RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: Russia's Not Leaving: Syria Is About Old-Fashioned Sphere of Influence, Not Oil Print
Sunday, 16 April 2017 10:39

Cole writes: "Russia is not going to yield its sphere of influence in Syria to Donald Trump or anyone else."

Russian president Vladimir Putin, center, shakes hand with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad as Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov looks on in the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia. (photo: AP)
Russian president Vladimir Putin, center, shakes hand with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad as Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov looks on in the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia. (photo: AP)


Russia's Not Leaving: Syria Is About Old-Fashioned Sphere of Influence, Not Oil

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

16 April 17

 

ussia is not going to yield its sphere of influence in Syria to Donald Trump or anyone else. Russia has all but won the Syrian War as we speak. There is no longer any feasible pathway for the rebels to take the capital of Damascus. The non-ISIL groups have lost all major urban areas except for Ghouta near Damascus. They are bottled up there and in rural northern Idlib province, and likely the regime will overwhelm them in both places over the next year, with Russian air support. ISIL itself is on the verge of losing everything in Iraq and of being rolled up, over the next year or two, in Eastern Syria.

BBC Monitoring translated from Interfax for April 10,

“Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov . . . said . . . “The American side has thus demonstrated its complete unwillingness to cooperate on Syria in any form or take account of each others’ interests and concerns. . . The return to pseudo-attempts to settle [the Syrian conflict] in the spirit of reciting ‘Assad must go’ mantras cannot bring anyone closer to political settlement in Syria,” he said. Peskov was commenting on remarks by French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, who earlier called on Russia to distance itself from Assad.”

Source: Interfax news agency, Moscow, in Russian 1015 gmt 10 Apr 17

I think we should take Moscow seriously on this.

What can be said is that there are four major local forces in Syria: 1) the western urban regime stretching from Damascus to Latakia and Aleppo; 2) the fundamentalist rebels, whether moderate Muslim Brotherhood or Salafi Jihadis such as the Freemen of Syria or the Syrian Conquest Front; 3) The YPG leftist Kurds in the northeast and 4) ISIL.

The West and Northwest are a Russian sphere of influence, and the Bashar al-Assad regime and the Russians have, as I said, all but defeated the fundamentalist rebels there. (There are non-fundamentalist rebels, especially in Ghouta, but they frankly have never amounted to anything on the battlefield). The regime’s occasional use of poison gas is intended as a force multiplier, since at a low 50,000 or so men under arms they can barely control the country, much less take back big swathes of territory, even with intensive Russian air support. The other force multiplier is total war tactics such as starving out civilian populations among whom guerrilla groups hide out, or deliberately hitting hospitals and other essential service-providers in rebel areas. While the regime may become more cautious about the use of gas, it may simply double down on indiscriminate bombing.

A caution: on the map above, the reddish areas under regime control look geographically small. They actually contain about 75 percent of the population.

The east is an American sphere of influence, where the US is backing leftist Kurds to take on ISIL.

There is also a small strip of land north of Aleppo that is a Turkish sphere of influence, where fundamentalist rebels are still operating, but it doesn’t amount to much and Turkey backed off challenging either Russia or the US-Kurdish alliance in any frontal way.

The Syrian conflict is a challenge to economic theories of imperialism, whether that of J. A. Hobson or that of Vladimir Lenin. It is not about markets. It is not about monopoly capital. It is not about oil or hydrocarbon resources. It is not about pipelines. Other Middle East conflicts have taken place that could be explained that way. But today’s Syria isn’t such a case.

There simply is not much money to be made in Syria. Before the war it had a small population of 22 million. Its gross domestic product of $77 bn is less than that of the island of Puerto Rico and less than half that of Peru, one of the poorer countries in the Western Hemisphere.

Syria was pumping about 400,000 barrels a day of petroleum, which is next to nothing. One fracked field in North Dakota does that. Saudi Arabia does 10 mn b/d and Iraq does 3. Nor is the conflict about pipelines. Nowadays both oil and liquefied natural gas can be inexpensively exported by supertanker and while a pipeline might be nice it wouldn’t be worth fighting a war over.

Syria is important to Russia because

1. It is near to Russia and Chechen fundamentalist rebels are operating there in alliance with al-Qaeda and with Daesh (ISIS, ISIL). It is unacceptable to Russia for the fundamentalist rebels to win and sweep into Damascus, since this development would potentially destabilize the Russian Caucasus.

2. Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, is a neo-nationalist who feels as though Russia got a raw deal from the US and NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia was reduced to a weak joke, and lost the spheres of influence that characterize a Great Power. It has lost even nearby assets such as the Ukraine. It lost Libya. Syria was a place where Putin could show the flag and bring home some victories.

Syria on the other hand is not important to the US. Syria’s alliance with Iran makes it inconvenient for both of the major US allies in the region, Saudi Arabia and Israel. But the Israeli security establishment is divided about whether it is better to leave al-Assad in power or to welcome the Sunni fundamentalists into Damascus in order to weaken the Shiite Hizbullah in Lebanon. After all, an al-Qaeda state next door would be much worse than a little isolated militia like Hizbullah. Saudi Arabia has no such reservations, but its proxies in Syria have mostly been defeated and it can’t do anything more there except play spoiler and encourage what will amount, after the war is over, to mere terrorism. Aside from the Iran consideration, the US has no stake in Syria except to deprive Daesh/ ISIL of a base there from which to attack Europe. But the US cannot defeat ISIL without de facto strengthening the al-Assad regime.

All this is why Russia will remain in Syria and will have most of it as its sphere of influence. Russia has clear motivations and clear goals there, a strong ally with most of the population under its control, and a practical plan for accomplishing them, which has worked well if sanguinarily so far.

In contrast, the US has no obvious motivation to be in Syria except fighting Daesh. Its policies are therefore muddled. It is damaging its relationship with a big important country, Turkey (pop. 78 mn., GDP $800 bn), by its alliance with the small PYD Syrian Kurdish population of some 2 million, for the instrumental purpose of rolling up Daesh. Maybe the military-industrial complex in the US would like a war just to make some money, and maybe the Neoconservatives would like a war to contain Iran. But neither of them is likely to be able to dictate to Trump, who likely hasn’t given up on better relations with Putin and doesn’t need either of those groups to be reelected.

My guess is that the Tomahawk strikes were impulsive and a one-off. The Russian-dominated status quo is not significantly affected, and there isn’t an early prospect of it so being.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: The Trump Doctrine Print
Sunday, 16 April 2017 10:24

Reich writes: "What's the 'Trump Doctrine' of foreign policy? At first glance, foreign policy under Trump seems inconsistent, arbitrary, and devoid of principle."

Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)
Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)


The Trump Doctrine

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

16 April 17

 

hat’s the “Trump Doctrine” of foreign policy? At first glance, foreign policy under Trump seems inconsistent, arbitrary, and devoid of principle.

A few weeks ago, even before the airstrike on Syria, Trump communications director Mike Dubke told Trump’s assembled aides that international affairs presented a messaging challenge because the Trump administration lacks a coherent foreign policy. “There is no Trump doctrine,” Dubke declared. 

I think Dubke is being grossly unfair. Of course there’s a Trump Doctrine. You just have to know where to look for it. 

The Trump Doctrine began to emerge when Trump issued his travel bans (both the first and second) on predominantly Muslim countries.

But he notably excluded predominately Muslim countries where Trump has business interests.

So under what might be called the First Principle of the Trump Doctrine, people living in a predominantly Muslim country have a chance of entering the United States only if their country contains an edifice with Trump’s name on it.

The Second Principle follows logically from the first. Countries that are potential markets for Trump’s business – nominally run by his two sons, but still filling his pockets – may be eligible for special favors if they allow Trump to make money there.  

For example, Trump’s business currently has 157 trademark applications pending in 36 nations, according to the New York Times.

Registered trademarks are giant financial assets for a business like Trump’s, which in recent years has made big money by selling his name rather than by building or making anything.

Soon after he was sworn into office – but only after Trump backed off of his brief flirtation with a “two China” policy – the Chinese government granted Trump preliminary approval of 38 trademarks of his name.

“It was a gift,” said Peter J. Riebling, a trademark lawyer in Washington, of China’s decision. “Getting the exclusive right to use that brand in China against everyone else in the world? It’s like waving a magic wand.”

One potential obstacle for the Second Principle is the Constitution’s “emoluments” clause, which bars U.S. government officials from receiving gifts from foreign powers.

