30 Oct 2020

Three killed in terrorist attack on church in Nice, France

Will Morrow


A terrorist attack yesterday morning killed three people inside the Notre-Dame church of Nice, on the southern coast of France.

A lone attacker entered the building at 8:30 a.m. armed with a knife and attacked churchgoers who were attending the morning mass. The bodies of two people were found inside the church: a 60-year-old woman, almost fully decapitated, and a man. Another 55-year-old woman died from stab wounds shortly after fleeing the church. Police arriving on the scene shot the attacker, who reportedly cried “Allah Akbar.” He is under arrest, reportedly in a critical condition.

The towers of Notre-Dame de Nice (Credit: Wikimedia)

The attacker is reported to be Brahim A., a 21-year-old Tunisian migrant. He reportedly arrived on the Italian island of Lampedusa last September after crossing the Mediterranean, and travelled to Paris earlier this month. No connections to any terrorist organisation have been reported, and the police have so far stated they have not found evidence that he had collaborators.

The attack took place two weeks after the October 16 terrorist attack near a middle school in Conflans, northwest of Paris. Samuel Paty, a geography teacher, was stabbed and decapitated. He was targeted for having shown students in his class an anti-Muslim caricature as part of a class discussion on “freedom of expression.”

The latest terrorist attack is likewise a horrific crime. It reveals yet again the bankruptcy and politically reactionary character of terrorism. Not only are three innocent people tragically dead. The attack has handed the Macron administration and the political establishment an opportunity to escalate their ongoing racist anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant campaign, confuse and divide the population, and to deepen the inroads into the democratic rights of millions of working people.

The government is due to make a series of announcements later today. Macron announced yesterday that more than 4,000 military soldiers from the “Sentinel” operation were being deployed across the country.

Christian Estrosi, the right-wing mayor of Nice, told France Inter that “Islamo-fascism has once again struck.” He called for a violent crackdown, declaring that “it is time that we put away our arms of peace and pass to arms of war.”

Right-wing deputy Eric Ciotti reported that he had requested that the government immediately cease all migration into France, including an illegal ban on all requests for asylum. Marine Le Pen, the leader of the neo-fascistic National Rally, tweeted that the attack “imposes upon our leaders a global response aimed at eradicating Islamism from our soil.”

In his speech yesterday, Emmanuel Macron declared that “if we have been attacked, once again, it is because of the values that are ours, our taste of freedom, for this possibility in our land to believe freely and to cede nothing to the spirit of terror.” This fraud is aimed at covering up the political responsibility of the French ruling class for terrorist attacks.

France, a historic colonial power over much of Africa and the Middle East, has participated in two decades of unending wars across the region, from Afghanistan to Syria, Libya and the Sahel. Paris launched neo-colonial operations aimed at asserting French interests over the region’s natural resources and geostrategic position. Millions have been killed, creating the greatest refugee crisis since World War II as a result.

Starting in 2011, in both Libya and Syria, France backed and helped arm Islamist groups, including groups directly tied to Al Qaeda, as its proxies in the regime-change wars to overthrow the governments of Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar al-Assad. The type of atrocity that occurred in Nice yesterday was a weekly and even daily occurrence amid the sectarian bloodshed unleashed in Syria by the French state’s “democratic” allies. Members of terrorist groups travelled freely between Europe and the Middle East, under the eyes of NATO intelligence agencies.

These two decades of unending neo-colonial wars have profoundly impacted the domestic politics of France and all of Europe. The same period has seen an unrelenting campaign by the French political establishment to persecute and vilify immigrants and Muslims, including the ban on headscarves in schools in 2004, and the ban of the burqa in public places in 2010.

Macron has escalated all these policies since he came to office. He is currently pushing through a law under the banner of “anti-separatism” and “secularism” which imposes restrictions on Muslim religious educational institutions, but no equivalent restrictions on other religious schools, and gives the state the power to dissolve institutions that are declared to be in violation of the “values of the Republic.” Macron declared that Islam was in a “crisis” and “radical Islam” aimed to conquer France.

Since the beginning of January alone, 71 mosques have been shut down by French police, on the basis that they are supposed potential sources of “radicalization” and “terrorism.” Last week, the Pantin mosque just outside Paris was closed on the sole grounds that it had shared the Facebook videos by the parent of one of Samuel Paty’s students criticizing him. The mosque removed the video immediately following the terrorist attack, which it condemned.

These actions serve not only to terrorise and stigmatise the Muslim population. The closure of houses of worship is aimed at inciting a far-right atmosphere in which all Muslims, just under 10 percent of France’s population, are treated as a potential source of terrorist attacks.

Since Paty’s murder on October 16, the Macron administration’s anti-Muslim campaign has reached a fever pitch. It must be stated that if it had set about to incite terrorist attacks, it would not have acted any differently than its escalating anti-Muslim campaign.

Last week, Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin declared he was “shocked” when he walked into supermarkets and saw international—i.e., halal and kosher—foods in dedicated aisles, and insisted that “this is how communalism begins.”

Education Minister Jean-Michel Blanquer blamed “Islamo-leftism,” i.e., those who oppose the government’s anti-Muslim policies, as “intellectual accomplices” of terrorism.

Macron’s anti-Muslim policies have triggered anti-French demonstrations across Muslim countries, including in Bangladesh, Tunisia, Afghanistan, and Mali. Macron has been denounced this week by Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan amid an intensifying geo-political conflict between France and Turkey.

The latest diplomatic standoff followed the publication of a provocative, fascistic anti-Muslim cartoon by Charlie Hebdo. The image depicts Erdogan in his underpants lifting up the skirt of a Muslim woman wearing a veil and exposing her body from behind. Macron cynically declared that its defence of the image is part of its defence of “freedom of expression.”

Macron, who in 2018 hailed France’s Nazi-collaborationist dictator Philippe Pétain as a “great soldier,” is consciously working to promote the far right. The impact of this campaign is indicated by reports yesterday of an attempted fascist terrorist attack in Avignon. A 33-year-old member of the fascist “Identitaire” movement, wearing a “Defend Europe” jersey, threatened a North African storeowner with a gun and made a Nazi salute, before being shot and killed by police.

