THE BILL ON HOLDING REFERENDUMS IN SCOTLAND AND WALES was published by the Labour government on May 15. In Scotland, the two questions in the referendum will be: Firstly – I agree/do not agree that there should be a Scottish parliament; Secondly – I agree/do not agree that a Scottish parliament should have tax-varying powers. In Wales, the question will be: I agree/do not agree that there should be a Welsh Assembly. The referendums are set to take place in the autumn, with the vote in Scotland taking place on September 11 or 18, and that in Wales a week later.

What is very clear is that the referendums have nothing to do with recognising the right of the peoples of Scotland and Wales to national self-determination. The questions, formulated in Westminster, do not raise the question of the independence of Scotland and Wales. They do not ask the peoples of Scotland and Wales whether they wish to exercise their right to modern sovereign states, a right which cannot be gainsaid. Rather, the aim of the referendums is to head off the resolution of the centuries-long struggle for national self-determination. During the election campaign, Tony Blair had emphasised that with the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly in place, sovereignty continues to reside with the Westminster parliament. As if to underline this, the Queen's Speech of May 14 set the referendums in the context of the government's plans for decentralisation, which according to the speech "is essential" to its "vision of a modern nation". In other words, it is devolving control over certain "regional" matters, creating a layer of government between Westminster and the Scottish and Welsh peoples, while domination from Westminster remains.

The speed with which the Blair government has introduced the Bill reflects the seriousness of the demand for national self-determination and the depths of the constitutional crisis of the British state. It shows that the bourgeoisie is set on keeping serious consideration of the issues to the minimum. The fact that Britain has no written Constitution which spells out the rights and duties of citizens and where sovereignty resides is very convenient to the rich and ensures that the crisis is never dealt with. In particular, it covers over that the Scottish and Welsh nations have the right to self-determination, as does every nation, and Tony Blair has taken over from John Major in stubbornly denying this right. By persisting in this path, Tony Blair will only exacerbate the constitutional crisis of the British state.

Only the approach of the working class opens up a way out of this crisis. It begins from the recognition of the right of nations to self-determination. In the case of the British state, this must include the right of Scotland and Wales to secede. The demand of the working class is that modern sovereign states of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland be established. The working class of England, the working class of an oppressor nation, must demand this no less than its class brothers and sisters in Wales and Scotland. The English working class in making this demand is also conscious that it has a special responsibility to fight against the English bourgeoisie. Affirming their own rights, the English workers also fight for the right of the peoples of Scotland and Wales to exercise their sovereignty. This is an integral part of the programme of the working class for its emancipation and that of all people. It demands a modern constitution which affirms the sovereignty of the people. Only in the affirmation of the sovereignty of the people can a free and equal union of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland ever come into being. The working class must take the lead in this work on the basis of the sovereignty of the people of each nation and on the basis of the unity of the British working class and with the working class of Ireland.

U.S. PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON and Prime Minister Tony Blair met for a day of talks at Downing Street on Thursday, May 29. The visit came at the end of a three-day trip to Europe during which Bill Clinton attended the signing of the NATO-Russia Founding Act on Mutual Cooperation in Paris and the OSCE summit in the Hague marking the 50th anniversary of the Marshall Aid Plan.

Clinton and Blair declared themselves political twins from a new generation with no use for "yesterday's ideology". At a press conference in the garden of 10 Downing Street, they praised each other's political achievements. Tony Blair pointed out that there was a "need to reduce long-term and youth unemployment, both of which are unacceptably high". He said, "We have agreed today to a common agenda, and a shared determination to identify what action needs to be taken." He did not, however, say how the joint programme of job creation and welfare reform would provide the solution to unemployment, which is a fellow-traveller of capitalism. Tony Blair did, though, acknowledge New Labour's debt to Clinton's Democratic Party for blazing the trail for Labour's victory in the May 1 election, the feature of which is that it represents a coup against the working class through a capture of the centre-ground by New Labour as the new standard-bearer of the rich. Blair said, "This is a new era which calls for new generation politics, and new generation leadership." He went on to explain this by saying, "This is the generation that prefers reason to doctrine, that is strong on ideals, indifferent to ideology, whose instinct is to judge government not by grand designs but by practical results." Clinton offered a slight amendment: "I don't think it is the end of ideology, but I think it is the end of yesterday's ideology." He went on to tell the news conference of the "unbreakable alliance" between the two countries. "It is an alliance based on shared values and common aspirations." The US President joined Tony Blair in calling on the IRA to "lay down their guns for good". Bill Clinton, however, stood back from advising the British government on a way out of its impasse on Ireland, merely saying that Washington would be there to help.

President Clinton earlier became the first US President to address the Cabinet since Richard Nixon did so in 1969 when Harold Wilson was Prime Minister. In welcoming the US President to the Labour Cabinet, Tony Blair said: "Britain does not have to choose between its strong relationship in Europe and its strong trans-Atlantic relationship with the United States. One strength deepens the other. A Britain that is leading in Europe is a Britain capable of ever closer relations also with the United States of America." In endorsing this stand of what is useful to US imperialism, Bill Clinton said: "I agree that it is good for the United States to have a Britain that is strong in Europe and strong in its relations with the United States." Clinton spoke of the need to "create within Europe a continent that is democratic, undivided and at peace for the first time ever". He said, "Europe has been periodically at peace but never all democratic and certainly never undivided."

Bill Clinton and Tony Blair also agreed to put a two-year plan to the Group of Seven industrialised countries at next month's summit in Denver, Colorado. America at present holds the presidency, and Britain takes over at the end of the year, with a summit in mid-1998.

In 1994-95 great hopes were raised among the people in both Britain and Ireland that the crisis centred on the north of Ireland would be resolved. Wishing to free their hands for the fierce competition with the other big powers to redivide the world, the British imperialists initially responded to the peace initiatives, in particular the IRA ceasefire. For the first time ever a British government acknowledged in words the right of the Irish people to self-determination. Time was to prove, however, that they were neither willing nor capable of going further than this. The peace process was stalled. British imperialism feared that some other big power or group of powers would take over. Most importantly, it could not bring itself to abandon the divisions it had created between Irish and Irish in Ireland, between Irish and British in the two islands, and between Irish and British in the working class in Britain, a division upon which class rule in both Britain and Ireland depended. Thus among other things unacceptable preconditions were laid down for the participation of one of the main protagonists, represented by Sinn Fein, who had been fighting for an end to the division of their country. Various diversions and manoeuvres, such as the northern Ireland elections, were organised to keep the initiative in Britain's hands. Last summer sectarian marches were manipulated to raise tension. So nothing was solved. The political and constitutional crisis regarding the north of Ireland only deepened.

