A common struggle DR GHAYASUDDIN SIDDIQUI is leader of the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain and a prominent member of the Stop the War Coalition. He spoke to Britain's Socialist Worker newspaper about the impact of the anti-war movement on the Muslim community in Britain. ----------------- A world without terror Faced with terrorist attacks, socialists have a clear attitude. We abhor violence, and oppose indiscriminate bombings of civilians. ----------------- British elections bring socialist breakthrough by Grant Brookes Labour's vote collapsed. Support flowed not to the Conservative (National) Party, but to socialists and Greens whose campaigns grew out of the anti-war movement. ----------------- The Acehnese resistance by David Colyer Coverage of the Acehnese independence movement focuses of the guerilla fighters of the Free Aceh Movement (GAM). ----------------- Brutality in Aceh On May 19, the Indonesian government launched a new military offensive inAceh aimed at crushing opposition to its rule. ----------------- Interview with  Erwanto, an Aceh independence activist, in Auckland last year. ----------------- Dishonest brokers in Bougainville by Grant Brookes The six-year deployment of New Zealand troops in Bougainville is scheduled to end on June 30. The returning soldiers will be hailed as champions of peace. But when troops were dispatched by the National government in 1997, they were sent for a very different purpose. ----------------- Helen Clark betrays Aceh for trade by David Coyler ...prime minister Helen Clark turned her back on the people of Aceh. Ruling out independence, Clark said the only solution for the Acehnese is to accept "autonomy" within Indonesia. ----------------- Kinleith workers' fight against corporate power by Grant Brookes The longest-running strike in the history of Carter Holt's Kinleith mill is over. ---------------- Nurses raise women's equality by NZNO activist Grant Brookes For the first time since 1991, the nurses' union (NZNO) has held a national series of stopwork meetings. ---------------- NZ left unites for peace & justice by David Colyer The National Peace Workshops 2003 brought together activists from across the left. Participants debated a wide range of questions for the anti-war movement, but agreed on the need to broaden the focus and strengthen connections with the trade unions. ---------------- Re-ordering the Middle East The history of British and French rule in the Middle East makes uncomfortable reading for Iraq's new conquerors. Anne Ashford reports. ---------------- 'Road map' to more Palestinian suffering The visit by Labour foreign minister Phil Goff's to Palestinian president Yasser Arafat last month caused a stir in the media. ---------------- Solid strike by Kyle Webster Coal miners employed by Solid Energy at Spring Creek and Strongman mines walked off the job for 48 hours... ---------------- Students' anger at Labour rises As he rose to speak, around 50 students started chanting "Labour lies, fees rise!" Maharey was visibly shaken by the militant protest and at times during his speech he was lost for words. ---------------- 'The system discriminates' against gays and lesbians by Daphne Lawless ---------------- Uni staff unite for strength by Grant Brookes and AUS activist Daphne Lawless The three unions covering staff at New Zealand's eight universities ­ AUS, ASTE and PSA ­ have launched a joint campaign to establish national collective bargaining. ---------------- War,corporate rule & resistance Two months after the end of the war in Iraq, Helen Clark's refusal to publicly support the US can increasingly be seen for what it was ­ a blip. ---------------- 'What can I possibly do in my union?' At the National Peace Workshops in Christchurch last month, I called for activists to spread the anti-war message inside the trade union movement. ---------------- W.T.O spells GE free wake-up call by David Colyer Labour's policy of supporting ³a rules-based international order" gained credibility when it was the justification for not supporting the US-led invasion of Iraq. ----------------

A common struggle DR GHAYASUDDIN SIDDIQUI is leader of the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain and a prominent member of the Stop the War Coalition. He spoke to Britain's Socialist Worker newspaper about the impact of the anti-war movement on the Muslim community in Britain. Dr Siddiqui uses the term Islamist to refer to groups the mainstream press would usually call Islamic fundamentalists. ------------------------   "If you start from 11 September, immediately after there were a number of meetings which led to the formation of the Stop the War Coalition.   We were there from the very beginning. We saw this development as very positive, one that would allow the Muslim community to get out of their ghettos and play a role in mainstream politics, in this case a mass protest movement.   I remember sending a statement to all Muslim community leaders saying that we must realise this.   There is a lot of pent-up frustration, especially among our youth. Through this movement we showed them there is a real alternative to being supporters of Bin Laden.   For them to see being part of wider society and a mass movement as the way forward is very important.   An Islamist organisation like Hizb ut Tahrir issued a statement saying we should have nothing to do with the Stop the War Coalition, that it was led by the left, and so on.   We took the view that the future of Iraq will be decided by Bush and Blair, and big business which ultimately they represent.   Historically the Islamists have always been accused of working with big business.   We said, is that what you want to be remembered for? For goodness sake reconsider your position.   They had one demonstration on their own and I was told it wasn't very big.   That is not to say people like this will disappear, but their space is shrinking.   That has been a major result of the antiwar movement.   A debate is beginning to happen about what is the best way of pursuing political issues arising in the Muslim community.   I think that the old barriers are breaking down. Ordinary Muslims are discussing, and they often find that the arguments put forward by their own leaders are not so powerful as some of those put forward by others.   Issues like secularism, human rights and civil liberties are being discussed.   In the Islamist view these are secular issues that the faithful are not supposed to be interested in. But now people are seriously discussing all these issues.   A number of us feel we need a youth movement for the Muslim community, one that addresses issues like globalisation, the environment and such things.   We are hoping such a group will be launched soon. This would be a major development and a result of engaging with the mass movement.   Bush's war is not a war about Islam. The massive demos around the world negate the argument. If this is a war against Islam, why are all these people who aren't Muslim marching?   It is a war between the oppressor and the oppressed, and we are the oppressed, millions of us from all kinds of backgrounds.   We must go out and build bridges, and make it a common struggle.   There are other issues. The Asian Times asked me to comment on the Labour performance in the local body elections.   I gave two reasons for their poor performance. One was Labour's participation in Bush's war on Iraq and the other is privatisation of public services.   The problem at the moment is that in a general election there is no other alternative so the Labour Party will still get elected.   There is a great challenge for the movement, to build an alternative people can trust.   In the recent elections only around 30 percent of the electorate voted.   Some say this showed people were not interested in politics. But then in the movement a huge number of people were very interested in politics.   We are against ghettoisation. Government and council policies have to ensure that people interact at all different levels.   We can build a movement which can counter this globalisation process and US hegemony.   We have to come together if we want any chance to counter the forces against us, otherwise we will all be losers."

