#DefendAfrin is over, but not yet
How can we even respond with words to what has happened in Afrin?
It’s just not possible to describe what has occurred.
We can only express our heartfelt human warmth and solidarity with those who have lost their beloved, those who are suffering from injuries, those who have been brutally forced to leave their homes, those who have been abandoned – in the truest sense of the word.
Amidst the silence and complicity of the West, hundreds have been killed, and thousands have fled their cities. But they were the very people who successfully defeated ISIS. In between defeating the greatest enemy the world has seen in decades, they have also reconstructed their lives around principles of radical democracy and women’s liberation.
Despite this, they have been abandoned, again.
They say they are fighting ́terrorists ́ (YPG). But by the time word got out that the Turkish army, together with its Jihadist allies, had bombed the key water source of the city, as well as the only hospital with a trauma unit, no one could seriously have any doubt about the actual targets of this attack anymore.
It was those who have resisted their deep dehumanization and built alternatives around values that are diametrically opposed to those of the attackers. It was Erdogan’s and the Jihadist’s hetero-patriarchal, nationalist and fascist ideology that had really been under attack.
The war on Afrin has been going on for 58 days and would not have been possible if Russia hadn’t left its airspace open, nor would it have been possible if the US had not let their allies down and they hadn’t kept silent so shamelessly.
We wholeheartedly condemn this foreign policy of shady arm deals and shameful silence.
Today they sing. They sing racist and anti-kurdish songs. They sing and they loot. But what about tomorrow?
Tomorrow they will continue raiding Northern Syria, and their next stop is Manbij.
They will continue building on their ethnocentric hatred, and they will continue attempting to destroy their greatest threats: democracy, women’s liberation and revolution.
We will continue, too. We will resist and fight for democracy, emancipation, we will continue to attack and call out the silence and complicity of our governments.
We will not keep silent and we will use our greatest weapon: solidarity.
The last week has given us proof – beacons of light are being blown out everywhere.
It’s time to act. Now.
Germany finally has a government: now what?
After six months of political drama in Germany and Europe waiting patiently to be governed, SPD members decided to join the government under chancellor Merkel. We are left with a bitter taste, exactly one year after Martin Schulz was chosen to lead SPD. Looking back, Schulz’s “progressive” plans have all been sidelined.
Indeed, evaluating the members of the new government makes us feel that the new (or reshuffled?) government will follow the same political trajectory: neoliberal policies, austerity, strict budget control, bureaucracy — all under the guise of more “European integration”. A fragile balance in the Bundestag could translate to more compromise and less progressive change. That’s in addition to their ‘patient,’ incrementalist approach to climate change, rising inequality, and increasing militarization. Clearly, much more is needed!
We, the members of DiEM25, stand against this bureaucracy and the “There Is No Alternative” neoliberal dogma and define European integration as Democracy integration. We are launching a pan-European progressive policy agenda and election lists as a response to the rising far-right and xenophobia and the accelerating disintegration of the European Union. We want to stand united across countries and fight the capitalism’s and bureaucracy’s greed. Join us and let’s build together the future we deserve!
Aris is a member and volunteer of the DiEM25 movement.
Why won’t the EU hold transnational corporations accountable for human rights?
In June of 2014, the United Nations Human Rights Council voted to allow negotiations for a legally binding treaty for Transnational Corporations (TNCs) to be held accountable for human rights violations around the world. Last week, on 8 March, the Inter-governmental working group (IGWG) presented the report of the third session, which included participation from over 100 states and 200 civil society organisations.
The initiative was co-sponsored by Ecuador and South Africa, and from the very beginning, two notable players have dragged their feet, even attempting to sabotage the process: The United States and the European Union.
Both voted against the start of the treaty negotiations in 2014, with the U.S. delegation saying that any treaty “would only be binding on the states that became party to it.” The EU has been consistent in its scepticism, using technical criticisms such as the issue that there may not be a legal precedent in international law, and whether the proposed treaty would conflict with trade and investment agreements. Attempts by EU representatives to slow or block the process have been subtle, for example, by rejecting the programme for the last session such that this had to be finalised when the discussions should have already begun. But they have also been egregiously direct: during the negotiations on the biannual budget of the Human Rights Council last December, EU representatives even tried to remove the allocated budget for the 4th IGWG session in October later this year.
All of this despite the fact that the European Parliament issued a resolution last September in support of the binding treaty process, begging the question: whom are the EU representatives even representing?
