Mixing the smell of life With the smell of sweat Bartering life’s vicissitudes With timmur

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sivanandam Sivasegaram <sivasegaram@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:31 PM
Subject: ND 43
To: Sivasegaram <sivasegaram@yahoo.com>

Dear Friends

Please find attached the MS Word & PDF versions of ND 43.

Sincerely

Siva

  

   Mani Thapa, Jose Maria Sison

Editorial ● NDP Diary ● Sri Lankan Events ● World Events  

________________________________________________

Website: www.ndpsl.org Gamaliharu 

Mani Thapa 

Gamaliharu

1

Mixing the smell of life 

With the smell of sweat 

Bartering life's vicissitudes 

With timmur

2

 seeds 

Breaking head inside the quarries 

For roofing other's houses 

Swallowing salt-mixed porridge barely for the self 

While cooking potatoes for the world: 

The story of Gamalis 

Used to sound strange, it used to sound time-worn 

Haven't these faces came from some forest? 

Aren't these famine-ravaged ugly faces? 

Aren't these outlines pressed hard by landslides? 

It seemed they were, they did really seem exotic 

Seem as though the pressure of work caused the loss of their identity 

Seem as though they're searching Gaam after the loss of their identity 

Seem as though they've turned refugees after their Gaam's been looted 

Seem ever helpless: seem ever estranged 

Seem energy-less; seem as though they've lost their moon 

The narrative of Gamalis 

Looked like a kitchen with uncooked porridge. 

It was not written on any limestone: 

Their names and the name of the village they came from 

It was not discovered in any voter list 

Their name and name of the village they came from 

Seemed as though their country's been looted; their form's been looted 

Shedding blood ever inside the timmur bush 

Shedding tears ever on bamboo shoots 

Cow dung all in fingernails 

(Continued on inside back cover) From the Editor's Desk 

The Report of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission has been 

released an year later than initially scheduled. It is unlikely, however, that it will 

appease the US and its allies, despite their formal welcoming of its release.  

The mandate of the LLRC was too restricted to give it room to deal with the 

roots of the national question or investigate issues of war crimes and human 

rights violations. It was this weakness that made organisations representing 

the Tamil people, reputed human rights organisations and the Tamil public 

unwilling to appear before the LLRC. Some did eventually give evidence amid 

intimidation by pro-government goons, only to place their views on record.  

Despite boastful government claims about what the LLRC would achieve, 

the Report, besides ducking issues that could challenge chauvinistic 

hegemony, has gone on to express biased views about war crimes and 

declare that no war crimes had been committed by the armed forces. 

Meantime, it has eluded the question of the thousands who have been 

abducted or gone missing, denied due weight to evidence placed before it on 

arrests, abductions, and, disappearances, and not made recommendations 

based on the evidence. 

The Report has not even hinted at any meaningful way to provide the Tamil 

people— who continue to suffer the destruction and misery caused by the war 

—with the necessary relief, reconstruction and rehabilitation. It does, however, 

admit that the Tamil people have problems, but avoids identifying them or 

assessing their gravity. The LLRC, rather than seeking ways to find short and 

long term solutions to the problems, has concentrated its efforts on 

rationalising the conduct of the armed  forces, thereby, effectively endorsing 

the chauvinism of the government and its brutal conduct of the war. 

The LLRC has also been selective in handling information accessible to it, 

and gone out of its way to denounce various international organisations like 

the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for refusing to appear 

before it in protest of its limited mandate, and to reject the Channel 4 

documentary on war crimes as faked. It has also claimed that there is no case 

for the Sri Lankan government or its armed forces to answer on matters of war 

crimes and violation of human rights. 

What is overwhelmingly clear is that the LLRC, in order to exonerate the 

state and the armed forces of all wrongdoing and defend them against 

international pressure, has opted to gloss over issues of central importance to 

the national question and matters relating to the conduct of the war. Thus, it 

seems that the LLRC has done what it has been commissioned to do, namely 

to blame the LTTE and the Norwegians for the crash of the peace process and 

thereby justify the resumption of the war by the Rajapaksa government.  Whether or not the LLRC Report would help to ease external pressure on 

the government on the questions of human rights and war crimes, the point to 

note is that the cruel war seems to have no useful lessons to the LLRC on the 

gravity of the national question. What the Report contains is biased opinion 

blind to all evidence to the contrary. 

The terms of reference of the LLRC cast doubts on the fairness of the 

investigation. The contents of the Report and the favourable response of the 

chauvinistic media have vindicated those fears. The Report will of course help 

the government to dodge the basic issues in the short and the long terms. 

That is unsurprising since no commission appointed thus far to inquire into 

major national issues has yielded results, as their purpose has not been to 

solve problems but to avoid dealing with them. What is sad is that, given the 

callous indifference of the government towards the national question, even the 

wishy-washy recommendations of the LLRC on 'demilitarisation' of society, 

detentions, armed militias, devolution of power and new Sinhalese settlements 

in the North-East— with no mention of power over of police and land to 

provincial governments —are unlikely to be acted upon. 

The Report has come amid external pressure based on charges of war 

crimes and human rights violations as well as growing mass disaffection with 

government on a variety of issues including education, health, social services, 

wages, unemployment, soaring prices  and the rising cost of living. The 

government will use each unfavourable foreign response to the Report to 

accuse the 'International Community' of being unfair and to deflect attention 

from the issues facing the people by arguing the need to defend the 

sovereignty of the country against foreign and Tamil nationalist conspiracy. 

Thus, the various shades of Tamil nationalists, by openly appealing to 

foreign powers to intervene in the national question, will only add to the 

credibility of the claims of the Rajapaksa regime while letting themselves to be 

used in the schemes of the regional hegemon and the imperialist West to 

dominate Sri Lanka, with no eventual benefit to the Tamil people.   

In this context, the left and progressive elements among the Sinhalese 

have a major responsibility in preventing foreign forces from taking advantage 

of the national question to serve their purpose of domination over Sri Lanka. 

They have the historical responsibility of defeating the reactionary chauvinist 

forces among the Sinhalese.  By addressing the national question in a way 

that defends the rights of the Tamil, Muslim and Hill Country Tamils against 

chauvinist oppression they will not only help the minority nationalities to reject 

their archaic, reactionary and bankrupt leaders who have for too long 

dominated their affairs but also strengthen the struggle of the Sinhalese to 

rescue the fast eroding democracy and social justice in the country and to 

defend the country against foreign domination and control. 

***** Culture as Imperialist Tool  

to Hegemonise  

the People of the World

COMRADE E. THAMBIAH 

[Draft text of paper by Comrade E Thambiah, International Organiser, 

New-Democratic Marxist Leninist Party for presentation at the 3

rd

 AntiImperialist International Conference, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 27-29 

November 2011] 

It is now clear that globalisation of imperialism or imperialist globalisation is a 

new phase of imperialism which was born out of imperialist crisis and has in 

no way invalidated the scientific findings of Karl Marx or the definition of 

imperialism by Lenin. If at all it has only confirmed the findings of these great 

teachers. 

Imperialism is the main enemy not only to Marxists but also to each and 

every human being who desires a life free of all manner of hegemony, 

discrimination and exploitation and wishes to preserve all good things in 

nature for future generations. 

We have little time to waste on mischievous attempts to discredit the 

scientific findings and interpretations  of imperialism by Marxists, although 

there are times when such mischief has to be exposed. The anti-imperialist 

task facing us is very important at both theoretical and practical levels and its 

implementation needs the broadest possible mass base and its building up 

must be in a revolutionary sprit enabling the unity and broadest possible 

participation of the people of the world. 

Broad-based alliances also need to take into account the objective reality 

about the forces that could be united against imperialism. For example, the 

national bourgeois class under classic colonialism played a major role in 

freeing nations from the colonial domination. However, with the emergence of 

neo-colonialism and imperialist globalisation in the post-colonial era, the 

national bourgeoisie have lost their anti-imperialist potential and submitted to 

imperialism. In the face of local and international economic challenges in the postcolonial era, which soon became the neo-colonial era, the nationalist elite who 

took over the regime from the colonial masters became increasingly 

oppressive towards the people. In course of time, the oppressive nationalist 

elite have become willing to surrender the sovereignty of their nations to fit the 

imperialist agenda in return for support and protection by the imperialists from 

their own people. 

Amid the global surrender by nationalist rulers, a section of the nationalist 

elite, although void of anti-imperialist substance, continued with faked antiimperialist posturing. Such nationalist rulers are being weeded out by 

imperialism by taking advantage of their anti-people, anti-democratic and antihuman-rights records. The process of weeding does not stop at the defeat or 

annihilation of individual oppressors but proceeds to bring the entire nation 

and its people under the heels of Imperialism. 

Thus, unlike during classic colonialism and the early post-colonial period 

when neo-colonialism took shape, nations and people of the world now face a 

complex situation in confronting imperialism manifesting itself as imperialist 

globalisation and neo-colonialism. 

It is important to note in this context that imperialism, besides penetrating 

the farthest reaches of  economics, politics, political economy and political 

geography, has also penetrated culture in every country within its reach. 

Karl Marx explained that culture was a superstructure built by the dominant 

classes and that it exercised hegemony over the entire social life in order to 

ensure economic exploitation of the oppressed classes by the dominant 

classes.  

Several Marxist teachers have dealt extensively with cultural domination of 

capitalism and imperialism. Recent studies provide detailed evidence of how 

imperialism has by means of globalisation penetrated nation states, mass 

organisations, liberation struggles and exercises hegemony over the minds of 

people through pervasive cultural industries. 

It is broadly accepted that culture produces values without coercion which 

are shared without mediation of exchange value for the satisfaction of the 

common needs of the people, including aesthetic values. Culture, being an 

aesthetic and intellectual product, is considered as a means of communication 

and social practice through which meaning and values are produced and 

disseminated. 

National culture could manifest itself in an anti-colonial nationalist form or 

as ethnic nationalism and macro world culture. Imperialism has now very 

much commoditised culture and has supplemented if not substituted the 

minimum cultural values based on market needs to establish its hegemony through an imposed culture and by posing cultural issues in ways favourable 

to imperialist globalisation. 

In these circumstances we are obliged to take a closer view of at least the 

basic aspects of culture of globalisation.  

1.  Culture as commodity

Cultural products are brought to market as saleable commodities and 

thereby ignoring their intrinsic social values. 

Although there is national and transnational collaboration in commoditising 

cultural products, there is pressure to register cultural products and 

creations directly or indirectly as intellectual property nationally as well as 

internationally through the World Trade Organisation, a major instrument of 

imperialist globalisation. Consequently, even rural folk culture comes under 

imperialist monopoly.  

2. Consumerism as life style 

Day to day life centres on consumerism. The market decides consumption, 

urging the spending entire earnings on consumer goods and pressing for 

increased earnings to meet the demands of consumption. Electronic media 

in the form of television and internet communication networking has 

invaded all homes to push people further into consumerism. Market forces 

not only condition choice in household necessities but also alter values of 

lived life, consumption patterns and even matters of human desire like love 

and sex.  

3. Individualism as life style

In order to achieve macro-scale impact on culture, imperialism destroys the 

finer or micro-scale values of human life. Individualism is promoted under 

globalisation by projecting the life-style and attitudes of the affluent classes 

as the norm thereby weakening collectivism and shared public interests. 

Many left intellectuals have fallen victim to individualist social practice to 

become bourgeois intellectuals. What used to be voluntary social work has 

been transformed into projects of non-governmental organisations which 

promote personal profit and individualism, particularly among intellectuals. 

Individualism disunites the people, nations and working people. When 

pitted against collective interest, it makes society an incohesive collection 

of individuals and thereby undermines resistance to social injustice.  

4. The nation state as corporate body under imperialism 

Nation states, following liberation from colonial rule, were progressive and 

independent until the process of globalisation gathered momentum, and 

today most nation states depend on imperialism for their survival. Imperialism has designated the nation  state the role of a corporate body 

that would implement imperialist globalisation, thus rendering meaningless 

all nationalist claims to sovereignty, integrity and independence. 

Meanwhile, 'new' political thoughts are introduced into the nationalist 

agenda to accommodate imperialism.  

5. Human rights as imperialist weapon

It is imperialism, more than dictatorial nation states in the neo-colonies, 

which nakedly violates human rights and humanitarian laws, while claiming 

to propagate human rights through the UN and its agencies as well as local 

and international political NGOs. 

The imperialist agenda for human rights generally reduces issues of human 

rights to mere studies and confines struggles for human rights to matters of 

litigation and pressurising. 

Where imperialism uses human rights as a basis for 'regime change' 

through encouraging dissident forces or by invading the country, the human 

rights issues invariably concern capitalist interests. NGOs play a role in 

creating a local political climate conducive to a 'regime change' that suits 

imperialist interests.  

6. 'Cultural shocks' and 'cultural mediators'

The 'cultural shocks' and 'cultural mediators' under globalisation are not 

what one has in mind in discussions to exchange progressive culture or 

progressive cultural adaptation. 

Cultural globalisation has its agenda of 'cultural shocks' and 'cultural 

mediation' which seek to eradicate the lived values of culture and to 

substitute them with values of corporate or market culture to exercise 

hegemony on the minds of the people in order that they accept imperialist 

globalisation as inevitable destiny. 

Cultural shocks include the marketing of Valentine's Day as a celebration at 

international level and the promotion  of gay rights in counterproductive 

ways. War, torture, butchery and other crude forms of violence are either 

glorified or transformed into 'entertainment' by powerful propagation in 

order that people are conditioned to accept them as normal if not justifiable 

events. 

Besides bourgeois intellectuals, propagators of postmodernism serve as 

cultural mediators of imperialism, either knowingly or by participation in 

well-paid projects work. Postmodernist rejection of all existing values brings 

them close the cultural agenda of imperialist globalisation, so that 

postmodernists, implicitly or explicitly, end up promoting the culture of 

globalisation.  There are several more aspects to  the culture of globalisation that go 

against freedom of humanity and remain to be addresses. The present 

survey it is hoped draws sufficient attention to the threat posed by the 

culture of globalisation and the need to resist it. 

STRUGGLES AGAINST THE IMPERIALIST CULTURE OF GLOBALISATION  

Careful analysis of the present global  situation will show that struggles on 

macro and micro scales against imperialism in the field of culture during the 

phase of imperialist globalisation are far more important than during earlier 

phases of imperialism.  