A world without terror Devastating bomb attacks in Saudi Arabia and Morocco shattered 75 lives last month, and with them the great lie at the heart of George Bush's "war on terrorism". Bush's war has not made the world safer, but more dangerous.   Labour's Phil Goff condemned the attacks, and then used them to justify sending more New Zealand troops to join the frigate and air force Orion already in the region.   Faced with terrorist attacks, socialists have a clear attitude. We abhor violence, and oppose indiscriminate bombings of civilians.   But as RACHEL SAMBRANO writes, our stance is based not on Goff's selective morality, but on the writings of the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky. ----------   Trotsky argued 80 years ago that socialists have "nothing in common with those bought and paid for moralists who, in response to any terrorist act, make solemn declarations about the 'absolute value' of human life.   "These are the same people who, on other occasions, in the name of other absolute values shove millions of people into the hell of war."   His statement rings just as true today. George Bush condemned the "terrorist acts" after launching a colossal invasion of Iraq under the banner of "freedom and democracy".   Goff's denunciation came after his government sent SAS troops to Afghanistan, where they helped to direct US air strikes. US bombs killed thousands of innocent Afghani civilians.   In any conflict between imperialist or capitalist forces and the "terrorist" who represents the oppressed, our sympathies are unreservedly with the "terrorist".   While we share none of the hypocritical condemnations of terrorism with the ruling class, socialists believe that terrorism as a political strategy is flawed.   Firstly, a bomb does not discriminate between ordinary people and those who have been responsible for murder and repression.   Secondly, the exploitation and oppression we are fighting against is not the work of a particular government, a minister, or even their armies or security forces.   We are fighting a world economic system based on exploitation. This fight can only be won by engaging the entire working class in mass action.   Trotsky argued that terrorist acts could, at best, temporarily shake the ruling regime.   "The smoke from the explosion clears away, the panic disappears, the successor of the murdered minister makes his appearance, life again settles into the old rut, the wheel of capitalist exploitations turns as before ­ only police repression grows more savage and brazen."   Not only is it ineffective at combating injustice, terrorism produces an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty.   These conditions allow for the introduction of new measures of state repression.   Laws in the US allow imprisonment without trial. Freedom of speech is being steadily curtailed.   And our own Labour government is stripping democratic rights under the guise of "counter terrorism" legislation.   Terrorism can also serve to drive the mass of the population into the hands of our rulers, even if many of these people sympathise with the terrorists' cause.   This is dictated by the very nature of terrorist organisation, which involves highly secretive acts carried out by an elite, independently of the working class.   These acts represent a desperate attempt by a minority to substitute themselves for mass action.   Even in times when terrorist groups have had mass support, such as Palestinian liberation groups like Hamas, these organisations see the mass backing as merely a backdrop to their own actions.   Terrorist acts encourage passivity among workers and ordinary people. They perpetuate the idea that liberation will come from above or outside their own actions.   Terrorism, according to Trotsky, "belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness, reconciles them to powerlessness, and turns their eyes and hopes toward a great avenger and liberator who some day will come and accomplish his mission."   The use of terrorism is not simply another form of struggle but is a tactic that runs counter to the fight for socialism.   As Trotsky asked, "If it is enough to arm oneself with a pistol in order to achieve one's goal, why the efforts of the class struggle?   "If a thimbleful of gunpowder and a little chunk of lead is enough to shoot the enemy through the neck, what need is there for a class organisation?"   Yet we cannot remain neutral on the question of violence.   The history of the 20th century is littered with examples of governments resorting to severe repression to crush popular movements.   The ruling class espouses a message of the need for non-violence while its instrument of rule ­ the state, embodied in the police and army ­ carries out routine violence in the name of "maintaining order".   Violence is unavoidable because the ruling class will never surrender its wealth and privilege voluntarily.   However real liberation will be achieved not through acts of individual violence but through the collective power of the working class.   This violence must not be against individuals but against the roots of the capitalist system.   The power to end capitalist injustice and exploitation lies in the factories, offices, schools and mines across the world.   As the German revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg said, "where the chains of capitalism are forged, there they must be broken."

British elections bring socialist breakthrough by Grant Brookes   There was no "Baghdad bounce" for prime minister Tony Blair in last month's elections for local councils and the Scottish and Welsh assemblies.   Pundits who predicted that the speedy end to war in Iraq would benefit Blair's Labour Party were proved wrong.   Labour's vote collapsed. Support flowed not to the Conservative (National) Party, but to socialists and Greens whose campaigns grew out of the anti-war movement.   The biggest gains were in Scotland, where as one newspaper headline put it, "Peoples' Power Marches On Parliament".   The Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) went from one seat to six in the 129-member Scottish parliament.   "This is a political reflection of the international radical-isation against the war and globalisation", said newly elected MSP (member of the Scottish Parliament) Frances Curran.   The Green Party also dramatically increased its share of the vote, going from one MSP to seven.   "We are very pleased for the Greens", said Curran, "and again it is a reflection of the movement against the war."   Across Scotland as a whole, the SSP polled 7.5 percent. In the largest city, Glasgow, they averaged 16 percent.   Unlike the vast majority of politicians, the socialist MSPs will not become cut off from working people.   They will accept only £24,000 a year ­ half an MSP's salary and the average wage of a skilled worker in Scotland.   The remainder will be donated to the SSP for use in further campaigns.   The socialist MSPs have said they will subordinate their work in the parliament to the struggles going on outside it.   Over 120,000 people voted for the SSP. If the party can turn those supporters into campaigners in the unions and communities of Scotland, then the balance could be tipped in the fight against capitalism and war.   South of the border in England, the Socialist Alliance (SA) also notched up its best ever results in council elections.   Across Manchester, England's third city, the SA polled between 4 and 8 percent and in Sheffield they polled between 5 and 8 percent.   In Preston, Michael Laval-ette was elected to the council after he beat the Labour candidate for the Town Centre ward.   "The election victory in Preston had its roots in the Stop the War Coalition", he said.   "I am coordinator of Preston Stop the War. People thought I was the best candidate."   The socialist electoral breakthrough in Scotland and England has fueled debate over the future of the trade union movement's links to Labour.   Like big unions in New Zealand such as the Engineers Union, British unions are affiliated to the Labour Party.   But during the election campaign, the leaders of the rail workers RMT Union and the civil servants PCS union backed the socialists.   The Socialist Alliance national conference a week after the elections agreed on a perspective of re-launching the SA as part of an even broader coalition of left wing forces that can challenge Labour in elections to the European parliament next year.

The Acehnese resistance by David Colyer   Coverage of the Acehnese independence movement focuses of the guerilla fighters of the Free Aceh Movement (GAM). It is easy for the Indonesian government to portray these fighters as "terrorists" and "Muslim extremists".   However, there is another side to the Acehnese independence movement. "Civil society" activists believe the path to independence is one of mass mobilisations and international solidarity, rather than armed struggle by a small number of guerillas.   A number of civil society organisations are grouped under the umbrella of the Acehnese Popular Democratic Resistance Front (FPDRA). Last year, Erwanto, a young leader of FPDRA toured Aotearoa, to highlight his people's struggle.   Erwanto told of the massive general strike against the Indonesian occupation in November 1999, which saw two million of Aceh's five million inhabitants take to the streets. Many of those not on the street, he said, played their part, by preparing food and accommodation for protesters.   Aceh has an important oil and gas industry, much of it run by Exxon-Mobil.   During the general strike all the oil workers ­ the majority of whom are Indonesians, not Acehnese ­ struck. Erwanto said the independence movement had a strong relationship with the FNPBI, Indonesia's socialist-led trade union federation.   The Acehnese resistance was very much involved in the revolution which overthrew the Suharto regime in 1998 and led to East Timor's independence.   The second point of the FPDRA's programme (after independence for Aceh) is the overthrow of all that remains of Suharto's New Order regime by a democratic revolution in Indonesia.   The Indonesian government claims it is fighting GAM, as part of the global "war on terror". But their first victims will be the activists of groups like FPDRA, who work openly in the towns and villages.

Brutality in Aceh   On May 19, the Indonesian government launched a new military offensive inAceh aimed at crushing opposition to its rule.   Lesley McCulloch, a human rights activist who spent five months in prison in Aceh last year, said the current level of repression is "extreme".   Aceh is the northernmost region of the Island of Sumatra, part of the Indonesian archipelago. The Acehnese hope to follow the example of East   Timor and win independence.   "Since martial law was declared on May 19, more than 140 civilians including 14 children have died", said McCulloch.   Seventeen cases of rape have been reported and 75 people have been taken by the military and are presumed dead, McCulloch told Australiaıs Green Left Weekly.   "In the first nine days, 300 school buildings were destroyed by groups of heavily armed men.   "The Indonesian government has accused the separatist movement, but local people report that these acts have been carried out by the military operating together with groups of militia."   "It's increasingly difficult to get information on exactly what is happening in the villages and towns of Aceh as NGOs [non-governmental organisations] have been ordered to leave, and journalists not embedded with the military are being prevented from travelling to trouble spots.   "More worrying, humanitarian workers and human rights defenders have been threatened and harassed, and many have been arrested", said McCulloch. [Source: www.greenleft.org.au]

