ISSUE 5, APRIL 2013

RESEARCH INSTITUTE

NEWSLETTERPROMITHEAS

περιεχόμενα• Εκ της σύνταξης• ΜΕΤΑ τον Τσάβες: Ποιες

είναι οι προκλήσεις για την επανάσταση;

• Η φύση της εκπαιδευτικής έρευνας, η εκπαιδευτική μεταρρύθμιση και η έρευνα TIMSS

• Αντιαποικιακός αγώνας - Ζητήματα Στρατηγικής και Τακτικής

• ΝΑΤΟ: Στρατοκρατική και πολιτική ισχύς

• Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση παράλληλα με την Τρόικα: Τι θα επηρεάσει την οικονομία και την εργασία στην Κύπρο

• Ερευνητικό Έργο• Η αντζέντα μας

συντακτικήεπιτροπήΓιάννος ΚατσουρίδηςΚώστας ΓουλιάμοςΚωστάκης ΚωνσταντίνουΣωτηρούλα Γιασεμή

Ινστιτούτο Ερευνών ΠΡΟΜΗΘΕΑΣΑνδρέα Παπακώστα 1, 1037 Καϊμακλί, Λευκωσία, Κύπροςτηλ.22432111, φαξ.22432112

www.inep.org.cy / info@inep.org.cy

Cyprus, in the last few weeks, is experiencing dra-matic moments that are ex-pected subvert the entire network of social relations and daily life of our peo-ple. The recent agreement of the Cypriot government with Eurogroup overturns violently the main pillar of the capitalist structure; namely, the banking sec-tor. The effective resolution of the Laiki Bank and the transfer of its liabilities on the shoulders of the Bank of Cyprus, combined with the haircut of deposits of the Bank of Cyprus creates a new banking landscape on one hand and on the other it reinforces the feel-ing of uncertainty as to the viability of the project.

During this period, the Cypriot people experi-enced an unprecedented scaremongering by gov-ernment officials, aca-demics, economists and analysts of all sorts. The common component of their analysis was to create a setting of asphyxiating

pressures and lack of alter-natives. There was a con-scious effort to present the solutions or recipes that were and still are proposed as the only way out. Any reference to other options is treated with irony and is ranked in the realm of uto-pia and romanticism.

Many “analysts” and parties have attempted to get a message through that Cypriots are to blame for this whole situation, as a result of the lifestyle adopted and exaggera-tions in their personal life. Whatsmore, a text circu-lated online reproduced in Greece and Cyprus in the Cypriot dialect reinforced this view. A consequence of this view is the notion that it is a good thing that Europeans have come to wake us up. This approach is false, historically ig-norant and classless and what it aims is to conceal the responsibilities of an entire system, but also of his apologists. Without de-nying the excesses of the

editor’s note

by Yiannos Katsourides, (Director of PROMITHEAS)

The co l lapse of the soc ia l cont rac t o f cap i ta l i sm?

continued on pg. 2

Cypriot people, even their mistakes and distortions in the economy that have been structured for decades, the primary cause of our suffering is the very system that pro-duces and reproduces the crises. The crisis is inherent in the capitalist system, which con-stantly seeks profit and in periods of crises it pursues to socialize losses.

We live at a time of refutation of expec-tations and collapse of myths that were diligently built for many years. This mainly concerns the EU; a construction which they strove to present it to people as a club of equality, justice and solidarity. Those dec-larations prove to be nothing more than “bounced cheques”; something the Left had always warned of and was mocked for. It is further revealed that the loss of state sover-eignty in the process of European integra-tion, has serious implications to the welfare of the people since member states are de-prived of fundamental tools for of exercis-ing independent monetary and economic policy.

The issue, as far as Cyprus is concerned, is a wider geopolitical one. What it is attempt-ed is a form of neo-colonialism in order to safeguard, on the long-term, the geostrategic in-terests of major Western states. The stance of Troika, and the EU in general, towards Cyprus, can only be understood, ap-parently, if placed within a wider geopolitical context. This frame is determined by discov-ery of natural gas deposits in Cyprus, by the normalization of Israel - Turkey relations and the achievement of a solution Cyprus problem. All the above seem to create a complex situ-ation of geopolitical factors upon which the ruling circles of the system decided to reach to ‘solutions’, i.e. closure. The

former Secretary General of NATO, Javier Solana, has already written an article on this topic. Moreover, as very bluntly put by the President of the Eurogroup, Dutch Dijs-selbloem, the model implemented in Cyprus will become a model for other problematic countries.

