Photo Gallery: Demonstration against Macron in Paris
Place de la Bastille, September 7th 2024
The Left Berlin
07/09/2024
Place de la Bastille, September 7th 2024
The Left Berlin
07/09/2024
Emmanuel Macron has named a Prime Minister from the right-wing party that came fourth in June’s elections.
Just like Trump, Macron has little respect for democracy. After the victory of the Left against the Right and against the fascists in June, and faced with a parliament where the Left alliance, the New Popular Front, won the biggest grouping of MPs at the elections, the president has appointed a Prime Minister from the losing side! This is because the Left had promised to reverse his attacks on pensions, and raise the minimum wage, among many other things.
After eight weeks of refusing to name a Prime Minister, the French president has chosen an old, right-wing hack, Michel Barnier. The fact that he is advanced in age (73) is no real surprise. The job is a bit of a poisoned chalice, so it required someone who no longer had a career to risk (the previous PM, Gabriel Attal, was a youthful 35).
Barnier is known for having voted against the legalization of male homosexuality in 1981, and having been top negotiator with the UK over some treaty a few years back. He was also minister of Agriculture and Foreign Secretary in the time of conservative president Nicolas Sarkozy. A few years ago, his proposal for draconian racist immigration control surprised those who had thought of him as a moderate. He comes from a party, Les Républicains, which got 6.6% of the votes in the first round of the June elections, and has 50 MPs in the National Assembly (the New Popular Front has 160).
Sophie Binet, leader of the influential trade union confederation, the CGT, said that Barnier’s appointment showed “contempt for the choice of the voters”. Thomas Portes, Member of Parliament of the France Insoumise, a railway worker well-known for his involvement in the Palestine solidarity movement, commented: “the political compass of Michel Barnier is his hatred of the people”. Barnier seemed to confirm his elitism today claiming he would take into account “the people below”.
He was not Macron’s first choice by a long way. If the Left alliance had split and a social-liberal Socialist Party PM had got enough support from the right to manage to survive, this would have been easier for Macron. But the divided Socialist Party leadership narrowly voted last week against accepting a government led by Bernard Cazeneuve, who had left the Socialist Party two years ago but remained within its traditions. Without an immediate prospect of splitting the Left Alliance, Macron has preferred to go for an openly right-wing character. Barnier immediately announced his priorities were law and order, and cutting immigration. He also said there would be “changes and breaks”, but whether to the Left or to the far Right he did not specify.
The appointment opens up a new phase in the deep political crisis here, but this is far from the last one. Barnier will have tremendous difficulty getting a majority in parliament for any legislation, and may rapidly lose a vote of confidence once parliament reassembles on the third of October.
The media are presenting him as having “the politics of consensus”. In fact, he will be hoping that the votes of the 140 or so far-right MPs will help him survive, so he is bound to be brandishing fantasies about French identity being under threat from immigration, etc. This may well not work: Marine Le Pen is not ready to play junior partner to a discredited president, though for the moment she is declaring a “wait and see” attitude. All the components of the New Popular Front have declared they will propose a motion of no confidence as soon as parliament reassembles.
Departing Macronite Prime Minister, Gabriel Attal, commented “French politics is sick, but there is a cure, providing we move away from sectarianism”. By “sectarianism” he means wanting real change, higher wages, taxes for the wealthy and fighting racism and Islamophobia.
The resistance is getting organized. La France Insoumise (France in Revolt) and a series of youth organizations have called over 150 demonstrations across the country to defend democracy, Saturday September 7th. After Barnier’s appointment, the Green Party has also called to join these demonstrations, although the Socialist Party has refused to join the mobilization.
It is impossible to characterize the politics and priorities of the New Popular Front without looking at the parties which make it up, which have in no way merged. The France Insoumise is the most radical, dynamic and determined of the four parties in the NPF. It has launched a campaign to have Macron impeached because he has not respected the results of the elections. The Communist Party, Socialist Party and the Greens are not supporting this.
The French constitution forbids repeat parliamentary elections before next June, so this will be a long crisis. Encouraged by the massive vote in June for the NPF programme – which included reversing attacks on pensions and unemployment benefits, papers for undocumented migrant workers, and wage rises for low-paid workers – trade union leaders are announcing days of action for the beginning of October. To force the implementation of the dozens of excellent reforms in the NFP programme, however, workers’ resistance will have to go far beyond what the national union leaders have in mind.
