In Memoriam - Oliver Ronald (Ron) Dorman

In Memoriam Oliver Ronald (Ron) Dorman (1928-2013) Ron Dorman was an active trade-unionist, an organiser and fighter for the interests of all workers and for the good of society right until the end. He passed away peacefully sometime overnight between Wednesday night / Thursday morning March 20 /21. He was 84 years of age. Ron had been a good and close friend of RCPB(ML) since the 1980s. He was formerly a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain for many years, and then became a member of the Communist Party of Britain. He had been a key youth organiser in his early years for the CPGB, becoming a branch secretary and was involved in formulating national documents. He continued to write articles and letters for the Morning Star up until his death. Ron also was a founding member of the Britain-GDR Friendship Society and visited many places in the former German Democratic Republic such as Berlin and Leipzig and other places in order that he could promote the developments in socialism after World War II. Ron was a key activist in the anti-war movement, being a prominent member of West Midlands CND, and he was also active in Erdington peace movement where he lived. Ron was a prominent trade union organiser in his early years, particularly as an electrician in the heating, ventilation and instrumentation side of what was then the ETU (Electrical Trades Union). He worked in industry in Birmingham, where he was well-known in the workers’ and communist movement. Ron attended a number of conferences and congresses of RCPB(ML) in the formal position of observer, but was always regarded as part of the “we” of the Party and its circles. Since the mid to late ’80s, Ron had been active in the National and West Midlands Pensioners Conventions, as well as being a prominent organiser in the People’s March for Jobs during the early years of the Thatcher period. He also was prominent in organising on the question of council care homes from the late ’80s onwards. Ron worked closely with RCPB(ML) on a number of occasions, particularly with the Longbridge committee of shop stewards that fought the closure of the plant, popularising the mass demonstration of car workers around the beginning of the millennium. Also at that time he assisted in reinvigorating the workers’ movement by participating and popularising the opposition to the privatisation of auxiliary NHS services in the Dudley Road hospitals that led to the big demonstration in Birmingham. Ron worked to bring together shop stewards from Ford Land Rover, Jaguar Cars, Longbridge and other places around 1999/2000. Ron, in recent times was National Organiser for the Campaign against Euro-federalism, which became the most important anti-EU organisation on the left in Britain. Ron was a founder member of CAEF in 1992, and served on its Executive Committee right from when the Campaign was inaugurated in Sheffield. He wrote many documents for CAEF and organised many of its campaigns, analysing many of the European treaties affecting EU countries. Ron organised most recently in the anti-cuts movement and local street committees uniquely formed to oppose cuts at a local level, such as his Stockland Green Against the Cuts, and was a model in organising in the recent campaigns in the surrounding district of Erdington where he lived. Ron would never take no for an answer as far as campaigning and organising were concerned. Right until the end he was offering advice in his inimitable fashion, and urging action against the Section 75 Regulations of the Health and Social Care Act, for example. Our thoughts go out to his family and loved ones. At his funeral in Birmingham on April 19, the celebration of his life emphasised that Ron Dorman was a revolutionary. It is certain that his example will continue to inspire both young and old activists in the communist and workers’ movement.

The annual Unison Health Care Service Group Conference took place from Monday, April 22, to Wednesday, April 24, at the SECC Glasgow. The conference was addressed on Monday by Dave Prentis, Unison General Secretary and on Wednesday the conference was also addressed by invited guest, Alex Neil MSP, Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing. The theme of the conference, continuing from previous years, was Our NHS, Our Future. The opening debate was “Influencing the NHS”, and campaigning against privatisation and cuts. On Tuesday, the debate centred around Agenda for Change – that is, around pay, terms and conditions. Other debates on Monday afternoon and Wednesday were on Equality and Diversity, Organising and Recruitment and Professional Issues. There were also many focus groups and workshops taking up similar themes.

This year's health conference follows closely on the imposition of the measures of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, on April 1. It comes at a time when the people are continuing to oppose the regulations of the Act in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords and there is a call for the repeal of the Act, particularly the Section 75 Regulations on tendering. At the same time, very large demonstrations are taking place involving whole communities such as in Lewisham and Mid Staffordshire to oppose the downgrading and closure of vital NHS hospitals.

The conference provided a great opportunity for health workers to engage in serious discussion on building the opposition to the attacks on them and to fight for the NHS and their future. One important lesson that needs to be addressed is to build forums of health workers and people in the community to fight to safeguard the future of the NHS.

It is called Unison's health group conference but this was a health conference of the largest health sector union with some 600,000 health members in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, representing all sections of health workers from porters, domestics, nurses, midwives, mental health professionals, health technicians, estates staff, chaplains and administration and clerical workers – every profession that exists in the NHS.

