Scottish Socialist Voice
Issue 311
23rd August 2007
—front page—
End The Carnage
Bring
the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan
by Ken Ferguson
Legendary
radical journalist Claud Cockburn had a golden rule concerning
the utterances of government spin doctors - “never believe anything
until it is officially denied.”
It’s an excellent rule and one that ought to be rigorously applied
to anything said by imperialism’s front men - civilian and military
- about Iraq.
After all we all know that this entire quagmire was started
with a parcel of lies about non-existent weapons of mass destruction,
40 minute missile strikes on Cyprus and dodgy dossiers.
All of this wrapped up in the synthetic sanctimonious guff about
democracy and human rights delivered by the ultra Christian
Blair, partner in crime to the neo-con warmonger Bush.
Now they are at it again with the besieged British military
spinning Alice in Wonderland tales about every thing being under
control in Basra and denying what even the camels on the street
know - the Brits are about to leg it.
Latest to break cover with the Corporal Fraser ‘don’t panic’
mantra is one Lord Boyce. Who he?
Lord Boyce served as chief of the defence staff between 2001
and 2003, and he deployed all his establishment gravity when
he told journalists:
“The British are not facing what the Americans were facing in
Saigon, which was a well-equipped army as opposed to disparate
murderers and terrorists.”
The fact that the same type of forces have kicked the Brits
out of places as disparate as Aden, Kenya, Cyprus and a few
other former Crown colonies seems to have escaped his Lordship.
He
denied that Crown forces face a Saigon moment - so named after
the panic stricken helicopter flight from victorious Vietnamese
forces - assuring his listeners: “I don’t think it’s sensible
to draw any parallels between Saigon and Basra.”
Meanwhile in the real world hundreds continue to die in bombings
while report after report tells of pressure from the generals
on Brown to get them out.
Not that the high command has gone soft - they want to accept
the reality of defeat in Basra to get some more cannon fodder
for Afghanistan.
So bitter and close too is the fighting there that it is accepted
in military circles that it is as intense as World War 2 or
the struggle against massed attacks in Korea.
Unfortunately for the military developments such as email and
camera phones mean that even after the government applied gagging
orders to the troops the truth is getting out.
Headlines are still made when soldiers die but the lid is still
kept on figures for those wounded - often with grave life changing
injuries.
Indeed there is now a gathering campaign to re-open military
hospitals, closed to save cash, to ensure that wounded soldiers
receive the kind of specialist treatment needed for battlefield
wounds.
Like Iraq before it the Afghan campaign is far from the ‘hearts
and minds’ operation that would be carried through, in the words
of ex-Defence Secretary and gold plated warmonger Dr John Reid
“without a shot being fired”.
Rather it is now the most vicious and intense war since 1945
and the fact that many of the UK causalities are now inflicted
by gunfire shows the kind of close quarter fighting involved.
The real question is now whether the supposedly different Brown
administration has the bottle to bring UK forces home from Iraq
or is so under Bush’s thumb that they simply reassign them to
Afghanistan.
News that the British are buying new enhanced Thermobaric weapons
for use in Afghanistan strongly points to Brown continuing to
back the US war.
Thermobaric weapons use enhanced blast to suck out air, bust
bunkers and kill those in the vicinity of their use.
There use is certainly a long way from the idea that our boys
would fix schools, make tea and play five a side with the locals.
As more and more die in US and RAF air strikes the battle for
“hearts and minds” is not going well as the killing of civilians
in such strikes ratchets up the opposition to US and UK troops.
And remembering Cockburn’s advice readers might like to ponder
where the following Ministry of Defence statement will take
us:
“The MoD is purchasing a small number of enhanced blast munitions
for use on operations. These have been procured in full accordance
with the UK’s obligations under international humanitarian law.
“It is important to us that our forces can choose from a wide
suite of weaponry.
“These weapons will be used proportionally under specific rules
of engagement. Our forces go to every effort to ensure that
we avoid civilian casualties.”
—page two—
QUEEN WENDY crowned labour leader
The
increasingly right wing forces grouped under the New Labour
banner at Holyrood have decided that the best approach to
win back power is to move even further right.
That is an inescapable conclusion of the news that the ultra
business-friendly Wendy Alexander has been returned unopposed
to lead the depleted New Labour ranks in Edinburgh.
The much hyped ‘challenge’ from the self-styled Campaign
for Socialism foundered when they failed to muster six MSPs
to nominate a candidate.
We can now anticipate a major spin offensive from New Labour
selling the mighty intellect, skills and all round wonderfulness
of the Alexander leadership.
Ignore the gasps and sighs from the spoon fed hacks in the
Scottish press corps as they breathlessly regale readers
with stories about Labour’s ‘challenging new direction’
and its move to embrace ‘aspirations’ among the voters -
expect more of the same, but worse.
With the Alexander succession we will get a willing acolyte
for Gordon ‘Union Jack’ Brown and the continuing New Labour
drive against socialism and in favour of British Imperialism.
Make no mistake - when the carefully rehearsed sound bites
about ‘the people’s priorities’ and meeting their ‘aspirations’
are wheeled out it won’t take an Enigma machine to break
the code.
At the heart of this project is a steely determination to
write off swathes of New Labour’s former support who trustingly
believe that the party will deliver them justice.
The elitists who now run Labour regard the up and coming
middle class as their target audience and shuffle their
feet and look embarrassed when the low paid or unemployed
are mentioned.
They regard them rather like the old uncle who takes too
much drink and makes a scene at a family wedding.
Listeners to Radio Scotland were treated to an early warning
of this when Ms Alexander was asked by an interviewer if
she was a socialist.
Despite much ducking and diving about ‘the socialist tradition’
the new leader avoided describing herself as a socialist,
even though the interviewer pointed out that it was a simple
question with a ‘you are or you aren’t’ answer.
The reality is that Wendy may be in the car but it is being
driven by Gordon and his sat nav is programmed by the needs
of the city, US imperialism and the multinationals they
serve.
If Salmond maintains his current profile of making left
concessions - which the polls show are wildly popular -
then Wendy is likely to have to continue with the limp sound-bite
carping which we have heard from New Labour since May.
More widely the Alexander triumph is surely a terminal blow
to the increasingly incredible idea that the strategy of
‘saving’ New Labour and returning it to socialist ideas
had any steam left in it.
It is now clearer than ever that such an approach is totally
hollow. New Labour is lost as a socialist force and will
continue to put up a screen of windy slogans about ‘people’s
priorities’ while backing war, nuclear weapons, PFI and
big business.
And it also clear that they will do so in a ever more Unionist
tone which will rapidly scunner all but the most dyed in
the wool Union Jack backers.
One example reported last week tells of a Scottish Labour
MP demanding to know why BBC Scotland journalists in London
had a Saltire above their desk and not the butcher’s apron.
In the months ahead the serious left in Scotland is faced
with a major task of filling the hole left by New Labour’s
final surrender by putting serious policies before the public.
This will need to include raising the pressure for demands
such as free public transport, pressing for real action
on the housing crisis and demanding an end to British imperialism’s
wars.
On independence the SSP has indicated that it will be building
pressure on MSPs for a referendum, but we also have a distinct
set of demands which define our view of an independent Scottish
republic to campaign for.
Far from New Labour’s desire for a return to business as
usual we can expect Scottish Politics to enter a fast moving
and turbulent period in the months ahead.
—page three—
Bio fuels eat into world food supply
by Ken Ferguson
During
World War Two concerted action by Hitler’s U-boats, hunting as
so-called ‘wolf packs’, sank thousands of tons of merchant shipping,
killed thousands of merchant seamen and brought the UK to the
brink of starvation.