No matter. Apparently the Trump Doctrine, well, trumps the Constitution.

A group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) joined by several prominent law professors, is suing Trump over this.  

But the United States – through the U.S. Department of Justice – argues in a legal brief, expected to be filed this month, that the framers of the Constitution meant only to rule out gifts that compensate presidents or other office holders for services they might do for a foreign power, not for public policies they advance that benefit a foreign power. 

Interpretations of the U.S. Constitution by the Department of Justice aren’t like the musings of any random defense attorney. They carry special weight. They represent the views and interests of the United States.

Which makes this one official U.S. government policy – and thereby, confirms it as the Second Principle of the Trump Doctrine. 

The Third Principle comes down hard on countries that kill their own children with poison gas. They will be bombed.

You may recall Trump had long been opposed to bombing Syria. But, as he recently explained, Syrian dictator Basha al-Assad’s “attack on children … had a big impact on me,“ adding that "my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much.” The bombing ensued. 

This doesn’t mean endangered children will be given refuge in the United States, though. Recall the First Principle: Nobody gains entrance to the United States from a predominantly Muslim nations unless their country contains a Trump hotel, spa, or golf course.  

Which brings us to the Fourth Principle.

Not long after the Syrian bombing, Trump authorized the Pentagon to drop a 22,000-pound GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB) on people described as “Islamic State forces” in eastern Afghanistan near the Pakistani border.

It was the first time the bomb – nicknamed the “mother of all bombs,” and one of the largest air-dropped munitions in the U.S. military’s inventory – had ever been used in a combat.

Trump’s rationale? The group was allegedly connected to ISIS.

So under the Fourth Principle of the Trump Doctrine, the United States reserves the right to drop a mother of a bomb on any group seemingly connected with ISIS.

This applies even if the group is not fighting to gain or hold territory claimed by the Islamic State. The group could be thousands of miles away from the Islamic State, anywhere around the world. 

Could a mother of a bomb be dropped on such a group if it’s located in a country containing a Trump hotel, or considering a Trump trademark application? 

Frankly, I don’t know. That pesky detail hasn’t been worked out yet. 

But this one uncertainty doesn’t undermine the overall consistency or clarity of the Trump Doctrine of foreign policy. It’s four major principles are firmly rooted either in making money for Trump, or stopping bad people from doing bad things.

If Mike Dubke had a clearer grasp of Donald Trump’s worldview, he’d surely see this – as would everyone else. 


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Is Trump Actually in Charge? Or Is It Worse Than We Feared? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Sunday, 16 April 2017 08:21

Pierce writes: "I have resisted the temptation to speculate on the mental state of our president. However, the events of the last week have required me to rethink this policy."

Donald Trump. (photo: Getty Images/AFP)
Donald Trump. (photo: Getty Images/AFP)


Is Trump Actually in Charge? Or Is It Worse Than We Feared?

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

16 April 17

 

I haven't felt this shaky about the world in half a century.

have resisted the temptation to speculate on the mental state of our president* because I've always been leery of long-distance psychiatric diagnoses, and because I am not Charles Krauthammer, who regularly has used his professional credentials to define any politics to the left of a drillbit as some sort of cognitive deficiency. However, the events of the last week have required me to rethink this policy.

Years ago, Fletcher Knebel wrote a novel called Night At Camp David about a president who'd gone mad. The evidence for that was that the bughouse president was lost in grandiose delusions about his place in the world. Knebel, you may recall, also was the co-author of the rather more famous Seven Days in May, which concerned a military plot to take over the government. Lately, I've come to see these two books as being parts of the same whole, like the Lord of the Rings saga, or Dune. I have come to the conclusion that the president* has slipped his gears and that his control over the military—and over foreign policy—is as tenuous as his hold on rationality is. I have not felt this shaky about the state of the world since October of 1962.

For example, there's his interview with Maria Bartiomo of the Fox Business Channel. (This is the one that will go down in history as The Wonderful Chocolate Cake Interview, and that's scary enough.) The FBC is the safest possible media venue for this president*. The FBC makes the Fox News Channel look like Nick, Jr. Bartiromo certainly wasn't out to ambush the president*. He managed to ambush himself and to do so in such a way as to appear to be groping his way toward plain English in a truly unnerving way. For example:

TRUMP: Well, I'm going to let you figure that one out. But it's so obvious. When you look at Susan Rice and what's going on, and so many people are coming up to me and apologizing now. They're saying you know, you were right when you said that. Perhaps I didn't know how right I was, because nobody knew the extent of it. (INAUDIBLE)...