It was evident straight away in the conference that the NHS is not about “frontline” and “backroom” staff which the present Coalition government is so fond of talking about and attacks the latter as worthless “penpushers” to justify such workers being made redundant and their work “outsourced”. The government needs to demonise part of the health care team just as they demonise immigrants, Muslims and the unemployed to “justify” the attacks on them in order to attack the rights of all. Also, lately they have become fond of attacking “frontline staff” in order to carry out their plans labelling them “uncaring” in order to try and justify their decimation of the NHS. Staff who are now working under the most difficult conditions with year by year loss of income, and staffing levels that are so low that animals in a zoo often have more staff to look after them than in many a hospital ward. That is why “we are all frontline staff” became a popular call of nurses and porters alike when speaking from the rostrum, when talking about the very social nature of health care and all in the health service playing a vital role in treating patients.

This is the context in which delegates came together to fight together to safeguard the future of the NHS and to defend themselves against the ant-social onslaught of the Coalition government which Dave Prentis, the Unison General Secretary, described in his address to conference as taking a “wrecking-ball to the NHS”! Such a conference in these times is not just for health workers but should have the respect of all fighting for the alternative against the government's imposition of austerity on the people whilst it pays the rich. Our NHS, Our Future is not just the theme of the last two health conferences, it is not just a phrase, but in fact it has become the battle cry of millions of people in the fight for the alternative against the imposition of savage NHS cuts and privatisation. It is the save Lewisham Hospital fight, the save Mid Staffordshire NHS, the Yorkshire NHS admin and clerical strike, Scotland's health minister's defence of the founding principles of the NHS in the here and now and so on – all passionately delivered from the rostrum – that reveals how powerful this resistance to the government plans for the NHS is, and how important it is to fight to turn things around in favour of the people.

In fighting to turn things around there was the call around the opening debate on Composite E for Unison to stand at the head of the whole movement to repeal the Health and Social Care Act, 2012, and that there is an alternative based on upholding public right over the right of the monopolies and fighting for the alternative that recognises and guarantees the right of all to health care.

The points were made that there are wonderful lessons coming from Lewisham in building the alliance of health workers with the people in the community. On this issue, there were many lessons on the need to keep fighting and never give up for a minute. This was expressed most importantly at the well-supported focus forum on NHS cuts at which Mike Davey of Unison Lewisham Hospital Branch spoke about the experience of health workers in the fight to save Lewisham hospital. It was also highlighted in the contribution of the Gordon Mckay representing the Unison Scottish Regional Health Committee that in regard to the fight to save Wishaw mental health unit in Lanarkshire hospital. In spite of the health board voting overwhelmingly to close the unit after a long campaign in 2009, it is still open four years later. The lesson said Gordon Mackay is that “you have to keep your campaign going all the time. You cannot accept defeat … my message to everybody is never accept defeat. Keep on fighting. Sometimes you are going to lose but never accept you are going to lose!”

By WWIE correspondent

On April 25, over 300 people attended a very lively and informative public meeting organised by the Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign (SLHC) at the Great Hall, Goldsmiths College, South East London, under the slogans “Save Lewisham Hospital!”, “Save Our NHS!”. The front of the large very well filled hall was adorned with the SLHC banner and the banner donated to the campaign by RCPB(ML) “A Victory for Lewisham is a Victory For Everyone!” as well as anti-PFI and anti-privatisation posters. The whole meeting had a great spirit of resolve and determination to defend Lewisham Hospital and the NHS.

The Chair of SLHC, Louise Irvine, welcomed everyone, pointing out that the strength of the SLHC was the anger and determination of the local people to save their hospital. She listed the many very successful marches and meetings of the past few months, including the two huge demonstrations in November and January. She pointed out that the SLHC was part and parcel of the struggle throughout the country to save the NHS from wholesale privatisation. She announced up and coming events including the big “Defend London’s NHS” demo on May 18 in which many boroughs are taking part and the “Hunt for Hunt” action on June 15. In “Hunt for Hunt”, four coaches from different London boroughs are going to Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt’s unbt’s Huconstituency in Farnborough, Kent, to protest against Hunt’s endorsement of the downgrading of Lewisham Hospital and his commitment to the privatisation of the NHS. Louise Irvine said that the recent huge 50,000 strong demonstration to defend Stafford hospital was a testament to the growing nation-wide opposition to the attacks on the NHS and healthcare and that the Lewisham campaign had clearly been a great inspiration; she said that the SLHC already was developing and would in the future develop strong ties with and support for other campaigns.