At local level, within a country or a nation, the impact of globalisation often 

becomes evident in relation to specific issues or of concern to particular 

sections of society and consequently micro scale struggles become 

necessary. Such struggles could be carried out by individuals acting as a 

group or by an organisation. 

Macro-scale struggles become necessary at a regional level or at 

international level. We witness dedicated efforts by individuals and groups 

both regionally and internationally. Yet they are inadequate to meet the 

challenges of imperialist globalisation. 

In addition to activities expressing solidarity with just causes, there is a 

need for well co-ordinated concrete, organised activity guided in a coherent 

manner by confederated international structure. One cannot rightly claim that 

micro-scale struggles on a national or countrywide level constitute macroscale struggles. Micro-scale struggles, irrespective of their spread and 

frequency, are no substitute for macro-scale struggles at an international level. 

Thus there is a need for international institutions and organisations, and 

internationalised struggles against imperialism. The International AntiImperialist Co-ordination Committee, for example, can play a role as a cultural 

organisation to meet imperialist challenges. Observation of the International 

Anti-Imperialist Day, regular international publications and campaign using the 

internet and other means could contribute to the growth and solidarity among 

local struggles to acquire an international dimension as well as reinforce 

ongoing international struggles. 

A culture of resistance is at present an essential first step in combating the 

culture of imperialist globalisation. At the same time thought has to be given to 

developing a new alternative culture that will unite humanity and free it from all 

forms of hegemony.  

*****    

Re-Reading  

"Humanitarian Intervention"  

in the Light of Libyan Occupation 

Asvaththaamaa

Introduction 

What we have witnessed in Libya and Côte d'Ivoire has a lot more to them 

than simply international interventions. The events and outcomes in those 

countries have set new precedents and also shown the Modus Operandi of a 

world in the making. The NATO-led intervention in Libya, "Operation Unified 

Protector", is noteworthy for two central reasons. Firstly, it is the first instance 

in over a decade of what Andrew Cottey calls "classical humanitarian 

intervention"— that is, humanitarian intervention that lacks the consent of the 

government of the target state, has a significant military and forcible element, 

and is undertaken by Western states (Cottey 2008).  

It appeared for a while as if the sun had set on (classical) humanitarian 

intervention (Weiss 2004). The focus of the West, especially of the US, was on 

fighting the 'war on terror' and using force in the name of freedom and 

democracy, rather than trying to halt mass atrocities. Moreover, the domestic 

and international costs of the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan led to a widely 

held expectation that there would not  be another major Western-led military 

intervention any time soon, let alone in response to mass atrocities and in 

another Muslim state. Libya thus caught  many by surprise. This is the first 

classical case of humanitarian intervention since the report of the International 

Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS),  The 

Responsibility to Protect (RTP), and agreement among states at the 2005 UN 

World Summit that there exists a responsibility to protect (ICISS 2001, UN 

2005). There has since been much talk of the need to "operationalise", 

"implement "and "realise" RTP, as well as to turn "words into deeds" and 

"rhetoric into practice". Without a major humanitarian intervention in the name 

of RTP, the doctrine was viewed by some as a catchy slogan, but ultimately 

hollow and lacking in any real practical effect (Hehir 2010). 

UN Security Council Resolution 1973 against Libya authorised "all 

necessary measures" to protect civilians without the consent of the "host" 

state. In contrast to other crises involving alleged crimes against humanity, diplomacy produced a decisive response in a relatively short time. Hence the 

Libyan intervention went well; it will put teeth in the fledgling RTP doctrine. 

The ICISS sandwiched military force  between the sliced white bread of 

prevention and post-conflict peace building. With its more popular elements on 

either end of the RTP continuum, the option of military intervention to protect 

human lives became somewhat more palatable than it had been, especially in 

the global South. 

Despite widespread opprobrium and numerous UN resolutions, the 

collective acceptance to military action in 2010-2011 to oust Laurent Gbagbo 

and install Alassane Ouattara in Ivory Coast (Côte d'Ivoire) provides a 

situation very similar to Libya. The departure of Gbagbo in April followed a half 

year of dawdling as Côte d'Ivoire's unspeakable disaster unfolded. Three 

times in March 2011 alone the Security Council menaced the designated loser 

of the November 2010 elections and repeated its authorisation to "use all 

necessary means to carry out its mandate to protect civilians". In early April 

2011, action led by the 1 650-strong French Licorne force did what was 

expected for the wishes of the West. The international willingness to use 

significant armed force abetted Gbagbo's intransigence. Thus Ivory Coast too 

presents a case of how the 'humanitarian intervention' and 'RTP' is perceived 

and operates.  

Setting the Stage for Interventions  

The preoccupation with naming follows from the legal implications of how a 

thing is named: 'genocide' goes with an international responsibility to 

intervene. In the post-cold war era, that responsibility has been defined as 'the 

responsibility to protect' and broadened to include three crimes in particular: 

genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Arranged in order of 

gravity, they are said to justify a 'humanitarian intervention' and the jurisdiction 

of an International Criminal Court― the first based on a right to protect and the 

second on a right to punish ―both overriding claims of sovereignty.  

The new order is sanctioned by a new language that departs markedly 

from the older language of democracy and citizenship. It describes as 'human' 

the populations to be protected, and as  'humanitarian' the crisis they suffer 

from, the intervention that promises  to rescue them and the agencies that 

carry out the intervention. Whereas the language of sovereignty is profoundly 

political, that of humanitarian intervention is seemingly apolitical, and at times 

even anti-political. Looked at closely and critically, what we are witnessing is 

not a global, but a partial, transition. The transition from the old system of 

sovereignty to a new humanitarian order is confined to those states defined as 

'failed' or 'rogue' states. The result  is a bifurcated system whereby state 

sovereignty obtains in large parts of the world but is suspended in more and 

more countries in Africa and the Middle East (Mamdani 2010). The era of international humanitarian order is not something new. It draws 

on the entire history of modern Western  colonialism. At the very outset of 

Western colonial expansion in the  eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, 

leading Western powers (UK, France, Russia) claimed to protect 'vulnerable 

groups'. When it came to countries controlled by rival powers, such as the 

Ottoman Empire, Western powers claimed to protect populations they 

considered 'vulnerable', mainly religious minorities such as specific Christian 

denominations and Jews. The most extreme political outcome of this strategy 

can be glimpsed in the confessional constitution bequeathed by France on 

independent Lebanon (Makdisi 2000).When it came to lands not yet colonised 

by any power, such as South Asia and large parts of Africa, the practice was 

to highlight local atrocities and pledge to protect victims against rulers. It was 

not for lack of reason that the language of modern Western colonialism 

juxtaposed the promise of civilisation against the reality of barbaric practices. 

War has long ceased to be a confrontation between the armed forces of 

two states. As became clear during the confrontation between the Allied and 

Axis powers in the Second World War, in America's Indochina War in the 

1960s and 1970s, its Iraq War in 1991 and then again in its 2003 invasion of 

Iraq, states do not just target the armed forces of adversary states; they target 

society itself: war-related industry and infrastructure, economy and workforce, 

and, sometimes, as in the aerial bombardment of cities, the civilian population 

in general. The trend is for political violence to become generalised and 

indiscriminate. Thus modern war is total war. 

This particular development in the nature of modern war has tended to 

follow an earlier development of counter-insurgency in colonial contexts. 

Faced with insurgent guerrillas who were none other than armed civilians, 

colonial powers targeted the population of occupied territories. If Mao Zedong 

wrote that guerrillas must be as fish in water, the American counter-insurgency 

theorist, Samuel Huntington, writing during the time of the Vietnam War, 

responded that the object of counter-insurgency must be to drain the water 

and isolate the fish, i.e., ethnic cleansing. But the practice is older than postSecond World War counter-insurgency. 

The distinction between war, counter-insurgency and genocide is blurred in 

practice. All three tend to target civilian populations. In the era of nationalism 

and nation-states, power as well as its adversaries tends to be identified with 

entire national communities, whether defined by race, ethnicity or religion. Yet, 

the regime identified with the international humanitarian order makes a sharp 

distinction between genocide and other kinds of mass violence. International 

legal norms tend to be tolerant of counter-insurgency as integral to the 

exercise of national sovereignty and war as a standard feature of international 

politics― but not of genocide. The purpose  of the distinction is to reserve 

universal condemnation for only one form of mass violence― genocide ―as 

the ultimate crime and thus call for 'humanitarian' intervention only where 'genocide' has been unleashed, while treating both counter-insurgency and 

war between states as normal developments, one in the internal functioning of 

nation-states and the other in the international relations between them. The 

point, even if not made explicitly, is clear: counter-insurgency and inter-state 

violence are after all what states do. It is genocide that is violence gone amok, 

amoral, evil. The former is normal violence, only the latter is bad violence. 

The depoliticising language of humanitarian intervention has a wider 

function: 'humanitarian intervention' is  not an antidote to international power 

relations, but its latest product. Bolton sensed that the most likely 

consequence of the absence of formal political accountability would be the 

informal politicisation of the ICC. His worry, though, was that 'the ICC will be 

''captured'' not by governments but by NGOs and others with narrow special 

interests, and the time and resources  to pursue them' (Bolton 2001). What 

Bolton failed to foresee or foretell was that the ICC would be captured by the 

US governmental power rather than by NGOs. None should be surprised that 

the US used its position as the leading power in the Security Council to 

advance its bid 'to capture' the ICC. 

The contrast is provided by Bosnia and Rwanda, two countries where the 

administration of justice became an international responsibility: 'Bosnia is a 

clear example of how a decision to detach war crimes from the underlying 

political reality advances neither the political resolution of a crisis nor the goal 

of punishing war criminals. Like Bosnia, justice in Rwanda too has become a 

ruse for 'score-settling'. The focus of the Rwanda tribunal, says Bolton, has 

been 'war by other means', so much so that 'it is delusional to call this 

''justice'' rather than ''politics''', and he rightly concludes: "Many questions are 

clearly political, not legal: How shall the formerly warring parties live with each 

other in the future? What efforts shall be taken to expunge the causes of the 

previous inhumanity? Can the truth of what actually happened be established 

so that succeeding generations do not  make the same mistakes?" (Bolton 

2001) 

Morality Justification  

Today the ideals of international justice and the breaking down of state 

sovereignty are argued to be not an  expression of growing international 

morality but an extension of American power. Certainly for Western states, 

major military interventions were justified in highly moral and altruistic terms, 

of being fought on behalf of others. Vaclav Havel famously called the NATO 

intervention in Kosovo a war for 'values' (Clark 2009). Even the first Gulf War, 

often understood to be a 'traditional' conflict, was framed by George Bush, 

Senior in a strikingly novel manner. In his notorious 'new world order' speech 

President Bush announced a new order in which the rule of law replaced the 

old power politics, 'A world in which nations recognise the shared 

responsibility for freedom and justice; A world where the strong respect the 

rights of the weak' (Bush 1990). As elaborated by Robert Cooper, post-cold war military interventions conducted by the West arise from: 'The wish to 

protect individuals, rather than to resolve the security problems of states' 

(Cooper 2004).  

Yet in Kosovo, after the war NATO's local ally, the Kosovo Liberation Army, 

an ethnic Albanian militia, expelled 100 000 non-Albanians from Kosovo whilst 

Kosovo was supposedly controlled by international forces (see, for example, 

the report by the International Crisis Group in 1999 [ICG 1999], also Bancroft 

2009). However, despite this disastrous outcome, as we have seen the 

Kosovo conflict is upheld by advocates of humanitarian intervention and the 

RTP as an example of a successful intervention which can provide a pattern 

for future interventions.  

Chandler (2002) suggests that the  roots of contemporary ethical foreign 

policy are to be sought in the evolution of the NGO movement. The grievous 

experience of the Biafran crisis prompted the establishment of a new 

generation of NGOs. Having abandoned the traditional neutral standards of 

humanitarian action, these representatives of civil society base their activities 

on two 'solidarity principles', namely 'freedom of criticism' or 'denunciation' 

and 'subsidiary of sovereignty' or 'right  of intervention'. In other words, they 

feel free to criticise oppressive governments as well as to intervene in cases of 

humanitarian emergency. In time, some of these agencies started to claim that 

aid merely treats the symptoms rather than the roots of the problem, and could 

even prolong crises. In order to avoid that risk and to enhance the 

effectiveness of operations, assistance has been increasingly subjected to 

political as well as human rights conditions, the non-fulfilment of which could 

even provide an ethical justification for  the denial of help. The most radical 

advocates of the 'new humanitarianism', however, consider the conventional 

forms of relief insufficient and urge military action. Humanitarianism has, thus, 

often been subverted to become its opposite: coercive, partial and politicised. 

He argues that Western governments ostensibly resort to force to protect 

human rights abroad, but their purpose is to overcome certain problems of 

their own. The strength of  an ethical foreign policy, in his view, is that it 

demonstrates adherence to values and goals― the protection and promotion 

of human rights ―that are able to unify a society and consolidate the domestic 

authority of Western governments by providing a new form of legitimacy. 

Ethical foreign policy can legitimise political power in a non-political manner 

and establish an area where 'the government can operate outside the 

traditional sphere of policy-making' (Chandler 2002). Chandler points out that 

the pursuit of such policy has other advantages as well: the object of criticism 

is a foreign government and 'credit can be claimed for any positive outcome of 

international policy, while any negative outcome can be blamed on the 

government which was the object of criticism'. 

What human rights advocates consider the strengthening of international 

law runs the risk of being, in fact, its abolition. The implicit denial of the sovereign equality of states, the bypassing of the Security Council and the 

marginalisation of the UN are likely  to deprive international law of its 

consensual basis, introduce institutionalised inequality among its subjects, 

raise the frequency of armed conflicts, and revive the old Westphalian order 

(Chandler 2002). The rise of international criminal justice, as well as the 

inclination of Western powers towards the invocation of a 'higher duty' of 

fighting evil for the justification of unauthorised armed interventions are, in 

Chandler's view, all eloquent symptoms of this tendency. His gloomy vision of 

a 'post-UN international order' adequately identifies certain anomalies and 

echoes the concerns of many experts. Humanitarian intervention is not 

altogether advantageous is because of  the way the human rights discourse 

challenges political equality and popular democracy at the domestic level, both 

within the intervening Western and in the non-Western target states. 

Human rights advocates will describe both the local political elite and the 

local people as politically incompetent thus legitimising calls for an alternative 

regulation dictated by external actors on the basis of human rights― for 

instance in the form of long-term transnational authorities, such as those in 

Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, East Timor or Afghanistan. This solution, 

however, substantially undermines the legitimacy of a non-Western state, 

which is increasingly evaluated by other states or international organisations 

based on human rights rather than through domestic democratic channels.  

