From mstainsby at tao.ca Thu May 1 00:56:01 2003 From: mstainsby at tao.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:46:59 2006 Subject: [A-List] Saddam's letter References: <000501c30f99$7dafec00$61474d18@vf.shawcable.net> Message-ID: <008701c30fae$a31d5300$20fa5718@comintern> Bob: Can you supply us with an url? Macdonald From bobenoch at shaw.ca Thu May 1 01:25:02 2003 From: bobenoch at shaw.ca (Bob Enoch) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:46:59 2006 Subject: [A-List] Saddam's letter References: <000501c30f99$7dafec00$61474d18@vf.shawcable.net> <008701c30fae$a31d5300$20fa5718@comintern> Message-ID: <000d01c30fb1$a95d5500$61474d18@vf.shawcable.net> http://www.freearabvoice.org/Iraq/Report/report09.html From james.irldaly at ntlworld.com Thu May 1 02:02:02 2003 From: james.irldaly at ntlworld.com (James Daly) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:46:59 2006 Subject: [A-List] welcome to Sabri Message-ID: <003b01c30fb7$f5584360$bd106351@D2RH1H0J> From james.irldaly at ntlworld.com Thu May 1 02:09:01 2003 From: james.irldaly at ntlworld.com (James Daly) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:46:59 2006 Subject: [A-List] welcome to Sabri Message-ID: <004b01c30fb8$dab1a460$bd106351@D2RH1H0J> Dear Sabri May Day greetings in the spirit of Yunus Emre, and welcome as co-moderator of A-list. James PS slip of the finger! From hliu at mindspring.com Thu May 1 11:35:02 2003 From: hliu at mindspring.com (Henry C.K. Liu) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:46:59 2006 Subject: [A-List] Speed is King Message-ID: <3EB15AB7.6080409@mindspring.com> There is a war brewing for sometime now between established exchanges, such as NYSE, and elctronic trading networks. Despite modernization, the NYSE still requires 21 seconds to execute an order, while the latest electronic system can do it in one tenth of a second. This is of great significant for program trading and arbitrageurs. Fortune can be won and lost in a couple of seconds. In the War on Iraq, it took some 15 minutes from the time a target was identified to its being hit by cruise missiles, and it missed the target twice. The day will come when interest will be calculated and compounded in intervals of seconds rather than days. Already electronic bill-paying is taking away the advantage of floats. Henry C.K. Liu From annewilliamson at msn.com Thu May 1 17:53:02 2003 From: annewilliamson at msn.com (annewilliamson) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:46:59 2006 Subject: [A-List] Argentina: Presidential Elections Run-Off References: <004b01c30e50$2a4f04a0$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> <01b301c30e60$a7688500$c9b7fea9@anne> <004401c30f7a$d2f368a0$6d0f38d2@k6n2c2> Message-ID: <012901c30fe3$30c7d020$c9b7fea9@anne> ================================================================= STRATFOR'S GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT http://www.stratfor.com 30 April 2003 ================================================================= .................................................................. Today's Featured Analysis Two Peronist Candidates Go Head-to-Head in Argentine Runoff Summary Former President Carlos Menem may be the political underdog in Argentina's May 18 presidential elections, although he won the first-round election with 24.6 percent of the vote. His biggest problem is that 70 percent of Argentine voters dislike him intensely, equating his previous governments with widespread corruption and what is commonly perceived as the destruction of the country's economy with free-market policies that did not help most Argentines. Analysis Former President Carlos Menem won the most votes in Argentina's first-round presidential elections on April 27, but he may be the political underdog in the May 18 runoff election against Nestor Kirchner. Although Menem won 24.6 percent of the vote compared with Kirchner's 22 percent, the former president's negative ratings among voters top 70 percent while Kirchner's are in single digits, according to some recent surveys. This lopsidedness between two Justicialist Party (PJ) members -- who call themselves "peronists" -- suggest that Menem may have to campaign very hard in the next two weeks to win more votes. Menem already has shaken up his campaign team, announced a proposed Cabinet that would include many "new faces" in Argentine politics, and has said he will focus on foreign policy, the economy and security issues to define sharp differences between himself and Kirchner, according to Stratfor sources in Buenos Aires. However, Kirchner's low negative ratings among voters suggest that he has considerable room to raise his share of the runoff vote by leveraging widespread dislike for Menem to his advantage and persuading independent voters that his economic policies would be sound. Kirchner also is counting on the strong support of current President Eduardo Duhalde's government to put him over the top on May 18. This support gives Kirchner a strong base in the wealthy province of Buenos Aires, which is Duhalde's political stronghold. Menem and Kirchner also are reaching out to peronist provincial governors in an effort to build political alliances in regions where they fared poorly in the first round vote. Both are courting former San Luis provincial governor Adolfo Rodriguez Saa, and each has offered jobs in their respective future governments to leading peronist governors like Carlos Reutemann of Santa Fe and Eduardo Fellner of Jujuy province, who would be interior minister in Kirchner's government. Menem, who is 72, has pledged to structure a Cabinet that would include many political newcomers; he likely will announce the nominations this week. So far, he has confirmed the appointment of Carlos Melconian, an economist who has written a best-selling book on how to rebuild Argentina, as his pick for economy minister. Menem also named pro-U.S. veteran journalist Jorge Castro as foreign minister. Menem's proposals also unabashedly seek greater economic and political engagement with the United States. Kirchner has promised a Cabinet that would mix honesty, experience and fresh blood in the government. However, his core officials would include current Economy Minister Roberto Lavagna, who would continue in that role, and several other officials currently serving in Duhalde's government. In fact, Duhalde appears to have considerable political influence over Kirchner's proposed ministers, judging by the many officials that would be carried over into the new administration if Kirchner is elected. Kirchner describes his association with Duhalde as a political alliance, but many peronists in Duhalde's faction claim privately that their support for Kirchner is "strongly conditional" to his maintaining good relations with Duhalde. This suggests that Duhalde expects to continue playing a powerful role behind the scenes in Kirchner's government, which likely would lead quickly to political disagreements between the two men. Such tensions could weaken the Argentine government -- which would confront a fragmented Congress in any event. If Kirchner wins the May runoff, Argentina's core economic policies under Duhalde would not undergo significant change. With Lavagna still at the helm of the Economy Ministry, Buenos Aires likely would continue to work with the International Monetary Fund, but progress in restructuring the country's external debt and domestic banking system would plod forward slowly. Menem's economic and security proposals are bolder than Kirchner's and openly pro-market. In effect, Menem represents the most reformist wing of the Peronist Party on economic and trade policy issues. For instance, he has proposed adopting the U.S. dollar as Argentina's national currency, securing a free trade agreement with the United States as quickly as possible and rebuilding close political linkages between the two countries that largely were dissolved under Duhalde. In practical terms, this means that Argentina under Menem would align itself with Washington on every major foreign policy issue of concern to the United States. Menem's closest political allies realize their candidate is at a disadvantage in terms of popularity: He is perceived as having presided over two successive corrupt governments that stole and wasted billions of dollars. However, they are gambling that many voters -- especially in the middle class, which was nearly destroyed by the country's economic collapse in the past several years -- may be persuaded to set aside their personal dislike for Menem and buy into his optimistic vision that Argentina will recapture its lost prosperity if voters elect him president a third time. .................................................................. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 6856 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20030501/6c044cbf/attachment.txt From bar at idirect.com Thu May 1 17:53:17 2003 From: bar at idirect.com (Christopher Black) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:46:59 2006 Subject: Fw: [A-List] Saddam's letter Message-ID: <001001c3101a$f062b260$d1029ad8@computer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Enoch" To: Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 12:23 AM Subject: [A-List] Saddam's letter > > Iraqi Resistance Report IX - April 30, 2003 > =========================================== > The following letter, declared to be written by Saddam > Hussein, was published in today's Al Quds Al Arabi: > > -------------------------------------------------- > Al-Quds al-Arabi, London, Wednesday, 30 April 2003 > > Text of a hand written letter from Saddam Hussein. > > > > In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Mercy-giving. > > "They had sworn to God previously that they would not > turn their backs, and an oath to God must be answered > for." [al-Quran, 33:15] > > Iraq, 28 April 2003. > > To the people of great Iraq, to the sons and daughters > of the Arab Nation and Islamic World Community, and to > honorable people everywhere, > > Peace be upon you and the mercy of God and His > blessings! > > As Hulagu entered Baghdad, the criminal Bush has > entered her, causing me great bitter torment, nay more > than my bitter torment. > > They were not victorious over you, you who reject > occupation and humiliation, who hold Arabism and Islam > in your hearts and minds, they were not victorious > over you except by treachery. > > And by God it is not a victory so long as the > resistance remains in your hearts. > > Now what we used to talk about has come to pass. We > do not live in peace and security so long as that > monstrosity the Zionist entity is on our Arab land. > For this reason, there can be no dissociating the > parts of the one united Arab struggle. > > Sons and daughters of our great people! > > Rise in intifada against the occupier! Do not believe > those who talk about Sunni and Shii. The only thing > that the homeland, your great Iraq, lives through now > is the occupation. > > There are no priorities other than expelling the > cowardly, murdering, criminal infidel occupier, to > whom no honorable person has extended a hand to shake. > No, only the hands of the traitors and lackeys have > been extended. > > I say to you that all the states surrounding you are > against your resistance. But God is with you, because > you are fighting unbelief and defending your rights. > > The traitors have permitted themselves to voice their > treason out loud, although it is a disgrace. So voice > your rejection of the occupier out loud, for the sake > of great Iraq, the Arab Nation, Islam, and humanity! > > Iraq will win, and with it the sons and daughters of > the Arab Nation, and all honorable people. We shall > get back the antiquities that they have stolen. We > will rebuild the Iraq that they want to cut up into > little pieces, may God humiliate them! > > Saddam did not have property in his own name, and I > challenge any person to prove that the palaces were in > any name other than that of the Iraqi State. I had > left them a long time ago to go to live in a small > house. > > Forget everything and resist the occupation, for it is > the beginning of a crime if there are priorities other > than the occupier and his expulsion. Remember that > they are bent on bringing out rival sides to fight > each other so that your Iraq will remain weak, so they > can plunder it as they used to. > > It is a sufficient honor for your party, the Arab > Baath Socialist Party, that it did not extend its hand > to the Zionist enemy, and did not make concessions to > a cowardly American or British aggressor. > > Those who stood against Iraq and plotted against it, > will never be treated to peace at the hand of America. > > Greetings to everyone who resists, to every honorable > Iraqi citizen, to every woman, child, and elderly > person in our great Iraq. > > Unite, and the enemy and the traitors who came in > along with them will flee. > > And know that he who brought invasion forces with him, > whose airplanes took off to kill you, will never be > sending you anything but poison. > > By the grace of God, the day will come of liberation > and victory for ourselves, for the Arab Nation, and > for Islam before everything. And this time, as with > every time in which right triumphs, the coming days > will be more beautiful. > > Preserve your property, your offices, your schools. > Boycott the occupier. Boycott him! This is the > obligation of Islam, of religion, and the homeland. > > Long live great Iraq and its people! > > Long live Palestine, free and Arab, from the Jordan > River to the Sea! > > God is greatest! > > And may the despicable be despised! > > [signed] Saddam Hussein > > 26 Safar 1424 H. > 28 April 2003. > > > > From jfgf.consult at mail.telepac.pt Thu May 1 17:53:19 2003 From: jfgf.consult at mail.telepac.pt (Jorge Figueiredo) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] letter to Lula, Brazilian President Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030502002647.029ead48@mail.telepac.pt> Letter to President LULA Dear Mr. President This letter is addressed to you by persons who hold you in esteem, admire your political trajectory and wish to give you total support so that you can live up to the enormous hopes that your victory has awakened in the Brazilian people, Aware of the economic-financial situation of the country, we have a clear perception of the internal and external difficulties that have led the government to take measures restricting spending and raising taxes. We know also that globalization has provoked substantial changes in the world economy and that it will be very difficult to develop the country without participating in some way in the international financial community. Nevertheless, these constraints cannot mean the renunciation of our sovereignty. Two measures are particularly worrisome in relationship to this matter: the negotiations on the FTAA and the intended autonomy of the Central Bank. The first, as some of us have already argued in extensive and repeated pleadings, will expose our industrial, agricultural, and service producers to absolutely unequal competition, whose primary consequence will be an even greater de-nationalizing of our productive space. And by its reach that surpasses commercial agreements, but involves agriculture, investments, state purchases, currency, and services, leaves clear the intention of the U.S. Government to re-colonize the continent in accord with its interests. The second involves handing over control of our currency to external capital and therefore the renunciation of the national project. It cannot be hidden that with the most dynamic sectors of our economy in the hands of foreign corporations, the autonomy of the Central Bank means transferring to them the power to set the value of our currency. For these reasons, we made the decision to send you this letter. In our understanding, the FTAA as well as the autonomy of the Central Bank are non-negotiable matters, given that they involve the untouchability of the