 Give the people what they want. Give the people what they want. Give the people what they want. Your weekly movement news roundup. Hello, welcome to episode 140. It's quite a milestone of give the people what they want. Your favorite weekly news show where we bring you stories from across the world, stories from movements, stories of geopolitical interests brought to you by People's Displies. It's O&I and Globe Trotter, Vijay is reporting right now. We're anticipating that he might somehow make it to the show. Fingers crossed on that. Very, very, very important week. This one, you know, it's apt in some senses if you're doing episode 140 because the past few days have seen, you know, the past few weeks, all the topic of discussion throughout has been bricks. And I think it's very difficult for people to have missed it. So a lot of debate, a lot of debate from the West. In fact, many Western media sources seem very keen to sort of declare bricks a failure before it even started. But the three-day summit producing a lot of interesting results. And, you know, the most important thing everyone is talking about, of course, is the expansion bit. Six new countries have been invited to join in January by January 1st, 2024, very, very interesting choice of countries. Argentina is always going to be talking more about it soon. But you have also Ethiopia, which, you know, was facing a civil war where the government was battling forces supported by the United States. You have Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates. And Egypt, for that matter, long considered to be very close allies of the US, sometimes even termed US proxies in West Asia and North Africa who have also joined the bloc. And you have Iran, which is probably the other end of the spectrum, if you look at it. So nearly two dozen countries showing interest in joining the bricks grouping. And the six countries who have been chosen, actually, I think it's a very, very interesting choice. People are going to spend months discussing the implications of it. One thing very obvious, the fact that together now, if these six countries join, bricks becomes one of the largest oil producing blocs with the addition of Iran, with the addition of UAE, Saudi Arabia, and also existing countries like Russia. Bricks becomes a huge part of, becomes a huge oil producing bloc in some senses. Its share of the GDP per capita also increasing considerably. Of course, a huge segment of the population as well. And I think all of this shows, it seems to indicate that the bricks leaders chose a very measured approach to expansion. In the sense that I think that on the one hand, what came out finally completely dented the criticism from the West that bricks was too divided, bricks could not agree on something like that. They made a very clear step towards expansion and not only did they expand, they also said that we could expand even more in future and we sort of discussed and talked about criteria to have these discussions. On the other hand, it was not a full-fledged expansion in terms of 10 or 15 countries and it is a very carefully chosen set of countries. So definitely a very interesting summit that came out of it, the kind of speeches that came out also very interesting. A lot of talk about, of course, no country was named, but a very clear stand taken against the sort of imposition of the agenda by the G7 and its allies, which has really become quite common at this point. A lot of discussion also on alternatives to the dollar. Now, again, I think it's a bit premature to talk about an alternative currency and I don't even know if that was really on the agenda, but what definitely does seem to have been on the agenda was the possibility of countries trading in their own currencies, having more cooperation in terms of trade and building those kind of networks and infrastructure and that definitely is a much more feasible, much more practical first step at this point of time and I think this definitely leads to some very interesting moments in the coming years. We already talked about how the Ukraine war in some senses set off certain developments because it became clear that the dollar was a very powerful way of sanctioning countries and as long as you traded in the dollar, there was always risk that you could be sanctioned, that your reserves could be seized, countries could really do nothing about it. Earlier it was the smaller countries like Iran and Venezuela and Cuba, which faced many of this, but we saw that with the Ukraine war, even a country as big as Russia faced this and I think it is a wake-up call for many countries that how long can you sort of continue trade in this reserve currency that is the dollar and can you think of alternatives and there has been this profusion of discussions on various alternatives. Brazil and Argentina discussed this too, if I'm not mistaken, at some point in time. Russia and China, Russia and India, all of these countries having discussions. So the fact that the BRICS actually brought this on the agenda made it one of their points very interesting to note, also significant to note that they raised the question of the United Nations a more equitable UN is something that BRICS is a block is very much concerned about. We know that India, Brazil, South Africa, all of them are interested in that in permanent seats and many of these countries feel that the kind of importance that the global south has is not reflected in the way the United Nations is structured today and I think that is very much on the agenda. So on the whole I think a very, you know, a meeting that will resonate for a very, very long time. I think it's absolutely fair. I think to call this very historic meeting because as opposed to many earlier summits of BRICS as well. And I think we have to be very