사이드바 영역으로 건너뛰기

에콰도르 관련 기사 2

호주 민주사회당과 관계있는 신문이지요?

---------------------------------------

Ecuadorian Protests

 
     
......... by Duroyan Fertl April 19, 2005  
  Green Left Weekly Printer Friendly Version
EMail Article to a Friend
 
 
 

On April 13, thousands of Ecuadorians protesting in the capital Quito were violently attacked by riot police with tear gas. The protesters, led by unionists and students, blocked roads with burning tyres and shut down the centre of the city, demanding the resignation of President Lucio Gutierrez and the reinstatement of the Supreme Court judges sacked by the president last December.

Quito Mayor Paco Moncayo, leader of the opposition Democratic Left Party (ID) and an organiser of the protest, ordered the closure of public transport, municipal offices and schools, as protesters shouted “Lucio out! Democracy, yes! Dictatorship, no!”

About 800 fully armed police and soldiers occupied the two blocks around the presidential palace, erecting metal barriers and barbed wire fencing across roadways.

This is just the latest in a wave of protests. On April 11, a group of about 100 protesters from various social movements occupied the nearby Metropolitan Cathedral. Despite being denied food and water, they are refusing to leave until the former Supreme Court is reinstated.

The prefect for Pichincha province, which covers Quito, ID member Ramiro Gonzalez, declared an indefinite strike from April 12, closing roads — including the Pan-American Highway — businesses and the local airport.

Roads were also blocked by demonstrations in the regions of Imbabura, Cotopaxi, Tungurahua, Loja, Azuay and Canar, and the Confederation of Indigenous Nations of Ecuador (CONAIE) occupied the education ministry building in Quito.

Several union leaders were arrested in the demonstrations in Quito and dozens were injured by police and asphyxiating tear gas in this latest episode of Ecuador's rapidly deepening political crisis.

Misuse of power

In the aftermath of two enormous protests earlier this year, Ecuador's volatile political landscape took an explosive turn on April 2, with the return of “flamboyant” ex-president Abdala Bucaram from an eight-year exile in Panama.

Bucaram, known as “El Loco” (“the crazy one”), fled Ecuador in 1997 — after only seven months in office — amidst accusations of corruption, after the National Congress had deposed him on the grounds of “mental incapacity”.

Bucaram's return has been long expected. Gutierrez, who was military attache during Bucaram's presidency, visited him in Panama in September. Then late last year, Bucaram's Roldosista Party of Ecuador (PRE) helped block an impeachment attempt against Gutierrez led by the ID and the right-wing Social Christian Party (PSC).

In December, Gutierrez used a temporary majority in the Congress to fire the Supreme Court and appoint new judges affiliated to parties supportive of the president — mostly PRE and PRIAN, the party of Alvaro Noboa, Ecuador's richest man and previous presidential candidate. The majority of the sacked judges were associated with the PSC. Gutierrez appointed Guillermo Castro, a long-time associate of Bucaram, as president of the Supreme Court.

Finally, on March 31, Castro cleared Bucaram, as well as former vice-president Alberto Dahik, and ex-President Gustavo Noboa, of corruption charges, paving the way for their safe return to the country and to politics.

The changes to the Supreme Court are widely believed to be unconstitutional, a view supported by the United Nations in an April 4 United Nations Human Rights Commission report. The report also suggested that the appointments to the Supreme Electoral Tribunal and the Constitutional Court “show signs of illegality”, and urges a restructure of the legal system.

Gutierrez's attempts at legal reform have all failed to pass Congress. The parliamentary opposition is instead calling for the reinstatement of the previous judges and Gutierrez's resignation. On April 5, several thousand people demonstrated outside the National Congress against Bucaram's return and the abuse of the legal system, but were dispersed with tear gas and police violence.

A revolution of the poor?

Bucaram's return has already had a resounding impact on Ecuadorian politics. PRIAN, worried that a resurgent PRE would cut into its base, declared it would no longer support Gutierrez in the National Congress. PRIAN and PRE are both based in the coastal city of Guayaquil, making them direct competitors.

Despite PRE's support, however, the government recently suffered an overwhelming defeat in the vote on an economic reform bill supported by the International Monetary Fund. Sixty-eight of the seventy-one members of congress present voted against the bill, which advocated the privatising of oil, water and the pensions sector.

Upon his return to Ecuador, Bucaram addressed a 20,000-strong rally of supporters in Guayaquil. He highlighted the level of corruption and poverty in Ecuador, declaring; “I come to Ecuador to copy Chavez's style with a great Bolivarian revolution”, referring to the leftist Venezuelan president's movement, whose reforms include using some of that country's oil wealth to fund massive social reforms, such as literacy and health.

Ecuador, like Venezuela, has large oil reserves, but government revenue is lost in the endemic corruption that plagues the country, making such a policy a likely vote winner at the elections due for late next year. The economy has long been a basket case, despite it's oil resources and tourism industry. Approximately 50% of the annual GDP goes towards repaying foreign loans. Unemployment is officially at 10%, but close to 50% of the population lives in poverty.

Bucaram also voiced his opposition to a free trade agreement with the US, and decried “the imposition of military bases” on Ecuador, a reference to the illegal use by the US Air Force of the air base at Manta (the only official US military base in South America) for surveillance and spraying of lethal herbicides over southern Colombia.

However fine sounding, this rhetoric is not new to Ecuador. Gutierrez came to power styling himself as an “Ecuadorian Chavez”, and immediately set about breaking all his left-wing promises. He allowed the creation of US military camps in the border region with Colombia as part of Plan Patriota (the extension of Plan Colombia — the US-backed war against Colombia's Marxist guerrillas), signed a new IMF loan, and began negotiating a free trade agreement with the US.

Subsequently, Gutierrez has lost most of his support. Only five representatives of his Patriotic Society Party are now in Congress. A poll cited in the April 12 Mercopress showed his credibility at only 7%, with 58% of respondents saying his immediate resignation was the way to resolve the crisis. He has been linked with drug-money, and accused of misuse of public funds and of using violence to intimidate political opponents.

While he is still making political alliances, Gutierrez's key support comes from the military. A former colonel, Gutierrez has recently reconsolidated his base in the army. When Moncayo, who was head of the armed forces before he was Quito mayor, called upon the military not to recognise Gutierrez's “corrupt and unconstitutional” government, the armed forces responded with a warning that they would not tolerate “anarchy” in the country and that “calls to rebellion are illegal”.

Despite Gutierrez's unpopularity, the opposition groups have been unable to offer a well-supported alternative. Moncayo has tried unsuccessfully to play this role, but his party's support is limited to the highland regions — although there are indications that the PSC, based in Guayaquil on the coast, may be lending Moncayo, a celebrated war hero, it's support for the next elections.

An alternative to neoliberalism

In contrast, CONAIE and other social movements appear to be moving further away from an electoral focus, instead rebuilding the mass movements.

Much to investors’ dismay, the current crisis has awakened memories of unrest that led to the ousting of elected presidents in 1997 and 2000, when workers and indigenous people overthrew the government by force, and a similar perspective is returning.

CONAIE president Luis Macas has called for the Ecuadorian people to come out and fight every day until “a true democracy” has been obtained, and has started organising strikes, blockades and other protests against the Gutierrez regime.

Macas makes it clear, however, that CONAIE will not associate with any of the mainstream political parties, but intends to build a civic alternative to the corruption of Ecuador's politics and it's neoliberal agenda.

On April 4, CONAIE convened an assembly of delegates from more than 60 groups, including Pachakutik, the Popular Front and the Ecuadorian Revolutionary Youth. This assembly resolved to create an “Autonomous Pole”, an alliance of non-party political groups, to overthrow the corrupt oligarchy and to construct a “true democratic government that will represent all Ecuadorians”.

The popular movement in Ecuador has taken up the slogan used by the piquetero unemployed workers' movement in Argentina, “They all must go!”, but it is also looking to the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela for inspiration, and as a warning of the struggles ahead.

진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크

에콰도르 관련 기사

Ecuador Changes Presidents

by Mary Turck
April 21, 2005

“Que se vayan todos!” was the cry of thousands who filled the streets of Quito this week—“Throw them all out!” By day’s end April 20, Congress had thrown President Lucio Gutierrez out, but Vice President Alberto Palacio was sworn in, and it was not at all clear that the nation’s seventh president in nine years would do any better than his predecessors.
Gutierrez came to power on a left-wing political platform, with the support of the nation’s four-million-strong indigenous population, promising help for the poor. Instead, Gutierrez cut subsidies on food and cooking oil, and used the country’s oil export revenues to pay international debts rather than for relief for the country’s desperately poor population. The indigenous coalition that had supported him in 2002 denounced his betrayal and moved into opposition. Leftists generally abandoned the president.When he was charged with nepotism and corruption, Gutierrez had little support from those who elected him.

Last November, Gutierrez made enough deals with opposition members of Congress to narrowly escape impeachment on the corruption charges. In an apparent pay-back, Gutierrez fired 27 of the Supreme Court’s 31 justices in December, as well as members of the national electoral council, replacing them with his own choices. His transparently unconstitutional power grab angered the country, sending demonstrators into the streets to denounce this violationof the separation of powers.

The new, Gutierrez-appointed Supreme Court ruled March 31 that pending charges against ex-presidents Abdalá Bucaram and Gustavo Noboa must be terminated, thereby clearing the way for them to return from exile without fear of jail.

As Quito’s streets filled with angry protesters, Gutierrez called out the police, who fired smoke bombs and tear gas into the crowds, resulting in many injuries and at least one death on April 19. The Commander General of the Ecuador Police force, Jorge Poveda, resigned on April 20, saying he would not take part in further confrontation with the Ecuadoran people.