nation?s sovereignty. A decision of such magnitude must made by the owner of this sovereignty--the Brazilian people. Thus, each Brazilian man and woman must be called on to have their say about both questions in a plebiscite convoked for this express goal. The plebiscite would be the occasion for a great national debate about the two topics, thus laying the groundwork for a truly democratic decision. We are convinced that a firm attitude of Brazil will change the posture of the forces that are pressuring us and will open up a path so that we can build, in an autonomous way, the paths that are most appropriate for our development. However, if this does not happen, and the government finds itself placed in the situation of breaking with the forces that are pressuring it, please believe, Mr. President, that the retaliation will not be insupportable. Our economy is already sufficiently strong to resist them and our people sufficiently politicized to give you the necessary support for this confrontation. Brazil, March 2003 Alfredo Bosi. Literary critic and member of the Brazilian Academy of Letters Ana Maria Freire, educator, widow of Paulo Freire Ana Maria Castro, educator, daughter of Josue de Castro Ariovaldo Umbelino de Oliveira, geographer from University of S?o Paulo Augusto Boal, theater director Benedito Mariano, researcher Bernardete de Oliveira, anthropologist from State University of S?o Paulo Carlos Nelson Coutinho, political scientist and philosopher Chico Buarque, composer and writer Dom Demetrio Valentini, bishop Dom Paulo Arns, cardinal Dom Pedro Casaldaliga, bishop Dom Tomas Balduino, bishop Emir Sader, political scientist Fabio Konder Comparato, jurist Fernando Morais, writer Francisco de Oliveira, social scientist Haroldo Campos, poet and translator Joanna Fomm, actress Leonardo Boff, theologian, philosopher, and writer Luis Fernando Verissimo, writer Margarida Genovois, human rights activist Maria Adelia de Souza, geographer, researcher with Miltom Santos Manuel Correia de Andrade, geographer, specialist in Northeast Brazil Marilena Chau?, philosopher Nilo Batista, jurist Pastor Ervino Schmidt, pastor of the Lutheran Church and director of National Council of Christian Churches Pl?nio Arruda Sampaio, consultant to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization on agrarian questions, periodical director Oscar Niemeyer, architect Ricardo Antunes, political scientist Sergio Haddad, educator and president of the Brazilian Association of NGOs Sergio Ferolla, brigadier-general Tatau Godinho, feminist Valton Miranda, psychiatrist -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 6101 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/attachments/20030501/2a3d0292/attachment.txt From soncu at pacbell.net Thu May 1 18:22:02 2003 From: soncu at pacbell.net (Sabri Oncu) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] welcome to Sabri Message-ID: > Dear Sabri > > May Day greetings in the spirit of Yunus Emre, and welcome as > co-moderator of A-list. > > James Thanks and likewise. Happy May Day to all! Sabri From william at palfreman.com Thu May 1 18:31:01 2003 From: william at palfreman.com (William Palfreman) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK Labour Party: Propaganda Matrix article In-Reply-To: <20030501235558.H309@ndhn.yna.cnyserzna.pbz> References: <20030501235558.H309@ndhn.yna.cnyserzna.pbz> Message-ID: <20030501235746.R309@ndhn.yna.cnyserzna.pbz> I saw this trawling through Google recently. I'd like to correct a few issues. ------ Original Message ------ > * From: "Michael Keaney" > * Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 13:38:56 +0200 > _________________________________________________________________ > > According to Mike James: > > The rumours and allegations concerning Lord Robertson's ties to > Hamilton, and the possibility that the American intelligence services > may be blackmailing Tony Blair into continued support for a U.S. > invasion of Iraq, have been given fire by internet investigator and > intelligence expert Michael Keaney: Well they shouldn't have. They are rubbish, even if I did naively start one of them in 1999. > Aside from making no claims to intelligence expertise, I have not in > any way touched the story concerning the Dunblane massacre, as a quick > trawl through the archives would confirm. Therefore it is not accurate > to say that I have "given fire" to specifically those rumours and > allegations. In fact the connection between the two stories was one I > had not made, and one that I would be extremely sceptical of. That > does not mean that there does not exist some kind of organised effort > to smear Robertson, whose tenure at NATO has hardly been successful > and who has managed to ruffle the feathers of those at the Pentagon he > thought he was obediently serving. The blackmail possibility I have > raised, specifically in connection with the Sunday Herald article of > 19 January. But the more that "emerges" on this subject leaves an even > stronger bad taste, and serious analysts would be better basing their > analyses on more solid ground than unattributable sources cited in > newspaper reports. With four years extra maturity on an issue I hoped had been forgotten about, I can't find a single thing that any of them are supposed to have done wrong. > Meanwhile: > > "I have come to the considered conclusion," says a correspondent of > Keaney, William Palfreman, "that the events surrounding the Dunblane > massacre, and > the subsequent submissions to the Cullen enquiry that have been put under to > 100 years of secrecy, far out weigh in political significance issues such as > our opposition to the EU [and] what it entails. ... > > ----- > > Firstly, I have no idea who "William Palfreman" is, or that we were > corresponding. This is what I picked up on using Google. I have certainly never had correspondence with Michael Keaney. It's just made up. If anyone knows how to get in touch with Mike James, I'd appreciate it if he'd take it down, especially as the whole thing is teenage bullshit from me. > Secondly, based on what he is quoted as saying above, I would > be highly unlikely to have anything to do with him. Aside from stating the > obvious -- that his and others' opposition to the EU is outweighed in terms > of its significance by something else (most everything else, probably) -- Might have been true then. Isn't today. > the fact that this position is regarded as a defining feature of his > politics means that already I am convinced I share little, if anything, in > common with him. In fact, as a quick trawl of the internet reveals, > Palfreman is involved with organised euroscepticism, having participated in > rabid anti-EU online discussion for some years and being involved in an > outfit called Youth for a Free Europe, whose homepage can be found at > > http://www.free-europe.org.uk/ Yup, was run by a friend of mine called John Courouble then, and by Stuart Coster today. I haven't been involved in anything to do with them since 2000. I'm quite annoyed to see myself on the contacts list for them. > While attracting some unreconstructed national Keynesians within the Labour > Party and elsewhere on the left, the most enthusiastic participants are the > usual punk Thatcherite suspects. Maybe then. I don't think people like that even exist today. > This sort of sensationalist and inaccurate reportage does not help us to > understand better what is going on. I agree. What I wrote in 1999 is shocking to see today. What a pathetic pile of teenage conspiracy-theorising! The problem was that I was a student, with not a lot to do, and I was on this mailinglist with whole lot of like minded people, many who I'm still in touch with as friends. Even then, the guy who gave the erroneous talk, Greg LW, was pretty well beyond the pale, spamming thousands of people with semi-literate junk, and pushing this conspiracy or that. But the trouble is, in person he is a very convincing guy - proper magnetic personality, very plausible and a superb salesman. Today I'm much more cautious about taking things at face value, but then I was completely convinced, basically on zero evidence. Pretty soon it became clear to me that there wasn't a shred of evidence behind _any_ of these conspiracy theories. Ultimately they all rely on some very unpleasant premises. People who put about conspiracy theories ultimately do not believe in free association, or the right of privacy for anyone other than themselves. Also, I have to say, most conspiracy theories boil down to anti-semitism. Not within the one I was conned into putting about, obviously; but in general, conspiracy theories always like to blame a certain groups of people, supposedly operating in "secret", who are supposedly "pulling the strings" and plotting in a huge choreographed conspiracy, to do down "simple, common man". It's exactly the same stuff they were putting about in the 1930s, and very weak, brainwise. Such theories fail every logical test out there. They assume people are not self interested, they assume that cartels work, when every one of them breaks down in the long run - something proved by John Nash's game theory discoveries. They're rubbish, and every time you see one you see some scumbag using exactly the same conspiracy theory as a vehicle for anti-semitism. Underlying it all is the principle that someone can make an assertion, and it is up to the victim to prove him wrong. That's very wrong. > It is better understood as the manifestation of a right wing political > tendency that will stop at nothing to unseat Blair the europhile > "socialist" and to replace him with some unreconstructed empire > loyalist relic. Again, I don't believe such people are around anymore - not within my lifetime. I'd say the last time that represented a significant point of view was 1975. > It is easily manipulated by intelligence officers planting stories in > the media (including internet discussion forums hosted by newspapers) > calculated to excite such sensationalism. US libertarians who swallow > this stuff beware. Yeah, well I never saw any reason to think this particular rubbish story (one long dead until recently) ever had any origin other than Greg LW's fevered imagination, and lapped up by gullible people present. I'm certainly a lot less easily convinced today. Regards, William Palfreman. From soncu at pacbell.net Thu May 1 23:14:01 2003 From: soncu at pacbell.net (Sabri Oncu) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] Iraq: The aftermath Message-ID: http://www.atimes.com Middle East Crunch time for Kurds By Jean-Christophe Peuch PRAGUE - As the United States works toward restoring a semblance of central authority in Iraq, various ethnic, tribal, social, and religious groups are jockeying for representation in a future Iraqi government. Shi'ite clerics from the south, Sunni Arabs from the central regions, Kurds from the northern mountains, tribal leaders and exiled politicians gathered in Baghdad on Monday to attend a US-sponsored meeting aimed at discussing possible post-Saddam Hussein strategies. As in Nasiriyah two weeks ago, Jalal Talabani's Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and Mas'ud Barzani's Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) were represented in Baghdad, but not at the level of party leaders. The two Kurdish groups have in effect been running northern Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War. Barzani and Talabani reportedly viewed both meetings as low-profile forums not authoritative enough to justify their presence. It is a crucial time for the Kurds, who have been struggling for their cultural and political rights for most of the past century and represent the largest armed force in Iraq. David McDowall, a British historian of Kurdish nationalism, believes Iraq's 4 million to 6 million Kurds - who supported the US-led war - are in the best position since the demise of the Ottoman Empire to achieve their decades-long dream of self-determination. "The most important thing to bear in mind [when assessing the current situation] is that this is the biggest opportunity the Kurds of Iraq have had since 1918 to actually configure their position in relation to Mesopotamia in the way that they want," McDowall said. "There is no regime at the moment in Baghdad, and when there is one, it will be very weak, and their principal concern will be Turkey." The Kurds make no secret that they would like to see a federal state emerge from the rubble of Saddam's regime - a scenario that is likely to gain some support among Iraq's Shi'ite Muslim majority. The Shi'ites complain that they have lived under the thumb of Sunni Arabs since the end of Ottoman rule. Although US President George W Bush has reportedly said he envisages a federation made up of Iraq's major ethnic groups, Washington has apparently not committed to any layout for a future government. Talking to reporters in Baghdad on April 22 on his return from the north, the US civil administrator for Iraq, retired General Jay Garner, even denied that Kurdish leaders were considering federalism as an option. "I spent the last two days with Mr Talabani and Mr Barzani, and they never used that term one time," Garner said. "They both talked about a democratic process and that they were going to have a democracy, which was a mosaic of all of Iraq, [which] would include all the ethnic groups, [which] would include the tribes, [which] would include the cultures, [which] would include the religions, [which] would include the professions. [But] they never mentioned federalism one time." Some commentators have interpreted that statement as an attempt to allay the concerns of northern Iraq's minority groups. While apparently pouring cold water on the Kurds' demands for recognition of their de facto autonomy, Garner last week praised their 12-year-old rule in the north as a possible model for Iraq. He also reportedly described the northern city of Kirkuk as "Kurdish". This remark triggered a swift reaction from Ankara, which reminded the United States of an alleged earlier promise that Kirkuk would not fall into Kurdish hands. Turkey fears that northern Iraq's vast hydrocarbon reserves might sustain Kurdish autonomy and insists that Kirkuk and other regional oil-rich cities remain under Baghdad's jurisdiction. Martin van Bruinessen is an expert on Kurdish affairs who teaches at Utrecht University's Institute of Oriental Languages and Cultures in the Netherlands. He says Garner's contradicting remarks reflect the Bush administration's lack of clear vision about Iraq's future and US uneasiness before North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member Turkey. Ankara fears that an economically self-sufficient Kurdish entity in northern Iraq might impact its own Kurdish minority. Van Bruinessen said, "I think the US, in a sense, is walking on a tightrope. I think it is not so much the other ethnic groups they are worried about as Turkey. Turkey is strongly opposed to any federal settlement in Iraq. [The Turks] have repeatedly threatened with [military] intervention because they feel that their vital interests [would be] threatened if Iraq becomes a federal state. So I guess the Americans are telling Turkey not to worry and, at the same time, they are trying to keep the Kurds happy by - like Garner did the other day - telling them that Kirkuk is Kurdish." Kirkuk surrendered to Kurdish Peshmergas (fighters) almost without a fight shortly after Baghdad fell to coalition forces. The Kurds then started expelling settlers brought into the city in the 1970s under Saddam's forced "Arabization" policy. Inter-community clashes erupted, leaving at least 20 dead and 200 wounded. Unrest was also reported in Mosul to the northeast and in Khanaqin near the Iranian border. Like Kirkuk, both oil-rich cities are claimed by Iraqi Kurds. In a bid to ease inter-ethnic tensions, thousands of American soldiers last week moved into Kirkuk and Mosul to disarm Kurdish militiamen. Ankara is suspected of seeking to foster ethnic unrest in the area in an effort to trigger a