|
| March 2003 |
|
Building peace the UN contribution by Jordan Carter (Jordan Carter is President of Young Labour, the youth wing of the NZ Labour Party. The views presented here do not necessarily represent Young Labour or the Labour Party.) ---------------- UN a tool for the big powers by David Colyer ---------------- Editorial: The power to stop the war Helen Clark's reaction to the huge wave of anti-war protests that swept the country on February 15 said it all. The anti-war demonstrations were the biggest in 30 years. The prime minister, who says she doesn't support a unilateral US attack, dismissed the demonstrations as "relatively small". ---------------- February 15: Birth of a mass movement compiled by David Colyer ---------------- What kind of direct ation do we need to stop the war? by Grant Brookes (editor of Socialist Worker Monthly Review) Helen Clark's public dismissal of the mass anti-war protests on February 15 has sparked debate in the movement about what actions can force her to change her stance. ---------------- GATS - Labour signs up to corporate charter by Grant Brookes Labour released its draft policy on the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)..a treaty being negotiated through the World Trade Organisation. It will set new rules to make it easier for private companies to own and control a huge range of public servies, including schools, hospitals and water supplies. ---------------- Global direct action to stop the war machine by Suzette Jackson (Campaign Assistant for Greenpeace New Zealand) Peaceful, non-violent direct action is a principal tool of Greenpeace in its campaigns. ---------------- International Women's Day by Daphne Lawless ---------------- When freedom was in reach The Russian Revolution of October 1917 was a milestone for women's freedom. ---------------- Peaceful occupation attacked at Ngawha by Vaughan Gunson 50 police and Department of Corrections staff were involved in an operation to forcibly remove protesters from the Ngawha prison site in Northland. ---------------- Phil Goff no friend of democracy in Zimbabwe by Daphne Lawless ---------------- Pianist hits the key notes by Andrew Stone When the Nazis invaded Warsaw in September 1939, 360,000 of the city's 1 million inhabitants were Jewish.By the time the Nazis retreated in January 1945 there were only 20 Jews left alive.The Pianist is the story of Wladyslaw Szpilman, one of those survivors. ---------------- Song: Take the guns out of their hands Don Franks Feb 2003 ---------------- Industrial Action: Stop the war, stop the sellout! a regular column by Don Franks Today,workers in many countries are using their union organisation to prepare the civil disobedience that will be necessary to stop America's invasion of Iraq. Some unionists plan strike action. ---------------- Taking the anti-war message into the unions The top leaders of the CTU are refusing to condemn war on Iraq unconditionally or to criticise Labour's behind-the-scenes support for war. ---------------- Why no freedom to strike? A just released Council of Trade Unions commissioned study by professor Gordon Anderson has proved what many have long suspected: court of appeal decisions heavily discriminate in favour of employers over workers. ---------------- |
|
Building peace the UN contribution by Jordan Carter (Jordan Carter is President of Young Labour, the youth wing of the NZ Labour Party. The views presented here do not necessarily represent Young Labour or the Labour Party.) ---------- Iraq. Peace. War. Palestine. Protest. As the flood of weaponry, troops and tension into the Middle East has accelerated in recent months, vigorous debate has emerged on the Left about several aspects of the international system, including the United Nations. Our world is full of conflict. In almost every continent there is war of some sort going on, and has been since the UNıs founding in 1945. Along with the big conflicts Korea, Vietnam, wars in the Middle East there have been others of differing scale and intensity at all times, in many places. Both during the Cold War and after, peace has been an ideal not a reality. Yet, to argue that the UN has no impact in building a more peaceful world calls for a credible counterfactual scenario that would see a more stable world without it. Such a scenario is difficult to imagine, considering the work for peace the UN system already does. It is worth remembering that the UN is more than the Security Council, or the General Assembly. When you add the Secretariat, the International Court of Justice, the Economic and Social Council and the Trusteeship Council, you are still only scratching the surface of an international treaty-based UN system that includes literally thousands of organisations. The UN in its broadest sense is involved with most areas of international relations, and is a prime force behind development, democratisation and peace efforts worldwide. Consider the fact that many wars, especially in poorer countries, are about vital resources the basic food and water required for survival. To the extent that UN efforts reduce poverty and competition for resources in and between developing countries, they contribute to a reduction in conflict, terror and hunger. Without the UN system or a similar set of institutions, development programmes would not occur on the scale they do now, or would be a fertile ground for the development of neo-colonial relationships between rich and poor. Even looking more narrowly at the key political institutions of the core UN, the Security Council, General Assembly and Secretariat, their presence does not of itself make peace less likely. All three institutions have over the years provided a forum for resolving differences, and bringing about speedier ends to conflicts than might have otherwise been the case. The record of UN peacekeeping operations, while very far from perfect and often implemented years too late, does include real successes. In the current situation, with an international system dominated by the United States to an extraordinary extent, the most likely current alternative to the UN framework a rules based, multilateral one is a return to the unconstrained gun-boat diplomacy of the nineteenth century. The fact that many of us on the Left contest American hegemony, and question the mandate of the UN system (particularly the Security Council with its hangover veto for the five permanent members) does not mean that the system is worse than nothing at all. Clearly the Security Council is an imperfect reflection of the interests of the 'international community' it claims to speak for. But it is far better that the Security Council claims that voice than that the White House does. It is our responsibility, I believe, to defend a system that while far from perfect commands remarkably widespread public sympathy and support. As social democrats, socialists or others on the Left of politics, our responsibility goes far wider than just that, and we need to keep making suggestions for improvement; to