Friday, 20 April 2007

War against Iran edges closer




War against Iran edges closer
Peace movement to hit the streets


Two US aircraft carrier battle groups are now in the Gulf, US troops are building on the Iraq border with Iran, and a recent military exercise involving 15 warships and 100 warplanes took place right on Iran’s doorstep. Diplomatic threats are intensifying and the UN is being pushed to pass sanctions against Iran – it’s just like the build up to the Iraq invasion. A full scale expansion of the US’s Middle East war is increasingly likely.

Our urgent task here in New Zealand is to help mobilise an outpouring of anger and protest against any attack on Iran. The peace movement must hit the streets in big numbers. We need to reach out to everyone who’s against war, who hates Bush, is horrified by nuclear weapons, and bring them into a broad anti-war movement.

Auckland response to attack on Iran

1) On the day the bombs fall, gather outside the US Consulate, 23 Customs St, from 5pm.

2) Hold pickets at the US Consulate every evening until the first Saturday following an attack.

3) On the first Saturday following an attack, gather at Aotea Square at 12 noon, where democratic decisions can be taken about what further actions to take.


We can help deliver a defeat to imperialism

The struggle against the war is at decisive stage. The US could be heading for globally significant defeat, particularly if troop dissatisfaction grows to levels where it’s impossible for the US to continue the war. This is what happened at the end of the Vietnam War – the soldiers simply refused to fight anymore. Large peace demonstrations globally calling on the troops to mutiny could tip the balance.

In Britain the STOP THE WAR coalition is gearing up for immediate protests. George Galloway, Respect MP, is calling for “civil disobedience in every community, walkouts in every school, protests and strikes in every workplace. If George Bush bombs Iran, we should bring this country to a standstill.”


Labour has blood on it hands

by VAUGHAN GUNSON
Socialist Worker, Whangarei


“The US is the world’s only superpower so the relationship is important.”
- Helen Clark, NZ Herald, 26 March 2007.


A week before travelling to Washington to meet the president, prime minister Helen Clark announced that the deployment of NZ troops in Afghanistan to support the US-British occupation would be extended until September 2008, and that a NZ navy frigate will be sent to the Arabian Gulf next year to help patrol the sea lanes with US warships.

And when it comes to Iran the Labour government is under pressure to fall in line with the US, Britain and Australia in condemning Iran’s uranium enrichment programme. Asked at a 27 February press conference if she believed Iran was developing nuclear weapons, Clark replied: “We don’t know. Who does? The problem is their lack of transparency.”

In this part of the world the NZ military has been working closely with their Australian counterparts in dampening down any “hot-spots’ in the Pacific. Australia is the US’s main ally in the region. Washington has been so pleased with NZ’s commitment to serving US interests that they’ve waived their own ban on military exercises with NZ three times in the last 18 months. Under Labour military ties between the two countries are being strengthened.

The political ties are also being drawn closer. Helen Clark’s “behind the scenes” commitment to the US’s global war has seen her rewarded with a visit to the White House, greeted warmly by secretary of state Condolezza Rice and George W Bush himself.

After her meeting with Bush, Clark said: “I think there is quite an acute appreciation in Washington DC of the things New Zealand does which are very much in tune with US values, the role we play in the Pacific, the way we've dealt with counter-terrorism issues, the strong support on counter-proliferation. I think it’s a time when friends are valued in Washington (NZ Herald, 22 March 2007).”

Clark knows how much Bush is despised in New Zealand – probably most Labour Party members hate him as well. So it’s politically risky to be seen having friendly chats with a figure many people associate with death and destruction.

But in the minds of Labour’s leaders it’s more risky not to, because this government is keenly aware that it needs to keep their capitalist partners on side. And what NZ’s big capitalists dream of is a free trade deal with the US. So Labour has to suck up to the Bush administration, otherwise the capitalist class might pull the plug on the government and pull the middle classes with them.

Labour’s warm relations with the murderers in the White House contrasts with the stance by Venezuela’s socialist president, Hugo Chavez, who keeps referring to Bush as the devil.

The people in Venezuela are fighting a different war, against poverty and powerlessness. Revenues from the nationalised oil industry are being pumped into extensive social programmes for the poor. Thousands of community councils are springing up all over Venezuela where people are taking democratic control of their own destinies. Chavez calls it “Socialism in the 21st century”.

To be against war means to be against capitalism. Chavez knows this, and in different way Labour’s leaders know it. They’re going to continue backing both evils – capitalism and war. But it’s not an easy sell, which means there are opportunities for us.

We should be vocal against any “blood for trade” deals with Washington. And as socialists we can be highlighting the inspiring example of Venezuela’s revolution that’s combining anti-imperialism with anti-capitalism.

If the US does attack Iran, images of Helen Clark shaking Bush’s hand will still be in people’s minds. And then there’s the prospect of Rice or another senior member of the Washington administration visiting New Zealand – while the bombs are raining down on Iran?

Labour is vulnerable. An inclusive and broad anti-war movement could do real damage to Labour and open the door to forces on the left. That’s got to be the aim.

No “blood for trade” deals!
Socialism not war in the 21st century!
Chavez not Clark!



NZ Super Fund invested in nuclear bombs

The Green Party released an important report called ‘Betting the Bank on the Bomb’ in February. Written by Greens co-leader Russell Norman, the report shows that the government’s New Zealand Super Fund is investing tax money in nuclear weapons manufacture.

The investment choices of the Norway Pension Fund are compared with those of the NZ Super Fund. 12 companies that the NZ Super Fund invests in are blacklisted by Norway for ethical reasons. These reasons include:
  • nuclear weapons manufacture.
  • cluster bomb manufacture.
  • environmental destruction.
  • labour rights and human rights violations.

Among the 12 companies the Labour government invests in are Northrop Grumman Corp ($9 million) and European Aeronautic Defence & Space Company ($6.9 million), both involved in nuclear weapons production, and $15.8 million in Lockheed Martin Corp, which manufactures cluster bombs.

This is the same government that boasts about its commitment to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. But if there’s a buck to be made nevermind, it’s the ethics of capitalism that Labour is committed to.


US war increases nuclear risk

The excuse being used by the US and its allies to go to war this time is Iran’s uranium enrichment programme, which is being claimed (without evidence) will be used to make nuclear weapons. The Iranian government says it’s to be used by nuclear facilities to generate electricity.

Hans Blix (former Chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq) in his forward to a new report released by the Oxford Research Group argues the case against any attack on Iran. He says: “In the case of Iraq, the armed action launched aimed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction – that did not exist. It led to tragedy and regional turmoil. In the case of Iran armed action would be aimed at intentions – that may or may not exist. However, the same result – tragedy and regional turmoil – would inevitably follow. Further, as argued in this study, armed attacks on Iran would very likely lead to the result they were meant to avoid – the building of nuclear weapons within few years.”

It’s Washington’s global war that’s kickstarting the nuclear arms race. The logic for the rulers of countries like Iran is now to acquire nuclear weapons, because then maybe the US would think twice about invading. The blame for the world becoming a more dangerous place (terrorism, wars and the nuclear threat) lies squarely with the US and its allies. This truth needs to be spread far and wide.

Wednesday, 18 April 2007

Community leaders abhor magazine's 'negative stereotyping' of Muslims



RAM info line 19.4.07:
The following item was issued as a media release on 19 April 2007. You can help to organise against the danger of Islamophobic racism in New Zealand by forwarding it to your family and friends. Thank you.


The March 2007 edition of "Investigate" magazine carried a lengthy article by Ian Wishart which claimed that the New Zealand Muslim community is being infected by "Islamic extremism".

"Mr Wishart's 18-page rant is New Zealand's first full-on example of Islamophobic gutter journalism," said Grant Morgan, organiser of RAM ­ Residents Action Movement.

"The most basic fact is that nobody in the New Zealand Muslim community has ever been charged with any act of 'terrorism', let alone convicted. That puts the lie to his propaganda of fear, suspicion and hate."

"As the organiser of RAM, I was requested by a meeting of senior Muslim leaders in Auckland to pen a letter-in-reply to Mr Wishart's article," said Grant Morgan. "My letter has been co-signed by over 130 community leaders, the vast majority of them non-Muslim, who are equally disgusted at the article's contents."

These community leaders include:

  • The mayor of Waitakere City.
  • Five regional and city councillors.
  • Many religious leaders from Christian, Muslim and other faiths.
  • Top academics and lawyers.
  • Senior trade union officials.
  • Representatives of Maori and ethnic groups.
  • Other leaders in the community.

"While more signatures are arriving all the time, I have today emailed our letter to Mr Wishart's magazine," said Grant Morgan.

"Will Mr Wishart have the integrity to publish it in full, along with the complete list of co-signatories, without appending the sort of conspiracy fantasies that he regularly attaches to critical letters under the guise of 'editorial comment'? That will be a test of his professed belief in freedom of speech."

