La verdad silenciada de Honduras :: The truth of Honduras Silenced, Vicenç Navarro

http://rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=90333


The most widespread interpretation of why there was a military coup in Honduras (reproduced in the five most widely distributed newspapers in Spain) is that this happened to stop the attempt by President Zelaya to "remain in power." The daily more active in promoting this explanation has been the military correspondent with The News in Latin America, Joaquim Ibarz interviewed none other than the general who carried out the coup, Romeo Vasquez, giving the opportunity for justification, indicating that military intervention was fully constitutional, necessary to prevent this prolonged Zelaya power. Ibarz also met Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga, archbishop of Tegucigalpa, which also justified the coup by referring to the need to restore legality, interrupted by President Zelaya. It is interesting to note that 70 years ago in Spain, La Vanguardia(Godó property of the family, who supported the military coup of 1936) - justified the coup by General Franco against the Popular Front, with arguments similar to used now for the coup in Honduras. According to La Vanguardia Spanish (18-07-40), the Popular Front Government, democratically elected, had violated the Constitution, being necessary to his overthrow by the national uprising to restore legality.

The conservative bias of the media coverage of what is happening in Honduras explained that none of those interviewed five rotary Honduran personalities known for their opposition to the military coup. In doing so, as have several U.S. media, the readers of these newspapers would have information that today lack. In addition to interviewing the progolpista Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga, La Vanguardia could have interviewed, for example, the archbishop of Copan in Honduras, Villena Luis Alfonso Santos, who in interviews she gave to the Catholic News Service (04-08-09) and CNN television network (06-08-09) indicated that "some say that Manuel Zelaya threatened democracy by proposing to change the Constitution. But the poor know that Zelaya of Honduras raised the minimum wage. This is what they know. That they are aware of who defended the poor. This is why we are now in the streets, blocking roads and demanding the return of Zelaya.

President Zelaya, among many other popular measures, doubled the minimum wage, a measure that angered employers Honduras; provide free school meals (72% of Honduran children in rural areas have problems of malnutrition) and vetoed the proposal National Assembly to ban the use of the postcoital pill. These policies have changed the attitude of the working classes towards the Zelaya government. As the peasant leader Rafael Alegria, "Zelaya gave hope to the people." Trade unions and peasant and indigenous people, who were supporting Zelaya, when establishment of the Honduran, had these sectors against. But to the extent that these forces were supporting popular Zelaya, the oligarchy was mobilizing to stop the process. As the Archbishop Luis Alfonso Santos: "It's a mistake to assume (as the media) that Honduras had a democracy and that the National Assembly to represent the majority of the Honduran population. In fact, we never had democracy in Honduras. What we have is an electoral system where the people are given the opportunity to choose between candidates who were elected by the political elite. The population is not represented by either the House or by the Supreme Court, chosen by the rich of the country. We are the most corrupt country in Central America. We can not say that we have a democracy in which people participate in decisions. "

In fact, even the U.S. State Department's report on "Human Rights in Honduras in 2008 had indicated that" although the Constitution (Honduras), speaking of an independent legal system, such a system is poorly funded with few resources subject to a corruption of patronage and influence multiple policies. The Supreme Court appointed by the two major parties lacks autonomy and is clearly politically influenced, within a culture of corruption ". It was this that the Supreme Court ordered the arrest of the president following the orders of the two political parties which dominated the Assembly Nacional.El new president, Roberto Micheletti, was a powerful voice during the military dictatorship and authoritarian government that followed. According to The New York Times (08-08-09), her campaign chief in the last election, Billy Joya, was leader of the political police in the eighties, which is responsible for the torture and disappearances that characterized that period. Today's coup the new government advisor on security issues. As the Archbishop Luis Alfonso, "the people behind the coup were not Democrats. They conspired to prepare before the blow and then found the arguments to justify it. They do not care that children die of hunger or people dying in hospitals because of lack of medicines "(July 29 interview on Radio Progreso Jesuit). The new government has launched a brutal repression that has been unable to stop the ongoing popular mobilizations and strikes against the coup.

In the U.S., the top defender of the counter-revolutionary government is lawyer Lanny Davis, representing the Chamber of Commerce in Honduras and was in its day, the legal representative of the Pakistani dictatorship of General Musharraf. Today he advises, also, the U.S. business world in their attempt to derail the bill that would facilitate the unionization of workers in the U.S.. He was also an advisor to President Clinton and candidate Hillary Clinton, who today is the government Obama more tolerant government coup. All these data are unknown to readers of those five rotary.

