North Korea and nuclear weapons
Justin Tutty (Write On, GLW #539) disagrees with my statement that "we should defend North Korea's right to develop whatever weapons it feels it needs to defend itself against the very real threat it faces" (GLW #537).
I agree that we must aim for global nuclear disarmament. But the current reality is that the world's strongest nuclear power (the United States) claims the right to invade other countries to prevent them developing nuclear weapons. It has just invaded Iraq on the pretext of getting rid of Iraq's alleged weapon of mass destruction. There is a real danger it will use the same excuse to attack North Korea.
We have to reject the prevailing double standard that says the US has the "right" to possess nuclear weapons while North Korea does not. Given that the US is unlikely to give up its nuclear weapons in the near future, we should oppose any pressure on North Korea to do what the US will not do — unilaterally abandon its nuclear weapons program. We should oppose not only the threat of invasion but also economic sanctions imposed by the US and its allies (with or without UN endorsement).
This does not mean that I think nuclear weapons are North Korea's best means of defence against the threat of a US attack. If I was confident that the US peace movement was strong enough to prevent a US attack on North Korea, then I would strongly advocate that North Korea cease its efforts to develop nuclear weapons and devote its resources to more useful purposes. But the peace movement, despite its very encouraging growth, is not yet that strong.
Chris Slee
Melbourne
Israel and freedom of religion
Kate Popovic (Write On, GLW #539) asks how is it possible for leftists to support the dismantling of the Jewish State of Israel when neo-Nazis support the same thing. The difference is quite fundamental. Neo-Nazis don't want to just dismantle the Jewish state. They want to "dismantle" Jews!
In contrast, the left, as with any modernist, supports the abolition of all religious states and all religious-based laws, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, animist or whatever. The left should not discriminate on the basis of metaphysical belief, or religious heritage, but should advocate the complete freedom of religious belief and freedom from state-imposed religion.
It's a simple fact that the area currently known as Israel has the best conditions in the entire region to become an advanced secular and democratic state — a beacon of reason and justice where it is sorely needed. Yet this potential is far from being reached and will remain so whilst a state exists that is based on exclusive political and economic rights derived from religion and ethnicity.
Also there is also Ruth Anderson's comment that the cross bars on the Israeli flag represent the talit rather than a land claim. Well, that's one interpretation of the symbol. The other is derived from Theodor Herzl's own comments that the Jewish state must stretch "from the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates" and from Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, who remarked to the UN in 1947 that "the Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates. It includes parts of Syria and Lebanon."
Ultimately, the issue of whether there is one, two or 13 states in the region is irrelevant, although less is functionally better than more. It doesn't matter whether the region is called Israel, Palestine or even both simultaneously. What is important is that people have the concrete rights to practise a religious belief (or have none at all) without discrimination and that all people have equal political and economic rights regardless of ethnicity and language.
Lev Lafayette
Santa Cruz
East Timor
Death in custody
Over a decade has passed since the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody released its report. Governments have paid lip service to addressing the alarming rate of Indigenous incarceration and have pledged to implement the recommendations in the report. In South Australia specifically, Labor Premier Mike Rann's election campaign focused on improving "law and order".
And yet, on June 2, a 28-year-old Indigenous man was found hanging in a cell at the Port Lincoln prison. He had been in prison since March 17, on remand facing charges of unlawfully being on a premises.
This is the first death in custody in South Australia for quite some time. Why has there not been more coverage of this in the mainstream media? Indigenous affairs stories seem limited to the corporate media's determination (backed of course by Philip Ruddock and company) to discredit the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission's integrity.
While the nation is offered breakdowns of ATSIC chairperson Geoff Clark's holiday expenses and soap opera-style "who said what when" accounts of supposed ATSIC scandals, Indigenous Australians are dying.
Cause of death? Inadequate health services, "tougher law and order practices", government neglect.
Emma Murphy
Adelaide
SSP is nationalist
The advance of the Scottish Socialist Party clearly makes news on a global scale, in Green Left Weekly (#540), no less! Of course, part of the success of the SSP in getting elected to the Scottish Parliament is that elections here have an element of proportional representation.