For your information, the letter and its full list of co-signatories is printed below.

Please send your feedback to:

GRANT MORGAN
Organiser of RAM ­ Residents Action Movement
gcm@actrix.co.nz
021 2544 515


Joint letter to editor of Investigate magazine

Negative stereotyping is
not investigative journalism


Negative stereotyping of New Zealand Muslims. That was the real content of the 18-page article "Helen Hoodwinked by Preachers of Hate" written by Ian Wishart in the March 2007 edition of his Investigate magazine.

Wishart, who describes himself as a "social conservative", had previously labelled people in the peace movement as "extremists" and thereby tried to discredit the global majority who are opposed to George Bush's imperial crusade for oil and power.

A similar method was used in Wishart's article about our Muslim community. His article used the word "extremist" 34 times, "terror"/"terrorist"/"terrorism" 52 times, "suicide attacks/bombings" 13 times, "hate" 7 times, "al Qa'ida" 25 times, "Osama bin Laden" 10 times and "Wahhabism" (supposedly an "extreme" form of Islam) 20 times.

Alongside these negative labels he inserted the names of New Zealand Muslim groups and individuals, like the Federation of Islamic Associations of NZ (33 times), FIANZ president Javed Khan (21 times) and Al Manar (17 times).

Wishart is resorting to the trick of negative transference, where an express or implied association with "bad" people, groups and happenings is used to discredit a viewpoint, in this case Islam.

Here is the most basic fact: Nobody in the New Zealand Muslim community has ever been charged with any act of "terrorism", let alone convicted.

Yet this most basic fact isn't what Wishart wants to hear. Instead, his subtext is that all Muslims adhere to the same ideas, and from this absurd generalisation he attempts to link peaceful Muslims to violent extremists.

Let's use Wishart's absurd generalisation in another context. Because of the "ethnic cleansing" conducted by a faction of Serb Christians in the Bosnian conflict a few years ago, we must condemn as "terrorists" all Christians, including Wishart himself. But that, of course, would be crazy.

In the latest report by the NZ Security Intelligence Service, "local jihadis" are no longer considered a visible threat inside New Zealand. (See intelligence expert Paul G. Buchanan's informative article "A Change of Focus at the SIS" at http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0702/S00257.htm.)

At the very time that New Zealand's internal security agency finally comes to the realisation that chasing New Zealand Muslim "terrorists" is really silly, because they don't exist, Wishart starts a witch-hunt for this non-existent "threat".

You have to ask "Why?" And that brings us back to Wishart's "social conservative" ideology. His article poses 305 references to "Islam" and "Muslims" against 145 references to "New Zealand", "Western", "Christians" and "non-Muslims".

Wishart's subtext is clear: Muslims represent a danger to the values and beliefs of "mainstream New Zealand", to borrow Don Brash's ill-fated phrase. Therefore, instead of conducting a dialogue with New Zealand Muslims, the government should be ordering the security agencies to put local Muslims under severe state control and scrutiny.

This message of community division, which seems designed to pit non-Muslims against Muslims, and also to divide the ranks of Muslims and make them fearful, would of course suit a "social conservative" agenda.

Wishart's negative stereotyping is not investigative journalism, but rather a message of suspicion, fear and hate. It's a message that echoes the Islamophobic racism fuelled by George Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq and the US state's other armed attacks on peoples who stand in the way of American domination of our planet.

The positive alternative is for people across all New Zealand communities, including our Muslim sisters and brothers, to unite for peace, not war. This is a message of hope. On a global scale, it offers humanity a way out of imperial warfare and social injustice.


SIGNED (personal capacity):

