The Russian Ambassador speaks

 Andrei Kelin, the Russian ambassador in London, talka to RT l

In recent weeks we have witnessed a number of harsh, if not aggressive, anti-Russian statements by former British officials. The former head of MI5 agreed with those who believe that Russia and Britain are already at war and former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace proposed making Crimea "uninhabitable". What is behind this new round of escalating rhetoric? Does it reflect the approach of Prime Minister Keir Starmer and other current politicians?

The comments you mentioned are indeed provocative and unacceptable, regardless of who voiced them. They are whipping up anti-Russian hysteria. They also accustom the population to the idea of the permissibility of a military conflict with Russia. But these are all retirees trying to remind us of themselves. Officials do not directly express themselves in this way, but they do not disavow such attacks either.
Representatives of the Labour government often reproach us for "reckless and dangerous" steps and statements. But much more reckless are the arguments of such figures as Ben Wallace. During his tenure at the head of the British Ministry of Defence, he did a lot to inflate the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, which he seems to be very proud of. Now he’s in fact repeating the rhetoric of neo-Nazi circles in Ukraine, which more than 10 years ago pushed the residents of Crimea and Donbas to make a choice in favour of reunification with Russia. Behind all this escalation of rhetoric, there is obviously a strong discomfort from how events are developing on the ground, where the situation of the armed forces of Ukraine is steadily deteriorating.

The British government was one of the first in Europe to publicly announce plans to send a military contingent to Ukraine, and also came up with a number of initiatives that Russia regarded as provocative. What is London's ultimate goal in pursuing such a hostile policy towards Russia?

From the very beginning, London has not hidden its interest in fomenting the Ukrainian conflict in order to inflict a so-called strategic defeat on us. What exactly is meant by this, we do not really understand to this day. Then they began to say that the security of Ukraine is closely related to the security of Europe. But what does Britain have to do with it?
Now they are talking about an immediate, unconditional truce, without going into how the conflict will be resolved. It is obvious that London is against such a negotiated solution that would lead to a permanent, rather than temporary, cessation of hostilities, and most importantly, would eliminate the root cause of the Ukrainian crisis. Here, it seems, they have not abandoned their intention to drag Ukraine into Nato, to deploy Nato strike potential on its territory. Obviously, the goal of the "coalition of the willing" is precisely aimed at preserving the anti-Russian potential of Ukraine, preferably with the presence of Nato forces on its territory.
All these plans are absolutely transparent for us, we will respond adequately. The West should be well aware that when they talk about some price that Russia must pay for the Ukrainian crisis, they should not forget that they, in turn, will be presented with a bill. The longer they feed the Kiev regime, which has de facto already turned Ukraine into a non-existent state, the more dearly they will ultimately have to pay.

Some politicians argue that the UK is a sworn enemy of Russia and that the peoples of our countries have long been hostile to each other. However, Moscow's official position is that Russia has no unfriendly peoples – only unfriendly governments. How does this relate to the current state of relations between Russia and London?

Contradictions between our countries have existed for a significant part of the history of bilateral relations. It was Britain that provoked them. Unfortunately, at the current stage, relations are in a protracted crisis through the fault of official London. The government (both Labour and Conservative) is the initiator and participant of many unfriendly actions. The British establishment and the media close to them are trying to instil hostility towards us in the country's population. Therefore, they spread fake news about the alleged threat from Russia and about actions that our country has never committed. They create a toxic atmosphere around those who consider it necessary to at least continue the dialogue. Moreover, Britons interested in cooperating with Russia are now being intimidated by the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme. It obliges people to report to the authorities about almost any interaction with our state.
Against this background, there is no need to talk about active contacts at the population level. But we do not interfere with people-to-people contacts, we do not close our borders to tourists. Perhaps the most obvious manifestation of our attitude towards the British people in the current conditions is the desire to preserve the memory of the alliance during the Great Patriotic War, and to demonstrate our sincere respect for the participants in those events.

In the media, much attention is paid to the possible transfer of intelligence by Washington to Kiev for long-range missile strikes on Russian territory. However, it is known that London has been carrying out similar actions for a long time. Why does this fact go largely unnoticed in the headlines? And how does this affect Russia's reaction to UK policy?