clear of the fact that it's not that the BRICS is not like G7. It's not, you know, it's not being driven by one country's agenda. BRICS countries have, they have differences. They have often varying agenda points. But the point is not that these countries all are, you know, adjoined at the hip or anything. The fact is that there is a space for these countries to come together to discuss outstanding issues to present a different perspective to the world. And I think ACT is a forum which can attract more countries. ACT is, you know, you know, give voice or present a voice which actually draws more countries from other parts of the world. And I think that is what explains the kind of appeal that BRICS is having today, which is why I say countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, long, you know, very close allies of the United States are also interested. Now, this does not mean that Saudi Arabia or the UAE are going to ditch the United States or turn anti-U.S. tomorrow or on January 1st, 2024. But the fact that there are alternative forums available is I think what makes this really important for the whole world as a whole. So very, very important months coming up as these details are operationalized. And I think it will be very, you know, we'll definitely be coming back to this topic time again on the show. Well, yeah, and just to add slightly about the integration of Argentina into this block, as you said, it was definitely one of the biggest news items, made all of the headlines that six new countries incorporating into the block also has kind of sent shivers down the spines of a lot of imperialist nations. I saw the Atlantic Council's email today was specifically discussing the incorporation of these new countries. What does this mean? Is this et cetera? And in Argentina, it's specifically interesting because this happens as we know in the middle of the electoral scenario. And this is the incorporation of Argentina. And really it's no surprise in some senses because the relationship between Alberto Fernandez and Lula da Silva have been very, very close. Argentina said time and time again that their partnership, economic and trade partnership with Brazil is the most important. They have a very, very close relationship. Alberto Fernandez went to see Lula when he was in prison. Lula was one of the first to congratulate Alberto when he won. Likewise, Alberto congratulating Lula. And the economies of Argentina and Brazil have historically been very, very linked, very intertwined. And so, as you said, they, of course, also mentioned the creation of a new currency in South America. And this had the incorporation of Argentina into Berks had been one of the big promises of their relationship. And so reports say that Lula was fighting extremely hard with, you know, making the case for Argentina to enter Argentina beyond Brazil. It also has very, very important economic relationships with India and with China as well. Argentina is a huge export country. And these, it has key commercial ties with these. But what's interesting is, as you say, this does not orientations. The Argentinian candidates, Patricia Bullrich and Javier Millay, have both rejected the incorporation of Argentina into the Berks block. They've said that we don't negotiate with Communists, that this is a bad development. And it's something that they've both vowed to kind of reverse when they're in office. Despite this, Lula says, I don't care who wins the Argentinian elections. This is about an economic relationship. It's about negotiating with the state itself. It's not about who's in charge of it. But I think that this will be definitely a very interesting point to kind of follow because these both Patricia Bullrich and Javier Millay are hard to write, politicize everything. So will Argentina be able to continue? How will that impact once there's a new government in office that remains to be seen? Absolutely. It's, I think, something we talk a lot about to show the zig-zags of history because we have seen in the past where, especially with Bricks, a concern that the right-wing government in Brazil, for instance, really downplayed Bricks, did not push the possibilities of Bricks at all under Jair Bolsonaro. And that's a big question as far as Argentina is concerned. But moving on to, we talked about Africa and how it is so essential to the future of humanity, especially considering the demographic dividend as they say, especially considering the intense growth that is taking place at that point of time. And it's no surprise that Africa is becoming, in various ways, a space where the former colonial powers and the more recent colonial powers such as the United States are really trying to sort of, as much as possible, maintain their grip. And I think there's no country where this is most clear in recent times as is Niger, which we've been talking about for the past few weeks right now. And there's a situation of very political flux prevailing not only in Niger, but in the whole Sahel region as a whole. The Tricontinental has an excellent red alert that has been recently published, which talks not only about the recent developments, but also places it in context in terms of its history. I'd urge all of you to take a look at it. But what is happening right now in Niger is, in a sense, a period of uncertainty right now where the CNSP, which is the regime that came to power after the military coup of July 26, has consolidated its power. It has won a lot of, it seems to have won a lot of support among people in terms of mass rallies being taken place. A lot of these rallies taking place against France, against the presence of French soldiers, against the fact that so much of Niger's resources are sent to France. There's very famous statistics, which I think all of us need to sort of