peacekeeping intervention under the pretext that northern Iraq's sizable Turkoman minority needs protection from the Kurds. Last week, US soldiers reportedly arrested Turkish soldiers clad in civilian clothes who were escorting a cargo of weapons hidden in an aid convoy meant for Kirkuk. Ankara denied sending any troops to the area. The incident is symptomatic of tensions that exists in the north and bodes ill, especially if a federal settlement is reached for Iraq. Like Turkey, both Iran and Syria are concerned at the prospect of northern Iraq officially achieving autonomy for fear that this would set an example for their own Kurdish minorities. Regional experts believe that all three countries may be tempted to return to a longtime policy of interference in Iraqi Kurdish affairs. McDowall believes this is especially true of Iran and Syria, which view a US military presence in the region as a threat. "Before Saddam was removed, the Iraqi regime was viewed by Iran as an unpleasant one that, although it had fought a bloody war [with Tehran in 1980-88], was not viewed as dangerous simply because at the end it was perfectly clear by the ceasefire signed in July 1988 that Iraq would not dream of attacking Iran again. But now you have a situation where the Americans would like to set up military bases in Iraq and the only conceivable purpose for those bases is to act against Iran or Syria. And so, suddenly, Iran has been given a compelling reason to seek to undermine any pro-Western government that is formed in Baghdad, and I am sure they will do everything they can to sabotage [such a government]." Turkey, Iran and Syria have considered the troubled region of Kurdistan as a major lever to protect their own strategic interests in the region. As they have done in the past, all three countries could now be tempted to exploit the mosaic of Iraq's ethnic, religious, and tribal communities to achieve their goals. Utrecht University's van Bruinessen said, "The Turks have their proxies, the Iranians have their proxies, and the Syrians have their proxies among Iraqis. The Iranians have the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution [in Iraq], which consists of Iraqi Shi'ites. Turkey has its proxies among one of the Turkoman parties, [the Iraqi Turkoman Front], and [it] may try to use also certain Kurdish tribal chieftains as its representatives. Syria has had for a long time dissident factions of [Iraq's former ruling] Ba'ath Party that listened to it, and it has also had a strong influence on the PUK, the Kurdish party." But foreign interference is not the only risk facing Iraqi Kurdistan. The disappearance of the Ba'ath regime - the greatest threat to the Kurds - may further weaken already loose intertribal ties and reignite the traditional rivalry between Barzani and Talabani as each of the two leaders tries to pose as the most influential regional leader. McDowall believes this rivalry may play into the hands of any government in Baghdad, which could be tempted to exploit it to reassert its control over Kurdistan. "Since the KDP and the PUK are basically rivals, the prospect, I think, is that their rivalry will become - now that the danger to them from Saddam has ceased to be - a major feature of Iraqi Kurdistan and, maybe, a major feature over the way a Kurdish federal state relates to Baghdad," McDowall said. "Just imagine, if you are in Baghdad and you are not very strong, you would do everything you can to play off Barzani against Talabani, knowing that they loathe each other." Since the emergence of the PUK as a splinter group of the KDP in the mid-1970s, both parties have fought intermittent wars that claimed thousands of lives. In their struggle for influence, Barzani and Talabani have relied on political or military support offered alternately by Baghdad, Tehran, Ankara and Damascus. In the late 1990s, a US-brokered agreement led to local elections that ended in a dead heat for both parties, which each garnered some 45 percent of the seats in a regional parliament. Experts believe new elections including Kirkuk - in case the city is included in a federal Kurdistan - would not affect the political balance of forces and might therefore lead to military confrontation between the two groups. As van Bruinessen puts it, "The military aspect of the [US-led] war was relatively simple, but the aftermath is where the biggest risks are. There are so many conflicting interests in Iraq - especially in the Kirkuk, Mosul and Khanaqin areas - that I find it hard to imagine a stable situation any time soon." http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE02Ak02.html From cburford at gn.apc.org Fri May 2 01:06:02 2003 From: cburford at gn.apc.org (Chris Burford) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] some punishment for Labour Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.1.20030502075805.03bc0e40@pop3.norton.antivirus> It looks as if Labour has lost control of Birmingham and Bolton because of a backlash, and under the proportional representation system in the Scottish Parliament the Scottish Socialist Party looks as if it is doing well. Chris Burford London From jfgf.consult at mail.telepac.pt Fri May 2 02:18:01 2003 From: jfgf.consult at mail.telepac.pt (Jorge Figueiredo) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] 1st May, Fidel Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030502092905.029d7d68@mail.telepac.pt> Speech given by the Dr. Fidel Castro Ruz, President of the Republic of Cuba, at the May Day rally held in Revolution Square. Havana, May 1, 2003 Distinguished guests; Dear fellow Cubans: CUBA AND THE NAZI-FASCISM Our heroic people have struggled for 44 years from this small Caribbean island just a few miles away from the most formidable imperial power ever known by mankind. In so doing, they have written an unprecedented chapter in history. Never has the world witnessed such an unequal fight. Some may have believed that the rise of the empire to the status of the sole superpower, with a military and technological might with no balancing pole anywhere in the world, would frighten or dishearten the Cuban people. Yet, today they have no choice but to watch in amazement the enhanced courage of this valiant people. On a day like today, this glorious international workers? day, which commemorates the death of the five martyrs of Chicago, I declare, on behalf of the one million Cubans gathered here, that we will face up to any threats, we will not yield to any pressures, and that we are prepared to defend our homeland and our Revolution with ideas and with weapons to our last drop of blood. What is Cuba?s sin? What honest person has any reason to attack her? With their own blood and the weapons seized from the enemy, the Cuban people overthrew a cruel tyranny with 80,000 men under arms, imposed by the U.S. government. Cuba was the first territory free from imperialist domination in Latin America and the Caribbean, and the only country in the hemisphere, throughout post-colonial history, where the torturers, murderers and war criminals that took the lives of tens of thousands of people were exemplarily punished. All of the country?s land was recovered and turned over to the peasants and agricultural workers. The natural resources, industries and basic services were placed in the hands of their only true owner: the Cuban nation. In less than 72 hours, fighting ceaselessly, day and night, Cuba crushed the Bay of Pigs mercenary invasion organized by a U.S. administration, thereby preventing a direct military intervention by this country and a war of incalculable consequences. The Revolution already had the Rebel Army, over 400,000 weapons and hundreds of thousands of militia members. In 1962, Cuba confronted with honor, and without a single concession, the risk of being attacked with dozens of nuclear weapons. It defeated the dirty war that spread throughout the entire country, at a cost in human lives even greater than that of the war of liberation. It stoically endured thousands of acts of sabotage and terrorist attacks organized by the U.S. government. It thwarted hundreds of assassination plots against the leaders of the Revolution. While under a rigorous blockade and economic warfare that have lasted for almost half a century, Cuba was able to eradicate in just one year the illiteracy that has still not been overcome in the course of more than four decades by the rest of the countries of Latin America, or the United States itself. It has brought free education to 100% of the country?s children. It has the highest school retention rate ?over 99% between kindergarten and ninth grade? of all of the nations in the hemisphere. Its elementary school students rank first worldwide in the knowledge of their mother language and mathematics. The country also ranks first worldwide with the highest number of teachers per capita and the lowest number of students per classroom. All children with physical or mental challenges are enrolled in special schools. Computer education and the use of audiovisual methods now extend to all of the country?s children, adolescents and youth, in both the cities and the countryside. For the first time in the world, all young people between the ages of 17 and 30, who were previously neither in school nor employed, have been given the opportunity to resume their studies while receiving an allowance. All citizens have the possibility of undertaking studies that will take them from kindergarten to a doctoral degree without spending a penny. Today, the country has 30 university graduates, intellectuals and professional artists for every one there was before the Revolution. The average Cuban citizen today has at the very least a ninth-grade level of education. Not even functional illiteracy exists in Cuba. There are schools for the training of artists and art instructors throughout all of the country?s provinces, where over 20,000 young people are currently studying and developing their talent and vocation. Tens of thousands more are doing the same at vocational schools, and many of these then go on to undertake professional studies. University campuses are progressively spreading to all of the country?s municipalities. Never in any other part of the world has such a colossal educational and cultural revolution taken place as this that will turn Cuba, by far, into the country with the highest degree of knowledge and culture in the world, faithful to Mart??s profound conviction that "no freedom is possible without culture." Infant mortality has been reduced from 60 per 1000 live births to a rate that fluctuates between 6 and 6.5, which is the lowest in the hemisphere, from the United States to Patagonia. Life expectancy has increased by 15 years. Infectious and contagious diseases like polio, malaria, neonatal tetanus, diphtheria, measles, rubella, mumps, whooping cough and dengue have been eradicated; others like tetanus, meningococcal meningitis, hepatitis B, leprosy, hemophilus meningitis and tuberculosis are fully controlled. Today, in our country, people die of the same causes as in the most highly developed countries: cardiovascular diseases, cancer, accidents, and others, but with a much lower incidence. A profound revolution is underway to bring medical services closer to the population, in order to facilitate access to health care centers, save lives and alleviate suffering. In-depth research is being carried out to break the chain, mitigate or reduce to a minimum the problems that result from genetic, prenatal or childbirth-related causes. Cuba is today the country with the highest number of doctors per capita in the world, with almost twice as many as those that follow closer. Our scientific centers are working relentlessly to find preventive or therapeutic solutions for the most serious diseases. Cubans will have the best healthcare system in the world, and will continue to receive all services absolutely free of charge. Social security covers 100% of the country?s citizens. In Cuba, 85% of the people own their homes and they pay no property taxes on them whatsoever. The remaining 15% pay a wholly symbolic rent, which is only 10% of their salary. Illegal drug use involves a negligible percentage of the population, and is being resolutely combated. Lottery and other forms of gambling have been banned since the first years of the Revolution to ensure that no one pins their hopes of progress on luck. There is no commercial advertising on Cuban television and radio or in our printed publications. Instead, these feature public service announcements concerning health, education, culture, physical education, sports, recreation, environmental protection, and the fight against drugs, accidents and other social problems. Our media educate, they do not poison or alienate. They do not worship or exalt the values of decadent consumer societies. There is no cult of personality around any living revolutionary, in the form of statues, official photographs, or the names of streets or institutions. The leaders of this country are human beings, not gods. In our country there are no paramilitary forces or death squads, nor has violence ever been used against the people; there are no extrajudicial executions or torture. The people have always massively supported the activities of the Revolution. This rally today is proof of that. Light years separate our society from what has prevailed until today in the rest of the world. We cultivate brotherhood and solidarity among individuals and peoples both in the country and abroad. The new generations and the entire people are being educated about the need to protect the environment. The media are used to build environmental awareness. Our country steadfastly defends its cultural identity, assimilating the best of other cultures while resolutely combating everything that distorts, alienates and degrades. The development of wholesome, non-professional sports has raised our people to the highest ranks worldwide in medals and honors. Scientific research, at the service of our people and all humanity, has increased several-hundredfold. As a result of these efforts, important medications are saving lives in Cuba and other countries. Cuba has never undertaken research or development of a single biological weapon, because this would be in total contradiction with the principles and philosophy underlying the education of our scientific personnel, past and present. In no other people has the spirit of international solidarity become so deeply rooted. Our country supported the Algerian patriots in their struggle against French colonialism, at the cost of damaging political and economic relations with such an important European country as France. We sent weapons and troops to defend Algeria from Moroccan expansionism, when the king of this country sought to take control of the iron mines of Gara Djebilet, near the city of Tindouf, in southwest Algeria. At the request of the Arab nation of Syria, a full tank brigade stood guard between 1973 and 1975 alongside the Golan Heights, when this territory was unjustly seized from that country. The leader of the Republic of Congo when it first achieved independence, Patrice Lumumba, who was harassed from abroad, received our political support. When he was assassinated by the colonial powers in January of 1961, we lent assistance to his followers. Four years later, in 1965, Cuban blood was shed in the western region of Lake Tanganyika, where Che Guevara and more than 100 Cuban instructors supported the Congolese rebels who were fighting against white mercenaries in the service of the man supported by the West, that is, Mobutu whose 40 billion dollars, the same that he stole, nobody knows what European banks they are kept in, or in whose power. The blood of Cuban instructors was shed while training and supporting the combatants of the African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde, who fought under the command of Amilcar Cabral for the liberation of these former Portuguese colonies. The same was true during the ten years that Cuba supported Agostinho