The information that the British side is providing comprehensive military support to Kiev, including the transfer of weapons, intelligence and training of military personnel, has always been in plain sight and has been repeatedly commented on by us. London has long established itself as one of the main sponsors of the Kiev regime. This is not a surprise to anyone. All this is being closely monitored by the Russian side and, of course, taken into account when building our policy towards the UK. We are against any escalation. As I said, in the end, everyone who helps the Zelensky regime fuel the war and damage us will be presented with a bill. In what form is a separate question.

Many British media outlets interpreted President Vladimir Putin's recent speech at a meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club as a threat to Europe, mainly because of the President's words that Russia should in any case respond to the plans to militarise the European Union. At the same time, his statement that Russia is not considering the possibility of invading Europe was omitted in many cases. What do you think about this reaction from the British media?

Now the British press in any situation makes a choice in favour of promoting the topic of escalation, rather than détente. Hysteria is being whipped up under the slogan of a growing direct Russian threat to the countries of the alliance. Under these conditions, it is hardly in the interests of the sponsors of this campaign to broadcast the "peaceful" theses of the President of Russia. They are trying in every possible way to instil in the population the idea of the need to prepare for an armed confrontation with our country. And it is clear why. France and Germany are in the biggest crisis. The same is true in the UK. It is necessary to divert the attention of fellow citizens from the numerous problems in which the country is mired. We do not forget about the efforts of the military-industrial complex, which is interested in obtaining long-term contracts.
As you may remember, after the end of the Cold War, the expression "peace dividend" was in vogue. This meant that due to the reduction in spending on huge military contingents and weapons stockpiles that had become unnecessary, the economies of European countries freed up huge funds for economic development and improving the quality of life of people. They could be properly used for the benefit of countries. But it didn't work out that way.
Now the Labour leadership is actively talking about a "war dividend", apparently hoping to increase the revenues of the debt-ridden budget at the expense of revenues from the military industry. You are also right that the statements of our leadership about the absence of threatening intentions towards Europe are being ignored here. They do not fit into the current political line of the West.

The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service says that London plans to carry out a provocation on the territory of Ukraine – we are talking about an attack on a Ukrainian naval vessel or on a civilian vessel of a foreign state with the subsequent imposition of responsibility on Russia. Have you informed your British colleagues that Moscow is aware of such plans? And what is the reaction in the UK to this information?

As you know, London is directly and actively involved in the preparation and implementation of provocations by Ukrainian wards. Moreover, it consistently increases the degree of confrontation without thinking about the consequences. I am sure that the above-mentioned signals reached the addressees and were received properly.
I can only draw your attention once again to the fact that anti-Russia hysteria in the media is being artificially hyped. Even when there is no specific news-break, it is either created, for example drones appear from somewhere in European airspace, or extracted from some past archives, such as Bucha. In these materials, as a rule, there are a lot of emotions that are aimed at provoking an irrational anti-Russian mood in the audience. Such a "warmed up" audience will easily believe even the most ridiculous and unsustainable rubbish.

People’s China: taking the lead for peace

 by Andy Brooks

New Communist Party leader Andy Brooks took part in a seminar on the role of the Communist Party of China and the world today at the Chinese embassy in London in August. This is his contribution to the discussion.

