A rank and file CTU member's suggestion "We have received a plea from the Solomon Islands Council of Trade Unions to support the New Zealand Government's intervention, as a rank and file NZCTU member, I suggest our organisation replies along these lines... ---------------- Bio-colonisation threatens our individual freedoms by Grant Morgan Bio-colonisation IS starting to invade. The implications are so profound that only revolutionaries will be judged realistic in times to come.  Gene manipulation and bio-technology, together with 'free trade' pacts which legalise corporate patent rights over life itself, will close down traditional freedoms in the developed world. ---------------- 'Concentrate on the big deception' TV news has carried nightly updates of the scandal rocking the British government as the inquiry proceeds into the death of weapons inspector Dr David Kelly.  British socialist and journalist Paul Foot writes on what really matters among the claims and counter-claims. ---------------- Digging the whole, burying GE by David Colyer The science of ecology has taught us that one part of an ecosystem can't be understood in isolation from the other parts, because they are constantly interacting. A holistic approach ­ looking at the parts in the context of the whole system ­ is needed to understand what is going on. ---------------- Ghost of Vietnam haunts Iraq Increasing resistance and deep discontent within the US army ­ Iraq looks more like Vietnam every day. ---------------- Grassroots movement very much alive by Daphne Lawless More than 500 protesters hit the streets of Wellington on July 19 to oppose the Labour government's plans to end the moratorium on release of genetically engineered (GE) organisms in October. ---------------- 'I am opposed to the intervention' Dr Kabini Sanga is a Solomon Islands academic currently living in Wellington. He talked with Socialist Worker Monthly Review about why he opposes the Australian-led intervention. ---------------- Labour's immigration law hurts workers by Vaughan Gunson ---------------- 'Multinational control' behind GE ­scientist The GE issue has become nothing more than a quagmire of political rhetoric backed by US political pressure. ---------------- Murky waters over the foreshore by David Colyer The beach provides a good metaphor for the foreshore and sea-bed controversy: there's a lot of froth and foam, there's murky, churned-up waters, and above it all is a dense layer of white fog. ---------------- A poem: In  protest ---------------- Port workers unite to stop union-busting by Grant Brookes ---------------- 'Regional Ratepayers Rebellion' by Grant Morgan Scores of delegates from several dozen ratepayer associations, along with other concerned citizens, packed a church hall on July 26 to plan action against huge rate hikes imposed by the Auckland Regional Council. ---------------- Rehabilitating the Korean War Official celebrations of New Zealand's role in past barbaric wars ­ and Helen Clark's warm greeting of US war criminal Henry Kissinger in Panmunjom ­ are part of preparing the public for involvement in the future wars that will arise from America's new drive to dominate the world. ---------------- Seafarers fight to defend jobs by Grant Brookes The Maritime Union of New Zealand (MUNZ) last month stepped up a long-running campaign to defend the jobs of its seafaring members. ---------------- Solomons force defends capitalism By Grant Brookes New Zealand troops and police arrived in the Solomon Islands with the Australian-led intervention force ---------------- Unequal society fuels racism by Vaughan Gunson Capitalism is a system that encourages hatred, racial prejudice and war. ---------------- Editorial: Unity against the beast Three months after US forces bombed their way into Baghdad, the world teeters again towards new wars. ---------------- US threatens new nightmare Senior officials from the 11-nation Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) met in Brisbane on July 10 to discuss US plans for stepping up military pressure on North Korea. ----------------- 'We've got to make a stand' Ken Mair is a Wanganui tino rangatiratanga (Maori sovereignty) activist. Ken spoke to Socialist Worker Monthly Review about the foreshore issue. -----------------

A rank and file CTU member's suggestion   "We have received a plea from the Solomon Islands Council of Trade Unions to support the New Zealand Government's intervention, and for trade union support for their people", said New Zealand Council of Trade Unions President Ross Wilson on 23 July.   "The Solomon Islands CTU has advised by letter that it fully supports the proposed intervention by Australia and New Zealand to help restore the deteriorating law and order situation and the country's declining and dying economy", he said.   As Socialist Worker Monthly Review goes to press, we've not yet seen a NZCTU reply to the Solomon Islands Council of Trade Unions. As a rank and file NZCTU member, I suggest our organisation replies along these lines... To: Solomon Islands Council of Trade Unions Dear fellow unionists,   Thanks for your letter. The severe problems suffered by Solomon Islands workers concern the New Zealand Council of Trade unions.  We'll certainly provide trade union support for your people.  For a start, nationally coordinated CTU-organised job meetings to inform our members about your situation and collect money for the SICTU fighting fund will be organised right away.   We're not so sure about your other request, that the CTU support the New Zealand government's military intervention.   We share your concern about workers' conditions in the Solomons "declining and dying economy". We hear that some employers pay less than the legal minimum wage of $2 per hour, an amount apparently not reviewed since 1991.  We're informed that some public servants' wages arrive up to 4 weeks late.  And we're aware that 1 percent of households in the Solomons receive 52 percent of all income.   Will Australian and New Zealand police and soldiers' intervention help overturn these injustices and improve Solomon Island workers lives?  Sadly, all our experience suggests that's unlikely.  In New Zealand, police intervention into any industrial situation is always to the workers disadvantage.   A typical example occurred just the other day, when police arrested three South Island waterside unionists, struggling to improve their wages.  Many of the workers earn less than $10 per hour, which is a very low wage to try and live on over here.   New Zealand Police earn more than $10 an hour but they show no sympathy for low paid workers.   The arrival of police at any workers' picket line means that scabs will be let in to work and any workers' protest rendered ineffectual. "Our police force" has consistently behaved this way since its establishment in 1846.  But might not the police "restore order" so that somehow life can improve?  Again, our experience suggests this hope isn't to be relied on. Apart from their hostility to unionism, "our police" can't really be relied on to protect the day-to-day interests of working people.  Big businesses calls to police get instant quality attention. Burglaries of ordinary people's homes in New Zealand are slow to be investigated and mostly go unsolved.   The New Zealand army also has an anti-union history. In the big dispute of 1951, soldiers were ordered to do the jobs of locked out waterfront workers.  We don't expect those same police and soldiers who always support the bosses against us to suddenly take the workers' side over in the Solomon Islands.  It's said that a massive crime wave has devastated socio-economic life in the Solomons. Facts suggest to us that the economic crisis has caused some impoverished islanders turn to crime to scrape a living.  One example is the free market practice of foreign companies in the logging industry.   In 1993, estimated losses for the Solomon Islands due to under-reporting of prices and underpayment of duties was US$40 million, approximately one third of the total export value.   The Malaysian logging company has been described as the worst seen in any tropical forest.   Their felling practices are unsustainable. Sediment washed from their shoddy roading has destroyed coral reefs, the main source of protein for local people.   In response to this vandalism, angry locals "turned to crime" ­ burning company bulldozers and seizing company chainsaws.  Another example is the behaviour of the Australian multinational Delta Gold, which opened a huge mine on Guadalcanal in 1998. That mine accounted for a quarter of the Solomon Islands economy. It produced $50 million a year for Delta Gold, but returned nothing to local people except poisoned rivers and land.   Visiting the Solomons last year, New Zealand foreign affairs minister Phil Goff said stability was needed so that Delta Gold would invest $25 million to reopen the mine   He didn't say that stability was needed to repair the local environment, guarantee local employment or raise wages.   Phil Goff echoes the Australian Strategic Policy report, which complains, "The collapse of the Solomon Islands is depriving Australia of business and investment opportunities."   To the NZCTU, it looks like New Zealand state forces are in the Solomons to support the activities of Australasian big business, activities which will, on past record, make life worse and not better for local workers.  We fear that ethnic disputes will be replaced not with peace and prosperity, but by foreign state repression.   Developing strong militant united unionism among Solomon Islands workers is the best immediate response to that.   The NZCTU accordingly pledges to put its best efforts into practical support for that development. In solidarity, New Zealand Council of Trade Unions.

