>Development of Vieques, as well as leaders of the Puerto
>Rican solidarity movement like Rafael Bernab� of Frente
>Socialista and Julio Muriente of Nuevo Movimiento
>Independentista.
>
>They were joined by Graciany Miranda Marchand, past
>president of the Puerto Rican Bar Association, and Jos�
>Chegui Torres, a famous professional boxer.
>
>A few days earlier, Rub�n Berr�os, Puerto Rico
>Independence Party president, had also penetrated the
>restricted area. Demonstrating the political contradictions
>surfacing now in Puerto Rico, the federal judge assigned to
>his case recused herself by stating she agreed with Berr�os
>that the Navy should leave Vieques.
>
>The activists were released on May 15 after a federal
>court hearing. They told the magistrate that they did not
>accept the court's authority or the conditions imposed for
>their release. One of those conditions was that non-
>residents of Vieques could not return there.
>
>As soon as the group was freed, and still dressed in
>prison garb, they joined a demonstration outside on their
>behalf. They said: "We won," "we showed that their threats
>had no basis," "we showed that we can fight against the
>Navy and win," and "we will continue the struggle until the
>Navy leaves Vieques."
>
>On May 8, the Pentagon resumed bombings in the restricted
>area. These were the first bombs dropped in over a year.
>Even though they were 25-pound inert bombs, instead of the
>500-pound live explosives used before, they were
>potentially dangerous. The military brass dropped these
>weapons with full knowledge that several protesters were
>still hiding in the area. Just that morning they had
>removed two activists.
>
>It was the imperialists' need to say: "I'm the boss."
>
>But the people of Vieques and Puerto Rico are taking up
>that challenge. The movement to liberate Vieques is
>planning its next move. From the establishment of
>encampments surrounding the restricted areas to the
>possibility of a Puerto Rico-wide general strike, the
>people have vowed to oust the Navy.
>
>The week after the May 4 eviction was one of intense
>solidarity actions all over Puerto Rico. Workers, students,
>teachers and people from many sectors of society joined in
>demonstrations targeting federal installations. If no U.S.
>military facility was nearby, protesters picketed post
>office buildings.
>
>Their common slogan was "The struggle is just starting,"
>reflecting the fierce determination of the Puerto Rican
>people to get the Pentagon out of Vieques.
>
>If the four-hour strike by the Electricity Utility Workers
>Union after the detentions was an example, then we are in
>for a long, hot summer of struggle.
>
> - END -
>
>(Copyleft Workers World Service. Everyone is permitted to
>copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but
>changing it is not allowed. For more information contact
>Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] For subscription info send message
>to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.workers.org)
>
>
>
>Message-ID: <006101bfc50f$d938c1a0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "WW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: [WW] Newsweek: Bombing Yugoslav civilian targets worked best
>Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 19:37:24 -0400
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>-------------------------
>Via Workers World News Service
>Reprinted from the May 25, 2000
>issue of Workers World newspaper
>-------------------------
>
>U.S. WAR CRIMES:
>NEWSWEEK: "BOMBING CIVILIAN TARGETS WORKED BEST"
>
>By John Catalinotto
>
>[The writer was in Belgrade in March for the anniversary of
>the start of last year's 78-day U.S./NATO bombing campaign
>against Yugoslavia.]
>
>
>
>Even when the big-business media here get around to
>reporting some of the truth about last year's war against
>Yugoslavia, they draw conclusions that serve their
>paymasters.
>
>Newsweek magazine got hold of an internal U.S. Air Force
>report showing that only 58 of NATO's so-called high-
>precision strikes hit their military targets. This compares
>with the 744 NATO claimed at the end of the bombing
>campaign.
>
>A special investigation team from the United States and
>other NATO air forces searched Kosovo on foot and by
>helicopter.
>
>U.S. top officers had boasted that NATO forces had
>disabled "around 120 tanks," "about 220 armored personnel
>carriers" and "up to 450 artillery and mortar pieces" in 78
>days of bombing.