What happened in Cyprus, however, which was used as an experiment and a model, raises, in essence, a much bigger issue that affects the core of the capitalist structure. Eurogroup’s decision violates the altar of capitalism; private property. Individual own-ership and its protection, as well as the wel-fare state, comprise the social contract of capitalism with the people. This is what en-sures coherence in a system that is based on the unrestrained pursuit of profit and ex-ploitation. That cultivates an illusion, a hope that, one day, each of us can become like the Rockefellers. Once these two components are removed for the equation (the welfare state has been under attack for years) the message passed to the world, even if they do not realize it, is that the foundations of the whole construction are shaken. This is indicative of the depth of the crisis, of the intentions of part of the capitalists to step over dead bodies to ensure their profit, as well as of the contradictions of a system that lives by exploiting everything: humans and nature.

After the death of their leader, the Venezuelan peo-ple expressed their pain, but also and especially their willingness to continue the Bolivarian revolu-tionary process

AFTER CHÁVEZ: WHAT CHALLENGES FOR REVOLUTION?

Needless to hide the fact that the loss of the greatest revolutionary leader ever in Venezuela since Simón Bolívar is irre-placeable. Especially in the current inter-national context, this loss is very difficult for progressive forces. The enemies of the Bolivarian Revolution, inside and outside Venezuela, tempted to take advantage of the difficult situation of the country, must however know that a leader, even though a very important and major historical fig-ure, is not the whole revolution. In a revo-lutionary process of universal significance, as in Venezuela these past fifteen years, it is the masses in motion that are the fun-damental driving force of social transfor-mation, it is the masses that produce their leaders, and it is the masses that march with History. These masses, starting with the poorest, whose aspirations have been crystallized and translated into action by the President whom they had chosen since 1998, Hugo Chávez Frías, are aware that much remains to be done in order to build a fairer and more humane society, in the spirit of their leader, so recently passed away. This is now the task for these masses and their revolutionary government, who have given rise to admiration of the peo-ples of the world by daring to stand up to the hegemony of the United States.

Progress already achieved

Despite many challenges that accom-pany the Venezuelan revolutionary pro-cess and real limits that characterize it, it has produced undeniable progress, which substantially improved the living condi-tions of the vast majority of citizens. We know that all the years of Chávez presi-dency had a positive international impact: contribution to putting into retreat the U.S. continental free trade project, a coun-terattack with the creation of the Bolivar-ian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), a key role in the launch of a Bank of the South and energy alliances, regional in-tegration efforts in Latin America and the Caribbean, South-South cooperation and the promotion of a multipolar world. To limit ourselves here to the national level, decisive progress can be identified social-ly, politically and economically.

The sharp increase in social spend-ing, via the state budget or special funds, and the application of social missions in health, education, food, housing and in-frastructure have led consequently to a sharp decline of poverty (from over 55% to less than 27% of the population between 2003 and 2010) and an improvement in social indicators (Accelerated Reduction of infant mortality rate, increased life ex-pectancy, etc.). Inequalities, which are

by Rémy Herrera, (Researcher at CNRS, France)

still high, have fallen significantly since Chávez came to power, as suggested by the favorable evolution of the index called “Gini”, for example.

One of the conditions necessary to change the politics of the revolution in the direction of strengthening the trans-fer of oil revenues - the main resource of the economy - in favor of the poor is in the activation and organiza-tion of peo-ple’s participa-tion. Progress in this area has been tremen-dous, thanks to new bodies of “people’s power” (poder popular). New instances of people’s par-ticipation in decision-mak-ing processes related to the allocation of public budgets have been created, such as local planning councils, meetings of citizens in the communities, local councils of public planning, partici-pating in municipalities.

Large areas of public life are affect-ed by these councils for active popular mobilization in the politico-economic issues (self-local banks, cooperatives, collective properties ...). New political organization has been completed since 2007, with the creation of workers’ and peasants’ councils to increase their par-ticipation in local management compa-nies and farms. Access to land has also been extended through land reform en-acted in both urban and rural areas.

At the economic level, the destruc-tive logic of neoliberalism with privati-zations and of abandonment of national

sovereignty has been stopped. Strate-gic sectors have been regulated or even (re) nationalized by the state, and it was possible to regain some of the country’s natural resources. With the support of the masses, Chávez has pushed forward reforms with revolutionary content and implemented an alternative strategy to capitalism. It is after his 2006 reelec-tion that he began to guide the process

of transformation of society into a social-ist form of organiza-tion called “socialism of the 21st century”. Nationalization of key enterprises has enabled the state to take control of areas considered strategic for devel-opment, including infrastructures (elec-tricity, telecommu-nications, etc.). An exchange control was launched. Un original innovation

of the Venezuelan experience has been the creation of social production enter-prises, production units managed dem-ocratically by the workers themselves. Provision of public services, driven by public spending, grew strongly. Finally, notwithstanding the difficulties due to constraint on the balance of payments and the national currency, Venezuela, during Chávez presidency, recorded rates of relatively high economic growth.

