WITH THE ELECTION of New Labour to constitute the government, the working class must ask itself what course of action, what political programme it must follow in this post-election period. It can only answer this by reaffirming the necessity for a programme which is independent of the aim of the rich to keep society geared to paying the rich. Such an independent programme is one to change the direction of society in favour of the working class and people.

The rich had organised the election as a lifeline to prolong their bankrupt political system. However, with New Labour in power, the crisis of the political system and the economy is not going to be solved. With the rich still in pole position as regards their dominant position in society, the all-round crisis based on paying the rich will further deepen.

New Labour's slogan of governing in the interests of the "whole nation" is bound to become exposed as the new gloss wears off and the underlying problems – problems of employment and job insecurity, lack of funding in health, education, the marginalisation of the people from the political process – go unresolved. This exposure may well come sooner than they suspect. New Labour is a party still based on 19th century definitions of a political party, which seeks to come to power in parliament to preside over the interests of the propertied classes while claiming to "represent" the "nation". As such, it is neither willing nor capable of fulfilling the demands of the people for an end to the anti-social offensive.

To turn things around it is imperative that the working class unites around and fights for its independent programme to Stop Paying the Rich – Increase Investments in Social Programmes. It must rally all sections of society around this programme in order to lead society out of the crisis.

THE EUPHORIA being generated by the Labour Party coming to power on May 1 cannot hide the basic fact that the "landslide" was in the first place a form of protest against the devastating effects of the all-round anti-social offensive on the lives of the people that took place while the Conservative Party was in office. A significant feature of the election was that whereas 77.7 per cent of the electorate took part in the election in 1992, this figure fell to a reported 71.5 per cent in the recent poll (in some urban constituencies only 55.5 per cent voted), the lowest of any post-war general election. Analysis of the figures also shows evidence of "tactical voting" in marginal constituencies to ensure that the Tory candidate was defeated.

Whilst Labour's "landslide" only secured around 43 per cent of the total votes, the Conservatives failed to win a single seat in Scotland and Wales and were heavily defeated in the urban areas showing the Conservatives as a foremost chauvinist party of the English bourgeoisie but most importantly that there is a deep constitutional and political crisis facing Britain which the bourgeoisie is incapable of solving. The coming to power of New Labour was a coup against the people because the bourgeoisie, well aware that the people are extremely unhappy about the situation, organised the General Election to divert people's attention away from confronting this reality head on. Without confronting this reality the scene is set for the bourgeoisie to fool the people once again by blaming them for voting Labour when the situation becomes worse.

How can the political process be a rational one when the people are placed in an absurd position where they have to protest against their own government and at the same time have no confidence in the newly elected administration? All that can be said in favour of the new administration comes down to merely giving people a "better feeling" and "hope". When people are reduced to living in hope it can only mean that they are marginalised by the political process. Such a system has become extremly bankrupt where the people have no confidence in their policies, where New Labour without any shame was being presented as "the lesser evil" party whilst John Major described the Conservatives as "the devil you know". The crisis of parliamentary democracy is so deep that a huge Labour versus Tory ideological smoke screen was created during the General Election to divert attention from that crisis. The rich used the disaffection with the crisis of their system to mobilise support for their own programme, a programme of the society being geared to paying the rich, as represented by New Labour.

This crisis of the political process can only be solved by democratic renewal. A political system is needed in which the people are sovereign, where they select candidates of their choice and do not have candidates imposed on them by the parties, where the people directly exercise power themselves and when a political party plays its modern role as an instrument to facilitate the politicisation of the people in order that they themselves control political power and wield that power in their own interests as effectively as possible.

SPEAKING at the victory rally on election night, Tony Blair declared: "We are today the people's party, the party of all the people, the many not the few, the party that belongs to every part of Britain no matter what their background or their creed or their colour." It is with such claims that Blair will attempt to line up the working class and people behind the programme of the rich. He said further at the rally that the vote was " ... a vote for the future. It is not a vote for an outdated dogma or ideology of any kind." In other words, no recognition of the class divisions in British society, total betrayal of the cause of socialism for which the Labour Party was founded, total betrayal of the class whose name it still bears. Before the election Tony Blair spoke about making Britain "great" again. He said that there should be "no more bosses versus workers", that bosses and workers should be on the same side ensuring that "Britain can take on the world and win". Using phraseology ominously reminiscent of Hitler and his "thousand-year Reich", he spoke of a thousand days to the millennium "to prepare for a thousand years".

This is a vision which can only lead to disaster. To speak of workers getting behind their bosses, their particular monopoly, to make Britain win, in a multipolar world where the most cut-throat competition is developing between the great monopolies and between the big powers to redivide the spoils is a recipe for division and war. Not only that, but as the crisis of the economic system and the political system deepens, as it inevitably will, such a vision opens the way for the bourgeoisie to impose some national coalition, based on total loyalty to "the nation", at a later stage.

There is no doubt that the working class will reject such a vision. With Britain and the world entering a new period of turbulence and difficulty only the independent programme of the working class can lead society out of its crisis.

