Over één ding zijn we het tenminste eens, wij en u. ‘We liggen elkaar niet’, zo schreef u onlangs in uw gewraakte wisselcolumn in het NRC ( http://www.nrc.nl/digitaleeditie/NH/20101124___/1_009/article5.html). We hadden het zelf niet treffender kunnen verwoorden. ‘Het is niet alleen dat u mij niet mag’, zo stelt u in deze open brief aan de lezer, ‘u misgunt me zelfs mijn baan.’ Nou mijnheer Bosma, dat is maar hoe je het bekijkt. Aan de ene kant is iedere zetel voor de onbetrouwbare rijkeluisvrienden van de PVV er inderdaad een teveel. Aan de andere kant is er niemand in de Tweede Kamer die zijn zetel net zo hard verdient als u. U bent namelijk een van de weinigen in het parlement die lijken te beseffen waar het in de politiek écht om gaat.

Want politiek is een ideeënstrijd, en alleen u weet het. Het mooiste is, uw politieke tegenstanders willen er niet aan. Femke Halsema is het misschien niet met uw standpunten eens, maar zij vindt ze in ieder geval wél legitiem. Alexander Pechtold veegt uw rammelargumenten in één beweging van tafel, maar vergeet dan wel aan de kijkers thuis uit te leggen waaróm hij dat doet. Maar of een GroenLinkser uw standpunten legitiem vindt, interesseert u waarschijnlijk geen zier. En dat de aanvoerder van D66 uw goedkope retorische trucjes volledig doorziet, kan u vast ook weinig schelen.

De legitimiteit van uw door spruitjeslucht omgeven waanideeën interesseert ons ook niet zoveel. Dat premissen en conclusie volledig ontbreken in de ‘grote happen snel thuis’-verhaaltjes die u dagelijks voor Geert Wilders schrijft, doet er ook niet zoveel toe. U weet namelijk waar het in het spelletje écht om gaat: het verschil tussen u en ons. Dát verschil is de sleutel tot uw politieke succes, en dat van uw buikspreekpop Geert Wilders. Alles dat u fout, abject en verwerpelijk vindt, dat is de ander. En u bent alles wat goed, eerlijk, ‘recht door zee’, en weet ik veel wat voor kleinburgerlijke nonsens u er verder allemaal bij betrekt.

Maar er is toch één ding dat we nu even recht gaan zetten. Want wie steun geeft aan een kabinet dat de zorgverzekering voor mensen met een normaal inkomen volledig onbetaalbaar maakt, terwijl de multimiljonairs nog geen cent in hoeven te leveren, dat aan de villasubsidie niet durft te tornen, maar tegelijkertijd studenten met een levenslange en torenhoge schuld opzadelt, en dat de AOW-leeftijd (uw eigen beloften ten spijt) verhoogt voor iedereen die hard moet werken, terwijl de rijken nog altijd op hun vijfenvijftigste kunnen en zullen stoppen; zó iemand spreekt niet namens de mensen ‘die het allemaal niet cadeau krijgen.’

Zo iemand, mijnheer Bosma, staat aan de kant van de rijken. Van de mensen die hun belangen over de rug van anderen laten behartigen door de kapitaalslaafjes van het VVD. Precies zoals Wilders dat vanaf 1998 als VVD-kamerlid ook gedaan heeft. Als het aan u ligt, hoeven deze rijken de komende jaren niets in te leveren. Zij gaan gewoon door met waar zij altijd al goed in zijn geweest: andermans geld verkwisten op de PC Hoofdstraat en zich verheven voelen boven de rest. Ondertussen houdt u voor hen de schaapjes op het droge. En ondertussen presenteert u de rekening aan die mensen die al het minst hebben, die iedere euro goed kunnen gebruiken.

Het enige verschil tussen u en de zelfgenoegzame PvdA’ers, mijnheer Bosma, is dat u nog niet eens doet alsof u het beste voorheeft met al deze mensen. De dag na de verkiezingen is de AOW ineens geen ‘breekpunt’ meer. U heeft de mond vol over ‘straatterroristen’, maar als de ene na de andere van uw parlementaire schoothondjes losse handjes blijkt te hebben of zijn buurt stelselmatig terroriseert, zijn u en uw metgezel Wilders nog te benauwd om deze lui de deur te wijzen. U praat graag stoer over orde en gezag, maar maakt ondertussen zonder twijfel deel uit van -met afstand- de meest criminele fractie die de Tweede Kamer ooit in haar geschiedenis heeft gekend.