We meet at a time of sharpening contradictions — and the primary contradiction in the world today is between United States imperialism and the rest of the world it seeks to dominate.
    Generations of Chinese communists struggled against dogmatism and sectarianism to build a people’s democracy in their own way, to serve the needs of the working people of China and throughout the wider world we live in – a world torn apart by war and stricken by poverty and disease. While the American imperialists incite conflict and sectarian division People’s China has taken the lead in helping to build the economies of the Global South while working for peace and harmony throughout the world
    We too must struggle for peace and nuclear disarmament – as well as the abolition of
other weapons of mass destruction.
    Imperialism fans the flames of war in Ukraine and the Middle East, blocks the return of Taiwan to its Chinese homeland and prolongs the unhappy partition of many countries including Cyprus, Ireland, Kashmir and Korea. China’s perspective, on the other hand, is based on the concept of ‘one country, two systems’ and the principle that ‘a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought’. But the most aggressive sections of the American ruling class now at the helm in Washington clearly believe in “one world, one system” and that nuclear war is, under certain circumstances, entirely winnable.
    The Chinese revolution that established the people’s government in 1949 has transformed the country that was then the poorest in the world. Since then China has risen from being a weak semi-feudal, semi-colonial country to become a force for peace in the global arena with the second largest economy in the world.
    People’s China, the fifth permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, is the only veto-power actively supporting proposals for multilateral nuclear disarmament. Pledging never to be the first to use nuclear weapons in any conflict, China stands for the complete prohibition and total destruction of all atomic weapons.
    China, backed by many other countries, has repeatedly challenged the West to implement the entire non-proliferation treaty, signed in 1968, that not only called a halt to nuclear proliferation but also committed the signatories to work towards universal nuclear disarmament.
    The struggle to abolish nuclear weapons is crucial for the survival of humanity. But central to averting a Third World War is the need to eliminate the causes of war. And that is why communists have always understood that the struggles for peace and socialism are indivisible.
    The Chinese communists are striving to achieve lasting world peace, so that all countries can enjoy a peaceful and stable external environment and their people can live a happy life with their rights fully guaranteed to build a world that is free from fear and enjoys universal security. 
    This is, of course, a quantum jump from the post-war Soviet policies of “peaceful co-existence” and “detente” that failed to end the Cold War and probably accelerated the collapse of the USSR. Peaceful co-existence mistakenly believed that the capitalists could be economically beaten at their own game while detente was, in essence, a futile Soviet attempt at achieving nuclear parity with the Americans to divide the world into Soviet and American spheres of influence.
    Sadly the United Nations has been marginalised by the imperialists who only pay lip service to UN institutions when it suits their purposes. When it doesn’t the world forum is ignored and discarded.
So though the United Nations remains a prime focus China has taken the initiative in setting up other platforms for economic and diplomatic co-operation including BRICS, the Belt and Road Initiative and the Shanghai Co-operation Council.
    China has become a beacon of hope for all the peoples of the world struggling to build their own independent economies without imperialist interference. While Anglo-American and Franco-German imperialism use their military and economic might to impose their neo-colonial rule throughout the Global South the Chinese people can, and do, provide the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America with an alternative source of high technology and economic assistance without the odious strings attached that always go with deals with the West.
    China puts people first. China has become a pivot for peace in a world torn apart by imperialist greed and aggression. China is strong but it threatens no one. China respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries. It stays true to the principle of equality of all countries big or small, strong or weak, and rich or poor, and it respects the development paths and social systems independently chosen by all the world’s peoples. The people’s government is dedicated to promoting a human community with a shared future.
    China stands ready to work with all countries and peoples who love peace and aspire to happiness to address all kinds of traditional and non-traditional security challenges, protect the peace and tranquility of the planet, and jointly create a better future for humanity, so that the torch of peace will be passed on from generation to generation and shine across the world.
    Earlier this year the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, launched the “global security initiative” that lays out core concepts and principles regarding global peace and security.
    The first is to eliminate conflict through the establishment of a balanced, effective, and sustainable security framework under which countries respect the legitimate security concerns of each other and promote political solutions to cope with hotspot issues.
    The second is the promotion of economic development in the Global South.
    The third is respect for diversity. It is the right of every country to choose its own
political system and development path.
    Finally all international disputes should be resolved through dialogue not unilateralism and hegemonic acts. The UN can play a positive role in international affairs if the voice and representation of countries throughout the Global South is expanded in the world forum.
    This is what we should all be working for. Hopefully we will live to see it happen in
the years to come.

Socialism, the Choice of the Chinese People

Ambassador Zheng Zeguang opens the seminar

On 23rd November, the Chinese Embassy in London held an online symposium on the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th Communist Party of China Central Committee, where Ambassador Zheng Zeguang delivered a keynote speech. Andy Brooks, General Secretary of the New Communist Party of Britain, Robert Griffiths, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Britain, Ella Rule, Chair of the CPGB (ML), Martin Jacques, a renowned expert on China, and Stephen Perry, Chair of the 48 Group Club, spoke at the event.

