----- Original Message ----- From: John Clancy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 9:51 PM Subject: [Cuba SI] CPA: Guardian Roundup Aug 2 from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] subject: CPA: Guardian Roundup Aug 2 Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 19:31:17 +1000 From: Communist Party of Australia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Gleeson, Shannon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: GUARDIAN ROUNDUP -- AUGUST 2ND -- SEE INDEX GUARDIAN ROUNDUP -- AUGUST 2ND -- SEE INDEX The following articles were published in "The Guardian", newspaper of the Communist Party of Australia in its issue of Wednesday, August 2nd, 2000. Contact address: 65 Campbell Street, Surry Hills. Sydney. 2010 Australia. Phone: (612) 9212 6855 Fax: (612) 9281 5795. CPA Central Committee: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "The Guardian": <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Webpage: http://www.cpa.org.au> Subscription rates on request. ****************************** INDEX 1. Greenhouse crisis 2. Editorial: Govt should implement UN human rights recommendations 3. Time for a treaty 4. Native Title triumphs over NT Govt obstruction 5. NMD: Putting Australia and world at risk 6. Mandatory sentencing. A deal but law remains 7. Fiji coup unravels 11. Taking Issue: Human genome project and pharmaceutical companies 12. Culture & Life: Bad Dreams 13. Zimbabwe: Imperialism fails to block land division 14. Camp David: The long war against the Palestinians. ********************************************************** 1. Greenhouse Crisis An estimated 2.5 million hectares of land in the Murray- Darling basin are now affected by salinity, caused by the massive clearing of land. This practically unfettered destruction of trees, vegetation and wildlife is increasing at three to five percent per annum, threatening some 12 million hectares and contributing to the growing danger greenhouse gas emissions pose to the future of the planet. by Peter Mac The 1996 Kyoto agreement on greenhouse gas emissions allowed Australia to have an eight percent increase in greenhouse emissions above the 1990 level by the year 2010. However, by 1998 Australia's emissions had already risen to 16.9 percent over the 1990 figure, i.e. more than double the permitted increase for 2010. The energy generation sector accounts for 79 per cent of emissions, of which 37 percent comes from electricity generation, much of which has now been privatised. And the figure is rising. In 1997 alone, emissions rose 5.2 percent, without taking into account the effects of land clearing. The Kyoto agreement counted land clearing as contributing to emissions, and tree planting as a reduction, even when those doing the planting did so in a country other than the one felling trees. For example, a Japanese corporation which recently established a tree plantation in NSW will gain greenhouse credits for Japan. Not so for Australia! The rate of clearance in Queensland in particular has soared. Clearance has alarming implications for the quality of the soil, as well as the air, because it has the potential to increase soil erosion and salinity. (Salinity is caused when the removal of trees, whose deep roots soak up water deep beneath the soil surface, allows the water table to eventually rise to the surface, bringing with it salt which crystallises or forms salt-saturated surface water, and kills off the area's vegetation.) Phillip Toyne, former director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, and Rick Farley, former director of the National Farmers' Federation, have issued a call for a tax to fund land remediation. They've also proposed that a condition of receiving public funding for land management should be the adoption of sustainable land-use practices, and that land remediation programs should be implemented on the basis of regions rather than individual holdings. There is now broad political and growing community opposition to the mass clearance of Queensland bush. However, Queensland Premier Beattie wants the rest of Australia to leave "Queenslanders" to sort it out. With less than wholehearted enthusiasm the Commonwealth Government is considering either the use of lame controls on land management practices, or "salinity credit" grants, to tackle the problem. The National Party has said that any government action must avoid affecting farmers' property rights and must not restrict their use of the land. The federal Minister for Agriculture said that the Howard Government would be reluctant to increase taxes to deal with the problem: suddenly they have a problem with making a tax "reform". Even if the Federal Government were to take action it would do so in order to pressure the public to accept the sale of the rest of Telstra to fund the its implementation. Whose interests are they serving? Many farmers are deeply concerned about the implications of soil degradation, and would be only too happy to go along with an effective soil remediation program. However, others, mostly the big players in the agribusiness stakes, would not. Last week Greens Senator Bob Brown called for the Stanbroke Pastoral Company, the biggest land clearing offender and a subsidiary of insurance giant AMP, to cease its environmental vandalism. Stanbroke has already cleared vast areas, in some cases ignoring local land management guidelines and destroying native animal habitats. The Beattie Government has now issued a permit for this company to clear another 100,000 acres, part of which is in the headwaters of the Murray-Darling River system. Senator Brown commented: "Stanbroke Pastoral Company is no battling farmer. It is the largest single landholder and beef producer in the world, controlling over 13.2 million hectares. "... AMP should call a halt immediately to all clearing of native vegetation on their properties, pending a proper public evaluation of the impacts on salinity, greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity. "... AMP should be setting an example, not single-handedly contributing 25 per cent of Queensland's annual rate of clearing." The Federal and Queensland Governments are more attuned to the requirements of corporate interests like the Stanbroke Pastoral Company than to the wishes of small farmers and the ordinary working people of Australia and the critical need of the entire planet. ************************************************************ 2. Editorial: Government should implement Human Rights recommendations The United Nations Human Rights Committee has strongly expressed its "concern" to the Australian Government on the mandatory sentencing laws of WA and the Northern Territory, the mandatory detention of asylum seekers, the stolen generations and Native Title legislation. It has concluded that all of these are in conflict with the obligations that Australia accepted when it ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Predictably both the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Denis Burke, and Federal Attorney General Darryl Williams have dismissed the UN Commission's findings. Williams claims that it has all been fixed up because the Federal Government has made a "deal" with the