Wat we nu zo erg vinden, mijnheer Bosma, is dat u toch zoveel mensen een loer weet te draaien. Dat u doet alsof u en de PVV ‘gewone’ mensen vertegenwoordigen, terwijl u op geen enkele manier in ze bent geïnteresseerd. U belooft ze iets nieuws, iets beters, en steunt vervolgens het meest egoïstische regeringsbeleid dat maar mogelijk was. En vervolgens doet u ook nog net alsof u over dat hele marionettenkabinet Bruin1 niets te vertellen hebt. Die mensen die zo schaamteloos door u en uw buikspreekpop Wilders worden opgelicht en bedrogen, stonden eigenlijk ooit aan onze kant; aan de linker kant! Totdat u en uw extreem-rechtse zielsverwanten links de schuld gingen geven van het leed waarvoor rechts vrijwel zonder uitzondering verantwoordelijk is, totdat u mensen met een kleine portemonnee aan ging praten dat ze elkaar naar het leven moeten staan, in plaats van de rijkelui door wie ze stelselmatig uitgeknepen en gemanipuleerd worden, tot die tijd waren al die ‘gewone’ mensen links.

Daarom wij hebben maar één doel: de mensen terug winnen voor een écht links geluid. Het rookgordijn van xenofobie dat u optrekt voor de verhoudingen zoals ze werkelijk liggen –namelijk dat het de rechtse rijken zijn die ons het leven zuur maken- gaan we wegnemen. We gaan uw zeurderige tokkiefractie wegpesten uit de Kamer, van onze televisie en de krant. En neemt u dan meteen uw rijkeluisvriendjes van de VVD, de regenten van het CDA, de nep-linksen van Groen, en de verlichte zielen van D66 en PvdA alstublieft met u mee. U mag ze allemaal houden. Het verschil tussen u en hun is toch niet zo groot als u ons zo graag doet geloven. U heeft in ieder geval altijd meer aan ze gehad dan wij.

Doet u -voor u weggaat- vooral eerst het licht even uit en zet de verwarming op nul. U kunt dan nog zo hard schreeuwen dat het klimaat niet verandert, maar wij kijken gewoon naar buiten en trekken daaruit onze eigen conclusies. De tijd dat u ons zo gemakkelijk iets aan wist te praten is nu toch echt voorbij.

Website: http://www.wilderssluitookjouuit.nl

the last teknivals in The Netherland were evicted by the police with extreme force. This time was going to be no different is the police had anything to say about it. but somehow people learn and when the riot squat turns up most people and soundsystems started pakking. And where free to go with all there stuff even the sound systems.  The sad thing is that if the police would just let us be till monday morning it would cost them no money at all we would clean up the place and everyboby would be ablel te show only there best side.

At normal house party’s there are a lot of security, drink cost a fortune ect, ect. At a Teknival beer will cost you next to nothing there is no need for security and everyboby looks after one and the other. Teknival is the most sociale form for a party where the need to make money doens’t exitsed and where it is just about a party that doesn’t cost a fortune and where you free to do whatever

I’m looking forward to hearing more on this subject and the research behind it.

Time has come to not only denounce the political ambitions of certain extreme right wing characters in Dutch politics but also to establish a critique of the political establishment in its entirety which must be held responsible for creating an atmosphere in which such right wing tendencies have potential to flourish.

The aforementioned is a necessity in times where the democratic project is dramatically being reversed and civil liberties and universal rights have been eroded at the expense of national security and where right wing parties find increased legitimacy within the current political order. They (the politicians) seem to want more freedom at the expense of less freedom and here, of course quantative freedom dominates its qualitative counterpart. This is only possible in an environment where the containment of social change through a rationalization of the established social and political order, the manipulation of the idea of reason, and the satisfaction of needs are retained and perpetuate the servitude of the exploited.