Now with the election of a new Labour government hopes of resolution to the crisis are again being raised. Yet Tony Blair set the tone when he stated categorically in a speech at Belfast City Hall that he did not envisage a united Ireland within the lifetime of anyone present. For Tony Blair to say such a thing is an indication that Britain is trying to turn the clock back to before the Downing Street Declaration of December 1993, acknowledging the right of the whole Irish people to self-determination. For all the upbeat activity of Mo Mowlam, and the talk about fresh initiatives and a "fresh approach", it is evident that the focus of the Labour government is not to facilitate talks amongst the political forces in the north of Ireland but the aim of getting the republicans to lay down their arms. The republicans justly refuse to follow the dictate of a government which itself maintains armed troops on Irish soil. Furthermore, such preconditions excluding Sinn Fein will render the talks, chaired by former US senator George Mitchell, and due to start on June 3, meaningless. In other words, the raising of hopes is one more smoke screen to maintain the status quo of annexation while shifting the blame away from the financial oligarchy and further fostering divisions within and between the Irish and British peoples. Such a reactionary course is consistent with New Labour's promotion of a "great" Britain, built on the "British genius", and dedicated to the ruthless exploitation of the "global market". It is also noteworthy that Bill Clinton and Tony Blair spoke as one on the US President's visit on Thursday in what was reported as Clinton's "strongest intervention" on northern Ireland, urging Sinn Fein to cooperate and acting in concert to put pressure on the IRA to give up their guns.

The working class cannot expect the Blair government to resolve this age old problem. It cannot accept that Britain be the arbiter of all developments in Ireland. Its stand must be that the Irish people will solve their own problems, and Britain must end all interference aimed at disrupting this. In any talks, the British government's role can only be to facilitate discussion and put into practice its declaration of 1993 acknowledging the right of the Irish people to self-determination. It must immediately declare an end to any British claim over any territory of Ireland and announce its intention to withdraw from the north of Ireland and cease any interference in the affairs of the Irish people. The only thing that Britain can legitimately negotiate is how soon it should dismantle and remove all its state apparatus from the six counties.

The denial of the right of self-determination of the Irish people, as well as that of the Scottish and Welsh, and the divisions which accompany such continued denial, are an integral part of the oppression of the working class, particularly in England. In its struggle against this oppression and to assert its own programme which will lead to its emancipation and the emancipation of the whole of society, the working class does not call for British withdrawal from Ireland and leave it at that. In order to finally open wide the door to peace and to the full development of good-neighbourly relations between the peoples of Ireland and of Britain, the working class goes on to fight for the establishment of modern sovereign states of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland and whatever free and equal arrangement between them they desire. This is the context in which the resolution of the so-called "Irish problem" must be seen.

THE HALLMARK of British foreign policy has been its reactionary, big power character based on advancing "Britain's interests". It rejects in practice the principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries and the equality of all nations, big or small. Historically, it built an empire on which it boasted the sun never set, imposing neo-colonial relations when the struggles of the peoples were demanding independence, and never turning its back on dreams of empire. It has demanded that countries everywhere follow Anglo-American and Eurocentrist values. It has been one of the biggest advocates of the warmongering NATO military alliance, and has continued a path of further integration in the EU as an economic bloc. It maintains the undemocratic and ludicrous position of a big-five veto on the UN Security Council.

Foreign policy under the Labour Government is being presented as something entirely new with an "ethical dimension", but in reality just as in the past it serves the interests of big business in the global market and not those of the working class and people of Britain. It is not accidental that the Labour Government has recently announced its plans for foreign policy in the form of a mission statement as though it was addressing a meeting of shareholders.

Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook set out a number of goals for the Government's foreign policy which aims to make Britain once again a "leading player" in European and world affairs. In Europe, the Government remains committed to enlargement of the EU, especially in eastern Europe and removing barriers to free trade. It is also still committed to membership of the warmongering NATO alliance and fully supports its expansion throughout eastern Europe, a process which will only create greater tensions throughout the continent. Far from developing what he referred to as a "people's diplomacy", Cook also announced measures to strengthen the role of the monopolies in Britain's foreign policy.

Also announced were plans to promote what were called "our values", "democracy" and "human rights" throughout the world, a means to enforce the acceptance of the "free market economy" and the multi-party system and to justify the interference of the British monopolies and financial oligarchy in the affairs of other countries. The Queen's speech openly commits the Government to promoting "open markets", and to continue its meddling in the affairs of the peoples of the Balkans, the Middle East and Hong Kong. The Government is also hoping to take advantage of the Commonwealth, the organisation of those countries which were mostly formerly part of the British Empire, and has established a Department for International Development and plans to rejoin UNESCO all in order to further the neo-colonial interests of the financial oligarchy throughout the world.

Despite Robin Cook's claim that New Labour aims to "make Britain once again a force for good in the world", there is nothing new or enlightened about the foreign policy of the Labour Government which is dictated by the needs of British imperialism and not those of the British people. Indeed, the very reference to Britain as a "force for good in the world" betrays the dyed-in-the-wool anti-people big power mentality of New Labour.

New Labour's plans for European and world leadership are outdated and doomed to failure. Based as they are on dreams of empire transposed into the eve of the 21st century, they not only fail to take account of the realities of the present-day global contention but also pose a great danger to the people of Britain and other countries for this very reason. Such a foreign policy is an affront to the working class and people of Britain and deserves the utmost condemnation.

THIRTY-FIVE people, including nurses, midwives and technical and administrative staff, have recently lost their jobs at St George's Hospital in Tooting, South London. £3.25 million has also been cut from the total budget.