NT Government to provide $20 million to set up what are described as "diversionary programs" Burke, banking on the inherent racism in some sections of the Australian community, claims that the UN decisions would not win electoral support in Australia. The fact is that the "diversionary programs" for young offenders do not eliminate the evil of mandatory sentencing which has seen outrageous jail sentences imposed on mere children for the most paltry of offences. Jail terms will be replaced by time spent in a police-run institution and it will still take away from judges their responsibility to decide penalties. Aboriginal children will continue to be snatched from the protection and security of their families. The new program with its reliance on institutions could become yet another means to break up Aboriginal families just as the forcible removal of children in earlier times resulted in the tens of thousands of the stolen generations. For the second time, Greens Senator, Bob Brown will introduce legislation into the Senate. His new Bill will ban mandatory sentencing for all property crimes, not only for children but for adults as well. The Greens legislation is in line with Australia's obligations under the Human Rights Covenant but it is unlikely that the Government will accept it. The Australian Government still asserts that it is not obliged to implement the recommendations of the UN Committee although it has ratified the UN Covenant. Despite its protestations, the Howard Government, in fact, supports mandatory sentencing just as it refuses to admit to its appalling treatment of asylum seekers, the crime of the stolen generations and its discriminatory Native Title Amendment Act 1999. The UN Committee has recommended: a stronger role in decision- making for Australia's indigenous people over their traditional lands and natural resources; that the titles and interests of indigenous persons in their native lands be protected; that efforts be intensified so that victims of the policy of removing indigenous children be afforded a proper remedy; that measures be taken to give effect to all Covenant rights and freedoms and ensure that all persons whose rights and freedoms had been violated should have an effective remedy; that legislation regarding mandatory imprisonment be reassessed to ensure that all Covenant rights are respected and that Australia's policy of mandatory detention of asylum seekers be reconsidered and alternative mechanisms implemented to maintain an orderly immigration process. Because of this criticism there are indications that the Australian Government is weakening in its support for the United Nations. This is a dangerous course for Australia to take. The world is changing and it is no longer so easy for conservative governments to ride roughshod over the people, including the indigenous people. Australia may well find itself more and more isolated from other countries that see in the United Nations, with all its weaknesses, an international body in which they have at least a voice. It makes decisions and implements educational, health and other aid programs which help them meet the onslaught they are experiencing from the imperialist powers and the big corporations. The Australian Government should heed the recommendations of the UN Human Rights Committee and not dismiss or bury them in silence. The issues about which the UN Committee has had something to say will not go away and many Australians will support its recommendations. That is why hundreds of thousands demonstrated for Reconciliation a few weeks ago. It is up to the Australian people to ensure that the Government acts to right the wrongs. ************************************************************* 3. Time for a Treaty This is an abridged version of a longer article to be published in the next issue of the "Australian Marxist Review" which will be out soon. ******************** The occupation and ownership of Australia's territory by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders for at least 50,000 years is an indisputable scientific and historical fact. by Peter Symon The indigenous people were hunter-gathers with a communal economy and a society based on sharing and co-operation. The culture and system of ideas of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were developed in close association with the land, its plants and animals. Their society was savagely uprooted by the invasion of 1788 and although Governor Phillip was given instructions to "take possession of the continent with the consent of the Natives", consent was never asked nor was it ever given. The land occupied by the indigenous people was seized without any compensation or recognition. The theory of "terra nullius" (empty land) was established to justify this open theft by the conquerors. The new settlers imposed their economic system, their authority and power, their culture and beliefs, often using the Christian church for this. The languages and culture of the nomadic people were steadily but never completely destroyed. Genocide The Aboriginal population is estimated at about 300,000 at the time of the first white settlement. By the end of the 19th Century this number had been reduced to perhaps 75,000. This thread of genocide continued through policies condoned by successive governments. Not only did the settlers' guns do their deadly work, but the poisoning of water and flour was also used. Diseases imported by the white invaders, and sometimes deliberately spread, were also a potent killer of the indigenous people. Die out In the 18th and first half of the 19th Centuries, it was believed that the indigenous people would die out. "Christian" missionaries played their part to "smooth the pillow" of the supposedly dying people. This process was to be helped by herding them onto reserves and through the policies of assimilation. The reserves became pools of cheap or unpaid labour for farmers and pastoralists while the destruction of Aboriginal families by way of abducting their children (the stolen generations) began. The identity of these children was denied in the name of assimilation. Paul Hasluck, a one-time Governor-General of Australia, said assimilation "means that, after many generations, the Aboriginal people will disappear as a separate racial group". However, changes taking place in white capitalist society also impacted on the remaining indigenous people. Pastoralists needed workers and Aborigines proved to be capable stockmen who could be employed on very low or no wages. Women were required as domestic servants in white homesteads. Changes in attitudes During World War II many white soldiers became acquainted with the Aboriginal people for the first time and saw for themselves the shocking treatment that was meted out to them in outback areas. White society became increasingly conscious and many could no longer tolerate the discrimination and exploitation without protest. Meanwhile, some Aborigines moved off the reserves and obtained the lowest paid and most menial jobs in cities and towns. In this way some became workers in the wider Australian community. Even those living on reserves came in contact with the cash economy and capitalist forms of trade. Slowly but