  • GRANT MORGAN, organiser of RAM ­ Residents Action Movement (Auckland)
  • ROBYN HUGHES, RAM councillor on Auckland Regional Council (Manukau City electorate)
  • BOB HARVEY, mayor of Waitakere City
  • Bishop RICHARD RANDERSON, dean of Holy Trinity Cathedral, Parnell (Auckland)
  • SU'A WILLIAM SIO, Manukau City councillor ­ Otara Ward
  • PENNY HULSE, councillor on Waitakere City Council
  • Dr. JOHN HINCHCLIFF, Auckland City councillor and former vice-chancellor & president of Auckland University of Technology
  • CHRISTINE ROSE, Rodney District representative on Auckland Regional Council
  • Dr. DAVID WILLIAMS, professor of law (Ranui)
  • Reverend ANTHONY DANCER, social justice commissioner for the Anglican Church (Wellington)
  • BARRY WILSON, president of Auckland Council for Civil Liberties
  • JAVED KHAN, president of Federated Islamic Associations of New Zealand (Auckland)
  • SUE BRADFORD, Green MP (Auckland)
  • DAVID WONG, NZ Order of Merit, founding president of North Shore/Rodney Ethnic Council (Auckland)
  • PAUL G. BUCHANAN, international security analyst (Auckland)
  • Dr. JAMES LIU, deputy director of Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research (Wellington)
  • BILL COOKE, vice-president of NZ Association of Rationalists & Humanists and senior lecturer at School of Visual Arts, Manukau Institute of Technology
  • RAYMOND BRADLEY, emeritus professor of philosophy (Warkworth)
  • ROBERT WHITE, director of Centre for Peace Studies at University of Auckland
  • DAVID TUTTY, Auckland Catholic Justice & Peace Office
  • MATT McCARTEN, national secretary of Unite Workers Union (Auckland)
  • GUL ZAMAN, president of Auckland Indo-Fijian Association
  • HEATHER MACKAY, deputy chair of Pakuranga Community Board
  • ROGER FOWLER, QSM, manager of Mangere East Community Learning Centre (Auckland)
  • MERE KEPA, transcultural educationalist (Auckland)
  • MUSTAFA FAROUK, vice-president of Federated Islamic Associations of New Zealand (Hamilton)
  • JOHN MINTO, spokesperson for Global Peace & Justice Auckland
  • CAMPBELL DUIGNAN, southern regional secretary of Service & Food Workers Union/Nga Ringa Tota (Dunedin)
  • HAIDER LONE, executive member of NZ Muslim Association (Auckland)
  • SHAUN DAVISON, regional chair of Post Primary Teachers Association (Whangarei)
  • Reverend MUA STRICKSON-PUA, chaplain, community worker & Pasifika development tutor (Auckland)
  • OMAR FAHMY, president of New Zealand Sri Lanka Foundation (Auckland)
  • ANDREW CAMPBELL, campaigns director of Finsec, the finance workers union (Wellington)
  • MARGO BAARS, co-ordinator of Human Rights Foundation Aotearoa (Auckland)
  • JIM MILLER, professor of Applied Language Studies & Linguistics at University of Auckland
  • NASREEN HANNIF, national representative of Islamic Women's Council of New Zealand (Auckland)
  • Reverend GILLIAN WATKIN, Methodist presbyter at Mt Eden (Auckland)
  • JUDITH McMORLAND, secretary of Action for Children & Youth in Aotearoa (Auckland)
  • ISRAR SHEIKH, general secretary of New Zealand Muslim Youth & Sports Association (Auckland)
  • Reverend BRUCE KEELY, co-president of Council of Christians & Muslims (Auckland)
  • JILL OVENS, northern regional secretary of Service & Food Workers Union/Nga Ringa Tota (Auckland)
  • MARION HANCOCK, director of The Peace Foundation (Auckland)
  • Venerable AMALA WRIGHTSON, spiritual director of Auckland Zen Centre and member of Auckland Interfaith Council
  • MOHAMED MOSES, secretary of Mt Roskill Islamic Trust (Auckland)
  • GIAMPIETRO FREN, representative of Italian community in Hamilton
  • JOAN BROCK, secretary of Council of Christians & Muslims (Auckland)
  • MAAN ALZAHER, organiser of Working Together Group (Auckland)
  • Sister CLARE O'CONNOR, Cenacle sister (Wellington)
  • HANNAH SPIERER, environmental affairs officer for Auckland University Students Association
  • JOE CAROLAN, secretary of Solidarity Union (Auckland)
  • MAURICE WARD, professor at Faculty of Human & Environmental Studies, Kanto Gakuin University (Yokohama, Japan)
  • ABDUL ELAH ARWANI, chair of South Pacific Mosque (Auckland)
  • Reverend STUART VOGEL, Presbyterian minister and Council of Christians & Muslims (Auckland)
  • SYD KEEPA, convenor of Council of Trade Unions Runanga Te Roopu Kaimahi Maori and apiha Maori for National Distribution Union (Auckland)
  • OLIVER WOODS, organiser of The Decembrists, a tertiary student social justice coalition (Auckland)
  • Reverend DENISE KELSALL, St Matthew-in-the-City (Auckland)
  • FIONA LOVATT-DAVIS, co-host of Kia Ora Show, Radio Watea (Auckland)
  • ANNE MOODY, Anglican priest, member of Third Order Society of St Francis (Auckland)
  • JULIA ESPINOZA, organiser for ClimAction, Auckland's climate change coalition
  • ANILA KETAN, president of Auckland Muslim Girls Association
  • LEIGH COOKSON, director of Arena and co-convenor of GATT Watchdog (Christchurch)
  • MIKE WILLIAMS, trade unionist (Wellington)
  • BERNIE HORNFECK, president of Rotorua People's Advocacy Centre
  • CLIVE ASPIN, PhD, senior research fellow at University of Auckland
  • Reverend DON BORRIE (Porirua)
  • LEN PARKER, co-chair of RAM ­ Residents Action Movement (Auckland)
  • ROSEMARY ARNOUX, senior lecturer in French at University of Auckland
  • BAKER POSTELNIK, environmental activist (Kaiwaka)
  • ISMAIL WAJA, editor of Al Mujaddid Media (Auckland)
  • LUKE COXON, organiser for National Distribution Union (Auckland)
  • GERARD BURNS, Catholic priest at St Anne's parish, Newtown (Wellington)
  • PAUL BRUCE, lead meteorologist at MetService NZ & co-ordinator of Latin American Solidarity Committee Aotearoa (Wellington)
  • NUREDIN HASSAN, team manager of Muslim Students Association at Auckland University of Technology
  • Dr. LISA GUENTHER. senior lecturer in philosophy, University of Auckland
  • KYLE WEBSTER, West Coast representative on board of directors of NZ Nurses Organisation (Greymouth)
  • JIBRIL MUSSA, president of NZ Nejashi Trust (Auckland)
  • VAUGHAN GUNSON, artist and socialist (Whangarei)
  • CAMERON BROADHURST, Zen Society of Auckland
  • JANFRIE WAKIM, Palestine Human Rights Campaign (Auckland)
  • DAPHNE LAWLESS, editor of UNITY journal (Auckland)
  • Dr. MALCOLM BROWN, lecturer in sociology at University of Auckland
  • SHAWN TAN, organiser for Finsec, the finance sector workers union (Auckland)
  • TAHAE TAIT, Te Arawa iwi & spokesperson for Tait whanau in Rotorua
  • JO McVEAGH, environmental activist (Auckland)
  • SIMON OOSTERMAN, publicity officer for National Distribution Union (Auckland)
  • MOHAMMAD THOMPSON, chair of Voice of Islam TV (Auckland)
  • PAT O'DEA, executive member of RAM ­ Residents Action Movement (Auckland)
  • DEAN PARKER, NZ Writers Guild (Auckland)
  • Dr. HILARY CHUNG, lecturer at University of Auckland
  • JIM HUNT, Council of Christians & Muslims (Auckland)
  • MIKE TREEN, national director of Unite Workers Union (Auckland)
  • AHMAD ESAU, teacher and founder of Aotearoa Islamic Impressions, an Islamic art group (Auckland)
  • DONNA GARDINER, Maori mother and grandmother (Auckland)
  • MALCOLM FRANCE, organiser for ClimAction, Auckland's climate change coalition
  • OMAR HAMED, organiser of Students for Justice in Palestine (Auckland)
  • JIM HOLDOM, social justice advocate (Hamilton)
  • VALERIE JABIR, NZ Council of Christians & Muslims (Auckland)
  • DION MARTIN, organiser for National Distribution Union (Palmerston North)
  • MOHAMED HASSAN, senior writer of e-newsletter NZDawa (Auckland)
  • PAUL MAUNDER, NZ Writers Guild (Blackball)
  • NIK JANIUREK, technical manager of Maidment Theatre (Auckland)
  • TAYYABA KHAN, peace activist and former president of Auckland Muslim Girls Association, winner of the Sonja Davies Peace Award in 2005
  • TOM BUCKLEY, organiser for Unite Workers Union (Auckland)
  • MERYL ZOHRAB, Anglican priest and plunket nurse (Auckland)
  • TRACEY McINTOSH, senior lecturer in sociology at University of Auckland
  • EVA NAYLOR, peace & environmental activist (Wellington)
  • QUENTIN FINDLAY, education co-ordinator of Lincoln University Students Association (Canterbury)
  • MEREDYDD BARRAR, spokesperson for Citizens Against Privatisation (Waitakere City)
  • CATHERINE BINDON, ex-organiser for National Distribution Union (Wellington)
  • DON POLLY, retired journalist (Paekakariki)
  • MOHAMED & FARHANA NALAR, Working Together Group (Auckland)
  • VALERIE MORSE, Peace Action Wellington
  • FELICITY PERRY, lecturer at Victoria University (Wellington)
  • ANJUM RAHMAN, Islamic Women's Council of New Zealand (Hamilton)
  • GRAEME YOUNG, ex-organiser of National Distribution Union (Christchurch)
  • CHRIS SULLIVAN, Catholic (Auckland)
  • LYN DOHERTY, Maori mother and grandmother (Auckland)
  • RICHARD KELLER, peace activist (Wellington)
  • HEATHER LYALL, social worker (Auckland)
  • ILIYAS DAUD, pharmacist and sports administrator at Ponsonby Soccer Club (Auckland)
  • DON ARCHER, delegate for Engineering, Printing & Manufacturing Union (Christchurch)
  • MADENEYAH GAMILDIEN, commodity trader (Auckland)
  • FRANCO MANAI, senior lecturer in Italian at University of Auckland
  • BILL ROSENBERG, researcher for Campaign Against Foreign Control in Aotearoa (Christchurch)
  • GRANT BROOKES, delegate for NZ Nurses Organisation (Wellington)
  • NIBRAS KARDAMAN, marketing co-ordinator (Auckland)
  • SALLY McARA, PhD candidate and author (Auckland)
  • GARRICK MARTIN, mental health nurse (Wellington)
  • VICTOR BILLOT, national president of Alliance Party (Dunedin)
  • EMILY BAILEY, environmental & community worker (Wellington)
  • OMAR KHAMOUN, Wellington Palestine Group
  • GLYNNIS PARAHA, daughter, grand-daughter, sister, niece, aunt, grand-aunt & friend (Auckland)
  • AFIFA CHIDA, Bachelor of Design student (Auckland)
  • WARREN BREWER, secretary of Socialist Party of Aotearoa (Auckland)
  • TIM HOWARD, community worker (Whangarei)
  • JOHN POLKINGHORNE, undergraduate student in economics & chemistry (Auckland)

Monday, 16 April 2007

Zimbabwean Comrade to speak in NZ- but we need your help to get him here!



Zimbabwean Comrade to speak in NZ- but we need your help to get him here!

The CTU has been posting the LaborStart emergency bulletins from Zimbabwe recently- the trade union movement there has been leading the resistance against Mugabe's brutal dictatorship and vicious neo liberal policies. There was a General Strike last week amidst huge government oppression and a violent crackdown on the activist left.

One of the leading comrades in the struggle, Mun Gwisai, former MP for Highfield in Harare, is able to come and speak here in Auckland on Monday 23rd April. I have already approached John Minto of the Global Peace and Justice Auckland coalition about hosting a public meeting at Trades Hall, and helping meet some the costs of a return ticket to Sydney, which they have agreed to do.

BUt Mun Gwisai will also speak about the strong trade union movement battlling for its very survival in Zim, and is most keen to have the broadlest left meeting possible on Monday night. Would this be a meeting that you would like to help support financially, in the spirit of 81 and international solidarity? We are looking for concerned individuals to give a donation between 50 and a 100 dollars.

Media interest will be huge once we start promoting the meeting, and it would send a strong message back to Mugabe that the movement for democracy there has strong allies in the workers and anti racist movement of NZ.

Let me know if you can help with a pledge. Contact Joe at 021 1861450 or email solidarityjoe@yahoo.com. Please circulate this article to all supporters of the fight for freedom in Africa!

Saturday, 14 April 2007

A Million Iraqis unite in demo- demand US out




Iraqis unite in Najaf demonstration to demand US out

by Simon Assaf

Up to a million Iraqis took to the streets of Najaf on Monday to demand an end to the US occupation of their country on the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad.

Demonstrators came in convoys of cars and buses draped with Iraqi flags. They travelled from across the country, including from Latifiyah and Mahmudiya, areas that have witnessed sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni Muslims.

Meanwhile thousands of Iraqi flags flew from houses and shops in the capital in defiance of a 24 hour curfew imposed by US troops.

The Najaf march was called by rebel Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr whose Mehdi Army has launched two insurrections against the occupation since 2003.

On the eve of the demonstration his followers battled US troops and their Iraqi allies for control of Diwaniya, a key Shia town 80 miles south of Baghdad.