For now, we must acknowledge that the means to achieve an alternative approach to the current social and neo liberal order, one which continuously extents its sphere of authority throughout all aspects of our life world, cannot be found in reiterating and emphasizing politics in its current embodiment. That is not to same as to say that we must denounce politics in its entirety, but at least acknowledge the possibility and potential of an organization of organizations that establishes a commonality, a common and mutual identity, between social movements that in one way or another seek to change the status quo. This means a politics from below, a politics that empowers the people who then take up their own destiny to achieve universal freedom and justice for all. Thus where our liberal democracy separates the people with the rule, in can, and not only in theory, form a much needed synthesis that contributes to justice and peace for all on the basis of common ideas, language, and ownership.

For the next few years I will be researching the potentiality of radical change outside the current political establishment by denouncing the politics of any party within the political Dutch establishment in order to formulate not only a critique but also to construct a anti-manifesto that would re-create a new social common space in which a multitude of fellow Dutchmen will no longer be ignored, marginalized, and manipulated. In short the politics from below facilitates a democratic sphere on which I believe we can build a better future and another end of history.

For this reason I would like anyone who might see potential in such politics from below to contribute or criticize aforementioned proposals.

Lev.

Translated by  Machetera

Until the end of the Second World War, Europe was a continent of emigrants.  Tens of millions of Europeans left for the Americas in order to colonize, escape famine, financial crises, wars and European totalitarianism and the persecution of ethnic minorities.  Today, I’m following the process of the so-called “Returns Directive” with concern. The text, approved on June 5th by the Interior Ministers of the European Union’s 27 member countries, must be voted on in the European Parliament on June 18th.  I feel that it drastically hardens the conditions for detention and expulsion of undocumented migrants, whatever their length of stay in the European countries, their work situation, their family ties, their will and their achievements at integration.

Europeans arrived en masse in the countries of Latin America and North America, without visas or conditions imposed by the authorities.  They were always welcome, and they continue to be, in our countries on the American continent, which therefore absorb the economic misery of Europe and its political crises.  They came to our continent to exploit its wealth and transfer it to Europe, with a very high cost for America’s original population.  Such is the case in our Cerro Rico, in Potosi, where the fabulous silver mines provided the European continent its coinage from the 16th to the 19th centuries.  The goods and personal rights of the European migrants were always respected.

Today the European Union is the main destination for the world’s migrants, as a consequence of its positive image as an area of prosperity and public freedom.  The vast majority of the migrants come to the EU to contribute to this prosperity, not to take advantage of it.  They occupy jobs in public works, construction, personal services and hospitals, which Europeans can’t or don’t wish to fill.  They contribute to the European continent’s dynamic demographic, to maintaining the relationship between the active and inactive that in turn makes possible its generous systems of social security, internal market stimulation and social cohesion.  Migrants offer a solution to the EU’s demographic and financial problems.

For us, our migrants represent the development aid that the Europeans don’t give us – considering that few countries actually manage to achieve the minimum objective of 0.7% of their GDP in development aid.  In 2006, Latin America received $68 billion dollars in remittances; more than the total foreign investment in our countries.  At a world level, they reach $300 billion dollars, which surpasses the $104 billion dollars granted through the concept of development aid.  My own country, Bolivia, received more than 10% of its GDP through remittances ($1.1 billion dollars), or a third of our annual natural gas exports.

This is to say that the migration flows are just as beneficial for the Europeans and marginally for those of us in the Third World, considering that we’ve also lost the equivalent of millions of skilled workers, in which our states, poor as they are, have invested human and financial resources in one way or another.

Unfortunately, the “Returns Directive” complicates this reality terribly.  If we conceive that each state or group of states may define its fully sovereign migratory policies, we cannot accept that fundamental personal rights should be denied to our Latin American brothers and compatriots.  The “Returns Directive” provides for the possibility of incarceration of undocumented migrants for up to 18 months before their expulsion – or “removal,” according to the terms of the directive.  18 months!  Without trial, or justice!  As it is today, the Directive’s text clearly violates Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Specifically, Article 13 of the Declaration states:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.   2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

And worst of all, there is the possibility of imprisonment for mothers and children, without taking into account their family or school situation, in these detention facilities where we know depression, hunger strikes and suicides take place.  How can we accept undocumented Latin American compatriots and brothers who’ve worked and integrated themselves over years, being put in concentration camps, without reacting?  On what side is today’s duty of humanitarian intervention?  Where is the “freedom of movement,” the protection against arbitrary imprisonment?