There is no need to artificially oppose electoral and parliamentary activity with resistance in the streets and workplaces. Of course, in the final analysis, the latter is more crucial. But it is because of the electoral alliance and the massive people’s campaign against voting Le Pen that we do not have a fascist government in France today. And parliamentary activity can matter. The success of the parliamentary left in keeping fascists off the House Affairs committee has its importance. The left-dominated House Affairs committee will not be suspending MPs for displaying Palestinian flags in the assembly, as was the case last year. The fewer fascists in institutional positions, the better.
If Macron gets away with ignoring the election results without a mass fightback, Le Pen will be much reinforced in her struggle to replace democracy with something much more sinister. Anti-capitalists must vigorously defend the very limited democracy parliament gives us. We must demand a Left government, since the Left came out first in the elections. And the campaign to impeach Macron because of his contempt for democratic procedures must be supported.
Interview with former British Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn
Carmela Negrete
06/09/2024
Could you say something about your organisation, the Peace and Justice Project?
There are 60,000 people who’ve signed up for the Peace and Justice Project. Some of them contribute financially. Others receive information. We are working with and supporting trade unions on arguments about living standards, wage disputes and trade union rights.
A very important part of our work is increasing solidarity. We are also coordinating a lot of the independent left organisations around Britain after the 2024 general election, and developing a coherent left political voice in the country. It’s not yet a party, but it is a development that brings people together, essentially all based around grassroots organisation within communities.
Five members of parliament were elected as independents, four others and I, and we are united on the issue of grassroots campaigning and the voice of people being the one that drives politics.
We are holding the second of our international conferences on September 14th, and we are working closely with the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation and Progressive International on this. It’s a combination of physical and online conference. We’re expecting to have about 400 people attending the conference, and a very large number participating online.
The conference is about peaceful alternatives to war, which I’ll be talking about when I speak later today. This involves disarmament and spending resources on social needs. We’ve just produced a book called Monstrous Anger of the Guns, which is an analysis of the arms industry and its power of lobbying, which corrupts politics in all countries, but particularly Europe and the United States.
We also try to mobilise people through cultural and artistic endeavours. We have a program called Music for the Many. I think we have organised about 20 music concerts around the country in support of young people, live music and the creative endeavour of that.
We’ve also produced a poetry book called Poetry for the Many, which is now on its third edition. The first edition sold out in a month. The second edition is now sold out. A third edition has been printed, and we’ve been hosting discussion meetings around imagination and history and poetry. This brings in a whole new raft of people into political discussion. I’ve done about 15 of these events, mostly around Britain and Ireland.
So we’re very active in a lot of ways, and we are hopefully developing an inclusive place and a voice for the politically homeless.
What do you think about the recent military agreement between the United States and Germany?
In our book, we’ve exposed the power of the arms trade. But we all have got to recognize that the military alliances that dominate political thinking were from Europe through NATO. Now the main driver of foreign policy and economic policy is that all countries are increasing arms expenditure to at least two and a half percent of their gross domestic product.
In the case of Britain, this will mean another 30 billion pounds per year on armaments. That is a 700 million pounds weekly increase in arms expenditure. At the same time, like all countries in Europe, social spending is being cut.
The agreements with the US over access to bases and military are in part negotiated through NATO, and in part with Germany. In Britain, these agreements are called the Visiting Forces Act of 1952. Now the European Union under the leadership of Ursula von der Leyen is trying to develop itself into a military bloc as well.
A considerable number of countries have given up on neutrality. Now only Ireland and Switzerland maintain a neutral position on international conflict. I think the dangers of increased militarization of the economy and societies in the West is huge. But also the opportunity for the arms industries in Russia, India and China is huge.
So there is an economy based on a continuation of a war in the Ukraine that one day will have to end by negotiation. I don’t know the total number of dead yet, but it’s certainly well over half a million people that have already died in that conflict. And then you look at other conflicts, like Palestine, Sudan, Congo, and Yemen. You’re talking about a massive death toll all over the world from current wars, which is all being fuelled by the arms industry.