Bio-colonisation threatens our individual freedoms by Grant Morgan   Bio-colonisation IS starting to invade   First World countries like New Zealand. The implications are so profound that only revolutionaries will be judged realistic in times to come.  Gene manipulation and bio-technology, together with 'free trade' pacts which legalise corporate patent rights over life itself, will close down traditional freedoms in the developed world.   The human genome project is starting to unveil the 'dynamics of life'. But ownership of what were previously life's mysteries will shift to corporate patent holders.   This threatens to replace each person's legal ownership over the makeup of their own body with corporate control. This is no fantasy. It first received judicial blessing in the world's greatest power in 1990.  Body tissues were taken from a patient at a university hospital in California, a cell line from the spleen was secretly patented by the university, then licensed to a bio-tech corporation. The California Supreme Court ruled that the rights to these body parts belonged, not to the person from whose body they came, but instead to the institution which had obtained them improperly.   More recently the European patent office awarded a US bio-tech corporation the ownership of all blood cells coming from the umbilical cord of a newborn child which are being used in therapeutic treatments.  Just as broad a patent, this time covering all human bone marrow stem cells, was awarded by the US patent office to another American firm.  Yet neither of these corporations had altered or engineered the cells they patented, but simply 'isolated' them.   The human genome project has accelerated the corporate scramble to privatise the human body.  As soon as a gene is tagged, its 'prospector' applies for a patent, often before even knowing its function in life. The US firm headed by 'gene king' Craig Venter has put in patent applications for more than 2,000 human brain genes.   It's likely that, by the end of this decade, all the genes that make up the genetic legacy of our species will be patented.   This privatisation of life has been legalised by the institutions of global capitalism. The drive for international 'free trade' gave rise to the TRIPS agreement, which allowed corporations to claim 'intellectual property rights' over living organisms.   The architect of TRIPS was a coalition of multinationals called the Intellectual Property Committee, which included bio-tech giants like Monsanto, Du Pont and Pfizer.   Their corporate agenda is to use the next round of World Trade Organisation talks to extend their private control over all life forms even further.  The privatisation of genes is fueling a reckless search for those forms of gene manipulation which return maximum profits on the global market.  Genetic engineering has the potential to profoundly, and quickly, reshape humanity and our environment. In control of the process are unaccountable corporations and their state backers. Everyone else will be sidelined even more than we are today.   As corporations increase their private ownership of life, including the human body, all humans will be colonised by the corporations.   The media froth over 'human cloning' disguises the nature and enormity of the reactionary forces that capitalism is unleashing.  William Tucker, a boss of the US firm DNA Plant Technology, summed up the corporate mindset: 'Just because it's biological and self-reproducing doesn't, to me, make it any different from a piece of machinery that you manufacture from nuts and bolts and screws.'   Market capitalism has always boasted that it's built on individual liberties. Those freedoms have always been more legalistic than realistic for the majority struggling against low incomes, user-pays education, health cuts, poor housing, racism, sexism and other social injustices generated by capitalism's class divisions.   But worse is to come unless the system is challenged.   State-sanctioned corporate bio-colonisation will start to undermine even our legal right to ownership of our own bodies.   Life itself will have been patented, and manipulated, by competing business empires. Our bodies will start to be regarded as their 'product' because they now own and market its 'dynamics of life'. A new oppression will be inflicted on most First World inhabitants.   The political consequences will be huge. Already, the campaign against profit-driven genetic engineering is shaping up as a new front line of the centuries-old struggle against the controlling urges of the business elites and their state watchdogs. Of necessity, it's a fight against corporate rule and lack of democracy as well as against environmental dangers.  First World opponents of bio-colonisation will draw parallels with the lack of freedom presently suffered by most Third World people. At the base of both First and Third World societies, an awareness of common oppression will give rise to a consciousness of common interests.  Such a sense of unity between grassroots people in developed and underdeveloped countries will isolate the masters of the planet. No longer will they have 'home bases' in the West where they feel safe.  The revolutionary socialist Karl Marx said: 'At a certain stage of their development, the material forces of production in society come in conflict with...  the property relations within which they had been at work before...  Then occurs a period of social revolution... No social order ever disappears before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have been developed.'   Central to the birth of capitalism was the enclosure of one of the earth's five great ecosystems.   Between the 16th and 19th centuries, all common lands in Europe were enclosed. The land was forcibly privatised, at terrible cost to the feudal serfs, who had no choice but to flee into cities and become wage workers in capitalism's 'dark, satanic mills'. This sparked the global privatisation of all common land.   The enclosure of earth's landmass was followed by the commercialised enclosure of important parts of three other ecosystem commons: the oceans (large areas leased out), the atmosphere (divided into air corridors) and the electromagnetic spectrum (leased to corporates for media and computer transmissions).   Capitalism replaced the semi-slavery of feaudal serfs by the profit-driven exploitation of 'free' workers. Instead of being legally bonded to one landed lord, as the peasants were, all workers were 'free' to choose which capitalist would exploit them so they could gain a livelihood, however poor it was compared to what the bosses enjoyed.   This personal freedom was central to the creation of 'thinking workers' able to interact productively with modern technology.  Now, however, the spectre of bio-colonisation is haunting the last, and most intimate, of the earth's great ecosystems: life itself. Even human bodies are starting to be reduced to private property able to be bought and sold on the global market.   Capitalism's wage workers face the prospect of being turned into the bio-serfs of the corporate lords of the world.   Genetic engineering gives capitalism's rulers the material possibilities, for the first time in history, of creating a 'master race' with 'superior' genes.   Most workers will be as unable to afford the market prices for the 'best' genes to implant in the bodies of themselves and their unborn children as they are today unable to afford the best cars and houses. This will fatally undermine the system's core ideology of 'equal rights' for people of all classes.   For instance, only 'gene rich' people will be hired for the best jobs.  Insurance companies will refuse to cover 'gene poor' people or will penalise them.   The media will be awash with stories about how those people with the 'best' genes are best suited to run society.   The 'freedom' and 'equality' promised by market capitalism will have disappeared down a test tube.   Such an erosion of personal freedom will stunt the creativity and initiative of workers.     Since this will undermine the overall rate of profit, the system will become more crisis-prone, despite windfall profits for the corporate winners of the bio-colonisation race.   At the same time, the last frontier of the natural world will have been colonised.   Capitalism, having conquered all of the earth's five great ecosystems, will have nowhere left to expand. It will be nearing the outer limits of its possible development.   And there will be an unprecedented coalition of grassroots people in both developed and underdeveloped countries fighting against corporate power.  In Marx's terms, the 'productive forces' of society will come into increasing conflict with the 'property relations' of bio-colonisation. The conditions are being laid for a new 'period of social revolution'.  This process is already starting to happen with mass protests against capitalism and war in both the West and on Third World continents.  We in Aotearoa can drive it forward by campaigning against the dangers of genetic engineering, 'free trade' and imperialist war. Our very humanity is the prize.

'Concentrate on the big deception' TV news has carried nightly updates of the scandal rocking the British government as the inquiry proceeds into the death of weapons inspector Dr David Kelly.  British socialist and journalist PAUL FOOT writes on what really matters among the claims and counter-claims. ------------------     Big fleas have little fleas on their backs to bite 'em. Little fleas have smaller fleas, and so ad infinitum.   It's the same with lies. Big lies generate all sorts of little lies, and in a political world where real ideas and real ideology have been shovelled into the background, the politicians and their media become obsessed with the little lies, and churn them over incessantly so that their audiences and their readers become confused and disorientated.  The big lie that dominates the political world at the moment is the one that justified the invasion and occupation of Iraq by American and British troops.   This was the lie that the corrupt and murderous regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq posed such a threat to the world that the most powerful armed forces were entitled to rub it out by force, and impose on Iraq a disgusting and apparently endless imperialist occupation.   This lie was perfectly plain to millions of people in Britain long before the invasion. It was not, however, plain to the government, the Tory opposition or the BBC.   The government and their secret agencies circulated the lie, the Tories almost unanimously took it up and echoed it, and so did the BBC.  From that big lie all three organisations seek to divert our attention.  There is, for instance, no high-powered public inquiry into the reasons for war and the so called "intelligence" that led us into it. Instead there is to be an inquiry by a single judge into the suicide of a weapons inspector.  Mountains of trivia are endlessly debated to distract us from the big lie.  Commentators rush to take sides in the trivial debates that follow. The death of Dr Kelly inspires a great outpouring of bogus media grief.  Somehow the swarms of little lies and other trivia manage to obscure the big lie, and the big liars ­ the government, its intelligence chiefs, the Tory leaders and the BBC mandarins ­ all manage to cling to office.  The achievement of the Stop the War Coalition was that it concentrated the minds of masses of people on the big lie, and organised millions in opposition to it.   In all the flurry of little lies we need to concentrate once more on the main question, the big deceit.   Did the government, in particular the prime minister, the foreign secretary and the defence secretary, deceive the people in the run-up to the war? Yes they did.   Were they supported in that deception by the Tories and the BBC? Yes they were.   Should all these people now pay the price for that deception and get out?   Yes they should.