imagine and build a most just global framework. Any such framework will build a living solidarity between peoples and states, and since the UN itself is based on international co-operation, it provides a starting point, if nothing else. Briefly back to Iraq we would see a much more peaceful world if the UN's will on the Palestine/Israel conflict was being enforced with anything like the vigour Iraq is currently facing. This simply highlights the extent of American power, and the fact the UN has not been able to deal with the problem effectively does not mean the framework itself is broken, in my view. It is better that there is a multilateral framework that retains some legitimacy, than to replace it with what would clearly be a worse alternative. At the grassroots level, UN programmes do make a real difference to the lives of millions of people, and by doing so they help build a more peaceful world. At the political level, the institutions of the UN do have a record of successful mediation and intervention to prevent or end conflicts. For these reasons, it is a force for peace. |
|
UN a tool for the big powers by David Colyer (David is a member of Socialist Worker and former editor of Socialist Worker Monthly Review.) "A Security Council decision has the force of international law and must be complied with." That's how foreign affairs minister Phil Goff explains why his government would back an invasion of Iraq if the UN Security Council voted for it. Jordan points out that the UN system embraces thousands of organisations. But standing over them all is the Security Council, the only UN body with real decision-making power. It is dominated by its five permanent members: America, Britain, France, Russia and China. These countries each have a veto. That means they can stop any action they disagree with, even if all the other countries in the Security Council, or the entire General Assembly,vote for it. As a result, the UN has only ever intervened when it suits all permanent members. Likewise, it has never intervened to protect a country from an attack by one of the great powers or their allies. The US-led war in Vietnam and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan are just two of the many brutal wars waged by the permanent members of the UN Security Council. The fact that the big powers can ignore 'international law' when it suits them means that rather than providing an alternative to big power dominance, the UN and 'international law' are another tool for them to use against poorer nations. John Bolton, presently the US undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, sums up the attitude of George W Bush's regime. "There is no United Nations", he said. "There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power in the world and that is the United States." Helen Clark talks of 'a rules-based international order' as the only way to curb American unilateralism. Labour leaders regard the World Trade Organisations as part of this "rules-based order". Together with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the World Trade Organisation plays a key role in enforcing the free market policies of capitalist globalisation. US dominance is built into the structure of these institutions. It uses them to pressure poor countries to vote its way in the UN. Yemen was a temporary member of the Security Council at the time of the last Gulf War. It refused to vote for an invasion of Iraq. Minutes after the pro-war resolution was passed, US ambassador Pickering told the Yemeni ambassador, "That was the most expensive no vote you ever cast." Within three days the US halted a US$70 million aid programme to one of the world's poorest countries. The World Bank and IMF blocked loans which cost the impoverished country around US$1 billion. Talk of reforming the UN is unrealistic. The last thing the great powers are going to do is give up their positions on the Security Council or their veto. Even if the UN was somehow restructured, the big powers would still have their military and economic dominance. Who would fund the UN, if not the nations which dominate it already? Who would provide the military force to implement its decisions? Offending the US is something that even a relatively wealthy, Western country like New Zealand dare not do. In her Listener interview this month Clark refused to openly criticise US war plans, because to do so could "destroy long-term relationships" with the US. At the same time, Labour is worried that the US could become too dominant. That's why they're not backing unilateral action. When Jim Sutton raised his concerns about US 'arm-twisting' in the UN, he went on to explain that he was worried a rift between the US and France and Germany will slow down the World Trade Organisationıs push for free trade. Just as the US is waging war to gain control of oil and bolster its economic dominance, so our own government's policy of 'multi-lateralism' is based on the interests of New Zealand's export industries. The drive to war is exposing the conflicts that exist between the rulers of the so-called United Nations not just between the US and Iraq, but between the US and France, Russia, China, Germany and others, who are reluctant to back the war. But at the same time, the threat of war is helping to forge a new unity among grass-roots people the world over. Millions have marched to show their opposition to warmongering rulers, and to demand a world without war. The February 15 international day of action was called by the European Social Forum in Italy last November. In January, the World Social Forum in Brazil endorsed it. The social forums arose from the global anti-capitalist movement. Their slogan is 'A better world is possible'. The real hope for those who want peace and cooperation between the peoples of the world lies not in the United Nations but in building on the living solidarity that already exists in the united global movements against capitalism and war. Together, ordinary people workers can overcome the power of the warmongers and build a better world. |
|