NOW IN POWER New Labour claims that it will rule from the centre ground and represent all but the handful of hereditary peers and their ilk, while the Tories, severely bludgeoned by the electorate and riven with factional strife, are in danger of becoming a right-wing rump. This presents new dangers for the working class, in that any illusions about the role of New Labour in power as being anything but an instrument to ensure that the economy and the whole society are geared to paying the rich, can only lead to disarming the class ideologically and politically in the face of the coming anti-social offensive, as well as blocking the working class developing its own independent programme to lead society out of the crisis and on to socialism. Not a few forces on the "left" have hailed the election victory of New Labour as an advance for the working class which opens the door to socialism.

They have confined their concerns to warning the working class not to be complacent about Tony Blair's victory and of the need to put pressure on it. A recurrent theme is that it is now that the struggle must begin in earnest. They argue that a Labour government is the "lesser evil" by dint of its history, what links remain with the trade unions, and its claimed beliefs. This seems very unwise, to say the least. The question is not ideological but political. Tony Blair is not soft towards the interests of the rich. He and his government represent those interests and have already made clear they will carry out vigorously the plans of the financial oligarchy against the people. No Thatcherite reforms are to be reversed. Moreover, at the root of the "stakeholder" vision is workers standing foursquare behind their particular monopoly in striving for success in the global market, something even Thatcher could not have tried to deliver.

In the post-election period and beyond, it is an urgent necessity that all communist, progressive and "left" forces reject and oppose this latest desperate scheme of the bourgeoisie, represented by the election of New Labour, to prolong their bankrupt political system, to keep political power away from the people, and to keep up in a new guise their agenda of gearing the whole economy and society to financing the rich. The communist, progressive and "left" forces must unite to oppose the emerging coalition of the "centre".

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH on Wednesday, May 14, on the Labour government's legislative programme over the next 18 months, contained reference to 22 Bills, with five more signalled and mention of three White Papers which will lead to legislation.

It is reported that Tony Blair consulted business leaders before writing the speech, but has yet to discuss with leading trade union chiefs. The Speech claimed: "A new partnership with business will be at the heart of my Government's plans to build a modern and dynamic economy to improve the competitiveness of British industry."

The Queen's Speech was said to be longer than usual, and contained quite a lot in the way of statements of policy objectives, such as, "The education of young people will be my Government's first priority." On the economy, the policy objectives were to "ensure that public borrowing is controlled through tough fiscal rules and that the burden of public debt is kept at a stable and prudent level," and "to deliver high and sustainable levels of growth and employment" among other things by "promoting competition; and by helping to create successful and profitable business." According to the Speech, "These policies will enhance Britain's position as a leading industrial nation."

The Speech referred to the following main Bills:

Education: The phasing out of the assisted places scheme, the saving of money on which is said to result in cutting class sizes; measures to raise educational standards and proposals for reforms to the teaching profession.

Economy: Giving the Bank of England operational responsibility for setting interest rates.

Employment: Introduction of a national minimum wage.

Finance: The implementation of a welfare-to-work programme to tackle unemployment, financed by a levy on the excess profits of the privatised utilities.

Business: Reforming and strengthening competition law; introducing a statutory right to interest on late payment of debts.

Law and Order: Reform of the youth justice system and measures against anti-social behaviour [that is, fast-track punishment of young offenders]; prohibition of the private possession of handguns; incorporating into UK law the main provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Health: Ending the internal market; clarifying the existing powers of NHS Trusts to enter into partnerships with the private sector.

National Lottery: Benefits for health and education projects.

Devolution: Referendums in Scotland and Wales on proposals for a devolved Scottish Parliament and the establishment of a Welsh Assembly; the establishment of Regional Development Agencies in England outside London (as well as creating an elected mayor and new authority for London).

Northern Ireland: Legislation to "deal with terrorism and to reduce tension over parades, and other measures to protect human rights, combat discrimination in the workplace, increase confidence in policing and foster economic development".

On international affairs, the Speech reaffirmed the Labour Party's commitment to the European Union and that Britain will opt into the Social Chapter. It reaffirmed also its commitment to NATO, to "strong armed forces", and to nuclear weapons.

On the political system, the Queen's Speech said: "My Government will seek to restore confidence in the integrity of the nation's political system by upholding the highest standards of honesty and propriety in public life. They will consider how the funding of political parties should be regulated and reformed."

It cannot be said that this programme of the Labour government will solve the crisis of the capitalist economy under which the people suffer the burden of the anti-social offensive, with unemployment and job insecurity and the slashing of funding on social programmes. On the contrary the measures based on the primacy of the interests of the financial oligarchy which have exacerbated the crisis are set to be intensified. On the political front, the marginalisation of the people from the political system which is giving rise to the crisis of the political system goes unaddressed. On the international front, Britain is set to give even greater support to the military and economic alliances that contribute to world tension and the denial of the equality of all countries big or small. It is a programme in the framework of the status quo of a pay-the-rich society and economy, and is bound to give rise to a turbulent situation as the working class and people are forced to fight for their rights and interests.

The refusal by the Speaker of the House of Commons, Betty Boothroyd, to grant facilities to the two elected Sinn Fein MPs, Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness, disgracefully greeted by cheers in the chamber, shows not only the undemocratic character of the British Parliament, as well as its profoundly anti-Irish character, but the fact that even its own rules can be bent in order to insult and obstruct those who threaten the interests of the English bourgeoisie.

Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness were elected by the constituents of West Belfast and Mid-Ulster in the north of Ireland on a clear platform of abstentionism and opposition to Britain's presence in Ireland. Quite justly and consistently they have refused to take an oath of allegiance to the Head of State of the foreign power occupying part of their country and thus forego a seat in the British Parliament. But the Parliamentary rules make clear that even in this case they must be afforded all the facilities available to a duly elected MP. If this embarrasses the British Parliament then it is an embarrassment which it has brought on itself.

Leaving aside the ludicrousness in modern times of swearing allegiance to a feudal institution, which underlines the archaic character of the entire political process, the fact that rules can be changed at whim to slight the Irish and that no constitutional guarantees of sovereignty of the nations within the United Kingdom exist, emphasises the lack of any justification for the continuing annexation of part of Ireland.

Workers' Weekly condemns the arbitrary and vindictive decision of the Speaker and joins with all those demanding that the annexation of the north of Ireland be ended.

"MY GOVERNMENT intends to govern for the benefit of the whole nation." These words introduced the Queen's speech, written by the new Labour government, on the opening of parliament.

In saying this, Tony Blair uses the language of the "one-nation" Conservatives epitomised by Disraeli in the late 19th century who, while recognising the "two nations" of the rich and the poor, sought to persuade the workers, the poor and the exploited, that government whereby the rich prospered was in their interests so long as it was carried out with declarations of concern for the plight and the well-being of the vast majority. Such an outlook is not possible today, especially in the Thatcherite and post-Thatcherite period where the state and the whole of society is put in the service of the most powerful economic interests, the financial oligarchy. The Thatcherite policy is that of the "trickle-down effect", which seeks to console the poor and vulnerable in the conditions of the profound crisis of capitalism that suffering the cutbacks and paying the rich will ultimately benefit them. Tony Blair's "one-nation" programme – or that of a stakeholder society, a contract between government and people – seeks to tell the same sections that the government is caring for them if only they will knuckle under and ensure that Britain – that is the captains of industry and the big financial institutions – prospers. Behind the smokescreen of "the whole nation", Tony Blair is trying to line up everyone behind the aims of the rich to compete with other sections of the international financial oligarchy in the global market. The bourgeoisie is no longer interested in the well-being of the nation, but simply in maximising profit through competing in the global market, and as long as New Labour does not change the direction of the pay-the-rich society, the national economy will actually suffer at the expense of the rich.

Furthermore, Tony Blair's statement in the debate which followed the Queen's Speech that he would run a "people's government, rebuilding trust between government and governed" is in these circumstances a confidence trick of the n-th degree. It is common knowledge that society is divided into classes, and that what is of benefit to the capitalists is detrimental to the interests of the working people, and vice versa. To claim to govern for the whole people can only be a diversion from dealing with all the acute economic and social problems that are actually plaguing society, which are crying out for a solution based on the interests and the agenda of the working class and all the exploited and vulnerable.

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in the Manifesto of the Communist Party wrote: "Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word." It is this slogan of the working class constituting itself the nation that the workers must advance in opposition to Tony Blair and New Labour, as part of its programme to Stop Paying the Rich. In this way, the working class will fight for the interests and the sovereignty of the people, ensuring that all people have rights by dint of their being human, and that their well-being, especially of the most vulnerable sections of society, is put at the top of the agenda.

THE LABOUR GOVERNMENT recently announced that it will opt in to the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty, reversing the policy of the previous government, and this was confirmed in the Queen's Speech.

Although much has been made of the alleged benefits to the workers of the introduction of this legislation, many of the largest British monopolies are already operating the provisions of the Social Chapter, which at the present time only includes two substantive measures: one concerning entitlement to unpaid parental leave from work, the other providing for "consultation" between employers and workers in large companies. New Labour's main defence of opting in has been to argue that it will not harm business interests, and had spent precious little time in dealing with the question of workers' rights.

The reality is that the argument over the Social Chapter had nothing to do with workers' rights in any European country and everything to do with dog-fights between sections of the rich of various stripes. However, by opting into the Social Chapter New Labour is also aiming to persuade the workers that the government is now looking after their best interests and that therefore they should work with the bourgeoisie to make Britain "more competitive" in the global market. The government also wishes to suggest that the European Union, the reactionary organisation of the European monopolies, can be made to operate in the interests of the people, and to line up the working class in support of its own plans to make Britain "one of the three leading members of the EU".

The Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, acknowledged that government policy towards the Social Chapter was based on whether it helped to produce a "flexible and committed workforce" and promote British "competitiveness". Cook also stressed that the government would not in future sign up to anything in the Social Chapter that would "damage competitiveness".

Workers in all the countries of Europe, including Britain, should fight for their own interests. They can have no illusion that the EU will defend these interests.

FOR OVER 100 YEARS, May First has been the day when the workers of all countries, in mutual solidarity, take action to affirm their rights and as leaders of the struggle to put an end to all exploitation of persons by persons.

May Day 1997 in Britain came at a time when the workers, facing the effects of the anti-social offensive and marginalised from the political process, are in need of strengthening their unity around a political programme of their own to turn the situation around. This being the case, it was not a spontaneous individual act of John Major that May Day 1997 in Britain was chosen as the day when the general election would be held. It was a conscious act of class struggle by the bourgeoisie to split the workers along ideological lines, bring the Labour Party to power to continue the agenda of the rich, and create illusions about parliamentary democracy. In other words a coup against the workers took place on their own day of honour. In this sense, it was the culmination of the efforts of the bourgeoisie and its social props the labour aristocrats and pseudo-socialists, especially since the onset of the retreat of revolution, to vainly extinguish the significance of May Day. They have used various devices, such as changing it into a Bank Holiday, and even trying to turn May Day into a merry festival reminiscence of bygone feudal England when neither workers nor capitalists as contending classes existed.

