By Peter Hogarth

After 33 years in power, 10 months of protests and fighting between rival factions of the Yemen elite have forced President Ali Abdullah Saleh to step down. Thousands celebrated when Saleh signed a deal on November 23 to relinquish his power.

The deal was signed with opposition leaders in the Riyadh, Saudi Arabia at a ceremony hosted in the royal palace by Saudi King Abdullah. The deal states that Saleh will immediately hand over power to his deputy, Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi, while Saleh will keep the title of president until new presidential elections. A new government will be formed with Hadi and the opposition, with elections called in the next three months.

However, as we have seen in Egypt, elections and small concessions such as these do not address the real concerns of the thousands of Yemenis calling for change. While opposition forces supported the protest movements that were inspired by revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, their interests are very different from those of the angry, impoverished protestors who took the streets 10 months ago. Members of the opposition, including the Islamist party Islah and defected army General Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar come from some of the most powerful families in Yemen and had taken part in the Saleh government before throwing their weight behind the opposition to his regime.

Not surprisingly, the US and European Union hailed the accord as an important step forward for the democratic aspirations of the people of Yemen. US President Barack Obama took the opportunity to commend the graceful abdicating of power and confirmed that the US and Pentagon would work with Yemen to stamp out militants and terrorists in the country. Saudia Arabia and the US lauding praise on the regime change in Yemen does not bode well for ordinary people on the ground in Yemen.

The US and Saudi Arabia are looking for an arrangement in which they can retain their interests and influence. Saleh had the backing of the US as an ally since the September 11 attacks and supported the invasion of Iraq. Saleh even colluded with the US in a series of assassinations and bombings within Yemen as a part of the “war on terror.”

As Saudi Arabia has shown in Bahrain, it will not hesitate to step in to crush resistance in neighbouring countries if its power is threatened. As recently as 2009, Saudi forces launched heavy air strikes on rebels in northern Yemen and supported Yemen military operations to crush the Shi’ite Houthis group.

The relationship between Saudi Arabia, the ruling elite of Yemen and their cooperation in military repression is still a very real concern. US and Saudi endorsement of the Saleh step-down does not mean that the two regimes have done an about-face and thrown their lot in with the youth-led struggle for democracy in Yemen. Rather, it is an attempt to deflect the revolutionary wave sweeping the Arab World and placate the people of Yemen by leaving essentially the old order intact, minus Saleh. Yemen’s elite security forces are still led by Saleh’s son, nephews and brothers, and the possibility of violent suppression of protests still remains.

So while Yemenis celebrated the ousting of Saleh, the protestors who have faced 10 months of blood-stained repression acknowledge that this is just a start. The youth-led forces shouting for democracy in the streets, have been excluded from the opposition and recognize that Saleh was just one piece of the repressive regime. As in Egypt, the revolution will have to continue to oust the mini-Salehs to make the change they demand.

By Jesse McLaren

On November 23 the people of Bahrain continued resisting the regime of King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, in a “black day of anger”—in reference to the black smoke from burning tires. Despite intense crackdown on Bahrain’s uprising since it began in February, demonstrators continue to fight for justice, and the small country of 1.2 million people is getting the world’s attention.

The day of anger coincided with the release of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI), which is deeply critical of Bahrain authorities. The report, conducted by international experts, criticizes the use of torture and force of the Bahrain government in dealing with protests that have rocked the country since February. The report cites hundreds of cases of abuse, including mass arrests of peaceful demonstrators, torture in detention and dozens of military trials. It also calls for greater protections of human rights and justice for the victims and protections for human rights.

The report vindicates the experience of the people of Bahrain, but there are concerns it will be misused. While journalists have been welcomed back into the country after a months-long ban and on November 21 all forms of torture were declared illegal, many do not trust a commission appointed by Khalifa to stop the systematic repression that has gone on against peaceful protestors. The report fails to blame anyone for the repression, allowing the regime to claim all the violence was simply the result of rogue elements who will take the fall.