memorize it. One in third of France's light bulbs are powered by uranium from Niger. And it's very important to note, but this is just one aspect of it. The fact that France has retained control over the economies of the countries of Sahel, the politics, the security situation of the countries of Sahel is something that is extremely unpopular across the region. And we are seeing this in Mali, we are seeing this in Burkina Faso, we are seeing this in Guinea, and we are seeing this in Niger, where there has been, on the one hand, a military coup, but also I think a mass mobilization against the presence of French soldiers and the agenda of the French. And right now, this is thrown the elites of the region, who are right now mobilized under the banner of the ECOVAS, the regional grouping, in a bit of a tizzy, because on the one hand, ECOVAS did initially threaten to militarily intervene to restore the house to President Mohammed Bazoum. But ECOVAS leaders soon realizing that the possibility of military intervention was highly unpopular within their own countries, and that has given them some pause. So on the one hand, they have declared that the D-Day has been decided. On the other hand, they have nonetheless chosen to, they have said that they are giving diplomacy a chance. They sent a delegation to Niger, which met with the new authorities of Niger as well. And the authorities have taken a very, you know, I think a very pragmatic stance in the sense that on the one hand, they have said that they have sort of asserted their sovereignty, which I think is something that a lot of people in the country, in the region are very concerned about. On the other hand, of course, they've also talked about a transition period, and they have also chosen to engage not only with ECOVAS, but even with the United States. So the authorities in Niger are also being very practical, but also understanding that they have also received support from, say, countries like Mali and Burkina Faso, which have, I believe, sent forces as well. So definitely a clear polarization taking place on the one hand. Here are the traditional elites backed by the France, backed by the United States, backed by those structures, which have enabled them to sort of be in power for so long. In control of repressive structures, which have destroyed popular movements, which have sort of suppressed trade unions, which have sort of attacked assertions by the people. That's on one hand. And on the other hand, you have military forces supported by the people, but also mass mobilizations taking place. For instance, recently we carried an article on the situation in Senegal, where again, there is a huge amount of opposition to military intervention in Niger, as well as the rule of President Mahkeesal, the kind of repression he's unleashed. So multiple struggles going on in the Sahel region against imperialism, against colonialism, against the co-option of their local elites by these powers for sovereignty. And I think many of the future of these struggles will really determine what happens not just inside the Sahel region, but also in the whole of Africa and in fact the whole of the world itself. Yes. Well, I mean, for anyone who's been following People's Dispatch, you know that that is definitely, it is definitely the place to get all of the latest updates on the situation in Niger. If you're not already following us on all social media platforms at People's Dispatch on most platforms, People's Dispatch.org, our website, please do so right now. You can share this program because it's important. I think what we've tried to do in our coverage is always highlight the fact that this is not just about some geopolitical movements. This is not just about these shifts at the top, but this is really reflecting the sentiments of the people. And so speaking to those unions, hearing their voices, I think is really what makes our coverage different from the rest. And you won't be able to find that at other websites. So again, share with your friends, share on your different social media pages at People's Dispatch. And now moving to the other side of the Atlantic. We've covered a lot of the trade union struggles in the United States despite, you know, attempts by the ruling class in the U.S. to decimate trade union activity. I mean, it does have, there are historic lows in the numbers of affiliated workers, etc. In recent years, as we've been covering, there has been this sort of upsurge in both organizing new workplaces, but also a radicalization of existing unions, of union leadership. We covered the Teamsters' struggle with UPS workers very closely. And this week on August 22nd, the UPS workers, remember this is over 340,000 workers who are organized with the Teamsters at UPS. They voted to ratify the contract that the leadership of the Teamsters had fought for back in July. This was an extremely, extremely militant struggle. It was not only about the union leadership in the negotiating table and the bargaining table, fighting for an end to the tiered system, fighting for, you know, non-economic demands like air congestioning in the trucks, but it also was about the union kind of reactivating what it meant and what it means to be part of union. That means mobilizing. That means doing practice pickets, informing workers about what these demands mean. And it really has changed the game. I think that there's already, there's already being reflected in other sectors, which is why this struggle was so important and why it was so important to constantly highlight this, because once you have over 340,000 workers who are militantly involved in this kind of struggle, it really shows people in other sectors that there's another way, another way is it possible, and that actually the unions can and will fight for these