>
>The investigators reported instead that NATO had hit just
>14 tanks, 18 APCs and 20 artillery and mortar pieces, less
>than one-10th of NATO claims.
>
>These figures are quite close to the losses Yugoslav
>forces reported at the end of the war. NATO spokespeople
>had dismissed the Yugoslav report as "disinformation" at
>the time. It was NATO that was lying.
>
>The investigators found out that U.S. and NATO high-
>altitude air power was effective chiefly against civilian
>targets. It was the bombing of cities and power stations
>that most damaged Serbia.
>
>Newsweek reported this in its May 15 issue. The article
>deduced from this that it was NATO's strikes against
>civilian targets that forced the Yugoslav government to
>allow the occupation of Kosovo.
>
>And it concluded from these facts that the Pentagon will
>now be able to use this precedent--bombing the civilian
>infrastructure without taking casualties--to impose
>Washington's will on most of the world.
>
>In no way did Newsweek show the human suffering of the
>Yugoslav people. Nor did the article mention that purposely
>bombing civilian targets is a war crime under conventions
>the U.S. government has signed.
>
>WHAT CHOOSING CIVILIAN TARGETS MEANS
>
>It would have been easy enough to do a story on that
>suffering. Anyone in Belgrade this spring could see the
>buildings hit by U.S. missiles. They could see the bombed
>bridges across the Danube in Novi Sad further to the north.
>
>Or they could arrange a visit to Dragisa Misovic, one of
>the major hospitals serving Belgrade. There, hospital
>spokesperson Spomenka Stojicic would show them the damage
>caused by two bombings in May 1999.
>
>The first missiles struck on May 19. It hit the Neurology
>Center directly. This building was completely destroyed
>together with the first-aid station and outpatient clinic
>within the Special Children's Pulmonary and Tuberculosis
>Hospital.
>
>In the Maternity Center nearby, one woman had just
>undergone a Caesarian section. She and her newborn escaped
>serious physical injury despite the trauma of the
>explosion.
>
>Seven buildings suffered irreparable damage. Four others
>would require serious reconstruction work.
>
>In all, two-thirds of the hospital was put out of service
>by the bombing. Much of it is still out, said Stojicic.
>Some services have been moved to existing buildings and
>must share facilities. And a few have been rebuilt with
>foreign contributions.
>
>"The ongoing embargo against Yugoslavia," said Stojicic,
>"hurts us because we lack the ability to earn the money to
>pay for the repairs. In addition, it makes everything much
>more expensive. We are limited to doing emergency care in
>many areas."
>
>The Swiss Red Cross had helped begin rebuilding the
>Maternity Center. The German anti-NATO peace movement had
>just made a contribution. But it still isn't near the $7
>million needed for repairing or rebuilding the buildings.
>
>This was not the most gruesome civilian target. It didn't
>embody the horror of a strike at a bus or a train with
>their many civilian casualties. Yet this example of damage
>to the civilian infrastructure is typical of many across
>Yugoslavia that add to the ordeal of the population.
>
>Stojicic asked one of the visitors for his button showing
>a bird on a blue background, a logo for the German movement
>to bring NATO to trial for war crimes against Yugoslavia.
>And she asked another for a Free Mumia Abu-Jamal button for
>her son.
>
>There are both German and U.S. movements to try NATO
>leaders for such crimes.
>
>PUT U.S./NATO LEADERS ON TRIAL
>
>New revelations that NATO's high-altitude bombing of
>Yugoslavia was far less successful than claimed at the time
>are "further proof of U.S. war crimes against Yugoslavia,"
>said Sara Flounders, national co-coordinator of the
>International Action Center.
>
>"This will provide additional evidence for the
>International War Crimes Tribunal we will hold in New York
>June 10 to try U.S. and NATO political and military leaders
>for war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against
>peace," Flounders said.
