Workers Daily Internet Edition Year 2002 No. 32

Year 2002 No. 32, February 15, 2002	ARCHIVE	HOME	SEARCH	SUBSCRIBE

Daily On Line Newspaper of the
Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
170, Wandsworth Road, London, SW8 2LA. Phone 020 7627 0599
Web Site: http://www.rcpbml.org.uk
e-mail: office@rcpbml.org.uk
Subscription Rates (Cheques made payable to Workers' Publication Centre):
Workers' Weekly Printed Edition:
70p per issue, £2.70 for 4 issues, £17 for 26 issues, £32 for 52 issues (including postage)
Workers' Daily Internet Edition sent by e-mail daily (Text e-mail):
1 issue free, 6 months £5, Yearly £10

Government’s Role as Pursuing the Neo-Liberal Agenda of the Rich above All Else

The cry of "sleaze" from the Conservative Party directed at the Labour government over the Tony Blair’s letter to the Romanian Prime Minister backing the tycoon Lakshmi Mittal’s bid for Sidex has the whiff of hypocrisy about it. On the other hand, the protestations from the Prime Minister’s spokesperson that all this is perfectly normal, and that Tony Blair and his advisers had not known at the time of the businessman’s donations to Labour Party funds, has the air of "there’s none so blind as those that will not see".

The facts are these:

Hours before the original deal between LNM/Ispat International and Sidex was supposed to have been signed (July 20, 2001), the Romanian government suddenly announced a delay (until July 25). The announcement came at a business breakfast organised by Bucharest Business Weekly for French investors.

Usinor, the previously nationalised French steel monopoly, which was also in discussion with the Romanian government over the Sidex contract, was represented at the breakfast by its Vice-President, Marc Lacroix, where he announced that he was still confident of his company's chances of winning the contract. The French Ambassador to Romania, Pierre Menat, was also present.

On July 23, 2001, the French Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin, visited Bucharest to sign a number of deals with the Romanian government, the Sidex deal being high on the agenda. It was on this day that Tony Blair sent his letter to the Romanian Prime Minister Adrian Nastase, backing LNM president Lakshmi Mittal's bid for the £300 million business deal. It arrived two days before the signing of the draft agreement. In the letter, Tony Blair wrote that the privatisation of the Sidex plant, which employs 27,000 people, would help smooth the way for Romania's entry into the EU.

The Bucharest Business Weekly later reported that Pierre Menat and his advisers held behind-closed-doors discussions with government representatives just before Lakshmi Mittal's arrival in Romania. Then it was reported that Tony Blair had "trumped" Usinor for the Romanian deal.

It has also been revealed that 400 Irish steelworkers lost their jobs when Ispat closed their plant there last June. The deal is suspiciously similar to that signed between the Romanian government and LNM/Ispat International. Both contracts assure that no jobs would be lost in the first five years of the deal. Ispat bought the Haulbowline Plant from the Irish government in May 1996. When the deal was finally signed for the Sidex plant, the Romanian government had announced that 150,000 people depended on the privatisation of the plant, and that the deal secured jobs.

The Sunday Telegraph reported that Tony Blair's letter of July 23, 2001, said: "I am delighted by the news that you are to sign the contract for the privatisation of your biggest steel plant, Sidex, with the LNM Group. I am particularly pleased that it is a British company which is your partner. And it will, I hope, set Romania even more firmly on the road to membership of the European Union, an objective of which the British Government remains a staunch supporter."

Although his LNM Group has an office in London, Sidex was bought by LNM Holdings, which is registered in the Dutch Antilles, a Caribbean tax haven. It has been revealed that the LNM Group is not only not registered in the UK but is not registered anywhere world-wide. A spokesperson for the Ispat International confirmed to journalists that the "LNM Group" is merely an administrative term for the group of companies that Lakshmi Mittal owns. Fewer than 100 of LNM's 125,000 staff world-wide work in Britain and, although Lakshmi Mittal has been a British resident since 1995, he still has an Indian passport. He donated £125,000 to Labour on June 26 last year, a few weeks after the General Election. The gift followed a donation of "over £5,000" in 1997.

Tony Blair said last week before returning from Africa: "Presumably whatever was done was done on the advice of the Foreign Office. For any government you have got to have rules that are open and transparent. If anybody has got any evidence that they haven't been observed let them bring it forward. Governments will back companies to win contracts the whole time. Otherwise you would end up with the absurd situation where government doesn't have anything to do with British business."