In parallel, the European Union is trying to convince the Andean Community (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru) to sign an “Association Agreement” which includes a Free Trade Agreement as its third pillar, with the same nature and contents as those imposed by the United States.  We are under intense pressure from the European Commission to accept profoundly liberalized conditions for trade, financial services, intellectual property or our public services.  Furthermore, under the heading of legal protection, we are being pressured over our process of nationalization of water, gas and telecommunications, as realized on International Workers Day.  I ask, in this case, where is the “legal security” for our women, adolescents, children and workers who seek better horizons in Europe?

Freedom of movement is promoted for merchandise and finance, while we are faced with imprisonment without trial for our brothers who try to move freely.  This is to deny the foundations of freedom and democratic rights.

Under these conditions, to approve this “Returns Directive,” we would find it ethically impossible to extend the negotiations with the European Union, and we reserve the right to regulate European citizens through the same visa obligations that have been imposed on Bolivians since the first of April, 2007, according to the diplomatic principle of reciprocity.  We have not exercised it until now, as we awaited favorable signs from the EU.

The world, its continents, its oceans and its poles face difficult global challenges: global warming, pollution, the slow but sure disappearance of energy resources and biodiversity, while hunger and poverty increase in all countries, weakening our societies.  To make migrants, documented or undocumented, scapegoats for these global problems is no kind of solution at all.  It doesn’t correspond to any reality.  The problems of social cohesion suffered by Europe are not the fault of migrants, but the result of a development model imposed by the North, which is destroying the planet and dismembering the society of mankind.

In the name of the Bolivian people, of all my brothers in the continental regions of the world such as Maghreb, Asia and the countries of Africa, I call on the conscience of the European leaders and parliamentary members, the people, citizens and activists of Europe, to reject the first draft of the “Returns Directive.”

That which we have before us today, is a shameful directive.  I also call on the European Union to elaborate, in the coming months, a migratory policy that is respectful of human rights, that would maintain this beneficial dynamism for both continents and might repair once and for all the enormous historical, economic and ecological debt that the European countries have with a large part of the Third World, which might close at once Latin America’s still open veins.  They must not fail today at “policies of integration,” as they failed with their supposed “civilizing mission” in colonial times.

Fraternal greetings from Bolivia to all of you, authorities, Members of Parliament, and comrades.  And in particular, our solidarity to all those who are “hidden.”

Evo Morales Ayma, President of the Republic of Bolivia

Ogura: A different initiative to mobilize Japanese people against the G8 summit which is taking place in 2008, in Toyako town, Hokkaido Prefecture, is emerging. How do you see the present G8 strategy and what kind of struggle is important and necessary for movements against the G8, especially against the Japanese government that plays a key role in controlling other Asian countries through the G8 and Asian monetary system? What do you think about the present G8 situation and its role in the global capitalist regime?

Bello: The G8 was initially planned, as G7 in 1975 to be a sort of coordinating group of the most dominant capitalist countries to be able to work out a common strategy towards the south and the weaker countries generally. The G8 members seemed to believe that the summit still meets the purpose to come up with strategies that are liberal sounding to make the summit looks like they are solving global problems. But in fact they have failed miserably in terms of their actions and rhetoric.

In their rhetoric they basically say they are out to have better relations between the north and the south. They want to save Africa, they want to deal with climate change, and they want to deal with the debt problem. But their commitment to seriously dealing with these issues has been mainly rhetorical. There have been very little substantial actions they have come up with. The promises they made in terms of Africa aid, and the debt cancellation, have achieved very meager result in fact.

Now they are saying that they will focus on climate change. This was the theme during the last G8 summit in Rostock, Germany. But if you look at this, the whole real idea is about how they can continue their economic growth, while making symbolic and unserious efforts to cut down on emissions of green house gasses. In the G8 in Rostock, the members basically did not want to face the fact that the north should be the ones to radically bring down the consumption level to reduce the green house gasses. They did not come up with that discussion. In fact, they avoided it. They had no serious plan.