    Also present were Professor Martin Albrow, a fellow at the Academy of Social Sciences in London; Sir Martin Davidson, Chair of the Great Britain-China Centre; and representatives of various other political parties, experts, scholars and representatives from the International Liaison Department of the Chinese Communist Party. This is Andy Brooks’ contribution to the discussion.

First of all, I would like to thank the organisers for allowing me to say a few words at this seminar focusing on the major achievements and historical experience of the Communist Party of China (CPC) over the last 100 years of its existence.
    For a communist party to have survived for 100 years is, in itself, something to celebrate. To have led the Chinese people to victory is another. To raise the millions upon millions of the Chinese people out of poverty to build the modern socialist society that we see today is a third. And this is only the beginning of the march of progress in the 21st century.
    Feudal China was once the workshop of the world. When the people’s government was established in 1949 China had the lowest standard of living in the world. Today China can now not only feed, clothe and educate its people, but also provide consumer goods and living standards for working people unimaginable before liberation. China has a modern expanding economy that has withstood the current global capitalist crisis to once again become the workshop of the world and is sharing its prosperity through the Belt and Road Initiative that spans the globe.
    One-hundred years have passed since the foundation of the CPC on 23rd July 1921. China has risen from being a weak semi-feudal, semi-colonial country to become a force for peace in the global arena with the second largest economy in the world.
    In the past China’s wealth was the preserve of a ruthless, feudal ruling class. These days China’s wealth is being used to finally eradicate the last vestiges of poverty, raise the standard of living of everyone in the people’s republic, and help the development of the Third World through genuine fair trade and economic assistance.
    This is the glorious achievement of the CPC which led the resistance that defeated the Japanese imperialists and the reactionary Chinese warlords and politicians in the pay of American imperialism, to establish the people’s government on 1st October 1949.
    Discussion is a luxury communists can afford and as we join our Chinese comrades in celebrating their hundred years of victory, we can ask ourselves many questions.
    The collapse of the Soviet Union and the people’s democracies in eastern Europe led to calls in some communist quarters for a new communist international – calls that are still made from time to time in some parts of the movement. But we cannot restore what has gone before us without first understanding why it failed in the first place. And that understanding cannot come from reading books or simply trying to transpose one experience to another.
    Chinese communists always stress that socialism with Chinese characteristics cannot be exported and that their revolution is not a model for others to copy slavishly. But we very rarely, at least in Western Europe, ask ourselves why?
    The answer in part is based on the struggle of the Chinese communists to overcome dogmatism and sectarianism to eventually build a people’s democracy in their own way, to serve the needs of the working people of China.
    Commenting on the rise of the bourgeoisie in France, Marx famously said that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. Communists too can make mistakes, but unlike the bourgeoisie we consciously try to learn from past mistakes in order to avoid future ones.
    In Europe, the mistake was clearly to elevate slavishly what was believed to be the ‘Soviet model’, even though few Western communists even really understood what the Soviet Union actually was. The Soviet Union wasn’t a ‘people’s democracy’ in the sense we understand it now. It was a unique state based on Soviet power, and whilst its economic structures could be imitated – as they were after a fashion in eastern Europe – the Soviet political system could not.
    Following the Soviet victory in the Second World War, the revolutionary upsurge that followed led to the establishment of people’s democracies throughout Eastern Europe on the same basis as the people’s democratic dictatorship was established in China in 1949. The question was how long would this transition take?
    In the beginning, people’s democracy was seen as a lengthy process. Initially it was believed that the length of the road to socialism would depend upon the development of social and economic factors in each individual country. But Cold War tensions led to the rapid incorporation of most of the European people’s democracies into a Soviet economic and military bloc, which later proved incapable of withstanding the counter-revolutionary pressures of the 1980s. The Chinese communists clearly believe that the transitional period, at least as far as their immense country is concerned, will be a lengthy process. But it is a socialist process.
    Any hopes that imperialists held that China was ‘going down the capitalist road’ were dealt a severe blow at the 2019 Congress of the CPC, where Xi Jinping reminded delegates that: “Socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, not any other ‘ism’. Both history and our present reality tell us that only socialism can save China – and only socialism with Chinese characteristics can develop China. This is the conclusion of history, the choice of our people.”