Challenges ahead Despite progress, so far contradictions

continue to go through this revolution and cloud the terms of its “transition to socialism”. Some contradictions hav-ing serious implications are related to the country’s oil specialization, which is stiffened for nearly a century. Certainly, from the late 1990s through the begin-ning of the decade 2010s, the petroleum

sector’s contribution to gross domestic product decreased (by approximately 18.5% to 12.0%, according to data from the Central Bank of Venezuela), while that of all services increased (water and electricity, non-profit sectors, as well as trade, banking and insurance ...). But a worrying development trend - which is not specific to Venezuela, but observed in many countries of the South, includ-ing “emerging” countries - is due to dif-ficulties in industrialization. Over the past fifteen years, official statistics show indeed a slight decline of the share of manufacturing industries in total pro-duction (about 17.5% to 16.0%).

The main feature of the Venezuelan economy during the years of Bolivar-ian Revolution remains its strong de-pendence vis-à-vis the outside world, especially oil exports (and imports of in-dustrial goods and food products). The influence of external factors has been crucial to the strategy implemented by the government. Persistence - even deepening - of oil specialization did not enable the disconnection from the pow-erful mechanism of the world capitalist system, nor for Venezuela to transform - for the moment - its production and trade structures inherited from the past. Relying upon capitalist countries for the importation of modern technology creates the risk of blocking certain seg-ments of the productive apparatus. The country is indebted to the banks of the capitalist countries and must always sell its products under market conditions and to world markets, dominated by financial oligopolies and transnational corporations of the North - and this is, most frequently, in US dollars, hence the inherent phenomenon of dollarization of the economy induced by hydrocar-bon exports.

The difficulties faced by the revolu-tionary government to offset the distor-tive effects of “Dutch disease” associat-

ed with oil specialization, are real: every increase in export revenues has resulted in an import boom, relative to the pro-duction of goods and services offered by domestic enterprises. There are also huge problems in the process of struc-tural transformation of the economy. Today, nearly three-quarters of domes-tic production from the private sector is still dominated by large companies (domestic or foreign), which capture a significant share of the national income and control the bulk of imports. Ven-ezuela remains a peripheral capitalist economy. Given that the old local reac-tionary elites left behind keep a certain politico-economic power, guaranteed by their ownership of the means of pro-duction (land, industries, shops ...) and part of the banking and financial devel-opment, implementation of a democrat-ic and modern planning adapted to the needs of the country is absolutely nec-essary.

For more than a decade after the be-ginning of the revolution, the state it-self remains a capitalist institution, with the contradictions and limitations that come with it. Structures and functions of the state, while not remaining the same, have not yet experienced pro-found change. In fact, within the State, powerful officials and experts with their old management practices, and ideo-logical values of individualistic attitudes retain control over administrative deci-sions and impede the implementation of measures adopted by the government. Oil surpluses are still the main source of public budgets, representing nearly half of government revenues (against less than 15% for taxes on non-oil rev-enues). One of the future challenges for the government will be to find ways to bring transformations legally, based on the new institutions of popular power, the state apparatus (those of capital-ist state partially controlled, and those of this “ parallel state “, the national oil

company PDVSA, as well) to try to converge progressive-ly capitalist society to social-ism.

In general, many aspects of institutions of popular power, state structures and economic policies should be modified to consolidate the social foundation of the revolution. In order to deep-en the socialist transition - coexisting mixed forms, collective and/or state own-ership of capital - the new revolutionary government will need to increase the weight of public enterprises and those of social produc-tion, as well as to better integrate various public policies (budg-etary, fiscal, monetary and exchange rate), but also the social missions (to be incorporated into the institutions of the state). To avoid falling back, it is neces-sary to continue the organization of peo-ples’ participation and the democratic convergence of progressive forces. The fight against the evils inherited from the former regime (inequality, corruption, insecurity,…), which still persist, must be intensified. The new administration in power must also rethink its strategy for finding solutions to problems related to the oil specialization (in terms of dein-dustrialization trend, food dependence or monetary destabilization, among oth-ers), in order to build a social and envi-ronmental alternative to capitalism.

Thanks to Hugo Chávez, for the first time, the oil revenue was used to im-prove concretely living conditions of the most humble people. Venezuela is trans-formed into an anti-imperialist front of major importance and its efforts to unite the countries of the South bring about

advances worldwide. The future path of the revolution depends mostly on Ven-ezuelans themselves in struggle. We ex-pect already a strong mobilization in the upcoming elections in favor of Chávez’s nominee to succeed him, Nicolás Madu-ro, acting President. However, the course of the Bolivarian Revolution will also be influenced by foreign countries’ support. Our duty, progressive forces of the North and South, is to show him our brotherly solidarity. Today more than ever.

We express our solidarity with the pain of people of Venezuela having lost their President Commander Hugo Chavez Fri-as.