Theses of democratic peace hold that international peace can be achieved 

via the establishment of a world of liberal states. It has to be noted that the line 

of demarcation between liberal and non-liberal states is unclear. In fact, there 

are unacknowledged links between democracy and authoritarianism: 'nonliberal democratic states invariably have some democratic and liberal features 

and further potentials', while 'liberal-democratic states certainly have nondemocratic and non-liberal features and potentials'. 

Use of Force 

The main way that the use of force has been expanded is that it is no longer 

seen as a universal right of self-defence. Thus, for some powers, the selfselecting US-led 'coalitions of the willing' have argued that they have a right to 

self-defence that other countries do not necessarily have. That makes 

definitions of self-defence rely on who makes the decisions about self-defence 

and what it entails in a new era. It is no longer something adjudicated by the 

UN or limited to an image of direct threat, but expanded to be much broader 

not merely in terms of the willingness to use force and the legitimacy of the 

objects of such force, but also in endorsing the idea that it is legitimate for 

some countries to use self-defence, but not for others. One would never find 

people arguing that India or Pakistan have the right to self-defence or preemptive strikes against potential threats or should act globally in terms of 

preventive intervention. It's very clear that this is a definition that stands 

outside any formal framework of international law. No one is arguing the case for a broader extension of the right  to self-defence: the debate concerns 

Western or 'Great Power' responsibilities. 

The legitimacy of self-defence is one of the problems of international life, 

but not the only one. An equally important problem is the effectiveness of selfdefence. Even if the UN Charter and international law guarantee the right to 

self-defence to almost everyone, the  real problem is that some powers are 

able to defend themselves while others are not. For example, a weak political 

entity such as the Palestinian people might have the legal right to self-defence 

but that is of little use since they lack the instruments to exercise the right. In 

Rwanda, as in Bosnia, the international community was closely involved from 

the beginning. People were aware that there was already international reform 

of the governing process that created instability. There was also a war going 

on: an invasion from Uganda that was supported by the US and UK. One 

reason for the unwillingness to intervene was that the international community 

was already so involved. The understanding that the genocide came out of 

nowhere, is as ridiculous as the idea that the genocide in Bosnia came out of 

nowhere without international intervention, which ignores the whole 

international involvement in the breakup of Yugoslavia, the recognition of the 

separation of the republics and the undermining of the rights of the federal 

state to defend its borders. 

Human Rights 

With the end of the Cold War, human rights concerns shifted from the margins 

to the mainstream of international concerns as universal humanitarianism 

appeared to be a feasible possibility. Western states and international 

institutions had much greater freedom to act in the international sphere with 

the attenuation of Cold War rivalries freeing policy from narrow geo-strategic 

concerns. New possibilities for intervention and aspirations for a more 

universal framework of policy making were increasingly expressed through the 

expanding discourse of human rights. 

It was in the humanitarian sphere that the shift from formal views of rights, 

based on rational autonomous subjects, to ethical views of rights, based on a 

lack of capacity and the need for external advocacy and intervention, became 

a major factor in international relations. The introduction of the human rightsbased approach into traditional humanitarian practices reflected two trends: 

firstly, the increased penetration of external actors and agencies into postcolonial states and societies; and secondly, the transformation of the content 

of traditional humanitarian principles. 

As Western humanitarian non-governmental organisations (NGOs) 

acquired greater powers and authority within post-colonial countries, they 

redefined the central principles guiding their work. Universality and neutrality 

came to be redefined, based not on a universal view of humanity as being 

equally moral and autonomous, but on end goals or aspirations. This expansion of external power, through redefining the 'human' as lacking 

autonomy, effectively set up a hierarchy of the 'helper' and the 'helpless'. 

Through the ethic of responsibility to  assist the 'helpless'— those without 

autonomy —this discourse reframed political choices as ethical questions. In 

this way, external NGO actors maintained a 'non-political' stance of neutrality 

while at the same time claiming extended rights to intervene in domestic 

political processes. From the late 1960s onwards, international humanitarian 

NGOs used the discourse of human rights to rewrite the boundaries of their 

authority through expanding the sphere of  ethics into the sphere of political 

decision making. 

The human rights-based discourse of humanitarianism enabled NGOs to 

blur the distinction between politics and ethics. Central to this conflation of 

politics and ethics was the development of new codes of practice based 

around redefining neutrality. Neutrality no longer meant equal respect for 

parties to conflict or for locally-instituted authorities, but was redefined as 

neutrality with respect to human rights frameworks and outcomes. In this way, 

NGOs claimed decision-making powers over who deserved aid and which 

practices of development were most appropriate. NGOs accrued more 

authority through the human rights discourse because they were held to be 

acting on behalf of those unable to act  or incapable of acting on their own 

behalf. 

The extension of the power and authority of humanitarian non-state actors 

took place in relation to changes in approaches to both conflict and 

development. Firstly, through the extension  of assistance to victims of war, 

there was a shift from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) 

approach of aid to casualties and assistance to prisoners regardless of 

political affiliation to a more engaged, 'solidarity' approach, advocated by 

agencies such as 'Médecins Sans Frontières' (Doctors without Borders) who 

argued that there was a need to discriminate between abusers and victims 

and to intervene in conflict with a view to rights-based outcomes. Secondly, 

there was a shift in NGO approaches to emergency relief, and an increased 

understanding that famines and natural disasters could be better addressed 

by long-term developmental approaches rather than short-term palliative ones.  

It now appeared that humanitarian NGOs were duty bound to intervene in 

more direct and lasting ways. However, this approach of solidarity, and 

education and training meant that the relationship between NGOs and their 

beneficiaries changed from one of charity between ostensible equals to one of 

dependency and empowerment. The humanitarian NGOs shifted from a 

traditional liberal rights-based approach of equality to an ethico-political 

approach of human rights that facilitated the inequality of treatment. This has 

resulted in humanitarian NGOs opposing the provision of aid in cases where it 

was felt that human rights outcomes could be undermined (Leader, 1998; Fox, 

2001). By the end of the Cold War, the discourse of humanitarian universalism 

had become a highly interventionist one, transformed through the modern 

discourse of human rights values and assumptions. Once the barriers to state 

actors intervening were diminished, this discourse was increasingly taken over 

by leading states and international institutions and NGOs boomed in numbers 

and authority as new frameworks of intervention were instituted. According to 

Mark Duffield, the 'petty sovereignty' of NGOs— their increasing assumption 

of political decision making powers in regions intervened in —was 

'governmentalised' in the 1990s: integrated within a growing web of 

interventionist institutions and practices  associated with external intervention 

and regulation (Duffield 2007). 

The privileging of human rights as individual rights above the sovereign 

rights of states has altered traditional  international practices, especially with 

regard to international law and the use of force. The human rights-based 

justification for military intervention is often posed in terms of the revival of premodern 'just war' thinking, which is concerned with the moral and ethical 

bases of war rather than with its legal grounding. Here the clash between the 

universal ethics of human rights and the legal framework of international 

society as it is currently situated comes into stark clarity. 

Rather than universal discourses of human rights expressing a new 

progressive political era, Ignatieff highlights that the focus on human rights 

expresses disillusionment with political engagement and social change: the 

concern that 'there are no good causes left— only victims of bad causes' 

(Ignatieff 1998). He notes (1998) the danger of this modern moral 

universalism, which 'has taken the form of an anti-ideological and anti-political 

ethic of siding with the victim; the moral risk entailed by this ethic is 

misanthropy'. 

Re-reading Libya 

The adoption of Resolution 1973 by the UN Security Council on 17

th

 May 2011 

approving a no-fly zone over Libya and calling for "all necessary measures" to 

protect civilians, reflected a change in the Council's attitude toward the use of 

force for human protection purposes,  and the role played by the UN's new 

Joint Office on the Prevention of Genocide and the Responsibility to Protect 

point toward the potential for this new  capacity to identify threats of mass 

atrocities and to focus the UN's attention on preventing them. 

In Resolution 794, the Security Council authorised the Unified Task Force 

to enter Somalia to ease the humanitarian crisis, but this was in the absence 

of a central government rather than against one― a point specifically made at 

the time by several Council members (Williams 2011). Similarly, in Resolution 

929 the Security Council authorised the French-led Operation Turquoise, 

ostensibly to protect victims of the ongoing genocide in Rwanda. Operation 

Turquoise enjoyed the consent of the interim government in Rwanda as well as its armed forces. More recently, in Haiti, the Democratic Republic of Congo, 

Sudan, and Ivory Coast, the Security Council has authorised the use of "all 

necessary measures" to protect civilians, but all the peace operations in these 

countries are carried out with the consent of the host state (Williams 2011). 

But it was not the case in Libya 

None of the world's various risk-assessment frameworks viewed Libya as 

posing any threat of mass atrocities. That the UN had authorised action 

despite an extremely short time frame exposes the intentions and politics 

behind the intervention. The UN Secretariat was purposefully assessing the 

situation through the prism of RTP and drawing attention to human protection 

issues. Of course, there can be times when plausible options are extremely 

limited. Somalia is a case in point. Following the upsurge of violence in 

Somalia in 2006, the African Union and the Bush administration called upon 

the UN to deploy a peace operation. European members of the Security 

Council countered that the conditions were not ripe for peacekeeping because 

there was no viable and inclusive political process, no peace agreement and 

little local commitment. In this context, they argued that a UN peace operation 

was likely to be counterproductive. The Security Council compromised and 

asked the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) to assess the 

military options. The DPKO reported that UN peacekeeping was viable only if 

certain conditions were met (especially a lasting cease-fire and viable and 

inclusive political process) and that, in their absence. the only plausible 

military option was the deployment of a large and highly capable multinational 

force to conduct a peace enforcement operation and impose a settlement. 

Given past experience in Somalia, Western military overstretch, the likelihood 

of external intervention being treated as hostile by several armed groups, and 

the absence of a clear route from large-scale military intervention to exit and 

sustainable peace, there was understandably little enthusiasm for the 

multinational force option. With Security Council approval, the African Union 

eventually authorised and deployed an  8 000-strong mission in Somalia 

(AMISOM) to support the peace process and transitional institutions. But, as 

predicted, it has proven unable to bring peace, deployed only 6 000 of its 

mandated 8 000 troops, and become party to the conflict (Williams 2009). 

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in his January 2009 report 

emphasised state responsibility, capacity building, and international responses 

as the "three pillars" of RTP. A formula aiming to add finesse to the third pillar 

includes the use or the threat to use military force to stop mass atrocities (Ban 

Ki-moon 2009).Clausewitz is the usual point of departure for those who argue 

that diplomats should step aside when negotiations fail and let soldiers pursue 

politics by other means. However, RTP requires that diplomats succeed in 

securing agreement either on preventive measures or on the deployment of 

military force. In the latter case,  diplomats stand aside after they have 

succeeded, and soldiers do what diplomats cannot— halt mass atrocities. The 

international action against Libya was all about bombing for democracy, sending messages to Iran, implementing regime change, keeping oil prices 

low and pursuing other such narrow interests. In real terms it is not about 

saving lives or stopping genocide but about narrow interests of oil. As reported 

recently, atrocities and human rights violations occurred on a large scale in the 

so called "liberated" areas in Libya. The question remains as to who will take 

responsibility for the killing of innocent people by indiscriminate NATO 

bombings. 

Concluding Remarks  

What has happened in Ivory Coast and Libya is a resonance of the politics of 

armed interventions. The number of civilians killed by foreign forces in Libya 

remains unknown and it will remain unaccounted forever. As for the role of the 

UN and the International Community, the events in Libya and Ivory Coast 

have once again shown how the world order works or does not work on the 

pretext of justice and morality, as discussed earlier.  

A military campaign was launched ostensibly to enforce the UN Security 

Council Resolution 1973 in order to protect civilians in Libya. The bombing of 

Ivory Coast was undertaken to enforce Security Council Resolution 1975 to 

protect civilians there. The UN Charter does not permit the use of military 

force for humanitarian interventions. Military interventions in Libya and Ivory 

Coast have been justified by reference to the RTP doctrine. It is thus useful to 

reread the two Security Council resolutions to shed more light on the matter.  

Resolution 1973 begins with the call for "the immediate establishment of a 

ceasefire." It reiterates "the responsibility of the Libyan authorities to protect 

the Libyan population" and reaffirms that "parties to armed conflicts bear the 

primary responsibility to take all feasible steps to ensure the protection of 

civilians. The resolution authorises UN Member States "to take all necessary 

measures ... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas" of Libya. 

But immediate military action was taken instead of pursuing an immediate 

ceasefire. The military force had exceeded the bounds of the "all necessary 

measures" authorisation.  "All necessary measures" should firstly have been 

peaceful measures to settle the conflict. But peaceful means were not 

exhausted before the military invasion began. A high level international team 

consisting of representatives from the Arab League, the African Union, and the 

UN Secretary General should have been dispatched to Tripoli to negotiate a 

real cease-fire, set up a mechanism for elections, and protecting civilians. 

Moreover, following the passage of the resolution, Libya immediately offered 

to accept international monitors and Qadaffi offered to step down and leave 

Libya. These offers were promptly rejected by the opposition. Security Council 

Resolution 1975 on Ivory Coast is similar to resolution 1973 on Libya, and 

authorised the use of "all necessary  means to ... protect civilians under 

imminent threat of physical violence" in Ivory Coast. It reaffirmed "the primary 

responsibility of each state to protect civilians" and reiterated that "parties to armed conflicts bear the primary responsibility to take all feasible steps to 

ensure the protection of civilians." 

The UN Charter commands all member states to settle their international 

disputes by peaceful means, and to maintain international peace, security, and 

justice. Members are obliged to refrain from the threat or use of force against 

the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in act in any 

manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Under the UN 

Charter, a state can militarily attack another state only when it acts in selfdefence, in response to an armed attack by one country against another. The 

need for self-defence must be overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and 

no moment for deliberation. Neither Libya nor Ivory Coast had attacked 

another country. The US, France and Britain in Libya and France and the UN 

in Ivory Coast were not acting in self-defence; and humanitarian concerns do 

not constitute self-defence. 

There is a double standard in the use of military force to protect civilians. 

US did not attack Bahrain where lethal force was used to quell antigovernment protests, because that is where the US Fifth Fleet is stationed. 