Now the future of Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, is threatened, with grave worries that the casualty unit is to close. The apparent reason for this is that the Royal College of Surgeons is due to withdraw accreditation from the Accident and Emergency department of August 1, 1997. The ramifications of this decision are far reaching. First, without accreditation junior doctors can "no longer be part of the staff". As the London Health Emergency Campaign pointed out, "Without junior doctors it is going to be very hard to provide continuous cover; consultants aren't on duty 24 hours a day". However, the issue goes beyond this because, as a LHE Campaign spokesperson said, "It means that it is going to be harder to recruit senior doctors. Already there are not enough of them; it's a buyers market and I doubt they will want to work in a non-accredited unit". This most recent news comes on top of last month's closure of Queen Mary's maternity ward. According to the NHS Trusts responsible for both St George's and Queen Mary's hospitals, "Patients who may need an emergency surgical operation, women in labour and children up to the age of 16 will continue to be taken to other hospitals."

In yet another South London area, Battersea's Edward Wilson House Day hospital closed on May 21. The closure went ahead despite fierce opposition from health workers and patients at the hospital. They have staged a series of "patient power" protests since the announcement in January of the intended closure with demonstrations, sit-ins and a massive letter writing campaign. In response the managers of the EWH hospital initially said that the hospital was closed for financial reasons. However, when protesters proposed fund-raising schemes to meet the alleged deficiency the managers changed their stated reason for closure to one of a clinical nature, that there were "unavoidable" cost pressures partly attributed to the spiralling cost of more advance drugs. The authority also claimed it was partly as a result of "investment" in "new forms" of local community service. However, as activists have observed, it looks increasingly like the health authority has overspent its budget for last year and, in order to appear to have balanced to budget for this year, it has decided to get rid of some of its "services".

The Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority and pathfinder NHS Trust which run services at the hospital continue to claim that patients will be treated "elsewhere". But with so many health authorities drastically reducing the amount of money and provision available it raises the question of where these "other hospitals" are that are supposed to be meeting health care needs. It underlines that the notion that society has a responsibility for the well-being of its members is still constantly under attack, and that funding is denied to ensure that health care for the people is provided.

The Campaign for Health in Waltham Forest and Redbridge, East London, is to hold a March and Rally on Saturday, June 14, against the cuts in public services and the crisis in the provision of health care to the people. A demonstration assembling at 1.30 pm is set to march from the main gates of Whipps Cross Hospital at 2.15 pm to a rally in Walthamstow Town Square at 3.30 pm. This follows a similar demonstration and rally earlier this year. The actions are taking place under the slogans: "Health in Crisis!", "For a health service that can meet people's needs!" and "For a public service, not private profit!" The march and rally are taking place to oppose the cuts in care and services brought about by a programme of privatisation, and to demand that investment be given to services essential to the people's well-being, health and development.

A Day of Action against Cuts in Public Services is taking place on Thursday, June 5, organised jointly by the Health in Crisis campaign together with local health unions, local government and other public service unions. The organisers are calling for workplace protests, meetings and leafleting.

DISCUSSION

Jack Straw Blames Youth for "Crime and the Causes of Crime" in Society

ADDRESSING THE Annual Conference of the Police Federation in Blackpool on Wednesday, May 21, Home Secretary Jack Straw said that he will be establishing a task force to tackle "youth crime". Straw said that the task force will advise ministers on strategy and would be "an engine of change to drive much needed reforms of the youth justice system". Apart from pin-pointing youth, other measures include curfews for the under 10s, forcing parents to take responsibility for their children's behaviour and Saturday schooling to "rehabilitate" offenders.

The task force will include representatives from the police, as well as from the Home Office, the Department of Education, and the probation and social services. This group, which will help to find ways to carry out Labour's "youth justice" policies, part of an impending Crime and Disorder Bill, will provide regular briefings to Mr Straw. His address, littered with emotive and threatening language such as "nipping it in the bud" and "youngsters (who) are laughing in the face of the arresting officers", shamelessly even went as far as saying that it is "absurd and archaic" to think children between 10-13 years old should any longer be beyond punishment by the state.

Acting on the basis of a selective definition of crime, Mr Straw is targeting youth, but also children and parents are being made responsible for what is called the "crime wave" in the society. As far as Jack Straw is concerned, the economic and cultural devastation of the lives of the people does not come into the category of crimes and does not warrant investigation. Instead, the Labour government's eclectic slogan to be "tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime" means that the people and young people in particular are held responsible for both crime and its causes.

So cynical and base are these bourgeois politicians in their efforts to generate public hatred and mistrust of youth that they forever conjure up the image of an elderly person being knocked down and robbed by a youth as the basis for their programme of harsher punishment. The real question as to why society gives rise to such problems is never posed. Instead, the likes of Jack Straw simply declare that young offenders are costing taxpayers £1 billion per year and "are laughing in the face of the arresting officers", therefore more punishment should be meted out; end of story.

To find the actual source of crime one does not have to look very far. It is right in front of everyone's eyes. A society founded on social and economic oppression inevitably produces anarchy and mayhem where it is the people who are both the victims of crime and "the rule of law". Turning the issue upside down like the Home Secretary does, suggesting that "young offenders" are attacking society, is a ploy to divide the people, to use the pretext of "fighting crime" to provide more legal means to bolster the police and the courts, which are arms of the state, to act against all sections of the people, whomsoever violates the state's defintion of "law and order". These measures of Jack Straw will not solve any problem nor are they intended to.

FOR ALL THEIR TALK of being "New" Labour, the Labour government exhibits the dangerous thinking of 19th century imperialism.

In his speech to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) on May 20, Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave as his theme: "Exploiting the British genius – the key to long-term economic success".

Gordon Brown put forward the thesis that "we need to revive in all our people those qualities that throughout history have made Britain great. The British genius." He elaborated this by saying: "These qualities – inventiveness, adaptability, hard work, love of learning, fairness and openness – explain Britain's success in the 19th Century. And they are precisely the qualities that are required for a country to succeed in the 21st Century. Global markets and the information age call for inventiveness and creativity; a capacity for hard work alongside an adaptability in face of ever more rapid change; a culture of learning and a belief in fair play and opportunity for all; and an ability to look outwards. These are the qualities that make up the British genius."