The report also ignores the international context of the crackdown. Bahrain is home to an important US navy base, and the regime could not survive without heavy US military backing. The NATO bombing of Libya was used not only to attempt to hijack the Libyan revolution, but also to bury any news of Western complicity with the dictatorship of Bahrain. As recently as this summer the Obama administration approved $53 million in military sales to the regime. The US state department said it would put the sale on hold until it reviews the report, and there are concerns that the report will be used to justify continued Western arms sales to the dictatorship in Bahrain.

The report itself does not alter anything on the ground. Just hours before the report was to be released, police fired teargas at protestors and continued their assaults on makeshift medical clinics. Abdul Nabi Kadhem, 44, was killed when his car was intentionally hit by a police vehicle, running him into a building. Police used sounds bombs and arrested a number of people protesting the death of Kadhem.

But the people of Bahrain are continuing to resist, and there is growing international solidarity. When the regime sentenced 20 medics to up to 15 years for healing the wounded, international outrage forced a retrial for November 28. On November 26, petitions signed by 1000 global medical professionals were delivered to Bahrain embassies in Washington, London, Cairo and elsewhere, demanding their immediate release. Continued international solidarity, and pressure on Western governments, can help the people of Bahrain fight for their own freedom.

By Yusur Al-Bahraini

At least four people were killed and several wounded in Saudi Arabia. Naser Muhaishi was killed as Saudi forces attacked peaceful protestors on November 19. The Saudi authorities in Qatif seized Muhaishi’s body and did not allow his family to proceed with the funeral. Two days later, thousands went into the streets protesting the death of Muhaishi. The Saudi military opened fire killing another protestor, Ali Falfal while injuring hundreds. The army and police surrounded hospitals threatening the wounded and arresting activists.

The next day, Saudi authorities released the two bodies. On November 23, two more, Ali Quraikas and Muneeb Othman, were killed when gunfire broke as the Saudi forces raided the funeral procession in Qatif region in Eastern Saudi province. Violence in Qatif region, where many Shiites in the predominantly Sunni country live, has been escalating as the government continues oppressing the Saudi Shiite minority.

While participants in the demonstrations confirm that government forces opened fire on them, the Saudi Interior Ministry denied that. Mansur Al-Turki, Interior Ministry Spokesman blamed “unknown criminal sources” for the incidents. He described unarmed pro-democracy protestors as “rioters with suspicious objectives.” On the other hand, Al-Muhaishi’s father said: “Those [government forces] who were at the checkpoint shot my son.” He also added that his son did not even participate in the protests.

Protestors’ demands are to release the “forgotten prisoners” and end the ongoing discrimination, oppression and repression. Many Saudi political and human rights activists have been tortured and arrested in the last decade including a number of them who were arbitrary arrested in 1996 and have not been released until today. Two hundred years ago, Al-Saud royal has been in power in the country. Since then, discrimination against minorities and women has been taking place in the kingdom.

While NATO invaded Libya in the name of liberation, Saudi Arabia have not been not been condemned by the United States and its allies. The US proposed sanctions on Syria, but is silent towards human rights violations committed by the Al-Saud monarchy. The US imports 160 million barrel of oil every year from Saudi Arabia.

By Melissa Graham

It’s not a question whether austerity will affect Canadians with disabilities, but a question of when.

In Scotland, people with disabilities are once again taking to the streets this month to fight back against government proposals that would see the Disability Living Allowance cut by 20 per cent, pushing those people into increasing poverty.

Hate crimes are also on the rise. Some 47 per cent of people with disabilities say attitudes towards them have worsened over the last year. A recent Equality and Human Rights Commission report concluded that “people with disabilities in the UK face harassment, insult and attack almost as a matter of routine, while a collective denial among police, government and other public bodies means little is done to challenge the situation.”

Canada

The situation in Canada is similar. With recent provincial elections in Manitoba and Ontario, there is a heightened awareness that healthcare, housing and disability benefits in those provinces might be headed for the chopping block as the recession drags on.

Consider the case of Ontario’s Special Diet benefit. When people started using the benefit regularly to bring their income to a slightly less impoverished level, McGuinty cut it back, making it much more difficult for people with disabilities to access it.

In the Ontario provincial election, it was not only social assistance programs, but also accessibility legislation that came under threat. During their campaign the Tories refused to commit to protect existing legislation, or effectively enforce it.