Tony Blair told the House of Commons on Wednesday that he had been right to sign a letter to his Romanian counterpart supporting the LNM Group’s purchase of the Romanian state steel company. He dismissed suggestions of impropriety and said the case is a matter of public record thanks to rules the government had introduced.

Given these facts, Plaid Cymru, the Party of Wales, tabled questions of the government to determine why the Prime Minister supported a company's bid to acquire a foreign company:

Adam Price, the Plaid Cymru MP for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, tabled the following questions:

If he will name the individuals and companies since 1997 which have received assistance from himself or his office in their attempts to acquire assets oversees?

If he will name the individuals or companies since 1997 who have conducted business negotiations in Number 10 Downing Street with parties other than Her Majesty's Government?

(Pursuant to his reply of 4th February 2002) On what criteria he judged the LNM group to be British?

What criteria he uses to decide whether an attempted oversees acquisition by an individual or company seeking assistance from him would be in the national interest, and what process of assessment takes place against these criteria?

On what criteria did he suggest to the Romanian Prime Minister on 23 July 2001 that the acquisition of the Sidex steel plant by the LNM Group would assist Romania's membership to the European Union?

To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry:

Was her Department consulted as to whether LNM Holdings' acquisition of the Sidex plant in Romania would be detrimental to the British steel industry?

What meetings were held between her Department and representatives of LNM/Ispat International since May 1997?

In an answer, the Prime Minister claimed that he had "written to the Romanian Prime Minister welcoming the contract for the privatisation of the Romanian steel plant Sidex with the British LNM Group."

In response, Adam Price said, "The Prime Minister's answer has misled the House through claiming that this is a British company. I will be pressing for an early statement from the Government to come clean once and for all. Mr Mittal's empire has only the most fleeting of associations with Britain, and only the most vivid of imaginations could describe it as a British company."

The Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, turned down the request that a minister be summoned to the House of Commons to answer the allegations made by Plaid Cymru. Adam Price – who is also Vice-Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Steel group – said: "On Sunday the Prime Minister's Official Spokesperson said that 'there should be nothing surprising in the Prime Minister writing ... a standard letter, in terms of supporting a British Company winning a contract in Romania'. We have already established that this is not a British company. Neither was it a contract overseas that would lead to British exports and British jobs. This was the acquisition of an overseas steel plant by an oversees steel firm that is competing with British business. So on what basis was the British Government involved?"

Speaking in London Adam Price said, "The Prime Ministers' Official Spokesperson said only on Sunday: ‘This is precisely what the Prime Minister should be doing – which is encouraging British companies to set up businesses in a country where it is possible to do so.’ If this is so, then surely making these letters public could only promote further investment in those countries.

"Furthermore, it is quite ludicrous that the British Government refused to publish the letter to the Romanian Prime Minister due to commercial confidentiality, when the Romanian Government was publishing the letter left, right and centre. It was made available on their websites, and every Romanian Embassy proudly issued press releases about the letter. Using 'commercial confidentiality' as an excuse a flimsily veil of convenience.

"The Government is backtracking more and more every day, and Plaid Cymru challenges the Prime Minister to publish the letters, as any transparent Government would do."

Adam Price said, "In his entire response to the 'Steelgate' affair the Prime Minister has misled Parliament, the press and the people of this country. His repeated assertions that LNM is a British Company, and that the deal was signed, sealed and delivered are now proven to be completely without foundation. The Prime Minister has either been badly advised, extraordinarily naïve – or he has been deliberately trying to cover his tracks.

"The two lines of defence from the Government in this whole cash-for-favours row, that it was a British company and that the deal was signed before the letter was sent, have both now been demolished. With the Prime Minister's credibility at an all time low, his insistence that there was no connection between the letter and the donation is wearing extremely thin."

"The way in which the Irish workers were treated proves that this is a company with appalling labour relations and is clearly not a company with which a Labour Government should be doing business," he said.

"It only took Mr Mittal two weeks to close the Irish plant after the binding agreement securing 400 jobs was terminated. I hope that the Romanian Government was aware of this fact when they decided to award their contract to Mr Mittal."

In the context that LNM is a direct competitor of Corus, which announced on February 11 that it is to freeze the pay of its workers, Adam Price said, "This is a further blow to a Labour party than has misled the public on this highly controversial issue, and has actively supported a foreign company gain a contract that could only safeguard foreign jobs. Plaid Cymru has been calling on the Government to act to safeguard all Corus jobs, but the Government has failed to respond."