"New" Labour is so in love with the exploits of the 19th century capitalists and colonialists that they stand on its head what every secondary school pupil knows. That the British empire was built on the rape and enslavement of the people of entire continents and the bloody suppression of their resistance, and the exploitation to the bone of the working class at home. The "British nation" itself is used as a fiction to cover over the deeply entrenched injustice of the Union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the denial of national rights.

In calling for the need to "reaffirm" the "best qualities" of the British "nation", "to rediscover the British genius", Gordon Brown is exposing the ugly chauvinist and outdated nature of the financial oligarchy. His call for "exploiting the British genius" is a call for stepped up capitalist competition which demands that the capitalists constantly innovate at pain of their own extinction; it is a call the acceptance of a situation where more jobs are lost than are created and for the workers to allow their rights to be trampled on in the name of success in the "global market"; it is a call for "strengthening the work ethic", that is for stepping up the exploitation of the workers, forcing the unemployed into "workfare" programmes and cutting back on social benefits; a call for education to serve the needs of the monopolies and a decrease in the all-round level of education; a call to be "fair" and "open" to the aims of the capitalists and submit all interests to their interests. This is how New Labour maps out how Britain is to move into the 21st century. It is an extremely dangerous prospect for the working class and people.

LAST WEEK a two-leg march of unemployed youth and unemployed workers started from the North West in Preston and from the North East in Jarrow. The marchers intend to march through the towns and cities of England highlighting the attacks on workers, on the unemployed and on the homeless. The two legs of the march will meet up in Birmingham's Chamberlain Square at 1.00 pm on Saturday, May 31, and arrive together in Hillingdon on June 7. The marchers will then cross to the European continent and march to Amsterdam meeting up with marchers from other European countries to converge in Amsterdam on June 14. A mass demonstration of unemployed and employed workers from many different European countries is to take place in Amsterdam when the InterGovernmental Conference is scheduled to conclude at the end of the Netherlands Presidency. The marchers intend to voice their demands on opposing unemployment, job insecurity and social exclusion.

In a leaflet, "Marching on Amsterdam", the organisers point out that "according to official statistics more than 20 million people are unemployed in the European Union, 50 million live below the poverty level and 5 million are homeless". "In workplaces throughout Europe," they point out, "millions of workers are being forced to accept jobs which are insecure, with hours to suit their employers. ... Women have been particularly targeted, suffering from lower wages and the imposition of part-time working. ... Women are the first victims of any cutbacks in social welfare provision. ... Young people are without a decent income, unable to support themselves, left to survive as best they can or else accept the worst conditions and pay, or even training with no future." The leaflet emphasises: "We are on the march because we are opposed to a society which encourages the rich to get richer and the poor to stay poor or get poorer." "We are marching," the leaflet says, "to demonstrate to everyone that the time has come for us to take our own future into our own hands."

THE POVERTY GAP in Britain can be gauged from the fact that Oxfam, originally established to target poor countries, is now addressing poverty in Britain. At the United Nations Social Summit in 1995 it was declared that 1 in 5 of the world's population was living in poverty. In Britain today that figure is 1 in 4.

Figures published last year in a joint report by the Low Pay Unit and the Public Services, Tax and Commerce Union show that since 1979 the number of poor people in Britain has nearly trebled from 5 million to almost 14 million today. Based on the European Council definition of poverty which calculates the number of people living below half the average national income, Britain has one quarter of its population in this category. No less than four million children belong to this section.

At the other end of the scale, according to a recently published survey jointly published by Pro-Ned (which specialised in the recruitment of non-executive directors) and the Board for Chartered Accountants in Business, fees paid to non-executive directors have risen by between 15 and 20 per cent in the past two years, and are set for further steep increases. The average daily pay for a non-executive director in Britain is £800 to £1,500. Fees look set to rise at about 10% per annum. Non-executive directors usually devote around 11 to 20 days each year to a company, and, of course, hold a number of such directorships. Executive directors and managers of financial funds can receive payments of up to £1 million a year or much more.

Such figures reveal that the issue is not a few "fat cats" in society, but are an indictment of the kind of democracy which exists in which the gap between the poor who are getting poorer and a rich elite who are getting richer is constantly increasing.

ACCORDING TO A Treasury Paper Overseas Investment and the UK the UK economy "is disproportionally involved in inward and outward investment" compared with other major economies and that it meant "that the UK has a particularly high stake in the prosperity of the world economy."

The figures showed that export of capital by the finance capitalists in direct and portfolio assets amounted to £693.1 billion in 1995, equivalent to almost 100% of GDP, a higher proportion than any other G7 country and the largest exporter of capital behind the US. The import of capital in direct assets into the UK by the finance capitalists of other countries was £169 billion in 1995 and is increasing rapidly, with the "dynamic Asian countries" taking the lead, again as a percentage of GDP by far the largest of any G7 country. In 1995 whereas the export of capital brought a return equivalent to 12% of GDP the export of commodities brought a return of 22% of GDP although almost half of all exports were from foreign owned companies.

The paper also showed that the geographical distribution of the UK's export of capital in the form of direct investment is different from the geographical distribution of export of commodities by indigenous and foreign companies operating in the UK. Whereas the export of capital and export of commodities were to all regions of the "developed" and "developing world", 39% of capital was exported to North America as opposed to only 15% of commodities and only 31% of capital was exported to the EU countries as opposed to 57% of commodities exported there.

What these figures reveal is the increasingly exploitative nature of the British economy run by the financial oligarchy which lives off the spoils from the "global economy" more than any other bourgeoisie. The working class should take stock of how dangerous this situation is becoming not only in terms of the destruction of the national economy, destruction of the means of production and the increasing subordination of production of commodities and services to foreign capital in Britain but also in terms of the lengths that British imperialism will be driven to maintain its "high stake" in the "prosperity of the world economy", which means increased involvement in economic and military blocs and increased interference everywhere to maintain its huge returns on capital and manufacturing exports. It also reveals more clearly the sharpening contradictions that are bound to re-appear between the sections of the imperialist bourgeoisie over further integration in the EU, based on their particular interests outside, or within the EU.