Despite such great pressure and the election "coup", class conscious workers took various actions on May 1 and subsequent days to express their unity in struggle with workers of all countries. The struggle of the workers may be at an ebb at this time but the objective laws of development and motion in human society mean that is not possible for anyone to eliminate class struggle in society. Demonstrations took place in London and Liverpool, in which all-told several thousands of working people participated. In Liverpool, where a particularly fierce class struggle is taking place between dock workers and their employers who are aided by the state, the sacked dockers' May Day march supported by car workers and others was widely greeted when it passed through the town centre on its way to a mass rally.

Meetings were also held on May 1 by various progressive forces including RCPB(ML). At RCPB(ML)'s May Day meeting, held at Marx House, London, the main speaker began by expressing solidarity with workers throughout the world and went on to point out the danger facing the British working class at this time, including from the general election. The speaker elaborated the significance of the workers rallying around their own political programme, its essence being to Stop Paying the Rich, and the work of the Party in this direction. In the course of the discussions on the significance of the programme of the Party, part of which is the necessity to strengthen the unity of the Marxist-Leninists and other progressive forces, a representative of the Institute for Independence Studies congratulated RCPB(ML) for its contribution in furthering the anti-imperialist struggle of the peoples.

Other May Day actions took place throughout Britain on the weekend of May 3-5, including demonstrations, rallies, meetings and festivals in which, despite attempts to transform the occasion into Labour victory celebrations, it was clear that such a thing would not be tolerated, so pro-government speakers were extremely cautious in what they said. In many of these May Day activities, supporters of RCPB(ML) made their contributions by taking part and disseminating many hundreds of copies of the May 1 issue of Workers' Weekly which was headlined Stop Paying the Rich, holding discussions with workers and others. In London and Newcastle, Party activists set up popular literature stalls displaying works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Enver Hoxha and other revolutionary documents.

In the context of the programme of RCPB(ML) to Improve the Content, Extend the Readership of Workers' Weekly, an emphasis was put on the widescale distribution of the Party's newspaper in the pre-election period.

Now the task confronts the Party activists and advanced elements to build on that achievement in a more organised and painstaking way, putting the programme to Stop Paying the Rich in the forefront. This is a question of consolidating the gains achieved during the period from March 29, when Workers' Weekly appeared in broadsheet format, to May 1. Consolidating the gains involves solving the problems of bringing Workers' Weekly out regularly as a broadsheet, as well as consolidating the distribution and targeting a regular readership.

The work of discussion and dissemination, of building groups, especially in the working class, around the paper assumes first-rate importance. At same time, the Party activists and sympathisers must pay attention to building links with those in struggle, those fighting against the anti-social offensive and for the interests of the working class and socialism.

ACTING VERY QUICKLY after the New Labour's election victory, Gordon Brown, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, in one fell swoop seemed to have assured the financial oligarchy that the Labour government will continue the programme of paying the rich. His first measure as Chancellor on May 6 was to lift interest rates by a quarter percentage point, and to give the Bank of England the operational responsibility for setting interest rates with immediate effect. The Queen's Speech confirmed the plans for legislation to amend the Bank of England Act accordingly. Decisions are to be made by a new nine-member Monetary Policy Committee, on the basis of a majority vote. The Court of the Bank of England will review its performance, and the Court is to be reformed to "make it representative of ... the full range of Britain's industrial and business sectors". Gordon Brown stated that the long-term context of the decisions, as Britain prepares to enter the 21st century, was to restore Britain's "industrial pre-eminence" that according to the Chancellor it enjoyed in the 19th century.

These decisions by New Labour's Chancellor should not be seen as blunders by a government which is supposed to serve the interests of labour, but measures to streamline the British state to further facilitate the programme of paying the rich.

A news report by the Institute of Health Service Management reveals that 50 years after the NHS was founded private companies are poised to take over the running of NHS Trusts, including the provision of clinical care, as a condition of investing in the new buildings the NHS urgently needs.

The news report envisages a new NHS where the care is still free to the patient but delivered by doctors and nurses employed by private companies. Although the threat of privatisation of hospitals has existed since the introduction of the NHS internal market in 1991 it is only now that these managers are saying it is inevitable because of the cuts in public funding for new hospitals.

This has already happened to a number of new hospitals and health facilities under the Private Financial Initiative of the outgoing Conservative government. The government under New Labour, which has indicated that it intends to do the same, seems now poised to complete the job of handing over the ownership of hospitals and health revenues to private companies.

Privatisation of the health service is set to take another turn for the worse with unofficial reports saying that insurance companies such as Norwich Union have proposed a deal with the National Health Service to "buy up" NHS beds. The insurance companies are waiting to hear whether the NHS approves of their plan to have dedicated access to privatised beds in NHS hospitals.

The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) was the name given to the scheme to make the rich richer by facilitating private financial investments into social programmes such as health and education. Under PFI, projects valued at £7 billion were approved by the previous Tory government.