Digging the whole, burying GE by David Colyer   The science of ecology has taught us that one part of an ecosystem can't be understood in isolation from the other parts, because they are constantly interacting.    A holistic approach ­ looking at the parts in the context of the whole system ­ is needed to understand what is going on.  A holistic approach is also useful in understanding the human systems surrounding genetic engineering (GE). And understanding where GE fits in with other issues - such as poverty and corporate power, trade and globalisation, democracy and human rights, colonisation, imperialism and war - is an important part of building a strategy to keep    GE in the lab and out of our food chain and environment.   The pro-GE powers are very good at highlighting these links. In June, the US government sponsored a conference on agriculture and technology in Sacramento, California.   Labour MP Damien O'Connor represented our government. His press release noted that, as well as promoting biotechnology and free trade, the conference would push "public-private partnerships" ­ a form of privatisation that lets corporations make money from public services.    Why is the Labour government so determined to ignore the wishes of the majority of New Zealanders who want GE kept in the lab?  It is not simply that they are unconvinced by the well-reasoned arguments of GE opponents, or that they don't realise that most people don't want GE.  The forces that are pushing Labour to back GE are far stronger than reason or democracy; they are the forces of profit and power.  If Labour dropped its support for GE it would find itself in a confrontation with local and international big business, the US government and in conflict with its own ideological allegiance to free trade and globalisation.   The "logic" of capitalism forces companies (and whole countries) to compete in the "global marketplace". Competitive pressure encourages capitalists to embrace new technology, in the hope of getting a lead over their rivals.  The fear of missing out on the next technological breakthrough is prompting bosses and politicians to throw caution to the wind and join the biotech stampede.   Big business in New Zealand is no exception. They see GE as the key part of building a "knowledge economy" that "adds value" to agricultural products.  This includes not only American biotech companies, but also some of the biggest players in the NZ economy, such as Fonterra (dairy) and Carter Holt Harvey (forestry).   GE is important even for companies who will not benefit directly from it, because it is symbolic of Labour's commitment to putting business demands ahead of the wishes of its own working class supporters. If Labour gives in to grassroots pressure on GE, corporate bosses will no longer trust it to protect their interests in other areas.   Free trade agreements have been closely linked to the spread of GE.    The World Trade Organisation's (WTO) Trade Related Intellectual Property (TRIPS) agreement opened the door for companies to patent genes.  Earlier this year, the US (supported by New Zealand) used the threat of a WTO case to force the European Union to reduce restrictions on GE.  Support for the WTO and capitalist globalisation is a key part of Labour's "partnership" with New Zealand business and its commitment to a "rules based international order".   The US government wants to ensure that its military-industrial interests continue to dominate the world.   GE is part of its plan. As Monsanto executive Robert Fraley said in 1996, "What you are seeing is not just a consolidation of seed companies, it's really a consolidation of the entire food chain".   In the wake of the US "victory" in Iraq, Labour has been sucking up to Uncle Sam in a big way ­ sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan and helping Bush's Australian deputy in the Solomon Islands.   The last thing Labour leaders want is a repeat of the nuclear free row.   Looking at GE as part of the wider capitalist system helps to understand the problem, but it also makes it seem a lot harder to solve, because GE free activists are up against the most powerful vested interests in the world.  The same situation is faced by every struggle that tries to put people and planet ahead of profit and power.   Emphasising the connections between GE and other problems lays the foundation for the GE free movement to unite with opponents of war, globalisation and colonisation, as part of the global anti-capitalist resistance.   Mass protest, such as marches and mass crop-digs, unite people in an active collective, creating a power none of us have as individuals. Unleashing this collective power is the key to creating a better world.

Ghost of Vietnam haunts Iraq   Increasing resistance and deep discontent within the US army ­ Iraq looks more like Vietnam every day.   Into this war zone Helen Clark's Labour government has ordered a total of 74 New Zealand army personnel.   The US state department took the unusual step of publicly praising the deployment of 60 army engineers, showing how much it's seen as bolstering the US occupation.   The pentagon, meanwhile, has admitted that its troops face "guerrilla-type" attacks in Iraq.  General John Abizaid, head of central command, said the US "was still at war".   Clark stressed to the Listener last month that New Zealand soldiers are "a Kiwi group, they'll be clearly identified as a Kiwi group", suggesting this will stop them being targeted like US troops.   But other international units have been attacked. On August 1, the small Polish contingent came under fire in their own base.  Clark says the New Zealand soldiers are "not in there as combat troops".  But defence chief Bruce Ferguson says they are authorised to open fire. "All my troops", he said, "whether they be infantry, armoured corps, or in this case engineers, they are first and foremost soldiers." The New Zealanders will be attached to the British contingent in southern Iraq.   Six British soldiers were killed in the southern town of Majar al-Kabir on June 25. The government has confirmed that Kiwi troops are taking body bags with them.   Meanwhile, tens of thousands of protesters again marched against the occupation of Iraq in Najaf last month.   They chanted slogans such as "No to America. No to colonialism" and "Down with the invaders".   Officially 39 US soldiers were killed in the three months after Bush declared the end of the war on 2 May.   That brought the total number of deaths since the start of the war to 153 ­ more than in the 1991 Gulf War.  Most estimates put the figure higher.  According to the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count website, 85 have died since May 2.  Journalist Robert Fisk says, "The US is admitting only a fraction of the attacks in the country against its forces".   The growing Iraqi resistance is starting to fuel revolt in the ranks.  "Tell Donald Rumsfeld the 2nd Brigade is stuck in Fallujah, and we're very angry", sergeant Siphon Pahn told a major US news show last month, in an incredible scene.   Anger boiled over when the troops learnt they were staying in Iraq indefinitely after being told they would be home by September.  An unnamed soldier referred to the decks of cards given to US soldiers with pictures of Saddam Hussein's regime on them. He said, "I've got my own most wanted list.   "The aces in it are Paul Bremer, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush and Paul Wolfowitz."   Private Jason Ring told a US newspaper, "We liberated Iraq. Now the people here don't want us here, and guess what? We don't want to be here either. So why are we here? Why don't they bring us home?" Anthony Castillo of the US infantry earlier told British reporters, "We're more angry at the generals who are making these decisions and who never hit the ground, and who don't get shot at or have to look at the bloody bodies." The families of soldiers are under huge pressure to support "their boys" in action. But even here, support for the continuing war in Iraq is starting to crack.   Soldiers' wives at Fort Stewart US army base are in open revolt against the cancellation of their partners' leave. They are planning a march in the base itself.   Denise Gonzalez, wife of a Black Hawk helicopter pilot, said, "We have a voice and we have to be heard, for the sake of the soldiers who don't have one".   We can help the growing resistance ­ in the US, Britain and Iraq itself ­ by demanding the recall of the New Zealand troops that are part of the occupation.

Grassroots movement very much alive by Daphne Lawless   More than 500 protesters hit the streets of Wellington on July 19 to oppose the Labour government's plans to end the moratorium on release of genetically engineered (GE) organisms in October.  Peace Action Wellington activists played a vital role in the march, acting as marshals and leading the chants.   There was also a strong presence from Green, Alliance and Socialist Worker supporters.   But sadly there was no organised union presence, despite the GE free policies of key organisations like the Service and Food Workers Union.  Many shades of political opinion were represented. Some protesters made connections between GE and the broader imperialist world system. One banner read, "More Trees, Less Bush".   Other protesters took a narrower approach. Many banners opposed GE as a "threat to the economy".   Speaking at the end of the march, Green MP Sue Kedgely pointed out that the European Union had just established mandatory labelling of GE foods.  She declared that the "obstinate, pigheaded government" was endangering the economy.   "Growing food that no-one wants to eat", she said, would "imperil our markets, imperil our nation".   Steve Abel from Greenpeace took up this theme, arguing that stopping GE is "up to us in our capacity as consumers".   Both Kedgely and Abel treated the development of GE as a threat to the profits of New Zealand companies.   But the National Business Review, which usually represents the interests of New Zealand's larger corporations, has been one of the strongest advocates of GE.   Those who control the economy and rule the nation, not just the biotech companies, want the moratorium abolished.   In contrast, Teanau Tuiono of Aotearoa Educators drew connections between GE and the wider nature of the market system.   "Maori are used to having things commodified and taken off us", he said.   This more radical analysis of GE came with a more radical call to action.   "I've been hearing some positive words around the country", said Tuiono.   "Those two words are in English: 'Direct action'."   Steve Abel's call to action, speaking later, stressed that people should phone companies like Ingham Foods, asking them not to use GE feed for their chickens.   In response to a suggestion from the crowd, he added, "And yes, direct action, where necessary".   The protest made it clear that the grassroots movement against GE is still very much alive.   However, few of the speakers made protests such as this, or other mass direct action, an important part of their anti-GE strategy.  Seeing GE as a threat to profits, rather than an essential part of the growth of the capitalist system, leads them to rely on pressuring individual firms and making submissions to government agencies rather than mass mobilisations and calls for unionised workers not to process, transport and sell GE foods.