steadily the vision of the Aboriginal people grew from a tribal outlook to an Australia-wide consciousness. In 1958, the first Australia-wide Aboriginal organisation was formed -- the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders (FCAATSI). It was a multi-racial organisation and included such outstanding Aborigines as Joe McGinness (a Cairns waterside worker and communist), Faith Bandler, Kath Walker, Pastor Doug Nichols, Gladys Elphick, Ray Peckham (also a communist), and others. One people The indigenous people began to realise that they were a people with a common history and ancestry and that all were being savagely oppressed, deprived, exploited and wronged. >From this realisation came a higher level of struggle. By 1988, the 200th anniversary of white invasion, Aboriginal people declared: "We have survived". This was a call to resistance. Some broke through to high school and universities, even though the majority were still relegated to the fringes of country towns and in other far-away places and lived in appalling conditions of poverty, deprivation and unemployment. Land rights struggle A significant factor was the steadily growing struggle for land rights and for decent wages and conditions for Aboriginal workers. On 1 May 1946, a major strike struggle took place across the Pilbara region of Western Australia. One of its outcomes was the formation of an Aboriginal mining co-operative, the first of its kind in Australia. The Pindan group used traditional forms of social organisation but modified them to suit their circumstances. This was followed in 1966/7 by the strike of stockmen from properties of the British-owned Vestey pastoral company in the Northern Territory. The Arbitration Commission had awarded Aboriginal stockmen equal pay and conditions but implementation was delayed. The Gurindji people began a long strike which grew into a successful struggle for land rights when they occupied their traditional land at Dagu Ragu (Wattie Creek). Referendum The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were not counted in the Australian census and legislation on questions relating to the indigenous people resided in State parliaments. A referendum in 1967 which called for this situation to be reversed was adopted by a 90 per cent vote that was also a vote for a changed attitude on the part of governments to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Terra Nullius overturned A high-water mark was reached in the land rights struggle when in 1992 the High Court gave a decision in the Mabo case. For the first time a Court recognised the fact that the Aboriginal people had occupied land for millennia, thereby overturning the lie of "terra nullius" -- that the Australian continent was empty of people at the time of Governor Phillip's invasion in 1788. But white conservatives fought and are still fighting a stubborn rearguard action to deny the reality of the 1788 invasion, to deny the policies of genocide, to refuse to recognise the stolen generations and, above all, to limit, delay and, if possible, scuttle the land claims of many indigenous people. For the ruling class of capitalist Australia it is private property that is sacred, not any concepts of justice or what is right. Treaty Labor Prime Minister Hawke responded to calls for a treaty in 1987 and undertook to commence negotiations on what was then called a "Makarrata". Hawke called for a "compact of understanding" but this was rejected by Aboriginal leaders. Charles Perkins said: "We want a treaty written into the Constitution for all time. A compact is not good enough." A treaty, he said, should cover issues of the prior ownership of land, sovereignty, compensation for land lost, and recognition of the customs, laws, languages and sacred sites. Keating replaced Hawke as Prime Minister and, instead of proceeding with treaty negotiations, appointed a Reconciliation Council in 1990. This was a diversion which sidetracked the treaty concept. The Council finalised its work this year and issued a Statement of Reconciliation which says: "We recognise this land and its waters were settled as colonies without treaty or consent [and we] respect that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have the right to self- determination...." Is a treaty the way to go? Can a treaty be concluded between the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander national minorities and the Australian State? The policies of protection, integration and assimilation have completely failed while the assertion of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as distinct peoples with their own history, ancestry, culture and traditions is irrefutable. That they are the original inhabitants of this continent is also irrefutable. At its 3rd Congress in 1978 the Socialist Party (now Communist Party) declared: "The Aboriginal people are an oppressed national minority within the Australian state and it is a particular responsibility of the working class to join in struggle for the emancipation of the Aboriginal people and to win full national minority rights and in particular the right to the inalienable, communal ownership of remaining tribal lands .... "Another fundamental demand is for the creation of autonomous administrations on lands made over to inalienable, communal ownership." Recognition It is time to dispense with the ideas of "protection", "integration" and "assimilation". Even "reconciliation" is not enough. RECOGNITION is required -- recognition of the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders as distinct peoples, as the original occupiers and owners, as national minorities within the Australian state. A treaty will require long negotiations. It would need to be incorporated in law with amendments to the Australian Constitution. In the process the Aboriginal and Islander national minorities must be treated as equals. Howard claims the demand for a treaty is "divisive" as though divisions do not already exist. His charge is yet another ploy to frighten people, to justify present policies and to meet the interests of the mining companies and pastoralists. However, governments and the Australian people will have to face up to the question of a treaty and accept that it is a valid demand. A treaty is not an alternative to the continuing struggle for land rights. Land rights claims and the campaign for a treaty are two elements of the same struggle. Two hundred and twelve years is time enough to put the wrong to right. A treaty is now the way in which this has to be done. ****************************************************************** 4. Native title triumph over NT Govt obstruction After legal battles lasting more than ten years the Federal Court has upheld native title rights over 7,500 sq. km. of land at the old St Vidgeon Station and the nearby Roper, Cox and Limmen Bight Rivers near the Gulf of Carpentaria. by Peter Mac The original land claim lodged by the traditional owners in the 1980s under the Northern Territory Land Rights Act was immediately blocked by the NT Government, which transferred the land to the NT Land Corporation. This had the effect of removing the right to claim by traditional landowners, because it was no longer Crown land, even