Newspaper of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
170, Wandsworth Road, London, SW8 2LA. Phone 0171 627 0599,
Return to Workers' Weekly Index Page
Bloody Sunday Judicial Inquiry: Why Did Bloody Sunday Happen?
Labour Government Proposals Further Attack All-Round Education
Bloody Sunday Commemoration in London
Increasing military threats against Iraq: Tony Blair Firmly Joins the US Warmongering
LETTERS: Disabled People Across the North Mobilise against Benefit Cuts
|
|
| Fidel Castro's Speech Welcoming Pope John Paul II to Cuba |
Seminar Greets DPRK Delegation
Bowled Over by the Society in People's Korea
Bloody Sunday Judicial Inquiry:
| On Thursday Tony Blair announced in the House of Commons that the government was setting up a judicial inquiry headed by Lord Justice Saville, sitting with two as-yet unnamed judges from the Commonwealth, to look into the events which occurred in Derry on January 30, 1972, now known as Bloody Sunday. He stated that the intention was to establish the truth of what happened on that day. There is no doubt over what happened on that day. Fourteen unarmed demonstrators, most of them teenagers, were shot and killed by British paratroopers. There is also little dispute nowadays about the enquiry headed by Lord Chief Justice Widgery which followed the killings. An unjustifiable crime against the Irish people was followed by a disgraceful and cynical whitewash which flew in the face of all the known facts. So much has been confirmed by the recent revelation that in appointing Lord Widgery Prime Minister Heath emphasised to him that his enquiry was part of a “propaganda war”. The issue is not whether some troops on the ground disobeyed their rules of engagement; whether some over-zealous Army commanders gave orders which exceeded their authority. The issue is why did the citizens of Derry feel moved to demonstrate; why were British troops in Derry at all? Bloody Sunday was not some mistake. It was and is a symbol of continued British rule over part of Ireland, a leftover of 19th century colonialism which has no place in modern times. That the commanders and troops on the ground acted in the traditions of all colonial occupiers, at the behest of the government in London, is an outrage but not the main point. The Saville Inquiry will no doubt come to new and more accurate conclusions about what happened on that day of shame for the British state, in line with the new image being projected by New Labour. The question is, will it lead to an acceptance of the root cause of the problem? Will it lead to an acknowledgement of the sovereignty of the Irish people over their own territory and of their right of national self-determination? Will it lead to the ceding of Britain’s claim of sovereignty over part of Ireland, to British withdrawal and an end to Britain’s interference in the affairs of the Irish people, opening the way to the Irish people healing the divisions of centuries of foreign rule and reuniting their country, enabling good-neighbourly relations between Britain and Ireland on a free and equal basis? This is the question which the working class and all progressive people in Britain must raise. It is notable that the Saville Inquiry has come 26 years after the events of Bloody Sunday, despite the long-standing and just demands for such a course of action. One is reminded of the long campaigns to review the cases of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four for example. Taken together, these are powerful reminders that injustice and carnage have been synonymous with the partition of Ireland and the denial to the Irish people of the exercise of their sovereignty. |
| THE PROPOSALS of David Blunkett, the Education and Employment Secretary, on January 13 to “relax the requirements for the primary school curriculum in order to allow more time for primary schools to concentrate on literacy and numeracy” have given rise to further concern about the government’s plans for education and for the future of the youth. They are contributing, along with the cut-backs on social programmes as a whole, along with the “New Deal”, “Welfare-to-Work”, the White Paper on the NHS, the Social Security Bill, and other proposals and measures, to a growing disillusionment with the Labour government. They underline that, far from a new society being handed to the people on a plate with the election of the Labour government, the people’s struggles for their rights and interests is even more firmly on the agenda. They underline the necessity for the people themselves to elaborate the programme for a new society, a modern society for the 21st century. Whatever the merits of the National Curriculum brought in by the Conservative government, and there is controversy over this to say the least, the “relaxation” that the Education Secretary has in mind is a move in the direction of withdrawing the notion of an enlightened system of education. The increased emphasis on the “three r’s” at the expense of an all-round education for young children is a response to the needs of the monopolies. In the conditions of the present crisis, of massive unemployment, and “jobless growth”, the monopolies need an elite whose education is paid for not by them but by the