Login
Socialism is now apparently brought to you by the US State Department.
From July 4 to 7, thousands of left-wing activists from across the United States are gathering in Chicago for the 2019 Socialism Conference.
At this event, some of the most powerful institutions on the American socialist — but avowedly anti-communist — left have brought together a motley crew of regime-change activists to demonize Official Enemies of Washington.
One anti-China panel at the conference features speakers from two different organizations that are both bankrolled by the US government’s soft-power arm the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a group founded out of Ronald Reagan’s CIA in the 1980s to grease the wheels of right-wing regime-change efforts and promote “free markets” across the planet.
Another longtime ally who has spoken at every single annual Socialism Conference since 2009, Anand Gopal, works at a liberal foundation that is directly funded by the US State Department. He is headlining a panel this year to provide “A Socialist View of the Arab Spring.”
Yet another 2019 conference panel rails against the socialist governments of Nicaragua and Cuba — two-thirds of John Bolton’s “troika of tyranny” — with outspoken proponents of regime change. One of the speakers, Dan La Botz, hosted an event in 2018 that featured right-wing Nicaraguan activists wearing masks and disguised as students, who were junketed to meet with Republican lawmakers in Washington by the US government-funded right-wing organization Freedom House.
The Socialism Conference’s regime-change lobbying “Nicaragua expert” La Botz has admitted in leaked emails obtained by The Grayzone that “there is virtually no left among the opposition” to Nicaragua’s democratically elected socialist government.
La Botz, a leader within Democratic Socialists of America, likewise acknowledged in these emails that there is “little likelihood of an outcome to the rebellion that goes beyond a more democratic capitalist regime.” But he has still vociferously lobbied for Nicaragua’s Sandinista government to be overthrown by US government-backed insurgents — and is using his platform at the biggest socialist conference in the United States to do it.
The 2019 Socialism Conference is advertised under the catchy slogan: “No borders, no bosses, no binaries.”
Each ticket comes in at a neat $105 per person (or a $250 “solidarity rate,” for the hardcore supporters) — and this doesn’t include the rate for the rooms at the hotel where it’s held.
For years, the Socialism Conference functioned as a platform for the International Socialist Organization (ISO), a small group steeped in the tradition of sectarian American Trotskyite politics, which pushed a hardline anti-communism and attacked virtually all socialist governments in history as “not truly socialist.”
Founded in 1977 after a long line of sectarian splits, the ISO never became a significant political force. It was mostly relegated to recruiting young impressionable students on liberal arts college campuses.
As an avowedly anti-communist organization, the ISO eschewed symbols long associated with the communist left, like hammers and sickles and red flags. Instead, it chose a clenched fist — one eerily similar to the symbol used by the US government-funded Serbian activist group Otpor and similar offshoots in Eastern Europe, which carried out Washington-backed neoliberal “color revolutions” in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the restoration of capitalism.
The ISO claimed to be anti-war, but its leaders spent a disproportionate percentage of their time and resources attacking the anti-imperialist left. They could more accurately be referred to as the anti-anti-imperialist left.
This March, the ISO voted to dissolve — in a decision some former members joked was the most democratic act ever undertaken by the organization, which had been dominated by an unelected leadership of veteran Trotskyite activists.
The dissolution was prompted by evidence that the ISO’s steering committee mishandled sexual assault allegations. It also came as the ISO’s membership was shrinking and rapidly being absorbed by a newly burgeoning anti-communist organization, the Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA.
Now that the ISO has dissolved, some of its past prominent members have entered the ranks of the DSA, burrowing from within to inject their anti-anti-imperialist politics into the group.
Because Trotskyites are so sectarian and notoriously incapable of holding together organizations, they are infamous for infiltrating larger, more popular groups and trying to take them over, in a tactic known as entryism.
This is precisely the strategy being used by former members of the ISO — and by another tiny US Trotskyite organization, Solidarity, which was led by anti-Nicaragua regime-change activist and Socialism Conference speaker Dan La Botz, now a leader in DSA.
Democratic Socialists of America is the largest self-described socialist organization in the United States, with more than 60,000 card-carrying members. It is also very heterogeneous, with many internal contradictions and conflicting political views.
In 2019, for the first time, the organizers of the Socialism Conference — including many holdovers from the ISO leadership — joined together with two new sponsors: DSA, and the closely DSA-allied Jacobin magazine, another platform for anti-communist and anti-anti-imperialist politics.
At the bottom of the Socialism conference website, a note reads, “Brought to you by Haymarket, Jacobin, and the Democratic Socialists of America.” Haymarket is the book publishing arm of the now-defunct ISO, and its editorial board features some of the group’s former leaders.
Top speakers at the conference include Democracy Now host Amy Goodman, Jacobin magazine founder and editor Bhaskar Sunkara, and journalist Naomi Klein, the inaugural Gloria Steinem Endowed Chair in Media, Culture and Feminist Studies at Rutgers University. Klein was chosen to head the final plenary, titled “Care and Repair: The Revolutionary, Democratic Power of a Global Green New Deal.”
The 2019 Socialism Conference, like its annual predecessors, combines calls for radical economic democratic transformation and progressive social progress with the demonization of independent foreign governments that are targeted by the US government for regime change, such as Nicaragua, Cuba, Syria, Iran, China, and Russia.
The schedule of panels on foreign policy and international issues features a veritable who’s who of leftist regime-change activists. There is even a talk devoted specifically to demonizing the anti-imperialist left.
Curiously, the 2019 Socialism Conference has no panels devoted specifically to Venezuela, which since this January has endured a US-led right-wing coup attempt, and which is suffering under suffocating sanctions that amount to a de facto economic blockade. In the past, the ISO has harshly criticized Venezuela’s democratically elected socialist government, condemning Presidents Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro for not being radical enough and for not supposedly implementing the vague concept of “socialism from below.”
In this way, the 2019 Socialism Conference also stands out as a sign of the effective political merging of what had previously been two distinct political trends: the Cliffite Trotskyites of the International Socialist Organization and the anti-communist social democrats of the Democratic Socialists of America.
One of the most eyebrow-raising panels at the 2019 Socialism Conference is entitled “China and the US: Inter-Imperial Rivalry or Class Struggle and Solidarity?” The panel portrays the US and China as equally malicious imperialist powers, downplaying and whitewashing the uniquely destructive nature of Washington’s foreign wars and corporate domination.
The panel features three speakers, two of whom work for anti-China groups that are funded by the US government’s regime-change arm, the National Endowment for Democracy. The third speaker is Ashley Smith, a former leader of the ISO who has spent the past eight years romanticizing foreign-backed, far-right sectarian Islamist “moderate rebels” in Syria.
The first speaker listed on the panel is Elaine Lu, the program officer at China Labor Watch. This group is described by the Socialism conference website simply as “a New York-based NGO advocating for workers’ rights in China.”
What Socialism Conference sponsors DSA, Jacobin, and Haymarket did not disclose is that its speaker’s employer is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy.
The NED states without qualification that its goals include supporting “free markets” abroad. At the top of the about page on its website is a video of right-wing cold warrior Ronald Reagan inaugurating the US government-funded body.
The National Endowment for Democracy’s 990 tax forms show how Washington’s regime-change arm has bankrolled China Labor Watch for years. Substantial NED funding goes back to at least 2009.
According to the NED’s 2015 form 990, China Labor Watch received a $150,000 grant that year. On the NED’s 2013 tax form, it lists another $110,000 grant for China Labor Watch.
In 2014, China Labor Watch got $150,000 from the NED. According to the group’s annual report that year, its total revenues for all of 2014 was $238,003, meaning 63 percent, or nearly two-thirds of its funding came from the US government.
China Labor Watch’s other major donor is the Tides Foundation, a liberal organization that also happened to be one of the main financial sponsor’s of the ISO’s parent non-profit. In 2014, Tides gave $40,645 to China Labor Watch, another 17 percent of its budget that year.
Joining Elaine Lu as the other main speaker on the Socialism Conference’s anti-China panel is Kevin Lin, who coordinates the China program at the Washington, DC-based NGO the International Labor Rights Forum.
The Socialism Conference once again failed to mention that this group is also bankrolled by the National Endowment for Democracy.
According to the NED’s 2016 form 990, the US government’s regime-change arm gave the International Labor Rights Forum $150,000 that year alone.
The International Labor Rights Forum likewise received $96,590from the NED in 2015, and $62,500 in 2014.
The Socialism Conference also identified Kevin Lin as a co-editor of the Made in China journal, which focuses on labour rights. A disclaimer at the bottom of the publication’s swanky website notes that it is funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020, a neoliberal business program which the European Commission describes as “the financial instrument implementing the Innovation Union, a Europe 2020 flagship initiative aimed at securing Europe’s global competitiveness.”
These are the financiers behind the speakers that the Socialism Conference and its sponsors the DSA, Jacobin, and Haymarket brought together to explain why China is a malevolent imperialist power.
Some of these groups may seem progressive, but they operate in effect as vehicles for US government soft power, exploiting the cause of human rights or labor rights to undermine and destabilize foreign governments that Washington has targeted for regime change.
China Labor Watch and the International Labor Rights Forum are far from the only ostensibly progressive anti-China groups funded by the US government.
Other China-related NED grantees include “human rights” organizations like the Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders, Human Rights in China, China Aid, China Change, and China Rights in Action (another Tides grantee), along with the New York-based Chinese Feminist Collective and news websites like China Digital Times.
China Labour Bulletin, which maintains a map of strikes going on across the gigantic country, is likewise frequently cited by left-wing websites in the US. While its slogan is “Supporting the Workers’ Movement in China,” China Labour Bulletin (CLB) is actually based in Hong Kong, and it is funded by the US government.
CLB notes on its website that it “receives grants from a wide range of government or quasi-government bodies, trade unions and private foundations, all of which are based outside of China.” For decades, CLB’s founder and executive director Han Dongfang broadcasted anti-China programming on Radio Free Asia, a US government-funded propaganda outlet that was founded by the CIA to push anti-communist disinformation. Han’s work is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, and he was a leader of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests.
The ISO’s newspaper Socialist Worker has praised Han Dongfangas a leftist hero, without ever disclosing his extensive links to the US government’s regime-change machinery. Socialist Worker has repeatedly drawn on the work of China Labour Bulletin, over more than a decade. The ISO’s journal the International Socialist Reviewhas also relied on the US government-funded organization’s research, and Jacobin magazine has noted CLB’s “roots go back to the Tiananmen Square protests.”
Human Rights Watch, another key part of the regime-change lobby, has lionized Han, happily noting that his show on the US government’s Radio Free Asia “is one of the network’s most popular programs.”
China is just one of the countries where the US government’s soft-power arm funds such putative progressive groups. The NED likewise funds many liberal anti-Cuba organizations, such as the Foundation for Human Rights in Cuba, Center for a Free Cuba, the Cuban Institute for the Freedom of Expression and Press, and the news website CubaNet. Or there are NED-funded groups pushing regime change against Syria and Iran, like the Damascus Center for Human Rights Studies and Human Rights Activists in Iran.
While the United States has one of the lowest rates of unionizationin the industrialized world, a bloody history of worker repression and anti-labor laws, and historically weak unions among those that still do exist, its regime-change arm the NED has funded workers’ rights groups to promote a progressive image of America abroad.
For decades, for instance, the NED has bankrolled the international Solidarity Center of the major union federation the AFL-CIO. The center receives tens of millions of dollars from the US government’s regime-change arm annually, and returns the favor by avoiding topics that would anger the US State Department and bite the hand that feeds it.
Throughout the Cold War, the AFL-CIO remained a reliably anti-communist union that received funding from US government agencies, including the CIA, in order to combat and ultimately try to eliminate communist influence in the American labor movement. It was a textbook example of a controlled opposition.
This is not to say that NED-funded groups cannot at times have a positive impact on the lives of average people in repressive environments. But their work is always part of a larger agenda, with ulterior imperial motives guiding them along the way. A controlled opposition can make some changes, but it always remains controlled.
Yet another speaker at the 2019 Socialism Conference works for a liberal foundation directly funded by the US government.
Journalist Anand Gopal, who has been a close ally of the ISO for a decade, has a panel all to himself this year: “A Socialist View of the Arab Spring.”
The Socialism Conference website did not provide a bio for Gopal, yet alone disclose that his employer is funded by the US government. It simply described him as a “Pulitzer-Prize nominated journalist,” and said he will explain how to understand “the lessons of the protests, uprisings, rebellions, and wars that shook the Arab world beginning in 2011.”
Left unmentioned is that Gopal serves as a “fellow with the International Security Program” at the New America Foundation. This foundation’s website makes it very clear that it is directly funded by the US State Department, along with massive corporations and banks — clearly institutions that are invested in advancing the revolutionary socialist cause.
Anand Gopal has harshly attacked the anti-imperialist left for opposing the international proxy war on Syria. He strongly supported the Syrian opposition, which is dominated by Salafi-jihadists, but which Gopal has consistently whitewashed and portrayed as a supposedly progressive force.
Gopal likewise reported inside al-Qaeda-occupied territory, which The New Yorker euphemistically described as “Syria’s Last Bastion of Freedom.” And he has constantly downplayed the billions of dollars of funding and weapons from the US, Europe, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar that kept the Syrian opposition afloat, fueling the brutal war for years.
Going back to at least 2009, Gopal has spoken at every single one of the ISO’s Socialism Conferences — in 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, and 2010.
Gopal has also done more than a dozen extensive interviews for the ISO’s newspaper Socialist Worker and journal the International Socialist Review, blaming the rise of ISIS on Official Enemies and spreading the conspiracy theory that the US is actually “helping the regime” of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, not truly trying to overthrow it.
Another noteworthy 2019 Socialism Conference panel, called “Problems of the US Left: The Cases of Cuba and Nicaragua,” is led by Dan La Botz and Samuel Farber, veteran Trotskyite activists and outspoken proponents of regime change in the two respective countries.
The speakers’ problem with the US left appears to be that it has demonstrated too much solidarity with socialist governments in Havana and Managua, which, in their view from inside the United States, “rely more on bureaucracy than democracy.”
Farber is a Cuban exile who left the country for unspecified reasons in 1958 – a year before its revolution – and spent the rest of his life as a professional critic of its socialist government. Today, he contributes regular attacks on the Cuban Revolution to journals from Jacobin to New Politics to In These Times, where he published a trenchant denunciation of Fidel Castro upon his death in 2016.
Farber accuses Castro of developing a model of “state capitalism,” wielding a term Trotskyite ideologues routinely fling at any revolutionary government that is insufficiently pure. He calls for “a revolutionary democratic alternative… through socialist resistance from below.”
The concept of regime change “from below” is also central to the rhetoric of exile groups like the People’s MEK, a US- and Saudi-backed cult of personality that calls for toppling Iran’s government through “indigenous regime change.”
Dan La Botz, for his part, has risen to prominence as a full-time opponent of another member of the Trump administration’s “troika of tyranny”: the socialist government of Nicaragua, and the Sandinista movement that it represents.
