In the first week of April NATO held a summit on both sides of the Rhine. The leaders of this organisation, real imperialist brigands, with Obama, Merkel and Sarkozy at the top, were able to pose in front of the obliging cameras on the bridge between Baden-Baden in Germany and Strasbourg in France. Once again, we were asked to admire the great cordiality and togetherness which supposedly reigns between all these sharks. This summit was being held sixty years after NATO was founded. What was the reason it was created? What use has it been over the decades? Since it was founded the world has moved on and global imperialist relations have profoundly changed. However, NATO is still there. And, what's more, a growing number of countries are asking to join it. So what function does it serve today? To reply to these questions, we have to go beyond the official view put over by the bourgeois media.
The new American president, the very democratic Obama, declared that the priority for US foreign and anti-terrorist policy was to strengthen military intervention in Afghanistan. The US has decided to send 21,000 additional soldiers and, with this in mind, NATO is looking for four new brigades. On the opening day of the summit, the American president gave the keynote for the new tactic of American imperialism, its ‘open hand policy'. It was asserted loud and clear that America does not intend to deal on its own with the Taliban and the nebulous al-Qaida, asking the Europeans in particular to make a particular effort. But the latter remained rather discreet on the sending of new troops, preferring to talk hypocritically about giving aid for reconstruction, and the Afghan police and army. Only Sarkozy revealed his decision to send new French troops in exchange for France returning to the unified NATO command, which it left in 1966 under the de Gaulle presidency in order to express France's desire not to submit passively to American hegemony. In fact, France's return to the unified command is taking place at the moment when the USA is seeing a steady weakening of its world leadership. This summit was itself a clear expression of this loss of influence, even in an essentially military organisation which has always been an instrument of its imperialist domination.
At the end of the Second World War in 1945, the bourgeoisies of all the most developed countries wanted to get the entire working class, which had been through five years of generalised slaughter, to believe that the world was now entering a period of peace and prosperity. It was simply a question of rolling up your sleeves and getting down to work. Only the world now saw a new period of sharpening imperialist tensions. Once it had completed the military crushing of Germany and Japan, the belligerent opposition between the fascist imperialist powers and those who claimed to be for anti-fascism and democracy was over. But a new antagonism instantly appeared and would provide the framework for the incessant wars which marked the period up to 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet bloc. The world was now divided into two imperialist blocs. On the one hand, there was the western bloc headed by the American superpower, seconded by all the countries of western Europe; on the other side stood the Soviet bloc. This was led by Stalin's USSR and the Russian bourgeoisie, who had taken control of the eastern and part of central Europe. For more than 40 years, these two imperialist blocs would confront each other in battles between client states or local bourgeois armies fighting for control of their own countries. A whole series of conflicts ravaged large sections of the planet during this period - the wars in Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East, Africa, wars and massacres used, orchestrated and sometimes directly organised by the two blocs. Altogether these conflicts led to more deaths than the Second World War.
But maintaining cohesion within each bloc called for a great deal of discipline, and thus for each country within the bloc to align itself behind the bloc leader, On the one hand, the USSR imposed the Warsaw pact on all the countries under its heel. On the other hand, the USA, which had emerged as the all-powerful victor of the world war, did the same thing via NATO. The latter was a political-military organisation officially formed in 1949 and is now made up of 28 member countries. At first the declared objective of this organisation was clearly expressed in its article number 3. This enabled the US to aid the military development of Europe, as it was also doing at the economic level. For America it was a question of creating a barrier between the Soviet bloc and Western Europe. But the role of NATO evolved rapidly and on 4 April 1949 the North Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington. This military pact stipulated that any attack on one of the members of this organisation would immediately result in action by all the member states. The treaty was thus aimed at binding the member states behind the USA. The USSR was not taken in and affirmed from the start that the treaty was an instrument of American imperialism. West Germany joined in 1955. To square up to the Soviet bloc, massive military forces were stationed in many regions of the world - land, naval, and air forces, not to mention the massive nuclear arsenal pointed at the USSR. This was the exact meaning of the numerous NATO troops stationed in Europe and above all in West Germany. The alliance was therefore formed as the armed wing of the western bloc and effectively under US command, and it existed as such until 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet bloc.