privileged and by the state itself. At the same time, they want the mass of the people to be tailored to have the minimum level of skills geared to the needs of industry. Together with such programmes as “welfare-to-work”, the proposals represent a move to line up the workforce into pulling together to make the monopolies successful and are an attack on the modern definition that education should be available to all at the highest level that society can provide. As the government gears the whole society to this end so that the rich are able to make their maximum profits, not only does the children’s education suffer but the workload and pressure on the teachers becomes intolerable. Nor do the teachers have a say in the shaping of the education system and the curriculum as is their right. Within this situation, the teaching of instrumental playing, as one example, has become an optional extra, to be paid for, and creating, incidentally, further exploitation and denial of rights of the section of peripatetic music teachers. Now the announcement of the Department of Education and Employment states that, while the primary schools are to “concentrate” on English, mathematics, science, IT and religious education, “from September 1998 for a period of two years, while primary schools will continue to have to teach the other six National Curriculum subjects of design and technology, history, geography, music, art and physical education, they will not be required to teach the current detailed programmes of study”. Several prominent people, among them Simon Rattle, the Music Director of the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, for example, have been prompted to point out how these proposals depart from the Labour Party’s pre-election promises, to “arrest the decline of music in schools”, that the “huge potential” of the arts “has been unrecognised” and that they “have for too long remained outside the mainstream – just an optional extra”. In the society, the elite has become the mainstream while the majority of the people are marginalised. Progressive people must put all their efforts into overcoming the crisis and participate in bringing about a society which is centred around the well-being of the people and not the maximisation of profits for the rich. |
| ON JANUARY 24, several thousand people marched through North London from Highbury Fields to Archway to commemorate Bloody Sunday, when British paratroopers in January 1972 shot down and killed 14 unarmed demonstrators in Derry. The march was headed by a flute band from Liverpool and by relatives of the deceased and others carrying 14 black flags. It was made up of people from all walks of life, including large numbers of patriotic Irish working people resident in Britain, trade union and trades council contingents, social and political organisations. Along the route of the march crowds who had gathered on the pavement frequently applauded. The call of the march was for peace in Ireland through British withdrawal. At a packed Rally at the end of the march, among other things, a relative of one of the deceased called for a public enquiry into the killings which have never been satisfactorily accounted for, the wife of a republican prisoner called for an end to the inhuman treatment of those incarcerated in British jails, while a Sinn Fein delegate to the peace talks denounced the latest proposals from the British and Irish governments and said that the struggle of the Irish people would continue until Ireland was united and free, that truth and justice would prevail. Two English MPs also spoke. More than a thousand reprints of the Workers’ Weekly article on Bloody Sunday (see WW, January 24) were given out at the march. The article pointed out that Bloody Sunday symbolised British colonial rule over part of Ireland. It denounced the government’s proposals to the peace talks as being in the same colonial vein. It said that the basis of discussion could only be the sovereignty of the Irish people over their entire territory and their right of self-determination, leading on to British withdrawal and an end to British interference in the affairs of the Irish people. The reprint was very well received and a number of marchers took handfuls to give out to their friends. |
Increasing military threats against Iraq:
| US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright arrived in Europe on a hastily arranged mission on Thursday, January 29, for consultations on military action against Iraq. Albright pledged that the US would take unilateral military action if it thought it necessary. Tony Blair had already offered support to President Bill Clinton in a 15-minute phone call, according to news agencies, and is to visit Washington himself next week. A White House spokesman said that they “share a common determination to see the Security Council resolutions respected and for the United States and the United Kingdom to stay closely co-ordinated on this issue”. Tony Blair is quoted as saying the military option against Iraq is open if Saddam Hussein does not change the Iraqi opposition to inspection of certain sites. The diplomatic initiative of the US to rally support from reluctant France and Russia, which are opposed to the