La Botz has published an anti-Sandinista manifesto with ISO publisher Haymarket Books, which is advertised as a survey of “the failures of the Nicaraguan Revolution, by one of the most important Marxist-historians of Latin America.”
In June 2018, as a US-backed, violent regime-change attempt surged across Nicaragua, threatening the rule of democratically elected President Daniel Ortega, La Botz attempted to mobilize left-wing US support for the anti-Sandinista opposition. That month, he joined an anti-Sandinista event — co-sponsored by DSA’s New York branch, Haymarket, the academic journal NACLA, and the Marxist Education Project — at Saint Peter’s Church in New York City, to drum up local support for the coup.
The event featured speeches by several Nicaraguan anti-Sandinista activists who were involved in the regime-change attempt, including self-described students who wore masks on stage, concealing their identities from the audience.
The Grayzone has obtained internal DSA email reports authored by La Botz which revealed that, days after the event at Saint Peter’s Church, those same students met with right-wing Republican legislators on Capitol Hill, including neoconservative Senators Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
The students beamed with pride, appearing without masks in photo ops with the avowedly anti-socialist members of Congress. Their trip was financed by Freedom House, a right-wing soft-power organization that is funded almost entirely by the US government.
Humbled to meet with Nicaraguan student leaders who are risking their lives fighting for freedom. Their bravery and perseverance will overcome the Ortega dictatorship’s tyranny. #SOSNicaragua pic.twitter.com/BGkc6kEVTc
— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) June 6, 2018
The students’ US-backed delegation included Victor Cuadras, a fanatical right-wing activist who openly supported Donald Trump’s agenda for Latin America and blamed the governments of Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua for the caravan of desperate asylum seekers on the US-Mexico border.
Victor Cuadras (@AndinoCuadras), the Nicaraguan student coup leader who was flown to DC by US govt @freedomhouse to drum up regime change, echoes and endorses Donald Trump’s anti-migrant fanaticism against the #Caravan pic.twitter.com/CzwDCOMiMu
— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) November 6, 2018
On June 15, 2018, Dan La Botz sent an email report to DSA leadership, reflecting on the event. He acknowledged that “the Nicaraguans both on the panel and in the public had virtually no political analysis and no vision or program for the future of their country.”
Then in a follow-up email report sent to DSA leadership on July 24, La Botz defended the students’ collaboration with neoconservative politicians like Rubio and Cruz.
“The students, ages 21 to 24 or so, who spoke on our panel then went off to speak with Republican legislators, guided by a rightwing foundation,” he wrote. “While, of course, we do not think that this is a good strategy, this is perfectly understandable given that the Republicans are in power and have the ability to do something about Nicaragua.”
While marketing the anti-Sandinista activists as grassroots youth deserving of left-wing solidarity, La Botz admitted in his internal DSA report, “Nicaraguan opponents of the regime in the United States hold a wide variety of political views, though there is virtually no left among the opposition here that I am aware of.”
And while publicly framing the regime-change operation in Nicaragua as a progressive uprising, La Botz privately conceded, “There is, however, little likelihood of an outcome to the rebellion that goes beyond a more democratic capitalist regime.”
As The Grayzone reported in 2018, the US government’s regime-change arm the National Endowment for Democracy boasted of spending millions on anti-Sandinista civil society and media outfits “to lay the groundwork for insurrection” in the years and months ahead of the coup.
While the coup attempt in Nicaragua was portrayed as a peaceful people’s uprising by figures like La Botz, it was in fact a violent putsch that saw armed elements erect roadblocks across the country, holding up ambulances, torturing, brutalizing, kidnapping, and murdering supporters of the Sandinistas.
Anti-Sandinista insurgents dragged an unarmed, on-leave police officer to death from a truck and then burnt his corpse at a roadblock. They raped a 10-year-old girl at a roadblock and burnt the homes of local Sandinista legislators. They occupied and ransacked a public university campus, wrecked a women’s health center, and torched a daycare center.
The armed opposition wreaked this havoc while attacking police stations with mortars and gunfire, during a national dialogue in which the police were ordered to remain in their barracks. In the end, Nicaragua’s opposition caused the deaths of over 60 innocent people, while grinding the country’s previously productive economy to a halt.
Once the coup was extinguished, the US Congress passed the Nica Act without debate, imposing harsh sanctions on Nicaragua’s economy that emulated those already leveled against Venezuela and Iran.
On January 9, Dan La Botz appeared at a meeting of the New York City DSA Anti-War Working Group to amp up the attack on Nicaragua’s socialist government. There, he was challenged by Gunar Olsen, a contributor to The Grayzone, about the event he organized last year with masked right-wing Nicaraguan students sponsored by Freedom House.
La Botz claimed that the event had originally been planned as a discussion of his book, but that “somebody said, these students were coming through. And I said, that sounds great.”
He continued: “My view is, they came from their country because someone gave em some money, and they can come to the United States and they wanted to talk to somebody who might be able to help their country… It may have been though that there were some conservative political forces working with them and the Republicans, it may have been that there was some of those four students that was more hip than the others but it wasn’t my impression.”
La Botz concluded by telling Olsen and the DSA crowd, “I don’t feel at all bad, I don’t think it was a terrible thing. I think they were four young people coming to this country that wanted to speak there. We didn’t know they were going there, we didn’t know where they were heading, I didn’t know they were gonna speak there. Would I do it again? If I knew what was going to happen I’d probably say, let’s see if we can find some other students.”
However, in his private email assessment of the event to DSA leadership, La Botz had defended the students’ subsequent meetings with right-wing Republicans as “perfectly understandable.”
In his internal DSA report, La Botz went on to characterize those in the US left that opposed the coup in Nicaragua as “foreign leftists” who are “backers of Putin, Assad, Iran, Hamas, and now Ortega.”
La Botz did not respond to several attempts to reach him by phone.
The force behind the annual Socialism Conference, the International Socialist Organization marketed itself as a radical, even revolutionary movement supporting “socialism from below.” But it was deeply embedded in the non-profit industrial complex.
The ISO operated legally through its parent non-profit organization the Center for Economic Research and Social Change. A tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization, CERSC received huge grants from the Tides Foundation.
The Tides Foundation is well known for funding progressive groups, but only as long as they do not rock the boat too much.
A Canadian environmental activist who has participated in projects funded by Tides told The Grayzone that the foundation funded a trip to the 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Durban, South Africa, but eventually pulled funding for their environmental group’s excursion to the 2012 UN conference in Doha, Qatar, because the foundation was afraid the activists would carry out peaceful forms of civil disobedience.
“They funded some people — those who wouldn’t rock the boat because they didn’t want people engaging in civil disobedience,” the Canadian environmental activist told The Grayzone.
Another activist published a “whistleblower’s open letter to Canadians” explaining that the Tides Foundation, which funded many environmentalists in the country, was “too afraid of reprisals from the government to act,” after the office of right-wing Prime Minister Stephen Harper threatened to challenge the foundation’s charitable status.
Why a milquetoast liberal foundation would fund the ISO, a supposedly revolutionary socialist organization, raises serious questions about that group’s agenda.
In fact, while the Tides Foundation was serving as one of the biggest financiers of the ISO, it was also funding Democratic Party-aligned organizations and even pro-Israel groups like J Street and the New Israel Fund, which actively campaign against the Palestinian call for BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions against Israel) and support the preservation of a settler-colonialist ethnically exclusivist state.
While the ISO was marginal during its existence, it punched above its weight through front organizations and prominent members who worked in the mainstream media and academia.
The ISO’s publishing arm, Haymarket Books, has been especially influential. Haymarket describes itself as a “radical, independent, nonprofit book publisher based in Chicago,” which had been the base for the ISO.
Haymarket has indeed published many important books on pressing issues. However, it has supplemented these works with anti-anti-imperialist screeds that echo the US State Department’s rhetoric, but framed as “from the left.”
Among Haymarket’s most aggressively marketed releases of 2018 was “The Impossible Revolution,” a collection of essays by the Syrian exiled writer Yassin al-Haj Saleh, who now lives in Turkey and functions as a lodestar to self-styled left-wing supporters of regime change in Syria.
Al-Haj Saleh’s book was blurbed by Charles Lister, a former functionary of the UK’s Conservative Party who became a top lobbyist for arming Salafi-jihadist insurgents in Syria at the Gulf monarchy-funded Middle East Institute in Washington, DC.
State Department cables exposed by WikiLeaks indicate that Yassin al-Haj Saleh was a US government informant in regular correspondence with American officials in Damascus. One such memo, dated April 24, 2006, features advice by al-Haj Saleh apparently delivered to US officials in the country to use Islamism as a weapon against the government of Bashar al-Assad.
Haymarket has also recently published “Indefensible,” a book-length denunciation of the anti-imperialist left by the writer Rohini Hensman.
The manifesto features ham-fisted attacks on journalists Julian Assange, John Pilger, and Seymour Hersh, along with unqualified support for virtually every US and NATO military intervention in the past 30 years, as well as the dirty war on Syria and the Maidan coup in Ukraine.
Anand Gopal, the longtime ISO ally who speaks at the Socialism Conference every year, while working for a liberal foundation funded by the US State Department, praised Hensman’s book as a guide to “how to be a principled internationalist in the era of imperialism.”
More recently, Hensman took to the DSA’s official website to attack The Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal, Seymour Hersh, and Robert Fisk as “neo-Stalinists” engaged in a “convergence” with neo-Nazis. No evidence was provided to support the extreme claim.
Ashley Smith, an ideologue of the now-defunct ISO, says he is currently writing another anti-anti-imperialist book for Haymarket entitled “Socialism and Anti-Imperialism.”
Trotskyite groups are notorious throughout the world for their extreme sectarian tendencies. The organizations rarely last long, frequently splintering into tiny groupuscules over political disagreements.
Unsurprisingly, then, the so-called “left” opposition in Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Cuba — which is celebrated by Trotskyite groups like the ISO — is in fact infinitesimal and insignificant.
Nils McCune, a socialist and environmental activist who has lived in Nicaragua for years, explained in an interview on our podcast Moderate Rebels that one of these parties, the Movement for the Renovation of Sandinismo (MRS) is a tiny group that is irrelevant in the country. Unable to mobilize popular support, this “left” opposition can only lobby the US government for regime change.
As Blumenthal, a co-author of this article, revealed in MintPress News, the MRS has received direct support from the US government in its campaign to prevent the election of Daniel Ortega as president, and lobbied for sanctions against Nicaragua after he was elected.
Similarly, in Venezuela the ostensible left opposition has offered “critical support” to Washington’s regime change efforts.
This February, a leader of the marginal Venezuelan Trotskyite group Marea Socialista held a friendly meeting with Juan Guaidó, the US-appointed right-wing coup leader.
On February 5, Guaidó tweeted a photo of a meeting with Marea Socialista’s Nicmer Evans.
Juan Guaidó hails from the far-right party Voluntad Popular, which was practically founded by the US government and has been deeply involved in street violence throughout Venezuela.
Hoy sostuvimos un encuentro con ex Ministros del Gobierno del ex presidente Chávez. Escuchamos sus planteamientos, y coincidimos en la necesidad de resolver los problemas de los venezolanos.
— Juan Guaidó (@jguaido) February 5, 2019
Seguimos trabajando y escuchando a todos los sectores que quieren un cambio #VamosBien pic.twitter.com/4FGM0gecZO
Jesus Rodriguez Espinoza, a Chavista who lives in Venezuela and is editor of the independent news website, the Orinoco Tribune, told The Grayzone when we reported in the country in February that Marea Socialista is “tiny” and has “no power.” He was genuinely surprised at how much coverage these minuscule groups have received in the US progressive media, because inside Venezuela they have negligible influence.
Yet the Trotskyite organization has constantly been given a platform by the ISO’s newspaper Socialist Worker (Marea Socialista even enjoys its own tag on the website). Jacobin Magazine, the self-declared “leading voice of the American left,” has also given a huge platform to Marea Socialista operatives to push for what they call a “Chavismo from below” — despite the fact that the Trotskyite group is virtually unknown to average Venezuelans, including to millions of poor and working-class Chavistas.
Also featured in the February 5 photo of the meeting with US-backed coup leader Juan Guaidó was the anti-Maduro liberal intellectual Edgardo Lander, who is popular in anti-communist left-wing circles in the US but almost unknown inside Venezuela. Like Marea Socialista, Lander has enjoyed very positive coverage in the progressive Anglo press.
Democracy Now, which has advanced regime-change propaganda on Syria on repeated occasions, offered its platform to Lander this May. Hosts Amy Goodman and Nermeen Sheikh lobbed softball questions at the intellectual, and failed to disclose that he met with Guaidó.
In his Democracy Now segment, Lander admitted that his outfit is a “small collective,” whereas the Chavista movement he criticizes is massively popular in working-class barrios across the country.
The International Socialist Organization has played a similar role in the US, with little visibility outside the left and almost no grassroots base.
Now that the ISO has disbanded, its veterans can reach into the rapidly growing ideologically diffuse world of Democratic Socialists of America, using platforms like Socialism 2019 to infect DSA’s youthful core with the imperial politics of regime change – but always “from the left,” and always “from below.”
By Ben Norton and Max Blumenthal
The post DSA/Jacobin/Haymarket-sponsored ‘Socialism’ conference features US gov-funded regime-change activists appeared first on Αγκάρρα.
Πρωτοβουλία για την Διάσωση των Φυσικών Ακτών
Σημείωμα Θέσεων – Τετάρτη, 3 Απριλίου 2019
Προς: Πρόεδρο και Μέλη Κοινοβουλευτικής Επιτροπής Περιβάλλοντος
Θέμα: Η επέμβαση του Τμήματος Δασών στις προστατευόμενες παραλίες ωοτοκίας των θαλάσσιων χελωνών της Λίμνης και της Αργάκας στον Κόλπο Χρυσοχούς και οι επιπτώσεις στο φυσικό περιβάλλον της περιοχής (Αυτεπάγγελτη εξέταση έπειτα από απόφαση της Κοινοβουλευτικής Επιτροπής Περιβάλλοντος και του κ. Γιώργου Περδίκη, 27/3/2019, Αρ. Φακ. 23.04.036.075-2019)
Στη βάση των πιο πάνω, η ακακία στο Κρατικό Δάσος Μαυραλής δεν αποτελούσε σοβαρή απειλή για οποιοδήποτε ενδημικό, σπάνιο και απειλούμενο είδος που περιλαμβάνεται στο «Κόκκινο Βιβλίο της Χλωρίδας της Κύπρου».
