watermelon
Conference
Newsletter of Green Left Autumn2014
What
is TTIP?
Currently,
negotiations are being carried out in secret to create the largest free trade
area in the world, ostensibly as a path to stronger economic recovery after the
financial crisis. The emphasis is not so much the removal of tariff barriers,
but to promote deregulation: removing barriers that could stand in the way of
international corporate interests, such as any laws protecting labour rights,
the environment, food standards, consumer rights and the tentative regulations
governing the banks, which caused this economic crisis in the first place!
‘In
addition to the prospect of handing over public services to profit-making
companies, it becomes effectively impossible for countries to restore public
services if they have already been privatized
TTIP
will affect directly and immediately not only our individual health, the safety
of our food and environment and our democratic rights, but will do away with
the social achievements fought for and won by the trade union movement for
generations.
This
is an assault on what many organisations have struggled for in order to create
a fair and just society .Democratically elected governments would virtually be
giving up their sovereignty.
An
essential and very alarming part of the TTIP is the incorporation of the ISDS
Investor
to State Dispute Settlement) allows any company to take the government of any
country to international arbitration committees (not the other way round!) if
they consider their profits infringed by any laws or regulations passed by that
government. These proceedings are held in secret and completely bypass and
override a state’s domestic judicial system. There is no appeal. The government
concerned has to pay the costs, and, if found guilty, face fines that can
amount to billions of dollars. In times of austerity it is quite obvious that
many governments would think twice about passing laws that may fall foul of
ISDS, and risk paying fines that could bankrupt a small country
US
negotiators have been quite specific about the area of EU legislation they would
especially like to see “deregulated”.
(continues)
Green Left is an anti-capitalist,
ecosocialist group within the Green Party of England &
Wales. Membership is open to all GPEW members, (see back page for
details).
|
Some
examples are listed as below:
Toxic
Chemicals.
Environmental
Regulations
The
Renewable Energy Directive.
Regulation
of greenhouse gas emissions (challenging the EU’s
commitments under the Kyoto Protocol).
Food
Safety potentially allowing GM foods, poultry that has been treated with
chlorine, and weakening controls on endocrine disruptors (chemicals known to
interfere with the human hormone system) .
What
can you do?
· Currently there is a growing
international and national
movement of civil opposition to this corporation power grab; over 100
organisations from 17 EU member states have expressed support for organising
a European
Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) on TTIP
· join further #NoTTIP actions
·
Here are
a few links to documents on TTIP from organisations such as War on Want and
Friends of the Earth:
·
. […]‘ (p.
25, The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership – A Charter
for Deregulation, An Attack on Jobs, An End to Democracy, by John Hilary, War on
Want)
heavily adapted from Barnet Alliance for Public Services http://barnetalliance.org/2014/07/10/ttip-the-biggest-threat-to-democracy-since-world-war-ii/
For a Future that doesn't Cost the Earth -
The international fight for climate jobs
Saturday 20th September 2014, 12pm - 5.30pm London
Metropolitan University
Tower Building, Holloway Road, N7 8DB.The provisional timetable for the CCC trade union group's Conference 2014 is now online at www.climate-change-jobs.org. London Peoples climate march Sunday 21st September, meet 1.30 Temple Place https://www.facebook.com/events/1428960304030884/
Tower Building, Holloway Road, N7 8DB.The provisional timetable for the CCC trade union group's Conference 2014 is now online at www.climate-change-jobs.org. London Peoples climate march Sunday 21st September, meet 1.30 Temple Place https://www.facebook.com/events/1428960304030884/
BRING BACK
BRITISH RAIL
|
by Julie Boston
|
Ever since privatisation of British Rail, the
rail unions have rallied members and the public to meetings to defend jobs and
services. As the late, lamented Bob Crow used to say: “A staffed railway is a
safe railway.”