From the end of the war food security - ensuring there was enough
to eat - was a key policy aim of governments, both Labour and
Tory.
That has now ended as part of the fashionable dependence on the
hidden wisdom of market forces, which now leads government policy
to the view that having farmers as ‘stewards’ of the land is more
important than food stocks.
While few will quarrel with the aim of ensuring the protection
of the rural environment, the idea that the security of our food
supply should not be a priority may be less popular.
Given the dire warnings already being given on food prices in
the wake of the floods in England the folly of depending on market
forces to ensure food supplies in an increasingly volatile world
looks less and less of a good idea.
Around the planet drought is hitting Australia, the Ukraine and
global wheat stocks are at a 30 year low.
The consequences are recorded in the cold government statistics.
Between May 2006 and May 2007 a white loaf rose in price by 13.9
per cent, carrots by 22 per cent, and onions 40 per cent.
Into this already unpleasant mix we must now add the potentially
serious impact of the latest panacea to save the earth, the switch
to crop based diesel and other fuels as a response to rapidly
dwindling oil stocks.
The famous US satirist Mark Twain once advised a would-be investor
to “Buy land: they’ve stopped making it” and this excellent advice
goes to the heart of the problem of the bio fuels debate.
Put simply, you can’t grow food and fuel on the same limited stock
of land. But that isn’t seen as a problem by the bio fuel lobby,
an unholy alliance of big oil companies and seed and fertiliser
multinationals, aided and abetted by the Bush White House.
Having realised that they are increasingly isolated on the question
of global warming the Bush regime has launched a major public
relations push to con the world into believing that the Texas
oilman has turned into a “better steward of the environment”.
Announced by Bush in his January State of the Union Address the
plan is entitled ‘20 in 10’, and aims to cut US gasoline use 20
per cent by 2010, reducing dependency on foreign oil and cutting
greenhouse gases.
Under the plan corn-based ethanol fuel production will almost
double and vast acreages of land will have to be switched from
growing food crops to growing fuel destined grain, with both agri-business
outfits and big oil companies (who will refine the stuff) set
to receive federal handouts to make it worth their while
In March Bush’s bio fuel drive went international when he met
with Brazil’s President Lula to sign a bilateral “Ethanol Pact”
to co-operate on the “next generation” bio-fuel technologies,
and co-operation in expanding bio fuels’ use in developing countries,
especially in Central America.
Bio fuel supporters even dream of a Western based Ethanol OPEC
which would ensure fuel supplies and checkmate all sorts of troublesome
foreigners from the Ayatollahs to Hugo Chavez.
US and world grain prices are soaring and are certain to continue
rising at a fast pace with the increasing conversion of US farmland
to become bio fuel factories.
In 2006 alone US farmland devoted to bio fuel crops increased
by 48 per cent. None of that land was replaced for food crop cultivation
because the tax subsidies make it far too profitable to produce
ethanol fuel.
The EU is also backing a major switch to growing bio fuels, as
are Brazil and China, with the result that the land available
to grow food is declining globally.
A likely side effect of this will be renewed pressure for GM crops
led by the same agri corporations scrambling to make mega bucks
out of ethanol and who own the GM seed technology .
A chilling measure of what this means can be seen in the fact
that reserve stocks of all grains fell at the end of 2006 to 57
days of consumption, the lowest level since 1972.
No wonder that world grain prices rose 100 per cent over the past
12 months.
The brutal reality of putting profit driven corporations in the
driving seat in the production of a basic commodity such as food
or fuel can seldom have been so graphically illustrated.
To protect their super profits these monsters will hike food prices,
tolerate hunger and all while holding out their paws for government
subsidies paid for by the very public they are robbing.
US market sneeze gives world a cold
One
of the great defences used by capitalists to cover their tracks
is the complex world coded behind a smokescreen of FT indexes,
Dow Jones etc which makes their activities as clear as ancient
Greek to an unsuspecting public.
But as the late, great, Woody Guthrie memorably sang “some rob
you with a six gun and some with a fountain pen”, and behind the
frosted glass in the City and the towers of Canary Wharf they
don’t even wear a mask.
The noisy panic which has bombarded an often bemused public about
plummeting markets and nervous banks are, in reality, no different
than a Ladbrokes punter who has just watched the third horse in
his treble fall at the first fence.
For behind all the current hoo-ha lies the simple truth that the
corner bookies and the City operate in much the same way - they
bet money on outcomes which will deliver a profit.
Voice readers have been hearing much from grave voiced commentators
about the supposed cause of the crisis, the US ‘sub prime’ lending
market.
The suggestion is that these feckless, irresponsible borrowers
who have been helped out by good hearted lenders (at hefty interest
rates) are failing to meet their responsibilities and causing
the problem.
However anybody who spends any time watching UK day time television
knows that high cost loans are pushed at vulnerable consumers
in almost every commercial break.
The targets of these ads are much the same as those at the heart
of the US ‘sub prime’ crisis - people facing desperate cash problems.
The vast majority of such borrowers have not been on a spree at
Las Vegas or over indulging in fast cars but are the human victims
of capitalism’s much-hyped boom.
In the US cuts in real wages coupled with the outsourcing of production
have led to the collapse of well paid work, fuelling profits while
slashing pay and living standards.
As in the UK, huge cuts in public provision of housing has left
those seeking a home with little alternative but to buy, whatever
the cost.
Into this gap step the golden hearted moneylenders to help out
and, naturally, charge a handsome rate of interest.
In turn these good Samaritans take steps to cover their risks
by offsetting the loans to other lenders - just like a bookie
offsetting a big bet in case the horse wins.
Bankers who bought up such loans on the expectation of collecting
the interest got cold feet when they discovered that they had
been sold dodgy loans bundled up with some of their normal mainstream
ultra safe loans.
In effect the ‘sub prime’ loans were, at best risky; at worst
borrowers could fail to repay and they would be worthless.
The alarms bells started to ring as banks in the US, France, Netherlands,
Australia and the UK discovered the huge extent of these loans
and the dealers screens turned red.
Here in the UK an interesting side effect is to blow a major hole
in the airy talk from New Labour about the ‘knowledge economy’,
with ‘financial services’ ousting dirty car making or coal mining
as the heart of the economy.
Now the pro-business hot air mouthed by New Labour is exposed
in what is little more than a Casino economy.
The danger now is that, as banks toughen up on lending, investment
dries up and jobs are lost. In other words those whose low pay
and poor conditions fed the sub prime market will finish up paying
the bill.
Orkney ferry workers vote for strike action
RMT
ferry workers have challenged Orkney Ferries to come up with a
decent pay deal or face strike action.
The workers rejected an offer of 3.5 per cent, below the inflation
rate of 4 per cent, voting by five to one to take strike action
if the company fail to better their offer.
The situation is exacerbated by the fact that ferry workers at
rival companies Cal Mac and Northlink can earn up over £2000 more
for the same job.
Workers were initially offered a 2.5 per cent rise, and the latest
offer was rejected by an even bigger margin.
RMT general secretary Bob Crow said in response to the ballot:
“We suspended strike action last month to allow the company time
to talk and to table a better offer, but what they have come up
with is still way short of the mark.
“Our members have returned an even bigger majority for strike
action, and the company would do well to take note of that determination
and come back to the table with a serious offer.”
—page four—
Flying to extinction
by Roz Paterson
Last
week an almost unprecedented terror gripped Heathrow
Airport.
While ordinary families form orderly, nine and a half
hour queues for a one hour hop to the continent, the
menace was moving in... beware the mild-mannered vegan
and the earnest ecologist, armed with sustainable
living workshop resource packs and the means of building
compost latrines.