Trampled

Demonstrators in Najaf burned and trampled on US and British flags to chants of, “Yes to Iraq, yes to sovereignty, no to occupation.”

A statement from Sadr, read out to the crowds, said, “So far 48 months of anxiety, oppression and occupational tyranny have passed, four years which have only brought us more death, destruction and humiliation.

“Every day tens are martyred, tens are crippled and every day we see and hear US interference in every aspect of our lives, which means that we are not sovereign, not independent and therefore not free.

“This is what Iraq has harvested from the US invasion.”

Sadr is said to have taken refuge in Iran after George Bush launched his “surge” of 30,000 extra troops.

The US military describe the cleric as the “greatest threat to stability in Iraq.” US troops have been setting up bases in the poor Shia slums in Baghdad in a bid to drive out his supporters.

The size of the demonstration shows that the rebel cleric still has a mass popular following despite claims by the US that his organisation is splintering and he has become weak.

Sadr has faced divisions among his followers, who he describes as a “popular army” and not a militia.

The Mehdi army grew in the Shia slums of Baghdad and cities across the south and reflects the competing pressures on Iraq’s Shia majority – cooperation with the occupation or resistance.

Some factions of the Mehdi Army have joined in the sectarian killing of Sunni Muslims – often in response to car bombings in Shia areas – while others have been attempting to hold together unity with the Sunnis.

On Sunday Sadr issued another call to his followers not to attack other Iraqis but to turn all their efforts to driving out the occupation.

“God has ordered you to be patient in front of your enemy, and unify your efforts against them – not against the sons of Iraq,” he said.

The struggle for unity among Iraq’s resistance organisations was symbolised by the presence of Sunni Muslim delegations on the march, with a Sunni cleric marching at the front of the demonstration.

On the eve of the protest Sheikh Harith al-Dari, the head of the influential Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars, blamed the occupation for being behind the “discord” in the country.

He said Iraq has become “a vast prison, a graveyard that is devouring hundreds of thousands”, and that the US wants “to silence any voice of ­opposition and to put an end to the Iraqi people’s resistance to the occupation”.

On Friday of last week one of the most influential national resistance organisations in the Sunni heartlands issued a statement criticising Sunni groups that were fomenting sectarian and ethnic conflict and tarnishing the name of the resistance movement.

National unity

Many Iraqis have began to wear golden pendants in the shape of Iraq as a statement of national unity. The demonstrators in Najaf waved Iraqi flags, rather than the yellow and black flags associated with the Shia branch of Islam.

The protest on Monday was the biggest in Iraq since the massive unity demonstrations in the early days of the occupation.

Iraqi soldiers in uniform joined the crowd. Sadr appealed to them not to “walk alongside the occupiers, because they are your arch enemy.

“My brothers in the Mehdi Army, and my brothers in the security services – enough fighting and rivalry, because that is only a success for our, and your, enemy.”

“Infighting between brothers is not right, nor is it right to follow the dirty American sedition, or to defend the occupier.”

Sadr warned that the “enemy wants to draw you into a war to end the Shia, or rather Islam” and he urged the army and police to remain independent of US forces.

Salah al-Obaydi, a senior official in Sadr’s organisation, described the rally as a “call for liberation.”

“We’re hoping that by next year’s anniversary, we will be an independent and liberated Iraq with full sovereignty.

Sunday, 8 April 2007

Freedom to Strike Bulletin #1 - April 2007



We need more rights to strike, says union leader
by Grant Brookes

“We need the right to take strike action over outsourcing.”

That’s the view of Jill Ovens, the Service & Food Workers Union (SFWU) leader (left) who’s heading a campaign to stop pay cuts at Air NZ. The national airline announced plans last October plans to slash 1,600 airport jobs and contract out baggage handling and check-in operations to a multinational corporation. Then they told the ground staff they had to accept cuts in pay and conditions in order to keep the jobs “in-house”.

Sadly, the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU), which represents some of the workers, made a deal which accepts the cuts. “This was completely unacceptable to our members,” says Jill. SFWU members were facing an average pay drop of $7,000 each. “The company was holding a gun to our head at a time when we couldn’t legally strike.” Despite recommending the cuts package, EPMU Industry Organiser for Aviation Strachan Crang agrees. “Because Air NZ made this announcement during the term of the collective agreement, there’s been no real way for members to fight back”, he says. “They can’t take legal industrial action.”

Under Labour’s Employment Relations Act (ERA), it’s illegal to strike during the term of a collective employment agreement. It’s also illegal to strike if your boss ignores what’s written in the employment agreement they signed. It’s illegal to strike over unfair dismissals, plant closures, against government policies that hurt ordinary people, against wars or environmental destruction, or in support of other workers under attack.

In fact it’s illegal to strike about anything other than your own pay and conditions – even then, only after 40 days into negotiations. But employers like Air NZ are allowed to lay off workers, contract out or pressure governments at any time. Is that fair? It wasn’t always this way. Up until 1987, no strikes were illegal under our industrial laws. Work stoppages over lay-offs, unfair treatment or political issues like nuclear ship visits were normal. National’s Employment Contracts Act (ECA) in 1991 banned all these actions. Labour repealed the ECA nine years later. But they copied all but one of National’s antistrike laws into their ERA.

Jill says that Air NZ have learned that the way to cut pay and conditions in the middle of the term is to threaten to contract out. It’s a lesson that other employers will learn, too. “Employers will use these tactics”, says Jill, “and then employment agreements are unenforceable”. While EPMU members have lost out, SFWU members have held onto their pay and conditions for now. But no worker should be threatened and bullied like the people at Air NZ have been. The company could only try it because they knew it was against the law for the ground staff to fight back with industrial action. This has got to change. It’s time to reclaim our freedom to strike!

Solidarity that won 2006 supermarket lockout

When the warehouse workers from Countdown, Foodtown and Woolworths defied a monthlong lockout last September, it was a major boost to the whole union movement. 600 distribution workers showed that union power can stand up to a huge multinational corporation like supermarket owner Progressive Enterprises. They won because of an outpouring of support from ordinary New Zealanders. Thousands took their shopping elsewhere for the duration and $250,000 was donated to the National Distribution Union’s lockout fund. But key to the victory was “guerilla” solidarity action by other workers – and threats of more from union leaders. This could’ve been judged illegal. Under Labour’s Employment Relations Act, any reduction in normal work by a group of employees counts as a “strike”, and solidarity strikes are against the law. So the refusal by one group of workers to dispatch sugar for the first two weeks of the lockout could have been an illegal strike. So could the actions of waterfront workers who “lost” a dozen containers bound for the supermarkets. When Council of Trade Unions president Ross Wilson called on unionists not to handle goods in place of the locked out workers, he could possibly have landed up in court. Standing together to stop workers being bullied by a rich and powerful corporation should not be a crime. The law against solidarity strikes needs to be repealed.

JAILED FOR STRIKING IN 2007?
Did you know...?

* There’s a $40,000 fine for “illegal” strikes? And that’s “per offence” (eg, each time you say “no” when told to go back to work). The maximum fine has been increased from $10,000 in National’s hated Employment Contracts Act. s You could lose you house, or go to jail? If you don’t pay the fine for striking, the courts can seize all your assets. You can also be jailed for up to three months.

* Your union could be bankrupted for supporting strikes? Their assets can be seized, too.

* No-one’s ever been prosecuted. Workers only strike when they’re strongly convinced about the justice of their action – especially if it’s over something outside their collective agreement. If they’re convinced, the the public can probably be convinced, too. Bosses and governments have been too nervous to prosecute dozens of “illegal” strikes for fear of inflaming the situation. s The Party that passed these laws is called ‘worker-friendly’? It’s an outrage that laws from out of the Dark Ages like these were passed by the Labour Party.

Fishy smell

When the National Party expresses support for Labour’s industrial relations law, you know something’s fishy.

The party still threatens to chip away at the few rights we have. “But the days of the Employment Contracts Act are past”, says their IR spokesperson, Kate Wilkinson. “National does not intend to repeal the current Employment Relations Act”. Party leader John Key explains why. “The Employment Relations Act is 85 percent a rewrite of the Employment Contracts Act anyway”, he says. Workers deserve better from Labour than repackaged National policies.

Right to strike ‘no. 1 battle cry’
by Graeme Young, National Distribution Union organiser (abridged)

The lockout of Progressive workers last year raised a number of important issues. Money contributions, attendance at picket lines and moving resolutions on the job – including the boycott of stores – were all positive outcomes. But the one issue that ultimately prolonged the lockout was the repressive law stopping strike action in support of the locked out workers.