The power to stop the war Helen Clark's reaction to the huge wave of anti-war protests that swept the country on February 15 said it all. The prime minister, who says she doesn't support a unilateral US attack, dismissed the demonstrations as "relatively small". Her words, as Auckland protest leader John Minto pointed out, were "an arrogant insult to the people who marched". The anti-war demonstrations on February 15 were the biggest in 30 years. If Clark really opposed war, she should have been marching with us. Instead, she said she saw no need to change the government's stance. That stance includes a promise to drop her "opposition" to war in the event of a UN mandate, a refusal to condemn America's war plans and the contribution of a frigate and an air force Orion to the US military build-up in the Persian Gulf. It includes a state banquet in honour of the warmongering Australian Prime Minister, John Howard. Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons warned that "Helen Clark would do well to remember how Keith Holyoake dismissed Vietnam War protests as "irrelevant'. "Make no mistake about it: to the people of this generation, this is our Vietnam." Even columnist Chris Trotter, who supports Clark, was moved to ask, "If 10 million-20 million people around the globe were willing to hit the streets before a single shot has been fired, how many does the Prime Minister think will protest at the spectacle of Baghdad in flames?" The Vietnam War protests created political earthquakes around the world. They fed into mass struggles for civil rights, women's liberation and gay liberation. In the 1970s, this mood of resistance sparked huge industrial struggles that rocked the power of the biggest corporations. Rod Donald told a protest in Christchurch this month that today's anti-war movement has already had an effect on the government. Certainly, Clark's face is suddenly appearing everywhere, from magazine covers to TV interview programmes, trying to convince us of her stance. But despite her words, Clark's actions are still supporting the warmongers. On the streets of New Zealand we have glimpsed the power to change her mind about war. Writ large on the face of the earth, we have seen the power to stop it. |
|
February 15: Birth of a mass movement compiled by David Colyer Auckland Auckland's march on February 15 exceeded all expectations. The Sunday Star Times reported 10,000. By Monday it's website had upped the figure to 15,000. "No blood for oil, on Iraqi soil!" and 1,2,3,4 we don't want your racist war!" rang out as the huge march forced police to shut down all four lanes and the entire length of Queen Street. People were still leaving the starting point as the head of the march reached a rally in Myers Park several kilometres away. John Minto, spokesperson for the Global Peace and Justice Auckland coalition, read out three resolutions which were carried by a series of cheers from around the park. "This rally condemns American plans to invade Iraq whether or not the UN Security Council is pressured to agree." "This rally condemns the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military strikes as a reckless threat to world peace." "This rally urges the New Zealand government to actively oppose American plans to invade Iraq and to withdraw our frigate and Orion aircraft from the Gulf region." The anti-war movement is tapping into a wider anti-capitalist mood and dissatisfaction with Labour. "Iraq is a catalyst", explained Auckland high school student Miriam Pierard. "Plenty of young people have been concerned about other issues, but before now there's been nothing significant enough for them to stand up and join a group." The mushrooming anti-war movement is likely to deepen Labour's problems. After an anti-war concert on Sunday, hundreds marched to the prime minister's plush residence to deliver a 30 metre long banner signed by thousands of people. As they marched, tired but ecstatic, they were chanting "Send the MP's off to war. Give their houses to the poor!" Wellington The Sunday Star Times called it the "capital's biggest protest in 20 years". It was certainly the largest anti-war demonstration since Vietnam. Over 5,000 people marched through central Wellington on February 15 to protest against war on Iraq. Jewish people and Palestinians, Maori and Pakeha, Muslims, Christians and those with no religious belief marched side by side. Some were marching again for the first time in years. For others it was their first protest. Despite this, chants rose up spontaneously from within the march. A group of young people called "Americans against the war" set up a lively rhythm with theirs: "Oil, consumption, will not be solved by mass destruction that's bullshit! Get off it, the enemy is profit!" The march was so big that organisers from Peace Action Wellington were forced to lead it past the planned end point as the crowd was too big to fit in the park. Brushing past police, the march flowed into parliament grounds instead. Green MP Keith Locke was cheered as he spoke to the rally over a hastily erected sound system. "It doesn't matter if the bombs are UN sanctioned to the people they're falling on", he said. "If the government really opposes war, then their first step should be to withdraw the frigate from the Gulf." Labour MP Winne Laban was moved by the overwhelming anti-war mood to join the march. She later said that she supported the government's position, "but on a personal level I'm opposed to war". Banners from the Service and Food Workers Union, the Nurses' Organisation, the Maritime Union, the university staff AUS union and Unite showed the start of union involvement in Wellington's anti-war movement. Local officials from the Council of Trade Unions, under growing pressure from rank and file union members, marched with a CTU banner for the first time. In the week that followed, the local affiliates council of the CTU called a meeting to discuss how the union movement could work more closely with Peace Action Wellington. Up and down the country Over 3,000 people marched in Dunedin. A similar number attended Christchurch's peace picnic, where many expressed their desire for a more militant protest. Peace action has also spread outside the main centres. "We think that 100 people out of a total population of around 6,000 was a good turnout," said an activist in Thames. The Bay of Plenty saw 80 people march in Opotiki and 150 in a Whakatane demonstration. In Whakatane, placards included: "No blood for oil", "We want Peace", and "War is terror". In Rotorua, 500 people marched to the office of the local Labour MP Steve Chadwick. He fronted up, but demonstrators dismissed what said as "rhetoric". Older marchers were encouraged by "The presence of a large number of lively young people." There were protests in towns from Whangarei to Timaru. Often February 15 was used to form peace groups to plan future action. |
|
GATS - Labour signs up to corporate charter by Grant Brookes Labour released its draft policy on the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) on February 4. The final policy, outlining New Zealandıs negotating position, is due to be released on March 31. GATS is a treaty being negotiated through the World Trade Organisation. It will set new rules to make it easier for private companies to own and control a huge range of public servies, including schools, hospitals and water supplies. This would see more of the job losses and service cuts that privatisation has brought already. Many opponents of GATS argue that the treaty puts the interests of foreign corporations especially US multinationals uppermost. They say that 'New Zealand's interests' should come first instead. But as prime minister Helen Clark told a meeting of business people in New York that "there is strong convergence between United States and New Zealand interests in the WTO negotiations". Secret documents leaked to radical academic Jane Kelsey show that New Zealand is going even further than the US in demanding privatisation of public services in Europe. 