Interview with Erwanto, an Aceh independence activist, in Auckland last year. SW: What should people in New Zealand know about Aceh? Erwanto: The political structure in Indonesia is still the same as it was under Suharto. New Order [the political parties and structures of president Suharto's regime] is still strong. The military is still strong and still political. They use the military to force the people to keep silent.   And Megawati [the current president] can do nothing without agreement from the military. One thing you must know is that when Megawati became president, the military in Aceh became more brutal ­ killing and raping.   Because Indonesia is a bankrupt country, they can only pay for 25 percent of military operations. So 75 percent the military have to fund by themselves   In Aceh they get that from logging, from selling marijuana and from the big companies like Exxon-Mobil. They sometimes rob our people. When they come to a village, if they find money, they will take it. SW: Why do people in Aceh want to be independent from Indonesia? Erwanto: Because Indonesia is not their country, not their motherland. They have their own motherland, they have their own language, their own culture.   Jakarta has betrayed them many, many, many times. They want independence, they will not compromise any more.   And because the military has killed almost 10,000 Acehnese people. [As well as] raping, torturing. Almost every day our people have been killed. SW: What is the group you belong to? Erwanto: I'm from the Acehnese Popular Democratic Resistance Front. That is an umbrella organisation of the civil society movement. We founded on 23 March, 2000. Our concern is how to build a strong civil society movement.   Before, those who wanted independence only used armed struggle. It was the Acehnese thing, if you want to get liberation there is only one way ­ armed struggle. We want to make sure that Acehnese people have another way, that is through civil society movement. That means non violence. SW: How do you see independence coming about? Erwanto: It will happen because we have good support from the democratic movement in Indonesia, and we hope that international solidarity becomes stronger. This pressure will force Jakarta to give Aceh a referendum. SW: It took the revolution in Indonesia in 1998 to free East Timor. Do you think it will take the same thing to free Aceh? Erwanto: Oh yes. SW: You said you had good relations with the democratic movement in Indonesia. Erwanto: In 1998 we had the same issues as the democratic movement in Jakarta: how to make Suharto not the president any more, how to destroy the military's power, how to destroy New Order. SW: Suharto is gone, but you say things haven't really changed. Erwanto: Yes. Golkar [Suharto's party] is still a strong party, the second strongest party in the state and it plays almost the same role. The military is still everywhere inside Indonesia.   When we got the revolution [we wanted to] destroy New Order and stop the military having a political role. But the political system is still the same. The elite in Indonesia join with international capitalism to exploit people in Indonesia.   The democratic movement in Indonesia is fighting for a democratic revolution to get rid of New Order. We support that. SW: East Timor has been forced to adopt free market policies. What sort of society do you want once Aceh is free? Erwanto: A welfare state. SW: What can people in New Zealand do? Erwanto: Make sure Helen Clark doesn't restore military ties with Indonesia as John Howard [in Australia] has done. SW: What do you think about the global anti-capitalist movement? Erwanto: We respect the anti-globalisation protests, we have the same purpose ­ to make a better world. We have Exxon-Mobil in Aceh. But mostly we are consumed by our own struggle for independence. It is good for us to discuss with other activists all over the world and learn about each others' struggles.

Dishonest brokers in Bougainville by Grant Brookes   The six-year deployment of New Zealand troops in Bougainville is scheduled to end on June 30.   The returning soldiers will be hailed as champions of peace.   But when troops were dispatched by the National government in 1997, they were sent for a very different purpose.   Bougainville is formally part of Papua New Guinea (PNG). New Zealand troops went to the island as part of a "peace process" to end a nine-year war between the Bougainville Revolutionary Army and the PNG government.   The roots of the conflict lie in the social and environmental destruction caused by the giant copper mine at Panguna and a long-held popular desire for independence.   The Panguna mine is owned by Bougainville Copper Limited, a joint venture between the PNG government and Australian multinational Rio Tinto. With a 53% stake, Rio Tinto owns the lionıs share.   When it opened in 1972, Panguna was the biggest copper mine in the world.   Over the next 17 years, it produced 3 million tonnes of copper, 300 tonnes of gold and nearly 800 tonnes of silver.   This made billions of dollars in profits for Rio Tinto and provided the PNG government with a fifth of its income.   Panguna accounted for nearly half of PNG export earnings ­ much of which went to paying off the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.   Yet only 1 percent of the profit went back to the people of Bougainville.   Over 200 hectares of rainforest were clear-felled. More than a billion tonnes of tailings from the mine, contaminated with toxic waste, were dumped in the rivers, killing fish, birds and other animals.   Tribal lands, home to the spirits of ancestors, were desecrated.   After unsuccessfully trying protests, petitions and court cases, traditional land-owners led by Francis Ona blew up power pylons supplying the mine with electricity.   PNG responded by sending troops to the island and declaring all-out war on its people. In 1990, Bougainvilleans declared independence and established the Bougainville Interim Government (BIG).   Francis Ona was made president of the BIG and leader of the Bougainville Revolutionary Army.   For the next nine years, Australia backed PNG in the war. They funded the PNG military and supplied them with training, ammunition, aircraft, weapons and even personnel.   Phosphorous bombs that were dropped on villages in 1994 were supplied by Australia. So were the aircraft that dropped the bombs and the pilots who flew the aircraft.   Phosphorous is a weapon of indiscriminate terror that incinerates targets like the napalm bombs used by US forces in Vietnam.   Australia opposed independence for Bougainville in the same way they opposed an independent East Timor (until 1999), and just as they oppose independence for Aceh today.   They saw independence as a threat not only to Rio Tinto's control of Panguna, but a spur to unrest in neighbouring Lihir island (where Rio Tinto is part-owner of a gold mine) and in PNG's remote Western Province (home to the huge, Australian-owned Ok Tedi mine) as well.   "The Australian government's real interest", said Ona, "is to allow the safe return of Rio Tinto to mining Panguna".   At the height of the war, Australia's department of foreign affairs admitted that its goal was "the maintenance of the authority of the central government for the continuing viability of the existing (and potential) substantial Australian investment".   Over 10,000 Bougainvilleans ­ out of a population of 160,000 ­ were killed in the war. A third of the people were driven from their homes.   But by 1997, the cost of the war was crippling the PNG economy. The army mutinied and brought down the government. PNG was forced to enter peace talks.   After 8 years of war, the people of Bougainville wanted peace too. But they also wanted a commitment on independence and a guarantee that Rio Tinto would not re-open the mine.   Australia and New Zealand ensured that the "peace process" contained no such commitments. Australian foreign affairs minister Alexander Downer said "we worked very hard to make sure we keep the mine out of sight for all of these talks".   PNG eventually agreed to a poll on independence, but not for another 10 to 15 years. And the poll result will not be binding.   Not surprisingly, the people of Bougainville refused to accept Australian peacekeepers on their island. In November 1997, New Zealand peacekeepers went instead.   Australian military historian colonel Bob Breen later wrote that Australian army officers were unhappy at New Zealand's leading role. But government officials reassured them it "would serve Australian national interests".   Five months later, in April 1998, 250 Australian troops were landing on Bougainville and New Zealand was handing over command of the operation to brigadier Bruce Osborne of the Australian army.   Osborne later told reporters that his mission was "to protect PNG sovereignty" over Bougainville.   The following six years of the "peace process" were used by New Zealand and Australia to foster divisions among Bougainville's leaders.   They cultivated a "moderate" leadership who might compromise over independence and the Panguna mine.   In 1998, the foreign affairs minister in the Bougainville Interim Government accused Australia of channelling aid to moderate leaders.   "BIG village areas are being starved of aid that other areas are receiving", he said.   "There has been no aid from PNG or Australia going to humanitarian projects organised by the BIG".   At the same time, New Zealand and Australian peacekeepers pressed ahead with collecting and destroying weapons on Bougainville.   Having largely disarmed the Bougainville Revolutionary Army, they have now made Rio Tinto's job of getting the mine back a lot easier.   On April 11 this year, New Zealand foreign affairs minister Phil Goff held a press conference in the PNG capital, Port Moresby. He announced that "weapons collection is almost complete".   That same day, another press conference was being held in Port Moresby. The chair of Bougainville Copper Limited told Australia's ABC radio that "now the peace process is well advanced, the company stands ready to discuss the mine's future".   He told shareholders at the company's annual general meeting the signs were "encouraging".   Two weeks later, the PNG government added its voice and called on Bougainville leaders to start talks on re-opening the mine.   The Green Party, who believe that the New Zealand military can be used for peace and humanitarian  purposes, supported the troops going to Bougainville.   Green MP Keith Locke called New Zealand an "honest broker" in the conflict.   Nothing could be further from the truth.   PNG and Australia were unable to secure a victory for multinational corporations over the people of Bougainville using military means.   New Zealand peacekeepers provided the disguise for Australian corporate interests to sneak back onto the island, while securing "regional stability" for New Zealand investors and exporters.   The people of Bougainville want peace, but lasting peace in Bougainville can only be based on justice.   Throughout the conflict, New Zealand governments ­ both National and Labour have worked to deny justice to Bougainville for the sake of corporate profits. 'No outcome' on the causes of conflict   "The only outcome [of the truce with PNG] is that there is peace on the ground. But there is no outcome in terms of why we started the struggle in the first place.   We often hear that the TMG [Truce Monitoring Group] and the peace process itself was New Zealand facilitated; that New Zealand has a special relationship with Bougainville which Australia does not have. I don't really go along with all that.   New Zealand had to get involved at the outset to open the door for Australia. My belief that it was engineered this way was confirmed by New Zealand handing the leadership of the TMG to Australia [in 1998].   One of the negative aspects of the peace process has been that it has helped to generate a lack of tolerance. Many people, for instance, criticise and dismiss Francis Ona.   He has many credentials; these may not be so obvious to people in the developed world who have a "TV-induced" image of what makes an effective politician and where elections have to be played out on the "open market".   But in Bougainville it is quite different.   Academics have criticised us for being "an island of lost causes", and condemned our insistence on independence as extremist.   But what they will not accept is that Bougainvilleans are an island people with a soul. A people cannot be condemned for wanting to maintain their island as a sanctuary for their customs and their identity. That is a fundamental human right.   [The peace process has] installed foreign concepts like village courts and uniformed village constables. Too much time was spent hearing court cases instead of organising people into productive work programmes in the village.   Bougainville's future depends on leaders who will be smart and subtle, who will maintain ideals, will know what Bougainvilleans need, and who will not be intoxicated by outside influences.   Bougainville must have independence. But without the highest quality leadership, it is not going to work." * REUBEN SIARA, legal advisor to the Bougainville Interim Government, June 2000 'NZ is not neutral'   "The truce was supposed to stop the war and enable our people to decide their political future by a referendum on independence.   It provided for a 'neutral' monitoring group.   Australia is clearly not neutral because it was a major party to the nine-year war on Bougainville.   It provided Papua New Guinea with training, finance, military hardware and pilots to help the PNG Defence Force fight its war against our people and blockade our island.   Twelve thousand Bougain-villeans died in this war.   New Zealand provided pilots to fly the Australian-supplied Iroquois helicopters which were used as gunships to strafe our villages and kill our people. Thus New Zealand is not a neutral party either.   Unless there is a clear commitment to a referendum, there will be a lingering suspicion that the involvement of Australia in hosting "peace" negotiations is just a way of quietly burying the issue of independence." * FRANCIS ONA, president of the Bougainville Interim Government, November 1997