The new Labour government has announced in a Treasury statement that Malcolm Bates, Chairman of Pearl Group and Chairman of Premier Farnell, will conduct a speedy review of the PFI (Public/ Private Partnership) process. Geoffrey Robinson MP, Labour's Paymaster General at the Treasury, said, "I have asked Malcolm to conduct a rapid review of present arrangements... I want to know what are the obstacles in the way of bringing projects to fruition and how the whole process can be streamlined."

The spokesperson continued that he asked for the review to be completed by June 13, and that interested parties wishing to offer Mr Bates their views should do so within 10 days of this announcement. He also announced that the rule that all projects have to be tested for private financial potential would be ended but he made clear that this does not mean that departments can expect any increase in their capital budgets.

With this announcement the Labour government is to overcome the obstacles faced by the Conservatives over their Private Finance Initiative. Renamed the Public/ Private Partnership these obstacles are to be cleared away so that the bourgeoisie can push forward with their privatisation of public services previously run by the state.

The new Labour administration is poised to give the go-ahead to PFI projects worth £260 million, at Princess Margaret Hospital in Swindon and at Norwich and Norfolk hospital. Responding to complaints from the capitalists involved about procedural obstacles of "universal testing" holding up the tendering process, The Times recently reported, "The Treasury will immediately end the universal testing of all PFI schemes, a move which was welcomed by business."

Over £100 million from the Treasury was handed to a number of companies in the West of England shortly before the companies collapsed. The police were sent to investigate. The investigation by the Serious Fraud Office, code named Operation Gale, was organised after a computer company "collapsed" after receiving an £850,000 government grant. Facts emerged during the enquiry which showed that even though the Department of Trade and Industry was aware that one of the firms' directors was a discharged bankrupt, money was still handed to the company. It also emerged that several parliamentary politicians were involved in helping to secure the grant. Police investigation found no evidence of corruption, subsequently no arrests were made and the investigation was closed. A number of companies which received Treasury funds had been named in an incriminating DTI report.

Manufacturing output in Britain declined by 0.1 per cent in March. In the previous month output had risen by 0.2 per cent. Annual rate of production increase has also dropped from 1.7 per cent to 1.4 per cent. Although since 1980 manufacturing output has grown by what the capitalists have described as a "miraculous" 21%, this trend has been decelerating in the last few years. What these "miracles" hide is the great cost in human and material terms which has witnessed the increased intensity of the exploitation of the workers' labour power, permanently high unemployment and wholesale destruction of manufacturing industries.

Part of taking stock of the new situation created by the coup organised by the bourgeoisie to bring new Labour to power is that for class conscious workers there has to be a serious reflection also on analysing the present direction of the working class movement and what the workers need to be vigilant about.

Over the recent period there have been a number of militant working class struggles, such as that of the sacked Liverpool dockers, the Hillingdon Hospital workers, and the Magnet strike, etc. Also, there has been equally determined resistance to the anti-social offensive from other workers, teachers, hospital workers and unemployed with the struggle taking many forms. All of this resistance has had one aim – to stop the anti-social offensive of the bourgeoisie – and is a roadblock to their plans One of the reasons that the bourgeoisie has brought New Labour to power is to try and remove this roadblock. Workers must be extremely vigilant of the aim of the new government to compromise their struggles. It is reported that already they are trying to broker behind the scenes deals that compromise key struggles of the workers.

At the same time, it is necessary that the workers should orientate their struggles within the framework of the programme to Stop Paying the Rich.

The United States of America is continuing to push to impose its trade laws on other countries to try to prevent them from trading with countries such as Cuba, Iran and Libya against which the US has declared a blockade.

The US extraterritorial Helms-Burton Act gives US citizens the right to sue foreign companies which traffic in property confiscated after the 1959 Cuban revolution. In July 1996, US President Clinton suspended the lawsuit section of this Bill for a period of six months. Also in July, EU foreign ministers agreed on the need for swift retaliation to this Bill which affects the interests of many European companies. By July 30, the European Commission had tabled measures to fine European companies which co-operate with the provisions of the Helms-Burton Act, measures which also gave Europeans the right to counter-sue anywhere in the EU. These measures were also intended as a warning to the US not to continue with further extraterritorial legislation which was in the pipeline. On August 6, 1996, however, Clinton signed the D'Amato Bill into law. The D'Amato Act requires the US President to impose any two of six possible sanctions against foreign companies which invest more than $40 million per year in the Iranian or Libyan oil industries. Again European countries reacted angrily and a French Foreign Ministry spokesman said, "We reaffirm our determination to ensure that French interests are not affected and that any damage does not go without retaliation." The French oil company Total had signed a £400 million deal in 1995 to develop Iran's Sirri field and has stakes in two Libyan fields. The Chair of Total said that "the French and European governments feel that there is nothing to stop the US from implementing the new measures in the future and that is why we are preparing counter-measures allowing European companies to preserve their freedom". The German Economics Minister said, "Threatening to impose extraterritorial sanction against European companies investing in these countries…. is the wrong path." A German government spokesman said the new law was "in breach of international law and of agreements reached under the World Trade Organisation". A British Foreign Office spokesman said, "We cannot accept US pressure on its allies to impose sanctions under the threat of mandatory penalties." The European Commission said that the law "establishes the unwelcome principle that one country can dictate the foreign policy of others".