And when you’re talking about Gaza and Palestine, the weapons are being sent directly from the West
Yes, indeed. We work closely with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and many other organisations in Britain. We’ve mobilised up to a million people at one go in support of Palestinian people, demanding not just a ceasefire, but an end to the arms trade between Britain and the Israeli government, and also the withdrawal of the Israeli occupying forces from both Gaza and the West Bank.
The news this week is terrible. Israel has now increased its military activity in the West Bank, and it looks to me as though the extreme right in Israeli politics is winning, and they want the complete annexation of the whole of what we recognize as Palestine.
Do you see a connection between these wars and what’s happening in Venezuela at the moment?
Yes. The connections are that the NATO Alliance, going back to the Lisbon conference in 2006, which is now 18 years ago, decided that NATO should have a global role. So NATO’s involvement in Afghanistan became a norm. NATO’s involvement in military consulting and activities all around the world, including in West Africa, is huge. Quite clearly, they want to attack the symbols of a different economic way of doing things in Latin America.
Hence the attacks on Bolivia, on Peru when it had a left President, on President Lula in Brazil, and, of course, on Cuba and Venezuela. So the question is one of solidarity we can mount in opposition to this economic and military expansionism by the West.
What does it mean that the German government is now sending refugees back to Afghanistan?
The European governments as a whole have an increasingly very bad record on the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. I’m a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and of the migration committee. A small number of us are constantly speaking up on the rights of refugees. They’re victims of war.
The people in Calais who try to cross the channel to go to Britain, the people in Libya trying to get into Italy, the people in Turkey trying to get into Greece, are nearly all victims of war or environmental disaster. The deportations that have now begun to Afghanistan is extraordinary.
Afghanistan does not fulfil any of the global humanitarian requirements – the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the Conventions on the Rights of the Child, the Beijing rulings or the Istanbul Convention on the Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence. There is no basis for removing anybody to Afghanistan unless it is just an act of aggression against people who are desperately seeking asylum.
Quite rightly, Ukrainian refugees have been supported and welcomed all across Western Europe. They’re welcomed into my own community, and they’re playing a great role within the community. The same welcome does not seem to apply to Palestinian refugees, to Afghan refugees, or people coming from Libya or Syria or any other place of conflict, including Eritrea, Ethiopia and West Africa.
It looks awfully like a race agenda by Western Europe about who are acceptable refugees, and who are not. This, of course, plays into the hands of the rise of the far right in Europe – the AfD in Germany, the equivalents in the Netherlands, France, Italy, and now the Reform Party in the UK.
Why were there recently racist riots in Britain and what can we do to stop them?
The racist riots were very frightening and very bad. The immediate issue was that three children were murdered in a dance class in the North-West of England, in a place called Southport. Social media then went into overdrive claiming that the person who had committed the murder was an asylum seeker. He was actually born in Britain. This doesn’t make the crime any less but it’s simply not the case that he’s an asylum seeker.
That provoked Tommy Robinson and the far right to go out on the streets and attack mosques and particularly covered Muslim women on the streets. It was bitter and violent and vicious.
The response of the anti-racist movement was very quick and very good. They offered practical help to the mosques that had been attacked with repainting, rebuilding, finance and so on. That happened straight away. It wasn’t organised by the government; it was organised by people.
Secondly, there was a big demonstration of support. I organised one in my own constituency as a solidarity rally outside our biggest mosque. It was huge. A very large number of people came.
But – and this is the important part – it isn’t just about declaring against racism. It is about looking at the ground on which the far right feed their anger. They blame refugees for the shortages of housing, for the shortages of school places, for the waiting lists in the hospitals, and the increasing levels of poverty in working class communities, where austerity has cut their living standards by 20% in the last decade. At the same time, the wealthiest have grown wealthier.
The far right do not address the political causes of poverty. They try to blame it on minorities, as the Nazis did in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. It’s a carbon copy of the methods of the Brownshirts at the time the Nazis were coming to power in Germany.
The important thing is that there be a political answer from the left. This means challenging the economic power and the inequality within our society on the basis of working class solidarity. And the working class is class, not colour. It’s all colours.
And that is capitalism. Do you see an alternative to capitalism?