Helen Clark betrays Aceh for trade by David Coyler   "The situation in Aceh is different to that of East Timor. International backing always kept a hope alive in Timor that there would be a day when they would get to determine their own future."   With these words, prime minister Helen Clark turned her back on the people of Aceh. Ruling out independence, Clark said the only solution for the Acehnese is to accept "autonomy" within Indonesia.   Clark's position is aligned with that of right wing Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer, who called on separatists to surrender and said independence would lead to a "disastrous security situation in South East Asia".   Both are acting in accordance with US wishes. In February, George Bush pressured the US congress to restore full military links with Indonesia.   Bush sees Indonesia as an Asian ally in his "war on terrorism" ­alongside New Zealand and Australia.   The US has set aside $100 million for military aid to Indonesia. Already, US-supplied Bronco counter-insurgency aircraft are rocketing Acehnese villages, while US-supplied Hercules drop feared Indonesian paratroopers from the sky.   By siding with the US against Acehnese independence, Helen Clark gives unspoken support to the brutal Indonesian occupation and the latest crack-down, which aims to stamp out the independence movement.   The Acehnese know that "autonomy" offers no protection from the brutality of Indonesia's police and army. Nor will it give them a fair share of their nation's mineral wealth.   Safe in the knowledge that "international community" will not support independence for Aceh,         Indonesia's civilian and military leaders have no intention of granting real autonomy to any of their subjects.   Instead, under cover of Bush's "war on terrorism", they have decided to crush dissent with military force.   Last year Helen Clark's government apologised for New Zealand's "failure" to act when Indonesia invaded East Timor in 1975. They are repeating that failure over Aceh, and for the same reasons.   New Zealand businesses have significant economic links with Indonesia. The ministry of foreign affairs describes Indonesia as "an important trading partner for New Zealand".   Last year, exports to Indonesia were $431 million. New Zealand corporations also have significant investments in Indonesia.   Indonesia is the largest country in the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). Both Australia and New Zealand want free trade with the ASEAN block.   The Cairns Group of countries pushing for free trade in the World Trade Organisation includes Indonesia, alongside Australia and New Zealand.   Indonesia's vast archipelago of islands spreads across the major trade routes between New Zealand in the south, China and Japan to the north, and West to India, the Middle East and Europe.   All of these connections means that New Zealand business and government have an interest in keeping Indonesia united under the rule of a pro-Western leader, whatever the cost in blood. ------------   "Aceh was an independent political entity for centuries. It has a distinct language and culture.   The same military machine that colluded in the rape of East Timor are again involved in the brutal crackdown of the Aceh liberation movement.   They do not wish to cede any real power to the Aceh people.   If countries like New Zealand stand aside or don't protest strongly enough, the Acehnese can expect the same treatment as the Timorese.   The Indonesian military's atrocious human rights record would make this a particularly brutal war, which is why New Zealand should do everything it can to stop it."   * Green MP KEITH LOCKE

Kinleith workers' fight against corporate power by Grant Brookes The longest-running strike in the history of Carter Holt's Kinleith mill is over. On May 28, after 82 days on strike, 277 workers belonging to the EPMU union voted to return to work.   Their determined fight for justice inspired an out-pouring of support from workers around the country and forced back-downs from the company.   But disgracefully, top officials in the EPMU and the Council of Trade Unions actively undermined solidarity action by other unionists. As a result,   Kinleith workers also lost some points they shouldn't have.   The strikers at Kinleith were taking on not only Carter Holt but also their parent company, US multinational International Paper.   International Paper (IP) is one of the world's leading forces for corporate globalisation and a staunch backer of US president George Bush.   Since 1990, IP has given over $6 million to Bush's Republican Party. In 2000, they funded a bash to celebrate his selection as the Republican presidential candidate.   Today, the third-ranked member of Bush's cabinet is a former president of IP. Another IP executive is the special assistant to defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld.   IP is also America's biggest spender on research into genetic engineering of trees.   And it's channelling funds into the "Plan Puebla Panama", a secretive scheme designed by advisors from the World Trade Organisation and World Bank to open up Central America for Western corporations.   The company is also on friendly terms with the Labour government here in New Zealand.   IP executive Chris Liddell sits on the Knowledge Wave Trust, a business think-tank close to the prime minister. Liddell's wife is the Trust's head.   The day before Kinleith workers walked off the job, prime minister Helen Clark was guest of honour at the annual prize-giving dinner for local managers from Carter Holt.   And a week into the strike, trade minister Jim Sutton visited Carter Holt's corporate headquarters to present the company with a Tradenz award for excellence.   The strike at Kinleith was sparked by the company's moves to endanger workers' safety by scrapping the on-site fire brigade and to cut pay.   But deeper down, the issue underlying the strike was power. The company wanted to break union control over job assignment and promotions, undermine the culture of equality and stamp their authority on the workers.   As strike leader Whisky Hastie put it, "In our mill we have promotion lines equal opportunities for everyone, whether Pacific Islander, Maori, Pakeha, or women to work their way up.   "They [the company] want the boss to have the sole right to appoint people. Innocent people, people who speak up, won't get the opportunity."   The strike won massive support. Hundreds of thousands of dollars poured into the strike fund. Workers at Carter Holt's Whakatane mill refused to take on work from Kinleith.   Train drivers refused to cross a 24-hour picket set up across the rail line into the mill. Messages of support from workers at IP plants flowed in from Australia, Canada, Sweden and the US.   Some Kinleith workers had argued that spreading the strike to other Carter Holt and IP plants was the way to win.   Whisky Hastie told Socialist Worker Monthly Review, "I heard people say, 'call the whole country out'."   Whisky talked to dozens of meetings at worksites around the country, and even across the Tasman.   "In Australia", he said, "we had sites that wanted to walk off the job, even though it's illegal. We got that reaction locally, too."   But top officials from the EPMU and the Council of Trade Unions scotched the idea, and Hastie agreed with them.   Disgracefully, top union officials convinced Kinleith workers to call off their picket. As EPMU national industrial officer Paul Tolich put it, "we withdrew the pickets and allowed the railway workers to move the wagons".   CTU secretary Paul Goulter told Wellington unionists that calling off the picket was "for the best".   As a result tonnes of paper stock-piled in the mill made it to market, keeping the company's cash-flow ticking over.   But more importantly, calling off the picket and undermining the solidarity action from rail workers also dashed the chances of spreading the strike.   The settlement accepted by the workers on May 28 retains the on-site fire brigade "for now" and offers a small pay rise.   But it also includes salarisation (an end to hourly overtime pay) and 12-hour shifts. A chance to beat a multinational, watched by workers around the world, was lost.   The core issue of promotions has been shunted into new union-management committees. The struggle for power is not over.   The spirit of Kinleith workers remains strong. Once they voted to go back, management wanted them at work the next day.   "We had a meeting and debated it", said Whisky. "The workers said, 'no, we're going back Tuesday'.   "If we go back and they start kicking arses", he said, "the workers are gonna retaliate".