Green Party policy is public ownership of
rail. East Coast mainline, which has been run by the state for the past few
years, gave a practical way of showing support. Action for Rail, We Own It,
Bring Back British Rail and Friends of Suburban Bristol Railways (FOSBR)
demonstrated this outside Kings Cross Station and Bristol Temple Meads on
Friday 7 March 2014. Campaigning against fare increases is due on Tuesday
19 August.
Friday 24 October is the second
reading of the Railways Bill presented by Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton
Pavilion. The new
franchise will seriously affect passengers and employees on the Thameslink,
Southern and Great Northern network.
On Tuesday 21 October, the ‘Freedom Riders’
will appear in a Sheffield Magistrates Court facing charges for defending their
free rail travel. Hopefully Bristol rail campaigners will show support on a
local station.
Julie Boston.
FOSBR Campaigns Organiser, one of the ON TRACK columnists
in the Bristol Post and member of the Green Party.
JUST ONE DAY ON THE GREEN LEFT FACEBOOK SITE!
Green Party - Gagging Laws not fit for Democracy; Tory MP’s and the Royal Family; Owen Jones and the ‘Agenda of Hope’; Petition
demanding a Public Enquiry into policing at Barton Moss; Pete Seeger – We shall Overcome; Fighting the Bedroom Tax; Occupy London report on the
anti-fracking campaign.
JOIN THE DISCUSSION
TODAY!
With nearly 4000 members the Green Left Face Book site is an
open group for people on the left to discuss campaigns, post items of
interests and also discuss ways forward in a positive manner for the green
and socialist movement including the need for eco socialist policies and
action.
VISIT THE GREEN LEFT
FACEBOOK SITE! Just type
‘Green Left’
in the search bar.
|
NUKES: JUST TOO DANGEROUS OR A NECESSARY EVIL?
Nuclear
power is far too risky, if a nuclear disaster can happen, it will happen. Malcom Bailey
Many members joined the Green Party in part because of
our anti-nuclear power policy. Our 2010 manifesto argued that nuclear power was
not the answer. The case against nuclear is even stronger today, after
Fukushima. Nuclear power is far too
risky, if a nuclear disaster can happen, it will happen. Fukushima happened,
despite the technological prowess of Japan, their expertise in earthquake
defence and awareness of radiation hazards from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nuclear
power has always been linked with nuclear weapons, it still is. The dangers of
nuclear proliferation, and the threat of terrorism, are real. Nuclear power is
pushed by the powerful aggressive lobbying of the nuclear industry, interested
in taking the profits then walking away from the costly painstaking
decommissioning problems. Nuclear power is not economically viable if fully
costed. The timescale for new build is far too long. Relaxed safety
requirements to prolong existing reactor life are unacceptable. There is no
solution for radioactive waste disposal, it will be a millstone legacy for many
generations and tens of thousands of years. If the Romans had nuclear power, we
would still be guarding the waste. Nuclear power is highly centralised power
generation, against the Green Party principles around localism. Nuclear is not
carbon-neutral. To opt for a mix of nuclear and renewables, even in a period of
transition, is a dangerous and unnecessary distraction from the energy policy
we need. We can get all the energy we need from renewables. We have the correct
policy on nuclear power, to change it would be foolish.
WE MIGHT BE IN A POSITION WHERE WE COULD PHASE NUCLEAR OUT OF
PRETTY QUICKLY, OR WE MIGHT BE IN ONE WHERE NUCLEAR LOOKS A LOT BETTER AS A
LEAST WORST SOLUTION
Just to begin
with, I want to be clear that I’m academically neutral on the subject of
nuclear power. My interest is purely in how to achieve a 100% renewable energy
supply as soon as possible, because I know that's by far the most important
thing we need to do to combat climate change.
Like it or not, nuclear isn't a black and white issue and, practically
speaking, if the Green Party came to power at the next election it would be
virtually impossible to go nuclear free in one term. If you look at the
progress on Germany's energiewende they're still a long way from meeting the
electricity supply losses from all nuclear build with renewables - leaving a
choice of importing dirty coal electricity from the east or nuclear electricity
from France.
