Colour Revolution (presentation by Harpal Brar)
Presentation by Harpal Brar to the 6th World Socialism Forum, organised by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and Center for Contemporary World Studies, held in Beijing on 16-17 October 2015.
Dear comrades, allow me to thank the organisers of this very important seminar – the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and Center for Contemporary World Studies – for their kind invitation to the representatives of my party to attend and have the opportunity to engage in a mutual exchange of views on the very important topic which is the subject of discussion at its proceedings.
While I shall concentrate in my presentation on the question of colour revolutions, my comrade Ella Rule would be speaking on cultural hegemony.
Imperialism seeks domination, not freedom. In order to attain domination, it resorts alternately to brute naked force, on the one hand, and subtle forms of sabotage, on the other, aimed at overthrowing foreign governments that present an obstacle to this domination. Most of the time imperialism covers its predatory wars and sabotage in sublime language, but in their unguarded and candid moments the political, ideological and military spokesmen of finance capital quite brazenly state the true purpose of their state policy.
Since the late 19th century, British and US imperialism have sought complete hegemony over the globe. Following the Second World War, US imperialism emerged as the most powerful among the imperialist powers and it has since acted as the main counter-revolutionary gendarme against the powerful currents of socialism and national liberation.
Since 1945 the US has been involved in over 70 foreign wars and interventions, in the course of which it has slaughtered millions of people all across the globe. Although much weakened since the Second World War, British imperialism has inter-vened with armed forces against foreign countries on more than 130 occasions.
At the beginning of the imperialist era, Lord Curzon, Viceroy of India, had the frankness to state: “To me, I confess that [countries] are pieces on a chessboard upon which is played a great game for the domination of the world”. This was in 1898. Since then it is a sentiment which has been expressed at regular intervals, especially by the statesmen and ideologues of US imperialism.
While for public consumption, hypocritically chanting the praises of democracy, the rule of law and humanitarianism, the spokespersons of imperialism have been quite clear about maintaining their position of domination.
George Kennan, a prominent US strategic planner, had this to say in 1948:
” We have 50 per cent of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period … is to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we have to dispense with all sentimentality … we should cease thinking about human rights, the raising of living standards and democratisation”.
At the beginning of the 1990s, just as the bloc of eastern European socialist countries, including the once glorious Soviet Union, had collapsed, the US defence department’s objectives were clearly outlined in the following words:
” Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. We must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role” (a Defense Department planning paper quoted in ‘Pentagon’s planning guidance for the fiscal years 1994-1999’, New York Times, 8 March 1992).
Writing in the New York Times of 19 October 2001, the reactionary US journalist Thomas Friedman only too candidly exposed the connection between the hidden hand of the market and the fist of US armed might in the following memorable words:
” The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies is called the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps”.
Nothing is left here to the imagination in making clear the true meaning of the ‘free market’.
Applauding UK prime minister Blair’s speech to the 2002 Labour Party Conference, Niall Fergusson, a politics professor at Oxford University at the time, with his ability to utter the unthinkable, wrote:
” Imperialism may be a dirty word, but what Tony Blair is essentially calling for is the imposition of western values – it is really the language of liberal imperialism. Political globalisation is just a fancy word for imposing your views and practices on others”, adding that only America could lead this new imperial world” (The Guardian, 31 October 2002).
While waging wars in pursuit of world domination, imperialism, forever chanting hypocritical phrases about democracy and humanitarianism, is ever ready to slaughter innocent men, women and children without a moment’s hesitation. And its mercenary representatives are only too willing to justify such slaughter:
“We think the price is worth it”, US Ambassador Madeleine Albright replied when asked if the deaths of half a million Iraqi children were a price worth paying for sanctions (‘Punishing Saddam’, CBS TV programme ’60 Minutes’, 12 May 1996).
In uttering the above disgusting words, Ms Albright was only following in the footsteps of Winston Churchill, the implacable defender of British imperialism, who has been falsely portrayed by bourgeois journalism as a great defender of democracy and a fighter against fascism. In his position as Colonial Secretary in the British government, this is what he had to say on the use of gas warfare against the rebellious Kurds:
“I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes” (Winston Churchill, Colonial Secre-tary, on the use of gas against the Kurds).