A DEMONSTRATION marking African Liberation Day took place in London on Saturday, May 24, under the theme: "Africa: Liberation Not Charity". The demonstration comprising over 100 people from the African community and others marched from Max Roach Park in Brixton to a rally in Trafalgar Square. The demonstrators carried placards and banners, and shouted slogans which included: "Down With Imperialism!", "Leave Our Resources Alone!", "Multinational Companies Out!". The march won acclamation from bystanders along the route. Leaflets and other publications were distributed explaining some of the economic and political problems confronting the peoples of the African continent. One leaflet referring to the question of African refugees in Britain and other European countries said, amongst other things, "We are not looking for a better life in western economies, we are all political refugees fleeing from the devastation that western economies have caused in our countries." The march was preceded by a phone-in on local radio informing listeners of the march.

The demonstration was part of the various events organised in Britain to mark African Liberation Day, May 25, 1997. Africa this year has witnessed the development of the life and death struggles being waged by African peoples to break the imperialist stranglehold over the continent. For example, the Ethiopian people are celebrating the 6th anniversary of the victory of their war of liberation against the Soviet and American backed regime. That country, which the imperialists have in the past held up as the very epitome of the need for "aid" for the African continent, today no longer relies on outsiders for food. Meanwhile, the people of Libya continue to take a resolute stand against US imperialist threats to their independence.

1997 also witnessed the intensifying conflict between the imperialists for dominant positions being played out in a number of African countries with catastrophic consequences, including many thousands of African people dying from hunger and bullets. The conflict between certain old imperialist powers of Europe and US imperialism has become more open, for example between the US and France concerning several countries of sub-Saharan Africa. The overthrow of the Mobuto regime and the coming to power of Laurent Kabila in former Zaire on May 17 is being looked at by US imperialism, the British and others as a ripened fruit ready for picking. In this context, for example, an editorial of The Daily Telegraph on May 19, after offering Kabila some "advice", made the following "observation": "The waning of Francophone influence in the heart of Africa should see a corresponding growth in Congo's self-respect encouraged by its new, English-speaking friends."

The peoples of Africa have experience of over 100 years of imperialist machinations, and will persevere in defending their gains against foreign interference and intervention. Nothing but the total liberation of the African continent from imperialism will satisfy the African peoples.

LATEST NEWS AGENCY REPORTS indicate that a very chaotic situation has developed in Albania regarding the proposed June 29 elections.

As a result of a deal brokered by the special envoy of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Franz Vranitzky, May 13 was to have been the date for the final agreement on a "political contract" signed by ten Albanian political parties for the holding of an election on June 29. However, on May 13 President Sali Berisha, using his Democratic Party majority in parliament, a majority universally accepted as resulting from rigged elections last year, pushed through his own electoral law, which included a referendum on the restoration of the monarchy. Immediately eight of the ten parties threatened to boycott the elections, as unjustly favouring Berisha's Democratic Party, and possibly to withdraw from the interim National Reconciliation Government. Franz Vranitzky was rushed back to Albania to broker a new deal and Berisha postponed signing the writ for a June 29 election. However, in the early hours of May 16, Berisha again pushed through an electoral law against the wishes of the other political parties, who again threatened a boycott. Nevertheless Vranitzky declared that "from a formal point of view the plans have been fulfilled". "The plans," he said, "were that there should be an electoral law and that there should be an election before summer."

FOREIGN INTERVENTION

Now it is reported that the Prime Minister in the interim National Reconciliation Government, Bashkim Fino, and the main opposition Socialist Party, have both agreed to elections as long as there is strict foreign monitoring. Fatos Nano, leader of the Socialist Party, on May 28 called on Albanians to use the election to overthrow the Berisha government. He added, however, that his party would still boycott the election if the state of emergency was not removed. Earlier in Washington Fino had asked for American help in ensuring that the foreign military intervention force in Albania protect the polls. However there are disagreements between the foreign advisors. Electoral "experts" in the OSCE/EU missions in Albania are saying that there is too short a time for meaningful elections to now be arranged. Other international advisors in the missions are proposing using 200 trucks as mobile polling stations protected by the international military force! The Italian Prime Minister has declared that he will withdraw the international force if elections do not go ahead on June 29, echoing OSCE envoy Franz Vranitzky's earlier threat that "further delays ... on the elections will not improve the situation and will put into question the international community's willingness to provide economic and financial support".

The British Labour government is also participating in what Tony Lloyd, Minister of State of the Foreign Office, called "the international effort to revive democracy and restore stability in Albania", and despatched four "experts" on May 30 to join the OSCE election team in Albania and the other British "experts" already there who, according to the Foreign Office, "will be making a pivotal contribution to the election effort".

CITIZENS SALVATION COMMITTEES

A feature of all the deals between the foreign envoys and the political parties has been that the Citizens Salvation Committees who control much of the country be disbanded. The Citizens Salvation Committees were scheduled to have met on May 16 to consider their future but have postponed a final decision pending developments in the political situation in the country. They continue to demand the resignation of President Sali Berisha and the return of all monies to the people lost on the fraudulent "pyramid" schemes sanctioned by Berisha's government.

These are just demands and along with the demand for an end to foreign interference constitute the only way that Albania will lift itself out of its crisis. It was foreign interference, the imposition of the OSCE strictures of free market economics, political pluralism and human rights based on private property, and in particular the imposition of the Berisha government, that brought such chaos and devastation to Albania in the first place. Workers and progressive people must demand that all foreign interference in Albania cease, that foreign troops be withdrawn immediately, that disinterested foreign aid be given where required, and that the Albanian people be left to sort out their own affairs.

ON 17 MAY, the Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo-Zaire (AFDL) took control of Zaire renaming it the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Laurent Kabila, the leader of the Alliance forces, formally assumed the functions of head of state on May 29, but in a statement the AFDL said that a "transitional government of public salvation" would soon be formed which will create a constituent assembly to draw up a provisional constitution for the new republic. However, protests have also broken out against the new government. Supporters of opposition leader Etienna Tshisekedi took to the streets to protest at his exclusion from the incoming government and Kabila has placed a ban on oppositional political activity. It is also reported that the Angolan army has moved to the border with the renamed Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Mobuto Sese Seko, the deposed president, was brought to power 32 years ago in 1965 through a military coup largely organised by the CIA. Since that time the US, France, Belgium and other imperialists have invaded Zaire on several occasions, propping up the Mobuto regime and strengthening their hold on the mineral wealth of Africa's third largest country and one of the world's leading producers of copper, cobalt, oil and diamonds. Mobuto appears to be en route to France, where he has a Riviera villa and a flat in Paris.