use of force against Iraq, coincided with the visit of Viktor Posuvalyuk, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, to Iraq for talks with senior Iraqi officials. China, as the other permanent Security Council member, also opposes military action and calls for the early lifting of sanctions imposed on Iraq. The Chinese ambassador to the UN, Qin Huasun, said that “as a sovereign state, Iraq’s dignity and legitimate security concerns should be taken into due consideration”. The British aircraft carrier HMS Invincible sailed into the Gulf last Sunday, doubling British forces in the region to about 2,000. There are already about 300 US warplanes in the region together with the carriers Nimitz and George Washington, as well as some 30 cruisers, destroyers and submarines capable of firing Tomahawk cruise missiles. Tony Blair is aligning Britain with the warmongering of US imperialism and the CIA in these actions. CIA Director George Tenet is quoted as telling the US Congress on Wednesday, “Iraq, under (President) Saddam (Hussein), continues to pose a serious threat to US forces, interests and allies.” On the eve of Madeleine Albright’s European trip, Tony Blair, speaking in the House of Commons, reiterated that Saddam Hussein must be “stopped, and stopped soon”. According to news reports, official Iraqi newspapers have accused the chief UN weapons inspector, Richard Butler of following US orders. One newspaper, Babil, said, “To keep the media busy with something other than his sex scandal, the American president may start a foolish military action by attacking Iraq.” Tariq Aziz, the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, said in an interview with the BBC, broadcast on Thursday, “Compliance or non-compliance is not the issue for the Americans. The issue for the Americans is changing this government and it will survive as it did after 1991. So the Americans did not achieve their objectives then and they cannot achieve them now.” Iraq denies developing chemical or biological weapons and demands the lifting of economic and other sanctions imposed by the United Nations. The sanctions have caused untold suffering, starvation and death for the Iraqi people. At present the current oil-for-food deal allows Iraq to sell only $2 billion worth of oil every six months to buy food and other humanitarian supplies. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan speaking at the World Economic Forum on Thursday backed an improvement in the agreement. French president Jacques Chirac has proposed that Iraq’s maximum oil sales quota be doubled, while Iraq’s trade minister, Mohammed Mehdi Saleh, has called for the quota to be trebled. |
| LETTERS TO THE EDITOR* LETTERS TO THE EDITOR |
| I would like to inform your readers about the work of Disability Action North East (DANE) which has its main office in Gateshead. Since leaks about the benefit cuts recommended by Treasury officials began circulating, organisations of disabled people have had to begin mobilising their opposition. In the North of England, Disability Action North East (DANE) has alerted its members and the public at large to the offensive against disabled people, undertaken by the new Labour government as “modernisation” of the welfare state. DANE began by calling a well-publicised meeting on December 11, 1997, at Newcastle Civic Centre to hear the people’s reports of the decimation of supports to the community of disabled people. From this meeting DANE recruited supporters from the Pensioners’ Association, Welfare Rights officers, Union representatives, etc., to assist in its “Campaign Against Disability Benefit Cuts”. The group is now active in the media and organising events to highlight how disabled people are already being deprived on income through the D.S.S. Benefits Integrity Project. DANE is aware of cases in which disabled people have been reviewed by the D.S.S and suffered vicious attacks on their benefits – on one occasion a husband saw his wife lose 60% of the benefits she had been formerly awarded for having the impairment Multiple Sclerosis. DANE has loudly contested such a deprivation of income, as disabled people are forced to cope with a higher cost of living in capitalist Britain. Because if everything in society has a price tag attached to it, then only those on the highest incomes will be able to meet any of their “special needs”. The Benefits Agency’s claim to be neutral, in the Benefit Reviews, is also being questioned. The Benefits Agency say they are simply following the government’s lead on “weeding out the scroungers”, yet they admitted (during a radio interview featuring a DANE spokesperson) that even by official estimates those drawing incorrect Disability Benefits at present would only constitute 10% of the whole. Yet for this reason they justify taking benefits off people whose impairments are so severe that they were formerly awarded the benefits for life. By creating a climate in which stigma is heaped indiscriminately upon those labelled “scroungers” or “malingerers”, the ruling circles have made it easy for themselves to finally end the aim of creating a post-war Britain in which all members had a real entitlement to a livelihood. The New Labour “reform” of the welfare