It was against this background that the disputes panel of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was due to hear the EU's complaint against the US concerning the Helms-Burton Act on April 14. It was also due to hear a similar EU complaint against the US D'Amato Bill. However, Clinton agreed to continue to waive the lawsuit section of the Helms-Burton Act for the time being and the European Commission responded by withdrawing its complaint from the WTO. It appears that the dispute with the EU was considered as one which could open up the floodgates for other countries to make similar claims if successful. "A ruling against us on a matter of national security like this would be a depth charge to the WTO," a US congressman said. The WTO replaced the old General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) two years ago and according to the US Deputy Trade Representative in Washington, "It's no coincidence that US exports are up 14% under WTO."

The deep seated contradictions over US extraterritorial laws, however, are far from resolved and are already resurfacing. For example, on April 25 France signed an economic co-operation agreement with Cuba in Paris, despite the pressure put on France by the US not to sign. The document enhances the ability of French firms to do business and invest in Cuba and vice-versa. French investment in Cuba currently totals between $15 and $20 million. The US criticised France, and a US State Department spokesman said, "We do not favour any other countries normalising their economic relations with Cuba." In response, the French Foreign Ministry reaffirmed its opposition to the 37-year-old US embargo against Cuba and the Helms-Burton Act.

The continent of Africa is amongst the richest of all continents in natural resources, yet hunger and starvation afflict millions upon millions of people with an estimated 50% living below the poverty line. Destructive wars instigated by the hidden hand of outside imperialist forces have made the problems acute and given rise to a permanent refugee crisis. African Liberation Day stands for the total and complete liberation of the peoples of Africa from want and suffering. This, however, cannot be achieved without the prime obstacle to their freedom being removed, namely the economic and political domination by imperialism.

The racist anti-African propaganda of the imperialists suggests that the problems of the African people can only be solved by outside intervention. They enumerate tribal warfare, corrupt leaders, religious extremists, "inherent" cultural and technological backwardness and so forth. But they are using these as pretexts for their continued enslavement of the African peoples.

This policy has a long history. The British imperialists had gained the lion's share at the infamous 1878 Conference of Berlin, in which the European states carved up Africa amongst themselves. Today, after US imperialism and its tools such as the World Bank and the IMF, Britain is the chief exploiter of Africa. Because of this, they do not want Africa to be economically independent and become masters of their own destiny. The so-called "investment programmes" and "economic aid" from the imperialist countries have no other aim but to maximise their profits and perpetuate their control of the African continent. It is this policy which is the dominating external factor oppressing the nations of Africa. The British government's Department of International Development, for example, is used for economic as well as political blackmail of poor countries by forcing them to keep an "open door" policy for neo-colonial penetration in the interest of the financial oligarchy in particular. Today this means, amongst other things, that "aid" recipients must adopt the multi-party system and the so-called free-market economy outlined in the Paris Charter of the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe.

No matter how much the offspring of Disraeli and Cecil Rhodes claim that they have "modernised" themselves, that they are no longer colonialists and racists, they cannot hide their empire-building objectives. Their essence is the same. Whereas at the end of the 19th century the imperialist Rhodes dreamt of building a British empire in Africa from "Cape to Cairo" on which the sun would never set, today at the end of the 20th century the "modern" dream of the Blair government to "make Britain great again" can only be achieved by the continued rape of Africa as part of the wild British imperialist plans to re-conquer their lost positions.

The African peoples took up arms and put an end to Rhodes' dreams. Likewise today they will fight for complete economic and political independence and put an end to neo-colonialism on the African continent and the dreams of the imperialist "modernisers". The aid that the peoples of Africa need most from Britain is that of the working class of Britain mounting the barricades and further organising its own fight to stop the imperialist plunder and demand reparation for the colossal human and material damage carried out by Britain in Africa, as part of its own struggle for progress and emancipation.

Saturday, May 24.

Assemble 1pm, Max Roach Park, Opp Rosary Catholic Church, Brixton Road, London SW9.

March to rally at Trafalgar Square.

Organised by the African Liberation Support Campaign (ALISC)

On May 9, the 52nd anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany, Russian President Yeltsin delivered a short speech in which he spoke of the present Russian military, which has long been turned into the instrument of domination and oppression, as the torch-bearers of the Soviet Army that played a historic and courageous role in the defeat of the Nazis by the world's people. He told troops, veterans and invited dignitaries, "A Victory Day military parade on Red Square is a symbol of Russian solders' loyalty to the tradition of the Great Patriotic War heroes. It is the sacred duty of the Russian army to preserve and augment these traditions."

Reuters News Agency reports that while the parade was going on, Security Council Deputy Boris Berezovsky was interviewed on Ekho Moskvy radio, where he outlined a "first-strike policy". Berezovsky said: "We are not speaking of making a first nuclear strike in order to secure advantage but if we are driven into a corner and are left with no other option we will resort to nuclear weapons." The comments came days after Yeltsin and Chinese President Jiang Zemin signed an agreement on a new world order and multipolarisation which implicitly condemned the US efforts to establish a unipolar world under its dictate.

Russian Security Council secretary Ivan Rybkin stated earlier in the week that Russia should be ready to unleash a nuclear arsenal if it is faced with a conventional armed attack. On the May 9 radio interview, Berezovsky stated that this would be "an absolutely moral position which corresponds to current realities".