The next speaker Colin Leys, who is an honorary research professor at Goldsmiths, gave a thought provoking speech on the present situation of the NHS and growing privatisation starting with Thatcher in the 1980s which is now on YouTube [http://tinyurl.com/c3xxpgn]. He started by off by warmly praising the work of the SLHC. He made clear that the government, with the recent passing of Andrew Lansley’s Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) is intent on privatising the NHS. He gave details of how private companies, through the provisions of the Act, are increasingly taking over health care provisions and gradually starving the NHS of its much needed resources. He explained that Lansley’s Act removes the responsibility of the Secretary of Health to provide a national health service. He strongly advocated exposing the government’s lies and deception with regard to its privatisation programme.

The other speakers, the well- known campaigner for the NHS John Lister and founder member of “Keep Our NHS Public”, Rachael Maskell from “Unite” and Pat Smith from the Labour Party, all had high praise for the SLHC and condemned the privatisation of the NHS. They condemned the PFI investments of the previous Labour government under Blair and Gordon Brown which is a factor paving the way for the present situation.

Many people spoke from the floor expressing their passionate belief in the NHS and their determination to fight to save Lewisham Hospital. A woman from the Save Stafford Hospital Campaign spoke movingly of their struggle to save their hospital and combating the massive media propaganda over the last few months against the Staffs hospital workers. She said that she had only been expecting around 10,000 for the recent huge 50,000 strong demonstration. Another woman said she was only here because Lewisham Hospital had saved her life and another said herself, her children and grandchildren had all received wonderful care from Lewisham Hospital and that she would give “blood, tears and sweat” to save the hospital and that she was “not for turning”! Many people came up with practical ideas for strengthening the SLHC and there was a great feeling of unity and spirit and determination save LH and the NHS. Organisers for the “Hunt for Hunt” Action on June 15 urged people to commit themselves to going and purchasing the £5 coach tickets.

The meeting ended with the showing of a new video by Stuart Monro “The Lions of Lewisham”, which very vividly and effectively highlighted memorable events from the SLHC in the last few months. The film was received with great enthusiasm by everyone in the hall and is now on YouTube.

http://tinyurl.com/dybj29o

On Jeremy Hunt’s response to criticism from the Royal College of Nursing

On the afternoon of April 22, Jeremy Hunt replied to the RCN’s criticism of the government over its response to the Francis report on the Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust.

Speaking at the RCN’s annual congress in Liverpool, its Chief Executive, Peter Carter, said that the government’s refusal to implement minimum staffing levels and registration for healthcare assistants was disappointing. Peter Carter said, “We know that some of the most important recommendations from the Francis inquiry are being ignored, potentially leaving in place the systemic failures which allowed such a tragedy to happen in the first place.” He added, “Student nurses in their training spend over 50% of their time in clinical areas. There seems to be a view out there that somehow they spend all of their time in universities. That simply isn’t the case.”

RCN President Andrea Spyropoulos criticised plans to make nurses work as a Health Care Assistant for a year before starting their course to train as a nurse. She said that it would “waste taxpayers money”, adding, “I don’t believe it will happen. I believe it is a really stupid idea that will not benefit patients.”

The Department of Health, rather than answering the criticisms, countered by questioning the RCN’s credibility. The Department is trying to deflect the serious conclusions of the Francis report on staffing levels and other criticisms regarding the primacy of target-driven financial considerations by trying to suggest that the RCN has a conflict of interest.

According to the government’s logic, to act as a “trade union” for the nurses is at odds with having concern for patient care. Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt threw in his remarks that “I think the Royal College of Nursing have got to be very, very careful … they basically allowed their trade union responsibilities to trump their responsibilities as a royal college to raise professional standards and that they have a conflict of interest.” He added that “they need to answer those very, very serious criticisms themselves”.

How can patients be cared for if nurses are not cared for and instead are put under intolerable stress due to staff cuts and overwork due to the budget restraints and “efficiencies” imposed by government and carried out by hospital managements intent on balancing books and demonstrating that they are “sustainable”?

In fact, a key factor – and arguably the most important – in what the Francis report identified as being at the heart of poor care at Stafford Hospital was staffing levels and staff numbers. But Jeremy Hunt has chosen to twist the implications of the Francis report by harping on about “putting the needs of patients first”. No-one questions the importance of putting the needs of patients first except the government in its programme of cutting the NHS budget, privatising its services, and entrenching the purchaser/provider split in its market-centred thinking. Of course, the Health Secretary never fails to keep on repeating that patients come first and clinical considerations trump financial ones. But no matter how much he repeats these mantras, they do not square with the conditions his authority is imposing on NHS trusts. How can the needs of patients be placed first if the needs of nurses and healthcare workers are placed last? It makes no sense.