though the NT Land Corporation was set up by and belongs to the NT Government. In 1994 the mining corporation Rio Tinto reached an agreement regarding minerals exploration and extraction on the St Vidgeon property with the traditional owners, and in 1995 this was formalised as the Walgundu agreement. Under this agreement the company agreed to provide site protection and to allocate a percentage of the exploration costs to the traditional owners, who subsequently lodged a claim under the federal Native Title Act. However, regardless of the arrangement with Rio Tinto, the Northern Territory Government disputed the Native Title claim and took the matter to the Federal Court. Northern Territory Land Council chairman Galarrwuy Yunipingu commented: "It is disappointing and frustrating to continually find the NT Government trying to deny Native Title and holding up these processes... "A speedy agreement [with Rio Tinto] was reached. However, the NT Government instead of recognising the obvious, yet again forced the matter through the expensive and time-consuming legal process." The latest Court decision was not an unqualified success for the traditional owners. The Court found that Native Title had been extinguished over part of a stock route in the north-west part of the claim site. However, the decision has major implications for land claims in the Northern Territory, as it contradicts an earlier decision regarding a land rights claim to the "Devil's Marbles" site, which the traditional owners lost because the area had also been transferred to the NT Land Corporation. The St Vidgeon decision therefore appears to undermine the whole strategy of the NT Government in using the Land Corporation to block claims by traditional owners. The Government is expected to appeal against the decision and to argue that Native title does not exist on NT Land Corporation land. If they do so, the outcome will have major implications for the Northern Territory Aboriginal people's long struggle for access to their traditional land. For the moment, however, the mood among traditional owners is jubilant. Mr Yunipingu commented: "The outcome of this case ... is good news for all native title claimants, and indicates that similar native title rights most likely exist on other NT Land Corporation land, which accounts for about 10 per cent of the Territory." ************************************************************* 5. Putting Australia and the World at Risk US National Missile Defence In Australia recently to give the Howard Government its orders, US Defence Secretary Cohen stated that the US "expects" Australia to be "very much involved" in the US missile defence system and to increase military spending. by Dr Hannah Middleton The target of the US Star Wars program, now renamed National Missile Defence (NMD), is China. NMD is not a benign, defensive nuclear umbrella. It is a controversial space battle system, an offensive program that aims to provide a shield behind which the US could fire its nuclear arsenal at an enemy. In other words, it is intended to allow the US to attack other countries with impunity, without fear of retaliation. Armaments corporations The program's most important and influential proponents are the armaments corporations which will make billions of dollars if it goes ahead. With $12.7 billion already committed if the system is deployed and the prospects of tens of billions more, the armaments industry is making large political donations. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Boeing, the lead contractor for the missile defence program, had already given over $290,000 to federal candidates by February of this year. Raytheon, which is building the kill vehicle, has already given over $140,000. Lockheed Martin is the lead contractor for SBIRS High, one of the proposed systems' satellite components. It has already given over $377,000 to election 2000 campaigns, making it the third largest corporate contributor in the country. George Bush is using NMD as a political ploy against his rival Al Gore in the lead up to the Presidential elections. Decision already made There is considerable talk about "If a positive decision is made.....". The Australian Government has used the same approach to conceal its support for NMD by suggesting it is waiting for a final decision by the US Government before it makes its own decision. This is a farce. The decision has already been made. The National Missile Defense Act of 1999, signed by Clinton in July, states that it is US policy to deploy a limited NMD system "as soon as technologically feasible". Thus, a negative decision will simply be to delay deployment until an unspecified date in the future. Pine Gap US Defence Secretary William Cohen said on July 16, during his visit to Australia, that Pine Gap had been "very much" involved in NMD since October 1999. The admission was less than the full truth for Pine Gap will be the front line of the planned tracking and missile defence network. This will make Australia a front line nuclear target. Cohen's statement was also a total fabrication historically. Pine Gap, which has been operated by US intelligence since 1968, is a CIA intelligence base. It is one of the largest and most important US satellite ground control stations in the world. It controls a small number of geostationary signals intelligence satellites, the most secret of all US intelligence collection satellites. Pine Gap has been used to collect data on ballistic missile launches for over 30 years. The satellites it controls monitor missile telemetry and the exhaust plumes of missiles. These two pieces of information reveal the type of missile, its range, speed, trajectory and number of warheads -- all of which is crucial information if missiles are to be shot down with a Star Wars style system. Over the years Pine Gap has quietly been converted into a front- line base for the controversial National Missile Defence system During a May 1992 visit, then US Defence Secretary Dick Cheney (now George Bush's presidential running mate) confirmed that the US bases in Australia would play a role in the Strategic Defence Initiative or "Star Wars". The Keating Government agreed to collaborate with the US in developing the newer version of Star Wars, the NMD program. In 1997 four ballistic missiles were fired from a secret coastal site between Broome and Port Hedland in the north of WA, were tracked by Australia's Jindalee over-the-horizon radar as they travelled 117km through the air at high speed, and were allowed to land in the ocean. The 14m Terrier-Improved-Orion rockets were not armed and simulated ballistic missiles similar to the Scud missiles fired by Iraq during the Gulf War. Flight International reported last month that the US and Australia plan to build a major testing facility north of Broome in WA. The new range would allow the US Navy to stake a larger claim in the "Star Wars" plan by testing ship-based anti-missile systems. No real threat The Pentagon claims that the NMD program is intended to counter potential threats from so-called "rogue states" or, as the US State Department now calls them, "states of concern", including North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria. But any