Στοιχεία επικοινωνίας:
Πρωτοβουλία για τη Διάσωση των Φυσικών Ακτών | Initiative for the Protection of the Natural Coastline
Website: http://reclaimthesea.org/ | Email: reclaimthesea@gmail.com |
Facebook: https://el-gr.facebook.com/coastlinecy/
Παρασκευή, 22 Μαρτίου 2019
Κοινό Δελτίο Τύπου
Οικολογική Παρέμβαση Φίλοι του Ακάμα, Ομοσπονδία Περιβαλλοντικών Οργανώσεων Κύπρου, Κυπριακό Ίδρυμα Προστασίας της Φύσης Terra Cypria, Πτηνολογικός Σύνδεσμος Κύπρου, Φίλοι της Γης Κύπρου, Οικολογική Κίνηση Κύπρου, Περιβαλλοντικό Ερευνητικό Κέντρο Ενάλια Φύσις και Πρωτοβουλία για τη Διάσωση των Φυσικών Ακτών
22 Μαρτίου 1986: Μια ομάδα ατόμων που ενδιαφέρεται για την προστασία της Φύσης επισκέπτεται μια από τις τελευταίες φυσικές περιοχές της Κύπρου που γλύτωσε από την ανεξέλεγκτη και διάσπαρτη τουριστική ανάπτυξη, τη Χερσόνησο Ακάμα. Κατά την επίσκεψη αυτή, η ομάδα, που αργότερα θα πάρει το όνομα ‘Φίλοι του Ακάμα’ ζητά από το Κράτος την κήρυξη της Χερσονήσου Ακάμα σε περιοχή προστασίας. 33 ολόκληρα χρόνια μετά, η ίδια ομάδα, με σύμμαχους άλλες 7 οργανώσεις, εξακολουθούν να ζητούν από το Κράτος τα αυτονόητα.
Τις τελευταίες τρείς δεκαετίες, η σημασία της Χερσονήσου Ακάμα για τη Φύση και τον Άνθρωπο έχει αναγνωριστεί από νομοθεσίες και διατάγματα, ενώ μία σειρά από σχέδια διατήρησης και διαχείρισης έχουν ετοιμαστεί για την περιοχή. Παρόλα αυτά, μια σύντομη επίσκεψη στον Ακάμα είναι αρκετή για να αντιληφθεί κανείς την απουσία διαχείρισης και την παρουσία πολλών παρανομιών για την άρση των οποίων δεν έχει ληφθεί κανένα μέτρο. Παράνομα εστιατόρια και αναψυκτήρια και άλλες παράνομες κατασκευές και αυθαίρετες επεμβάσεις, η παρουσία πλείστων των οποίων χρονολογείται, εξακολουθούν να υφίστανται.
Η υλοποίηση του Σχεδίου Αειφόρου Ανάπτυξης του Εθνικού Δασικού Πάρκου Ακάμα, το οποίο εγκρίθηκε από το Υπουργικό Συμβούλιο το 2018, προϋποθέτει άρση όλων αυτών των παρανομιών πριν την υλοποίησή του. Αυτό όμως δεν έχει γίνει. Οι μόνες δράσεις που έχουν μέχρι τώρα προωθηθεί αφορούν οδικά έργα σε περιοχή που δεν επιτρέπεται καμία οικοδομική εργασία και αλλοίωση του φυσικού περιβάλλοντος (δρόμος Λουτρά της Αφροδίτης-Φοντάνα Αμορόζα). Το Σχέδιο προβλήθηκε από την Κυβέρνηση σαν ένα πολύ φιλόδοξο σχέδιο, πλην όμως περιέχει πλείστες προβληματικές πτυχές που χρήζουν συνολικής και σοβαρής αντιμετώπισης για να επιτευχθεί η βιώσιμη ανάπτυξη της Χερσονήσου του Ακάμα. Πρόνοιες του Σχεδίου όπως η χωροθέτηση κόμβων αναψυχής για επισκέπτες και η αναβάθμιση δρόμων είναι ανησυχητικές, πόσο μάλλον το γεγονός ότι το Σχέδιο δεν έχει υποβληθεί σε Δέουσα Εκτίμηση και σε Στρατηγική Μελέτη Περιβαλλοντικών Επιπτώσεων, αναγκαίες διαδικασίες που απαιτεί η νομοθεσία.
Διερωτόμαστε λοιπόν, τι θα γράφουν οι εφημερίδες για τη Χερσόνησο του Ακάμα σε 33 χρόνια από σήμερα; Θα έχουν αρθεί οι παρανομίες για τις οποίες οι αρμόδιες αρχές κάθε χρόνο δίνουν υποσχέσεις ότι θα λάβουν δράση; Θα υπάρξει ποτέ ουσιαστική διαχείριση, προστασία και επιτήρηση της Χερσονήσου ή όλα θα βρίσκονται ακόμα στα χαρτιά;
Οι Φίλοι του Ακάμα, η Ομοσπονδία Περιβαλλοντικών Οργανώσεων, το Κυπριακό Ίδρυμα Προστασίας της Φύσης – Terra Cypria, ο Πτηνολογικός Σύνδεσμος Κύπρου, οι Φίλοι της Γης, η Οικολογική Κίνηση Κύπρου, η Πρωτοβουλία για τη Διάσωση των Φυσικών Ακτών και το Περιβαλλοντικό Ερευνητικό Κέντρο – Ενάλια Φύσις καλούν όλα τα αρμόδια τμήματα να περάσουν από τα λόγια στα έργα. Να λάβουν άμεση δράση για την άρση των παρανομιών και να προωθήσουν τη σωστή διαχείριση της περιοχής εφαρμόζοντας τα Διαχειριστικά Σχέδια για τις περιοχές Natura 2000 της Χερσονήσου Ακάμα. Τότε και μόνο τότε ο Ακάμας, θα αναδειχθεί στην ολότητά του και θα ωφεληθούν ουσιαστικά οι κάτοικοι και οι κοινότητες της περιοχής.
Παράνομο Εστιατόριο Νότια Λάρα
Παράνομο Αναψυκτήριο Νότια Λάρα
Παράνομη Οδήγηση Τζιόνι
Παράνομες Ομπρέλες Βόρεια Λάρα
Παράνομη Κατασκήνωση Τοξεύτρα
Παράνομο Εστιατόριο Άσπρος Ποταμός
Παράνομο Αναψυκτήριο Άσπρος Ποταμός
Παράνομος Εβραχισμός Καφίζης
Παράνομη Οδήγηση Γουρούνων στην Θαλάσσια Προστατευόμενη Περιοχή Λάρας Τοξεύτρας
Πρωτοβουλία για τη Διάσωση των Φυσικών Ακτών
Υπόμνημα Θέσεων
Τετάρτη, 10 Οκτωβρίου 2018
Προς: Πρόεδρο και Μέλη Κοινοβουλευτικής Επιτροπής Περιβάλλοντος
Συνεδρία 10/10/2018. Κεφάλαιο Β. Θέμα 1.
Οι περί της Σύμβασης για την Προστασία της Μεσογείου Θάλασσας από τη Ρύπανση και περί Συναφών Πρωτοκόλλων (Τεχνητοί Ύφαλοι) Κανονισμοί του 2018 (Αρ. Φακ. 23.03.054.085-2017).
Πλαίσιο αναφοράς
Επί της γενικής αρχής, η Πρωτοβουλία για τη Διάσωση των Φυσικών Ακτών θεωρεί ότι η θάλασσα αποτελεί κοινό αγαθό και αναπόσπαστο μέρος του δημόσιου πλούτου. Ως εκ τούτου, η Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία οφείλει να διασφαλίσει τη μακροπρόθεσμη διατήρηση και ολοκληρωμένη διαχείριση του θαλάσσιου χώρου, και την διασφάλιση του ως δημόσιο αγαθό.
Αντ’ αυτού, παρατηρούμε συστηματικές προσπάθειες με στόχο την αποξένωση / εκχώρηση και οικειοποίηση / ιδιωτικοποίηση του θαλάσσιου χώρου. Τονίζουμε την έλλειψη στρατηγικού σχεδιασμού όσον αφορά θαλάσσιες δραστηριότητες, την έλλειψη διαφάνειας και την περιορισμένη διαβούλευση, την ανεπαρκή αιτιολόγηση των αναγκών που καλούνται να καλύψουν οι συγκεκριμένες τροποποιήσεις, αλλά και τη σύγκρουση / ασυμβατότητα των προτεινόμενων Κανονισμών με την ισχύουσα νομοθεσία και τις υποχρεώσεις της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας ως Κράτους Μέλους της ΕΕ.
Το υπό συζήτηση νομοσχέδιο, με τίτλο «Οι περί της Σύμβασης για την Προστασία της Μεσογείου Θάλασσας από τη Ρύπανση και περί Συναφών Πρωτοκόλλων (Τεχνητοί Ύφαλοι) Κανονισμοί του 2018» προβλέπει την έκδοση κανονισμών κατόπιν απόφασης του Υπουργικού Συμβουλίου, «ασκώντας τις εξουσίες που του χορηγούνται με βάση το άρθρο 6 των περί της Σύμβασης για την Προστασία της Μεσογείου Θάλασσας από τη Ρύπανση και περί συναφών Πρωτοκόλλων (Κυρωτικών) Νόμων του 1979 μέχρι 2017».
Οι προτεινόμενοι κανονισμοί, σύμφωνα με το Άρθρο 3 («Πεδίο Εφαρμογής») θα:
«(1) εφαρμόζονται στους τεχνητούς υφάλους, οι οποίοι κατασκευάζονται, τοποθετούνται και λειτουργούν σε θαλάσσιο χώρο της Δημοκρατίας.
(2) […] εφαρμόζονται για την αδειοδότηση δυνητικών επενδύσεων και δεν εφαρμόζονται σε σχέση με έργα τα οποία υλοποιούνται από τη Δημοκρατία».
Αποσκοπούν δηλαδή στη δημιουργία νομικού πλαισίου για την κατασκευή, τοποθέτηση και λειτουργία ιδιωτικών τεχνητών υφάλων. Σύμφωνα με το προτεινόμενο νομοσχέδιο: «Για την έκδοση ή ανανέωση άδειας κατασκευής, τοποθέτησης και λειτουργίας τεχνητών υφάλων σε θαλάσσιο χώρο καταβάλλονται τέλη που ανέρχονται σε επτακόσια ευρώ (€ 700)» (Άρθρο 7), «η άδεια χρήσης θαλάσσιου χώρου σε θαλάσσια περιοχή της Δημοκρατίας για σκοπούς κατασκευής, τοποθέτησης και λειτουργίας τεχνητών υφάλων χορηγείται από το Υπουργικό Συμβούλιο» (Άρθρο 8), και «για κάθε θαλάσσια περιοχή, σε σχέση με την οποία εκδίδεται άδεια χρήσης θαλάσσιου χώρου για σκοπούς τοποθέτησης και λειτουργίας τεχνητών υφάλων, καταβάλλονται τέλη 17 σεντ ετησίως για κάθε τετραγωνικό μέτρο της επιφάνειας του θαλάσσιου βυθού που αποτελεί τη συνολική περιοχή έκτασης των τεχνητών υφάλων, περιλαμβανομένης της θαλάσσιας περιοχής που ορίζεται με βάση το Άρθρο 5Α του Περί Αλιείας Νόμου» (Άρθρο 9).
Κατευθυντήριες Γραμμές
Σύμφωνα με ανακοίνωση που εξέδωσε ο Κυπριακός Οργανισμός Τουρισμού (ΚΟΤ) στις 2/7/2015, με αφορμή την «Εβδομάδα Ζηνοβίας», διεξήγαγε έρευνα για τη «Λειτουργία και διαχείριση των υπό δημιουργία θαλασσίων προστατευόμενων περιοχών με την τοποθέτηση τεχνητών υφάλων – θαλάσσιων πάρκων στην Κύπρο», την οποία παρέδωσε στο Τμήμα Αλιείας και Θαλασσίων Ερευνών για πιθανή αξιοποίηση. Προς συνέχεια της συγκεκριμένης έρευνας και με αφορμή τη συζήτηση του συγκεκριμένου νομοσχεδίου, σε επιστολή ημερομηνίας 24/9/2018, ο ΚΟΤ αναφέρει προς την Κοινοβουλευτική Επιτροπή Περιβάλλοντος ότι ο τομέας του καταδυτικού τουρισμού έχει μεγάλες προοπτικές ανάπτυξης και γι’αυτό τον λόγο στηρίζει την προσπάθεια που γίνεται για ρύθμιση των περιβαλλοντικών θεμάτων που αφορούν τη δημιουργία τεχνητών υφάλων.
Δεν αντιλαμβανόμαστε στη βάση ποιας δικαιοδοσίας και τεχνογνωσίας, ο ΚΟΤ προέβη σε μια έρευνα για τη «λειτουργία και διαχείριση των υπό δημιουργία θαλασσίων προστατευόμενων περιοχών με την τοποθέτηση τεχνητών υφάλων – θαλάσσιων πάρκων στην Κύπρο». Επισημαίνουμε ότι σύμφωνα με τις κατευθυντήριες αρχές του Οργανισμού Τροφίμων και Γεωργίας (Food and Agriculture Organisation – FAO) του Οργανισμού Ηνωμένων Εθνών, στόχοι των τεχνητών υφάλων είναι «η αναβάθμιση και / ή βελτίωση των φυσικών βιοτόπων, η αύξηση της παραγωγικότητας του οικοσυστήματος και η διαχείρηση των αλιευτικών πόρων» («to recover and/or improve natural habitats, increase productivity and manage aquatic resources») [1]. Επιπρόσθετα, οι κατευθυντήριες γραμμές του Μεσογειακού Σχεδίου Δράσης του Προγράμματος Περιβάλλοντος των Ηνωμένων Εθνών (United Nations Environment Programme / Mediterranean Action Plan – UNEP/MAP), αν και αναγνωρίζουν ότι οι τεχνητοί ύφαλοι μπορούν να στοχεύουν και στην προώθηση έρευνας και αναψυχής, τονίζουν πως πρωταρχικός στόχος των τεχνητών υφάλων είναι το «να παρέχουν ορισμένες λειτουργίες ενός φυσικού υφάλου, όπως η προστασία, η αναγέννηση, η συγκέντρωση και/ή η ενίσχυση της βιολογικής ποικιλομορφίας ή / και των πληθυσμών των έμβιων θαλάσσιων πόρων» («emulate some functions of a natural reef such as protecting, regenerating, concentrating, and/or enhancing [biological diversity and/or] populations of living marine resources») [2]. Σύμφωνα με το «Ερωτηματολόγιο Αντίκτυπου» του προτεινόμενου Νομοσχεδίου, ο στόχος των προτεινόμενων Κανονισμών είναι «η παραχώρηση χρήσης χώρου για τη διεξαγωγή και αδειοδότηση δυνητικών επενδύσεων με τεχνητούς υφάλους στο θαλάσσιο χώρο», γεγονός το οποίο δεν συνάδει με τις πιο πάνω κατευθυντήριες γραμμές.
Όσον αφορά τη διαβούλευση που προηγήθηκε, σε αυτή συμμετείχαν ως επί το πλείστον συναρμόδιες αρχές. Η διαβούλευση πραγματοποιήθηκε μέσω ηλεκτρονικού ταχυδρομείου, χωρίς να διεξαχθεί οποιαδήποτε δημόσια παρουσίαση και ακρόαση με τα ενδιαφερόμενα μέρη. Ο μόνος περιβαλλοντικός μη κυβερνητικός οργανισμός που κλήθηκε να υποβάλει απόψεις ήταν η Ομοσπονδία Περιβαλοντικών Οργανώσεων Κύπρου (ΟΠΟΚ), οι θέσεις της οποίας ήταν αρνητικές και δεν ενσωματώθηκαν στους προτεινόμενους Κανονισμούς.