It sounds ridiculous. It is ridiculous. Yet the police,
urged on by BAA, the company that owns Heathrow Airport,
and the government, which relies heavily on the money
generated by the out-of-control aviation industry,
invoked anti-terrorism laws to curb what was known
and understood to be a peaceful protest.
It’s not even as if this hasn’t happened before.
The Camp for Climate Action took place last year,
at the Drax coal-fired power station, the largest
emitter of CO2 in the UK.
Do you remember any major terrorist acts pertaining
to this low-impact living event? Me neither.
This year, camp was established on the perimeter of
Heathrow, between the overworked runways and the west
London suburbs, on a site owned by Imperial College,
who want them off their land, but have no leverage
on the grounds that they are not actually doing any
harm, goddam them.
Odd then, that the police thought they would need
1800 officers to patrol a 2000-strong encampment.
Or that they would need to use all the powers stored
up in section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, including
those to stop and search persons without explanation,
stop and search vehicles and take photographs of everyone
entering the site, hold arrestees for up to a month
without charge, remove protesters’ outer clothing,
such as hats, shoes and coats, and search their homes.
This nasty legislation was famously deployed in full
force at an arms fair held at RAF Fairford in 2003,
when coach loads of protesters were stopped, searched
and turned away, despite this being an authorised
demonstration, and 144 individuals were arrested,
two under the Terrorism Act.
This police heavy-handedness provoked outrage from
civil liberty organisations and the public alike,
and, in time, from the law lords who ruled that the
police had acted unlawfully.
Yet, again, the Metropolitan Police claimed they need
these powers to stop the Heathrow protest getting
out of hand, and were willing to bandy about the much-abused
term ‘terrorism’ which, incidentally, should only
be used to describe very serious, politically motivated
crimes designed to instil terror in the general public,
what UN terrorism expert A P Schmid calls “the peacetime
equivalent of a war crime”.
Erecting teepees and embarking on some non-violent
direct action hardly fits the bill.
Protesters included students, greens, local residents
who will see their homes flattened if the proposed
Heathrow expansion goes ahead, international campaigners
who have seen the devastation that global warming
causes at first hand, Muslims, Christians, the very
elderly and the angry young. All hell-bent on a consensus
approach to combating the single biggest threat humanity
has ever faced. And none of whom planted any bomb
hoaxes, despite some screaming headlines in the Evening
Standard last week.
Of course, the real reason the shock troops surrounded
the camp like so much toxic barbed wire was to prevent
disruption to air services, causing airlines to lose
money.
A sharp reminder, if ever you needed one, that British
law has many, many laws to protect property, yet only
a handful to protect people.
Heathrow was chosen as this year’s Camp for Climate
Action site because it contributes more CO2 to the
atmosphere even than Drax power station, which pumped
out 21million tonnes of CO2 in 2005.
Heathrow, the biggest international airport in the
world, produces in excess of 18.5 million tonnes per
year. However, that’s not the whole story, as aircraft
emit not only CO2, but also nitrogen oxides and water
vapour which, at high altitudes, contribute greatly
to increased global warming.
By a factor of 2.7, according to the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, by a factor of 2, according
to the UK government, and by a factor of between 1.7
and 4, according to Predict and Decide, the University
of Oxford Institute on Climate Change.
Even taking the lowest of all these - 1.7 - transforms
Heathrow’s carbon footprint into 31.3million tonnes
a year.
Aviation is (conveniently) not included in the EU’s
largely discredited carbon emissions trading scheme,
which means that even if other sectors do actually
clean up, this dirty player will more than cancel
out the savings they make.
A study by Manchester University, for Friends of the
Earth, found that aviation will cancel out, entirely,
the carbon savings the UK would make if it managed
to meet its Kyoto Protocol targets.
And it’s only set to get worse.
Currently, Heathrow processes 67.7million passengers
a year. This is set to break the 80million barrier
by 2016, by which time Terminal 5 will have been built.
Four years later, and brace yourself for Heathrow’s
third runway, which will make those figures take off
into the stratosphere.
The aviation industry is a real Blair success story
- if you measure success in terms of crude profits
only.
It’s partly fuelled by the fact that there is no tax
on aviation fuel, thanks to the Chicago Convention
of 1944 which outlaws it, and partly by the myth that
cheap flights, which underpin the expansion, have
opened the doors of the world to poor people.
Taxing it would be kicking them when they’re down,
you see.
Actually, you don’t. And deliberately so. In fact,
less than 5 per cent of all leisure flights are taken
by people on an income of less than £11,500.
Much of the rest are taken by wealthy travellers who
have been enabled, thanks to Ryanair et al, to travel
more often. Indeed, budget airlines are such a democratic
boon, they have even facilitated the practice of buying
second homes in France and Spain, to which their owners
can commute at weekends...Thus, more and more people
are actually warming to the idea - 44 per cent, according
to a recent survey by the Office of National Statistics
- of increasing airline passenger duty, in effect
to make people who fly pay for the environmental damage
they cause.
Eschewing air travel for holidays in the UK is another,
increasingly popular option, though this summer’s
deluge put somewhat of a damper on this growth area.
However we deal with it, deal with it we must. We
may not be camped out at Heathrow being threatened
by armed cops for wearing a knitted bunnet in a fly-zone,
but we can all make decisions and make waves in the
fight to reclaim the skies from the corporate polluters.
Useful links: www.airportwatch.org.uk
www.thinkbeforeyoufly.com
www.nsca.org.uk
www.flightpledge.org.uk
—page five—
Letters
Name
change
After reflecting on Alan Redman’s fine letter (Voice
issue 310), I think dropping the Socialist name from the SSP
would be out of line with our history, traditions and ideals.
Though I feel because of the sordid Sheridan affair - and soon
to be part two - that there is now a need to show that the SSP
has moved on from the media hell that he selfishly put many
decent people through.
My suggestion would be, as I have already heard mooted, an additional
name added to the SSP. That would be United Scottish Socialist
Party - USSP.
Sheridan tried to break the back of this brilliant party and
movement. Because SSP members did not want a liar leading their
political party.
Let’s show that there has been a break, and start the debate
on an additional name change today.
Felix Strasbourg, Munich
Public
transport
Politicians of all stripes are falling over themselves
to paint themselves green as defenders of the environment in
the battle against climate change.
Recently released figures from the Department of Transport graphically
highlight that in practice they are miles away from effecting
real change in the levels of carbon emission in Britain.
The figures showed that over the last 30 years the cost of travelling
by car had fallen by 10 per cent, while in the same period the
cost of travelling by train had increased by 52 per cent, and
by bus an even more staggering 55 per cent.
It is hardly surprising that car use has increased so dramatically
in that period, with all the consequences for the environment.
It should also be noted that time frame coincides with the period
when the previous Tory and current Labour government have viewed
public transport provision not as a social service but as a
profit making business.
By privatising our trains and our buses, private profit has
been elevated over public good and we have an expensive and
disjointed system that is a massive disincentive for people
to use their cars less.
If politicians really wish to tackle climate change, isn’t it
time they took the step of re-regulating our public transport
system, bringing it back under public ownership and encouraging
greater use of our buses and trains as one measure to reduce
carbon emissions and congestion on our roads?
Kevin McVey
Cumbernauld
Encouraging
conversation
It is exciting to see the surge of interest in Alex
Salmond’s launch of the White paper on Scottish independence
- immediate positive responses on the Scottish Executive website
and interested reporting in newspapers as far afield as the
International Herald Tribune.
Many political commentators have misinterpreted the Scottish
election results and underestimated the levels of interest in
the present debate.