The question of whether nuclear helps or hinders renewables is very
complicated. Probably the ideal pathway to 100% renewables is ramping up
capacity and ensuring all non-renewable new build is a mix of gas CCGTs
(combined cycle gas turbines), as much biomass as is sustainable and a few
other large scale renewable / low carbon techs that currently at near-zero
capacity. How long that'd take basically depends on how much and we're talking
big chunks of GDP to go there fast); how quickly it can be brought online and how much additional renewable build we'd
need to cover back up capacity Take energy efficiency and (critically) demand
reduction as read,.
An alternative scenario is accepting a bit of nuclear but then only
renewables as well. a 20-30/70-80 nuclear / renewables mix as a stepping stone
to 100% renewables The problem with this is that CCGTs work very well with
renewables because they can go on or offline in hours as supply and demand
rises and falls, but nuclear needs days to cycle up and down. However, I
certainly wouldn't rule out a 'nuclear and renewables only' solution with the
right mix of renewables, but for the foreseeable future by 'renewables' we mean
'mainly wind'. Wind should certainly be central to our renewable energy future
but much more generation from more predictable and less intermittent renewables
(e.g. tidal, marine, and anaerobic digestion) is needed to overcome its
drawbacks.
However, as it
is, is it not better to accept that we all agree 100% renewables is the goal I
may be wrong, but I do think the benefits of an anti-nuclear line out weight
the costs, but only if we are honest about the practicalities of achieving it,
which may be very uncomfortable for some members. That said, I do think
some of the risks of nuclear are overstated compared to the likely impacts of
climate change, and that its impacts have been overplayed when compared to
coal, and probably fracking.
So yes, I am
prepared to take a chunk of nuclear because at the moment it's preferable to
many of the likely alternatives. I have no problem being a member of an
anti-nuclear party because ultimately we all want to get rid of it, but I do
think that the party needs to be realistic about the fact that if it came to
power tomorrow it would not be able to eliminate nuclear from our energy mix in
one term, at least. And when the party does take power it should also be
prepared to consider whether or not it would actually be advisable to do so -
and that will depend on quite how badly those in power screw things up in the
meantime.
Dr Keith Baker is a Research Associate in
Sustainable Urban Environments at the School of Engineering and the Built
Environment, Glasgow Caledonian University. He specialises in energy, built
environment and climate change policy, carbon management, fuel poverty, and the
environmental impact of technology. Amongst other things he is a co-author of
the book Carbon Management in the Built Environment (Routledge) and a
co-founder of the Initiative for Carbon Accounting (ICARB). Email:keith.baker@gcu.ac.uk
`
THE VIEW FROM HINKLEY
Sue Aubrey,
Chair of Stop Hinkley talks to David Taylor (Bridgwater Green Party)
Q. Caroline Lucas and Molly Scott-Cato drew a good
crowd when they visited Hinkley recently. But both the government and the local
authorities here in Somerset act as if a new nuclear power station is a
certainty and many local people accept this. What can we do? A. Vote Green. They are the only
party in the UK against nuclear power. We must also lobby both our MPs and MEPs
as they are the decision makers. We can talk to the public as well and make
them aware of the issues. We should be having this conversation with as many
people as we can. To support the Stop Hinkley campaign visit www.stophinkley.org The website is a
useful resource to keep you up to date with current issues, as well as offering
the option to donate and become a member.
Q. Is Hinkley Point a suitable site for a Nuclear
Power station? A.
No. The future rising of sea levels and the coastal erosion due to climate
change makes Hinkley Point a vulnerable site. There was a tsunami in 1607 that
caused devastation as the sea engulfed Hinkley Point and reached as far inland
as Glastonbury. It could happen again.
Q. Will Hinkley C fill the energy gap? A. No. It will never be built in time
to replace the electricity lost as the old nuclear power stations come off
line. The two European versions of EdF’s reactor design are up to nine years
behind schedule and may never be finished. This reactor design is not yet
running anywhere in the world. Renewables could produce the same amount of
energy in less time and at a fraction of the cost.
Q. We have been generating nuclear waste in the UK
since 1956. What facilities do we have for the safe and secure long term
storage of nuclear waste? A. None!