The Asia Times reported that before the invasion of Libya, the US made a 

deal with Saudi Arabia, whereby Saudi Arabia would invade Bahrain to help 

put down the pro-democracy protests and enlist the support of the Arab 

League for a no-fly-zone over Libya. When Obama defended his military 

actions in Libya, he said "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to 

atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different." Two 

weeks later, the Arab League asked the Security Council to consider imposing 

a no-fly-zone over the Gaza Strip in order to protect civilians from Israeli air 

strikes. But the US, an ally of Israel, as always, refused to allow the passage 

of such a resolution, regardless of the number of Palestinian civilians killed by 

Israel. That is how the politics of imperialism works.  

During a discussion of the RTP in the General Assembly on 23

rd

 July 2009, 

the Cuban government raised some pertinent questions that should make 

those who support this notion pause: "Who is to decide if there is an urgent 

need for an intervention in a given state,  according to what criteria, in what 

framework, and on the basis of what conditions? Who decides it is evident the 

authorities of a state do not protect their people, and how is it decided? Who 

determines peaceful means are not adequate in a certain situation, and on 

what criteria? Do small states have also the right and the actual prospect of 

interfering in the affairs of larger states? Would any developed country allow, 

either in principle or in practice, humanitarian intervention in its own territory? 

How and where do we draw the line between an intervention under the 

Responsibility to Protect and an intervention for political or strategic purposes, 

and when do political considerations prevail over humanitarian concerns?" 

These questions still remain valid and will remain so for years to come.  References 

Bancroft, Ian. 2009. 'The flight of Kosovo's minorities' [online]. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/03/kosovo-minorities-eugovernment  

Bolton, John. 2001. "The risks and weaknesses of the International Criminal Court from 

America's perspective." Law and contemporary problems 64 (1): 167–180. 

Bush, G., 1990. Address before a joint session of the congress on the Persian Gulf 

crisis and the federal budget deficit [online]. 

http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=2217&year=1990&month=9 

Chandler, David. 2002. From Kosovo to Kabul: Human Rights and International 

Intervention. London: Pluto Press.  

Clark, David. 2009. 'Kosovo was a just war, not an imperialist dress rehearsal' [online]. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/16/clark-kosovo-war-crimes

Cooper, Robert. 2004. The breaking of nations: Order and chaos in the twenty-first 

century. London: Atlantic. 

Cottey, Andrew. 2008. "Beyond Humanitarian Intervention: The New Politics of 

Peacekeeping and Intervention." Contemporary Politics 14(4): 429–46.  

Duffield, Mark. 2007. Development, Security and Unending War: Governing the World 

of Peoples. Cambridge: Polity.  

Fox, Fiona. 2001 "New Humanitarianism: Does It Provide a Moral Banner for the 21

st

Century?" Disasters 25(4): 275–89.  

Hehir, Aidan. 2010. "The Responsibility to Protect: 'Sound and Fury Signifying 

Nothing'?" International Relations 24(2): 218–39. 

ICG. 1999. 'Violence in Kosovo, who is killing whom?' [Online]. 

http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/europe/balkans/kosovo/078-violence-in-kosovowhos-killing-whom.aspx

ICISS. 2001. The Responsibility to Protect: the Report of the International Commission 

on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Ottawa: International Development Research 

Council.

Ignatieff, Michael. 1998. The Warrior's Honor: Ethnic War and the Modern Conscience.

New York: Chatto & Windus.  

Ki-moon, Ban. 2009 "Implementing the Responsibility to Protect: Report from the 

Secretary-General," UN document A/63/677, January 12.  

Leader, Nicholas. 1998. "Proliferating principles, or how to sup with the devil without 

getting eaten." The International Journal of Human Rights 2(4): 1-27. 

Makdisi, Ussama. 2000. The culture of sectarianism, community, history and violence 

in nineteenth-century Ottoman Lebanon. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 

Mamdani, Mohmood. 2010. "Responsibility to Protect or Right to Punish?" Journal of 

Intervention and Statebuilding 4(1): 53–96.  

UN. 2005. 'World Summit Outcome 2005. General Assembly Resolution 60/1' [online] 

http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan021752.pdf  

Williams, Paul. 2011. "Briefing: the Road to Humanitarian War in Libya." Global 

Responsibility to Protect 3(2): 248–59.  

Williams, Paul. 2009. "Into the Mogadishu Maelstrom: The African Union Mission in 

Somalia." International Peacekeeping 16(4): 514–30.

***** Dhaka Declaration, 2011 

The Third International Anti-imperialist Conference jointly 

convened by International Anti-imperialist Coordinating 

Committee (IACC) and Socialist Party of Bangladesh (SPB) have 

adopted after two days of deliberations the following document 

as the Dhaka Declaration, 2011. 

The Calcutta Declaration adopted at the Anti-imperialist Convention held in 1995 

stressed that with the counterrevolutionary overthrow of socialism in Soviet Russia 

and the East European countries the imperialist forces became more and more 

belligerent and aggressive, and the grave international situation underscored the 

necessity to build up broad-based People's Fronts inclusive of all progressive, 

democratic-minded, anti-imperialist people irrespective of their political opinions to 

fight against the imperialist menace. Such broad-based committees with 

communists at the core would conduct militant anti-imperialist and anti-war 

movements conducive to revolutionary struggles for the emancipation of the 

people.  A call was given to coordinate the anti-imperialist movements surging 

forward in different countries so that a mighty torrent of global anti-imperialist 

movement is released. In response to this call the International Anti-imperialist and 

People's Solidarity Coordinating Committee, now renamed as the International 

Anti-imperialist Coordinating Committee (IACC), was formed in 2007. This 

Committee, in collaboration with other organizations, organized the Second 

International Anti-imperialist Conference in Beirut (Beirut International Forum for 

Resistance, Anti-imperialism, Solidarity between Peoples, and Alternatives). The 

Forum gave a call for revolutionary fight against imperialism and neoliberalism, 

hegemony and militarization policies of the imperialists. This Third International 

Anti-imperialist Conference of IACC is a step forward in building international 

coordination and solidarity. From this platform the IACC gives a call for building up 

militant anti-imperialist movements throughout the world and to coordinate such 

movements going on in different countries.  

The world situation in the twentieth century has proved beyond doubt the truth of 

Lenin's thesis that it is imperialism that begets war. The hollowness of the 

bourgeois propaganda that with the dismantling of the socialist camp the danger of 

war and the threat to world peace have disappeared stands exposed by the wars 

launched by the imperialist powers led by the USA in different corners of the 

globe. The capitalist world is racked by one crisis after another, the current one 

surpassing all the others in its depth, extent and severity. In its desperate bid to 

come out of such all-embracing and recurring crisis the ruling capitalist class in the 

imperialist as also in the developing countries must perforce resort to artificial stimulation through the militarization of the economy. This is firstly because the 

military establishments all over the world are the richest and chief consumers, and 

arms trade is the biggest economic activity in the capitalist market. Secondly, the 

aim of the imperialist powers, in particular of USA, is to establish domination over 

the so-called globalized market through flexing of their military muscle. 

Consequently, engineering local and partial warfare for the release of stockpiles of 

arms and for the establishment of political domination has become a compulsive 

necessity of imperialism. Aiding and abetting one country against another, or one 

section of people against another, provoking and fostering tension between 

nations and between communities, creating war-like situations and engineering 

local wars are constant features of imperialist machinations across the world 

today. We have witnessed this in Yugoslavia, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and now 

glaringly in Libya. 

As the economic crisis worsens and the markets get squeezed the contradiction 

between the imperialist powers is also sharpening, and competition between them 

for shares in the shrinking world market is becoming more and more fierce. At first 

the USA was the unquestioned leader in the imperialist camp because of its 

economic and military strength. But as the traditional manufacturing base of the 

USA is withering away, other countries are coming to positions of supremacy in 

industrial production, for example, Japan in the electronics industry, Germany and 

Japan in the automobile industry, European Union in commercial aircraft 

manufacturing etc. The economic supremacy of the USA is now being challenged; 

European Union and Japan have emerged as contenders. Capitalist Russia after 

getting over the initial chaos following the overthrow of the socialist system is 

trying to expand its sphere of economic and political influence. China is also 

emerging as a global economic force in South Asia. Indian capital has attained 

imperialist character; it is a junior member of the imperialist camp but has the 

aspiration to emerge as a regional superpower. Indian finance capital is being 

exported to Nepal, Bangladesh and many other countries to exploit their resources 

and labour. Thus we see that the number of competitors is getting more while the 

market is being progressively squeezed. Inevitably, there is cut-throat competition 

between the imperialist powers to expand their own reserve markets. The 

hegemonic aspiration and the urge of each of the imperialist powers to expand its 

sphere of influence is making the world an unsafe place and is leading to military 

aggression on this or that country to bring its economy under the domination  of 

one imperialist power or a group of powers. 

The truth of Lenin's thesis that imperialism is the progenitor of war and the 

principal danger to world peace is vividly manifested in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, 

Iraq and Libya. The imperialist powers led by the USA have been directly or 

indirectly interfering in the internal affairs of other countries and violating the 

sovereignty of nations. Propagating falsehoods as excuse they ousted Saddam 

Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi from power and orchestrated their killing. They 

unleashed the most savage military attacks on these countries and put their 

puppets in the seat of power to ensure political and economic domination.  

We are now witnessing that crisis-ridden imperialism has added another tool to 

its arsenal of conspiracies. Imperialist globalization and ruthless exploitation have driven the common people in every part of the world to penury. Groaning under 

the burden of unemployment, poverty and utter destitution, the grievance of the 

people in several countries in North Africa and Middle East have burst out as 

militant mass upsurge against autocratic rulers, who were often the stooges of 

imperialists and were propped up by them. People's grievance in these countries 

has given the imperialists an opportunity to meddle in their internal affairs in the 

name of protecting democracy and thereby increase their sphere of dominance. In 

these countries, to arrest the progress of people's movements towards the goal of 

emancipation from capitalist exploitation, the imperialists are adopting different 

tactics. In some countries, in the aftermath of the ouster of imperialist stooges by 

mass upsurge they are conspiring to bring the groups friendly to them to power, 

and are propping them up. Their aim is to lead the popular movement into a blind 

alley of engineered election process and make it fizzle out. In other countries, 

where the rulers refused to bow down to imperialist diktats and took up a spirited 

oppositional stance, the imperialist powers, the USA and its cohorts in the NATO, 

instigated disaffected groups and agents to rise in rebellion against the rulers. 

They labelled these as movements for democracy, and on the pretext of aiding 

democracy they went for an all-out military attack to oust the rulers. The 

imperialists have employed this tactic very successfully in Libya, culminating in the 

murder of Colonel Gaddafi. Now they are targeting Syria for a replay of the Libyan 

scenario. 

This Conference stresses that unless a true revolutionary leadership emerges, 

the spontaneous people's upsurge against autocracy would not culminate in the 

overthrow of the oppressive, exploitative and tyrannical system. Then all the 

sacrifices of the people would be in vain, and taking advantage of the situation the 

rightist forces or the religious fundamentalists would come to power; one 

autocratic system would be replaced by another equally autocratic system.    

But the silver lining in the global scenario is that the imperialists' bid for world 

domination is being challenged by people all over the world, and they are 

demanding to put an end to capitalist oppression and aggression. Massive antiwar, anti-globalization demonstrations have shaken even the advanced capitalist 

countries. Vibrant people's movements in "Arab Spring" have unseated several 

stooges of imperialism. Spirited resistance in Middle East that fights against 

capitalism, imperialism and Zionist aggression is getting stronger. In 2006 the 

Lebanese resistance successfully fought off the Israeli aggression in southern 

Lebanon. Determined resistance in Iraq foiled the US conspiracy to keep the 

country under military occupation and forced the imperialists to ignominious troop 

withdrawal. 

 The recent movement of "Occupy Wall Street" that started in New York has 

spread like wild fire throughout the world and massive demonstrations have 

rocked 950 cities, across more than 80 countries, signifying people's anger with 

the exploitative rule of capitalism. This Conference hails the heroic fight of the 

people in different parts of the world, and stresses that their aspiration for freedom 

from exploitation and oppression can be truly realized only with revolutionary 

overthrow of the capitalist system and establishment of socialist system in its place 

that would bring in social justice and solidarity of the people. The Conference enjoins that the principal task today is to organize anti-imperialist movements in all 

countries with a correct revolutionary leadership and to build up resistance 

movements against all acts of imperialist aggression or interference in the internal 

affairs of countries anywhere in the world.  

The Conference adopts the following Resolutions. 

1. This International Anti-imperialist Conference condemns in no uncertain 

terms the economic onslaughts launched by the USA and other imperialist 

powers through the policies of globalization, liberalization and privatization, 

and through institutions like IMF, World Bank, WTO etc., leading to poverty, 

unemployment and misery for the common people in all countries.   

2. This Conference condemns the invasion and occupation of Iraq and 

Afghanistan by the imperialist powers led by the USA. Using blatant lies as 

pretext, brazenly violating international law and norms, and contemptuously 

disregarding world-wide public protests, the USA unleashed savage attacks 

on these two countries, indiscriminately bombing hospitals, schools and civil 

installations, and entire countries have turned into rubble. The imperialist 

powers have set up puppet governments in these countries, but these are 

under virtual military occupation. This Conference demands immediate, 

unconditional and total withdrawal of all occupation troops from Iraq and 

Afghanistan. The two countries are to be returned back to the people who 

are to be allowed the full freedom to decide what type of government they 

are to have, without interference from any external power. The imperialist 

powers have inflicted extensive devastations on these countries and they 

have to bear the entire responsibility of rebuilding and restitution. This 

Conference demands that the imperialist perpetrators of unjust wars and of 

massacres of native population in Iraq and Afghanistan be branded as war 

criminals and brought to justice. 

3. The Conference notes that faced by the determined Iraqi resistance the 

imperialist powers had to announce troop withdrawals, but they are 

attempting to replace their overt military presence by the deployment of 

intelligence men under the cover of diplomats and military security 

companies that continue the occupation, an act of hegemony over the Iraqi 

decision and fortunes. We condemn this heinous conspiratorial manoeuvre. 

4. This Conference condemns the military attack by NATO forces on Libya as 

a criminal act of aggression, and demands that the aggressors be branded 

as war criminals. The perpetrators of the murder of Colonel Gaddafi must be 

brought to book. Imperialist powers are to desist from interfering in the 

internal affairs of the country and totally and unconditionally withdraw their 

military presence. It is the people of Libya who are to decide, without any 

foreign interference, on the form of governance of their country.  