In cutbacks prompted by competition and a shrinking marketplace for steel, Corus announced in February 2001 it was making 6,050 workers redundant in Britain. The steel mill at Llanwern was to be wound down with the loss of 1,300 jobs.

"Emotions are very raw still," Adam Price said. "The feeling at the time was the Prime Minister did not intervene as aggressively as he could have done to ensure Corus did sell the plants to an employee buy-out workers put together."

The state is revealed as the an instrument for the pursuit of maximum profits and the imposition of the neo-liberal agenda of the rich against the workers’ interests:

The Prime Minister’s spokesman, speaking on February 12, made the open acknowledgement that speaking up on behalf of companies bidding for contracts abroad was a frequent occurrence, not just on the part of the Prime Minister but other government ministers too. The Prime Minister's letter had been written as a direct result of a recommendation suggested by the British Ambassador to Bucharest. The Ambassador and the Foreign Office had both suggested writing the letter because of the transformation going on within Romania, particularly in terms of the restructuring of its economy – of which Sidex was playing a very important part. The privatisation of the company was the strongest signal yet that the Romanian economy was opening up to outside investment. The Prime Minister wrote such letters frequently. For example, he had written recently to Russia, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic about businesses as diverse as our water and airline industry. Whenever he went abroad, he took the opportunity to speak on behalf of British companies bidding for contracts. Ministers did the same. It all boiled down to the key question: was it in this country's interest for its businesses to be helped to open up new markets. The Prime Minister had certainly been lobbying on behalf of British companies during his previous visits to Africa.

The Prime Minister had been requested to write a letter by the British Ambassador in Bucharest because of the signal that this particular privatisation would send about the future of the Romanian economy in its transition from a closed, largely state-owned economy to one that was open. The Ambassador had believed it to be important to encourage that process. The reality was that there would always be competition in a global economy. In a global economy, competition was ever present. Asked why it would seem to be acceptable for a protectionist element to exist in the Romanian economy, given the deal not to lay off any Sidex workers, but not in the UK steel industry, the Prime Minister’s Office Spokesman said that we did not run the Romanian economy. We were encouraging Romania to open up its markets.

Notes:

References to the Bucharest Business Week "French Power Breakfast" can be found at the following web addresses:
http://www.bbw.ro/article.cfm?sec=homepage&art_id=454&vol=5&nr=28
http://www.bbw.ro/article.cfm?sec=homepage&art_id=455&vol=5&nr=28
http://www.bbw.ro/article.cfm?sec=homepage&art_id=465&vol=5&nr=29

References to the last minute attempt by Usinor to seal the Sidex deal can be found at the following web address:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?N59B2086

References to the Irish job losses can be found at the following address:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2AB2686

JUSTICE IN AFGHANISTAN?
JUSTICE IN BRITAIN?

Redbridge Stop the War Public Meeting

Last Thursday evening, February 7, 70 people attended a meeting in Ilford Community Centre organised by Redbridge Stop the War. Speakers were Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui leader of the Muslim Parliament in Britain; Betty Hunter from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and the campaign for freedom and justice for Samar and Jawad, victims of a miscarriage of justice; Asad Rehman from the Newham Monitoring Project and on the national Stop the War Coalition; and Diane Abbot, one of the Labour MPs speaking out against the war.

A leaflet produced by the group and distributed widely in the area said

"Bush and Blair’s war on terror is by no means over. Civilians continue to be killed in Afghanistan. Far from removing the threat of terror, the world is now a much more dangerous place. Bush is now threatening to intensify attacks on countries from Iraq and Iran to North Korea. Meanwhile many other countries are using the global ‘war against terror’ to suppress human rights in ways that suit their interests.

"Redbridge Stop the War is a broad-based local campaign group, which opposes the continuing bombing of Afghanistan and the proposed escalation of the war.

"The latest anti-terrorism legislation is having a direct impact on people in our area – creating a climate of fear amongst many. We oppose this encroachment of civil liberties and erosion of our rights to speak freely."

Dr Siddiqui in his opening presentation set the tone of the meeting with a sharp and comprehensive assessment of the "war against terrorism". He said that it is not a war against terrorism but is about controlling the resources of the world. The US Defence Budget has just increased by $50bn to $380bn, he said, and over the last 50 years the US has been militarily involved in 40-50 countries.