Municipal politicians are also unafraid to cut on the backs of people with disabilities. In Toronto, Rob Ford wants to put accessible transit and social housing on his cuts agenda.

Canadians too have faced high profile disability hate crimes in the past few months. In August, a man who used a wheelchair died four days after being viciously assaulted in his Winnipeg apartment.

Toronto has experienced two situations involving police interaction with people with disabilities. In July, police used handcuffs to restrain a nine-year-old disabled boy who they say “became uncontrollable” at a daycare centre. Around the same time, a man with a disability was killed during interactions with Toronto police.

All of this points to a clear message that politicians and those who enforce the laws do not consider people with disabilities a priority.

We have Canada’s first woman with a disability in the Official Opposition, but people with disabilities are still feeling powerless.

Perhaps it’s time to take a hint from Scotland, and fight austerity before it has already won.

By Amelia Murphy-Beaudoin

The willful ignorance of Canadian governments at all levels is perpetuating the cycle of abuse that First Nations people have been grappling with since residential schools. 

Government officials who have knowingly ignored the myriad of issues affecting First Nations communities are complicit in the epidemic of suicides affecting these communities.

Early in September, Ontario’s Chief Coroner issued a report on the death by suicide of 16 youth in the Pikangikum First Nation over just two years.

The report recommends improvements in health care, education and social services; like the recommendations of previous well-meaning reports, these will likely not be implemented for lack of funding.

According to Health Canada, suicide rates are five to seven times higher for First Nations youth than for non-Aboriginal youth. Suicide rates among Inuit youth are among the highest in the world, at 11 times the national average.

The soaring suicide rate in First Nations communities is a result of the appalling social and physical conditions in which First Nations people live: overcrowded, sometimes contaminated environments, usually without adequate access to basic services like sewage systems and running water, lower standards of education and housing, high levels of poverty and unemployment.

All of this fosters a sense of hopelessness and results in high rates of alcoholism, drug addiction, domestic violence, involvement in the sex trade and suicide.

Initiatives to protect communities and prevent these tragic outcomes are under-funded and largely ignored. It is vital that we understand the spiraling rate of suicides in First Nations communities as a tragic and unnecessary symptom of the white hegemonic and racist system in which we live.

Socialists can play a role in building and expanding solidarity between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people to force the government and its agents to take decisive action and to stop the tragedies.

By Tara Ehrcke

The BC Public Schools Employers’ Association (BCPSEA) is threatening to lock out the province’s teachers, in response to job action designed to push contract negotiations forward.

The BCPSEA Board consists of both elected trustee representatives as well as appointed government representatives. They are under the direction of PSEC–the Public Sector Employers’ Council, who are clearly an arm of government and who dictate the terms of bargaining.

When the Liberals first came to power, they enacted special legislation that mandated that teachers be an essential service. In 2002 this government unilaterally legislated teachers back to work and imposed a three-year contract that was not negotiated. In 2005 they again legislated teachers back to work but teachers stayed out regardless.

This government has been intent on stopping any job action by teachers and instead are using a legislative hammer to force an end to disputes. The result has been low morale and frustration.

The BC Teachers’ Federation is conducting a phase one job action. Teachers are not attending evening events or monthly staff meetings. They are not attending the once yearly “meet-the-teacher” or “formal” parent-teacher interviews.

But teachers are continuing to meet with each other and to have department meetings without administration. They are continuing to contact parents and communicate regularly. They are continuing extra curricular activities. They are teaching full time. Many teachers are using the few freed up hours to do additional lesson preparation. Many are using the time for additional one-on-one support for students with particular learning needs. Many are saying that teaching and learning haven’t been better in years.

Teachers are fighting back against the BCPSEA agenda to bring in US-style education “reform.” Proposals include the virtual elimination of seniority, the removal of any due process requirements for teacher evaluations, the ability to force a teacher to move to another job merely with one month’s notice, and the ability to fire a teacher after a single evaluation.

The US “blame-the-teacher” reform agenda is political. It is about commodifying and privatizing education. It is a total rejection of the notion of equity. Instead of quality, equal access, and equal opportunity, it promotes competition, consumer driven models and private service delivery.