Fighting the fascists in the Swinging Sixties

by Ben Soton

Ridley Road. A four-part mini-series adapted by Sarah Solemani from Jo Bloom's 2014 novel of the same name. Currently showing on BBC1, Sundays at 9pm. Also available on BBC iPlayer.

Set in 1962, a young Jewish woman, Vivian Epstein (played by Agnes O’Casey), leaves her comfortable life in Manchester in search of her boyfriend. She finds work as a hairdresser and on her afternoon off wanders into a fascist rally in Trafalgar Square only to find her lover, Jack Morris (played by Tom Varney), masquerading as a far-right thug.  The organisation in question was the National Socialist Movement (NSM) led at the time by Colin Jordan and John Tyndall and campaigning in Ridley Road in London’s East End, from where the drama takes its name.
    The drama has three areas of focus: those opposed to fascism, the fascists themselves and those naïve individuals fooled into supporting it. After Jack is injured in a street-fight Vivian becomes involved with a group of Jewish anti-fascists for whom he is working undercover. The group, led by Jewish cab driver Solly Malinovsky (played by Eddie Marsan), have fresh memories of the Holocaust and Cable Street and are determined to get this poisonous ideology crushed for good. Vivian infiltrates the NSM to discover Jack’s whereabouts.
    Ridley Road also shows how fascism prays on people’s fears and even legitimate concerns.    Fascists fraudulently claim to be opposed to capitalism and often promote an opposition to modernity.
    In one scene a covert fascist sympathiser talks of the closure of corner shops due to competition from supermarket chains. For most readers under 70 it is difficult to recall a time when most shopping was not bought in supermarkets but in the early 1960s they were an innovation. The same demagogues often hark back to an imagined past when apparently everyone knew their neighbour and looked out for each other – a dog whistle reference to immigration. From personal observation, the death of community spirit is grossly exaggerated just as is the notion that it was somehow better in the past. Meanwhile, the street I live on still has a corner shop, only it is open for much longer than it would have been in the 1960s.
    Colin Jordan (played by Rory Kinnear), the leader of the NSM, is portrayed as calm and collected, as well as a doting father.  He is not a one-dimensional, spitting fanatic, the classic cartoon fascist. The rank and file, referred to as his men, are portrayed as thuggish and drawn from the lower end of the working class. The wife of one of them points out that the stately home, used by the NSM, has been donated by a wealthy aristocrat. A reminder that fascism is not about looking after the little people.
    Ridley Road intertwines newsreel footage between scenes, which gives it a documentary feel.    It contains several sub-plots, giving the drama an added suspense. Meanwhile, it also makes reference to the treatment, or should I say mistreatment, of women – both by the fascist movement and ironically also within the Jewish community. This multi-layered and largely accurate historical drama is definitely a must in terms of Sunday night viewing.

A Petty Move against China

China's new ambassador Zheng Zeguang was banned from entering Parliament in response to the Chinese government's decision to impose sanctions against a number of anti-Chinese peers and MPs.
`    Five MPs and two members of the House of Lords were sanctioned by China in March for spreading slanderous rumours and disinformation about the situation in the Chinese autonomous region of Xinjiang. They were singled out after the Johnson government imposed asset freezes and travel bans against four Chinese government officials as well as a Xinjiang security body for alleged “gross human rights violations” against Uyghurs and other minorities in the Chinese region.
    Zheng Zeguang was set to speak in both Houses of Parliament, but Peers and MPs led by former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith, Lord Alton and Baroness Kennedy, campaigned to bar the Chinese diplomat from entering the Palace of Westminster. The Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, said: "I do not feel it's appropriate for the ambassador for China to meet on the Commons estate and in our place of work when his country has imposed sanctions against some of our members. If those sanctions were lifted, then, of course, this would not be an issue."
    The Chinese embassy has rightly dismissed this as “a short-sighted, reckless and cowardly move. We despise and strongly condemn this”.
    So do we. This petty and vindictive act, done to ingratiate themselves with the Biden administration, can only make things worse. Instead of crawling to the USA, the British government should take advantage of the economic freedom that came with Brexit to expand our trade with China, and indeed everyone across the world, without strings and without the blessing of Washington.