As US smashes records for new coronavirus infections, Ford and Fiat Chrysler report blowout profits

Shannon Jones


In a clear demonstration of the capitalist ruling class’ real priorities in response to the pandemic, Ford and Fiat Chrysler have reported a third quarter surge in profits, beating all expectations, even as the coronavirus continues to spiral out of control.

Ford’s profits rebounded to $2.4 billion in the quarter ending September 30, up from $425 million in the same quarter last year. Fiat Chrysler reported $1.4 billion in earnings in the same period, including record profits in North America despite a fall in sales. General Motors, which does not report its 3rd quarter results until November 5, is expected to also report strong profits.

General Motors “Renaissance Center” Headquarters in Detroit, Michigan (Photo: Crisco 1492/Wikipedia)

Ford also said it had paid off the nearly $15 billion dollar credit lines that it drew down earlier this year, after a wildcat strike wave forced a two-month closure of the Detroit automakers’ North American facilities during the initial wave of the pandemic.

North American automakers built 4.1 million vehicles in the third quarter, the same number as last year. Despite the explosion of COVID-19 cases across the industrial Midwest, Fiat Chrysler and other automakers have no intention of even a temporary pause in production. FCA says it now expects to earn an operating profit of between $3.5 billion and $4.1 billion in 2020.

The financial results for the Detroit automakers starkly reveal how all attempts at a rational and scientific plan to halt the pandemic collide with the capitalist profit motive. The increase in profits is the direct consequence of abandonment, by both management and by the federal and state governments, of serious measures to contain the spread of the virus in favor of a rapid reopening of the economy to repay the trillions pumped into the major corporations by the Federal Reserve.

This is now leading to a massive resurgence of infections and deaths. Yesterday saw more than 91,000 confirmed new infections, shattering the previous record set only the day before.

This has been accompanied by the removal of limited emergency financial aid for the unemployed aimed at applying economic pressure on workers to return to the factories at the risk of their health. This, combined with massive layoffs in the service and travel sector, has resulted since May in an eight percent increase in the number of Americans living in poverty.

The imposition of a such deeply unpopular and homicidal policies is bound up with the Trump administration’s mobilization of far right forces. The right-wing conspiracy to murder Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer was reportedly facilitated by the right-wing protests in Lansing in the spring against the lockdowns, where many of the future co-conspirators met.

Even the largely cosmetic safety protocols introduced in May with the restart of auto production are being systematically discarded, with the full support and collaboration of the United Auto Workers union. Workers report that health screenings are being conducted in a slipshod and perfunctory manner. Even the wearing of masks is not being universally enforced. In September, FCA also eliminated the extra five minutes which had been added to break times to allow for cleaning.

In a stark example of the inhumane working conditions which prevail in the factories, workers on the late shift at a Detroit-area FCA plant told the World Socialist Web Site that the absence of medical staff on their shift meant they had to give first aid by themselves to a coworker who suffered a serious head injury until paramedics arrived. “The workers were using dirty rags to clean his head up and the quality of first aid was not good. If this had been a dismemberment or something where a tourniquet was needed, the worker would have been dead,” one worker told the World Socialist Web Site.

A recently leaked internal FCA report showed that there had been two COVID-19 deaths and 59 infections at Jefferson North Assembly Plant through mid-October, numbers that the UAW and management had kept hidden from workers. Similar cover-ups are occurring at plants around the country.

The profit reports also is a reflection of the way in which the automakers are leveraging the pandemic to accelerate a long-planned restructuring of the workforce. The threat of sickness and death has also been used to drive older, more vulnerable workers out of the factories through early retirements and extended leave, while thousands of low-paid temporary part time workers with no contract rights have been brought in to the plants.

According to a recent reports, wages for temporary workers in the auto industry are so low that the auto industry is struggling to compete with Amazon and other low-wage employers for new hires. The starting wage of $15 an hour for jobs at the retail giant’s fulfillment centers is 20 percent higher than standard pay at most auto parts factories.

As a consequence, auto companies have taken to extracting more labor out of their existing workforce, imposing forced overtime and six-day workweeks. For example, at FCA Sterling Heights Assembly Plant north of Detroit, management is imposing a 12-hour, 7-day work schedule for the skilled trades. Production workers at the plant are routinely forced to work 50 hours a week or more.

Even after the pandemic is over, the industry’s shift to electric vehicles and the launch of electric cars will be used to further drive down costs. Electric vehicles have fewer moving parts than gas driven vehicles and require significantly less labor to build, cutting man-hours per vehicle from 6.7 to 3.7.

There is every indication that investments in new EV plants will be contingent on even further concessions from the UAW which reduce autoworkers to the level of gig economy workers. For example, GM’s new battery plant in Lordstown, Ohio, a short distance from the shuttered Lordstown Assembly Plant, will pay wages of just $15-$17 an hour, far less than that currently earned by most assembly workers. General Motors has also invested $75 million in EV startup Lordstown Motors, which will produce the Endurance electric truck starting next year at an expected substandard pay rate of around $17 an hour.

29 Oct 2020

Grand Challenges Africa Innovation Phase 1 Seed Grants 2021

Application Deadline: 4th December2020 at 23:59hrs East African Time

About the Award: GC Africa will fund African Investigators through this GC Africa Food Security and Nutrition (FSN) call. We are seeking innovative global development and health solutions related to achieving food security and nutrition and are now accepting proposals for applications. Subject to the eligibility requirements in the GC Africa Rules & Guidelines,  investigators are invited to apply, with the support of the primary organisation where they are affiliated, and where the major programme of work will be undertaken. Grants will go to investigators in African countries, but we encourage partnerships with investigators in other countries, especially where the opportunity exists to build new or strengthen existing collaborations.

Applicants can be at any level of experience and working in any discipline, from any organization, including colleges and universities, government laboratories, research institutions, for profit and non-profit organizations.

Type: Grants

Eligibility: Projects that will apply and enable adoption of new technologies, innovations and policies in at least one of the following key areas to:

  1. Ensuring climate resilient food systems
  2. Promote technologies, innovations and agribusinesses to achieve food security and nutrition targets
  3. Address cross-cutting issues that promote food security and nutrition
  4. Achieve the nutrition and health targets of the African Union
  5. Tackle sustainable commercialisation and production of indigenous foods

Projects should aim to develop innovations or interventions that address at least one aspect of food security and nutrition (access, availability, utilisation and sustainability) or provide novel evidence-based ways to strengthen and promote effectiveness of these aspects for existing solutions. Such solutions may include but are not limited to models, strategies, tools, services, technologies and processes. We seek ideal solutions that apply a deeper

understanding of the end user and consider the contextual constraints of implementation.