The current law says that ANY action outside normal duties is considered strike action. That meant that other workers caught up in the dispute were being forced to do the work locked out workers would have done. The union movement in New Zealand needs the right to strike to be its number one battle cry. The only time it is legal under the Employment Relations Act to take any sort of action is just before and following the expiry of the collective agreement. This effectively restricts the ability of workers to improve conditions on the job outside of negotiations.

Bosses are only too well aware of this and seek to maximise this restriction by negotiating 3 and 2 year agreements. My belief is that the union movement has no choice if it is to grow. It must embrace a struggle culture. At the top of its demands needs to be the right to strike at any time. To progress that demand will require more so-called “illegal” action. This is how unions have defeated bad laws in the past, and this is how unions will become more relevant to workers in the future. These are my own views and not necessarily those of the NDU.

You said it!

“Restricting the right to strike is an attack on a fundamental human right – the right of people to defend or improve their working conditions.” - Call-centre worker, Auckland

“If you’re not free to withdraw your labour, then you’re a slave.” - Bus driver, Wellington

“Without the right to strike, a worker facing the boss is stepping into the ring with both hands tied behind their back. The bosses are free to get together and work as a team – why don’t we have the same right?” - Office worker, Auckland

We got a national collective and good pay rise in 2005, thanks to support from other unions. We should be able to return the favour and take action to support people – like hospital cleaners – who now want the same.” Nurse, Wellington

What do you think? Email freedomtostrike@paradise.net.nz All responses treated anonymously.

This bulletin is issued by Socialist Worker. We want the anti-strike laws in Labour’s Employment Relations Act repealed. We’re campaigning for the Council of Trade Unions to call a national conference, open to all unionists, to launch a repeal campaign. Interested? Email freedomtostrike@paradise.et.nz or call/txt 021-053 2973.

SUBSCRIBE
to Workers Charter paper
Post $30 for monthly, 16-page, full-colour, tabloid paper to The Editor, PO Box 56-506, Auckland.

Saturday, 7 April 2007

Venezuela: The Times They Are A-Changin'

Venezuela is changing. Fast. No other word captures the speed and magnitude of change as well as that weighty word -- revolution. This is indeed the word used by many of the Venezuelans I had the privilege of meeting and interviewing during ten days in March. Venezuela is undergoing a 'Bolivarian' revolution. But what does 'Bolivarianism' entail?
Read the rest of this article from American activist Gabriel Ash here.

Wednesday, 4 April 2007

Beyond Rail Electrification- Free Transport for all





About ten activists from Climaction went to the Auckland Green Party meeting on Rail Electification on Monday 2nd Apirl. Our leaflet for Free and Frequent Public transport went down a storm, with many of the audience complimenting us on our work so far. There were about 400 people there, two thirds were older, with quite a lot of core Auckland City Green supporters. But a big meeting by any standards.

The first speaker was Cameron Pitches from the Campaign for Better Transport. He spoke about the success that campaign had in opening the Onehunga rail line, after an excellent video presentation comparing Perth's electric rail system to Auckland's transoprt chaos. Good, witty speaker, to the point, and received a huge round of applause.

Joel Cayford, Mike Lee and Jeanette Fitzsimmons also spoke. Their speeches were slighlty longer in duration!!! Mike Lee made a point about how radical ideas are first ignored, then ridiculed, then violently opposed, before they are then accepted as common sense. Hold that thought...

After the speeches, there came the time for questions. Daph Lawless was first off the block, eloquently explaining Climaction's support for rail electrification and more rail lines nationally, but saying that this needed to be complimented by frequent busses on the roads too, and that ALL public transport should be nationalised and fare free. Before she was rudely clipped off, she put the question to the panel. How many of them would support free and frequent public transport, and the renationalisation of public transport in Auckland. This got the cat amongst the pigeons straight off.

Mike Lee, Chairman of Auckland Regional Council, brought out the heavy artillery. Ignoring Climaction's existence, he made a veiled attack on the Residents Action Movement. Ridiculing demands for free public transport by saying that it would have to be funded by HUGE RATES INCREASES, which he would presumably (violently?) oppose.

Roger Fowler for RAM corrected some Mike Lee's distortions later on, and put the question again to Jeanette Fitzsimmons, who was the first signatory of the Free and Frequent Public Transport petition when it was launched at the Al Gore call out. Jeanette was more concillatory than Mike Lee, saying that although she supported free public transport in principle, she thought that we needed to work on the frequency and reliabilty first.

One of the major problems that went un answered was just how many people will benifit from the exisiting rail lines in Auckland. It is obvious that they serve only a very limited corridor at present. The shooting down of both Climaction and RAM's proposals on free and frequent busses means that large areas of Auckland would not be served in any sustainable way.

Mike Lee looks set to fight the proposal, by saying that it can only be funded by HUGE RATES increases. As such, part of Climaction's arguments must now move onto the big question- WHERE WILL THE MONEY COME FROM?

It should come from taxes on the multinationals and big business, as well as
the transfer of Central government funding from the Motorway lobby, as anindication of a serious commitment to make New Zealand Carbon Neutral in reality rather than rhetoric. (Central government funding was available for the Stadium when the political will was there.) Climaction definetly does not support rates increases for the ordinary working people of Auckland.

As the meeting broke up, we got Climaction leaflets into the hands of everyone we had missed coming in earlier. We had a good, solid intervention in the debate along with RAM, and did our profile good. We were seen to be a little more radical than what the Greens were proposing, whcih is no bad thing. A lot of people came up to the stall to thank us for the work we were doing, and we got some good new contacts.

Solidarity
Joe

Tuesday, 3 April 2007

A Marxist Muslim Alliance? A response to the Different Euphemisms For Power





Sahar's article the Different Euphemisms For Power, passionately rails against Western, "Orientalist" misrepresentations of Muslims as a homogenous group, either as demonic bloodthirsty terrorists or as victims to be pitied. However, she makes sweeping statements about the support socialists have given the anti imperialist struggles in the Lebanon, Palestine , Iraq and throughout the Arab and Muslim world, criticisms that Socialist Worker, as the only named group, would like to respond to.

1) All the left require is the token Muslim who will be mere background for their protest down Queen Street and the like - just in case their argument needs further reinforcement and legitimacy. Importantly, 'Muslim' is treated as homogenous.

First off, we do not see our Muslim brothers and sisters as homogenous tokens. The Muslim world, like the Western world, is divided into rich and poor, and the working classes of Cairo , Jakarta and Baghdad are some of the biggest in the world. These countries all have indigenous socialist and trade union movements, such as the Peoples Democratic Party of Indonesia, the Lebanese Communist Party and the Revolutionary Socialist Organisation of Egypt, who are involved in fights for human rights and huge strike movements in their predominantly Muslim societies.

(2) Furthermore, Western ideas like Marxism, Enlightenment principles and so on are portrayed as 'universal' and dictate the narrative. In the end, we have both perceptions depicting the struggles of Muslims in so called 'universal' concepts and norms which are inherently Eurocentric.

If it is a Universalistic concept to believe that the world is divided into poor workers and the tiny rich elite minority who benefit from their exploitation (whether that society is Muslim or Western), and that we need to organise to fight these elites for workers and human rights, then yes, socialists plead guilty!
The argument about how economy and society should be controlled democratically is one that rages within Muslim society itself. Salma Yaqoob, an eloquent young woman widely tipped to be the next MP in Birmingham for the radical socialist RESPECT coalition, spoke poignantly about this issue-
"The presentation of Muslims as one reactionary bloc has to be challenged. The Muslim community is a mosaic of different communities, experiences and viewpoints. When I stood as a RESPECT candidate in Birmingham, the bulk of my political opponents were Muslims. A Liberal Democrat Muslim candidate, an independent Muslim candidate and a Conservative Muslim candidate all stood against me. I was also the one most attacked by Muslim extremists going around with leaflets at the mosque and in vans with loudspeakers saying I was no longer a Muslim because I work with atheists and this is haram."
"So I find myself in the curious position of having more in common with atheist, socialist activists than my own Muslim brothers and sisters. But for me it's an expression of what I understand to be Islamic notions of justice. If you want to call it socialist internationalism and I call it Islamic notions of brotherhood and sisterhood, I don't care- as long as it means that we work in solidarity with those who are oppressed around the world. That's why I'm proud to be one of the founders of RESPECT. We stand for an alternative to the politics of imperialism and neo-liberalism."

(3) Additionally, the socialist left denigrate the struggles of the Muslim world to nothing but a class struggle. It sees the disenfranchised and impoverished as means to its own end. Therefore, the interdependency of history, political complexity, cultural dynamics and ongoing human struggle for liberation is reduced by being solely represented through a socialist ideological framework, simplified and made superficial - stripped of any narrative but a workers' struggle against capitalism. The different cultural context is removed, and so is the essence of identity for many of the region.

Socialists are not the crude reductionists that Sahar paints in her article. Socialists unconditionally support genuine anti imperialist movements throughout the world, be it Hizbollah's resistance to Israel's invasion of Lebanon last August, the Intifada in Palestine, the peoples of East Timor, Aceh and West Papua struggling against the Indonesian state, or the 800 year old struggle of the Irish people for self determination from England. None of these are class struggles- these are cases of small nations being oppressed by another imperial power, and socialists are opposed to all forms of oppression, not just in the workplace. We also believe that the defeat of our rulers armies abroad helps weaken their power at home- the Left launched massive social struggles for Civil Rights, Womens Rights and Trade Union rights on the back of the mass movement they built in solidarity with the Vietnamese people in the 1960s.

(4) Granted, the left-socialist agenda is not sinister like its counterpart.

Socialists would like to reclaim the word sinister, which comes from the Latin, Sinistra, meaning Left! But then again, just like the words Black, Muslim and Arab, dominant ruling class culture makes anything "left field" sinister! (LOL). However, it must be noted that not all socialists are homogenous either- Tony Blair and Stalin both laid claim to the name, but there are rivers of blood between the Stalinist dictatorships of Russia or the war loving Social Liberals of New Labour, and those of a genuine revolutionary socialist tradition. Even amongst revolutionary socialists, there is an argument, with Socialist Worker proudly on the side of Muslim people fighting Islamophobia in countries like Aotearoa and Britain, whilst other groups such as the LCR in France supporting the governments ban on the Hijab in schools and Universities. This meant that there was a gigantic anti war movement in the UK (with over two million people marching in London) that united Muslim and non Muslim in a new left movement, whilst immigrant youth in France saw the rise of Islamophobic far Right parties such as Le Pen's Front National, and fought on the streets whilst the radical left looked on impotently.

(5) However, both draw upon an Orientalist precedent that is seeping in racist and imperialist notions that disfigure representations of 'Muslim' in order to possess them. To own them. To direct them. To contain and therefore control them. Thereby both perceptions arrogantly assume they can speak for Muslims.

Sahar here draws on the work of world renowned writer Edward Said and his caricature of Marxism in his masterwork Orientalism. Among sections of the anti-imperialist movement there is still a degree of suspicion of Marxism, fed by the postmodernist, post-colonial academic currents of the 1980s and 1990s. The noted Indian historian Irfan Habib critiques this misrepresentation of Marx.-

On a preliminary page of his Orientalism, Edward Said puts two short quotations, the first of which is from Marx: "They cannot represent themselves; they must be represented." An innocent reader will surely assume that Marx is here implying that Oriental peoples are incapable of representing themselves, and so Europeans (better still, European Orientalists) must speak for them. And, indeed, on p21, quoting Marx's words in original German, Said explicitly furnishes this precise context for his words.

There is a double sense in which this use of the quotation is unethical and irresponsible. The quoted words are taken from a passage in Marx's Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, where he speaks not of the position of Eastern peoples, but of the poverty-stricken smallholding peasants of France at a particular juncture in the mid-19th century. "Since these peasants could not unite, they were incapable of enforcing their class interest in their own name, whether through a parliament or through a convention. They cannot represent themselves, they must be represented. Their representative must at the same time appear as their master" (K Marx and F Engels, Selected Works, Moscow, 1950, vol I, p303).
Not only does Said thus coolly substitute eastern peoples for French peasants; by a sleight of hand he also converts Marx's word "representation", meaning political representation, into "depiction" (The Oriental people cannot depict themselves, and so the Orientalists representation does the job p21).

(6) So in the left case, Muslims are represented as silent, oppressed and victimised. They do not speak for themselves, because they are represented as such; they therefore need to be spoken for.

We also do not see Muslims as victims who need us to represent them. The comrades of Hizbollah and the Lebanese Communist Party fought arm in arm together against the Israeli invasion without our help. They defeated the fifth strongest army in the world. Socialists, however, see it as our international duty to organise protests and solidarity whenever people are under attack. Throughout the Western world, from London to Washington to Auckland , we have been at the centre of building broad, inclusive anti war movements that have helped undermine the support for war. Socialist Worker comrades argued hardest throughout the world for the Muslim community to be centrally involved in these anti war coalitions, against many pure secularists who wanted to marginalise them. These movements claimed the scalp of Aznar in Spain , Berlusconi in Italy, and have seriously damaged both Bush and Blair. Comrades in the Middle East can point to the fact that millions of Westerners marched against war and invasion, thus defeating the myth that this war was a Clash of Civilisations.

And it's not just the socialists of a 'Eurocentric' ilk who extended this practical solidarity. The socialist President of revolutionary Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, was the only head of state to expel the Israeli ambassador from his country at that time- no Arab or Muslim head of state did anything similar. His image hung beside Hizbollah's Nisrallah from thousands of lamp posts in Beirut and Southern Lebanon as the cluster bombs fell and the resistance raged. The emergence of the Bolivarian Revolution and the Latin American radical left demolishes the myth that socialism is the preserve of old, European white men. The Socialism of the 21st Century is currently led by a brown, indigenous Latin American from the Global South.

Here in Auckland, socialists such as Kane Forbes helped to form the Students for Justice in Palestine Chapter in Auckland Uni with Zaem Bakesh in the early days of the Intifada in 2000. Our members in the Residents Action Movement (RAM) are currently working with the Muslim community to respond against the despicable Islamphobia of Ian Wishart's Investigate magazine. We have marched together for Palestine , Lebanon and Iraq, and will be united on the streets if there are any attacks on Iran. We do not look on our Muslim comrades as victims, tokens, demons or others, but our brothers and sisters in the fight for peace and global justice.

Further reading:

The Prophet and the Proletariat by Chris Harman

Israel the Hijack State
by John Rose

Critical Notes on Edward Said
by Irfan Habib

La Haine Est Dans La Rue- Personal Thoughts on the French Autumn Intifada by Joe Carolan

Wednesday, 28 March 2007

Blogs and pamphleteering: virtual resistance



The thousands of bloggers who use the web to question the status quo are continuing a proud tradition, argues Christian Hogsbjerg

Since the invention of the printing press, every great social upheaval in modern history has been preceded and accompanied by an explosion of political pamphleteering.

What often began with a few isolated dissident intellectuals calling for the overthrow of a particularly dictatorial tyrant became, in periods of revolution, a flood of paper – as thousands found the freedom and confidence to voice their dreams of a completely new society for the first time.

The classic example here is probably that of the Enlightenment, which in Paris before the French Revolution inspired a profusion of satirical pamphlets flowing from numerous pens.

Historian Robert Darnton describes “an illicit literature of vitriolic pamphlets” from a whole host of unknown writers who “desecrated everything sacred in the social order of the Old Regime.

“A prolific literary underworld disseminated a vast illegal literature that conveyed a seditious ideology to readers everywhere in France.”

This honourable tradition of pamphleteering was itself born out of an earlier revolution, the English Civil War in the mid-17th century.

In his 1948 introduction to “British pamphleteers” – a collection of classic pamphlets ranging from John Milton to Jonathan Swift – George Orwell noted that the pamphlet was special because it was inherently subversive.

“A pamphlet is a short piece of polemical writing aimed at a large public, it is written because there is something that one wants to say now, and because one believes there is no other way of getting a hearing.

“A pamphlet may be written either ‘for’ or ‘against’ somebody or something, but in essence it is always a protest.”

Orwell continued, “If one had not a certain faith in democracy, one would not write political pamphlets, one would try to get one’s end by intriguing among influential people.”

Accordingly, “pamphleteering will flourish when there is some great struggle”.

There are signs that today the lost revolutionary art of pamphleteering may well be making a welcome return, albeit not quite in a form Orwell ever imagined.

It strikes me that the recent explosion of political “blogging” – resulting from the development of new technology which allows anyone with internet access to freely publish their thoughts online on a weblog – may well be ushering in another great “age of pamphleteering”.

The significance of the rise of blogging is often overstated, but the rapidity of its rise in popularity remains remarkable. Technorati, a blog search engine, tracked 100,000 blogs at the start of 2003, and today, two years on, it is estimated there are over 65 million.

In another few years, who knows how many people will write blogs?

Some will argue that such a comparison of blogs with pamphlets is flawed as most blogs are not political – and many are of relevance only to those who know that individual blogger.

Yet as Orwell noted of pamphlets, “Of course, most pamphlets do not deserve attention. Most of them are rubbish. This must have been true at all times.”

Orwell remained a champion of the pamphlet nevertheless, for reasons which seem equally applicable to the modern blog:

“In a pamphlet one can do things that are possible in no other medium... Above all, the pamphlet does not have to follow any prescribed pattern.

“It can be in prose or in verse, it can consist largely of maps or statistics or quotations, it can take the form of a story, a fable, a letter, an essay, a dialogue, or a piece of ‘reportage’. All that is required of it is that is shall be topical, polemical and short.”