Nurses raise women's equality by NZNO activist Grant Brookes   For the first time since 1991, the nurses' union (NZNO) has held a national series of stopwork meetings.   Over April and May, NZNO members around the country were voting on a bargaining strategy for the next 12 months.   The strategy proposes a return to a single, national employment agreement for all 30,000 nurses employed by district health boards and seeks big pay rises, based on the principle of pay equity for women.   Nursing remains 92 percent female. Women's average take-home earnings in New Zealand are just 79 percent of men's.   As an NZNO Backgrounder put it, "Nurses' remuneration is intimately bound up with decades-long struggle for equal pay for women in the workforce".   In a bid to forestall an industrial campaign, Labour last month announced a taskforce to look at pay equity in the health and education sectors.   But real equality runs counter to the corporate forces behind Labour's policies.   Business NZ executive director Anne Knowles was blunt.  She said it was "completely unacceptable to set up a pay equity scheme ­ run by unions and the state sector ­that will inevitably impose large costs on the private sector".   Pay equity also runs against the global right wing agenda of the Bush administration.   Last year, Bush blocked ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).   CEDAW is the main international treaty upholding the right of women to vote, own property and  access education ­ and to earn equal pay.   The US is one of a handful of countries that has not ratified CEDAW, alongside the likes of Iran, Sudan and Somalia.   Bush has also withdrawn funding to UN family planning programmes because they accept abortion rights for women.   USAID, the aid agency overseeing the "reconstruction" of Iraq, is barred from funding any organisation which upholds abortion rights or which promotes debate on abortion law.   The pay equity proposal put to the NZNO stopwork meetings includes "benchmark" figures of $40,000 for a nurse's starting pay, rising to $52,000 after five years.   This would mean long overdue pay rises of $7,000 to $19,000, depending on where she worked and her years of experience.   The meetings were fronted by NZNO strategist and Alliance leader Laila Harré.   Harré says, "We need to work through with the government now whether we are confident that that is enough ­ to integrate our approach into the taskforce or whether we need something additional".   It will require an industrial campaign to defeat corporate interests and win justice for nurses and a victory for working women.

NZ left unites for peace & justice by David Colyer   The National Peace Workshops 2003 were held in Christchurch from May 9 to 11.   They brought together activists from across the left. Participants debated a wide range of questions for the anti-war movement, but agreed on the need to broaden the focus and strengthen connections with the trade unions.   Despite the apparent end of the war in Iraq, over 150 people attended. This in itself marked how far the movement has come since the Afghan war, when most campaign groups folded after the fall of the Taleban.   Nearly two dozen activists from the Greens, including party co-leader Rod Donald and MP Keith Locke, came together with Alliance members, socialists, anarchists, Labour Party members and many unaffiliated campaigners.   The conference included meetings on "The American agenda", New Zealand's links to the US war machine, the role of the UN, Te Tiriti O Waitangi in peace and social justice and "Merging the anti-globalisation and anti-war movements".   Activists who ­ like Socialist Worker ­ look to the organised working class as the main force for positive social change, were encouraged by a session on the role of the labour movement in fighting for peace and justice.   Wellington socialist Don Franks and Maxine Gay, president of the Clothing Workers Union, presented this session.   Union members at the conference talked of their good and bad experiences of trying to campaign against the war within their unions.   This was the last session on Saturday, and the need to build links with the union movement remained a theme until the end of the conference, and hopefully beyond.   A sign of progress was that the conference was endorsed by the National Distribution Union, the Council of Trade Unions and the Seafarers Union.   Debates about the role of the UN, or how we can achieve a different kind of world, saw a wide variety of views.   The biggest turnout came from Christchurch. There was a large contingent from Wellington, and others from around the South Island.   Only two people came from Auckland. However, the influence of Global Peace and Justice Auckland (GPJA) was clearly felt.   Peace networks in both Wellington and Christchurch are following GPJA's example by taking up a broad peace and justice agenda and holding regular public forums.   The conference decided to establish a national co-ordinating committee to link these peace and justice groups.   Protests on America's Independence Day, July 4, will see the fist national day of action of the newly united movement.   Building a national broad left movement against war and corporate globalisation which takes these ideas out into the unions can start to create a real political pole of attraction to the left of Helen Clark's Labour Party.