Faced with the loss of a common enemy, the western bloc itself fell apart: in effect, it had lost its reason for existence. Like its counterpart the Warsaw pact, you might have expected NATO to simply disappear. But this organisation has maintained itself and has been reinforced by former countries of the eastern bloc such as Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, or new regions like Eastern Germany. In 2004, seven new countries joined NATO: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. And today countries like Georgia, Ukraine Albania and Croatia are posing their candidature. Most of these countries are former vassals of the old USSR. For them, the main problem is to protect themselves from the still menacing presence of the Russian bear after the experience of forty years of ferocious Soviet domination. But the decline of the political-military role of NATO has still been spectacular and irreversible.
From the second Iraq war in 2003, the weakening of American leadership has been increasingly obvious. The consequence is that each imperialist power has been more and more contesting the USA and its domination. This has been especially true for France and Germany. For the US, maintaining its control over NATO is therefore a necessity, above all because its authority is now regularly defied at the UN. And because China, a potential rival, has strengthened itself considerably at the imperialist level in the last few years and Russia, even if it can no longer be the power it was in the days of the USSR, still remains a by no means negligible imperialist power. The US is thus forced to keep NATO alive because it is through this organisation that it can continue to put pressure on the European countries and drag them behind it in its wars, as in the case of Afghanistan today.
But even with the control they do exert over NATO, created by them and for them (it's an "American machine" as de Gaulle called it) this organisation is also weakening irredeemably. More and more, each power tries to use NATO for its own ends or to go against American interests. The most dramatic example of this, before the present war in Afghanistan, was the 1999 NATO intervention in the Balkans, which led to the USA, France, Germany and Britain all sending in their military forces, each one aiming to defend their specific imperialist interests.
Each one of these countries, including the USA, strode into the Balkans quagmire without any real capacity for stabilising or reconstructing this region. This war, like the one in Afghanistan today, concretised the weakening of NATO and of US leadership. This process was further exhibited in the recent summit by the problems involved in naming the pro-American Rasmussen, the former Danish president, as NATO secretary given the opposition from Turkey. This general dynamic can only accelerate and deepen in the future, turning this organisation more and more into a theatre of conflict between all the big imperialist sharks, with a mounting challenge to America's imperialist domination.
Tinto 23/4/09
The Taliban have certainly been emboldened recently, taking over control of a town, Buner, which is just 60 miles from the capital of Pakistan. Since then, there have been daily reports of fighting between Pakistani military forces and radical elements, including the bombing of whole areas: "Heavy fighting raged for a fourth day across north-western Pakistan today, as Pakistani troops battled for control of a strategic valley and Taliban guerrillas struck back with suicide attacks and an assault on a military post that resulted in 10 soldiers being captured. The Pakistan military said it killed up to 60 militants during 24 hours of combat in Buner, a mountainous district 60 miles north of Islamabad, where helicopter gunships pounded Taliban positions and soldiers fended off attacks from an explosive-laden vehicle... Today's fighting brought the death toll from six days of violence to over 170 people, and the unrest was spreading to other parts of Malakand division" (Guardian 01/05/09).
In the wake of the 'peace deal' made by the Pakistani government with the Taliban over the implementation of Sharia law in the Swat area, American Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made a speech announcing that Pakistan's government was "basically abdicating to the Taliban and the extremists." Despite being toned down after heavy criticism from Islamabad, this speech was the latest recognition of the fact that the Obama government is now firmly focussed on its new so-called 'Afpak' policy: the recognition that the key to control of Asia and the Middle East is not Iraq but Afghanistan and Pakistan. This theme has been taken up by Gordon Brown in a recent visit to British troops stationed in Afghanistan in which he described "..the lawless and contested border area between the two as the new ‘crucible of terrorism'" (Guardian 30/04/09).
British and US ambitions for Afghanistan have now had to be 'toned down' - there is no longer the desire to create a Western style democracy, but a rather more limited aim of helping the Afghan government create a 'functioning state', which may seem like a sick joke given that roughly 7 years after the official fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan the Karzai government barely controls Kabul, let alone anywhere else. The perspective here is for what used to be called the war on terror to more and more become actualised in Pakistan with ever increasing dangers, both for its population and the wider region - a potential second 'failed state', a regression to a barbaric implementation of literal Sharia law (already happening in areas under Taliban control) and, most ominously, the question of control over the country's nuclear arsenal.