>
>"The claim of high accuracy with little harm to
>civilians," said Flounders, "was just another in the long
>line of lies NATO spokespeople used to justify massive
>attacks on civilian targets in Yugoslavia."
>
>Flounders noted that the report, submitted last summer,
>had never been made public. A second study, which reported
>hits closer to NATO and the Pentagon's boasts, was used.
>
>"The Newsweek article avoided the implication that the
>U.S. and NATO commanders violated the rules of war by
>striking civilian targets," said Flounders. "Instead, it
>pointed to the efficacy of striking the civilian
>infrastructure of a country, which in the case of
>Yugoslavia includes hundreds of schools, dozens of
>hospitals and almost every major industry. In effect it
>advocated new war crimes."
>
>Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark drew up the
>original charge sheet against NATO leaders, with 19
>charges. Charge number 9, said Flounders, was: "Attacking
>Objects Indispensable to the Survival of the Population of
>Yugoslavia."
>
>This includes "depriving the population of Yugoslavia of
>food, water, electric power, food production, medicines,
>medical care and other essentials to their survival, [by
>engaging] in the systematic destruction and damage by
>missiles and aerial bombardment of food production and
>storage facilities, drinking water and irrigation works for
>agriculture, fertilizer, insecticide, pharmaceutical,
>hospitals and health-care facilities, among other objects
>essential to human survival."
>
>"The NATO commanders, fearing the complete failure of
>their campaign against the Yugoslav military, concentrated
>on hitting civilian targets," said Flounders. "This is
>clearly a war crime, and we will prove this before the
>world on June 10."
>
> - END -
>
>(Copyleft Workers World Service. Everyone is permitted to
>copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but
>changing it is not allowed. For more information contact
>Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] For subscription info send message
>to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.workers.org)
>
>
>
>Message-ID: <006701bfc50f$f2353da0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "WW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: [WW] Cuban Adjustment Act:
>=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Eli=E1n's_tragedy_made_in_USA?=
>Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 19:38:06 -0400
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>-------------------------
>Via Workers World News Service
>Reprinted from the May 25, 2000
>issue of Workers World newspaper
>-------------------------
>
>CUBAN ADJUSTMENT ACT: ELIAN'S TRAGEDY MADE IN USA
>
>By Teresa Gutierrez
>
>The death of Elizabeth Broton from Cuba last November was
>a terrible tragedy. It opened up a heartrending ordeal for
>her son Elian and his father, Juan Miguel Gonzalez--an
>ordeal that is still, almost six months later, far from
>over.
>
>The tragedy, though, is not rooted in Broton's misguided
>actions.
>
>Broton's death and the subsequent nightmare are deeply
>rooted in U.S. policy toward Cuba. Specifically, events of
>the last few months are a direct result of the Cuban
>Adjustment Act of 1966.
>
>Long before the people of the United States heard about
>Elian and Juan Miguel Gonzalez, the scene was already set
>for such a tragedy to occur. In fact, such an incident was
>inevitable.
>
>U.S. policy toward Cuba lent itself to the death of
>Elizabeth Broton and the ensuing exploitation of little
>Elian.
>
>For over 40 years, the United States government has
>promoted illegal migration from Cuba. Democrats and
>Republicans alike have done all they can to encourage
>massive, illegal exits.
>
>This is in stark contrast to immigration policies toward
>Haiti, Mexico and other poor countries. With 2,000 Border
>Patrol guards on the Mexican-U.S. boundary, the federal
>government has aggressively militarized its southern
>border. It allows and promotes the beatings and callous
>deportations of millions of undocumented workers.
>
>U.S. immigration policy toward Cuba, on the other hand, is
>unlike any other.
>
>Why is this so? Because the policy is tied to
>imperialism's overall strategy of trying to undermine and
>destroy socialism in Cuba.