state clearly intends to end the redistribution of incomes in society which, in a limited way, previously allowed a degree of support to be given to those out of work – and those unable to work. In the coming millennium, the redistribution of taxes will not be downwards to the masses, but increasingly upwards – to monopoly companies and employers. Fore example, under New Labour’s “Welfare to Work” programme, bosses can expect up to a 75% subsidy towards the wage of each recently employed labourer. Although the disabled people’s movement has, since the 1980s, loudly condemned the segregation of disabled people within institutions of the post-war welfare state, nevertheless organisations such as DANE have always fought for the right to a livelihood for everyone, including Disability Benefits. This has been seen as the minimum that could be done to offset the social barriers of discrimination that cause disability. Therefore, on Saturday January 17, DANE sent a delegation to Nick Brown, the New Labour whip at the Allendale centre in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. DANE voiced its opposition to the Benefits Integrity Project and the government suggestions of taking Disability Living Allowance off disabled people and giving it instead to Local Authority budgets. Although initially wanting to dodge all questions, the Minister finally talked directly about the issues in a frank manner. He agreed to keep DANE directly informed over the following months of any developments in the government’s welfare reforms. DANE may be consulting with the government but it is by no means co-opted into its plans. Disabled people and their non-disabled supporters will mobilise in the campaign to Stop Disability Benefit Cuts through its planned agenda of lobbies to MPs, marches through city-centres and delegations to full Council meetings across the North East. Reader in the North East |
| I have noticed in recent weeks, referring to the events surrounding the peace talks on northern Ireland, speakers and writers from progressive circles in Britain continually urging Tony Blair and the British government to resist the pressure from the Unionists, “Loyalists”, Orangemen, etc., not to “give in to the Orange card”. There seems to be a serious misconception here. My understanding of “playing the Orange card” both historically and now is that the Unionists, etc., are the card and it is the British government which plays it! The effectiveness of the tactic is that each time it is played people really believe that it is the Unionists who are the problem and not the British government. It seems to me that Workers’ Weekly – virtually alone – is quite right in putting responsibility for all the recent events squarely at the door of the British government and the class they serve. As it explains, the atmosphere of anxiety and tension in which a solution favourable to English and other capital is being railroaded through, the pressure from the Unionists, etc., all have the hand of the British state behind them. It is not the Unionists who are the problem but the English bourgeoisie! It is they who must be hit at. Reader in London |
|
|
| Pope John Paul II recently paid a five-day visit to Cuba ending on January 25. The Pope used the occasion of his visit to condemn the US embargo against Cuba. 'Granma International' reported that, "The head of the Catholic Church and the leader of the Cuban Revolution spoke together on five occasions, in a constructive and friendly atmosphere." |
| Below we reprint the speech given by President Fidel Castro Ruz,
First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba, at the
welcoming ceremony for His Holiness John Paul II, at José Martí
International Airport, January 21, 1998, year of the 40th anniversary of the
decisive battles of the war of liberation of Cuba. (Translation of the
transcript of the Council of State)
Your Holiness:
The island whose soil you have just kissed is honoured with your presence. You
will not find here those peaceful and good-natured native inhabitants that
populated it when the first Europeans reached this island. The men were almost
all exterminated by exploitation and slave labour that they were unable to
resist; the women were converted into objects of pleasure or domestic slaves.
There were also those who died under the blade of homicidal swords, or as
victims of unknown diseases imported by the conquistadors. Some priests left
heartrending testimonies of their protests against such crimes.
Throughout the centuries, more than one million Africans, cruelly uprooted from
their distant lands, took the place of the indigenous slaves that had already
been wiped out. They made a considerable contribution to the ethnic composition
and origin of our country’s current population, in which the culture,
beliefs and the blood of all those who participated in this dramatic history is
mixed.
It is estimated that the conquest and colonisation of the entire hemisphere
cost the lives of 70 million indigenous people and led to the enslavement of 12
million Africans. Much blood was spilt and many injustices were committed, many
of which, after centuries of sacrifice and struggle, still persist under other
forms of domination and exploitation.
