WW News Service Digest #373
1) Boston baked Bush
by WW
2) Why WEF billionaires won't be welcome in New York
by WW
3) U.S. violages sovereignty of Cuba and Afghanistan
by WW
4) India, Pakistan: Anglo-U.S. strategy is 'divide & conquer'
by WW
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (WW)
Date: lauantai 19. tammikuu 2002 13:36
Subject: [WW] Boston baked Bush
-------------------------
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the Jan. 24, 2002
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------
BOSTON BAKED BUSH
As police escorts dropped off mink-coated mayors and fedora-
fitted functionaries of the Republican and Democratic
parties at Boston's prestigious Latin High School Jan. 8 for
a Bush/Kennedy lovefest inside, they had to scab their way
through a drumming, chanting, angry picketline of over 300
students, teachers, unionists and anti-war protesters.
Protest organizers, the International ANSWER coalition,
squashed attempts by the Secret Service to herd
demonstrators into isolated "first amendment zones." High
school students and their allies then lined up for three
hours of speaking truth to power.
They took turns denouncing the genocidal bombing of
Afghanistan and demanding an end to the new racist and class-
biased graduation testing in Massachusetts known as MCAS, or
by the students as "Massachusetts Corporate Attack on
Students." They called for an end to the deadly sanctions on
Iraq, the U.S./Israeli war against the Palestinian people,
and the massive war budget that is hacking deep cuts into
social services to pay for it all.
Stephanie Simard of the Simmons College Feminist Union and
the Women's Fightback Network called on the boisterous crowd
to be back for more "meet 'em and greet 'em" at the Waldorf
Astoria in New York on Feb. 2, when this vibrant, militant
movement will take on the obscenely wealthy World Economic
Forum.
--Steve Gillis
- END -
(Copyright 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)
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (WW)
Date: lauantai 19. tammikuu 2002 13:37
Subject: [WW] Why WEF billionaires won't be welcome in New York
-------------------------
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the Jan. 24, 2002
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------
A WORKER'S WORLD IS POSSIBLE:
WHY WEF BILLIONAIRES WON'T BE WELCOME IN NEW YORK
By Leslie Feinberg
New York City
A battalion of billionaire brigands is set to roll into this
city in sleek, long, chauffeured limousines for the annual
World Economic Forum. And already the political climate is
charged with electricity: Activists are coming from far and
wide to confront this criminal class.
How dare these bankers and barons converge on this
metropolis, whose populace is still reeling from the grief
of Sept. 11 and reverberating from the economic recession?
Will the arrival of these magnates mean fewer people living
on the sidewalks? A proliferation of good-paying jobs?
Health care within reach?
Listen for the clink of crystal champagne flutes at this
black-tie business gathering inside the swank Waldorf-
Astoria. They will toast the gifts of massive tax cuts and
corporate welfare from their cronies in the White House and
Congress, the lucrative profits to be made from the Pentagon
war-without-end in the Middle East and Central Asia, the
penetration of their finance capital into every nook and
cranny of the world's economy they've been able to crack.
Not many of those who do the work of the world or the poor
of the planet would raise a glass to this perspective. As a
result, for the last 30 years the rich and powerful had to
trek to a remote mountaintop in the Swiss Alps to hold their
unpopular dialogue with each other and their political and
academic followers. But their retreat to Davos could not
stop protesters from scaling the peak by hook or by crook
every year to voice defiant dissent.
So this year the tycoons are holding their summit on an
island. They are expressing solidarity with Wall Street, the
capital of capital, after the Sept. 11 attacks. And they
hope the specter of protest that haunted them on the slopes
of the Alps will be scattered and driven out.
But the forces they most fear--those who have the least to
lose and the most to gain from overturning this cruelly
unjust economic system--are already securing the
transportation, housing, food and permits they need to
gather like a tempest in front of the Waldorf-Astoria on
Feb. 2.
Who will protesters "meet and greet" there? The hundreds of
very rich men, and handful of well-heeled women, who
schmooze at this annual capitalist think tank are not the
celebrity glitterati that turn up on "Lifestyles of the Rich
and Famous." Software mogul Bill Gates aside, their surnames
don't ring a bell. But they hold dominion over industries
and banks whose names are as recognizable as a one-dollar
bill.