Graham 1/5/9
On Wednesday 4 March, the International Criminal Court issued a warrant of arrest for Omar al-Bashir, the president of Sudan. The president is being formally accused of "war crimes and crimes against humanity".
Who exactly is this Omar al-Bashir, now being judged by the International Criminal Court, a plaything of the imperialist gangs who make up the UN Security Council, in other words, the powers that rule the world and who have allowed the Sudanese president to massacre and impoverish an entire population for nearly 20 years?
It's certainly true that since he came to power, al-Bashir has been carrying out the most barbaric wars and exactions, leaving a trail of hundreds of thousands of deaths.
"In April 1990, ten months after he came to power, he executed 28 officers for their part in a ‘plot'. From 2003, he unleashed the Janjaweed militias on hundreds of villages in Darfur with a mission of killing, raping and pillaging. We know the result: three hundred thousand killed, according to the UN" (Jeune Afrique, 14/3/9).
This is the official balance sheet of the victims of al-Bashir in Darfur, but to complete it we would have to recall that even before doing his hateful work in Darfur, the same killer, as soon as he got into power, re-launched and widened the sinister conflict in South Sudan which has resulted in more than two million deaths.
Omar al-Bashir certainly has a cardinal responsibility for the massacre of the Sudanese populations, but the question is: did this barbarian achieve all this horror on his own, or did he benefit from the support of other criminals hiding behind him?
If you look more closely at the attitude of the great powers in Sudan, it becomes clear that it is the big imperialist powers, squabbling over control of the region, who have armed, supported and closed their eyes to the activities of the ‘dictator of Khartoum'. The same al-Bashir has indeed served the interests of one of them after the other. For example, in the 1990s, he was the instrument of French imperialism in the latter's struggle against the USA for control over the Sudan/Chad region. It was with the military support of the Sudanese regime that French imperialism was able to help the current president of Chad, Idris Déby, seize power from former president Hissène Habré, who, having been the pawn of France, had then become the pawn of Washington. What's more, as Le Monde pointed out on 6 March, Sarkozy was the last western head of state to meet al-Bashir, in Qatar in November 2008. This is because "France wanted to preserve Chad, a friendly regime, from new convulsions linked to the crisis in Darfur". This is why Paris is still so attached to the criminal regime of al-Bashir.
As for the USA, it should be recalled that the Bush administration made friendly overtures to the Sudanese president with the aim of signing a ‘security agreement' for the ‘War on Terror', opening the area of the Sudan to the activities of the CIA and American interests in general. But above all, al-Bashir had been committing the most abject crimes ‘against humanity' in Darfur when he was invited by Washington to negotiate and sign the famous ‘American peace plan' which led to the formation of a ‘unity government' between the power in Khartoum and the former secessionists of the SPLM (the Movement for the Liberation of the People of South Sudan). And the American representative at this ‘negotiating table' avoided mentioning that al-Bashir's hands were still red with the blood of his victims at the time.
As for China, since the 1990s it has been intensifying its relations with Khartoum and today has become its best source of political and diplomatic support, notably at the UN, while buying nearly 70% of its oil and being al-Bashir's main arms supplier. There's no doubt that al-Bashir's Sudan is Chinese imperialism's main pawn for extending its influence in Africa.
We can thus see how this Sudanese ‘monster', so roundly denounced in the western media, who have put it all in the most ‘horrified' tones, continues to survive, as he has always done, under the shadow of an imperialist protector, whether an ‘ex' or a more recent suitor. All of them have done all they can to offer him a way out. As the same article in Jeune Afrique put it:
"'If president al-Bashir thinks that the accusation of the International Criminal Court is unfounded, he can contest it' (USA); ‘there can only be a political solution to the Darfur crisis' (France); ‘Omar al-Bashir enjoys the immunity of a head of state through international law' (Russia); ‘China opposes any action which may disturb the overall peaceful situation in Darfur and Sudan' (China)."
To sum up: the French, the Americans, the Russians, the Chinese and all the other imperialist vultures don't give a toss about what's happening to the population of Darfur, which today as yesterday is being handed over to the butcher of Khartoum. Because this region is one of Africa's geo-strategic high-spots, all the big imperialist powers will go on vying for influence by sowing war and death. With or without the condemnation of Omar al-Bashir by the International Criminal Court, the inhabitants of Darfur will continue to live in hell.