The end result? Very good schools that are hyper-competitive for the rich. Pretty awful schools for the poor. Struggling schools for everyone in between. Is this where we want to go?

If you would like to show support, please contact your local school trustees and let them know we need a solution, not to take teachers out of the classroom.

By Abbie Bakan

The claim that “constitution fatigue” is a “problem” in Canadian politics serves to silence a key aspect of the oppression of Quebec within the federal system of capitalist rule. In a Supreme Court decision pronounced in August 1998, the highest law of the land ruled that Quebec does not have the right to unilaterally declare its independence from Canada according to the Constitution, nor does it have such a right according to international law.

But even this decision did not go far enough to satisfy the cacophony of bigotry that characterized the Constitutional debates in the 1990s.

The same decision ruled that if a majority of Québécois vote in a referendum to secede, Ottawa and the rest of the provinces would be obliged to negotiate the terms.

The ruling followed the referendum of October of 1995, which came within a hair’s breadth of success for the sovereigntists. Before that outcome, the legality of the referendum process was not questioned.

In fact, one of the main arguments used by the federalists during the referendum was that a “Oui” vote could only mean immediate separation without negotiation. But Quebec, apparently, only had the right to self-determination if it would not be asserted.

“Plan B”

The legal challenge was part of the federal government’s package of threats known as “Plan B.” It included the threat to partition Canada and maintain a system of militarized borders in the event of another referendum.

“Plan A” was much less developed. It was based on the aim to win over a majority of Québécois to the benefits of federalism voluntarily.

But with the failure to win an unconditional Supreme Court decision against any road to independence, many commentators at the time thought that Plan B had backfired.

The get-tough strategy for the federalists won the legal battle against Quebec sovereignty, after a fashion. The unrequested compulsion to negotiate in the event of a successful referendum took away the government’s ideological ground, virtually negating the legal victory.

Lucien Bouchard, at the time Premier of Quebec and leader of the pro-sovereigntist Parti Québécois, refused to recognize the entire process.

And fair enough.

The nine judges were appointed by the federal government. And they were ruling according to a Constitution to which no elected government in Quebec had ever consented. True to form, the judges ruled against Quebec’s right to self-determination. And what’s more, the ruling expressly denied that Quebec is an oppressed nation within the federation.

But the entire history of Quebec belies such legalisms. And the mere fact that the Supreme Court was even debating Quebec’s right to secede indicates that there is an issue of national oppression to discuss, despite the interpretation of the judges.

Politics

Importantly, however, the legal ruling did not reduce the political debate to a matter of law, which was what then-Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his supporters had hoped. Instead, the judges threw the issue of negotiating sovereignty back into the court of the politicians.

In the months after the ruling, political debate about Quebec’s right to self-determination intensified.

The Supreme Court’s ruling against Quebec’s right to self-determination was a clear expression of the oppressive character of the federal state.

The leaders of the Parti Québécois and Bloc Québécois were and remain committed to the capitalist system without apology, including all the cuts, union-busting and exploitation that goes with it.  But no genuine unity between workers in Quebec and English Canada is possible if it based on threats and coercion.

And the ruling came along with a caveat that reveals a deep divide within the federalist section of the Canadian ruling class about how to address the sentiment for independence within Quebec.

The bigots in English Canada, including those in the federal Liberals and the then Opposition Reform Party (read: Stephen’s Harper’s alma mater), were cringing about part of the Supreme Court ruling. They had unleashed a process that ruled that negotiation in good faith was to be followed should a clear majority in Quebec choose to secede on the basis of winning a clear referendum question.

The national question in Canada was hardly settled by the Supreme Court ruling. Stéphane Dion, the Liberals’ Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, had already renewed the threats against Quebec. Chrétien had suggested that “a clear majority” to secede would be at least 67 per cent, despite his insistence that the federalists won in the October 1995 referendum by only 0.6 per cent above 50. This was the background to the Clarity Act, ultimately passed into law in 2000.