SOLIDARITY WITH THE BOLIVARIAN REVOLUTION

The European Network of Solidarity with the Bolivarian Revolution expresses its support to the Venezuelan people and to the constitutional President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Nicolás Maduro Moros as legitimate president, democratically elected last May 20 2018, with 67.80% of the valid votes. Electoral process that counted on the participation of opposition candidates, and with an electorate that exceeded the 9 million. Accordingly, it agrees:
1. To make a call to defend the peace of Venezuela.
2. To defend the democratic institutionality in Venezuela that expressed its sovereign decision on May 20, 2018, in a free, transparent presidential election accompanied by international observers.
3. To recognise the exercise and legitimacy of all the public authorities with strict adherence to the laws and the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic, in the exercise of the participative democracy and leading of the Venezuelan people.
4. To express our solidarity firmly to the Venezuelan people in defending their sovereignty and their right to resolve their internal affairs in peace and in exercising their right to self-determination.
5. Categorically reject foreign interference in the internal affairs of the nation, and in particular the statements of incitement to violence in the country by the United States of America, the group of Lima and the OAS in the person of its Secretary-General Luís Almagro.
6. Categorically reject any attempt at coup d'état in the country imposing by force or coercion figures of alleged authority that are not derived from the popular vote as the self-proclaimed John Guaidó.
7. To require the United States of America, the European Union, the Swiss Confederation and Canada, respect for international law and the immediate lifting of illegal economic sanctions and which dramatically affect the Venezuelan people.
8. To demand to the United Kingdom the return to Venezuela of the reserves of 14 tonnes of gold still withheld without justification in the Bank of England, to demand to Belgium the return of US $1650 million retained in Euroclear, and to demand to the United States the return of the Goods and money from Venezuelan Citgo.
9. We alert the international community to the intention of the United States government to instrumentalise humanitarian law by manipulating humanitarian aid to justify military intervention in Venezuela.
10. We support the proposal of the dialogue to resolve the differences between the different political forces of Venezuela. governments of Uruguay, Mexico, the Caricom countries and the Vatican to promote a process of dialogue to resolve the differences between the different political forces of Venezuela.

 London 9th March 2019



ORGANISATIONS:

1. ALBA Malta North África Coord.
2. Alba Suiza
3. Alianza País-Ecuador
4. Amor Guatemala
5. Asociación ARLAC
6. Assange Défense League
7. Bolivia Solidarity Campaign
8. Colectivo AJI
9. Colectivo En Amigos, Paris
10. Colombia Humana
11. Comité Lula Livre UK - FREE LULA
12. Congreso de los Pueblos
13. Coordinadora de Solidaridad con Latinoamérica
14. DIDEPU
15. EPSR
16. GPPUK
17. Green Party
18. Grupo Suma Qamaña
19. Hands off Venezuela
20. LAB
21. Labour Councillor
22. Labour Party
23. MERU
24. Partido Comunista Chileno Acción Proletaria -Bélgica
25. Partido Suizo del Trabajo
26. Revolutionary Communist Group
27. SORTU
28. Suiza-Cuba
29. The New Communist Party (NCPB)
30. Venesol
31. Venezuela Solidarity Campaign

European Countries attendees to the event:

Bélgica
Francia
Inglaterra
Malta
País Vasco
Suiza

Letter from Venezuela

By Theo Russell

A Letter from Venezuela was screened at the Bolívar Hall in London last week. It is an inspiring film which shows that, despite systematic sabotage and violence, the support for Maduro and the Bolivarian revolution is a mass phenomenon, and full of energy and determination.

The soon-to-released film was directed by Carolina Graterol, who lives in London and who visited Venezuela after several years away when her sister died of malaria.

She travelled all over the country, filming the ordinary people of the cities and countryside. One of the most interesting aspects is hearing many Venezuelans describing not only the problems they face but how they are overcoming them.

An example of the mass support is a spontaneous 150 mile peasant march to Caracas, simply to show their support for Nicolás Maduro, with chants of “Let’s Go, Nico!”.

It won’t surprise our readers to hear that everything reported in the British media about Venezuela is false. Shortages of certain foods and products have been deliberately created but there was absolutely no sign in the film of “starvation”.

People, especially the young, are going abroad, but this is for economic reasons, lack of jobs and the pressures of life in Venezuela.