In the international literature for research, and in educational research in particular, the relationship of the nature of research with practice is discussed and in particular with the service of political and social aspirations. It is scientifically a given and unquestionable fact the non existence of an ontologically and epis-temologically neutral research and knowledge.

Lately, we have all become witnesses, but also tragically involved in an alleged economic assimilation process between heterogeneous economies, we have invoked the “special char-acteristics and circumstances” and have criti-cized the financial drain of southern Europe by the North. Through a similar critical approach should be studied our participation in educa-tional policy making mechanisms that invoke the need for emulation, common international criteria and standards, which inflict essentially the model that shows results as the capstone of the educational system, ignoring the any costs in “human capital.” In this context, I express my concerns in relation to the educational reform and our participation in the research TIMSS, es-pecially under the given circumstances.

The political decision to involve us in 2014-2015 on the international TIMSS survey for Mathematics has been made, which will be conducted on students of the fourth grade. It should be noted that Cyprus will pay a re-spectable amount of money of hundreds of thousands of Euros in order to participate in the research. The question right now is what the nature and the philosophical basis of this international research is and mainly what it has to offer at this stage of the educational reform.

The introduction of new teaching material of mathematics (and of the curriculum) for the D graders based on existing planning will be done in 2014-2015, the year that the survey will be conducted. Any outcome we may have in a survey showing an international ranking, what will it demonstrate as to the substance of reform? It is unprecedented in educational research to evaluate any curriculum or edu-

cational material in the first year of its imple-mentation. It is also unheard at the level of development and evaluation of Curriculum in-ternationally, to expose an educational system in this way to an international survey before a political decision assessing the progress of the reform and research development with quan-titative and qualitative characteristics for feed-back and self-improvement. This is a survey that focuses on learning outcomes and indica-tors which ignores any peculiarity of principles, values and aspirations of different curricula and educational systems. Will the teachers be asked in the midst of the reform to prepare our students to repeated test solution, as it hap-pened in 2003? Even when in 2003 we had the second highest increase in our performance internationally, what has been the essential qualitative analysis on feedback and our self-improvement? Is an international ranking worth hundreds of thousands of euro?

In conclusion, in my view, it is necessary to develop a substantial research in Cyprus with all stakeholders participating (students, teach-ers, counselors, parents, inspectors, etc.) in the process of the educational reform for evalua-tion of the project, feedback and a self-regu-lation system. At the same time, we must take the political decision to withdraw our partici-pation from international surveys that do not serve the educational goals set and are not consistent with the basic philosophy of the education reform. Let us bear in mind that the more generalizable and quantified the results of a survey are, the more admissible in onto-logical basis becomes the conception for the unchanging nature of the phenomenon which can be studied in width, ignoring however, the specifics of each case.

Rita Panaoura, Assistant Professor of Mathematics Educa-tion, Frederick University

The nature of educational research, educational reformand TIMSS surveyby Rita Panaoura, (Member of the Scientific Board of PROMITEHAS)

NATOMilitarist and political power

A. Organic Domina-tion In the era of multidimen-sional geopolitical globali-zation, the erstwhile super-powers are sometimes in areas of interdependence and / or strategic synergies (strategic partnership) and sometimes in intense stra-tegic competition (strategic

competitiveness).

At the same time, the emerging economic gi-ants, known under the acronym BRICS, are teaming up with aim to provide a counter-weight to the asymmetric policies pursuing the doctrine of the “West” through newly es-tablished institutional formations (EU, NAFTA, TAFTA) and supranational organizations (Inter-national Monetary Fund, World Bank, OECD, WTO, NATO, etc.). The operation of these or-ganizations removes more and more the basic attributes of states sovereignty, while:

(A) it strengthens and expands into new geo-graphic areas the status of all those powerful forces that form a chain of imperialist govern-ance(B) it continuously deepens decentralization in parts opaque from public scrutiny.(C)it improves the terms of that domestic capi-talism that adopts and implements the vari-ous programs of ‘convergence’ of the western dogma.

These formations are emerging as critical components of internationalization of capital through the division of state and local com-munities and the disintegration of social-labor achievements.

To this end, a key strategic consideration is the creation of “spheres of influence” through the support of all those political forms of social subjects as well as educational and cultural in-stitutions that effectively ensure the strategic

imperative of economic (neoliberal) expansion-ary policy of supranational organizations. This holistic project refers to what I call ‘organic sov-ereignty’, that contributes in any way to brutal-ity and towards imperialist intervention - even to the presence of variations of over/imperial-ist schemes - through NATO and mechanisms of all types. This process is at the same time in-herently competitive. Even in conditions of the systemic crisis of capitalism it magnifies the intensification of inter-imperialist competition, as well as its divergent trends, in the form of a ‘new’ interventionism. In this context, a model of coalition of military and political interven-tion is constituted in which the hatching of the inter-imperialist competition on one hand and the articulation of the NATO hegemony on the other, is recorded.

