see what Erdogan’s visit will achieve at a time where Iran is gaining the moral higher ground and the relations between the two countries are worsening. We can confidently say that the developments will not favour Turkey.
If we look at the aggregate affect of the ‘framework agreement’; Yes, Iran has been greatly successful, also in making the West accept its position in the region. This in turn means a loss for Egypt, Saudi Arabia and especially Turkey in their bid for leadership in the region. Israel is also on the side of the losers this time. But a ‘framework agreement’ does not indicate the end of a 36 year struggle against the West and a new rosy relationship. The Iranian- West relations will not reach a ‘normal’ level in the short term. Pieces will start falling into place at least after the ‘final agreement’ on 30 June.
In terms of Turkey’s new Ottoman foreign policy - and attempts to defend it by glorifying it as a ‘Dignified loneliness’ - it will not be long before we see that it has no worth even within the new Middle Eastern market that will be created.Evrensel newspaper
Yes to the fight for freedom of expression
No to obscurantism and xenophobia
No to “national unity” with reaction
Yes to solidarity and brotherhood
The murder of 12 people, including the main cartoonists and journalists of Charlie Hebdo, arouses great emotion and anger among our people.
It is freedom of expression, of criticism, of the right to ridicule, that the perpetrators of this dastardly murder wanted to kill. It is to say “no”, we will not back down, we will not be intimidated, that tens of thousands of people took to the streets on the night of the attack, which aims to spread terror and to create fear.
The other message of these rallies is the refusal to condemn anything that fuels Islamophobia.
For weeks, “intellectuals” have been pouring out their hatred against Islam in front of microphones and on TV shows. Today, the places frequented by Muslims are the targets of attack. As we said in our press release of January 7, “We need to stop the exploitation of religion, of any kind, to divide and undermine the values of brotherhood and tolerance.” That is why we defend secularism, the right of everyone to believe or not to believe, the right to criticize any religion, to ridicule it.
The President of the Republic reiterated forcefully that France is at war against terrorism. This speech is reminiscent of that of Bush after September 11. Much of the media and many politicians are repeating that comparison and calling, together with him, for “national unity.”
We do not want this “national unity.”
It is true that Hollande and his government are engaged in real wars on several fronts: in Mali, the Sahel and, in coalitions as in Iraq. These wars are not only bound to fail - just look at the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan - but they fuel the jihadist groups with men and supporters. That is why our party and others have always denounced this war policy, which is accompanied by alliances with reactionary forces and which are part of the dangerous vision of the “clash of civilizations.”
We do not want more national unity with the right. A right that finds it normal for this unity to include the National Front.
In the present context, it is not that “national unity” that we need, but to unite in the fight against the policy of poverty and war, for the brotherhood and solidarity among the peoples.
The unity for which we fight is the unity of the people, of the working class around its interests and those of the peoples. It is the unity in the fight for social progress, for democracy.
Communist Party of the Workers of France
Paris, January 8, 2015
On Sunday, December 21, the Tunisian people elected the President of the Republic, in a scene never before experienced in Tunisia. Since the proclamation of the Republic on July 25, 1957, and the adoption of the Constitution of June 1, 1959, Tunisia has never experienced free, democratic and transparent elections. While the neo-colonial regime continued to hold elections at regular intervals, the results were known in advance since the only candidate presented was always elected by an overwhelming majority. Tunisians continued to engage in this farce even after the amendment to the constitution in 1974 that made Habib Bourguiba president for life. After the coup of November 7, 1987, General Ben Ali introduced modifications, but he himself chose his competitors from among those politicians who expressed their allegiance to him. This did not prevent him from receiving 99% of the votes. That is why the last elections were experienced with great apprehension and hope by the Tunisians, especially since they were the first presidential elections after January 14, 2011 [the date when Ben Ali was overthrown - translator s note].
Let us remember that in the first round of the presidential elections held on November 15, 27 men and women presented themselves as candidates: most of them were in one way or another candidates of some faction of the bourgeoisie, wanting either to maintain their power or regain it. Opposing them and in a certain way against them, Comrade Hamma Hammami presented himself as representative of the popular classes and as bearer of their hopes of realizing the objectives of the revolution. His finishing in third place meant that the second round opposed representatives of the two candidates, the one as reactionary as the other, that is, the candidate of “Nidaa Tounes” Beji Caid Essebsi, former minister under Bourguiba and Ben Ali, and the undeclared candidate of the Islamist party, the Provisional President Moncef Marzouki. Even before the beginning of the campaign, the bourgeois media tried to present them as fundamentally opposed to each other and as bearers of two antagonistic social plans: the one presented as the standard-bearer of modernity, democracy and the secular state, and the other as the defender of the identity, of the religious state. But we know that this is nothing but good claims to conceal the true bourgeois class character of the two plans they bore.