Amina 23/3/9
The bourgeois journal Le Monde Diplomatique has published an article titled "The New South America", saluting the coming to power of the left of capital in El Salvador (Mauricio Funes of the FMLN won the presidential elections) and its alliance with other leftist governments headed by Chavez and others. Throughout the world the left tries to deceive the masses by presenting these governments as an alternative for the workers. This is clearly a typical vile lie of the bourgeoisie and their leftist servants aimed at subjecting the proletariat to the capitalist yoke.
Faced with the situation of crisis the bourgeoisie has seen the need to use a "new" image, which is not really so new in order to hide the responsibility of the whole decadent capitalist system for leading humanity into barbarism - to obscure the real meaning of the world economic crisis by blaming it on a fraction of the bourgeoisie. These capitalist propagandists are making full use of the rise of bourgeoisie fractions coming from the "left" in order to make them look like an alternative. As if the crisis was one of "Neo-Liberalism", and as if the implementation of new forms of the state capitalist model are going to resolve a profound problem which has its roots in capitalism, which ever guise it takes. Calling it "neo" doesn't change the fact it is the same old liberalism . It is faced with the increasingly greater contradictions of a society divided into classes. These "left" governments are weapons of the international bourgeoisie for sedating the masses, diverting them from the autonomous struggle for a real social revolution. The left is nothing more than the left of capital, it is a new garrotte for repressing workers who question class oppression and look for international solidarity.
Those models of capitalism based on state planning of the economy, on state intervention to save the interests of business, on the nationalization of exploitation, are nothing but variants of capitalism, and state capitalists are just as much oppressors as private capitalists. For example we already know about the model of the "New Deal", the Stalinst Soviet Union, Fascism and Nazism, etc, etc, all models that have secured the interests of the bourgeoisie, defending capitalist class relations, and Chavez, Lula, Morales etc are doing nothing different from this.
Obviously the article is published in a bourgeois newspaper, which behind its left image defends its class interests. While in Europe the left has been integrated into government for many decades, in order to facilitate its oppression of the worker, in Latin America this process is relatively new. The oldest bourgeoisies on the planet are seeking to revitalise the rhetoric that they use to oppress the working class, so that capitalism can be "humanised". The "New South America" is nothing more than a new form for telling the same old lies to the workers, with the aim of creating confidence in the national struggle, in the "reform" of capitalism, in the electoral process. In general they seek to revitalise the false idea that the interests of the proletariat are the same as those of the bourgeoisie.
For the bourgeoisie, its only interest is to continue living off the labour of the working class, whilst for the working class its only interest can be to free itself from the yoke of capitalism, from the exploitation of man by man, whether it be called "Socialism for the 21st century" or whatever. Real Socialism is only possible through an international revolutionary process, a process where the working class must make use of its strength and unity, its independent organisation from the bourgeoisie, its revolutionary violence.
"South America has been transformed into the most progressive region on earth. Where more changes are being produced in favour of the popular classes and where more structural reforms are being adopted in order to break free from dependency and under-development ". This quote from the article exactly reflects the rhetoric that capital needs in order to continue with its exploitation, in order to create false expectations that capitalism can in some way improve workers' lives. This rhetoric is shared by the whole of the left of capital, who support the governments of Chavez and company, albeit critically as the Trotsykists do. This stabs the workers in the back and tries to confuse the working class, in order to divide it. They have to use this apparently revolutionary, socialist or communist rhetoric in order to eradicate the exploited class's hopes of advancing towards a really communist society. This society will have to form itself through confronting all the enemies of the proletariat, the whole of the international bourgeoisie, by confronting Chavez and all of his ideology. The real foundation for this is the proletariat's conscious understanding of the need for it to break with all these falsifiers and flatterers of parliament, of the national struggle, of the unions, in order that it can arm itself against all the traps that capitalism will erect and carry out the international revolutionary process, which is the only answer to capital's crisis, wars and poverty.