'New Zealand interests' is a code word for the interests of New Zealand corporations, which overlap with those of the US. GATS should be opposed because it puts the interests of corporations of all countries over the interests of workers. Over 100 people crowded into Wellington City Council Chambers on January 30 to attend the launch of Jane Kelseyıs report on GATS. Organisers from Arena commented, "To get that many people to a launch of a report about an international trade treaty, especially when the launch date and venue had been set for less than a week, shows how quickly the level of concern about GATS is growing". Maori, students, local councillors and trade unionists were represented. Eileen Brown from the nurses' union, NZNO, told the meeting, "We don't know what impact GATS will have on the health service. "Helen Clark has told us that health will not be included, but we have no confidence in this." The pressure from below is creating tensions inside the government. The Independent Business Weekly reported in January that the cabinet was split over GATS. The publication of a discussion document on GATS had to be delayed. The Council of Trade Unions is now calling for the deadline of March 31, when the government is due to announce its final position, to be scrapped. What is GATS? The General Agreement on Trade in Services was drawn up at the World Trade Organisation in 1994. Article 19 from this treaty commits governments to "achieving a progressively higher level of liberalisation and increasing the general level of specific commitments undertaken by members". GATS covers 160 sectors including schools, hospitals, rubbish collection and libraries. Negotiations are now under way to extend the agreement. By March 31 all the 140 countries in the WTO will have to state which of their own services will be covered by new GATS rules. The WTO ministerial summit (similar to the 1999 Seattle meeting) at Cancun in Mexico in September will then hold major talks about the scope and power of GATS rules. The entire process is supposed to finish by 2005. Last April the draft of what changes the European Union (EU) wanted in other countries' laws were leaked to GATS campaigners and the press. This was a 1,000-page wish list of the rules and regulations that EU corporations want eliminated. The draft showed plans for further private sector involvement in key services including water, electricity, postal services and telecommunications worldwide. Why are vital services being targeted? The Service sector is vast. According to the European Commission, "This sector accounts for two thirds of the EU's economy and jobs, almost a quarter of the EUıs total exports and a half of all foreign investment flowing from the EU to other parts of the world." The World Bank calculates that privately backed service infrastructure developments (water, sewage, transport, telecoms, energy) rose from US$15.6 billion a year in 1990 to US$120 billion a year in 1997. Businesses want to grab more profits from services. But at present much of the sector is controlled or regulated by governments. In Europe in particular most health and education services are run by the state. It would be a hugely juicy market if it was opened up entirely to business. If GATS is passed, how can we fight back against it? It's wrong to think that if GATS is passed then there is nothing we can do about privatisation. Governments do not need GATS to go ahead with privatisation. Labour are already lining up to re-privatise Air NZ. Local councils are moving towards privatisation of water supplies. Labour also wants more private control over university research and teaching as part of its "knowledge wave". However, GATS will entrench and develop such moves. The government could always stand up to the WTO and other bodies. Powerful countries already brush aside WTO rules when they are inconvenient. George Bush defied WTO rules to impose tariffs on steel imports to the US. Labour refuses to stand up to the WTO because they believe in the central message of being 'business friendly' and 'pro-competition'. Is more 'national sovereignty' the answer? It is no answer to call for more power for national states as a counterweight to bodies like the WTO or huge multinationals. As John Pilger has written, "For all the vivid examples of modern corporate power, such as the annual income of Motorola being equal to the annual income of Nigeria's 118 million people, it is folly to believe that big business on its own is shaping the new world order. "This allows the argument against globalisation to be depoliticised, reducing it to single issues of 'ethical trading' and 'codes of conduct', and inviting its co-option. "Above all, it misses the point that state power in the West is accelerating." Struggles in Bolivia, South Africa, Europe and elsewhere have defeated multinationals or stopped governments selling off services. They show workers can fight privatisation. Beating GATS is part of a wider struggle to put people before profit and replace the system we live under with one where workers democratically decide issues of production and trade. |
|
Global direct action to stop the war machine by Suzette Jackson (Campaign Assistant for Greenpeace New Zealand) Peaceful, non-violent direct action is a principal tool of Greenpeace in its campaigns. Responding through direct action to environmental threats stems from the principle of 'bearing witness'. Greenpeace interprets bearing witness as conferring a moral responsibility to take non-violent direct action according to one's conscience. Greenpeace has its roots in the activities of a small group of dedicated people who, over 30 years ago, took a ship into a nuclear testing zone off the US coast to 'bear witness' for peace. We have been campaigning for the disarmament of weapons of mass destruction ever since. Greenpeace is opposed to war in Iraq and has launched an international campaign to prevent it. We are continuing to take non-violent direct action against the war around the world. We will remain opposed whether or not an attack is sanctioned by the United Nations. As an organisation based on principles of peace and non-violence, we strongly believe that violence cannot resolve conflict. We oppose the war because it would have devastating human and environmental consequences. Between 30 January and 5 February, Greenpeace volunteers set up peace camps at the Marchwood Military Port in Southampton, UK, where a constant stream of military hardware is being loaded onto ships heading for the Gulf. The first peace camp was established when five volunteers climbed on to the MV Lyra as it was leaving its anchorage. The second was on land. 14 Greenpeace volunteers entered the port, and occupied the tanks queued up to leave on the ships. Meanwhile, four volunteers chained themselves to the port's front gates, stopping truckloads of supplies from entering. Rotterdam harbour in the Netherlands was also the scene of opposition to the