The new government has been recognised by neighbouring countries and by the Organisation of African Unity (OAU). The governments of the US, France, Belgium and Britain, which all have troops in the area, and the UN have also welcomed the new government.

It has been reported that some weeks ago several mining multinationals including De Beers switched their allegiance from the Mobuto regime and signed agreements worth £1.8 billion with the AFDL. The president of International Panorama Resource Corporation, one of the multinationals involved, is quoted as saying: "We are going to capitalise on the current strife by increasing our presence and our land holdings in the country." At the present time, therefore, it seems that the plunder of the valuable resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo will continue as will the meddling of the imperialists.

IMPERIALIST POWERS

In 1994 the imperialist powers intervened in central Africa following the tragic events in Rwanda. Last year there were plans for a NATO-led invasion of Zaire and other countries in central Africa, under the guise of providing humanitarian aid. The imperialists use any excuse to interfere in the affairs of other countries, allegedly to solve problems. However, they themselves have created these problems by their rivalry, their interference and their drive for maximum profits. The crises which they have created throughout central Africa have once again provided them with the opportunity for intervention to maintain and indeed intensify their economic and political control of this important region.

The US in particular has been searching for ways of increasing its activities and especially its military presence in Africa, following its humiliating retreat from Somalia in 1994. Recently it has openly intervened in the Sudan and has made threats against a number of African countries including oil-rich Nigeria. But the other imperialist powers including France and Britain are also stepping up their activities throughout the continent, whether through direct military intervention or so-called "development aid".

In the nineteenth century the so-called "scramble for Africa" was precipitated by rivalry between the major European powers in this region. Now over one hundred years later the imperialists are again intensifying their struggles to secure control over Africa's resources.

FOR YOUR REFERENCE

Present-Day NATO Developments and the Signing of the NATO-Russia Founding Act

NATO, presently comprising 16 member states, is currently preparing for a summit in Madrid on July 8-9, 1997. As part of this process it is consolidating itself on many fronts. Amongst other things, these include moves to expand eastwards. The official signing in Paris on Tuesday, May 27, of The Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation is the prelude to such an expanded NATO.

FOUNDING ACT

Under the Act, a NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council has been set up. The Act involves an agreement to cooperate on exchanging information and consultation on strategy, defence policy, military doctrines, nuclear biological and chemical weapons, arms control, mutually agreed projects in defence related economic, environmental and scientific fields. Amongst other things there is mention of joint initiatives in various other fields including joint military activities whereby NATO countries and Russia can intervene in other countries under the auspices of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), or the United Nations Security Council. The Act also explicitly expresses support for the development of "free market economies" saying that they play a "vital role" in the "development of common prosperity and comprehensive security".

NATO is also developing further its "partnership for peace" programme by which countries in Europe which are not in NATO work closely with it on the basis of individual "partnership agreements". This includes military exercises on the territory of "partner" countries, as well as joint military ventures with these countries, such as the NATO-led forces SFOR and IFOR in Bosnia. This programme currently extends to 27 countries of Europe, and is due to be upgraded within a new framework called an Atlantic Partnership Council at the summit. NATO is also involved in making what it calls a "distinctive arrangement with Ukraine".

NATO is currently extending its mode of operations from the "core function" of collective defence to "non article 5 operations" which could involve interventions outside the NATO area. The NATO-led forces in Bosnia are quoted as examples of this development.

NATO is developing different types of forces which can operate "flexibly" in a range of different operations inside and outside the NATO area. Designed to "operate with the co-operation of non-NATO countries", these Combined Joint Task Forces and are said by the NATO Secretary General to "provide the Alliance for the first time with an expressly organised capability to deploy a peacekeeping force into a crisis area". The headquarters of Striking Fleet Atlantic, Allied Forces Central Europe, and Allied Forces Southern Europe have been initially designated as parent headquarters for CJTFs. The Capabilities Co-ordination Cell at NATO headquarters and the Combined Joint Planning Staff at Mons have been established as higher level military staffs to implement the CJTF concept.

NATO is further developing closer links with the Western European Union (WEU). This includes looking at the concept of joint commands at some levels as a possible option and the "loan" of NATO equipment and facilities to WEU-led operations, as long as approval from the North Atlantic Council is obtained first. NATO is also reforming its command structure as a "new and smaller command structure, streamlined for crisis management and intervention". The new command structure is also being designed to bring in a more "visible" European command which is considered to be an essential aspect of facilitating the process of France joining NATO's integrated military structure which Spain decided to join last November. These developments are referred to as "developing the European Security and Defence Identity within NATO".

NATO is working towards building what the Secretary General calls a "comprehensive security framework" for Europe, which "NATO, EU, WEU, OSCE and the Council of Europe would support and reinforce each other in building".

IN THE CONTEXT OF NATO'S ACTIVITIES

The Founding Act has been signed in this context of NATO's activities. In signing the Act, Russian President Boris Yeltsin has made it clear that he is not thereby reconciled to the expansion of NATO and the domination of the aggressive NATO alliance. Nor has he signed it out of concern for the world's peace and stability, but out of Russia's own big power interests. He is manoeuvring with a view to countering the encirclement brought about by NATO expansion eastwards, of winning time and of seeking a place in the new arrangements for spheres of influence and carving up the world that are being put in place by the imperialist powers.

Businesses and schools were closed in Port-au-Prince, the capital of Haiti, on Monday, May 19, after Haitian patriotic forces called a general strike. The streets were reported empty.

The strike followed militant demonstrations in the city the previous week against the US-backed government's privatisation plans.