Neto?s MPLA in the struggle for the independence of Angola. After independence was achieved, and over the course of 15 years, hundreds of thousands of Cuban volunteers participated in defending Angola from the attacks of racist South African troops that in complicity with the United States, and using dirty war tactics, planted millions of mines, wiped out entire villages, and murdered more than half a million Angolan men, women and children. In Cuito Cuanavale and on the Namibian border, to the southwest of Angola, Angolan and Namibian forces together with 40,000 Cuban troops dealt the final blow to the South African troops. This resulted in the immediate liberation of Namibia and speeded up the end of apartheid by perhaps 20 to 25 years. At the time, the South Africans had seven nuclear warheads that Israel had supplied to them or helped them to produce, with the full knowledge and complicity of the U.S. government. Throughout the course of almost 15 years, Cuba had a place of honor in its solidarity with the heroic people of Viet Nam, caught up in a barbaric and brutal war with the United States. That war killed four million Vietnamese, in addition to all those left wounded and mutilated, not to mention the fact that the country was inundated with chemical compounds that continue to cause incalculable damage. The pretext: Viet Nam, a poor and underdeveloped country located 20,000 kilometers away, constituted a threat to the national security of the United States. Cuban blood was shed together with that of citizens of numerous Latin American countries, and together with the Cuban and Latin American blood of Che Guevara, murdered on instructions from U.S. agents in Bolivia, when he was wounded and being held prisoner after his weapon had been rendered useless by a shot received in battle. The blood of Cuban construction workers, that were nearing completion of an international airport vital for the economy of a tiny island fully dependent on tourism, was shed fighting in defense of Grenada, invaded by the United States under cynical pretexts. Cuban blood was shed in Nicaragua, when instructors from our Armed Forces were training the brave Nicaraguan soldiers confronting the dirty war organized and armed by the United States against the Sandinista revolution. And there are even more examples. Over 2000 heroic Cuban internationalist combatants gave their lives fulfilling the sacred duty of supporting the liberation struggles for the independence of other sister nations. However, there is not one single Cuban property in any of those countries. No other country in our era has exhibited such sincere and selfless solidarity. Cuba has always preached by example. It has never given in. It has never sold out the cause of another people. It has never made concessions. It has never betrayed its principles. There must be some reason why, just 48 hours ago, it was reelected by acclamation in the United Nations Economic and Social Council to another three years in the Commission on Human Rights, of which it has now been a member for 15 straight years. More than half a million Cubans have carried out internationalist missions as combatants, as teachers, as technicians or as doctors and health care workers. Tens of thousands of the latter have provided their services and saved millions of lives over the course of more than 40 years. There are currently 3000 specialists in Comprehensive General Medicine and other healthcare personnel working in the most isolated regions of 18 Third World countries. Through preventive and therapeutic methods they save hundreds of thousands of lives every year, and maintain or restore the health of millions of people, without charging a penny for their services. Without the Cuban doctors offered to the United Nations in the event that the necessary funds are obtained ?without which entire nations and even whole regions of sub-Saharan Africa face the risk of perishing? the crucial programs urgently needed to fight AIDS would be impossible to carry out. The developed capitalist world has created abundant financial capital, but it has not in any way created the human capital that the Third World desperately needs. Cuba has developed techniques to teach reading and writing by radio, with accompanying texts now available in five languages ?Haitian Creole, Portuguese, French, English and Spanish? that are already being used in numerous countries. It is nearing completion of a similar program in Spanish, of exceptionally high quality, to teach literacy by television. These are programs that were developed in Cuba and are genuinely Cuban. We are not interested in patents and exclusive copyrights. We are willing to offer them to all of the countries of the Third World, where most of the world?s illiterates are concentrated, without charging a penny. In five years, the 800 million illiterate people in the world could be reduced by 80%, at a minimal cost. After the demise of the USSR and the socialist bloc, nobody would have bet a dime on the survival of the Cuban Revolution. The United States tightened the blockade. The Torricelli and Helms-Burton Acts were adopted, the latter extraterritorial in nature. We abruptly lost our main markets and supplies sources. The population?s average calorie and protein consumption was reduced by almost half. But our country withstood the pressures and even advanced considerably in the social field. Today, it has largely recovered with regard to nutritional requirements and is rapidly progressing in other fields. Even in these conditions, the work undertaken and the consciousness built throughout the years succeeded in working miracles. Why have we endured? Because the Revolution has always had, as it still does and always will to an ever-greater degree, the support of the people, an intelligent people, increasingly united, educated and combative. Cuba was the first country to extend its solidarity to the people of the United States on September 11, 2001. It was also the first to warn of the neo-fascist nature of the policy that the extreme right in the United States, which fraudulently came to power in November of 2000, was planning to impose on the rest of the world. This policy did not emerge as a response to the atrocious terrorist attack perpetrated against the people of the United States by members of a fanatical organization that had served other U.S. administrations in the past. It was coldly and carefully conceived and developed, which explains the country?s military build-up and enormous spending on weapons at a time when the Cold War was already over, and long before September 11, 2001. The fateful events of that day served as an ideal pretext for the implementation of such policy. On September 20 of that year, President Bush openly expressed this before a Congress shaken by the tragic events of nine days earlier. Using bizarre terminology, he spoke of "infinite justice" as the goal of a war that would apparently be infinite as well. "Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen." "We will use every necessary weapon of war." "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." "I've called the Armed Forces to alert, and there is a reason. The hour is coming when America will act." "This is civilization's fight." " the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time --now depends on us." "The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain and we know that God is not neutral." Did a statesman or an unbridled fanatic speak these words? Two days later, on September 22, Cuba denounced this speech as the blueprint for the idea of a global military dictatorship imposed through brute force, without international laws or institutions of any kind. "The United Nations Organization, simply ignored in the present crisis, would fail to have any authority or prerogative whatsoever. There would be only one boss, only one judge, and only one law." Several months later, on the 200th anniversary of West Point Military Academy, at the graduation exercise for 958 cadets on June 3, 2002, President Bush further elaborated on this line of thinking in a fiery harangue to the young soldiers graduating that day, in which he put forward his fundamental fixed ideas: "Our security will require transforming the military you will lead -- a military that must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives." "We must uncover terror cells in 60 or more countries " " we will send you, our soldiers, where you're needed." "We will not leave the safety of America and the peace of the planet at the mercy of a few mad terrorists and tyrants. We will lift this dark threat from our country and from the world." "Some worry that it is somehow undiplomatic or impolite to speak the language of right and wrong. I disagree. We are in a conflict between good and evil, and America will call evil by its name. By confronting evil and lawless regimes, we do not create a problem, we reveal a problem. And we will lead the world in opposing it." In the speech I delivered at a rally held in General Antonio Maceo Square in Santiago de Cuba, on June 8, 2002, before half a million people of Santiago, I said: "As you can see, he doesn?t mention once in his speech (at West Point) the United Nations Organization. Nor is there a phrase about every people?s right to safety and peace, or about the need for a world ruled by principles and norms." "Hardly two thirds of a century has passed since humanity went through the bitter experience of Nazism. Fear was Hitler?s inseparable ally against his adversaries Later, his fearful military force [led to] the outbreak of a war that would inflame the whole world. The lack of vision and the cowardice of the statesmen in the strongest European powers of the time opened the way to a great tragedy. "I don?t think that a fascist regime can be established in the United States. Serious mistakes have been made and injustices committed in the framework of its political system --many of them still persist-- but the American people still have a number of institutions and traditions, as well as educational, cultural and ethical values that would hardly allow that to happen. The risk exists in the international arena. The power and prerogatives of that country?s president are so extensive, and the economic, technological and military power network in that nation is so pervasive that due to circumstances that fully escape the will of the American people, the world is coming under the rule of Nazi concepts and methods." "The miserable insects that live in 60 or more countries of the world chosen by him and his closest assistants --and in the case of Cuba by his Miami friends-- are completely irrelevant. They are the ?dark corners of the world? that may become the targets of their unannounced and ?preemptive? attacks. Not only is Cuba one of those countries, but it has also been included among those that sponsor terror." I mentioned the idea of a world tyranny for the first time exactly one year, three months and 19 days before the attack on Iraq. In the days prior to the beginning of the war, President Bush repeated once again that the United States would use, if necessary, any means within its arsenal, in other words, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and biological weapons. The attack on and occupation of Afghanistan had already taken place. Today the so-called "dissidents", actually mercenaries on the payroll of the Bush?s Hitler-like government, are betraying not only their homeland, but all of humanity as well. In the face of the sinister plans against our country on the part of the neo-fascist extreme right and its allies in the Miami terrorist mob that ensured its victory through electoral fraud, I wonder how many of those individuals with supposedly leftist and humanistic stances who have attacked our people over the legal measures we were forced to adopt as a legitimate defense against the aggressive plans of the superpower, located just a few miles off our coasts and with a military base on our own territory, have been able to read these words. We wonder how many have recognized, denounced and condemned the policy announced in the speeches by Mr. Bush that I have quoted, which reveal a sinister Nazi-fascist international policy on the part of the leader of the country with the most powerful military force ever imagined, whose weapons could destroy the defenseless humanity ten times over. The entire world has been mobilized by the terrifying images of cities destroyed and burned by brutal bombing, images of maimed children and the shattered corpses of innocent people. Leaving aside the blatantly opportunistic, demagogic and petty political groups we know all too well, I am now going to refer fundamentally to those who were friends of Cuba and respected fighters in the struggle. We would not want those who have, in our opinion, attacked Cuba unjustly, due to disinformation or a lack of careful and profound analysis, to have to suffer the infinite sorrow they will feel if one day our cities are destroyed and our children and mothers, women and men, young and old, are torn apart by the bombs of Nazi-fascism, and they realize that their declarations were shamelessly manipulated by the aggressors to justify a military attack on Cuba. Solely the numbers of children murdered and mutilated cannot be the measure of the human damage but also the millions of children and mothers, women and men, young and old, who remain traumatized for the rest of their lives. We fully respect the opinions of those who oppose capital punishment for religious, philosophical and humanitarian reasons. We Cuban revolutionaries also abhor capital punishment, for much more profound reasons than those addressed by the social sciences with regard to crime, currently under study in our country. The day will come when we can accede to the wishes for the abolition of such penalty so nobly expressed here by Reverend Lucius Walker in his brilliant speech. The special concern over this issue is easily understood when you know that the majority of the people executed in the United States are African American and Hispanic, and not infrequently they are innocent, especially in Texas, the champion of death sentences, where President Bush was formerly the governor, and not a single life has ever been pardoned. The Cuban Revolution was placed in the dilemma of either protecting the lives of millions of Cubans by using the legally established death penalty to punish the three main hijackers of a passenger ferry or sitting back and doing nothing. The U.S. government, which incites common criminals to assault boats or airplanes with passengers on board, encourages these people gravely endangering the lives of innocents and creating the ideal conditions for an attack on Cuba. A wave of hijackings had been unleashed and was already in full development; it had to be stopped. We cannot ever hesitate when it is a question of protecting the lives of the sons and daughters of a people determined to fight until the end, arresting the mercenaries who serve the aggressors and applying the most severe sanctions against terrorists who hijack passenger boats or planes or commit similarly serious acts, who will be punished by the courts in accordance with the laws in force. Not even Jesus Christ, who drove the traders out of the temple with a whip, would fail to opt for the defense of the people. I feel sincere and profound respect for His Holiness Pope John Paul II. I understand and admire his noble struggle for life and peace. Nobody opposed the war in Iraq as much and as tenaciously as he did. I am absolutely certain that he would have never counseled the Shiites and Sunni Muslims to let them be killed without defending themselves. He would not counsel the Cubans to do such a thing, either. He knows perfectly well that this is not a problem between Cubans. This is a problem between the people of Cuba and the government of the United States. The policy of the U.S. government is so brazenly provocative that on April 25, Mr. Kevin Whitaker, chief of the Cuban Bureau at