Q. Is Nuclear Power cost effective? A.
No. Nuclear power has been totally subsidised for 50 years by the tax payers,
with never ending costs. The present Government wants to give further subsidies,
which are being investigated by the EU later this year.
Q. What is the total financial cost of nuclear power? A. Nobody knows yet. We won’t know
until the final bill for decommissioning and keeping the hazardous waste safe
and secure is totted up at some date thousands of years into the future. As the
costs escalate, standards will slip and accidents are inevitable. Nuclear power
is a poor investment for the future.
Q. What are the other costs of Nuclear Power? A. There are incalculable costs in
ill-health, environmental contamination and damage, which is a huge cost for
the future generations to have to carry. Continuing pollution of our
environment is unfolding with every release of radiation, both accidental and
licensed.
Q. The judge deciding in a recent An taisce (Irish
National Trust) challenge had been advised that the risk of a nuclear accident
was very small. Would you agree? A. Just look at the numbers. In the last 35 years there have
been 3 major accidents leading to meltdowns and nuclear disasters at Three Mile
Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima as well as many smaller incidents that have
been reported, let alone the ones that have not been reported under less open
regimes.
Q. How secure is Nuclear Power? A. Nuclear Power represents a high
security risk as a terrorist can target both the waste stored and the waste
transported on trains and lorries through our towns and cities. Our biggest
national security threat is from terrorists targeting nuclear facilities and
nuclear waste.
The State of the Green Party by Martin Francis
One of the populist slogans of
neo-liberalism is ‘choice’ often contrasted with the lack of choice in state
provided (they say ‘controlled’) education, health and social services.
Large-scale collective provision in the
past was often unresponsive to individual needs with unnecessary rules and
alienating procedures (I remember my mother being frustrated at having to get
council permission to decorate her council bungalow). Back in the 1980s
defending local services from cuts our local campaign recognised that they were
not perfect with the slogan, ‘Defend our services – fight for services worth
defending’.
Greens have tried to address that issue in
our education policy by supporting the role of democratically accountable local
authorities in school provision while also supporting diversity of educational
approaches within that provision and a curriculum responsive to local needs.
Within the Greens there are people who go
along with the choice agenda and oppose what they see as the ‘controlling’
local state. This is evident in the home education amendment (C20) where the
synopsis reads:
“To make it
perfectly clear that judgemental interference by the LA is not acceptable and
make it clear to Home Educators that the offer of support is there but
optional. There is no need for the LA to be responsible for ensuring HE
children receive ‘a broad and diverse education of high quality”.
When I joined the Green Party back in 2008
I asked about the Green Party’s view of the state. I was told, ‘We speak truth
to power’. Pursuing the question on various occasions it was clear that people
were wary of any heavy 70s style discussion of ‘the state’ but it does seem to
be the elephant in the room in terms of our policy making.
The initial division at a simplified level
is between those who see the state as an enabler, able to deliver progressive
social policies, even if it does not do so at present, and those who see it as
by nature oppressive and controlling.
Within the party there are differing
emphases on individual, community and large-scale collective solutions to the
problems we face. Divisions are apparent in our assumptions about the role of
the ‘local state’ in the form of local councils, and the role of big and small
businesses, nationalised industries, co-operatives, community groups and
voluntary organisations. In the Energy Policy (B1) motion there is clearly a
tension between the large-scale solutions requiring state planning and
financing and ‘localist’ democratically controlled initiatives. Does the seriousness of the climate crisis
mean the former takes priority over the latter? Would the Greens use state
power to impose such solutions?
In what seems to be blithe disregard of the
power of global finance and capitalism the Industry and Jobs policy motion (B2)
states: ‘Therefore markets should have a role as servants to society (but not
owners and masters). Trades Unions, Cooperatives and community ownership all
have a role in democratising control over production and socially aware
entrepreneurship can bring about benign change’.