As Gutierrez fled into exile in the Brazilian Embassy, the new President Alberto Palacio proclaimed that, “the dictatorship, the immorality, the egotism and the fear have ended.” Palacio, a medical doctor, had earlier said that Ecuador was in a coma, and promised to cure the illness of the poor (but oil-exporting) nation of 13 million people.

Palacio acted immediately to suspend participation in the free trade talks now underway in Peru, but it was not clear that this was anything but a temporary measure to allow him to pick his own representative to the talks. Widespread popular opposition to a free trade agreement with the United States is just one of many issues facing the country, including:

1. Foreign debt, dollarization of the Ecuadoran economy in 2000,

2. Pressure from the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE), the country’s biggest indigenous organization, along with other indigenous and campesino (farm workers) groups, to better support agriculture and services for the poor majority;

3. Opposition to U.S. militarization in the region, including the U.S. air base in the northern Ecuador city of Manta (a “forward operating location” for U.S. troops in South America) and U.S. participation in the war in Colombia and fumigation of coca crops;

4. Pending lawsuits against Texaco by Secoya Indians, who point to oily pits and sludge draining into the nation’s rivers as a result of earlier oil operations, and continuing opposition by indigenous nations to foreign oil company operations that pay off the central government while leaving Amazon peoples in poverty.

5. Banana workers who suffer serious human rights abuses, including union-busting, exposure to dangerous chemicals and widespread child labor.

The popular opposition to Gutierrez does not translate into popular support for his successor, Alberto Palacio. To gain that support, and to maintain a constitutional government, Palacio and Congress will have to move quickly to respond to the needs of the people.

Presidential timeline:
1996: Abdalá Bucaram elected
1997: Bucaram deposed by congress on grounds of mental incapacity; replaced by Fabian Alarcon
1998: Jamil Mahuad elected.
2000: Mahuad forced out of office by indigenous protestors after economic collapse; three-person junta is installed. Later, after U.S. pressure, Vice President Gustavo Noboa becomes president.
2002: Lucio Gutierrez elected.
2005: Gutierrez deposed by congress; Vice President Alberto Palacio becomes president.

Ecuador snapshot:
Population: 13 million
Languages: Spanish, indigenous languages
Gross domestic product: $1790 per capita
Currency: U.S. dollar
Main exports: oil and bananas

 

For further information and analysis, see:

La rebelión de Quito, publicado por Adital, 19 abril 2005

New President Says He Will Serve Out Term, published by Inter Press Service, 4/20/05

Ex-Ecuador Leader Granted Asylum, published by BBC, 4/21/05

President Thrown Out of Office, published by the Guardian, 4/21/05

Ecuador's President Ousted Amid Unrest, published by the Miami Herald, 4/21/05

Nuevo presidente de Ecuador anuncia que gobernará con el pueblo, publicado por La Hora, 21 abril 2005

Una jornada de celebraciones, protestas y saqueos en Quito, publicado por La Hora, 21 abril 2005

Ecuador suspende las negociaciones del TLC, publicado por La Hora, 21 abril 2005

Cronología de la crisis en Ecuador, publicado por La Jornada, 21 abril 2005

Alfredo Palacio, el nuevo presidente de Ecuador, habla en exclusiva con Correo, Publicado por Correo (Peru), 21 abril 2005

Ecuadorian Protests, published by Green Left Weekly, 4/19/05

Battle Rages With Ecuador Indians Over Oil, published by Reuters, 12/19/04

Widespread Labor Abuse on Banana Plantations, published by Human Rights Watch, 4/25/02

Political Turmoil in Ecuador (Connection to the Americas, February 2005)

Indigenous Groups Demand Presidential Resignation (Connection to the Americas, July 2004)


진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크

에콰도르 대통령 탄핵 당하고 대통령궁 빠져나가...

뉴욕타임즈 기사이구요, 번역은 시간이 없어서...^^;;

기사 내용은 97년 이후 쫒겨난 대통령이 3명이 될 정도로 정정 불안...

부패, 아이엠에프가 요구한 긴축정책 등이 원인...

이번 대통령은 민중들의 지지로 자리에 올랐는데 신자유주의자로 변신했구요,

탄핵당하지 않기 위해 과거 쫒겨난 대통령의 정당과의 연합, 이를 위한 대법원 재구성, 대법원을 자기 사람들로 채울려는 의회와 대통령의 계속된 싸움(다른 곳에서 본 내용), 그리고 대법원의 재 해산 등의 사건이 있었답니다.

 

부통령이 승계했는데 민중들이 이를 지지할 지 안할지는 모른다네요.

군 경이 돌아섰구요, 그 촉매는 의회의 탄핵과 민중들의 시위 및 2사람의 사망 등이었던 것 같습니다.

저번 사회포럼때 만난 프랑스 철학자 라비카는 챠베스의 예를 들면서 남미는 군인들 일부가 신자주의에 반대하는 민중들과 함께 하고 있다는 이야기를 하던데 에콰도르에도 그런 군인들이 있는지 모르겠네요.

저번 사회포럼 때 에콰도르 농민운동가들(유명한 원주민농민 조직인 코나이와는 다른 농민조직 출신) 3사람을 만났는데 이들도 이번 싸움에 가담을 했을 것이라 생각하니 기분이 묘하네요. 당시 이들은 자국내 운동에 대해 매우 자신감이 있어 보였습니다.

암튼 이번 투쟁은 민중들이 확실히 사태를 장악했으면 합니다.

 

아 참 이 사람이 브라질 대사관으로 피신해 있다네요. 브라질은 망명을 받아들일 것이라네요. 군대에 데모진압을 명령했다고 해서  체포영장이 발부된 사람인데 룰라정부 참 거시기하네요.

 

Ecuador's Leader Flees and Vice President Replaces Him

By JUAN FORERO

Published: April 21, 2005

BOGOTÁ, Colombia, April 20 - President Lucio Gutiérrez of Ecuador fled his presidential palace on Wednesday after the Congress, meeting in special session, voted to remove him. The Congress then swore in Vice President Alfredo Palacio, a 66-year-old cardiologist, to replace Mr. Gutiérrez, 48, a former army colonel who had faced mounting street protests against what critics called an illegal overhaul of the Supreme Court.

Advertisement

Mr. Gutiérrez, who took office in January 2003, became the third president since 1997 to be ousted from power in the small but oil-rich Andean country, which has close economic ties to the United States. In 1997, Abdalá Bucaram was declared mentally unfit to govern and fled into exile. In 2000, President Jamil Mahuad was ousted in a coup supported by Mr. Gutiérrez, then an army colonel.

Ecuadorean protesters accused all three of corruption, mismanagement and a strong-arm governing style.

"Today, the dictatorship, the immorality, the arrogance and the fear have ended," Dr. Palacio said in a speech broadcast on Colombia's Caracol radio network. "From today, we will restore a republic with a government of the people."

Dr. Palacio did not say whether he would call new elections. It was also not clear if the majority of Congress and the Ecuadorean public would support him as he tries to steer the country out of paralysis. Ecuador does not have a Supreme Court - the Congress disbanded it on Sunday - and its myriad political parties are bitterly divided.

"Logic would have it that Palacio would stay the year and a half that remains, organize elections and construct the judicial system," said Adrián Bonilla, a political analyst in Quito, the capital.

Mr. Gutiérrez fled the presidential palace in a military helicopter, infuriating protesters who assumed he would flee the country, as have other former leaders. Demonstrators then closed down Quito's international airport to prevent his escape, while the attorney general's office announced that a warrant had been issued for his arrest for having ordered troops to use violence to put down anti-government demonstrations.

But Wednesday evening, Brazil issued a statement saying that Mr. Gutiérrez was in that country's embassy in Quito and that the Foreign Ministry was making the necessary arrangements to grant him asylum.

Mr. Gutiérrez, who had run for president as a populist friend of the poor, lost much of his public support almost as soon as he took office. Ecuadoreans were increasingly dissatisfied with his austere economic policies, which had produced a 6 percent growth rate in 2004 but also hardships for ordinary citizens.

But it was Mr. Gutiérrez's role in twice dismissing the Supreme Court, most recently last Friday, that helped create a firestorm he could not survive. An interim court installed by Mr. Gutiérrez's allies had cleared former President Bucaram of corruption charges, permitting his return to Quito earlier this month.

Protests picked up momentum on April 13, with demonstrators accusing Mr. Gutiérrez of a power grab. In Quito, where the protests began, a small FM radio station, La Luna, marshaled people for daily anti-government rallies. "I feel like we lit a fuse and that there was so much repressed anger that it just kept burning," said Ramiro Pozo, the news director at La Luna.

On Wednesday, anti-government lawmakers voted to end Mr. Gutiérrez's term based on a vague article in the Constitution that permits a president's removal for "abandonment of the post." The congressmen said that by disbanding the Supreme Court and calling for a state of emergency on Friday the president had violated the Constitution.

The president had insisted to reporters that he would not resign, but on Wednesday his political situation became untenable after the military withdrew its support. At a news conference, Gen. Víctor Hugo Rosero, head of the armed forces, said the military could not "remain indifferent before the pronouncements of the Ecuadorean people." Then the head of the national police force, Gen. Jorge Poveda, also resigned, saying, "I cannot continue to be a witness to the confrontation with the Ecuadorean people."

The police chief was referring to protests that turned violent Tuesday night as tens of thousands of protesters clashed with security forces, who used tear gas and high-pressure water hoses to disperse them. International radio reports said that two people had been killed, including a foreign news photographer.