In the 20 years since Hugo Chavez came to power, the USA has used in Venezuela many of the tactics against Allende’s Chile.

The extreme opposition violence includes horrific scenes of setting Maduro supporters on fire, the bombing of police, kidnappings, and the ‘Guarimbas’ – opposition roadblocks using tyre spikes, burning tyres and tripwires.

Activists point out the similarities of these tactics with those recently seen in Nicaragua and the 2014 Ukraine coup, where in both cases puppet groups were trained by the USA in sophisticated street-fighting methods.

Historically Venezuela has been one of Latin America’s most racially and economically divided countries. Whilst the population is far more racially mixed then other Latin America countries, over 99 per cent of the rich elite are white Europeans.

One activist describes “a regrowth of fascism” and says that pro-opposition doctors have waged a campaign to deliberately sterilise poor women.

The US-led economic war on Venezuela is on a massive scale. Ships from Britain, the USA, Germany and Italy have joined the trade blockade. After the death of Hugo Chavez in 2013 western countries began a campaign of disinvestment and risk agencies have pushed interest rates on loans to Venezuela to 50 per cent.

There is constant sabotage of food, electricity, gas, water and medical supplies, either physical or cyber, and massive hoarding by private businesses to inflate prices.

Leaked reports on ‘Operation Venezuela Freedom 2’, drawn up in 2017 by US Southern Command in Panama, describe plans to “siege and suffocate”, portray Venezuela as “close to collapse/imploding”, and to link Maduro’s government to corruption and money laundering.

The plan shows preparations for rapid military intervention from US bases in Panama, Honduras, the Caribbean islands of Aruba and Curaçao, and six bases in neighbouring Colombia.

But the film also shows how Venezuelans are resisting the sabotage, and the huge advances for the poor, the indigenous peoples and the disabled since 1999. A disabled citizen describes how rights for disabled people in the new constitution are a model for the rest of Latin America.

There has been huge investment in education; and 2.5 million new houses have been built since 2015. Staple foods are sold at government prices and monthly food boxes sent to poor families.

We see the determination of Venezuelans to overcome the sabotage and shortages with new, self-reliant forms of production, abandoned factories expropriated, and equipment and parts being repairing or reverse engineered.

The energy and enthusiasm of the Venezuelan masses for Chavismo, and their music and songs, are contrasted with the weakness of the openly divided opposition.

As one activist says: “The dictatorship we have is that of the media. We have no dictatorship here!”

And another puts the struggle in context, saying: “Fighting imperialism is long-winded but they cannot defeat us.”

The message of this film is a positive one: whatever the USA tries, it cannot defeat the Bolivarian revolution.

An Avoidable Tragedy

Review

by Ben Soton

The Grenfell Tower Fire: Background to an Atrocity. The Fire Brigades Union (2018)

Health and Safety has for a number of years been part of a conspiracy of faceless bureaucrats to stop us from having fun, destroy free enterprise and generally make our lives a misery. Or at least this is the line peddled by the neo-liberal right and their supporters in the media. This nonsense literally went up in flames on 14^th June, 2017 when Grenfell Tower in Kensington caught fire resulting the in deaths of over 70 residents. In their recent pamphlet, the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) covers issues around Health and Safety Legislation with specific reference to Grenfell Tower.

In this pamphlet the FBU covers the erosion of Health and Safety Law from the 1980s onwards. Progressive Health and Safety legislation was introduced in the 1960s; in particular the Factories Act (1961). The situation further improved in the 1970s with the Fire Precautions Act (1971) and (Health and Safety at Work Act (1974). Contrary to myths put out by the right-wing media, legislation began to be undermined in the 1980s and 1990s. Government papers started to refer to “over provision” of regulations. The process of deregulation continued through 1990s and also through the Brown/Blair years.

The most significant factor behind the Grenfell Tragedy was the issue of external cladding. Cladding is a layer of material applied to the outside of buildings as a means of insulation and protection from the elements. It can be made from a range of materials including wood, metal, brick, vinyl and a range of composite materials. The issue with Grenfell Tower and similar blocks is that cladding, if made from flammable material, enables fire to spread along the outside of the building. Suffice it to say, flammable cladding is cheaper than its non-flammable alternatives.