But the fact that the federalists did not fully have the outcome they hoped for indicated that in one sense the Supreme Court judges were right. It is politics that would determine the outcome of Quebec’s relationship with the rest of Canada in the future.

But what type of politics remains an open question to this day. The growth of Québec solidaire in Quebec, which advances a new type of sovereignty and solidarity with progressive forces in English Canada, poses a challenge. It is not, as the judges perceived, the politics of the elite, but the politics of mass struggle among workers in common cause in Quebec and English Canada that will be decisive.

By John Bell

BP has filed applications to drill new deep-water wells in the Gulf of Mexico. The applications came just one week after a US government report confirmed what the whole world already knows: that BP was “ultimately responsible” for the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig which killed 11 workers and resulted in over 5 million barrels of oil fouling the Gulf.

US environmental groups are appalled by the timing, and are seeking to block BP through the courts.

BP is anxious to get going, as the Macondo oil field was its most profitable operation. Its rivals have been pumping the region while it was forced to sit out.

Cynically, BP proposes to use future Gulf profits to pay into the $20 billion fund, mandated by the White House, to clean up the oil still washing up on beaches throughout the region.

Meanwhile, aerial photographs show that a massive oil slick is resurfacing in the area of the Macondo spill, raising two possibilities: either attempts to disburse the oil using chemicals (just as toxic as the oil itself) have failed, or attempts to cap the well itself failed and leaking continues.

Analysis of surface oil samples from the region done by scientists from Louisiana State University proved them chemically identical to oil from the BP well. They believe that the well is still leaking and call on the government to check.

The US Coast Guard insists it has not seen any new oil slicks. USCG officials suggest the new oil samples are “natural seepage, or a burp out of the wreckage down below.” BP concurs. Based on experience of the past year and-a-half, both are lying.

Meanwhile, new studies reveal that, far from returning to normal, Gulf spawning grounds remain toxic and fish are exhibiting a wide range of health problems and deformities.

Scientists expect many other species, including commercially important snappers, shrimp and oysters will suffer chronic illness that shortens their lives and lowers their ability to reproduce.

By Salmaan Abdul Hamid Khan

On September 12 a leaking oil pipeline passing through the densely populated Sinai slum in Kenya exploded, killing more than 100 people and leaving scores horribly burnt. 

According to Daniel Mutinda, a spokesperson from the Kenyan Red Cross, an “informal school” close to the site of the explosion had been particularly badly affected. “They have all been burnt,” he said. Driven by acute poverty and desperation, many of the victims were caught in the fire as they scoured the area with jerry cans, trying to collect as much of the leaking oil as they could.

In response to this tragedy, the Kenya Pipeline Company, a state run corporation, has accepted no responsibility, and in an interview following the incident, a spokesperson for the KPC demanded that those who managed to take some of the oil before the fire erupted “should return it immediately.” Rather than acknowledge the dangers of transporting fossil fuels, the Kenyan government has pledged that it will forcefully evict slum dwellers that live close to pipelines.

Molo Fire

This is not the first oil spill accident of its kind in Kenya: the “Molo Fire” in 2009 resulted in the deaths of more than 130 and left hundreds more injured. These tragic incidents serve as reminders about the risks associated with dangerous and dirty fossil fuels and the threat they pose to the surrounding population.

In Nigeria, an estimated 2,000 lives have been lost in recent years as a result of pipeline related accidents.According to the Associated Press, the Shell Oil Company spilled an estimated 4.5 million gallons of oil in Nigeria in 2009 alone, and according to Niger Delta Campaigners, there are almost “300 oil spills a year in Nigeria.” Not only is the population exposed to risks of oil fires but the leaking oil destroys precious farm land and pollutes nearby water reserves.

Given the threats posed, it is inconceivable as to why any government would approve of the proposed 2,673 km Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline would carry up to 900,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada’s tar sands in Alberta—one of the most destructive energy projects in the world—to refineries on the Gulf Coast.

According to a University of Nebraska study, the Keystone XL pipeline is likely to leak nearly 100 times over the next 50 years. Increasing this risk is that fact that the corrosive oil found in the Alberta Tar Sands must be pumped under high temperature and pressure, dramatically weakening the pipelines and increasing the potential for oil spills.