I think that the G8 summit at this point is some kind of a body where the members meet but that has become mainly a talk show. The members use the summit as a way by which the leading countries can try to evolve a strategy of defusing resistance in the south, but they cannot among themselves agree on what measures to take. I think that more and more people have seen the G8 as a body that is really ineffective in terms of addressing serious problems that are faced by the world today.

Ogura: I agree that more people are seeing the G8 as an ineffective body. Nevertheless, I think the G8 still retains its power as a sort of an informal headquarter of global capitalists. The G8 and several other ministerial meetings discuss the best way to operate global capitalism.

Furthermore, each member country has its own particular role. For example, Japan, as the only member country in G8 from Asia, plays the role of integrating other Asian countries into global capitalism. Also the G8 as a whole uses the United Nations, WTO, IMF, the World Bank and NATO and other transnational institutions. By seeing the problem in these terms, I believe the G8 holds hegemonic power in capitalist globalization.

But also, the internal ideology of the G8 is fundamentally contradictory. The climate change issue reveals itself as an aspect of this contradiction, as you just pointed out. Climate change issue is a part of environment issue. The environmental issue is broader than the mere issue of climate change. When you think of Subic in the Philippines, where a major U.S. military base was located until 1991, it still has very serious toxic contamination problems. Also, the JPEPA (Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement) is now being discussed at the Senate of the Philippines. I guess Japanese capital and the state also intend to export industrial waste to the Philippines and other Asian countries.

I also believe that the climate change issue is related to the nuclear plant issue. The Japanese government and businesses are trying to export nuclear plants to Asian countries. What do you think about the Japanese government vis-a-vis the G8?

Bello: Japan is a part of the G8 from the very beginning. I have always seen Japan as trying to act as the Asian voice in the G8. But, increasingly, I think that role has been challenged by China. The idea that Japan speaks for Asia within the G8 is also met with a lot of resentment and anger because that’s the way in fact Japan is putting forward itself. But people here in Asia are asking themselves who gave Japan the right to represent Asia. This is a big problem which should be considered among us.

Japan will feel that its membership in the G8 is more important because of the threat it faces from China’s rise as a big economic power. I think Japan will try to keep China out of the G8. Politically Japan needs the G8 for its prestige in Asia, and as of the body by which Japan can consult with other G8 members that are equally threatened by the rise of China.

If you look at the last G8 ministerial documents, aside from climate change, they were discussing about how countries should open up their investment, which was directed at China, and how countries should have rules in exploitation of natural resources — again this was directed at China. So what Japan eventually wants to do is to try to make the G8 some sort of a break on China’s ambitions. That’s why the G8 has increasingly become important to Japan.

But as I said before, for Asians, it is bad for public relations with Asians to say that Japan is the voice of Asia within the G8. This is something that will create some resentment.

Ogura: I think that Asian countries have very little respect for Japan. In my opinion the main issues for the G8 will revolve around China. One will be China’s economy and the other will be national security or some kind of military issue. What do you think about the China-U.S. military relationship and Asian military relationships in terms of China?

Bello: I would see the U.S. and Japan, and even European countries seeing the G8 as a mechanism by which they can counter China’s rise. G8 members will cooperate to find ways to contain China.

But of course there is the whole set of other relations within Asia that is not in the G8, like military issues. Here, too, what unites the U.S. and Japan elites is their sense that they should cooperate more to be able to counter the rise of China.

However, they will see a big contradiction, because they also heavily dependent on China. China has a huge market, produces many products that G8 or northern countries need for their manufactures. For the United States, China is a source of credit. China is the well for global growth.

The important thing for us in the developing world is to show our opposition to policies of Japan and the U.S. directed at China, because these policies would eventually lead to conflict. But at the same time, we see China as becoming one of the pillars of the global capitalist order. Unless there is a new relationship between the south and China, China could end up with the same kind of exploitive relationships with the south that the U.S. and Japan and Europe now have.

And then the environment is another problem, because China is developing in a way that is damaging not only to itself but also to the environment of other regions and to the world. And we, especially the civil society, are basically saying that China should move towards more environmentally sustainable kind of economy. It can no longer hide behind excuse: U.S. does not respect the Kyoto Protocol, why should we.