Importantly, the EU has been represented as a block. This has had the effect of muting opinions that might oppose the consensus. For example, in 2017 France adopted a law similar to that of the binding treaty, the “Loi de Vigilance” which makes French companies identify and prevent risk of human rights violations across their entire value chain and globally. Indeed, France has been one of the more supportive EU countries, but throughout the process, they have not been able to challenge the EU “consensus”.
All of this is simply unacceptable. EU representatives have to stop blocking the process and start participating constructively, just as is demanded of them from the European Parliament.
As a progressive pan-European movement, DiEM25 should support the binding treaty process, and DiEM25 members should pressure their governments to support the process as well.
David is a member of DSC Copenhague.
How can we join the fight against gentrification?
The most successful recent project in Prague began in a former lung clinic close to the city centre.
The building was desolate: full of trash and used syringes, posing a clear danger to the local community. Activists cleaned the place up and started to run a cultural centre, including a café, organizing educational courses, lectures, workshops, library and other activities there.
How did the state respond? They called the police to crack skulls — literally — and vacate the former lung clinic that had just started breathing again.
Fierce demonstrations and negotiations pushed the state authorities to allow activists to reopen their autonomous social centre ‘Klinika.’ And ever since, it has blossomed, organising a rich program of events.
But now, once again, state officials have decided to fight them. They are not putting millions into the reconstruction of the building. So, it will turn into offices for their bureaucrats. The days are numbered for Klinika.
There are, of course, many more empty and decaying buildings in Prague, like Šatovka, situated on a beautiful rocky valley in the city periphery. Squatters left the place two years ago after negotiations with the municipality, which had promised to make a good use of the building. However, Šatovka kept decaying for two more years, without any support to clear it or heat it. The talks with activists failed.
One obvious solution would be to allow activists to run another autonomous centre — at least until the town-hall can get its act together. But the authorities prefer calling the police to evict them. They could not get those who were on the roof, staying there in protest for almost a week amidst the February freeze. For their tenacity, they are now facing years in prison for having broken a law called: the right to the house.
This is not a unique situation in Europe. And at DiEM25, we must engage with the challenge of gentrification and the use of urban space. What is your experience? Can we really join fights with local activists pushing back gentrification? If we develop good answers to these questions, DiEM25 might find many valuable allies at grassroots level.
Lukas is a member of DiEM25 based in the Czech Republic. If you would like to help establish a thematic DSC on the issue of Gentrification, please get in touch with Lukas.
Photograph credit: Pepik Hipik
An Ostrich Policy for the Dutch — and for the Eurozone
As described in DiEM25’s news article “Real” eurozone reforms – and why they miss the mark, Germany, France, Italy and Spain are currently sitting around the table preparing reforms for the eurozone’s monetary organization. They aim for an agreement by this spring.
But the Dutch are on a different page. Dutch independent weekly De Groene Amsterdammer describes how the Dutch government continues to oppose the European Commission’s reform scenarios.
In a letter to the Dutch parliament, the finance minister and the minister of foreign affairs plainly reject any proposal for more integration of the Euro countries. The ministers inform the parliament that the member states’ cuts — along with the recent introduction of the Banking Union — are working and working well.
Of course, they conveniently leave aside the Italian government’s interventions, just two weeks ago, to save its banks — making clear that the European banking resolution mechanism hardly works at all. Nevertheless, the Dutch ministers write that they prefer to continue on Dijsselbloem’s path of muddling through: build further on the EMU’s Stability and Growth Pact and The European Stability Mechanism. And they are encouraging other member states to follow suit.
DiEM25 considers this debate to be far too important to be hidden away from European politicians. Ever since the Maastricht treaty, we find ourselves in a eurozone comprised of strong, net-exporting economies, and weaker, net-importing economies — the first being unable to reach their welfare levels without the latter. Such a monetary bloc will not last long, without fundamental reforms and new mechanisms for redistribution across the bloc.
As explained in our European New Deal (END), DiEM25 would like the eurozone to be a fair union of countries, with strong shoulders securing the solidarity needed for all member states once they find themselves in such a union, instead of squeezing the union’s weakest citizens.
The Dutch government today offers an ostrich policy. It boasts the country’s economic growth and falling unemployment. But it leaves aside that the growth of employment opportunities over the past 15 years has consisted largely of temporary contracts, zero-hour contracts and freelancers. The new government says it wants to end involuntary part time work, but they have failed — time and again — to put their money where their mouth is.
Support DiEM25 today and help bring our platform to the European Parliamentary elections next year!