the State Department, informed the head of our Interests Section in Washington that the National Security Council?s Department of Homeland Security considered the continued hijackings from Cuba a serious threat to the national security of the United States, and requested that the Cuban government adopt all of the necessary measures to prevent such acts. He said this as if they were not the ones who provoke and encourage these hijackings, and as if we were not the ones who adopt drastic measures to prevent them, in order to protect the lives and safety of passengers, and being fully aware for some time now of the criminal plans of the fascist extreme right against Cuba. When news of this contact on the 25 was leaked, it stirred up the Miami terrorist mob. They still do not understand that their direct or indirect threats against Cuba do not frighten anyone in this country. The hypocrisy of Western politicians and a large group of mediocre leaders is so huge that it would not fit in the Atlantic Ocean. Any measure that Cuba adopts for the purposes of its legitimate defense is reported among the top stories in almost all of the media. On the other hand, when we pointed out that during the term in office of a Spanish head of government, dozens of ETA members were executed without trial, without anyone protesting or denouncing it before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, or that another Spanish head of government, at a difficult moment in the war in Kosovo, advised the U.S. president to step up the war, increase the bombing and attack civilian targets, thus causing the deaths of hundreds of innocent people and tremendous suffering for millions of people, the headlines merely stated, "Castro attacks Felipe and Aznar". Not a word was said about the real content. In Miami and Washington they are now discussing where, how and when Cuba will be attacked or the problem of the Revolution will be solved. For the moment, there is talk of economic measures that will further intensify the brutal blockade, but they still do not know which to choose, who they will resign themselves to alienating, and how effective these measures may be. There are very few left for them to choose from. They have already used up almost all of them. A shameless scoundrel with the poorly chosen first name Lincoln, and the last name D?az-Balart, an intimate friend and advisor of President Bush, has made this enigmatic statement to a Miami TV station: "I can?t go into details, but we?re trying to break this vicious cycle." What methods are they considering to deal with this vicious cycle? Physically eliminating me with the sophisticated modern means they have developed, as Mr. Bush promised them in Texas before the elections? Or attacking Cuba the way they attacked Iraq? If it were the former, it does not worry me in the least. The ideas for which I have fought all my life will not die, and they will live on for a long time. If the solution were to attack Cuba like Iraq, I would suffer greatly because of the cost in lives and the enormous destruction it would bring on Cuba. But, it might turn out to be the last of this Administration?s fascist attacks, because the struggle would last a very long time. The aggressors would not merely be facing an army, but rather thousands of armies that would constantly reproduce themselves and make the enemy pay such a high cost in casualties that it would far exceed the cost in lives of its sons and daughters that the American people would be willing to pay for the adventures and ideas of President Bush. Today, he enjoys majority support, but it is dropping, and tomorrow it could be reduced to zero. The American people, the millions of highly cultivated individuals who reason and think, their basic ethical principles, the tens of millions of computers with which to communicate, hundreds of times more than at the end of the Viet Nam war, will show that you cannot fool all of the people, and perhaps not even part of the people, all of the time. One day they will put a straightjacket on those who need it before they manage to annihilate life on the planet. On behalf of the one million people gathered here this May Day, I want to convey a message to the world and the American people: We do not want the blood of Cubans and Americans to be shed in a war. We do not want a countless number of lives of people who could be friends to be lost in an armed conflict. But never has a people had such sacred things to defend, or such profound convictions to fight for, to such a degree that they would rather be obliterated from the face of the Earth than abandon the noble and generous work for which so many generations of Cubans have paid the high cost of the lives of many of their finest sons and daughters. We are sustained by the deepest conviction that ideas are worth more than weapons, no matter how sophisticated and powerful those weapons may be. Let us say like Che Guevara when he bid us farewell: Ever onward to victory! From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 2 02:22:01 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] Scotland: SSP gains Message-ID: <000901c31084$07037360$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> This is terrific news. It really should act as a wake-up call to the left in England -- put aside your differences and work together. Nevertheless Sheridan and co. should be prepared for an intensified assault on the party. Wendy Alexander is not worth losing sleep over, but there is little question that the emergence of a clearly Marxist party as a serious political contender will exercise minds in Whitehall, Westminster, Edinburgh and various news media outlets. Blair's friends in Washington will also have something to say about this. ----- Sheridan's Socialists now a countrywide force CATHERINE MACLEOD, Political Editor The Herald, 2 May 2003 THE Scottish Socialists returned two Glasgow MSPs to parliament last night with an electoral success establishing the youthful party firmly on the Scottish political landscape. Although Tommy Sheridan, the flamboyant leader of the SSP, failed to win outright in the Glasgow Pollok constituency, he was returned along with Rosie Kane on the Glasgow regional list. Mr Sheridan, who was beaten by over 3000 votes by Labour's Johann Lamont, hailed the SSP's performance as "the best result in Scotland". In an impassioned speech at the Pollok count, Mr Sheridan looked forward to extending the appeal of the SSP. He said: "A new political force has been established in Scotland. That new force believes the wealth of Scotland belongs to the people of Scotland. Tonight I think we can confidently predict we will have the best result in Scotland. "We will have attracted more new voters than any other parties in Scotland and we will have attracted voters in every part of Scotland. We started with a target of four seats and we were ridiculed, rubbished and ignored by the tabloid press. I am confident that we will meet that target and if we get any more than four seats, it will be a spectacular result." Ms Kane, who stood for election in the Glasgow Shettleston constituency, came third after Labour and the SNP with 2403 votes (14.52%). She pushed the Tories and Liberal Democrats into fourth and fifth places respectively while increasing her 1999 vote by 763 votes. Mr Sheridan attributes the success of the SSP to their grassroots allegiance. Earlier this week, Mr Sheridan told The Herald's Alf Young: "We started off at a conference in February 1999 and we had no members. We had big ideas, we had big visions of how we wanted to improve Scotland. We had a lot of honesty and lot of integrity but we had few positions." On both the east and west of Scotland, the SSP won between 4% and 10% of the vote, even in seats where they had never before fielded a candidate. In Cunninghame South, for example, Rosemary Byrne, the SSP's new candidate polled 2677 (11.76%). The first-past-the-post results showed the SSP, which for the first time had candidates standing in every seat in Scotland, causing the SNP most electoral damage while also denting the Labour vote in almost every Scottish constituency. Mr Sheridan, who hoped the SSP would return four MSPs to Holyrood, could barely contain his excitement at the prospect of having five MSPs, which would give the SSP group status in the Scottish Parliament, and a say in the running of the Scottish parliament. In the Glasgow Pollok constituency Mr Sheridan polled 6016 votes (27.9%), representing a poll increase of 6.42%. In Jack McConnell's Motherwell and Wishaw constituency, the SSP polled 1961 votes, mostly taken from the SNP, whose vote dropped by 12% in the first-past-the-post poll vote. Mr McConnell, the first minister, increased Labour's vote by 8%, hailed by the Labour hierarchy as "a great personal victory for Mr McConnell". In Hamilton South, the first constituency to declare its result, the SSP polled 1893 votes (9.23%). In Greenock and Inverclyde, Tricia McCafferty polled 2338 votes (an increase of 6.84%) In another remarkable SSP result, Malcolm Wilson, in Glasgow Cathcart, polled 2819 votes (12.64%) in a seat held by Labour's Mike Watson, the minister for culture and sport. The result demonstrated a 1.5% SNP swing to Labour, but David Ritchie saw the SNP's share of the vote reduced by 11.87% while Mr Watson's vote was reduced by 8.88%.In Dunfermline East, the SSP took 1537 votes, or 6.64%. In Rutherglen, Bill Bonnar, the SSP candidate, polled 2259 (9.5%) of the vote, an increase of 1427 votes from last year. The SSP won 1301 votes (4.37%) in Angus where Andrew Welsh was returned as the first SNP success of the night. In Kirkcaldy, the SSP's Rudi Vogels took 1544 votes (7.04%). In Cunninghame South, the SSP took 2677 votes (11.76%), again squeezing the SNP to a greater extent than Labour. In Fife North East, a LibDem hold, the SSP won 1366 votes (4.66%). In East Lothian, Hugh Kerr, the SSP's press officer, and former Labour MEP, took 1380 votes (4.42%). In Fife Central, the seat formerly held by Henry McLeish, the former first minister, the SSP took 1391 votes (5.43%). Christine May, the former convener of Fife council comfortably held the seat for Labour. In Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Steve Arnott, the SSP candidate, gained 1661 votes in a seat comfortably held by the SNP's Fergus Ewing. Wendy Alexander, who retained her Paisley North seat, immediately condemned the SSP's success. Claiming Mr Sheridan was guilty of misleading the electorate, she said: "I've known Tommy Sheridan for a long time and one of the worst things that you can do to working people is promise that which you can't deliver, and that's something which his whole political life has been about." ----- Socialists set for gains Friday, 2 May, 2003, 03:45 GMT 04:45 UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/2994421.stm The Scottish Socialist Party believes it will be a "new political force" in the second Holyrood parliament. The left-wingers, led by Tommy Sheridan, have been tipped to take up to 10 regional list seats. If the BBC Scotland prediction is correct then that represents a massive assault on establishment politics north of the border. Mr Sheridan was the party's lone representative following the election four years ago when he became an MSP for the region of Glasgow. The 39-year-old political firebrand is the national convener of the party which was formed only a matter of months before the 1999 poll. As the story of Scotland's 2003 election unfolded, Mr Sheridan declared: "What's happened tonight in Scotland is that a new political force has been formed - and that force believes that the wealth of Scotland belongs to the people of Scotland. SSP SEATS SO FAR Tommy Sheridan - Glasgow list Rosie Kane - Glasgow list Frances Curran - West of Scotland "The people of Scotland are demanding this democratically. "We have got lots of money, the top 100 richest people in Scotland have £10,000m between them. We already have massive wealth in this country and we should be able to redistribute that wealth." He added: "We were ridiculed and scoffed at by the media at the beginning of this campaign for saying we would make gains. "I said we would get four and if we get that, that will be great, if we get more, then that will be a spectacular advance." Changing establishment One party with a relatively small number of MSPs in 1999 played its part during the first parliament. When the Liberal Democrats won 12 seats in 1999 they became the coalition partners of the Labour Party, which had the largest number of MSPs but failed to have enough to take overall control. Mr Sheridan, who retained his list seat this time, said after winning four years ago "sometimes you have to join the establishment in order to change it". The former Labour Party member caused a stir from the start, when he swore the oath of allegiance to the Queen, required of all MSPs, with a clenched fist raised in order to signal his protest. And he did that only after declaring that "supreme sovereignty lies with the people of Scotland rather than an unelected monarchy". At the end of 2000 his campaign to have warrant sales and poindings abolished paid off when his members' bill made it through parliament. But other parliamentary efforts failed. In June last year, Mr Sheridan - who has been jailed three times in the name of various campaigns - was "furious" after MSPs on the all-party education committee rejected his plans for free school meals for every pupil in Scotland. The SSP will not find out its total number of representatives until later on Friday when the all of the regional list votes are declared. From mstainsby at tao.ca Fri May 2 02:30:01 2003 From: mstainsby at tao.ca (Macdonald Stainsby) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] Taking Stock on Mayday Message-ID: <00ea01c31084$edb07d80$20fa5718@comintern> ProletarianNews http://www.utopia2000.org Macdonald Stainsby. 