In Jeremy Hunt’s terminology, a “culture of zero harm and compassionate care” is “embedded” throughout the NHS. But if hospitals are chronically understaffed and the healthworkers are under such stress because of this and because of being denied any say in the running of the health service, despite the best efforts of nurses and health staff the care of patients is going to suffer. The latest proposal for would-be nurses to work for a year as health-carers is deeply impractical and is furthermore not designed to solve the underlying cause of the malaise the NHS is facing. When the community marches in defence of Stafford Hospital as they did at the weekend, is this a vote of no-confidence in nurses or in Jeremy Hunt?

The Health Secretary wants the buck to stop at the door of health workers, but in reality in stops at his own desk. Hospitals are underfunded, understaffed and under pressure as a result of the direction the NHS is being forced in. Then struggling hospitals are being placed in administration, and, as Lewisham has shown, the answer is further cut-backs and disintegration of the health service.

It is Jeremy Hunt who has “very, very serious” questions to answer. He is setting up hospitals to fail in order that the private sector may benefit. Pitting the RCN’s role as a trade union with its role of raising professional standards is ludicrous. The struggle to defend hospitals and safeguard the future of the NHS is gaining momentum, and the government must be held to account. It is our NHS, not Jeremy Hunt’s!

On April 20, 30,000 people turned out with their banners and placards to send out the message that they believe their hospital is now safe, and they are prepared to fight for its future. The town of Stafford has a population of about 63,000 people, while its surrounding borough is made up of 122,000 people. The area covered by the health trust extends beyond that, also taking in homes covered by the Cannock Chase Council area. Thousands of people had previously signed a petition calling for Stafford Hospital's services to remain and a campaign shop from the protest group has been set up in the town centre.

As with the South London Healthcare Trust, Special Administrators have been appointed, though it should be emphasised that a legal battle is impending in South London because the Trust Special Administrator also made recommendations to downgrade the Lewisham Hospital, which is not part of the Trust.

BBC Radio Stoke emphasised that the special administrators will find it hard to ignore the views of so many people. The turnout of 30,000 made it clear that when it came to the future of services at the Mid Staffordshire Trust, the message is: "We've got a safe hospital today and we're looking to the future."

Stafford Borough Council leader Mike Heenan, who joined the marchers, said: "The important thing is delivering services locally, for the local people. That's what we're fighting for - so that acute services can stay in Stafford."

Monitor has given the administrators for the Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust, Ernst and Young, 145 days to work with local healthcare organisations to produce a "sustainable plan" for the future of services at the Stafford and Cannock Chase hospitals.

The Contingency Planning Team (CPT) report to Monitor last month said staffing levels at the hospitals were not sufficient to meet required standards in the long term, given the current range of services and number of patients.

It said some services, including accident and emergency, intensive care and maternity, could be provided at the University Hospital of North Staffordshire, the Royal Wolverhampton Hospital Trust and Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust instead.

The proposals include moving maternity and AE services out of the hospital to others nearby. Unison officials said earlier this week the administrators had told the union that they "were not bound by the recommendations".

The demand of health workers and the local population alike is that a thriving fully-staffed Stafford Hospital is a necessity and that they will fight for its future.

Waltham Forest Intercare Services were developed in 2007 and are currently provided by Barts Health NHS Trust. In the past five years, the services have been pivotal in providing intermediate care by facilitating safe discharges, preventing unnecessary admissions from the community and assisting the Acute Trust in reducing length of stay and achieving targets in areas such as A&E. The care that has been delivered by this service and its teams, both community and inpatient, has always been patient-centred rather than target-driven. The Intercare Services teams have built up invaluable experience in hospital social work and a deep and multi-disciplinary knowledge of the needs of people leaving acute hospital care. The teams embody the skills required for successfully rehabilitating patients with more complex needs, as well as the more straightforward cases.

The nursing team within Intercare providing care to people at home are experienced and have expertise in completing a holistic assessment within a set time period. Theirs is the only service which responds and administers intravenous medication in the community, preventing hospital admissions and reducing inpatient stay by a few days or many months. The nurses are knowledgeable in the management of pain relief, wound care and assisting patients in managing their own medication independently. They have access to consultants, microbiology, haematology and pharmacy. This quick access to facilitate care offers support and speedy treatment to the most vulnerable groups of patients.

However, social services have pulled their funding from Intercare Services. As well as this, off-site inpatient rehabilitation units are under threat. Services have been withdrawn from Highams Court, nine rehabilitation beds at George Mason Lodge have been closed, and social workers removed from the team. Elderly Rehabilitation beds at Whipps Cross have already been reduced and commissioners have stated that they intend to reduce these further.