Cuba achieved its nationhood under extremely difficult conditions. It battled
alone with unsurpassable heroism for its independence. For that reason, exactly
100 years ago it suffered a genuine holocaust in its concentration camps, where
a considerable part of its population perished, fundamentally women, the
elderly and children. This was a crime committed by the colonialists which
although it has been forgotten in the conscience of humanity, has not ceased
being a monstrous crime. You, a son of Poland and a witness of Oswiecim, can
comprehend that better than anyone.
Your Holiness, another genocide is being attempted today, so as to bring to its
knees, through hunger, disease and total economic strangulation, a people which
refuses to submit to the dictates and the sway of the most powerful economic,
political and military power in history, a power that is far more powerful than
that of Ancient Rome, which for centuries threw to the lions those who refused
to renege on their faith. Like those Christians atrociously slandered in order
to justify the crimes, we, similarly slandered, would prefer death one thousand
times before renouncing our convictions. Just like the Church, the Revolution
also has many martyrs.
Your Holiness, we think like you on many important contemporary world issues
and that is a source of great satisfaction to us. On other matters, our
opinions differ, but we pay respectful homage to the deep conviction with which
you defend your ideas.
In your long pilgrimage throughout the world, you have seen for yourself much
injustice, inequality, poverty; fields without crops and campesinos without
food and without land; unemployment, hunger, disease, lives that could have
been saved and are lost for a few cents; illiteracy, child prostitution,
children working from the age of six or begging in order to live; marginal
neighbourhoods where hundreds of millions of people live in inhumane
conditions; discrimination for reasons of race or gender, entire ethnic groups
ousted from their lands and abandoned to chance; xenophobia, contempt for other
peoples, cultures destroyed or under destruction; underdevelopment, usurious
loans, uncollectable and unpayable debts, unequal terms of trade, monstrous and
nonproductive financial speculations; an environment mercilessly destroyed, at
times beyond repair; unscrupulous arms trading for repugnant commercial ends,
wars, violence, massacres; generalized corruption, drugs, vices and an
alienating consumerism imposed as an idyllic model on all peoples.
Humanity has grown almost fourfold in this century alone. Thousands of millions
of people are suffering hunger and a thirst for justice; the list of
peoples’ economic and social disasters is interminable. I am aware that
many of them are a motive for Your Holiness’ constant and growing concern.
I have had personal experiences that have allowed me to appreciate other
aspects of your thinking. I was a student at Catholic schools up until I went
to university. I was taught then that to be a Protestant, a Jew, Muslim, Hindu,
Buddhist, Animist or a participant in other religious beliefs constituted a
dreadful sin, worthy of severe and implacable punishment. More than once, in
some of those schools for the wealthy and privileged, among whom I found
myself, it occurred to me to ask why there were no black children there. I have
never been able to forget the totally non-persuasive responses I received. Years later, the Vatican Council II, convened by Pope John XXIII, took up some of those delicate questions. We are aware of Your Holiness’ efforts to preach and to practice respect toward the believers of other important and influential religions that have spread throughout the world. Respect for believers and non-believers is a basic principle that we Cuban revolutionaries have inculcated in our compatriots. Those principles have been defined and are guaranteed by our Constitution and our laws. If difficulties have arisen at any time, that has never been the fault of the Revolution. We cherish the hope that, one day, no adolescent in any school in any region of the world will need to ask why there isn’t a single black, Indian, Asian or white child in it. Your Holiness: I sincerely admire your valiant statements on what happened with Galileo, the known errors of the Inquisition, the bloody episodes of the Crusades, the crimes committed during the conquest of America, and on certain scientific discoveries that nowadays go unquestioned but which, in their time, were the object of so many prejudices and anathemas. That necessitated the immense authority that you have acquired in your Church. What can we offer you in Cuba, Your Holiness? A people with fewer inequalities, fewer unprotected citizens, fewer children without schools, fewer sick people without hospitals, more teachers and more doctors per inhabitant than any other country in the world visited by Your Holiness; an educated people to whom you can speak with all the liberty you wish, and with the security that this people possesses talent, a high political culture, deep convictions, absolute confidence in its ideas and all the awareness and respect in the world to listen to you. There is no country better equipped to understand your felicitous idea, such as we understand it and so similar to what we preach, that the equitable distribution of wealth and solidarity among human beings and peoples must be globalised. Welcome to Cuba. (APPLAUSE) (Granma International) |