Κατά την άποψη μας, υπάρχει έλλειψη διαφάνειας και επαρκούς αιτιολόγησης όσον αφορά τους προτεινόμενους Κανονισμούς. Σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 28 (Επαρκής Αιτιολογία) των περί Γενικών Αρχών του Διοικητικού Δικαίου Νόμων του 1999 έως 2014: «(1) Η αιτιολογία μιας διοικητικής πράξης πρέπει να είναι σαφής, ώστε να μην αφήνει αμφιβολίες ως προς το ποιος ήταν ο πραγματικός λόγος που οδήγησε το διοικητικό όργανο στη λήψη της απόφασης. (2) Δεν αποτελεί επαρκή αιτιολογία η αναφορά στην απόφαση γενικών χαρακτηρισμών που μπορούν να εφαρμοστούν και να ισχύουν για κάθε περίπτωση ούτε η απλή αναφορά των γενικών όρων του νόμου που μπορούν να τύχουν εφαρμογής σε οποιαδήποτε περίπτωση. (3) Αναιτιολόγητη είναι μια πράξη που επικαλείται γενικά και αόριστα το δημόσιο συμφέρον. Το δημόσιο συμφέρον του οποίου γίνεται επίκληση πρέπει να εξειδικεύεται με αναφορά σε συγκεκριμένα πραγματικά περιστατικά στα οποία στηρίχτηκε η κρίση του αρμόδιου διοικητικού οργάνου» [7].
Αντιλαμβανόμαστε ότι η τοποθέτηση και λειτουργία τεχνητών υφάλων από επενδυτές αποσκοπεί σε κάποια ωφελήματα στους ίδιους τους επενδυτές. Νοουμένου ότι η δημιουργία τεχνητών υφάλων έχει πολύ υψηλό οικονομικό κόστος, ποιά θα είναι τα ωφελήματα και με ποιό τρόπο θα γίνει η απόσβεση ενός ιδιώτη επενδυτή;
Ταυτόχρονα η εκχώρηση δημόσιου (θαλάσσιου) χώρου ενέχει και άλλους προβληματισμούς και ερωτήματα τα οποία δεν έχουν απαντηθεί. Τι είδους δικαιώματα αποκτά ένας ιδιώτης επενδυτής, ο οποίος ενδέχεται να υποβάλει αίτηση για χορήγηση άδειας κατασκευής, τοποθέτησης και λειτουργίας τεχνητού υφάλου στο θαλάσσιο χώρο της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας, με βάση τους προτεινόμενους Κανονισμούς; Στη βάση ποιων κριτηρίων και προδιαγραφών θα γίνεται η επιλογή του θαλάσσιου χώρου στον οποίο θα κατασκευαστεί ένας τεχνητός ύφαλος;
Πέρα από την ασυμβατότητα των προτεινόμενων Κανονισμών με τις Κατευθυντήριες Γραμμές Διεθνών Οργανισμών, όπως ο FAO και το UNEP/MAP, θα θέλαμε να σημειώσουμε και τους προβληματισμούς μας σχετικά με την ευθυγράμμιση / εναρμόνιση του συγκεκριμένου Νομοσχεδίου, με άλλες υποχρεώσεις της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας, και συγκεκριμένα τη θέσπιση ενός δικτύου Θαλάσσιων Προστατευόμενων Περιοχών, καθώς και την εκπόνηση ενός Θαλάσσιου Χωροταξικού Σχεδιασμού.
Θαλάσσιες Προστατευόμενες Περιοχές
Το συγκεκριμένο νομοσχέδιο προωθείται με το πρόσχημα ότι οι τεχνητοί ύφαλοι θα «συμβάλλουν στην ανάπτυξη της βιοποικιλότητας, στην ανάκαμψη των ιχθυοαποθεμάτων και στην προσέλκυση καταδυτικού τουρισμού» (Άρθρο2: «Ερμηνεία»).
Το Τμήμα Αλιείας και Θαλασσίων Ερευνών (ΤΑΘΕ) του Υπουργείου Γεωργίας, Φυσικών Πόρων και Περιβάλλοντος, έχει από το 2012 θεσπίσει, και ξεκινήσει να εφαρμόζει σχετική στρατηγική για τη δημιουργία θαλάσσιων προστατευόμενων περιοχών με τεχνητούς υφάλους. Έχουν ήδη εκδοθεί 6 διατάγματα για απαγόρευση αλιείας και διέλευσης σκαφών σε καθορισμένες θαλάσσιες περιοχές, με βάση το Άρθρο 5Α («Έκδοση διατάγματος απαγόρευσης της αλιείας ή/και της διέλευσης σκαφών») του «Περι Αλιείας Νόμο (ΚΕΦ.135)» [3]. Τα διατάγματα αυτά αφορούν τις ακόλουθες περιοχές: Θαλάσσια Προστατευόμενη Περιοχή Παραλιμνίου [4], Θαλάσσια Περιοχή Τεχνητού Υφάλου στην Αγία Νάπα [5], Ναυάγιο Ζηνοβία στη Λάρνακα [6], Θαλάσσια Προστατευόμενη Περιοχή Αμαθούντας στην Λεμεσό [7], Θαλάσσια Προστατευόμενη Περιοχή στο Δασούδι στην Λεμεσό [8] και Θαλάσσια Προστατευόμενη Περιοχή Τεχνητού Υφάλου Γεροσκήπου στην Πάφο [9].
Σύμφωνα με την Ειδική Έκθεση της Ελεγκτικής Υπηρεσίας της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας για τη «Διαχείριση Θαλάσσιων Προστατευόμενων Περιοχών στην Κύπρο», η «απουσία ενιαίας εθνικής στρατηγικής στην Κύπρο για τη διαχείριση των θαλάσσιων προστατευόμενων περιοχών και ο καταρτισμός επιμέρους στρατηγικών εγγράφων ενδεχομένως να οδηγεί σε κατακερματισμό των προσπαθειών της Δημοκρατίας για την προστασία των περιοχών και των ειδών και οικοτόπων που απαντώνται σε αυτές» [10]. Η Ειδική Έκθεση επίσης αναφέρει ότι «διαπιστώνονται ανεπάρκειες στους μηχανισμούς παρακολούθησης της κατάστασης των προστατευόμενων περιοχών με τεχνητούς υφάλους, ενώ ο βαθμός εφαρμογής των καθορισμένων μέτρων διαχείρισης και η αποτελεσματικότητά τους στη διατήρηση των προστατευόμενων ειδών και περιοχών, δεν φαίνεται να αξιολογούνται» [11].
Το συγκεκριμένο νομοσχέδιο δεν θα βοηθήσει ως προς την εφαρμογή μιας ενιαίας εθνικής στρατηγικής για θαλάσσιες προστατευόμενες περιοχές στην Κύπρο, η οποία πρέπει να έχει προτεραιότητα. Αντίθετα, θα αποτελέσει ένα επιπλέον εμπόδιο, καθώς αντί να κηρύσσονται θαλάσσιες προστατευόμενες περιοχές με βάση οικολογικά κριτήρια, θα δημιουργούνται στη βάση ιδιωτικών συμφερόντων και επενδυτικών προγραμμάτων.
Θαλάσσιος Χωροταξικός Σχεδιασμός
Το συγκεκριμένο νομοσχέδιο προωθείται ενώ αναμένεται να ολοκληρωθεί ο Θαλάσσιος Χωροταξικός Σχεδιασμός (ΘΧΣ – Maritime Spatial Planning, MSP), ένα από τα βασικά εργαλεία της Ολοκληρωμένης Θαλάσσιας Πολιτικής της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Σύμφωνα με την Γενική Διεύθυνση Περιβάλλοντος της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής, με την έννοια του ΘΧΣ υποδηλώνεται «ο σχεδιασμός του χρόνου και του τόπου άσκησης ανθρώπινων δραστηριοτήτων στη θάλασσα, προκειμένου να διασφαλίζεται η αποτελεσματικότητα και η βιωσιμότητά τους στον μέγιστο δυνατό βαθμό. Κατά τη διαδικασία αυτή, όλα τα ενδιαφερόμενα μέρη συνεργάζονται με διαφάνεια με στόχο τον σχεδιασμό των θαλάσσιων δραστηριοτήτων» [12]. Η Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία εναρμονίστηκε με την Οδηγία 2014/89/ΕΕ του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και του Συμβουλίου της 23ης Ιουλίου 2014 Περί Θεσπίσεως Πλαισίου για τον Θαλάσσιο Χωροταξικό Σχεδιασμό με την ψήφιση από την Βουλή των Αντιπροσώπων του περί Θαλάσσιου Χωροταξικού Σχεδιασμού και άλλων Συναφών Θεμάτων Νόμου του 2017 [Ν. 144(I)/2017] [13] στις 29/9/2017 και τη δημοσίευση του στην Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Δημοκρατίας στις 13/10/2017.
Σύμφωνα με το Άρθρο 2 του σχετικού Νόμου, «Θαλάσσιο Χωροταξικό Σχέδιο» σημαίνει το «εθνικό σχέδιο ή σχέδια που καταρτίζονται, εγκρίνονται και δημοσιεύονται ως αποτέλεσμα της διαδικασίας του θαλάσσιου χωροταξικού σχεδιασμού» («Ερμηνεία»). Επιπρόσθετα, σύμφωνα με το Άρθρο 17(2) («Κατάρτιση του Θαλάσσιου Χωροταξικού Σχεδίου»), η θέσπιση του Θαλάσσιου Χωροταξικού Σχεδίου «θα πρέπει να καταρτιστεί το συντομότερο δυνατό και το αργότερο έως την 31η Μαρτίου 2021».
Σημειώνεται ότι στις 25/10/2017 και ενώ η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή είχε ανοίξει υπόθεση παράβασης του κοινοτικού κεκτημένου, η οποία βρισκόταν σε επίπεδο Αιτιολογημένης Γνώμης, για μη εναρμόνιση με την σχετική Οδηγία [14], το Υπουργικό Συμβούλιο ενέκρινε και εξουσιοδότησε τον Υπουργό Γεωργίας, Αγροτικής Ανάπτυξης και Περιβάλλοντος όπως καταθέσει τους προτεινόμενους Κανονισμούς στη Βουλή των Αντιπροσώπων για έγκριση.
Η ψήφιση των προτεινόμενων Κανονισμών από την Βουλή των Αντιπροσώπων και η προώθηση επενδύσεων υπό μορφή ιδιωτικών τεχνητών υφάλων θα δημιουργήσει τετελεσμένα εν τω μέσω της διαδικασίας κατάρτισης του θαλάσσιου χωροταξικού σχεδιασμού.
Εισηγήσεις
Έχοντας ως γνώμονα το γεγονός ότι η θάλασσα αποτελεί κοινό αγαθό και δημόσιο πλούτο, θεωρούμε ότι σε κρατική ακίνητη ιδιοκτησία πρέπει να αδειοδοτούνται αποκλειστικά σχέδια, προγράμματα ή/και έργα, τα οποία εξυπηρετούν υπέρτερους λόγους σημαντικού δημοσίου συμφέροντος και αιτιολογούνται επαρκώς, με αναφορά σε συγκεκριμένα πραγματικά περιστατικά. Προτεραιότητα της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας θα πρέπει να είναι μια Ολοκληρωμένη Θαλάσσια Πολιτική βασισμένη σε οικολογικά πρωτίστως κριτήρια, αλλά και κοινωνικά, και όχι σε δυνητικές επενδύσεις οι οποίες θα οικειοποιηθούν δημόσιο πλούτο για παραγωγή κέρδους από ιδιώτες επενδυτές.
Η οικειοποίηση και αποξένωση των κοινών αγαθών – της γης, των δασών, των παραλιών, της ακτογραμμής και της θάλασσας – δεν νομιμοποιείται ηθικά, κοινωνικά και πολιτικά. Στη βάση των πιο πάνω, η Πρωτοβουλία για τη Διάσωση των Φυσικών Ακτών διαφωνεί με τους υπό συζήτηση Κανονισμούς και εισηγείται την απόσυρση τους από το Υπουργείο Γεωργίας, Αγροτικής Ανάπτυξης και Περιβάλλοντος ή την καταψήφιση τους από την Κοινοβουλευτική Επιτροπή Περιβάλλοντος και την Ολομέλεια της Βουλής των Αντιπροσώπων.
Λευκωσία, Τετάρτη, 10/10/2018
Πρωτοβουλία για την Διάσωση των Φυσικών Ακτών
Υποσημειώσεις και Παραπομπές
[1] Practical Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Reefs in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Studies and Reviews. General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean. No. 96. Rome, FAO 2015; p.2.
[2] UNEP(DEPI)/MED IG.23/21. 20th Ordinary Meeting of the Contracting Parties to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean and its Protocols Tirana, Albania, 17-20 December 2017. Agenda item 3: Thematic Decisions Draft Decision IG.23/15: Updated Guidelines for Regulating the Placement of Artificial Reefs at Sea.
[3] Ο περί Αλιείας Νόμος (ΚΕΦ.135)
[10] Ελεγκτική Υπηρεσία της Δημοκρατίας. Ειδική Έκθεση αρ. ΠΕ/03/2018. Διαχείριση Θαλάσσιων Προστατευόμενων Περιοχών στην Κύπρο. 25 Ιουνίου 2018; σελ. 1.
[11] Ό.π. σελ.2.
[12] Γενική Διεύθυνση Περιβάλλοντος της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής. Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή > Θαλάσσια πολιτική > Ολοκληρωμένη Θαλάσσια Πολιτική > Θαλάσσιος Χωροταξικός Σχεδιασμός
[13] CYLaw > Ο περί Θαλάσσιου Χωρταξικού Σχεδιασμού και άλλων Συναφών Θεμάτων Νόμος του 2017 (144(I)/2017)
[14] European Commission > Press Releases Database > Δέσμη Παραβάσεων Ιουλίου – Μέρος 1: Κυριότερες Αποφάσεις – Βρυξέλλες, 13 Ιουλίου 2017. 11. Θαλάσσια Πολιτική και Αλιεία.
Note: The translation of the text was done in the framework of the documentary TONGUE –
(https://www.facebook.com/tonguefilm/?fb_…LnadcjU02Q)
Cypriot Consciousness
By Costis Achniotis
Within The Walls, Issue 35, September 1988
This text is my lecture for the event that our magazine has organized at Famagusta Gate. At the same event Mehmet Yiaşin spoke about the “Turkish Cypriot identity in literature”. We will publish Yiasin’s presentation in the next issue in which there will be a feature on Turkish Cypriots. We will also answer to some articles published in the newspapers about our event there.
____________________________________________________________________________
Firstly, I clarify that I understand the definition of collective consciousness (and its contents) not as stable and unchangeable and of course I do not give it the dimension of a natural order. Collective consciousness just as any social concept is changeable and follows the shifting needs of of a society.