Many on the left, particularly in England, saw the Scottish
National Party victory as a shift to the right when in fact
it was a shift to the left with many disenchanted Labour Party
and non aligned voters supporting an anti-Trident, pro peace
SNP. Unfortunately the Scottish Socialist Party, Solidarity
and the Scottish Green Party were victims of the electorate’s
determination to bring about political change. Despite the appalling
chaos of discounted votes, they were successful in doing this.
Few people believe that the SNP will introduce the setting up
of a Socialist Republican Scotland. But there is a strong feeling
around that they will fight against Westminster decisions about
extensions to Trident. I believe they will also take a stand
against any more imperialist wars conducted in the name of ‘British/Western
democracy’. It is a pity that the Scottish Labour Party did
not take a stand on these issues. They have paid a heavy price
for their political loyalty to Blair and his cronies and they
will have to work hard to rebuild trust in Scotland.
Why the widespread interest in this debate? Some people forget
that there is a Scottish diaspora spread across the world descended
from families who were forced to leave Scotland because of the
Highland Clearances or unemployment or lack of opportunity.
If Alex Salmond and the SNP can begin to lay the foundations
of a framework that will allow Scottish young people to live
and have a rewarding career in Scotland, they will have done
well.
Maggie Chetty, Glasgow
Drink
and drugs: a class-based view of the problem
With all of the current soul searching in respect of
binge drinking and drug abuse perhaps we might benefit from
a class-based perspective.
If we look at the way in which the middle classes use alcohol
it seems clear that they tend, in large part, to use alcohol
in an experience enhancing way. They have reasonably good lives
and the use of alcohol opens their consciousness to allow them
to fully appreciate their satisfactory situation. It is a social
thing.
On the other hand, however, the working classes have little
by way of an opportunity or incentive to relax and contemplate
their situation. They tend to use alcohol in an experience denying
way, preferring to reach a state of intoxication which will
allow them to forget, however briefly, that their situation
is largely intolerable and that they are dominated by capitalism
in every part of their life experience.
This can be seen in the metaphors which the classes use to express
their intoxication, with the middle classes admitting to being
tiddly, happy, jolly, merry or other expressions of enjoyment.
The working classes, on the other hand, tend to use metaphors
of violence or unconsciousness such as smashed, blitzed, hammered
etc. The alcohol is used as an escape from a reality in which
inequality is the determinant of success.
The preoccupation with banning cheap drink promotions and happy
hours as a solution to a problem which resides much deeper in
society is largely window dressing and designed to make politicians
feel better about themselves. We will never have the café culture
approach to alcohol which they have in other European countries
until (like the French, who we are exhorted to emulate) we deal
with our problems of class-based inequality (perhaps not quite
so radically as the French although there are many who would
benefit society if they were introduced to Madame la Guillotine)
and enshrine equality in our constitution.
Younger people have taken this class division into the world
of drug abuse, tending to emulate their elders’ approach to
alcohol use in their own approach to drug abuse. The hippies
of the 1960s and 1970s were largely middle class. They tended
to promote the use of recreational drugs such as cannabis and
L.S.D. which were believed to open the ‘Doors of Perception’.
Other experience enhancing drugs such as cocaine and ecstasy
increased in popularity as these students became the young professionals
of the 80s and 90s with rising incomes and consumer lifestyles.
They say if you can remember the 60s you weren’t there, but
the working class who toiled, day in day out, in real jobs remember
it well - they were at work - but the 70s and 80s for them were
very different.
Largely thrown on the scrapheap by Tory industrial policies,
they were less interested in experience enhancing drugs since
they had little experience worth enhancing. Hand in hand with
this expression of anger went the use of drugs in an experience
denying way. They adopted heroin, crack cocaine, valium, diazepam
and other drugs designed to induce unconsciousness. Their objective
was not to have a good time, it was to temporarily get out of
a place which had ceased to have any real attachments for them.
Their own lives.
These are problems which are manifestations of our class-ridden
culture and we waste our time if we try to solve them whilst
ignoring the underlying causes - the class-based inequality.
If we don’t address the class issues we will get only more of
the same.
John Miller, Paisley
—centre pages—
Pain of partition
Sixty
years after India won independence and the formation of Pakistan,
Roz Paterson looks at the bloody mess left by British colonialism’s
policy of divide and rule, which turned a land where many different
cultures and beliefs had coexisted peacefully into a war zone carved
up along religious lines. The after shocks of partition still tremor
today.
On the stroke of midnight on 14 August, 1947, Britain finally relinquished
control of India, bringing to an end 350 years of barbaric colonial
rule.
But it left a sting in its tail - over three centuries of divide-and-rule
policies culminated in the crude, hasty and very, very bloody partition
of India.
The hope and optimism that was born in 1947, embodied in the trainloads
of flag-waving, smiling Muslims heading to their new nation of Pakistan,
quickly turned into a violent, vengeful quagmire.
Little
wonder.
This was the biggest population movement in history, yet
was overseen by two brand-new governments who had no idea what to
expect.
The Brits, fearing a mess, had already pulled out, leaving the walls
to fall in on themselves. And fall they did.
Over 14 million people collided at the new borders and beyond, and
up to one million died, horrifically in most cases, while millions
of others were left stranded, without land, history or work, or were
herded into refugee camps, where they live to this day, their children
and grandchildren born into the squalid dead-end of homelessness and
statelessness.
The road to Partition was a long one.
The British Raj succeeded the 300 year Mughal Empire, controlled by
Muslims. The Brits feared the Muslims, and a powerful, united India.
Thus, nurturing the seeds of separatism suited them nicely.
The British census, for instance, categorised people according to
religion, and helped establish the institutions from which the Muslim
League emerged, which was then placed on a separate electorate, thereby
setting a precedent for India and Muslims to be distinct.
There were other tensions.
Muslims, who once held power during the Mughal Empire, refused to
cooperate with the British, unlike Hindus, who were rewarded with
positions of power.
This situation did an about-turn when Britain declared war on India’s
behalf, without consulting any Indian leaders, during the Second World
War.
Sir Stafford Cripps was despatched to India by Winston Churchill to
tackle the ensuing crisis and he tacitly offered India a deal: support
us in this, and we’ll grant you your freedom.
Congress was unimpressed. Mahatma Ghandi summed up the offer as a
“post-dated cheque on a bank that was failing.”
But the Muslim League fell in, winning favour with the British, while
Congress, largely composed of secularists, were out in the cold thanks
to the anti-British Non-Cooperation campaign, sister to the Ghandi-led
Civil Disobedience campaign, that saw them withdraw from all government
institutions, including elected seats.
By 1947, reconciliation seemed elusive.
Yet Ghandi, for one, remained vehemently opposed to Partition, saying:
“My whole soul rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam represent
two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine
is for me a denial of God.”
Others, like Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, felt that
without it, there would be only violence and chaos.
As it transpired, violence and chaos was their lot.
The Partition was a rush job, even by British standards. The government
wanted out of what they saw as a deteriorating situation and did it
quickly and with monstrous insensitivity.
The borders of the new nations were drawn up by a London lawyer, Cecil
Radcliffe, who didn’t actually know the region and based his carving
on where the Hindu and Muslim majorities were roughly located, even
though this entailed hacking up the ancient provinces of Bengal and
Punjab.
Furthermore, he gave Kashmir to India, despite it having a Muslim
majority.
You don’t need to be well-versed in your Indian history to know what
a festering sore point that proved to be.
And so came the catastrophe.
Some left in style, with a military salute and high hopes. Others
left in rather more of a hurry, suddenly made aware, by the smell
of burning, that they could no longer live on the ‘wrong’ side of
the border.