The speaker referred to the 1950s when the war against communism was launched which entailed opposition to independence struggles, and the curtailment of democratic values. He said that we are seeing a re-play of this. With the collapse of communism, the US foreign policy agenda needed a new enemy. He suggested that Al-Qaida could rouse the required hatred.

Dr Siddiqui went on to say that multi-nationals not only seek to control water supplies and other essential resources but also hospitals, fashion and the media. They aim to bring about hundreds of newspapers and TV stations, all saying one thing – how good Macdonald’s is. The creativity and initiative of individuals will be destroyed. Small businesses will disappear.

The "war against terrorism" is not restricted to Afghanistan and Al-Qaida, the speaker said. In Britain with the anti-terrorist legislation they appear to be targeting Muslims. They are having fishing expeditions and the communities are haunted. Britain faces a great threat to democracy, the speaker said. But, he suggested, the last election showed how young people are beginning to see through the electoral system.

Enron and the cash for access has exposed the multi-nationals giving money to political parties to influence policy making in their favour, Dr Siddiqui emphasised. If globalisation carries on unchecked the political system will be held hostage – that is the way big business wants it. The "New World Order", the speaker pointed out, is one where the people do not decide what happens in a country but corporate interests will. Therefore ordinary people can and must come together to fight this, he concluded.

The Struggle against Imperialist Globalisation and the Defence of Socialist Korea

Declaration of Brussels

Today, the imperialists, under the slogan of globalisation, are destroying world peace and security and are seriously threatening the existence of humanity and its course towards its liberation from oppression.

The globalisation of the imperialists consists essentially in the uniformisation of all countries in the world in a single ideology, a single system and a single culture. It means imposing the Western imperialist model on the world in the fields of politics, economy and culture.

This reactionary and destructive globalisation hastens the impoverishment of the developing countries and destroys jobs everywhere. It enriches a very small number, while impoverishing the large majority throughout the world. It becomes a source of military confrontation and inter-ethnic and religious conflicts.

For the past years, numerous parties and organisations, aware of the dangers of this globalisation, have been fighting forcefully against it. Today, this pressingly acute struggle has become part of the anti-imperialist struggle.

Fighting imperialism is a necessity in order to realise the aspirations and demands of the peoples of the worlds, who are opposed to domination, enslavement, aggression and war. It is a duty for the revolutionary parties and the progressive forces.

In this struggle, it is important to forestall the imperialists’ attempts at division and discord, and to oppose them with a strategy of unity. All anti-imperialist forces must firmly unite, transcending social, ideological, philosophical, national and ethnic differences, on the basis of their common aspiration to independence, peace and friendship.

Today, the Korean peninsula has become a terrain for sharp confrontation between socialism, striving for the liberation of humanity, and imperialism, aiming at dominating the world. The United States’ policy of hostility towards Korea seriously threatens peace and security, not only on the Korean peninsula but throughout the world.

The Workers’ Party of Korea victoriously advances the Korean revolution and the socialist cause, while forestalling all kinds of threats and demands from the imperialists. The Korean people, united behind the Workers’ Party of Korea, led by Comrade Kim Jong Il, fights to defend the socialist cause, while giving priority to the army, and encourages the peoples that aspire to progress, peace and socialism.

We extend our support to the Workers’ Party of Korea and to the Korean people who struggle for a decisive turn in the independent reunification of their country, in line with the principles of the Joint North-South Declaration of June 15, 2000.

The reactionaries of South Korea must abandon their theory of "main enemy" and cease to conspire against the North, in collusion with US troops. In South Korea, it is time to remove the fascist so-called "national security" law and to demand the retreat of US troops.

The defence of the socialist cause is the cornerstone of the struggle against imperialism and its globalisation. We call on all progressive parties and all peace-loving organisations and people to mobilise for the struggle against imperialist globalisation and to support and defend the socialist cause of Korea, for a free and peaceful world, for socialism, the future of humanity.

Victory belongs to the people, united in struggle.

Resolution

The Significance of the Defence of Socialist Korea in the Context of the Struggle against the "New World Order"

Intervention by the delegation of RCPB(ML) to the Conference of European Communist and Workers’ Parties.

The present international context of world affairs is one where all the political and material trends are deepening. Darkest reaction is being put in place all along the line by Anglo-American imperialism and the world’s big powers. At the same time, the struggles of the international proletariat and the world’s insurgent peoples to seize the initiative and put in place new arrangements are developing. In this context the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a state which is being made the target of imperialist predation and labelled as a "rogue state" and unjustifiably accused as a sponsor of terrorism. Justice itself demands that the DPRK gain the internationalist support of democratic peoples the world over. They are heartened to note that the DPRK is taking the proper military, political and ideological steps in its defence, realising that more is at stake than simply the defence of dignity and sovereignty, just and important though that is. The defence of the socialist system in the DPRK is a task that the world’s people hold dear, and they are at one with the Korean people in their aspirations for the reunification of their homeland.