military build-up in the Gulf. Activists in canoes and inflatables attempted to prevent a cargo ship loaded with US military equipment, from leaving port. A few days later the Rainbow Warrior made a surprise appearance in the Belgian port of Antwerp, where US military materials, including helicopters, tanks, trucks and other vehicles are being loaded onto transport ships. Activists confronted a US military ship entering the locks at Antwerp. While four other ships were loading up with supplies and waiting to depart, activists used life rafts and canoes to build a floating peace camp along the quayside. There have been many other non-violent direct actions around the world. We have often given our support to the broader peace and environment movement, whether it is behind the scenes or in a more visible way. During the recent anti-war protests Greenpeace offices worldwide have been involved. For example, the UK office has joined the Stop the War Coalition along with over 450 local Stop the War groups around Britain. Greenpeace New Zealand sent out cyber-actions to our members to let them know about the upcoming rally and other events. We also flew large banners over the Americaıs Cup and Groove in the Park, and with an open letter to the Prime Minister in the New Zealand Herald, we advertised the upcoming rally. Through publicly visible direct actions and awareness raising, pressure is placed on world leaders to take notice and stop the war. |
|
International Women's Day by Daphne Lawless March 8 is International Womenıs Day. In 1910, German socialist Clara Zetkin proposed this date for the first 'Women's Day' for women workers of all countries. March 8 was chosen to commemorate a protest in New York two years earlier, when striking garment workers had marched to demand equal pay, childcare and the vote. Zetkin wanted to highlight that womenıs fight for freedom is a fight against capitalism. This year, all round the world women are organising demonstrations on March 8 against the war and sanctions on Iraq. International Women's Day is an occasion to protest against wars of aggression which serve the interests of big corporations but cause untold suffering to ordinary people. In Iraq, women and children have borne the brunt of 11 years of appalling economic sanctions and ongoing bombing raids by US and British warplanes. It is also a day to protest against injustice and inequality here. In New Zealand women are still denied equal pay women's average weekly wages are just 80 percent of men's. Equal pay is long overdue! Sole parents, most of whom are women, receive inadequate support and the DPB is well below a living income. The benefit cuts of 1991 caused great hardship and need to be reversed, now. |
|
When freedom was in reach The Russian Revolution of October 1917 was a milestone for women's freedom. For the first time in the history of civilisation the complete economic, political and sexual equality of women became a possibility. The Bolsheviks under Lenin and Trotsky envisaged that with the development of industry and a planned nationalised economy, women would be given the opportunity to work outside of the home. And with the establishment of political democracy at all levels, women would be able to play a full role in all spheres of political and social life. To achieve this goal, women would have to be released from the traditional confines of domestic chores, through the provision of cheap, good quality public dining halls, laundries, sewing centres, creches and nurseries. Property relationships changed to give women equal rights to hold land, be head of a household and to receive equal pay. Special maternity laws were introduced forbidding long hours and night work, and establishing paid leave at childbirth, family allowances and childcare centres. Abortion was legalised in 1920, divorce was simplified and civil registration of marriage was introduced. First step However as Lenin wrote on International Women's Day 1921, while "in Soviet Russia, no trace is left of any inequality between men and women under the law this is only the first step in the liberation of women". There had to be the practical means to ensure that legal equality could become a reality, as well as a fundamental change in attitudes about the role of women in society. Lenin emphasised that a campaign had to be waged within the Bolshevik party itself to change attitudes to women. He took to task the party activists who paid lip service to the emancipation of women yet refused their own wives the opportunity to participate in the work of the Zhenotdel, the women's department of the Bolshevik party. The specific task of the womenıs department was to bring the broad mass of women into politics by visiting factories and villages, selling the monthly Kommunistka (circulation about 30,000), organising literacy classes and discussion circles. Material advances were also made to allow the full involvement of women in all spheres of social, economic and political life: the provision of free school meals, milk for all children, special food and clothes allowances for children in need, pregnancy consultation centres, maternity homes, creches and other facilities. Between 1919 and 1920, 90 percent of Russiaıs capital, Petrograd, was fed communally. But by 1921 the economy was in ruins following three years of savage civil war. The working class in the cities was drastically weakened and exhausted, many of the best elements having been killed in the civil war. The resources available did not match up to the plans and hopes of the Communist Party or to the needs of the workers and peasants. Russia's isolation and economic backwardness laid the basis for inequality and privilege in Soviet Russia. The Bolsheviks recognised that, within the bounds of what was possible, the degree of emancipation of women was a measure of the success of the revolution. In the early days of the revolution Lenin used the same yardstick of success that Marx and Engels took: "No nation can be free when half the population is enslaved in the kitchen". The conclusion to be drawn must be that there is, as yet, still no society internationally where children, women and men have been liberated. |
|