Specifically, with regard to NATO, we note the new strategy aimed at ensuring the long-term interests of the hegemonic forces of the “new order.” A typical example is provided by the Lis-bon Treaty itself where the EU and NATO agree that there should be a stronger engagement of the two. In any case, one can further interpret the military / commercial / economic poles in the imperialist chain, whether these poles con-cern the American continent, or Southeast Asia or the EU and the Mediterranean.

In any case these poles are accompanied by the respective political and military presence of NATO as a “multilayer network partnerships with states and organizations across the globe.” But mainly as an apparatus for “collective secu-rity” of the interests of the hegemonic forces of the “new order” and, at the same time, as a mechanism for exporting violence, terrorism and war in order to enforce the “shock doctrine.”

It promotes the coupling of subordination and obedience to political alienation, and thus ini-tiates a “new authoritarianism” which - accord-ing to Etienne Balibar – is currently presented in the arbitrary use of international institutions.

by Kostas Gouliamos, (Vice President of the BoD of PROMITHEAS, Vice-Rector of the European University Cyprus

B. NATO: new doctrine, new interventions

In 2010 (November 19) at the summit of NATO a new strategic doctrine (Strategic Concept) was signed. The new doctrine adopted in Lis-bon and will run until 2020, is the seventh over-all since the establishment of the Organisation in 1949 and the third after the end of the Cold War which replaces that of April 1999. Accord-ing to the NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the doctrine announced the “NATO 3.0” where the NATO alliance is placed on new foundations.

In essence, however, the announcement of the new doctrine validates what was agreed on two main NATO summits; in 2004, at the session of the City, when NATO decided to enhance its ef-forts to refocus the operational capabilities of the Alliance and 2006, at the meeting in Riga where the intention of the Alliance for a new global political agenda was announced. It is therefore no coincidence that NATO today is in-volved in many areas of the world acting out-side its formal borders. Through collaborations, at political and military level, NATO with the new structure is the pillar of militaristic designs of the imperialist strategy for (a) “new forms of warfare” (as defined by the government Bush), and (b) new forms of colonialism which under-mine peace while they burden workers with bil-lions of euros / dollars.

However, to understand the (“new”) NATO doc-trine, we must take note of the direction that its the driving force, ie the U.S. is giving the Or-ganisation. As formulated in international lit-erature, the trademark of American activities is the development of ‘disguised struggle’: “This is an extensive network of ultra-marine military bases from which the U.S. can intervene. Spe-cifically, the U.S. maintains 860 military bases throughout the world, distributed in more than 90 countries, half of which were created during the government of Bush. This means that Spe-cial Forces conduct military operations in more than 70 states, most times even without the knowledge of their governments “(P. Gavanas, 2013).

Referring to the bases, we should not fail to note the equipment costs. In 2009 alone 1531 billion U.S. dollars were spent worldwide for the armed forces and armaments. According to Gavanas: “the lion’s share represents a unique country, USA. In approximately 4% of the world population, who are U.S. citizens, corresponds 43% of global spending on military purposes. 64% of military spending, i.e. almost two thirds, correspond to the other 27 member states of NATO. As P. Gavanas says, “if the concept of ‘West’ is not understood simply geographi-cally, but politically, that includes another four countries, known as ‘security providers’ that are operating outside NATO but took the first step in the door of the North Atlantic Alliance - Aus-tralia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea- then military spending worldwide that correspond to the West amount to 71%.”.

C. Epilogue

NATO, with its new doctrine, widens the charac-ter of the alliance as an imperialist organization. Especially in this decade 2010-20 it ensures the expansion of capitalist restructuring under the political dominance of the ruling elites of the U.S. and EU.Moreover, NATO destabilizes the current global system with the creation and consolidation of extreme forms of violence making the faults of culture and economic development much more intense. As a militaristic mechanism and as a war machine, NATO is the core of conflict of capitalist globalization and thus a time bomb for humanity itself and the peaceful coexistence of peoples.

References Balibar Etienne (2004): Europe, America, The War.

Publications Chr. Dardanos.Gavana Panagiotis (2013): The new NATO strate-

gy (A `&` C part). http://www.inprecor.gr/index.php/archives/230253

The issue of anti-coloni-al struggle of the Cypriot people is still relevant, half a century after the proc-lamation of The Cyprus independence. The fate of the anti-colonial strug-gle to the independence of the London-Zurich and its aftermath continue to plague the island. There-fore, the chapter of the anti-colonial struggle is not only academic but rather of political interest.

As in every strug-gle strategic and tac-tical questions had to be answered. While for other nations seeking independence was a normal and self-evi-dent strategic objective, for Cyprus, things were more complicated. Cyprus was a peculiar case in the general framework of anticolonial struggle which developed around the world after the Second World War.

