Medicare campaign
Tom Freeman and Patrick McLeish, leading members of the International Socialist Organisation in Melbourne, take issue with parts of my interview (Green Left Weekly #553) with Gary Harper, president of the Darebin Defend and Extend Medicare group.
The novelty of the Darebin group is that it has been successful in organising and mobilising activists in the vital defence of Medicare. It is worthy not just to compare this success to Moreland, where the campaign has not taken-off, but to much of the rest of the country, where the campaign has remained dormant.
The Socialist Alliance (of which I am a Victorian convener) has consistently sought to campaign against the Liberals' attacks on working people's living standards. We have never been fussy about which party our allies may come from, and nor should we be. However, we should also be unafraid to challenge our allies — limiting campaigns to "old Labor values" leaves much necessary work undone.
The fact is the federal Labor leadership has little interest in mobilising popular campaigns to defend Medicare, public education or anything else. They have largely ignored campaigns where they have arisen. The exception of Darebin does not negate the rule.
It is the activists of the Darebin Defend and Extend Medicare who deserve commendation. Their willingness to take concerted action outside the policy restrictions of the Labor Party has given the campaign vitality and strength. In conducting the campaign to defend and extend Medicare, they have broken with Labor policy — old and new.
Our task as socialists is to encourage more Labor members/supporters to take their lead, to build real campaigns to defend Medicare which might actually help the campaign succeed.
Graham Matthews
Preston West Vic
Chicken or egg?
If the US and Israel are serious about their call for the dismantlement of the infrastructure which supports terror operations in Palestine, they will end the 36-year-old brutal occupation of Palestine by Israel.
Today, the entire population of approximately 2.5 million Palestinians is entrapped, caged in by the Apartheid Wall — the electrified razor wire fence, roadblocks and checkpoints — which make the country nearly impassible. Meanwhile, superhighways that cut through the heart of Palestine are for Israelis only, while Palestinians are forced to use roads that have been made nearly impassable.
Over 4000 farmers are prevented from tending their land and are shot on sight if they try. Shops as well as apartment buildings are bulldozed, frequently with people still inside; the citizenry are under constant surveillance and terrorised by the Israel Defence Forces.
Water is severely rationed to Palestinians, while illegal Israeli settlers water their lawns and fill their swimming pools. According to the UN, the average Palestinian has one meal a day and lives on US$2 a day. In Nablus, a city of 200,000, is continuously suffering under deadly military incursions and attacks on its residents, ambulances and school children, according to eyewitnesses.
These, and a litany of other crimes against humanity, should be examined as possible incitements that spawn the deadly rash of suicide bombers. The people who carry out these acts of violence have been provoked beyond despair. As they kill themselves, they take innocent lives with them into the living hell Israel has created — a hell which is paid for by the billions each year of US tax dollars.
Genevieve Cora Fraser
Orange Massachusetts
USA
Israel's terror
In light of the recent actions of Israel in assassinating several leading members of the Hamas movement, one question must be asked. If Mossad, the Israeli secret service, is able to find these men down to what apartment or car they are in, why is it then necessary to demolish half of a street with helicopter gunships in order to eliminate that person?
Why are the Israelis unable to put a bullet through the windshield of the car, or knife them in the street, or poison them?
I would suggest that the aim is not solely to kill their target, but to inspire terror in the entire Palestinian populace. This from people who claim to be only interested in the peace process?
Sam Morrison
Brisbane
Against superpowers
The PM has asked those who don't like the US as the world's superpower to nominate an alternative. How about none?
Why does the world need a superpower? Isn't the Liberal Party opposed to centralisation of power? Why should the US government, representing under 5% of people, be globally dominant? Weaker states can co-operate when more power is required.
Is Mr Howard suggesting the US is uniquely virtuous? If so, on what basis? There are numerous liberal democracies. And many don't have such a history of supporting dictatorial regimes abroad. Why wouldn't one of these make a better superpower if we must have one?
Especially given that current US administration is known more for its self-belief and assertiveness than its critical self-analysis the Prime Minister's simplistic praise is simply counterproductive.
Brent Howard
Rydalmere NSW
Australian agriculture needs protection
The collapse of the WTO round in Cancun may inject a sense of realism into thinking about Australian agriculture policy. While Australia should continue to argue for reductions in subsidies and lowering of tariffs in the US and the EU, for many good reasons, the level playing field simply isn't happening at all. That goal of at least 30 years standing remains totally illusive.
Given that this is the reality, should Australians allow their generally efficient farming sector to be wiped out further though tariff reductions and only spasmodic assistance, mostly to combat droughts or floods? Seems to me we should match the subsidy levels applied elsewhere, raise the tariffs where required and get on with rebuilding agriculture and boosting rural exports.
Last year 45,000 jobs were lost in the rural sector. In an already highly urbanised society this doesn't make sense. Some say we don't have that option. Please explain!
Otherwise change tack. The proposed Free Trade Agreement with the US, not wanted by American farmers anyway, could carry a much higher price for Australia than subsidies.
Klaas Woldring
Pearl Beach NSW
Trade in WMD's isn't illegal, interdiction is!
Sovereign nations around the world have every right to develop their weapons systems and to trade in such weaponry. This includes the right to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Those countries such as the US, which already have vast quantities of such weapons, have no legal or moral right to prevent other nations from acquiring similar weaponry.
Australia's participation in the current war games aimed at readying our armed forces to interdict ships and aircraft allegedly carrying weaponry is a waste of taxpayers' money. If implemented, it would be tantamount to piracy and would provide those countries whose vessels are hijacked with a legitimate right to retaliate against us.
Howard and his cabinet lied to Australians when he told them earlier this year that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that would fall into the hands of terrorists if that country wasn't invaded. Howard is personally responsible for subjecting every Australian to a greater level of risk. Now he wants to increase that risk even further by illegally intercepting vessels carrying out legitimate activities. His actions are disgraceful. He is not worthy to hold the mantle of Prime Minister.
Adam Bonner
Meroo Meadow NSW
From Green Left Weekly, September 24, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.