How does that sit with Green Party policy
on the renationalisation of the railway if the market still has a role? Doesn’t
opposition from a vociferous market mean ‘benign change’ will fail unless there
is considerable state muscle behind it?
Strike
where it hurts by Laura Bannister
On July 10th hundreds
of thousands of public sector workers went on strike over pay, conditions and
pensions. The Green Party sent letters of solidarity to the trade unions
involved, and released statements of support to the media. For some, this
brought up complex issues. Most of the major strikes in recent years have been
in the public sector, which – although centralised and hierarchical – is
essentially a set of not-for-profit organisations working broadly for the
common good.
This feels a bit at odds with the
ideology surrounding strikes, and it muddles the mechanisms for making them
effective. In a private company with profit-hungry owners, a strike means
a day of lost profits and a potential loss of long-term customers who want
reliable service. As the company exists alongside other providers, customers
can still get what they need – it is the company owners that suffer the
loss.
For the public sector it’s rather
different. There are no profits to be lost; instead it is the public that loses
services. These ‘customers’ can’t take their business elsewhere. A
government that is not particularly fussed about providing decent public
services might not be too concerned that the public will lose out. Meanwhile,
an elite-owned media can frame the issue as a case of bolshy workers rather
than bad government, so the reputational loss is borne by the workers movement
rather than by the political party in power.
This is what we’re up against as we
resist the destruction of the public sector. While strikes are still a crucial
tool in our armoury, we need to consider if there are other ways of hitting bad
governments where it hurts. A teacher friend of mine had an interesting idea: a
campaign of indefinite work-to-rule. Teachers would still turn up to school and
provide high-quality lessons, mark children’s work, and look after their well-being.
But they would not go to staff meetings, or reply to management emails. They
would not submit lesson plans for approval, co-operate with performance
assessments, or do any ‘box-ticking’. In this scenario, kids would still
get educated, and their parents could still go to work. But the government’s
initiatives would fizzle out; their attempts to control schools and teachers
would come to nothing. Spread across the public sector, everyday services for
the public would continue, but the government would be shown up as incapable of
implementing their policies.
As public opinion tends to be hostile
to ‘bureaucracy’ anyway, this sort of action might attract a lot of support.
This could scare bad governments into reversing cuts, or even persuade the public
to elect better governments that have alternatives to
austerity.
The law surrounding work-to-rule is
vague, and this kind of industrial action would no doubt be vilified and
penalised by most governments. But given that strikes already suffer this
treatment, and may not always achieve their desired effects, now could be a
good time to start thinking outside the box.
We need to sharpen the tools in our
armoury if we’re going to win the fight against cuts and preserve and support a
decent public sector.
1989 THE HIGH WATERMARK? WHAT ABOUT 2015?
The European Elections of 1989 still stand as the
high watermark of the Green Party`s electoral fortunes. As the election was
First Past The Post, even a 15% share of the national vote failed to secure a
single seat - although over two and a quarter million people voted Green. There
was a clear regional divide. Most seats in the South and South West had a 20% -
23% Green vote as against 10% - 12% in the Labour heartlands. This was seen as
a historic breakthrough which caused a short lived media sensation and an
influx of new members which the small party struggled to cope with.
The Green surge in 1989 had a very specific context
which is unlikely to be repeated. The party had a clear field then to harvest
most of the “none of the above” vote which at the recent Euros went to UKIP. On
the other hand the party did not have the capacity to capitalise on its
electoral success. As far as the wider public were concerned the Greens were a
one issue party who got lucky, benefited from a mid-term protest vote and faded
away again.
The 2015 General Election will be fought in the
context of a big change in the political weather. The three main parties now
share the same neo-liberal agenda and the “none of the above” vote has risen to
30% in recent polls. The one and a quarter million people who have just voted
Green in the Euros have mostly voted Green before, many of them on multiple
occasions. The Green Party can now be said to have “a base” and one which is
increasing along with a rapid rise in membership. With a few notable exceptions
past general elections have brought disappointment. After the 2009 Euro-elections
our support dropped back to less than 4% within three months. This time 8% say
they intend to vote Green in 2015. A result anywhere close to this would mean a
step change in public perceptions and future voting intentions; and the party
would become more of a pole of attraction for young people and those in the
movements against austerity, fracking etc..