The Grenfell Tower fire was not the first time the issue of external cladding had been raised. In 1991 in Merseyside and again in 1999 in Ayrshire fires spread rapidly through buildings with outside cladding. Luckily in both cases no fatalities took place. A report in 2004 however, stated that measures should exist to inhibit the spread of fire via external walls. Suffice it to say, the FBU has insisted that only non-combustible cladding be used in buildings more than 25 metres high.

In their conclusion the FBU makes a number of demands for improved safety standards.  In a summary of the recommendations they use three simple words: Prevention, Protection, Intervention.

 The last of these words strikes a chord with the Grenfell tragedy. It is a lack of Intervention we have suffered from over the last 30 years – not too much of it.

The pamphlet is available from the Fire Brigades Union, Bradley House, 68 Coombe Rd, Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey, KT2 7AE.

Art and Peace in London

By New Worker correspondent
 

Londoners got a glimpse of contemporary Chinese art at an exhibition in the Mall Gallery in the heart of the capital last week. The exhibition showcased highlights from the Beijing International Art Biennale, including paintings in ink, watercolour and oil, as well as wood block prints and sculpture, all by renowned Chinese artists. They have been selected to be part of the Chinese Art World Tour to demonstrate the pursuit of peace through art, and to strengthen understanding and the exchange of ideas between the China Artists Association and groups of artists around the world.

Sino-European Arts, a London- and Hong Kong-based art consultancy and exhibition service, hosted the week-long exhibition. Managing Director Suzanna Mu said that she was really excited about presenting the exhibition. “The works include ink paintings, oil paintings, wood block prints, sculptures, watercolour paintings and mixed media, all by renowned Chinese artists. Collectively, they demonstrate the Chinese nation’s pursuit of peace through art from 2003 to 2015.”

At the opening ceremony,  Chinese Ambassador Liu Xiaoming, said: “For the first time, this exhibition brings to Britain contemporary Chinese art works that had been the highlights of the Beijing International Art Biennale exhibitions from 2003–2015. Under the theme of ‘Art and Peace’, this exhibition will be an art gala for building friendship and peace. It has three-fold significance.

“First, the art works represent the Chinese people's keen aspiration for peace.

“The Chinese are a peace-loving nation… For the Chinese nation, the pursuit of peace, concord and harmony is a way of life. It is in our blood and soul. It is at the heart of Chinese culture. And it is an unchanged theme for generations of Chinese artists.

 “The Art & Peace exhibition covers various kinds of artistic works, including ink painting, oil painting, wood block prints, sculptures, etc. These works showcase China's traditions and modernity, and the harmonious co-existence between man and the nature. They are meant to extol life and the nature, and to express the Chinese people's love and pursuit of peace.

“Second, today's event reflects the common wish of humanity for lasting peace in the world.

“When we look at the world today, we see peace remains unachieved in many regions. We see a complicated and changing international landscape. We see global problems propping up one after another. We see uncertainties and instabilities on the rise. It is against such a background that the {Art & Peace} exhibition is coming to London.

“Through a rich variety of artistic expressions, this exhibition emphasizes China's commitment to building a community of shared future for mankind.

“It conveys a profound reflection by Chinese artists and their aspiration for world peace and development. It is a worthwhile attempt at interpreting the tireless pursuit of humanity for lasting peace in the world.

“I believe that viewers visiting this exhibition will gain a deeper understanding about the value of peace, about the healing power of art, and about the importance for humanity to pursue and uphold peace together.

“Third, the event today adds new highlight to the broad cultural and people-to-people exchanges between China and Britain.

“This year marks the 45th anniversary of the Ambassadorial diplomatic ties between our two countries. It is also a year for consolidating the China–UK Golden Era. In such an important year we are very happy that the China Artists Association is bringing its finest collections to London. This exhibition and the seminar you are going to hold for academic exchanges will contribute to the overall China–UK cultural ties and people-to-people bond.

“They will promote the exchanges and mutual learning between Chinese and British artists, and help them build consensus.

“They will display the charm of the contemporary Chinese art to the British public.

“They will bridge the hearts of our two peoples and increase the friendship and mutual understanding.

“Finally, they will reinforce our joint efforts to build a world of harmony and a world of lasting peace.”