Opposition members of Congress had been trying to oust Mr. Gutiérrez since late last year, accusing him of corruption and nepotism. In November, they failed to muster enough votes to impeach him. Mr. Gutiérrez had bested his opponents with the support of the Roldosista party, led by Mr. Bucaram, who had been in exile avoiding corruption charges since his ouster.

In return for Roldosista support, government opponents said, Mr. Gutiérrez's allies in Congress disbanded the Supreme Court and named a new one that, in March, cleared Mr. Bucaram. Mr. Bucaram was also being sought Wednesday night.

Carla D'Nan Bass in Quito and Mónica Trujillo in Bogotá contributed reporting for this article.

진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크

[펌] 울산 산단에서 30년 넘게 일해 온 건설노동자의 피울음

울산 산단에서 30년 넘게 일해 온 건설노동자의 피울음

Sk 상경 투쟁단 대표 오 금철 (58세)


천리 밤길을 달려 새벽에 왔습니다
좁은 차칸에 다리도 못펴고 마른 빵 입에 물고 동료들과 서울로 왔습니다.
눈물을 머금고 왔습니다.

나는 68년 여수 호남정유에서 조공으로 일을 시작했습니다.
69년 8월 11일 군대에 갔습니다.
월남전에도 참가했습니다. 72년 6월에 제대를 했습니다.
나는 아직도 전쟁 후유중에 시달리고 있습니다. 고엽제피해로 온몸 살갗이 벗거집니다. 오늘은 팔에서 내일은 다리에서 뱀허물 벗겨지듯 살점이 떨어져나갑니다.
한여름에도 짧은 팔을 입을 수가 없이 살아온 인생입니다.
74년 고리원자력발전소 1호기에서 6호기공사까지 참여했습니다.
울진원자력에도 일했습니다.
사막의 뜨거운 모래폭풍을 이기고 이라크까지 가고 일본도 가고 어디라도 달려가 일을 했습니다. 말그대로 산업역군이었습니다.

일등국민이 도대체 누구입니까?
어느잡지에서 본 것인데 애국, 애족, 애사라고 했습니다.
그 가운데에서도 군인들이라 했습니다. 다음이 외화를 벌어들이는 사람들이라 했습니다. 그 다음이 산업역군이라 했습니다.
그런데 나는 무엇입니까? 산업역군은 간데없고 검사들과 경찰들은 빨갱이라고 합니다.
도대체 나는 무엇입니까? 근로기준법을 지켜라는 것뿐인데 끌려가고 구속되고 수배되고 이게 뭡니까?
나라의 윤리가 있다면 이러지 않습니다.
자본이 썩었습니다.
정치가 썩었습니다.
경찰 검사가 썩었습니다.
나는 지금까지 정치나 검사들이 이정도까지 썩었는지 몰랐습니다.

울산은 지금 전쟁입니다. 너무 억울한 전쟁입니다. 월남전보다 더 무섭습니다.
젓먹이를 덜쳐업고 나온 아주머니들이 태반입니다. 얼마나 절박하면, 이놈들이 얼마나 나쁜놈들이면 이러겠습니까? 아이들한테 아저씨들 잡아간 나쁜경찰이라고 가르쳐야합니까?

솔직히 나는 근로기준법을 모릅니다.
하지만 우리가 원하는 것은 법에만 있는 것이었지 현실은 꽝입니다.
초등학생도 이해하고 국민 누구나가 이해하는 것입니다.
먹고 씻고 쉬고 일하는데 가장 기초적인 것입니다.
밥알보다 모래를 더 씹어야하는 점심도시락입니다. 비가 오면 빗물에 말아먹는 꼴입니다.
공장담벼락에 숨어서 도둑놈처럼 작업복을 갈아입어야합니다.
누가 우리들의 생활을 이해하겠습니까?
우리는 돈을 더 달라는 것도 아닙니다. 인간답게 생활하고 좀더 인간답게 일하고 싶은것입니다.
30년 훨씬전에 전태일열사가 외친 근로기준법을 지금 우리가 외치고 있다는 사실을 얼마전에 알았습니다.
살아온 날을 이야기 할라니 눈물만 납니다.
서러움이 한번 보고 싶으면 나를 보면 됩니다. 우리 동료들보면 됩니다. 파업하며 안 운 날이 없습니다. 울고 울고 또 울어도 눈물이 납니다. 피눈물이 납니다.

노무현대통령은 서민들을 위해 일하겠다고 했습니다. 입만 열면 낮은 쪽을 바라보아야한다고 이야기했습니다. 십여년전에는 현대중공업노동자들의 파업현장까지 함께 지켰던 사람이 대통령 아닙니까?

내 삶이 왜 이렇습니까.
원인이 무엇입니까?
지금 우리는 돈을 더 달라는게 아닙니다.
새벽밥 먹고 현장에 와서 옷갈아 입을 장소가 없어 도로에서 주섬주섬 옷을 갈아입습니다 쇳가루 시멘트가루 날리는 난장에서 비가와도 피할곳 없이 밥을 먹습니다. 내 호주머니 돈으로 도시락을 먹습니다
하루일을 마치고 땀에 흠뻑 절어도 손 씻을 세면장 샤워장하나 없는게 건설일용 노동자의 오늘입니다.
내 돈으로 먹는 도시락 모래 바람 없이 먹어보자는 겁니다
화장실 한번 당당하게 가보자는 것입니다. 먼지구덩이 쇳가루라도 털고 퇴근하고 싶습니다.
국민3대의무가 교육의 의무 국방의 의무 납세의 의무입니다. 이 가운데 우리가 안 지킨게 무엇입니까? 노동자기본권은 하늘의 별따기보다 어려운 것입니까? 기본권이 원래 그런 겁니까?

성수대교가 왜 무너졌습니까?
삼풍백화점이 왜 그리되었습니까?
부실공사 아닙니까?
다단계 도급제 때문 아닙니까?
다단계도급이 시공관행이 되어버린지 오랩니다. 한 단계만 없애도 삼풍백화점이 왜 무너지겠습니까? 다단계 도급제야말로 살인행위입니다. 테러입니다. 그런데도 검사들과 경찰들은 우리더러 폭력배라하고 우리더러 테러리스터라고 합니다. 말이나 됩니까?
우리들은 명예가 없습니까? 퍽하면 명예훼손으로 고소하고 고발하는 사장들만 있지 우린 늘 당하고만 있습니다.
지금 우리가 하는 파업은 목숨을 살리는 일입니다. 잘못된 시공관행을 근본에서부터 바로잡는 길입니다. 지금 우리가 하는 파업은 우리들의 목숨이 달린 문제입니다
내 나이가 내일모레면 60을 보지만 이번만큼은 물러설 수 없는 겁니다.
공장에서 일하는 후손들에게 남길 유산이라고 생각합니다. 하루에도 몇 번씩이나 죽음을 생각합니다. 죽을 각오로 싸울것입니다.

업체는 협상에 코빼기도 안보이고 검사는 우리더러 사상이 불순하다며 빨갱이 타령에 정신없습니다. 경찰은 조합원이 모였다면 곤봉 들고 방패 들고 여차하면 다 쓸어버리겠다고 폭력배타령을 합니다. 사장좋을짓만 알아서 합니다. 손발이 착착 맞습니다.
생판 듣도 보도못한 법으로 우릴 구속하는데 우리가 진정으로 바라는게 법대로 하라는것입니다. 우린 진짜 단순한 사람들입니다. 아무것도 없는 사람들입니다.

한 많은 세월을 살았습니다. 중학교 졸업하고 여태까지 일하며 살아왔습니다.
생각이 있는 인간이면 잘잘못을 아는겁니다. 검사들이 못 배워서 우릴 구속시킵니까? 잘못한 것을 잘못했다고 이야기하는게 무엇이 죕니까?
나는 자식들한테 어려운 사람을 도와야한다고 말합니다. 없는 사람의 고통을 누구보다 잘 알기 때문입니다.
참 나쁜놈들이 판치는 세상입니다. 좋은 사람들은 어떻게 살아야합니까?
제발 좀 말좀 해주십시오.
제발 좀 도와주십시오.


근로기준법을지켜라
하루8시간 노동준수 식당, 휴게실, 세면장설치
주 월차수당 지금 유급휴일보장

건설산업법과 산업안전보건법을 지켜라
다단계 하청 금지. 안전화 및 안전장구 지급
무리한 작업중지

노동조합 탄압 중단하라
불법대체인력 파견마라
간부, 조합원 폭력연행중단 구속자 석방

사용자는 단체교섭에 나오고 단체협약을 체결하라

진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크

이탈리아 공산주의 재건당 베르티노티 연설문?

