>could care less if Black people died from AIDS," according >to the director of the AIDS program in Pretoria. > >"I don't know how you get a national AIDS program to work >when you've inherited a civil service that you don't trust, >and who doesn't trust you" says Glenda Gray, a senior >researcher at Chris Hani Hospital in Soweto. > >In the countryside, where most Africans live, some people >didn't get word of the disease until 20 years into the >epidemic. Superstition, the oppression of women and the >introduction of Christianity--which has added a layer of >shame to the discussion of sex--have exacerbated the spread of >the disease. > >WHAT IT WILL TAKE > >What will it take to slow the spread of AIDS in Africa? >Hundreds of millions of dollars for youth-focused >education, aggressive treatment of other sexually- >transmitted diseases, wide distribution of condoms, low- >cost or free life-extending drugs, low-cost or free drugs >that minimize the risk for the spread of the disease from >mother to baby, and intensive counseling--just to start. > >These measures are proven to work in the fight against >AIDS. Many countries have prevented an epidemic or slowed >the disease's progression by these means. The African >nations of Senegal and Uganda are among them. > >So why do the wealthy capitalist countries have such >blatant indifference to the spread of AIDS in Africa? They >knew the scourge was coming for many years. They also knew >there was a means to control it. > >In 1990 the CIA released an Interagency Intelligence >Memorandum (IIM 91-10005) on the growth of AIDS in Africa. >The study went to the White House and every cabinet-level >agency. > >According to its author, Kenneth Brown, the document was >met with "indifference." He waited several months for the >flurry of briefings that generally accompany the release of >major intelligence documents, but Brown's study was met >with silence. > >Brown went on to say that "many in the intelligence >community felt that the continent was overpopulated >anyway." > >During this same period the World Health Organization >projected a death toll of tens of millions of people in >Africa by the year 2000--but did nothing. > >Imperialism with its weapons of racism and sexism was >undoubtedly a factor in the decision of the West to turn >its back on Africa. > >By early 1990 U.S. officials felt that AIDS would "not be >a major heterosexual epidemic in the United States," said >Michael Mann of the WHO. > >"AIDS is no longer a threat to the West," Mann said. He >concluded, "the bottom line is that the epidemic could rage >on in Africa, and we could control it here. Do we really >need Africa?" Washington Post, July 5. > >According to William Foege, a former official of the >Centers for Disease Control: "You must tie the needs of the >poor to the fears of the rich. When the rich lose their >fear, they are no longer willing to invest in the needs of >the poor." > >An internal study by the World Bank's Population and Human >Resources Department tries to find some good in all this, >stating, "If the only effect of the AIDS epidemic was to >reduce the population growth rate, it would increase the >growth rate of per capita income in any plausible economic >model." > >The report cites the bubonic plague epidemic in the 14th >century as an example of this. > >White South African economist Alan Whiteside called it the >"silver lining to the plague." > >Duff Gillespie, who oversaw AIDS assistance as director of >the U.S. Agency for International Development program on >population health and nutrition, argued that >"overpopulation, not AIDS, was the most important problem >in Africa"--even though Africa has a lower population >density than Europe or Asia. > >Gillespie went on to say that it would be "wrong to >suppose that such decisions were based on gross ignorance >or morally bankrupt." He said the lack of resources made >available to combat the spread of HIV was "simply the >product of a different world view and set of priorities." >(Washington Post, July 5) > >Despite their blatant disregard for the devastating >effects of AIDS in Africa, however, the Clinton >administration, the IMF and other Western institutions have >been forced to offer some relief thanks to the tremendous >pressure placed on them by the militant AIDS movement here >and abroad. > >MIMINAL U.S. AID > >But the relief has been minimal. The U.S. has increased >its world AIDS budget to $450 million--about one third of >the military aid package Congress just passed for Colombia. >A few of the big pharmaceutical companies have lowered the >price of drugs to these developing nations--but they are >still far out of reach for most people. > >An IMF program that is supposed to afford relief to what >are called Highly Indebted Poor Countries has been >ineffective. The UN began a modest program targeting >teenagers. It would have provided information and condoms >to young people. But these efforts were thwarted by those >who believed they would have jeopardized the organization's >relationship with the Vatican, which opposes birth control. > >If the industrialized nations were serious about ending >the spread of AIDS, they could cancel Africa's debt to the >banks and the IMF. It's been estimated that it would take >$2.5 billion to stop the growth of AIDS in Africa. Africa >owes roughly $100 billion, and pays $10 billion per year in >interest. > >Isn't the real debt the one owed by the rich capitalist >countries that plundered Africa of its people and its raw >materials for centuries? Shouldn't the means to end this >deadly scourge come from the class of wealthy parasites in >the U.S. and Europe who have put a chain of debt around the >necks of the African people? > > - END - > >(Copyleft Workers World Service. Everyone is permitted to >copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but >changing it is not allowed. For more information contact >Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] For subscription info send message >to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.workers.org) > > > >Message-ID: <01b401bfee7e$a83af7b0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: "WW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [WW] Pentagon push for world domination >Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 13:03:54 -0400 >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > >------------------------- >Via Workers World News Service >Reprinted from the July 20, 2000 >issue of Workers World newspaper >------------------------- > >EDITORIAL: NATURE OF THE BEAST > >For every working mother on a months-long waiting list for >childcare, for every head of an AIDS program in the >oppressed communities who has to beg for paltry funds, for >every director of vastly under-funded drug rehabilitation >programs and for every parent or educator who has had to >run a bake sale just to get decent books for their children >in school, it must have been a bitter pill to hear the news >about the $100 million wasted on the socially useless, >failed July 7 test of the Pentagon's interceptor rocket >that was supposed to shoot down a missile in mid-air. > >Behind this one-day hundred-million dollar effort to >advance the so-called National Missile Defense system is >$60 billion already spent and, if the military-industrial >complex has its way, another $60 billion to be spent in the >coming decade. Indeed NMD, as it is called, can be seen >from one point of view as a massive program of wealth >transfer from the masses of people in taxes to the giant >corporations such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, TRW >and their thousands of corporate subcontractors. > >Given that in the U.S. one-quarter of the children go to >bed hungry, 30-40 million people live in poverty or near- >poverty level, 43 million people have no health care and >two million people are in prison--the majority of them >Black and Latino youth, driven there by poverty and racism- >-the criminality of this giveaway to the merchants of death >is a mighty condemnation of the entire capitalist system. > >But the debate in the big business media over the NMD and >the latest failure does not rotate around whether or not to >discontinue this militaristic welfare program for the rich >in order to deal with the economic and social problems of >the masses. The axis of discussion is over whether or not >the weapons system is workable. > >There are those who foolishly draw some optimism that >militarism suffered a setback from the humiliating failure >of the Pentagon's latest test, in which elementary >separation technology that is 40 years old failed. But that >is based on an utterly na�ve misunderstanding of the >military-industrial complex and the militarists in the >Pentagon. > >Boeing--which is the prime contractor for the NMD--and all >the advocates for a land-based missile system did not >change their position one bit because of the failure. They >are all urging the Clinton administration, which has been >pushing the program, to go ahead and order deployment. > >A $1.6 billion three-year contract to develop the program >is sufficient motivation for Boeing to disregard all >technical failures. Boeing, like all the military >corporations, is hungry for cash. And this program means >billions of dollars for decades to come, including for >Lockheed and Raytheon--both of whom have a piece of the >pie. > >And the opposition within the establishment to the land- >based, Air Force-sponsored NMD is no less militaristic or >profit hungry. Their main spokesperson, Theodore Postol, an >MIT missile expert, has been paraded about with his >outspoken criticism of the land-based interceptor >technology that just failed the test. He has accused the >Pentagon forces that are in favor of the land-based system >of falsifying data to hide fundamental flaws and of rigging >tests. He is probably right. > >But it is not widely publicized that Postol, a former Navy >expert who worked on submarine warfare in 1982 and 1983, is >actually in favor of a sea-based system using the Aegis >missile ships. These ships would be deployed off the >coastal waters of countries around the world so the Navy >could supposedly shoot down other countries' rockets as >they are launched. The weapons system, designed by >Lockheed, would presumably be cheaper. There are powerful >forces in the Pentagon whose position coincides with >Postol. > >The point of it all is that the Pentagon, the Clinton >administration and the military-industrial corporations >have all spent enormous funds and energy vilifying north >Korea, Iraq and Iran in order to create a so-called >national threat in the minds of the masses. They want to >push through gigantic contracts and at the same time >strengthen the military domination of the world by U.S. >imperialism. > >In the course of this struggle for domination there are >rivalries between the wings of the military for authority, >ruthless battles over contracts, deep differences over >military strategy--but all pushing in the direction of >increased militarism and war. No technological obstacles >are going to retard this tendency one iota. This tendency >is an outgrowth of imperialism, which is the reactionary >final phase of capitalism. It can be ended and humanity can >finally free itself from the scourge of militarism and war >only when capitalism is destroyed and not before. > > - 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: <01ba01bfee7e$c6fa0fb0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: "WW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [WW] Mexico's