So basically at this point in time it is important for the civil society in Asia to be critical about the policies of Japan and the U.S. aiming to contain China. But we should also have our own criticism of China as having patterns of growth that are environmentally quite destructive.

In fact, China and the U.S. have something almost like an unholy alliance, because when Bush says he will not sign the Kyoto Protocol because China and India have not signed it, then China says why it should agree to mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions while the U.S. has not signed it. Basically, this is almost an undercover alliance, which exempts the Chinese and the U.S. industrial elites from having to take serious environmental controls.

Ogura: Japanese business circles look at China as a big opportunity for environmental investment.

Bello: When we look at environmental problems in China on one hand the U.S., Japanese and European investors have made use of China’ weak environmental enforcement in order to raise their profits. But at the same time, as you said, Japan is looking at China that in the future it can be a good source of environmentally advanced technology. This is an interesting issue emerging.

Ogura: The last question is about the people’s movements against the G8. I know that you were at the Rostock G8; what was your impression of the anti-G8 movement in Rostock, and what do you think about the mission of the people’s movement against the G8, especially the next G8 in Japan?

Bello: What was very impressive about the protests against Rostock G8 was that we were able to recover a spirit of Genoa. The English civil society and the NGOs, not all but some of them, made a very bad move in Gleneagles in 2005. What they told the civil society was that we should praise the G8 so that they would do good things like aid Africa and have fair trade rules. So instead of criticizing the G8, what happened at the Gleneagles Summit was that civil society was made to support the G8 so that they would make good moves, which was a big failure, because almost all the promises at Gleneagles have not been met.

At Rostock, the Germen NGOs were able to get back to militant mood of Genoa in 2001. Our role there was not to praise the G8, but to tell it to get out of the way, that it has no right to manage the affairs of the people of the world. So it was a very important message in Rostock and the levels of the demonstrations and the efforts to close down the G8 by the very use of actions and the theme; we are here not to talk of the G8 but want them to get out of the way and to shut down the G8 summit.

I will certainly come and I think many people will come to Japan next July to continue to give the same message. We want you to get out of the way, and we want the people of the world to, in fact, manage the affairs of the world, and we no longer want to be seduced by promises on Africa, on climate change, and that you are the organization that has failed and the world would be better off without this directorate of global capital.

The G8 is the directorate of the global capital. How successful it is, that is a different matter. Nevertheless we do not need anymore of such a directorate. It is like a board of directors of global capital. We don’t want that, we don’t want a G8 summit anymore. And hopefully since it is taking place in Japan, Japanese movement will be able to lead in telling the G8 to stop. That is the big hope we have.

Ogura: In my view the G8 does not have negotiating partners. But some NGOs intend to negotiate with the G8 at the summit. How do you think we could make broader coalitions, including moderate NGOs together with very radical social movements. How do you think of the best way to construct such a network? Rostock made a very broad alternative space including NGOs together with a Black Block. It痴 difficult to achieve this, but still important.

Bello: Rostock showed that the movements out on the streets were able to make a strong anti-G8, programs, protests, messages. This was from a broad fronts including church groups. You could have the same common theme which will unite everybody: “G8 out of the way, because you made promises you have not fulfilled, and let people manage their affairs.” I think Rostock showed that you could have a wide anti-G8 appeal.

Ogura: How do you think Japanese people and people in other Asian countries work together in anti-G8 actions? Japan is a member of the G8, but other governments in Asia are not. How can we encourage Asian people to join the anti-G8 actions in Japan?

Bello: It would be important in the preparations leading up to the G8 to be able to talk to these various groups why they should have an alliance for global reform. And the process of discussions starting right now could convince them that it is useless to ask the G8 to be the one to reform. It is very important to get as many people as possible through-out Asia to come to Japan. We should really start right now to plan it well.

It can be a historic one. One of the themes can read that in Toyako it should be “the last G8 meeting ever.” This will be a good theme to catch people’s imagination: the final G8 before it abolishes itself.

Ogura: So the slogan will be “the final G8, farewell G8.”

It’s time to wake up and open our eyes to the problems that capitalisme has created in the last two decades. The ecomomie can’t grow any further without doing a lot of damage. Now is the time for a new way of life

I Hope to have my share in creating this new way of life and opening people eyes for another way to look at the world and the people around them.