This changeability of course is not at all mechanic. The superstructure can drastically act on social evolution. For example the appearance of industries shapes the totality of workers that are possible to become carriers of labor consciousness. Labor consciousness is potentially common for all nations and can determine the totality of the workers of the world. Of course, this understanding is macroscopic. Other factors (individual consciousness) act and shape opposing subtotalities.
For the purpose of this text, I call Cypriot Consciousness, the consciousness of the Cypriot Independence. Therefore, its carrier is anyone who understands Cyprus and its people as an independent entity and strives as a consequence for the protection of the corresponding state institution, the Independent Cypriot State.
Of course the understanding of Cypriot Independence is basically a subject that has not been studied neither historically nor sociologically, nor politically, and this stands for both communities. And it is entirely natural as since the 50’s the consciousness for Enosis (Union with Greece[1]) and for taksim (separation[2]) were entirely dominant. Regardless of the acceptance of this so-called Independence in 1960, the governing teams of both communities were (or were acting like) for Enosis or for taksim. Therefore only this version of history was projected with its corresponding ideological response. It is indicative how misguiding history is in Greek-Cypriot schools.
So it is not easy to realise that CPC (Communist Party of Cyprus) took an anti-union stand. I will quote an excerpt:
“…CPC sees as its duty to protest by any means, firstly against local English government which due to its indifference contributes in the intensification of intercommunal hate between the citizens of Cyprus and secondly against the fraudulent leaders of this place which spoke and will speak in the name of the Cypriot people. DOWN WITH ENOSIS – LONG LIVE THE INDEPENDENCE OF CYPRUS – LONG LIVE THE PROLETARIATS OF THE WORLD (Neos Kosmos, 25.4.1925)
We see that the understanding for Independence was already in combination with the effort to escape bicommunal conflicts.
Of course there is no doubt that since then, up until the categorical acceptance of “Enosis and only Enosis” by AKEL after about 25 years of inaptitude, the folk sentiment of the Greek-Cypriot community was all the more oriented toward Greece. The Turkish-Cypriot minority seems to have lagged behind in terms of following the developments and eventually takes a position after EOKA’s struggle. When AKEL leaned toward Enosis, the Trotskyist Party of Cyprus (which was a small communist organisation) criticized them harshly, as they saw independence as a self-government of the oppressed classes, without mentioning the Turkish-Cypriot community.
I quote an excerpt:
“COMRADES,
May this year’s 1st of May find us on the frontlines of the struggle for the handing down of power to our people, for SELF-GOVERNMENT. The traitorous abandonment of the position for Self-government on the part of the stalinist leadership and the adoption of the position for Enosis should make us come to our senses. We ourselves must stop the poisoning by Enosis. We must make the ill-fated leaders of our laborer’s organisations get on the right track of serving workers’ benefits. If they deny, we should set them aside and keep moving forward in a new polemic, with class-awareness and decisive leadership for the struggle for the handing down of power to the workers and farmers. Enosis can provide us neither better working conditions nor better wages, nor can it ensure our social emancipation. It will merely exchange our chains. Nothing more, nothing less.
WORKERS, FARMERS, OPPRESSED,
Move forward in the struggle for our emancipation. The struggle for our economic and political demands. The battle for the improvement of our working conditions and Social Security. For the creation of more jobs for the unemployed. For unemployment benefits. For the organisation and class awareness of all of the oppressed. For SELF-GOVERNMENT. For a Government of Workers – Farmers, that feels for the worker and protects the farmer. For the complete national and social liberation.”
In this text there is no mention of Turkish-Cypriots. But in the municipal elections the idea of proportionate representation of Turkish-Cypriots is projected from the candidates of this party and at the same time the request for Enosis is condemned in exchange for the request for Self-Government. The request for Enosis is considered a request which is entirely bourgeois (Ergatis, 15 May 1949).
The organisation of Trotskyists broke up and got dismantled soon after. One of the reasons is that a fraction of the members becomes for Enosis as one can witness through the conversational essays in it’s later editions.
We can see that briefly before the 50s, the Greek-Cypriot left tends to ambiguously want independence without always condemning Enosis and combines this demand with an intense worker’s politics (it is not by chance that the last labour struggles happened back then) and an understanding of danger that is included in a possible intercommunal conflict (and certainly other reasons such as geopolitical ones).
I do not know whether you, like myself, see that history actively justified the dears of the leftists of the era.
Whereas the Greek-Cypriot community votes for “Enosis and only Enosis” as one in 1950, and for the entire decade it leaves no space for anything else, I suppose that hidden within the bourgeois class exist thoughts for independence, because of course it cannot be by chance that Makarios gave that infamous interview in 1957 or that the national council of the time takes part, even in disagreement, in the negotiations in Zurich and London.
In making a report of the 50s, we can in summary say that the entire revolutionary force of the Cypriot people, Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot, was wasted on marginalising the conscious participation of the working class, in order for an intercommunal conflict to be built and for neither self-government nor Enosis but for dependence to be given.
This is why Cypriot Consciousness is always a newborn consciousness. It has never overcome the stage of infancy. In consequence, its face is marked by the sorrow of profound old-age and the main sentiment that it can feel is the uncertain pain of existence. Cypriot Consciousness exists trampled under the feet of its adversaries who are caught in an infinite hand-to-hand battle. From the point of view of where it exists, on the ground, it sees them as enormous giants. Regardless of the constant trampling, the Cypriot Consciousness is saved by the fact that none of the giants is entirely dominant. Otherwise the Cypriot Consciousness would be lost.
The Cypriot Consciousness thinks itself weak. That’s why it plays possum, waiting for better days.
The Cypriot Consciousness is weak and humble. It knows it and doesn’t go to battle. It settles for cackling at the weakness of its far stronger adversaries who are nonetheless also too weak to impose their own order of things. In its ears the voices echo like empty words and fanfare.
Cypriot Consciousness has the arrogance of the marginals.
[1]. The dominant Greek Cypriot Discourse which called for union with Greece.
[2]. The dominant Greek Cypriot Discourse which called for complete separation of the two communities.
Ecopolis is a 3-day anti-commercial festival with no sponsors. All events will be free. This year’s festival schedule is as follows (more info soon):
25/07 – Talks, presentations, and discussions
26/07 – Art exhibitions and performances
27/07 – Concert
Donations help us maintain the festival’s independent and self-funded character, so they are more than welcome.
The city as the main field of social activity and action reflects the wider social environment. Ecopolis festival aims to reveal, challenge, and renegotiate the social tensions of everyday life in the streets, squares and benches of Nicosia. A city that is drowning in coffee shops, street-side tables and fashionable bars. The old city of Nicosia has changed face: from sub-developed historical center it has now fulfilled its potential as an ideal city-commodity, maintaining the advertisable image of the “last divided capital”, while the accelerated gentrification of the last years has constituted it as an urban jewel “clean” from social relations and situations that oppose commodity relations mediated by spectacle.
Skyscrapers for high-class apartments and businesses, pedestrian zones occupied by the tables of countless interchangeable shops, the lack of public benches, fences around Faneromeni church that get taller every year, sidewalks full of parked cars, sky-rocketing rents that become prohibitive for migrant residents –all a result of gentrification and the consumerist influx which followed, creating a city where the only acceptable social / political activity is consumption. Meanwhile, barbed wire, barrels and armies force us us to live our geographical and historic site as half, mediated by the symbols of hatred and tedious queues at the checkpoints to walk a distance of 100 meters.
For us, these are factors composing a challenging landscape of action, in which we intervene creatively by expressing and making proposals for societies organized outside hierarchical, capitalist and sexist mentalities and institutions, on the basis of self-organization, solidarity and companionship. The Ecopolis festival is being held this year for the first time by the Ecopolis working group on ecology and the city. Ecopolis festival aims to put forth the claim to the city as a Common, as a field of resistance to the social and environmental endeavors of neoliberalism. We want to create the conditions in which the city is experienced as a point of reference and socialization, action and experimentation, rather than as a polished real estate commodity bought and sold according to the laws of the market and current trends.
Το Οικοπόλις εν ένα τριήμερο αντιεμπορευματικό φεστιβάλ χωρίς χορηγούς. Η είσοδος θα είναι ελεύθερη σε ούλλες τις εκδηλώσεις του φεστιβάλ.
Το φετινό πρόγραμμα είναι (παραπάνω πληροφορίες σύντομα):
25/07 – Παρουσιάσεις τζιαι συζητήσεις
26/07 – Καλλιτεχνικές εκθέσεις τζιαι παραστάσεις
27/07 – Συναυλία
Οι εισφορές εν ο κύριος παράγοντας που κρατά το φεστιβάλ ανεξάρτητο τζιαι αυτοχρηματοδοτούμενο, οπόταν είναι αυστηρά ευπρόσδεκτες.
Η πόλη ως το κατεξοχήν πεδίο κοινωνικής δραστηριότητας & δράσης αντικατοπτρίζει το ευρύτερο κοινωνικό περιβάλλον. Το φεστιβάλ Οικοπόλις έσχει στόχο την ανάδειξη, αμφισβήτηση και επαναδιαπραγμάτευση των κοινωνικών εντάσεων της καθημερινότητας μέστους δρόμους, τες πλατείες τζιαι τα παγκάκια τούντης πόλης. Mιας πόλης που πλέον πνίεται μες τα καφέ, τα τραπεζάκια, τζιαι τα μοδάτα μπαράκια. Η παλιά πόλη της Λευκωσίας άλλαξε φάτσα: που υπο-ανάπτυκτο ιστορικό κέντρο εκπληρώνει πλέον τη δυνατότητά της ως ιδανική πόλη-εμπόρευμα. Που τη μια διατηρώντας τη διαφημιστική εικόνα της “τελευταίας μοιρασμένης πρωτεύουσας,” τζιαι που την άλλη η ριζική ανάπλαση των τελευταίων χρόνων να την καθιστά ως βιτρίνα “καθαρή” που κοινωνικές σχέσεις τζιαι καταστάσεις που αντιτίθενται στις εμπορευματικές σχέσεις διαμεσολαβημένες που το θέαμα.
Ουρανοξύστες για high class διαμερίσματα τζιαι επιχειρήσεις, πεζόδρομοι κατηλημμένοι που τα τραπεζάκια των δεκάδων ομοιότυπων μαγαζιών, ελάχιστα παγκάκια, κάτζελα που χρόνο με το χρόνο ψηλώνουν στην εκκλησία της Φανερωμένης, πεζοδρόμια γεμάτα παρκαρισμένα αυτοκίνητα, ενοίκια που ανεβαίνουν τζιαι γίνουνται απαγορευτικά για μετανάστες κατοίκους – ούλλα κομμάτι της κοσμοσυρροής ως αποτέλεσμα του gentrification, δημιουργώντας μια πόλη όπου η μόνη αποδεκτή κοινωνική/πολιτική δραστηριότητα εν η κατανάλωση. Ταυτόχρονα, ττέλια, βαρέλλες τζιαι στρατοί αναγκάζουν μας να ζούμε το γεωγραφικό τζιαι ιστορικό μας χώρο ως μισό, διαμεσολαβημένο που τα συμβολα του μισους τζιαι τις κουραστικες αναμονες στα οδοφραγματα για να περπατησουμε μια αποσταση 100 μετρων.
Για εμάς τούτοι εν παράγοντες που συνθέτουν ένα προκλητικό τοπίο δράσης, στο οποίο παρεμβαίνουμε δημιουργικά εκφράζοντας τζιαι πραγματώνοντας προτάσεις για κοινωνίες οργανωμένες έξω που ιεραρχικούς, καπιταλιστικούς τζιαι σεξιστικούς θεσμούς τζιαι λογικές, στη βάση της αυτοοργάνωσης, της κοινωνικής αλληλεγγύης τζιαι της συντροφικότητας. Το φεστιβάλ Οικοπόλις διοργανώνεται φέτος για πρώτη φορά, που την ομώνυμη ομάδα εργασίας για την οικολογία τζιαι την πόλη. Έσχιει ως στόχο να βάλει κάτω το πρόταγμα της διεκδίκησης της πόλης ως ένα Κοινό, ως πεδίο αντίστασης στην κοινωνική τζιαι περιβαλλοντική επέλαση του νεοφιλελευθερισμού. Θέλουμε να δημιουργήσουμε τες συνθήκες όπου η πόλη βιώνεται ως σημείο αναφοράς τζιαι κοινωνικοποίησης, δράσης τζιαι πειραματισμού, παρά ως γυαλιστερό real estate-εμπόρευμα που αγοράζεται τζιαι πουλιέται σύμφωνα με τους νόμους της αγοράς τζιαι τις εκάστοτε μόδες.
Στις 15 Απριλίου συμμετέχουμε στην πορεία και συναυλία διαμαρτυρίας που διοργανώνεται από την Κίνηση Save Akamas / Save Cyprus για την προάσπιση της κοινής φυσικής και πολιτιστικής μας κληρονομιάς. Οι τελευταίες υποθέσεις υποβάθμισης του περιβάλλοντος και αλλοίωσης του τοπίου στις Θαλασσινές Σπηλιές της Πέγειας και στο Κάβο Γκρέκο αποτελούν απλά την αφορμή γι’ αυτήν τη διαμαρτυρία. Για εμάς, αυτές οι υποθέσεις αποτελούν τα πιο πρόσφατα παραδείγματα μίας συστηματικής πολιτικής καταστροφής του περιβάλλοντος και οικειοποίησης των οικολογικών μας κοινών.
By ALLEN J. SCHABEN / LOS ANGELES TIMES Amid fog, Mark Massara surfs in front of shark’s tooth rock at Martins Beach. (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)
The California Coastal Act for decades has scaled back mega-hotels, protected wetlands and, above all, declared that access to the beach was a fundamental right guaranteed to everyone.
But that very principle could be dismantled in the latest chapter of an all-out legal battle that began as a local dispute over a locked gate.
On one side, property owner and Silicon Valley billionaire Vinod Khosla wants Martins Beach, a secluded crescent-shaped stretch of sand and bluffs, to himself. On the other, generations of beachgoers demand continued access to a path long used by the public. The squabble has spurred a spate of lawsuits that now focus on whether Khosla needs state permission to gate off the road — and a string of California courts has said he does.
Unwilling to back down, Khosla is now appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court over his right to shut out the public. His latest argument not only challenges the constitutionality of the Coastal Act — if taken up by the nation’s highest court, it would put into question long-established land use procedures and any state’s power to regulate development anywhere.
“It’s bold, it’s arrogant, it wants to strike at the core of our society,” said Joe Cotchett, lead attorney for the Surfrider Foundation, which sued Khosla in its fight for public coastal access. “This is so much bigger than a little beach in San Mateo County. It’s a steppingstone to every coastline in the United States.”