election: Right gains with push from U.S. imperialism >Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 13:04:46 -0400 >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >------------------------- >Via Workers World News Service >Reprinted from the July 20, 2000 >issue of Workers World newspaper >------------------------- > >MEXICO'S ELECTION: >RIGHT GAINS WITH PUSH FROM U.S. IMPERIALISM > >By Gloria La Riva > >Did the recent presidential election in Mexico set the >stage for a political sea-change in that country? Or was it >merely another election? > >On July 2, Mexico's voters elected Vicente Fox, a former >Coca-Cola executive and the candidate of the right-wing PAN >(National Action Party), handing the ruling PRI its first >presidential defeat in 71 years. PRI stands for Party of >the Institutional Revolution. > >Fox received 42 percent and PRI candidate Francisco >Labastida 35 percent of the vote. The candidate of the >Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD), Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, >came in third with 16.5 percent. > >In 1988, it may be remembered, Cardenas had run for >president and was so popular with the workers and peasants >that most Mexicans believe he actually won that contest. >Many charged election fraud on the part of the ruling PRI. >After the election, when the PRD did nothing to forcefully >challenge the results, the impatience of the masses with >their miserable conditions was shown in the emergence of >new revolutionary groups, especially in the countryside. > >WHEN PRI NATIONALIZED THE OIL > >Cardenas is son of the late president Lazaro Cardenas, who >between 1936 and 1940 carried out far-reaching economic >reforms. With capitalism in a worldwide depression, the >workers and peasants were organized and militant enough to >pressure the Mexican bourgeois government to nationalize >the country's petroleum, land and other industries. These >measures helped rescue Mexico from a legacy of U.S. and >British control of its economic pillars. > >To the extent that the masses for many decades perceived >the PRI as the party of Mexican sovereignty, it was because >of the role it had played in those years. > >Established in the aftermath of the 1910 Mexican national >bourgeois revolution, the PRI began its 71-year domination >over Mexican politics in 1929. Nationalizing the oil >stabilized the economy after the chaos of the Depression. >This stability aided the PRI's political monopoly, as did a >patronage system developed over the years. > >However, economic turmoil after Mexico's economic crisis >in the 1980s began to create widespread opposition to the >PRI's increasingly right-wing policies. It abandoned its >earlier independent stance and surrendered to the dictates >of the imperialist banks and corporations, leading to the >wholesale dismantling of Mexico's national economic >infrastructure. > >One example was the passing of NAFTA, the North American >Free Trade Agreement, enthusiastically endorsed and >promoted by President Carlos Salinas in 1994. The purpose >of the accord was to open up Mexico's markets to U.S. >agribusiness and other companies through the elimination of >tariffs that traditionally protected Mexican products. > >EFFECTS OF NAFTA > >Since NAFTA was passed in 1994, Mexico's agriculture and >peasants have faced disaster. In these six years, according >to the Agricultural Commission of the Mexican Parliament, >Mexico has been converted into an importer of what had been >its main domestic grains--rice, beans, wheat, soy and >sorghum. Giant U.S. agribusinesses like Cargill, Anderson >Clayton and Pilgrims Pride now sell Mexico the corn that >once was produced by 2.5 million Mexican farmers and >agricultural workers. Even the U.S. Department of >Agriculture didn't dream of such success. It had estimated >that U.S. producers would accomplish this task in 15 years. > >Before NAFTA, the PRI presidents Miguel de la Madrid >(1982-1988) and Carlos Salinas (1988-1994) sold off more >than 1,800 state-owned mines and industries to foreign and >other private investors. Essential government food >subsidies that had existed for years to keep the poorest >from starving were cut or eliminated. From 1994 to 2000, >the number of poor people who received milk and tortilla >subsidies was cut from 1.5 million to 1.1 million. > >As a result Mexico's most oppressed were forced to flee to >the north just to survive. As their numbers increase, the >deaths of Mexican immigrants in U.S. deserts is testament >to the effects of U.S. imperialist pressure on their >economy. > >Even as the Mexican people grew more desperate for >economic improvement and real change, the U.S. was helping >to fund and promote the PAN, often described as "pro- >business," as the potential political alternative to the >PRI, undercutting the social-democratic PRD. Now the PRI >may lose more than just the presidency. > >The Mexican masses saw the PRI's defeat as their number- >one objective in this year's elections. This is the main >reason for the strong turnout in favor of the PAN, rather >than an endorsement of PAN's right-wing agenda. PRI and >"one-party politics" are seen as the main culprits in >political corruption, repression and economic crisis. > >On election night in Mexico, people were cheering, saying >that Fox would implement real economic and social change to >benefit the people, even though his ideology is also anti- >worker and reactionary. It is wishful thinking. Sooner than >later, the Mexican people, with their proud tradition of >struggle and revolution, will see through the farcical >self-portrayal of Fox as the people's candidate, in the >same way they now see through the PRI. > > - 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] ___________________________________