These declarations, echoing a period when the world was held ransom by the contention between the two superpowers, the US and the Soviet empire, took place in the context of negotiations between Russia and NATO on the expansion of NATO into eastern Europe. Russian officials have repeatedly stated that they view NATO expansion as a threat, and that it risks creating new lines of division in Europe. It is reported that in several cities, on May 9 demonstrations were held to oppose NATO's plans to expand its hold into the countries of the former Soviet Union. At least 15,000 participated in a rally in Moscow that also condemned NATO expansion. Another demonstration is reported in which 5,000 Russian cadets carrying communist flags participated.

ON Wednesday, May 14, NATO and Russia agreed on a deal that according to news reports "eased Moscow's fears about the alliance's eastward expansion and paved the way for the two former Cold War foes to sign the accord in Paris on May 27. President Boris Yeltsin said the deal would be binding on the Western alliance and that it would give Moscow the means to block any decision by NATO it did not approve of." Clinton is reported as saying, "Russia will work closely with NATO but not in NATO, giving Russia a voice in but not a veto over NATO's business." Yeltsin indicated that NATO may have given pledges not to deploy forces in the Eastern European countries which are due for membership of NATO in its expansion plans. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic are expected to receive the first invitations to join NATO, and Romania and Slovenia also are asking to join.

Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov, who negotiated the deal with NATO Secretary General Javier Solana, is reported as saying: "It is a big victory for reason, it is a big victory for the world community and it is a big victory for Russia and all governments in the world interested in peace and co-operation." A joint statement said NATO and Russia had made "decisive progress" on key issues including military problems, but it gave no details of the text of the agreement.

According to news reports, NATO officials had been anxious to conclude a deal with Russia before the summit in July in which NATO is expected to invite several Eastern European countries to join. Russia has seen NATO expansion as a threat. Agreement had been blocked by disagreements over whether the pact should include written guarantees that NATO would not station military structures and nuclear weapons on the territory of new member states. NATO had been reluctant to give such guarantees in writing.

The previous day, May 13, the US and Russia had agreed to increase defence co-operation in areas ranging from nuclear arms destruction to military reform. Defence Secretary William Cohen and Russian Defence Minister Igor Rodionov signed agreements to set up joint working groups on "anti-missile defence, peacekeeping and post-Soviet reform of Russia's impoverished armed forces," according to news agency reports.

US President Bill Clinton met with the heads of state of the 14 member Caribbean Community (Caricom) as well as Haiti and the Dominican Republic on May 10. In the days leading up to the summit, Clinton underscored the main agenda items the US wanted to see discussed: free trade, drug trafficking and security.

However, Caribbean leaders at the Summit had their own concerns. They sharply criticised the extra-territorial provisions of the Helms-Burton law, pointing out that it punishes the majority of countries in the region who conduct business with Cuba. The US's 35-year blockade of Cuba is seen as blatant interference in the affairs of a sovereign nation, and the Caribbean leaders have consistently rejected the blockade over the last five years. Former Commonwealth secretary-general and current Caricom chief trade negotiator Sir Shridath Ramphal said the United States needs to move "out of their Cold War posture (of) being a strong-arm power" and begin "giving more enlightened leadership" on issues like Cuba. Ramphal headed the West Indian Commission, set up by Caricom six years ago to chart a course for the region's future, which recommended the region strengthen its ties with Cuba and invite Havana to join the 35-member Association of Caribbean States.

Earlier this month, a Jamaican firm become the first foreign company to set up shop in Cuba's first free zone. Air Jamaica will begin direct flights to Havana June 1, and the European Union-funded Caribbean Export Development Agency has opened an office in Cuba. In April Grenada's Prime Minister Keith Mitchell, during a state visit to Cuba, invited Cuban President Fidel Castro to attend next year's Caricom summit – which will likely be held in Grenada. Caricom will meet in Jamaica this July to consider whether to begin negotiating a free trade accord with Cuba.

Other issues raised by the Caribbean countries included the recent World Trade Organisation decision against a European licensing system that gave preferential treatment to firms that distribute and market bananas from the region. The matter was brought before the WTO by the US, and the Caribbean countries have pointed out that if implemented it will have a devastating effect on their economies.

A recent decision by the Federal Communications Commission to lower the accounting rates for international phone calls, which is likely to cost the Caribbean hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue if implemented, was also discussed. There is also the Federal Aviation Administration's new categorisation of civil aviation departments, which has cost the two main regional air carriers some $150 million in losses over the past two years as they attempt to compete with the US-based American Airlines.

Workers around the world marked May Day, the Day of the International Working Class, with demonstrations, marches, rallies and other events. In solidarity with each other's struggles, they opposed the anti-social offensive which is being implemented on a world-scale by governments which serve the financial oligarchy. Despite attempts in various countries to intimidate or extinguish May Day activities, the working class persisted, and put forward its demands.

In Cuba, 1.3 million people rallied in Revolution Square (see article below).

In the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, an editorial in Rodong Sinmun, the organ of the Workers' Party of Korea, saluted the working class of all lands who have "faithfully upheld the revolutionary banner of the class in its protracted and rigorous struggle." The editorial hailed the Korean working class for its resolute struggle against US imperialism and reaction and its agents in south Korea.

Over 10,000 workers held a mass rally in Seoul to mark May Day. When thousands of workers took to the streets and began a march through central Seoul police attacked, using teargas and beating demonstrators.

