Newspaper of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
170, Wandsworth Road, London, SW8 2LA. Phone 0171 627 0599,
Return to Workers' Weekly Index Page
The Focus of the Second 1998 National Consultative Conference Becomes Sharper through Work
Crime and Disorder Act and the Criminalisation of the Youth
OPINION: The Arrest of Fascist Pinochet Has Nothing Progressive about It
Fidel Castro Gives Opinion on Pinochet Arrest
New Edition of the Necessity for Change! Pamphlet by Hardial Bains
Britain has lowest-Weight Babies in EU
Mature Students Deterred by Fees
£32m PFI Project for State School
Trade Deficit Soars as Asia Exports Collapse
500 Steel Jobs Lost at Port Talbot
Actions against US Blockade of Cuba
Meeting Hails 50th Anniversary of Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Disabled People and the Return to Medievalism
Gordon Brown's Pre-Budget Report:
GORDON BROWN, Chancellor of the Exchequer, presented his Pre-Budget Report on November 3. In it he rejected predictions that Britain is being drawn into a deepening world recession. Instead he unveiled what was described as an upbeat forecast which is supposed to see the economy bounce back from its current "downturn" within two years. Gordon Brown painted the background of the "global downturn": "World trade growth is set to fall by two thirds. Forecasts for world growth as a whole have now been virtually halved. One quarter of the world is in recession." But his objective for Britain in this uncertain world is that it "not only steers a stable course but that, by building up our long term strength, [Britain] is more than equal to any and every challenge the global economy presents." The Chancellor is creating illusions about the economic recession and the crisis in this country. The sum total of his argument is that by adopting policies of "balancing the budget" to create stability, encouraging a new "enterprise culture" to foster productivity, and extending welfare to work and the New Deal to all the long-term unemployed, Britain will escape the global crisis of the capitalist economy. He terms these the "three essential foundations" for long-term strength and success. Finally, when all else has been taken into consideration, there comes "investing in our future", which is to say there will be an extension of the PFI schemes, and, as a footnote, a temporary increase of £40bn in spending over the next three years on health and education met by increased borrowing within his rules of "fiscal discipline". It is important to realise that, firstly, these are policies in the framework of the Labour government's aims of competing on the global market and building a stakeholder economy in short of ensuring the maximum capitalist profit and making sure that the maximum social product finds its way into the hands of the rich. Secondly, that these policies do not deal with the fundamentals of the economy, which is precisely that the base of the economy is geared to the making of the maximum capitalist profits on the backs of the working class and broad masses of the people. On the contrary, they provide every condition for the economic crisis to intensify. On the one hand, produced values, rather than being ploughed back into the economy to serve the needs of the vast majority instead ensure that the financial oligarchy get fabulously rich; on the other, production itself is made incidental to the making of maximum capitalist profit. All means are used to obtain the highest return on capital employed with as much capital as possible robbed from the pockets of the working people. While the capitalists are beset with the falling rate of profit for goods produced, speculation with vast sums takes place on the stock market. This does nothing to increase the production of goods and services to meet the needs of the people and leads to blowing up a bubble that will inevitably burst. The capitalists' very pursuit of maximum profit causes crises of overproduction, as we have seen in the computer chips industry, the car industry, the steel industry, and so on. Material and human resources are destroyed on a vast scale. An increased productivity of labour in the individual enterprises, one of the central planks of Gordon Brown's recipe of the future, has only the aim of maximising the profits of the capitalists while throwing "surplus" workers out of jobs. The New Deal presses them into work at slave labour rates, while causing destitution for those who are unable to work or cannot obtain work. Those workers whose productivity is increased are being encouraged by the Chancellor to buy shares and become stakeholders, in other words become as one with their employers in their bid to compete in the increasingly crisis-ridden global market, and abandon the "them and us" culture as Gordon Brown has it. His speech even includes the plan to "enlist business leaders to take the world of work and business into our classrooms [at schools and colleges]". Meanwhile, the TUC leaders are continually tailing behind the government, at odds with the workers' interests and those of society at large, intoning that "social partnership is the key to a successful economy". These measures will do nothing to alleviate the consequences of a moribund, parasitic capitalism controlled and run for the benefit of the monopolies and the finance capitalists. Rather they will pave the way for further crises, and criminalise the workers' struggles when they demand that their claims on society be met. This is so since the foundation of the economic crisis, which is that while the process of production has become socialised to the maximum, the appropriation of the fruits of that production remains private, is not being tackled. Indeed, it is being entrenched in every way. What is necessary in these circumstances is that the working class must further elaborate what is the way out of the crisis, intervening with a pro-social programme of their own and working for a change in the motive and direction of the economy. |
THE PREPARATORY COMMITTEE for the November 28-29 National Consultative
Conference of RCPB(ML) has met three times to date, and is set to further
consider the plans for the Conference in the near future. At the same time,
specific work is underway throughout all the Party organisations to prepare and
mobilise for this second National Consultative Conference of 1998.