Peaceful occupation attacked at Ngawha by Vaughan Gunson 50 police and Department of Corrections staff were involved in an operation to forcibly remove protesters from the Ngawha prison site in Northland. On February 12 they moved on to the site, arresting 5 people and destroying a barricade of old cars blocking the main entrance. Witnesses said that police ignored promises given by the Corrections Department that those on the designated occupation area (a hill to the side of the entrance road) would not be arrested. Instead, protesters were arrested even after they had removed themselves from the entrance road, following the first trespass warning given by police. It appeared that police were targeting key activists. The occupation is a threat to the authority of the police in the region, and to the government who are intent on building the prison. The Noho Rangimarie (peaceful occupation) had been in progress for 66 days, while the barricade had prevented large earth moving machinery getting onto the construction site. The success of the struggle has pushed the government and the Department of Corrections onto the defensive. In an article in the Sunday Star Times on March 2, project director John Hamilton justified the unpopular prison as a less oppressive place than Mt Eden or Paremoremo prisons. "A sense of space and openness, low buildings, plantings and usable outdoor areas are features of this facility", said Hamilton. The other claim for the prison is that inmates 70% of whom are expected to be Maori will be close to whanau in Northland. Both these arguments, put forward to counter the ongoing protests, do not account for the main motivating factor for opponents. To Ngapuhi, who have cultural and historical connections to the Ngawha site, and to many other working class Northlanders, the prison is an insult. It says, "this all you are worth". Successive governments have closed hospitals and restricted surgery in the North, depleted the state housing resource, and slashed benefit levels. In the process they have created extreme poverty and deprivation amongst large sections of the population. It is these social conditions that lead to crime. The Labour government should be tackling the poverty in the region and throughout New Zealand not building another prison, no matter how "innovative". The $130 million, and rising, that the Labour government is spending on the prison could be used to better the lives of so many Northlanders. The opponents of the Ngawha prison are vowing to continue their struggle, with actions planned over the coming weeks at the prison site and the nearby Kaikohe District Court where the 5 arrested will appear. |
|
Phil Goff no friend of democracy in Zimbabwe by Daphne Lawless The English cricket team refused to play its World Cup cricket match in Zimbabwe on February 13 in protest against the regime of president Robert Mugabe. Two Zimbabwean cricketers, Andy Flower and Henry Olonga, have been disciplined for wearing black armbands to mourn the "death of democracy in our beloved Zimbabwe". While all this is going on, food shortages and inflation are making life miserable for ordinary Zimbabweans. And the leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) faces the death penalty on charges of plotting to kill Mugabe, backed up by very flimsy evidence. Our own foreign minister, Phil Goff, supported moving the World Cup matches out of Zimbabwe. He said that he wants to "make clear to President Mugabe that the whole international community views his actions as completely unacceptable". There's no doubt that Mugabe is a dictator, and his ZANU-PF party rules by intimidation. But the mainstream media and politicians have been concentrating on the eviction of white farmers from their land, rather than the misery of ordinary black Zimbabweans. It's a myth that Mugabe "hates whites". For most of Mugabe's 23 years in power he protected the privileges of the white minority. In 2000, 70 percent of the farmland in Zimbabwe was owned by just 4,000 white farmers, while 7 million black peasants had to scrape a living on the rest of it. Until very recently, Mugabe did very little to change this. It was because of Mugabe's indifference to the huge gap between rich and poor in his country that the MDC gained support in the late 1990s. The MDC are no real alternative to Mugabe their leadership have adopted free-market economic policies which would be just as bad for ordinary Zimbabweans. But pressure from below, including fear of an MDC victory at the polls, led Mugabe suddenly to demand the seizure of the huge white-owned farms. Opposing Mugabe's regime has always been dangerous. It's estimated that between 1981 and 1998, 20,000 dissidents against Mugabe's rule were killed. The mainstream media only began to take an interest when the rich white farmers started getting attacked. When Phil Goff talks about "the international community", he means the bosses and governments of the world, whose sympathies are with the rich and powerful in all countries. We should be supporting the people of Zimbabwe to get rid of both Mugabe, and the capitalist system which made it possible for a handful of white farmers to control the land. |
|
Pianist hits the key notes by Andrew Stone When the Nazis invaded Warsaw in September 1939, 360,000 of the city's 1 million inhabitants were Jewish. By the time the Nazis retreated in January 1945 there were only 20 Jews left alive.The Pianist is the story of Wladyslaw Szpilman, one of those survivors. Roman Polanski's understated film documents the growing horror of the occupation with the detached style of Szpilman's own book, Death of a City. We see the confiscation of Jewish property develop into starvation level rations. Separation, in the form of banning access to public transport, parks, benches and pavements leads to absolute segregation, as the Nazis wall up a whole section of the city and designate it the 'Jewish District'. This vast yet horribly overcrowded prison was rife with starvation and epidemics. Its boundaries were continually reduced until in July 1942, 300,000 people were deported to the Treblinka extermination camp. The Pianist is a compelling personal tale which must have been immensely difficult for Polanski to make. As he recounts, "I survived the Krakow ghetto (another Polish city subjected to similar abuse) and the bombing of Warsaw and I wanted to recreate my memories from childhood. "It was also important for me to remain as close to reality as possible, and not make a film that was typically Hollywood." This he achieves admirably. There is none of the overblown melodrama typical of Tinseltown. Szpilman's isolation develops after escaping the deportation to Treblinka, and later being smuggled from the ghetto to a series of safe houses. He flees shortly before the ghetto uprising, an inspiring insurrection of the 40,000 remaining Jews (only 200 of whom had obtained arms), which lasted almost a month and cost the Nazis severe casualties. It is here that the personalised narrative of the film is a disappointment. Polanski's refusal to follow Szpilman's family to Treblinka is understandable, given his own grief and his determination to avoid sentimentality. But only to see this uprising at a distance, through the curtains of Szpilman's window,feels a terrible letdown. There are many great films about the horrors of the Holocaust. It feels here as if an opportunity to explore the hope, the defiance against oppression, has been missed. The Pianist intelligently explores the little solidarities that existed in the midst of the desperate betrayals, the Jews who refused to police their people for petty privileges, the non-Jewish Poles who risked their lives to give sanctuary to people like Szpilman. Resistance is celebrated, albeit subtly, but tethered to the pianist's story we barely see the greatest collective act of Jewish resistance to the Nazis. This reservation aside, the film demands viewing. Two years before his death in July 2000, Wladyslaw Szpilman's book,which had been banned by Poland's Stalinist authorities in 1946, was finally republished. In between he pursued a highly successful musical career as a pianist and composer. His is first performance on Polish radio after the war was Chopin's Nocturne in D minor, the piece he had been playing when a Luftwaffe bomb interrupted him six years earlier. |