American Airlines, Boeing, Coca-Cola, Deutsche Bank, Goldman
Sachs, IBM, Lehman Brothers, Mastercard International,
Merck, Merrill Lynch, Microsoft, PricewaterhouseCoopers,
Morgan Stanley, Nestle, New York Stock Exchange, PepsiCo,
Pfizer, Reuters, Sara Lee, Siemens, Uni lever, Volkswagen
and others from the "Who's Who of the Fortune 500."
Is it hyperbolic to characterize the owners of these big-
business behemoths as a criminal class? Read on.
MUG SHOTS OF CORPORATE CRIMINALS
Coca-Cola isn't hated just for marketing liquid candy to
little fans of Harry Potter. It's despised as a virtual
emblem of Yankee imperialism. Last year the United
Steelworkers sued the soft-drink giant for reportedly hiring
paramilitary death squads to terrorize workers at its
Colombian bottling plant. Unionists also charge the company
buys from suppliers that exploit child labor in Brazil. Coke
was targeted for boycott because of its widespread
investments in apartheid South Africa.
Coca-Cola had to fork over $192.5 million in 2001 to settle
a federal lawsuit charging racist discrimination filed by
its African American employees. And Florida farm workers
organizing for better wages and working conditions have
battled the anti-union goliath for years.
But nobody doesn't like Sara Lee, right? Actually, the pound
cake and underwear conglomerate made the Multinational
Monitor's "Top 10 Worst Corporations of 2001" list. Deadly
bacteria in its Ball Park Franks and other meats killed at
least 21 consumers and seriously injured 100 last July. Feel
relieved that the courts took care of the matter? Sara Lee
CEOs got away with two misdemeanor convictions and a
$200,000 fine.
Sara Lee was also forced to recall millions of pounds of
meat in December 1998--one month after the company chose to
stop testing for long-present microorganisms. But Sara Lee
had friends in high places. It had a big Department of
Defense contract. In an astonishing joint press release,
federal prosecutors and Sara Lee execs announced a plea
agreement that made no mention of Ball Park Franks.
British Petroleum--where to start? In one year--2000--BP
Amoco had to pay criminal fines or civil penalties for
failing to report illegal dumping of hazardous waste on
Alaska's North Slope, underpaying royalties for oil produced
on Native lands and violating the Clean Air Act. The year
before, the company reportedly spent more on its eco-
friendly logo than on renewable energy. But after a salvo of
lobbying in Congress to wrench open the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge to offshore oil drilling, BP executives must
be relieved to have a sympathetic ear in the Oval Office.
Last March, Unilever bosses in southern India were exposed
for dumping tons of poisonous mercury waste in open or torn
sacks in the densely populated tourist resort of Kodaikanal
and the surrounding protected nature reserve of Pambar
Shola. (Greenpeace, March 7) When management tried to ignore
demands to inspect their health records and attempted to
relocate, workers occupied the thermometer factory for three
days.
Feel nostalgic about hot Nestle's cocoa? Protests by
landless peasants and small farmers flooded dozens of cities
in Brazil and around the world last April on the
International Day of Farmers' Struggle. Nestle was a target
of their rage. The company pays just 15 cents on the dollar
for every liter of milk produced in South America, compared
to 48 cents per liter to European farmers. Yet prices are
almost the same on supermarket shelves everywhere.
Boeing deals in pork--the kind that comes in congressional
barrels. With an open-ended Pentagon war in full swing,
Congress wants to discreetly hand the company two
unprecedented military contracts that amount to a $10-
billion bailout. One allows the Pentagon to purchase 60 C-17
cargo aircraft without any financial oversight. The other
permits the company to sell the brass at least 100 Boeing
767 tankers at nearly $7 billion more than if the aircraft
were bought outright. (Counter Punch, Nov. 26)
Appealing to Pentagon state capitalism, Boeing executives
argued to key congressional figures that the deal would help
the hard-hit airline industry soar by "creating a
multibillion military market for the company's popular
civilian aircraft."