We have the radical policies for social justice and
a fairer society on a sustainable planet and surveys show that 25% of people
agree with us on the key issues. At the General Election in 2015 we will
asking, or challenging, them to “Vote For What You Believe In” for a change.
The Green Party is very much coming of age politically and being faced with
bigger challenges but opportunity is definitely knocking again.
By ’Old Bob;
Responding locally to remote attacks
Swheatie Kilburn Unemployed Workers’ Group personal capacity
|
A placard I once designed for the KUWG
says: “We're more angry than frightened.” State oppression uses state
broadcasting and nasty profiteering companies such as Atos, Crapita, and
Maximus against us along with intimidation and 'witch hunts' as tactics to make
us cower. Disability hate crime has been on the increase along with
encouragement from Government for people to suspect and report on supposedly
fraudulent disability benefit claimants. Against this backdrop, are the deaths
of people denied the benefits they should have been entitled to justified by
the supposed need to clamp down on fraud by benefit claimants? Thus many claimants
are afraid of standing out publicly and using their abilities for fear of being
deemed 'fit for work' or 'not disabled enough' or 'spending too much time
campaigning and not enough time job-seeking'.
But in KUWG we each do what we can for the
common good, as and when we can. That includes leafleting outside jobcentres
and housing offices, etc, even going inside those places with people so that
they get treated better with a witness beside them. We also have self-trained
advocates supporting others through every stage of their benefit claims. Our
motto is, “Never attend anywhere official alone.”
Yet in coming together with others who have
been oppressed, we get to realise our collective strengths in ways that we
would not as isolated jobseekers. We become more 'class conscious' overcoming
that sense of isolation our oppressors want to bestow upon us, we experience
ourselves as more powerful and thus “more angry than frightened.”
As in
Kilburn, so in Palestine
I'm reminded of that in reading of Mashjar
Juthour's response to the oppression Palestinian peoples have been subject to
not just from the State of Israel, but previously from the Ottoman Empire. (The
name Masjar Juthour means 'a place of trees and roots'.) They write: “Historically,
the Ottoman Empire destroyed the oaks of Palestine to build railways. Now,
Israelis plunder centuries old olive groves in acts of cultural genocide, and Palestinian
authorities are failing to prevent the dumping of construction waste to the
detriment of trees, farms and river beds, and offenders go unpunished.”
Similarly, the attacks experienced by
economically vulnerable people in the UK cannot be laid at the doors of just
one political party, and stem from such thefts by the wealthy from the poor as
the Inclosures
Acts by which dispossessed
people became more dependent upon being available to 'the labour market' and
'the market economy' for food and shelter. Beyond the Inclosures Acts,
there was the privatisation of public utilities in the 1980s, and there has also
been the impact of 'Right to Buy' policies with very intense subsidies from
Central Government, to the detriment of truly social housing and the maniacal
glee of the global wealthy. And now, of course, a Government with no mandate
for fracking, wants to sell licenses to global companies to add to global
warming and undermine our roots to the land.
Kurdish Initiative for a Democratic Syria:
Solidarity with Rojava by Derek Wall
|
The 2003 invasion of Iraq led to the death of
millions and chaos in the region. Jihadism nurtured by both Saudi Arabia
and starting in Afghanistan in the 1980s by the USA as a force against the
left, has flowered into a killing machine in Iraq and Syria. Using US
weapons ISIS in Iraq have assaulted the population, against with particular
violence against Shias, Christians and Yizadhis. How should the left
react? Cheering on renewed US and British intervention is wrong, a root cause
of the current horrifying situation is such intervention. In a complex
situation I think it is clear that we should give practical solidarity to
Rojava.
Perhaps you haven't heard of Rojava. It is the Kurdish region of Syria. Rojava is both newly autonomous and proud socialist, so no wonder it isn't in the news. A society that embraces religious and other forms of diversity, it has also been the most successful force in the region in opposing ISIS and other murderous fundamentalist forces.