The Central Committee has set the parameters for the work of the Preparatory
Committee, as well as taking up the recommendations of the July National
Consultative Conference regarding the Conference and taking the lead in their
realisation. However, the nature of the November Conference is such that the
whole Party is involved in its preparation and will be involved in
participating in its deliberations and in the work to make it a success. The
Preparatory Committee, as well as making the necessary practical preparations,
has the character of being a mechanism to facilitate this involvement and
ensure the political readiness of the Party activists, thereby consolidating
and building on the level of consciousness and organisation that emerged from
the First 1998 Conference and strengthening the Party from top to bottom. The Preparatory Committee paid particular attention to setting its own agenda, so that nothing was taken as read, overlooked or left to chance. In the course of this, the aim of the Conference stood out in sharp relief. This aim is to provide a stepping stone in preparation for the extremely important event of the holding of the Third Congress of RCPB(ML). The Conference therefore provides an opportunity for the Central Committee to consult not only with the members and sympathisers of the Party, but also the workers, youth, women and other sections of the society who are concerned about the forward march of society out of the crisis consult with them as to the themes and agenda of the Congress and what steps must be taken to ensure that it is a profound success. Thus the Party is dealing with the issue of what must be done to lead the way out of the crisis, in the conditions of New Labour in power and the impending world recession, in the context of its forward march, in an extremely pro-active manner. The question arises, with this aim, what should be the focus of the National Consultative Conference. What has become clear is that the focus of the Conference will become sharper through the work which is being undertaken. Thus, in the situation in which the Third Congress will set the seal on the work of the Party since January 1994, it is essential that a central focus of the Conference is a thorough-going discussion on the editorial policy of Workers' Weekly, strengthening the newspaper organisationally and building its distribution among the working class and people. The same criterion applies when the other aspects of the Congress are considered: that the work which is being undertaken in terms of the Party's ideological, theoretical and political work which has the aim of advancing the movement around a pro-social programme and for a new society and building the communist party as the instrument to provide this movement with consciousness and organisation that this work will provide the focus for the discussion on setting the themes and agenda for the Congress. Mobilise to the Maximum for the Second 1998 National Consultative Conference! All Out with the Work to Make It a Success! |
The Crime and Disorder Act, which received the Royal Assent on July 31, 1998, is an Act which under the guise of combating crime, especially among young people and children, actually serves to criminalise whole sections of the youth. For example, its provisions for local child curfew schemes in dealing with "youth crime and disorder", and which were brought into force on September 30, are aimed specifically at children under the age of 10. Children aged nine and below can be made subject to a local child curfew order if they are out unsupervised at specific times between 9pm and 6am. Another set of provisions also came into force on September 30. These deal with, for example, the setting up of "youth-offending teams" in certain areas, to deal with "young offenders" according to a "youth justice plan" of the local authority. The provisions for the "removal of truants to designated premises" are set to come into force on December 1. If one looks at the local child curfew schemes, the Home Office guidelines explain: "Local child curfews are primarily to be for the purpose of maintaining order (section 14(1)(b) of the 1998 Act) but in drawing up the local child curfew scheme, consulting on it and making the application to the Home Secretary there is no requirement at that stage for the local authority to have identified a specific problem of unsupervised children. The maintenance of order is not, however, the only objective of a local child curfew. Although not specifically prescribed in legislation the proposal is closely related to the provisions for the child safety order and as such it is designed to protect young children who because they are out on the streets unsupervised may be at risk of harm or getting into trouble." However, in case it might be thought that the focus of the legislation is concern for the children, the guidelines underline: "The Government believes that for a number of reasons children under the age of 10 should not be out late at night unsupervised. It may place them at risk and can create problems for the local community because such children, particularly when gathered in large groups, may become involved in anti-social or potentially criminal behaviour. Such behaviour should not be tolerated because people should have the right to live in a society which is safe and trouble free." The first question which can be asked is: what kind of society is it which gives rise to a situation where children under 10 are "at risk" in this way? The second question which comes to mind is: what kind of government is it that