'I am opposed to the intervention'   Dr Kabini Sanga is a Solomon Islands academic currently living in Wellington. He talked with Socialist Worker Monthly Review about why he opposes the Australian-led intervention.   "Let's start with what you hear in the media. The external armed group is going in because the Solomon Islands institutions cannot handle the situation any more. The Solomons economy has deteriorated to the point where outside people are calling it the Pacific's first "failed state".   All these problems have resulted from fighting between factions, mainly from Malaita and Guadalcanal Islands.   You hear that the fighting is linked to conflicts over land. There is some truth in that. Consider some contextual factors. Plantation economy was the activity in the Solomons before independence.   That was our form of economic development, with the Lever Brothers, now Unilever, owning some big coconut plantations on Guadalcanal and other Islands.   There were no large plantations on Malaita. The Malaitans like working with their hands, so they provided a ready source of manual labour.  Over a number of years, thousands of Malaitans were working and living in different Islands, including Guadalcanal. That explains some of the problems we are having now.   Women have the primary rights to land on Guadalcanal. On Malaita, it is the men. Over time, Malaitan men married Guadalcanal women, allowing them access to land on Guadalcanal.   Thousands of Malaitans have also settled on lands around the capital, Honiara. Anger by young Guadalcanal men has been fuelled by seeing their land being taken by others.   In Honiara, hundreds of young unemployed people (we call them lius) roam the streets daily.     These are the victims of modernisation and development.  We have an education system teaching them to read and write English, but not how to occupy themselves usefully in the villages.  We have economic capacity that cannot create the jobs needed for the school leavers. Most of the people who took up arms to fight were young school leavers.   People say some businessmen are behind these groups. Sadly, some Solomon Islanders have become rich out of the problems. There are those now frequenting Brisbane to do their shopping ­ something many of them could not do before.   There are law and order problems. There are problems in all sectors including health and education. But the law and order situation on the ground has not worsened at all. In fact it has improved from two years ago.  The Australian-led intervention now is not really about the Solomons. It's not in response to a worsening of the situation.   Law and order is not the main problem. To Solomons people, the main problem is the lack of leadership by a government and some of its key institutions.  Armed intervention towards maintaining the situation as it has been is not likely to solve the problem. That's why I am opposed to the intervention.  I think there is a linkage between what Australia is doing in the Solomons and its interest in Papua New Guinea. Australia invests lots in PNG.  The natural resources of the Solomons are largely untapped. The forests, fish, natural settings, reefs, the gold and other minerals have potential for future investment.   Being a close neighbour to Australia and New Zealand, the Solomons also has the potential to be a problem in other ways.   People make a big point about the request for the external intervention coming from the Solomons prime minister. In the Pacific, the "good idea" always comes from Australia or New Zealand.   During the visit of the Solomons prime minister to Canberra in June he would have been told, "now you go home and write me a letter, that's what you do next".   That's how the "request" from the Solomons may have been done. New Zealand and Australia are playing the big boy role, paying for the rest of the Pacific to come on board with this, to legitimise it.  There appears to have been some excitement in the Solomons about this intervention, and that worries me somewhat because they are excited for different reasons.   The civil society network has agreed to the intervention, only because I think its members are tired of the stupidity. But they are concerned that the intervention might cement in place the present government."

Labour's immigration law hurts workers by Vaughan Gunson   The Labour government is actively pursuing free trade agreements, both with individual countries and through institutions like the World Trade Organisation (WTO). As part of any agreement, capitalists would be given complete freedom to move their money anywhere in the world they see fit.  In contrast, workers of the world are having their freedom to move restricted.  The Labour government's new racist immigration policy will see Asian immigrants on the current waiting list told they are not welcome in New Zealand.   20,000 people who were being processed under the old rules will be affected.  Around 80 percent are from India, with many of the rest from other Asian countries.   Of these people, the government has washed its hands. "Many of the applications are not of the standard anticipated by the new policy, which means they are unlikely to contribute to New Zealand or settle well here", says immigration minister, Lianne Dalziel.   The changes mean that people wishing to migrate to New Zealand will no longer automatically qualify under the current points system. Instead, the immigration department will invite migrants to "register their interest".  Immigration officials will make the final decisions, based on "character, good health, and English language ability."   These new rules will clearly advantage migrants from the US, Britain and South Africa ­ white Europeans. A fact admitted by immigration consultants.  The new criteria require English language ability to degree level, up from the previous secondary school level.   Migrants will also have a greater chance of acceptance if they can prearrange a job prior to arrival. A requirement that will again favour European applicants who "fit into the workplace", as prominent immigration consultant David Cooper has said. Capitulation   The tighter regulations are a capitulation by Labour to Winston Peters' anti-immigration, anti-Asian campaign. Labour has moved towards Peters' position, wrongly thinking that the political threat can be nullified. The opposite is the case. Labour has succeeded only in giving Peters credibility.   Every concession by Labour will only encourage further racist scaremongering. Peters' immediate response to the law changes was, "We've gone from passive acceptance of any Tom, Dick, Ying Tong or Osama to now actively recruiting their relations". And he has continued his racist stereotyping, targeting foreign taxi drivers.   While Labour is prepared to discriminate against Asian people and others who "don't fit" in response to Peters' campaign, the law changes are also meant to keep business happy.   Business leaders have been clamouring for immigration policy to be more focused on recruiting migrants with specific skills, to meet shortages in sectors of the economy, particularly computing and high-skilled manufacturing. Labour has proudly claimed that the new immigration policy will "meet New Zealand's specific skill shortages and help grow the economy".   This prompted the Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA) to congratulate the government.   "Immigration minister Lianne Dalziel's approach is fundamentally the right one for business," said Alasdair Thompson, EMA's chief executive.   Historically this has been the function of immigration controls under capitalism.   They allow nation states to control the flow of workers, opening the gates when business require labour ­ most often when an economy is booming and there are skill shortages ­ then shutting the gate when the economy slumps.  Pacific people were welcomed in the 1970s to work in factory jobs in South Auckland, then targeted by the Muldoon government when the economy floundered in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In echoes of today, Pacific people were harassed for not speaking English, for breaking the rules and trying to get into New Zealand illegally, for taking "Kiwi" jobs, and for causing a housing shortage.   In its self-appointed role as a "good manager" of capitalism, the current Labour government continues to use immigration has a cynical tool for growing the economy.   This means there is no room for dealing compassionately with people fleeing persecution ­ political and economic ­ to seek asylum in New Zealand.  Algerian man Ahmed Zaoui, who a recent court appeal says is a genuine refugee, languished in prison in solitary confinement for 8 months, treated as guilty like other asylum seekers to New Zealand are.  Most people coming to   New Zealand, whether as skilled immigrants wanted by the state or as refugees, would prefer to stay in their own countries with family and friends, rather than uproot to a foreign country and an uncertain future.   Many are forced to flee Third World countries because of the effects of economic domination by the club of rich countries, which New Zealand is a part of.   In the past this was a achieved by the blunt means of colonial occupation ­ being practised again by the US in Iraq ­ but today it is most often achieved through the more subtle means of trade and investment rules.  These rules, imposed through undemocratic organisations like the WTO, allow big multinationals to stride the globe pillaging resources and sucking profits into the hands of a tiny minority.   It is this ongoing imperialism that causes the extreme polarisation of wealth, that causes devastating wars, that sees puppet rulers, backed with Western money and military, persecuting local populations.  Those who can flee to the Western countries are then subjected to abuse and treated inhumanly. Where is the justice?   Any fight for a better world must include demands for the removal of immigration controls. No human is illegal. Everyone coming to a new country should be welcomed and treated compassionately.  To challenge immigration controls and the racism it promotes we must also challenge the system that promotes it. The defence of immigration rights needs to be a core demand of any broad Left movement in Aotearoa New Zealand.