5. This International Anti-imperialist Conference condemns the butchery of the 

Palestinian people by Israel, its military raids and its forcible encroachment 

upon and resettlement in Palestine territory, all with the full backing of imperialist USA. Israel's blockade of Gaza has been going on for years and 

the entry of even humanitarian aid is stopped using military force. Bombing 

and shelling on the people of Gaza are continuing unabated. The imperialist 

powers are in effect encouraging the state terrorism of Israel. This 

Conference demands that Israel must stop its attack on the Palestinian 

people, give back to them the forcibly occupied territory, and release all 

Palestinian political prisoners. This Conference expresses its unequivocal 

support to the right of the Palestine people to have their own independent 

sovereign Palestine state, and to their right to return to their homelands. We 

condemn that Israel, with full backing of the USA, is blocking all moves for 

the formation of an independent Palestine state and is violating all UN 

Resolutions to this effect.  We call upon the people of all countries to come 

forward in support of the struggle of the Palestinian people, and to organize 

movements to force their own Governments to put pressure on Israel for 

stopping the acts of aggression and for acceding to the demand for 

independent Palestine state. 

6. This Conference hails the militant spirit of the Lebanese people and the 

Lebanese Resistance in their struggle to liberate the occupied land and 

pledges full support to them. This Conference demands of the United 

Nations to act and to achieve full withdrawal of the Israeli troops from the 

occupied lands belonging to Lebanon. This Conference condemns the 

setting up of Special Tribunal for Lebanon, and its use as a means to harass 

the Lebanese Resistance and its leaders and throw them in internal and 

external crisis.  

7. The conference hails the struggle of Bahraini people against the U.S.-

backed oppressive regime and we denounce the brutal suppression of the 

opposition and the killing, detainment and torture of men, women and 

children. 

8. This Conference notes with grave concern the attempts of the imperialist 

powers and their lackeys in the Middle East to interfere in the internal affairs 

of Syria, and to bring about a regime change in that country. Ignoring all 

proclamations by the Syrian Government the imperialists are resorting to a 

constant barrage of propaganda in the western media, controlled by the 

corporate houses, about "democracy movement" in the country, and its 

alleged violent suppression by the present Government. Mass 

demonstrations in support of the Government, on the other hand, are 

blacked out. The stage is being set for a military attack on Syria to 

overthrow the present Government. This Conference demands that the 

imperialist powers desist from all attempts to oust the present regime 

through military intervention and attack on the people of Syria. We reiterate 

that it is the Syrian people who have the sole right and authority to decide 

who should govern the country and on the character of the ruler; the 

imperialist powers have no mandate to interfere in the process.  

9. This Conference condemns the constant threat of military attack against 

Iran by US-led imperialist powers. There is vociferous propaganda in the media about Iran's nuclear weapons to justify possible military action 

against Iran and there are already reports of attacks through the use of 

drones. This Conference notes that the International Atomic Agency 

reported that there is no evidence to back up the charge that Iran is 

producing nuclear weapons. We demand that the USA abandons its 

aggressive postures against Iran, and lift the sanctions. We recognize the 

right of Iran to develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The 

Conference expresses its solidarity with the Iranian people's struggle to 

protect their sovereignty from imperialist attack. 

10. This Conference condemns in strongest terms the military attacks on the 

Kurdish people by Turkey, a staunch ally of U.S. imperialists in the Middle 

East, and its massacre of the Kurdish people, including by the use of 

chemical weapons. Thousands of Kurdish politicians are placed under 

detention. We condemn the violation of civil and human rights of the Kurdish 

people, and demand the release of all Kurdish political prisoners. 

11. This Conference condemns U.S. intervention in Sudan's internal affairs, and 

its instigation of ethnic and tribal strife there. 

12. This International Anti-imperialist Conference condemns the United Nations 

for becoming virtually a rubber stamping body to the decisions of the 

imperialist powers, particularly of the USA. This is nakedly manifested in the 

UN-sanctioned aggressions on Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. In the name of 

sending UN Peace Keeping Forces the imperialist powers are bringing 

countries under military occupation, and by setting up puppet regimes are 

controlling them politically and economically. In contrast, because of 

imperialist machinations, particularly by the USA, the United Nations has 

totally failed to stop the barbaric Israeli aggression against the Palestinian 

people, to make Israel return its forcibly occupied territories back to them, 

and to set up an independent, sovereign Palestinian state. We also 

condemn that in response to UNESCO recognition of Palestine the USA has 

stooped to curtailing its obligatory financial grant to UNESCO in order to 

pressurize the body into denying the statehood of Palestine. 

13. This Conference condemns that the International Criminal Court is targeting 

in a premeditated way the leaders of the developing countries of Africa for 

indictment, while the many criminal acts of the imperialists led by the USA in 

Iraq and Afghanistan, or the U.S. drone attacks on Pakistan, Yemen, 

Sudan, Somalia etc., or the many crimes of Israel against the people of 

Palestine and Lebanon are not brought to trial, let alone being punished.        

14. Today the world's progressive people have been ardently desiring a durable 

peace in the Korean peninsula to remove as early as possible the suffering 

of national division which has persisted for over half a century. However, the 

acute military confrontation is continuing on the Korean peninsula due to the 

U.S. manoeuvres of war provocation, which are arousing a deep concern 

and apprehension among the world people. Desirous of improving the 

situation of the reunification cause of the Korean people, this Conference 

adopts the special resolution as follows.   Today the world's progressive people have been ardently desiring a durable 

peace on the Korean peninsula to remove as early as possible the suffering 

of national division which has persisted for over half a century. However, the 

acute military confrontation is continuing on the Korean peninsula due to the 

U.S. manoeuvres of war provocation, which is arousing a deep concern and 

apprehension among the world people. Desirous of improving the situation 

of the reunification cause of the Korean people, this Conference makes the 

following points in this Resolution:      

A: The United States should renounce its hostile policy towards the DPRK, 

lift the more than 50-year old blockade, and stop at once the aggressive 

military war exercises that the USA is staging every year on the Korean 

peninsula.      

B: For an independent and peaceful reunification of Korea, the USA should 

pull out its army troops from South Korea and accede to the proposal of 

DPRK to replace the Armistice Agreement with a peace agreement.    

C: We fully support the Korean people in their struggle for an independent 

and peaceful reunification of Korea under the banner of the June 15 

Joint Declaration and the October 4 Declaration.    

D: We will extend full solidarity to the Songun policy (giving precedence to 

military affairs and advancing the socialist cause by holding up the 

armed forces as the pillar of revolution) of the Korean people to smash 

the imperialists' manoeuvres for war and aggression.   The only way to 

safeguard the socialism is to strengthen the self-reliant defence 

capabilities when the imperialists are increasing the threat of aggressive 

war and nuclear blackmail. The Songun policy carried out by the leader 

Kim Jong Il is sure guarantee for the peace and stability of the Korean 

peninsula and the region. We, all the participants in the current 

conference, once again, are extending our wholehearted support to the 

heroic Korean people who are struggling firmly in the forefront of antiimperialism. We will in the future, too, strengthen the close cooperation 

and solidarity with the Korean people in their struggle against 

imperialism and for an independent and peaceful reunification of Korea. 

15. This Conference condemns the persistent attempt by the USA to destabilize 

socialist Cuba and to overthrow socialism there by instigating counter 

revolution. We demand that the USA immediately lifts its more than half 

century old blockade against Cuba which has inflicted untold hardship on 

the life of the people there. Along with this we join all the progressive people 

of the world in calling for the immediate release of the five Cuban political 

prisoners held in U.S. prisons. 

16. This Conference hails the heroic struggle of the people of Latin America 

against the aggressive manoeuvres and conspiracies of U.S. imperialism 

and expresses solidarity with their fight. We strongly condemn the 

destabilization attempts of the USA against countries like Venezuela, Bolivia and other Latin American countries whose Governments are not bowing 

down to U.S. diktats. 

17. This conference draws attention to, condemns and calls for the closing of 

more than 1,000 U.S. military bases around the world in 150 countries. 

These bases, built to maintain U.S. imperialist domination, are a national 

affront and an attack on the sovereignty and self-determination of the 

countries forced to host them. We condemn the unequal 'Status of Forces' 

Agreements granting total immunity to crimes committed by U.S. soldiers 

that are imposed on many countries forced to host U.S. troops. We also 

condemn the rapidly expanding series of secret U.S. drone bases in Africa 

and West Asia conducting undeclared wars against totally defenceless 

populations. 

18. This International Anti-imperialist Conference notes with great concern that 

South and Southeast Asia has become a playground for imperialist 

manoeuvres, intrigues and conspiracies. These countries were erstwhile 

colonies of the European powers. Today the USA and those European 

powers are all out to expand their markets in this region and to export their 

capital to exploit the cheap labour in these countries to manufacture goods 

so that they have an edge in the competitive market. In addition to the 

western imperialist powers India and China have also emerged as powerful 

countries and both of them want to have a share in this market. Indian and 

Chinese capital is invested in countries like Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, 

Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Vietnam. There is intense competition between all 

these powers for market share and this portends grave danger for peace in 

the region. We call upon the people of these countries to develop powerful 

anti-imperialist movements conducive to socialist revolution which alone 

could hold the marauding imperialist powers in check and save the people 

from imperialist exploitation and oppression.  

19. This Conference expresses solidarity with the struggle of the people of 

Bangladesh for protecting the oil, gas, coal and other natural resources from 

loot and plunder by the imperialist powers. The Conference expresses its 

support to the legitimate, long-standing demand of the people of 

Bangladesh for equitable sharing of river waters between India and 

Bangladesh, and condemns the unilateral decision of India to erect the 

Tipaimukh Dam in Manipur, which runs counter to the interests of both the 

countries.   

20. This International Anti-imperialist Conference hails the successful struggle 

of the Nepalese people under the leadership of the Unified Communist 

Party of Nepal (Maoist) (UCPN (M)) for overthrowing the monarchy. It notes 

with concern that the reactionary forces in Nepal aided by the imperialist 

powers, particularly India, are trying to hinder the process of adopting a 

democratic constitution for Nepal and creating obstacles in the functioning 

of the UCPN (M)-led Government. We condemn the conspiracies of India 

and the USA to scuttle the democratic process in Nepal and to prevent the 

formation of a democratic republic of Nepal. We strongly demand that all external interventions, particularly by expansionist India, be immediately 

stopped. 

21. This Conference demands that the national question of Sri Lanka be solved 

politically by finding the just solution acceptable to the Tamils and other 

oppressed nationalities of Sri Lanka. It further demands investigation into 

the alleged war crimes committed by the security forces of Sri Lanka, in 

order to avoid intervention or invasion by the imperialist powers using war 

crimes as a plea.   

22. This Conference expresses its solidarity with the renewed revolt of the 

Egyptian people against usurpation by vested interests of the fruits of their 

struggle for democracy, and condemns the police crackdown on the 

demonstrators. This Conference also hails the militant spirit of the 

demonstrators in the "Occupy Wall Street" movement that swept across the 

USA and spread to different countries in Europe, registering refusal of the 

people of those countries to accept the capitalist-imperialist system. We 

appeal to the people from all over the world to rise in solidarity with the 

people's revolt in the very citadel of imperialism.  

23. This Conference condemns the imperialist and Israeli Zionist crimes of 

mass imprisonment, kidnapping, torture, secret renditions and targeted 

assassinations. We call for a full accounting of all political prisoners from all 

over the world and their immediate release. 

24. This Conference unequivocally supports the people's struggles, armed and 

unarmed, against all forms of oppression, and national liberation 

movements going on in different parts of the world. 

25. This Anti-imperialist Conference notes that during May 15-22, 2012, military 

and civil representatives of the 28-nation military alliance of NATO, and a 

summit of the eight heads of state and the finance ministers of G8 countries 

are meeting to plan ever new draconian measures seeking to resolve the 

problems created by their crisis-ridden and profit-driven socio-economic 

system at the expense of working people and the poor everywhere. This 

Conference calls upon the people of every country to organize mass 

demonstrations on May 19, 2012, in protest against the imperialist policies 

which are affecting the lives of the common people all over the globe. 

26. This Conference notes that there is feminization of poverty on a global 

scale. Women have the highest rates of poverty and the least rights. 

Capitalist globalization impacts women as a source of cheap labour and it 

increasingly turns women into a commodity. The trafficking of women and 

sex tourism is a growing market of exploitation. Physical violence and 

atrocities against women are increasing. The largest banks and global 

finance capital ensnares the poorest women of South Asia, Africa and Latin 

America in a web of micro-loans. This Third International Anti-imperialist 

Conference declares that it stands for the full economic, political and social 

rights of women and for their full equality in all spheres. 27. Capitalism-imperialism has a long and shameful historical record of 

displacing the indigenous people and tribal people from their homelands, 

condemning them to a life of untold misery and destitution, and sometimes 

to annihilation and extinction. This Conference condemns the collusion of 

the multinationals and the governments of many countries for displacing the 

tribal people from their lands without adequate compensation or providing 

alternative means of livelihood, and demands that the displaced tribal 

people must be properly rehabilitated, and their culture protected, so that 

they can live with dignity.  

28. This Conference notes that capitalism-imperialism not only exploits people 

ruthlessly, it has scant regard for the environment. With its insatiable greed 

for profit it has polluted the environment, degraded the land and has caused 

unchecked emission of greenhouse gases leading to global climate change. 

The Conference demands that industries be forced to strictly follow the 

prescribed environmental protection regulations, and that they must not be 

allowed to flagrantly flout the regulations or clandestinely bypass them.   

29. This Conference proposes to observe 6th August, the Hiroshima Day, as 

the International Anti-imperialist Day. 

This Conference declares that its delegates, who are here to voice the words of 

millions of their countrymen, are standing up to hail the people around the world 

for their resolute struggle against occupation, onslaught, genocide, carnage, 

sanction and blockade by the imperialist powers with U.S. imperialism as the 

bulwark. We reiterate that as the crisis intensifies in the capitalist-imperialist 

countries the imperialists in their desperate bid for survival would attempt to launch 

wars, invade countries and bring them under military occupation.  From this 

platform we are giving a call to the people of every country to unite and organize 

militant movements in a coordinated way against imperialist acts of aggression 

and oppression. We emphasize that unless a correct revolutionary leadership 

emerges which can guide the guide the movements along the correct line the 

desired goal of emancipation of the people would not be attained. We further 

stress the necessity of coordinating these movements to release an 

unconquerable wave to remove the scourge of capitalism-imperialism from the 

face of the earth.  