US and Britain, from the time of the Korean War, have attempted to stifle people's Korea. The recent revelations of the Korea Truth Commission and recently the BBC2 Timewatch documentary utilising Associated Press investigative journalism, have further exposed the crimes against humanity committed by US imperialism in Korea and exposed who exactly are the enemies of human rights, human life and dignity. After the second world war, Anglo-American imperialism launched the Cold War. This was a crusade of anti-communism, in which the domino theory of communist take-over was presented in order to justify intervention and massacres. It was using the pretext of North Korean aggression that the US committed untold crimes until they were forced to sign an armistice agreement.

It was after the second world war also that the US and Britain were striving to turn the victory of the progressive forces over fascism into a struggle against the extremes of left and right, and hence spearheading their struggle against the communists. Conciliation with this onslaught did occur, and paths other than to the emancipation of the working class and people, which did not rely on the people but the forces of reaction, were put forward and adopted. In general, the problems facing society were not tackled and the door to progress remained shut. Internationally, the bipolar division between the US and the Soviet Union first took hold and then collapsed with the collapse of the Soviet Union itself, and a period of retreat of revolution set in during the 1990s, which is still continuing. However, during all this time the DPRK took the stand of independence, of self-reliance and relying on people solving their own problems. As Kim Jong Il says, the masses achieve their independence through socialism and communism.

Today, the present domino theory relies on the issue of "failed states" which breed terrorism, as well as "rogue states", and the megalomaniac accusation of an "axis of evil", which sponsors terrorism and develops weapons of mass destruction. This is put in the service of establishing the Anglo-US New World Order. This New World Order itself is to integrate the whole world under US domination into the system of neo-liberal globalisation, so that the most rapacious of the world's forces may control markets, sources of raw materials, human resources, and establish a unipolar world in this context. Peoples and nations are not to be counted as sovereign, but as corporations in this global equation in which countries may be declared solvent or insolvent, legitimate or illegitimate, according to the criteria of the international financial oligarchy and the values of the Paris Charter of 1990. Because the countries and peoples of the world are declared as "inter-dependent", the principle of sovereignty, of peoples themselves deciding their own destiny, has been declared obsolete, while at the same time individualism and the pursuit of self-interest has been declared paramount, and any attempt to assert collective rights is in practice declared to be in contradiction with the exercise of "individual rights", and the general interests of society are not even considered as the responsibility of governments. In this context, all these spurious arguments and declarations, which do not even acknowledge the theoretical and practical advances made by progressive humanity in the developing of national and international social relations of the 20th century, are being pressed into service against the DPRK. This, of course, goes hand in hand, with threats and actual intervention in the Korean peninsula, as in other parts of the world.

What this means for the British government, following its policy of "constructive engagement" which has been elaborated by the Labour government – i.e. becoming involved in order to put pressure, manoeuvre, inveigle, etc., rather than developing relations on the basis of mutual respect and for mutual benefit – is exemplified in the statement put out by the Foreign Office after the first official visit of a Foreign Ministry team from the DPRK. It should be noted that Britain, following on the coattails of the US, had refused to establish diplomatic relations with the DPRK until a year ago. The Foreign Office minister arrogantly and hypocritically alleged that it "is not enough to condemn world terrorism. We need to see an end to nuclear proliferation and no country giving shelter to hi-jackers and terrorists." This is in an official statement lecturing the diplomatic mission from the DPRK! The Foreign Office reported its discussions "covered missile proliferation, human rights abuses, North Korea’s refusals to talk constructively to the US and South Korea, links to past acts of terror, and controlled access for foreign aid workers and diplomats to the country and its people." This is the kind of double-speak and disinformation which is being used to attempt to isolate North Korea, but which as importantly is being used to create illusions, not only about the nature of the socialist system in the DPRK but also about the tasks of the working class and people in the necessity to settle scores with their "own" allegedly humanitarian ruling circles. This is particularly so in Britain, where a decisive break with the old conscience would have such a profound effect not only in Britain but in all parts of the world where the British bourgeoisie left its colonial legacy, including the insistence that the people should rely on foreign institutions and political processes and theory.