country which launched a missile attack against the United States would know that it faced national suicide. Of the named "rogue" states, only North Korea could conceivably field an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of hitting the US, but it has not yet tested a missile-with-warhead that is capable of doing so and it currently does not have a missile capable of reaching the United States. More importantly, the North Korean Government announced in June that it was extending its self-imposed ban on missile testing and that flight testing would remain on hold while negotiations with the United States continue. Arms control and disarmament The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty was signed by the USA and the USSR (now Russia) and entered into force in 1972. It obligates them not to undertake to build a nation-wide defence system against strategic ballistic missile attack and severely limits the development and deployment of permitted missile defences. The testing and deployment of the systems currently under development by the USA threaten to undermine the ABM as one of the cornerstones of the strategic nuclear balance. US representatives are becoming increasingly strident in their attacks on the ABM. Republican Jessie Helms, Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said recently: "If I succeed, we will defeat the ABM Treaty, toss it into the dustbin of history and thereby clear the way to build a national missile defense." The consequence of this is likely to be the collapse of all existing arms control and nuclear disarmament treaties. The fragile foundation for recent progress in nuclear disarmament will come crashing down. Russian President Vladimir Putin recently told the Russian parliament that if, "the US proceeds to destroy the 1972 ABM Treaty ... we can and will withdraw not only from the START II Treaty ... but from the whole system of treaty relations having to do with the limitation and control of strategic and conventional arms." Chinese arms control ambassador Sha Zukang, told the <MI>Washington Post": "Any amendment, or abolishing of the treaty, will lead to disastrous consequences. This will bring a halt to nuclear disarmament now between the Russians and Americans, and in the future will halt multilateral disarmament as well." New nuclear arms race Both Russia and China have repeatedly warned that US plans for a National Missile Defense will lead the world into a new nuclear arms race. Both countries have pledged to meet any US Star Wars scheme by building up their nuclear forces. Mr Sha Zukang, Director-General of arms control in the Chinese Foreign Ministry, has said the US missile shield poses an unacceptable threat to China's security. The US proposal would spark a global arms race and the "nightmare scenario" of weapons proliferation. If China builds up its nuclear forces to counter NMD, India and Pakistan are likely to follow suit. We are on the brink of a new, more dangerous nuclear arms race. It won't work. Any country capable of developing a ballistic missile that could reach the United States could also develop countermeasures, such as decoys, that could foil NMD. The multi-billion dollar Star Wars scheme will be completely useless against the most likely threat to the USA -- a truck or boat carrying chemical, biological, or nuclear warheads. States would be likely to build larger nuclear arsenals to increase their chances of simply overwhelming the NMD. World-wide hostility There is world wide hostility and resistance to the US plans. The G8 Foreign Ministers meeting in Japan, the United Nations Secretary General, the European Union, Germany, France, Sweden, Russia, China, the Non-Aligned movement, and 50 US Nobel prize winners are just some of the many who have expressed opposition to NMD. The Hiroshima Day commemorations this year will be the first opportunity many ordinary people will have to voice their opposition to NMD and large demonstrations are expected around the world. The only protection The reality is that greater efforts for nuclear abolition and arms control are the only protection against such threats -- but the US clearly does not have the political will or commitment to achieve this. As the peace movement has argued for decades, indeed since the first nuclear weapons were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, the only answer to the nuclear threat is to abolish nuclear weapons. ************************************************************** 6. Mandatory sentencing. Deal, but law remains Moves are afoot in the Federal Senate to end mandatory sentencing laws in the Northern Territory and Western Australia with Greens Senator Bob Brown announcing he is preparing a sweeping new Bill to override mandatory sentencing on all property crimes and the Australian Democrats saying they will reintroduce the Human Rights (Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders) Bill. These developments came after the United Nations Human Rights Committee criticised the laws (see Editorial p 2). The Democrats called the decision by NT Chief Minister Denis Burke to give $5 million more funding for policing, "throwing good money after bad", part of a deal concluded between the Federal and NT Governments last week. The deal includes the automatic jailing of juveniles for thefts of more than $100, and for their being sent to diversionary programs for crimes worth less than $100, whether they admit to the offence or not. The Howard Government will chip in $20 million toward the diversionary programs. The Northern Australian Aboriginal Legal Service welcomed the funding for diversionary programs but said the agreement will not prevent tragedies such as the death of the 15-year-old who committed suicide last February after being incarcerated under mandatory sentencing laws for a break and enter. Senator Brown, meanwhile, says the Mandatory Sentencing Bill is history. "The debate has moved on. My 1999 Bill, co-sponsored by Labor and the Democrats, which outlawed mandatory sentencing for juveniles only, is now unsatisfactory." He said it leaves untouched the NT and WA laws which mandate jail terms for property crimes such as theft by adults. "This is in breach of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights." His new Bill is in keeping with Labor's proposed policy against mandatory sentencing for "juvenile offenders or property offences". **************************************************************** 7. Fijian coup unravels The Fijian coup led by failed businessman George Speight began to unravel last week when the Fijian Army and the Great Council of Chiefs refused to respond further to Speight's blackmail and threats and arrested the coup leader and around 360 of his followers. According to reports these threats went as far as threatening to assassinate the new President of Fiji appointed by the Army and the Chiefs. However, the new government is not representative of the Fijian people, virtually excluding representation of Indo-Fijians. It is also intended to once again rewrite the Constitution to enshrine a privileged position for ethnic Fijians. The coup of 1987 led by Sitiveni Rabuka went down the same path, established a government of ethnic Fijians and