Yes, I’m a socialist. Of course you have an alternative. This alternative is the demands of universal supply of health, of housing, of education. The alternative is recognizing every child in school is a valuable person with the same humanity as the rest of us and not to have a competitive education that discards the ambitions of a large number of working class youngsters.
It’s about class. It’s also about trade union membership, trade union powers and rights, and about public ownership of crucial services. In Britain, our project, the Peace and Justice Project, strongly supports public ownership of water, rail, mail and energy companies.
Lots of left people worldwide say Kamala Harris is now the alternative in the US
Well, I’m not a supporter of Trump and I’m not an admirer of the US Democrats either. They have presided over the most appalling attacks on refugees and migrants within the USA. More people have been deported under Biden and Obama than done under any other president, such as working class Mexicans, Guatemalans and so on.
I can see why a defeat of Donald Trump is something that would make me and a lot of other people very happy, but I’d rather see some much stronger working class alternative in the USA, not two corporate parties that are essentially offering much the same economic message.
What challenges do you think face Claudia Sheinbaum in Mexico?
She has enormous challenges ahead of her. She was a very effective mayor of Mexico City. I know her. I’ve met her, had long discussions with her, and I think she will continue on the path of social justice within Mexico.
The MORENA party has managed to win a huge parliamentary majority, as well as a vote majority for her. It has a nationwide organisation in every town and village. I hope it gets even stronger, but above all, I hope it challenges what are grotesque levels of inequality in Mexico. A lot of progress has been made, particularly education and health, but there’s a long way to go in Mexico.
It’s less than two months after the British election. Everybody was happy that a hated Conservative government has gone. What’s your assessment of the new Labour government under Keir Starmer?
The election was an interesting experience for me. I stood as an independent for the first time ever because the Labour Party refused to even allow my name to be considered as a candidate. I stood as an independent, and we won. My election manifesto was about ending nuclear weapons. It was about peace, about ending arms supplies to Israel, about public ownership and the redistribution of wealth and power.
These are principles that I managed to put into our previous Labour Party manifesto. We won with 50% of the vote in my constituency. I’m very proud of that result. It was a popular result of people coming out to campaign.
The Labour Party’s national vote was lower in this election than it was in 2019 and three million less than we achieved in 2017. Because of the British electoral system, it still became a big majority because of the growth and support for Farage and the Reform Party at the expense of Conservatives.
Since coming into office, the government has done a number of things. It has promised that there’s going to be more austerity. It has refused to remove the disgusting prevention of large families getting the same benefits for all their children as everybody else. Benefits only apply to the first two children. The others get nothing, which is immoral, in my view.
And they have also promised to increase defence expenditure to 2.5%. it’s not a good start, and I suspect this is going to be the source of huge conflict. I would like to sit here and say I’m hopeful. Sadly, I’m not.
Questions: Carmela Negrete, Phil Butland
Emmanuel Macron is purposefully maintaining inertia to paralyse the political process in France.
Lucie Marchand
04/09/2024
On June 9th, 2024 President Emmanuel Macron decided to dissolve the French Parliament. He has overseen three months of an hitherto unseen political saga marked, inter alia, by the unprecedented speed at which progressive political forces joined together to build a widely supported program, and by the resignation of the current Prime Minister Gabriel Attal after an unexpected victory of the Nouveau Front Populaire (New Popular Front).
One can question the intentions of the President of the Republic at the time of the dissolution, however, the return of this grenade to its sender places him places him face to face with a challenge and forces him to honour his democratic obligations. After promising to appoint a new Prime Minister by mid-August, Emmanuel Macron is obviously failing to adhere to the rules of the institutional game. Furthermore, the decision not to select Lucie Castets is a mistake in several respects.
First, parties from the left union have all compromised by proposing a candidate who is not affiliated with any party but who is committed to implementing “the entire program, nothing but the program”. Jean-Luc Mélenchon, leader of La France Insoumise – a political formation much detested across the political spectrum – even announced that he was willing not to appoint any ministers from his party. This strong commitment was quickly dismissed by the President of the Republic. This willingness from the left to offer concessions was supposed to leave Emmanuel Macron no argument for refusing to appoint Lucie Castets. That was his first mistake from a symbolic perspective.