나중에 읽어봐야겠네요. 일단 펌... Wednesday 23rd February 2005 (20h04) : 6th CONGRESS OF THE ITALIAN COMMUNIST REFOUNDATION PARTY : The Alternative of Society (Firs signatory: Fausto Bertinotti) A new political and social cycle The sixth national Conference of our party is taking place in really "extraordinary" times: today in front of us is laid the full challenge of opening up a new political and social cycle, both in Italy and in the rest of Europe. Which means defeating not only the Right, but also the right-wing policies; and coming out, from the Left, from both the crisis of neo-liberal policies and the strategic impotence of left-wing reformism. We fully invest in this opportunity: this is not because we overestimate our capabilities, or those of the movements and of the alternative Left, but because we believe that real processes are increasingly radicalising the alternatives within politics and conflict. If we acknowledge that, in the Right as much as in the Left political landscape, "moderate" spaces are empting up (the objective spaces, not the recurring and permanent subjective tendencies) and that nowadays there’s no space for compromise and "solutions" and not even for mediations of a truly moderate nature, we also have to acknowledge that the radical political subject can play a decisive role, not a minority one, in the realization of this new phase. It is for these reasons that Communist Refoundation’s political and strategic identity is going to be the driving theme of this Conference. In one way, it is a matter of putting on a sound basis all the reflections we have piled up in recent years, by bringing them up to date, as part of a new and collective theoretical awareness. In this sense, the strategic choice is that of basing our political action around the social sphere, around the class conflict and around the movements instead of basing it around the institutions and the relationship with the various political forces; this choice has taken a particular strength because of the strategic decisions we made in the last Conference, decisions we are going to confirm in the next, especially in the light of our experiences within the movements in recent years. In another way, it is essential we create a better connection between our project and our political practice, between our general role and our work within the various struggles, between a growth in accountability and the organised force of the Party, being the latter a structure that is more than ever necessary and irreplaceable. It is for these reasons that, because of their structured and concise nature, we take the contribution of our secretary - the 15 Theses for the Conference - as our most suitable base for a rich, engaging and democratic confrontation resulting in political clarity and transparency. It is a document that, both before and during the Conference, will have to be amended, deepened, enriched, analytically developed and further defined, in the direction of the creation of a final political platform that will be constructed by militants and Party members themselves. Bush and the war The most significant political event in 2004 - George Bush’s victory at the American presidential elections - stands as a confirmation of the state of crisis in which both the neoliberal ideology and its moderate versions (represented in the Usa by a moderate democratic party with a dim appeal) are. In the US, the Right has won not by hiding but by enhancing its warmongering patriotism, which with absolute arrogance claims back America’s imperial mission and pushes through its entire dominant value and social system. Capitalism is now separated from liberal values and adopts instead the pre-modern values of God, Country and Family. This is a reactionary choice that is by all means coherent with the concept of war between civilizations and the new western fundamentalism that comes with it. From this ideology stems the obsession with security, the writing-off or the drastic limitation of all those freedoms, rights and progressive cultures that marked the 20th century. At the same time we are witnessing an attempt to liberalize and privatise common resources - such as public services, health and culture - an attempt that has been met with strong and effective opposition, in Cancun and in the case of the Mercosur treaty, by the antiglobalisation movement. Communist Refoundation has to carry on supporting such opposition. A new, bigger danger for the future of the planet and its people is therefore taking shape, especially in the South of the globe, where however we can also recognise the existence of opposite processes (for example in Latin America). Now more than ever, the struggle for peace must be the utmost priority, in Iraq, in the Middle East, in Palestine, in Africa. The invasion, two years of military occupation, a puppet-government and promises of a farcical election are destroying Iraq and deeply worsening the crisis in the area. It is for this reason that the withdrawal of all foreign troops, starting from the Italian ones - a request always supported by the alternative Left and the pacifist movement - is an absolutely necessary condition for building peace and starting a process of democratic transition. In this context, the summoning of a global conference for peace, with the participation of all the key players in the conflict, including the representatives of the internal resistance, could represent an important step forward. Europe Also in Europe we are witnessing the progressive deterioration of the "Third Way" routes, both from the political and the socio-economical point of view: in this sense Europe is really at a crossroad. We can either ‘Americanise’, or, on the contrary, we can enhance the achievements determined by the struggles and the movements in our civilization, turning such achievements into the basis of the European framework and therefore determining our autonomy and political identity. The ruling class today - in France, Germany and Spain in particular - is clearly trying to avoid making this kind of decision, by choosing international policies of strong independence from the US, but also by pursuing the goal of an Atlantic partnership and that of a European military force. This is a substantially deceptive project: a real European political autonomy cannot be realized without Europe distancing itself from the North-American social model. The governments that deservingly managed to oppose the war, in their own national contexts are demolishing their Welfare system and its historical framework of rights and guarantees. It is not a chance that we are presented with proposals like the "Bolkenstein directive" and that the governments have unanimously passed a proposal for an European Constitution which legitimises the supremacy of the market and drives out of the European identity values such as peace and rights. In this way the European Union will never be able to positively overcome the uncertainties regarding its identity and role. We therefore propose a mass campaign against the Treaty, which will be carried out in all the platforms and establishments, starting obviously from the parliamentary ones. It is a political and cultural struggle, which will have to be articulated through a vast array of people with the most effective means. The only alternative is that of the ‘other’ Europe that gives space to the initiatives of the movements, to the growth of the social and collective struggle and to the mobilization of non-homologated intellectuality. The creation of the Party of the European Left, in these respects, is the new subject, in the European political framework, in which Communist Refoundation has and will increasingly invest an essential part of its work and identity: the unification of the different subjects and alternative instances that operate in Europe is essential for defeating the ‘Americanisation’ and for the creation of institutions which can engage in dialogue with the entire anti-globalisation movement. A EU of peace, inclusion, social solidarity, universal citizenship and secular democracy: without a strong Left, it will not be possible to create such a EU. On the basis of this belief we propose to adopt as a symbol for our party the one employed for the European elections, in order to fully endorse the strategic choices of the European Left. The Party During the last three years, Communist Refoundation has gained a central role in politics, in the movements and in the Italian society, broadly winning the challenge of its political survival and strategic ‘necessity’. From this acknowledgement - which comes from a broad area of the Left and often even from our opponents - we must start a serious and deep reflection on the Party. There is a growing difficulty to be really a Party, to satisfy the rich array of requests posed on us, to create and nurture a collective subject which appreciates women’s practices and gender difference, to create a ‘We’ in which different genres, generations, political cultures and experiences can recognise themselves. Such difficulties rise not only from our subjective limitations, which exist and can be of a serious nature: they are rooted in the more general climate of difficulty in which all the structured political entities - from the most ancient, the parties, to the most recent, the movements and associations - are living in at the moment. Voluntaristic appeals and calls to the traditions of the workers movement are not enough. The proposals of innovation and of organizational sperimentation are not enough either, as they have trouble in translating themselves in systematic practices. Much more is needed to relaunch the Party from its Circles to its Federations, a systematic research and discussion about what we are and what we want to become is needed and has to be analysed thoroughly. For this urgent objective we propose to hold, within the end of 2005, a national Organizational Conference. 15 Theses for the Conference 1 The real novelty at the beginning of the present century is the rise of new movements and their capability to connect to each other in a collective trajectory. This novelty addressed the whole world to a new possibility of transformation. The PRC capability lies in understanding the nature of such movements and in preparing itself to collect the resources they have put into motion in order to contribute, also by changing its own politics, to the construction of a general idea of reforming politics and the relationship between social actors and politics. At the same time the failure of capitalist globalisation has emerged more and more disruptingly, and not only in a temporal dimension. Both elements objectively highlight the transformation of capitalist society as an urgent issue. This issue is also subjectively highlighted by the growth in movements’ consciousness, which can be so formulated as the social forums have done: "another world is possible". So the problem is posed, but it still needs to get solved. Also another scenario has been opened: the exacerbation of the economic and social crisis and the precipitation of war into a clash of civilisations. Uncertainty dominates our age. The option "socialism or barbarism" is not out of our age. 2 In Italy the PRC obtained important results at the European and local elections. Its overall political project has been appreciated: that is the strategic choice of being a part of the movement, its policy of opening to both political and social oppositions in general, and the construction of an alternative left, innovation of politics and subjects of politics, innovation of culture and practical theory of the workers’ movement. This accumulation, which has to be considered a heritage acquired by the whole party, is now the basis for a further development of refoundation. This success has been achieved in a situation where the attempt to give a steady answer from the right to the instability of the Italian political system has burst into a crisis. This attempt focussed on the complex neo-conservative phenomenon which has been called "Berlusconism". For this crisis there are both objective reasons - major international tendencies due to the failure of capitalist globalisation and the impulse given by the growth of movements. For these reasons the Berlusconi project failed. In Italy, too, a completely new social and political phase has started and removing Berlusconi would not be enough to cope with it. We need, instead, to tackle the causes which led him to his success. The problem is building an alternative society. We have to rewrite the material constitution of the country after the neoliberal devastation. 3 In the meanwhile the ideological basis and overall model of neoliberal economic and social politics have fallen into a crisis, while neoliberalism tries new ways to break through and to impede the development of a new politics. The fresh version of neoliberalism lies behind the survival of the corporation, as a "realistic" solution. That is, after dismissing great promises, the state of necessity is proposed. According to this, crises should be considered objective facts and needs - as imposed by international competition - which are out of question. The aim is to lower standards of rights, working and bargaining conditions under the blackmail of competitiveness. This is an insidious attack because it hides itself behind a real as well as palpable reality in which the blackmail on workers aims at destabilizing politics and at reversing the unions’ role in negotiating worse conditions for working people and employment. In this way, starting from the corporation up to the whole system of social relationships, labour and welfare laws, the principal goal is to abolish collective bargaining. This offensive is the material basis on which the neo-centrist political project lies, that is a soft way out of the crisis of the right wing and Berlusconism without even questioning the fundamental inspiration of neoliberal policies. 4 This new neoliberal offensive claims to be an overall proposal ready to involve a wide range of moderate forces - both parties and unions, and an effective action against it cannot be based on defensive terms or organised individually and separately. In order to defeat this project political and social opposition needs a quality leap. Main actors with this task have to be the several articulations of the lefts committed to the project for an alternative, unions which have planned and practised a new autonomy from government and Confindustria (the Italian employers’ confederation), movements and social struggles activists at workplace and elsewhere. These subjects, together, have to bring about a joint action able to make the process of movements’ unification alive and visible. They need to work on an overall movement project to reform Italian society. To do this, we have to work on gathering critical experiences, labour struggles, local and municipal struggles. Only through a connection to the movement of the movements, to the anti-war movement, to social and labour struggles can an effective opposition rise, and together with it an alternative to the new challenge of neoliberalism, and moreover can a rebirth of politics - now and here - take place. 5 A phase of total instability has started. Politics is crisscrossed by two opposite tendencies: the one towards a possible rebirth and the other towards eclipse. Democracy is in a profound crisis, which is so serious that even the notion of people’s sovereignty may be invalidated. We may face a future without democracy. In the world, in Europe, in Italy the political phase keeps being marked by this crisis and both outlets are possible. The European elections, too, demonstrated a deep malaise and mistrust of political systems, beside a growing opposition to governments. This crisis does not only affect institutions but also masses, who are moved by both a desire to reclaim politics and a drive towards a way out of politics, the second option being a sort of exodus from politics which had separated itself from everyday life. 6 During the great and terrible twentieth century masses went into politics through class struggle and great emancipation experiences, the greatest ever occurred so far, were produced. But, at the same time, during the twentieth century hideous tragedies took place - World Wars, fascisms and nazism up to the Auschwitz horror). The workers’ movement has been the great main actor of the 20th century, but it was defeated mainly because of the failure of those post-revolutionary societies in which the aspirations for liberation that determined its rise turned into forms of dramatic oppression. Therefore, criticism towards Stalinism is not simply criticism towards a degeneration of those systems but towards a hard nucleus leading to that outcome and this is the reason why this criticism is the requisite element for the construction of a new idea of communism and the way to build it. Now recent movements experiences, new social practices and the reflection developed through them, allow the construction of a criticism towards power, which - also through a non violence option as a guideline for collective action here and now - contributes to the search of a new idea and practice of politics as a current process of transformation and liberation. So the political agenda now includes the possibility of a leftist way out of the twentieth century defeat and the workers’ movement crisis. Then, we can work on building a new workers’ movement. A communist refoundation, horizon of our research and experimentation, finds a founding ground in this challenge. 