Vicente Navarro is Professor of Public Policy at the Pompeu Fabra University and Professor of Policy Studies at The Johns Hopkins University

http://blogs.publico.es/dominiopublico/1489/la-verdad-silenciada-de-honduras/

CANADIAN LABOUR, By Sam Hammond

By Sam Hammond

(The following article is from the May 16-30, 2009, issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper.)
________________________________________________________
OUR LABOUR MOVEMENT is a very real and important example of social organization, reflecting the existence of opposing classes in the capitalist stage. It is both historically a result of the creation of a working class which the early capitalists needed to exploit, and a quantitative component of the ensuing class struggle.

It is necessary to understand the historical need that created the labour movement, because that original historic purpose is essential to measure whether the movement is a quantity of decline, or still a quantity of growth in the competition and struggle between the opposing classes. In the escalating attack on Canadian labour launched by imperialism, the corporate neo-liberal agenda is a weapon wielded by compliant governments and chameleon institutions. Is our labour movement capable of mounting defensive struggle and counter-attacking, or are we a spent force?

Although the attack is universal it spins out in different ways in the imperialist states, of which Canada is one. We have a highly developed working class that has created a mature and able trade union movement. However, the period from the beginning of the Cold War to the early 1970s, marked by McCarthyism, by the attack on the left and left-led unions, can be looked at in retrospect as a period of attempted pacification of the working class. The purpose of the state (and its allies within our class) was to neutralize the quantity of resistance, of class struggle, and replace it with a quantity of compliance and collaboration.

Although not completely successful, this offensive destroyed the Canadian Seamen's Union, and wore down the membership of the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers who had given so much to Canadian labour. It was used to justify the expulsion of other left unions from the central labour bodies, and to separate the peace movement and the social justice movements from all but the minority of left unions. Leadership was gradually shifted into the hands of those who rose in position because of anti-communism, not through experience or ability to represent workers needs.

The recognition of this injustice against the working class and its most militant representatives must be part of the resurgence of labour and its rededication to the needs of all working people. To the credit of the Canadian working class, the victory of capital was never complete. While business trade unionism became dominant at the top, in contradiction to rank-and-file needs, a small but very tenacious left survived and continued to exert considerable influence. The emergence of CUPE, the CAW and CEP were all expressions of continuing creativity and militancy, and the ability of Canadian workers to struggle not only for unionism but for Canadian unions.

In Quebec the working class also maintained its historic roots, introducing its national character and needs into the struggle, with the CNTU growing as a force and the QFL establishing itself within the CLC as a national labour body.

The present onslaught, whose central thrust is brutally directed against the CAW, was preceded by more than twenty years of skirmishes and probes. The economic slump of the mid-1980s was a softener. The 1995 election of the Harris Tories preceded an attack on the dispossessed, twinned with an attack on Ontario public sector workers. This Tory agenda was challenged by massive worker support for the Ontario Days of Action, which ended in a split between the CAW and the Ontario Federation of Labour over whether to continue the fight. The right won and the fightback was abandoned. The CAW unfortunately left the OFL in search of go-it-alone solutions that led it to the Liberal party and weakened Ontario labour considerably.

Ontario's teachers launched an historic political strike in defence of quality education and funding but were failed by weak leadership. In British Columbia, emboldened by weak labour leadership, the Campbell government shamelessly drove back wages and working conditions for health workers, despite their massive public support and the stirrings of a general strike. The same Campbell government, using the Supreme Court as a weapon, was later repulsed and shamed by the courageous stand of the BC Teachers, who put it on the line in a major struggle for teaching and learning conditions.

In Quebec a few years ago, preparations for massive resistance to the Charest government, including a national work stoppage, were neutralized behind the scenes by the machinations of some major union leaders. But things have changed. On May 11, all the public and para-public sector unions in Quebec announced the creation of their biggest common front in history, representing half a million workers. Despite the economic crisis, unions are demanding a major wage increase of 11.25% over 33 months. Calculated on the average public sector wage level, this means negotiating an increase of over 15% for lower paid employees. The Charest government has reacted by saying that unions must be "reasonable."

These skirmishes, by no means passive, were not the only ones fought in the recent past. They clearly demonstrate the two main ideological trends in Canadian labour, and their corresponding strengths and weaknesses.