This is not the case in the rest of the UK, apart from the European parliament elections. There's no doubt that many SSP policies will benefit working people in Scotland. It was also nice to see the boycott of the Scottish Parliament by SSP elected members, when the Queen visited!
However, the party is a separatist movement, demanding independence from the rest of the UK. Why a socialist party wants to include nationalism in its program is not clear. An independent Scotland would bring back the border with England, dividing the two. How creating another frontier would help workers is not clear. Why not just demand socialism for the whole UK and banish the border?
Graeme Kemp
Edinburgh Scotland
Get active
Now is a good time to build a big protest movement.
I was approached by a woman at our local school a few years ago after my photo was in the paper for attending a rally. She told me she had never been involved in anything of that sort but that she had once written a letter to the local paper.
Since then, I've seen her attending a number of rallies which goes to show that even small actions that we take can have a big impact on the people around us and inspire them to get involved themselves.
We need more people involved so we can make a bigger difference. We need stronger action if we are to make an impact against the corrupt rulers of the country. How about joining the Socialist Alliance and getting active yourself?
Dawn Winter
Hobart
A 'racist, colonialist movement'
I write in reply to the letter from Craig Milner (GLW #536) on Zionism. Craig, and even Martin Luther King, are wrong on Zionism and the exclusiveness of the Jewish state. Martin Luther King was a great civil rights activist, but that didn't mean he had any deep knowledge about Zionism. It was clear he did not.
The early Zionist archives make it totally clear about their aims regarding the Arab question and the Jewish state. J. Weitz, the head of the Jewish Agency's Colonisation Department, said "Between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country, there is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighbouring countries, to transfer all of them. Not a village, not a tribe should be left." Also the Zionist leader Herzl wrote, "we must expropriate gently the private property... we are not going to sell them anything back; we shall then sell only to Jews".
This clearing of the indigenous population to make way for a majority Jewish state was what was attempted, and was partially successful, in 1948 and has continued ever since in Palestine. It was from the start an integral part of Zionism.
Israel's chief founder Ben Gurion, wrote of "the compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the projected Jewish state we have to stick to this conclusion the same way we grabbed the Balfour Declaration, more than that, the same way we grabbed at Zionism". Later, he stated Zionism had reached its goal "in a state made larger and Jewish [my emphasis] by the Haganah".
When Count Bernadotte was appointed UN mediator in Palestine his recommendations were adopted by the UN General Assembly which in December 1948, declared "that refugees wishing to return to their homes ... should be permitted to do so." Although this resolution has been reaffirmed year after year by the UN, Israel has constantly refused to allow the Palestinian refugees to return.
Israeli General Moshe Dayan admitted, in ruling out a return of the displaced, "economically we can absorb the refugees, but this is not in accord with our aims. It would turn Israel into either a bi-national or poly -Arab-Jewish state instead of the Jewish state and we want to have a Jewish state."
Anyone who investigates Zionism, will conclude that it is a racist, colonialist movement.
Steven Katsineris
Hurstbridge Vic
[Abridged.]
Bias on North Korea
After accusing the Australian Broadcasting Corporation of anti-American bias over Iraq, the Minister for Communications, Senator Alston, should be well pleased by the Four Corners demonisation of North Korea on June 2.
In the whole tirade of unsubstantiated allegations there was not one official spokesperson for North Korea. As was the case in pre-war Iraq, there was no proof of any nuclear weapons or of any reprocessing of spent fuel into plutonium.
There were the same assertions that they had undisclosed sources and were certain. We are being led by the nose into another bloodbath.
Col Friel
Alawa NT
Downer looking for a Scapegoat
We have heard it all before. Our Minister for Foreign Affairs has blamed the Syrians for allowing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to be smuggled across the border. The US also tried to pull the wool over our eyes by declaring that the weapons were ferried across the border or looted by bandits.
There must be an awful lot of looters in Iraq who are starting to look a bit green around the gills. If the lies weren't so offensive they would be laughable. We all know what has happened to the weapons of mass destruction. They either didn't exist or were destroyed prior to the war commencing, which is exactly what the UN Security Council demanded of the Iraqi regime. Any WMD's that are now found by US troops in Iraq are likely to have been planted there by them. Make no mistake the credibility of the coalition members is now on the line.