Some see Rojava as a Chiapas of the Middle East. This is in reference to the Zapatists who revolting against neo-liberalism and assaults on indigenous people in Mexico, created their own liberated region. I am not in any position to judge this and we should beware make statements of dogmatic certainty for the far away UK. However it is clear that we should give Rojava solidarity, there are perhaps a million refugees in Rojava. We should also educated ourselves as to their work, learn more and support where we can. An appeal in support of Rojava can be found following this link.
Perhaps you haven't heard of Rojava. It is the Kurdish region of Syria. Rojava is both newly autonomous and proud socialist, so no wonder it isn't in the news. A society that embraces religious and other forms of diversity, it has also been the most successful force in the region in opposing ISIS and other murderous fundamentalist forces.
Some see Rojava as a Chiapas of the Middle East. This is in reference to the Zapatists who revolting against neo-liberalism and assaults on indigenous people in Mexico, created their own liberated region. I am not in any position to judge this and we should beware make statements of dogmatic certainty for the far away UK. However it is clear that we should give Rojava solidarity, there are perhaps a million refugees in Rojava. We should also educated ourselves as to their work, learn more and support where we can. An appeal in support of Rojava can be found following this link.
ECOSOCIALISM IN EUROPE: A
New Vision
‘Social democracy has collapsed;
there has been no falling of walls, but it has collapsed’ (Jean-Luc Melenchon,
EEAN, Brussels)
These
are my personal reflections on meetings I have attended, in Brussels and
London, of the new European Ecosocialist Action Network. EEAN was established
in 2013, for the organisation of common actions, sharing information and
experiences, and to develop ecosocialist proposals across Europe. My first meeting was the follow-up meeting
held in Brussels in March which I attended with Jane Ennis of Green Left. There
was participation from Europe with delegates from Poland, Hungary, Bohemia and
Moravia, Italy, Spain, Greece, Belgium, UK, France and Germany. From the UK, Green Left, Left Unity, Alliance
for Green Socialism and Socialist Resistance were represented.
The
first session in Brussels was a roundtable discussion, with contributions from
all delegates, followed by a debate on forms of possible direct action across
Europe. A technical secretariat was established for drafting work on the founding
statement. The afternoon session comprised invited contributions and questions.
Delegates were addressed by Michael Lowy who argued that ‘It’s a worldwide struggle, with a common enemy,
the global companies that affect us all. There is a clash of cultures between
indigenous people and the relentless pursuit of capitalist growth....’
Isabelle Vanhiel, presented a valuable detailed account of the legal tools to
confront multinational companies. Rene Fernandes, the Bolivian Ambassador to the
EU welcomed the formation of EEAN. The session concluded with an inspirational
speech by Jean-Luc Melenchon MEP.
There were diverging viewpoints and differing
priorities and agendas among so many European countries. There was a commitment
to share experiences, learn and find common solutions. This diversity is a
major strength of EEAN.
The
successful beginning owes much too many individuals, not least Francois Ralle
Andreoli, Romayne Phoenix, Stephen Bouquin and Sylvain Savier. I was able to
attend the first day of the next EEAN meeting held in London in June. It was an
opportunity to renew personal contacts. The principal outcomes were: the
founding statement of EEAN, a campaigning blueprint ‘Green Energy for All’, and
a set of organisational guidelines. The next EEAN meeting is planned for
Barcelona. In my view this new network holds much promise for the development
of Ecosocialism in Europe and beyond.
Malcolm
Bailey is Deputy Chair of Green Left
THE FIGHT FOR FOOD SOVEREIGNTY
Peter Allen
Globalisation, (or to name it
properly Global Capitalism), impacts on all aspects of human life, across the planet.
Perhaps the most damaging manifestation of this is in relation to food- how and
where it is produced and the extent to which the need to provide nutritious
food for humanity on a sustainable basis
is undermined by the profit motives of some of the world's largest and
greediest corporations.