As Orwell concluded, “The great function of the pamphlet is to act as a sort of footnote or marginal comment on official history.

“It not only keeps unpopular viewpoints alive, but supplies documentation on events that the authorities of the day have reason to falsify. It is a job that needs doing in all ages, and surely never more than in the present one.”

“It might be argued that in England, with its free and reasonably varied press, there is not much scope for the pamphleteer. But this will not be endorsed by anyone who has ever tried to get a hearing for a genuinely unpopular cause at any given moment there is a sort of all-prevailing orthodoxy, a general tacit agreement not to discuss some large and uncomfortable fact.”

Orwell would not have been surprised by the tacit agreement among all sections of the powerful corporate media to avoid discussion of the large and rather uncomfortable fact that George Bush and Tony Blair are mass murderers, war criminals with the blood of countless numbers of dead on their hands.

I suspect Orwell would have been heartened by the way in which anti-war and anti-capitalist bloggers are beginning to challenge the dominance of ruling class ideas on the internet.

In upholding the tradition of pamphleteering and defending the truth from those in power, the best political blogs out there are truly modern footnotes on official history.

Wednesday, 21 March 2007

Electric Rail NOW!

Electrify NOW! Monday 2nd April 2007 7:30pm Methodist Mission Hall 370 Queen Street Auckland (opposite the Town Hall) There is an urgent need to electrify Auckland rail. The system is based on old, polluting diesel trains, bursting at the seams at rush hour. The Prime Minister has supported the idea of electrifying the Auckland rail system, but real commitment is needed now. The Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) need to order $170m worth of new trains in the next few weeks, and this money could be spent on electric trains if the government promises to support electrification in the coming years. If not it means more diesels, more smoke, and more going nowhere. Support us in pressuring central government to help finance the electrification of Auckland's rail system over the coming years. Green Forum is hosting "Electrify Auckland's Rail NOW!" a public forum on Auckland's transport system. With your support this meeting will help pressure the labour government into making the right choice, in time. Many notable and informed speakers have been lined up for this event, including Auckland Regional Council Chair Mike Lee and Councillor Joel Cayford, Green Co-Leader Jeanette Fitzsimons and Cam Pitches from "Campaign for Better Transport". Join in the call for better Auckland public transport - a large crowd will send a strong message to Finance Minister Michael Cullen that Aucklanders are serious about electrification. Promote this meeting and spread the message about why a decision to go electric is needed soon. For more details contact Green MPs Auckland Office 09 302 0166 greenmps.auckland (at) greens.org.nz

Sunday, 18 March 2007

"Our future is not in empire!"

Pictures from Auckland's contribution to world-wide antiwar protest, March 17th. Thanks to Indymedia.

Hugo Chávez interviewed on prime-time American TV

Noted journalist Barbara Walters interviews the President of Venezuela, 2007 March 16.

Tuesday, 13 March 2007

"The cops should be afraid of us!"

Green Left Weekly reports on the marches in Auckland and Wellington on International Women's Day against police rapists.

Sunday, 11 March 2007

The new UNITY reviewed

Ben Courtice writes in Green Left Weekly:
“System change not climate change” reads the cover of the December edition of NZ Marxist journal Unity. The contents amount to a comprehensive overview of the climate change threat — its physical workings, its political causes, measures to overcome it and action to take. For political grounding and stimulating ideas for action, this small booklet is indispensable. It should be on every socialist campaign stall and bookshelf.
Read the rest here.

Police Rape: The Tip of the Iceberg

(a leaflet written by Socialist Worker women for the International Women's Day marches in Auckland and Wellington) We are told that the police are there to protect us. But who will protect us from the police? Clint Rickards and his rapist cronies are just the tip of the iceberg of a system which not only condones but supports violence and abuse of power. Rape is not about sex at all – it's an act of power and violence. And those are two things that the police are good at. The police are nothing more than a gang - the biggest, best equipped gang out there. Like other gangs, they wear patches, have a code of honour, and band together against outsiders. Internal police culture is all about bullying and intimidation – not only of their prisoners and the general public, but of those lower down in their pecking order. They aren't there to defend us – they are there to defend our rulers, their property and their power. Compare how many police you see in the “nice suburbs”, compared to the places where working people live. The justice system is also set up to benefit the powerful over the powerless. Only five percent of rape cases are reported – women know perfectly well that it's usually not worth it going through the humiliation of the judicial process. Defence lawyers do their best in any rape trial to make it look as if the defendant somehow “asked for it”. Rape is a means of intimidation - and not for just women and children either. Just look at how this culture laughs and winks at the idea of men raping other men in prison - this, they say, is what happens if you step out of line. It's not just the police who target women, of course. Despite the offical concerns about the high rate of domestic violence and murder, violence against women in our society is still tolerated. While some women become Prime Minister or bosses of big corporations, most women are concentrated in low paying, low status jobs. This is not a simple question of men oppressing women. Ordinary men do not benefit from their wives, sisters and partners being poorly paid and under constant threat of humilation and violence. No-one in our society is free while women are treated like second class citizens. We need social change that will bring a living wage and free childcare for all. We need contraception and abortion on demand. We need to call a halt to the criminalisation of women raising children alone. And we need a better way to bring justice for rape victims. The only kind of society that can provide that is a society based on human need rather than profit – a socialist society. By organising and fighting back against sexism and police abuse, we are building the struggle for a better world right here and now. Women in the 1960s and 70s got angry at the way women were treated and won some important gains, but we haven't gone far enough. We need to make sure that Clint Rickards and people like him can no longer get away with abusing and humiliating the rest of us. It's time for women – and men - to get angry again!

WHERE WE STAND: Socialist Worker's ten-point programme

(Final text as adopted at the Socialist Worker national conference, 24-25 February 2007.)  

1. Workers power, not bosses power
Profit, the fuel of capitalism, flows from the dual exploitation of labour and nature. Workers collectively create a vast surplus which is monopolised by the tiny elite who run the economy and the state. Out of this systemic exploitation of the many by the few grow all of capitalism’s inequalities, oppressions, crises, wars and alienations. Marxists stand for full union rights, including the unrestricted right to strike. Rebuilding the union movement around a strategy of workers power is central to challenging bosses power, which tramples on our birthright, our freedom, our humanity, our habitat and our future. Socialists aim to get rid of class divisions by building a global democracy of free producers with common property rights.  

2. Democratic state, not bureaucratic state
Under capitalism, democracy is extremely restricted. Corporate bosses make most economic decisions, which impact on every other sphere of society. Top administrators, judges, military officers, police commanders and other state bureaucrats are not elected, and to a large and growing extent are outside the control of elected politicians. But it doesn’t have to be this way. Today in Venezuela, the election of president Hugo Chavez on a platform of “21st century socialism” is interacting with a quickening revolutionary process. The empowerment of communal councils and other organisations of popular governance is seen as critical by Venezuela’s socialists. Such a process also took off with the 1917 socialist revolution in Russia, but economic ruination and imperialist encirclement soon shattered its working class foundations. As workers councils fell apart in the Soviet Union, the vacuum was filled by Stalin’s party bureaucrats, who formed a new ruling class during the 1920s and veered onto a state capitalist course. Russia and Venezuela show that organisations of mass democracy are vital to creating a sustainable alternative to capitalism. Marxists stand for the taking of state power by elected assemblies of workers and other grassroots delegates, with no special privileges and recallable at any time. History shows that only such democratic assemblies can give direct expression to workers power. We can begin by introducing a similar spirit of democracy into every workers organisation in Aotearoa, especially our unions.  

3. Planning for people, not profit
Global market competition makes rational planning impossible. Capitalism’s “logic” of profit maximisation and wealth accumulation fuels the market-driven insanity of imperial wars, economic crises and climate chaos. Marxists stand for a socialist world where democratic associations of producers plan the economy in the interests of all humanity and other species we share the planet with. The production and distribution of social goods and services should be determined by democratic assemblies, not market forces. Strategic economic assets vital to community well-being, such as power, telecoms, water, healthcare, education, transport and large-scale manufacturing, need to be under public control. As a first step, the privatisations of recent decades must be reversed. An expansion of public services should be funded by taxing corporate bosses and other members of the wealthy elite, who owe a massive debt to the working class exploited since the birth of capitalism.  

4. System change, not climate change
Capitalism’s obsession with private profit is literally costing us the earth. Climate change and interlinked forms of nature’s spoilation, like species extinction, ecosystem pollution and resource depletion, threaten humanity with barbarism or oblivion. Unless industrial nations reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by something like 90% over the next few decades, climate chaos may make our world uninhabitable. Capitalism’s embrace of carbon trading will give the market, the main driver of global warming, even more extreme powers over the fate of humanity. Marxists stand for a socialist world where capitalism’s many wasteful and polluting industries are made redundant by the absence of money, the market and ruling elites. For starters, free and frequent public transit should serve urban areas, longhaul trucking should be replaced by state-run electric rail and coastal shipping, a methane tax should fund reductions to New Zealand’s worst greenhouse gas, and coal for export should be banned.
 