The rejection of independent labour political action by the right forces in the OFL allowed then CAW President Buzz Hargrove an excuse to implement concessionary thinking, including a semi-alliance with the Liberal party hidden behind programs of strategic voting that were embraced by some Ontario Teachers, most Building Trades unions, and a few others. The OFL went into a deep slumber and became an absentee labour movement. The CLC has also been in "Rip Van Winkle" mode, emerging periodically to check its own shadow. There have been campaigns on paper but not on pavement, with the exceptions of a CAW attempt to put substance into the CLC "Manufacturing Matters Campaign," and the CLC's EI and "Get Real Campaign" that so far has received only token support from the rest of labour.

Against this backdrop, the CAW leadership made some rather dramatic turns into concessionary bargaining and a failed experiment with a company compliant, collaborationist "Framework of Fairness" agreement with Magna Corporation. The die was cast. Buzz Hargrove no longer looked to the militants in the rank and file, but to the elements of compliance and careerism who could be easily recruited to his agenda. Three years of concessions (small at first but developing into major) and early contract openings with the "Big Three" auto plants in Ontario preceded the vicious attack by the Harper Tories government, the auto companies, and in the background, the Bush presidency. Now labour's "friend in the White House" is demanding non-union parity from the United Auto Workers, with the "Northern Stooge" putting the same to the CAW.

CAW president Ken Lewenza walked into this cesspool, and has been desperately trying to salvage his members and union from corporate double-cross, government attack and broken promises. A couple of explosions of militant action, reminiscent of the older CAW, have been handled too easily by court injunctions.

Sold as a way to save jobs in the CAW, concessionary bargaining only whetted the corporate thirst. The present onslaught was bolder because of this sign of weakness. The jobs have disappeared and the union is left without a "Plan B". The demands of the capitalist state and the corporations were not retarded or lessened by a resistance campaign, or even a condemnation of the attack. In fact, Ken Lewenza has mistakenly complimented the two levels of government for their injection of public cash into the corporations, approved the takeover of Chrysler by yet another foreign corporation (Fiat of Italy), and failed to raise the possibility of nationalizing what we have already paid for to launch a real Canadian vehicle, transportation and farm implement industry. He is no doubt desperately searching for a way to save his members and his union. This deserves respect, but it is not the way.

The labour movement is in rather deep hibernation, but it is not a spent force. The most mauled, the CAW, is still intact. It has the members and the traditions to regroup, to sustain itself and counter-attack. This cannot be done by one union alone, and it is a compliment to Ken Lewenza and his union that they are going back into the Ontario Federation of Labour even if the horse is out of the barn.

Hopefully this will spur some militant fightback in Ontario, where the OFL and all workers need the CAW presence in the central labour body as an alternative voice to wake up the Rip Van Winkles. Ken Lewenza is not the architect of concessionary bargaining, and hopefully he will learn that there are other roads.

The victims of the global crisis include one in ten of Canadian children who eat out of food banks, the 75% of workers who cannot access Unemployment Insurance, auto workers deprived of wages and benefits, the unemployed from 67 idle wood processing mills in British Columbia, the Quebec workers ejected from Bombardier, relocated Maritimers all over Canada, teachers wrestling with education funding cuts, the Hamilton Steelworkers, the locked-out Hamilton Steel Car Workers, striking BC Paramedics. All these citizens and their children are wondering how to pay rent and mortgages, how to eat, how to heat, how to hold families together. For them there is no sleep.

The Canadian Labour Congress, the Quebec Federation of Labour and the CNTU cannot sit in their respective solitudes while the Canadian working class is dissected piecemeal. There must be early and urgent meetings to plan a counter-offensive that includes the social justice movements. Coalition building led by organized labour is the order of the day. No group or strata is strong enough to repulse the tactics of the offensive by capital and the state. With the organization and experience of labour in the pivotal position, coalitions will rush together to turn the tide and win public support. This is the lesson of France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Guadeloupe, and other recent struggles.

As long as there is exploitation and as long as working people have needs, the labour movement will be the most important part of the fightback, the latent threat of massive resistance, the training ground of tactical struggle, and the potential army of a political movement of the left that will destroy this treadmill of gain and loss and give our hard won gains constitutional permanence.

Canadian Labour is not a spent force. It remains to be seen if the present leadership of labour is a spent force.
_____________________________________________________________________