Patriotic organisations, collectively known as "Whatever happens, happens," which oppose the US imposed government's plans to privatise national industries, organised the general strike and called on the Haitian people to rise up in the wake of the protests of the week before. Patriotic Haitians had taken to the streets on the last Thursday and Friday whilst gunfire was exchanged with police units and tyres were burned. These demonstrations followed those of students and a teachers' strike against one year's non payment of salaries. On the Monday police were reported to be patrolling, attempting to arrest patriots.

Some 20,000 US-led troops invaded Haiti in September 1994, ostensibly to restore President Jean-Bertrand Aristide after a brutal military coup. However, the former President had repeated his opposition to the privatisation plans on the weekend before the general strike, calling them a "cigarette burning at both ends".

There have also been reported protests in other cities of Haiti.

UNITED Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan is in possession of a report submitted by Cuba which contains more than sufficient evidence linking the US government to the appearance of a plant disease currently causing severe damage to corn, bean, squash, cucumber and other food crops in four Cuban provinces and the Isle of Youth.

According to charges made on October 21, 1996, a fumigation aircraft operated by the US State Department, registration number N3093M, released the Thrips palmi insect plague along the international air corridor that passes over the western Cuban province of Matanzas. Thrips palmi is an invertebrate of between one and two millimetres in length, and is resistant to a considerable variety of insecticides.

The US State Department denies the veracity of these facts, alleging that this is a case of deliberate disinformation. It further claims that the United States has not committed a single act in violation of the 1972 agreement on chemical and biological weapons.

This response comes as no surprise to Cuba. Since the triumph of the Revolution, Cuba has repeatedly denounced acts of US aggression that are emphatically denied by the government in power at the time. Years later, however, these accusations have been confirmed when the US Congress decides to make previously secret information public.

Back in the early 1960s, US intelligence services and the military began to elaborate plans for biological warfare, which have included blights that attack food crops, sugar cane defoliants, bacteria that thwart sugar cane cultivation and the interruption of rain by way of highly sophisticated methods.

In 1962, the CIA designed an operation known as Mongoose with the goal of destroying the Cuban Revolution. The operation's strategies included the use of military force, sabotage and the assassination of the country's leaders, as well as the introduction of non-lethal chemical agents that would cause illness among sugar cane workers (hundreds of thousands of individuals) and keep them off work for a period of between 24 and 48 hours, thus hindering the production of Cuba's leading export.

The Long Island newspaper Newsday revealed in 1971 that a virus originating in Fort Gulik, in the Panama Canal Zone, had been delivered by fishing boat to agents working against Cuba.

A book entitled The Fish is Red, for its part, reports that in 1972, CIA agents first introduced the African swine fever virus that decimated Cuba's livestock population. It is estimated that more than half a million pigs were sacrificed, burned and buried in order to combat the epidemic.

Several years later, Newsday reported that a biological warfare programme aimed against poultry production in Cuba had failed, for reasons not revealed.

Between 1979 and 1981, four destructive diseases were unleashed that seriously affected individuals and crops vital to the Cuban economy: hemorrhagic conjunctivitis, dengue fever, sugar cane rust and tobacco blue mold. Covert Action, a Washington-based publication, stated that as part of the CIA-Pentagon anti-Cuba arsenal, a disease known as hemorrhagic dengue was introduced on the island, where it infected hundreds of thousands of people, leaving 158 dead; 101 of them were children.

Eduardo Arocena, a leader of the anti-Cuba terrorist group Omega 7, admitted before a US court in 1984 – while he was being tried for murder – that in 1980 he had participated in an operation to introduce germs into Cuba as part of the United States' war against the island.

Five years earlier, in 1979, The Washington Post had reported that the CIA had a programme aimed against Cuban agriculture, and that since 1962 Pentagon specialists had been manufacturing biological agents to be used for this purpose.

The secret bases operated in the United States for the development of chemical and bacteriological warfare include the Edgewood arsenal, near the city of Baltimore, and Fort Detrick, in the state of Maryland. A report issued in 1969 by the US Senate committee on labour and social security recognised that under certain conditions, it is difficult to prove guilt in a bacteriological attack if the organisms causing the harm are sent clandestinely, which would allow for the argument that the situation created is the result of a spontaneous epidemic.

Of course, Cuba is not the only country against which the United States has used these prohibited forms of weapons. During the war in Viet Nam, there was ample media coverage throughout the world, including in the US press, regarding the indiscriminate use of highly toxic chemical and bacteriological agents affecting both humans and animals, as well as defoliants aimed at devastating plantations, crops and forests, such as Agent Orange.

Other antecedents are far too numerous to catalogue. In 1981, for example, the Press Asia agency of India reported that bacteriological experiments being carried out by US scientists in Lahore, Pakistan, had led to 30 mysterious deaths.

A year earlier, in 1980, the US government declassified documents revealing that in 1956, there had been plans to use the mosquito which spreads yellow fever against the former Soviet Union.

There is more than sufficient information available to back Cuba in its charges regarding this latest biological attack against it. There are hard facts, conclusive evidence and more than convincing arguments. It would not be just if this were to remain as simply another chapter in the United States' dirty war against the Cuban people.

BY RODOLFO CASALS (Granma International staff writer)

The Society for Friendship with Korea in this country has issued an appeal for help to assist in relieving the emergency in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) brought about as a result of three consecutive years of floods. The floods have hit much of the food producing regions, causing severe shortages of food due to the subsequent crop failures and the devastation of land and agricultural equipment.

In a call to all people of goodwill to respond to the appeal and help avert a human disaster in the DPRK, the Society for Friendship with Korea points out that the UN food agencies have visited the flood-affected regions and have launched an appeal for emergency food aid of 1.3 million tons. The Executive Director of the UN World Food Programme, Catherine Bertini, who visited the DPRK in March, has also said that the situation is severe and that the country faces a human catastrophe.

The Society for Friendship with Korea urges everyone to give generously to their appeal, adding that all support will go directly to flood and food relief. Donations should be sent and made payable to:

"Korea Flood Relief Appeal", BCM Box 1322, London WC1N 3XX.

For further information, telephone or fax: 0181-451 2050, or email: sfk@private.nethead.co.uk.

On May 22, the Foreign Ministry of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea released a statement against what it describes as "an ill-boding campaign which has been launched in its vicinity, fostering an atmosphere of war". The statement says: "The centrepiece of the campaign is the allegation that the DPRK may start a war because of the food shortage. 'Statements' of renegades have been advertised loudly by the DPRK's dialogue partner and top brass hats' tour and confabs have become frequent around the DPRK. Even a 'forestalling attack' on the DPRK has been under discussion.

"As regards the DPRK's food problem, there have been intentions to use food as a political weapon. The United States has announced that unless the DPRK accepts the proposal for 'four-way talks', it would not render any large-scale food aid. The south Korean authorities have followed it and Japan has also raised preconditions. With the DPRK refusing to comply with their political demand, they are now raising a hue and cry over 'possible war'.

"We cannot but take a serious view of such developments. It is true that our temporary food shortage has reached a serious stage. Our arable lands have been severely devastated and agricultural output drastically decreased owing to natural disasters which have been repeated in recent years when the economic blockade of the hostile forces has been further tightened. But war is not what we want. We have frankly informed the international community of our temporary food crisis and requested it to render assistance to us. Moreover, we have mobilised even servicemen in doing farming to surmount the difficulties with our own efforts. That we do not want war can be seen by the fact that we have acknowledged the purpose of the 'four-way talks' and set forth constructive confidence-building ways to hold the talks. Such stand and efforts of the DPRK, however, are described as delaying tactics and war preparations. Still worse, they are misused in 'proving' the necessity of pre-emptive attack on the DPRK. The bellicose elements are using our temporary difficulties for the purpose of launching aggression. The present situation, therefore, makes us more keenly feel that it is necessary to sharpen vigilance and increase the defence capabilities of the country as never before. The international community should pay unbiased, deep attention to the dangerous situation. It is the quality and morality of the Korean People's Army and people as well as the unshakeable stand of the DPRK Government to answer hostility with hostility, and good intentions with good intentions."

While the US continues to carry out massive militarisation in the Asia-Pacific Region, complete with mass-scale war exercises and the deployment of nuclear warheads, in a meeting with Chinese officials on May 14, US military officer General John Shalikashvilli claimed that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) poses the greatest threat to peace in the region. Shalikashvilli said that Washington remains "committed" to maintaining its positions as a regional power and is "getting ready for possible conflict on the Korean peninsula."

Shalikashvilli, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, made the comments in a speech to China's National Defence University during a visit which US officials say was aimed at boosting Sino-American military ties. The Americans want more Sino-US exchanges and a military maritime and air co-operation agreement, Shalikashvilli said.

Shalikashvilli also told students and staff at the University that aspects of Beijing's military policies "worried" the US, such as its arms sales to Pakistan and Iran.

"To be a fruitful form of engagement, our military-to-military contacts must deepen and become more frequent, more balanced and more developed," said Shalikashvilli, who promised to supply China with details of the US military's equipment and its global deployment.

He also called on China to take part in multinational activities, proposing regular exchanges between senior military leaders. "If we listen to the suspicious side of our military minds, if we don't pursue exchanges on a fair and equitable basis, if we lack openness, transparency, or reciprocity, or if we hold back even routine information on our military forces, then we will fail," he said.

Interview with Members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Albania

Q. What is the situation in Albania?

A. We are living in one of the darkest times in our history. The line of the renegade Ramiz Alia and then the criminal Berisha have destroyed our industry, agriculture, schools, the state, everything. We are no longer the masters of our country. The economy has collapsed, and one third of the population is now abroad, especially the youth, searching for a piece of bread.

The Albanians are physically and psychologically exhausted, we are slaves of the foreigners, deprived of everything; all this is a result of the plans of the American and Italian imperialists, whom Berisha and Fatos Nano serve respectively, who have also stolen the international aid in league with foreign politicians.

Q. The mass media presents the situation in Albania as an anarchic war among gangs. What is the reality?

A. We are facing a process of insurrection that is evolving towards revolution. The imperialists are frightened of this. Everything will depend on the events and the role of our Party, as well as on the international situation, especially in the Balkans.

There are plans for the division of Albania. Foreign intervention has been planned for a long time as a precaution against a possible collapse of the "democratic" regime of Berisha. In the beginning, only our Party denounced the intervention; neither the intellectuals nor the other parties were opposed to it. Today, we have on the one side the imperialists, the party of Berisha and the Socialist Party of Fatos Nano, who assert that the Albanians can't govern themselves and that without Europe, Albania can't live; on the other side, we have the people with their committees.

The popular movement began peacefully; then, with the development of events, the movement was transformed into an armed struggle when the army and the police delivered the arms to the people. The Socialist Party was called on to form a government in order to divide and isolate the Committees. This government has proved to be a technical instrument of imperialism, anti-popular, anti-patriotic, a clique of robbers and criminals, a mafia state.

Q. What is the Communist Party doing, what is its perspective and what is the perspective for Albania?

A. Our recent history is proving to be a lesson for us. Our Party has passed from the most ferocious illegality to carrying out open propaganda and agitation. In any case the subjective factor was absent and in the beginning we were weak in the north of the country.

The current demands of the 20 Popular Committees are: Down with Berisha and the Elections, which shows the character of this insurrection. Our Party is the party of the proletariat and the people. It works in conditions of illegality as well as in various legal forms, against the government and the puppet state. The Communist Party of Albania has as an objective – the overthrow of capitalism by revolutionary means and the expulsion of foreigners. All the work of the Party is focused on strengthening the subjective factor of the masses. Only in the event that the Party seizes the leadership of the whole movement will the insurrection become a revolution.

We stand against this false democracy; we will participate in these elections in different ways although we know that this is all a farce and that almost all the parties, especially the Democratic and Socialist parties, are parties of the bourgeoisie and imperialism.

We stand for the revolution and proletarian democracy and we are sure that the socialists of Fatos Nano and Bashkim Fino will be increasingly discredited.

The speed of developments favours the discrediting of the ideology of the traitors to socialism. Today our Party is growing all over the country, and it is strong in the centre and the south. In any case, at this moment the situation is rather complex, serious and dangerous, and open to any internal and international solution. It will not be a swift outcome.

Published in La Nostra Lotta, Rome, Italy, May 1997