BARTIROMO: When you sent that...

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: — what they did...

BARTIROMO: — was that what you were referring to, the Susan Rice?

TRUMP: Oh, sure. We're talking about surveillance. It was wiretapped in quotes. "The New York Times" said the word wiretapped in the headline of the first edition. Then they took it out of there fast when they realized. But I put wiretapped in quotes, meaning, because, look, wiretapping is an old-fashioned... (CROSSTALK) there are too many wires anymore, right? You don't have a lot of wires. Look at this room. This room used to have a lot of wires. Now it doesn't have so many wires.

Leave aside the obvious untruths—about the surveillance and Susan Rice and what he tweeted and (probably) all those great people who are congratulating him for being so right about everything. Look just at the language. He is talking in circles, gingerly stepping toward the familiar like a man crossing a frozen river on ice he doesn't trust. "Wires," he says, over and over again. I don't think that's because he doesn't know what he's talking about. I think that's because "wires" is a word he can remember.

And then there's this:

TRUMP: — and you see these beautiful kids that are dead in their father's arms, or you see kids gasping for life and you know they're — it's over. It's over for them. They're hosing them down, hundreds of them. When you see that, I immediately called General Mattis. I said, what can we do? And they came back with a number of different alternatives. And we hit them very hard. Now, are we going to get involved with Syria? No. But if I see them using gas and using things that — I mean even some of the worst tyrants in the world didn't use the kind of gases that they used. And some of the gases are unbelievably potent. So when I saw that, I said we have to do something.

Again, the language never strays far from what he's said before, even as the policy may or may not be reversing itself.

Which brings us to the second part of the Knebel Paradox. It's becoming very clear that the president* has farmed out his responsibilities as commander-in-chief—and most of his foreign policy—to the generals and ex-generals with whom he has surrounded himself. Here he is talking about using a carrier group to poke at the North Koreans.

TRUMP: And in the meantime, they get ready and like you've never seen — look, they're still fighting. Mosul was supposed to last for a week and now they've been fighting it for many months and so many more people died. I don't want to talk about it. We are sending an armada, very powerful. We have submarines, very powerful, far more powerful than the aircraft carrier, that I can tell you.And we have the best military people on Earth. And I will say this. He is doing the wrong thing. He is doing the wrong thing.

BARTIROMO: Do you...

TRUMP: He's making a big mistake.

BARTIROMO: — do you think he's mentally fit?

TRUMP: I don't know. I don't know. I don't know him. But he's doing the wrong thing. I have a very, very good meeting with President Xi of China. I really liked him. We had a great chemistry, I think. I mean at least I had a great chemistry — maybe he didn't like me, but I think he liked me.

He is talking as if to children. I think he's talking to himself.

Things got worse the other day, when the U.S. dropped the mightiest non-nuclear weapon it has on a bunch of rocks and caves in Afghanistan. The president* explained this event by stating categorically that the generals are in charge. From Military Times:

"What I do is I authorize my military," in response to a press question about the use of a massive bomb in an assault on Islamic State group positions in Afghanistan. "We have the greatest military in the world, and they've done the job, as usual. We have given them total authorization, and that's what they're doing. Frankly, that's why they've been so successful lately. If you look at what's happened over the last eight weeks and compare that really to what has happened over the last eight years, you'll see there is a tremendous difference."

Those are not the words you want to hear from the guy on whom—theoretically, at least—the national command authority rests. Those are the words of a guy who's terrified of the awesome responsibilities of his job because he knows he's not up to them, and I think he's not up to them because he knows something's wrong with him. And, come to think of it, "my" military is pretty frightening, too.

There now are several crisis points in the world that are hanging by a thread. At the same time, the civilian control of the military also is hanging by a thread, because nobody's sure whether or not the commander-in-chief can keep himself together. (This column, in which the author assures us that the president* is being "saved" by the military minds around him, is meant to be reassuring, but damned well isn't.)