Flight attendants and pilots from United and American
Airlines lost their lives on Sept. 11. But afterwards,
bosses at both United and American slashed 20,000 jobs,
received a government bailout of $807 million, and claimed
over $1 billion in "business interruption" insurance. Not
one penny was reported spent to save jobs or help victims'
families.
Merck was one of the more than three dozen pharmaceuticals
that sued the South African government to try to bar it from
importing or producing generic versions of drugs to treat
AIDS, all to keep profits elevated.
Deutsche Bank, Siemens and Volkswagen wrung mega-profits
from the sweat and blood of slave labor during the Nazi era.
Today Boeing, Microsoft and IBM are just three of the
Fortune 500 that use prison labor to out-sell their
competition. In addition, Goldman Sachs & Co. and Merrill
Lynch are among the Wall Street firms investing billions in
the thriving prison-industrial complex. Prisoners--
disproportionately people of color--are paid far less than
minimum wage. So the rip-off of their labor hikes profits,
boosts stock prices and drives down the wages of all
workers.
Workers are right to be furious about this super-
exploitation of prisoners. And it's not a new problem. The
1891 Coal Creek Rebellion demonstrated a bold solution to
the prison "lease" system. When the Tennessee Coal, Iron &
Railroad Co. locked out its union workers and replaced them
with prisoners, the union miners broke their brothers'
shackles and freed them.
Today, as so many transnational corporations squeeze profits
from low-paid workers and peasants around the world, that's
the spirit of solidarity that could turn the tide.
IS THERE A WAY OUT?
The young anti-globalization movement that rose up in
Seattle against Robo-cop repression has challenged some of
the most grave offenses committed by colossus banks and
transnational corporations against the people and the
planet.
But ultimately, is there hope for a genuine economic
solution?
Some call for action against companies that "exploit their
workers." But what company doesn't? Exploitation is the
wellspring of profit. Profit is the difference between the
money paid in wages and the value workers produce. Capital
lives off this unpaid labor.
Socially responsible capitalism is an oxymoron. Bosses are
compelled to speed up assembly lines, evict communities,
poison the air and water, defoliate the land and wage
warfare in their neck-and-neck rivalry for super-profits.
That's what free enterprise, free trade and the free market
are all about: cut-throat competition on a world scale for
the wealth that labor creates. If any individuals are
unwilling to harden their hearts, they are gobbled up like
so much Ben & Jerry ice cream by the competition.
Flip the channels and you hear political pundits explain the
current world crisis as a conflict among countries, or
between the underdeveloped countries and the West.
But it's a worldwide battle between two major economic
classes. Imperialism is a social relationship. It's the
worldwide exploitation of one class by another. It's the
monopoly of one class over another.
In the modern era the banks and industry have merged to
become giant marauding global conglomerates. These are the
class forces behind the IMF, the World Bank and the WEF
think tank.
Shopkeepers and small-scale entrepreneurs in particular may
hope that anti-trust legislation will break up the logjam of
the monopolies and stimulate laissez-faire competition. But
that's as realistic as breaking up the Challenger space
shuttle into hang gliders. Anti-trust laws and regulations
have not stunted the growth of monopolies or defused their
power.
The tendency towards monopoly in the capitalist economic
system is hardwired because it leads to economies of scale
and greater social weight. Competition becomes transformed
into monopoly. Bigger companies get credit more easily and
at a lower rate. So competition and credit become the
centrifugal force of centralization.
A capitalist owner will steamroll over anyone or anything to
secure the market in which the rate of profit is highest.
The race to turn a bigger buck drives them to invest in new
technology rather than labor. But even as the new equipment
produces more goods, fewer workers are needed to run it. And
only human labor creates new wealth. So the rate of profit
slides, creating an obstacle to investment.
Burgeoning production bumps up against the ceiling of
consumption. As more and more products are spewed out,
prices drop and not all can be sold at a profit. All of this
leads to the surreal catastrophe of an abundance that
spreads pink slips, hunger, homelessness and misery around
the globe.