targets the behaviour of children under 10 as not tolerable and utilises the full force of the law against it? Furthermore, this goes hand in hand with reducing the age of criminal responsibility from 14 to 10. At the same time, according to the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act, anyone aged 10 and over can be made subject to an "anti-social behaviour order". Besides this, the curfew scheme could be a step to introducing such a scheme also for older children, as in the pilot scheme in Hamilton, Scotland, which applied to those 16 and under. Thus the state is getting involved in criminalising the youth at an incredibly early age next it will be blaming those in prams and in the womb for the problems in society! As it is, a whole network of agencies is being organised to ensure that "problem" youth of all ages are identified and targeted. Or, as the Home Office Guide puts it: "Delivering the full range of youth justice services to deal with young offenders". The government is at pains to point out that, in all these schemes, "primary responsibility" rests with the police. As the fabric of society comes under attack as the all-round crisis intensifies, so, instead of pointing the finger at the social system which is denying the youth a future, which is blocking them on all sides, which is denying them a full education as of right with no discrimination as to who can afford it, in which whole communities are devastated and laid waste, where drug-taking and crime are fostered among young people, where the culture they are being force-fed exhorts them to act against their own interests and take up a world outlook of fending for themselves, in this situation the government is blaming the youth and their attitudes for the problems in society and doing everything possible to turn the complex problems they face into law and order issues. And it calls this nipping crime in the bud! Workers' Weekly vigorously condemns the attempts to criminalise the youth through the Crime and Disorder Act. It salutes all the youth who are engaged in fighting for a future and working to open the door to progress in society. It will do all it can to assist them in their struggles. |
THE LEADERS OF THE Group of Seven "industrialised nations" (G7) issued a joint statement on October 30 on reforms of the world financial structure to contain global financial turmoil. Among its proposals was the suggestion for a mechanism to prevent financial crises occurring, a new International Monetary Fund facility to be complemented by the private sector, and the provision of additional IMF resources of $90bn. The G7 also said slow growth rather than inflation was now the greatest risk facing the global economy. The proposals of the G7, of which those on October 30 were only the latest, that the financial and economic crisis can be overcome by coordinating action of the most powerful countries, flies in the face of reality. It is an objective fact that these countries each has its own interests, which reflect the interests of the financial oligarchies and the monopolies, since it is those interests which dominate the economic and financial life of the big powers. Furthermore, the economic, political and even military blocs, such as the European Union, are also contending on a global scale. Even within the industrialised countries, there is the most cut-throat competition amongst the capitalist monopolies. Ever since capitalism developed into imperialism, there has been contention to divide and redivide the world into markets and spheres of influence. Today, in a period of disequilibrium internationally, that contention is especially fierce. Indeed, it is one facet which has given rise to the world economic and financial crisis. The financial oligarchy moves finance capital around the world to wherever it can make the maximum return. At one time they were scrambling to export finance capital to the "Asian tigers". With the collapse of these economies beginning a year or so ago, precipitating the collapse of the "hedge funds" and the most parasitic forms of making the maximum profit, the insatiable lust of the financiers for the maximum return on their capital has given rise, for example, to demands for a new "international financial architecture". But nevertheless, this same crisis has led to the sharpening of the rivalries of the ruling circles of the G7 countries, as well as between the blocs of the big capitalist powers, and the targeting of other areas of the globe for the expansion and contention of the imperialist powers. This has also been evident in the increased barbarism of the US, as well as its ally the British government, in giving itself the right to override the international legal and diplomatic norms and impose its dictate anywhere and everywhere. In short, it can be said that what the G7 are proposing along the lines of a new global financial system for the 21st century, of improved surveillance of the world economics and new codes of "fiscal openness", is illusory and impossible. Although Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are very enthusiastic about these schemes, and actually wish to appear as the wise heads at these international forums, the more down-to-earth voice of the Director General of the British Bankers' Association pointed out that "there will be some tough times ahead in implementing these principles". Try as they may to halt the slide to world depression, the G7 will not accomplish this feat because the very direction they are heading in has caused the collapse. "Competitiveness in the modern global economy" is their bottom line. In this context, even large capitalist concerns can be sacrificed at whatever cost to the economy or gobbled up in the process of monopolisation. Only changing the motive of production and eliminating the anarchy of production and the utilisation of the state treasury to pay the rich can ensure a healthy economy, which has to start from the needs of the nation, with the working class at the head, not from the parasitic demands of the financiers. |