30 April 2003. Taking Stock on Mayday. May Day is always the best time for a revolutionary to take stock of what has happened over the last year, and to determine what can be done better for the next. I personally have been rather distraught politically for the last while. The conquering of Iraq fast and with a betrayal by the Republican Guard, "short and humanitarian" though many say that might be, is the worst case scenario that could have come out of that theatre of the Christian-Zionist "war on Terror." Further, the state terror assault continues on Palestine, complete with more "facts on the ground" trying to eliminate the possibility of sovereignty over huge new swaths of the 1967 territorial boundaries (see image of the "new map": http://www.gush-shalom.org/thewall/images/map1_eng.gif). The Israeli Occupation Forces are also using direct murder to attempt to scare off the international presence brought about by the International Solidarity Movement. Even a non-violent-declared movement of primarily first world youth is now coming under military assault on the front lines of this war. This, as the conquest of Iraq is declared over. I suppose that is the key to it, to notice the word 'declare.' What else is going on, undeclared? Well, the movement begun with the DC demonstration April 20, 2002 against the attacks on Palestine escalated sharply during the sabre-rattling against Iraq. It has not gone anywhere. There have been multiple peoples and groups who are looking for the shortest way to the biggest speed bump. Some have blocked the economic corridors of Canada and the United States, blocking the border crossing or the consulate doors to raise the economic costs and demonstrate rejection. But perhaps the most heartening thing has been the response to the killing of the Internationals inside of Palestinian territory. Brian Avery has had his face blasted open while both Tom Hurndall and Rachel Corrie have passed on into North American martyrs against the 'New American Century' of the Christian Zionists like Paul Wolfowitz or Richard Perle. What has become of this? The truth is that the history of the First World left has been over-all one of stagnancy for decades, despite the remarkable tirelessness of individuals and certain groups. It should say a lot for the health of our resistance to the war on one end at least, when the ISM in Palestine can report that the murders of anti-occupation activists has spurned more activists and volunteers to the call. This flies in the face of the usual pattern of retreats and surrender by "solidarity" activists, and not a moment too soon. The movement, as per usual, splits along two basic lines at a political juncture of great confusion (such as "official" bombing being ended in Iraq): Many propose to scale things back in terms of action, re-address the basics and try to win over more converts, to create a large mass movement for the usual social democratic approach. Simplifying the message is a key to this. It remains loyal-oppositional in essence, to whatever the headlines of the day are and not much more. It posits that more than this will alienate, and that other forms of resistance are "adventurous" and an irresponsible attack on the credibility of all who are currently "anti-war." This attitude, which has utter contempt for notions of solidarity, must be resisted. It appears that Cuba might be the next target, so the "other" tendency of the anti-war camp appropriately can be explained by quoting out of Abbie Hoffman's "Revolution for the Hell Of It" when he quoted Fidel: There are those who believe that it is necessary for ideas to triumph among the greatest part of the masses before initiating action, and there are others who understand that action is one of the most efficient instruments for bringing about the triumph of ideas among the masses. Whoever hesitates while waiting for ideas to triumph among the masses before initiating revolutionary action will never be a revolutionary. Stemming from this, today's resistance movement need not look at things as desperate, but stagnant. It needs a good, swift kick-start. Remember, to put something into the realm of possibility it needs to have been done. Let's redouble our efforts around this strategy, but never lose sight of taking a proper thought-out target first. Who makes the weapons of war, and why are we letting them stay open in our communities? How will we shut them down? The truth of consciousness is viewable by talking to people you don't already know. The war is known to be irredeemable; it's the pointlessness of the current charade that gets to a lot of erstwhile anti-war folk. So, rather than fall into the trap of attacking the social democratic "movement builders"-- the point isn't that they are wrong, but only wrong when they exercise monopoly on tactics-- affinity groups of flashlights need to be dispersed in your city. Some people, at a point of great darkness, need to see a light coming on. Or, if you like, the spark has to be lit. I see a time soon where people will get inspiration from one-another's actions. There will not be an isolating of those who resist, but an embrace of the need. We'll hear real discussion among friends and comrades taking place in the basements and coffee shops. Action leading to analysis, and back again. Praxis, and more than all else: solidarity and trust. Sparks start flying and the whole planet is brittle and dry. Imperialism will end and this is only the beginning of history. We shall not go gently into that good night. Mayday has, for far too long, been a small event inside North American cities. Mayday was started as a holiday in solidarity with the killing of American revolutionaries. It's therefore been doubly a statement to our weakness that only here, in Canada and the USA, is Mayday not a holiday that we have defended. We can start to take it back and do so with our compatriots in the Occupied Territories: The territories of the Guantanamo Bay naval base, Palestine, Iraq and indeed North America itself: all occupied indigenous lands to be liberated. Or as simply as the slogan plainly states it: "Globalize the Intifada!" ------------------------------------------- Macdonald Stainsby http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international -- In the contradiction lies the hope. --Bertholt Brecht From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 2 03:54:02 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK state: punk Thatcherism References: <20030501235558.H309@ndhn.yna.cnyserzna.pbz> <20030501235746.R309@ndhn.yna.cnyserzna.pbz> Message-ID: <004101c31090$c54563e0$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> William Palfreman writes: > While attracting some unreconstructed national Keynesians within the Labour > Party and elsewhere on the left, the most enthusiastic participants are the > usual punk Thatcherite suspects. Maybe then. I don't think people like that even exist today. Again, I don't believe such people are around anymore - not within my lifetime. I'd say the last time that represented a significant point of view was 1975. ----- Firstly, thanks to William for climbing aboard the list to clarify certain points. We are both agreed that the article in question is a farrago of supposition, misquotation and conspiratorialism. With respect to the presumed death of punk Thatcherism, I would preach caution here. The issue of Northern Ireland is something that we follow here, and recent events show just how difficult it is for certain elements within the British state and their allies/mouthpieces in "civil society" to let go. That MI5 and Special Branch are implicated in the leaking of telephone conversations involving Mo Mowlam and Martin McGuinness, aimed ultimately at preventing the enactment of the GFA, tells us a lot about the resilience of these elements. That they are in decline is true -- that they are effectively dead is not. Ever since the mid-1970s there has been a growing current, incorporating parts of MI6, that has promoted a policy of gradual disengagement by the British state from Northern Ireland. The vast majority of MI5 was against this from the get-go. Not surprising, given MI5's history as the security service for the colonies. Having lost most of these, all they had left to worry over (apart from Harold Wilson, the "KGB agent") was Northern Ireland, which they proceeded to turn into an organised bloodbath once they had been given the authority to take over security operations there. One of the best sources on this is "Who Framed Colin Wallace?" by Paul Foot, published in 1990. Also worth checking is "The Wilson Plot" by David Leigh (Heinemann, 1988) and "Smear! Wilson and the Secret State" by Stephen Dorril and Robin Ramsay (Grafton, 1991). Also, if you can find a copy, try out Robert Fisk, "The Point of No Return", published in 1975 about the Ulster Workers' Council strike. Meanwhile, the recent work of BBC journalist Peter Taylor, particularly "Brits", makes it clear that MI6 took various peace initiatives throughout the times of the Troubles. While Taylor himself is not the most spotless source (see his treatment of the Stalker affair), there is little doubting this particular aspect of his narrative. The people involved in this promotion of state terrorism (the McWhirter brothers, George Kennedy Young, Airey Neave, Michael Hanley, "Lord" Ralph Harris of High Cross, William Rees Mogg etc.) were also responsible for the rise of Thatcher in the first place, and while certain empire loyalists were unhappy about what they considered to be an overly diluted approach to "correcting" the problems of Britain (e.g. Gerald James, whose "In the National Interest", published in 1995, contains a good account of this), the vast majority were happy to be aligned with Thatcher as she set about attacking organised labour via orchestrated state violence and economic vandalism. In so doing she created a new more powerful stratum of petty bourgeois types, encompassing entrepreneurs and office workers, all supported by an increasingly sophisticated ideological apparatus (hence the high profile war of attrition against the BBC, involving Rees-Mogg, Norman Tebbit, "Sir" James Goldsmith, Neil Hamilton and Gerald Howarth, among others). This altered the political complexion of Britain irrevocably. The irony of all this is that Thatcher herself outlived her usefulness, as in her rampant europhobia, which alienated key constituents of her support base, hence the in-house putsch that toppled her in 1990. The Major governments of 1990-97 are the story of a messy transition, as one state party declined to be overtaken by a completely new one, New Labour, whose time had well and truly come. Major began many of the things which Blair et al. are now implementing with even greater speed. Not only intensified privatisation, but also with respect to the European re-orientation that key sections of British capital demanded, but which Major was unable to accomplish because his political base would simply not allow it. Blair's did, hence his usefulness to the hegemonic bloc now in the ascendant. The implosion of the Conservative Party is as a result of a lingering attachment to punk Thatcherism -- despite his best efforts, William Hague was forced to turn right because, in "democratising" his party, he had made himself more vulnerable to the demands of the partisan bigots that form the hard core of that party. Thus the succession of IDS, and the continuing hero-worship of Thatcher. But they remain important because of their command of parts of the ideological apparatus, not least the Telegraph newspapers and the Murdoch media empire. And linked to this is the support that they get from those in the US with strong links to the Bush administration. A check of the archives here will highlight some of these links, including Thatcher arranging for IDS to meet Donald Rumsfeld before the actual defence secretary, Geoff Hoon. One way to understand Blair's frenzied approach to foreign policy is to accept the blackmail hypothesis but to steer it away from the lurid to the more straightforward -- he knows that the current administration could cause a lot of trouble for New Labour if he does not play ball, so, within certain limits, he can afford to advocate alternative policies and stake out a "British" position, but the price of that is unwavering support of the main elements of US imperialism. The alternative is a manufactured balance of payments crisis of the kind precipitated in 1974 and resulting in the intervention of the IMF in 1976, sealing Britain's Thatcherite fate. The euro tendency within the British state, of which Blair is the figurehead, is merely the continuation of one of the two main strands of Thatcherism, whose main accomplishments were the destruction of the British working class, the restoration of British state authority (contrary to "rolling back" its frontiers) and the further incorporation into the anti-Soviet bulwark that was the European Economic Community. With the end of the Cold War, Europe's political functionality has ceased to exist from a US strategic perspective, whilst its potential as a strategic rival has grown. The other strand of Thatcherism ("punk") sees its future as part of an Anglified white world bloc, led by the US but with a special place for John Bull British nationalism and devoted to a miserably misunderstood conception of "free trade". Thus the irony of Blair -- the most euro-enthusiast PM since Edward Heath, poised to seal Britain's future by leading it into the eurozone, now forced to manage as best he can the difficulties of a hostile Bush administration and a bizarre domestic coalition of petty bourgeois nationalist bigots and labour aristocracy relics, reinforced by powerful media interests controlled by Conrad Black and Rupert Murdoch, whose links to the Bush administration are very close indeed. Most of this is a rehashing of stuff written earlier, and which can be found in the archives. What is new is that this history, it is becoming clearer day by day, is far from past, and that there remains an intense struggle within the British state over its future trajectory. That punk Thatcherism cannot be regarded as a serious political alternative to New Labour is less important than the recognition that it can be used to cause severe domestic difficulty for Blair should he step out of line. Michael Keaney From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 2 05:02:02 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] Scotland: election downside Message-ID: <005a01c3109a$5b395d80$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> The loss of John McAllion is a blow to left politics in Scotland. I'm pleased that this journalist is making public the very likely true rumours that the Labour Party was involved in efforts to sabotage its own. Given McAllion's staunch opposition to the Iraq war and consistent campaigning for left goals, it is not surprising that the should have been loathed by many within his party. It was a miracle that he made it past the selection panel way back in 1998, when another left stalwart, Dennis Canavan, was deselected by the thought police installed by Gordon Brown and Donald Dewar. Now McAllion will have to consider the alternatives. Since the only other likely options for him politically both embrace Scottish independence, he will presumably have to rethink his attitude towards "Britain". But his political demise (however temporary) is yet another reminder (as if it were needed) that there is no place in New Labour for old socialists. Interestingly McAllion was closely involved with George Galloway in establishing "Scotland United" in 1987, a radical campaigning outfit within the Labour Party geared towards securing autonomy for Scotland within the UK state. What made them different was that they were, at the time, prepared to contemplate outright independence should the British state prove unbending. ----- Rebel McAllion is finally out in the cold ROBBIE DINWOODIE, Scottish Political Correspondent The Herald, 2 May 2003 THE fiery left winger, John McAllion, lost his Dundee East seat to the SNP after two recounts. Shona Robison took the constituency by just 70 votes. There were dark rumours during the final days of the election campaign that the Labour party nationally was not doing all that it might to help Mr McAllion hang on to his constituency. He made some of the finest speeches in the last term of the parliament, particularly in his passionate criticism of the war in Iraq. However, it did not require a conspiracy theorist to suspect that the man who was so often a critic of Tony Blair's leadership might not get the full backing of the party machine. Mr McAllion was seen as popular in his constituency and the Scottish Socialists stood aside to give him a clear run. It is not clear, however, whether this did him any favours. He took the seat from the SNP in 1987 at a time when many in Labour did not consider it to be winnable. His reputation within the party was of a staunch socialist with nationalist tendencies. When he won his way into the Scottish parliament, Donald Dewar could have decided to make use of his experience and bring the maverick inside the tent. Instead he was overlooked and became convener of the petitions committee. From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 2 05:10:01 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] Iraq: weapons of mass instruction Message-ID: <006301c3109b$6faa1a60$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> Weapons of mass distortion The concept of WMD is dishonest. When they are in friendly hands we call them defence forces Geoffrey Wheatcroft Friday May 2, 2003 The Guardian If the first casualty of war is truth, then language itself sustains the heaviest collateral damage, as Orwell used to point out (before "collateral damage" proved his point by entering the vocabulary of poisonous euphemism). The Iraq war has produced its own rich crop of Newspeak, but the choicest of all is the phrase "weapons of mass destruction". Even the most credulous supporters of Tony Blair's war are beginning to see they were sold a pup. MPs angrily demand evidence of the WMDs, which they, in their