GLOBALIZE REVOLUTION!
The profit motive is a millstone dragging down human
progress. Monopoly capitalism has made the rate of
exploitation unbearable. It distorts technology and science,
bending them to the interests of its bottom line. Humanity's
ability to meet its human needs and desires has never been
greater, yet the yawning chasm between wealth and poverty
has never been wider.
The root of the problem is not the cartels; it's a crisis of
ownership. Working people produce the vast wealth of
society, but they are not the owners of all they produce.
This treasure created by collective human labor is claimed
by an ever-narrowing few, as though it was personal wealth.
This maturing contradiction between socialized production
and private ownership of the means of production expresses
itself as the fierce conflict between the two major
contending class forces in modern society. And this class
struggle is the driving force of human development
But the imperialist owning class--particularly U.S. finance
capital--has bought domestic class peace with economic
globalization and warfare. It got a new lease on life, after
the collapse of the Soviet Union, by expanding into the
former workers' state and into technologically
underdeveloped countries that had been protected to a degree
by existence of the socialist camp.
But the Pentagon war against Afghan istan is not staving off
economic crisis or reviving production. The underlying laws
of their own economy are catching up with the capitalists.
And this deepening crisis has the potential to reawaken the
class struggle here in the citadel of U.S. imperialism.
The creation of monopolies has brought the world's working
class into a new era of cooperation. It has created the
productive platform for a new stage of human history.
Monopolization has ironed out some of the chaos of laissez-
faire competition. The scientific-technological revolution
could be employed to wipe out poverty and raise the living
standards of all.
The working class, which built the mighty tools of
production, banking and commerce but does not own or control
them, would of course like the transfer from monopoly
capitalism to be peaceful. But no wealthy ruling class in
history has ever stepped down based on appeals to reason or
election tallies. This one resists even the mildest social
reforms with bared fangs.
Nor can a socialist system gradually grow up within
capitalism, as capitalism did within feudalism. A socialist
system requires overall planning of production and
distribution to meet the wants of every member of society--
something the imperialist powers constantly try to sabotage,
from Korea to Cuba.
The revolutionary task before the globalized workforce and
oppressed peoples of the world is formidable. But awake and
roused, the billions can topple the billionaires.
The leaders of the ruthless class that stands in the way of
the next stage in human history are coming to Manhattan to
plot their plunder. Be there!
[For more information about the protests see
www.InternationalANSWER.org.]
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (WW)
Date: lauantai 19. tammikuu 2002 13:38
Subject: [WW] U.S. violages sovereignty of Cuba and Afghanistan
-------------------------
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the Jan. 24, 2002
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------
WITH PRISON CAMP AT GUANTANAMO:
U.S. VIOLATES SOVEREIGNTY OF CUBA AND AFGHANISTAN
By Gloria La Riva
The Pentagon has moved 50 prisoners captured in the U.S. war
against Afghanistan to the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba. Hundreds more may be taken there in coming weeks.
The men, accused of being Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters,
were flown 8,000 miles, drugged, shackled and hooded
throughout their ordeal.
>From U.S. media reports on the conditions they will live
under, it is evident that the prisoners will continue being
subjected to physical and psychological torture of the kind
they have already experienced at the hands of their captors.
Almost bragging, the U.S. military described the so-called
cells and supplies for each detainee: a 6- by 8-foot space
surrounded by cyclone fencing with a foam mat, two towels--
one cynically issued as a prayer mat--and slippers.
The "ceiling" over such a tiny area would not be enough to
shelter them from driving rainstorms or the scorching sun
and dust that prevail during dry season. These cells are
deliberately meant to expose the prisoners to the elements.
As this is a swampy area, mosquitoes proliferate. There are
no toilets or sinks, as one would find in even the worst
U.S. prisons.
Why Guantanamo? A look at the options the U.S. government
was considering is revealing. Guam was thought of as a
possibility, but as the Dec. 28 New York Times reported,
Guam is U.S. territory and the prisoners "might have to be
granted the same rights as defendants in the United States."
The Pentagon doesn't want to bring the prisoners directly to
the United States proper, either, because they would be
entitled to basic constitutional rights.