Hundreds of thousands of Russian workers in over 900 cities participated in May Day ceremonies, rallies or demonstrations. In Moscow, a crowd of nearly 100,000 marched outside the Kremlin carrying red flags and shouting slogans denouncing President Boris Yeltsin and demanding his removal. Later the crowd approved a resolution condemning the expansionist plans of the NATO military alliance. Police presence throughout the country was heavy, especially in Moscow, where Red Square – the traditional location for May Day rallies for almost 80 years – was closed off and surrounded by police.

Hundreds of thousands of German workers demonstrated throughout the country to mark May Day. They denounced the record-high levels of unemployment and the cuts being implemented by Helmut Kohl's government. They also protested against the rise of different neo-Nazi groups and the wave of attacks which have been launched against immigrants.

Throughout Eastern Europe, workers also demonstrated. May Day was marked in the Ukraine, in Belarus and Poland by workers in their tens of thousands.

In Turkey, an estimated 50,000 workers marched through Istanbul, demanding increased investments in social programmes. On several occasions, police tried to prevent the demonstration from reaching the city centre, at one point wading into the crowd swinging clubs and knocking marchers to the ground. The demonstration continued, however, with slogans shouted against police attacks.

Palestinians organised demonstrations throughout the occupied territories to oppose the construction of settlement projects on Arab land in East Jerusalem.

May Day was truly one of unity and struggle of workers all over the world.

ANYONE who has closely followed the Cuban revolutionary process knows that its defensive reaction is guided by a principle similar to the physical properties of a spring: the greater the pressure, the greater the resistance.

This is one explanation of the motivations of the Cuban people's participation in the giant May Day parade, held once again to demonstrate total support for socialism and President Fidel Castro.

The announcement made by Pedro Ross, general secretary of the Central Organisation of Cuban Trade Unions (CTC), that eight million compatriots have signed to show their support for the Declaration of 20th-Century Independence Fighters and the Reaffirmation of Cuban Dignity and Sovereignty Law – responses to the ridiculous text outlining the manner in which the US government hopes to buy the island's sovereignty and to the opprobrious Helms-Burton Act – only hinted at the surprising demonstration of confidence and optimism offered by over 1.3 million Cubans in their march past the José Martí Monument in Revolution Square. Although some may claim that this figure is high, those of us who watched the sea of faces pass by the tribunal for several hours could not doubt its accuracy.

It was clear that the trade unions and the Party had made a special effort in the organisation of the march, dedicated to Comandante Ernesto Che Guevara on the 30th anniversary of his death in combat in the Bolivian jungle, alongside his comrades. A total of 1500 buses, trucks and vans were used to take much of that mass of humans to the Square, and people had been amply encouraged to participate in their workplaces and schools. But those measures do not, in and of themselves, explain the brilliance and militancy of the celebration, which might well be considered the largest May Day march yet. The explanation of this high attendance seems to lie in the metaphor of the spring which has been compressed, given the intensification of the merciless US blockade of the island and the commitment demonstrated by the vast majority of the people. Pedro Ross stated, "The order of the day in the neo-liberal capitalist world is economic instability, ungovernability, corruption, unemployment, cancellation of the miserable benefits which the workers managed to snatch from the capitalists through titanic and prolonged struggles."

One could also interpret the impressive marches in Havana and all the provinces as a clear message sent out by ordinary men and women that despite the shortages to which the special period has subjected them, they will not be bent by blackmail, stupid promises or threats.

The organisation of the march did not differ essentially from those held every year in Cuba. Watching along with Fidel were 2000 outstanding workers from all over the country, as well as numerous leaders of the Revolution, 203 representatives invited from trade union organisations around the world and members of the diplomatic corps.

As is traditional, the march was opened by a bloc composed this time of 40,000 members of the workplaces designated national vanguards, including Granma newspaper (of which Granma International is a part), followed by groups from the different municipalities representing the mass organisations and the people in general.

There was also a 2000-voice chorus and a huge band, made up of musicians from almost all the Cuban orchestras, which played almost all the patriotic and traditional songs. And as always, there was a security cordon composed of selected trade unionists who strove to keep the crowd from stopping before the speaker's platform in order to chant Fidel's name. For his part, Fidel spent almost all his time returning the greetings and observing the march through binoculars.

What made this march different was the considerable attendance by tourists, who marched side by side with Havana residents; the presence of more children accompanying their parents; the dominant image of Che's face on T-shirts and signs throughout the crowd; and the originality and contemporaneity of the signs. One of these paraphrased the titles of the two soap operas currently being shown on Cuban TV, the Brazilian production "A Próxima Vítima" (The Next Victim) and the Cuban series "Tierra Brava" (Brave Land), reading, "Cuba will not be the next victim because we are a brave land." Another announced, "No, Mr. Clinton, there will be no transition government in Cuba." Others included "Independence fighters for all times," "Long live the Party Congress" and "With the sunlight of your courage, so long forever, Comandante," which is the main slogan of the commemoration.

Demonstrations of one million people are not common in the world, especially in support of an established government. The fact that such a march has taken place on this small besieged and blockaded island can be considered part of magical realism, a term coined by Cuban novelist Alejo Carpentier to describe Latin American literature, which borders on the incredible.

Octavio Lavastida (Granma International staff writer)