The first Gulf war against Iraq was allegedly waged, inter alia, to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. Even after the evacuation of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, Anglo-American imperialism imposed draconian sanctions on Iraq which claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people, including half a million children – justified so cheerfully by Ms Albright – and imposed a no-fly zone over northern Iraq, as well as keeping up relentless bombing of that country. The real purpose of that war was laid bare by the aptly named General William Looney, director of the aerial bombing of Iraq, in these words:
” If they turn on their radars we are going to blow up their goddam SAMs. They know we own their country. We own their airspace … We dictate the way they live and talk. And that’s what’s great about America right now. It’s a good thing, especially when there’s a lot of oil out there we need”.
Since World War 2, through its wars for world domination, from Korea, through Indo-China, to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, US-led imperialism has claimed the lives of tens of millions of people and laid waste to country after to country.
Hand in hand with the use of armed force, it has developed the tools of coercion and subversion. The military, intelligence and propaganda agencies of the US, such as the Department of Defense and the CIA, have helped fund almost all of the post-World War 2 generation’s research into techniques of persuasion, opinion formation, interrogation and mass propaganda of the most crude as well as of the most sophisticated type.
Little is left to chance in the Selling of America. “It’s a free country”, the mantra of US imperialism, which is fed to every American with their mother’s milk. Repeated millions of times every day, it is exported all over the world, thus preparing the Americans at home and foreigners abroad for the moral right of US imperialism to do what it does at home and abroad.
The truth, however, is just the opposite. Openly and secretly, legally and illegally, the military-industrial-financial complex has combined with the prison-industrial complex and the omnipresent national security-police complex, all clasping hands tightly with the ‘War on Drugs’ at home and abroad, in a declaration of war on the people of the US and everywhere else. In this nefarious enterprise it has the full assistance of the legislature, the judiciary, a compliant media, and the chief executive of US imperialism, namely, the US president.
While being subjected to this horrendous coercion, misinformation and downright lies, and repression, Americans think that they are living in the freest country in the world. Even foreigners often take this bait of US imperialist self-glorification. This brings to mind the profound observation of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe that “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free”.
The tools of coercion and subversion are sometimes used to supplement the use of force and, when the latter is not an easy option, as a substitute for it – all for the purpose of undermining governments and movements which stand in the way of US imperialism’s unceasing quest for world domination.
Having decided to target a country, the US propaganda machine goes into overdrive and invents – you have guessed it – a Hitler-of-the-month, or a mad man or a mad dog. On the pretext of waging a ‘war against drugs’, or the ‘fight against organised crime’, or the ‘war on terror’, or to rid the world of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ (often non-existent), it softens up public opinion in the run up to its predatory wars for domination.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the bloc of East European socialist states, US imperialism and its junior imperialist partners, all grouped in the war-mongering neo-Nazi NATO military organisation, have become even more brazen in their attempts at world domination and to impose the US’s ‘New World Order’ through bullying, intimidation and force of arms.
Before the disappearance of the Soviet Union, imperialist powers used to defend the existence of NATO by the alleged threat of Soviet communism and the existence of the Warsaw Pact which, they claimed, presented a grave danger to the security and prosperity of ‘peace-loving’ and ‘free democracies’ of western Europe.
Now that the Warsaw Pact, the Soviet Union and the East European socialist countries are no more, we are told that NATO must continue its existence precisely because the Soviet Union is no more; that it has a right to intervene anywhere outside of its own geographical boundaries -NATO out of area or NATO out of business – without as much as an approval from the United Nations Security Council; that it must become the military arm of the New World Order, with its corporate headquarters in Washington DC.
The New World Order is driven by the following imperatives:
1. Make the world hospitable for ‘globalisation’ – particularly for US inc.;
2. Backing US defence contractors who have contributed generously to the members of Congress and US presidents;
3. Preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;
4. Extending US hegemony over the globe and preventing the rise of any power that might challenge that hegemony.
Globalisation, the much-touted expression over the past two decades, is nothing but ‘respectable’ terminology for covering up the hideous features of imperialism. It serves to hide the ugly reality of assassinations, torture and abductions by US imperialist agencies; the use by it of depleted uranium and chemical and biological weapons in country after country; its harbouring of war criminals and its maintenance of the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia, which trains right-wing death squads and helps them to overthrow legitimate government of various countries. No wonder then that the Latin Americans call it ‘La Escuela de Golpes’ (the school for organising coups d’etat).