The new specification for rehabilitation services is now asking that the average length of stay for patients should be 21 days. For those patients who were at the slower end of the rehabilitation spectrum, the average length of stay was an average of 42-45 days. The proposed time limits will compromise the goal of patients regaining their independence and the assurance that they can say in their own homes.

These threats have been a prelude to the tender of the rehabilitation services. The fact is that these services are an essential and integral part of the NHS in the area, as well as being integral with local services. The rationale of Barts NHS Trust in subjecting these services to a tendering process cannot be based on the needs of patients and the community.

The staff have a detailed and deep understanding of the needs of their patients and have experience of what works well and what does not, an experience based not on pragmatic considerations or financial concerns but on the principles of patient care and the right of patients to the highest and most appropriate standards of health care. It would be totally inappropriate for the Intercare Services to be handed to a private or independent company, thereby losing its patient-centred ethos and integration with the local NHS.

Barts NHS Trust should pay serious attention to the detailed concerns raised by the health care staff through their unions and other channels, and not proceed with allowing health care to be fragmented and the health service as a whole taken in the direction of competition and privatisation.

DEFEND LONDON’S NHS

Save Our Hospitals

No to Privatisation

DEMONSTRATION

SATURDAY 18 MAY

12 noon Jubilee Gardens, Waterloo

Belvedere Rd, SE1

This demonstration has been called by an unprecedented coalition of London residents, medical staff, trade unions and health campaigners who have come together to raise the alarm regarding the biggest threats to A&E’s, maternity units and in-hospital care for a generation.

Closures planned across the capital include nine accident and emergency departments, a number of maternity units and thousands of hospital beds that will put lives at risk.

Hospitals and community services are also threatened with take-over by multi-national private companies. Hundreds of thousands of London residents have pledged their opposition to these privatisation plans for the NHS.

Across the capital, tens of thousands have taken to the streets to protest and demonstrate to save their local hospitals. 80,000 signed a petition against the closures in North West London. 25,000 joined the demonstration to defend Lewisham hospital.

The local campaigns have joined up to call on the government to stop these closures. We are working together to undermine the government’s divisive tactics of playing one hospital off against another. Instead we are demanding that the government provide the funding needed for safe levels of care across the capital.

Help save London’s Health Service

The demonstration has been called by Save our Hospital campaigns across London and London Keep Our NHS Public. It has been backed by Unite the union, a number of MPs and councillors, trade unions and the London Labour Party. Please ask your organisation to pledge their support to publicise the demonstration by adding your name. Donations towards costs will also be gratefully received (Cheques to Keep Our NHS Public c/o 32 Savernake Rd, NW3 2JP).

SUPPORT FOR 18 MAY DEMONSTRATION

Save Lewisham Hospital Campaign, Defend Whittington Hospital Coalition, Save our Hospitals Ealing, Save Hammersmith and Charing Cross Hospitals, Andy Slaughter MP, Steve Pound MP, Virendra Sharma MP, John Cryer MP, David Lammy MP, Frank Dobson MP, Jeremy Corbyn MP, John McDonnell MP, Dianne Abbott MP, Greater London Labour Party, London Green Party, Dr Onkar Sahota, Jennette Arnold Murad Qureshi London Assembly Members, Catherine West Leader Islington Council, Rachael Saunders Councillor Tower Hamlets, Unite the Union, National Union or Journalists, RMT, London Region GMB, London Regional Council of the BMA, London Region CWU, London SE Region PCS, Whipps cross Hospital UNISON, Westminster UNISON, Save Chase Farm, Brent Fightback, Kensington and Chelsea Residents Save Our Hospital, Ealing Trades Union Council NHS Campaign, Medical Practitioners Union Unite, Roger Lloyd Pack, Ealing Southall CLP, Kingston Trades Council, Kingston and Surbiton Green Party, Kingston Keep Our NHS Public , Kingston GMB, Islington Trades Council, We Are Waltham Forest Defending Our NHS, Camden Keep Our NHS Public , Tower Hamlets BMA, Euston Tower PCS, Islington NUT, Tower Hamlets Keep Our NHS Public, Unite the Resistance, City Hackney Coalition to Defend the NHS, Lambeth Keep Our NHS Public, Camden UNISON, Save Our Local Hospitals Greenwich, Bexley Bromley, Lambeth Pensioners Action Group, PCS DEFRA Southern, Coalition of Resistance, Defend Haringey Health Services Coalition, Islington Pensioners Forum, Redbridge Save Our NHS, National Health Action Party, Tower Hamlets College UCU, Islington North Labour Party, RMT EPS 0520, Bromley Trades Council, Westminster North Labour Party, Camden Trades Council, Lewisham People Before Profit, Greenwich NUT, London Young Greens, London Magazine NUJ, City Hackney Division BMA, East London Health Unite, Homerton Hospital Unison, Occupy London, Brent Trades Council, Haringey 38 Degrees, Croydon TUC, London Health Emergency, Socialist Health Association, National Pensioners Convention.