7 The contest has become dramatic. The state of permanent war is nurtured by the very nature of capitalist globalisation. Unlike what they had promised - that is dissolution of conflicts - it produces instability through the aggravation of inequality in the world, the concentration of riches and the exacerbation of conflicts. Instead of the promised growth, it produces a crisis. Even competition becomes destructive. The pre-emptive war is a system by which an imperial solution to this instability is sought for. But the result is fresh and deeper instability which is met by further exacerbation of war according to the permanent war doctrine. War nourishes terrorism which is war’s child and brother. This terrorism manifests itself as a project elaborated in autonomy from politics and it is - in the same way as war is - our irreducible and repulsive adversary for the means it uses and the ends it propagandizes. The Bush administration imperial war is an indefinite and infinite war and Iraq is an acid test for it. Its further development would be a war of civilisations. 8 Peace is the terrain for a rebirth of politics because it expresses the primary need of the present age. Peace has to be pursued not as a mere absence of war, but so as to build a new world by breaking the imperial domination and by defining, instead, new international scenarios based upon autonomy, dialogue, different social and cultural relationships. Not only is it wrong, but also illusory to think of building a new order, as it occurred in the past, through the creation of a balance based on military power. The fundamental lever for this challenge is the new peace movement as a disarmed and disarmament force, as another world power which moved into politics to protest against war and its logic, to build - instead - an alternative civilisation. This great novelty points out the need for building a new organised political subject capable to meet these new demands and let them influence economic, social and state relationships. This is the founding ground for another Europe in which the discovery of this mission could take Europe back to its roots to implement an economic, social and cultural model alternative to neoliberalism and war. Europe’s autonomy and independence from the US could lie on this. The European Left Party, of which we are both co-promoters and co-founders, wants to be a tool to pursue this aim. 9 The building of the new political subject for transformation is the crucial issue for a leftist way out of the crisis of politics and the workers’ movement crisis. To accomplish this task we need to shift the political focus from institutions and parties to society and movements, that is from representation to direct organisation of life and social relationships. The fundamental element of the nature of capitalist globalisation is precarity and casualisation. Precarity is becoming a general condition deciding on working time and leisure, production and social relationships, deeply penetrating in society in the attempt to even modify living organisms. The imposed changes - the restoring of new capitalism on labour on the one hand, and the nature of the new movements on the other - suggest a fresh alliance between experiences demanding a liberation of waged labour - labour conflict - and experiences demanding a liberation from waged labour - reclaiming of collective goods free from commodification, reclaiming and establishing of market-free relationships and activities, appreciation of the environment and connection to local areas). This new alliance would allow the participation of critical experiences and cultures as decisive elements to build an alternative. Ecologism expresses a criticism towards "pro-development" models even in their moderate version referring to "sustainable development". Feminism is a fundamental contribution to an idea of society and social relationships based on the appreciation of difference and the individual, and on opposition to sexism and scientist domination on bodies and living organisms. Pacifism and the several non-violent practices build a network of relationships opposing the domination of profit and power. This theoretical research and this extensive political work in society producing original experiences are the fundamental basis for building an alternative left in which all the forces interested in that research - no matter where they are located - might engage themselves. Time has come for the alternative left to play a new major role in Italy and in Europe. 10 Building democracy of participation and conflict is the framework for this research. And, actually, the very progressive nature of the Italian constitution is under attack. This attack is occurring in several forms: article 11 - according to which Italy rejects war as a resolution for international conflicts - has been removed in practice; the issue of migrants, decisive for future society, has been reduced to an issue of public security; the anti-fascist nature of the Italian constitution also risks being removed; the fundamental universalist nature of social security services and recognition of rights at a national level are undermined; the parliament is voided. So an idea of halved democracy is being imposed, a democracy functional to the neoliberal model, subject to the domination of the market, therefore inert and ultimately useless. Building participatory democracy where the movements’ critical demands are to be turned into a political and programmatic left alternative, is the fundamental challenge we are facing. Democracy - as a propulsive force of participation and peace, as the building of new social and state relationships, plays a major role in the rebirth - here and now - of a process to transform capitalist society. 11 The problem of participation in government for an alternative force in a European country has to be considered within this framework. The criticism towards the taking of power and power itself, too, does have consequences in the way of conceiving government and government participation. In our strategy government is not a value in itself, instead, it is a variable depending on the phase. That is, government is not the goal or the outlet for alternative politics, but it can be a necessary step. In Italy this necessity rises from a precise political phase: the urgent need to defeat Berlusconi’s government and to build an alternative to it. For this reason we today take on the goal of a coalition of forces to give rise to a programmatic government alternative in which the PRC and the left alternative forces as a whole play a major role. We call this ‘democratic coalition’ so as to define its primary goal: to build democracy and participation. Building participatory democracy is not only a question of method. It is also a first basis for a reforming programme. The autonomy of critical or socially active subjects is no longer a movements’ and social organisations’ prerogative of protection from their alienation; instead, it has now become a possible engine of the whole reforming process and for this reason it has to become a fundamental issue in the government’s alternative programme. This is the first necessary reform: reform of politics and of the very idea of government. An important part of this reform is also the achievement of a strategic autonomy of the alternative left and, with it, of the PRC from the government, in which the PRC may possibly be a part according to the level of agreement on programmes reached by all forces opposing the Berlusconi government. To do this the PRC and the alternative left also have to be capable of going through a government experience to meet the movements’ qualitative growth and the possibility of unfolding a wider, complex and long-lasting political action in society in order to implement the most ambitious programme at this stage. Our goal is the denial of a sort of a ‘pendulum law’, according to which when the lefts are in the opposition, they raise hopes and expectations, which are disappointed when they form a government. In this way they spread mistrust of politics in large masses and create conditions for a comeback of the conservative forces. 12 At this stage the fundamental features of a government programme has to be: breaking with the Berlusconi government policies, building a real alternative and opening a way through which movements’ autonomy and class conflict can achieve new spaces for society transformation. Right from the beginning an alternative programme has to convey the country an unambiguous message and urge all reforming energies to mobilisation. It has to focus on three guidelines. First, to engage Italy at an international level for peace against war and terror, starting from withdrawing the Italian troops from Iraq to stop the Iraq war and to build a peaceful Europe in the world, favourable to co-operation between north and south and dialogue between religions and civilisations. In Italy the Berlusconi government policies and the crisis in the social cohesion they have produced, are a hurdle impeding change and the start of a new course. Therefore, a reclaiming action in the civil, economic and social terrain is an indispensable pledge. The need for the abrogation of laws such as the one on labour market flexibility (Law 30), on immigration (Bossi-Fini Law), the one restructuring the education system (Moratti Law) and on artificial fertilisation, demonstrates the necessity and the strength of this political operation. But a programme aiming at meeting society expectations of change has to qualify from the point of view of the new order to establish in Italy to make it able to plan its future. The reforms opening the way to an innovation of the overall model of society organisation, are reforms breaking with the neoliberal cycle. These can be focused on four major axes: appreciation of labour and redistribution of income in favour of wages, salaries and pensions, introduction of a social wage and policies attacking revenues; achievement, qualification and extension of individual and collective rights so as to define a new universal social citizenship, respect for the individual and systems of guarantees and protection for all people; creation of collective goods to reclaim from the market logic through a public appreciation of the environment, local areas and culture; new public intervention in the economy from programming to organisation of factors innovating the economic and social model. 13 The programme for an alternative society cannot be reduced to a government programme, not even the most advanced. It has to be thought as a programmefor a phase projected in a future perspective and lying on a discourse on Italian capitalism within a European framework: that is, the discourse on the decline of a ruling class who gave up planning the future, and who turns to the variety of neo-liberal lessons so as to be able to float in crises and adapt to them strictly. Such a phase programme focuses on the visions of another Europe, and of another Italy, that is, how we see it in ten-fifteen years within the other possible world pursued by the movement of change. In this overall sense of building an alternative society, the programme does not only lie - and yet we know how even this can be difficult - in fixing programmatic options for a government alternative to the right wings. It also requires the elaboration of a political project and the construction of a process for transformation in which the relationship with the movements’ development is the main lever, even though not enough, yet. This is the research we have begun. What we propose, from now, is the horizon of this path. Its starting point can be the horizon of a phase programme for those forces of change all over Europe and in any European country, which has to include - at this stage of capitalist development - the high ambition of equality. This has to be fulfilled by immediately breaking and reversing a tendency to increase inequalities - which is the feature of the new capitalist cycle - in order to define binding steps towards equality between individuals and a radical change in class relationships. Two strategic goals have to fulfil this perspective: the achievement of full employment and universal citizenship for men and women, both natives and migrants. The latter has to lie on the implementation of a framework of social, civil and cultural rights and guaranteed access to collective goods which anyone is entitled to. In short, a new supranational welfare state. Waged labour - in any existing form, both traditional and new - should be able to achieve a new statute of democracy, power and freedom through the supranational welfare state and within a tendency towards a globalisation of class conflicts. Working people should be able to gain - against the tendency in the past two decades - a new stage in the process of liberation through an appreciation of cognitive and creative elements, both direct and indirect, now contained in labour, and a generalisation - even if in different degrees - of the direct ones. We need to pursue the achievement of some self-government in working performance and in the relationship between working time and leisure. We have to gain some ‘rigidity’ through which new forms of social control and direct, participatory democracy could be established in order to satisfy individual and collective needs. This research on the struggles’ field and as well as the research on the subject of change, i.e. the new workers’ movement, can serve as midwives of the alternative left in Italy and in Europe. 14 The alternative left has to be built by doing and on doing, out of any temptation of finding a solution in some sort of an assemblage of political party classes on the left of the listone* (Electoral alliance between Democrats of the Left, the Daisy grouping (Margherita) and SDI, Democratic Socialists). We have to refer to a different subjects’ framework as well as to a different political ambition. We propose the establishment of places where common experiences of political work can develop on a regular basis: committees, clubs, associations, self-governed organisations at any level throughout Italy, and in places of conflict and social experimentation. We propose to self-call a national assembly to let those experiences exchange their views. This assembly should gather those who feel such a need and have experience in movements, which has become a common experience: parties, components of parties, trade unions, movements, representatives of participatory local governments, associations, committees, single individuals who should connect to each other in a mutual and equal recognition in order to define a shared trajectory for a unitary action and a common political project. We propose an open and shared call of a constituent assembly of the alternative left. Time is ripe but not endless. We have to organise availability, commit our will to that choice and address anyone interested in it. We are ready to accomplish this. 15 Communist Refoundation is a fundamental partner in this project and is among its main actors. This can be possible not only because of its militant and electoral strength and its articulated, widespread presence in society. First of all, this is possible because we play an active role in conflicts, are capable of grasping the great novelty within the movements of the present century, and have developed a close relationship with them - by knowing how to innovate our own culture and political proposal. In difficult years, during which any idea of transformation seemed to have vanished from the spectrum of possibilities, Communist Refoundation has left research, political and cultural action open. Building an alternative left enables us to go beyond and reopen politics to an overall process of social transformation, in which it can play a major role again. What is at stake is not Communist Refoundation’s life and its political and cultural autonomy, which is out of question. It is, instead, the possibility to make a real qualitative leap, as we have begun doing in Europe with the foundation of the European Left Party. For this reason a real and deep party reform in the sense of opening and experimenting new forms of aggregation and relationship, is a fundamental issue in the way towards a refoundation. Many of us can share this challenge. Translation by Carolina Stupino, Circolo "Karl Marx" London (Prc U.K. branch) by : Fausto Bertinotti Wednesday 23rd February 2005
진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크