At the end of Fletcher Knebel's novels, the bughouse president resigns and the coup is foiled. In real life, who knows if it ends that way. I don't want a president* who knows he's not up to the job and I don't want a military establishment that thinks it knows what to do about it. That way, we all go crazy.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
In 3 Months, Trump Has Charged into 4 Mideast Wars, to No Avail Print
Saturday, 15 April 2017 14:37

Cole writes: “In his less than three months in office, Donald Trump has escalated four wars, and all of his escalations have been failures.”

Donald Trump. (photo: AP)
Donald Trump. (photo: AP)


In 3 Months, Trump Has Charged into 4 Mideast Wars, to No Avail

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

15 April 17

 

n his less than three months in office, Donald Trump has escalated four wars, and all of his escalations have been failures.

To be fair, Trump inherited all 4 wars from Barack Obama– Afghanistan, Iraq v. ISIL, Leftist Kurds v ISIL in Syria, and targeting support and tactical advice to Saudi Arabia in Yemen.

Trump campaigned on reducing such foreign entanglements and focusing on the US and its needs. But in office he has declined to rethink any of these commitments and indeed has escalated in each theater.

Trump’s first escalation was in Yemen, in late January. He sent in a team of navy Seals to attack an alleged al-Qaeda compound. But the man he was targeting had switched sides and was supporting the Yemeni government. The raid produced no useful intelligence and the target disappeared. A navy Seal was killed along with some 30 civilians, including children. The raid did not further the Saudi war aim of defeating the Houthi militia– it was aimed at al-Qaeda in Yemen, which has taken advantage of the Saudi intervention to grab territory.

In Iraq in late March, once Trump came in, the restrictive rules of operation for the military insisted on by Obama were loosened by the US miltitary. A bombing by a US aircraft caused the collapse of a civilian apartment complex, killing at least 200 innocent civilians.

In Syria’s Northeastern Front, Trump doubled the number of US special ops troops embeded with the leftist Kurdish militia, the YPG. These forces are intended to attack ISIL in its Syrian capital, Raqqa, but despite promises by Trump, no such concerted new campaign has begun. Then when it appeared last week that the Syrian regime used poison gas in its struggle against the al-Qaeda affiliate and its allies in the Northwestern Front at Idlib, Trump dropped 59 Tomahawk missiles on a small airbase. No significant damage was done and Syria was flying missions again the next day.

On Thursday, Trump hit with an 11 ton bomb some caves in Nangarhar, Afghanistan, said to be being used by Taliban rebels who had joined ISIL. The US has lost 1/3 of Afghanistan to fundamentalist rebels, mostly Taliban, in a 16-year war that is going worse now than than at any time since spring, 2002. There is no prospect of defeating guerrillas with air power, no matter how massive. The US carpet-bombed Vietnam and still lost. The desperation of the Trump administration is demonstrated by the use of old Saddam Hussein hyperbole, calling the missile ‘The Mother of all Bombs.’ Trump is actually translating his propaganda directly from Dictator Arabic! Saddam had called the Gulf War ‘the Mother of all Battles’ (Umm al-Ma’arik), though this was a literal press translation. The phrase means the ‘essence of all battles.’ Saddam’s hyperbole did not serve him well.

What all four Trump interventions in his ongoing US wars in the Middle East have in common is that they were splashy, produced headlines for a day, and altered the course of the conflict not a jot or a tittle.

Trump is gradually inducting his Four Wars into his Reality-Show universe, where everything is done for ratings and just for show.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Print
Saturday, 15 April 2017 14:11

Azizi writes: “Last December, the Party of the European Left (EL) held its fifth congress in Berlin, playing host to dozens of speakers from European communist and socialist parties. One of the most-watched contributions came from the spokeswoman for the working group on Eastern European and Balkan countries.”

Tanzanian member of parliament Zitto Kabwe speaks to a crowd in 2011. (photo: Pernille Bærendtsen/Flickr)
Tanzanian member of parliament Zitto Kabwe speaks to a crowd in 2011. (photo: Pernille Bærendtsen/Flickr)


Democratizing Ujamaa: How Tanzania’s Left Is Leading the Charge for Socialism in Africa

By Arash Azizi, Jacobin

15 April 17

 

Tanzania’s leftist ACT party wants to establish a model for democratic socialism on the African continent.

ast December, the Party of the European Left (EL) held its fifth congress in Berlin, playing host to dozens of speakers from European communist and socialist parties. One of the most-watched contributions came from the spokeswoman for the working group on Eastern European and Balkan countries.