Lucie Castets, the finance advisor at Paris City Hall and co-founder of the collective “Nos services publics” (Our Public Services), embodies a broadly consensual ambition within the left and within a large part of the French population. Indeed, the latest reforms conducted during Macron’s term, on the pretext of bringing public accounts back in order, are symptomatic of a policy that pretends to ignore the real causes of economic difficulties. He remains deaf to the claims from a trampled France: that of the Yellow Vests, of the rural districts, of the socioeconomically disadvantaged areas where police violence persists, and more broadly, of all those who suffer from increasing inequalities in a country where unemployed people and care professionals are being denigrated and devalued. By proposing the founder of a collective aimed at improving the quality and access to public services as Prime Minister, the NFP promised to send a strong signal to the French people, who are aware that many essential services such as education and the healthcare are facing a crisis. Emmanuel Macron is therefore also committing a political mistake.
One of the arguments raised by the presidential minority is that appointing Lucie Castets would generate institutional instability, as she would immediately face a vote of no confidence from the right and from the parties affiliated with the presidential camp. However, this potential outcome is not uncommon in parliamentary regimes, nor under the Fourth, or even under the Fifth French Republic. Indeed, the likelihood of cohabitation used to be high at the time when legislative elections regularly took place two years after the presidential elections. A Prime Minister from a relative majority obviously risks being censured. Yet not only is this risk predictable and is part of parliamentary normality, but it is also lesser compared to the risk of institutional blockage: handing over the keys of the executive to a government team logically coming from the majority is key. Indeed, if a vote of no confidence prevents the formation of a lasting government, it at least has the merit of clarifying the political process and allows for running and even introducing social progress in public affairs, whereas inertia leaves no room for achievement. Inertia, that Emmanuel Macron is purposedly maintaining, helps him gain time while issuing decrees to keep ruling against the backdrop of an institutional turmoil, plunging the country into illiberalism.
Indeed that is the last and most critical democratic fault. The President, who is convinced of his legitimacy despite the results of the ballots last July, deliberately capitalises on the deficiencies of the French institutional apparatus. The bad faith with which he disparages the compromises and proposals of the victorious camp while exercising disproportionate power is symptomatic of a biased constitutional order, whose rules allow a super-powered leader to enact unpopular measures and to act against democratic common sense. As Lucie Castets herself summarized during an interview on France Inter last month: “[The President] wants to be head of state, head of the government, and head of a party […] this is satisfactory for nobody.”
Demonstration: Lucie Castets Prime Minister. Defend Our Democracy. Saturday, 7th September, French Embassy. Called by La France Insoumise, Berlin
Report from a delegation trip to the refugee camps in Western Sahara in April 2024
In April 2024, an international delegation (anarchists, communists, radical leftists, climate and ecological movements, etc.) of around 25 people travelled to refugee camps in Algeria. The delegation members mostly live in Germany, but some come from Europe, Asia, Africa and South America (Abya Yala). The camp is administered by the Frente Polisario (Frente Popular para la Liberación de Saguía el Hamra y Río de Oro – Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguía el Hamra and Río de Oro) and is officially recognized by the UN. The purpose of the delegation was to learn about the Sahrawis’ struggle for independence against the occupation of Western Sahara by Morocco and to show their solidarity.
The Sahrawis’ struggle for liberation dates back to the 16th and 17th centuries, when they organized resistance against the first Portuguese and Dutch invaders, as well as against the French. The struggle against the French Meharist army from 1912 to 1936, the uprising against the Spanish colonial power in 1958 in Rgueya, Teguel, El Arghoub, Ausserd, Edschera and the uprising (Zemla Intifada) in El Aauín on June 17, 1970 are also worthy of mention.
The Frente Polisario, founded in 1973, fought for the independence of Western Sahara and proclaimed the DARS (Democratic Arab Republic of Sahara) on February 27, 1976 after the withdrawal of the colonial power Spain (1884-1975). As part of the Madrid Agreement of November 14, 1975, six days before Franco’s death, Western Sahara was divided up and occupied by Morocco and Mauritania in violation of international law. Decolonization had previously been decided by the UN in 1960 and 1965. The Frente Polisario put up armed resistance against the occupation.