On April 10 and 11, the foreign minsters of the so-called G8 countries met in London to hold talks on the theme of “preventing and resolving conflict and dealing with its consequences”. The final communiqué of the meeting was full of threats and bullying directed at the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK), as well as the governments of Iran. According to some commentators, the deliberations of the G8 were inconclusive and on several important issues, such as Syria, they were unable to reach unanimous agreement.

The existence of a G8 is an anachronism in the 21st century. Its existence reflects the fact that there is an imperialist system of states, which the US seeks to dominate alongside Britain and other close allies, but there are clearly no legal or other grounds for eight countries to make pronouncements or issue threats about any matters in the modern world. The members of the G8 – Britain, the US, France, Germany, Canada, Italy, Japan and Russia – are undoubtedly some of the major contributors to conflict and instability in the world. Their membership of the group is not based on their willingness to stop their interference in the affairs of other countries or to demission their nuclear arsenal and other weapons of mass destruction. Quite the contrary. Their membership of the group may once have been based on their economic might, but in the 21st century even this basis for membership no longer exists. China with the world’s second largest economy is excluded from the G8, as is Brazil which by any economic criteria has more right to be there than Britain.

Nevertheless, the British government hosted the proceedings, which Foreign Secretary William Hague described as “very purposeful and very constructive”. Hague’s own personal priority was a G8 declaration on “rape and serious sexual violence in conflict”, confirming both as breaches of the Geneva Convention and war crimes. Although this was agreed, it was noticeable that neither during the G8 nor during the Foreign Secretary’s well-publicised recent visit to the Democratic Republic of the Congo was any mention made of the causes of the conflicts in which such crimes take place. In the DRC, there are reported to have been over 250,000 cases of such crimes, but there are also millions of lives have been lost in the last twenty years. As countless UN reports have made clear, the criminals behind such atrocities and suffering are the big monopolies of the G8 countries, including British monopolies such as BAE Systems, Anglo-American, De Beers, Heritage Oil, Euromet and many others. They continue their criminal contention for the mineral wealth of Africa and other areas of the world by any means necessary, without prosecution of any kind.

In regard to other conflicts, the G8 agreed that they should continue, since they reflect the contention that exists in the world between the major powers. In Syria, the government of Russia is at odds with the members of NATO, but a situation has been created that is destabilising the whole region and is a clear illustration of the criminal activities of the big powers. Britain, France and the US used the occasion of the G8 to meet with the so-called Syrian National Coalition, which they continue to arm and support to advance their own interests not just in Syria but throughout the region.

In relation to the DPRK and Iran, the members of the G8 maintained their bellicose stance and continued to demand that those countries threatened by the big powers should not possess the means to defend their sovereignty. In regard to the DPRK, major efforts continued to present disinformation about the US occupation of the Korean peninsular, the nuclear arsenal directed at the DPRK and the provocations constantly organised by the US and the South Korean government.

The G8 countries also agreed to step up their interference throughout Africa, especially in the Sahel and North Africa but also in Somalia and elsewhere. They declared that their intervention would continue under the auspices of the UN, under the guise of “humanitarian intervention”, “counter-terrorism” and supporting “fragile” states, as well as in the past through the major financial institutions under their domination such as the IMF. It is clear that for Britain as well as others Somalia, where significant oil reserves have been discovered and which occupies an important strategic position, is set to be a major area of contention in the new “scramble” for Africa. In this regard it was noticeable that in there was a commitment to increase capital investment throughout Africa and it is therefore evident that the meeting did nothing to limit the contention that exists between the members of the G8, as well as between them and their rivals who remain outside it.

One of the main features of the recent G8 meeting was that the big powers wish to give themselves the right to decide the world’s fate, ignoring the demands of the majority, not just other countries but most importantly the peoples of the world who they strive to keep from any decision-making. Britain and the other big powers wish to present themselves as the arbiters of what is right and just and to impose the values of neo-liberal globalisation throughout the world. They pose as those most concerned to prevent and resolve conflict but the imperialist system of states remains the major factor for economic crisis, instability, conflict and war.

The South Tyneside Stop the War Coalition (STSWC) has published issue number 13 of its publication Silence Is Shame, dated April 15, 2013. Its theme is: For A Future Without War.