OPINION |
The past weeks have witnessed a bizarre series of events concerning the fascist former President of Chile, General Augusto Pinochet. In London for medical treatment, he was first entertained to tea by ex-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, then arrested in his hospital bed on a Spanish extradition warrant under the clear direction of Blair's government whatever the protestations to the contrary then released by order of the Lord Chief Justice who ruled in the High Court that he should not have been arrested because "he enjoyed immunity as former sovereign from criminal and civil process of the English courts". Now at time of going to press he is still being held on bail pending appeal to the House of Lords by the Crown Prosecution Service. The brutal crimes of the former Chilean President against his own people as well as foreign nationals residing in Chile are well documented and indisputable. So is the fact that Pinochet was only brought to power by the direct intervention of US imperialism and maintained in power only with the support of big foreign monopolies and foreign governments which included not only that of the US but also of Britain, particularly the government of Thatcher. What was the role of the British state in his crimes? Let us hear Jack Straw and Tony Blair calling for the trial of Margaret Thatcher for crimes against humanity, and let us see them also point the finger against the US imperialists who were the backers and partners in crime of the fascist Pinochet. Instead, the Labour government are very smug about the arrest of Pinochet. It is being backed up by their "ethical foreign policy" and in turn is being used to bolster it. However, the way this question of the arrest of Pinochet has been handled has nothing progressive about it. By their same arguments, the British government could authorise the arrest of, say, Fidel Castro if he were to visit this country. Indeed, the US-run so-called "Foundation for Human Rights in Cuba" has already applied to Spain's National Court to follow the same rules to initiate criminal proceedings against President Castro as were applied to General Pinochet. What murky business is going on over the question of the arrest of Pinochet? Is it to destabilise Chile? To strengthen the right there? The consequences of the arrest could be foreseen. Why should the Labour government let Pinochet in to the country, not for the first time, and then arrest him at this time, a person who right now is finished politically? The Chilean people have dealt and were dealing with Pinochet. At the very least, the people are rendered passive on this question. The judgment of the Lord Chief Justice is right according to existing international law and norms. The courts of a foreign country cannot be used to take action against the government or former government of another country, as distinct from some international court or tribunal set up by international agreement to pass judgment on specific crimes against humanity, as were the Nuremberg Trials. It goes without saying that the crimes of genocide and unspeakable brutality of which Pinochet and his backers and accomplices are guilty should be tried and punished by such a court. The working class and all progressive forces must exercise the utmost vigilance. As the cases of Kosova, Iraq and others make clear, the Blair government, under the guise of "humanitarian concern" and "opposing dictators", has the intention of stepping up its interference in various strategic areas of the world. It is seeking, along with its US senior partner, to act as judge and jury on the affairs of the people of the whole world, while covering over the crimes of US imperialism and the British ruling class. In arresting Augusto Pinochet in the way it has, the British government has done everything to obscure where justice lies, and to divert attention from the nature of Pinochet's crimes in Chile and from his partners in crime and the godfathers of his crimes against the people. It is setting a dubious legal precedent, giving indication of suspect motives as regards another sovereign country, and acting to take away the initiative from the progressive and revolutionary movement of the working class and people to settle scores against imperialism and fascism once and for all. |