The main peculiarity lay in the fact that the Cypriot people consisted of two communities which had special ties with so-called motherland Greece and Turkey. For the Greek Cypri-ots, which formed the vast

majority of the population, the concept of freedom identified with the ideal of union with Greece. The “Union”, namely integra-tion into the Greek state, was considered the natural conclusion as it happened with other areas that had a majority Greek population as was Thessaly, Epirus,

Macedonia, Crete, the Do-decanese, etc. The “union” was cultivated by the bour-geoisie and the church leadership, but at the same time and it was not foreign to the feelings of the mass-es of Greek Cypriots.

On the other hand, the Turkish Cypriot community and especially the hold-ing elite of Turkish Cypri-ots, influenced by Kemalist nationalism, had an eye to Turkey. They approached with fear the claim of “un-

ion” and with the guidance of Ankara they developed the ideology of partition and dual union. The Brit-ish colonialism took advan-tage of this opposition to prolong their stay on the island and to perpetuate it even after their withdrawal.

After the Second World War two centers of anti-colonial strug-gle were developed in Cyprus between the Greek Cypriot population. The Right wing, as an expression of the rising bourgeoi-sie, rallied around Ethnarchy and the unusual role it per-formed. The Left

wing, as an expression of the broad layers of work-ers rallied around AKEL and promoted the anti-colonial struggle. The two trends met at the strategic objective for the pursuit of “union” through the exer-cise of the right of self-de-termination. Beyond that huge differences came to the surface. The Right saw the anti-colonial struggle with a nationalist view as a continuation of the irre-dentist movement of the early 20th century. The

ANTICOLONIAL STRUGGLE Issues of Strategy and Tactics

by Yiannakis Kolokasidis, (President of BoD of PROMITHEAS)

Left approached the anti-colonial strug-gle as part of the broader contemporary anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggle of the peoples. The Right persevered in their monopoly of the anti-colonial strug-gle not recognizing a role and a say to the Left. The Left claimed dynamically a role and a say in the matter. The Left put forth the policy of a single anti-colonial front in which all would participate equally.

The Right did not want to hear about such a development. The Left through mass class struggles built friendly rela-tions with the Turkish Cypriot workers who could overcome their “national” dif-ferences. The Right despised and ignored completely the Turkish Cypriot factor. Its nationalist speech deepened the gap be-tween the two communities. The Left sent the message that it could discuss a stage of self-government before exercising the right to self-determination. The Right re-jected any idea of self-government not because of a pure “national” line, but be-cause it feared that a system of self-gov-ernment would mean sharing the power with the Left.

The relations between Left and Right were by rule tense and confrontational, the main responsibility for which lies with the leadership of the Right and their an-ti-communist fury. The cold war that pre-vailed in those years around the world, the catalytic effect of the Greek civil war, but also the development of class struggle within Cyprus were the main causes for this situation. The conflictual relationship between the Left and the Right did not al-lowed for a sober dialogue and reflection on the strategic objective of self-determi-nation - union and to explore the road of independence. This dialogue was necessary because in the mid-fifties the righteous moral goal of “union” was becoming all the more unrealistic and was leading to pitfalls.

While the strategic goal should be discussed there came a great conflict on tactical issues. The Left al-

ways insisted on mass, organized, politi-cal struggle as the most appropriate form of struggle considering the conditions of Cyprus. The leadership of the Right wing made a sharp turn to the armed strug-gle which created a new situation. Many different interpretations can be given on this sudden change, either isolated or in combination. In our assessment, the main reason was the agony of the right-wing to hold the monopoly of the struggle and to impose its sovereignty even after the Brit-ish would leave.

In the context of the armed struggle there were acts of heroism and sacrifice, the heroes who will always be honored by the Cypriot people. Choosing the armed struggle was a huge historical error that the Cypriot people pay up to today. The British Imperialism exploited the armed struggle so as to lead the relations of Greek and Turkish / Cypriots in an armed con-flict between them. On the pretext of the armed struggle and having the support of Britain, Turkey was acclaimed as an inter-ested party to the Cyprus problem, and the issue is no longer a matter of conflict between Cyprus and Britain but a conflict between Greece and Turkey. The extreme anticommunism of Grivas led to the brink of civil war between the Right and the Left. The anti-colonial struggle led to dead ends. Those dead-ends were exploited by the NATO imperialism with the help of the governments of the “mother countries”.

The correct study the anti-colonial struggle of the Cypriot people, without blinders or fanaticism, is a political school for today and for the future of Cyprus.

by Kostas Christodoulides, (Member of the BoD of PROMITHEAS)

The European Union and Troika What will affect the economy and work in Cyprus

This text deals with the most important economic decisions made recently in the EU that are already affecting Cyprus . Although the implementation has already started yet they are not in full operation. The nature of these decisions acts as avalanche that will cause a series of other decisions, apparently in the same context. At the same time, at the level of the economy and society changes will occur that will remind the fall of an empire in decline.