Projects must be relevant to strengthening food security and nutrition systems and may target key stakeholders such as individuals, families, communities, farmers, service providers and components of food infrastructure, networks, and systems.

Examples of what we will consider funding for- innovations that:

  • Highlight and enhance interventions that increase resilience of agri-food systems to climate related shocks (drought, pests, floods or pandemics such as COVID-19 etc). 
  • Provide accessible and acceptable options for scaling up climate smart agricultural practices e.g. reduce emissions from agriculture, prevent loss of biodiversity, prevent soil degradation and soil nutrient depletion etc. 
  • Investigate agricultural practices that can reverse the negative impacts of intensive agriculture while at the same time combat acute and chronic food insecurity. 
  • Develop measures for access of nutrient dense and affordable foods by low income communities to tackle multiple burdens of malnutrition (undernutrition, micronutrient deficiencies, overweight and obesity) while mitigating against negative impacts of dietary transition. 
  • Target activities that mitigate community-specific constraints to improving the nutrition status of specific groups – infants, children, adolescents, pregnant and lactating women, elderly, ill individuals or convalescents etc. 
  • Research the potential for indigenous food systems in preventing the surge of non-communicable diseases, micronutrient deficiencies, wasting, undernutrition, obesity, and overweight in Africa. 
  • Prioritize policies that promote access and affordability of nutritious food by vulnerable groups. 
  • Promote use of agriculture, food and nutrition as a factor for socioeconomic development; equity and inclusion; stability, and for ensuring peace and security. 
  • Develop structures that promote advances in agrifood systems, homegrown solutions to food insecurity, training facilities for new generations of actors in the agrifood systems e.g. young farmers, traders, innovators, researchers, etc. 
  • Identify strategies to improve productivity in indigenous agrifood systems including indigenous crops and livestock.
  • Identify support required for the development of the seed production sector for nutrient dense foods like fruits and vegetables as well as underutilized and indigenous foods including livestock production. 
  • Research market value chains for indigenous foods, their safety and efficacy testing including marketing and consumer perceptions. 
  • Build diversified and sustainable food systems that promote dietary patterns high in nutrient density (e.g. fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, insects etc.) and demote patterns of highly processed, energy-dense, low-nutrient food. 
  • Promote technologies/innovations that minimize pre-harvest and post-harvest losses and/or general food waste through consumption patterns e.g. food storage, recycling technologies, dietary patterns etc. 
  • Promote innovations that decrease contamination of food e.g. aflatoxins and other sources of foodborne diseases.
  • Promote sustainable animal husbandry practices that can reduce infections and dependence on antibiotics. 

Selection Criteria: Criteria for success will include solutions that:

  • Could contribute to a portfolio of funded projects that addresses a country’s key priorities or regional challenges.
  • Clearly incorporate measures of success reasonable for the timespan of the grant (24 months).
  • Incorporate multiple areas of innovation or broaden toolkits of interventions, especially sets of interventions targeting combinations of outcomes spanning the spectrum of objectives outlined for this call.
  • Have a project plan whereby after two years- the end of phase I grant period- grantees will be in a position to explore how the results from their project could inform the design of a more extensive collaborative package of work that can be submitted for phase II funding. 
  • Address well identified barriers and constraints which will be solved by implementing locally relevant programs.
  • Explain how proposed innovations and interventions will eventually be tested in communities so that they have the highest likelihood of being relevant for implementation more broadly in the country’s systems.
  • Provide data or evidence for effective food security and nutrition solutions.
  • Address inequities in food security and nutrition.
  • May potentially build on existing partnerships, which will be essential to achieve results at scale.

Eligible Countries: African countries

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The Food Security and Nutrition (FSN) awards will fund projects up to USD $100,000 for a maximum of 2 years. These awards are seed grants (phase I) meant to provide an opportunity to test particularly bold, proof of concept ideas, including applying approaches from outside the fields indicated for this call. New approaches could be piloted as additions to ongoing projects. Winners of the GC Africa-FSN grants will have an opportunity to apply for follow-on, transition to scale funding in future but please note that support for phase II funding is NOT part of this call.

Future phase II calls – Funded at up to USD 1 million per three-year project, phase II awards require substantial preliminary data (to be collected during phase I) and are meant to provide an opportunity to develop, refine, and rigorously test combinations of activities, including sets of interventions for which some or all have previously shown promise in controlled or limited settings. We expect that successful projects funded under this call, and which demonstrate promising results, will have the opportunity to apply for phase II funding either to GC Africa or directly to our partners.

 In all cases, individual project budgets should be representative of the scope and magnitude of the proposed studies and carefully designed to get the best possible value out of the award. The applicant recipient institution, organization or company will also be required to provide assurances on their capacity to manage the grant through detailed letters of support from the appropriate research or innovation support office. The AAS reserves the right to undertake due diligence site visits to organizations hosting successful candidates before making final awards.

How to Apply: Applications MUST be submitted through the AAS Ishango Online Application Portal.

  • It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Generation Google Scholarship 2021

Application Deadline: Early-December.

About the Award: The Generation Google Scholarship: for women in computer science was established to help aspiring computer scientists excel in technology and become leaders in the field. Selected students will receive a 7,000 EUR award (or local equivalent) for the 2021-2022 academic year. Scholarships will be awarded based on the strength of each candidate’s impact on diversity, demonstrated leadership, and academic background. The program is open to qualified students who meet all the minimum qualifications. Women interested in computer science are strongly encouraged to apply.