Niki is a member of DiEM25 NL.
Selmayr's appointment and the lack of transparency in the EU: just the tip of the iceberg
The European Parliament has decided to debate about Martin Selmayr’s appointment to the role of Secretary General of the European Commission today.
This episode is just the tip of the iceberg.
We have been denouncing the lack of transparency in the process of defining and implementing EU policies and careers for years.
This is why transparency is one of the pillars of DiEM25 political program.
We demand that the European Parliament not only discusses Martin Selmayr’s gate, but that it also sets up a specific parliamentary committee of enquiry on transparency.
We think that the next Commission and the next European Parliament and the governments of member states will have to make real and tangible efforts in order to improve transparency and citizens’ trust in European institutions.
DiEM25 will play its part.
EU migration: Achmed’s story
A group of high-school students recently followed a common Balkan refugee trail. The trip was meant to expose them to the stories of refugees like Achmed. Here is Achmed’s story — just one example of the EU’s failure to protect and provide for its vulnerable new arrivals.
Achmed left his home in Iraq at the age of 15. Being a minor, he got the necessary paperwork and passed relatively easily through Greece and later Croatia. And he hoped to finish his education in Europe.
But in Slovenia he was told he didn’t have the right papers, and without much explanation, Achmed was sent back to Zagreb. There, he ended up in a residence for troubled minors and refugees —troubled or not. Two years later he was sent to an asylum centre for adults.
Now, at 18, Achmed has lost his right to education — replaced with a mandate to find immediate employment. In the meantime, he has an allowance that covers the rent and he is living off food packages.
This is a typical example of the European refugee policy, which create impossible barriers even for those who deserve protection unambiguously. National governments pass on the responsibility to their neighbours, while host countries lack both resources and political will to provide adequate support. The irony of it is that many problems in this crisis are self-inflicted. Talents are wasted and bureaucratic resources are squandered sending the needy anywhere else.
At Diem25, we imagine a future where this all this energy is directed to the creation of new opportunity for migrants. By providing a coherent European framework with widespread support, countries can share the burden. And so, instead of focusing on borders, they can focus on people. Join us in our fight!
Filip is a member of DiEM25 Brussels-DSC.
Europe's first transnational list to contest elections is born
Today, March 10, 2018, will be a date to be remembered. For the very first time, national, regional and municipal political forces from across the continent assembled with a view to bring about change and reconstruct the European Union – bottom-up, transnationally.
Here is the outcome of the first meeting among the founders of Europe’s pioneer transnational list:
Our programme shall be founded on two pillars: A pan-European Green New Deal to address the crisis of private and public debt, under-investment and inequality and poverty through a socio-economic, ecological, feminist framework, and a Constitutional Assembly process to furnish our Union with a truly democratic constitution.
This commonly-agreed programme’s ultimate aim is to effectively oppose and disobey the Brussels’ status quo and failed policies, which are tearing the EU apart, and to constructively rebuild a democratic Europeanist project, namely: our transnational list, spitzenkandidat, and policy programme.
“The collective conviction that the solutions to our regions’ and countries’ crises must be European is what brought us to Naples today,” said DiEM25’s co-founder Yanis Varoufakis, who also stressed, “we have come together to forge the alliance that will bring about these European solutions, and now we make an open call to progressive Europeanists to join us”.
Present at this landmark initiative were a line-up of progressive political actors, intellectuals and grassroots activists from every corner of Europe, including France’s former presidential candidate Benoît Hamon and his new party Génération-s, Mayor of Naples Luigi de Magistris, representatives from young left-wing Polish political party Razem, Denmark’s The Alternative, Portugal’s LIVRE, and many more.
A temporary governing council comprised of the participants in today’s discussions will set in motion the transnational list. The council is open for other political forces and movements to join by June 2018, so that by the end of the summer, and as per the participating political organisations and movements’ internal democratic procedures, our members across Europe will select the list of candidates who will present and debate our policy agenda.
Soon, the full minutes and complete set of agreements reached during today’s discussions will be made available to the public in all the participant organisations’ websites.
We are uniquely positioned to make this happen. We can choose to be the standard-bearer for a true Union, improving the lives of millions and repairing our democracies, or resist the change and fall further under the dystopian dogma of “There Is No Alternative”. Or we can join those who believe that we must return to our past to fulfil our promise as individual nation-states.
Today in Naples we made our choice: we decided that the path to changing Europe shall begin from the bottom: we will fight to take our Europe back and give a direct voice to its peoples in re-shaping the common project that governs their lives.