But whether they operate on U.S. or foreign soil, at sea or
on land, the U.S. military and government don't feel they
are bound by any rules. According to the new U.S.
imperialist dictionary, these men aren't even prisoners of
war.
As Secretary of Defense--really secretary of war--Donald
Rumsfeld conveniently defined them, they are "illegal
combatants." That is a neat way of ignoring the basic humane
treatment that prisoners of war are entitled to under the
Geneva conventions. Civilians' rights are also protected by
the same Geneva conventions, but that hasn't saved them from
U.S. slaughter.
In recent years, the U.S. has used Guantanamo in other mass
detentions that were also controversial. In 1994, some
14,000 Haitians who were fleeing repression in their country
were imprisoned there. That same year, after a U.S. campaign
encouraging mass migration from Cuba boomeranged, the Coast
Guard rounded up 30,000 Cubans who had gone to sea, heading
for the U.S., and held them and the Haitians in extremely
oppressive conditions at Guantanamo.
After weeks of miserable conditions and brutal treatment
that they had never experienced at home, the Cuban detainees
staged several rebellions.
In 1999, the U.S. originally planned to bring hundreds of
ethnic Albanians from Kosovo to Guantanamo during the U.S.
bombing of Yugoslavia, but that didn't materialize.
The real reason the Pentagon has used Guantanamo base for
recent mass detentions is that the U.S. arrogantly
appropriated this territory in 1903 and has maintained
complete control over the base. By the particular nature of
its occupation, which is rooted in the original U.S.
invasion of Cuba in 1898, the U.S. military has felt less
restricted within the base perimeters than in virtually any
other place in the world.
The U.S. has troops and bases in over 100 countries. But in
most of them, it usually has had to abide by the host
country's regulations. Needless to say, Cuba is not a "host"
country and the U.S. is not welcome.
UNCASHED 'RENT' CHECKS
Although Cubans have felt the sting and insult of the U.S.
occupation of Guantanamo since the U.S. first claimed it in
1903, that feeling of violation became strongest when Cuba's
century-old fight for independence was finally won in 1959.
The U.S. still, however, refused to abandon the base.
Yet, while previous governments before 1959 cashed the
pitiful "rent" checks for the 45-square-mile base as a tacit
acceptance of U.S. occupation, under the revolutionary
leadership of Fidel Castro, no check has ever been cashed.
After all this time, the check from the U.S. for this huge
base comes to about $4,000 a year.
The Cuban people know that someday, every square inch of
Cuban soil will be completely free when that part of
Guantanamo is returned to them.
But as the Cuban government has explained, the struggle to
win back Guantanamo is not a priority at this time, for
obvious reasons. Taking on the U.S. over a base that has
been in its clutches for almost 100 years is not practical,
given the relationship of forces.
In a statement issued on Jan. 11, the Cuban government
addressed the overall problem: "[A] basic principle of
Cuba's policy toward this bizarre and potentially dangerous
problem between Cuba and the United States, which is decades
long, has been to avoid that our claim would become a major
issue, not even a specially important issue, among the
multiple and grave differences existing between the two
nations.
"In the Pledge of Baraguá presented on Feb. 19, 2000, the
issue of the Guantanamo base is dealt with in the last point
and formulated in the following way: 'In due course, since
it is not our main objective at this time, although it is
our people's right and one that we shall never renounce, the
illegally occupied territory of Guantanamo should be
returned to Cuba!'
"That military enclave is the exact place where American and
Cuban soldiers stand face to face, thus the place where
serenity and a sense of responsibility are most required.
Although we have always been willing to fight and die in
defense of our sovereignty and our rights, the most sacred
duty of our people and their leaders has been to preserve
the nation from avoidable, unnecessary and bloody wars.
"At the same time, that is also the place where it would be
easier for people interested in bringing about conflicts
between the two countries to undertake plans aimed at
attracting aggressive actions against our people in their
heroic political, economic and ideological resistance vis-a-
vis the enormous power of the United States."