과테말라인들 자유무역협정 시위도중 경찰에 의해 사망

영국 SWP 기관지 '사회주의 노동자'(2005년 3월 26일 판)에서 퍼 옵니다. Guatemalan protesters take to streets over Cafta trade deal 과테말라 시위대들이 중미자유무역협정에 반대해 거리시위를 하다. Police in Guatemala have shot dead two protesters and wounded others during a demonstration against a new trade agreement. The men were killed on Tuesday of last week, following six days of mass protest. 새 무역협정에 반대한 시위 도중 과테말라 경찰이 시위대 두 사람을 총으로 싸 죽이고 다른 몇사람들은 총상을 입혔다. 그 사람들은 6일간의 대중 시위 뒤인 지난 주 화요일에 살해되었다. The police, backed by the army, used live ammunition as well as water cannons and tear gas to drive protesters off a road in Huehuetenango, a highland region 180 miles north of the capital, Guatemala City. 군대가 뒷받침하고 있는 경찰은 수도인 과테말라시에서 북쪽으로 180마일 떨어진 고지대인 우에우에테낭꼬에서 시위대들을 도로에서 쫒아내려고 물대포 및 최루탄뿐만 아니라 실탄까지도 사용하였다. Thousands of indigenous farmers, students and trade unionists have protested against the planned trade deal, known as Cafta, which will draw several Central American states into a free trade area with the US. 수천명의 원주민 농민들, 학생들, 노조원들은 정부가 계획하고 있는 카프타(중미 자유무역협정)으로 알려진 무역협정에 대해 반대해 시위를 벌였는데, 이 협정은 중미 국가들을 미국과 자유무역협정으로 묶을 예정이다. Small farmers in the country fear that their markets will be swamped with cheap US agricultural products. Many people will be denied access to life-saving drugs as new patent laws, designed to protect powerful drugs multinationals, come into effect. 시골의 소농들은 값싼 미국 농산물로 자신들의 시장이 넘쳐날 것을 두려워한다. 많은 사람들은 힘센 다국적 제약회사들을 보호하게 될 새 특허법이 발효가 되면 생명을 살리는 [전통] 약품들을 이용하지 못하게 될 것이다. Protesters are demanding a referendum on the Cafta deal and also calling for the resignation of the interior minister and the chief of police. Following the killings they vowed to carry on protesting against the trade deal. 시위대들은 카프타 체결에 대해 국민투표를 요구하고 있고 또한 내무부장과과 경찰청장의 사임을 요구하고 있다. [경찰에 의한 시위대] 살해가 있고 나서 그들은 계속해서 무역협정에 반대해서 투쟁을 할 것이라고 공언하였다. Similar protests took place in neighbouring Honduras when the government signed up to the Cafta deal a month ahead of schedule. 유사한 시위가, 계획보다 한 달 먼저 정부가 카프타협정에 사인하면서, 인접 국가인 온두라스에서도 벌어졌다. Trinidad Sanchez, director of an organisation connected to Christian Aid, said, “We have raised our voice to denounce the danger that comes with this free trade agreement. '크리스챤 에이드'와 연관된 조직의 책임자인 크리니닫 산체스는 "우리는 이 자유무역협정으로 초래될 위험을 비판하는 데 우리의 목소리를 높였다"고 말했다. “This is going to increase unemployment. It is going to increase the crisis of food security in the country. It is going to make health and education less accessible for the people in Honduras. And this is not only for Honduras, but for the whole of Central America.” "이 협정은 실업을 증대시킬 것이다. 그것은 이 나라의 식량 주권의 위험을 증대시킬 것이다. 그것은 온두라스 민중들에게 의료와 교육에 대한 기회를 감소시킬 것이다. 그리고 이런 현상은 온두라스뿐만 아니라 중미 전체에게도 마찬가지일 것이다" Guatemala was the third country to sign up to the agreement, following Honduras and El Salvador. Protests are likely to spread to other countries in the region as Panama, Costa Rica and Nicaragua discuss signing up. 과테말라는 온두라스와 엘살바도르에 이어 이 협정을 조인할 세 번째 나라였다. 파나마, 코스타 리카, 니카라과가 협정체결을 논의하고 있어서 시위는 이 지역 다른 나라로 확산될 것으로 보인다.
진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크

신자유주의 아래서 사회적 합의주의는 불가능하다

 국민일보(3월 24일) 청탁으로 썼습니다. 민주노총 이상학 정책연구원장과 찬반토론 형식의 기고였습니다. 그런데 신문에서는 제목이 달라졌더라구요. 물론 기자로부터 양해바란다는 이야기는 없었지요. 그럼...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

신자유주의 아래서 사회적 합의주의는 불가능하다


 


민주노총은 사회적 교섭 안건을 두고 두 차례 커다란 홍역을 치른 바 있다. 현재 민주노총은 위원장 직권으로 작년 말 이후 계속 불참해 온 노사정 대화를 제의해 놓고 있다. 민주노총의 언명과는 달리 민주노총은 일정한 사회적 합의주의를 추구하고 있는 것으로 보인다.