Khosla, not short on money nor shy on tactics, has tapped a new lawyer uniquely suited to overcome the longshot odds of bringing this argument before the nation’s nine top justices. Now leading his legal team is Paul Clement, who served as U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush, has clerked for the late Justice Antonin Scalia and “argued more Supreme Court cases since 2000 than any lawyer in or out of government,” according to his professional bio at Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
He has defended a number of conservative positions, such as arguing against same-sex marriage and leading the legal challenge against President Obama’s Affordable Care Act.
In his 151-page petition to the Supreme Court, Clement described California’s coastal policies as “Orwellian” and made the case that private property should not be taken for public use without just compensation: “the Coastal Act cannot constitutionally be applied to compel uncompensated physical invasions of private property.”
Clement and Khosla’s team of Bay Area lawyers did not respond to requests for comment. Khosla declined to comment for this article.
The Supreme Court will probably decide in the next three months whether to take up the case. Chances are slim: Of the thousands of appeals filed each year, only about 100 are granted review. But with conservative interpretations of property rights gaining prominence and President Trump’s recent appointment of Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, having the right lawyer and a well-crafted argument might just be enough to win the four Supreme Court votes needed for the case to move forward, legal experts said.
Khosla’s arguments, while ambitious, are “artfully drafted in an effort to capture the attention of at least four justices,” said Richard Frank, director of the California Environmental Law and Policy Center at UC Davis. “This petition is targeted directly at the conservative wing of the United States Supreme Court, and it certainly is plausible that the court could grant review in this case given the quality of representation and the issues involved.”
The issues date back to 2008, when Khosla, a co-founder of Sun Microsystems, bought the 89-acre property south of Half Moon Bay for $32.5 million.
The Deeney family that sold Martins Beach had, for almost a century, maintained a public bathroom, parking lot, even a general store. Surfers, fishermen and picnickers paid 25 cents to enter. The fee eventually went up to $10.
Khosla, in legal filings, said he “was willing to give the business a go, and continued to allow members of the public to access the property upon payment of a fee. But [he] soon faced the same problem the Deeneys had faced: The business was operating at a considerable loss, as the costs of keeping the beach, the parking lot and other facilities in operable and safe condition significantly exceeded the fees the business generated.”
So he shut the gate, hired security and posted “do not enter” signs.
A number of public interest groups have since sued Khosla. He, in turn, has sued the California Coastal Commission, the State Lands Commission and San Mateo County, over what he considered an interference of his property rights.
A San Mateo County Superior Court judge, however, dismissed his case, stating that he had to go through the commission’s permit process or enforcement proceedings before he could resort to a lawsuit.
The case that could be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court began when Surfrider sued Khoslaon the grounds that he failed to apply for the development permit required to change public access to the coastline. A local court sided with Surfrider and a state appeals court upheld that decision, ordering Khosla to unlock the gate while the dispute continues. Khosla appealed again to the state Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.
Nowadays, the gate is sometimes open, sometimes closed. Sheriff’s officials have said it would not arrest members of the public for trespassing. The Coastal Commission last fall began the formal process of notifying Khosla of public access violations, which could amount to fines of as much as $11,250 per day per violation.
The commission, not an official party to the Surfrider suit, said it is reviewing Khosla’s appeal to the Supreme Court. The state attorney general’s office said it was aware of the petition and provided no additional comment.
Khosla is not the first wealthy landowner to challenge coastal regulations. Many still recall the 22-year fight with music producer David Geffen to unlock his Malibu gate. (Geffen eventually handed over the keys).
But not all fights have ended in public victory. When the Coastal Commission demanded in the 1980s that James and Marilyn Nollan allow the public to walk on their beachfront in Ventura in exchange for obtaining a building permit to enlarge their house, the Supreme Court ruled the agency had gone too far.
In handing down the 1987 Nollan vs. California Coastal Commission decision, Scalia compared the commission’s tactics to “an out-and-out plan of extortion.” The first of a number of rulings in which the court tilted the law toward protection of property rights, it dramatically scaled back the commission’s power to require public access ways to the coast.
“Nollan had a catalytic effect, and I expect any decision in the Martins Beach case … would have a similar sweeping and catalytic effect on public access law and property rights more generally,” Frank said. “It’s one of those landmark foundational cases that is cited all the time throughout the nation and has prompted more litigation.”
Ralph Faust, who was the commission’s general counsel from 1986 to 2006, said a striking difference between the Nollan case and Martins Beach is that Khosla is challenging the Coastal Act “as written, not as it’s applied.”
Nollan applied for a permit but didn’t like the stipulations the commission required, so he challenged them, Faust said. Khosla is skipping that step altogether and arguing that the requirement to seek a permit — as well as the state court injunction to maintain the status quo of keeping the gate open while the matter is being decided — violates his rights as a property owner.
“That’s a pretty stunningly broad attack on state government,” Faust said. “If he were to win on that and just get a declaration that the Coastal Act could not possibly be constitutionally interpreted to require a permit for that kind of development — that would be just huge.”
The Nollan case unfolded in unexpected ways and to this day affects the way access rights are argued and how land should be set aside for the public, Faust said. Should the Supreme Court take up Khosla’s appeal, the implications are beyond imaginable.
“Just because you think you know what the situation is when you’re talking about a case, doesn’t mean that’s how it’s going to look if the Supreme Court actually decides something,” he said.
“These things take on a life of their own.”
Interested in coastal issues? Follow @RosannaXia on Twitter.
UPDATES:
2:25 p.m.: This article was updated with additional details of the history of the legal dispute involving Martins Beach.
A guest blog on Scottish Environment Link by Glen Smith, a social science researcher and PhD candidate at UiT The Arctic University of Norway.
Diarmid Hearns is right to point to the importance of the Scottish planning system in determining how space is developed and, subsequently, how people live their lives (The Scotsman Opinion 18/01/2018). The National Trust for Scotland research findings that Mr Hearns discusses are indeed concerning. The sense of disconnect between citizens and a system that helps determine the use and non-use of space needs to be urgently addressed, as does the lack of trust in that system.
Much of the frustration towards the planning system stems from the limited opportunities for people to affect decision outcomes: around 60 per cent of those asked in the National Trust of Scotland survey felt this way. The planning system is plagued by instances of late or limited stakeholder engagement. Or, more worryingly, of no engagement at all.
It must be said that many Scottish people are pushing hard to right these wrongs. It remains a political hot topic, with some communities taking more direct action. Examples include the formation of Development Trusts or, in more radical cases, direct community land buyouts. Whilst it is true that any local ambitions to change land use patterns through these channels are still subjected to planning procedures, they are at least conceived through community-based committees. So the ‘step zero’ of planning can stem from local residents. But not all communities have the means to take such steps. Furthermore, they are a symptom of a problem, rather than a solution. Why would communities feel the need to take matters into their own hands? What is broken? How can we fix it? These are important questions.
Unfortunately, steps taken by the Scottish Government have done little to stop these questions being asked. The rhetoric is in place but the demonstrable impact is not. Communities might have taken centre stage in the most recent round of land reform, as indicated by the emerging Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act of 2015, but true participatory processes require a redistribution of power. That seems like a bridge too far for the Scottish Government. The new Planning Bill does not offer too much hope in this regard either. As pointed out by Planning Democracy SCIO, among others, the Planning Bill actually proposes to reduce the overall number of opportunities for community engagement in planning.
It is important that Scotland continues to push for a more democratic planning system. But I would like to suggest that the push be extended offshore to include marine spatial planning, especially for inshore waters. Scotland’s National Marine Plan is to be implemented in the Scottish Marine Regions where plans will be adapted to meet localised needs and demands. Some regions have already produced pretty comprehensive plans, although they took different routes to get there.
However, having studied the governance of marine spatial planning processes in Scotland for a number of years, it seems that as the system becomes institutionalised it is in danger of adopting some of the same failures from its terrestrial relative. Decisions made about the use or non-use of the seabed affect coastal communities. They can significantly change the social dynamics of coastal towns and villages as the necessary infrastructure and workforce are put in place to capitalise on ‘blue growth’ opportunities. Marine planning partnerships in the regions are designed to incorporate local opinions into decision making; but public input is not assured in most cases.
The challenges, laws and perceived relevance of marine and terrestrial planning differ considerably. But both need to be underpinned by the good governance principles of transparency and participation. The marine planning system is still in the making but it is never too early to ensure that such principles are built in. Diarmid Hearn talks of a great opportunity for “the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament to get people back into planning and ensure their voice is heard”. I couldn’t agree more. But while we are here, let’s discuss the sea as well.
– Glen Smith is a social science researcher and PhD candidate at UiT The Arctic University of Norway. His work focuses on the governance of marine management in Scotland
Name a well-known environmental organisation. The World Wildlife Fund? Sure, everyone knows the panda, it has royal support and we’ve all seen pictures of dead elephants with gaping wounds.
But as horrible as wildlife crime is, there’s one criminal activity ten times bigger than all other illegal wildlife crime combined. Try naming it, or any organisation that combats it.
Sand mining has no bleeding elephants – but it is the elephant in the room of environmental issues. Illegal sand mining has ten times more value than all wildlife crime.
Had enough
Indeed, it’s bigger than all other environmental crimes combined, according to a study by Luis Fernando Ramadon, a mining crimes professor at the National Police Academy in Brazil.
Professor Ramadan told The Ecologist: “It’s an easy form of enrichment with less risk and costs than trafficking of drugs, humans or organs.” He adds that aside from being so profitable, “it is maybe also the most harmful to the environment”.
Asking Sumaira Abdulali how sand mining is harmful is like asking for a drizzle but receiving the full-blown Indian monsoon. “Soil erosion, landslides, water table loss, infertility of farmland, disturbances of ecosystems and marine life, beach disappearances, collapsing bridges…”.
One night in 2004, she had had enough of it. In what had become a nighttime routine, trucks came and went to the seafront near her house South from Mumbai. They stole the beach.
Abdulali called the police and drove to the beach. “Instead of rushing to the scene, the police tipped the illegal sand miners”, Abdulali told me.
Edgy grains
As she waited in her car for the police to arrive, the men came from the beach, pulled her out of her car and assaulted her. “During the beating, one guy asked: ‘Do you know who I am?’ He was the son of a local politician, but also owner of a large construction company.” His father later became the state’s environment Minister.
Abdulali sued the sand mafia and won. But fighting the sand mafia is a risky affair. Sandhya Ravishankar, a Chennai based journalist, was threatened for her reports on Tamil Nadu’s sand mafia.
Despite a ban in 2013, beach sand mining for minerals remained a lucrative business in Tamil Nadu. At one point police raided 15 locations simultaneously, finding 455,245 ton of illegally mined beach minerals. The evidence suggests that almost a million tons has been exported since the ban has come into force.
Abdulali and Ravishankar are sand mafia challengers who survived. According to author and expert Vince Beiser, hundreds of people were killed over sand extraction, in India alone.
Contrary to our intuition, useful sand is scarce. Forget deserts. Desert winds make sand roll and therefore round. Edgy grains are needed for concrete, the main use of sand. Building booms have caused these sand mining booms – but there’s another reason why 75 to 90 percent of all beaches are disappearing.
Nuclear waste
Minerals such as rutile and ilmenite, found in beach sand, are in everything from titanium parts of consumer goods to paint to paper to plastics. India has 35 percent of all ilmenite. Going to Goa with sunscreen in your luggage? There is a good chance that the ilmenite in it came from a beach.
In Indonesia, Australia’s Indo Mines Limited is after the iron on one beach, which doubles as a barrier against salt intrusion from the ocean into coastal farms.
When they proposed a massive expanding to cover a 1.8km by 22km area – also the home of 20,000 people – the resistance went ballistic. Many community members were jailed and police brutalities left 41 people injured.
In The Gambia, an 11-year old boy fell to his death in one of the massive holes left behind by a sand mining firm, a hole they should have filled. The beach is now flooded, attracting crocodiles that attacked women who tend nearby gardens.
In this conflict, 45 people were arrested and sued. Zircon, the mineral mined here, was exporting to China. Aside from being sold as gemstone, sand is used to store nuclear waste.
Enlightened CEOs
Camila Rolando, a Barcelona based researcher, maps environmental conflicts in Western Africa for the EnvJustice project. “The conflict in The Gambia left an impression across the Senegalese border.
“The villages around the Niafrang dune try to prevent that a new beach mine opens there. They depend on rice growing, market gardening, fishing, oyster farming and tourism – all of which would be negatively affected.”
An armed rebel group in Senegal, the MFDC, is also against the proposed project. In reaction, the Senegalese government deployed extra military forces in the area. This is how sand wars can start.
Will you ever walk into a shop and ask for a pot of Tamil-Nadu-free-paint? No. And there’s no tropical beach logo for this. Waiting for enlightened CEOs is equally naive.
Whether it is India, Indonesia, South Africa or Senegal: the battles for our beaches are “environmentalism of the poor”, a term coined by the award winning economist Joan Martinez-Alier.
Rich places
Only 15 percent of the world’s population lives in North America or Europe but they consume about 50 percent of all titanium dioxide – whose production lines creates conflicts everywhere but in North America or Europe.
The Atlas of Environmental justice has the details of nine local sand conflicts relating to ilmenite and rutile alone – all in the Global South. So what can we do?
Martinez-Alier argues that humanity needs to dig, produce and trade a factor less. In his jargon, digging in The Gambia for production in China and selling in the US is all part of the social metabolism of the global economy, like blood that flows through a body. Based on planetary boundaries data, he argues the global economy suffers from too high blood pressure.
Martinez-Alier said: “Those calling for green growth fail to understand that the inputs of energy and materials into the economy grow to unsustainable levels.
“Whether it is sand, fossil fuel or timber: most materials flow from impoverished to rich places, whether across the oceans or inside large countries like China or India. Local environmental conflicts are born from the opposition to this.”
Unscrupulous companies
However, Martinez-Alier adds: “When a success is achieved against some dirty local extraction, the knowledge of how to win is quickly reinforcing a global movement for environmental justice.” It seems that the multinationals are becoming ever more powerful, but so are the multinational anti-extraction coalitions.
Sand conflicts rage on all continents, but the conflict level is so granular that we fail to see them. Especially in poorer countries, communities increasingly find themselves battling on frontlines opened by unscrupulous companies and complicit local politicians.
These communities need all the support we can give them. And it is they who deserve the credit for trying to throw some sand in the already overheated machine that we know as the global, industrialised economy.
This Author
Nick Meynen is the project officer for global policies and sustainability at the European Environmental Bureau.
by Sispirosi Atakton
December 2017
Over the long view of history, the reproductive rights debate has given rise to a vast number of conflicts as a result of an ever-expanding state, in which edicts of the church are often enshrined in law, and a gradual process of full politicization of the womb as a public space subject to legal and social regulation. These conflicts occurred both in the 19th and 20th centuries when many countries criminalized and recriminalized abortions (there were some exceptions as the fascist regimes in Germany and Austria adapted abortion restriction to eugenics and pro-natalist goals, while in Catalonia, Spain, abortion laws were briefly liberalized in the 1930s, but any efforts to implement reforms were squashed by the victory of the fascist Franco regime), and again in the late 20th century when many countries reformed and liberalized their abortion laws, after a heightened debate on the issue, leading to legislative change and partial decriminalization (1960s-1980s).