Mauritania withdrew in 1979. However, a ceasefire was only agreed with Morocco in 1991, after 16 years of war. Since then, 80% of Western Sahara has been occupied by Morocco, while the Frente Polisario controls 20%. Morocco erected a 2720-kilometre-long wall between the occupied and liberated territory, which is guarded by over 150,000 soldiers and contaminated with up to 10 million landmines.
Following a decision on 29 April 1991, the UN mission MINURSO (Mission des Nations Unies pour l’organization d’un référendum au Sahara occidental) was set up with a mandate to hold a referendum within six months to decide on the status of Western Sahara and its independence. However, the Moroccan state refused to cooperate for over 30 years, and faced no consequences from the UN. In the course of Morocco’s occupation, many inhabitants of Western Sahara have been displaced. A large number of these refugees (around 150,000 to 200,000) are now living in five self-managed camps near the Algerian city of Tindouf. After Morocco broke the ceasefire agreements in November 2020, the Frente Polisario resumed armed resistance against the occupation.
Our delegation was hosted by families in the Smara refugee camp. Our group’s daily programme consisted of visits to various political and cultural organizations, like the youth organization UJSARIO, as well as to self-governing structures of the camps, clinics, government institutions, the University of Tifariti, the Simon Bolivar School, the journalists’ association UPES, human rights organizations, libraries, museums and the women’s organization UNMS.
The visit to the Sahrawi Red Crescent food depot documented the daily dependence on UN aid deliveries – which recently received a 20% cut to the total budget.
Due to the extreme living conditions in the desert (which can reach up to 50 degrees in the summer), growing food is extremely difficult and there is high dependence on the UN’s WFP (World Food Program), which mainly supplies rice, flour, sugar and oil, but hardly any vegetables or fruit. There have already been two major shortages, and in 2008 there were more serious hunger problems. Around 87% of the camp residents suffer from iron deficiency, and 11% have severe iron deficiency due to an unbalanced diet. In addition, 7 to 10% of children under the age of six have been diagnosed with malnutrition. The UN and the international community are partly responsible for this, as they are cutting food budgets and failing to improve the precarious supply situation.
The visits to CONASADH (La Comisión Nacional Saharaui de Derechos Humanos – The National Sahrawi Human Rights Commission) and AFAPREDESA (Asociación de Familiares de Presos y Desaparecidos Saharauis – Association of Families of Sahrawi Prisoners and Disappeared Persons) made us understand the massive human rights violations committed by the Moroccan government against Sahrawi activists.
The result is a total of around 30,000 political prisoners and detainees, arrested between 1975 to 2024. Of those, 46 are currently political prisoners, 90% of whom are in Moroccan prisons. There have also been around 4,500 disappearances (with over 500 from 1975 to 1977 alone), 445 of whom are still being sought today. This is all in addition to torture, arrests, interrogations, attacks and the prevention of demonstrations.
The uncovering of mass graves of murdered Sahrawis during the 1976-1991 war is an important part of the documentation work. In 2013, a Basque association also provided support in the exhumation and subsequent re-entombment of bones found.
Of the 15 mass graves discovered so far, some were also located in tourist centers.
Since 2020, the Moroccan army has carried out massive drone attacks on the civilian population in the liberated area, which have so far led to a number of deaths (at least 89 as of April 2024). As a result, many of the approximately 20,000 to 30,000 people living there have been displaced – most of whom have fled to the camps.
In addition, there are victims of landmines buried by the Moroccan army along the 2720 km long wall, which explode when they are stepped on. 2,600 of these victims live in the camps and some organizations support them with prostheses.
AFAPREDESA, which was founded in 1989, is banned in the Moroccan-occupied Western Sahara and operates clandestinely there. It has over 700 members and is supported in particular by women, who make up the majority of the organization and do most of the work. A clear criticism was voiced about the inactivity of the Red Cross, with which there has been hardly any contact after the discovery of new mass graves in 2013.
The Red Cross, which is also represented in the camps, does not stand up for the Sahrawi political prisoners, for whom the situation is particularly difficult. All of them are in poor health, many suffer from kidney and heart problems or rashes, and many are mistreated and tortured. They have no access to education, health care or contact with their family members. For all these reasons, there have already been several hunger strikes by prisoners, and international support has so far been minimal.