나는 어떤 노조 중앙조직이 사회적 합의주의를 통해 조합원 전체의, 더 나아간다면 비조합원까지 포함하는 전 노동자의 정치경제적 사회문화적 지위를 개선시킬 수만 있다면 그 길을 선택할 수도 있을 것이라고 생각한다. 그러나 이것은 현재 불가능한 프로젝트라고 본다. 사실 사회적 합의주의를 통해 조합원의 지위를 개선시킨 사례는 그리 흔하지 않다. 5-60년대 자본주의 황금기 시기 서유럽 정도에서 그런 사례가 발견되지 않나 싶다. 그리고 이것도 높은 경제성장률 등의 조건 때문에 가능했던 것이지 사회적 교섭 틀 구성이 주 원인은 아니었던 것으로 파악한다. 그 이외의 시기 혹은 지역에서도 지속적으로 사회적 합의주의는 노조에 의해서 추구되었는데 이는 거의 실패했다. 교섭테이블이 노조간부들의 입신양명의 수단이 되었는지는 모르겠으나, 조합원들의 이익을 침해하는 양보교섭 또는 노동자들에게 그 이익이 전혀 돌아오지 않는 생산성협약이 있었을 뿐이다. 그리고 이를 받아들이지 않고 뒤늦게 투쟁을 조직하려다 실패하여 조직이 분열에 휩싸이거나 약화된 경우도 비일비재하다. 비단 이는 다른 나라 이야기가 아니다. 김영삼 정권 이래 추구된 민주노총의 사회적 합의주의 추구의 실상은 정확히 이를 증언해 주고 있다.

사실 이렇게 진정한 사회적 합의주의가 불가능하게 된 이유는 70년대 이래 지속되고 있는 세계경제의 구조적 위기(과잉축적과 이윤율 저하) 그리고 이를 극복하겠다고 나선 신자유주의 정책 때문이라 하겠다. 신자유주의는 이윤율 회복을 위해, 이윤추구에 방해가 되는 노동의 권리, 환경에 대한 권리, 여성의 권리, 개도국의 발전에 대한 권리를 철저히 공격한다. 여기서 노조는 노동시장을 왜곡하는 제도이고, 노동의 신축화는 지상명제가 된다. 노동자는 적자 때문이 아니라 더 많은 흑자를 위해 언제든지 해고가 가능해야 한다는 것이다. 이는 아이엠에프 위기 이후, 노무현 정부에 들어서서는 더욱 강화된 정부와 자본의 논리이다. 특별히 대사업장 정규직에 대한 공격은 역대 어느 정부보다 심한데, 노무현 대통령은 당선되자마자 정규직 해고가 더 자유로워져야 한다, 그것이 경제를 살리는 길이라고 했다.

이런 신자유주의적 처방이 경제를 되살려 일시적으로 해고된 노동자들을 더 튼튼한 일자리에 다시 복귀시키고 임금도 더 많이 지불하고 있는가? 전혀 그렇지 않다. ‘유일사상’으로 떠받들어진 신자유주의는 경제위기를 극복하기는커녕 세계를 금융자본의 투기판으로 만들어버린 지 오래다. 구조조정은 일상화되었지만 투자는 억제되고 있고, 거대한 투기거품이 만들어졌다가 붕괴하기도 하고, 일국 안에서나 세계적으로 부익부 빈익빈 현상만 심화되고 있다.

민주노총은 신자유주의자들로 변모한 우리사회의 소위 ‘개혁’세력들의 거짓 처방에 기대지 말고, 힘들지만 여성, 이주노동자 등 다양한 비정규직과의 아래로부터의 연대를 통해 자본에 대한 통제와 모든 노동자의 노동권 확보라는 전혀 새로운 길을 개척해 나가야 할 것이다. 민주노총에겐 사회적 합의주의 때문에 멈칫거릴 여유가 없다.

진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크

크루그먼 칼럼

최근 미 연준 의장 그린스펀이 의원들에게 미 재정적자가 지속불가능하다고 경고하고 이를 해결하기 위해 사회보장을 삭감하라는 조언을 한 적이 있습니다. 부시가 단행하고 그린스펀도 동의한, 부자들에게 그 혜택이 주로 돌아간 막대한 세금삭감을 다시 환원하는 방법은 경제에 안좋다고 하면서...
그런데 크루그먼은 재정적자가 이렇게 커진 것을 공화당과 부시가 원했다고 하네요. 이를 빌미로 사회보장과 의료보장을 축소하려 하고 있지요. 이게 '맹수 굶기기'론이라 하네요. 어떻든 정부싸이즈를 줄이고 이를 민간에게 이전하겠다(부시정부는 사회보장의 일부를 개인들이 투자할 수 있도록 하겠다고 했지요! 부시가 이를 오너 소사이어티, 즉 소유자 사회라 했던가요?)는 부시정부의 신념은 확고한 데가 있는 것 같기도 하네요. 문제는 이 과정에서 사회보장 혜택이 대폭 줄어든다는 것이 폭로되었고, 그래서 미국민들 다수가 이에 반대하고 있나 봅니다. 그래서 결국 세금 삭감 등으로 재정적자를 일부러 늘리고 이를 빌미로 사회보장을 축소하려는 '맹수 굶기기' 시나리오는 관철되기 어려울 것으로 크루그먼은 예측하네요. 결국 그린스펀이 예상하는 재정위기 가능성이 있는 것이고 이런 사태는 불편부당한 이미지와는 반대로 공화당과 부시를 줄곧 편들어온 그린스펀의 사기때문에 초래되었다고 맹공을 퍼붇고 있네요. 그리고 이 위기의 현실화는 이제껏 적자를 메꿔주던 외국자본이 재정적자 감축 프로젝트가 실패로 돌아갈 것을 알아채고 철수를 할 때이겠지요.
 
March 4, 2005
OP-ED COLUMNIST

Deficits and Deceit

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Four years ago, Alan Greenspan urged Congress to cut taxes, asserting that the federal government was in imminent danger of paying off too much debt.

On Wednesday the Fed chairman warned Congress of the opposite fiscal danger: he asserted that there would be large budget deficits for the foreseeable future, leading to an unsustainable rise in federal debt. But he counseled against reversing the tax cuts, calling instead for cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Does anyone still take Mr. Greenspan's pose as a nonpartisan font of wisdom seriously?

When Mr. Greenspan made his contorted argument for tax cuts back in 2001, his reputation made it hard for many observers to admit the obvious: he was mainly looking for some way to do the Bush administration a political favor. But there's no reason to be taken in by his equally weak, contorted argument against reversing those cuts today.

To put Mr. Greenspan's game of fiscal three-card monte in perspective, remember that the push for Social Security privatization is only part of the right's strategy for dismantling the New Deal and the Great Society. The other big piece of that strategy is the use of tax cuts to "starve the beast."

Until the 1970's conservatives tended to be open about their disdain for Social Security and Medicare. But honesty was bad politics, because voters value those programs.

So conservative intellectuals proposed a bait-and-switch strategy: First, advocate tax cuts, using whatever tactics you think may work - supply-side economics, inflated budget projections, whatever. Then use the resulting deficits to argue for slashing government spending.

And that's the story of the last four years. In 2001, President Bush and Mr. Greenspan justified tax cuts with sunny predictions that the budget would remain comfortably in surplus. But Mr. Bush's advisers knew that the tax cuts would probably cause budget problems, and welcomed the prospect.

In fact, Mr. Bush celebrated the budget's initial slide into deficit. In the summer of 2001 he called plunging federal revenue "incredibly positive news" because it would "put a straitjacket" on federal spending.

To keep that straitjacket on, however, those who sold tax cuts with the assurance that they were easily affordable must convince the public that the cuts can't be reversed now that those assurances have proved false. And Mr. Greenspan has once again tried to come to the president's aid, insisting this week that we should deal with deficits "primarily, if not wholly," by slashing Social Security and Medicare because tax increases would "pose significant risks to economic growth."

Really? America prospered for half a century under a level of federal taxes higher than the one we face today. According to the administration's own estimates, Mr. Bush's second term will see the lowest tax take as a percentage of G.D.P. since the Truman administration. And don't forget that President Clinton's 1993 tax increase ushered in an economic boom. Why, exactly, are tax increases out of the question?

O.K., enough about Mr. Greenspan. The real news is the growing evidence that the political theory behind the Bush tax cuts was as wrong as the economic theory.

According to starve-the-beast doctrine, right-wing politicians can use the big deficits generated by tax cuts as an excuse to slash social insurance programs. Mr. Bush's advisers thought that it would prove especially easy to sell benefit cuts in the context of Social Security privatization because the president could pretend that a plan that sharply cut benefits would actually be good for workers.

But the theory isn't working. As soon as voters heard that privatization would involve benefit cuts, support for Social Security "reform" plunged. Another sign of the theory's falsity: across the nation, Republican governors, finding that voters really want adequate public services, are talking about tax increases.

The best bet now is that Mr. Bush will manage to make the poor suffer, but fail to make a dent in the great middle-class entitlement programs.

And the consequence of the failure of the starve-the-beast theory is a looming fiscal crisis - Mr. Greenspan isn't wrong about that. The middle class won't give up programs that are essential to its financial security; the right won't give up tax cuts that it sold on false pretenses. The only question now is when foreign investors, who have financed our deficits so far, will decide to pull the plug.

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크

브라질 세계사회포럼 다녀오겠습니다.

전국민중연대 정광훈 의장, 전국여성농민회총연합 윤금순 회장과 상파울로에서 열리는 비아캄페시나(농민의 길: 세계 소농운동조직) 브라질 조직인 땅없는 농업노동자들, 즉 MST가 주최하는 "활동가 정치교육"이라는 사전 세미나에 참가하고, 이후 세계사회포럼 본행사에 참여할 예정이다. MST 주최 행사에는 맑스주의 고증사전을 편집했다는 죠르주 라비카와 칠레 출신으로 쿠바에 망명해 있는 마르크수주의자 마르타 아르네케르(이 분이 지은 역사유물론 관련 책은 남미 전역에서 100만부 이상이 팔렸다고 한다)도 발제자로 참여한다고 한다. 인터뷰를 해 볼 참이다.