Juan K. 19/4/9
Readers of our press are by now well aware that the ICC has gone to great lengths in the last few years to open its internal discussions to the growing numbers of young - and not so young - militants emerging from the working class these days. The emergence of new militants searching for political clarity and the means to contribute to the revolutionary struggle is itself a reflection of the global process of maturation of class consciousness. The working class historically secretes revolutionary minorities from within itself as it develops its capacity to confront the capitalist system and the threat that this outmoded, anachronistic system poses to the very survival of humanity.
This global process of the maturation of class consciousness is demonstrated here in the U.S. by the emergence of a growing number individuals getting in touch with the ICC. To meet face to face with the growing number of readers and sympathizers scattered across the country, Internationalism took the initiative to organize a Days of Discussion conference in New York. Invitations were extended to persons who had been corresponding politically with the ICC, commenting on ICC politics on various web forums and web sites, assisting with distribution efforts, or translations. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 73, some had dabbled in the past with anarchism or Trotskyism, but all were internationalists, who find themselves increasingly interested in the political perspectives of left communism. Collectively they logged an estimated 28,000 miles traveling to and from the conference.
The agenda was determined in consultation with the invited participants and reflected in particular their deep seated commitment to change the rotting world they see around them, to fight back against the economic crisis and advance the class struggle of their class. On Saturday, the discussion focused on the strategy of the bourgeoisie in the present crisis; the response of the working class to the crisis; and how revolutionaries intervene in the class struggle. An additional discussion on Sunday addressed Darwinism and the workers' movement. All presentations were prepared by non-members of the ICC and were designed not so much to lay out specific positions as they were to pose questions for discussion and clarification. Above all, the concern was to take maximum advantage of the opportunity to discuss, to learn from each other, to exchange views, to deepen our understanding, the better to contribute to the development of class consciousness and class struggle in the period ahead. A rotating presidium, comprised of one member of the ICC and one of the invited participants, chaired the sessions and guided the discussions.
The Days of Discussion conference was an extremely significant event because it was convened in the midst of the worst economic crisis in history - even worse than the 1930's since it occurs in spite of all the state capitalist palliative measures that have been used for more than 75 years to mitigate the effects of decadent capitalism. This is an economic crisis that affects us all and creates a situation when the pressure throughout the world for the working class to respond to the onslaughts of the crisis is growing. With an agenda focused on the central issues confronting the working class movement at this crucial juncture, the very occurrence of this conference, of the growing numbers of militants exploring revolutionary left communist perspectives is itself an important manifestation of the process of growing class consciousness. Clearly there are new elements emerging from the working class today who are prepared to confront capitalist exploitation.
The very stimulating discussion on bourgeois strategy stressed the importance of placing the current economic situation in an historic context. In particular it was noted that the present recession is but the latest manifestation of the permanent crisis of capitalist overproduction. Regarding the recent media fixation on the distinction between finance and productive capital and the significance of this differentiation, the conference felt that this campaign was an ideological manipulation needed by the bourgeoisie for the purpose of obscuring the perspective of "no future" that capitalism offers to the working class. The campaign to blame the "evil" bankers for the current crisis seeks to obscure the fact that this is a fundamental crisis of capitalism, a crisis of overproduction. This ideology will be utilized also to try to impose and justify austerity attacks against the working class. Repeatedly it was stressed that the ruling class has no way out the crisis, no choice but to continue to resort to debt, military expansionism, austerity against the working class, and greater state intervention (strengthened state capitalism). A number of points that needed to be deepened in further research and discussion were identified, particularly the growing weight of gangsterism or illegality in economic life.
The discussion on the working class response to the crisis was also situated in the larger international context, noting important developments in class struggle on the international level, especially Greece and Western Europe. While for the moment the Obama mystification weighs on the proletarian struggle in the US, already the pressures for the workers to struggle on their own terrain is increasing. Although there are common characteristics between todays response and the initial struggles at the end of the post reconstruction period, there is an important difference. Contrary to 1968, today there is no generation gap within the working class. We don't have a generation of workers that has gone through an historic, physical and ideological defeat, like that suffered by the workers in the 1930's, who were tied to the state by ideologies of anti-fascism and prepared to accept the horrors of inter-imperialist world war. Instead we have multiple generations of the proletariat that have not been defeated. The older generation is showing that it can pass on the lessons of the struggle to the next generation. And at the same time the younger generation is willing and anxious to learn from the older. Special attention was directed towards the current campaign to pass legislation (‘Employee Free Choice Act') to strengthen union organizing efforts as a means to control the working class as it becomes increasingly combative. It was also pointed out the refusal to accept austerity and the attacks triggered by the crisis inherently pose a tendency towards politicization of the struggle.