The publication is 40 pages long, and contains ten articles written mainly by various members of the South Tyneside Stop the War Coalition itself. A number of articles deal with issues on the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq and particularly the strength and spirit shown by the two-million-strong march of February 15, 2003. There are also two poems summing up the ten years.

The final article is a report of the Friends of Korea meeting in April, under the title, “Who Wants War, Who Wants Peace!”. A footnote explains that the STSWC is publishing the report because it is extremely concerned about the tense situation on the Korean peninsula and the unjust demonisation of the DPRK and supports its right to defend its sovereignty and independence from foreign interference. The STSWC demands that Britain respects and develops genuine friendship with the Korean people.

Silence Is Shame is available from the South Tyneside Stop the War Coalition, c/o Trinity House Social Centre, 134 Laygate, South Shields, NE33 4JD, email: stswc@blueyonder.co.uk

Speakers from the Co-ordinating Committee of
Friends of Korea (from left to right): John McLeod,
Michael Chant, Andy Brooks, Dermot HudsonThe Friends of Korea organised a meeting with the above title on the occasion of the 101st anniversary of the birth of President Kim Il Sung, the Day of the Sun. It was held in central London on April 6. WWIE is posting below an edited version of the presentation given by Michael Chant, Secretary of Friends of Korea.

***

First of all, I just want to say a few words about Friends of Korea as an organisation. It is a co-ordinating committee so it has participating organisations and individuals; as an organisation, it does not have a single ideology. It is obviously Friends of Korea, and it encourages everyone to look into: what is the actual situation? Therefore, as part of its remit, its objective is to combat all of the disinformation that is put forward about the DPRK and to give information about the stands and the history of the DPRK, but above all to build friendship with the DPRK and uphold their right to their existence and stand as one with them in their just stands. We all speak as representatives of our organisations, but within the remit of the Friends of Korea. We hold these meetings on a regular basis and we definitely encourage everyone to attend as often as they can, because they aim to be informative and build friendship.

I would like to address the present situation, and look at the question of “Who wants war?” and “Who wants peace?”. To read the monopoly-controlled media here, any unsuspecting person would conclude that the DPRK is the provocative and belligerent party and that the US, Britain and their allies are simply responding. But actually the facts show the opposite story, and one has only got to look at who has had nuclear weapons and who is exercising their nuclear blackmail. For example, Wikipedia gives figures about the nuclear arsenal of Britain. Britain has hundreds of nuclear warheads and on top of that figure there are the large numbers of US-owned nuclear warheads, bombs and nuclear depth bombs which are supplied from US stocks in Europe for its native allies. Britain is no innocent partner in this; when there was a British Army of the Rhine, it had 327 nuclear weapons; Britain has conducted 45 nuclear tests and then it is up in arms that the DPRK has concluded its third successful nuclear test.

As an ally or lackey of the US, this is Britain's role. And of course a particular issue at the moment is the Trident weapons – the Trident warheads and missiles at the Faslane nuclear base in Scotland. It has been estimated by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that the UK has built around 1,200 warheads since the first test in 1952, including four ships it sent to the South Atlantic during the 1982 Malvinas war (four nuclear-weapon-carrying ships amongst all the other aggressive hardware that it sent). Then of course there is the record of Britain in Iraq and Afghanistan where it claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction – everyone knows the history, that there were no weapons of mass destruction! Britain clearly has a history of nuclear power and aggression against sovereign countries. Seen in this light, it is clear that the DPRK is taking measures which are designed, actually, to make peace on the Korean Peninsula in the face of all the stepped up war exercises – “Foal Eagle”, “Key Resolve” and other exercises which have been escalated this year, including the stealth bombers – exercises which simulate dropping nuclear weapons on the DPRK.

But as the DPRK says: it is not Iraq or Libya, it's not the Balkans, it's not Yugoslavia. To maintain peace, they are developing their own deterrent and with its “Army First” policy, every person is geared to defend the country and to defend its sovereignty. They are doing this so that in no uncertain terms the US should realise that if they do launch acts of war, they understand what the consequences would be. The DPRK also says that it is not going to engage in a wasteful nuclear arms race; it is not out to match the numbers of the US, Britain and whoever else is involved in these exercises and threatening the DPRK's sovereignty. It has the twin strategic principles of building a national economy and developing its nuclear defence and its all-round defence of the country. It is a provocation of the US – while attacking the DPRK through words in this way; it is encouraging it to engage in such an out of hand arms race.