The meeting with the women’s organization UNMS (Union Nacional de Mujeres Saharauis – National Union of Sahrawi Women), which was founded in 1974 and has over 10,000 members, underlines the immense importance of independent women’s organizations. The camp structures were largely set up by women and are still managed by them in central positions today. The UNMS is active in four areas: in occupied Western Sahara, liberated Western Sahara, Algeria and the Sahrawi diaspora. It’s organized in a national congress that elects 66 women as representatives at regular intervals and is involved in various subject areas.
Women who were involved in the armed struggle before 1991 and are part of the liberation army of the Frente Polisario are today at the forefront of the resistance, especially in the occupied part of Western Sahara. They make up 42% of the delegates in the national congress, the highest proportion in the entirety of Africa.
They are also represented in the Socialist International, the African Women’s Association, the Pan-African Congress and other anti-fascist and anti-imperialist organizations. In every Wilaya (camp town) there is a women’s shelter. However, according to one of the women we interviewed, “there are still macho ideas or a way of thinking”. Compared to other countries, however, the number of cases of violence against women is lower. Internalized gender roles, such as in housework, are also a problem. After this meeting and with other organized women, it became clear to all of us that it is the women who play the central role in the social and political self-administration structure of all 5 refugee camps. Special respect was paid to the Kurdish women in the armed struggle as an expression of international solidarity.
A central point of the visit was the Resistance Museum, which took us through the history of the resistance and liberation struggle against the colonial occupations of Spain and Morocco. The captured Moroccan army war material on display was produced by Germany, and in the last ten years, Germany has supplied armaments worth over 200 million euros. These include surveillance technology (ground radar) for border security, unmanned aerial vehicles, on-board weapon control systems, parts for cannon ammunition and communications technology. Arms exports from Germany, the EU and the USA contribute significantly to the maintenance of the occupation by Morocco.
The on-site visit to SMACO (Sahrawi Mine Action Coordination Office) also showed us the involvement of international companies in the production and supply of drones. Drones used by the Moroccan army and their technology come from Israel (e.g. from the Elbit group), Turkey, the UAE, China, the USA and also Germany. The TB2-Bayraktar drone from Turkey, which is also used in Kurdistan, flies with electro-optical sensors and laser technology from a German company (Hensoldt in Taufkirchen) as well as with laser-guided missiles based on warheads supplied by TDW Wirksysteme GmbH from Schrobenhausen.
However, German companies such as Siemens, HeidelbergCement (Materials), Thyssen-Krupp and others are also involved in exploitation through the extraction and supply of raw materials, energy production and economic cooperation with the occupying regime in Morocco. Siemens supplied and installed 22 wind turbines for the 50 MW Foum el Oued wind farm, which came online in occupied Western Sahara in 2013. Thysen-Krupp is involved in phosphate mining and HeidelbergCement is involved in two cement factories via a Moroccan subsidiary (Cimenst du Maroc). More detailed information on the involvement of German and European companies in the exploitation of Western Sahara can be found on the website of the organization Western Sahara Resource Watch.
Finally, we were able to conduct a series of interesting interviews, including with Embarka Bumajruta, one of the founders of the Frente Polisario, and with Elghalia Djimi, human rights activist and former political prisoner in Western Sahara, which we will publish at a later date.
After the trip, some took part in the annual FiSahara International Film Festival in Wilaya Ausserd. The prizes at this year’s festival under the motto ‘resistir es vencer (to resist is to win)’ went to the Palestinian feature film 200 Meters, the documentary Insumisas about women’s resistance in the Western Sahara and Igualada about the Afro-Colombian activist and politician Francia Márquez.
The existence of the camps since 1975 and life under the most adverse conditions made us permanently aware of the forced expulsion of the Sahrawi population by the Moroccan state. We experienced an unbroken will to return and desire for liberation from the occupation. We heard daily that life in exile was only temporary and that the resistance would continue until the liberation of Western Sahara.
As internationalists, we must support this resistance with all the means at our disposal. We must also denounce and fight colonial imperialist structures, as well as state governments and multinational corporations both here in Germany and the EU that profit from the occupation of Morocco and thus enable and maintain it.
Team of the delegation trip April 2024
August 2024
Literature tips:
Further Photos