It is essential that every person has control over their body, and the ability to make informed decisions regarding their sexual and reproductive health, such as for example if and how many children one will have. Every woman, or person of any gender which might get pregnant (such as trans men, non-binary, agender people, etc.), must have the access and right to opt for abortion services, regardless of their reasons for wanting to terminate the pregnancy. This right to control our bodies is indispensable in the struggles for liberation and social justice, as nobody should be forcefully assigned the role of a child-bearing reproductive machine.
In our discussion it is crucial to think of abortion as just one of the issues of reproductive justice, which expands the pro-choice agenda to incorporate a wider array of economic, social and political issues affecting women’s power to decide about their bodily autonomy, reproduction and well-being. Legal abortions are meaningless if those who want them can’t afford them, and this framework allows to see the inequalities in women’s control over reproduction. Besides, middle and upper class women, with privileged access to relevant information, have always had access to abortion, by making use of the loopholes in the existing law, or by travelling to countries where abortion was/is legal. Working class women, on the other hand, not trained to argue with the authorities and/or could not pay for a doctor’s (legal or illegal) help, were the ones who have always been at risk. Thus, we can conceptualize a struggle not only for the right to choose, but for the social, political and economic conditions necessary to exercise that right. It entails a movement oriented approach, in addition to demands for safeguarding reproductive rights and accessible reproductive health services.
The acknowledgement of reproductive work as unpaid labor in the 60s made it possible to redefine the domestic or private sphere as an anti-capitalist site of struggle. In this sense, strict restrictions on abortion can be interpreted as an attempt to control the labor-supply, and deviations from the form of the procreative, heteronormative family and gender roles as resistance to this mechanism [1]. Radical and liberal feminists often disagreed about the demands the women’s movement should have, with the former arguing amongst others for free abortion on demand, free child-care and equal pay, while the latter were mainly concerned with the legal right to abortion and equal employment opportunities. The radical feminist agenda included practices such as consciousness raising and setting up self-help clinics and women’s shelters; discourses centered on liberation and sexual difference (rather than equality); and a political stance to which abortion and, more generally, the reclaiming of the sexed body, was central. Those were considered moments of deep feminist challenge to the dominant patriarchal culture and the state. Those creating policy and articulating hegemonic cultural norms responded (to a greater or lesser extent) to feminist threats to the status quo, and engaged in processes of negotiation and transformation [2].
It seems that with the demise of the radical feminist movements of the 70s which expressed an unapologetic stance for abortions, and the co-optation of women in legal debates over the matter, a shift occurred towards a defensive and prevention based stance. The focus has shifted from reproductive autonomy and self-determination to issues of sex education and contraception methods, with abortion framed as an avoidable last resort. In this way, regardless of how useful and necessary sex education and the availability of contraceptives might be, abortion is kept secret, shameful and regrettable, and the liberating potential of choice is surrounded by feelings of shame and guilt. It seems that the new, gendered language that was developed along the radical feminist movement with which to speak of one’s body, one’s sexuality, one’s pain and alienation faded away. Despite the efforts of radical feminist movements to center the debate on abortions around women’s self-determination, linking thus abortion to men’s assumed responsibility for controlling and monitoring women’s sexuality and reproduction, in most countries the initial debate is framed around the unborn fetus, doctors’ rights, or the state’s response to rising illegal abortions. It is important to bring back the unapologetic demand for abortions and the repeal (what has been called the decriminalization of abortion without limitation), not reform, of abortion laws into current struggles, as modernization of abortion laws does no justice to women, who are still denied agency.
It seems that a woman’s desire to end a pregnancy is not enough in itself, for it has to be approved first by a “respectable” authority figure, be it her husband, her father, her family, her community, her nation. Denying women the right to end a pregnancy is like denying them the right to own their bodies, which, in turn, results in women’s infantilization, which is all about rendering them incapable of making an independent decision. Historically, and ontologically, women and the feminine were strictly associated with the passion of the body; a body which was simply considered, by the Cartesian/humanist philosophical canon, to be inert and passive, silent and inferior, part of an unchangeable nature. On the contrary, the so-called superiority of the logos of the mind was associated with men and the masculine. Consciousness, rationality, intelligence, selfhood and subjecthood were synonyms of the masculine, and men were identified with the thinking subject and, by extension, with the universal [3]. There was no place for women’s voices to be heard, while their right to (own) a self was forbidden. They were supposed to live for others and their bodies were considered property of the autonomous (male) subject, as he was the one making all the decisions –nationally, institutionally, domestically– on her behalf. In a word, women were denied their existential freedom [4]; they were denied their status as thinking subjects, who could make decisions for their own bodies and choose between having a baby or not. This discourse is extremely important to the extent that it somehow sets the frame to understand better the arguments, claims, and struggles of the pro-abortion/pro-choice movement.
In other words, despite the fact that abortions are performed on women’s bodies, policymakers have often framed it in other terms –doctors’ rights, fetal rights, law enforcement, morality, religion, progressivism, family planning, eugenics– rather than discussing women’s choice, health, autonomy, agency, or sexuality. The dominant framework of the issue when abortion first arrived on the public agenda, was either the status of the unborn fetus (e.g. Great Britain, the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium), or doctors’ rights (e.g. France, Canada, USA), or state’s integrity in the face of rising rates of illegal abortions (e.g. Germany, Italy) [5]. The debate about how abortion policy could strengthen women’s autonomy was completely absent. Once again, women were not the talking subject, but rather a silent participant in a malestream debate, whose decisions were to determine the future of her own body. The political semiotics of representation play a crucial role here as, in this case, the object of representation (the fetus), permanently speechless, becomes the representative’s (patriarchal institutions) wet dreams because it can be easily naturalized and disengaged from the discursive realm. Women who want abortion simply vanish or become the enemy because they have opposing “interests”. The only actor left whose voice can be heard is the one who represents and is traditionally related to the hegemonic masculinity mostly articulated in juridical and medical discourses [6]. For this reason, concepts such as self-determination and agency are really important for the abortion debate because they put women, as subjects who are not afraid to speak their truth, back at the center of the way we talk about abortion.
However, relying solely on politics of ‘choice’ and ‘rights’ obscures the presence of other factors affecting the person’s choice over an abortion, such as access to subsidized care and job security [7]. Framing abortion and parenthood as an exclusively private issue suffers from an insensitivity to the way the private/public dichotomy fails communities whose social, political and economic realities are incompatible with this distinction. For example, migrant women’s paid labor is often domestic labor, and child-rearing is often intertwined with interpersonal relations and bonds of solidarity and cooperation for the overall well-being of the community, even in individualistic societies. When systemic inequalities result in the material conditions which determine the necessity of an abortion, defending only the right to choose is inadequate. Such a narrow-focused approach leaves unchallenged the fact that even if accessible abortions permit greater women’s access into the workforce, thus challenging the subordination of women in the private sphere, the burden of unpaid reproductive and domestic work remains disproportionately on them. In cases where abortion was legalized, legalization alone proved useless in claiming the resources women need to maintain control over their bodies and lives. While mainstream feminist movements made sure that women could have access to male-dominated workplaces, they abandoned reproductive work and the domestic sphere as a site of struggle. Terms like autonomy, empowerment and choice, historically employed by the feminist movements to raise consciousness, have been deployed by media and the state to promote the ideal of an active, individually responsible working and consuming female citizen. This promoted ideal does not suffice to challenge the exploitative relations of the capitalist mode of production and reproduction, and has accelerated the undoing of the radical women’s movements.
Additionally, focusing only on modernizing abortion laws, neglects the way age, class and ability influence one’s reproductive health priorities, and how under neoliberal restructuring of economies, the cost of the relevant reproductive health services is falling on the individuals. At the same time, women are more visible to governmental agencies, through the required medical intervention in abortions, giving birth, postnatal care, menopausal issues, breast-cancer checks, etc [8]. Reproductive capacity is monitored and medically controlled throughout a woman’s life. Even in countries where abortions are more readily accessible, women who want to undergo sterilization, the most permanent of contraceptive methods, are often forced to lie about their reasons and denied the agency in taking decisions affecting their bodies. Whereas the right to voluntary motherhood has become more accepted, the denial of a woman to procreate is often dismissed as an immature and immoral choice.
Upon impregnation, the person is stripped off their bodily autonomy, and anyone who wants to have an abortion must face the consequences of confronting not only medical authorities and their policies, but also the defenders of the procreative role assigned to women by capitalism and the nation-state. The latter insist on the patriotic mobilization of mothers against imagined demographic threats, either from minorities within the Republic of Cyprus, or by “Turkish settlers” in the north [9]. Lower birth rate, a phenomenon frequently associated with accessible abortions, is wrapped in nationalistic rhetoric and presented as a problem by government officials. The role of motherhood has been elevated over the past century to mother-of-the-nation, a heroic figure responsible for protecting traditional morals and producing the future defenders of the country’s national interests, as well as the younger sector of the workforce that would strive for the country’s economic recovery and growth. Future dehellenization and lack of local labor supply are expressed as the second most important problem after the Cypriot issue by conservatives and the right-wing, or even as an integral aspect of it [10]. This is not to say that everyone against abortions falls in these categories. As long as the debate over when human personhood begins remains open, some of the opposition might also be rooted in liberal defense of individual liberties. What we can conclude from this however, is that it would be a contradiction for the state to offer free accessible abortions. Defending abortions and reproductive justice requires to overcome the pervasive nationalistic rhetoric and militarist attitudes in society.
In October 2017, there was an arrest and 5-day detention of a woman and her doctor for an abortion, which is a criminal offence according to current laws, after a complaint filed by her partner, who was unaware of the event [11].
The Criminal Code of Cyprus (sections 167-169 and 169A), as amended in 1986 (Law No. 186), permits abortion if two medical practitioners are of the opinion that continuance of the pregnancy would endanger the life of the pregnant woman, or that physical, mental or psychological injury would be suffered by her or by any existing child she may have, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, or that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such serious physical or psychological abnormalities causing severe disabilities. The Criminal Code also permits abortion following certification by the competent police authority, confirmed by medical certification whenever possible, that the pregnancy resulted from rape and under circumstances in which the pregnancy, if not terminated would seriously jeopardize the social status of the woman or of her family. Although the Code does not specifically address socio-economic grounds other than as a factor in the criminal indication for abortion, in practice, “mental and psychological injury” is generally interpreted as including socio-economic grounds. The Code was first liberalized in 1974, when provisions permitting abortions only on therapeutic grounds were replaced. Prior to the liberalization of abortion laws in Cyprus, laws were not strictly enforced. Abortion could be obtained in private clinics. Most abortion clients were married women with multiple births or young unmarried women.
Any person performing an unlawful abortion is liable to seven years’ imprisonment. A woman inducing her own abortion is liable to the same punishment. Any person unlawfully supplying or procuring anything knowing that it is unlawfully intended to be used to procure an abortion is subject to three years in prison. An abortion must be performed by a registered medical practitioner. Although not specified by law, in practice abortion is performed within 28 weeks of gestation[12a,12b].
In February 2015, a new bill for decriminalization of abortions was proposed by four big political parties, but was never discussed in parliament and no voting was carried out, due to also direct and indirect influence of the church in order for this new bill not to proceed [13]. Just last year, in September 2016, the Archbishopric, the National Committee of Bioethics and the Pancyprian Medical Association organized the scientific convention “Abortions: medical, social, legal, spiritual dimensions” [14]. During the convention, positions against abortion under any justification were express and signed for by the three institutions in a memorandum of understanding. This alliance does not surprise us. The liberating potential of someone prioritizing themselves, usually against the patriarchal roles assigned to them, poses a threat towards the state, church and medical/scientific authorities. We perceive the decision for abortion as a matter of self-determination of our bodies, and consider unacceptable the criminalization and arrest of those pregnant and seeking abortion, as well as the doctors who help terminate a pregnancy safely.
As emerges from the analysis above, the capitalist-patriarchal state is deeply invested in control over reproduction, but when faced with acute social pressure key political and social actors are compelled to revise their positions. This includes elements of engagement with feminist arguments, but mostly a modification of those arguments, by refocusing the debate on a discourse of (sex-less) individual rights. Creating a legal consensus on abortion is seen across the political spectrum as key to the stabilization of socio-political life. More fundamentally, by controlling reproduction through an articulation of the conditions in which abortion is allowed, the state attempts not only to control population, but also to lay down the boundaries of acceptable values and behaviors [15]. Thus, it is important that abortion should be accessible to all women without discrimination, and each person seeking abortion to have access in safe abortion services around the world. On the contrary, abortion is either prohibited or criminalized or extremely limited (for example Ireland and Poland). When abortion is criminalized, it means that the person seeking abortion is denied fundamental rights over their bodies, health, self-determination, dignity and to have access to rights without discrimination. It means that the person will either seek abortion methods that would endanger their life and/or health and that they would try to seek for abortion in other countries. The right to abortion is just one part of the struggles for safe access to sexual and reproductive health care for everyone, which should entail access to counseling and support before and after the abortion if necessary. Lack of access to abortion services is an attack on the freedom to self-determination, and paves the way towards dangerous methods of terminating the pregnancy. Let’s not forget that the existing ‘way out’ through private doctors and clinics comes with a financial burden which prevents those with low income, migrants, teenagers and others from having an abortion. As long as the state monopolizes authority and uses it to define which medical and surgical procedures are accessible, it is necessary to proceed immediately into a discussion and amendment of the legislation, and decriminalize abortions without requirements for justification and medical opinions. It should ensure that everyone, regardless of gender and gender identity, will have access to these services when they need them.
The pro-choice, feminist movements and those in the radical left struggling for reproductive justice should not rest on their laurels, even in countries which witnessed progress on reproductive rights or positive abortion law reforms. As the anti-abortion camp is pushing for retrogression in abortion laws, it is becoming increasingly evident that abortion law reforms are insufficient to safeguard women’s increasing access to abortion. For example, Armenia, FYROM, Georgia, Russia and Slovakia have recently reintroduced preconditions for accessing abortions. Even in countries with legal abortions, long waiting periods and biased counseling services act as barriers to accessing an abortion safely. Legislative proposals for near-total bans or retrogression to stricter abortion laws also took place in Latvia, Lithuania, Spain, Romania, and Poland; however, they were met with public outcry and protests and never realized. Andorra, Malta, Liechtenstein, Ireland, Monaco and San Marino currently have very restrictive abortion laws, with the former two prohibiting all abortions. As in Cyprus, most of these countries’ criminal codes include sanctions for women who undergo unauthorized abortions and those who assist them to do so [16]. Amidst the rise of authoritarian populism and the resurgence of traditionalist values in public discourse, it is crucial that we do not remain silent in front of the attacks on reproductive rights and our sexualities. In our struggles for social justice, deciding for one’s own body is an inalienable right, without the intervention of any authority threatening one’s health, life or freedom. Our bodies are ours, and not reproductive machines of any system.