5. Human solidarity, not imperial divisions
Rivalry between the world’s competing ruling classes “spontaneously” generates divisions of nationality, ethnicity and religion. These class-created divisions are often exploited for military purposes when “normal” economic and diplomatic competition among capitalism’s rivals heats up into shooting wars. Nationalistic hatred, racist scapegoating and religious bigotry are fanned by warring states to mobilise their home population behind their imperial ambitions. This has been taken to an extreme in Washington’s falsely named War On Terror. The overarching objective is to compensate for America’s relative economic decline through the US state’s more aggressive projection of global military superiority, crushing weak nations and pressuring rival powers. The US ruling class is resorting to high-risk terrorism in a mad campaign to bend the world to its will. US president George Bush has called for a “war without end”. Washington has rewritten its rules of warfare to legalise nuclear first strikes, bringing the world closer to nuclear holocaust than ever before. Muslims are demonised, dehumanised and destroyed by the US state and its allies in a vile strategy of divide-and-conquer. Marxists stand for human solidarity in the face of imperial divisions. We should build the broadest possible alliance against the US rogue state and other capitalist warmakers. An important message to take into the peace movement is the need to confront capitalism’s twin engines of war: the state and the market. Behind each state’s war machine stand the corporate bosses whose drive for profit is the fuel feeding the flames. Creating a socialist alternative to the market rips up the roots of war.
 
6. Human freedom, not capitalism’s oppressions
The history of capitalism is marked by the systemic oppression of indigenous peoples, workers, ethnic minorities, women and non-heterosexuals. Capitalism in New Zealand was born out of the colonial takeover of collectivised Maori land by armed forces, market forces and political pressures, forcing tangata whenua to the bottom of the social heap where most remain to this day. The colonial state inflated the price of alienated Maori land to lock most immigrants into the lowly status of workers, who to this day suffer from massive political discrimination in areas as diverse as industrial relations, tax law, parliamentary representation, state appointments and official history. Ethnic minorities in New Zealand have been savaged by waves of state-sponsored racism, like the early tax on Chinese immigrants, the “white European” policies of most of the 20th century, the police dawn raids on Pasifika peoples in the 1970s, the “Asian invasion” hysteria whipped up by prominent politicians in the 1990s and today’s special laws and police spying on Muslims. Capitalism’s drive to reproduce the next generation of workers on the cheap created a “family values” system which devalued women, whose second-class status to this day is measured by such things as lower average pay than men, restrictions on abortion rights and a lack of state support for child rearers. The same “family values” scourge also hit people who didn’t neatly fit into the heterosexual category, and to this day lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people face pervasive discrimination despite legal near-equality. Such oppressions foster divisions among workers and other grassroots people which play into the hands of our rulers, whose system could not survive a united challenge from below. Marxists stand for the freedom of all humans, which is the only real basis for the freedom of each individual. We support the struggles of Maori, workers, ethnic minorities, women and non-heterosexuals for the rights, opportunities and liberties routinely denied them by capitalism today.  


7. Maori collectivism, not neo-colonialism 

The British colonialists, at the time of signing Te Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840, faced whakaminenga of strong Maori iwi founded on the principle of collectivism. While in theory the treaty “guaranteed” to Maori their whenua, taonga and tino rangatiratanga, these foundation stones of indigenous power were in practice seen as antagonistic to the interests of the British empire. The unprovoked invasion of the Waikato in the 1860s, along with other colonial wars to seize Maori land, were designed to break the back of tino rangatiratanga. Capitalism’s market and state could not tolerate peaceful competition from the “beastly communism” of Maori, in the telling phrase of one colonial politician. The New Zealand Parliament facilitated the alienation of most Maori land. The few acres remaining in the hands of tangata whenua were often de-collectivised by laws placing effective power in the hands of tumu whakahaere. These boards of trustees made all commercial decisions, thus sidelining the hapu or iwi as a whole and striking at the heart of Maori collectivism. Despite official predictions that the “natives” would die out as a distinct people, however, Maori searched out every channel of resistance left open.
More than a century of whakataunga, petihana, tawheraiti, hikoi, toutohe, mahi poti and other forms of tohenga to historic injustices forced governments to start making concessions to Maori in the 1980s. But capitalism’s underlying hatred of Maori collectivism remains strong. The treaty settlements are designed to empower a minority of “corporate warriors”, not the majority of flaxroots Maori. As Aotearoa’s version of neocolonialism, this is fueling divisions within the ranks of Maori between the market-driven profiteers and the ohu-leaning exploited. Marxists stand on the side of the exploited at the same time as we support all Maori calls for treaty compensations and tino rangatiratanga. The collectivist heritage of Maori, which is an indigenous forerunner of socialism, is a source of strength for all grassroots struggles in our land. The history of Aotearoa points to the need for mana hapori as a collectivist alternative to capitalism.  

8. Workers internationalism, not corporate globalisation
The explosion of corporate globalisation since the late 1970s has increased market pressures in every corner of the world. In rich industrialised countries like New Zealand, the welfare state has been hacked back over recent decades while the wealth gap between bosses and workers widens into a chasm. Third World nations are facing ruinous debt, asset stripping and imperial domination, reducing their grassroots to conditions of terrible poverty and often starvation. The world’s top 500 multinational corporations are raking in obscene profits and taking over “national” businesses in every country, backed by powerful states whose military spending alone could solve humanity’s most urgent food, water and healthcare needs while funding a global shift to clean energy technologies. Corporate globalisation holds the world to ransom in order to increase the profits and power of a tiny elite. Marxists stand for workers internationalism, where the grassroots of every country unite in a common struggle for human salvation and ecological sanity. New Zealand activists must build closer links with workers in Australia, the Pacific and Asia as an antidote to ruling class moves to create a regional free trade zone which would increase the power of capital over labour. We support independence movements in West Papua and other colonies of the Indonesian state, along with people’s resistance to Australian and New Zealand neo-colonialism in East Timor, Papua New Guinea and the Solomons.  

9. New workers party, not old Labour 
  The world’s old Labour parties are adapting to corporate globalisation, not fighting for a grassroots alternative. They are shifting away from social democracy, which once demanded significant concessions for workers in return for acting as capitalism’s “loyal opposition”. They are moving closer to the neo-liberal agenda of big business, and their leading bodies are dominated by the new middle class rather than union officials. The most apt description of NZ Labour today is “social-liberal”. The working class in Aotearoa still casts more votes for old Labour than any other party, but the organisational and emotional bonds of generations past have long gone. Marxists stand for the creation of a new workers party which can unite grassroots people around a broad left platform and open up the road towards socialism. The 10-point Workers Charter, which has been endorsed by the NZ Council of Trade Unions, is based on meeting the needs of grassroots people rather than the ruling elite. Further steps towards creating a broad left alternative to social-liberalism are being made possible by a revival of mass struggles, both here and offshore. When a new workers party arises and starts to win seats in parliament, this electoral legitimacy will give a huge boost to people’s movements against corporate rule.  

10. Socialist revolution, not reformed capitalism
The space to deliver grassroots reforms through parliament alone is being shut down by corporate globalisation. Reforms can still be won on the back of mass struggles, but they are harder to achieve than in times gone and likely to be smaller. No longer do old Labour politicians talk about a “fundamental reform of capitalism”, let alone a “peaceful road to socialism”. Marxists stand for a revolutionary break with capitalism. History shows that no ruling class will ever peacefully hand over economic and state power simply because the majority of society have voted against the old order. Economic sabotage, military coups and foreign interventions are some of the weapons used by corporate elites to stave off grassroots challenges to their rule. Overcoming capitalist violence is a decisive stage in the journey to socialist democracy. A vital ingredient for success is organic leadership from a large Marxist group composed of the best activists in workers unions and grassroots coalitions. The centralisation of the capitalist state demands a counter-centralisation by the revolutionary movement. As workers change the old society, they will change themselves as well, and begin to equip themselves to collectively run a new society without bosses on top. We call on all non-sectarian activists who want a revolutionary break with capitalism to join Socialist Worker.

Monday, 1 January 2007

UNITYblog comments policy

UNITYblog invites comments which aim to promote broad left education, mobilisation and organisation. UNITYblog will not, of course, post any comment which demonises: 1. Women, gays and lesbians, ethnic minorities, the religious and grassroots activists of other persuasions. 2. Individuals at the base of society rather than the capitalist system which oppresses us. 3. Groups standing for humanistic, co-operative, ecological, egalitarian and democratic values.