***** NDMLP Diary

NDMLP Statement to the Media 

6

th

 September 2011 

Barbaric Attack on Student Union Leader 

The following statement denouncing the barbaric attack on S Thavabalan, 

President of the University of Jaffna Students' Union was issued by Comrade 

SK Senthivel on behalf of the Politburo of the New-Democratic MarxistLeninist Party.  

The attack in broad daylight on S Thavabalan (age 25 years), President of 

the University of Jaffna Students' Union demonstrates that the culture of 

belligerence and rowdy attacks that came into existence thirty-five years ago 

continue to persist in the North-East. Armed men on motorbikes, with faces 

covered by black cloth, have waylaid and attacked Thavabalan, causing him 

serious injury. This attack can in no way be justified or covered up. The NewDemocratic Marxist-Leninist Party strongly denounces this attack carried out 

on the University Students' Union President for holding a dissenting political 

view. At the same time, it views this attack as an attack on every university 

student. Hence, the Party joins the people in calling out aloud that such armed 

attacks that continue should be brought to an end. 

It is the government that protects an environment devoid of democracy, 

freedom and normal life in the North-East. It was amid this environment that 

armed men staged a variety of acts of intimidation, attack, burglary and 

murder. The situation still continues. People live amid fear and intimidation. 

Meantime, journalists and individuals with dissenting views are being attacked 

in a planned manner. 

Two months ago, Kuganathan, a journalist for  Uthayan, was attacked by 

armed ruffians and received severe injuries to his head. Day before yesterday, 

even before Kuganathan could recover fully from his injuries, University 

Students' Union President Thavabalan has been subjected to severe attack. 

Those who guide armed ruffians to carry out such serial attacks seek, besides 

exacting revenge from those whom they dislike, to create a mood of fear and 

intimidation among the people, especially university undergraduates. They 

seek thereby to preserve an oppressive environment by preventing the 

restoration of democracy, freedom and normal life. Hence, the Party points out 

at this juncture that there the need has arisen for democratic, progressive and 

left forces to unite based on common demands. 

SK Senthivel 

General Secretary Comrade KA Subramaniam Remembered 

The 22

nd

 death of Anniversary of Comrade KA Subramaniam (Comrade 

Maniam) founder General Secretary of the Party was marked on 27

th

November at the Kailasapathy Auditorium of the Dhesiya Kalai Ilakkiyap 

Peravai in Colombo 6. 

Dr S Sivasegaram, chairing the commemorative meeting, remembered the 

dedication of Comrade Maniam to his political cause and the high standards of 

selflessness and honesty that he showed in his private and public life.  

The Comrade KA Subramaniam Memorial Oration titled "Memories of a 

pioneer of the communist movement and current political trends" was 

delivered by Comrade SK Senthivel, General Secretary of the Party. Comrade 

Senthivel talked about the evolution of Comrade Maniam from a progressive 

reformist into an exemplary communist leader. The speech outlined the ability 

of Comrade Maniam to bring out the best in every young party member and 

activist and his role in building up the communist movement to its peak of 

strength in the North, taking the responsibility of founding the Party in 1978 

following a major crisis and split in the Marxist Leninist Communist Party and 

defending it against chauvinism and narrow nationalism through the difficult 

years of war, national oppression and LTTE tyranny in the North-East. He 

summed up the adverse and favourable  aspects of the current local and 

international political situation and emphasised the need for the younger 

generation to draw inspiration from Comrade Maniam in carrying forward the 

struggle against imperialism and chauvinistic reaction. 

Comrade Soodamani Shares Experiences  

On the occasion of the 75

th

 birthday of Comrade IK Soodamani, the Vavunia 

Branch of the New-Democratic Marxist-Leninist Party, jointly with members of 

his family, organised an event to share with Comrade Soodamani his 

revolutionary experiences. Members of the Central Committee of the Party 

and comrades from Colombo, Jaffna, Batticaloa and the Hill Country attended 

this important event. 

The revolutionary spirit of Comrade Soodamani reminded his comrades of 

the spirit of the 'old man who removed the mountains' in the well known 

Chinese fable. The event was organised since had expressed his desire to 

meet his comrades, while undergoing medical treatment in hospital during the 

preceding several weeks. 

Comrade Soodamani, born in Jaffna spent 55 years of his life not only as 

one who had accepted Marxist ideology but also as a practitioner of Marxist 

practice and mass struggle. He  has been attacked by the police for 

participation in struggles against caste oppression and detained on several 

occasions by the police for his political  activities. He is living evidence from among the many who had shed blood in the struggle for temple entry, without 

which major temples in Jaffna would not have been open for all to worship.  

Although he faced many hardships in life including the crippling of his wife 

during the war, dislocation by war,  loss of employment and poverty, he 

steadfastly stood by his policies and is proud to work for the Party even today. 

Comrade Soodamani not only successfully confronted negative criticism from 

within the community and disheartening narratives from those who had 

abandoned their party and policy for the sake of small favours and those who 

yielded to gun culture and abandoned their communist ideal to submerge 

themselves in Tamil nationalism but also gave guidance to members of his 

family. Comrades from the Hill Country reminisced that Comrade Soodamani 

who brought many people into the New-Democratic Marxist-Leninist Party in 

the Vavunia region has also participated in several people's struggles in the 

Hill Country. 

Besides making his donation to the Party as he does on his every birthday, 

he also demonstrated his selflessness by donating the entire collection of cash 

gifts for his 75

th

 birthday to a student to meet his medical expenses. 

A book and a documentary movie about the life and work of Comrade 

Soodamani are under production for the younger generation to learn from the 

spirit of Comrade Soodamani. 

Comrade Thambiah at the 3

rd

 Anti-Imperialist 

International Conference 

Comrade E Thambiah, International  Organiser, New-Democratic Marxist 

Leninist Party left for Dhaka on 25

th

 November to participate in the 3

rd

 AntiImperialist International Conference of  the International Anti-Imperialist and 

People's Solidarity Coordinating Committee convened jointly with the Socialist 

Party of Bangladesh (SPB). The event held in Dhaka, Bangladesh from 27

th

 to 

29

th

 November also marked the occasion of 94

th

 Anniversary of November 

Revolution and 31

st

 Anniversary of Foundation of SPB.  

Comrade Thambiah was invited by the Organising Committee of the 

Conference to chair two of its sessions and to address its plenary session. 

He read two papers at the Conference,  one on the role of culture as an 

imperialist tool to hegemonies the people of the world and the other on the 

imperialist grip on Sri Lanka.  

The draft text of the first talk is published in this issue of New Democracy 

and the text of the second will appear in the next issue. 

*****Sri Lankan Events 

Bold and Unbowed

At a special ceremony held in Jaffna on 20

th

 October to honour the three best 

performers at the Grade 5 Scholarship Examination from the Northern Region, 

Ten year old P Sethuragavan, the best performer, to the shock of the 

personalities present, refused requests by the organisers as well as his 

parents to fall at the feet of the Minister of Education, Banduala Gunawardane. 

Answering reporters outside the auditorium Sethuragavan explained that he 

had to struggle against difficult conditions in detention camps in the Vanni to 

attain his good results and that he owed nothing to anyone other than his 

parents and teachers. He has been commended by many for setting an 

example that deserves emulation by adults of all nationalities.

Rowdyism Prevails  

Parliamentary business descended to rowdy levels on 21

st

 November during 

the budget speech of President Rajapaksa when unruly government MPs 

sought to abuse, verbally and physically, members of the main opposition 

party, who held aloft placards and shouted slogans critical of the budget.  

What was equally shameful was the failure of the Speaker to take prompt 

action to maintain order and immediate disciplinary action against those who 

resorted to unruly and un-parliamentary conduct.  

Fatal Attraction 

Vickramabahu Karunaratne, leader of the Left Front (a.k.a. NSSP) shed the 

last shred of self respect of his Trotskyite Party by contesting on the ticket of 

the Democratic People's Front led by the Colombo-based Tamil nationalist 

Mano Ganesan. The reason for this strange alliance was the desperate need 

of Mr Karunaratne to secure a seat in a local body— following a long drought 

since election in 1999 January to the Western Provincial Council with the 

backing of the NDMLP to serve a six-year term, and bad defeats at all 

subsequent elections even with opportunist alliances. It may not totally be a 

coincidence that the veteran Trotskyite was photographed next to the leader of 

the UNP in a united campaign to 'save democracy' at a time when his senior 

partner Mano Ganesan is warming up to the UNP.  Journey to the West  

The team of TNA leaders before its visit to the US in late October claimed in 

that it was invited by the State Department for discussion with its officials and 

that it was scheduled to meet Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and was also 

expecting to have discussions with Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General of the 

UN. Neither of these claims materialised, and what seems to have taken place 

was a rather routine meeting with officials at a low level. No joint statement 

was released at the end of the meeting or a formal photograph taken, as 

would have been the case with formal meetings. 

Whether there was an invitation at all is now in question, and it seems that 

the TNA invited itself in view of its current helpless situation where it is due to 

face elections to the Northern Provincial Council, with its Indian patrons 

unable to persuade the Sri Lankan government to conduct a serious dialogue 

with the TNA. 

Brand Name Problems  

The JVP faction despite considerable grassroots level support among JVP 

cadres and mass organisations has failed to capture the party machinery and 

has founded the Jana Aragala Vyaparaya (Movement for People's Struggle). 

The JAV, in its bid to establish its credibility among the JVP rank and file as 

the genuine successor to the JVP policies, is uncritically upholding the cult of 

Rohana Wijeweera, whose policies it claims to loyally follow, which the JVP 

establishment has betrayed.

The entire JVP has much to answer for, including its two disastrous 

insurgencies. Without a review of the past, beginning with its petit bourgeois 

origins, and going through a process of criticism and self criticism, the JAV 

could be doomed to the same fate as the JVP. The challenge for the JAV 

therefore is to carry out a serious uninhibited review of its tragic history. 

Gas Bubbles  

The country is being told that investigations have shown the existence of oil 

and gas in the sea to the north west of the country. What has not been told to 

the people is the extent of the deposits if any and the economic feasibility of 

extraction, let alone the adverse impact on the  environment and the fishing 

industry and the prospect of foreign investors taking out any likely marginal 

benefit.  

*****World Events

ASIA  

Nepal: The Great Betrayal 

The long overdue meeting of the Central Committee (CC) of the United 

Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) fixed for 19

th

 November was prorogued 

indefinitely, reportedly because of internal dispute over the 11

th

 Amendment to 

the Interim Constitution, which has since been withdrawn. Party Chairman 

Dahal (Prachanda) had been deferring the meeting meant to nail down 

differences that went public since keys to the Maoist arsenal were handed to 

the Army Integration Special Committee (AISC). He postponed the meeting 

indefinitely as the crisis further deepened with the signing of Bilateral 

Investment Protection and Promotion  Agreement (BIPPA) with India during 

Prime Minister Bhattarai's visit to India, and the seven-point deal with nonMaoist parties without due consultation within the party. The crisis in the party, 

however, remains grave and shows no sign of remission, while the inner party 

struggle has now spilled out to the streets owing to the gravity of the issues. 

Indra Mohan Sigdel (Comrade Basanta), Politburo Member of the party, in 

his article of 18

th

 November titled "The tasks of the ongoing CC meeting" 

(http://maoistroad.blogspot.com/) accused Dahal of preventing the CC from 

discussing key issues. The article also accused Dahal of not clearly declaring 

to the party his position on the party's line and strategy, despite admitting that 

the inner party struggle was due to differences over the party's line and 

strategy and insisting on taking the line struggle to its very end. 

The article urging the party's need to reach a comprehensive synthesis of 

the problems drew attention to challenges faced in the establishment of the 

correct ideological, political, organisational and cultural lines. It emphasised 

the urgency of uniting the entire party ranks based on the revolutionary line 

and developing a comprehensive plan consistent with that line in order to 

realise the party's immediate objective, namely a People's Federal Republic.  

The article accused party Chairman Dahal and Vice Chairman Baburam 

Bhattarai of taking many wrong decisions in recent months― especially since 

Bhattarai became Prime Minister  ―that are being implemented to the 

detriment to the people. It pointed out that these decisions made without due 

consultation within the party violated party policy and that, in the face of failure 

by the main leadership to stand by  the party's line, policy and system, 

Comrades Kiran and Badal shouldered the responsibility of defending the party line and debating on following key political issues within the party as well 

as among the masses.  

The first is Chairman Dahal's signing, without reference to other leaders, a 

four-point pact with Madhesi parties  consenting to a democratic republican 

constitution, contravening the party line of establishing an anti-feudal, antiimperialist People's Federal Republic. Significantly, the pact includes a vague 

statement that all the issues proposed by neighbouring countries will be 

resolved, implying support of and a commitment to implement pending 

proposals by India that Nepal signs  an extradition treaty, and allows the 

presence of a Indian Air Marshal in Nepal's Airport and intrusion by the Indian 

army to protect projects of Indian nationals in Nepal.  

The second concerns Bhattarai's signing the anti-national BIPPA with India 

during his first visit to India as Prime Minister violating the instruction of the 

Standing Committee that he should not sign any controversial agreement with 

India in this transitional period. Chairman Dahal's ambiguous utterances too 

indirectly support the BIPPA. This deal is in direct conflict with the UCPN-M 

position that the main contradiction of the Nepalese society is that between 

the Indian monopoly capitalists and their Nepalese agents on the one hand 

and the Nepalese people and the nation, on the other.  

The third concerns the relief package to the people declared by Bhattarai 

following swearing in as Prime Minister. The package with little to offer to 

landless and poor peasants, who overwhelmingly comprise the oppressed 

people, has pledged compensation to landlords whose land the landless and 

poor peasants seized during the People's War.  

The fourth concerns the UCPN-M policy of carrying out army integration 

and constitution writing side by side. But the PLA was disarmed even before 

work on the constitution started by surrendering to the AISC the keys for the 

containers with PLA weapons. The seven-point deal with non-Maoist parties 

has, thus, forced the surrender of the PLA, built to prevent counter-revolution. 