![]() We are printing below extracts from an interview given by President Fidel Castro Ruz, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba, to the journalists present during his visit to the National Museum of Roman Art in Mérida, Extremadura, Spain, on October 20, 1998, year of the 40th anniversary of the decisive battles of the war of liberation. We think that progressive people should be acquainted with these opinions of Fidel Castro, especially since some one-sided reporting of these views has appeared in the press. (Translation of the transcript of the Council of State) Journalist: It's better to be here than in London, isn't it? Could you say something for us about Pinochet? Would the situation change? Fidel Castro: Well, that's quite a subject. I believe it was the day I was conversing with the King when someone told me the news about Pinochet, and the first thing that occurred to me was, "How strange, since Pinochet was the one who gave the English the most help during the Malvinas war!" Then I commented on a few of the concerns I had regarding the situation. But now that you've asked me, and since this Roman theatre has such good acoustics, I will simply say the following: The situation has three aspects. First, there is the moral aspect. From the moral point of view, it is just that he be arrested and punished. There is a second aspect, the legal aspect. I think that from the legal point of view, this action is questionable. Third, there is the political point of view. I think that this is going to create a complicated situation in Chile, given the way in which the political process has developed there. In the first place, there is the army, the armed forces, which constitute a powerful institution in that country. And without a doubt they will unanimously oppose this, and oppose it fiercely, and they will demand that the civilian authorities, the civilian government, adopt all the measures needed to have Pinochet freed. In the second place, Chilean officials are traditionally very zealous when it comes to the law, to questions of sovereignty, more than in any other Latin American country, I think. And so, what is going to happen there? The armed forces will be protesting. The entire right wing will unite, and it is powerful. The government will find itself obliged to protest with all its might, because he had been issued a diplomatic passport, and because they believe that the authority for a trial of this nature corresponds to Chile; it would have to take place in Chile. There is the legislature, where the right will surely adopt a position in favour of Pinochet, and the left wing of the ruling coalition will find itself in a very difficult situation: whether to support the government or not. The most probable thing is that it will support the government; if not, it runs the risk of rupturing the coalition. What will the socialists and the other centre and left parties do? If they distance themselves from the government's line, they will be divided. I think that there is a danger of the coalition being divided; this is one of the latent dangers. I think that this could considerably strengthen the right. These are the political consequences. What might happen? The right is going to unite, the left could be divided, and this could create a difficult situation in Chile, which has still not concluded the process of consolidation and opening, although it has advanced a great deal. These political consequences are somewhat worrying, from the way we see things from here, from afar. There is an additional factor: Pinochet did not act alone. They have declassified official documents from the United States which demonstrate that from the day Allende's election was announced, the government of the United States, the president of the United States, and the high leadership of the United States made the decision to overthrow him. They allocated funds, 10 million dollars, immediately; they gave instructions to use any means to prevent him, first of all, from taking office, to try to prevent him from taking power, and second, to try to overthrow him throughout the duration of the subsequent period of time. They spurred on the conspiratorial process, supporting it with all kinds of destabilising, subversive activities; they squeezed the country economically, taking away all of its income, its credits, until they achieved the conditions for a coup d'état. They had detailed information about the plan for the coup d'état, and therefore had just as much responsibility for what happened as Pinochet himself. Going back to the moral question, I think it would be morally right if the same fate facing Pinochet were to be met by all those who participated in the idea, the gestation, the support and the carrying out of the coup d'état.Well, then, let him be arrested in London; but let all of the guilty parties be arrested as well. I'm not going to include Nixon, because Nixon is already dead, and we must ask that he rest in peace. But there are a lot of people who participated in all of that, and I think that from the moral point of view, they would all have to be taken to trial in Madrid, in London, or anywhere else. This is how we see the situation. WE'LL HAVE TO SEE WHAT PINOCHET'S GODFATHERS SAY Pinochet is someone who is already finished, who is in full political decline; but I'm afraid that an action undertaken in a hospital in London, and so on and so forth, could convert Pinochet into a martyr of the armed forces and a martyr of the right, into a cause for profound division within the country's progressive and centrist forces. A serious problem will have suddenly been created. To summarise, I repeat, there are three major issues involved in the matter: moral, legal and political. It is from this point of view that I am analysing the situation. Chile, really, is doing well; it has passed through a Calvary of difficulties and problems to arrive at establishing, let us say, the pre-eminence of civilian institutions within the country. As a result, this is a matter that will have to be followed carefully, and there doesn't appear to be an easy way out. We'll have to see what Pinochet's godfathers have to say there were 2000, 2500, 3000 victims, among the disappeared and the murdered. We'll have to see what they say, the godfathers and instructors of the tens of thousands of agents of repression who received courses in repression