demands. And so right now we have been following this as well. The negotiations happening with United Auto Workers, specifically in this historic workplaces of the Big Three, for General Modus DeLantis. For many people who study trade unions and union militancy, I mean this is historic, not only in the US, the auto motor sector, but internationally it's very well known these, the kind of development of the workplace, workers fighting for their rights in this context, and essentially, again, a new union leadership in the UAW who has looked at the mistakes of past leaderships who have given historic and pretty significant concessions to the industry, to these companies and have said, it's not lost terrain, we're going to refight for these rights which past leadership conceded, and we're going to actually get rights for the workers. And in this case, in the UAW, they're currently involved in negotiations, again, with the Big Three, Sean Fain, who's the president of UAW, has had an extremely strong position, and they're fighting not only for an end to this tiered system which is in formal workplaces, having, for example, workers who get full benefits, pension, paid overtime, and then having workers who get significantly less on different tiers. And so he's fighting for an end to this, also for a 32-hour work week. I mean, these are crucial demands, again, that are not only for auto workers but could really shape labor rights across the country. And so they're currently involved in those negotiations. They're going to go to a strike authorization vote. Their contract expires on September 14th, and so if no new negotiation, if the negotiation is unsuccessful, they don't reach a contract, we could see, once again, over 100,000 workers from this militant, historically militant sector of auto manufacturing going on strike. So very, very interesting developments there. I think we'll continue to see the impacts of these militant trade union negotiations and organizing for years to come. My thoughts are a very significant strike because, like you said, because I think it resonates to an earlier tradition of struggle, of fighting for their rights, and the next story we're talking about is something which is something, again, decades of struggle that we almost cover every second episode and give the people what they want, and that's really what's happening in Palestine at this point in time. Sometimes it feels like, you know, every week brings with it its own set of bad news but also news of struggles and continuous fighting back against repression. This week, though, one of the highlights was some very extremely offensive comments by Israel's far-right Indian Minister Itwar Ben-Guyit who basically said that his right to movement and that of his family was far more important than that of the Palestinian people or the Arab population. And, you know, this is a kind of statement which is textbook in some sense. It's a classic definition of what you would call apartheid, what you would call racism. And, you know, it has been vitally criticized, of course, but I think the more important thing is the fact that Itwar Ben-Guyit saying something like this just exemplifies basically what his policy, what the policy of the Israeli government and, in fact, even previous governments has been for many, many, many years now. So, you know, while there's a lot of outrage over this comment, I believe the United States condemned it, et cetera, et cetera, the fact is that the policies on the ground that are taking place are exactly reflective of this, which is why, over time, even relatively conservative rights organizations or organizations which often don't take such a stand have ended up saying that Israeli policies are apartheid, which is something the Palestinians have been saying for many, many decades at this point now. And, you know, if you just consider, if you just take a look at some of the articles we have published on Palestine, they actually reflect. In this, we actually reflect what I'm talking about. On the one hand, you have, say, UN representatives saying that 2023 is already a more deadlier year than 2022 and we just eight months, we have four more months left for 2023 to end. The number of people that have been killed in the West Bank, I believe, is 167, which already crosses last year's numbers. On the other hand, for instance, you have Palestinian prisoners going on strike. Many of the, a large part of the reason for people going on strike is, in fact, the policies of this very same Hitmar Ben-Gui, who after coming to power has undertaken some extremely repressive, extremely brutal policies on prisoners, about their rest time, about the kind of basic amenities they get in jail, about the possibility of meeting families. In such a vicious and brutal way, he sort of attacked the rights of Palestinians in prison and their families and he's done it very proudly as well. That's a very important thing to note in the sense that the way he sort of functioned and the way this whole government has functioned. On the other hand, for instance, you have the fact that, you know, say Palestinian councils inside historic Palestine or inside the state of Israel, basically, are also on strike because of the fact that they have been denied funds, again by the finance ministry, which is run by another completely right-wing Israeli leader, Bezler Smotrich. So, you know, every week, I think, brings with it various bits of various assaults, assaults begin small by the Israeli state. You have raids continuously taking place in the occupied West Bank, you know, a number of deaths. You have these kind of bureaucratic hassles of bureaucratic obstacles placed in front of Palestinians which prevents them from leading a normal day-to-day life. You have this vast and violent policy of settlements