Type: Undergraduate, Graduate

Eligibility: To be eligible to apply, applicants must:

  • Be currently enrolled as an undergraduate or graduate student at a university for the 2020-21 academic
  • Intend to be enrolled in or accepted as a full-time student in a Bachelors, Masters, or PhD program at an accredited university in Europe, Middle East or Africa for the 2021-2022 academic year
  • Be studying computer science, computer engineering, or a closely related technical field
  • Demonstrate a strong academic record
  • Exemplify leadership and demonstrate a passion for improving representation of underrepresented groups in computer science and technology

Eligible Countries: Countries in Europe, Middle East or Africa

To be Taken at (Country): Candidate’s University location in Europe, Middle East or Africa

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:

  • Selected students will receive a 7,000 EUR award (or local equivalent)
  • The scholarship award must be spent on tuition, fees, books, supplies and equipment required for the students’ classes at their primary university

How to Apply: You will be asked to complete an online application which includes:

  • General background information (e.g. contact information and details about your current and intended universities)
  • Resume/CV
  • Academic transcripts from your current and prior institutions (if you have earned a prior degree)
  • One letter of reference from a professor, instructor, adviser or supervisor
  • Responses to four short essay questions
  • Recipients will be selected based on the overall strength of their essays and application materials compared to the entire applicant pool or respective peers (e.g. Bachelors students compared to other Bachelors students).
  • It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Africa No Filter Research Fellowship Program 2020

Application Deadline: 13th  November  2020

About the Award: Africa No Filter is a donor collaborative funded by Ford Foundation, Bloomberg, Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Luminate, Open Society Foundations, Comic Relief and the Hilton Foundation.  We support the development of nuanced stories that shift existing, stereotypical narratives about Africa through research, grant making and advocacy. ANF’s goal over me is to leave an empowered narrative change ecosystem and an informed community of storytellers who work more deliberately to change harmful narratives about Africa. 

Type: Research

Eligibility:

  • Priority will be given to African scholars from African countries or from the diaspora who are currently undertaking a PhD or a Post-doc, or those who have been in junior academic posts for less than 3 years;
  • Applicants should be based at a recognized academic institute;
  • Preference will be given scholars who have experience in line with the research program and/or content analysis skills. Examples include scholars in media/ communication/ journalism studies, filmmaking, photography, literature, visual arts, music, and scholars of development communication.

Research Dessimination

Research  Fellows  will be  required to  disseminate in a number of ways,  with the support of Africa No Filter,  and will include:

  • Research report, including an executive summary. 
  • Highlights version of the report for a compilation book on the subject.
  • Submission of paper to academic journal/s (you will continue to notify Africa No Filter of the publication progress at each stage, even after the fellowship has ended, as publication may take 1-2 years).
  • Articles,  OpEds,  blog posts  and social media posts.
  • Media interviews.
  • Digital/in person  events  (e.g. webinars,  conferences,  seminars,  roundtables) to target various stakeholder groups e.g. Academics, African Institutions, mainstream and alternative media, influencers and artists.

Eligible Countries: African countries

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Each scholar will be awarded up to $7,000 to conduct their research. 

Apart from the funds you will receive, they are offering the following mentorship programme:

  • An initiation workshop, which will include comprehensive feedback from leading academics on your proposal, including advice on literature reviews and methodology.
  • Guided monthly meetings with other Fellows to share and peer review your work with one of the Advisory Committee members.
  • As applicable, shared resources for literature review.
  • A writing workshop with leading academics
  • Comprehensive feedback from leading academics on your draft report and on the preparation of a journal article following the publication of the report.
  • Growing your academic and media profile, through various dissemination activities.

How to Apply: Applicants must provide the following documents:

  • The proposal.
  • A cover letter outlining your interest in the project and highlighting your key strengths.
  • A 2-3 page CV with two contactable academic references, outlining your academic qualifications and relevant research experience, as well as any applicable professional background.
  • A list of publications and other outputs.
  • Proof of registration/employment at a recognised academic institution.
  • Proof of African nationality (e.g. certified copy of birth certificate/passport/identity document).

Click here to apply

Visit Award Webpage for Details

AROCSA PhD Fellowship Program 2021

Application Deadline: 13th November 2020

About the Award: As part of the program, selected PhD scholars who have successfully defended their research proposals will be provided research grants to cover the cost of their research i.e. fieldwork, data collection, data processing, and the printing of their final dissertations.

The research grant is targeted at encouraging the production and dissemination of knowledge by African scholars in the fields of nonprofit management, philanthropy, civil society, social entrepreneurship, and voluntary action studies in line with AROCSA’s mission to promote and advance a community of excellence in research and practice on civil society in the service of African development.

Type: Research

Eligibility: AROCSA is accepting proposals from African scholars currently registered as full time PhD students with a university in Africa. Applicants’ theses should focus on nonprofit management, philanthropy, civil society, social entrepreneurship and voluntary action studies. Applicants should have already defended their research proposals at the time of application to be considered eligible.

Selection Criteria: Grants are awarded based on merit. Applicants will be selected based on the following criteria:

  • Potential quality and impact of proposed research.
  • Alignment with the thematic research areas of nonprofit management, philanthropy, civil society, social entrepreneurship, and voluntary action studies

Eligible Countries: African countries

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:

  • Successful applicants will be expected to present papers on their research at AROCSA’s next annual conference scheduled to hold in August 2021 where they will formally be inducted as AROCSA fellows. Their completed theses will also be hosted on the AROCSA website as an open source document to benefit other researchers and the general public.
  • Successful applicants will be awarded a grant of up to US$3,500.

How to Apply: Applicants are required to apply for the PhD Workshop through the electronic application on the AROCSA website. Applications must include the following:

  1. Proof of registration with a university in Africa
  2. Copy of Approved Research proposal: Applicants MUST provide a copies of their defended research proposals and the focus of study MUST fall within any of nonprofit management, philanthropy, civil society, social entrepreneurship, and voluntary action studies.
  3. Letter of motivation from the applicant
  4. Letter of support from supervisor: Using the institution’s letterhead, the letter should contain the supervisor’s approval, confirm that the student has indeed successfully defended their research proposal, and include an assurance of continuous support for the duration of the research. The letter should also include the supervisor’s contact details.
  5. Budget: Applicants should present a detailed breakdown of finances required for the completion of their research, explaining how funds will be allocated and utilised from the collection of data to the completion of the thesis, clearly outlining the link between expenses and the phases of their research.
  6. Please compile all items listed above into a single PDF document before submission. All original documents created for submission should be presented as double spaced, 12pt font with one inch margins.

Please note that all items listed above are compulsory and incomplete applications will not be considered.