rewrote the Constitution to ensure their dominance. However, it did not work and was not accepted by many other countries. Eventually, a Constitution had to be written which accepted equal status for Indo-Fijians who constitute over 40 per cent of the population. Many of the Indo-Fijians are third or fourth generation, having been blackbirded to Fiji to work on the sugar plantations by the British colonialist in the 19th century. Those ethnic Fijians who are again trying to maintain privileges for themselves will once again find that such a course is no longer acceptable and fails to recognise the realities of present day Fijian society. The Government of Mahendra Chaudhry (an Indo-Fijian) was elected by an overwhelming vote under the equal status Constitution which meant that many ethnic Fijians had also voted for the Labour Party. The central issue is land ownership which, in the main, remains the property of Fijian families and is not privately owned. Indian sugar farmers lease the land from Fijian family owners and have prospered under this arrangement. Even though the government just appointed by the Fijian military may survive the two or three year period before another general election is held, it will not be able to solve the social and ethnic problems if it is motivated by an intention to maintain the exclusive political power of ethnic Fijians. A fully elected, non-racial government will have to be re- established sooner rather than later. Such a government, however, will need to work hard to overcome the racial and hooligan passions raised by George Speight and take into account the historic land ownership pattern as well as the economic interests of all Fijian citizens, irrespective of racial origin. ************************************************************** 11. Taking issue: Human Genome Project and pharmaceutical companies The cataloguing of the three billion instructions that form a blueprint for human life -- the Human Genome Project -- has been hailed by scientists in both socialist and capitalist countries as a major scientific step forward. The main benefits to the human species are seen to be, at the moment, in the area of health. Whilst most scientists acknowledge that there are social, legal and ethical issues related to the outcomes of the project, many seem to presume that nation states and multi-nation agencies will be able to manage the worst excesses of these. Kerry Ans The reality, in a global economy that is dominated by the multinational companies and nation states which see their citizens' interests as synonymous with capital's, is that these related social and ethical issues will not be managed in the interests of ordinary people. News reports of the human genome achievements have been dominated by predictions of accelerating pharmaceutical advances. The major drug manufacturers' trade association in the US has claimed the project is changing the very way drug development is now conceived. The business sections of major papers in the US contain reports of ever-growing numbers of genomics companies which are finding a variety of ways to make money out of the project. According to two scientists, Daughton and Ternes, writing in a respected, peer-reviewed journal ("Environmental Health Perspectives"), the range of pharmaceuticals will continue to diversify exponentially as the project is advanced. Their major concern is that the current load of pharmaceuticals is already causing large environmental health problems, both in the quality of waterways and in landfill. They say that huge quantities of prescription drugs, diagnostic agents, and a wide range of other compounds are entering the environment without any regulation or examination of adverse environmental effects. Given that significant numbers of pharmaceuticals are designed to change immune and endocrine systems, and can be long-lasting in the environment, their presence in waterways and in sewerage sludge mixed with soil is great cause for health concerns. If there is so little monitoring of the current (mainly capitalist) pharmaceutical regime on the health environment, the probability of being able to manage the expected proliferation of new pharmaceutical products is low. Half of the world's population die from malnutrition and diseases caused by lack of access to safe water and food. The excesses of the pharmaceutical companies in their quest for more profits, now accelerated by the human genome project, will do very little to solve this basic global health problem. ************************************************************** 12. Culture & Life: Bad dreams How many times have you heard or read a reference to "the American dream"? In the US, of course, but also in Australia, it is taken for granted in the mass media that people trying to enter the US are not looking for work, they are "trying to share in the American dream". by Rob Gowland Of course, the dream is rather blood-spattered and drug-sodden these days, but imperialism goes on pushing it at us, determined to maintain the impression that the rest of the world wants nothing better than to live in America. Not Canada, either, but the good old USA itself. For decades Hollywood has bombarded us with images of large houses and vast apartments. It comes as a shock when people learn that most US citizens live in tiny apartments, tenement slums or trailer homes. Many are homeless or live in their cars. Public transport's a joke, the schools are a scandal and a stay in hospital can leave you in debt for the rest of your life. The police function like an army of occupation and treat the population as a hostile enemy. It's the richest country on earth -- largely from wars and looting the economies of the Third World -- and yet millions of US citizens have no running water. It is unable to provide free health care for its population or give them all jobs. Religious crackpots grow like mushrooms, ignorance and superstition abound and the mayor of New York is busy spraying the city's population from the air with toxic insecticide (I kid you not, he really is). So tarnished is the "American dream" that there is actually an organisation called the Centre for a New American Dream. This body apparently tries to redress some of the more pernicious aspects of the old dream, like rampant consumerism (as exemplified in the motto "shop 'till you drop"). In fact, "Do Americans Shop Too Much?" is the title of a book by one of the board members of the Centre, Juliet Schor, an academic from Harvard University. Presumably the Americans in Ms Schor's book do not include the jobless and the homeless but if you're curious as to how she deals with the manipulation of US consumers the book is published by Beacon Press. In a recent article she dealt with the seemingly minor matter of holidays, and revealed that here too the American dream is sadly deficient, as this short extract shows: "As this first summer of the new millennium approaches, I can't help but wax nostalgic about my two years as a professor in the Netherlands. There, as a civil servant on a 12-month schedule, I was entitled to about nine weeks of paid vacation. "It seemed that few professors took all that time, but three to four weeks was virtually obligatory.... "Back