which is basically tearing Palestinian land into pieces, driving Palestinians out of their homes, destroying schools, destroying hospitals, destroying basic amenities. So, in every sense of the term, there is an attack, that the attack on the Palestinians continues. And despite all this, you don't see a decline in aid. You see, like we often talk about, you see what is called the thoughts and prayers approach where sometimes when something like, someone like Ben Guir makes a very offensive statement, you know, there is this global chorus of condemnation, but there is very little condemnation or action that greets the day-to-day attacks that are taking place on Palestinians. So, you know, I think when we listen to something like this, very essential to sort of keep it in context of what is not just one or two actions or one or two statements, but an entire policy, a policy of apartheid, a policy of discrimination which the Palestinians are not only facing, but also resisting. Well, as we often do on this show, Latin America elections last Sunday, there were two major races, which were very important and we've been following at People's Dispatch for some time now. One was, of course, the first round in the early elections in Ecuador, as we know Guillermo Lasso had dissolved the parliament and implemented the cross-death mechanism, meaning that our early elections would be held, that his term would be significantly shortened. And in this first round of elections, it was quite interesting, a surprise victory for Daniel Novoa, who came in second, and the left progressive candidate, Luisa Gonzales, who came in first with just over 30% to some of the citizens' revolution movement. Pretty significant, given the situation in the country, there was fear that a candidate like Jan Dalpiek, who's a mercenary and has a very tough-on-crime standpoint, there was fear that due to the security situation in the country, that someone like him who has quite specific policies would actually be headed to the runoff, but is the son of a millionaire, Daniel Novoa, and the progressive candidate. And so that's going to be a very, very interesting race. From the progressive camp, many people are comparing the situation to what happened to 2021 when Andrés Arrao also won the first round, but was unable to kind of channelize and build enough momentum to win the victory in the second round. So I think that because they have that experience from 2021, they definitely have their work set out for them. It will be an interesting road from now until the second round of elections. We're extremely concerned about the security situation there. Violence continues to be a primary concern of people. And then up in Central America, in Guatemala, the candidate of Movimiento Semilla, Bernardo Arrivalo, won the second round of the elections against Andratores. This was a historic victory for many reasons. For one, of course, is the fact that progressive candidate won a country that has been dominated by ruling class politicians that are denominated, the pact of the corrupt, people who have dedicated to kind of robbing and stealing funds from the state, under developing the countryside, making the country a safe haven for multinational extractive companies. And so this is a significant victory in the terms of having someone who has this very, very strong anti-corruption agenda. He's more progressive, more to the center than any other politician in the recent history in Guatemala, especially given that all the others have been accused of being involved in extensive corruption schemes. However, the other element of why this is historic is because his party has been under a serious, serious attack. And we know that these elections have been in the midst of serious irregularities by electoral authorities in the country. We know that many different candidates were disqualified from running and not only progressive candidates, but even candidates from the center, from the right. His own party, as I said, right after he won the first round of elections, his own party was disqualified by electoral authorities. And since his victory, there's been several concerning developments. The Inter-American Commission for Human Rights has called for the state of Guatemala to institute protective mechanisms for Bernardo Arlevalo, the president-elect. They state that there have been serious and concerning attacks and, sorry, attempts on his life that there's plans underway to assassinate him, and they want there to be sufficient mechanisms in place to protect his life, given these pending threats. He was also threatened by the president of the Foundation Against Communism, who we have written about before, Ricardo Mendes. He is basically someone who attempts to deny the entire history of the military dictatorship in Guatemala and says that all the people who died in this conflict were terrorists and communists, and he essentially has attempted to say that the movimiento semia, which is very clearly a centrist, center-left progressive party, has no affiliation to really any communist ideologies. He says that they're communists, that they're terrorists, et cetera. And so, the CDAC, the AICHR, has called for protective mechanisms. This will be very important. In order for democracy to respect in the country, that there's no attempted violence against this president-elect, that the will of the people is respected, and that violence does not reign over the will of the people. So this is very important to keep in mind. We'll be following Guatemala, we'll be following Ecuador, and all the rest of the people's struggles and key developments from across the world. So stay tuned, follow people's dispatch, bookmark it, add us on social media, and we'll be back next week, hopefully with B.J., and more updates on the latest.