Indeed, the “Nidaa Tounes” and “Ennahdha” parties are just political and organizational expressions (and not the only ones) of the interests of the big comprador bourgeoisie; whatever the differences between them may be, their essence remains the same. It is enough to glance at their economic and social programs to realize this: neoliberalism, the reduction of state intervention in the economy and in investment, increased privatization of public enterprises and state banks, lifting restrictions on the prices of consumer goods and services, elimination of the compensation fund, etc. Their massive vote in agreement at the Assembly of People’s Representatives last December 10 in favor of the Finance Act 2015 is a clear expression. This was a law that only the deputies of the Popular Front rejected, since it provides for anti-popular measures seeking to place the burden of the crisis on the popular masses alone.
What we have said about the two candidates largely explains the slippage experienced by their respective campaigns. At no time was there any question of confrontation of political or other programs. These are for the most part the representatives of people who have already been known. One who for decades was in the service of the dictatorial regime in its two versions (that of Bourguiba and that of Ben Ali), in which he held key positions, which made him partly responsible for the many hardships experienced by the Tunisians, such as repression and deprivation of freedoms while he was the Minister of the Interior, and especially since he never expressed the least regret or the least self-criticism for what happened. The other one for the last three years has been compromised with Islamism and the reactionary plan of the Muslim Brotherhood in Tunisia and elsewhere. The change that this human rights activist has undergone and which has made him a protector of the army and an objective ally of currents advocating and practicing terrorism was the focus of the criticism and attacks on him. The blunders he committed during his tenure have earned him the rejection of the whole of society. The latest was his speech of hate and divisiveness towards those who do not share his opinion or his politics who, according to him, are all pawns in the pay of the former regime.
Let us remember that on the eve of the first round, the chances of these two candidates were very uneven since at the legislative elections held a month ago, the “Congress for the Republic,” the party of Moncef Marzouki, received only 67,000 votes, that is, less than 4% of the votes while “Nidaa Tounes” received 37%. But the Islamist party, which did not submit an official presidential candidate, gave its vote to the outgoing president, after suffering a semi-defeat in the parliamentary elections; this allowed him to exert pressure on the winning party and better negotiate with it. As a result, Marzouki was promoted to the second round with more than a million votes, only 4 points from his opponent.
But a large majority of citizens who voted for “Nidaa Tounes” in the legislative elections, just to bar the way to the “Ennahda” reacted the same way in the second round of the presidential elections: they voted for Essebsi to prevent Marzouki from returning to the Carthage Palace. Thousands of people who would not have voted for either one or the other made that choice to put an end once and for all to the institutions that resulted from the ballot of October 23, 2011, which gave full powers to the Islamist party and to those who agreed to play the role of its stooge. So this is a protest vote much more than a vote of agreement with a program.
The liberal parties in parliament, the “Liberal Patriotic Union” (16 seats) and “Afek Tounes” (8 seats) as well as all parties claiming the Destourian spectrum (the former ruling party) called on their followers to vote for Essebsi. As for the Popular Front, considering that neither the one nor the other candidate was a product of the revolution, nor able to defend its objectives, and given the chaotic management of national affairs by the government of the troika and its president, the latter being the real but undeclared candidate of the Islamist party, called on the people to block his path, leaving the choice to the voters whether or not to vote for his opponent.
The official results announced today confirm the victory of Beji Caid Essebsi with 55.68% against 44.32% for his opponent, the outgoing President Moncef Marzouki, with a 60% voter participation and a massive abstention, especially by the youths. The Popular Front and of all the progressive forces of the country, for whom a new era of struggle is opening, have a lot of work to do.
Workers’ Party of Tunisia Tunis,
December 22, 2014
Upper Volta, called Burkina Faso, is experiencing a revolutionary situation which led to a popular insurrection on Thursday, October 30, and ousted the autocrat Blaise Compaore on Friday, October 31, 2014, despite his sordid maneuvers to maintain himself at the head of the neocolonial State at all costs.