in the USA, vacation practices seem downright archaic. Unlike most of Western Europe, where paid vacations are typically four to six weeks for all regular workers, the US has no official vacation policy. "Employers are not required to provide them, and the starting norm in good jobs remains a paltry two weeks. Millions of the hard-working poor, without steady employment, have no paid vacation at all. "And millions of the hard-working well-to-do have nice allotments which exist only on paper -- the excessive demands of their positions make planning and taking significant time off almost impossible." So the next time you see a reference to the "American dream" remember that that is all it is: a dream. It certainly isn't real. Charges dropped You may recall that I have written before in these columns about Roisin McAliskey, the heavily pregnant young Irish woman (daughter of civil rights activist and former Northern Ireland MP Bernadette Devlin/McAliskey) whom German authorities accused of being a terrorist. The Germans claimed that she took part in a 1996 IRA rocket attack on a British army base in Germany, but no credible evidence was produced that she had any part in the attack. Nevertheless, the British Government arrested her and, pending extradition to Germany, placed her initially in a maximum- security men's prison. After public protest she was transferred to a women's prison but placed under a brutal and demeaning regimen of frequent strip searches and other indignities that many said constituted torture. As the birth of her baby drew near the British authorities even used threats about taking the baby from her to try to break her down to confess to the "terrorism" she consistently denied -- and for which they could in fact find no evidence. Eventually, after months in prison and with her health seriously affected, and in the face of a huge and sustained international campaign for her release, Britain was obliged to release her, but the charges have hung over her head ever since. Now, Britain's Crown Prosecution Service has admitted what every one else already knew: that there was no evidence to justify a case against her. The decision to drop the charges was announced to the British Parliament on July 17, but to the McAliskeys' amazement, no one in the British Government or its public service thought it necessary to notify Roisin or her mother. An understandably miffed Bernadette said: "After you have wrongfully imprisoned someone and endangered their life and that of their unborn child you might have the decency to tell them." A Sinn Fein spokesperson commented that if the British Government had taken the time to check the evidence at the time the charges were made against her, Ms McAliskey would never have spent time in an English prison. "She was a victim of the sort of miscarriage of justice that all too frequently affects Irish people in Britain", he said. ******************************************************************* 13. Imperialism fails to block land division Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe has ridden out imperialist interventionist efforts to oust his nationalist- leaning ZANU-PF Government. Now he is moving to end the gross inequalities of land ownership in this African country, through dispossession of the dominant white land owners. by William Pomeroy In the crucial election of a new parliament on June 25, ZANU-PF won 62 of the 120 contested seats; the Movement for Democratic Change, the newly-created opposition party, took only 57. Since under the constitution Mugabe has the power to appoint the remaining 30 of the 150 parliamentary seats, his ruling party remains firmly in power. Mugabe's presidency was not at stake in this election -- he stays in office until 2002 -- but the opposition had hoped to force him out by a sweeping control of the parliament. The elections were a further demonstration of growing intervention in African affairs by western imperialist powers. For imperialism, Zimbabwe is a choice area to control. It is mineral-rich and has some of the best agricultural land in Africa. Conceded political independence after an armed liberation struggle, Zimbabwe's economy has remained neocolonial, with 5,200 white settler farmers owning most of the best land. Mining is chiefly in the hands of foreign multinationals and business in general is run by foreign western firms. It has left the great majority of the people landless, impoverished and unemployed. The Mugabe Government's moves to transform this situation by acquiring white-owned land for redistribution to the landless Black majority -- by unpaid confiscation if necessary -- and by compelling Black participation in the mining and business operations has led to a western-backed campaign to remove it from power. Mugabe and ZANU-PF are no paragon of leadership, affected by bureaucratic deficiencies and corruption, but they are the only organised nationalist force. Their initial programs of public spending on services and welfare and subsidies for staple commodities were wrecked by International Monetary Fund-World Bank "structural adjustment" demands in return for loans. Mugabe's balking at these demands has lined these western finance agencies up against him. Over the past two years a combination of the white landlord-business groups in the country and western transnational and government sectors took shape, backing anti- Mugabe demonstrations. At the beginning of this year this combination produced a new opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), which suddenly appeared on the scene to contest the forthcoming parliamentary election. Its first display of strength was to mobilise the "no" vote that defeated the government in a referendum for constitutional changes to enable the confiscation of white-owned land. Mugabe reacted by charging that "external forces" were behind the MDC to protect white and foreign holdings. He used his powers to decree a confiscatory Land Acquisition Act and tacitly endorsed the settler invasion of over 1,200 white-owned farms by landless veterans of the liberation war. Among the main funders of the MDC have been an organisation of western transnational interests called the Zimbabwe Democracy Trust and the organisation of the white land-owners, the Commercial Farmers' Union. That many workers as well as discontented middle-class elements have been drawn to support the MDC is linked to the fact that most urban workers are employed by foreign companies while over 60,000 farm workers are employed by white land-owners. (Much of the pre-election violence that was reported was between the invading vets and "loyal" farmworkers who had been signed up in the MDC by their landlord employers.) Mugabe's cabinet contains one white member, Dr Timothy Stamps. A former British citizen, he came to the country as a public health officer when it was still colonial Rhodesia in the early 1960s; he opposed the Ian Smith white dictatorship and supported the ZANU-PF Government. Since 1990 he has been Minister of Health. As the parliamentary election was taking place, Stamps charged Britain with responsibility for the problems, tensions and animosities in Zimbabwe. Stamps declared that Britain "has consistently reneged on