'Multinational control' behind GE ­scientist   The GE issue has become nothing more than a quagmire of political rhetoric backed by US political pressure.   The recent select committee hearings, ostensibly put together to hear the concerns of public and independent scientists on the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill, reminds one of the Royal Commission on GM. It, too, was put together for much the same purpose, as a public relations exercise.  After travelling long distances at their own expense, folk wishing to address their concerns, attend to give the residing MPs their "five minute" allowance.   The MPs may even have far less understanding than those public who have taken the trouble to avail themselves of all the relevant facts.  In my own case it would involve a six hour return journey for my five minutes. The committee would then allow ten minutes of question time.  These committees and reviews represent an inordinate waste of tax-payers' money.  So far, they have achieved little to either ameliorate my concern, the threat of GE release, and/or educate and convince ministers of the dangers of GE technology. 'Free trade'   The issue is merely another aspect of global control by giant multinationals, a control which never fails to instil fear into governments that they may just lose the jewel of "Free Trade" ­ particularly to the US masters.   This jewel is a bogey, but a bogey that serves its purpose only too well when used by the US as a lever over governments.  It is imperative from the US point of view that New Zealand, and for that matter the rest of the world, accepts GE biotechnology.  The release of GMOs and their ultimate acceptance in commercial quantities will mean disaster for our agricultural and food producing sector.  While many aspects of biotechnology will be of value to our economy, genetically engineered organisms are sufficiently unknown to be a grave menace if released.   The all too common statement by media that the objection is led by the Greens and a bearded-sandal-brigade is not true.  Many eminent scientists, along with the British Medical Association, the Canadian Royal Society, the French Food Safety Authority and others, as well as New Zealand's PSRG, now believe there is sufficient evidence to indicate that GE crops pose serious risks to health and the environment.  Because scientists are repeatedly ignored on this issue, many eminent scientists have formed an Independent Science Panel on GE. This ISP is presenting scientific evidence to the public while calling for a ban on GE crops and endorsing organic sustainable agriculture. (See www.i-sis.org).   And it is unrealistic to insist that New Zealand's Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) is able to "regulate" these organisms.   The results of the recent government review clearly stated as much.  The results of genetic engineering biotechnology are often completely unpredictable. In most cases, research outcomes indicate these results are hidden under the cloak of "commercial sensitivity." Contrary to claims that "New Zealand research will be set back" by not releasing GMOs, reports show that only 3 percent of New Zealand's genetic engineering research is represented by field releases so why risk irreversibly damaging our environment and agriculture?  The fact that America is growing millions of acres of GE crops is not sufficient reason for us to pursue the same strategy; notwithstanding the fact that GE crops have little or no markets and are heavily subsidised by the Bush government. (US$96 billion more is promised over the next decade).  The US extensive planting of Bt-toxin crops has released root exudates that accumulate and persist in soils, soils that also retain insecticidal, immunological and other biological activities with potentially large impacts on their ecology and fertility.   Moreover, scientists now find that the pests the insecticide is aimed at have not only become immune to the toxin, but grown fat on it (www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=2579).   Good science, driven by integrity and concern for the common good, has been replaced by corporate greed, media manipulation and the vilification of scientists whose views happen to be uncomfortable to this industry or government viewpoints.   Today, speaking out on GE can still be career suicide for scientists.   Jean Flemming was the only biotechnologist enlisted to the Royal Commission.  The very fact that the RCGM was not held under oath and subpoenaed no evidence was cause enough to realise what its outcome would be ­ one that fitted the designs of the biotechnology advocates as near as possible without looking suspiciously biased over the matter.  We should be ashamed that this quagmire of hostility, deceit and intolerance, and disregard for social impacts, has been allowed to develop.  The liability for contamination has still not been adequately addressed.   The Royal Commission used the concept of "keeping our options open" to describe a mad, fantasy world in which organic, conventional and GE farming can all happily co-exist. It is the ultimate outrage.   Even the few biotech scientists who have spoken out accede that GE is an imprecise technology having unknown effects. Health, environmental and economic dangers that have not been addressed.   When our prime minister's term of office finishes it would be nice to know that she would be remembered for leaving New Zealand with its clean green image intact, rather than leave a legacy of genetic pollution.  And contrary to the assurances of our minister for the environment, Marian Hobbs, that MAF and the ERMA have a "stringent regulatory system" in place, please recall the failures so far: the varroa bee mite, the painted apple moth and the guava moth, the appalling control of the tamarillo trials in Northland, not to mention the occasional snake, scorpion or poisonous spider to sneak into the country. ROBERT ANDERSON Member of Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics, www.psrg.org.nz

Murky waters over the foreshore by David Colyer   The beach provides a good metaphor for the foreshore and sea-bed controversy: there's a lot of froth and foam, there's murky, churned-up waters, and above it all is a dense layer of white fog.  Talk about "every New Zealand's right to go to the beach" being at risk is a fog-screen.    Like many tino rangatiratanga (sovereignty) activists, Maori lawyer Moana Jackson is trying to clear the air. He describes these claims as, "misleading because there has never been unfettered access. Port companies, the Department of Conservation, and numerous other authorities have for years restricted entry to the waterfront.   "It is also dishonest because it assumes that Maori would deny others normal use and enjoyment. That has never been the Maori intention.  "It is also misinformed because in its parallel assumption that Iwi and Hapu might freely sell off the foreshore it ignores the collective nature of the interest which makes it non-tradeable."   Beneath the fog and foam, murky waters continue to obscure what's really going on. The currents adding to the confusion include: Labour's knee-jerk reaction against Maori claims, big bucks in the fish farming industry, divisions between "browntable" corporate iwi bosses and flaxroots Maori, not to mention some good old "divide and conquer" racism.  Although it's the    Right-wing parties who are really foaming about "public access", it was Labour MPs who first claimed this was an issue ­ opening the way for the racists. So, while deputy prime minister Michael Cullen is right to say that National Party leader Bill English is, "winding up race hatred", Labour leaders have to take some responsibility for the situation. Why Labour leaders chose to hand this gift to their rivals is far from clear.  Comments by National MP Nick Smith are revealing. "While you can guarantee public access [if Maori have ownership] you give no security for those people who have business or public facilities in the coastal area". This suggests that his real concern is not the rights of the public but of business.   Business interests are also a concern of the Labour government. Maori MP John Tamihere made his name as a champion of poor urban Maori, but he has joined Nick Smith in defending the rights of the wealthy, Pakeha landowners who, as he points out, already control access to most of the coastline. "No private property rights will be impugned or challenged," he declared.  The  businesses most affected by iwi claims are marine farms. In 2001, the government put a ban on new marine farms while it restructured the way it manages the industry. Now it is considering extending the ban until ownership of the sea-bed is resolved. The fish farmers are upset with the delay, but not all of them oppose iwi claims. Sealords, a major player in the industry, is  half owned by the Waitangi Fisheries Commission, which helped fund the court case which has sparked the row.  In addition, new technology is opening up the possibility of deep-sea "ocean ranches" covering tens of thousands of hectares. Much of the research is being done by Sealords and other Maori businesses. Tu Wyllie, from the Waitangi Fisheries Commission, believes the prospect of billions of dollars in rents from ocean ranches is the main motivation for the crown to keep ownership of the sea-bed.   One other big issue, which although it isn't getting much media attention, is probably influencing the government as it considers its response to Maori, is the wider implications of accepting Maori claims over marine resources.   To settle the land and fisheries claims, the crown ­ under both Labour and National ­ imposed a model that posed no threat to corporate or state power.  Indeed, through the settlement process iwi have become corporations and a Maori elite, with a strong stake in capitalism, has been created.  The foreshore and sea-bed are different from dry land, because the crown has never allowed anyone else to own them, even when it has allowed companies to use them. The same is true of other resources, such as minerals under the earth and sea. If iwi gain ownership of the foreshore, it could set a precedent for claims over mineral resources.   What's more, if it returned meaningful title and control to iwi, the crown would be handing over a small about of its power, not just assets. The fact that Maori are calling for a form of ownership that emphasises their rights to make decisions about the use of marine resources emphasises this point.  For those of us who support the struggle for tino rangatiratanga (absolute sovereignty) this is a good thing. But for the Labour government, which tries to make an impossible distinction between honouring the Treaty of Waitangi and recognising Maori sovereignty, it is a tricky situation.  It is likely that the government will be looking for a "solution" similar to the Sealords Deal or the Fiscal Envelope land settlements. In these cases deals were done with the Maori elite, sidelining more radical flaxroots activists.   In the 1990s these sell-out deals sparked big protests in which the anger of flaxroots Maori was directed not just at the government, but also at the elite. These protests challenged the legitimacy of the New Zealand state, built on violence and theft, and demanded alternatives to the capitalist economic model.   At the time the Pakeha Left was weak and divided. Today, in the wake of unifying mass movements against genetic engineering and war, and the influence of a wider anti-capitalist perspective, we are in a much better position to understand and support the struggle for tino rangatiratanga.  As new colonial occupations are inflicted on the peoples of Afghanistan, Iraq and the Solomon Islands, and as genetic bio-colonialism threatens to invade our bodies, there is firm ground on which to build united resistance to racism, colonialism and capitalism.

In  protest The American President appears on the cover of TIME. First thing you notice is his crotch. Battle straps pulled tight round his balls hoisting everything up like a hard-on. Next you see his smirk. His tongue sucks his lip in pleasure and satisfaction. He's screwing the world and he likes it. You imagine ­ off frame ­ his hand fondling a Heckler and Koch. Sex and violence. Old, old stories. All he needs now is to open his fly and expose his weapon of mass destruction. DAISY CUTTER (with thoughts on Afghanistan and Iraq) Now I will mow the lawn because my sister likes it tidy. I wear earmuffs for protection against pain. My hands are gloved, my eyes shielded by darkness. My boots heavy with death. I am dressed for combat. A stranger in my garden. The lawn is the colour of Paradise. My machine is a four-stroke Tornado. Everything in its path dies. One swathe cuts down a thousand flowers. Everything is levelled and destroyed: Daisies, buttercups and possum-torn oranges. Lemons that have dropped and dandelions. Small patches of sage for scent and artichoke for colour. Nests of blue and trailing stems of yellow. bees, wasp, mice and sonderie resting creatures. Clover white and red, a butterfly, a dogrose and dragonfly, cowslip, tansy, thyme and mint and all the hues of bugle and selfheal that might cry distress. All that remains is mulch ­ the colour of ghosts and cemeteries. It's a war zone. In the small square of life that still remains before extinction, I mow a question mark. RIEMKE ENSING Auckland