there, in the United States. You must know perfectly well that not long ago, the instruction manuals used to train officers from Argentina, Chile, Central America and other places were released publicly. When all of this was revealed, they said that they were destroying or eliminating the "pedagogical" manuals they had established; but the documentary and historical evidence of all of this remains. Pinochet's godfathers are responsible for the 30,000 disappeared in Argentina; the 3000 disappeared or murdered in Chile; the 150,000 victims in Guatemala, since the time of the "liberating" invasion organised by the CIA in 1954; and it just so happens that Che was there, exercising his trade as a doctor, when Arbenz was overthrown in a coup for having undertaken agrarian reform. Well then, that has cost 150,000 lives. Later came the dirty war in Nicaragua, which also cost tens of thousands of lives; the bloody war in El Salvador against that country's revolutionary movement with a river of arms, resources, military training, and money from the United States which cost tens of thousands of lives. I'm not going to mention Cuba. We were able to defeat the dirty war they organised against us, from the first moments of the Revolution, throughout the country. By organising the campesinos, the workers, the students, the people, everyone, to fight for years on end, we were able to counteract and defeat the enemy action, until we captured the very last of the bandits in the Escambray mountains, before the invasion of the Bay of Pigs. But I won't mention that, I won't include it in this calculation. As part of this calculation, I could also include the many who were tortured, murdered and disappeared in other places by those who received training and repressive indoctrination in the same school. |
Necessity for Change!Hardial Bains Price £2.50 + 50p p&p ;Available from John Buckle Books 170 Wandsworth Road, London SW8 2LA Make cheques and postal orders payable to Workers' Publication Centre Or use the Submit Form Return to Workers' Weekly Home Page |
NEWS IN BRIEF |
Britain Has Lowest-Weight Babies in EUBritain has the highest proportion of under-weight babies in the European Union, according to World Health Organisation figures. Low birth weights can lead to increased risks of dying within a month, mental handicap, epilepsy, cerebral palsy and autism. At 7.2 per cent, Britain had proportionately more low-weight babies, defined as live births under 5.5lbs, than Albania (6.9 per cent). Out of more than 35 European countries surveyed, the only ones with higher proportions of small babies were Bulgaria (9.1 per cent), Romania and Hungary (9.0 per cent) and Turkey (7.5 per cent). Specialists said social inequalities were to blame for many of Britain's under-weight births.
Mature Students Deterred by FeesNew figures published by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service disclose that mature student numbers on college courses have dropped by 10% after the introduction of £1,000 tuition fees. By October 21, the number of people who had found places in higher education institutions was 326,841. This is 1.7% fewer than 1997.
£32m PFI Project for State SchoolWestminster City Council in London is to press ahead with controversial plans for a £32 million private finance initiative to rebuild Pimlico School after two years of stop-go talks with the local community, according to reports.
Trade Deficit Soars as Asia Exports CollapseUK exports to South-East Asia in September fell by almost a third and exports to Russia halved, sending Britain's trade deficit with non-European countries to a record £1.9bn. |
|
IT HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED THAT 500 jobs will be lost at Port Talbot's British Steel works in South Wales over the next year. British Steel currently employs 4,000 workers at the plant. Newspaper reports say that the company is blaming new steel methods and the introduction of new practices. The company is introducing a state-of-the-art sheet steel treatment unit which will eventually replace the outdated cold mill and is introducing "team working". Local political representatives in Port Talbot are saying that this will be a severe blow to the local economy and is devastating news, affecting local families, youth who are looking for jobs and small businesses. How is it that the introduction of new technology which increases the productiveness of industry leads to increasing devastation for the people? Facts show that British Steel is introducing the new technology to try and halt its falling rate of profit. Pre-taxed profits have fallen from £1.1 billion in 1996 to £315 million in 1998. This exposes the claim that increasing productivity through new technology is a basis for prosperity in the economy. The workers must fight for a fundamental transformation in the direction of the economy so that the introduction of new technology and investment are used to provide stable growth in the economy, an economy which is geared to meeting the needs of the people and which utilises the new productiveness to expand the economy and provide a livelihood for all. |
Speakers from the floor joined in the condemnation of US policy towards Cuba and paid tribute to Cuba's stand for its independent path. A member of the House of Lords said that the extra-territorial aspect of the US blockade was totally unacceptable. Several speakers condemned the Blair government for its servility towards the US government and demanded a change of policy towards Cuba on Britain's part. One speaker pointed out that the policy of sanctions, practised against such countries as Cuba, North Korea and Iraq, was a crime against humanity, as had been asserted by one of the MPs on the platform. The following day CSC Chairman Ken Gill, Labour MP George Galloway and Louise Richards of UNISON handed in a 10,000-strong petition at the US Embassy calling for an end to the blockade. |