We, in the Friends of Korea, are definitely standing on the principle that every country has the right to its sovereignty and has the right to take measures to defend that sovereignty. One of the pretexts that the US, Britain and the other big powers used was the DPRK (in pursuit of the peaceful policy in space) launching one communications satellite. This was the signal for the US along with Britain to manipulate the United Nations, supporting this Security Council resolution; the third of its type to impose brutal, inhuman sanctions on the DPRK. Contrary to the stream of disinformation and propaganda, as we saw simply from the short Korean film that was shown earlier, the DPRK is a very cultured country. It's a modern country, it's an advanced society. I was interested, for instance, to read about the advances in theoretical physics. They are taking up advanced questions and solving them. These are the type of advanced problems the scientists of the DPRK are involved in and of course they have their rocket scientists as well, who can launch satellites using their own efforts.

It is a shameful scandal that the DPRK is facing these difficulties due to the inhuman blockade which the Anglo-US Imperialists have imposed on it by manipulating the UN. The DPRK deserves the support all those who cherish freedom, peace and democracy. Just on this question of the Trident missiles, which is in the news at the moment: the Coalition government is trying to justify this warmongering move and its renewal of all these Trident missiles – its despicable pretext for doing this being that now it has to defend itself from the DPRK. This is shameful and unconscionable. If Britain were so peaceful, why would it have its military personnel actually involved in these “Foal Eagle”, “Key-Resolve” war exercises? They say they are observers as part of the UN command, but they're participating. The people and government of the DPRK correctly judge this to be provocative, hostile and peace-threatening activity. Of course Britain was fully involved in the Korean war from 1950 to 1953 when so much of that country was razed to the ground and again, it is a testimony to the resolve, to the social system and to the unity of will of the people of the DPRK who have advanced so much from that devastation.

As a response to the present tense situation, the DPRK has taken certain measures (as the Supreme Command announced some weeks ago) amongst which was the annulment of the Armistice Agreement, which was signed on July 27, 1953, to create an armistice after the Korean war; a victory of the Korean people to stop this unheard of aggression. The crimes committed by the US military in Korea stand second to none, with many estimates saying on a per capita basis they surpass even those committed by the German Nazis in Europe or the Japanese militarists in Korea, China and throughout Asia. Despite the efforts of the DPRK, this Armistice Agreement has never been superseded by a peace treaty. Despite the resourcefulness and principled stand of the DPRK government, they have never persuaded the aggressors to move from the Armistice Agreement and sign a peace treaty. So who is it that has actually been violating the Armistice Agreement from 1953? There was supposed to be a De-Militarised Zone right from the word go, but the US flouted that. Even these exercises, “Key-Resolve” and “Foal Eagle”, could well be interpreted as being against this armistice which says, for instance, “With the objective of establishing an armistice which will ensure a complete cessation of hostilities and all acts of armed force in Korea until a final peaceful settlement is achieved”. Are not these exercises in direct violation of that? It is very just in this heightened tension that the US has developed that the DPRK should annul this Armistice Agreement and tell it like it is; that this is a state of war, this is what it has been and that they are going to defend themselves. What is required is a world order based not on the dictate of the US and its allies and lackeys, but on the will of the people for democracy, independence and above all genuine peace.

The British people also have a clear memory of how the United Nations was used to attempt to throw a fig leaf of legitimacy over the illegal invasion of Iraq ten years ago. Our government was very keen on trying to provide this fig leaf, so it could say that our invasion had the “sanction of the international community” as they call it (which generally means US imperialism, Britain and the big powers). The US and its allies, including Britain, cannot see the stands of the DPRK as principled stands, firmly and genuinely taken, but only as tactical propaganda or bargaining chips, within a quid-pro-quo, maintaining the state of no-peace, no-war that has existed for 60 years. But, as the Workers’ Party of Korea has made clear, their stands are strategic, not based on geo-political calculations, but on the requirements of an independent and sovereign country faced with the desire of the US imperialists to wipe it off the map. The US and Anglo imperialists cannot accept its right to be; its right to exist; its right to its own chosen path and its right to defend itself. Democratic people must see through this rhetoric of those whose path is one of aggression and war: they accuse the DPRK of “sabre rattling” and so on, in a war of words. “Sabre rattling”, in my understanding, was the tactic of the old colonialists who sent warships in order to “teach unruly people a lesson”; they're the ones who are guilty of “sabre rattling”.

So to conclude, the issue is: who is to blame for the tension on the Korean Peninsula? Any democratic person must draw the conclusion that it is the United States and its allies and lackeys, with their nuclear stockpiles and their continuous military presence (including nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and the outrageous war exercises) which are to blame for the tension. It is the people who are safeguarding world peace; not the big powers. We think it is up to us, it is up to democratic people, up to the progressive forces to themselves uphold the banner of peace and democracy, and to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Korean people in their hour of need.

Note to Our Readers

Workers’ Weekly Internet Edition was not published on April 13 and 20 because of technical problems.