innocence, believed were the reason for the war, rather than its flimsy pretext, while the prime minister insists that WMDs will be found. But what are they anyway? The very phrase "weapons of mass destruction" is of recent coinage, and a specious one. It replaced "ABC weapons", for atomic, biological and chemical, which was neater, although already misleading as it conflated types of weaponry quite different in kind and in destructive capacity. WMD is even more empty and dishonest as a concept. By definition atomic and hydrogen bombs cause mass destruction. Ever since they were first built and used in war (by the US, in case anyone has forgotten), they have cast a peculiar thrall of horror, although this is not entirely logical. The quarter-million dead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been preceded by nearly a million German and Japanese civilians killed by "conventional" bombing, whose conventionality was small consolation for the victims. Even supposing that nuclear weapons are uniquely horrible, the Iraq war and its aftermath have only served to confirm what Hans Blix learned, and what the International Institute for Strategic Studies said last summer: that Saddam had no fissile material to build atomic warheads. Nor did he have (for all the shockingly mendacious propaganda) the wherewithal for acquiring such material. Had he possessed warheads, he never had the means of striking London, let alone New York. And if he had ever been tempted to lob one at Israel, he would have been constrained by the certain knowledge that Baghdad would have been nuked minutes later. Certainly he possessed the biological and chemical material in ABC, although here again the "W" in WMD is notably misleading: "weaponised" was just what this material was not, a fact which makes the pretext for war even more phoney. And certainly Saddam had used biological and chemical weapons against Iran as well as the Kurds. Very nasty they are, but that does not make them mass-destructive in the same sense as nuclear warheads. A height of absurdity was reached with the claim that one of Saddam's WMDs was mustard gas - a weapon we were using in 1917, and which British politicians at the time defended as comparatively humane beside high-explosive artillery and machine-gun fire. Even terrorism isn't always more dangerous because of access to toxic substances, and doesn't need a dictator like Saddam to provide them anyway. Robert Harris and Jeremy Paxman have written about biological and chemical weapons in their book, A Higher Form of Killing. Harris has pointed out that "a reasonably competent chemist could produce nerve agent on a kitchen table". In 1995, a terrorist religious cult in Japan did just that, thereby providing an illuminating comparison. Those cultists released sarin nerve gas - another of Saddam's alleged WMDs - into the Tokyo metro during rush hour. Last February in the South Korean city of Daegu, an underground train was attacked, with a milk carton containing inflammable liquid. Twelve people died in the "WMD" attack; old-fashioned arson killed 120. Soon after September 11, a number of letters containing anthrax spores were posted in America. In the overwrought climate of the moment, it was claimed that this batch of "WMD" could kill the American population many times over, and that may have been true according to some abstract calculation. In the event, five people died. While terrorism is murderous, it mostly remains technologically primitive. Three people were killed in Tel Aviv on Tuesday by a suicide bomber's belt of explosive and metal scraps, and the IRA have shown how bloodthirsty "spectaculars" can be mounted with nothing more than fertiliser, sugar, and condoms for the timers. As for the greatest spectacular of all, Blair has repeatedly linked September 11 with the threat of WMDs. But the 3,000 victims in New York weren't killed by WMDs of any kind, they were murdered by a dozen fanatics armed with box cutters. Although it has been irritating subsequently to have the contents of one's sponge bag confiscated at the airport in the name of security, that scarcely makes a pair of nail scissors a WMD. The truth is that "weapons of mass destruction" is a concept defined by the person using it. "I like a drink, you are a drunk, he is an alcoholic," runs the old conjugation. Now there's another: "We have defence forces, you have dangerous arms, he has weapons of mass destruction." As usual, it depends who you are. From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 2 05:12:01 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] UK state: Northern Ireland Message-ID: <006b01c3109b$baed6040$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> Two held over Ulster phone tap leak Rosie Cowan, Ireland correspondent Friday May 2, 2003 The Guardian Detectives investigating the leaking of transcripts of telephone calls between Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein and Jonathan Powell, the prime minister's chief of staff, arrested a Sunday Times journalist and his wife yesterday. Officers also seized documents at the home of the journalist, Liam Clarke, the Sunday Times Northern Ireland editor, who co-wrote a biography of Mr McGuinness with his wife, Kathryn Johnston. The updated version of the book, entitled Martin McGuinness: From Guns to Government, included transcripts of phone calls allegedly bugged by M15. They were made by Mr McGuinness to Mr Powell and to the former Northern Ireland secretary Mo Mowlam and the Sinn Fein president, Gerry Adams. Police arrested a 48-year-old retired special branch officer and seized a computer and disks during a house search on Wednesday, when the Times published extracts from the transcripts, which featured calls made in 1999 and 2001. The bugging was allegedly part of an operation known as Narcotic1, which started in 1997 and was still running. In one call, in August 1999, Mr Powell described Willie Thompson, then an Ulster Unionist MP who opposed the Good Friday agreement, as an "ass". In another, Ms Mowlam apparently told Mr McGuinness that she was going to see Tony Blair and was "fighting like fuck" to keep her post in Northern Ireland. Asked in the Commons about the bugging, Mr Blair refused to comment on "any matters related to security". Mr McGuinness is the Mid-Ulster MP at Westminster, and the education minister in the Stormont government, which was put on ice last October amid allegations of an IRA spy ring. He described the phone taps as "disgraceful". "The war is not over for securocrats," he said. From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 2 05:14:01 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] Zimbabwe: Mugabe support crumbling? Message-ID: <007301c3109c$09458740$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> Knives out for Mugabe as party loyalty fades Power struggle brews within Zanu-PF amid growing dismay over Zimbabwe's collapse Andrew Meldrum in Harare Friday May 2, 2003 The Guardian Zimbabwe's president, Robert Mugabe, is battling against a whispering campaign within his Zanu-PF party begun by some of his deputies and lieutenants vying to succeed him. The Guardian revealed yesterday that Mr Mugabe faced unprecedented pressure from fellow African leaders to retire, and the presidents of South Africa and Nigeria, Thabo Mbeki and Olusegun Obasanjo, were due in Harare on Monday to urge him to end his 23-year rule. But even as the 79-year-old leader struggles with Zimbabwe's severe famine, fuel and power shortages, economic collapse and international criticism, he is also confronted by growing pressure from ambitious officials in his own party. Interviews with senior members of Zanu-PF show that substantial elements of the party think it is time for Mr Mugabe to go. But it is bitterly divided over who should succeed him and remains at a loss for a strategy for pulling the country out of its most severe economic freefall and famine ever. "The party is fully aware they have lost the population," a former Zanu-PF member of parliament said. "Cabinet ministers and party officials sit over beers and admit the party has failed the country. But when Mugabe comes into the room they all sit up and tell the president what he wants to hear. They are all afraid." They fear that Mr Mugabe will cut them out of the party's inner circle of wealth and power. They are also afraid of Mr Mugabe's revenge. Some cabinet ministers privately say they are unhappy with the situation but are frightened of violent retribution if they resign. "Zanu-PF is not just a political party, it is a liberation movement that fought a bitter and bloody war to gain power," said Wilfred Mhanda, a prominent war veteran, now director of the Zimbabwe Liberators Platform, a group critical of Mr Mugabe. "That violent struggle 30 years ago shaped Robert Mugabe and many others in the party. They are committed to keeping power, not to democracy. They are not afraid to spill blood now to keep power." Mr Mugabe's use of the army, police, war veterans and youth militia frightens many people, but he cannot intimidate an economy back to prosperity or win back popularity. "There are several in Zanu-PF who have been waiting for years to succeed Mugabe and now they fear they are losing their chance," said a former ambassador. "They fear Mugabe will drag the party down with him and they won't have a chance of power. That is why they want Mugabe to step down now." The most prominent faction became public in January when the opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, revealed that he had been approached by the parliamentary speaker, Emmerson Mnangagwa, and the chief of staff of the armed forces, General Vitalis Zvinavashe, who asked him if he would join a "transitional government" if they got Mr Mugabe to retire. Mr Mnangagwa, a former defence minister, is widely considered to be Mr Mugabe's likely successor. "They are powerful men, but their weakness is that they are not popular," said a Zanu-PF MP. "Mnangagwa cannot even win an election within the party, not to mention a parliamentary seat. How could he lead the nation?" Party leaders can rattle off other factions vying to succeed Mr Mugabe, but virtually all of the various challengers are devoid of any new economic policies to reverse Zimbabwe's decline. The one Zanu-PF contender who is an exception is Simba Makoni, a former finance minister. He has spoken out for rational economic policies and avoided associating with the more lawless side of the party. He told the Guardian that Zimbabwe's daunting problems demanded a national effort in which all Zimbabwean parties and civic organisations worked together. "We are faced with a crisis, both economic and social, that calls for a national effort that cuts across party lines," Mr Makoni said. "The governing party and the opposition party must work together, with civil society and professional bodies. Only that way can we mobilise all our resources to find a way out of this crisis. We need to get Zimbabweans to work together again." Mr Makoni's statements are earth-shaking, particularly coming from within Mr Mugabe's often belligerent ruling party. "It is a hallmark of democracy that the different political parties can work together. Anyone who suggests that our problems can be solved by an exclusively partisan approach from any one party is suggesting a path that will be longer and more painful," said Mr Makoni. "And to work with our regional and international partners would also be beneficial." A Zanu-PF member of parliament said: "Moderates within Zanu-PF are comfortable with Makoni and even the general public likes him. He is not tainted by corruption. But he does not have a proven constituency, he does not have an elected seat." Another party member said: "Makoni is outside the inner circle but he could well come to power with a bit of support from South Africa." South Africa's economic pressure and President Mbeki are the most decisive factors influencing Mr Mugabe. "South Africa's key strategy in dealing with Zimbabwe is to try to get Zanu-PF to make an internal change in leadership. If they finish up the land redistribution, that could allow Mugabe to retire as a hero and get a successor," said Ivor Jenkins, director of the International Democratic Alternative for South Africa. He said Mr Makoni appeared to have "the least baggage in terms of allegations of corruption and human rights abuses". There is also growing speculation that Mr Mbeki is looking to Mr Makoni. From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 2 05:18:01 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] Zimbabwe: US-British interference Message-ID: <007b01c3109c$9940a8c0$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> US plots to oust Mugabe with African nations' help By Basildon Peta in Johannesburg and Andrew Grice The Independent 02 May 2003 The United States - backed by Britain - is pushing for "regime change" in Zimbabwe that would see President Robert Mugabe replaced by a member of the ruling Zanu-PF party. The new president would then call a constitutional conference and organise elections to be monitored by the international community. President George Bush is sending Walter Kansteiner, his special adviser on Africa, to the region next week. The US is persuading African leaders to back its strategy to use regional pressure to bring about the regime change. Rather than demand an immediate re-run of the March 2002 presidential election, which international observers accused Mr Mugabe of rigging, the US is pushing a so-called "Palestinian strategy". This refers to the sidelining of Yasser Arafat in favour of the new Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas. America, Britain and South Africa have indicated that the country's former finance minister Simba Makoni is a suitable interim figure to take over from Mr Mugabe. Mr Makoni is untainted by the worst excesses of the Mugabe regime and has publicly denounced the chaotic land seizures that have driven the country to the edge of disaster. Tony Blair and Mr Bush have not discussed the Zimbabwe situation in their many conversations over the recent months. But Mr Blair wants the issue raised at next month's G8 summit in Evian, France. "I would like to see a bigger focus by the international community on Zimbabwe," he told the Financial Times this week. "Now there's a limit to what you can do but I have never had a difficulty with the concept of intervention. It doesn't necessarily mean ... armed intervention, it can be diplomatic." British ministers denied that the US plan was a payback for Mr Blair's support over Iraq. One Government source said: "If there was a quid pro quo, it was on the Middle East peace process and the publication of the road-map." African leaders, including South Africa's President, Thabo Mbeki, have openly supported Mr Mugabe despite widespread international condemnation. They have also succeeded in undermining British attempts to isolate his regime internationally, most recently insisting that he be invited to the Franco-Africa summit organised by President Jacques Chirac. Over the past three months Mr Mbeki's views on regime change have changed, according to Mr Kansteiner. South Africa now acceptsMr Mugabe should be edged aside, he said. Other influential African countries including Botswana, Mozambique, Senegal, Ghana agree that Mr Mugabe's removal from power is the only realistic step towards resolving the deepening crisis in Zimbabwe, which threatens to plunge the region into humanitarian and economic chaos. Mr Mbeki believes it would be easier to lobby international support for Zimbabwe with a new leader. Mr Mbeki, Nigerian leader, Olusegun Obasanjo, and Malawi's President, Bakili Muluzi, arrive in Zimbabwe on Monday for talks with Mr Mugabe and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai. From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 2 05:19:02 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] US imperialism: New Europe Message-ID: <008301c3109c$b44b9260$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> More