Villages were routed, riots left streets littered with corpses, tens
of thousands of women and girls were raped and abducted, and hundreds
of millions were slaughtered, leaving families in ruins. Still others
died on the way, of exhaustion and starvation.
Women were a particular target, a real weapon of war. ‘Ghost trains’
pulled across the borders of the newly-born nations bearing the most
macabre cargo - the severed breasts of thousands of now unnameable
women.
Even those who made it could hardly be said to have found a promised
land.
The aftermath was troubled and long-lasting, particularly as two leaders
who may have helped shape some kind of workable peace, Ghandi and
Jinnah, were dead by the end of 1948, the former assassinated by a
Hindu extremist who felt he’d capitulated to the Muslims, the latter
from TB and lung cancer.
The sub-continent has been riven with conflict ever since, from the
1971 secession of what is now Bangladesh to the deadly stand-off over
Kashmir to the on-off nuclear arms race that casts molten sparks across
the whole region.
Here were populations of people forcibly shifted from the land to
which they belonged, on the basis that they would feel a greater sense
of belonging when herded in with people of the same ethnic/religious
background.
Partition was based on a very crude assumption that human relationships
and communities are based on identity.
That Indian Muslims and Hindus literally died of grief following their
uprooting from mixed communities, that the nations born in 1947 have
never found a lasting peace, puts the lie to this terrible idea.
The breaking up of India didn’t solve ethnic and religious divisions,
it merely cemented them into place.
Clash of fundamentals:
America, Musharaf and the Red Mosque
by Jo Harvie
As
the country prepared to mark the anniversary of its foundation, Pakistan’s
dictator, General Musharaf, was reportedly on the verge of declaring
a national emergency.
The July siege and then storming of the ‘Red Mosque’ in Islamabad
- which resulted in the deaths of around 80 people who had been holed
up in the Mosque, according to official reports, and ten Pakistani
soldiers - focused the world’s media commentators on the growing strength
of religious fundamentalist organisations in Pakistan, and Musharaf’s
perceived failure to deal with them.
Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan’s exiled former-Prime Minister, has used
the issue, what she describes as the creeping “Talibanisation” of
Pakistan, to flex her growing power - never mind that her government
funded the Taliban in Afghanistan, something she now calls a “mistake”.
She has leant her backing to the storming of the Red Mosque, saying
Musharaf had no choice. She met with the General last weekend, another
in a series of discussions which give weight to the speculation that
she hopes to form the next government with Musharaf’s support.
The storming of the Red Mosque followed some months of indecision
from Musharaf’s regime over how to deal with the increasingly violent
actions of groups aligned to the Mosque, including kidnappings and
attacks on libraries.
The indecision perhaps related to the fact that there are thick ties
between this particular sect and the government. The land that it
and its associated madrassas are built on was gifted from the state
by Zia ul-Haq, Pakistan’s last military dictator, and father of the
country’s current religious affairs minister, Ijaz ul-Haq.
And, explains writer and activist Tariq Ali, “the father of the two
preachers who directed the violence from the mosque had worked for
military intelligence.
“Musharaf proved too weak to break from this legacy. A scratch turned
to gangrene. The military doctors resorted to amputation.”
The long term mutual dependency between elements of religious fundamentalism
and the military in Pakistan leads Labour Party Pakistan general secretary
Farooq Tariq to describe this summer’s violence as a fight “between
two close friends who had developed some conflicts of interest.”
In the wake of 9/11 and the West’s ‘war on terror’, the growing power
and influence of religious fundamentalism in Pakistan has begun to
unsettle the military regime, who once viewed its preachers as junior
partners.
And the West is less comfortable with the relationship, no longer
requiring a convenient bulwark against communist Russia.
Musharaf was forced to take action, says Farooq, “to show its muscles
to the international donors, that it is able to take on the religious
fundamentalist at any cost.
“The message to American imperialism was clear, ‘trust us, you do
not have to come, we can do the job for you’.”
But, he argues, the brutality meted out to the Red Mosque, the slaughter
of madrassa students and a handful of preachers and the ritual humiliation
of survivors, will only consolidate the power of their ideology:
“Religious fundamentalism cannot be defeated by use of force. The
war and occupational policies of American imperialism is quite evident
of this phenomenon.
“It has to be a political fight to expose the real meaning of religious
fundamentalism to the lives of ordinary people. ‘You cannot kill ideas’
is the lesson of the growing influence of the religious forces across
Muslim world.”
Pakistan’s left forces and civil society won a recent victory over
the regime, with the reinstatement of the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court who had been sacked by Musharaf, after a campaign which saw
hundreds of people, including Farooq, imprisoned and interrogated.
But the slaughter at the Mosque further polarises political forces,
and makes life even more difficult for the left.
“The incident has led to re-groupment of different political parties
and alliances... The PPP (Pakistan People’s Party, led by Benazir
Bhutto) hopes to form the next government with the support of general
Musharaf.
“This mingling of PPP with the military junta will reinforce the religious
fundamentalists who are the main force behind the newly formed APDM.
“The progressive forces in Pakistan must have an independent position
to condemn the both. We cannot lend our support to one enemy in opposition
to the other one.
“The Military Junta with the support of American imperialism and the
religious fundamentalists are both enemies of the working class.
“They both are against trade unions and radical social and political
organisations.
“They both are believers of private property and free market.
“They both have same economic polices which are primarily responsible
for the absolute poverty stricken conditions of the masses across
the globe.
“We cannot sit aside to see the fight between the two bulls.
“We must oppose both to build our own ranks by fighting for the rights
of the working class.
“Pakistan’s people want an end to the nightmare.”
—page eight—
A life as a class fighter
OBITUARY
Ron Brown
1938-2007
by Colin Fox, SSP National Convenor
Ron
Brown was that rare breed - a trade’s
union militant, who became a Labour MP
[
Unlike many others who sat on those green
Labour benches Ron wasn’t seduced by ‘the
Born in West Pilton on the eve of World
War 2, the son of a taxi driver, Ron was
a product of that
For 13 years at
Ron found the antiquated procedures at
But Ron was, as he saw it, reflecting
the anger of millions over the viciousness
and inequity of the poll tax. He followed
the advice of a predecessor Labour MP,
George Lansbury, who argued that “it is
better to break the law than break the
poor”. Ron was propelled to the front
of the anti-Poll Tax movement in
On one occasion he was arrested for telling
Mrs Thatcher, on one of her rare trips
North of the Border, that she was ‘not
welcome here’. He surely spoke for the
nation as never before.
Ron Brown was a principled socialist activist,
not a career politician - and there is
a world of difference between the two.
He was not afraid to confront the political
orthodoxy of the time. He was a first
class spokesman for the anti-Poll Tax
movement and played no small part in its
ultimate victory.
Although he was never far from
Ron believed passionately that the families
who lost loved ones at Lockerbie have
been betrayed by a grotesque miscarriage
of justice, where those who carried out
the atrocity have been allowed to go free
and a man who had nothing to do with the
bombing fitted up for the crime.
Ron’s wicked sense of humour shone through
when dealing with the allegations that
he was a spy for
As much as he liked a laugh he was deadly
serious about the need to change the way
the world was run. Indeed my fondest memory
of Ron captures both sides of him. We
were among a group of anti-Poll Tax activists
gathered in Mayfield,
Ron had hoped, forlornly as it transpired,
he could appeal to their class sensibilities
and get them to turn around and go home,
but alas the National Union of Sheriff
Officers (if there was such a thing) did
not count these two likely lads among
its membership. With Ron’s assistance
we then resorted to more traditional methods
of sending them ‘homewards to think again’,
but you couldn’t help but admire his optimism!