The US and its allies know that the reasons they gave for invading Iraq have been shown to be lies. Each of the illegal conspirators, with the exception of Australia, has announced enquiries into the intelligence they gathered prior to the war. Unfortunately these enquiries are not worth the paper they will be written on. The CIA is investigating itself and in London, Downing Street has control over the enquiry process to the extent that Mr Blair can vet the final report. Each government will hide behind legislation preventing them from revealing official secrets. In other words it will be a white wash.
The public, or at least those who are not blinded by propaganda, already know that our government failed us. If the coalition forces had really been concerned about removing a dictator in order to protect the Iraqi people, they would have removed Saddam Hussein decades ago. Instead the US supported Hussein and his regime for almost half of his time in power.
They removed him, not because of any desire to protect the Iraqi people but because Saddam had continually thumbed his nose at the US. He was a continual thorn in their side in the Middle East. Far from providing a bulwark against the burgeoning spread of Islamic fundamentalism, Saddam was fostering greater resentment against the West.
My shame though rests in the fact that thousands of innocent Iraqi's were maimed and killed, and I could do nothing but stand by and listen to my own government's lies.
Adam Bonner
Meroo Meadow NSW
Matrix Reloaded review
I am a first-time reader of GLW and the review on the Matrix Reloaded movie (GLW #539) is one of the best (and funniest)reviews I have read to date.
It is the most explanatory and comprehensive report on the movie, the storyline and the real social impact (and possibly) meaning that one could take away from viewing these two movies.
I am glad for your consciousness and interest in issues and your objective reasoning. There are few, and far in between, who could match this capability.
Keep up the excellent reporting.
Annie Ng
Toronto Canada
United Nations
With the United Nations Security Council approving the American occupation of Iraq on May 22, it is time to admit that the anti-war movement should never again rely on the UN for support.
The approved resolution was a revised version of a resolution presented to the council by the US on May 9 2003. Under the original resolution, the 13-year-old UN economic sanctions were to be lifted, the American and British occupying forces were to run Iraq for at least a year, and the UN food-for-oil program, on which 60% of the Iraqi population depended prior to the US invasion, was to be phased out after four months.
Under the resolution approved on May 22, the food-for-oil program is to be phased out over six months. All future oil revenue is to go into a 'Development Fund for Iraq' at the Iraqi Central Bank. In a concession to Russia and France, which were owed hundreds of billions of dollars by Saddam Hussein's regime, the resolution calls for Iraqi oil-sales revenue to be immune from creditors' claims until December 31, 2007. The original draft called for unlimited immunity.
Under the resolution, the US and Britain are to be firmly in control of Iraq and its oil wealth until an 'internationally recognised, representative government is established'. However, in a further concession to French and Russian demands for a say in the construction of a new Iraqi government, via the UN, UN secretary-general Kofi Annan has been asked to appoint a special representative with 'independent' powers to work with the US and Britain to create an Iraqi interim administration as a transitional administration 'run by Iraqis'.
These concessions lead to an opportunist France changing their stance on the illegal (now legal) Gulf War 2, and thus withdrawing its threat to veto any Security Council resolution endorsing the US post-war plans for Iraq. This just confirms what some in the anti-war movement were saying long ago - France were opposing the war because it would meant losing a good oil deal. Now that they have received their sweetener, they are more than happy to be welcomed back into America's Imperial Camp.
And this instance clearly displays that the UN is simply a tool of the international capitalist class. The UN is controlled by the five most powerful nations on Earth (USA, Russia, China, UK and France). They can shape and control any decision that is made within the UN. It is ironic that the anti-war movement in general appealed to an imperial tool to stop an imperialist war.
It should be made clear from now on that the movement is opposed to the war and therefore opposed to the UN. The UN has been proven worse than useless, and instead of appealing to it in the name of opposing war, we should demonise and rightly recognize it for what it is - an imperialist organisation.
Why should it be otherwise?
Dimitrov Kyriakov
<kyriakovd@sawu.org>
From Green Left Weekly, June 11, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.