Click here to submit Application

Click here for a downloadable PDF of the criteria

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Chile’s New Constitution, Wiping Away the Last Stains of Pinochet

Ariel Dorfman


It is not often that a country gets to decide its destiny in one momentous election. I am thinking, of course, of the United States. But I am also thinking of the referendum in Chile, where, this past Sunday, the people of that country decided by a landslide—78.27 percent of those who voted—to give themselves a new Constitution and thereby drastically redefine the way they wished to be governed.

Though a change in its founding document is not on the ballot in the United States, we should, here in America, pay close attention to what just happened in that distant land at the end of the earth. Heartened and inspired by the sight of ordinary people forcing a small ruling elite to accept, against all odds, the need for radical reforms, we would do well to learn some valuable lessons from that Chilean experience.

Sunday’s victory in Chile did not come easily or swiftly.

The Constitution that Chileans have just voted to supplant was installed by Gen. Augusto Pinochet in a fraudulent plebiscite in 1980, seven years after a lethal coup overthrew the democratically elected Socialist president, Salvador Allende. Pinochet’s Ley Fundamental—as it was called by those who drafted it—ostensibly established an itinerary for a transition to a restricted form of democracy, as there was to be another plebiscite in 1988 to ask citizens if they wished the general to remain in office for another eight (endlessly renewable) years. In reality, that Constitution guaranteed that, no matter who was in charge of the country, there would be no possibility of questioning the oppressive system that the dictator and his allies had built, particularly the neoliberal economic model of exploitation that had been imposed on workers with unprecedented violence.

And, in effect, when Pinochet lost that 1988 plebiscite and was forced to retire as president (retaining control of the armed forces, of course), the Magna Carta he left behind acted as a straitjacket that, for the next 30 years, blocked all key efforts to create a more just and equitable society. The center-left coalition that has governed Chile for most of that period was able to negotiate a number of amendments to Pinochet’s fascist Constitution—and, significantly, lift a large section of the country’s destitute population out of poverty—but none of those amendments altered the ability of a minority of right-wing legislators to undermine any attempt to alter the way in which wealth and power were distributed. And it was presumed that a populace traumatized by torture, executions, disappearances, exile, and incessant censorship and persecution would not dare to rebel against such an immoral situation.

And that is how things would still be today if a startling revolt had not exploded in mid-October of last year. Sparked initially by groups of students jumping subway turnstiles to protest a small hike in the fares, it soon grew into a nationwide uprising by millions of Chileans who threatened to bring down President Sebastián Piñera’s conservative and unpopular government. Though the demands were wide-ranging—for better salaries, health care, education, housing, environmental protection, clean water; for Indigenous, LGBTQ and women’s rights; for reforms to the miserable pension plans and the untrammeled ferocity with which the police operated—the one issue that united all those who had taken over the streets was the urgent need to get rid of Pinochet’s Constitution and its stranglehold on Chilean society.

Alarmed at what such an upheaval might unleash, right-wing leaders who had till then adamantly vetoed any changes to the status quo made up their mind to decompress the situation and avert a full-scale revolution by agreeing to hold a referendum in which voters would decide if they wanted a new Constitution, either choosing Apruebo (approval) or Rechazo (rejection).

Many of those hard-core Pinochetistas believed they would be able, as time went by, to derail that referendum. They insisted that the current Congress was perfectly capable, with much less effort and cost, of instituting some of the most salient transformations being called for. They used the pandemic to claim that it was too dangerous to carry out an election in those conditions (though they had no such qualms about opening malls!). And when that delaying tactic failed, they ran a vicious campaign of terror against “socialism,” warning that those in favor of a new Magna Carta were extremists intent on turning Chile into Venezuela.

The people repudiated them. The right-wing proponents of the Rechazo option have garnered a scant 21.73 percent of the vote. It is true that several major figures on the right, sensing where the wind was blowing, came out in favor of a new Constitution, but the verdict is inescapable. The Pinochet era is finally over.

As a native of Chile, I had planned to fly to Santiago with my wife to participate in this historic event, but we were unable to do so due to the perils posed by Covid-19.  I would have liked to witness the rebirth of a nation that seemed to have died when the coup destroyed our democracy all those decades ago. I was 28 years old when Salvador Allende became president and such a fervent enthusiast that, three years later, when he was overthrown, I was working at La Moneda, the building where he died, and was only saved from sharing his fate by a chain of incredible circumstances. Along with so many who believed in Allende’s dreams of a liberated Chile, I have spent most of my life since then hoping for a moment when those dreams of his would be echoed by future generations. That has now come to pass. The road to justice has been opened and, by the middle of 2022, Chileans will be governed by a Constitution that embodies the wishes and needs of the vast majority.

If I was unable to travel to Chile to celebrate this triumph of memory and courage over silence and death, I have been struck, as I celebrated this redemptive process from afar, by its significance for the United States, a country where I am also a citizen.

Indeed, along with my fellow countrymen and women, I am voting under a Constitution that severely curtails the will of the people. It is a travesty that we must choose our next president through a seriously flawed and antiquated system, with an Electoral College that does not reflect the preference of the majority. And it is just as much a scandal that we have a profoundly undemocratic Senate, where small states like Rhode Island or Wyoming carry as much weight as gigantic California or Texas. This is the legislative body that is responsible for approving Supreme Court justices, who have disenfranchised large sections of the population and allowed corporations to influence electoral outcome with an endless flow of unaccountable dollars. It is a Constitution, as Alex Keyssar has demonstrated in his remarkable book, Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College?, that is tainted by the compromise reached by the Founders with Southern slave-owners and has remained a staunch bulwark of minority, white supremacist interests. It is a Constitution that has been unable to stop a psychopathic, serially mendacious demagogue like Trump from storming the executive office and trashing democracy, its norms, its institutions, its supposedly irreversible restraints of checks and balances. It has established a shameful system where profits matter more than people, where discrimination and racism are rampant, where the very rich can accumulate more wealth than the rest of the country combined.

There are, of course, many splendid features enshrined in that Constitution. Its defenders, including many who notice its limitations, point to the ways in which it has often served to expand freedom, maintain stability, and ensure prosperity, and therefore deem it possible to overcome the glaring inadequacies of that 18th-century document with more amendments and stopgap remedies, such as abolishing the Electoral College, introducing radical changes to the justice system, passing legislation that guarantees voting rights, giving statehood to Puerto Rico and senatorial representation to Washington DC.