As to the US’s instruments of subversion, the National Endowment for Democracy serves as the best, but not the only, example. It was set up in 1983 to ” support democratic institutions throughout the world through private, non-governmental efforts”, yet every cent of its funding comes from the US federal government. It does everything that the CIA used to do covertly in the 1960s and early 1970s.
The four principal recipients of its funds are:
(a) The National Democratic Institute for International Affairs;
(b) the International Republican Institute;
(c) an affiliate of the AFL-CIO (such as the Center for International Labor Solidarity);
(d) and an affiliate of the Chamber of Commerce (such as the Center for International Private Enterprise).
These above four then disburse funds to other organisations in the US and all over the world.
NED meddles in the internal affairs of foreign countries by supplying funds, technical know-how, training, educational material, computers, fax machines, copiers, automobiles and so on, to selected political groups, civic organisations, labour unions, student groups, book publishers, newspapers, etc. It aims to promote private (‘free’) enterprise, class collaboration, opposition to socialism, and non-interference by government in the economy.
A free market is equated with democracy, with an emphasis on foreign investment.
NED’s programmes are in sync with the basic objectives of the New World Order’s economic globalisation.
It funds the Cuban-American National Foundation – an ultra-fanatic anti-Cuban outfit ; it funded Luis Posada Carriles, who was involved in blowing up a Cuban aeroplane in 1976, which killed 72 people. In 1997 he was involved in a series of bomb explosions in Havana hotels.
Terror bombing for regime change in Cuba and elsewhere in pursuit of globalisation translates into democracy in the insane world of imperialism. It is hardly to be surprised at that this insanity and double standards should have prompted the late Nelson Mandela, whom the US tried to dissuade from visiting his friend Muammar Gaddafi, the president of Libya, whom imperialism was to go on to murder and destroy his country, to protest in these forceful terms:
” How can they have the arrogance to dictate as to where we should go or which countries should be our friends? Gadhafi is my friend. He supported us when those who tried to prevent my visit here today were our enemies. They have no morals. We cannot accept that a state assumes the role of the world’s policeman” (Nelson Mandela, Washington Post, 4 November 1997).
Sadly, not many leaders around the world have Mandela’s courage to condemn US imperialism’s hypocrisy and quest for domination in such candid terms as he did.
Imperialist propaganda agencies, in accordance with the changing needs of finance capital, are well equipped to turn the latter’s opponents into demons overnight or paint them in glowing colours when these opponents cave in to its pressure. Here are two examples – the first relating to Poland and the second to Romania.
After the 13 December 1981 coup d’etat in Poland, General Jaruzelski was characterised as a symbol of tyranny and ‘Stalinist totalitarianism’. Yet Le Figaro of 21 October 1989 was saying that Jaruzelski was a soldier devoted to the Party trying to invent a new image – the president above all Parties, who will incarnate the whole nation and not an ideology.
As to Romania, its President, Ceaucescu, received a royal medal from the British Queen and was her guest at Buckingham Palace. Described in the imperialist media as a “great worker”, a “humanist”, and “enemy of bureaucratic abuses” and a “sober man, leading a very simple life”, by 1989 he had become a “bloody tyrant”, the “Dracula of the Carpathians”, a ” vampire”, the “Sun King of Romania” – for the simple reason that he had opposed, albeit belatedly, the wave of counter-revolution that was sweeping over eastern Europe. Earlier he had opposed Warsaw Pact intervention in Czechoslovakia, the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, and contributed to the development of anti-Soviet nationalism in the break-up of the socialist camp. He had accepted western loans and permitted the growth of privilege, and spread the notion that socialism could be combined with the growing power of multinational corporations in his country. By 1989, however, he was no longer needed as those openly waving the American flag had already come to power in Poland and Hungary – the more so as Ceaucescu began to backtrack on capitalist reforms.
Imperialism began in earnest to undermine socialism in eastern Europe, as well as in the USSR, soon after the end of the Second World War. Apart from the imperialist-inspired counter-revolutionary uprisings in the German Democratic Republic, Poland and Hungary, which were made short shrift of by the combined forces of the Soviet Union and the Communist Parties of these countries, imperialism and its henchmen struck lucky in Czechoslovakia in 1968 during what was dubbed the Prague Spring. The leadership of the Czechoslovak Communist Party under Dubcek declared that class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat were in contradiction to the aims of his movement, which wanted “socialism with a human face” – a euphemism for the restoration of capitalism through the dismantling of the planned socialist economy and its replacement by a market economy, not to speak of replacing the rule of the Communist Party by a multi-party bourgeois parliamentary system.
The Prague Spring anticipated the later peaceful counter-revolution in Budapest and elsewhere.
The Communist Party in the Czech Republic was totally paralysed in 1968. If Dubcek had remained at its head, there would have been the same evolution that transpired in Hungary and Czechoslovakia in the late 1980s.
The Soviet intervention of 20 August 1968 put a brake on the activities of counter-revolutionary groups linked to imperialism and struck a blow at the revisionist wing of the Czech party.
In 1989, however, knowing that Soviet intervention could be ruled out, the imperialist intelligence agencies planned and executed a return to the Prague Spring and pushed the rotten sections of the Czech Party and society in the direction taken by the counter-revolutionaries in Poland and Hungary.
Two main forces joined hands in Czechoslovakia in Charter 77, namely (a) the Roman Catholic right wing and (b) social democracy – both united in their hatred of socialism.
To reach a wider public, Charter 77’s organisers went to great trouble to rally those revisionists who had left the Communist Party since 1968.
Thanks to their links with the imperialist media and the imperialist intelligence agencies, they received wide publicity as the “courageous democrats” struggling against Stalinism and seeking salvation through ” Evangelical theology and Catholic theology as the fundamental source of human freedom“.
They were characterised in the bourgeois media as the upholders of democracy and universal human values, and fearless combatants against ‘totalitarianism’ in Czechoslovakia – values which could only be achieved through the dismantling of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
August 1978 saw the first meetings between Charter 77 and the three main leaders of Solidarnosc in Poland – Adam Michnic, Jacek Karon and Jan Litynski. Solidarnosc, with its visceral anti-communism, was a logical follow-up to the Prague Spring and its alleged “socialism with a human face”. The two sides signed agreements for exchange of information and for mutual support, and together they made contacts with the ‘defenders of human rights’ in Armenia, Georgia, Lithuania and the Ukraine.
On 29 June 1989, Charter 77 issued an appeal for permanent mass action and for a national referendum to ” free the mass media and cultural activity in Czechoslovakia from all forms of manipulation and open them to free debate” – an appeal which was advertised far and wide through radio stations run by the intelligence agencies of the imperialist countries and through their press.
The Trotskyite Petr Uhl was one of the most active members of this anti-communist coterie grouped round Charter 77. He openly admitted that almost all the signatories to Charter 77 “want no more talk of Marxism”. As in all other socialist countries, the Czech Trotskyites were fervent supporters of the anti-communist agitation instigated and organised by the CIA and the entire rainbow coalition of those clamouring for a return to the free market while deluding themselves with the thought that all other constituents of Charter 77 were unconsciously helping the Trotskyist ‘vanguard’ to carry out their ” anti-bureaucratic political revolution” for the dismantling of the “Stalinist system“.
The Czech counter-revolutionaries, as indeed such outfits in other socialist countries, enjoyed enthusiastic support from western Trotskyites, such as Ernest Mandel who openly welcomed the unfolding counter revolution in country after country, which eventually became a continuous zone for absorption of imperialist corporations.
May 1989 witnessed the conference of the ‘reformist’ wing of the Hungarian Communist Party adopt a manifesto which marked a clear rupture with the entire socialist past: it renounced communism as a form of “Asiatic despotism”; it rehabilitated the 1956 counter revolution and its leader, Imre Nagy; it promoted transition to a multi-party system and the transformation of the economy. This wing became dominant at the Congress of 7 October 1989, which buried the Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party and formed the new Hungarian Socialist Party, with the watchwords: a market economy, a multi-party parliamentary democracy, and democratic socialism in place of communism.
‘Freedom of speech’ was realised through the opening in Budapest in October 1989 of the offices of Radio Free Europe, financed by the CIA to begin with and later by the American Congress, with one media mogul, Rupert Murdoch, buying 50% of the shares of two popular Hungarian journals and television, and another, Robert Maxwell, also announcing his intention to invest in Hungarian journals and television.
Trotskyites wholeheartedly support counter-revolution as the realisation of Trotsky’s ‘anti-bureaucratic’ social revolution.
By the end of November, counter-revolutionary movements with harmless sounding names such as Solidarnosc (Solidarity) in Poland, Civic Forum – the last incarnation of the opposition in Czechoslovakia, the Union of Democrats in Bulgaria (which started as a movement for improving ecology, Econoglasnost), New Forum in the GDR, were in the ascendant. Without a single shot being fired, this counter-revolution, taking the form of mass peaceful street processions, candle-lit marches and demonstrations, and using the deceptive and seemingly non-class slogan of ‘greater democracy’, overwhelmed the ruling communist parties with bewildering rapidity. One after the other, communist party-led governments in the east European countries made way for government in which non-communist or anti-communist, bourgeois and petty-bourgeois elements with longstanding ties to imperialism and local reactionaries predominated. The last to fall was Romania, with the overthrow of Nicolai Ceaucescu in December 1989, followed a week later, on 27 December, by his and his wife Helena’s judicial murder.
The most representative spokesman of British finance capital, The Financial Times, describing the year 1989 as “a true annus mirabilis”, declared its smug satisfaction thus:
” With the bloody uprising against Ceaucescu, the totalitarian epoch in European history, begun by Lenin in 1917, has virtually ended, with Albania, the sole, unabashed survivor” (2 January 1990).
Not only tiny Albania, the mighty Soviet Union, too, was to collapse shortly thereafter.
Having come to power, the new counter-revolutionary governments, fully backed by imperialism, soon took off the velvet glove and revealed the iron fist of counter revolution by getting on with the job of liquidating socialism, destruction of the planned economy, installation of market mechanisms and political pluralism – with all the attendant consequences of mass unemployment, vast scale destitution, crime and theft of the property of the people by imperialism and a tiny clique of its local flunkeys. This was the true essence of the counter revolution’s slogans of ‘freeing Marxism from Stalinist and bureaucratic distortions’!
The Belgians collected chocolate, sugar, powdered milk, old clothes, medicines, to do their bit in the unfolding counter revolution in Romania.
” The fall of communism is accompanied by economic reforms which have put an end to the dogma of ‘socialisation of the means of production’. The new laws passed practically everywhere ‘will make 1990 the year of privatisation of enterprises'”, declared the Belgian Echo de la bourse of 19 December 1989.
On 20 December 1989, Ceaucescu correctly declared that the counter-revolutionary demonstrations against his government were organised in cooperation with reactionary and imperialist circles and the secret services of various countries. The imperialist propaganda machine went for an extravaganza of half-truths, falsification and downright lies. It spread the lie that 12,000 people had been killed in Timosoara – the truth turned out to be that 90 people had died of whom an unknown number were in fact communists.
An official Romanian report a few days after the murder of the Ceaucescus stated that in the disturbances preceding the overthrow of Ceaucescu, 688 people throughout the country had been killed – not the more than 76,000 as deliberately falsely claimed by the electronic and print media organs of finance capital. And of those killed, 280 were military personnel and civilians working for the Ministry of Defence. Many were members of the Communist Party and adherents of Ceaucescu, and many belonged to the Securitate.
The question arises: how could the east European governments, after four decades of socialist construction, collapse in such a dramatic way? The answer lies in the undermining of the ruling parties through the ravages of Khrushchevite revisionism, which became ascendant in the Soviet Union following the death of J V Stalin, especially after the 20th Party Congress of the CPSU, and which then, under Khrushchev’s loving, tender care, spread to, or rather was forced on, the communist parties of the east European socialist countries.