|
Industrial Action: Stop the war, stop the sellout! a regular column by Don Franks Today,workers in many countries are using their union organisation to prepare the civil disobedience that will be necessary to stop America's invasion of Iraq. Some unionists plan strike action. Workers in Aotearoa are also trying to oppose America's war through their unions PPTA members have passed jobsite resolutions. Rank and file demands for action prompted the Service and Food Workers central region executive to "oppose any military intervention in Iraq and support Peace Action Wellington". The urging of Wellington PSA members finally got their leaders to provide official advertising for the anti-war march. Some workers in Rotorua suggest that the Council of Trade unions organise a 24-hour general strike the day US forces invade Iraq. Such a strike would require a huge shift from the current CTU leaders' stance. Incredibly,CTU leaders have yet to actually take a genuine anti-war position. Until now,the CTU has only opposed a 'unilateral' declaration of war. It has not opposed an invasion sanctioned by the UN. Their latest resolution "calls on all countries to ensure that deliberations and decisions of the United Nations in relation to any matter (including war on Iraq),are free from threats of unilateral action or other undue social, political or economic pressure from any other country". Never mind "calls on all countries" what are they doing on their own patch? At the February 27 anti-war rally outside parliament, CTU representative Lyn Middleton told the crowd her organisation was "trying to get the government to do more to oppose the war". In fact, CTU officials are busy pushing a 'peace petition' praising present government policy! The petition says: "We endorse the November 22nd Statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs where he indicated that any government consideration for military assistance against Iraq needed to be United Nations mandated and within international law." That's not all. An angry Auckland unionist told Industrial Action that the meeting of the local Council of Trade Unions on February 20 "specifically agreed not to put anti-war demands on Helen Clark". Union leaders are keeping quiet to preserve their cosy relationship with government leaders. In the interest of preserving and advancing their personal careers,some top union officials are selling out on opposing Bush's war. We can stop this sellout by taking action ourselves. Move a motion on your job. Send a delegation to your MP in protest,and to your union office demanding action. Form an anti-war group on your job, in your union branch or in your area. |
|
Taking the anti-war message into the unions The top leaders of the CTU are refusing to condemn war on Iraq unconditionally or to criticise Labour's behind-the-scenes support for war. Socialist Worker activists are talking with rank and file union members about demanding more from the officials and not just on the war. If you can help to get leaflets out to workers, see the next page and contact the socialists near you! WELLINGTON The huge march in Wellington on February 15 was a big step forward for the movement. For the first time, there were sizeable contingents behind union banners. In the week beforehand, Socialist Worker activists went out to worksites with leaflets saying 'Workers can stop this war' and with flyers from Peace Action Wellington advertising the march. We talked to factory workers at shift changes at Griffins in Lower Hutt and Unilever in Petone. But our best response was at Wellington railway station, where our leaflet sparked a lively debate among the rail workers. One guard said he supported the war.His workmate immediately grabbed a handful of leaflets and argued with others to go on the protest. Another rail worker took a leaflet and said he would pin it up on the union noticeboard. A red-faced manager huffed and puffed about it being against the rules to hand out leaflets. After he turned his back, workers chipped in with helpful advice about the best places at the station for leafleting. At the anti-war rally at parliament the following Wednesday, the rail workers' RMT union banner was flying for the first time. One RMT member said he was there after seeing our leaflet on the noticeboard. CHRISTCHURCH Connecting with trade unionists was the big success of the Socialist Worker stall at Christchurch's peace picnic on February 15. About 250 Socialist Worker leaflets were handed out. One NDU organiser told how the officials are raising the war at workplace and delegate meetings. She paid $10 for a copy of Socialist Worker Monthly Review with a photo of the NDU banner on a Christchurch anti-war march on the back page. A former official from the Meatworkers' Union paid $40 for his. We're going to start a stall at the hospital at the 3pm shift changeover on Fridays to leaflet health workers. We're also planning to leaflet the annual regional conference of Service & Food Workers Union. ROTORUA About 500 people assembled at Rotorua's City Focus on February 15 to march against war. Among the speakers was George Jones from Socialist Worker The leaflet saying 'Workers can stop this war' has been delivered to 10 worksites, including the Waipa mill, Panahomes, Tachikawa, Rainbow Mountain Sawmills, Holmes Plastics and Hayes Engineering. Leaflets are being distributed by delegates in the Woodies section of the NDU. We got a good reception when we were invited to address workers at Panahomes about Iraq. |
|
Why no freedom to strike? A just released Council of Trade Unions commissioned study by professor Gordon Anderson has proved what many have long suspected: court of appeal decisions heavily discriminate in favour of employers over workers. "It seems some rather basic principles of fairness have gone out of the window in our highest appeal court", CTU president Ross Wilson responded. "It is unthinkable that the court would be responding to the sustained employer campaign on employment law, but it is difficult not to see a coincidence of events." It's actually very 'thinkable', Ross. The "sustained employer campaign against pro-worker court decisions is part of an overall bosses" campaign against health and safety reforms, holiday entitlements and job security provisions. To redress the discrimination in 'our court', Ross Wilson seeks a legislative solution, calling for the reinstatement of the old Personal Grievance provision. Fat chance. The PG legislation was introduced in the early 1970s, to prevent strikes over dismissal, at a time of widespread worker militancy. A real step towards justice for unfairly sacked workers would be for the CTU to organise a counter campaign, for workers' freedom to strike a freedom almost completely denied by Labour's present industrial laws. |