본 행사에서도 구석구석 잘 살펴보렵니다.

국내에서도 부시취임반대 투쟁, 현자 불파 투쟁, 민주노총 대의원대회 등 주요 일정이 있는데, 그리고 내가 속한 조직(노기연, 사회진보연대)에서도 평가 및 계획 토론이 진행되고 있는데 이런 일정을 전부 빠지면서 장기 해외출장을 하게 되어 마음 한켠이 무겁다.

허나 비아캄페시나 및 국내 농민조직과 맺은 작은 인연을 외면할 수도, 어떻든 소동구 붕괴 이후 세계적인 변혁(?)운동의 새로운 부활의 상징으로 되고 있는 사회포럼을 무시할 수도 없는 노릇.

브라질 가서 많은 것을 얻고 돌아와서는 밀린 일 열심히 해야겠다는 결의를 다져본다. 그리고 같이 가는 한국동지들과도 진지한 토론을 해봤으면 좋겠다.

암튼 사회포럼을 이런 저런 인연으로 많이(5차례 중 4번) 참가하게 되었는데, 무언가 그럴 듯한 보고서를 내야한다는 강박감도 있는데... 글쎄 잘 될지...

그럼 혹 여기를 들릴 몇안되는 분들,

돌아와서 뵙겠습니다. 혹 인터넷 환경이 좋고 여유가 있으면 여기에 글을 좀 끄적거릴 수도 있겠지요. 허나 워낙 글에 순발력이 없어서...

 

한편 필리핀 공산당이 월든 벨로 등 출신 사회포럼에 주도적으로 참여하는 몇몇 필리핀 인사들을 '반혁명분자'로 올렸고, 이는 암살명부라는 이야기들이 떠돌며 사회포럼이 어수선하게 시작되고 있어 분위기가 영 좀 그렇네요.

 

그럼 진짜로 안녕히...

진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크

월러스틴의 "부시와 세계: 제 2기"

부시의 외교정책이 후퇴를 할 것이고, 군부-니오콘은 약화될 것이고, 이라크에서 선거로 새정부(알 하킴이 수상이 될 것?)가 세워진다고 해도 민족주의적 성향을 보일 것이고, 부시는 북한 이란 등에 대해서도 암묵적으로 무능을 인정했고, 쿠바 러시아 중국 등과 대립각을 세울 수도 없을 것이고, 이런 상황에서 영리하고 원칙에 충실하지 않는 부시는 불리한 게임을 하려 하지 않을 것이다, 그래서 미국헤게모니의 약화의 공백을 여러 준비되지 않은 세력들의 불안정한 경쟁이 채울 것이다, 부시가 2001년 집권했을 때 미국은 이미 헤게모니가 약화하고 있었고 부시정부는 이를 더욱 악화시켰는데 부시 2기는 이 어리석은 정책의 부정적인 결과를 감수해야 할 것이라는 취지의 글이네요.

미국과 부시의 후퇴를 너무 쉽게 예측하고 있는 것은 아닌가 하는 생각이 드네요. 헤게모니 후퇴를 막기 위한 미국이나 부시정부의 강공과 온갖 무리수가 동원될 수도 있지 않을까요?  힘센놈들은 무리수인줄 알면서도 무리수를 쓰기도 하잖아요. 거함은 쉽게 가라않지 않을 거란 이야기죠. 암튼 참고하십시요.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Fernand Braudel Center, Binghamton University

http://fbc.binghamton.edu/commentr.htm


Comment No. 152, January 1, 2005

"Bush and the World: The Second Term"

George W. Bush has been reelected for a second term of four years. It is rather certain what policy he will pursue on the U.S. domestic scene, since he has announced it clearly. He will push for further tax cuts. He will seek to privatize as much of the social security system as he can. He will appoint only judges who will reflect his conservative values, both on economic and social matters. He will seek to dismantle as much environmental legislation as possible. He will seek to strengthen the authority of the government in all police investigations and prosecutions. In short, he will pursue a classic rightwing agenda.

What remains much more obscure is what he intends to do in foreign policy, and this for one very simple reason. On the one hand, during his first term his administration committed itself strongly to a particular foreign policy - that of unilateral pre-emptive action whenever and wherever it felt like. On the other hand, this foreign policy has not been very successful, not only in the eyes of its critics at home and elsewhere in the world, but even in the eyes of many of its faithful supporters. There is turmoil in the ranks of the Bush partisans, which can be observed in the recent flurry of demands by certain major conservative figures for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld combined with the immediate support Rumsfeld received from others, including the president himself. Rumsfeld simply exemplifies these policies.

What can we expect now? There are actually two questions here. Will the second Bush administration pursue the identical foreign policy as the first? And, to the extent that it changes, how will the rest of the world react?

The most immediate question is Iraq. The number one political priority of the U.S., as we enter 2005, is holding Iraqi elections in the end of January. But why is this so important? In the first place, it is important to the U.S. in order to show that these elections can be held at all, despite the attacks of the insurgents. Secondly, it is important because the U.S. fears that, if they weren't held, they would be blamed by the Ayatollah al-Sistani, who might then shift his position from one of prudent distance from the U.S. to one of active hostility. Thirdly, it is important because the U.S. hopes to be able to shift the political/military battle in Iraq from one in which it is Iraqi insurgents versus the U.S. to one in which it is Iraqi insurgents versus a legitimate elected Iraqi government. But fourthly, it is important because it is seen as the essential prerequisite to a reduction of the number of the U.S. troops in Iraq. Of course, there are others who also anxiously want these elections - the interim Iraqi government and the mainstream Shia parties in particular.

So, elections will almost certainly be held - amidst continuing and probably escalating violence and amidst a high rate of abstentionism, especially in Sunni areas. But what will happen then? We shall probably see a new government with Ayatollah Sayed al-Hakim, the leader of the main Shia party (SCIRI), as Prime Minister. Depending on how the elections actually go and the behavior of al-Hakim, this government may or may not start with some minimal acceptance as a national government. The insurgency will almost surely continue, however, charging that the new government is a U.S. puppet. And the new Iraqi government will sooner or later have to choose between continuing to pursue the overtly pro-American policy of Iyad Allawi and adopting a nationalist line more consonant with the demands of the Iraqi people. One does not have to be a Middle East expert to suspect that sooner or later the new Iraqi government will opt to be more nationalist, in order first of all to be more legitimate.

The pressure on the U.S. to withdraw its troops will then be coming from three sides: from the insurgents, from the new Iraqi government, and from public opinion at home. Within the U.S., all the polls indicate that more and more people feel that the price the U.S. is paying in soldiers killed and wounded and in the costs of war are simply too high. The U.S. is at the beginning of an isolationalist reaction. And since isolationism has always had a strong hold within the Republican party, we shall begin to see the president's own supporters pushing for troop withdrawal.

There is no doubt that there are others within the Bush administration such as the militarists and the neo-cons - the two are not identical, by any means - who will fight this tendency bitterly. But this camp is much weaker than it was in 2003. So we may get a big swing in U.S. foreign policy. What we will not get is the modulated middle position of "multilateralism" dear to the heart of Colin Powell and to the first President Bush's advisors like Brent Scowcroft, and dear as well to the leaders of the more conservative wing of the Democratic Party (such as Senators Biden and Lieberman).

What happens vis-a-vis Iraq will presage all the rest of the Bush foreign policy. It is already the case that Bush has pulled back on North Korea and Iran to a position of tacit recognition of impotence. The Bush team is huffing and puffing, but they know there is very little they can do. They would be happy to see renewed negotiations between Israel and Palestine, which Blair is trying his best to push, but the U.S. will merely go along with such developments rather than be their prime promoter. These renewed negotiations are in any case not likely to go very far. And, in that case, the laid-back position of the Bush administration will protect it from too much internal U.S. damage.

Looking around the world, where can Bush act now? In Cuba? He'd like to, no doubt. But today we have state officials in Alabama (the heart of Bush country) saying that if they don't sell chickens to Cuba, Brazil will, and adding that the government's restrictions on trade with Cuba are an unjustified sop to the Cuban exiles in Florida. There is no sign of any serious support within the U.S. for a Cuban adventure. In Russia? We have just seen how, even though the Ukrainian elections have caused a very bad press for Putin in the United States, nonetheless Bush went out of his way to indicate that the U.S. will continue to work with Putin. In China? The economic interests of the United States preclude anything hostile, despite the uneasiness the Bush administration has with China's increased political role in Asia. In Europe? Even Rumsfeld's "new Europe" is beginning slowly to desert the U.S. In short, Bush does not have many options available to him. And since Bush is a canny and very unprincipled politician, he will not want to play in a game in which the odds are so heavily against him.

And how will the world react to a de facto pulling inward -both militarily and economically - of the U.S.? One can expect that, after an initial period of caution, everyone will try to take advantage of this new display of U.S. geopolitical weakness. The problem is that, once the U.S. presence in the world is reduced, it is like removing an elephant from the living room. No one is quite sure how to fill the space. And it is probably the case that no one has a fully prepared set of policies for such a situation. So there will be much unsure jostling among all the other geopolitical players. The U.S. was already a declining hegemonic power when Bush came to power in 2001. In seeking to restore the U.S. world position in his first four years of power, Bush actually made the situation much worse for the U.S. The U.S. (and Bush) will reap the harvest of his folly in the second term.

by Immanuel Wallerstein

진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크