Operation Treaty of the EU

Through the Treaty, the EU lays the legal foundations of a process of centralization of decision-making and consolidation of eco-nomic policies of the Union within Eurozone. The political direction approved by the adop-tion of the Lisbon Treaty in full growth, leaves little room for Member States to exercise do-mestic economic and social policy.

The role and contribution of the German economy and policy as well as other countries in the EU, is reflected in this new state of af-fairs. With or without Memoranda, the issue of economic sovereignty seems to have solved itself through this treaty and will only change if the Treaty changes as a result of other over-turns1.

1 Article 136-1. In order to ensure the proper functioning of Economic and Monetary Union and in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties, the Council, adopts lows in accordance with the relevant procedure among those referred to in Articles 121 and 126, with the exception of Article 126, paragraph 14, measures Member States whose currency is the euro, in order to:a) strengthen the coordination and surveillance of their budgetary discipline;

All major issues promoted either as an in-tergovernmental agreement, or as a directive or regulation and discussed below have as their starting point the Lisbon Treaty, espe-cially Article 136.

Intergovernmental Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance (valid for eurozone members and those that wish to implement it).

Through constitutional or legislative rules, the states target to have infinitely a budget surplus. The budget surplus is when the defi-cit does not exceed 0.5%. Only countries with public debt well below 60% may allow the deficit to go up 1%. States will be taken to the Court of Justice to determine the compliance or violation and will face penalties of 0.5% of GDP. To reverse the automatic sanction a qualified majority of votes of the Member States of the Eurozone is required.

To understand the difference of the pre-sent provision, we need to compare it with the previous state of affairs. The Stability Pact provided for a deficit up to 3% without con-crete sanctions without ECJ but obligatory observance of the excessive deficit procedure and process compliance. Within those frames there was no direct link between the deficit and the debt implications of the existence of that roof was apparent in state politics, espe-cially on the expenditure side of the state and development policy. Especially with the new amendment.

b) set out, in these countries, the economic policy guidelines, ensuring that they are compatible with those adopted for the whole of the Union and are kept under surveillance

6-Pack Regulations and Directive.

It valid since 13/12/11 and the fiscal and concerns the fiscal and macroeconomic sur-veillance under the Process of macroeco-nomic imbalances in the EU Member States with specific terms for eurozone members. It enhances the preventive and corrective arms of the Stability Pact as regards those Member States which violate or limit the fiscal deficit or public debt with a strict demarcation of the MTO budget balancing. the quantitative goal that detracts from the MTO and the ad-justment method for avoiding divergence is defined with precision. It works alongside the Intergovernmental Treaty.

2-Pack Regulations and European Se-mester

It is expected to be approved in June. It aims at further tightening the monitoring and control of the Eurozone. Common rules for national budgets to be monitored by in-dependent institutions, organizations (eg PIMCO). Member-states will receive directions as to their budget in May and October and the member-state will submit to the Euro-

pean Commission and Eurogroup its budget for approval accompanied by the recommen-dation of an independent company. If the budget has adopted the recommendations of May with observations from an independent agency then it may be submitted. Otherwise, the commission requires a revised budget, gives an Opinion and the Eurogroup decides. All this of course will be adjusted to the given dominant perception in the EU.

The second regulation provides for an enhanced surveillance in eurozone Member States that are at risk of financial difficulties. It will include an automatic enhanced sur-veillance in countries that receive proactive financial assistance the range of which will be decided by the European Commission. Mem-ber States are required to adopt measures to address the imbalance of regular audit and quarterly review by the Eurogroup. The states that are facing administrative shortcom-ings (“coverage” for imposing administrative staff of the government) will have technical assistance from the European Commission Working Group. These member states will be subject to wide coverage. A country will be subject to this program whilst they do not re-pay 75% of the debt. The Council will impose sanctions on Member States that do not con-form to the program.

Flexicurity, «Euro Plus» Pact

The so-called principles of flexicurity, of la-bor law restructuring, the replacement of la-bor with the uncertainty of employability, un-buffered contracts approved by the EU, have already been implemented through decisions of States to address the crisis. In connection with the adoption of the Euro Plus Pact, which gives emphasis on competitiveness by cut-ting labor costs and benefits, linking it to life expectancy, linking government spending by increasing the limit (in small groups) gradu-ally eliminating any redistributive capacity of the state will be implemented in Cyprus, with or without Troika.