The PLA has now been dissolved through disarming and integration with the 

Nepal Army on an individual basis, with PLA fighters offered posts as forest 

security guards and watchmen, despite the UCPN-M Central Committee 

categorically stating that a national security policy should be followed by 

group-wise army integration without  disarming, and that the new force―

comprising at least 50% from the PLA and the rest from government security 

forces ―should be led by the PLA and deployed as a border security force.  

The fifth concerns the reversal of the  principle of establishing 14 federal 

states in Nepal, in order end to the national, linguistic and regional oppression 

under a unitary state. A major accomplishment of the People's War was the 

achievement of federalism. Party Chairman Dahal has reportedly agreed in a 

deal with the UML and Nepali Congress to organise Nepal as 7 federal states by reversing the majority decision  in the constitutional committee through 

setting up a parallel committee of experts for implementing federation.  

Basanta summed up the crisis as the outcome of a series of wrong 

decisions of the leadership made in  breach of earlier stands, commitments 

and concepts of the party, generally since entering the peace process and 

particularly with Bhattarai as Prime Minister. As a result of the wrong decisions 

the people have lost all their gains through ten years of People's War: there is 

no people's power; the PLA has been dissolved; and federalism has been 

hijacked by 'experts'. Privileges for the oppressed, including Dalits, women, 

indigenous people, Muslims and Mahdesis, pledged by the party are set to 

vanish in the impending constitution.  

The article argues that these failures were the result of Chairman Dahal's 

deviation from the ideological and political line and minimum strategy of the 

party. It draws attention to Dahal's  statement to the journal Krambhanga 

(meaning rupture) where he has implied that the establishment of bourgeois 

democratic revolution comprises completion of the New Democratic 

Revolution, which is against the decision of the last CC meeting at Chunwang. 

The article suggests that Dahal through that interview on the eve of the 

meeting of the CC was preparing the ground for a new revisionist line to 

liquidate the New Democratic Revolution into bourgeois democratic republic, 

and calls for the defeat of this right revisionist line to protect party unity and 

carry forward the New Democratic Revolution. 

The Economist (UK) commented on the integration process 

(http://www.economist.com/node/21538549) as follows: "The final terms of 

integration remain vague but are based on proposals produced by the army 

and accepted by the "pragmatic" wing  of the Maoists,  currently in the 

ascendant. It is a matter of speculation how deep discontent runs within the 

party, although even hardliners are not threatening imminent trouble". That is 

consistent with what Bhattarai had said at the Institute of South Asian Studies, 

National University of Singapore on 25

th

 March, several months before he 

became Prime Minister: "There is general agreement in the Maoist radical 

democratic camp that principal impediments to social progress in present-day 

Nepal are the feudal remnants in different spheres of society, economy and 

state. Hence the UCPN (Maoist) has identified its principal immediate task as 

the completion of the bourgeois democratic revolution", (http://www.ekantipur. 

com/2011/03/29/oped/post-conflict-restructuringi/331642.html).

 "The issue of the Maoist fighters was indeed an obstacle in writing the new 

constitution. The recent deal was greeted with relief by many, who hope the 

process will now come unstuck. Yet talk of "democratising" the army, or of 

land reform, or the other reforms promised in the CPA and once widely 

accepted as necessary, has long since slipped off the agenda. The 

constitution is already late, with several fundamental issues seemingly 

destined for inelegant, last-minute fudges sometime next year." Meantime, the All Nepal Peasants  Federation (Revolutionary) on 15

th

November declared at a press meeting that it would not return land taken over 

during the People's War. On 25

th

 November, a section of the UCPN-M in 

Bardiya District announced the return to Nepali Congress politician Binaya 

Dhoj Chand the land previously owned by him. On the 26

th

 cadres loyal to 

the revolution re-seized the property, but the police later took control of the 

land. (www.nepalnews.com/archive/2011/nov/nov26/news07.php). What is 

certain is that returning to landlords land seized by peasants will not be as 

easy as the government led by Bhattarai thinks.  

India: Democracy at Stake 

Kishenji: Killer State and a Loving People  

Maoist sympathisers and  representatives of various people's organisations, 

civil liberties activists and hundreds of others on Sunday 27

th

 November paid 

their last respects to Kishenji (Mallojula Koteswara Rao) in his hometown 

Peddapalli in Andhra Pradesh. People turned up in large numbers at Kishenji's 

house to pay their tribute and console his family. Amid huge police presence, 

mourners, with folded hands, passed by the flower bedecked coffin. 

His remains were flown from Kolkata  to the Rajiv Gandhi International 

Airport at Shamshabad. The Police took control of Kishenji's remains on 

arrival and prevented Maoist sympathisers from taking his remains into the city 

for the people pay their last respects. Kishenji's niece Deepa Rao and Maoist 

sympathiser and renowned poet Varavara Rao, who accompanied Kishenji's 

remains from Kolkata, lodged their strong protest against the police attitude: 

"They not only killed him in cold blood but are also denying us the right to pay 

our last respects and perform his last rites the way we want to," said Varavara 

Rao. They were not alone in charging that Kishenji was tortured before being 

killed in a fake encounter on 24

th

 November and demands are growing for an 

impartial inquiry.  

New Democracy joins the freedom loving people of India in paying its 

respects to a committed revolutionary leader and fighter for social justice. 

Money for Mineral Exploration 

India's Ministry of Mines has proposed a government investment of 1.4 billion 

US dollars between 2012 and 2017 with the aim of boosting the share of 

mining in the country's GDP, currently pegged at 2.2%.

(www.miningweekly.com/topic/jharkhand).The proposal to expand mining in 

India on a large scale should be seen in the context of the desire of India's 

capitalist classes to enhance their profits from mining and of the Indian state to 

reinforce itself as a capitalist power and regional hegemon, with no concern for environmental destruction or sustainability and even less the welfare of 

indigenous peoples. 

Popular resistance backed by Maoists  in the tribal areas of Central and 

Eastern India has slowed down the expropriation of land from the people. 

Thus further capitalist mining will only mean further military and economic 

attacks on the tribal people in the name of hunting down Maoist 'terrorists'.  

Tamilnadu: Caste-based Police Violence  

Within four months of Ms Jayalalitha assuming power, police fired 

indiscriminately on Dalits who congregated at Paramakkudi in the 

Ramanathapuram District on 11

th

 September to observe the 54

th

 anniversary 

of the martyrdom of their leader Emmanuel Sekaran and killed six people and 

injured many, to the shock of the entire nation.  

The text below is based on an extensive fact finding report by the 

Tamilnadu-based Centre for Protection  of Civil Liberties (CPCL), Tamilnadu 

on police firing at Paramakkudi.  

Although upper caste atrocities against Dalits in this region are not unusual 

and in conflicts between Dalits and non-Dalits the state has always sided with 

non-Dalits, this crime was committed  by the state for no understandable 

reason since there is no evidence that the people's really went out of control to 

warrant lathy charge by the police. There is even less justification for the 

police opening fire on the people, killing four and injuring scores of others.  

The CPCL investigation also exposed the mainstream media which without 

exception reproduced as news the flawed interpretation of events by the 

Police seeking to justify its murderous brutality by accusing Dalit protesters of 

provocation. The report concludes that the police action was premeditated and 

that callous treatment of the injured by the police reflected deep-seated hatred 

towards Dalits. The report also draws attention to related incidents of police 

attack on people going to Paramakkudi from neighbouring areas to forcefully 

prevent them from attending the rally in Paramakkudi. 

The report also criticised Chief Minister Jayalalitha for interpreting the 

incident as a caste conflict between Thevars and Pallars, provoked by 

defamatory graffiti against the late Muthuramalinga Thevar (a notoriously 

caste conscious and reactionary leader of the Thevar community in the last 

century) in order to deflect attention  from the lack of professionalism of the 

state police.  

Also see "A Press Note for the Press Meet on 4 October 2011 at Chennai Press 

Club" (http://www.icawpi.org/de/peoples-resistance/statements/789-butchery-ofdalits-in-paramakudi-)  Anti-Nuclear Struggle Gathers Momentum 

In ND 42 we reported the initial success of the resistance to the Koodankulam 

nuclear project.  But there was no illusion that nuclear production will not be 

initiated in Koodankulam. India's nuclear  lobby is far too strong to give up 

readily. With the Koodankulam project closely linked with plans for expansion 

of the Kalpaakkam complex the struggle was certain to have an impact across 

Tamil Nadu and beyond.  

The protest movement continued to spread across Tamilnadu, despite the 

tough line of the central government and the indifferent if not hostile attitude of 

the media to the protests. The central government, the nuclear lobby and 

other reactionary forces have since resorted to other tricks. 

In early November the establishment launched former President and 

'nuclear scientist' Dr Abdul Kalam to argue the case for the Koodankulam 

reactor and convince the people that there was nothing to fear about it. Nearly 

every argument put forward by Kalam were exposed as inaccurate if not 

intentionally misleading. 

More recently, a Hindutva dimension has been added to the issue by 

highlighting the role of the Roman Catholic clergy in promoting the protest 

campaign, mainly in view of the fact that they need to address the concerns of 

the predominantly Catholic fishing community in the region adjoin 

Koodankulam. Meanwhile the police continued to harass priests who have 

been urging people to join the protest movement. Police sources said that 76 

cases have been registered so far against the protestors, and that cases were 

registered against the RC Bishop of Tutucorin Diocese Yvon Ambrose and 

other priests for the same offence." 

[Source: http://www.tamilnetonline.com/priests-preaching-against-koodankulamproject-police-register-cases/]

Victory for a Just Struggle of the JNU Students 

After 6-months of uncompromising struggle, the student community forced the 

JNU administration to revoke its authoritarian 'restraint' order on the JNU 

Forum against War on People and lift all restraints on the Forum to hold public 

meetings, and to print and distribute pamphlets, posters etc.  

A hunger strike campaign enjoying public support and a massive united 

protest demonstration by the students forced the administration on 8

th

November to talk to a teacher's delegation and then to an all-organisation 

delegation. Unable to provide valid reasons for the imposition of the restraint 

the administration admitted its mistake in taking this unprecedented repressive 

action, and agreed to scrap the draconian circulars of 19

th

 May 2011 from the 

Proctor's Office.  Many students and students' organisations representing a wide spectrum 

of left, progressive and democratic opinion participated in the united struggle 

initiated by the JNU Forum against War on People. The Forum reiterated its 

firm resolve to continue with its struggle against the anti-people Operation 

Green Hunt campaign of the state.  

The victory of the struggle has thus delivered a strong message to the JNU 

administration and its political masters that the voices of the students and their 

rejection of the anti-people war cannot be gagged. It has also conveyed a 

message of strong solidarity with peoples' movements fighting against Green 

Hunt as well as all other forms of state repression.  

 [Source: http://www.icawpi.org/en/peoples-resistance/statements/799-unitedstudents-struggle-has-forced-the-authoritarian-jnu-administration-to-revoke-the-ban-onjnu-forum]  

Afghanistan: Russian Rumblings 

Russia threatened to cut off NATO supply routes to Afghanistan if NATO did 

not compromise on its missile defence plans. Russian news services reported: 

"If NATO doesn't give a serious response, we have to address matters in 

relations in other areas". They  added that Russia's cooperation on 

Afghanistan may be an area for review. 

With Pakistan already cutting NATO's supply routes after NATO attacks 

killed twenty-six Pakistani soldiers,  Russia seems to take advantage of the 

plight of the US to extract concessions from it without risk of provoking the US. 

Although Pakistan's retired Lt General Hameed Gul among others share the 

view that US and NATO troops have been strangled in Afghanistan and it is 

time for Pakistan to avail itself of the opportunity that it missed on 9/11 to 

regain respect and sovereignty by taking advantage of Russia's differences 

with the US. But, given Russia's stand on a number of international issues, it 

is unlikely that Russia will do anything more than exploit the strained relation 

between the US and Pakistan to make gains closer to home. 

Hopes have been expressed that Russia could cut supply lines to NATO 

while Pakistan shuts air corridors to suffocate the US war effort in Afghanistan. 

But they belong to the world of fantasy. The US has since 2009 worked on 

options in the event that Pakistan becomes unreliable. A report in the Christian 

Science Monitor of 29

th

 November said that the US military has shifted around 

40% of its overall logistics supply to a Northern Distribution Network passing 

through Russia and other former Soviet republics and expects to increase that 

component to 75% by the end of 2011. 

On the Latvian route, cargo is carried by truck and train through Russia and 

then by truck through Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan to Afghanistan across the border post of Termez. The Georgian route avoids Russia and uses 

Azerbaijan to cross the Caspian Sea to enter Kazakhstan, and move through 

Uzbekistan to Afghanistan. Pakistan, despite its protests at the volume of US 

military materiel shipped across its territory into Afghanistan, needs the tariff 

revenues from the US for the use of its ports and roads. With much of that 

revenue diverted to countries of the former Soviet Union, the government of 

Pakistan and its transport firms are bound to suffer financially. 

Yet, the struggle against the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan of is a 

struggle by the people of Afghanistan. The US and its allies portray it as a war 

against the Taliban and whip up Islamophobia in their respective countries and 

internationally to arrest the surging unpopularity of the war.  

It is true that the fiercest military attacks are by the Taliban and its allies, 

and intensifying the war in the countryside has led to Taliban attacks on high 

profile targets in Kabul and other cities and the Taliban asserting its power in 

various ways like shutting off telecommunications at will. But what matters is 

that the people, although weary of war, remain defiant and want the foreign 

aggressors out. In a world without a powerful anti-imperialist bloc, a liberation 

struggle cannot benefit from rivalry between powers or be at the mercy of a 

big power. The struggle, as long as it is by the people, is certain to win, and 

only the oppressed people of the world can be their true ally until final victory 

and after.  

[Sources: http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com; www.csmonitor.com; 

www.nytimes.com]

Pakistan: Growing Anti-US Feelings 

Wars are waged by the US as an aspect of its strategy of cultivating strife to 

sustain its arms industry while exerting control over vast sources of energy 

through occupation of territory. US aggression goes on ceaselessly 

irrespective of consequences to lands and people. A major consequence has 

been the brutalisation of the state, subversion of law, marginalisation of all 

democratic institutions and criminalisation of governance. Pakistan is a classic 

example of what prolonged US intervention could result in. 

Since 1947, the US provided massive sums as military and civilian 'aid' to 

Pakistan― the third-largest recipient of US 'security aid' after Israel and 

Afghanistan in recent years. During the Cold War, Pakistan was assigned a 

role to prevent Soviet expansion in the region. Despite strong US influence, 

US governments did not always have their way with Pakistan because of its 

geopolitical significance. Thus Pakistan could on occasion defy US pressure, 

for example, to maintain a close relationship with China and continue with its 

nuclear weapons programme, but not forever. 