|
What kind of direct ation do we need to stop the war? by Grant Brookes (editor of Socialist Worker Monthly Review) Helen Clark's public dismissal of the mass anti-war protests on February 15 has sparked debate in the movement about what actions can force her to change her stance. Adding to this, examples of direct action overseas are exciting talk of similar tactics here. The direct actions by Greenpeace activists, including a number of New Zealanders, have received extensive media coverage. A lot of people must have cheered when they saw the pictures or read the reports of activists trying to stop the cargo ship from leaving Rotterdam. I know I did. But as Suzette points out, these direct actions were planned and carried out by a small group of dedicated people. So the cheering had to be from the sidelines. This is true not only for people in New Zealand, but also for the millions of Dutch people who oppose the war, including the port workers at Rotterdam harbour. After the cheering came the sobering thought that the Greenpeace people taking action were few. Once they were arrested, the work of loading the ships and transporting their deadly cargo to Iraq would go on. Mass direct action But there are other, more powerful kinds of direct action being talked about as well industrial action and mass direct action with the potential to involve millions. In January, a group of Scottish train drivers refused to move ammunition destined for British forces in the Gulf. That's now been followed by calls from a number of British unions for widespread strikes if war breaks out. Nine unions in Western Australia, covering 75,000 workers, have made similar calls. In Italy, where anti-war activists and rail workers are already taking direct action to stop the movement of weapons trains, the biggest union federation is considering a general strike. Here in New Zealand, direct action against the war started last month with an attempt to enter the US embassy compound in Wellington as part of a light-hearted 'Citizen Weapon Inspection Team'. Like the Greenpeace actions, it involved only a small number of dedicated people. Then at the start of March, a small group of Auckland activists made a move to enter Whenuapai air force base to 'ground the Orion' the plane that Helen Clark will send to the Gulf next month. They argued that protest marches, no matter how big, are "merely symbolic" and can't apply real pressure on the government. While calling for workers to take industrial action, they focus their energy on organising direct action against military facilities. But the action by the Scottish train drivers in January only came after anti-war protests in Britain that grew from 50,000 in October 2001 to 400,000 in November 2002. The calls for widespread stoppages in Britain came on February 15. That day,according to a survey in the Guardian newspaper, at least one person from every household in the country marched. In Australia, workers are drawing the confidence to take industrial action from the marches on February 14-16 which brought nearly a million people onto the streets. And in Italy, the mass direct action to stop the weapons trains came after a million-strong march against the war last November. There's a reason why mass marches are the key to industrial action against the war. It's a very rare jobsite where all the workers are radical already. Most workplaces are home to a variety of political opinions. But for industrial action to be effective, it has to be backed by a majority on the job. When an anti-war movement mobilises someone from every household in the country, opinions shift and large-scale strikes become a possibility. Marches like that can only be organised by broad anti-war coalitions. The great strength of coalitions like Global Peace and Justice Auckland, Peace Action Wellington and Christchurch's Peace Action Network is the wide range of groups involved. They bring together socialists and parties like the Alliance and the Greens even some Labour Party members are involved. They're also supported by big organisations like Greenpeace. They unite Christian churches and Muslim associations. And increasingly, they're drawing in students' associations and trade union leaders. By embracing such diverse groups, the broad anti-war coalitions are able to appeal to a wide cross-section of the population and mobilise big numbers on the streets. The small direct actions at the US embassy and at Whenuapai air force base, on the other hand, were organised by small groups apart from the broad anti-war coalitions. 'Chinese wall' There is no 'Chinese wall' separating protests from strikes. Because of this, our rulers have a primal fear of big demonstrations. Mass protests do apply real pressure to governments. On the same day that the Auckland activists attempted to 'ground the Orion', the Turkish parliament took fright at 100,000 protesters on the streets of Ankara and voted not to allow the deployment of US troops. There is a strong tradition of industrial action against war by New Zealand workers, from the refusal by watersiders in 1937 to load materials for Japan's war in China to the partial city-wide strike in Wellington when the nuclear warship USS Truxton sailed up the harbour in 1982. Strikes to demand no involvement in America's wars and mass direct actions against facilities that help them, like the Waihopai spy base or the US base at Harewood, are possible again. Right now, the best way to work towards them, and apply pressure on Helen Clark, is by organising within the broad anti-war coalitions to bring the biggest possible number of people onto the streets. |
|
Song: Take the guns out of their hands We've had singing and poems and picnics for peace Candles and vigils and prayer Again and again we call 'Not in our Name' They try to pretend we're not there We've marched down the street in our millions Their bloody invasion's still planned The only one way left to stop them Is take the guns out of their hands Take the guns out of their hands, we must Take the guns out of their hands The only sure way to stop them today Is take the guns out of their hands The armies look fearsome and mighty Parading across the newsreel A deliberate invincible image But there's something it doesn't reveal If we don't make their food and their shelter They can't carry on with their plans If we don't make their transport and weapons We can take the guns out of their hands (chorus) Just fifteen train drivers in Scotland Refused to shift weapons for Blair Multiply that fifteen and you see what I mean The bastard's just left holding air! So come on all of you unionists While governments grovel, we'll stand We can stop Bush's war for certain and sure If we take the guns out of their hands. Don Franks Feb 2003 |