Given this impending threat, not only to the lives of innocent people but to the surrounding environment, it is important that we organize against the Keystone XL pipeline, and prevent future “Molo Fires” and Sinai tragedies.

By Paul Stevenson

The Conservative government is using the war in Libya to revive the concept of “humanitarian intervention” and to justify massive increases in military spending. Stephen Harper has argued that Canada should use its military for regime change around the world.

Echoing Harper, Foreign Affairs minister John Baird bragged in his recent United Nations speech that Canada has flown ten per cent of the bombing runs over Libya, adding that he wouldn’t hesitate to unleash the Canadian Forces abroad.

This is nothing new. NATO countries have peddled the myth of “humanitarian militarism” since the end of the Cold War—to justify NATO’s existence once the Eastern Bloc had dissolved, and to muster support for military interventions from the Balkans to Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s the same old sheep’s clothing for the imperial wolves, and a cause of confusion for liberals in the West who are swayed by arguments about “protecting civilians” from dictatorial regimes.

Foreign intervention

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine is an attempt to codify this idea into international law. Conceived at a conference initiated by the Canadian government in 2001, the doctrine has subsequently been the basis for foreign intervention in Libya, Sudan, Somalia and Afghanistan. But the problem for NATO planners is the catastrophe of Bush’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, both justified as “humanitarian” missions. As their real motives were exposed and the situation in both countries deteriorated, the shine quickly came off the R2P concept. This is why war in Libya is so crucial for NATO and the West.

The revolution in Libya, inspired by revolutions in neighbouring Tunisia and Egypt, has gone through a series of changes since it first began in February. Early protests were brutally attacked by the Gadhafi regime and quickly became an armed uprising. Initially, the movement was explicit in its opposition to foreign military intervention. As the weeks progressed, the composition of the opposition changed, with many former Gadhafi loyalists defecting and taking over the reins of the Transitional National Council (TNC). The demands of the uprising also began to change.

As socialist Simon Assaf writes: “The current leaders of the TNC owe their position to the West, and have become representatives of the Western interests in Libya. Their influence grew during the counter-offensive, as their alliance with the West brought international backing, as well as the no-fly zone and political, financial and military muscle. The young revolutionaries had little else to offer.

“These defeats deflected the revolution. The aspiration for total transformation of Libyan society was replaced by the drive for a simple change at the top—the removal of Moammar Gadhafi, his sons and a few others around the ruling circle. The faltering revolution presented imperialism with an opportunity to place itself between the Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutions, and French president Nicolas Sarkozy, always the opportunist, moved like a demon to implant imperialism back into North Africa.”

As the tanks surrounded Benghazi and the attacks on protesters increased, the call for foreign support from this section of the opposition hit a fever pitch, and the UN moved to pass resolution 1973 which called for a no-fly zone over Libya.

Almost immediately, NATO expanded its role from providing a no-fly zone to using air strikes to hit all military targets. Canadian Lt.-Gen. Charles Bouchard, the overall commander of the NATO intervention, even called for an expanded bombing campaign to include buildings that “could” be used for military purposes.

The fall of Tripoli

Since the fall of Tripoli, the role of NATO has changed again, to include providing policing and security for the new government. The concern for NATO is that the movement that fought against the Gadhafi regime is made up of many different forces, each of which has its own interests and aims. These different currents are competing for some control over the future of the country. But NATO has no intention of giving up its spoils, and it needs to maintain a military presence to stop the situation from turn against it.

Libya has extensive oil fields. Western corporations are lining up to exploit these resources, to gain valuable reconstruction contracts in the country. But many of these contracts are not new. They existed under Gadhafi and are simply being revived under the TNC. These lucrative deals are a nice byproduct for Western corporations, but are not the principal reason they went to war in Libya.

Counter-revolution

The main objectives for NATO were to gain control of the country and to sever potential links with the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia. NATO saw this as an opportunity to contain—and eventually roll back—the gains of the Arab Spring.

One thing is certain: the interests of NATO and the interests of the Libyan people will never be the same. As Libyans struggle to shape their post-Ghadafi future, this fact will become even more apparent.