The hope Ron had in some causes was not
blindly applied across the board. He saw
Blairism for the deceit that it was and
faced up to the pessimistic conclusions
that had to be drawn after 1995. The abandonment
of socialist ideas by New Labour meant
a difficult reality had to be faced. Labour
was no longer a party of socialist values
and, after nearly 100 years, no place
for socialists. A new party of the left
had to be built and Ron threw himself
into the task with gusto.
Together with around 500 others Ron established
the Scottish Socialist Alliance. The left
in
The Scottish Socialist Party emerged and
Ron was one of its founding members. He
was an SSP member until his death.
Last year when the SSP was dragged through
the hell of Tommy Sheridan’s libel action
I found Ron to be a tower of strength.
He had been through many such ‘trials’
before. Quickly realising there was not
an ounce of sense in Tommy Sheridan’s
legal action, or his subsequent split
from the SSP, Ron dismissed the many invitations
he received to join Solidarity.
He believed
Ron Brown was an active socialist for
nearly 50 years. He was a member of the
engineering union throughout and latterly
President of Edinburgh Trades Union Council.
He sat on the Edinburgh May Day Committee.
He was a stalwart in hundreds of campaigns,
demonstrations, protest marches, pickets
and rallies throughout the city. Indeed
it is hard to accept that we will not
see him again on the posties picket lines,
or the Meadowbank stadium protest, peace
marches or anti-war activities.
Ron’s wife May [nee Smart] died in 1995.
Ron leaves his partner June Hutton, two
sons Alan and Gavin, and six grandchildren.
The conscript who fought against imperialism
OBITUARY
Ian (John) Finlayson
by Allan Armstrong
Ian
(John) Finlayson died on 5 July after
a long illness. Ian was from a Sutherland
background but lived in
As a young conscript, Ian served in the
British Army at the time of Indian independence,
an experience which contributed to his
strong opposition to imperial rule.
He later became a dairyman in Wigtonshire,
before moving back to
He helped to unionise his workplace and
became a national office bearer and delegate
to the TUC.
Ian was also active in his local community
council.
I have known Ian for 25 years. For most
of this long time, Ian was a member of
the Labour Party. We had many arguments
in the local pub. Ian, however, could
no longer stomach the political course
adopted by New Labour.
After Blair sided with Bush, in launching
the illegal war against
Whether it was in the Southside Community
Centre, after Saturday stalls, or Droothy
Neebors, after branch meetings, Ian, a
life-long bachelor, enjoyed discussions
with SSP members.
Ian, profoundly secular in his beliefs,
nevertheless brought a strong moral conviction
to his politics.
He was deeply shocked by Tommy Sheridan’s
behaviour in the courts and in the pages
of the Daily Record and resigned from
the party.
However, Ian was impressed by the way
Colin Fox handled a difficult situation,
and rejoined the SSP after the split.
Ian was particularly inspired by a number
of writers, including Noam Chomsky, John
Pilger, Robert Fisk and Paul Foot.
Whilst there were many issues, which greatly
concerned him, Ian was a particularly
strong advocate for the Palestinian people
in the face of an Israeli state, backed
by US and British imperialism.
Ian will be missed by his fellow SSP members.
—page nine—
cultural resistance
Return to the west
Seraphim Falls, directed by David Von Ancken, in cinemas 24 August
by Jo Harvie
Over
the opening scenes of John Ford’s The Searchers, officially
The Greatest Western Ever, a singer croons, “What makes
a man to wander?/What makes a man to roam?”
It’s a question that Seraphim Falls, like many westerns
before it, dwells on at length and comes up with an answer
again repeated many times though Hollywood’s love affair
with the American frontier - all-consuming lust for revenge.
Revenge for what exactly, on this occasion, remains unexplained
for the best part of the film, as Liam Neeson hunts Pierce
Brosnan, from the frozen Nevada Ruby Mountains through parched
prairie land, eventually to murderous, suffocating desert.
It begins some time after the American Civil War, with Gideon
(Brosnan), a trapper alone in mountain snow. Shots ring
out and a wounded Gideon throws himself out of range, rolling
down mountainside and plunging over icy waterfall.
So begins the pursuit as Carver (Neeson) sniffs the air
in the abandoned campsite and instructs his assembled gang
of hired hands that they shoot for “extremities only”. He
wants Gideon alive, at any cost, but we can only wonder
why.
Artfully shot, unending landscape takes shape as a character
all of its own, as determined to do for the main characters
as they are each other.
Seraphim Falls is a return to the traditional western, after
the genre’s conventions on portrayal of masculinity were
so beautifully subverted by Brokeback Mountain.
The two male protagonists verge on the super-human as they
battle each other’s wits, and Mother Nature, while saying
very little. Although unlike John Wayne or Clint Eastwood’s
benchmark, slow-talking western heroes, Brosnan puffs, pants,
groans, screams and even sobs his way through the chase.
But just in case of any doubts regarding his ultra-masculinity,
we only get to see him cry once he’s gouged a bullet out
of his own bicep and slit a man’s stomach open in order
to warm up his hands.
Neeson is typically gruff, craggy and masterful - and the
tension generated between the two actors is teeth-clenchingly
believable.
Until, eventually, they meet and, via clunky flashback,
we get the reason Carver is bent on revenge, and the magic
starts to dissipate. At one point Carver screams “God damn
you to hell!” - words which should be permanently banished
from film dialogue.
Although the flashback does firmly establish the war as
the film’s baddie, it’s a heavy-handed exposition of how
war does terrible things to good men. It seems completely
out of kilter with the suspense and mystery of the film
until that point, when the plot could have survived quite
happily without ever telling us what had happened between
these two men.
Still, the best part of Seraphim Falls is a stylish homage
to the old school western with two excellent central performances.
There’s a couple of cracking cameos too, including Angelica
Huston as Madame Louise C Fair (geddit?) who tells Gideon
that “a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do” with a straight
face and everything. Which made it all worthwhile for me.
The psychology of torture and cruelty
The Lucifer Effect. How Good People Turn Evil (Rider) by Philip Zimbardo
by Jill Tyrer
I
think my friends and family are tired of my eagerness for
them to read this book. It was Philip Zimbardo (a Social
Psychologist) who set up in 1970 the Stanford Prison Experiment
in which a group of students were divided randomly into
a group of prisoners and prison guards in a mock prison;
they were fully briefed that this was an experiment which
any of them could withdraw from whenever anyone wanted to.
Very quickly the guards began to treat the prisoners very
unpleasantly and at the end of five days Zimbardo (at the
insistence of his girlfriend and co-Social Psychologist)
pulled the experiment.
This result was not expected because at that time it was
thought that a person’s innate personality was the stronger
determinant of behaviour.
Zimbardo, from this experience, formed the view that in
fact situation is a more powerful determinant of behaviour
than personality.
He went on to study what sort of situations result in a
position of power leading to cruelty; most recently he has
been an expert witness at the trial of one of the U.S. soldiers
who took part in the torturing of prisoners at Abu Graib.
His opinion is that they were ordinary soldiers whose line
of command failed to make sure that human rights were observed
- this pattern of abuse did not result from the acts of
individual soldiers who broke the rules.
“It resulted from decisions made by the Bush administration
to bend, ignore, or cast rules aside” (from a statement
by Human Rights Watch).
We all know that the Bush regime accepted no responsibility
for Abu Graib - insisting that the perpetrators were a few
bad apples.
This is a remarkable book - long, but every sentence clearly
written.
It contains shocking transcripts of what happened between
prisoners and guards in his experiment, and also in detail
what happened at Abu Graib - far more shocking.