Re-ordering the Middle East The history of British and French rule in the Middle East makes uncomfortable reading for Iraq's new conquerors. ANNE ASHFORD reports -----------------     "I'll never engage in creating kings again: it's too great a strain." As they struggle to impose a compliant government on Iraq, Pentagon officials may well reflect on the words that Gertrude Bell wrote in 1921.   Bell, an adviser to the British High Commissioner in Baghdad, played an important role in creating a new colonial order for the Middle East. Out of the debris of the Ottoman Empire, the imperialists of an earlier generation fashioned a network of client kingdoms under British and French tutelage.   However, as Gertrude Bell admitted more than 80 years ago, each redrawing of the political map has generated resistance. British officials eventually imposed kings on Iraq and Egypt, only to face renewed pressure from independence movements a few years later.   British, and later US, support for Israel's expulsion of the Palestinians from their homeland has created a permanent focus for anti-imperialist protest. If the experience of the past is anything to go by, far from becoming a pivot in an "axis of democracy" spanning the Middle East, postwar   Iraq may play a similar destabilising role.   The experience of earlier generations holds other important lessons for today. In 1915, just as today, representatives of the Great Powers invoked the watchwords of "liberation" and "self government", although Ottoman despotism, rather than Ba'athist tyranny, was the bogeyman of the hour.   Tactics of ethnic and religious divide and rule also have a long history in the Middle East. And rather than support democracy, colonial officials ­old and new have always preferred repression.   Today's discredited Arab leaders also have a long pedigree ­ every new imperialist intervention has found local rulers willing to cooperate with the occupiers.   The Ottoman Empire's alliance with Austria-Hungary and Germany at the outbreak of the First World War brought the Middle East directly into the conflict between the imperialist powers.   France and Britain occupied much of the Levant and Mesopotamia, restricting the area of Ottoman rule to Turkish Anatolia. Hoping that an Arab revolt would help them defeat the Ottoman armies, British commanders encouraged the embryonic Arab nationalist movement that had emerged in many areas of the empire during the late 19th century.   In 1915 British officials agreed with Sharif Hussein, the ruler of Mecca and a descendant of the prophet Mohammed, that Ottoman rule would be replaced by a new state headed by an Arab prince. Although the borders of this new country were left vague, the promise of independence helped to cement an alliance between traditional Arab rulers and the emerging Arab urban middle class on the one hand, and British imperialism on the other.   While Sharif Hussein's sons gathered an army to fight the Ottomans, British and French officials were already deciding the real shape of the postwar Middle East. The secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 carved the region into British and French spheres of influence. This act of imperial horse-trading demonstrated that despite their talk of "liberating the oppressed" neither Britain nor France would permit the creation of a genuinely independent Arab state.   And for the first time Middle Eastern oil was now lubricating the wheels of international diplomacy. Both Britain and France recognised the crucial role that oil played in the conflict. British control of BP's Persian oilfields played an important part in the defeat of Germany.   As Anthony Sampson describes, the postwar partition of the Ottoman Empire was driven by competition over the as yet untapped oilfields of Mesopotamia and the Gulf. "Turkey was paying for defeat by having her dwindling possessions carved up between Britain and France. Both countries, while pretending that oil was not foremost in their minds, were specially concerned with two regions along the River Tigris... the regions of Baghdad and Mosul which were suspected of containing huge oil reserves."   The British administration of occupied Iraq was modelled on the colonial system of India. From the highest levels of government to local political districts, British officers controlled Iraq.   As the historian Phebe Marr explains, colonial administrators actively discouraged Iraqi participation: "The philosophy guiding this group was largely based on 19th century ideas of 'the white man's burden', a predilection for direct rule, and a distrust of the ability of local Arabs for self government."   Maintaining this hated system proved costly and difficult. British officials strengthened the role of the tribal sheikhs, who became their local tax collectors and law enforcers. However, even the support of the tribal leaders for the British administration failed to contain an explosion of anger in 1920, when the League of Nations awarded Britain a mandate over Iraq.   The insurrection of 1920 swept away British control in large areas of central Iraq.   Nationalist slogans united Sunni and Shia communities in protests in Baghdad, while tribesmen rose in revolt across the country.   Although the insurrection was eventually crushed at the cost of hundreds of   Iraqi lives, British forces also lost 400 soldiers and the British taxpayer was left to foot the £40 million bill. The revolt did not win independence for Iraq, but it forced the British government to drop the hated "India Office" policy of direct rule.   Iraqis were still to be denied the chance to choose their own government, however. Britain's preferred candidate to lead Iraq was the Emir Faisal, son of Sharif Hussein of Mecca.   Gertrude Bell described how British officials struggled to impose the new king on his subjects. In August 192O she wrote, "It's not all smooth yet. We get reports about the lower Euphrates tribes preparing monstrous petitions in favour of a republic... I don't believe half of them are true but they keep one in anxiety."   To the strains of "God Save the King" ­ no one had yet composed an Iraqi national anthem he was crowned in August 1921. Following the political traditions established under Ottoman rule, his government was dominated by Sunni Muslims. No Shia figures were appointed except in the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala. And while the all-powerful political officers were replaced by Iraqi officials, British advisers remained behind the scenes.   In Egypt, a rising tide of nationalist anger proved even more difficult to control than the insurrection in Iraq. Under British occupation since 1882, Egyptians had already experienced decades of colonial rule by the outbreak of the First World War. When a delegation of Egyptian intellectuals applied for permission to attend the postwar peace conference in Versailles to put the case for Egyptian independence, British officials refused.   A nationwide campaign of protests and petitioning merely provoked the enraged authorities to deport four of the delegation's members to Malta. The fate of the Wafd ­Arabic for delegation ­ and its leader, Sa'ad Zaghlul, sparked off a wave of huge protests across Egypt. Thousands took to the streets of Cairo and Alexandria. British property was attacked, and the railway lines were torn up by angry crowds.   Unlike Iraq, where the insurrection against British rule remained largely confined to the countryside, Egypt's working class movement played a crucial role in the revolt of 1919.   Strikes by tram workers, cigarette rollers and government employees marked the urban working class's entry onto the political stage. Class and nationalist demands frequently intersected, as foreigners owned many of Egypt's key industries and transport companies. Years of rising prices and wartime food shortages also played their part in pushing thousands towards rebellion.   Despite the demands of the nationalist movement for complete independence, once again the colonial administrators had the final say. In 1922 Britain declared Egypt an independent state ­ making sure in the process that the authoritarian King Fu'ad ascended to the throne. British officials also retained control over Egypt's foreign and defence policy, and reserved the right to police the Suez Canal.   The Wafd was eventually allowed to form a government. However, the middle class leaders of the nationalist movement now turned against the working class. The newly founded Communist Party was closed down and the trade unions repressed ­ not by the British this time, but by the Wafd.   In Lebanon and Syria ­ designated as spheres of French influence by the Sykes-Picot agreement ­the mandate government left a poisonous legacy of sectarianism for future generations.   Nationalist agitation culminated in an insurrection against French rule in the Jabal Druze area of Syria in 1925. In an attempt to contain nationalist protests, the French authorities played Syria's religious sects off against each other.   In Lebanon the Maronite Christians, long regarded as France's most loyal clients in the area, were the greatest beneficiaries of the carve-up, winning the presidency and control of the army. However, all the sectarian leaders had something to gain from the arrangement. In return for policing their own communities, the rich and powerful were given access to the corridors of colonial power.   The fate of the local leaders promoted by Britain and France under the Mandate period also holds lessons for the new administrators of Iraq.   By the 1950s most of the client kingdoms that Gertrude Bell and her colleagues had fought so hard to create had been swept away in a wave of mass nationalist protests. It was in this era that the US, which had replaced Britain and France as the major imperialist power in the region, turned decisively towards Israel as the guarantor of its interests in the Middle East.   Today's generation of Arab leaders may well feel the shock waves of the war on Iraq sooner than their predecessors. Globalisation accelerates both the economic and military impact of imperialist intervention. But while CIA agents call in air strikes by satellite phones, activists across the Middle East can use text messaging to organise demonstrations.   The rich vein of anti-colonial protests in the region also shows that the peoples of the Middle East need no lessons in democracy from George Bush and Tony Blair. However, the historic role of local elites in propping up the imperialist order also demonstrates that the enemies of freedom in the Middle East are not only to be found in Washington and London. Ridding the region of corrupt Arab rulers will also be the task of a new generation of anti-imperialist activists.

'Road map' to more Palestinian suffering   The visit by Labour foreign minister Phil Goff's to Palestinian president Yasser Arafat last month caused a stir in the media. Afterwards, Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon refused to meet him.   Goff defended his decision, saying, "I've got a very clear message that I have to deliver".   That message was for Arafat to stick to George Bush's "road map" for the Middle East.   Bush was stung into action by the mass support for the Palestinians raised in the global protests against war on Iraq.   But his road map will do nothing to end the injustice and suffering of the Palestinian people.   The problem with the road map is it ignores the reason for the conflict in the first place.   Israel was created in 1948 when Israeli settlers drove 750,000 Palestinians out of their homes and grabbed 78 percent of Palestinian land.   Israel is now only prepared to negotiate what happens to the remaining 22 percent.   And they only want the Palestinians to get half of that for their "independent" state.   Israel's population is five million. There are eight million Palestinians.   Nearly half the Palestinian population are refugees, descendents of those expelled in 1948.   Many live in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Israel invaded these areas in 1967 and occupied them. It has controlled them ever since.   Under the first phase of the road map, the Palestinians have to undertake an immediate cease-fire.   Yet time and again the Israelis have provoked the Palestinians by attacking their homes and slaughtering families.   This is a ready-made excuse for the Israelis to renege on their part of the deal.   As Said Ghazali wrote in Britain's Independent last month, "The roadmap is no more than an entrance ticket to the dance hall where the Israelis will play the same old tunes against 'terror'."   The following stage two is meant to lead to the creation of a Palestinian state with provisional borders. Again this is reliant on "a Palestinian leadership acting decisively against terror".   The third phase will reach a final agreement by 2005 "ending the conflict".   Israel demands that the current Palestinian Authority represses its own population and crushes the second intifada, or uprising, which broke out in September 2000 against Israeli occupation.   They will continue to politically, militarily and economically dominate any new Palestinian state that emerges from the road map.   The five million Palestinian refugees will have no right to return to their homes inside Israel.   Bush's road map could swing even more favourably towards Israel.   Israel has made it clear that it sees the roadmap as "open to further negotiations".   Bush, and the right wing hawks around him, see Israel as an integral part of continuing US dominance of the Middle East.