US forces will be based in eastern Europe By Stephen Castle in Brussels The Independent 02 May 2003 A dramatic shift of American military forces from bases in Germany to locations in "new" Europe, including Bulgaria, Romania, Poland and Hungary, is being brought forward after the war in Iraq. According to reports in the US, the 17,000-strong 1st Armoured Division, most of which was sent to Iraq from Germany, will not return there. Meanwhile, Romania's Defence Minister, Ioan Mircea Pascu, has announced that talks will begin shortly with Washington on the deployment of more American forces to bases in his country. The decision to scale down American forces in Germany, as well as Pentagon plans to remove troops from Saudi Arabia, underlines the extent to which the Iraq war has changed Washington's military priorities. The aftermath of the conflict is being used to help reshape the international security framework and mount the biggest US military reshuffle since the Second World War. Europe is used to playing host to more than 112,000 American troops, 80 per cent of whom have been based in Germany. But with the German and French governments singled out for criticism by Washington for their opposition to the war in Iraq, the Pentagon seems intent on shifting many of its forces eastwards. Former communist countries which have been accepted into Nato's ranks not only offered political support for Washington's war effort but can provide strategic bases. The pattern likely to emerge is of a dispersal of limited numbers of American troops to several, smaller-scale centres in Eastern Europe, with some soldiers returning home. That would fit with the objective of Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, of creating leaner, more mobile and faster forces. The senior US commander in Europe, General James Jones, has called for the creation of a "family of bases" that can go "from being cold to warm to hot if you need them". This blueprint would permit the periodic expansion of forces when necessary while averting a political problem with Moscow. As part of its deal with Russia over the expansion of Nato, Washington agreed not to set up new military bases in the former communist countries. At a meeting this week at Nato headquarters in Brussels the Americans said they will honour this commitment and that any deployments to the former Soviet bloc would require only minimal improvements to existing infrastructure. The purpose would be to allow joint training exercises, a senior American official said. Diplomats say some of the bases which are likely to play host to US troops have already been upgraded as a condition of entry into Nato, and could accommodate more troops. European diplomats do not expect the US entirely to abandon its German bases, keeping a presence, for example, at Ramstein near Frankfurt. From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 2 05:22:01 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] Italy: Berlusconi loses battle Message-ID: <008b01c3109d$0dc48a40$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> Berlusconi's lawyer convicted of bribery By Peter Popham in Rome The Independent 01 May 2003 Silvio Berlusconi's carefully laid plans to escape the judgment of Milan were in ruins yesterday after the Italian Prime Minister's friend, lawyer and political colleague Cesare Previti was sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment for bribing judges. The culmination of a trial that lasted nearly three years, dogged at every step by the frantic attempts of Mr Berlusconi and Previti to derail it, came at 11.10pm on Tuesday. After deliberating for more than seven hours, the judges convicted all but one of the six accused, all formerly high-flying judges and lawyers, to jail terms ranging from four years to 13. The defendants were accused of giving and receiving bribes amounting to 67bn lira (£24m) to encourage judges in Rome's appeal courts to award ownership of two business conglomerates, including Italy's biggest publisher, Mondadori, to Mr Berlusconi's company, Fininvest. The Prime Minister was originally one of the accused, but dropped off the list under the statute of limitations because the charges against him were less serious. His office responded to the sentencing of Previti, a senator in Mr Berlusconi's Forza Italia party, harshly. "This is an ugly day for Italian justice," his spokesman said. Mr Berlusconi added: "The politicisation of certain magistrates, which has come to condition our political life, is a problem that must be resolved for the good of the country, of the institutions and of Italian citizens." Mr Berlusconi had devoted his political energy to preventing yesterday's embarrassment. Against angry opposition protests, he rammed through a law allowing cases to be transformed to a different judiciary if "legitimate suspicion" that the judges are biased could be proved. But when Previti used the new law to try to get his case switched from Milan, Italy's highest court of appeal turned him down. The sentencing of Previti was seen as a humiliation for Mr Berlusconi, "at least embarrassing", said Giuseppe D'Avanzo of La Repubblica newspaper, "for a man who, as proprietor of Mondadori, was the direct benefactor of this corrupt act". But it was not expected to weaken his grip on power. Francesco Perfetti, professor of politics at Rome's University of Luiss, said: "I rule out the possibility that the conviction will have an immediate impact on the stability of the government." A corruption scandal that broke during Mr Berlusconi's previous term as Prime Minister, in 1994, hastened the downfall of that government. But this time his coalition appears more robust, while the centre-left opposition is in disarray. Previti, who like the other defendants was not present in court for the judgment, declared angrily: "[The judges] have brought to a conclusion what they had decided to do in advance ... I have been persecuted by the 'red togas'. It's a political sentence. I will appeal." The verdicts and the sentences vindicated the painstaking prosecution of Ilda Boccassini, who tracked for the court what one commentator called the "whirling circuits of money". Huge sums vanished from accounts held by the lawyers and popped up in accounts owned by the judges. This is a dark culmination for Mr Berlusconi, but it is also just the beginning - the verdict in a case in which he stands accused of bribing judges to gain control of a food company, is expected in the summer. From michael.keaney at mbs.fi Fri May 2 05:48:02 2003 From: michael.keaney at mbs.fi (Michael Keaney) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] Japan: touting for inward investment Message-ID: <00af01c310a0$c545bec0$8d5094c3@mbs.fi> The following statement was released today by JETRO NY. Please let us know if you have any questions, if you do not wish to receive similar releases in the future or if we can be of help in any way. Thank you for your interest and cooperation. ================================================== Japan Seeks to Double Foreign Direct Investment in Japan within Five Years NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 30, 2003--The Japan External Trade Organization New York (JETRO NY) released a newsletter today highlighting new measures to increase foreign direct investment (FDI) in Japan. It can be viewed at: http://www.jetro.org/newyork/focusnewsletter/focus24.html . As part of an ongoing initiative to accelerate FDI, the Expert Committee of the Japan Investment Council (JIC) recently released a number of important recommendations. In a related development, Prime Minister Koizumi announced in a major January 31st policy speech Japan's determination to double the cumulative amount of FDI in Japan within five years. Over the past decade, Japan has come to understand FDI is essential to introducing new capital, resources, know-how and technologies. Nevertheless, FDI inflows remain low. According to UNCTAD, Japan's Inward FDI Potential Index is 14th among 140 countries although its Performance Index is 131st. To address this severe undervaluation, measures must be initiated to enhance Japan's investment attractiveness. This includes: * Welcoming FDI into Japan: Disseminating Information in Japan and Abroad New investment should be welcomed regardless of capital origin and the importance of FDI shown to the Japanese people. Information also must be disseminated internationally to showcase Japan's economic potential. * Smoother Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A): Preparing the Business Environment Today, cross-border investment often takes the form of M&A, rather than new business development. Therefore, it is essential to facilitate the M&A process. * Clear, Simple and Fast Administrative Procedures: Facilitating Regulatory Approvals and Constraints To make administrative procedures better than other countries, user-oriented ways of thinking need to be adopted. * Securing Necessary Human Resources: Improve Employment and Living Environment Human resources help to drive industrial growth and are essential to develop dynamic businesses. * Local Government Creativity and Ideas: Enlarging the Role of Local Governments Competition of ideas among local governments will help enhance, and demonstrate, the potential of their particular regions. The Expert Committee of the JIC believes the following five points are vital to increase FDI into Japan: * Promoting Public Knowledge of Japan's Attractiveness and Desire for FDI Actively inform international audiences of Japan's desire to welcome FDI; and Seek the understanding of the Japanese people on the importance of FDI. * Improving Japan's Business Environment Improve rules and regulations to facilitate M&A; Enhance transparency and reliability of corporate information; Facilitate new business development; Maximize use of resources of foreign companies; and Improve access to services that support FDI in Japan. * Reviewing Administrative and Regulatory Processes and Procedures Make information available in one-stop form, Simplify and accelerate administrative procedures; and Promote no-action-letter and public comment systems. * Creating a Favorable Employment System and Living Environments Step up reform of Japanese labor market; Improve visa and immigration systems; Improve environment for international education; and Increase ability of foreign doctors to practice in Japan. * Improving Local and National Government Structures and Systems Help local governments to attract foreign investment; Develop designated special zones for structural reform; and Improve national structure for FDI promotion. CONTACT: JETRO New York Satoshi Miyamoto Tel: 212/997-0416 Fax: 212/997-0464 E-mail: Satoshi_Miyamoto@jetro.go.jp Focus is published and disseminated by JETRO New York, in coordination with KWR International, Inc., New York, NY 10023, Tel: 212-532-3005, Fax: 212-799-0517, E-mail: kwrintl@kwrintl.com . JETRO New York is registered as an agent of the Japan External Trade Organization, Tokyo, Japan and KWR International, Inc. is registered on behalf of JETRO New York. This material is filed with the Department of Justice where the required registration statement is available for public viewing. From kaliyuga at humboldt1.com Fri May 2 07:02:02 2003 From: kaliyuga at humboldt1.com (viveka) Date: Sat Jul 8 08:47:00 2006 Subject: [A-List] Patriot Act II - JUST SAY NO! Message-ID: <004f01c310aa$b90fa1c0$202664d8@com.humboldt1.com> A small town in Northern California proves we CAN say no! For those of us frustrated or uncertain about what to do next, here's an act of resistance that has garnered national attention. My dear friend, David Meserve, drafted and helped pass the ordinance below in little old Arcata, California and has received non-stop invitations to be on nationally televised talk shows. His appearances have run the spectrum from Pat Buchanan to Pacifica's WBAI - from Al Jazeera to Sam Donaldson! He is happy to talk to anyone about this, if you're interested in passing such legislation in your city (the list is growing) or if you have a connection for him on a radio or TV spot. Give him my hame if you call. 707-822-1469. Here's a brief summary of the ordinance, the full text follows: "The ordinance instructs management employees of the city not to engage in or permit any unconstitutional detentions or profiling, not to voluntarily cooperate with investigations or arrests in violation of individuals' civil rights or liberties, and to report to the city manager and city council any requests for information or assistance that may be in violation of the Bill of Rights or the Fourteenth Amendment." Maggie AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCATA AMENDING THE ARCATA MUNICIPAL CODE TO DEFEND THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES The City Council of the City of Arcata does ordain as follows: Section 1: Title II: Administration, Chapter 2: Officers and Employees, Article 5: Defending Civil rights and liberties, Sections 2190 - 2194 are hereby added to the Municipal Code as follows: SEC. 2190: Purposes. The purposes of this ordinance are as follows: A. To protect the civil rights and civil liberties for all and to affirm the City's commitment to embody democracy, and to embrace, defend and uphold the inalienable rights and fundamental liberties granted under the United States and the California Constitutions, as set forth in Resolution 023-32, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcata to Defend the Bill of Rights and Civil Liberties, adopted by the Council on January 15, 2003; and B. To ensure that local law enforcement continues to preserve and uphold residents' freedom of speech, assembly, association, and privacy, the right to counsel and due process in judicial proceedings, and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, even if requested or authorized to infringe upon such rights by federal or state law enforcement agencies acting under new powers created by the USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56), Homeland Security Act (Public Law 107-296), or related Executive Orders, or by future enacted laws, executive orders or regulations. SEC. 2191: No Unconstitutional Detentions or Profiling. No management employee of the City shall officially engage in or permit unlawful detentions or profiling based on race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or political or religious association that are in violation of individuals' civil rights or civil liberties as specified in the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. SEC. 2192: No Unconstitutional Voluntary Cooperation. No management employee of the City shall officially assist or voluntarily cooperate with investigations, interrogations, or arrest procedures, public or clandestine, that are in violation of individuals' civil rights or civil liberties as specified in the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. SEC. 2193: Notification. Management employees of the City shall promptly notify the City Manager when, in the course of City employment, the following occurs: A management employee of the City is contacted by another law enforcement agency and asked to cooperate or assist with an investigation, interrogation, or arrest procedure under provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56), Homeland Security Act (Public Law 107-296), or related Executive Orders, or future enacted law, executive order or regulation, where such procedure is in violation of an individual's civil rights or civil liberties as specified in the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Upon such notification from a management employee, the City Manager shall promptly report to the City Council, specifying the law enforcement agency seeking cooperation or assistance and the actions requested of the management employee. SEC. 2194: Defense. The City shall provide legal defense to any management employee who is criminally charged by another entity for his or her actions in compliance with this Ordinance. SEC. 2195: Severabili