When the EL began gathering at the turn of the millennium, the Left was in miserable shape in these formerly state socialist countries. Today, left parties are present in almost every country in the region and in some, like the Czech Republic, Moldova, and Slovenia, are significant contenders.

Among those paying careful attention were John Patrick and Carol Ndosi of Tanzania’s Alliance for Change and Transparency (ACT), another leftist party laboring in the aftermath of state socialism’s collapse.

Tanzania has been governed by the same political party since it gained independence in 1962. Today the formation calls itself Chama cha Mapinduzi (CCM), Swahili for “The Revolutionary Party,” and its leadership is a fixture at elite summits like Davos’s World Economic Forum. But CCM and its predecessor, Tanganyika African National Union (TANU), were once very different parties, helmed by committed revolutionaries determined to build socialism in adverse postcolonial conditions in a mostly rural country.

In his history of the Third World, Vijay Prashad, the Indian Marxist historian, cites Tanzania as typical of the “socialism in a hurry that became undemocratic and authoritarian.” Like other Third World countries, Tanzania’s state socialist project was headed by a founding father figure (President Julius Nyerere); nationalized the economy’s commanding heights; installed one-party rule while suppressing all dissent, including independent trade unions; and trumpeted grand visions that failed to convince the local population (“village socialism”).

When Nyerere resigned in 1985, it signaled the breakdown of state socialism. Democratic elections for the parliament and presidency soon followed. But the ruling party used its incumbency advantage (and occasional vote-rigging) to win that election, and every contest since.

The 1967 Arusha Declaration had enshrined the individual’s “right to dignity and respect in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and defined it as “the responsibility of the state to intervene actively in the economic life of the Nation to ensure the well being of all citizens.” Its conception of “ujamaa” (an African socialism that emphasized local cooperation) served as a source of inspiration across the continent.

The post-Nyerere leadership quickly jettisoned this legacy. Arusha was replaced by the 1991 Zanzibar Declaration, in which the CCM’s national executive committee authorized the party’s members to “participate in private economic activities.” CCM leaders could now earn more than one salary, buy shares, assume directorships in private companies, and build houses to rent (previously, all such activities had been prohibited to prevent corruption).

Needless to say, the international financial organizations welcomed this pro-capitalist turn with open arms. The World Bank and the International Monetary heaped praise on the Tanzanian leadership and even cancelled much of the country’s foreign debt.

Meanwhile, corruption flourished. As the majority of the country fell further behind, Benjamin Mkapa, Tanzania’s president from 1995 to 2005, was busy spending $20 million on a private jet and $40 million on military aviation equipment.

“We Believe in Socialism”

Patrick and Ndosi are too young to remember these tectonic shifts, much less the Nyerere years that preceded them. Growing up, however, they were well aware of the country’s stifling authoritarianism, imposed by pro-market bureaucrats from on high. Many in their generation joined the Chama cha Demokrasia na Maendeleo (Chadema, or Party for Democracy and Progress), which was founded in 1992 and functioned as a big-tent party for democrats.

Opposition to the ruling party began to develop in unexpected ways, billowing out beyond the constricted political imaginations of Chadema’s leaders. Responding to years of corruption at the top and lagging social development at the bottom, the hip-hop scene in Tanzania started championing the forgotten principles of ujamaa. They didn’t want, of course, to bring back one-party rule, but the cooperation and solidarity that Nyerere spoke of was music to the ears of the young generation.

The political manifestation of this new socialism crystalized in 2014 with the formation of ACT.

“Most of us were members of Chadema,” Patrick told me when I spoke with him in Berlin. “But while we believe in socialism, they are a capitalistic party. It was inevitable that we had to secede at some point.”

Established ahead of the October 2015 elections, ACT soon attracted a big fish: Zitto Kabwe, a popular member of parliament and Chadema’s deputy secretary. Elected to parliament at the age of twenty-eight (the youngest in the history of Tanzanian democracy), Kabwe was a Chadema member for more than two decades before becoming ACT’s main leader.