In 2009 the UN estimated that 850
million people were chronically undernourished, lacking enough daily food to
sustain a minimally healthy life. In the same year, against a backdrop of a
severe economic crisis (a crisis of global capitalism) contributions to the
World Food Programme hit a 20 year low. By 2012 2.5 billion people were
considered to have an insufficient food intake. Most of them were the rural
poor.
The danger of food shortages has
been exacerbated by- growing meat consumption, agro fuel production, climate
change, and the damaging effects of modern agricultural and fishing methods.
Around 40 transnational corporations control the global food regime, amassing
spectacular profits in doing so.
"In
a global food regime that has increasingly favoured the spread of industrial
agriculture over sustainable local farming, those who live off the land have
been rendered most vulnerable. As food commodities fetch record prices on
global markets, those growing the food are denied even the basic minimum to eat
“(from
The Poverty of Capitalism by John Hilary)
However
the majority of staple crops which feed the world are still grown not by
transnational corporations but by farmers using traditional methods. (400
million of the world's 525 million farms are small farms- less than two
hectares). And contrary to " popular belief " ( what global
capitalism wants us to believe) these small holdings have higher yields than
large plantation based farms and greater potential for poverty reduction, as
well as reduced greenhouse gas emissions, as confirmed in a recent report by
the retiring UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food (and ecosocialist ?)
Olivier De Schutter.
The good
(and under reported) news is that these "traditional farmers" are
fighting back against the domination of global capitalism, and are organising
to do so. La Via Campesina ("The Peasant Way") is an international
movement of small farmers, made up of 100 organisations with a combined
membership of 200 million. It is a movement which fights for food sovereignty,
defined in its founding statement as
“the right of
all peoples, their nations, or unions of states to define their respective
agricultural and food policies”
Its aim is nothing less than the
reorganisation of national and global food trade, involving the empowerment of
small farmers and farming communities across the world, and a commitment to “agro ecology “. It is a movement which
deserves the support of greens and green socialists everywhere
Peter will be speaking at a workshop on
food sovereignty at the Ecosocialism 2014 Conference in Wigan on September 14th
(flyers about this event are at the Green Left stall)
Young
Are The Dead (after the bombing of Gaza 2014)
Young are the dead like babies they lie The wombs they once blessed are barely healed dry, Yet so soon into each new space The warm earth falls on a fresh cold face, Dug fast by fathers the least they could do As older brothers chant war pledges renewed, Quite still they lie clutching their beads Wrapped for their journey these new winter seeds Will not bloom when called by spring To burst into leaf and bold blossoming, They will sleep on in silent dust As their mothers wail and our memories rust. Pete the Poet |
|
GPTU
The Green Party Trade Union Group
The Green Party Trade Union Group is part of the
Green Party of England & Wales, FREE Membership of GPTU is open to any current
members of GPEW. Contact Noel Lynch:noellynch@tiscali.co.uk or join at the
GPTU conference stall. GPTU provides a discussion forum and aims to further
good relations between GPEW and Trades Unions, by putting forward policy and
campaign proposals to GPEW and to Trades Unions.
THE
NEXT GREEN LEFT MEETING will be on Saturday4 October 2014 in Rugby time and venue
tba
|
JOIN
GREEN LEFT
Green
Left subscriptions are £5 per year, with a reduced discretionary fee of £2
for unwaged/low waged.
You can join GL by sending a cheque or you
can pay by standing order
Please send cheques to: Green
Left Treasurer, 8 Slatelands Rd, Glossop, SK13 6LH.
Please send the following details with your
cheque:
NAME
ADDRESS
GREEN
PARTY MEMBERSHIP (name of Party)EMAIL
PHONE
OR
You
can set up a standing order or make a direct payment to the account using the
following details.....
Account name: GREEN LEFT
Co-operative
bank, PO Box 250 , Delf House, Southway, SKELMERSDALE WN8 6WT
Sort
code: 089299
Account
no: 65284751
On receipt of your subscription the Treasurer
will send you an email confirming your membership.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment