This is an archive of the former website of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which was run by the now defunct Maoist Internationalist Party - Amerika. The MIM now consists of many independent cells, many of which have their own indendendent organs both online and off. MIM(Prisons) serves these documents as a service to and reference for the anti-imperialist movement worldwide.
MIM Notes 266 · September 15, 2002· Page 1
MIM Notes
September 15, 2002, Nº 266 The Official Newsletter of the Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM)
Free
INSIDE: Bogus BC Treaty * Under Lock & Key * Una Página en Español...
MIM
PO Box 29670
Los Angeles, CA 90029
Return Service Requested
PRESORTED STANDARD
U.S. POSTAGE PAID
PERMIT #56365
BOSTON, MA
On the web: www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext
by International Minister
August 20 2002
E
ven Reuters has managed to
report correctly that the people
of the Philippines through their
organization the Communist Party of the
Philippines and the New People's Army
have made it clear that U.$. troops can
and will be defeated in Filipino
territory.(1) We at MIM would like to
warn the Amerikkkan public about the
war it is sliding into in the Philippines
and state our own opinion about it.
In the Philippines today, there is a u.$-
lackey regime. If George Bush gave the
order, there would be an invasion of the
Philippines backed by the president of
the Philippines herself Macapagal-
Arroyo but opposed by the majority of
the Filipino population. Already the U.$.
troops assisting in "anti-terrorist"
operations are a major insult to the
Filipino people, given that the Filipino
Constitution prohibits U.S. troops on
Filipino soil.
The Communist Party of the
Philippines and New People's Army have
very good reasons to attack U.$. interests
militarily. Thus far, they have refrained
from doing so.
For more than 10 years the Communist
Powell names
CPP `foreign
terrorist
organization'
Toady Arroyo
regime steps up
red-baiting
U
.$. Secretary of State Colin
Powell declared the Communist
Party of the Philippines (CPP)
and the New People's Army (NPA) to be
"foreign terrorist organizations" on
August 9, less than one week after he
visited the Philippines and about the
same time Philippine President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo announced that the
NPA was now the military's number one
target. Powell's declaration makes it
illegal for persyns in the United $tates
to provide "material support or
resources" to the CPP or NPA and
requires U.$. banks to freeze such
supporters' accounts.(1)
Powell's announcement escalates U.$.
meddling in the Philippines and is clear
indication that MIM is right when it says
there is a U.$. war brewing in the
Philippines.
The leader of the bourgeois opposition
in the Philippine House of
Representatives denounced Powell's
classification of the CPP as intervention
in the Philippines' internal affairs.
"Whatever differences the government
and the [National Democratic Front]
have are an internal matter," said Rep.
Carlos Padilla. [The National
Democratic Front is an umbrella
organization of revolutionary groups led
by the CPP.] Membership in the CPP is
not a crime under Philippine law, and the
Philippines has no anti-terrorism law.
Rep. Satur Ocampo, from the
nationalist Bayan Muna party, said that
the Arroyo regime would use the U.$.
government's declaration that the NPA
is a "foreign terrorist organization" as
justification to allow U.$. troops to go
after NPA guerrillas and sympathizers.
"Everything seemed coordinated," he
said, "from Powell's visit to Macapagal's
declaration of all-out-war, and the U.S.
government's declaration of the NPA as
AMERIKAN MEDDLERS MAY
HAVE TAKEN ON MORE THAN
THEY CAN HANDLE
by MC5
August 27 2002
T
he past month has seen an
intensification of imperialist
maneuvering including an open
threat to redivide the world to the
exclusion of Russia from U.S. "Secretary
of Defense" Donald Rumsfeld. In
response, at least some spreading rumors
on the Internet have threatened U.$.
Warning to the U.$. public:
U.$. war brewing in the Philippines
Party of the Philippines and others in the
revolutionary movement have tried to
negotiate with U.$. imperialism through
its various lackeys in the Philippines. We
at MIM can attest, and it is a matter of
public record, that the CPP has tried
desperately to settle matters with u.$.
imperialism peacefully. At the same time,
with 70% of the population
malnourished, the Communist Party of
the Philippines can not tolerate less than
major change in the Philippines. The
Communist Party of the Philippines is
Nutcase Rumsfeld threatens
Russia with new global redivision
imperialism with a different redivision
of the world.
Rumsfeld put it in typical imperialist
terms: "My impression is that the
Russian administration is fairly
pragmatic at this stage and their interest
in the United States is greater than their
interest in Iraq."(1) He threatened Russia
with loss of business for doing business
with Iraq--contrary to the usual rhetoric
of "free trade" where borders are
supposed to be irrelevant, never mind
politics. The formation of trade blocs
w h e r e
countries are
allowed to
trade in the
bloc only if
they don't
trade in
others is
connected up
with every
major war in the past hundred or more
years.
Russia correctly responded that the
Pentagon has no legal authority to set the
trade policies of the U.S. business
community: "`This is not the first time
that the Pentagon has taken on the
unusual mission of making statements on
behalf of the American and foreign
business communities,' Malakhov
[Russian Foreign Ministry
spokespersyn--MC5] said in a statement.
`It is hard for us to judge to what extent
the Pentagon has the authority to do this
and who gave it such authority.'"(2) It
was a brilliant move by the Putin
administration, to consolidate public
opinion in Russia while putting Rumsfeld
in his place globally. It's already not far
from the Russian people's minds that
what Rumsfeld did proves the real nature
of the U.$. capitalist system.
Continued on page 6...
Continued on page 4...
Continued on page 8...
Despite many attempts by the revolutionaries to negotiate with U.$. imperialists, Arroy
and her U.$. puppeteers are driving hard toward a new U.$. was on the Philippines.
MIM Notes 266 · September 15, 2002· Page 2
MIM Notes
The Official Newsletter of The Maoist Internationalist Movement
ISSN 1540-8817
MIM Notes is the bi-weekly newsletter of the Maoist Internationalist Movement. MIM
grants explicit permission to copy all or part of this newspaper for any reason. Please
credit MIM Notes where appropriate. The paper is free to all prisoners. Overseas airmail
is $2 per issue. MIM Notes is the official Party voice. Material in the paper is the Party's
position unless noted to the contrary. MIM Notes accepts submissions and critiques from
anyone. The editors reserve the right to edit copy unless permission is specifically denied
by the author. Back issues of MIM Notes are available for $1 per issue. A bound volume
of the original MIM Notes 1-34 and MIM Theory 1-13 (old numbering) is available for
$15, post-paid. MIM has a complete literature list of progressive books and pamphlets.
Send $2 for a copy. MIM's ten point program is available to anyone who sends in a
SASE. MIM is an underground party that does not publish the names of its comrades in
order to avoid the state surveillance and repression that have historically been directed at
communist parties and anti-imperialist movements. MCs, MIM comrades, are members
of the Party. RCs are RAIL Comrades. The Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist League (RAIL)
is an anti-imperialist mass organization led by MIM. MIM runs a books for prisoners
program which provides Maoist and general political material to prisoners for free. Make
checks or money orders payable to "Books for Prisoners, Inc." Federal EIN: 04-3475938.
Send to: Books for Prisoners, Inc. c/o the address below. Donations and books can be
sent to the address below. Send cash or check payable to "MIM Distributors".
MIM
P.O. Box 29670
Los Angeles, CA 90029-0670
eMail: <mim@mim.org>
WWW: <http//www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext>
What is MIM?
The Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM) is the collection of existing or emerging
Maoist internationalist parties in the English-speaking imperialist countries and their English-
speaking internal semi-colonies, as well as the existing or emerging Maoist Internationalist
parties in Belgium, France and Quebec and the existing or emerging Spanish-speaking
Maoist Internationalist parties of Aztlan, Puerto Rico and other territories of the U.$. Empire.
MIM Notes is the newspaper of MIM. Notas Rojas is the newspaper of the Spanish-speaking
parties or emerging parties of MIM. MIM upholds the revolutionary communist ideology
of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and is an internationalist organization that works from the
vantage point of the Third World proletariat. MIM struggles to end the oppression of all
groups over other groups: classes, genders, nations. MIM knows this is only possibly by
building public opinion to seize power through armed struggle. Revolution is a reality for
North America as the military becomes over-extended in the government's attempts to
maintain world hegemony. MIM differs from other communist parties on three main
questions: (1) MIM holds that after the proletariat seizes power in socialist revolution, the
potential exists for capitalist restoration under the leadership of a new bourgeoisie within
the communist party itself. In the case of the USSR, the bourgeoisie seized power after the
death of Stalin in 1953; in China, it was after Mao's death and the overthrow of the "Gang
of Four" in 1976. (2) MIM upholds the Chinese Cultural Revolution as the farthest advance
of communism in humyn history. (3) As Marx, Engels and Lenin formulated and MIM has
reiterated through materialist analysis, imperialism extracts super-profits from the Third
World and in part uses this wealth to buy off whole populations of oppressor nation so-
called workers. These so-called workers bought off by imperialism form a new petty-
bourgeoisie called the labor aristocracy. These classes are not the principal vehicles to
advance Maoism within those countries because their standards of living depend on
imperialism. At this time, imperialist super-profits create this situation in the Canada, Quebec,
the United $tates, England, France, Belgium, Germany, Japan, Italy, Switzerland,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Israel, Sweden and Denmark. MIM accepts people as
members who agree on these basic principles and accept democratic centralism, the system
of majority rule, on other questions of party line.
"The theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin is universally applicable. We should
regard it not as dogma, but as a guide to action. Studying it is not merely a matter of
learning terms and phrases, but of learning Marxism-Leninism as the science of revolution."
- Mao Zedong, Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 208.
Editor, MC206; Production, MC12
MIM is looking for distributors and
sponsors to step forward. Sponsors pay for
papers; distributors get them onto the
streets and officers do both distribution and
financial support:
Distribute
Cost per year
12 (Priority Mail)
$120
25 (Priority Mail)
$150
50 (Priority Mail)
$280
100
$380
200
$750
900 (Express Mail!)
$3,840
900 (8-10 days)
$2,200
If you know you have some good places
distribute, we suggest starting at 200 and
working your way up. If you are not willing
to distribute, just send money. If you are
not willing to pay, then request papers after
somehow proving to the party that you are
serious (words won't count). You who will
cough up/raise the money to distribute 900
papers each issue and then do the
distribution -- you are what drives this party
forward.
Make anonymous money orders payable
to "MIM." Send to MIM, attn: Camb.
branch, PO Box 400559, Cambridge, MA
02140. Or write mim3@mim.org.
A call for MIM Notes sponsors and distributors!
Letters
We constantly update MIM's
coverage of the U.$. war on
our web site, with news and
opinion, agitation materials,
articles in English, Spanish,
French, Chinese and
Russian!
Read and distribute the
newspaper -- and get the
latest:
www.etext.org/ Politics/MIM
California prisoners:
Stop Operation
Gatekeeper!
Greetings comrades,
I received the Stop Operation
Gatekeeper! petition. This is something
near and dear to my heart, for most of
my family had to cross this border. I know
firsthand the violence being waged on
those who go through the U.$.-Mexico
border. This violence is not only against
Mexicans but also against Salvadorans,
Guatemalans and other peoples of Third
World countries categorized as "Latins.".
I am trying to get people here to sign in
solidarity with this movement. As soon
as I can I will send back the signatures,
even if it's only mine!
-- a California prisoner, 14 July, 2002
MIM responds: The "Stop Operation
Gatekeeper!" campaign is organized
around this demand:
"Open the U.S. border!
"The U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service's military-style
`Operation Gatekeeper' has killed over
600 Mexican migrants. This is part of the
systematic violence the U.S. government
uses to restrict people's free movement.
The U.S. Border separates families,
communities, and nations. It also keeps
Third World workers and farmers under
regimes where wage rates are drastically
depressed through violent repression --
this allows the United States to make
huge profits off of its investments abroad.
We the undersigned call for an end to
`Operation Gatekeeper' and an end to
policies restricting people's free
movement across the border."
If you want to add your efforts to those
of this prisoner and MIM's other allies,
you can find a copy of the petition and
supporting articles on our website: http:/
/www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/cal/
OpenBorder.htm If you are in prison and
have no access to the Internet, write us
for a copy of the petition and we'll help
you out.
Prisoner prefers MIM
line to RCP
Greetings Comrades, I was somewhat
relieved when I received your letter and
May issues of MIM Notes. The
information contained in your letter is
very helpful in our small study group,
especially the article by Mao and
definitions of revolutionary words. I can
explain the words' meanings from my
understanding, but it is better when it's
put out by the party itself for all comrades
will be on the same page. ... That's one
reason I commend MIM for sending
MIM Theory 10, because it gives a clear
view of the labor aristocracy, proletariat,
and bourgeoisie. It shows comrades,
myself included, how and why they are
only revolutionary when their rights are
denied. I've recently read a pamphlet by
David Gilbert, "Looking at the White
Working Class Historically," along with
the RCP ["Revolutionary Communist
Party-USA" -ed] line on the working
class and you're right MIM, ["RCP"
Chairperson Bob] Avakian wants to
include this group, the white working
class, as proletarian and revolutionary.
Anyway, while I admit I think there are
some elements in this class that are
revolutionary they are mostly moved by
the desire for more benefits. Presently in
the ["RCP" newspaper] Revolutionary
Worker, Avakian is being interviewed by
Carl Dix and the cat is trippin'. I disagree
with his class analysis as well as the
failure of parties in the past. Alternate
reading to send would be those MIM
Theories, without a doubt, so I can get
real deep into MIM's thinking.
In struggle,
--A Texas Prisoner, August 2002
Imperialists get a clue
MIM has been shedding buckets of ink
and sweat about the Incarcerated $tate$
of Amerikkka for about ten years now.
So it is with a bitter pleasure that MIM
can now say to the capitalists "We told
you so." And here at least, they, and at
least a part some of them do, agree with
the facts as MIM states them.
The August 10th print edition of The
Economist, flagship of capitalism, has as
its cover story "Too Many Convicts."
That issue notes that the U.S. has a rate
of incarceration five times higher than
in England - which has Europe's highest
rate of incarceration.(The Economist,
August 10th 2002) That means in "the
land of the free" you are at least five times
more likely to land in jail than in the other
imperialist powers.To say nothing of your
chances of being shot "in self defense."
Or being killed in prison "by another
inmate."
As the bourgeoisie begins to wring its
hands and then do nothing -- for
capitalism cannot solve the problems it
creates -- MIM intends to continue to
put out the hard facts -- and to propose
real solutions.
--mousnonya@yahoo.com
MIM Notes 266 · September 15, 2002· Page 3
UNITED
FRONT
Get the new issue of MIM Theory, #14, and read the latest
theory on building the movement to overthrow
imperialism once and for all, in 174 pages. Articles include
MIM congress resolutions, history from the Spanish Civil
War to Puerto Rico, Kenya, and Stalin -- plus international
documents, reviews, and much more. Send $7.50 to the
address on page 2.
MIM Notes has seen a big spike in
circulation since the "war on
terrorism" began. It's not surprising:
MIM Notes is a free and independent
newspaper. Yes, there are especially
now knee-jerk patriots who believe
everything Bush says and pass by a
chance to read MIM Notes. There are
other patriots and internationalists
who realize that at this time papers
like MIM Notes can undo the huge
spectacle that Uncle Sam is creating
for its own benefit.
Sure, you have seen MIM Notes
around, but MIM Notes needs people
to do two simple things: 1) Pay for it
(postage and printing), 2) Distribute
it!
MIM is looking for sponsors,
distributors and officers. Sponsors pay
for papers; distributors get them onto
the streets and officers do both
distribution and financial support.
Distribute # Cost per year
12 (Priority Mail)
$120
25 (Priority Mail)
$150
50 (Priority Mail)
$280
100
$380
200
$750
900 (Express Mail!)
$3,840
900 (8-10 days)
$2,200
If you know you have some good
places to do distribution, we suggest
starting at 200 and working your way
up higher. If you are not willing to do
distribution, just send money. If you
are not willing to pay, then request
papers after somehow proving to the
party that you are serious (words
won't count). You who will cough up/
raise the money to distribute 900
papers each issue and then do the
distribution, you are what drives this
party forward.
A call for MIM Notes
sponsors and distributors!
Make anonymous money orders payable to "MIM." Send to MIM,
attn: Camb. branch, PO Box 400559, Cambridge, MA 02140. Contact
MIM in regards to this campaign by writing mim3@mim.org
Attention subscribers
MIM now sends MIM Notes
subscriptions to individuals in monthly
mailings, third class mail. If you have a
subscription and would like a refund for
the remaining months, please write to
MIM,PO Box 29670, Los Angeles, CA
90029-0670.
Ten political parties met and called for
the end of a state of emergency in Nepal
so that the parties can prepare campaigns
for upcoming elections in November.
Amongst those calling for elections were
CPN-United, CPN-Marxist, CPN-MLM
and CPN-Unity Centre Masal. (In each
case, CPN stands for Communist Party
of Nepal.)(1) It appears these parties (all
the existing parties basically) got their
way on August 28th, when the state of
emergency came to an end as scheduled
instead of being renewed for a third time.
The head of the Nepali regime is
someone from the Nepali Congress Party,
Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba.
However, his party has split over his
declaration of a state of emergency.
In recent weeks, it is apparent that
Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba
found himself threatened by a coalition
of his own party and other parties. The
second-largest parliamentary party, the
CPN(UML) told the prime minister he
would be politically finished if he did
not see to free and fair elections
happening on time.
Reactionary journalists are trying to
provide cover for the end of the state of
emergency. The Kathmandu Post says
that the strong showing of the
government since May has proved the
People's War too weak to attack police
or military outposts anymore. Hence,
they believe it is time for more peace
negotiations before hitting the Maoists
harder if they do not end the People's
War.(2)
As MIM has explained before, in
Nepal, the majority of the 25 million
people are vaguely communist as proved
by previous elections and the revolution
in Nepal. There is only a question of false
consciousness, a little fogginess about the
best way of going about things. That's
why no less than five parties calling
themselves "communist" as the first word
in their name appear to favor open
elections and an end to the state of
emergency. The only doubt would be
whether some of these factions have been
invented by the state.
In any case, returning to the point at
hand, the threat against Prime Minister
Deuba was apparently strong enough for
a newspaper to claim that Nepal's 1990
Constitution is under fire.(3) It is not
surprising that there is a constitutional
crisis, because there is no solution to the
problems that the ruling class in Nepal
faces without revolution.
Notes:
1. http://www.nepalnews.com.np/contents/
englishdaily/ktmpost/2002/aug/aug29/
index.htm#2
2. http://www.nepalnews.com.np/contents/
englishdaily/ktmpost/2002/aug/aug29/
editorial.htm#1 3. http:// Nepali rulers attempt
to lift state of emergency
3. http://www.nepalnews.com.np/contents/
englishweekly/telegraph/2002/aug/aug28/
index.htm#1.
Nepali rulers attempt to lift state of emergency
Written by RAIL-Canada
July 21, 2002
In May of 2002 the government of
British Columbia conducted a Treaty
Negotiations referendum in order to
"formulate an approach to negotiations
with Canada and First Nations" (1)
meaning recast a framework for the treaty
negotiation process around the issues of
land, natural resources and political
rights of the BC First Nations that has
been taking place for 9 long years ever
since its launching in 1993.
Among the 8 questions included in the
agenda were the suggestions that "private
property should not be expropriated for
treaty settlements"; that "hunting, fishing
and recreational opportunities on Crown
land should be ensured for all British
Columbians"; that "parks and protected
areas should be maintained for the use
and benefit of all British Columbians";
that "aboriginal self-government should
have the characteristics of local
government, with powers delegated from
Canada and British Columbia" and that
"the existing tax exemptions for
Aboriginal people should be phased
out".(2)
[MIM emphasizes that this referendum
asked the settler majority what the
framework for negotiations over First
Nations' sovereign rights. Once again, the
First Nations themselves are excluded
from the most important decisions
regarding their own livelihood.]
All 8 questions passed with 85 to 91
percent approval among valid ballots.
However, valid ballots made up only 36%
of the total of 2,127,829 mailed out.
Among those who did not vote were some
boycotters. These people "registered their
protest by redirecting their ballots, using
their ballots for art contests, writing
letters of support or by recycling their
ballots".(4)
Background of the referendum on
Treaty negotiations
Ever since the early days of
colonization of Canada by European
settlers resulting is slaughter, forced
displacement and land dispossession of
indigenous population, First Nations have
been waging incessant battles for their
legal and territorial rights- a process that
since its very inception has been
obstructed and halted in many ways by
the colonial and capitalist settler
governments of Britain and Canada.
In British Columbia, the creation of
Confederation in 1871 left a legacy of 14
treaties on Vancouver Island between
first nations and the British government
while the rest of the province was left
unresolved. (5) Having confined the
surviving indigenous population to a
system of "reserves" established at the
end of the 19 century, local governments
appointed commissioners to make "land
adjustments" resulting in "cutting off"
land from the reserves, while barring
litigation activity on the part of First
Nations and making it an offense to
collect funds for the purpose of
advancing claims (legislative restriction
not lifted until 1951). In 1938 B.C.
completed Indian reserve arrangements
and transferred most provincial land
within Indian reserves to the federal
government continuing to argue that
"there was nothing to negotiate". (6) It
was not until 1970's that a set of judicial
BC Treaty Referendum Seeks to Perpetuate Colonial Oppression
Continued on page 9...
MIM Notes 266 · September 15, 2002· Page 4
Trade conflicts smoothing
somewhat
One sign that the u.$. imperialists may
be serious about attacking Iraq is that they
were busy smoothing over old trade
differences with the European Union
(EU) and Russia--although recent
conflicts over new trade deals fudge that
up somewhat.
According to the Washington Post,
"Washington on Thursday [August 22nd]
exempted a final batch of 178 foreign
steel products from duties imposed in
March by President Bush to the fury of
U.S. trade partners.
"It said EU and Japanese producers
were the main beneficiaries of the latest
U.S. move, which brought total
exemptions to 727, chosen from more
than 1,300 requests.
"The Commission said that so far more
than 50 percent of EU exports had been
exempted from the duties, which were
imposed at between eight and 30 percent
on a range of products."(3) This means
that Bush eliminated new taxes on steel
from the European Union. The European
Union is still threatening to retaliate
against the united $tates for the trade
taxes Bush imposed to obtain future votes
from steelworkers.
Meanwhile, Russia and the United
$tates worked out a deal to resume U.$.
chicken imports into Russia in a market
worth $660 million. Why Russians
Rumsfeld threatens new global redivision
should pay to ship something they could
raise in their own backyards is another
question.(4)
Russian maneuvers noted by
imperialist press, upping the ante
Despite some smoothing on old trade
business, it was the new trade business
that saw the u.$. imperialists rock the
boat. The real headline grabber of August
was the deal between Iraq and Russia.
According to the Washington Post, "Iraqi
Ambassador Abbas Khalaf characterized
it as a five-year pact worth $40 billion.
A top deputy to Russian Prime Minister
Mikhail Kasyanov on Friday also said it
would be worth about $40 billion.
"The agreement will cover a variety of
fields, including oil, electrical energy,
chemical products, irrigation, railroad
construction and transportation."(5) A
Bush aide initially told the Washington
Post he did not think the deal was too
troublesome and that Putin was still on
board the coalition to fight "terror."
Republican Senator Richard G. Lugar
who has long played a senior role in
foreign relations matters for the Congress
said that the Russian deal was
"symbolic."(6) It was later that Rumsfeld
played the "hard-liner."
Putin also met with Kim Jong-il on
August 23rd. Kim announced plans to
buy some tractors, but the Russians are
selling the southern Korean regime a half
billion dollars of weapons, including
tanks. Nonetheless, Kim said he was
happy with his meeting with Putin.
At the time of the Korean meeting,
Putin called on the local Russian
authorities to hurry up and participate in
building the rail line that will connect
southern Korea to northern Korea to
Russia and then Europe. The southern
Korean trade will mean money for all
who participate in the railroad.
The New York Times pointed out the
stunning fact that Russia's economy is
now the size of the Netherlands's,(7) so
the Russians need business everywhere,
not just where Uncle $am approves.
Russia has the largest population of any
country in Europe, nearly 10 times larger
than the 16 million of the Netherlands.
That means capitalism has been a
catastrophe for the ex-Soviet people
compared with Russian glory days under
Stalin--a fact the New York Times did
not point out.
Meanwhile, in Georgia, Russian
warplanes struck at Chechen rebels
taking up sanctuary there. Georgia has
sought U.S. protection and has taken U.S.
military aid ostensibly for the purpose of
being able to drive out the Chechen
rebels, which Bush has agreed are
"terrorists," because of their reputed links
to al-Qaeda and the days of the Afghan-
Soviet war.(8)
The United $tates made some noise on
behalf of Georgia,(9) and more
significantly threatened several European
states over the World Court. The United
States told Europe that if it did not vote
to exclude U.S. troops from the
jurisdiction of the World Court, it would
withdraw troops from NATO.(10) MIM
will translate the meaning of this threat
for the common persyn: "Eastern Europe,
if you want to be under the Russian
sphere of influence, then go ahead and
vote against us. Western Europe: if you
want to pay for the consequences of that,
go ahead." Thus far only I$rael and
Romania have signed agreements with
the United $tates not to turn over U.S.
troops to the World Court.(10)
The number of threats the United $tates
made in the month of August alone shows
that the u.$. imperialists face too many
global enemies to handle. The
proliferation of weapons to the Third
World alone dooms the stability of the
current system and causes the
scientifically retarded U.$. rulers to lash
out in reactionary and widespread
directions. In some cases Uncle $am will
succeed in intimidation, but the overall
logic of the numbers and situation is
against him.
Saudi-U.$. relations in a pickle
The U.$. labor aristocracy landed a
one-two punch in U.$.-Saudi relations in
August, with perfect timing giving that
the kettle is already boiling in the Middle
Forbes magazine and the Financial
Times have already figured out that the
United $tates is not the place to be for
Saudi investors. They both ran stories in
August about an alleged withdrawal of
Saudi investment.
Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of the Saudi
royal family had to deny that Saudis were
withdrawing money, $100-$200 billion
by some reports already. He even said he
was looking for ways to increase
investment in the united $tates.(1) It is
the same prince who donated $10 million
to September 11th survivors only to have
mayor Rudolf Giuliani return the money
after the Prince made a speech against
I$rael. He is also the one often mentioned
as a future prime minister of Lebanon.
The speculations increased after some
600-odd September 11th victims'
relatives filed suit against Saudi Arabians
for more money than the Saudis have
invested in the United $tates. According
to the Chicago Sun Times, one of the
outlets to say the September 11th suit
against Saudis is for over $100 trillion,
the Saudis have $750 billion invested in
the United $tates and one of those named
in the suit has already spoken out against
the labor aristocracy that brought the suit:
"This is an act to extort Saudi money
deposited in the United States and a way
of meddling in the region."(2)
Every Saudi knows why he does not
want to invest where there is political
instability, especially a likelihood of
socialism or communism. What Saudis
have failed to calculate so far is the fact
that the United $tates really does back
I$rael and that means a state of war,
which means instability threatening their
investments. The I$raeli$ do the most to
remind Amerikkkans of their origins in
posses massacring First Nations people.
President Bush will try to appease the
Saudis by saying he persynally opposes
the lawsuit, but that is not how politics
works in Amerikkka. The social-
democrats at the "Nation" have already
sounded the call and criticized Bush for
not getting behind the lawsuit: "But
President Bush would never move
against the Saudis because American
corporations, some led by close Bush
family friends and associates, do too
much business there." (2) That's how
Robert Scheer sees it. There can be no
doubt that means a large portion of the
ruling-class does too. A Gephardt or a
Buchanan would make a deal with the
labor aristocracy to take over Saudi
assets--with the enthusiastic support of
a swamp that Stalin once referred to as
"social-fascism" to speak of social-
democrats and "national socialists"
united in patriotic super-exploitation
against other countries.
An Arab bank estimates that Gulf
Arabs have about $1.2 trillion in liquid
assets abroad.(3) There was already a
buzz that Arab money would flow into
Euros and cause the currency to rise
before the latest Amerikan labor
aristocracy lawsuit.(4) Since the time
speculation started at the end of 2001,
the Euro has risen 10 cents against the
dollar to be almost par at 98 cents for a
euro.(5)
Thrown off airplanes for looking Arab,
being attacked at mosques--the Arab
businesspersyn faces obvious enemies in
the Amerikkkan labor aristocracy. Now
there is a suit for $1 trillion or over $100
trillion depending on which philistine
news outlet you believe. Even if this suit
does not result in nationalization of Arab
assets followed by their redistribution
this time, there's nothing to stop a similar
event and lawsuit in the future.
Notes:
1. http://www.forbes.com/home/newswire/2002/
08/22/rtr702286.html
2. http://www.thenation.com/
doc.mhtml?i=scheer&s=20020820
3. http://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/cst-
nws-saudi21.html
4. http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/
StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2256
5. www.news.ft.com August 28th
Amerikkkan labor aristocracy threatens Saudi capital
Yahoos make Amerika `unstable investment climate'
Photos from www.pakistannation.com/
Arti_Pub/Y2001/SepOct01/hatecrimes.htm
TOP: A Pakistani-owned Goodyear Tire
Store was burned in Houston, Texas two
days after the owner received threats.
BOTTOM: A Muslim owned bookstore
and neighboring business become a
scene of a three alarm fire after the Sept.
11, tragedy. The FBI is investigating the
incident as a hate crime.
Continued from page 1...
Continued on next page...
MIM Notes 266 · September 15, 2002· Page 5
East. We are speaking of the lawsuit
brought by relatives of the September
11th World Trade Center crash.(11)
To be sure, this is a labor aristocracy
invention. First of all, it is virtually a
move to nationalize Saudi assets. In
general, we will not see the imperialists
initiate discussions of nationalizing
assets. It's not good for the business
environment which depends on long-
term trust and tolerance for stabiilty.
However, the labor aristocracy has made
its move in a way that fits in the whole
"War against Terror" theme of the day
set by the imperialists. What is more, the
labor aristocracy does not call it fascist
nationalization of assets, but instead
refers to it as "damages" in the language
of lawsuits.
The labor aristocracy has shown its
colors perfectly. One, suing the Saudi
ruling class in a typical all-Arabs-are-
terrorists kind of racism. Two, it reached
for the ones with the money, the way
every parasite is trained in the imperialist
system.
The second blow landed by the labor
aristocracy was in the newsrooms. The
suit is so large, that the mathematically
illiterate newsrooms alternately reported
the suit was for $1 trillion, $1.6 trillion--
and in at least two major outlets--$116
trillion.(12) No doubt this contributed to
the consternation of the Saudi
bourgeoisie while simultaneously giving
the enlightened public an insight into just
how stupid the mainstream media is. Our
readers will forgive MIM for not
bothering to check what the astronomical
suit is really for. Apparently not
compensated sufficiently already, the
labor aristocracy suit-mongers are
searching for at least 9 digit figures for
every persyn killed in the World Trade
Center.
The hard-line imperialists are playing
this lawsuit as leverage against the Saudis
and u.$. global domination. It is
essentially a threat to take over Saudi
Arabia's U.$. assets (less than $1 trillion)
and/or the oil fields themselves in the
name of 911.
Thus far, Arab billionaires have denied
that they are pulling money out of the
united $tates to avoid being involved in
future conflicts. According to the U.S.
Embassy, the Saudis alone have $600 to
$700 billion invested abroad.(13) Others
sources say Arabs have $500 to $700
billion in the United $tates.
In actual fact, this lawsuit is a no-lose
proposition for communists globally. If
the suit should win, the Arab bourgeoisie
will have its stake in U.$. imperialism
cut off, greatly contributing to revolution
and the war that would follow. The
solidarity of the Middle East would be
hugely increased thanks to the
overreaching greed of the U.$. labor
aristocracy.
If the suit loses, it will be a blow to
racism naming all Arabs terrorists, when
the ones who carried out the attack all
died in the crash. Nonetheless, in the
future, we will also use this lawsuit to
remind the labor aristocracy what it
thought the lives of people are worth,
when it comes time for reparations for
the killing of slaves, most of which died
on the boat on the way to North America,
and the 10 million indigenous people
killed.
A rumor on the Internet discusses how
an all-out trade conflict with Saudi
Arabia would play out. The Saudis would
close their embassies in England and the
United $tates, and trade with their oil in
the European Union, which would be
allowed to re-sell to the United $tates and
England. Another element in play is the
land forces of Russia, which could easily
move into Iraq and the rest of the Middle
East if so invited to prevent Uncle $am
from forcibly taking over the oil fields
once ties have been cut.
Such an alignment would be very
attractive to countries around the world
and would pose significant challenges to
u.$. imperialism. In such an arrangement,
suddenly economic ties to Russia and the
European Union do not look so bad to a
host of Eastern European, Middle East
and Central Asian countries. Those who
have played Othello or the more complex
Go game can see the risks that the above-
average-but-overmatched Bush is
playing with.
Hard times for u.$. imperialism
We are beginning to see the limits of
U.$. imperialist power as the imperialists
calculate how to flip all the pieces on the
board at the same time without losing
them all again in subsequent moves by
opponents. The operation in Afghanistan
is such a failure that the U.$. government
has had to admit that President Karzai is
an extension of the U.S. State
Department. Despite the U.S. ousting of
the Taliban so many people were trying
to kill Karzai that the U.S. military was
protecting him. Now it will be troops of
the State Department providing for his
security.(14) Thus the game pieces are
barely staying flipped Uncle $am's way
in Afghanistan, where there is already a
considerable military commitment.
Meanwhile, U.S. ambassadors have gone
repeatedly to Pakistan and India to make
sure that a war does not heat up there and
introduce more wild cards into global
game of imperialism.
Notes:
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/22/
international/middleeast/22IRAQ.html
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/
0,1280,-1969596,00.html
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
articles/A52873-2002Aug23.html
4. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/24/
business/worldbusiness/24CHIC.html
5. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
articles/A38019-2002Aug19.html
6. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
articles/A33847-2002Aug18.html
7. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/24/
international/asia/24KORE.html 8. http://
www.nytimes.com/2002/08/24/international/
europe/24CAUC.html
9. http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/
international-russia-georgia.html ; http://
www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/
international-russia-georgia.html
10. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
articles/A64476-2002Aug26.html
11. http://www.foxnews.com/story/
0,2933,61257,00.html
12. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/020816/140/
d7kah.html has the $116 trillion figure
13. http://usembassy.state.gov/riyadh/
wwwhet00.html
14. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
articles/A55181-2002Aug23.html
by International Minister
August 20 2002
The June 2002 U.$. trade deficit was
$37.2 billion, exceeded in all history only
by the month before. The projected trade
deficit for the year is $412 billion.(1)
However, the real news is that after 30
years of this pattern, so-called Marxists
still do not show understanding of how
it is possible.
According to bourgeois economic
theory (better known as trivia) a trade
deficit increases the supply of the
currency in deficit and that currency's
value should decrease. When the
currency decreases in international value,
goods in that currency become better
priced just by virtue of new exchange
rates. With the new exchange rates, trade
deficits are supposed to return to zero or
reverse themselves.
Lately we have become aware of
another twist, which is that the currency
market can be affected by investments
in the united $tates, as investments in
stocks and securities increase demand for
U.S. dollars. So in theory, the united
$tates could be paying for its perennial
trade deficit by transferring ownership of
U.S. property to foreigners, and that is
why the dollar does not collapse despite
humongous trade deficits. In the past two
months, at least two separate
organizations claiming to uphold Mao
who we will not criticize by name have
put forward the bourgeois economic
theory as a sign of the collapse of the u.$.
system, because it will need to devalue
the currency but will not be able to
eradicate the trade deficit. These
organizations claiming to be Marxist
simply repeat what they have heard
before (2) without creatively
understanding the conditions they live in
in 2002. Specifically, they fail to
understand that the U.S. trade deficit is
closer to being an indicator of parasitism
than an indicator of imminent collapse.
Ideologically, the capitalists have
changed their tune about trade deficits.
Instead of having deficits automatically
adjust themselves out of existence
because of capitalism's supposed
inherent stability, the bourgeois
propagandists are now at least sometimes
taking another tack--that ideologically,
large deficits prove the power of the u.$.
economy.(3) Of course, the bourgeois
change of tune is not based on anything
scientific underlying it, and we Marxists
have a higher standard to meet.
Some analysts claiming to uphold Mao
and some social-democratic economists
such as Mark Weisbrot marvel at the
inflow of foreign finance capital and
claim that it cannot be sustained. In fact,
Weisbrot connects the recent trade deficit
to a stock market bubble and advocates
RUMSFELD: From previous page...
U.$. trade deficit expanded in June; so-called Marxists don't get it
Quarterly U.$. Trade Deficit in "goods and services": 1976-2002
($ Billions)
tiny reforms to limit speculation and put
capitalism on a more stable basis.(4) So
it is that social-democratic economists
limit themselves to advocating how
capitalism can stabilize itself and better
extract wealth from abroad. Weisbrot
goes on to cry for more jobs for U.$.
citizens.
In fact, the stock market bubble
reminds Marxists of the difference
between surplus-labor and realized
surplus-value. If in fact foreigners get
sucked into speculative bubbles forever,
the united $tates does not ever have to
pay for its imported goods and services
with anything but worthless paper. In
exchange for goods and services,
foreigners buy U.$. stocks in companies
which go bankrupt or lose most of their
value.
Thinking about this, some will say that
cannot be sustained forever either.
Continued on page 9...
MIM Notes 266 · September 15, 2002· Page 6
composed of the starving and people who
directly know the starving.
Now Bush & Company say they are
going to settle scores with "terrorists,"
but in this case they mean to go on the
offensive and start armed violence where
none existed. In contrast, we at MIM
believe that the United $tates should
spend its money another way--buying
out the landlords of the Philippines,
giving them citizenship in the United
States and handing over the agrarian
economy to the Communist Party of the
Philippines, the only non-corrupted force
able to address the poverty in the
countryside and prepare the advance of
the Philippines into the modern economic
world, the same way Mao did in China.
Only complete land confiscations
enabled Taiwan, southern Korea and
Japan to become economically
prosperous, and this the World Bank
itself admits.(2) The reason for this is that
old landlord classes are used to using
backward methods of production while
living lives of idle luxury and thus have
nothing progressive to contribute to the
Philippines or other countries like it.
With a land reform led by the
Communist Party of the Philippines, the
Philippines would see its economy grow
like in Taiwan, southern Korea and post-
World War II Japan, without landing any
U.$. troops. The growing economy
would consume expanded imports from
the u.$. people and contribute to a
solution to the current economic crisis.
The Amerikkkan people should make
one last effort to prevail on their leaders
to act for peace, and choose costly
peaceful solutions instead of costly
military "solutions" which will only
impoverish everyone and increase
terrorism by the united $tates and
increase violent acts of resistance to that
u.$. terrorism.
Notes:
1. http://www.reuters.com/
news_article.jhtml?type=search&StoryID=1342484
2. http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/faq/
worldbanklandreform.html ; see also Jose
Edgardo Campos and Hilton L. Root, The Key
to the Asian Miracle: Making Shared Growth
Credible (Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution, 1996).
U.$. war brewing in the Philippines
Continued from page 1...
By Rep. Satur C. Ocampo
Satur Ocampo is a member of the
nationalist Bayan Muna (People First)
party, one of the legal "political
advocacy" groups the U.$.-lackey regime
threatened in its declaration of "all-out
war on the Communists." In fact, the
Philippine military had already killed
more than 40 Bayan Muna members
before the government's early-August
declaration of war. Now the Philippine
government is moving to ban Bayan
Muna and has dug up 13-year-old
weapons-possession charges on Rep.
Ocampo.
The following is a speech Rep. Ocampo
prepared for the International Solidarity
Mission Against U.S. Armed Intervention
in the Philippines. We reprint it here to
give our readers important background
on the U.$. war of aggression brewing
in the Philippines.
July 28, 2002
I cannot recall the names of the two
Filipino soldiers who, on the warm
moonlit night of February 4, 1899, were
shot dead by American sentries, nor,
indeed, if their names were ever recorded.
But whoever they were they are
remembered as the first casualties of U.S.
armed intervention in our nation's affairs.
That encounter served as U.S.
imperialism's pretext to begin the
conquest of the Philippines and heralded
the Filipino-American War--a heroic
struggle by the Filipino people against
the United States whose revolutionary
legacy extends to this day.
By now I am sure we are all aware why
the Philippines figures so prominently in
the United States' hegemonic ambitions.
As it was a century ago, we are
strategically important as a staging post
in the region from which the United
States can protect and advance its
imperial interests. But also, as it was a
century ago and indeed in all the time
since, the Filipino people do not meekly
submit to U.S. imperialism's designs.
The Filipino nation was born in the
battlefield, through over 200 uprisings
during three centuries of Spanish
colonialism and then with the 1896
Philippine revolution under the
leadership of the Katipunan. These
culminated in our distinguishing
ourselves as the first nation in Asia to
wage and win the old democratic
revolution against a colonial power.
When we fought U.S. aggression
beginning in 1899 we fought it as a
sovereign nation. When we fight U.S.
imperialism today, we do so as a
sovereign people.
Filipino-American War
The sounds and images of the Filipino-
American War reverberate to this day. In
all the important things, U.S.
imperialism's deep grip on Philippine
society was established through its war
of conquest and in the course of the
colonial and then the neo-colonial puppet
regimes in its wake.
U.S. Armed Intervention in the Philippines and
the People's Struggle for National Freedom
The extent and brutality of the U.S.'
war of aggression against the Philippines
are lost or obscured in history written
from the U.S. viewpoint.
The defiant resistance of the fledgling
Filipino republic against the then still
maturing but already mighty imperialist
behemoth is undeniable. The Spanish-
American War lasted less than four
months in its entirety with insignificant
losses for the U.S.: less than 800 dead
from direct fighting, mainly in Cuba. Yet
the Filipino-American War dragged on
for virtually 17 years in Luzon and the
Visayas, up to 1916, and at least 14 years
in Mindanao, up to 1913. When the U.S.
formally declared colonial rule in 1902,
only three years into the fighting, there
were already 4,234 American dead and
2,779 wounded.
The U.S. had unleashed its vast war
machine. Some 60% of the U.S.' 216,029
Army regulars and volunteers in 1898
were deployed in 639 outposts across the
archipelago. Indeed, the 50,000 Army
regulars of 1898 were doubled--some
estimates say even quadrupled--because
of the Filipino-American War.
Prosecuting the war cost the U.S.
anywhere from U.S.$400 million to over
U.S.$600 million, staggering amounts for
the time.
Clearly then, it was by no means the
small "Tagalog rebellion" as it was called
by then U.S. President McKinley. Nor
was it fought just by what U.S. General
Otis called "a rag tag army." U.S. history
has recorded the Filipino-American War
as an "insurgency" or an "insurrection"
by insurgents, outlaws, brigands and
bandits. It was far more than that.
The Filipino fighting forces came from
the working classes, mainly the
peasantry--hacienda tenants,
dispossessed farmers, small farmers and
agricultural laborers--and some urban
working people. They fought with
whatever weapons were at hand. Maybe
one in four had rifles captured from the
Spanish and the rest were armed with
bolos and other crude weapons. This
against the U.S. troops' modern rifles,
revolvers, artillery, rapid-fire guns, flame
throwers, explosives and their navy's big
guns. But the guerrilla war we fought
drew its strength from much more: the
people.
Even General Arthur MacArthur
couldn't but concede:
"The success of this unique system of
war depends upon almost complete unity
of action of the entire native population.
That such unity is a fact is too obvious to
admit of discussion; how it is brought
about and maintained is not so plain...
but fear as the only motive is hardly
sufficient to account for the united and
apparently spontaneous action of several
millions of people."
And it was the people who paid the
price for their fierce patriotism and
determined struggle for independence.
Filipino soldiers and civilians alike were
wantonly killed. We were beaten,
dismembered, burned alive and subjected
to the infamous "rope torture" and "water
cure." Our villages, crops and property
were indiscriminately burned and
destroyed. Public assassinations,
beatings, intimidation, rape and other
wanton violence and terror tactics were
in daily use.
As early as May 1901, U.S. General
Bell estimated that there were already
600,000 Filipino casualties in Luzon
alone of which perhaps only between
15,000-20,000 were soldiers. This was
only after two years of fighting and
before the systematic "pacification
campaigns" in Luzon and the Visayas.
Entire populations were herded into so-
called "zones of protection" and so many
tens of thousands died from hunger,
exposure and disease. Perhaps, 100,000
Muslims were also killed in their
resistance from 1903 to 1913 in
Mindanao. It is certain that U.S.
imperialism killed between 10-15% of
our population then of some 8 million,
or from 800,000 to over a million deaths.
By any account, that is a staggering
amount.
Colonialism and neo-colonialism
We rake up these brutal events not out
of any historical curiosity but because
they are of the greatest relevance today.
As so well put by one of our country's
nationalist historians, the present is a
continuation of the past.
The Filipino-American War and the
succeeding decades of colonial rule
aimed to destroy any vestiges of the
sovereign Filipino nation and erect in its
stead a vassal state, be it in colonial or
neocolonial form. Brute military force,
as we have seen, was used to deadly
effect. But the colonial period also saw
U.S. imperialism using the rest of the
powers of the state against the Filipino
people.
Repressive laws like the Sedition Law
(1901), Brigandage Act (1902),
Reconcentration Act (1903) and Flag
Law (1907) were put in place to sanction
the use of force against all nationalist
Filipinos. The U.S. also started
organizing and training surrogate armed
forces to help suppress resistance to
American rule. The Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP) and Philippine
National Police (PNP) we know of today
trace their anti-people lineage to the U.S.-
created Philippine Scouts and the
National Police Force of 1901.
There is an important point worth
stressing. The people's armed
revolutionary and anti-colonial resistance
continued well after U.S. President
Theodore Roosevelt declared the so-
called "Philippine insurrection" over on
July 4, 1902 and long after the ilustrado
elite had reverted to attending to their
political and economic affairs.
Armed fighting continued in
Pampanga, Laguna, Nueva Ecija,
Pangasinan, Zambales, Rizal, Cavite,
Batangas, Tayabas, Isabela, Albay,
Samar, Leyte, Negros, Cebu and
elsewhere under the leadership of Sakay,
Montalan, Felizardo, San Miguel,
Guillermo, Ola, Toledo, Manalan,
Tomines and many others until 1916.
Defiant Mindanao Moro resistance
Continued on next page...
MIM Notes 266 · September 15, 2002· Page 7
continued still in Cotabato, Sulu and
Lanao until 1913 in the face of equally
ferocious massacres by U.S. troops. As
late as 1935, some 60,000 Sakdalistas
rose up in arms in 18 municipalities of
Southern Tagalog and proclaimed
independence shouting, "Long live the
Republic of the Philippines!"
Despite the death penalty or long
prison terms under the Sedition Law for
anyone calling for independence, open
legal struggles against U.S. imperialism
and its colonial rule continued to flourish.
The pro-independence Partido
Nacionalista was organized in 1902 and
Congreso Obrero de Filipinas (COF) in
1913. The Union Obrera Democratica de
Filipinas (UODF) led the
commemoration of the first labor day in
1903 with some 100,000 workers
shouting, "Down with U.S. imperialism!"
Filipino journalists and writers opposed
colonial rule through nationalist plays
like "Tanikalang Ginto" and newspapers
like El Renacimiento and Muling
Pagsilang. And doubtless to the great
dismay of the U.S. colonial government,
the Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas
(PKP) was launched on November 7,
1930.
Flag independence was granted the
Philippines on July 4, 1946. By that time,
however, decades of colonial rule had
succeeded in politically, economically,
ideologically and culturally fettering the
Filipino nation to U.S. imperialism. The
very puppet governments and the big
business and landlord interests beholden
to U.S. imperialism carefully put in place
then--as its proxy rulers--are the very
caretakers of the system today.
Continuing U.S. intervention
Sustained U.S. intervention in the
Philippines' affairs in the past half
century is no less armed just because
American fingers haven't been pulling
triggers of guns aimed at Filipinos. The
most glaring example of this in the post-
colonial period are, of course, the U.S.
military bases guaranteed under the RP-
U.S. Military Bases Agreement (MBA)
of 1947 and the Mutual Defense Treaty
(MDT) of 1951.
Is there any doubt that the U.S. military
presence is, in the final analysis, what
lay behind such outrageously anti-people
laws as the U.S.-RP Treaty of General
Relations Property Act (1946), the Bell
Trade Act (1946), the Parity Amendment
(1947) and the Laurel-Langley
Agreement (1954)? These blatantly
affirmed the country's neo-colonial
character, especially by upholding and
deepening the interests of U.S.
monopolies over our economy--by
granting Americans equal economic
rights as Filipinos, by skewing trade and
investment relations in their favor, and
so on.
And is there any doubt that, in the
decades that followed until today, brute
U.S. military might is, in the final
analysis, what underpins IMF-WB
stabilization and structural adjustment
programs, World Trade Organization
(WTO) "commitments," and imperialist
globalization in all its forms? We are not
naive.
That U.S. forces haven't been openly
mobilized against Filipinos--because it
is certain that they have--is testament
more to the complete servility of the U.S.
imperialism's puppet Philippine
governments, and especially its armed
forces, than to any real independence. We
note how the AFP, the U.S.' proxy armed
force in the country, has historically been
active not against any external aggressor
but mainly against Filipinos--in the
peasant uprisings of the 1930's, against
the Hukbong Bayan Laban sa Hapon
(Hukbalahap) [Anti-Japanese People's
Army] and Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng
Bayan (HMB) [People's Liberation
Army] in the 1940's and 1950's, against
the New People's Army (NPA) since the
1960's, and against the Moro people
since the 1970's.
But even then it's important to
highlight our complete solidarity with
national freedom movements around the
world. Since 1946, the U.S. has
conducted hundreds of military
operations in over 70 countries, not even
considering yet countless covert
operations. It actively had a hand in
attempts to overthrow some 40 foreign
governments and in efforts to crush 30
freedom and liberation movements. We
know that the U.S. used their military
bases here in the Philippines as major
staging areas in at least the Korean War
and the Vietnam War. They have also
been key transit points during military
operations in the Middle East such as
against Iraq. Most recently of course was
the use of Philippine facilities by the U.S.
in its war against the Afghan people. Our
struggle against U.S. imperialism
dovetails with the sovereign rights of
other peoples to be free from outside
intervention.
In any case, it's clear that the U.S.
exercises the overtly military option even
in the Philippines when, as, and how it
sees fit. We recall the December 1989
"persuasion flights" by U.S. Air Force
jets from Clark Air Base that helped the
Aquino regime put down a rightist coup.
And of course the current military
operations under the guise of Balikatan
"training exercises."
But the Filipino people's struggle for
national freedom has continued, in the
open mass movement and in the armed
struggle. Against the backdrop of 1950's
U.S.-orchestrated anti-communist
hysteria, militant Left organizations
spurred a resurgent nationalism and
directly opposed U.S. imperialism from
the late 1950's and in the 1960's. Sparked
by the youth and students, the workers
and peasants movements revived
nationwide and flourished. The
Communist Party of the Philippines
(CPP) was re-established on December
26, 1968 and the NPA organized on
March 29 the following year. National-
democratic (ND) mass organizations took
root among the people and the National
Democratic Front of the Philippines
(NDFP) was formed in 1971 aiming to
build a sovereign, democratic,
progressive, just and peaceful society.
Despite the imposition of martial law
and harsh repression by the U.S.-backed
Marcos dictatorship, millions of people
were swept into the struggle for national
freedom and democracy. The people's
movement continued to draw broad
swathes of the country's patriotic and
progressive into its fold, coalescing into
the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan
(BAYAN) formed in 1985, and was
instrumental in toppling the regime in
1986.
The ND forces spearheaded the anti-
bases movement with the militant
Abakada (Anti-Baseng Kilusan) and
Anti-Treaty Movement (ATM) at its core,
also driving other broad anti-bases
initiatives forward. It was a truly
nationalist force that couldn't be resisted.
When the MBA lapsed in 1991, the
Senate rejected its extension by voting
against the new proposed RP-U.S. Bases
Treaty and caused the removal of U.S.
troops and facilities--a truly historic step
towards genuine freedom for our people.
The return of U.S. troops
But U.S. imperialism apparently can't
long stand being deprived of Philippine
facilities so crucial to its geopolitical
interests.
When the U.S. came to our shores a
century ago, it was continuing a wave of
territorial expansion conducted
throughout the 19th century--from its
east coast across the mainland continent
to the west coast and various Pacific
islands, then into Central America, then
across the Pacific to the Philippines. We
were desired not only for our rich forests
and vast minerals but also as a staging
post from which to expand into the
markets of China and the rest of Asia--
in short, extending the U.S.' imperial
reach into this part of the world. Senator
Beveridge said to the U.S. Senate in
1900: "...the archipelago is a base for
commerce of the East. It is a base for
military and naval operations against the
only powers with whom conflict is
possible."
Things have changed little even after
the Cold War. The U.S.' 1995 East Asian
Strategy Report of the Department of
Defense: "reaffirms our commitment to
maintain a stable forward presence in the
region, at the existing level of 100,000
troops, for the foreseeable future... for
maintaining forward deployment of U.S.
forces and access and basing rights for
U.S. and allied forces... If the American
presence in Asia were removed... our
ability to affect the course of events
would be constrained, our markets and
interests would be jeopardized."
U.S. imperialism first tried to extract
an Acquisition and Cross-Servicing
Agreement (ACSA) which would have
allowed U.S. forces to refuel, repair and
store war materiel in the country.
Vigorous protests and mass
demonstrations put this down. This was
repackaged in 1997 as the Status of
Forces Agreement (SOFA) and, again,
was met with great opposition and put
down.
Yet, quietly, RP-U.S. military exercises
were still held in the country even after
total U.S. withdrawal in 1992. These
exercises allow the U.S. to gain
familiarity with other countries' forces
and potential battlefield terrain, as well
as cement political and military ties of
dependence.
The U.S. was finally able to force a
Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)
through in 1999 despite the protestations
of our Junk VFA Movement. Approved
by the Senate as a treaty--and by the U.S.
as a mere executive agreement--the VFA
effectively makes the country one
gigantic U.S. military facility at its
convenience. Full access to Philippine
territory is granted by giving U.S.
military and civilian forces, including
their personnel, warships, and warplanes,
extraordinary rights and privileges.
The VFA is fully a piece of the U.S.'
global military spread spanning over 800
military installations (including 60 major
facilities) in over 140 countries,
significant troop deployments in 25
countries, and at least 36 security
arrangements. It's part of a string of
dozens of security treaties, arrangements,
ACSAs and SOFAs in Asia stretching
from North Asia through Southeast Asia
to Australia and the South Pacific--
including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong
Kong, Burma, Thailand, Singapore,
Indonesia, Brunei, the Philippines,
Australia, New Zealand, the Marshall
Islands and so on.
The U.S. lost no time in taking
advantage of this and conducted
Balikatan 2000 in January 2000 in Nueva
Ecija, Tarlac, Pampanga, Zambales,
Bataan, Cavite and Palawan--i.e., in
exercise venues exceeding the scope of
any before it.
We have always argued that these
agreements make a mockery of
Philippine sovereignty and lay the basis
for a return of U.S. troops to the country
and direct armed intervention. Well a
scant decade after the ejection of the
military bases, the foot soldiers and
grunts of U.S. imperialism are well and
truly back--this time for their "war on
terrorism."
The "war on terrorism"
U.S. imperialism, which has had little
qualms in targeting civilians in defense
of its hegemony, [now invokes "the war
on terrorism"] for its own self-interested
ends. All the end of the Cold War has
meant for the U.S. is a golden opportunity
to expand its economic, political and
military hegemony ever wider across the
world.
Consider what the important U.S.
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)
2001 says. It begins from the premise that
America's overseas presence posture,
concentrated in Western Europe and
Northeast Asia, "is inadequate for the
new strategic environment, in which U.S.
(economic and security) interests are
global and potential threats in other areas
of the world are emerging." It thus calls
for an even more aggressive U.S. global
security posture reoriented to:
a) develop a basing system that
provides greater flexibility for U.S.
forces in critical areas of the world,
placing emphasis on additional bases and
stations beyond Western Europe and
Northeast Asia;
b) provide temporary access to
Continued from previous page...
Continued on next page...
MIM Notes 266 · September 15, 2002· Page 8
facilities in foreign countries that enable
U.S. forces to conduct training and
exercises in the absence of permanent
ranges and bases;
c) redistribute forces and equipment
based on regional deterrence
requirements;
d) provide sufficient mobility,
including airlift, sealift, pre-positioning,
basing infrastructure, alternative points
of debarkation, and new logistical
concepts of operations, to conduct
expeditionary operations in distant
theaters against adversaries armed with
weapons of mass destruction and other
means to deny access to U.S. forces.
Largely written before the 9/11 attacks
though released a few weeks after,
implementation of the recommendations
of the QDR 2001 gained momentum with
the creation of the "war on terrorism" as
a propaganda pillar.
The Philippines was quickly declared
as the "second front" after Afghanistan
with the return of U.S. troops
sycophantically embraced by the Arroyo
regime. As ever, the country is critical to
the U.S. strategy of fortifying its presence
in Southeast Asia, a presence somewhat
weakened after the ouster of the bases.
The region is rich in natural resources
like oil, gas and minerals. With over 500
million people, it's a vast market for U.S.
goods and services and a significant
destination for U.S. investments. Its east-
west sea lanes connect the Indian and
Pacific Oceans and its north-south routes
link Australasia with Northeast Asia.
These are vital not only to international
commerce but also to any movement of
U.S. forces from the western Pacific to
the Indian Ocean or the Persian Gulf.
Mainland Asia is also home to three
nuclear powers: China, India and
Pakistan.
Tenuous links of the CIA-created
bandit Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) with the
Al Qaeda were played up to bolster the
U.S. campaign for deeper military ties
with the Philippines and a stronger
military presence. Spuriously invoking
the VFA, Balikatan 02-1 was a qualitative
leap for RP-U.S. relations with open joint
RP-U.S. field military operations
conducted for the first time. Mindanao
is clearly of special significance with
U.S. Combat Engineers ("Seabees")
working on a network of roads and
airfields that come on top of earlier
U.S.AID-funded development of
military-ready "civilian" airports and
seaports.
More to come
The VFA--a toned-down ACSA--is
apparently still not enough for the U.S.'
tastes. In her trip to the U.S. last
November, President Arroyo took up a
a foreign terrorist organization. These are
all part of a plan for direct intervention
of the United States in the
counterinsurgency campaign."(2)
Philippine Defense Secretary Angelo
Reyes admitted that $25 million out of a
$55 million military aid package Powell
promised to the Philippines during his
recent visit would be used to train elite
commando units to go after the NPA.(1)
Amerikan forces will again join Filipino
soldiers for war exercises in Luzon this
October. The NPA is very active in
Luzon, while the bandit Abu Sayaaf
gang--the original justification for
sending U.$. troops to "train" Philippine
soldiers--does not operate there.
The height of hypocrisy
In his announcement declaring the CPP
and NPA to be "foreign terrorist
organizations" Powell claimed that the
NPA "has killed U.S. citizens [in the
Philippines]."(1) This was apparently a
reference to the alleged NPA
assassination of Col. James Rowe of the
Joint U.S. Military Advisory Group
(JUSMAG) more than a decade ago. The
JUSMAG trains Filipino officers in
counter-insurgency tactics.
Powell should take a cue from the Bible
and take the log from his own eye before
removing the supposed speck from his
neighbor's. The United $tates has a long
history of killing Filipinos, from the
millions killed during the Filipino-
Amerikan war at the turn of the last
century to the tens of thousands killed
and tortured under the U.$.-backed
Marcos dictatorship and its so-called
democratic successors. The Philippine
military's abuses of combatants and non-
combatants in its recent campaigns
against the Abu Sayaaf and the Moro
Islamic Liberation Front caused even the
New York Times to question whether the
United $tates was supporting the real
terrorists by committing to "train"
Philippine soldiers.(5)
Thus, according to the most proper
definition of "terrorism"--the killing of
civilians to spread fear with the purpose
of achieving a political goal, in this case
the preservation of a corrupt government
favorable to U.$. business interests--the
United $tates is the biggest supporter of
terrorism in the Philippines.
The CPP and NPA are working to
overthrow the corrupt semi-feudal and
semi-colonial system in the Philippines
using the strategy of protracted people's
war. People's war is targeted at police and
military forces, not the general civilian
population; hence, people's war should
not be counted as "terrorism."
In a Maoist people's war, whether it is
in Peru, Nepal, the Philippines or
anywhere else, the use of force does not
have the design to produce fear and hence
a change of policy. Rather the strategy
of people's war is to wear down an
imperialist invader or overthrow a regime
that is opposed to the toiling workers and
peasants. Quite the contrary to producing
fear, a People's War only succeeds if it
garners popular support, not fear, because
the governments People's Wars oppose
historically--in China, Peru, the
Philippines etc.--all have
technologically superior weapons and
financial backing from U.$. imperialism.
Without popular support, the People's
War would have a severe disadvantage
against any invader or lackey regime of
imperialism.
We laugh in the faces of Attorney
General Ashcroft, President George W.
Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell
when they accuse Maoists of having a
"philosophy of violence." Ashcroft, Bush
and Powell also have "philosophies of
violence" as proved by their actual use
of violence.
All the hype about "terrorism" merely
serves to cover the United $tates true
interests in sending troops to the
Philippines: preserving an important
military base and neo-colony. (See article
by Satur Ocampo in this issue of MIM
Notes.)
Red baiting
Philippine lawmakers also expressed
concern that the U.$.-Arroyo regime is
calling groups with anti-U.$. views
"terrorists." Padilla specifically recalled
U.$. President George Bush's threat that
those against the United $tates' "war on
terrorism" were themselves terrorists.(2)
The U.$.-Arroyo regime has already
attacked legal national democratic
organizations like the militant mass
organization Bayan and its electoral party
Bayan Muna. It has threatened to freeze
the official bank accounts of Bayan Muna
representatives and dug up 13-year-old
gun possession charges on Satur
Ocampo.(4)
In her early-August speech declaring
Mutual Logistics Support Agreement
(MLSA) which is presently being
negotiated secretly by the two
governments. The preamble of the
working draft says the MLSA aims to
"further the interoperability, readiness
and effectiveness" of the RP-U.S.
military forces "through increased
logistics cooperation." The basic aim
though is simply to allow the U.S. to set
up logistics support network in the
country--covering supplies, billeting,
transportation, communication and
medical materiel--by storing or
procuring them locally. Though
involving seemingly innocuous items
they clearly have a darkly military
purpose.
The joint combat operations against the
trifling ASG are also obviously meant to
lay the ground for similar operations
against the NPA, Moro Islamic
Liberation Front (MILF) and the Misuari
faction of the Moro National Liberation
Front (MNLF). The Arroyo regime has
been conspicuous in floating and pushing
the idea of allowing the U.S. troops to
go well beyond Basilan. In her State of
the Nation Address (SONA) last week
the president even boasted of
"[enhancing] our strategic relationship
with the U.S. through continuing training
exercises." Clearly the deployment of
U.S. forces against the ASG was meant
to start a chain of events for rationalizing
further U.S. military intervention and
aggression, which can only wreak havoc
on the Filipino people and our struggle
for national freedom. Bayan Muna joins
U.S. Troops Out Now in confronting U.S.
imperialism's machinations.
[Since this speech was written,
President Macapagal-Arroyo declared
the ASG defeated and launched an all-
out war against the Communist-led
revolutionary movement in the
countryside which is not limited to the
small Southern island of Basilan. The
NPA operates in 128 guerrilla fronts,
covering 823 or around 54 percent of the
total number of Philippine towns and
cities.]
Our history is replete with experiences
that show U.S. imperialism is a deceitful
and brutal enemy of the people. The
widespread poverty, social inequity and
deep exploitation we suffer today is in
large measure due to its domination of
Philippine society. Yet our history also
shows that the hard and valiant struggle
and, indeed, the sacrifices and martyrdom
of so many are not in vain.
We are unrelenting in our struggle and
convinced that each battle we fight, no
matter the outcome, is a step in the right
direction. A step towards national
freedom and liberation.
all out war on the communists,
Macapagal-Arroyo equated workers'
strikes and protests with kidnapping and
drug smuggling. She pointedly kept
Bayan and Bayan Muna off of her list of
"communist organizations" not engaged
in armed struggle--giving the police and
military "a license to kill and harass
[Bayan's] leaders, making them targets
of her government's brutal [so-called]
anti-insurgency... campaign," according
to Bayan Secretary General Teodoro
Casino.
"This is no trivial thing," Casino said.
"Ms. Macapagal's announcement about
who is and who is not a communist or
terrorist can mean death or torture for
many people. As it is, her recent
statements are death warrants for many
of our leaders."
In the past year, police, soldiers and
paramilitaries killed 39 Bayan and Bayan
Muna leaders. All had been named
"communist sympathizers" before their
deaths.(4)
The Philippine police and military have
repeatedly violated humyn rights
agreements their own government signed
with the National Democratic Front.
These violations include summary
executions of captured NPA combatants
and torture.
Notes:
1. Philippine Daily Inquirer, www.inq7.net, 11
Aug 2002.
2. Philippine Daily Inquirer, 12 Aug 2002.
3. Philippine Daily Inquirer, 16 Aug 2002.
4. Philippine Daily Inquirer, 13 Aug 2002.
5. MIM Notes 254, 15 Mar 2002.
POWELL: Continued from page 1...
Continued from previous page...
Powell names CPP `foreign terrorist organization'
MIM Notes 266 · September 15, 2002· Page 9
Foreign capitalists will not go for it. In
fact, even that "common sense," is not
necessarily true. If in crisis, the capitalists
feel that they would only do worse
somewhere else, the capitalists will keep
returning with hope, for the same reason
a company going down the tubes may still
advertise goods at slashed prices.
Granted, in a politically demoralizing
situation like that, the capitalist may in
fact become either more desperate for
more war and fascism or more resigned
to the end of capitalism itself.
That could be the situation. However,
more likely, there is another more
important and widely applicable scenario
we are seeing played out. Marx taught
us that surplus-value is the secret of
capitalism. When we see the united $tates
carry a trade deficit in goods and services
in every quarter since 1976, (with the
Gulf War rent-a-cop surplus of 1991
showing up in another line of the
accounting), we Marxists should ask
ourselves if this is one and the same
mystery.
The capitalists spend money on
advertising, which on the face of it seems
to be only a loss of money, but which
aids in obtaining sales--the realization
of surplus-value as Marx said. Likewise,
the trade deficit is connected with the
process of realizing surplus-value as the
economic system exists in 2002 with a
huge parasite at the center of the world
economy--the united $tates.
We will not comment here on what fad
seizes the bourgeoisie politically. The
very huge numbers involved in trade and
budget statistics send shivers into the
spines of countless petty-bourgeois, so
we at MIM are not able to anticipate the
particular bourgeois strategy that is going
to become dominant in the upcoming
period.
Nonetheless, we need for our own
political activities a realistic grip on the
question of the trade deficit. With a trade
deficit of $412 billion a year, which is in
the realm of the kind of number that total
profits could be, is it inevitable that the
u.$. currency is going to collapse and the
economy end up in foreigners' hands?
MIM says no. The only reason the united
$tates has sustained the trade deficits it
has sustained is the invisible transfer of
surplus-value to the united $tates such
that wealth increases more rapidly than
the trade deficit. The size of the trade
deficit and the fact that the u.$. economy
has not collapsed combine to point to the
trade deficit being smaller than the super-
profits absorbed by the united $tates.
Goods transferred to the united $tates
realize their value in the united $tates and
that is the reason Amerikkkans merely
pay back foreign countries with the
surplus-value extracted predominantly
from the Third World.
The key to understanding the mystery
is that the surplus-labor arrives in the
united $tates from the Third World, but
does not take final monetary form until
the U.$. consumer turns over his/her
dollars for it. This as of yet unseen wealth
does not show up in the trade deficit. It
only shows up in final U.$. wealth.
There is no way around a global
bottom-up strategy of the international
proletariat to fight u.$. imperialism. The
United $tates can sustain very large trade
deficits with its own wealth and foreign
wealth both expanding even faster than
the trade deficit. Surplus-value has to be
cut off at the source for imperialism's
crisis to intensify. Conversely, setbacks
like the restoration of capitalism in 1976
in China do inject new sources of surplus-
value into the system.
The leaders of the Third World
proletariat must study this question for
themselves. Strategically useful outbursts
of the anarchy of capitalism are not to be
found in connection to the trade deficit,
as we have seen it these past 30 years,
and that means waiting to stage an
offensive for an international economic
collapse on that basis would be wrong.
Even government budget deficits and
the taxes they imply can only shake a
sector of the imperialist- labor-
aristocracy alliance, namely the labor
aristocracy. Such government deficits
show up when the "openness" of the
economy comes under threat as in 911.
A downward psychological spiral and
increased budget deficit occur as a result
of the level of simultaneous class struggle
globally.
There is no point in exciting the
imperialist country so-called worker
about fictitious collapses that some
U.$. trade deficit expanded in June; so-called Marxists don't get it
supporting Mao have been proclaiming
over 30 years now with regard to the trade
deficit. Such fear-mongering only
inspires the labor aristocracy to want a
racist-nationalist movement to
nationalize foreigners' assets. Continued
recitation of old political formulas only
becomes more regressive as time goes on.
Notes:
1. http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/
trade/2002-08-20-trade-gap_x.htm
2. See for example the Chinese Maoists
publishing in Peking Review point to the
modern I$raeli trade deficit as early as June 28
1968, a deficit caused by the war economy.
"Because of the war economy, the adverse trade
balance has greatly increased, there is inflation
and a lot of people are out of work." Of course,
they said the same thing about the United $tates
too, and in the early 1970s, that was indeed a
new trend to observe.
In a 1971 interview, Zhou Enlai also pointed to
the growing U.S. government budget deficit.
Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars,
China! Inside the People's Republic (NY:
Bantam Books, 1972), p. 365. Today supposed
Marxists still point to it without understanding
it, as if some iconic power would create the final
collapse of imperialism.
3. See the Libertarian right-wing Cato Institute,
http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-21-01.html ; See
also the major newspaper in the "Motor City,"
Detroit, http://detnews.com/EDITPAGE/0102/
22/1edit/1edit.htm
4. http://www.cepr.net/globalization/
trade_deficit_commission_testimony.htm
Continued from page 5...
decisions called Nisga's Treaty
acknowledged "aboriginal rights,
constitutional protection for such
rights..... and a general acceptance that
major changes must occur". However
even after Canada's constitution was
amended in 1982 to reflect the
recognition of first nations' rights to
litigate, British Columbia refused to
participate in the Nisga's Treaty
negotiations maintaining there was no
aboriginal land title in the province. (6)
In 1993 Canada, British Columbia and
the First Nations Summit agreed to
initiate a treaty negotiation process
following the province's final acceptance
of aboriginal rights including inherent
right of self-government as official
government policy. B.C. tabled 19
recommendations, and called for the
establishment of a six-stage process for
negotiating treaties with First Nations.
There are currently 53 First Nations
participating in the BC treaty process,
representing 122 Indian Act bands and
two-thirds of all aboriginal people in
B.C., and 42 sets of negotiations
underway. (7)
A 1997 Supreme Court of Canada case
decision secured a further shift in the
treaty negotiation process by confirming
the existence of aboriginal title to land
as land ownership itself as opposed to
the right to hunt, fish or gather and
ordering First Nations' compensation for
use of Crown land whenever aboriginal
rights were affected. (6) This decision
served as an impetus for a tripartite
review of the BC treaty process resulting
in a proposal to accelerate lands and
resources discussions in treaty
negotiations. The legal framework
provided by the court decision fueled
continuing court battles. In March of
2002 Haida Nation initiated a lawsuit
against the provincial and federal
governments claiming ownership of land
and resources of the entire archipelago
off the north coast of B.C., as well as
halting of commercial activities and
repayment of benefits proceeding from
the territory collected over years.
Another lawsuit launched by The
Tsawwassen First Nation involves
shutting down a BC port and Ferries
terminal. (8)
Conclusion
This so-called "referendum on treaty
principles" does not come as a surprise.
In fact, it is more of the same old story:
a "democracy" appeal trick (although this
time below the usual "majority" margin
in terms of voting numbers) used by a
supremacist settler government to back
its way out of what might have begun to
resemble progress in the 9 year long
negotiation process entailing threats to
profits and business interests. To the less
conservative sector of bourgeois
politicians and scholars hoping for the
best, this referendum casts a shadow over
what otherwise they consider a slow but
overall successful system: "over a
century to get over crown immunity, a
quarter of that to re-establish aboriginal
title as property right, and only fours
years to confirm that aboriginal title has
some clout even before it is litigated"
seems like a reasonable pace. (9)
RAIL considers this widely spread line
of reasoning ridiculous. One does not
need 130 years to be awakened to the eye-
opening truth that a people that has lived
on and labored land for centuries has
"some clout" to claiming its title. That it
should take that long to recognize a
nation's right to what it was illegally
disposed of while justice continues to
be obstructed through legislative games,
court bouncing, never ending treaty
negotiations and referendums speaks for
the fact that the present capitalist system
is unable to abolish colonial legacy that
shapes the relationship between
oppressed nations and imperialist
governments.
Notes:
1. www.fns.bc.ca/treaty/t-time.htm
2. www.gov.bc.ca/tno/news/2002/
referendum_treaty_principles.htm
3. www.elections.bc.ca/newsrel/n_020703.html
4. www.ubcic.bc.ca/docs
5. www.bctreaty.net/files/aboriginalrights.html
6. http://www.bctreaty.net/files/
aboriginalrights.html; www.bctreaty.net/titles/
aboriginalrights.html
7. http://www.bctreaty.net/files/status.html
8. http://www.fns.bc.ca/treaty/t_time.htm
9. www.bctreaty.net/titles/aboriginalrights.html
Referendum
Continued from page 3...
Militarism is war-mongering or the advocacy
of war or actual carrying out of war or its
preparations.
While true pacifists condemn all violence as
equally repugnant, we Maoists do not consider
self-defense or the violence of oppressed nations
against imperialism to be militarism. Militarism
is mostly caused by imperialism at this time.
Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism--
seen in countries like the United $tates, England
and France.
Under capitalism, capitalists often profit from
war or its preparations. Yet, it is the proletariat
that does the dying in the wars. The proletariat
wants a system in which people do not have self-
interest on the side of war- profiteering or war for
imperialism.
Militarism is one of the most important reasons
to overthrow capitalism. It even infects oppressed
nations and causes them to fight each other.
It is important not to let capitalists risk our
lives in their ideas about war and peace or the
environment. They have already had two world
wars admitted by themselves in the last 100 years
and they are conducting a third right now against
the Third World.
Even a one percent annual chance of nuclear
war destruction caused by capitalist
aggressiveness or "greed" as the people call it
should not be tolerated by the proletariat. After
playing Russian Roulette (in which the bullet
chamber is different each time and not related
at all to the one that came up in previous spins)
with 100 chambers and one bullet, the chance
of survival is only 60.5% after 50 turns. In other
words, a seemingly small one percent annual
chance of world war means eventual doom.
After 100 years or turns of Russian Roulette,
the chances of survival are only 36.6%. After
200 years, survival has only a 13.4% chance.
WHAT IS MILITARISM?
MIM Notes 266 · September 15, 2002· Page 10
MIM on
Prisons & Prisoners
MIM seeks to build public opinion
against Amerika's criminal injustice sys-
tem, and to eventually replace the bour-
geois injustice system with proletarian jus-
tice. The bourgeois injustice system im-
prisons and executes a disproportionately
large and growing number of oppressed
people while letting the biggest mass mur-
derers -- the imperialists and their lack-
eys -- roam free. Imperialism is not op-
posed to murder or theft, it only insists that
these crimes be committed in the interests
of the bourgeoisie.
"All U.S. citizens are criminals--
accomplices and accessories to the crimes
of U.$. oppression globally until the day
U.$. imperialism is overcome. All U.S.
citizens should start from the point of view
that they are reforming criminals."
MIM does not advocate that all
prisoners go free today; we have a
more effective program for fighting
crime as was demonstrated in China
prior to the restoration of capitalism
there in 1976. We say that all prisoners
are political prisoners because under
the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, all
imprisonment is substantively
political. It is our responsibility to
exert revolutionary leadership and
conduct political agitation and
organization among prisoners --
whose material conditions make them
an overwhelmingly revolutionary
group. Some prisoners should and will
work on self-criticism under a future
dictatorship of the proletariat in those
cases in which prisoners really did do
something wrong by proletarian
standards.
Under Lock & Key
News from Prisons & Prisoners
Northern State Prison
reading mail after
hunger strike
To MIM,
Revolutionary Greetings to all
comrades inside the belly of the beast.
I have received the past MIM Notes of
the months of Jan. & February and I just
received the issue for the month of May.
The issue for the month of May was
almost denied due to a letter written by a
comrade in the same institution
concerning the Hunger Strike, but I
received it, since there was no response
in the newsletter indicating what should
be done. At this moment due to that
incident of the Hunger Strike & because
it was printed out, they will be reading
all MIM letters going out &
correspondence from MIM coming in, I
guess they are trying to see if they can
catch the person who wrote it by
investigating all MIM correspondence
coming in. So now it will even take
longer than the usual to receive MIM
Notes & to receive you're
correspondence
--A New Jersey prisoner, June 2002
MIM replies: This should go as a
warning to comrades organizing within
prisons. Under Lock & Key is a forum
to get the word out about your organizing
to the outside as well as to other
prisoners. But be aware that the pigs can
and will read our correspondence and
take the proper precautions. You should
avoid giving any information that could
help the prisoncrats crush or repress a
movement.
Comrades should also be aware that in
April Northern State Prison returned all
MIM Notes saying MIM is an
"Unauthorized Correspondent" at NSP.
Any insight comrades at NSP might have
into why that occurred would be helpful
in future campaigns to keep MIM Notes
flowing into that facility.
Attica censors
MIM Notes
To: V. Herbert, Superintendent
From: [a New York prisoner]
Date: July 19, 2002
Re: MIM Notes newspaper
Sir:
It has come to my attention that this
facility is not letting in any of the MIM
Notes newspapers sent to me by MIM
Distributors. No reason has been given
to me for the rejection of these
newspapers. Indeed, I was not even aware
this particular facility was rejecting the
MIM Notes until recently.
I have a First Amendment right to
receive political oriented publications,
even if they speak about revolution or
criticize the government or even the
prison system. The right to political
dissent is fundamental and one upon
which the United States of America is
supposedly built upon. Although I am a
prisoner, I still have certain fundamental
rights and the one to receive political
material is one of them.
From Great Meadow to Sing Sing to
Upstate I have received MIM Notes
without difficulty. MIM Notes do not
advocate violence in prison or the
overthrow of government. Yes, MIM
Notes does criticize the government and
prison system but this is constitutional
protected speech; hence, the rejection or
banning of MIM Notes from Attica is
also an infringement upon MIM
Distributors' First Amendment [right] to
free speech.
This is a formal request that you order
the discontinuing of the ban this facility
has on MIM Notes and allow them to be
evaluated through the appropriate media
review procedure. It is illegal and
arbitrary to put an outright ban on MIM
Notes, and a reason for such is at least
warranted. Thank you.
MIM adds: First we need to clarify
that MIM does advocate the overthrow
of the government. But we are clear that
we do not engage in or advocate any
illegal activities at this stage of the
struggle in Amerika. We are currently
engaged in work to build public opinion.
Attica Correctional Facility has been
returning virtually all material sent by
MIM, since the fall of 2001, usually with
a message written on the envelope saying
"not allowed." For a while we could not
even communicate with comrades there
because simple letters were not
permitted. Since then we have been
carrying out a postcard campaign to
protest this censorship and have sent
letters to the superintendent of Attica
with no response. We encourage those
on the inside and outside to continue to
put pressure on Attica to address these
concerns and to abide by their own
regulations regarding media review.
Letters of protest can be sent to:
Superintendent Victor Herbert
Box 149
Attica, NY
14011-0149
Let's have an anti-
censorship column
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
I am writing this letter to let you know
that I have once again begun to receive
the MIM Notes. The May issues were
recently delivered by our friendly postal
worker here at the Menard Corr. Center.
I was saddened to learn about the
increasing censorship by prison
administrations that are afraid of the
messages in supposed anti-establishment
publications. Unfortunately, I did not read
much in the line of legal challenges being
mounted against this continued and
ongoing oppression. Have you thought
about starting a legal column to respond
to most frequently-mentioned problems
regarding censorship? While I feel that
it is important to bring problems we are
confronted with to the public's attention,
wouldn't we be better served by using
the legal system to challenge these people
with their own laws? Just a thought from
one who believes that the best way to
secure justice is to expose these
prisoncrats' illegal policies.
In solidarity,
-- an Illinois prisoner, 22 June, 2002
MIM responds: Go to it! MIM also
believes in fighting for partial demands
-- those demands that will not bring
immediate revolution but will protect our
bourgeois democratic rights and those of
prisoners. We want to defend our right
to free speech, a right all people should
fight for in an Amerikan-style
democracy, and we encourage prisoners
to defend their own rights in the ways
that they can. We welcome all
contributions to a Frequently Asked
about Censorship column.
California: another
senseless stabbing
Well comrade, pass on my undying
respects to all involved in the struggle.
Sadly, in these places, the population is
too ready to fight among each other,
rather than against the real enemy. Just
the other day a white man stabbed
(punctured his lung) a brown man over
nothing important. Now we wait in our
cells to see if all hell is going to break
loose when these doors open. Being a
warrior at heart, times like these do not
worry me. I train my mind and body to
react to anything this world within a
world can throw at me. Nevertheless, I
greet such senseless violence lamentfully.
My fight is not with any of these prison
factions.
In solidarity,
-- a California prisoner, 23 June, 2002
Virginia: exporting
bed space, importing
prisoners
I'm currently being held at one of
Virginia's so-called SuperMax prisons
(Wallens Ridge). Although the general
population here is now reduced from
Level 6 to Level 5 (segregation is Level
6), there is another SuperMax 15 miles
away from here, and that one is Level 6.
There are now two Level 5 prisons:
Sussex and Wallens Ridge, and one Level
6 prison. Now that Washington, D.C. has
removed its prisoners from the Virginia
Department of Corrections due to abuse
by staff, Sussex II (which had housed
them) is now reduced from Level 5 to
Level 4. My point is Virginia is simply
concerned with building prisons and
filling the bed space in them.
Our Dictator Director Ron Angelone
resigned last month. Now the Governor
says that he wants a more lenient Director
who would ease the oppression and
attract out of state prisoners to fill up
these empty beds. It's all about money.
-- a Virginia prisoner, June 2002
Legal struggle over
long hair
Dear Comrade,
In response to my comrade in MIM
Notes 258 (May 15), I would ask that you
print the following legal information. I
am a white inmate in the Texas State
Prison system (TDCJ). TDCJ has a
policy that prisoners must keep short hair
(crewcuts basically) at all times. For 2
years as part of my religious belief I
refused to comply with the policy
because I was already in seg for refusing
MIM Notes 266 · September 15, 2002· Page 11
Facts on U$ imprisonment
The facts about imprisonment in the United $tates are that the United $tates has been the world's leading prison-state per capita for the last
25 years, with a brief exception during Boris Yeltsin's declaration of a state of emergency.(1)
That means that while Reagan was talking about a Soviet "evil empire" he was the head of a state that imprisoned more people per capita.
In supposedly "hard-line" Bulgaria of the Soviet bloc of the 1980s, the imprisonment rate was less than half that of the United $tates.(2,3)
To find a comparison with U.$. imprisonment of Black people, there is no statistic in any country that compares including apartheid South
Africa of the era before Mandela was president. The last situation remotely comparable to the situation today was under Stalin during war
time. The majority of prisoners are non-violent offenders(4) and the U.S. Government now holds about a half million more prisoners than
China; even though China is four times our population.(5)
The rednecks tell MIM that we live in a "free country." They live in an Orwellian 1984 situation where freedom is imprisonment.
Notes: 1. Marc Mauer, "Americans Behind Bars: The International Use of Incarceration 1993," The Prison Sentencing Project, 918 F. St. NW, Suite
501, Washington, DC 20004 (202) 628-0871 Reference: SRI: R8965-2, 1994
2. Ibid., 1992 report.
3. United Nations Development Programme, "Human Development Report 1994,:" Oxford University Press, p. 186.
4. Figure of 51.2 percent for state prisoners there for non-violent offenses. Abstract of the United States 1993, p. 211.
5. Atlantic Monthly December, 1998.
to be a slave. After all my good time was
gone they took me and sheared me
against my will. A prisoner that wishes
to grow his hair because of his religious
belief can now do so. In 2000 the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act was signed. It can now be
located at 42 USC 2000 cc. To find it, it
is located in the pocket part (the little
pamphlet at the back of the book) in the
United States Codes Annotated Title 42
USC 2000e5 to 2010 book. When
grieving this issue specifically cite 42
USC 2000 cc-1(a) and 42 USC 2000 cc-
2(a).
Getting this information to all our
comrades may be a way to stop some of
the abuse. I am pursuing my case here in
Texas. I'll try to update our comrades on
my results as I go. Just by pointing out
the statute since my assault has led to a
whole new attitude here. My only regret
is that I was growing my hair to donate
to wigs for kids, and I never bothered to
express to my keepers my knowledge of
he law because after 2 years of growing
it I really didn't think they'd assault me
and take it. When they decided to cut it I
was given no warning and not allowed
to first grieve the issue to try to stop it.
Power to all the people.
--A Texas Prisoner, August 2002
CaDC visitation: same
old shit, new policy
Greetings comrades,
I read the proposed changes that they
are trying to make to our visits, and
thanks for informing us as now most of
these changes have been implemented.
I've been down since 1996, and they had
barely given family visits to lifers, or to
those in "C" and "D" status (Ad Seg or
SHU). These prisoners only get one hour
visits, behind glass.
Everyone who wants to visit has to
submit a CDC form 106. The CDC
checks to make sure visitors are not on
probation/parole, have not been locked
up, and do not have any type of warrants
on them. [If the visitors fail this test] they
are denied approval to visit.
Other items in the visitation proposal
get imposed depending on the pigs on
duty that day. These are the rules on not
being able to hold your kids, or only
being able to embrace families at the
beginning and end of visits. This is the
way it's been since I've been down.
I have tried to appeal these issues, for
I am a lifer and these types of changes
concerning visits do and will affect me
and others alike. Nothing ever comes of
the grievances. I am always denied and
given the same answer: the policy has
been implemented and it's the law now.
It's been a while since I tried to contest
these decisions. I know that protests and
pressures from the streets by yourselves
and others do bring to light the effects
that these policies have on prisoners.
They are denying the only real thing that
we look forward to: having contact with
our families, being able to hug our kids
and play with them, and enjoy these visits
as much as possible. For the most part
they keep us hundreds of miles from our
families, so we are not able to have a lot
of visits due to the time, funds or whatnot.
It is important that we take action, do
something before they restrict something
else.
-- a California prisoner, July 2002
Get your money on
release; interest
belongs to prisoners
Dear Comrades,
Greetings in the name of the struggle.
Recently I was transferred. The move
was a mixed blessing, I'm closer to my
family and I have more access to the law
library, and I seek to make them pay for
it. Some fellow comrades and I were
researching the issue of whether we are
entitled to the interest the institutions
earn from our trust fund account. I recall
that I'd read about a Federal case where
we had won the right to be paid this
interest.
This slave state has alleged laws that
we are entitled to this money up to a year
after our release. If we don't request the
interest money by then, it goes into the
prisoners benefit fund. Yet the
pri$oncrats don't tell this to the prisoners.
Recently I asked a brother who attends
the mandatory pre-start (pre-parole) class
whether they have mentioned this, and
he said no! So I asked him to inquire
about the interest in his trust fund account
and they told him that the money goes to
the prisoners benefit fund.
I can find anyone who remembers
giving them consent to deposit their
interest in the inmate benefit fund. If you
can provide a case citing it would be of
great help. Any other information would
be a blessing as well.
Peace,
--an Illinois prisoner, April 2002
MIM responds: The Prisoners' Self-
Help Litigation Manual has plenty to say
on this issue. Your memory is correct;
the courts are solidly in your favor.
Boston and Manville write "There is no
question that an inmate's interest in the
funds in his prison account is a protected
property interest." It looks like this is one
of those rare instances where good ol'
Amerikan property values work in
prisoners' favor. "In general, the courts
have upheld that money is property and
is protected by due process."(Alexanian
v. New York State Urban Development
Corp.)
The Federal 9th Circuit specifically
addressed the issue of inmate benefit
funds, deciding that "the prisoner is
clearly entitled to the interest if state
statutes create a property interest in
prisoners' funds and the interest in them."
Eubanks v. McCotter and Washington v.
Reno are the two cases that applied
specifically to prisoners.
The Manual goes on: "regardless of
state law, interest is considered the
property of the person who owns the
principal, and if public officials
appropriate it, they violate the Fifth
Amendment ban on taking of property
for public use without just
compensation."
The only cases in which states have
been allowed to take prisoners' money
have been to pay the costs of
incarceration (Burns v. State, Arkansas);
State, Michigan State Treasurer v.
Turner) or the enforcement of debts such
as child support.(State v. Murray, Hawaii)
"However, state law also places limits on
the collection of debts; you should
consult your state's law of debtors' rights
and creditors' remedies to determine if
any of these limits protect you. For
example, in some states, there are
minimum amounts of money that a debtor
must be permitted to keep."
Following are all the relevant decisions
cited in the Boston & Manville book:
Scott v. Angelone, 771 F. Supp. 1064,
1067 (D. Nev. 1991), affirmed in 980 F.2d
738 (9th Cir. 1992); Alexanian v. New
York State Urban Development Corp.,
554 F.2d 15, 17 (2d Cir. 1977); Tellis v.
Godinez, 5 F.3d 1314, 1316-17 (9th Cir.
1993); Eubanks v. McCotter, 802 F.2d
790, 791-93 (5th Cir. 1986) Webb's
Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith,
449 U.S. 155, 164 (1980). (Reasoning
applied to prisoners' accounts in these
two unreported decisions: Douglas v.
Ward, No. 77 Civ. 2559-CLB,
Memorandum and Order (S.D.N.Y,
January 3, 1980); Fayerweather v.
Wainwright, TCA 75-3 (N.D.Fla., Aug.
20, 1976), quoted in Smith v. Robinson,
456 F.Supp. 449, 453-54 (E.D. Pa. 1978);
Washington v. Reno, 35 F.3d 1093, 1101-
04 (6th Cir. 1994); Burns v. State, 303
Ark. 64, 793 S.W.2d 779, 780 (Ark.
1990); State, Michigan State Treasurer
v. Turner, 110 Mich.App. 228, 312
N.W.2d 418, 420-21 (Mich.App. 1981);
State v. Murray, 621 P.2d 334, 340-43
(Haw. 1981).
Source: John Boston and Daniel E.
Manville, Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation
Manual, Third Edition (New York:
Oceana Publications, Inc.) pp. 231, 348-
351. (Book is available from Oceana
Publications, Inc., 75 Main Street, Dobbs
Ferry, NY 10522.)
MIM does not have copies of this book
to distribute to prisoners, but we strongly
recommend our comrades get a copy if
possible: we need to use the system's
laws to our favor whenever possible. We
would also welcome donations to MIM's
Books for Prisoners program of either
copies of this book or money to purchase
this book to send to prisoners.
From the MIM "Frequently Asked
Questions" page, http://www.etext.org/
Politics/MIM/faq.
Internationalism is the ethical belief or
scientific approach in which peoples of
different nations are held to be or assumed to
be equal. Internationalism is opposed to
racism and national chauvinism.
We Maoists believe the nationalism of
nations experiencing oppression of
imperialism is "applied internationalism." We
oppose nationalism of oppressed nations
directed at other oppressed nations, because
the economic content of such nationalism is
intra-proletarian conflict. We seek a united
front of oppressed nations led by the
international proletariat against imperialism.
"I must argue, not from the point of view
of `my' country (for that is the argument of a
wretched, stupid, petty-bourgeois nationalist
who does not realize that he is only a plaything
in the hands of the imperialist bourgeoisie),
but from the point of view of my share in the
preparation, in the propaganda, and in the
acceleration of the world proletarian
revolution. That is what internationalism
means, and that is the duty of the
internationalist, of the revolutionary worker,
of the genuine Socialist."
V. I. Lenin, "What Is Internationalism?"
The Proletarian Revolution and the
Renegade Kautsky
(Peking: Foreign
Language Press, 1965), p. 80.
What is internationalism?
MIM Notes 266 · September 15, 2002· Page 12
Notas Rojas
setiembre 15, 2002, Nº 266 Fragmento del Periodico Oficial del Movimiento Internacionalista Maoista Gratis
¿Que es el MIM?
El Movimiento Internacionalista Maoísta (MIM) es un partido revolucionario
comunista que ejerce el Marxismo-Leninismo-Maoísmo. El MIM es una organización
internacionalista que trabaja desde el punto de vista del proletariado del Tercer Mundo;
es por esto que sus miembros no son amerikanos sino ciudadanos del mundo.
El MIM lucha para acabar con la opresión de todos los grupos sobre cualquier otro,
naciones por naciones, clases por clases, y géneros por géneros. La revolución es una
realidad para los Estados Unidos mientras su ejército continúa extendiendose en su
esfuerzo por asegurar la hegemonía mundial.
El MIM difiere de otros partidos en tres puntos basicos: (1) El MIM sostiene que
después que el proletariado conquiste el poder estatal, existira aún el potencial para una
restauración de tipo capitalista, bajo la dirección de una burguesía nueva dentro del
mismo partido comunista. En el caso de la Unión Soviética, la burguesía se apoderó del
gobierno después de la muerte de Stalin, en 1953; y en China después de la muerte de
Mao y del derrocamiento de la llamada "banda de los cuatro' en 1976. (2) El MIM
sostiene que la Revolución Cultural en China es la fase ms avanzada a la que llegó el
comunismo en la historia. (3) El MIM afirma que la clase trabajadora blanca de los
EE.UU. es primordialmente, una élite trabajadora no revolucionaria en el presente. Es
por esto que no es el principal vehículo para avanzar el Maoísmo en este país.
El MIM acepta como miembro a cualquier individuo que esté de acuerdo con estos
tres puntos basicos, y que acepte al centralismo democrtico, el método de gobierno por
la mayoría en lo que se refiere a cuestiones de línea del partido. El MIM es un partido
clandestino que no publica los nombres de sus miembros para evitar la represión estatal
dirigida históricamente contra los movimientos revolucionarios comunistas, y anti-
imperialistas. Si Ud. desea una suscripción para cualquiera de nuestros periódicos o
libros teóricos, en español o en inglés, por favor mandar dinero en efectivo o un cheque
al nombre de MIM a esta dirección:
MIM · P.O. Box 29670 · Los Angeles CA 90029-0670
Traducido por Células de Estudio para la
Liberación de Aztlán y América Latina
A principios de julio la corte del Perú
declaró culpable al ex-activo de la CIA,
Vladimiro Montesinos, acusado de
"usurparción de autoridad" por apoderarse
del infame Servicio de Inteligencia Nacional
cuando oficiaba como asesor de éste. El juez
le dictó lo que parece ser una sentencia
pesada por el detalle que resultó en su
enjuicio- una multa de 2.8 millones de
dólares más una cadena de 9 anos y 4 meses
de prisión- pero que en realidad es leve en
comparación con lo que se merece por los
crímenes cometidos al ejecutar la ley marcial
bajo dirección del ex-presidente Alberto
Fujimori. Cientos de miles fallecieron a
causa de la guerra genocida del gobierno
oficial en contra del movimiento
revolucionario dirigido por el Partido
Comunista del Perú (PCP) o "Sendero
Luminoso." Este verano durante el juicio
Montesinos enfrentará cargos de corrupción,
narcotráfico, contrabando de armas,
homicidio e incluso acusasiones de que él
dirigía un escuadrón de muerte paramilitar.
El hecho de que este títere de la CIA estaba
metido en todas estas cosas fue reportado por
el MIM y otros amigos del PCP hace más de
diez años. Durante este tiempo los medios
de comunicación en Amérika y el gobierno
yanqui se mantuvieron en silencio y hasta
aclamaban a Montesinos por sus
sanguinarios esfuerzos "contrainsurgentes."
A continuación imprimimos una nueva
traducción de un artículo que apareció en
MIM Notes detallando la relación entre el
gobierno yanqui, Montesinos y como los
portavoces burgueses consetían a este último.
En la década de los 90 los principales
medios de comunicación imperialistas
difamaban al "Sendero Luminoso" y a su
líder, el Camarada Gonzalo, con acusasiones
de que se asociaban con narcotraficantes.
Ahora son los imperialistas y otros
reaccionarios quienes admiten que el
gobierno del Perú estaba metido en el
narcotráfico tal como lo habia dicho el
"Sendero Luminoso."
En MIM Notes Nú. 216 le informamos al
lector que el Tío Sam se había fastidiado con
su entonces lacayo y maestro de espionage
Vladimiro Montesinos. Este es un fin común
para los lacayos quienes llevan a cabo el
trabajo sucio de los yanquis sólo para
descubrir luego que ya no le hacen falta al
patrón. El problema con lacayos tipo
Montesinos es que quedan descubiertos ante
el pueblo -como en el Perú- y luego sólo es
cuestión de tiempo antes de que el Tío Sam
se deshaga de ellos. Y claro, el próximo
lacayo cobrará más para llevar a cabo las
órdenes del Tío Sam.
En cada país existen personas como
Montesinos, listas para convertirse en
traidores y lacayos. Tanto el Tío Sam como
sus lacayos merecen ser derrotados.
Los medios de comunicación yanquis
protegen a Montesinos
El día 10 de julio de 2001 CNN dijó:
"Después de ser expulsado de las fuerzas
armadas y un corto plazo en prisión por
vender secretos a la CIA, el licenciado
Montesinos abogó a favor de
narcotraficantes." (1) Cuando esto fue
anunciado por CNN Montesinos acababa de
terminar su huelga de hambre de 9 días en
una prisión en el Perú después de haber sido
entregado por las autoridades venezolanas.
Ahora Montesinos enfrenta varias
acusaciones criminales las cuales incluyen
narcotráfico y homicidio.
Sin embargo, una búsqueda en las páginas
de internet del supuestamente imparcial
vocero CNN, revela que antes de que
Montesinos huyera del país, es decir antes de
que el Tío Sam se enfadara con él, CNN no
menciona nada en relación con la protección
que le ofreció Montesinos a los
narcotraficantes. Basta con decir que CNN
es una extensión del gobierno yanqui. Cuando
el Tío Sam pide aclamaciones, CNN las
entrega. Y cuando el Tío Sam le pide que
muerda, CNN muerde.
Ya el día 19 de mayo del 2000 CNN decía
lo siguiente sobre Fujimori y, por implicación,
de su "mano derecha," Montesinos: "Será una
difícil decisión para EE.UU. soltar a Fujimori
ya que él ganó grandes aclamaciones durante
los primeros dos años de su mandato por la
eliminación de la producción de cocaína en
su país, por aplastar a la guerrilla izquierdista
de los movimientos de Sendero Luminoso y
los Tupac Amaru y por controlar la
superinflación." (2) Pero ya que el gobierno
yanqui decidió resistir por completo a
Fujimori y Montesinos, CNN y toda la prensa
del monopolio capitalista cambió de tono y
se le permitió hacer la conexión entre éstos y
el narcotráfico.
La misma búsqueda en las páginas del
periódico New York Times demuestra que
desde 1996 este vocero nunca mencionó a
Montesinos en conexión con el narcotráfico
hasta después de la crítica del gobierno
imperialista en el año 2000. Por cierto, uno
de los pocos artículos del New York Times
en el cual se les critica a los líderes peruanos
se basa en fuentes provenientes de medios de
comunicación israelítas en el Perú.
Los lectores de MIM Notes, al contrario,
conocían todo el panorama desde 1994 por
medio de MIM Notes no. 90 o artículos de
Luis Arce Borja, quien en el mismo año
comenzó su exilio en Bélgica. Periódicos al
estilo Christian Science Monitor o Houston
Chronicle y ediciones burguesas de
Latinoamérica como el Venezolano, Caretas,
sólo sueltan pequeños trozos de información.
Los periodistas lacayos sólo se atreven a
imitar la práctica del MIM y presentar los
hechos importantes ahora que el Tío Sam se
deshizo de Montesinos. Antes de que se
declarara "muerta" la Guerra Popular en el
Perú los lacayos voceros del imperialismo
temían perjudicar a la guerra del Tío Sam en
contra de ésta y su jefe el Camarada Gonzalo
y sus seguidores, pero ahora la cuestión del
narcotráfico vuelve a tomar el escenario.
Ahora los voceros imperialistas hablan
sobre la separación entre el Tío Sam y
Montesinos y explican porqué escondieron
los hechos. Durante los años 90, la agencia
estadounidense contra el narcotráfico (DEA)
y la CIA buscaban continuar las relaciones
con Montesinos, mientras que la ex-Secretaria
de Estado Madeline Albright y el ex-Zar de
Narcotráfico Barry McCaffrey se oponían a
las mismas, según aseguran ahora después de
haber seguido una disciplina de soldados
fieles a la máquina mentirosa de propaganda
del Tío Sam. De hecho, fue el FBI el que
capturó a algunos de los socios de Montesinos
en Miami y ayudó a tronar a Montesinos
mientras que ambas agencias- la CIA y DEA-
siguieron unidas hasta el fin.
El Tío Sam decide intencionalmente
apoyar a los traficantes de coca
Además de subrayar lo poco confiable que
son los medios de comiunicación yanquis, el
caso de Montesinos también señala los
huecos/vacíos en el gobierno que se supone
debería bloquear la corriente de drogas que
alcanzan llegar a EE.UU. De por sí es una
atrocidad que la DEA favoreció las relaciones
con Montesinos pero también el mismo
McCaffrey, el jefe superior de EE.UU. contra
el narcotráfico, se vio rebajado al nivel de un
cabildero interno y tuvo que mantener silencio
mientras el gobierno yanqui apoyaba a los
que destinaban la cocaína a EE.UU.
Sólo ahora se conoce todo esto ya que los
autores de Knight Ridder, Kevin G. Hall y
Lucien Chauvin han desenmascarado los
detalles y algunos periódicos como el Boston
Globe los han publicado. Ahora el Boston
Globe admite que Montesinos enfrenta
acusasiones de que él dirigió escuadrones de
muerte y que traficaba la droga y las armas.
El Boston Globe imprimió el reportaje en la
cadena de Knight Ridder el cual decía que
Montesinos era "el hombre a quien muchos
creían ser el verdadero no elegido líder del
Perú desde 1990 hasta el 2000." (3) No es
sorprendente, entonces, que la administración
de Bush haya tardado en soltar todos los
asquerosos detalles del trabajo de la
adminstración de Clinton en el Perú ya que
temen que éstos puedan poner en peligro al
"joven gobierno democrático del Perú." (3)
La palabra "democracia" en boca de los
imperialistas es una palabra clave que
significa narcotráfico, contrabando de armas
y otras cosas por el estilo que hacen del
mundo entero un lugar seguro para las
ganancias norteamericanas.
Notas:
1. http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/
americas/07/10/peru.montesinos.reut/
index.html
2. http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/
americas/05/19/peru5_19.a.tm/index.html
3. Boston Globe 26June2001, p. a10.
Procesamiento de Vladimiro Montesinos Justifica la
Guerra Popular en el Perú
Por el MIM