Kabwe is arguably the country’s most popular political figure. He’s especially well-liked among young people, who associate him with hard fights for progressive taxation, public accountability, and transparency in gas and mining contracts (which he pushed for as Chadema’s shadow finance minister and chair of the parliament’s public accounts committee). He cut his teeth using the opposition’s parliamentary prerogatives to expose the ruling party’s transgressions.

Shortly after its establishment, ACT organized a meeting in Tabora, the city originally slated to host the gathering that yielded the Arusha Declaration.

“We wanted to show both our continuity with the past and our new conceptions of socialism,” Ndosi explained. “The Tabora Declaration of 2015 wasn’t a repeat of Arusha 1967 but its rejuvenation.”

The document takes to task “an economy that does not produce adequate jobs or address poverty,” specifically indicting “poor social services including education, health, and water,” “corruption,” and “fractures within society.” It pledges the party’s support for a “socialist nation with equality as a basic principle.”

In the immediate term, ACT’s aim is to democratize the country while reinjecting some of the principles of ujamaa into the political debate.

A young party with mostly young people in a country of elderly statesmen, ACT was initially ignored. But it’s since mushroomed in size. In the 2015 elections, Zitto was able to recapture his Kigoma North seat under the nascent party’s banner, and ACT has won forty-two additional councilor positions.

Patrick highlights the four issues that ACT’s election manifesto emphasized: social security, participatory economy, health care, and education. Measures to increase participation in the economy, limit foreign control, and promote local ownership of resources were some of the most popular policies.

“Our policies touched the concerns of the youth, and the fact that most of our leaders are young also inspires them,” Patrick says.

“We want to bring back socialism into this country by speaking the language of the people,” Ndosi adds. “They understood us and voted for us because we spoke about equality.”

Others across the continent are espousing a similar vision — and ACT has been eager to link up with them.

The party’s founding convention featured guests like Samia Nkrumah, daughter of Ghana’s founding president, Kwame Nkrumah. Samia has rebuilt her father’s Convention People’s Party and was able to win the party’s sole parliamentary seat. She has emerged as a champion of young Ghanian leftists. Kenya’s Ababu Namwamba was another guest. Like Zitto, Ababu chairs his country’s parliamentary public accounts committee and left a big-tent party (the Orange Democratic Movement) to lead an explicitly leftist group (the Labour Party of Kenya). ACT also has warm relations with the Democratic Republic of Congo’s Vital Kamerhe and his Union for the Congolese Nation (UCN), which placed third in the 2011 presidential elections.

ACT’s presence at last December’s EL congress showed the party is looking outside of Africa as well: Germany’s Die Linke and its think tank, the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, invited the fledgling party after the formations established ties.

Tanzania’s Fertile Ground

A few decades after state socialism’s decline, Tanzania is rife with social pressures.

Last March, on the autonomous island of Zanzibar, the government cancelled the polls after the opposition’s likely win in the elections. Police used tear gas to put down the ensuing protests, and the opposition boycotted the subsequent election. ACT, along with other forces, continues to refuse to recognize the current CCM government.

Last year, the Tanzanian government’s decision to ban live broadcasting of parliamentary debates and suspend seven members of parliament sparked mass demonstrations. Scores were arrested, including Kabwe.

The country has slipped further in international human development and corruption indexes.

And Chadema has largely discredited itself after choosing Edward Lowassa — a former CCM prime minister who only joined Chadema after his party passed him over — as its presidential nominee in the most recent election. Once again, as in other African countries, the big-tent “pro-democracy” party was revealed to be an amalgam of self-interested politicians — more intent on replacing the ruling party than changing substantive policies or curbing the exploitation of state assets.

These tumultuous conditions provide ACT with fertile ground to grow. Its elected councilors across the country are involving themselves in local campaigns, fighting for principles of equality and accountability. They are hopeful that a democratic socialist government in Tanzania could lift living standards and supply a model for the rest of Africa.

ACT is young, and its conception of socialism is still developing. But for a party formed in the crucible of struggle against the ruling party’s autocratic privileges, they have little appetite for a return to authoritarianism. In this, they represent a growing tendency in Africa: new parties, mostly rooted in the younger generation, who see socialism as the cure to their countries’ ills.

A new democratic socialism may just be raising its head on the continent.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 Next > End >>

Page 1670 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN