Independence

Illegal US military strikes on January 3, 2026, against Venezuela have elicited a flood of resolutions from labor unions. Some of these have focused solely on the US aggression and solidarity with the Venezuelan people. Others have gone further to condemn the kidnapping and arrest of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. In at least one case, a resolution by the Tucson chapter of the National Writers Union has called for systemic changes to how the AFL-CIO, the US’ largest labor confederation, and its Solidarity Center (formerly the American Center for International Labor Solidarity), conducts its international relations. In each case, union members are undertaking important steps towards peace and solidarity as well as opening up possibilities for the emergence of a truly independent US labor movement. 

These resolutions are the latest in a series of cases where labor has broken with US foreign policies, including military strikes and acts of war. Beginning with the AFL-CIO’s 2005 passage of the USLAW Resolution 53: “The War in Iraq”, the federation and both affiliated and unaffiliated unions have gone on to speak out against coups in Honduras and Bolivia, repressive immigration policies, neoliberal trade agreements, and other global wars and threats of war.

In contrast, the Solidarity Center, the AFL-CIO’s primary channel for international activities, has continued to collaborate with US policies of regime change. The AFL-CIO’s Solidarity Center is historically 90 to 96% funded by the US government, and its policies are set in consultation with the White House rather than with representatives from its member unions. The Solidarity Center is one of the core institutes of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), along with the International Republican Institute (IRI), the Center for International Private Enterprise (US Chamber of Commerce), and the National Democratic Institute (NDI). The NED was created by the US Congress in 1983 in large part to “…do today [what] was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”

The Solidarity Center has played support roles in coups and coup attempts as well as invasions and occupations in Haiti, Venezuela, and Iraq, to name a few examples. In Haiti, the Solidarity Center withheld support for the largest union during the IRI orchestrated coup and instead funded a small labor organization that refused to oppose the coup. In Iraq, the Solidarity Center ignored unions and workers organizations protesting the US occupation in order to support union organizing that would avoid such direct challenges. 

In Venezuela, the Solidarity Center funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to plotters of the failed coup of 2002. Since then, the Solidarity Center has provided a black box worth millions in funding for activities in Venezuela. However, it has provided no details about how those funds are being used or to whom they are being distributed. 

The recent freeze in funding for the NED and the Solidarity Center by the Trump Administration is being treated as a crisis. It has resulted in lawsuits by both institutions to recover funding. However, orphaned by the White House, there is another way forward for the AFL-CIO and the Solidarity Center. The Tucson NWU resolution calls for the Solidarity Center to open its books on its activities and to wean itself off government funding. The recent experiences of unions declaring their solidarity with both Palestine and Venezuela have shown many the profound need for a new era of labor independence. 

Labor unionists in solidarity with Venezuela should study and learn from experiences regarding Palestine. Labor mobilizations against the genocide in Gaza represented a break not only with international US policies but, specifically, with the leadership of the AFL-CIO which has long supported Zionism and even to this day, acted to stifle solidarity with Palestine. In an article for Left Voice, Jason Koslowski informs us that, 

“By October 18, a little fewer than 2,000 were dead in Gaza. That’s when one of the AFL-CIO’s organs in Washington State — the Thurston-Lewis-Mason Central Labor Council, or TMLCLC — met and passed a resolution demanding a ceasefire. 

The TMLCLC’s resolution ‘opposes in principle any union involvement in the production or transportation of weapons destined for Israel.’ And it challenges the AFL-CIO leadership, too: 

‘[W]hile the TLMCLC agrees with the AFL-CIO’s statement calling for a ‘just and lasting peace,’ we would ask our parent federation to also publicly support an immediate ceasefire and equal rights for Palestinians and Israelis.

The AFL-CIO leadership caught wind of this dissent. That’s when it stepped in. 

A representative of the AFL-CIO leaders contacted the labor council to declare the dissenting statement void. Under pressure, the Washington labor council deleted the statement from its Twitter account.”

Jeff Shurke is the author of the must-read book No Neutrals There: US Labor, Zionism, and the Struggle for Palestine. Shurke, in an article for Jacobin, adds that, 

“…an AFL-CIO senior field representative informed the council’s board members that their resolution was null and void because it did not conform to the national federation’s official policy…. About a week later, AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler sent a memorandum to all local labor councils and state labor federations across the United States telling them that ‘the national AFL-CIO is the only body that can render an official public position or action on national or international issues.’ Without explicitly referencing the unfolding carnage in Gaza, she was all but telling the federation’s local and statewide bodies they were not allowed to stand in solidarity with Palestine.

Still, the AFL-CIO’s individual member unions — which, unlike central labor councils, operate as autonomous affiliates of the federation — were free to take their own positions. Beginning with the American Postal Workers Union and United Auto Workers (UAW), over the following weeks and months several of them formally joined the growing chorus of international voices demanding a ceasefire in Gaza… culminating in the establishment of a new union coalition dubbed the National Labor Network for Ceasefire.

The AFL-CIO itself eventually came out in favor of a “negotiated cease-fire” in early February 2024, after at least twenty-five thousand Palestinians had already been killed. Despite these positive developments, the AFL-CIO and its affiliated unions at the national level still failed to answer the explicit Palestinian call to refrain from building or shipping weapons for Israel.”

In the case of the Tucson NWU’s resolution, rather than going through labor federations, the resolution has been sent to the national NWU for passage and forwarding to the AFL-CIO for consideration in the next convention. Other unions are debating similar resolutions. There also is discussion of bringing resolutions before labor counsels and federations despite the AFL-CIO’s admonishments. 

Right now, three kinds of resolutions have emerged from labor in response to the January 3rd attack on Venezuela. They are all good. 

•  The first kind is to condemn the attacks without further elaboration. That is positive, but by leaving out reference to the kidnapping of President Maduro and Cilia Flores, the resolutions sidestep the issue of regime change itself. 
•  The second kind adds a demand for the release of Maduro and Flores. This is better and implicitly breaks with the AFL-CIO’s and the Solidarity Center’s support for regime change. 
•  The Tucson NWU resolution is an example of the third approach. It takes worker-to-worker solidarity to its logical conclusion, calling for systemic change so that the AFL-CIO will never again support US coups and invasions but, instead, plot an independent course. That is the most meaningful kind of change, one that lasts beyond just the current moment and conflict. 

The opportunity to achieve that kind of change is here. Abandoned by the White House, pressured by its own rank and file, the time has come for the AFL-CIO to choose a new path. What will be its response?

James Patrick Jordan is National Co-Coordinator for the Alliance for Global Justice and is responsible for its Colombia, labor, and ecological solidarity programs.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff.

Source: Orinoco Tribune

Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney has said that he expects the United States to respect the country’s sovereignty after reports that Alberta separatists have met several times with officials of the Donald Trump administration.

The Financial Times reported that US State Department officials held meetings with the Alberta Prosperity Project (APP), a group calling for a referendum on whether the energy-rich western province should leave Canada.

Speaking in Ottawa on Thursday, Carney said he has been clear with US President Donald Trump on the issue.

“I expect the US administration to respect Canadian sovereignty,” he said, adding that after raising the issue, he wanted the two sides to focus on areas where they can work together.

Carney is himself an Albertan, raised in Edmonton, the provincial capital. The province has had an independence movement for decades.

Trump has repeatedly threatened to make Canada the “51st state” of the American Union.

Here is what we know:

Leaders of the APP have reportedly met with US State Department officials in Washington at least three times since last April. Trump entered office for a second time in January.

These meetings have prompted concern in Ottawa regarding potential US interference in Canadian domestic politics.

This follows comments by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent last week, who described Alberta as “a natural partner for the US” and praised the province’s resource wealth and “independent” character during an interview with the right-wing broadcaster Real America’s Voice.

“Alberta has a wealth of natural resources, but they [the Canadian government] won’t let them build a pipeline to the Pacific,” he said. “I think we should let them come down into the US,” Bessent said during an interview with the right-wing broadcaster.

“There’s a rumour they may have a referendum on whether they want to stay in Canada or not.”

Asked if he knew something about the separation effort, Bessent said, “People are talking. People want sovereignty. They want what the US has got.”

After Bessent’s comments, Jeffrey Rath, a leader of the APP, said that the group was seeking another meeting with US officials next month, where they are expected to ask about a possible $500bn credit line to support Alberta if a future independence referendum – which has not yet been called – were to be held.

The developments come at a sensitive moment in US-Canada relations, with trade tensions still simmering and after a recent speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos where Carney warned that Washington was contributing to a “rupture” in the global order.

Trump has repeatedly threatened to make Canada part of the American Union. His expansionist ambitions have been further underscored by his recent push to acquire Greenland from Denmark, which, like Canada, is a NATO ally. At the start of the year, the US military also abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, and has since attempted to take control of the South American nation’s massive oil industry.

How have Canadian leaders reacted to the reports?

Speaking on Thursday, British Columbia Premier David Eby described the reported behind-the-scenes meetings as “treason”.

“To go to a foreign country and to ask for assistance in breaking up Canada, there’s an old-fashioned word for that – and that word is treason,” Eby told reporters.

“It is completely inappropriate to seek to weaken Canada, to go and ask for assistance, to break up this country from a foreign power and – with respect – a president who has not been particularly respectful of Canada’s sovereignty.”

Ontario Premier Doug Ford appealed for Canadian unity on Thursday morning.

“You know, we have a referendum going on out in Alberta. The separatists in Quebec say they’re gonna call a referendum if they get elected. Like, folks, we need to stick together. It’s Team Canada. It’s nothing else,” he said.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, however, said she won’t demonise the Albertans who are open to separation because of “legitimate grievances” with Ottawa and said she did not want to “demonise or marginalise a million of my fellow citizens”.

Smith has long been pro-Trump and visited the US president’s Mar-a-Lago estate in January 2025, at a time when most other Canadian leaders were joining hands to criticise his demand that the country become a part of the United States.

What do we know about a potential referendum in Alberta?

Anger towards Ottawa has been building in Alberta for decades, rooted largely in disputes over how the federal government manages the province’s vast oil and gas resources.

Many Albertans feel federal policies – particularly environmental regulations, carbon pricing and pipeline approvals – limit Alberta’s ability to develop and export its energy.

As a landlocked province, Alberta depends on pipelines and cooperation with other provinces to access global markets, making those federal decisions especially contentious.

Many Albertans believe the province generates significant wealth while having limited influence over national decision-making. In 2024-25, for instance, it contributed 15 percent of Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP), despite being home to only 12 percent of the population.

Alberta consistently produces more than 80 percent of Canada’s oil and 60 percent of the country’s natural gas.

Yet, many Albertans say that the federal government does not give the province its fair share from taxes collected. Canada has a system of equalisation payments, under which the federal government pays poorer provinces extra funds to ensure that they can maintain social services. While Quebec and Manitoba receive the highest payments, Alberta – as well as British Columbia and Saskatchewan – at the moment receive no equalisation payments.

Carney recently signed an agreement with Alberta, opening the door for an oil pipeline to the Pacific, though it is opposed by Eby and faces significant hurdles.

Recent Ipsos polling suggests that about three in 10 Albertans would support starting the process of leaving Canada.

But the survey also found that roughly one in five of those supporters viewed a vote to leave as largely symbolic – a way to signal political dissatisfaction rather than a firm desire for independence.

A referendum on Alberta independence could happen later this year if a group of residents can collect the nearly 178,000 signatures required to force a vote on the issue. But even if the referendum passes, Alberta would not be immediately independent.

Under the Clarity Act, the federal government would first have to determine whether the referendum question was clear and whether the result represented a clear majority. Only then would negotiations begin, covering issues such as the division of assets and debt, borders and Indigenous rights.

What is the Alberta Prosperity Project and what does it want?

The APP is a pro-independence group that is campaigning for a referendum on Alberta leaving Canada.

It argues that the province would be better off controlling its own resources, taxes and policies, and has been working to gather signatures under Alberta’s citizen-initiative rules to trigger a vote.

While it describes itself as an educational, non-partisan project, the group has drawn controversy over its claims about the economic viability of an independent Alberta.

On its website, the APP says, “Alberta sovereignty, in the context of its relationship with Canada, refers to the aspiration for Alberta to gain greater autonomy and control over provincial areas of responsibility.”

“However, a combination of economic, political, cultural and human rights factors … has resulted in many Albertans defining ‘Alberta sovereignty’ to mean Alberta becoming an independent country and taking control of all matters that fall within the jurisdiction of an independent nation,” it adds.

What else has Washington said?

White House and State Department officials told the FT that administration officials regularly meet with civil society groups and that no support or commitments were conveyed.

A  report published by Canada’s public broadcaster CBC earlier this year quoted US national security analyst Brandon Weichert as saying that Trump’s talk of Canada becoming the “51st state” was, in reality, aimed at Alberta.

Appearing on a show hosted by former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon, Weichert suggested that a vote for independence in Alberta would prompt the US to recognise the province and guide it towards becoming a US state.

Has the Trump administration tried this elsewhere?

Yes, in Greenland.

As with Canada, Trump has repeatedly called for Greenland to be incorporated into the US. His threats to annex Greenland have prompted strong opposition from the government of the Arctic island, Denmark — which governs Greenland — and Europe.

But as with Alberta, Trump’s administration has also attempted to test separatist sentiment. In August 2025, the Danish government summoned the top US diplomat in Copenhagen after Denmark’s national broadcaster reported that three Trump allies had begun pulling together a list of Greenlanders supportive of the US president’s efforts to get it to join the United States.