In regard to the intervention of revolutionaries in the class struggle, there was consensus that there is no separation between the class and the revolutionary organization; no separation between theory and practice; and no separation between the immediate struggle and the final goal of communism. It was agreed that the objective of the revolutionaries' intervention in the class struggle is: to help the class to extend the class struggle to other sectors; to strengthen the self confidence of the working class in itself as a class; and to help its tendencies towards self-organization, towards taking conscious control over its own struggle. As one comrade noted, there is a statement by Marx that the revolution is the task of the workers themselves. The organization does not organize the class, does not give orders to the class, as that would contradict the notion that it is the task of the class to make the revolution. It is the responsibility of the revolutionary minority within the class to contribute to the rise of consciousness. The organization is not able to formulate the immediate demands of the class. Indeed it does not have the capacity to do so, and it does not have that function. The dangers of an immediatist approach to our intervention, what to do in our own job, etc. were considered. Sometimes we intervene at locations other than where we work. We have also talked of the need for the working class to draw continuously the lessons of its struggle. We cannot think of intervention as an "individual" thing, but rather as a reflection of the collective struggle of the working class.
Linking theory to practice, a delegation of four comrades volunteered to intervene at the Left Forum conference, held the same weekend at the Pace University campus in downtown New York where they distributed 27 copies of the current issue of Internationalism and engaged in discussions with a number of interested individuals. Two hours later they rejoined the rest of the group for the fellowship of an informal dinner and conversation. There was even time for a bit of late night tourism for some of the more adventuresome participants.
The discussion on Darwinism stressed the relationship of science to the workers' movement. The materialism of Darwin's scientific approach to the evolutionary process in plants and animals found its parallel in the historical materialism of Marx and Engels in regard to humanity's social/economic sphere. There was an American spin to the discussion, in regard to question of religion and the decomposition of society and fears about the future, as manifest in a religious-based rejection of Darwinism and the theory of evolution which is particularly significant in the US. There was discussion of how science develops in general and especially how it develops in decomposition. We should be clear that the scientific approach is not linear but takes a sometimes difficult searching path. This is something that we have to deepen on.
In a wrap up discussion on Sunday, comrades were unanimous in the view that the conference was an extremely positive experience. As one young comrade put it, "I have never been with a group of such dedicated Marxists, so serious in their commitment." Another said that "the conference cleared up some misconceptions I had about the ICC. I feel closer to the ICC now that I have participated in these discussions." A young man who traveled to New York from the Midwest said, "This weekend only confirms that what I like about the ICC is the overall sincerity of the organization. Unlike the leftist groups with their exaggerated self-importance and illusions, the ICC sees itself as a minority in the class, with no pretense to be more than they are. The conception of "class terrain" is an important distinction compared to the typical leftist campaigns."
A longtime ICC sympathizer said, "It is good to meet face to face and to see so many new faces." Another said, "I always felt like I was the youngest comrade in relation to the ICC. It's good to see so many young comrades coming forth with political knowledge. It is a reflection of the developing consciousness of the working class." Comrades of the ICC praised the political maturity and seriousness of the younger comrades and expressed confidence in the future of the left communist movement in the US. As one veteran comrade put it, "This has been the most important event in the history of the US section." There was consensus on the need to build on the political activity that preceded the conference, the positive results of the weekend discussions, to strengthen the links between the ICC and the emerging revolutionaries and move forward in the future. - JG, 05/15/2009.Links
[1] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/5/50/united-states
[2] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/4/186/imperialism
[3] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/recent-and-ongoing/nato
[4] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/5/144/pakistan
[5] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/recent-and-ongoing/war-terror
[6] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/recent-and-ongoing/taliban
[7] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/sudan
[8] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/people/omar-al-bashir
[9] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/geographical/south-and-central-america
[10] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/recent-and-ongoing/state-capitalism
[11] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/recent-and-ongoing/new-south-america
[12] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/life-icc/intervention
[13] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/people/charles-darwin
[14] https://en.internationalism.org/tag/recent-and-ongoing/class-struggle