Solid strike by Kyle Webster   Coal miners employed by Solid Energy at Spring Creek and Strongman mines walked off the job for 48 hours on May 7 in support of their claims for pay parity.   The miners are amongst the lowest paid in the country and are seeking a 20% pay increase. This would give them the same rate as Solid Energy miners at Huntly.   Holding up signs and placards outside the entrance to the Strongman mine near Rapahoe, the miners were hopeful of a positive outcome.   The miners picketed the railway junction at Stillwater. Rail workers in the RMT Union refused to cross the picket line.   EPMU organiser Tane Johnson said the support from the railway drivers had been "absolutely brilliant". In total, 10 trains were stopped.   Other unions including the RMTU and the Nurses Organisation (whose members recognised that the issues affecting the miners were similar to their own) sent messages of support.

Students' anger at Labour rises   "The government's objective, broadly expressed, is that every person, whatever his level of academic ability, whether he be rich or poor, whether he live in town or country, has a right, as a citizen, to a free education of the kind for which he is best fitted and to fullest extent of his powers."   These words from the pen of post-war educationalist Clarence Beeby came towards the end of a speech by tertiary education minister Steve Maharey at Victoria University last month.   Beeby's words, said Maharey, were "a wonderful statement". But by then, few in the audience were listening.   As he rose to speak, around 50 students started chanting "Labour lies, fees rise!"   Maharey was visibly shaken by the militant protest and at times during his speech he was lost for words.   Four days earlier, he had received a smiliar reception from students in Palmerston North.   Around 50 Massey University students disrupted his speech at Te Manawa Art Gallery with loud chanting and noise-makers.   Labour had earlier announced in the Budget that student fees will no longer be determined by individual institutions.   Instead, the government will set maximum fees nationally.   The new fee maxima will see course costs rise by up to $1,000 a year while the government sits on a $4 billion budget surplus.   In a letter to Maharey, Victoria student campaigns officer Nick Kelly said, "In 1999 the Labour Party promised to 'cut the cost to students of tertiary education'."   "Labour has betrayed the people who put it into power."   The fee rises have outraged students around the country.   On Budget day itself, more than 300 students protested in Christchurch.   Christchurch Polytech student president Mark Taylor told the demonstrators, "When it comes to fee setting [later in the year], there will be even bigger protests."   Thousands of students marched against the war in Iraq. This revival of campus activism is now spilling over into other channels.   National student co-president Fleur Fitzsimons predicted that "we could well see the sort of conflict-ridden council fee-setting meetings with protests and occupations, that we saw in the 1990s".

'The system discriminates' against gays and lesbians by Daphne Lawless   An attempt by two gay men to become surrogate parents last month evoked strong opposition from the Catholic Church and the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child.   Both groups said that "a child needs to be brought up by its biological father and mother".   Because of the "delays, costs and prejudice" which they encountered, the gay couple were forced to withdraw their surrogacy application.   They told the Sunday Star Times that the system was fundamentally discriminatory.   The opponents of the surrogacy bid claimed that children being raised by a mother and a father is "genetic".   They said that any other means of raising children, such as by two men, is bad for the children.   But thatıs not the real reason that right wingers are so intent on supporting the traditional kind of family.   Colin Wilson, author of Socialists and Gay Liberation, points out that such people "argue for 'family values' because the family saves them money."   In the nuclear family, women are expected to bear and raise children, and do the housekeeping, without being paid.   This is a great saving of money for the bosses ­ their profits couldn't bear having to pay for such services.   Right wingers also approve of "traditional families" where children are trained to strictly obey their parents. This prepares them for a lifetime of obeying bosses and governments.   Capitalism oppresses gays and lesbians for the same reason it oppresses women ­ to support the nuclear family structure.   It's only since the mid-19th century that "homosexuals" have been considered a separate class of people.   Before then, gay sex was thought of as something anyone might do.   But the mid-19th century was the time when Victorian ideas of the nuclear family, of women's and children's obedience to men, were being pushed.   It became useful to pretend that same-sex attraction was something that only happened to a "sick" minority.   Modern science, however, is increasingly showing that this isn't true.   A survey published by Otago University in April has shown that 26% of women have sexual feelings for other women at some stage in their life. But only 2% of those surveyed described themselves as entirely homosexual.   The survey also showed that self-harm was much more prevalent among those who had experienced same-sex attraction.   According to Wilson, "Society gives only two categories ­ gay and straight ­ for us to fit our own sexual development into. This is a very restricted choice."   It's not surprising that people who have to make that choice suffer from depression and other mental illness.   There's no reason children can't be raised, happy and healthy, by any kind of family or parents.   Conservative "family values" aren't about the rights of the child. They're about protecting profits.   Gay relationships and solo mothers are equally a threat to the idea that men should do paid work while women have kids and keep house for free.

Uni staff unite for strength by Grant Brookes and AUS activist Daphne Lawless   The three unions covering staff at New Zealand's eight universities ­ AUS, ASTE and PSA ­ have launched a joint campaign to establish national collective bargaining.   Members of the biggest union, AUS, will vote this month on a campaign for a single agreement covering academics and another national agreement for non-academic staff.   Uniting workers nationally could boost their power to challenge Labour's whole corporate agenda on campus ­ if union officials are prepared to lead such a challenge.   Labour launched their Tertiary Education Strategy last year. Under the guise of "nation-building", they want to gear tertiary education even more towards the needs of business.   NZUSA student president Andrew Campbell said that the Strategy will turn tertiary education into "little more than a factory to produce the specific skill needs of business".   Labour also wants to see closer partnership between business and university researchers to kick-start their "Knowledge Wave".   Already, universities do more research for private corporations than anyone else. The University of Auckland earns over $40 million a year in private work.   The main beneficiaries are multinational drug companies like Bristol Myers Squibb, who use the university as their publicly-subsidised research department.   The workers doing the research see no benefit, and often face job insecurity.   On top of this, Labour is lining up with the US in free trade talks for a General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). GATS increases the pressure to open up education to multinational corporations.   At present, staff at each university negotiate their own employment agreements.   This means, as a recent AUS Bulletin puts it, that outcomes at each university have reflected not only how well-funded each individual university is, but how strong the unions are at each individual university are.   Overall, salaries have slipped to 35 percent below Australian levels as workloads have skyrocketed.   National bargaining, on the other hand, would mean that the unions could bring their whole nationwide strength to bear on employers.   The May issue of the AUS Bulletin rightly says that a national agreement will "increase employee voice in decision-making".   But union leaders must encourage members to use that voice to speak up against corporate control of education.

War,corporate rule & resistance   Two months after the end of the war in Iraq, Helen Clark's refusal to publicly support the US can increasingly be seen for what it was ­ a blip.   Labour's reservations were always based on fears that war could stoke tensions between the US and Europe and undermine multilateral free trade talks in the World Trade Organisation (WTO).   Now that US bullying and deal-making has won European backing for their colonial occupation of Iraq, Labour's swinging back firmly into the US camp.   Helen Clark's apologies to George Bush were re-played for weeks. Now Labour is stepping up support for Bush's "war on terrorism".   Last month, New Zealand's military contribution was boosted with the departure of an air force Orion. A Hercules aircraft has been committed, to help in ferrying US forces.   Further New Zealand troops are promised, including a possible contingent to boost the occupation force in Iraq.   Foreign minister Phil Goff has even offered to send troops into Palestinian areas to police Bush's "road map".   Meanwhile, Labour has carefully avoided condemning Indonesia, America's Asian ally in the "war on terrorism", for their latest onslaught to suppress self-determination in Aceh.   In swinging back in behind Bush, Labour is bowing to pressure from business at home.   A flick through any issue of the National Business Review shows that New Zealand's biggest corporations remain obsessed about a free trade deal with America.   They also want US muscle to impose corporate globalisation for their mutual benefit.   This is why Labour has signed up to America's WTO case to force open European markets to genetically engineered food.   The top leaders of the Council of Trade Unions scarcely lifted a finger against the war in Iraq. They remain wedded to "partnership" with Labour and business.   But increasingly ­ like an iceberg, 90 percent invisible below the surface ­ ordinary people are gearing up to fight.   They join rising resistance around the globe.   All that Labour has to offer is a world of war and corporate rule. But out of this resistance is emerging a new left who demand an alternative.