| ON JANUARY 22, a seminar was held in London organised by the Institute of Independence Studies at which a visiting parliamentary delegation from the Supreme People’s Assembly of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea participated. The seminar was well attended by individuals and organisations friendly to the DPRK. The subject of the seminar was the New Year’s editorial published jointly by Rodong Sinmun, the newspaper of the Workers’ Party of Korea Central Committee, and Joson Inmingun (see Workers’ Weekly, January 10). Hugh Stephens of the Institute opened the proceedings, warmly welcoming the guests, and presenting a detailed paper on the matters raised in the editorial, as well as going into the history of the Korean people’s struggle for their independence, for reunification of the homeland and for socialism. Ji Jae Ryong, Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Supreme People’s Assembly of the DPRK and leader of the delegation, then gave a warm greeting to the seminar and thanked the participants for their friendship and support for the DPRK. He spoke in detail about the editorial and the important tasks it set out for the Party and people of the DPRK. Various individuals and representatives of organisations present then made contributions and gave their greetings to the visiting Korean delegation. The remarks of the representative of RCPB(ML) are reprinted below. |
| Remarks of Chris Coleman, on behalf of the Central Committee of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist), at the meeting organised by the Institute of Independence Studies for the Delegation from the DPRK, Conway Hall, London, January 22, 1998 Comrades: We are very happy to join in welcoming our Korean comrades. I had the privilege as recently as last November of being part of a delegation of our Party to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Our visit coincided with the announcement that the great leader Kim Jong Il had been elected as General Secretary of the Workers’ Party of Korea. We witnessed what can only be described as a genuine outpouring of joy by the Korean people at this news. We returned, as visiting friends of Korea do, with very deep impressions. We were greatly moved by the unity of the people around the Party and Kim Jong Il, a unity based on his proven record of leadership over some twenty years on the path laid down by the great leader Kim Il Sung. We were very impressed, in fact bowled over, by the society built in People’s Korea, literally from the ashes left at the end of the war in 1953. It seemed little short of a miracle that such provisions are made for the people’s wellbeing, particularly at a time of such difficulties caused by natural disasters and when in countries such as ours it is claimed that society cannot afford to provide for people’s needs. We were impressed by the determination to overcome the economic difficulties by their own efforts, welcoming aid but not allowing it to undermine the integrity of the country. We were impressed by the determination to defend the independence of the country, in the face of what were at that time very serious military provocations from the US imperialists and their puppets in the south, and at the same time to continue making every effort to bring about the reunification of the homeland. Most of all we were impressed by the fact that the people of the DPRK and their leaders have always followed their own independent path, building and defending the style of socialism they themselves have chosen. In a world situation where the US and other imperialists are attempting to impose on the people of the whole world their “free market”, political pluralism and civil rights based on private property, labelling all countries who refuse to submit as “rogue” states, and subjecting them to brutal blockades, military threats and all manner of pressure, then the heroic stand of the DPRK is a great example and inspiration to the people of the world. This year the Korean people will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the founding of the DPRK. To have achieved so much against such great odds makes it, in our view, a celebration for progressive people the world over. The cause for which the Korean people and their great leaders have fought and are fighting is the common cause of all progressive humanity, the cause of independence, of fighting for a society dedicated to the wellbeing of its members, the cause of socialism. It is this common pursuit of a common goal which is the basis of our solidarity. We think it important that here in Britain, whatever the ideological differences between us may be, or even perhaps in some cases ideological differences on specific questions with the Workers’ Party of Korea, all the progressive forces unite politically to demand that the British government change its stand towards the DPRK. The British government must come out from behind the coat-tails of US imperialism. It must recognise the DPRK and open the way to full diplomatic relations. It must demand that US imperialism withdraw its nuclear and other forces from the Korean peninsula and open the way for the Korean people to bring about peace and the reunification of their homeland. Once again, greetings to our Korean comrades and best wishes for all success. |