In these circumstances, the DPRK has been extremely resilient, creative and pro-active in dealing with the situation and persisting in building the socialist system which is the people's choice and which is the guarantee of their continued independence as well as of the bringing into play of the human factor and the collective and socialist way of life. This is extremely crucial at this critical juncture in world history, at the beginning of the 21st century.

In our view, it is extremely important to emphasise that the army-based policy of the DPRK, which attaches the greatest importance to military affairs, despite its recent grave difficulties at home and abroad, is one under which the DRPK has continued to strengthen its defence capabilities. This policy is inseparable from the leadership of Kim Jong Il, concurrently General Secretary of the Workers’ Party of Korea and Chairman of the National Defence Commission of the DPRK, thus taking the helm of Party, state and military affairs. One can appreciate how necessary it is as an effective political mode of giving a strong impetus to the cause of progress in the present era, which is one in which the aspirations of the people for independence, peace and security are deepening. In this sense, the struggle to stand on one's own feet and rely on one's own thinking, while being inseparably linked with the forces in struggle for their national and social emancipation throughout the world, is indeed a model for the revolutionary forces.

The defence of principles of socialism in the DPRK is indeed the most important thing in the life of the people. As Kim Jong Il wrote in Socialism Is a Science: "Socialism has been frustrated in a number of countries, but scientific socialism is as alive as ever in the minds of the people. … The crumbling of socialism in various countries does not mean the failure of socialism as science but the bankruptcy of opportunism which has corrupted socialism."

The "West" has failed to destroy the DPRK, despite the Bush administration branding the people’s republic as a "rogue state" and sending into reverse the dialogue and negotiations which had been adopted with the DPRK. The demands of the Anglo-US "New World Order" have now meant a further escalation of the rhetoric of the imperialists, coupled with concrete moves by the US to unleash another Korean War.

However, this has further served to emphasise the importance of support for the Korean people under the leadership of Kim Jong Il in their defence of their dignity, their sovereignty and in their sacred task of the defence of socialism, the present and future of humankind. At this historical juncture, the army-based policy which the whole people have adopted will secure their advance and defeat the strategies of imperialism to conquer the DPRK, as imperialism is trying to achieve with states around the world which it declares as illegitimate.

On behalf of the Central Committee of RCPB(ML), I would like to extend our best wishes and congratulations to Kim Jong Il on the occasion of his 60th birthday on February 16.

In taking up the tasks of the socialist revolution, we are conscious not only of the need to settle scores with the old conscience in Britain which has conciliated with the deeds of the British empire and still strives to get the left to unite with the reactionary "Third Way" programme pursued by the New Labour government, but we are also conscious of the need to give proletarian internationalist support to all those who are charting their own independent socialist path, as are the heroic people of Korea under the leadership of Comrade Kim Jong Il.

Government’s Role as Pursuing the Neo-Liberal Agenda of the Rich above All Else

Government’s Role as Pursuing the Neo-Liberal Agenda of the Rich above All Else

JUSTICE IN AFGHANISTAN?
JUSTICE IN BRITAIN?

Conference of European Communist and Workers Parties

The Struggle against Imperialist Globalisation and the Defence of Socialist Korea

Declaration of Brussels

Resolution

The Significance of the Defence of Socialist Korea in the Context of the Struggle against the "New World Order"

Letter from RCPB(ML) on the Occasion of the 60th Birthday of Kim Jong Il

Call to Join In Protesting against President Bush's Reckless Remarks about the DPRK

Activities in Support of the Palestinian People’s Struggle

Palestinian Blood on British Hands

Government’s Role as Pursuing the Neo-Liberal Agenda of the Rich above All Else

Government’s Role as Pursuing the Neo-Liberal Agenda of the Rich above All Else

JUSTICE IN AFGHANISTAN? JUSTICE IN BRITAIN?

Conference of European Communist and Workers Parties

The Struggle against Imperialist Globalisation and the Defence of Socialist Korea

Declaration of Brussels

Resolution

The Significance of the Defence of Socialist Korea in the Context of the Struggle against the "New World Order"

Letter from RCPB(ML) on the Occasion of the 60th Birthday of Kim Jong Il

Call to Join In Protesting against President Bush's Reckless Remarks about the DPRK

Activities in Support of the Palestinian People’s Struggle

Palestinian Blood on British Hands

JUSTICE IN AFGHANISTAN?
JUSTICE IN BRITAIN?