For my part, I wonder if the current crisis of authority, the sense that the United States has fallen into disarray and madness, could not open the door to a more drastic solution. Would it not make more sense to engage in a process like the one that Chile has just gone through, where the people have taken upon themselves the right and obligation to determine the fundamental tenets and principles of the system and rules that govern their existence? Should we not at least start to envisage the possibility of calling for a constitutional convention as a way of addressing the failure of our country to live up to its promise of a more perfect union? Do the problems that beset us, so similar to those that plague our Chilean brothers and sisters—the systemic racism, the police brutality, the ecological disasters, the offensive disparity of income, the increased polarization of our public—not cry out for a radical reimagining of who we are? Has not the pestilence of Covid-19 revealed that we are woefully unprepared for the challenges ahead?

It could be argued that the economic, political, and historical conditions in Chile and the United States are so different that any comparison between the two is pointless. The US Constitution, for all its shortcomings, did not originate in a fraud like the one perpetrated by General Pinochet. And it is unlikely that enough citizens in the 50 states are so dissatisfied with their lot that they would be willing to undergo the sort of intense re-examination of their identity that Chileans are about to embark upon. I do not doubt, in fact, that most Americans, fearful of disruption, terrified that their country might crumble under yet more divisiveness, would prefer that alterations to their fundamental laws and institutions be carried out, if at all, by their elected representatives.

That was precisely how Chileans were told change would happen.

What they finally decided, after 30 years of waiting and increasing despair, was to use their extraordinary power as a mobilized people to demand action. What they understood is that the Constitution affected every aspect of their daily existence, even if they had no say in shaping it. The only way that it could cease to be an abstract, faraway document, unrepresentative and unresponsive to their concerns— the only way it could fully belong to them—was to fight for it, risk having their bodies bruised and their eyes blinded by police pellets, risk their jobs and their tranquility to create an order that they could recognize as their own and not imposed from above. What has been most amazing about the year since insubordinate Chileans forced a referendum to take place—and what will be yet more amazing in the year and a half ahead—is the vast educational value of discussing and gauging, measuring and weighing, the pros and cons of all manner of questions that are so often left to a select group of remote experts. The process itself of a joyful, collective reckoning with the past anticipates the sort of country that is envisioned, transforms and makes better those who are part of that communal exploration.

It is a process that, once begun, can be thrilling and emancipatory.

However long it takes for the American people to move in that direction—and the protests of the last months and the tradition of struggle for peace and justice that has always been beating in the epic heart of Martin Luther King Jr.’s country gives me hope that it will be sooner rather than later—there is one message from Chile that should always be borne in mind.

My family in Santiago sent me a photo of some words a young man had scribbled on a placard that he was parading around the city on his bike:

“Lo impensable se volvió posible porque salimos a exigirlo y el país no se vino abajo.”

The unthinkable became possible because we went out to demand it and the country did not crumble.

Or, as Salvador Allende—so alive today!—said, just minutes before dying in defense of democracy and dignity: The future is ours and it is made by the people.

La historia es nuestra y la hacen los pueblos.

Class Consciousness in the Age of COVID

Colin Todhunter


Prior to the appearance of COVID-related restrictions and lockdowns, neoliberal capitalism had turned to various mechanisms in the face of economic stagnation and massive inequalities: the raiding of public budgets, the expansion of credit to consumers and governments to sustain spending and consumption, financial speculation and militarism.

Part and parcel of this has been a strategy of ‘creative destruction’ that has served to benefit an interlocking directorate of powerful oil, agribusiness, armaments and financial interests, among others. For these parties, what matters is the ability to maximise profit by shifting capital around the world, whether on the back of distorted free trade agreements which open the gates for plunder or through coercion and militarism which merely tear them down.

In the so-called ‘developed’ nations, notably in the US and the UK, along the way millions of jobs have been offshored to cheap labour economies. In effect, societies have become hollowed out. They have increasingly resembled empty boxes whereby the main component lurking inside is a giant mechanical hand of government and media propaganda with the threat of state violence lying in wait. And its only function is to pull the lid shut if anyone ever dares to tear it open and shed light on things. If successful, they will see the immorality, the lies, the hypocrisies.

And they would also be able to identify cynical methods of social control that have assumed a different level in 2020 with constant COVID fear propaganda being pumped out on a daily basis. If we take the UK, the fact is that excess deaths in 2020 are not out of the ordinary when looking back over a 25-year period.

But we continue to see the rolling out of near-endless restrictions and tiered lockdowns across the country based on questionable PCR tests and the designation of healthy, asymptomatic people as ‘cases’. The narrative has shifted from COVID deaths and ‘flattening the curve’ to an obsession with ‘cases’ as the curve became flattened and COVID-related deaths bottomed out. Even at the height of government- and media-driven COVID paranoia, over 90% of ‘COVID deaths’ were most likely due to the serious co-morbidities listed on the death certificates of the mainly over-75s who make up the vast majority of such deaths.

COVID marks a crucial stage of neoliberal capitalism. Under yet another strategy of creative destruction, millions of livelihoods across the world continue to be destroyed and small businesses are on the edge of bankruptcy.

But this is precisely what is supposed to happen when we acknowledge that it is all part of the ‘great reset’ as explained by the recent article ‘Klaus Schwab and his great fascist reset’ which appeared on the OffGuardian website: a transformation of society resulting in permanent restrictions on fundamental liberties and mass surveillance as entire sectors are sacrificed to boost the bottom line of the pharmaceuticals corporations, the high-tech/big data giants, Amazon, Google, major global chains, the digital payments sector, biotech concerns, etc.

In other words, a ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ which historian Luciana Bohne recently noted on her Facebook page is going to result in a different economy based on new businesses and sectors. In turn, this means older enterprises are to be driven to bankruptcy or absorbed into monopolies. It also entails massive job losses.

Although COVID is being blamed, Bohne notes that the shutting down of the old economy was already happening as there was insufficient growth, well below the minimum tolerable 3% level to maintain the viability of capitalism.

Bohne quotes the World Bank to underline her point:

“In order to reverse this serious setback [COVID] to development progress and poverty reduction, countries will need to prepare for a different economy post-COVID, by allowing capital, labor, skills, and innovation to move into new businesses and sectors.” World Bank, October 2020 Report.