Our people in their various constituencies and the popular youth have won an important victory with a spirit of determination and political maturity in thwarting the various conspiracies and in facing with heroic courage the barbaric repression that led to dozens of dead and wounded. This historic popular movement, which quickly spread like wildfire across the country in the wake of recent major demonstrations organized by the reactionary bourgeois opposition as well as by the Coalition Against the High Cost of Living on Tuesday, October 28 and Wednesday, October 29, fully confirms that when the people rise up neither repression nor terror can prevent them from winning.
This popular insurrection is taking place in the context of the continuation of the eruption onto the political scene of the popular strata with their pressing demands, who in the past allowed themselves to be oppressed and exploited without protest. They have learned to take charge of their own destiny through powerful struggles to get out of their misery and the deep distress that has struck them for decades, particularly under the government of the Fourth Republic of Blaise Compaore due to neocolonial exploitation.
Indeed, since the hunger riots of 2008, not a day has gone by in which the poor peasants, workers and salaried employees, the poorest strata in the towns consisting of workers, apprentices, small traders, artisans, and especially the youth thrown into the informal sector, have not revolted and sometimes carried out insurrections for the right to a decent life, justice and freedom and a real change in favor of the people.
This is the practical and concrete expression of the deepening of the revolutionary crisis that has shaken our country since the assassination of journalist Norbert Zongo and his three companions in misfortune on December 13, 1998. This revolutionary crisis that has been developing in stages since then reached an unmatched scale today with this unprecedented popular movement in our country. This resulted in massive mobilizations through the various marches and meetings of the reactionary bourgeois opposition as well as of the Coalition Against the High Cost of Living (CCVC) and of the trade unions in June and July of 2013 and throughout 2014. The depth of the crisis is such that it led to the breakup of the ruling party, the CDP (Convention for Democracy and Progress) and to a reconfiguration of the national political scene. The stakes are either a fundamental change in favor of the people or a reform of the neocolonial system and the neocolonial rule, mainly French, in our country. Several memorable facts also reflect the failure of the mafia regime of the autocrat Blaise Compaore and focused the anger and struggles of the masses:
* the lack of function and total discredit, striking the institutions of the Republic (government, parliament, justice), which have been reduced to a plaything in the hands of Captain Blaise Compaore and his mafia clan in power who use and abuse them at their will;
* the pronounced inclination for the monarchisation of power with a strengthened collusion between the business community, traditional leaders and religious authorities;
* a gradual erosion of liberties under the pretext of the fight against organized crime with enforced disappearances and extrajudicial executions fraught with the danger of gangland murders or disguised political assassinations;
* the persistence of impunity for bloody crimes brought to light by the democratic and revolutionary movement;
* a socio-economic situation plagued by corruption and impunity for economic crimes;
* the persistent problem of high prices with an increased impoverishment of the broad popular sectors;
* a clear revival of the vitality of the social front and an increasingly marked determination of the masses to fight for bread and freedom, as shown by the multiple actions and struggles organized and led by the party.
The popular insurrection of October 30 is fully justified in view of the overall maturation of the revolutionary crisis in Burkina Faso. But very quickly the working class and the people are realizing that their hard-won achievements are being threatened and reversed by the putchist clans of the neocolonial army, which have carried out a reactionary military coup d’état. Their ultimate goal is to stifle the revolutionary process taking place and to save the bankrupt neocolonial system. The reactionary bourgeois opposition, while advocating change, is carrying on negotiations with the military high command for a “transitional government” that would allow them to maintain their opportunity of obtaining neocolonial power.
The imperialist powers (France, United States and European Union) are busy trying to impose a solution that would preserve their economic and geostrategic interests in Burkina Faso and in the sub-region of West Africa. They are taking account of the role played by their former pawn Blaise Compaore who allowed their military presence in the country to become a strategic platform of aggression and exploitation of the peoples of the subregion.
But the popular movement remains vigilant and is showing its willingness to fight in order not to “be robbed of their victory.” The Revolutionary Democratic Movement, led by the party, in this complex situation is opposed to the military coup and calls on the masses to continue the struggle to deepen the revolutionary process.
The PCRV calls on the working class, the people and the youth to strengthen their organizations of struggle, especially the CCVC, and to organize together with them for the revolutionary overthrow of the neocolonial regime and to put in place a Provisional Revolutionary Government and a Constituent Assembly in order to build a modern democratic Republic.
The PCRV calls for international solidarity in the face of repression against the democratic and revolutionary movement and the interference of the imperialist powers in our country.
Bread and Freedom for the People
Long Live Proletarian InternationalismRevolutionary Communist Party of Volta (PCRV)