>
>Before the triumph of the Cuban Revolution in 1959, Cubans
>who came to the United States fleeing economic hardship
>were treated the same way Central Americans or Dominicans
>are treated now. For example, the legal procedures required
>for Cubans to migrate to the United States between 1945 and
>1959 were lengthy and extremely rigorous. Those who entered
>without documents were deported or imprisoned.
>
>But everything changed with the triumph of the revolution.
>
>Despite the misleading idea that Cuba prohibits legal
>exits from the country, it never hindered such exits. It's
>the U.S. government that from 1959 immediately began to
>encourage illegal exits from Cuba.
>
>No longer were people trying to leave Cuba called migrants
>or "illegals." Instead, Washington called these Cubans
>"exiles."
>
>Nor is Eli n the first child from Cuba to be separated
>from his parents or illegally kept in the United States.
>Over 14,000 Cuban children were virtually kidnapped by the
>United States in 1962. It was also in 1962 that the U.S.
>government abruptly suspended all regularly scheduled
>flights and legal departures from Cuba.
>
>Thousands of Cubans lost all connection to their relatives
>living in the United States. The only remaining possibility
>was illegal migration.
>
>It was this kind of assault by the United States that gave
>rise to all the successive migration crises that have
>occurred in the last 40 years.
>
>In 1963, President John F. Kennedy announced that Cubans
>who arrived in the United States directly from the island
>would be immediately received as refugees. But those who
>sought to enter from third countries would be considered
>aliens. They would be subject to all U.S. immigration
>restrictions.
>
>CUBA'S RESPONSE
>
>What was the Cuban government's response? It opened the
>port of Camarioca, Matanzas, in 1965 so that any Cuban
>family living in the United States could pick up their
>relatives in Cuba. Those Cubans on the island could leave
>as long they obtained prior authorization.
>
>Did the Cuban government allow every single Cuban to leave
>immediately? No. Because the Cuban government's number-one
>task was to build the revolution. It aimed to provide for
>and serve the Cuban masses.
>
>And that required not only building the country but
>defending the socialist revolution as well.
>
>Those who did not get immediate approval to leave Cuba
>were those whose skills were determined indispensable.
>Those who had been in active military service or in
>security-related institutions were also not allowed to
>leave right away. Some of these prohibitions were
>temporary, however, because substitutes were being trained
>and developed to allow skilled elements to leave.
>
>It must be remembered that before the revolution, the
>highly trained and skilled sector of society was drawn from
>the bourgeoisie and the middle class. Their class
>orientation, their drive for riches drew them toward the
>leading capitalist country--the United States--and away
>from the revolution.
>
>Nonetheless, in the early 1960s, the Cuban government
>allowed 260,000 people to migrate to the United States.
>
>Did Washington reciprocate by bringing Cubans over in an
>orderly and authorized manner? Of course not.
>
>The U.S. government was selective. It sought out doctors,
>nurses, professors, teachers, technicians and all those
>whose departure would constitute a brain drain of Cuba.
>
>This did not stop the revolution one moment. It set out to
>train and educate the masses like never before.
>
>In 1963, Congress approved the Cuban Adjustment Act.
>President Lyndon Johnson put it into effect in November
>1966. The act established special and exclusive status for
>Cubans.
>
>It stipulated that "the status of any alien who is a
>native or citizen of Cuba and who has been inspected and
>admitted or paroled into the U.S. subsequent to January 1,
>1959, and has been physically present in the U.S. for at
>least two years, may be adjusted by the attorney general,
>in his discretion and under such regulations as he may
>prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for
>permanent residence."
>
>This was the legal basis for the automatic right to obtain
>permanent-resident status a year after entering the United
>States. No such U.S. immigration legislation has ever
>opened the doors to all immigrants from any other country.
>
>Twenty-some-odd years later, under the Reagan
>administration, another migration crisis developed. That
>crisis led to a second migratory agreement between the
>United States and Cuba.
>
>In 1984 and 1985, migration agreements were signed
>providing for the United States to issue 20,000 visas each
>year to Cubans who wanted to migrate to the United States.