Economies are being ‘restructured’ and ‘downsized’ and COVID restrictions and lockdowns are being used as a battering ram to implement this agenda.

It is very revealing that Matt Hancock, British minister for health, gave a speech to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Fourth Industrial Revolution in October 2017. Klaus Schwab was also in attendance.

Hancock stated:

“And I’m delighted to speak alongside so many impressive colleagues who really understand this, and alongside Professor Klaus Schwab who literally ‘wrote the book’ on the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Your work, bringing together as you do all the best minds on the planet, has informed what we are doing, and I’m delighted to work with you.”

If readers take time to read the aforementioned piece, they may well be disturbed by many of the beliefs Schwab holds for the future. And now, three years on from Hancock’s presentation, we are seeing him play an active role in implementing the type of scenario Schwab has set out in his various books and speeches by rolling out further restrictions and phased lockdowns, mass surveillance measures, vaccination projects, authoritarian government and economic devastation.

Hancock really does seem to be taking his cue from the influential Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum.

COVID is being used to inject neoliberal capitalism with new life by destroying livelihoods and implementing a social and economic tectonic shift. If people in the richer countries are perplexed by the destruction of livelihoods under the pretext of COVID, they need look no further than India to appreciate why governments wage financial and social war on their own people and the type of brutality they are capable of and whose interests they ultimately serve.

There is a plan for the future of that country and most of its current farmers do not have a role in it. India remains an agrarian-based society with over 60% of the population still relying on agriculture either directly or indirectly for their livelihood.

Successive administrations have been making farming financially unviable with the aim of moving farmers out of agriculture and into the cities to work in construction, manufacturing or the service sector, despite these sectors not creating anything like the number of jobs required. By uprooting the agrarian base, we are seeing a fundamental attack on Indian society.

The aim is to displace the existing labour-intensive system of food and agriculture with one dominated by a few transnational corporate agribusiness concerns which will then control the sector. Agriculture is to be wholly commercialised with large-scale, mechanised (monocrop) enterprises replacing family-run farms that help sustain hundreds of millions of rural livelihoods, while feeding the urban masses.

As is currently happening in the West, small independent concerns (in this case, smallholder farmers) are being driven to bankruptcy. So why would anyone set out to deliberately run down what is effectively a productive system of agriculture that feeds people, sustains livelihoods and produces sufficient buffer stocks? Similarly, why in 2020 are governments facilitating economic destruction?

Politicians are effectively facilitating the needs of global capital and all it entails: a system based on endless profit growth, crises of overproduction and market saturation and a need to constantly seek out, create or expand into new, untapped markets to maintain profitability.

India’s agrarian base is being destroyed at the behest of predatory commercial interests (via the Indo-US Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture, World Bank directives and WTO policies) and the peasantry is being dealt a knock-out blow so global agribusiness and retail concerns can capture financially lucrative markets and further incorporate the agri-food sector into their global supply chains.

Looking at the Industrial Revolution in England, historian Michael Perelman has detailed the processes that whipped the English peasantry into a workforce coerced into factory wage labour. Peasants left their land to work for below-subsistence wages in dangerous factories being set up by a new, rich class of industrial capitalists. Perelman describes the policies through which peasants were forced out of agriculture, not least by the barring of access to common land. A largely self-reliant population was starved of its productive means.

It was brutal, just like ongoing developments in India. And what we are now seeing are vested interests forcing through a Fourth Industrial Revolution across the world. This too is brutal and is also having dire consequences in places like India as I have previously outlined in the article ‘Coronavirus Capitalism: Entrenching Dispossession and Dependency’.

The encouragement of identity politics, narcissism, apathy and consumerism’s irretrievable materialism, among other things, have undermined ordinary people’s capacity for action. Not so the billionaire class pushing through the ‘great reset’ which is acutely aware of its own interests.

A lack of class consciousness among ordinary people debilitates their ability to unite and recognise that their interests and those of the government and the people they really serve are diametrically opposed. Free from the shackles of mainstream propaganda, ordinary people would be better placed to resist current restrictions and challenge the prevailing narrative on COVID.

Unfortunately, those who might be expected to be pivotal in this – prominent figures and media outlets which claim to be of the ‘left’ – have failed to lead by example and have capitulated to the agenda of those who are driving the COVID narrative, the restrictions, the fear, the rolling out of draconian surveillance and rushed-through vaccines and the economic devastation leading to millions of job losses.

What must be regarded as the ‘establishment left’ has done little more than cheerlead restrictions and lockdowns.

Ending Regime Change – in Bolivia and the World

Medea Benjamin & Nicolas J S Davies


Less than a year after the United States and the U.S.-backed Organization of American States (OAS) supported a violent military coup to overthrow the government of Bolivia, the Bolivian people have reelected the Movement for Socialism (MAS) and restored it to power.

In the long history of U.S.-backed “regime changes” in countries around the world, rarely have a people and a country so firmly and democratically repudiated U.S. efforts to dictate how they will be governed. Post-coup interim president Jeanine Añez has reportedly requested 350 U.S. visas for herself and others who may face prosecution in Bolivia for their roles in the coup.

The narrative of a rigged election in 2019 that the U.S. and the OAS peddled to support the coup in Bolivia has been thoroughly debunked. MAS’s support is mainly from indigenous Bolivians in the countryside, so it takes longer for their ballots to be collected and counted than those of the better-off city dwellers who support MAS’s right-wing, neoliberal opponents.

As the votes come in from rural areas, there is a swing to MAS in the vote count. By pretending that this predictable and normal pattern in Bolivia’s election results was evidence of election fraud in 2019, the OAS bears responsibility for unleashing a wave of violence against indigenous MAS supporters that, in the end, has only delegitimized the OAS itself.

It is instructive that the failed U.S.-backed coup in Bolivia has led to a more democratic outcome than U.S. regime change operations that succeeded in removing a government from power. Domestic debates over U.S. foreign policy routinely presume that the U.S. has the right, or even an obligation, to deploy an arsenal of military, economic and political weapons to force political change in countries that resist its imperial dictates.

In practice, this means either full-scale war (as in Iraq and Afghanistan), a coup d’etat (as in Haiti in 2004, Honduras in 2009 and Ukraine in 2014), covert and proxy wars (as in Somalia, Libya, Syria and Yemen) or punitive economic sanctions (as against Cuba, Iran and Venezuela) – all of which violate the sovereignty of the targeted countries and are therefore illegal under international law.