Cuba has strongly opposed the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan,
while at the same time proclaiming its opposition to
terrorism, and reminding the U.S. that Cuba has been a
victim of terrorism emanating from the U.S. for more than 40
years.
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (WW)
Date: lauantai 19. tammikuu 2002 13:39
Subject: [WW] India, Pakistan: Anglo-U.S. strategy is 'divide & conquer'
-------------------------
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the Jan. 24, 2002
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------
POWELL TALKS PEACE IN INDIA, PAKISTAN BUT:
ANGLO-U.S. STRATEGY IS "DIVIDE & CONQUER"
By Michael Kramer
The possibility of another war between India and Pakistan
has greatly increased in the last few weeks. Tens of
thousands of soldiers have been deployed along the
approximately 1,500 miles of border between the two
countries, whose combined population is more than 1.15
billion. Both countries fought major wars against each other
in 1948, 1965 and 1971. Since the last war, both have
introduced nuclear weapons into their arsenals.
The flashpoint of the conflict is the region of Kashmir,
which has been divided between India and Pakistan since
1947. The division is a legacy of the so-called British
Empire, which encouraged antagonism between different
nationalities as a means of rule throughout South Asia, and
wherever else it had colonies.
On Dec 13, 2001, a heavily armed squad attacked the Indian
parliament in New Delhi with automatic weapons. The Indian
government alleges that the attackers came from Pakistan.
According to a publication of the Socialist Unity Centre of
India (Proletarian Era, Jan. 1), "The Indian government is
in reality trying to take full advantage of the Dec. 13
incident just as the USA took full advantage of the
terrorist strikes on Sept 11. At a time when Indian
capitalism, too, is plagued with intense, all-out crisis,
political, social, educational, moral, ethical, cultural--
the terrorist attack on Parliament has provided a golden
opportunity, so to say, to the Indian government."
Both India and Pakistan are multinational countries. Islam
is the predominant religion in Pakistan, while Hinduism
predominates in India. India legally defines itself as a
secular country, even though a right-wing nationalist Hindu-
based political party governs.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell will be making a trip
to the region in mid-January. The Bush administration says
that Powell will try to get the two countries to back down
from their confrontational stands. The details of his real
agenda are not known. But they cannot be in the interests of
the workers and peasants of India or Pakistan, whose ruling
classes are allies of the U.S.
Current U.S. foreign policy in Central Asia relies on
Pentagon access to Pakistani air bases as well as large
numbers of Pakistani ground forces to secure the border
between Pakistan and Afghanistan. War between Pakistan and
India would disrupt this part of the plan.
With a population of over 1 billion, India cannot be easily
ignored by the U.S., either. Since the collapse of the
Soviet Union the Indian bourgeoisie has moved to align India
closer to the U.S. and has retreated from many of its
independent foreign policy positions. India is now seen by
Washington as a potential strategic ally in future
confrontations with China.
There are several large communist parties in India. At a
press conference on Jan. 11 the Communist Party of India
(Marxist-Leninist) called for nationwide protests on Jan. 18
against Secretary of State Powell's visit. The CPI (M-L)
stated, "Weakening of India's direct ties with Pakistan is
only emboldening and enabling the U.S. to deepen its
intervention in the subcontinent, which can only prove
suicidal for the basic interests of both India and
Pakistan."
Another party, the Communist Ghadar Party of India,
commented in a statement on Jan. 10, "The Anglo-American
imperialists have always been bitter enemies of the peoples
of South Asia and their strivings for progress and
emancipation. The Anglo-American imperialists do not want
the peoples of South Asia to live together in peace and
address their problems. They do not want South Asia to break
out of the imperialist chain. ... The problems of peace and
security of the peoples of India and Pakistan cannot be left
in the hands of the bourgeoisie. ...We must not allow our
rulers to foist war on us. We must unite and oppose all
imperialist military and diplomatic intervention in South
Asia."
- END -
_________________________________________________
KOMINFORM
P.O. Box 66
00841 Helsinki
Phone +358-40-7177941
Fax +358-9-7591081
http://www.kominf.pp.fi
General class struggle news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
subscribe mails to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Geopolitical news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________________________