>Over the course of 10 years, over 300,000 people could have
>migrated in a legal and safe manner under the various
>categories provided by the agreement.
>
>In 1995 further stipulations were made to the agreement.
>It now stipulated that Cubans who are intercepted in
>international waters must immediately be returned to Cuba.
>Those who reached U.S. soil could automatically apply for
>residency.
>
>WASHINGTON BREAKS AGREEMENT
>
>But Washington never kept its end of the agreement. In
>some years only 1,631 visas were approved. Sometimes 3,472
>were approved . But the total never reached the 20,000 per
>year agreed upon.
>
>With the agreement violated year after year, the number of
>people who attempted to migrate without authorization
>increased every year as well.
>
>The migration situation since 1989 must be put into the
>context of the collapse of the former Soviet Union. The
>counter-revolutionary developments in the former socialist
>bloc brought untold hardship for the Cuban people.
>
>Cuba could not find many friendly nations to trade with.
>Shortages abounded as a result of international political
>developments.
>
>The United States moved in to aggravate this situation at
>the very same time by tightening the blockade. In the 1990s
>it passed the Torricelli Act and later the Helms-Burton Act
>as a way to try to strangle the revolution.
>
>During the 1980s the U.S. government had also put tools
>such as Radio Marti and TV Marti into the hands of right-
>wing Cubans in Florida. These instruments of subversion
>were used to pump anti-Castro counter-revolutionary
>propaganda into Cuba. It encouraged anti-social behavior
>and illegal migration in an attempt to sabotage the
>revolution.
>
>Before November 1999, representatives of the Cuban
>American National Foundation had been carrying out well-
>orchestrated events inciting people to leave Cuba. Boats
>belonging to CANF and "Brothers to the Rescue" constantly
>combed the waters between Cuba and Florida looking for
>rickety rafts from Cuba. They would rush the people in
>these boats quickly to U.S. shores, sometimes with lots of
>press and hoopla organized.
>
>This created a dangerous situation. These cheerleaders of
>harmful escapades include Miami Mayor Joe Carollo. In the
>summer of 1999, months before the world learned of Eli n,
>Carollo led a demonstration in Little Havana calling for a
>repeal of U.S./Cuba migration agreements.
>
>Like many members of the system he represents, Carollo
>prefers that Cubans come to the United States in flimsy,
>dangerous boats instead of through authorized visas. They
>prefer this so they can carry out their anti-Castro
>propaganda.
>
>They prefer this so smugglers can charge $8,000 a head to
>bring people over. According to a Border Patrol
>spokesperson, 80 percent of the Cubans who arrive in
>Florida come via smugglers.
>
>This amounts to a full-scale flourishing of illegal
>trafficking of Cubans. The Cuban counter-revolutionaries in
>Florida carry it out, but it is the U.S. border officials
>who look the other way. Their actions wholly serve the
>interests of imperialism.
>
>The Cuban Adjustment Act establishes special and exclusive
>status for Cuban immigrants. It makes Cubans the only
>people in the world who are automatically granted the right
>to apply for U.S. citizenship and work permits whenever and
>wherever they hit U.S. soil.
>
>This migration policy is solely aimed to undermine the
>revolution by promoting the illegal and mass exodus of
>Cuban citizens. It is this cruel and unusual policy that
>led to the smuggling and eventual death of Elizabeth
>Broton.
>
>The Cuban Adjustment Act must be repealed so that no other
>victim will ever have to go through the nightmare Elian is
>going through.
>
> - END -
>
>(Copyleft Workers World Service. Everyone is permitted to
>copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but
>changing it is not allowed. For more information contact
>Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] For subscription info send message
>to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.workers.org)
>
>
>
__________________________________
KOMINFORM
P.O. Box 66
00841 Helsinki - Finland
+358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081
e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.kominf.pp.fi
___________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe/unsubscribe messages
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________