Join us!
The polis needs the feminine, at least as much as the feminine needs the polis
I am a woman before I am an activist, I am a woman before I am an intellectual. I was a woman even when my body was not yet the developed body of a woman, I will still be a woman when my body will age.
A woman, raised by women-descendant of a genealogical tree deprived of fathers due to wars and poverty – that has always thought of herself essentially as a woman. I owe to my female ancestors the awareness that women bring a dowry of sacred respect for the earth and its inhabitants, a dowry of the art of looking after oneself and others, and, without being in contradiction, they have an aggressive instinctual drift to protect as well as the capacity to live independent of the laws set by men.
Anchored in the nucleus of this primitive force, happily aware of its power, I entered the polis at a very young age.
I have always instinctively realized that within the walls of the polis, the logos, the codes and the dominant values were inherently masculine. However, I never cared too much: the polis was beautiful, my companions were beautiful and I was happy to live there with them.
Looking back however, I do have one single regret: I camouflaged myself, and my femininity, for many years.
Like all my sisters, I have always been instinctively aware of the fact that men, the masters of the city, would not have tolerated that the conditions of my femininity came upon their streets, their squares, took place between their words and their speeches.
Femininity meaning that awareness and acceptance of the fact that life consists of matter, that life has an obscure power, and that the logos does not dominate it. I acquired this awareness as empiric evidence when I give birth to my children, when I shared the last moments with deceased loved ones, when I take care of my animals and my plants. I designate this, without too much originality, as archetypically “feminine”, as a symbolic opposition to masculine culture.
The masculine culture, especially the European masculine culture that created the polis, sprung out from the explicit or implicit intention of not only denying, but also challenging, the finiteness, the ignorance and the impotence of the human condition. This is the reason of being of the polis: to allow a group of men to define their domination of nature (of the earth), their domination of knowledge, their domination of power. Enclosed in the walls of their cities, men do not see what escapes to the control of their cities; enclosed in the walls of their cities, men can ignore the limits of their human nature. Most often, these limits are projected onto the females of their species, whom they tend therefore to vilify, offend, ridicule, reduce to silence, rape, segregate, and sometimes ban from the city.
Like any woman that is aware of the rare privilege of having even a limited access to the polis, I have been for years ashamed, or maybe scared, of bringing within the walls of the polis the strength of my femininity.
I now realize what a shame that is, and how important it is to remedy it.
The polis needs the feminine, at least as much as the feminine needs the polis. Mainly for two reasons: first of all, the power of feminine instinct is an indispensable source of individual and collective freedom; secondly, the strength of feminine instinct, even if developed beyond the walls of the polis, carries within itself the premises of a solid government of the common well being.
Women who live coherently with their instinctive nature can recognize and accept the intrinsic limits of their existence, their knowledge, their power, and that of others. They live with less hybris than what men do, but above all, they know how to refuse any imposition of authority when defining what can or can’t be done, said or not said, thought or not thought, what is possible and what it is not. It is with high admiration and enjoyment that I see, as an example, the actions carried out by our Femen friends, which perpetuate the ancient ritual of anasyrma. In those contexts, the wild feminine nudity bursts into the business as usual of the institutions, imposing without reverence the unexpected and, along with it, a radical affirmation of the freedom to be and to express what one is.
Women who live consistently with their instinctive nature understand the value of taking care of themselves, of others and of the earth. They know that the very essence of a community is defined by physical proximity, which allows individuals to protect themselves, to support themselves, and to occupy, without any fences or exclusions, a territory. We owe to eco-feminism, which is increasing its strength and transnationality in recent years, an explanation of the conceptual connection between the domination of nature and the exploitation of women. We also owe to it a reaction that leads to the creation of a number of government experiences guided by the principle of care of the common goods rather than by the administration of (private or state) property.
The feminism developed in recent years relates the legitimate claim of women’s full citizenship within the polis with a more symbolic – but not less profound – demand of full citizenship of femininity in politics. When this value will be brought proudly, shamelessly and without guilt by the women in the polis, when men will learn to not fear it and make room for it, then our cities will have, yes perhaps more porous walls, but also more solid foundations. They will be less dependent on the capricious artificiality of institutions, and more resilient in times of crisis: being able to face with wisdom and patience the hard times that transition are, without the paralyzing risk of confusing these moments with a termination stage.
Linguist
Member of DiEM25’s Coordinating Collective