Bastardry
Every so often there occurs an act of political bastardy so transparent that it fair takes your breath away. Such an act is the decision to exclude Greens Senator Bob Brown from the Australian delegation of 50 to the Johannesburg environmental summit.
For crying out loud, who is most qualified to be there? Oops, just realised we can't have an Australian politician championing the future of the planet, preservation of forests and water, clean air and mitigating climate change it is against current Laborial policies.
Pamela Curr
Greens candidate
Brunswick Vic
Cuba
Noel Willis (Write On #504) asks, what is going on with Cuba's vote against the draft protocol to the UN convention against terror? Whatever you think of Cuba's decision (and at the end of the day it is a decision for the Cubans to make) it is important to recognise two things.
Firstly, there is no evidence to suggest that the Cuban state tortures its citizens. In fact, in the 1980s, the International Association Against Torture visited to investigate and concluded that no evidence existed to suggest torture was used.
Secondly, Cuba is not opposed to allowing the international community access to their prisons or anywhere else to investigate this. In fact, they recently gave former US President Jimmy Carter completely free access to the island during his visit. If Carter had come across evidence of torture you can be sure he would have said.
So why didn't Cuba vote for the draft protocol? The reason is it was seen as an attack on Cuba's national sovereignty; Cuba would be unable to determine who could investigate Cuba and who couldn't.
When you look at the record of the USA and US-backed counter-revolutionaries (invasion, assassination attempts, espionage, terrorist attacks) and the openly stated US goal of overthrowing the government, this is easy to understand. Cuba did not want to give powerful enemies open access under the guise of "UN inspectors" (you only have to look to Iraq where the US sent spies under that same guise to help plan bombing attacks).
If anyone has valid criticisms of the Cuban revolutionary process that are constructive (aimed at helping strengthen that process) then, of course, there is no problem with raising them. But it important to put criticism in the context of the US blockade and constant attempts to undermine and destroy the revolution.
Stuart Munckton
Wollongong NSW
Cuba II
Far from the Left "uncritically supporting" Cuba, as Noel Willis states in his letter (Write On #504), a number of writers to GLW, including myself, have all pointed out that Cuba isn't perfect.
In relation to the UN Convention on Torture, Cuba has been a signatory since 1986 (ratifying it in 1995). The optional draft protocol against torture wasn't voted on by the UN General Assembly, instead the vote was taken by the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). The draft protocol is yet to be debated by the assembly.
During the ECOSOC debate, Cuba moved a proposal to amend the resolution asking that the protocol working group mandate be extended for a year. In other words, Cuba asked that the group continue its consultations before a vote be taken. According to an Amnesty International press release, the ECOSOC vote was for the "current text". That is, that the Cuban amendment of extending the consultation time not be adopted. This possibly may be why the Cuban representative voted against the
resolution.
A final comment on Cuba's prison system, however, should go to Harvard Law Professor Jill Soffiyah Elijah. Elijah, who has represented political prisoners for over 18 years, has also studied the Cuban prison system extensively and argues that the Cuban prison system is one of the most humane in the world.
Kim Bullimore
Campsie NSW
Democrats
Peter Sykes (GLW #505) highlights some key aspects of the Australian Democrats' irreversible electoral decline. Placing the emphasis on their consistent compromises of their occasionally progressive agenda may explain much in this regard, but his article doesn't tell us why this happened.
Meg Lees, as she exited from the party, argued that this was why she was leaving. Indeed, for her, compromise and horse trading with the government of the day was the core Democrat tactic. No-one on either side of the split denied this. Basically, the Democrats are there to barter the "best" deal that's what "keeping the bastards honest" is supposed to mean. For Lees it was the essential element for making the party relevant.
Disparaging the Democrats for being consistent compromisers is, therefore, a bit rich. Indeed, if they aren't in the business of compromise what are they doing in parliament? It also follows that if the Democrats consistently compromised a progressive agenda, what's to stop the Greens doing the same?
Becoming the party of choice for progressive voters, may be all fine and dandy, but in political terms aren't we just conducting an opinion poll albeit a relevant one?
Sykes doesn't tell us what we gain after the polling booths are closed if we invest our energies in the Green parliamentary road.
Dave Riley
Brisbane
Hawai'i
When people in continental United States tell me that they are thinking of going to Hawai'i (my homeland), I tell them they would need to choose between Hawai'i and the United States; otherwise they would be settler-colonialists.
I tell them that Hawai'i is a different country. People moving to Hawai'i can be a threat to Hawai'i's local culture, which is what native Hawaiian culture became under the impact of Europe and the Unites States, as people migrated to Hawai'i to work on the plantations. Some migrants assimilate, but settler-colonialists do not.
If Hawai'i once again became an independent country, we would be able to create our own immigration policy. My suggestion would be for Hawai'i to favour migrants from other Pacific island countries, including the French-speaking Pacific.
For more information on Hawai'i, see < http://www.hawaii-A HREF="mailto:nation.org/"><nation.org/>.
Milton Takei
Eugene, Oregon, USA
From Green Left Weekly, August 28, 2002.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.