What Zimbardo concludes is that each of us needs to be clear
about our moral values, and not to be influenced by others
to put our values to one side when under pressure; we must
celebrate heroism - people like Rosa Parkes who refused
to move from the part of the bus reserved for white people.
Zimbardo believes that we need to bring up our children
to practise this principle of equality in the treatment
of others.
As a socialist, this book has clarified for me what I hope
I already knew, that socialism and power are two completely
separate dimensions - I am proud to be a member of a party
which recently decided that truthfulness was important even
if it meant a loss of power in recent elections.
This book so far is only in hardback - persuade your library
to get it if you cannot wait until it appears in paperback.
The
Wild Brunch
Keef Tomkinson
Keef casts his eye across life’s more leisurely pursuits in order to put a wee bit of CULTure into our lives.
Holy Entrepreneurialism
Just
like Rupert Murdoch, he runs a globalised brand. Just like
Rupert, he’s the corporation’s ideological driving force.
Just like Rupert, he made his son a board member. Just like
Rupert, he influences politicians. Just like Rupert, he
sees women as tits, curves and a womb.
That’s where the similarities end.
Rather than matching Rupert’s monolithic uniformed approach
to business, God chooses to create the façade of competition
between his brands. Christians, Muslims, Jews and even Quantum
Presbyterians may appear enemies but the CEO is the same.
And while Rupert spends billions on accumulation and advertising,
G has used his longevity to inform the development of a
system so that now his franchises avoid most taxes, accumulate
unlimited capital and levy a tariff on their customers,
separate from the tax system.
But what’s been most successful even through the hard time
of the enlightenment, age of reason and the 1990s, is the
ability to get free advertising from all branches of the
media.
Let’s look at Sunday morning TV. With audiences awakening
and hungover from booze or a week of graft, do the main
channels show The Sopranos or High Chaparral? No, we get
C&A clones gabbin’ about God.
By the evening, just when we have come to terms with another
five days of shit from the man, Songs of Praise comes on.
Is it ever the Detroit Gospel choir singing Marvin Gaye’s
back catalogue? No, we get songs about hills, hope and sheep.
When a big social issue arises do channels guarantee experts
who use reason? No, some priest or minister pops up to link
a quote from G’s unauthorised biography to every issue.
When some perceived horror occurs, reporters rush to local
or national reps of the nearest cult for comforting words.
If you listen to Radio Scotland in the morning, its relatively
good sports and news coverage is interrupted at 7.25am for
Thought For The Day. Again a Rabbi, Reverend or Mullah mumbles
on about how G discussed Forth Road Bridge congestion with
Moses.
G has got his fingers in pies everywhere. How can we remove
his fingers and cleanse from them the juice of our mental
labours?
Cable TV, a mixture of Satanism and Science, offers hope.
Its total lack of remit to include G means that his shadow
only appears in weak-willed creative output and luckily
young people’s cynicism at holy hypocrites and their mental
and sexual abuses means the future could the see a truly
Atheist Broadcasting Co-operative.
Salmond’s Six Obsession
So
here’s what is going down. The SNP wants to review the nation’s
broadcasting with a view to having a Scottish Six - covering
news form home and abroad instead of the present George
Alagiya borefest.
Pros: The Six O’Clock News is hopeless and our brains deserve
more. It suffers form the Bringlish identity crisis which
sees English/London news as national news. Scottish coverage
is akin to being patted on the head by an Auntie for spelling
haemorrhoid correctly.
Cons: Reporting Scotland is a constant embarrassment as
lazy journalists pick up press releases and travel upwards
of ten minutes from the studio to cover these, while trawling
through local news for comedy stories about dancing sheep!!!
Solution: We hand over the running of BBC Scotland’s news
coverage to John Pilger, Michael Moore and our own Jo Harvie
and Roz Paterson (the present acting editors can look after
her baby). Or we have a news corporation with a real public
service remit and talent to expose and reveal, rather than
tell tales. Holy Entrepreneurialism
Just like Rupert Murdoch, he runs a globalised brand. Just
like Rupert, he’s the corporation’s ideological driving
force. Just like Rupert, he made his son a board member.
Just like Rupert, he influences politicians. Just like Rupert,
he sees women as tits, curves and a womb.
That’s where the similarities end.
Rather than matching Rupert’s monolithic uniformed approach
to business, God chooses to create the façade of competition
between his brands. Christians, Muslims, Jews and even Quantum
Presbyterians may appear enemies but the CEO is the same.
And while Rupert spends billions on accumulation and advertising,
G has used his longevity to inform the development of a
system so that now his franchises avoid most taxes, accumulate
unlimited capital and levy a tariff on their customers,
separate from the tax system.
But what’s been most successful even through the hard time
of the enlightenment, age of reason and the 1990s, is the
ability to get free advertising from all branches of the
media.
Let’s look at Sunday morning TV. With audiences awakening
and hungover from booze or a week of graft, do the main
channels show The Sopranos or High Chaparral? No, we get
C&A clones gabbin’ about God.
By the evening, just when we have come to terms with another
five days of shit from the man, Songs of Praise comes on.
Is it ever the Detroit Gospel choir singing Marvin Gaye’s
back catalogue? No, we get songs about hills, hope and sheep.
When a big social issue arises do channels guarantee experts
who use reason? No, some priest or minister pops up to link
a quote from G’s unauthorised biography to every issue.
When some perceived horror occurs, reporters rush to local
or national reps of the nearest cult for comforting words.
If you listen to Radio Scotland in the morning, its relatively
good sports and news coverage is interrupted at 7.25am for
Thought For The Day. Again a Rabbi, Reverend or Mullah mumbles
on about how G discussed Forth Road Bridge congestion with
Moses.
G has got his fingers in pies everywhere. How can we remove
his fingers and cleanse from them the juice of our mental
labours?
Cable TV, a mixture of Satanism and Science, offers hope.
Its total lack of remit to include G means that his shadow
only appears in weak-willed creative output and luckily
young people’s cynicism at holy hypocrites and their mental
and sexual abuses means the future could the see a truly
Atheist Broadcasting Co-operative.
—page ten—
international news
Chavez gives aid to Nicaragua
by Sam Gordon, Leon Nicaragua.
With
the arrival of seasonal rains in Nicaragua,
rural workers are ploughing and sowing. In the
cities, religious statues parade through the
streets, followed by the faithful and enough
fireworks to waken the dead.
But the biggest crowds are reserved for the
President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,
Hugo Chavez.
His second visit to Nicaragua this year marks
the 28th anniversary of the ousting of the Samosa
family dictatorship at the hands of the Sandinista
Front for National Liberation (FSLN).
This Popular Revolution caught the world’s imagination
during the 1980s, at the same time raising wrath
on Capitol Hill, Washington DC.
The US government authorised millions of dollars
to fund a war against those who overthrew the
dictatorship. Yet the FSLN remained in government
from 1979 until it lost the election in 1990.
There followed sixteen years of free market,
neo-liberal economics, which killed off land
reform, massive expansion in education and health
services and the growth of a large co-operative
movement, all hallmarks of the Sandinista era.
It did not put an end, however, to Daniel Ortega
as leader of the FSLN.
He’s back again as president.
Yet he won the 2006 elections with fewer votes
than when he lost in 1990, which means he must
consolidate his position.
He talks a lot about the people being president.
His wife, Rosario Murillo, who has become Nicaragua’s
first First Lady and is the Co-ordinator of
the Communication and Citizenship Council, is
upfront at her husband’s public appearances.
But his association with Chavez may be his biggest
PR asset.
During his visit in March, the Venezuelan president
promised his government would build a petroleum
refinery in Nicaragua’s Department of Leon.