'What can I possibly do in my union?'   At the National Peace Workshops in Christchurch last month, I called for activists to spread the anti-war message inside the trade union movement.   After my talk, a woman rose and said, "Well look, I'm a member of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists ­ what could I do where I am?"   Her tone suggested that she wasn't very hopeful about pushing peace issues in her workplace or union.   As she spoke, I recalled a previous workers' struggle in the streets of Wellington. Hearing the sounds of a particularly rowdy demonstration, I turned the corner and saw that the racket came from bank tellers, protesting outside their workplace.   I can't recall what their dispute was about, but vividly retain the image of those neat, tidy, customer-service trained staff in full battle cry.   Beneath different surface appearances, the problems and responses of all of us who live by selling our labour power are very similar. That's why methods of organising in blue-collar unions apply to professional workers' associations.   The following (with some additions) is my response to the medical worker's question.   Workers' organisation on the job has huge potential for social change. As consumers, workers are scattered, powerless individuals who can be pushed around by the market. But as producers, in combination, we've got unlimited potential power.   On our jobs we have, between all of us, the production of society's needs in our hands. This gives us the opportunity to use our workers' organisation to effect social change.   Organising for social change in your union starts right where you work.   First off, talk to the other people working in your section about your concerns and suggest taking some action together.   That might sound too elementary to be worth mentioning, but in real life it doesn't happen as much as it should.   More common is individuals calling on an MP, city councillor or union official and asking them to do something. All too often this results in a dead end; the problem's passed to an official preoccupied with other matters and no more is heard of the matter.   Collectively organising inside your own section means you can keep ownership of your protest and keep it developing. Two or three heads are better than one; your workmates will have all sorts of ideas that you wouldn't have thought of by yourself.   Having got some measure of agreement with your workmates on the issue, the next thing is to get some collective action happening.   Collective action can begin with a joint letter, a petition or a resolution to put at an upcoming union meeting or conference.   Why not compose a remit for your union to put at the upcoming Council of Trade Unions conference in October this year? This is an under-used organising tool with a lot of potential. The process of compiling a remit in your section and winning further support for it can lead to other workers sharing ownership of the issue. Then, if the remit is passed at the conference, it can involve others again in the struggle to carry it out E-mail is a handy organising tool, as long as it's used in connection with other methods. The currently popular e-mail petitions highlight issues, but generate negligible political pressure. It should also be remembered that not everyone has e-mail. Computers can't substitute for direct contact with people in other workplaces and unions.   Outreaching activities can include setting up an information stall, inviting a lunchtime speaker, starting a workplace newsletter, and writing a leaflet to distribute at another workplace.   All these activities are based on a concept of unionism as workers' combined self-activity. That's not the only view of unionism, nor is it the prevailing one in Aotearoa today. Negotiation with employers and lobbying of MPs by professional union functionaries is what passes for unionism in most quarters. The basic role allotted to most union members is payment of dues and passive acceptance of service rendered by the expert professionals.   This model of unionism can't develop a strong movement because it avoids making full use of unionism's main asset ­ the united activity of the members.   During the recent wave of anti-war protest, only a tiny minority of union officials called meetings of members to discuss the war.   Most officials ignored the issue and some actually moved to deflect members' calls for action. Most of the union members who marched against the war did so as individuals. Widespread anti-war organisation of workplaces could conceivably have built up to a national stoppage, such as was taken by Greek and Italian workers.   Day to day industrial issues also depend on united action from below.   Last year's school teachers' strikes were fought without active support from other unions. Instead of mobilising support for the strikers, Council of Trade Unions president Ross Wilson publicly attacked them. To their credit, the workers were undeterred.   Rank and file teachers from different schools contacted and encouraged each other, creating the militant groundswell of protest that finally forced concessions from the government.   Unionism first began in exactly this way, by workers getting together, deciding on and taking their own action, in defiance of the employers and the state. A more effective way for workers to advance the cause of peace and justice has yet to be discovered.

W.T.O spells GE free wake-up call by David Colyer   Labour's policy of supporting ³a rules-based international order" gained credibility when it was the justification for not supporting the US-led invasion of Iraq.   During the war Socialist Worker pointed out that this ³international order" also included US-led institutions of global capitalism, like the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and International Monetary Fund.   In May, this side of the policy was revealed when the government announced their support for an American attempt through the WTO to force Europe to accept genetically engineered (GE) food.   One of the reasons Labour declined to support the war, was their fear that war-related tensions ­ between the US and Britain on the one hand, and France and Germany on the other ­ would hinder negotiations in the WTO.   Now the Americans, spurred by apparent success in Iraq, are flexing their economic muscles.   Labour is not simply bowing to American pressure (although that no-doubt plays a part). They themselves are determined to use the WTO and other economic agreements to win access to overseas markets for New Zealand exporters.   The development of a high-tech genetic engineering/bio-tech industry is also a key part of Labour's business plan. GE free movement   The case should be a wake up call for supporters of a GE free Aotearoa. It shows that with only five months before the end of the moratorium on commercial release, Labour remains totally committed to GE.   The moratorium was introduced a year-and-a-half ago to pacify the massive GE free movement, which had just held a 20,000 strong march in Auckland.   The moratorium was a sure sign that the movement had the politicians worried, but it also helped to deflate it.   Since then, there has been one other big protest last November. Other than that, there's been a big fall off in the number of people actively involved in the movement.   A comparatively small number of activists have continued to make submissions to various government bodies, but these submissions have had little effect.   Together with the worse than expected results for the Green Party in last year's election, this has left many GE free activists feeling powerless and pessimistic. This is linked to a number of changes in the movement.   Last month, Green co-leader Rod Donald called on his party to soften its opposition to GE as the price of a future coalition with Labour.   There has also been a change in the arguments put forward by the GE free movement. It has become increasingly common for statements from groups like   GE Free NZ, Mothers Against Genetic Engineering and the Green Party, to emphasise the damage that not being GE free could have on New Zealand's farming and tourism industries and the so-called ³Brand NZ".   This is an attempt to turn the government's rhetoric against them, and appeal to New Zealand business.   They hope a majority of capitalists can be convinced that GE is bad for business. Some GE campaigners think this will work because they believe that   Labour has been hijacked by foreign biotech bosses, against the "national interest" of New Zealand.   It is certainly true that democracy is being undermined by Labour's slavish devotion to corporate interests. But corporate support for GE is not restricted to a small group of capitalists in the biotech industry.   Fonterra, New Zealand's biggest multinational corporation, is totally committed to GE.   The dairy giant sees GE as a bridge into the lucrative pharmaceuticals industry. Fonterra is jointly owned by thousands of dairy farmers. This alone gives GE a strong local support base.   The forestry industry, another huge player in the economy, also sees GE as a potential cash cow.   Other capitalists, who don't expect to benefit from GE directly, see it as an important part of a wider plan for the future of New Zealand business ­ the so-called "Knowledge Wave". Corporate system   This vision is also central to Labour's economic plans and to their hopes of maintaining business support.   As finance minister Michael Cullen said in a speech to business leaders in March 2001, "I firmly believe that a large part of the process of economic transformation will have to involve the development and application of new biotechnologies."   At the height of the GE free movement many activists placed the dangers of GE in the context of a system dominated by corporations and politicians who constantly put profits ahead of people and our environment.   Labour Party and business leaders rightly saw the GE free movement as a threat to their ability to shape the economy as they see fit. They knew that if the GE free movement was successful then they would face greater resistance to their profit-motivated agenda in other areas.   For these reasons, the strategy of appealing to New Zealand business in the name of the "national interest" and :Brand NZ" will fail. To stay GE free we need to rebuild the GE free campaign into a movement of tens of thousands.   We must also revive the anti-corporate politics which helped show people how GE was linked to other issues that affected them, and how the fight against the GE is part of a wider struggle for a better world.

top

SWMR Archive 2003 main