Port workers unite to stop union-busting by Grant Brookes   Workers from the Maritime Union (MUNZ) and the Rail & Maritime Transport Union (RMTU) at Wellington's CentrePort struck for 48 hours at the end of July.   It was the first in a series of planned strikes to stop union-busting as a new multinational company muscles its way onto the wharves.  Nine days earlier, the two unions were both picketing at SouthPort in Bluff.  The RMTU members were fighting for a pay rise ­ their first in 11 years ­ to get their hourly rate up over $10.   When they succeeded in blocking the port entrance, police broke it up and arrested three picketers.   Watersiders from the Maritime Union were protesting the use of non-union casual labour to load the log ship Northern Light.  The casuals had been bussed into Bluff from out of town by Mainland Stevedores.   Mainland is the same company that sparked angry pickets all over the South Island when Carter Holt contracted it to load ships in 2001.  MUNZ official Victor Billot was on the picket line.    Speaking with Socialist Worker Monthly Review he said, "Mainland have an in-house, company union.  "They only employ people who join their union. We're still trying to keep Mainland out of Bluff. It's about keeping the workplace unionised." In Wellington, council-owned CentrePort set up a new company, Central Stevedoring Limited (CSL), last December.   Not one member of the RMTU was taken on.   One worker with 20 years' experience on the waterfront was told in a letter that he "lacked the necessary skills".   CSL is under investigation for major safety breaches. RMTU organiser Todd Valster told Socialist Worker Monthly Review they have "very poor supervisors, non-union chaps".   Two thirds of hours worked at the port are done by casual labour.  "They don't know what time they're working the next day until three o'clock in the afternoon", said Valster.   A new "union", the Night and Day Port Workers Association, was set up for CSL employees.   The people joining it are known anti-unionists. The postal address for the Association is the same as the company.   Labour's Employment Relations Act (ERA) says it's illegal for a union to have links with the employer, But as Valster pointed out, "It's very hard to prove. It's a flaw in the law." Labour are reviewing the ERA at the moment. But there are no plans to tighten the law against "company unions".   CentrePort's drive to de-unionise and casualise the Wellington waterfront comes at the same time as talks to privatise their new stevedoring company.  The buyer of CSL is tipped to be Quadrant, a subsidiary of Tasman Orient shipping line which operates between New Zealand and Asia.  Tasman Orient Line is co-owned by German multinational Ahrenkiel Group and the Swire Group, a huge British conglomerate which controls companies all over the world.   Board chair Nigel Gould has admitted, "CentrePort has been successful in attracting more Asian business. They want to provide their own stevedoring." Privatisation and multinational control go hand in hand with casualisation and attacks on union rights.   Labour's refusal to stand up to multinationals like Ahren-kiel and Swire is in tune with their decision to send troops to Iraq to co-operate with the corporate carve-up by US and British imperialism.  The CentrePort strike saw solid rank and file solidarity between members of the different unions working the port.   Off-duty rail workers turned out to strengthen the picket line.  Most unionists took part in the action. Around 100 out of 120 members attended a combined union meeting after the strike to discuss the next step.  The picket line at the port gate stopped commercial vehicles from entering.   "Many trucks turned around", said Valster. "Only a handful went through."   The strike also attracted great support from the public.  Management blustered to the media that the strike had "little effect", but so many trucks refused to cross that traffic backed up all the way to the Hutt Motorway.   And the employer contacted the union afterwards to request another meeting.   The unions have served notice of four more strikes.  "For the younger members, this was their first industrial action", said Valster. "People in their twenties and thirties were getting stuck in. Now they know they can do it."   This mood to fight should not be squandered by calling the strikes off.  Unionists around the country were clear in 2001 that if Carter Holt succeeded in casualising the ports, it would lead to more casualisation and less union rights in other industries, too.   The Labour government's backing for imperialism rules them out as an ally in the fight against the multinationals. All workers should back the port unionists to help them win.

'Regional Ratepayers Rebellion' by Grant Morgan   Scores of delegates from several dozen ratepayer associations, along with other concerned citizens, packed a church hall on July 26 to plan action against huge rate hikes imposed by the Auckland Regional Council.  The crowd of 200 agreed to unite all groups across Auckland under the banner of łthe Regional Ratepayers' Rebellion".   The highest ARC rate rise so far reported is an astonishing 657 percent.   Many are looking at increases of between 100 and 300 percent.  Meanwhile, business rates have dropped by 50 percent or more as the ARC abolished "differential" rates.   Lots of misinformation has been spread by business politicians running the ARC and other councils.   These Right wingers, who are gung ho in favour of more motorways, are putting most of the blame for rate rises on increased ARC funding for rail. Main reason   This is wrong. The axing of differential rates, which delivers huge savings to businesses, is the main reason behind the extraordinary rises hitting homeowners.   Sandra Coney, an ARC councillor who voted against abolishing differential rates, used her own ARC bill to show that the no-differential policy accounted for five-sevenths of her rise and transport just two-sevenths.  Yet the Right wing propaganda has pulled along many Leftists, who are also pinning most of the blame on rail funding. This means the Left are split on this issue.   So a fog of misinformation hung over the ratepayer associations' planning meeting, resulting in many confused arguments even by Leftists. This helped middle class professionals and political moderates to head off calls for co-ordinated boycott action.   Instead, the meeting voted to promote an Auckland-wide petition demanding that the ARC withdraws its rates notices and "resets" the rates after "meaningful consultation" with citizens.   It calls on the ARC to "revisit" the abolition of differential rates, and also the switch from land to capital value, which favours wealthier homeowners.   The petition was started by the Glenfield Ratepayers & Residents Association. It's expected that signatures could top the 100,000 mark in short order.   David Thornton, chair of the Glenfield Ratepayers & Residents Association, told the planning meeting that he felt the ARC would buckle when confronted by such a well-supported petition. Protest   But another ratepayer association delegate reported a speech by a senior ARC official which indicated the ARC expects to have to ride out a storm of protest this year, in the belief that next year's protests would only be half the size, and in the third year would reduce to a trickle.  This means that much more than a petition will be needed to reverse the rate hikes.   Four days after the planning meeting, Thornton did a U-turn on his opposition to a rates boycott. He sent a message to ARC chair Gwen Bull which stated, "I personally, with my wife's support and approval, will not be paying the ARC a cent until it changes its stance".  So what changed Thornton's mind? In his message to Bull he reported that "hundreds of people have telephoned me" to ask "what should I do?" It seems grassroots opinion is moving towards mass civil disobedience as a necessary companion to constitutional approaches like petitions and lobbying.   Ratepayers meetings in various areas are going ahead. One was held in Milford, on the North Shore, on 27 July.   Here 300 angry residents called for the ARC to be sacked and replaced by a government-appointed commissioner. Democracy   However, as one ratepayer association official had pointed out at the previous day's planning meeting, a commissioner has absolute power to impose decisions on citizens. It would contradict the thrust for more democracy that underpins the widespread opposition to the ARC's lack of a public mandate for the rate hikes.   So the call for a commissioner again reflects the fog of misinformation and confusion in which the Ratepayers' Revolt is being born.  The really progressive element is the display of anger and the readiness to protest shown by many thousands of Auckland citizens. They aren't prepared to just lie down and be trampled over by remote politicians.  The movement is a convulsion from below. It was born in a tide of angry letters to the NZ Herald and grassroots calls to ratepayer associations to "take action".   Many residents have been calling for a boycott of the rate increases. These calls are running ahead of the typically moderate leaderships of the ratepayer associations who, at the planning meeting, mostly shied away from civil disobedience.   It remains to be seen to what degree the newly rising movement, composed of working and middle class people with a range of political views, can convert the mass anger into effective action. Mass march   A positive rallying point will be a mass march against ARC rate rises. It will start from the bottom of Queen Street at noon on Saturday, August 23.  Meanwhile, Socialist Worker is distributing our "Highway Robbery" leaflet round the city.   This puts the blame squarely where it belongs ­ on the business interests dominating local councils. They want lower rates for themselves, paid for by other citizens, and a continuation of the motorway madness that's costing billions in rates and taxes.