References and further reading
[1] Silvia Federici, “The reproduction of labour-power in the global economy, Marxist theory and the unfinished feminist revolution”
Silvia Federici, “The reproduction of labour-power in the global economy, Marxist theory and the unfinished feminist revolution”
[2] McBride Stetson, Dorothy (2003) Conclusion: Comparative abortion politics and the case for state feminism.
https://www3.nd.edu/~ggoertz/sgair/McBride%20Stetson2002chp13.pdf
[3] Braidotti, Rosi (2002) Metamorphoses: towards a materialist theory of becoming (Cambridge: Polity Press); Grosz, Elizabeth (1994) Volatile bodies: toward a corporeal feminism (Sydney: Allen and Unwin).
[4] Τούτος εν ένας όρος που εδιατυπώθηκεν πρώτα που την Katha Pollitt. Για περαιτέρω συζήτηση γυρώ που την έκτρωση σαν ένα ηθικό δικαίωμα, δες Pollitt, Katha (2014) Pro: Reclaiming abortion rights (New York: Picador).
[5] McBride Stetson, Dorothy (ibid)
[6] Για μια πιο εκτενή συζήτηση γυρώ που την πολιτική σημειολογία της αντιπροσώπευσης, δες Haraway, Donna (1992) The promises of monsters: a regenerative politics of inappropriate/d others, in: Lawrence Grossber, Cary Nelson & Paula A. Treichler (eds.) Cultural studies (New York, London: Routledge), pp. 295-337.
[7] Dorothy Roberts, “Reproductive Justice, Not Just Rights”
[8] Madame Tlank, “The Battle of all* Mothers (or: No Unauthorised Reproduction)”
Madame Tlank, “The Battle of all* Mothers (or: No Unauthorised Reproduction)”
[9] “Αυξάνονται οι αλλοδαποί, μειώνονται οι Κύπριοι”, Sigmalive
http://www.sigmalive.com/archive/simerini/politics/reportaz/451616
[10] An example of this argument can be found here: http://www.cna.org.cy/webnews.aspx?a=13b07a14e43f4f4e9bd2b891d8310818
[11] Woman who had illegal abortion released (Updated)
[12a] Ο περί Ποινικού Κώδικα Νόμος (ΚΕΦ.154), ΜΕΡΟΣ IV ΠΟΙΝΙΚΑ ΑΔΙΚΗΜΑΤΑ ΠΟΥ ΠΑΡΑΒΛΑΠΤΟΥΝ ΤΟ ΚΟΙΝΟ ΓΕΝΙΚΑ, Ποινικά Αδικήματα εναντίον των Ηθών
http://www.cylaw.org/nomoi/enop/non-ind/0_154/division-dd12fa068c-825c-475f-8af5-93cb97376e6e.html
[12b] www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abortion/doc/cyprus1.doc
[13] Εκτρώσεις: Τι προβλέπει η πρόταση νόμου του 2015
http://www.philenews.com/koinonia/eidiseis/article/437883/ektroseis-ti-problepei-i-protasi-nomoy-toy-2015
[14] Ιερά Αρχιεπισκοπή Κύπρου: Επιστημονικό Συνέδριο με γενικό θέμα: «Εκτρώσεις: Ιατρικές – Κοινωνικές – Νομικές – Πνευματικές διαστάσεις»
[15] Pollitt, Katha (ibid)
[16] Women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights in Europe
https://rm.coe.int/women-s-sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-rights-in-europe-issue-pape/168076dead
Με αφορμή τη συνάντηση των G20 στο Αμβούργο τον Ιούλιο του 2017 και τις κινητοποιήσεις που διοργανώνονται στο Αμβούργο εκείνες τις μέρες, αφιερώνουμε το αυτόνομο σχολείο του Μαίου για να συζητήσουμε την ιστορία των κινητοποιήσεων του κινήματος παγκόσμιας δικαιοσύνης, ξεκινώντας από το Σιάτλ το 1999 και φτάνοντας μέχρι το Αμβούργο.
2004. 2010. 2017. Το κυπριακό επανέρχεται στην διπλωματική πραγματικότητα και την επιχειρηματική σκακιέρα για να ακονίσει τους αλληλοσυγκρουόμενους εθνικισμούς Ελλάδας και Τουρκίας ταυτόχρονα με την ατσαλένια αποικιοκρατική κυριαρχία.
Με ή χωρίς σχέδιο, η Κύπρος, από τη δεκαετία του ’50 όταν ο ελληνικός εθνικισμός εγκαταστάθηκε για τα καλά στο νησί, με την απαραίτητη συνδρομή της Εκκλησίας, μετατρέπεται σε ιδανικό πεδίο ώστε να ξεδιπλωθούν τα σχέδια του εκάστοτε εθνικιστή: λήσταρχου, τεχνοκράτη, δεξιού και αριστερού πατριώτη. Είτε τον λένε Κοτζιά είτε Ερντογάν. Είτε σκορπά το πατροπαράδοτο δηλητήριο του εθνικισμού της ‘μητέρας-πατρίδας’ είτε το μεταλλαγμένο προϊόν του καπιταληστρικού μέλλοντος. Γρίβας, Γιωρκάτζης, Ντενκτάς, είναι πρόσωπα που συμπυκνώνουν με αιματοβαμμένο τρόπο την ιστορία του κυπριακού ως θέμα διαμοιρασμού της εξουσίας μεταξύ των πολιτικών ελίτ, συγκαλύπτοντας την καταστροφή της κοινής κυπριακής κουλτούρας και των μικρών κοινοτήτων μέσω της συγκρότησης εθνοκρατους, ενός θεσμού που προωθεί την ομογενοποίηση, την ομοιομορφία, την υπακοή, τον μιλιταρισμό. Σε αυτόν τον χορό των εθνικιστών -τεράτων- το διεθνές κεφάλαιο δεν θα έμενε απέξω υποσχόμενο την ‘κόλαση’ του καπιταλιστικού ονείρου.
Οι Κύπριοι/-ες και από τις δυο πλευρές γνωρίζουν όμως καλά ότι υπάρχει λύση, λύση που μόνον η αυτόνομη ακηδεμόνευτη κοινωνική κίνηση μπορεί να επιβάλλει -προωθώντας την αποστρατιωτικοποίηση, ρίχνοντας τα συρματοπλέγματα που διαχωρίζουν το νησί, τα τείχη μεταξύ των ανθρώπων και τα εμπόδια που θέτει η ύπαρξη του Κυπριακού στην κοινωνική πρόοδο και στη ριζοσπαστική δράση. Αναγνωρίζουν τις προοπτικές που θα δημιουργήσει η επίλυσή του και την δυναμική που θα ανοίξει για την υπέρβαση της ηγεμονίας των εθνικιστικών ιδεολογιών και την αναίρεση της γεωγραφικής διαίρεσης του νησιού.
Οι διαδηλώσεις των Τουρκοκυπρίων το 2011, το κίνημα του Occupy μεταξύ 2011-12 και πολλές κοινές αντιμιλιταριστικές, εκπαιδευτικές και περιβαλλοντικές δράσεις κράτησαν τις γέφυρες της επανένωσης ανοικτές.
Σήμερα η πολιτική επίλυση του κυπριακού προβλήματος στη βάση της Διζωνικής Δικοινοτικής Ομοσπονδίας (ΔΔΟ) είναι κάτι περισσότερο από απαραίτητη, μέσα από μία νέα αντίληψη του «κοινού», γεωγραφικού, οικολογικού, ιστορικού, κοινωνικού και πολιτιστικού χώρου, ως χώρου ελευθερίας, όπως επισημαίνει η ‘Συσπείρωση Ατάκτων’.
Με συντρόφους από τη Συσπείρωση Ατάκτων θα συζητήσουμε τη λύση του κυπριακού ως διαρκούς διαδικασίας και τους αγώνες του κινήματος ενάντια στον εθνικισμό, την Παρασκευή 27 Ιανουαρίου 2017, στις 19:30 στον ελεύθερο κοινωνικό χώρο Nosotros (Θεμιστοκλέους 66, Εξάρχεια).
Η Συσπείρωση Ατάκτων φιλοξενεί στο Αυτόνομο Σχολείο Δεκεμβρίου την Παρουσίαση: ΕΟΚΑ – ΤΜΤ: Πέρα από τους Ήρωες και τους Τρομοκράτες.
«Η οργάνωση ΤΜΤ είναι ο κακός δαίμονας για όλους τους κατοίκους της Κύπρου- Έλληνες και Τούρκους.» (Σπύρος Αθανασιάδης, Φάκελος ΤΜΤ) «Η τρομοκρατική οργάνωση της Ε.Ο.Κ.Α. σκοτώνει τους Έλληνες που δεν θέλουν την ένωση με την Ελλάδα, όπως και Βρετανούς και Τούρκους. Έτσι ξεκινούν οι δικοινοτικές συγκρούσεις στην Κύπρο.» (Serter, Vehbi Zeki, Ιστορία της Κύπρου, βιβλίο ιστορίας που διδασκόταν στα σχολεία της Τ/Κ κοινότητας ως το 2005.)
Δυο αναδυόμενοι εθνικισμοί, δυο μητέρες πατρίδες, δυο μεγάλες ιδέες, ένα νησί. Δυο οργανώσεις, δυο αφηγήσεις περί ηρώων, αυτοθυσίας, απελευθέρωσης – ή αλλιώς, περί τρομοκρατίας, δολοφονιών, καταπίεσης.
Μια παρουσίαση που εξετάζει τις οργανώσεις ΕΟΚΑ και ΤΜΤ στα χρόνια 1955-59 πέρα από τον κυρίαρχο εθνικιστικό λόγο, πέρα από τις κατεστημένες ιστορικές αφηγήσεις, πέρα από τους «Ήρωες» και τους «Τρομοκράτες».
Μέλη της γραμματείας της ΘΥΡΑ 9 θα κάνουν παρουσίαση για τον τρόπο ίδρυσης της ομάδας μας και την ιδεολογική δράση της οργανωμένης μας κερκίδας. Στην συνέχεια θα υπάρξει ανοικτή συζήτηση.
ΠΑΡΑΣΚΕΥΗ 14/10/2016, ώρα 19:30 στον Κοινωνικό Χώρο Kaymakκιν στο Καϊμακλί: Ο διδακτορικός ερευνητής Κώστας Κωνσταντίνου παρουσιάζει το άρθρο του με τίτλο “Ο ηθικοκοινωνικός ρόλος του διδασκαλικού υποκειμένου ως τεχνολογία εκπολιτισμού και κοινωνικού ελέγχου στην Κύπρο, 1878-1937” που δημοσιεύεται στο 9ο τεύχος της Εντροπίας.
To άρθρο παρουσιάζει τις συγκυρίες κάτω από τις οποίες διατυπώθηκε και θεσμοθετήθηκε ο ηθικός ρόλος των Ελληνοκυπρίων διδασκάλων και των διδασκαλισσών, για την περίοδο 1878-1937. Ειδικότερα, συζητά πώς ο ρόλος αυτός χρησιμοποιήθηκε στον λόγο των διαφόρων πολιτικών και κοινωνικών ομάδων, στην προσπάθειά τους να πειθαρχήσουν και να εκπολιτίσουν τη λαϊκή τάξη επιδιώκοντας την ηγεμονική τους επικράτηση. Ιδιαίτερα παρατηρείται η σύνδεση του εθνικού με τον ηθικοκοινωνικό ρόλο του διδασκαλικού υποκειμένου.
Παρουσίαση – Συζήτηση με τον τουρκολόγο Νίκο Μούδουρο στον Κοινωνικό Χώρο Kaymakκιν (Αρχιεπισκόπου Μακαρίου Γ’ 127, Καϊμακλί)
«Ο δεύτερος απελευθερωτικός πόλεμος» Ιδεολογία, Κράτος και Οικονομία στην Τουρκία μετά το πραξικόπημα της 15ης Ιουλίου 2016
Η αποτυχημένη απόπειρα πραξικοπήματος στην Τουρκία την 15η Ιουλίου 2016 καταγράφεται ως ένα από τα σημαντικότερα γεγονότα των τελευταίων δεκαετιών στη χώρα. Είναι εξέλιξη ποικίλων διαστάσεων και συνεπειών. Ως τέτοια απαιτεί προηγουμένως την όσο το δυνατό καλύτερη κατανόηση των πρωταγωνιστών της κρίσης, του ιδεολογικού τους υπόβαθρου και των θέσεων τους. Η παρουσίαση στοχεύει σε μια σφαιρική ενδοσκόπηση της απόπειρας πραξικοπήματος, αλλά την ίδια στιγμή επιδιώκει να αναδείξει τις μετατοπίσεις που σημειώνονται μετά το πραξικόπημα στο ιδεολογικό περιβάλλον της χώρας. Ο στόχος «επανίδρυσης» του κράτους και ο οικονομικός μετασχηματισμός ως συστατικά μέρη της πλατφόρμας του ισλαμικού κινήματος της Τουρκίας, είναι επίσης ανάμεσα στα κύρια σημεία της παρουσίασης.
Η παρουσίαση και συζήτηση θα γίνει στα Ελληνικά με δυνατότητα ψιθυριστής μετάφρασης στα Αγγλικά.
Στες 14 του Φεβράρη εβρεθήκαμεν στον Κορματζιήτη, το Μαρωνίτικο χωρκό στην επαρχείαν Τζερύνειας. Στον σύλλογον του χωρκού εσυζητήσαμεν με Μιχάλη Χατζιηρούσσο τζιαι την Μαρία Εμμανουήλ για την ιστορία τζιαι τα θέματα που αντιμετωπίζει η Μαρωνίτικη κοινότητα ειδικόττερα στο πλαίσιο του Κυπριακού. Ακούστε τες εισηγήσεις τζιαι την συζήτηση πιο κάτω:
Στις 12 του Φεβράρη, ο δημοσιογράφος-ερευνητής Μιχάλης Μιχαήλ ήταν μαζίν μας στον Κοινωνικόν Χώρον Kaymakκιν για να συζητήσουμεν την πορεία του ελληνικού τζιαι του τούρτζικου εθνικισμού στην Κύπρον. Ακούστε πιο κάτω την εισήγηση του Μιχάλη Μιχαήλ, και την συζήτηση που ακολούθησε.
In the context of the forthcoming inter-communal protest march for a "De-Militarised Nicosia 2015", which will be held on both sides of the borders dividing Nicosia on Saturday, 28th of February, Syspirosi Atakton starts a circle of events that will peak on that day.
In 1926, Levi Eshkol, who would later be prime minister of Israel during the 1967 war, visited Western Thrace, and observed the settlement of Greek refugees from the 1923 Greek-Turkish population exchange. He remarked at the time that it was an “‘an enormous and interesting project,” which could provide a model for the creation of the Israeli state. In this presentation, I draw together some of the unlikely similarities between Greek, Turkish, and Israeli nationalism. Focusing on the impact of Hellenization on the Jewish community of Salonica after the Greek invasion of 1912, I argue that nationalisms which claim to be mutually antagonistic, often converged when it came to the re-arrangement of people and re-definition of their ethnic identity.
One Radical Planet 