No matter which instrument of regime change the U.S. has deployed, these U.S. interventions have not made life better for the people of any of those countries, nor countless others in the past. William Blum’s brilliant 1995 bookKilling Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, catalogues 55 U.S. regime change operations in 50 years between 1945 and 1995. As Blum’s detailed accounts make clear, most of these operations involved U.S. efforts to remove popularly elected governments from power, as in Bolivia, and often replaced them with U.S.-backed dictatorships: like the Shah of Iran; Mobutu in the Congo; Suharto in Indonesia; and General Pinochet in Chile.

Even when the targeted government is a violent, repressive one, U.S. intervention usually leads to even greater violence. Nineteen years after removing the Taliban government in Afghanistan, the United States has dropped 80,000 bombs and missiles on Afghan fighters and civilians, conducted tens of thousands of “kill or capture” night raids, and the war has killed hundreds of thousands of Afghans.

In December 2019, the Washington Post published a trove of Pentagon documents revealing that none of this violence is based on a real strategy to bring peace or stability to Afghanistan – it’s all just a brutal kind of “muddling along,” as U.S. General McChrystal put it. Now the U.S.-backed Afghan government is finally in peace talks with the Taliban on a political power-sharing plan to bring an end to this “endless” war, because only a political solution can provide Afghanistan and its people with the viable, peaceful future that decades of war have denied them.

In Libya, it has been nine years since the U.S. and its NATO and Arab monarchist allies launched a proxy war backed by a covert invasion and NATO bombing campaign that led to the horrific sodomy and assassination of Libya’s long time anti-colonial leader, Muammar Gaddafi. That plunged Libya into chaos and civil war between the various proxy forces that the U.S. and its allies armed, trained and worked with to overthrow Gaddafi.

parliamentary inquiry in the U.K. found that, “a limited intervention to protect civilians drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change by military means,” which led to “political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region and the growth of Isil [Islamic State] in north Africa.”

The various Libyan warring factions are now engaged in peace talks aimed at a permanent ceasefire and, according to the UN envoy “holding national elections in the shortest possible timeframe to restore Libya’s sovereignty”—the very sovereignty that the NATO intervention destroyed.

Senator Bernie Sanders’ foreign policy adviser Matthew Duss has called for the next U.S. administration to conduct a comprehensive review of the post-9/11 “War on Terror,” so that we can finally turn the page on this bloody chapter in our history.

Duss wants an independent commission to judge these two decades of war based on “the standards of international humanitarian law that the United States helped to establish after World War II,” which are spelled out in the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions. He hopes that this review will “stimulate vigorous public debate about the conditions and legal authorities under which the United States uses military violence.”

Such a review is overdue and badly needed, but it must confront the reality that, from its very beginning, the “War on Terror” was designed to provide cover for a massive escalation of U.S. “regime change” operations against a diverse range of countries, most of which were governed by secular governments that had nothing to do with the rise of Al Qaeda or the crimes of September 11th.

Notes taken by senior policy official Stephen Cambone from a meeting in the still damaged and smoking Pentagon on the afternoon of September 11, 2001 summarized Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s orders to get “…best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time – not only UBL [Osama Bin Laden]… Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.”

At the cost of horrific military violence and mass casualties, the resulting global reign of terror has installed quasi-governments in countries around the world that have proved more corrupt, less legitimate and less able to protect their territory and their people than the governments that U.S. actions removed. Instead of consolidating and expanding U.S. imperial power as intended, these illegal and destructive uses of military, diplomatic and financial coercion have had the opposite effect, leaving the U.S. ever more isolated and impotent in an evolving multipolar world.

Today, the U.S., China and the European Union are roughly equal in the size of their economies and international trade, but even their combined activity accounts for less than half of global economic activity and external trade. No single imperial power economically dominates today’s world as overconfident American leaders hoped to do at the end of the Cold War, nor is it divided by a binary struggle between rival empires as during the Cold War. This is the multipolar world we are already living in, not one that may emerge at some point in the future.

This multipolar world has been moving forward, forging new agreements on our most critical common problems, from nuclear and conventional weapons to the climate crisis to the rights of women and children. The United States’ systematic violations of international law and rejection of multilateral treaties have made it an outlier and a problem, certainly not a leader, as American politicians claim.

Joe Biden talks about restoring American international leadership if he is elected, but that will be easier said than done. The American empire rose to international leadership by harnessing its economic and military power to a rules-based international order in the first half of the 20th century, culminating in the post-World War II rules of international law. But the United States has gradually deteriorated through the Cold War and post-Cold War triumphalism to a flailing, decadent empire that now threatens the world with a doctrine of “might makes right” and “my way or the highway.”

When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, much of the world still saw Bush, Cheney and the “War on Terror” as exceptional, rather than a new normal in American policy. Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize based on a few speeches and the world’s desperate hopes for a “peace president.” But eight years of Obama, Biden, Terror Tuesdays and Kill Lists followed by four years of Trump, Pence, children in cages and the New Cold War with China have confirmed the world’s worst fears that the dark side of American imperialism seen under Bush and Cheney was no aberration.

Amid America’s botched regime changes and lost wars, the most concrete evidence of its seemingly unshakeable commitment to aggression and militarism is that the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex is still outspending the ten next largest military powers in the world combined, clearly out of all proportion to America’s legitimate defense needs.

So the concrete things we must do if we want peace are to stop bombing and sanctioning our neighbors and trying to overthrow their governments; to withdraw most American troops and close military bases around the world; and to reduce our armed forces and our military budget to what we really need to defend our country, not to wage illegal wars of aggression half-way round the world.

For the sake of people around the world who are building mass movements to overthrow repressive regimes and struggling to construct new models of governing that are not replications of failed neoliberal regimes, we must stop our government–no matter who is in the White House–from trying to impose its will.

Bolivia’s triumph over U.S.-backed regime change is an affirmation of the emerging people-power of our new multipolar world, and the struggle to move the U.S. to a post-imperial future is in the interest of the American people as well. As the late Venezuela leader Hugo Chavez once told a visiting U.S. delegation, “If we work together with oppressed people inside the United States to overcome the empire, we will not only be liberating ourselves, but also the people of Martin Luther King.”