After the Warsaw Pact intervention to suppress the so-called Prague Spring of 1968, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia analysed the disastrous developments and came up with the following correct conclusions on the basis of the terrible experiences it had undergone:
“One of the determining causes for this catastrophic development was the gradual penetration into the leading organs of the Party of persons who had more or less betrayed Marxism-Leninism and prole-tarian internationalism, who violated the norms of party life and the principles of democratic centralism. These people gradually took the upper hand in the leadership of the party. In the course of the last years the class point of view on problems weakened, revolutionary vigilance and ideological principles regressed, petty bourgeois methods as well as careerism and opportunism developed. The formation of socialist man, the struggle for a socialist consciousness and against non-class tendencies, were not founded upon an effective programme, adapted to our conditions, and in our programme there was strong evidence of petty-bourgeois forces and various social democratic traditions and influences. International aspects of our evolution which were determinated by the acute class antagonisms of the contemporary world substantially reinforced the urgency of the political and ideological struggle. No adequate struggle was carried out against right-wing opportunism, which was growing inside the party, reflecting both the actions of petty bourgeois sections and of international influences. Nor did the leadership of the party draw the necessary conclusions from the Hungarian counter-revolution or prepare the party to confront the methods of ideological diversion, which the imperi-alists were beginning to use as their main weapons against the socialist countries”.
All the reactionary forces, from social democracy to the Churches, fully abetted, aided and nurtured by imperialism, took advantage of these developments to produce the 1968 explosion.
Although the Soviet and Warsaw Pact intervention stopped in its tracks the attempted counter revolution in Czechoslovakia, it could not be long before it resurfaced as long as Khrushchehvite revisionism remained dominant in the Soviet Union. It was all very well for the Soviet revisionist ideologues to criticise the Czech revisionist economist, Ota Sik, but the rot could not be stopped while the USSR continued to implement similar economic policies at home.
By the time of the last years of Gorbachev’s stewardship of the CPSU, the Soviet Union had, through the twin policies of Perestroika and Glasnost, been brought to the brink of collapse. With the spread of the counter-revolutionary current in eastern Europe, Gorbachev gave up the ghost and pulled the plug, allowing imperialism’s agents to overwhelm the socialist governments one after the other in a surprisingly short time.
From the foregoing it is clear that colour revolutions succeed only where the intended victim is neither strong enough ideologically or physically to resist the onslaught of the combined forces of local reactionaries and their imperialist puppet masters. Even the attempt at regime change through subversion and sabotage – euphemistically dubbed a colour revolution – is a sign of the weakness of the targeted government. If, however, the intended government has the resilience, the will and resourcefulness to resist, it can defeat such attempts at regime change. This is precisely what happened during the disturbances in Tienanmen Square, Beijing, in the summer of 1989, resulting in the dramatic events of 3-4 June.
After the People’s Liberation Army had successfully crushed the counter revolution, the imperialist bourgeoisie’s protest at the crushing of ‘democracy’ reached a crescendo, as did its denunciation of the Communist Party’s ‘dictatorship’.
This was nothing but hypocritical cant. For the truth is that to the bourgeoisie there is only one freedom which is supreme, namely, the freedom of one person to exploit another. In the euphemistic language of the Financial Times editorial of 2 January 1990, ” Democracies crumble when the state encroaches too far on the market”.
No matter how obliquely, these words betray the real essence of the bourgeoisie’s advocacy and love of freedom. In other words, all infamies, all butchery, all holocausts and wars are permissible and legitimate in defence of this, the only real bourgeois freedom. All the rest of the talk about freedom, democracy and the rule of law is nothing but a sham and a humbug.
It is the duty of communists and progressives to take this message to the masses of people, to make sure this truth permeates their thinking.
One could write a very large volume on the subject of colour revolutions. But neither time nor space allow for that on this occasion.
With these words I submit this presentation on behalf of my Party to the deliberations of the 6th World Socialism Forum and thank all the participants for listening to me.