This time, he came to Puerta Sandino to lay
the foundation stone of what is to be the largest
petroleum refinery in Central America.
The refinery will take four years to complete
and have a daily productive capacity of 150
million barrels of fuel.
Nicaragua’s present consumption is around 20
million barrels a day.
Even if this doubled, it still leaves another
100 million barrels for export. The net gain
for Nicaragua, second poorest country in the
western hemisphere, is estimated to be $600million
dollars.
Leon has a strong tradition of voting Sandinista,
and thus has been bypassed for investment during
the past sixteen years.
Puerta Sandino is a small port, but does receive
ocean-going ships, though its main economic
activity is processing salt.
The raw product is lifted from pre-prepared
beds when the tide recedes, baked dry in the
sun and packed in bags for distribution. It
is small a scale, cottage-type industry, often
family-based, employing men shovelling the salt
and women packing it into bags.
Chavez announced that young Nicaraguans would
go to Venezuela to be trained as industrial
technicians, and that his government will also
construct a petrochemical facility, an electricity
generating plant, with a 400 megawatt capacity,
and a liquid gas plant, aimed at the domestic
market.
Two million US dollars from Venezuela are earmarked
for small and medium businesses in the construction
and food processing sectors. School bags, books
and education materials for teachers are on
their way.
The cheers from the crowds gathered in the Plaza
of the Faith may not waken the dead. But they
will be heard, once again, on Capitol Hill.
Challenge to China’s “ECONOMIC MIRACLE”
by Ken Ferguson
The
media may drool over the so-called Chinese economic
miracle, but its underbelly is scarred by poverty,
job insecurity and horrendous levels of exploitation.
The world woke up to this latter in June, following
the Black Brick Kiln incident in Yunnan, Shanxi,
where it was revealed that workers were held
in slave labour conditions in a works owned,
ironically, by the son of a leading local official
of the ruling Communist Party.
So great was the public outcry that even the
normally compliant official media and courts
were forced to act and one man received the
death penalty, for killing a kiln worker, while
28 others were jailed. However, this incident,
“an ulcer on socialist China” according to the
Judge presiding, Liu Jimin, is not the isolated
horror that Chinese leaders and their pro-market
cheerleaders in the West insist it to be.
And the people speaking out come from the very
heart of the Chinese political machine.
In an open letter to General Secretary Hu Jintao
and the CPC Central Committee, a group of leading
public figures - including Yang Shouzheng (former
Chinese ambassador to the Soviet Union) Zang
Naiguang (former deputy chief executive of the
Bank of China) Han Xiya (former secretary of
the All China Federation of Trade Unions) and
Bai Xuetian (former political commissar of a
People’s Liberation Army tank division) - challenge
China’s current economic direction.
They vehemently oppose a reliance on market
forces and the widespread privatisation of public
resources and assets.
Regarding the Kiln incident, the letter states
state bluntly: “(This) case shows that there
are many dark sides of our country, that run
completely counter to the socialist system and
communist ideology.
“This was obviously a capitalist scene, incorporating...cruel
exploitation, and the tragic, dog-eat-dog world
of primitive accumulation under feudalism and
slavery.”
It insists this case is not isolated, citing
as examples the horrific death toll in coalmining
and other industries, caused by pro-market forces
undermining all other considerations, including
basic health and safety.
The letter warns the Party leadership:
“Reform and opening have already been occurring
for so many years, and yet the social issues
are only becoming more serious with development.
“Why do we still insist on the wrong things?”
That such a letter has even been penned is stirring
the waters in China’s inner circles, and shows
that not everyone is sold on the ‘miracle’ of
economic barbarism.
—page eleven—
NO justice and no peace
The
Westminster government recently announced the withdrawal of British troops
from Northern Ireland.
Bill Bonnar looks at the role the British Army and sucessive UK governments
have played in this partitioned part of Ireland and their links to Loyalist
groups.
A
recent BBC Radio Two report on the ending of the British Army’s role in Northern
Ireland included the following comment. “British Troops first went into Northern
Ireland in 1969 in the role of peace-keepers and for thirty-eight years have
strove to keep both sides in the conflict apart”.
What we have here, contained in one short sentence, is a carefully crafted
myth designed to cover a much more sinister reality.
For a start British forces did not first intervene in Northern Ireland in
1969. This was simply the latest phase in an ongoing military presence dating
from the late 17th century and set to continue after the current ‘withdrawal’.
Second, the role of British forces as peace-keepers has always been marginal
to their true purpose which was to put down what was seen as an insurgency
by significant sections of the Catholic/Nationalist population of the province.
With this they leave behind a legacy of repression and violence that will
live long in the memories of those unfortunate to have been on the receiving
end.
In 1969 the then Labour Government launched a massive British Army intervention
in the province bolstering the force already there.
They did this initially in response to loyalist violence and attempted ethnic
cleansing in which the existing Northern Ireland security forces actively
participated.
It was the belief that they had lost control of these forces that prompted
the army intervention.
This belief came to a head in the summer of 1969 in the Bogside area of Derry
where hundreds of catholic families were burned out of the homes by loyalist
mobs cheered on by the RUC and B Specials.
We have all seen the pictures of desperate and frightened people welcoming
the troops with cups of tea grateful for protection from any source.
Its film footage that the army like to promote. This, however, would quickly
change.
In June 1970, the Conservative Government came to power in close alliance
with the Unionist Party in the province.
Whatever the ambiguities of the previous Labour Government this new government
were clear in its position.
To bolster Unionists and Loyalism in Northern Ireland and to actively support
these forces in the face of a growing civil rights movement. The army’s role
was to be a central in this strategy of repression.
The violent suppression of the Civil Rights Movement helped fuel the rise
of the IRA with its own campaign of violence aimed at ending British rule.
This came to a head on Bloody Sunday in Derry in 1972 when the British Army
shot dead thirteen civil rights marchers.
It was a turning point in the province. The action rallied large sections
of the Catholic/Nationalist community to the side of the IRA and away from
the Civil Rights Movement and finally ended the illusion of the army playing
any kind of peace-keeping role.
What then followed was a 25 years campaign of violence and repression by the
security forces with the IRA responding with its own ruthless campaign.
The strategy of the security forces was based on the assumption that the entire
Catholic/Nationalist community was the enemy or potential enemy.
This resulted in a range of repressive measures directed against this community
the most dramatic of which was internment in which thousands of young catholic
men were rounded up without trial and herded into concentration camps.
When added to this the litany of arrests, beatings and torture carried out
by the army over the years; it is not surprising that most of the Catholic/Nationalist
community came to see the army as hated enemies.
Perhaps the worst episode was the open collusion between security forces and
loyalist murder gangs. These gangs were responsible for some of the most brutal
and violent sectarian attacks in the province in which hundreds of innocent
Catholics perished. It had long been suspected that a degree of collusion
existed although what is now known that what went on was more than collusion.
There is now considerable evidence that this violence was organised and directed
by the security forces who were ‘running’ many of these loyalist gangs.
The ‘withdrawal’ of British troops comes at the end of a protracted peace
process. This process was based on a realisation by all the protagonists that
there respective strategies had hit a dead end.
Sinn Fein/IRA had been successful in maintaining an effective armed struggle
for a generation and also in uniting most of the Catholic population in the
province behind them However, it craved an electoral breakthrough in the Irish
Republic where is remained weak.
To do this it needed to become a respectable mainstream party; impossible
when it was engaged in an armed struggle in the North.
They also realised that in order to achieve a united Ireland they would need
to build a consensus around this demand in Northern Ireland; which meant making
inroads into the more progressive elements of the protestant population.
The continuing armed struggle was a barrier to this.
For the British Government a realisation that decades of repression and t