commitments to help finance land reform in its former colony and has played the leading role in manipulating and financing internal discontent in an effort to discredit and humiliate Mr Mugabe's Government". According to Stamps, foreign companies were behind the growth of support for the MDC. "British companies like Lonmin (formerly Lonrho) and Tory MPs who own land here have donated large sums of money to what they call human rights organisations", he said. The backing was not merely financial. A leader of the white Commercial Farmers Union, Ian King, boasted of the "support centres" set up by the MDC around the country, staffed by white Zimbabweans and foreigners. The flagrant foreign intervention that included the sending of hundreds of election "monitors" from Britain and the European Union, brought a sharp response from Mugabe. He vowed not only to carry out land confiscation and redistribution but said "after land, now we must look at the mining sector". Pointing to the 400 British companies in Zimbabwe, he asserted, "There must be Africans in there as owners, not just as workers." Essentially, the election has defeated the imperialist effort to oust the ZANU-PF Government. It has installed a large opposition force in parliament but it is a force likely to dwindle as white land ownership is reduced. Immediately after the election Mugabe announced that the takeover of 804 white-owned farms would proceed under the Land Acquisition Act. Compensation would be paid not for the land itself (which Zimbabweans say was stolen from them by colonial rulers) but only for infrastructure improvements made, like farm buildings and irrigation. In Britain, there has been fuming over the election result. The Blair Government's Foreign Minister, Robin Cook, said that if Mugabe "chose to ignore the election results" Britain would mount an international campaign to pressure him "to implement the will of the people". (A strange threat when Mugabe remains in power with the will of the people.) Of the monitors sent to watch over the election, the group from the European Union accused the government of "violence and intimidation". Those from African countries, from the Organisation of African Unity, the 13-member Southern African Development Community and the Commonwealth, proclaimed that the election was free and fair. In effect, this amounts to a significant alignment of African countries against western imperialist interventionism. "People's Weekly World" ***************************************************************** 14. Camp David: The long war against the Palestinians Following the Isareli-Arab war of 1967, the UN Security Council adopted resolution No 242 which required Israel to return to the borders it occupied before the war. This meant evacuation of the occupied Palestinian lands, the Golan Heights (Syria) and the Sinai Peninsula (Egypt). The Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egypt a number of years ago but instead of returning the Palestinian lands or the Golan Heights, Israel has systematically seized Arab lands and set up Israeli settlements. Its intention is to permanently annex these lands to Israel. Despite the continuing struggle of the Palestinians and other problems Israel, with the assistance of its ally the United States who has provided, arms, money and diplomatic backing, has pushed ahead with the expansion of settlements in an attempt to consolidate its occupation. The most recent summit meeting called by US President Clinton, while being sold to the world as part of a "peace process" was nothing more than a further opportunity to force the Palestinian negotiators to accept whatever sort of "peace" the Israeli and US Governments dictated. It was to be a final surrender. Break-down The Camp David negotiations broke down when the Palestinian negotiators refused to accept an agreement which would result in the complete emasculation of the remaining Palestinian lands which have been effectively divided up into isolated cantonments by illegal Israeli settlements. Furthermore, East Jerusalem would be annexed as Israeli territory and be denied to the Palestinians as the capital of the State of Palestine. During the summit, Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat came under intense pressure from the Americans to give and give. On his return to Palestine, Arafat was greeted as a hero for his steadfast refusal to bow to the US pressure. Not surprisingly, Israeli Prime Minister Barak, and less directly, US President Clinton have blamed Arafat for the failure of the summit. In remarks following the breakup of the talks, Clinton praised Barak for moving much farther from his initial positions than Arafat during the negotiations. But the Palestinians had made their principal concessions at the time of the 1993 Oslo agreements. They agreed then to abandon armed struggle against Israel and recognise a Jewish state occupying about 78 percent of the historic homeland of the Palestinians -- stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Refugees In exchange, they expected that Israel and the US would recognise a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and acknowledge some measure of responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees. Subsequent negotiations have been aimed to deny these Palestinian expectations, giving time for the creation of more and more Israeli settlements while sustaining the pretense that genuine "peace" negotiations are taking place. Both the US and Israel have ignored the many UN resolutions dealing with Israel and the Palestinians. UN resolutions called for the recognition of the right of Palestinians to statehood, censuring Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem, affirming the Palestinian refugees' right of return and condemning Israel's illegal actions in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip since 1967. The US and Israel continued to ignore these UN resolutions at the recent Camp David meeting. The Israeli terms, fully backed by the US were spelt out: no right of return for the refugees, Arab (East) Jerusalem to be permanently annexed to Israeli West Jerusalem, no return of the Jordan Valley, no dismantling of most of the Zionist settlements in the occupied territories and no genuinely independent Palestinian Arab state. In the occupied territories Palestinians are demonstrating against any surrender of Arab and Muslim religious rights to East Jerusalem and against any retreat on the rights of the millions of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in what is now Israel. Arafat has only one card left -- the threat to unilaterally declare Palestinian independence (as previously announced) in September coupled with the warning that unless there is some attempt to meet Palestinian demands a violent backlash will follow. The next Intifada may be fought with guns, not stones." JC Cuba SI - Imperialism NO! Information and discussion about Cuba. Socialism or death! Patria o muerte! Venceremos! http://www.egroups.com/group/cubasi Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Change Delivery Options: http://www.egroups.com/mygroups _______________________________________________ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