Recently, a Green Paper2 was adopted by the European Commission for the Provision and Management of Restructuring that maintains the position that “the protection of employ-ment and social protection in combination with a relatively high level of education, needs to be changed because it is not suitable to ensure that resources and manpower redistributed quickly and smoothly from declining activities to emerging activities.” This is the formaliza-tion of a new course of destruction of work as we knew it, whereby workers are converted to mobile employable staff and are transferred to new areas.

Conclusions

The period after the outbreak of the crisis in the EU, and especially the last three years, are crucial for the development of the EU Mem-ber States for the next decades. The decisions made are coordinated to establish through in-stitutional (New EU Treaty, golden rule for the deficit and debt, New Stability Pact) and struc-tural changes (eg new guidance 6-pack, 2-pack instructions, politics about half of the state budget, etc.) the political and economic mo-nopolies’ attack against the state, the small-to-medium enterprises and employees.

2 Consultation first and then final decision for approval by the Council and Europarliament

Cyprus is already suffering and the situation is expected to get worse after the full imple-mentation of these decisions.

Much legitimate debate is conducted late-ly on the stakes of the transfer of sovereignty to Troika and its agencies. However, the EU integration (single government) constitutes transfer of sovereignty to the European level. Secondly, the areas whose sovereignty is trans-ferred concern the public finances and affect the overall operation of a state. Thirdly, an ob-jective analysis must consider that, especially in the context of transferring sovereignty to EU for a state is doubly disastrous, since a small country like Cyprus has no benefit at all, rather it is damaged, by the fact that decisions in this area will primarily serve the interests of the rul-ing class in Germany, France etc

ερευνητικό έργο

Nikos Moudouros (Member of Scientific Board) “ The expor t of ‘AKP ’s Model’ in the Turkish Cypriot Communit y. A case of neo-liberal-ism”.

Conference entitled: “The future of the Cypriot Foreign Polic y ”

Organisers: Stra tegy Interna tional and Nicosia Universit y Cyprus,

24th January 2013 Nicosia University.

The present column aims at promoting the writings of members and par tners of the Institute as well as notewor thy scientific work conducted both in Cyprus and internationally

Michalis Michael (Member of Scientific Board)

Michalis N. Michael, “The Archive of the United State’s Consulate in Ottoman Larnaca. A Preliminary Report”, in the book: Histories of Ottoman Larnaca, (eds) Evaggelia Balta, Theoharis Stavrides, Ioannis P. Theoharides, The Isis Press, Istanbul 2012, pgs. 381-396.

Michalis N. Michael, “Revolts, Demands and Chal-lenge to the Legitimacy of the Ottoman Power: Three Parallel Revolts in a part of the Ottoman Periphery”, Archivum Ottomanicum, Harrassowitz Verlag, Wies-baden, 29 (2012) 127-147.

Michalis N. Michael, “A Matter of Principle and Ideas…”.MassmobilizationinCyprusduringthefirstdec-adeofthetwentiethcentury”, in the book: Proceedings of the Conference: Social Transformation and Mass Mobilization in the Balkan and Eastern Mediterranean Cities (1900-1923), (eds) Andreas Lyberatos, Universi-tyofCrete, Crete 2013.

Michalis N. Michael, Eftyhios Gavriel, “Cyprus in the Cosmography (Cihannüma) of the Ottoman ge-ographer Kâtib Çelebi”, e-Minutes of the International Conference: Cyprus at the Cross-roads of sightseers and cartographers, 15th -20th century. Sylvia Ioannou Foundation, Athens 2013 [www.sylviaioannoufounda-tion.org].

Michalis N. Michael, “Regional administration in the ottoman state and emergence of local power institu-tions: Cyprus, 1660-1839”, Minutes of the 4th Inter-nationa Cyprus Conference, v.C1, Kypriakai Spoudai, Nicosia 2012 pgs. 415-432.

Yiannos Katsourides (Director of PROMITHEAS)

Co-chair of the organising Committee for the Conference “Political Ac tors in the Med-iterranean: Cyprus and Malta Compared” . Conference hosted on 16 March 2013 by the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, Univer-sity of London.

Trust in political institutions and differ-entia ted modes of political par tic ipa tion in contemporar y Greece, Paper presented at the Conference of the Centre for Political Research of Panteion University: The Greek Crisis. Parties, Institutions, Politics, Ideolo-gies. Athens 14-15 January 2013.

Political conflicts in Cyprus in the 1940s and 1950s. Seminar Presented in the Insti-tute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London, 13 March 2013.

Alexis Alecou (Member of Scientific Board)

Αλέκου, Α. (2013). 1948: Ο ελληνικός εμφύλιος και η Κύπρος, Αθήνα: Power Publishing.

Η παρουσίαση του βιβλίου θα γίνει στις 22 Απριλίου, ώρα 19:00 στο Ευρωπαϊκό Πανεπιστήμιο Κύπρου, Αμφιθέατρο Α΄.

our agenda