ON OCTOBER 24, the Korean Friendship and Solidarity Campaign (KFSC) organised a meeting in London to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), marking at the same time the 53rd anniversary of the founding of the Workers' Party of Korea (WPK) and the first anniversary of the election of Kim Jong Il as its General Secretary. The main speakers were Prof Mohammed Arif of the British Afro-Asian Solidarity Organisation and Eric Trevett, Honorary President of KFSC and President of the New Communist Party. Both speakers paid tribute to the great achievements of the people of the DPRK and their leadership over 50 years and gave moving reminiscences of the meetings which they had both had with the great leader, Kim Il Sung. A moving address to the meeting was given by Pak Jong Il, Permanent Delegate of the DPRK to the International Maritime Organisation based in London. In speaking of the life of Kim Il Sung, he highlighted the internationalism of the great leader and his meetings over many years with visitors from Britain and Ireland. He spoke of the struggles of the people of the DPRK under the leadership of the WPK and Kim Jong Il in recent times against the ordeals created by natural disasters as well as the military provocations, the economic sanctions and blockade. He expressed his delegation's appreciation of the assistance given the DPRK in its current difficulties, including from the government level, as well as the friendship and solidarity campaign. Keith Bennett, chairing the meeting, relayed messages of support for the meeting from various MPs as well as from some veteran communists who had been active in support of People's Korea as far back as the Korean war of 1950-53. Among other contributions, Chris Coleman of RCPB(ML) pointed out that the moving words of the Permanent Delegate, so greatly appreciated, only underlined the scandal that there was no full diplomatic representation of the DPRK in Britain, and spoke of the importance of demanding that the Blair government come out from behind the coat-tails of US imperialism, demand immediate US withdrawal from the Korean peninsula and move towards establishing full diplomatic relations with the DPRK. |
A NUMBER OF INHUMAN ATTACKS on the rights of disabled people by local authorities over the past months have shown just how far the state and local authorities are preparing to go with cut backs to benefits and services for the disabled. On August 17, the Chief Executive of Castle Morpeth Borough Council was given a vote of no confidence after the Council was publicly shamed by his comments relating to a disabled woman who recently died in a private nursing home. Local people and care workers at the home were disgusted when the Council refused help with the funeral expenses to this disabled woman. However, this led to angry protests which took place in Northumberland after a letter was leaked in which the Chief Executive Officer tried to justify the action of the Council by likening the residents of private care homes as the "raw materials" of the Nursing Home industry. He said that the deceased woman was equivalent to the "business waste" of a commercial enterprise. Also in August, the National Centre for Independent Living (NCIL), an organisation of the disabled people's movement, issued a press-release which condemned the threat made by Bradford City Council to take away the baby of a disabled woman. The woman became disabled three years ago through an accident and was expecting a baby. The Council said that the cost of supporting the woman as a disabled person and her child would be too much for their present community care budgets. They threatened her with institutionalisation and having her baby taken into the custody of the state. Due to the strength of her arguments for flexible and adequate personal assistance, and the support of local people she has at the moment been allowed to live independently. These examples show very clearly what is behind the rhetoric of Tony Blair when he speaks of "modernising" the "system of disability benefits" and the policy of the government to "think the unthinkable". It also shows very clearly that the bourgeoisie brought New Labour to power to carry through its anti-social offensive and withdraw all public guarantees which were previously acknowledged and push society back towards medievalism. It reveals the ugly ideas behind this push back towards medievalism that refuse to recognise disabled people as human beings whose needs should be met in full by society. It is in this context that the attacks on the collective and individual rights of the disabled people are taking place. Such a situation places great responsibility on the working class, the disabled people's movement and other oppressed sections of the people. What is required is the building of the movement of the people around a pro-social programme for society, an immediate programme that society must recognise that all individuals are born to society and thus all have inviolable rights simply by dint of being human and that society has an obligation to all its members. Such a path is the key to defeating the present attacks on the disabled people and in opening up a path to progress and the creation of a society fit for all human beings. |