Rehabilitating the Korean War   Prime minister Helen Clark visited South Korea last month for the 50th anniversary of the armistice ending the Korean War.  Back home, amid a host of official commemorations, defence minister Mark Burton praised the "professionalism" of the New Zealand soldiers who fought, supposedly "preserving freedom".   Official celebrations of New Zealand's role in past barbaric wars ­ and Helen Clark's warm greeting of US war criminal Henry Kissinger in Panmunjom ­ are part of preparing the public for involvement in the future wars that will arise from America's new drive to dominate the world. Already, the US is threatening to bring war to the Korean peninsula again.  The last Korean war of 1950-53 claimed four million lives. Most were civilians. The entire country was devastated.   General Curtis LeMay masterminded the US bombing campaign. At the end of the war he said, "Over a period of three years or so we burned down every town in North Korea and South Korea too".   For their part, New Zealand gunners fired three quarters of a million rounds of high explosive.   The Korean War was a product of the clash between imperialist powers. World War Two had ended with US troops sweeping into Korea from the south and Russians advancing from the north.   Neither the US nor Russia wanted to see an independent Korea, and instead the country was divided. In late 1945, the occupiers sponsored the return of two exiles.   Russia backed Kim Il Sung, who claimed to have fought a guerrilla war against the Japanese, to run the North Korean state. The US brought in Syngman Rhee, who had lived in the US for four decades, to rule the South.  Both leaders wanted to reunify Korea through force. A major incursion by North Korea on 6 June 1950 triggered full-scale war.  By August, the Northern army occupied nearly all of Korea. The US ordered General MacArthur, who ran its occupation in nearby Japan, to hit back.  He poured in troops, drove into North Korea, proclaimed his intention to reunify Korea within the US sphere of influence, and threatened to carry the war into China.   The Chinese army crossed the border in response. As the fighting escalated, Russia too became more involved.   MacArthur called for the use of atomic bombs. He later said, "I would have dropped between 30 and 50 atomic bombs strung across the neck of Manchuria." In the end the US settled for bombing cities and, in the final weeks of war, destroying the huge dams that provided water for 75 percent of the North's food production.   Neither side gained any significant territory. People North and South were saddled with decades of military dictatorship, making a mockery of  the "democracy" that the war was supposedly fought for.  [source:www.socialistworker.co.uk]

Seafarers fight to defend jobs by Grant Brookes   The Maritime Union of New Zealand (MUNZ) last month stepped up a long-running campaign to defend the jobs of its seafaring members.  The renewed campaign is designed to sway the government, who are expected to announce soon their long-awaited response to the Shipping Industry Review, which was commissioned by the previous Labour-Alliance government nearly three years ago.   Up until deregulation by the National government in 1994, freight between New Zealand ports had to be carried by New Zealand shipping companies and New Zealand crews under a law known as cabotage.  After 1994, New Zealand waters were opened up to multinational shipping lines employing non-union, foreign crews on lower wages.  Over half of New Zealand's unionised seafarers lost their jobs as local shipping companies slashed their fleet from 34 ships to 15. In May, 22 more jobs were lost when New Zealand-owned Pacifica Shipping withdrew another vessel from service. Campaign   The Maritime Union campaign is calling for the reintroduction of cabotage.  It has involved posters, a bus tour, street stalls, the distribution of 50,000 leaflets with a section to send to MPs and meetings with politicians.  But union leaders have also tailored the campaign to try and win over local capitalists, appealing to "patriotism" and waving the New Zealand flag. Union joint president Dave Morgan insists the campaign "supports New Zealand businesses". Morgan is also a director of the Pacific Forum shipping line, to the unease of many union members.   But New Zealand businesses oppose the reintroduction of cabotage. Worse pay and conditions for crews ­ New Zealand or otherwise ­ mean lower freight costs and higher profits for them.   Business NZ transport analyst Nick Clark estimates that freight costs fell 10 percent in the three years after deregulation in 1994. Pacifica Shipping says its rates have fallen another 35 percent since then.  The Northern Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA) agrees.  "Reintroducing cabotage would add costs", says EMA executive officer Garth Wyllie.   Carter Holt general manager Paul Harper says, "As a user who has benefited [from the abolition of cabotage], it's hard to say we want it changed".  Federated Farmers and the Forest Owners Association are among other business groups opposed to cabotage.   Union rep Joe Fleetwood told Socialist Worker Monthly Review they've had a good response from meetings with Green MPs, Labour back-benchers, the Maori caucus and a few others, like environment minister Marion Hobbs.  But he also welcomed support from NZ First, who blame job losses on Asian crews rather than New Zealand capitalists.   The union has also drawn on fears whipped up by the so-called "war on terrorism", arguing that foreign crews increase the risk of "terrorist activity" in New Zealand.   Some union activists see little alternative to looking to business and Right wing politicians for support. Years of job losses have weakened the seafarers' union.   But the defence of unionised jobs should be an issue for the whole union movement.   If the Council of Trade Unions, representing its organised strength, mobilised in support of the campaign, it would be easier to argue that New Zealand business and Right wing parties are not allies. To date, the CTU has barely lifted a finger.   Partly because of this, the government's response to the Shipping Industry Review is unlikely to be the restoration of cabotage.  Transport minister Paul Swain has already rejected "selective assistance favouring one industry [local shipping] over another".  For another thing, Labour is fully committed to deregulation as part of the GATS free trade treaty currently being negotiated through the World Trade Organisation.   GATS and the other WTO rules are designed to open up the rest of the world for US and European corporations, while protecting them at home. Coastal shipping in Europe and America remains protected by cabotage.  Their rules go hand in hand with the "war on terrorism", which Labour also supports in the hope of piggy-backing on US imperialism for the benefit of New Zealand corporations.   Under WTO rules, restoring cabotage on the New Zealand coast could be judged an "unfair trade barrier" to the multinationals. Unity   So long as multinational shipping lines are able to operate on the New Zealand coast and pay lower wages to overseas crews, the pressure to cut wages and jobs for New Zealand seafarers will continue.  Prior to 1991, the law required foreign crews in New Zealand waters to be given the same pay and conditions as New Zealand crews. The demand to restore this law must be taken up loudly by the union campaign.  That means rejecting the racist flag-waving of NZ First in favour of a campaign uniting New Zealand unionists ­ and foreign crews ­ against Labour's support for the US-led global agenda, regardless of howls from local business.

Solomons force defends capitalism by Grant Brookes   The first of 105 New Zealand troops and 35 police had arrived in the Solomon Islands with the Australian-led intervention force when Socialist Worker Monthly Review went to press.   Prime minister Helen Clark called it a "police-led operation". Defence minister Mark Burton said it will "restore law and order" and bring "civil and humanitarian assistance".   But troops make up the bulk of the mission. They're armed and authorised to shoot to kill. And it's a lie that the Solomons is at the mercy of lawless gangs.   In July, Australian journalist Simon Shluter reported from the islands that "the streets of Honiara are noticeably devoid of armed gangs common a few years ago".   The real reasons for Australia's intervention are strategic, to shore up a regime for its own military interests and to protect Australian capitalism.  Australia has major investments in the resource-rich region in and around the Solomons, and billions of dollars in trade passes through it each year.  Most of the wealth, power and privilege of the system, though, comes from exploiting workers at home. The Bali bombing in 2002 showed that supporting US imperialism had raised the risks to this heartland.  Drawing the conclusions, Australian prime minister John Howard declared in a major speech last month, "The most fundamental challenge facing Australia...  is to how protect our citizens, and our society".   "A failed state in our region", he said, "will jeopardise our own security." Having decided on intervention for the Solomons, Australia's Strategic Policy Institute argued that New Zealand troops would be "virtually essential" to mission's success. Without them, Australia would be more open to allegations of colonialism.   Days later, the Dominion Post reported, "New Zealand has been under pressure from Australia to contribute to the force". New Zealand business also wanted the government to sign up, to keep on side with their main export market and trading partner.   Echoing Australia, an article in the National Business Review argued that both countries should go in "to protect their national interests.  "They need to ensure that it is they and not another country or force that are called on to intervene."   Many local people, including the trade unions, support the intervention.  Stuart, a socialist who was in Honiara as the first troops arrived, told Socialist Worker Monthly Review, "I pointed out repeatedly that Australia is here for its own reasons and not for the benefit of the local people. But the public servants hope that the intervention will mean salaries will be paid on time."   Sadly, after opposing troops to Iraq, Green Parties on both sides of the Tasman are supporting the Solomons deployment. But the military intervention to protect Australasian capitalism will not meet the needs of the Solomons people.     [source:www.iso.org.au]

Unequal society fuels racism by Vaughan Gunson   Capitalism is a system that encourages hatred, racial prejudice and war. So while the imperialist war waged by the US and its allies is stoking racism globally, here in New Zealand hate crimes are also on the rise.  The Muslim community has reported increased incidents of racist insults and attacks since America and its allies launched their so-called "war on terrorism".   In April, Abdul Hafeez, an Islamic scholar, had his Auckland house smeared in paint, spelling out the word "blood". Hafeez also told of a police officer making an Osama bin Laden joke about him at a roadblock.  And in particularly disturbing reading, the Sunday Star Times reported on July 27 that police had arrested six Neo-Nazis in a Lower Hutt flat for possession of explosives.   Those arrested were a faction of the New Zealand National Front, which claims affiliation with National Front parties in Europe.  The police acted after another Sunday Star Times article published in April claimed that the National Front were planning attacks against Asian "invaders".   Neo-Nazis have gained confidence as a result of the "war on terrorism" and NZ First's high profile anti-Asian and anti-immigration campaign. Some were even handing out leaflets on a recent anti-war demonstration in Wellington.  One of their leaders, Brent Gebbie, has spoken of his admiration for Nazi Germany. "Prior to the Nazis getting into government the economy was bust", he said. "The Nazis built the national pride.   "I admire what they did and the courage they had." Gebbie has multiple convictions for racist attacks.   Indian Labour MP Ashraf Choudhary has rightly blamed NZ First leader Winston Peters for inciting "disharmony and possible violence" that encourages groups like the National Front.   "The ethnic and migrant communities are increasingly scared of this kind of divisiveness and the extremist elements that are coming out", he said.  But he was wrong to suggest that in contrast to political parties who were encouraging divisions, the government was creating a "harmonious society".  For starters, Labour has virtually allowed Peters to write their immigration policy. And it is the Labour government that has failed to close the gaps between rich and the poor.   According to a NBR-Consultus poll published on July 25, support for NZ First is much stronger ­ 18.3 percent ­ among "middle income earners".  But Labour's failure to instigate pro-worker reforms is producing social conditions that could also see significant numbers of working class people attracted to the ideas of Peters, and those even further to the Right.  Labour continues to maintain harsh anti-union laws, withholds sufficient funding to health and education, and maintains welfare benefits at levels to which they were slashed by the National Party in 1991.    This has allowed Peters, a strident pro-capitalist politician, to pretend to be a voice for people oppressed by the system.   He has tried to link the Auckland rates hike to Asian immigration, claiming that "Auckland is under siege".   Immigration is responsible for "the transport system being in disarray, house prices are being pushed up, health services strained to the limit, education suffering, and a wave of imported crime is stretching police resources", said Peters.   He has been silent about the rates cut to Auckland businesses, the real reason for the increased rates being charged on residential properties.  Like the Auckland Regional Council, the Labour government has been keen to look after business while neglecting its working class supporters.  Far from creating a "harmonious society" Labour is perpetuating the divisions and disillusionment which Right-wing political parties are only too ready to exploit.   Just as the Bush gang is trying divide workers internationally through imperialist wars, NZ First and other Right-wing political parties are encouraging conflict between racial groups in New Zealand.  This can only weaken the power of ordinary people. The more divided workers are from each other ­ within or across national borders ­ the better it is for the capitalist class.   It is easier for the them to maintain there rule when the opposition is divided.

Unity against the beast   Three months after US forces bombed their way into Baghdad, the world teeters again towards new wars.   At the end of July, US president George Bush issued dangerous new threats against Iran and Syria.   US posturing, backed to the hilt by Australia, brought the Korean peninsula to the brink of nuclear incineration.   The Bush regime is talking openly of sending another 100,000 troops to fight a spiralling guerrilla war Iraq.   Not to be outdone, European powers are stepping up military deployments in their former colonies in Africa, the scene of tense stand-offs between French and US forces only last year.   Japan has voted to send troops into conflict, in Iraq, for the first time since World War Two.   Bush's Mideast "peace process", meanwhile, has a 115km Israeli fence ­ bound to spark more conflict ­ running through it.   This is not the "new world order" of peace and prosperity proclaimed at the end of the Cold War just over a decade ago.   The reason is simple. There was no end to war's driving force: the insatiable thirst for profit of rival corporations.   The new wars are being accompanied by a war on workers at home ­ attacks on civil liberties, union rights, ethnic minorities.   Military victories in their name have made the corporations bold, while slowing world economies steel their determination.  Helen Clark's government has learned the lesson that when Bush said, "you're with us, or against us", he meant it.   The need to stay on side with the number one economic powers in the world (the US) and the region (Australia) is a matter of life and death for New Zealand capitalists.   Commitment to their profits has seen Clark get in behind, joining the imperialists first in Afghanistan, then Iraq and now the Solomon Islands.  Where next?   The movement against the war on Iraq earlier this year drew together tens of thousands of people.   It united activists across a very broad spectrum ­ from the Greens, Alliance, unions, campuses, religious groups, the peace movement, socialist groups and from within the Labour Party itself.   But Right wing politicians, marginalised during the war with their calls to support "our traditional allies", are now whipping up racism against Maori and immigrants.   If they succeed on this front, they'll go on the offensive on others ­ like scrapping the nuclear-free law.   In ancient Greek legend there was a monster of many heads called the hydra. Cut one off, and it grew back.   The system of world imperialism is like the hydra. Targeting one head is not enough.   The mass unity seen against the war must now take up a broader programme, and kill the beast before it devours us all.

US threatens new nightmare   Senior officials from the 11-nation Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) met in Brisbane on July 10 to discuss US plans for stepping up military pressure on North Korea.   Australia's foreign minister Alexander Downer announced afterwards that the Australian navy would join the US in "intercepting" North Korean ships.  North Korea's state-run news agency warned that "such a brigandish naval blockade by the United States is as dangerous an act as igniting a new war".  In response, Australian prime minister John Howard publicly refused to rule out going to war with North Korea.   New Zealand did not take part in the Brisbane gathering. But foreign minister Phil Goff discussed the PSI plans with his Australian counterpart and declared that New Zealand "supported multilateral efforts to end North Korea's nuclear weapons programme".   Two months ago, the US announced that troops would be pulled back from the border with the North.   That would put them out of reach of North Korean artillery and so make it easier for the US to launch air strikes on the North without suffering instant heavy casualties in return.   The move caused panic in South Korea, including among sections of the government of Roh Moo Hyun.   There are important differences between Bush's attempt to destabilise the North Korean regime and his warmongering elsewhere.  North Korea may well have a small number of nuclear weapons. It certainly has missiles capable of reaching Japan. That makes Bush's intimidation all the more dangerous.   The other difference is that South Korea has powerful groups of workers who over the past two decades have shown they are able not only to fight to improve their conditions but to force political change.  Roh Moo Hyun's government has just survived a major confrontation with striking rail workers. Most observers anticipate further battles.  Workers in South Korea, concentrated in vast conglomerates, hold the key to peace and radical political change across the whole Korean peninsula.

'We've got to make a stand' Ken Mair is a Wanganui tino rangatiratanga (Maori sovereignty) activist. He is well known as a leader of the 79-day occupation of Moutoa Gardens/ Pakaitore marae in 1995. Ken spoke to Socialist Worker Monthly Review about the foreshore issue. SW: How significant is this issue? Ken Mair (KM): This is a defining moment, we've got to make a stand. The Crown is attempting to take away what is ours.   It's like what happened here in Wanganui, when the Crown made a sham land purchase. It left us landless and without the ability to make our own rules and regulations within our own land.   If we were to leave the same situation [in terms of the foreshore] to our grandchildren, they will not have a bright future.  We haven't seen too many politicians ­ apart from the Maori MPs ­ say this is wrong. The track the government is going down will continue the distasteful history of injustice. But there is an opportunity for them to do the right thing.   But if the government tries to take away our title, we will fight them. Our [tino rangatiratanga] movement has many people, around the country, who are working at a flaxroots level. SW: Are you concerned about the racist backlash? KM: Those who are whipping up the backlash ­ Peter Dunne and Co ­should know better. They are putting superficial rhetoric before people who have little knowledge about the issue ­ the reaction doesn't come as a surprise.  I would encourage people to sit down and look at some good information. Once people understand the issues the racist backlash will go away.  One thing they are not talking about is that thousands of square miles of coastline is already in private hands.   If they are going to take away our title, then I assume they'll be consistent and take away those doubtful titles. (I say "doubtful" because in many cases iwi and hapu never gave up title to those lands).  I haven't heard any iwi say they will block access, but I have heard of private landowners blocking access to local communities. So there's a bit of hypocrisy there. SW: Are you worried that the government might to a deal with Maori elite, like they did with the Sealords Deal? KM: We are deeply concerned about that.   Looking at what's happened with the Sealords Deal and the Fiscal Envelope shows our analysis back then was spot on. We always said the Sealords Deal was a sham, and that it was taking away the title and rights of future generations. The Fiscal Envelope was just about money.  Now we are already hearing terminology from the Fisheries Commission about the "economic wellbeing" of Maori people.   This is not an "economic opportunity". We want title to what is ours. We are not going to buy into terminology that restricts that. We don't support a business model, because, eventually, business models will fall down and we'll be left with nothing.   "Economic wellbeing" is not the critical issue. Since Rogernomics people have seen "wellbeing" only in terms of economic models. Our people are still at the bottom of the heap, because of the economic models that have been pushed over the past twenty years.   We come from a different angle, with different priorities. We see wellbeing in terms of culture and our relationship to the environment.  Cultural sustainability and environmental sustainability as part of an integrated whole. Sometimes it is difficult to get this across to politicians, economists, and even some of our own people. SW: What can Pakeha supporters of tino rangatiratanga do? KM: Come out publicly, like Peace Movement Aotearoa [who sent a letter to the government] and inform the politicians that they are supporting our stance.  Get out there and educate. Spread information and education within Pakeha communities so people have a good information base to understand where we are coming from.

top

SWMR Archive 2003 main