When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, the US badly needed 

Pakistani help to overcome Soviet  forces in Afghanistan, and Pakistan became a major partner of the US in its 'crusade against communism'. 

Relations began sour when in 1998, Pakistan carried out several nuclear tests 

in response to India, which was by then warming up to the US. But Pakistan 

reasserted its geostrategic importance to the US, following the attack of 11

th

September 2001 on the World Trade Centre in New York, and the US decision 

to wage war in Afghanistan in 2001, allegedly, to overthrow the Taliban regime 

and get rid of Al-Qaeda. 

The US needed the support of Pakistan to invade Afghanistan. Having got 

itself involved in an unwinnable war, the US besides dragging Pakistan into 

the war and using Pakistani territory to fight a war from which Pakistan had 

little to gain, also launched attacks within Pakistan which killed civilians in the 

sensitive regions bordering Afghanistan. When it was clear that the US not 

only cannot win the war, but may face worse humiliation than in Vietnam 46 

years ago, it began to look for scapegoats and blamed Pakistan for not doing 

enough to control Islamic militants. Acrimony between the US and Pakistan 

got amplified and came into the open since the killing of Al-Qaeda chief 

Osama bin Laden in Pakistan on 2

nd

 May, which embarrassed Pakistan as 

well as exposed the bankruptcy of US foreign policy.  

When the US military establishment unleashed a string of bellicose 

statements targeting the Pakistani military and the intelligence service, ISI, the 

Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Kayani, under immense pressure from his 

own ranks, responded to assert Pakistan's legitimate strategic interests, 

something which the political leadership should have done but failed to. 

On 26

th

 November, NATO helicopters attacked two Pakistani military 

border posts along a mountainous frontier suspected of  harbouring militants 

and killed 26 soldiers. The people of Pakistan― already bitter about killing of 

civilians by US bombings inside Pakistan's territory and events like the release 

under US pressure of a CIA agent who killed two Pakistani civilians in January 

―expressed their anger in public anti-US demonstrations so that the 

government of Pakistan was compelled to call the bombings a grave 

infringement of the country's sovereignty, block vital supply routes for the USled troops in Afghanistan, and demand of the US to vacate a base used by its 

drones. Pakistan has also announced plans to review all diplomatic, military 

and intelligence links with the US and NATO. On 2

nd

 December Pakistan's 

army chief General Kayani ordered his troops to respond to NATO fire with 

fire. 

The incident has delivered a blow to US efforts to rebuild its tattered 

alliance with Pakistan which is vital for the US to wind down its losing war in 

Afghanistan. But it will be wrong to expect the main political parties of 

Pakistan, in and out of power, to sustain their defiance against the US, for 

each has, in turn, compromised the country's sovereignty to serve the 

interests of US imperialism.  The US is obsessed with absolute control over political and economic 

developments in Central Asia to isolate Russia and China. That is in conflict 

with Pakistan's strong relations with China which at present seem important to 

expedite Pakistan's development. Also in conflict with Pakistan's interests in a 

negotiated peace in Afghanistan is the US desire for long-term presence in 

Afghanistan.  

Pakistan's nuclear capability, never desired by the US, is now seen as a 

threat to the interests of the US and  its ally, India, while to Pakistan, and 

peerhaps China, it is necessary for stability in the region. The desire of the US 

to promote its principal ally India as proxy to exercise hegemony in South Asia 

too runs counter to Pakistan's interests. 

It will be futile for the rulers of  Pakistan to hope that the increasing 

assertiveness of its armed forces will persuade the US to retreat once its 

immediate interests had been secured. The interests of US imperialism and 

Pakistan disagree and will be so for long. To US desires absolute capitulation 

by Pakistan and will use its vast network of non-state militant collaborators 

and paid agents to destabilise Pakistan as has done in the recent past. 

Even as Pakistan's economy is in tatters, it is being rapidly stripped of its 

resources with the help of its corrupt  politicians and thieving elite classes. 

Pakistan faces an even bigger political crisis owing to widespread internal 

strife and the government's inability and unwillingness to deal with the root 

causes as well as due to external threats across its borders from a historically 

hostile India and an unfriendly Afghanistan ruled by a US puppet with close 

ties to India. The biggest threat to Pakistan is, however, the US, which, 

besides its flagrant violation the sovereignty of Pakistan, has subversive 

implants in every shade of the parliamentary political spectrum, Islamic 

militants and the armed forces. 

The only hope for Pakistan lies with its toiling masses who should unite 

against imperialism and its allies in the region, not on a purely nationalistic 

programme but one defending the interests of the oppressed majority against 

its oppressors who divide the people in the name of nationality and religion. 

 [Sources: http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-englishonline/Opinions/Columns/02-Dec-2011/PakUS-relations-A-bad-marriage; 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/02/pakistan-military-return-fire-nato] 

Iran: Impending War Threat

A nonexistent "nuclear threat" is being used by the US as pretext to seek to 

install a 'friendly' regime in Iran, the  last serious obstacle to US military, 

economic and political control over the Middle East. Through it, the US hopes 

to undercut geopolitical rivals China and Russia and gain full control over Iran's vast petrochemical wealth, which has thus far been denied to 

exploitation by Western oil companies. 

The United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC) on 1

st

 December called on 

the entire progressive movement of the US to demand "No War, No 

Sanctions, and No Internal Interference in Iran!" 

[http://nepajac.org/UNAC_email_iran.html] 

The UNAC pointed out that, US hostility towards Iran since its revolution 

three decades ago has intensified in the last few months with a steady 

escalation of charges, threats, sanctions and preparations for an attack. The 

UNAC drew particular attention to Israeli media speculation since late October 

that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was heavily lobbying for military strikes 

on Iran's nuclear energy sites and to Israel's test firing of a missile able to 

carry a nuclear warhead into Iran. It also drew attention to Britain's armed 

forces stepping up contingency planning for potential military action against 

Iran. These developments need to be seen in the context of  

 US allegations of an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to 

the US, allegedly using a hit-man from the Zeta drug cartel, deeply 

infiltrated by US anti-drug agents 

 Moves to forbid the President of the US from speaking to Iranian officials 

without explicit permission from Congress; 

 The Boeing Company sending to the US Air Force in November the first 

of 20 "bunker-busting" bombs, designed to destroy underground facilities 

like those housing Iran's nuclear energy program; 

 The US & UK imposing fresh sanctions against Iran's banking system, 

aiming to strangle the country's economy; and 

 The strengthening of the military alliance with the Persian Gulf states 

that, together with U.S.-occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, to form a military 

semi-circle around the Islamic Republic. 

That there is no evidence that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon 

has not prevented the US, its allies and the major news media, from repeating 

the charge as if it is an established fact. 

On 8

th

 November, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the nuclear 

watchdog of the UN, released its latest report on Iran's nuclear program, which 

was unable to say that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb but repeated past 

charges and introduced new 'evidence' claimed to be from ten unnamed 

countries without showing Iran the actual 'evidence', citing unidentified 

intelligence sources, and using innuendo and political spin to give the 

impression that Iran is about to construct nuclear weapons.  

IAEA reports on Iran have become increasingly critical since 1

st

 December 

2009 when Yukiya Amano, a Japanese career diplomat, replaced Dr Mohamed El Baradei of Egypt as Director General of the IAEA. The report 

failed to mention that Iran, as a signatory to the international Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty, has an internationally recognised right to develop and use 

nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Notably, Israel, a country with 200-300 

nuclear weapons and threatening to attack Iran, is one of only three countries 

that still refuse to sign the NPT. 

There are also other reports of the US planning cyber attacks against Iran 

as well as using terrorist proxies, including Israeli agents, to subvert Iran. On 

12

th

 November a blast at an Iranian missile base west of Teheran led to the 

killing of over 40 people including Major General Hassan Moqqadam, a senior 

leader of Iran's missile program. While Iranian officials insist that the blast was 

an 'accident', accounts in the corporate press and by independent analysts 

support the claim that Israel and the West's terrorist cat's paw, the bizarre 

political cult, Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) were responsible. There have been 17 

reported explosions on natural gas pipelines since 2010 up from only three in 

2008 and 2009, and about 10 at oil refineries. 

Besides the cyber attack using the Stuxnet virus that wrecked the nuclear 

energy program of Iran in 2010, espionage tools like Duku are being 

developed to facilitate future attacks. It is feared that alongside the ratchetingup of bellicose anti-Iranian rhetoric, moves to collapse the economy and an 

assassination and sabotage campaign targeting Iranian scientists and military 

installations, cyber-warriors are infecting computer networks with viruses and 

"beacons" that will be used to attack air defence systems and civilian 

infrastructure.  

Of late, the US and its allies, especially the UK, have been applying a 

string of sanctions against Iranian financial and commercial institutions with 

the aim of weakening the economy. They are unable to impose a total 

embargo on business in view of its implications for the recovery of the tottering 

economies of Europe. 

Waging war on Iran in one form or the other serves several imperialist 

purposes and in what way it will be initiated and what form it will take are open 

to debate. But, if we go by the experience of Iraq, we can be certain that the 

pretext for the attacks will be Iran's 'plans to develop nuclear devices' and the 

scope of attacks will not be confined to Iran's nuclear facilities.  

When Iraq had control over its oil and asserted its right to follow its own 

political path, the US falsely accused it of developing weapons of mass 

destruction and ties to al Qaeda to make a case to wage a cruel and unjust 

war. No weapons were found, nor was evidence of ties to al Qaeda, but after 

nine years of war, Iraqi oil is open for Western exploitation. 

The threat of war is all the more real in the context of the economic 

meltdown in the West and the working class and the broad masses rising in 

rebellion against the ruling class.  [Readers are referred to the essay "Target Iran: Washington's Countdown to 

War" by Tom Burghardt in Global Research.  

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27864]

Palestine: The Price of Success 

The US punished the UNESCO for voting on 31

st

 October to grant member 

status to the Palestinian Authority. The US turned to laws that prohibit US 

support of UN agencies that accept the PA as member. The US pulled out of 

the UNESCO and announced the stoppage of payment of $80 million in dues 

and voluntary contributions.  

It is expected that, although the decision has adverse implications for US 

technology companies that use UNESCO to open markets in the developing 

world and rely upon an associated entity, the World Intellectual Property 

Organisation, to police international disputes over music, movies and 

software, pressure from the pro-Israeli lobby will block withdrawal of the antiPA legislation. But it may not be correct to place the entire blame on the proIsrael lobby since Israel is not the master of the US, but a loyal servant taking 

advantage US dependence on Israel to do its dirty work in the Middle East.  

Admission of the PA to the UNESCO, nevertheless, has far-reaching 

implications including potential admission as member of the UN, which the US 

has successfully prevented for too long. That angers the US.  

Syria: Pushed towards Civil War

With help from external forces, the opposition has grown stronger in its 

confrontation with the government of President Bashar al-Assad. In 

November, army defectors and protesters had assaulted military bases, and 

a civil war looms large unless differences are settled through negotiations.  

Given the geostrategic importance of Syria in the Middle East and its close 

ties with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, all hostile to the West, attempts to reenact the Libyan experience in Syria will be a dangerous move. On 28

th

November, a delegation led by Burhan Galioun, president of the rebel Syrian 

National Council met with Col. Riad al-Asaad, the highest ranking Syrian army 

defector and leader of the "Free Syrian Army", and Galioun pledged support to 

the "Fighting Force", an organisation formed by army defectors in Syria.  

Sanctions against Syria by the West and more recently by the Arab League 

(a subsidiary of Saudi Arabia and repressive Gulf emirates that dances to 

Washington's tune), with Algeria, Iraq and Lebanon dissenting, will only 

aggravate the crisis and pave the way for military intervention by the West in Syria. As evidence that the West is considering an invasion of Syria― and in 

the process force Iran to retaliate ―is that, for the first time in many months, 

the US Navy super-carrier CVN 77 George HW Bush left its traditional theatre 

of operations just off the Straits of Hormuz and has parked close to Syria.  

Significantly, Western countries have also advised the opposition to refrain 

from dialogue with the government, implying that they will back moves to 

topple the government violently. Russia  has learned from the failure of its 

diplomatic efforts in Libya, and its Foreign Minister has denounced Western 

advice as 'political provocation'. Russia reaffirmed its opposition to any military 

strike against Syria, and has responded to moves by the US by sending a 

battle group led by the heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruiser, Admiral 

Kuznetsov, with two supporting ships to the Syrian port of Tartus.  

Syria has for long been geopolitically the most sensitive part of the Middle 

East so that prolonged instability there, let alone a regime change and the 

subsequent shift in diplomacy, will alter the balance of power in the region.  

Retired Major General Armagan Kuloglu, a senior Turkish security and 

defence analyst in the Ankara-based Center for Middle Eastern Strategic 

Studies, told the Iranian news agency Press TV on 3

rd

 December that military 

intervention in Syria will be a "big mistake" and warned against foreign 

meddling in Syria's internal affairs. He also noted that implementing a regime 

change will not be easy, as the Syrian government is still popular and is 

supported by Russia and China. He pointed out that Russia's sending a 

military flotilla to the eastern Mediterranean is a message of support for Syria. 

Hundreds of people, including Syrian security forces, have been killed 

during the unrest. The Syrian government accuses that outlaws, saboteurs, 

and armed terrorists orchestrated from outside the country are behind the 

turmoil and deadly violence. While the opposition blames the security forces 

for the killings, the West seems intent on using an adapted version of its 

strategy in Libya of using its clients among the opponents of the regime to 

avoid a negotiated settlement and plunge Syria into civil war. 

[Sources: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-

11/23/c_122320581.htm; http://www.presstv.ir/detail/213555.html; 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=27848]  

AFRICA 

Egypt: Army Rules, OK! 

The Egyptian revolutionary movement has called for the end of the state of 

emergency which has existed in Egypt since 1967. While the Supreme 

Command of the Armed Forces (SCAF) that is ruling Egypt has claimed that the referral of civilians for military trials would end  when the state of 

emergency is lifted, it has refused to set a date and has instead utilised this as 

a broad mandate to bring all manner of civil issues before military, rather than 

civil, courts. 

On 19

th

 November, at least one Egyptian protester calling for an end to 

military rule and the fulfilment of the revolution's demands for democracy and 

social justice was killed and over 670 injured in police attacks on protesters in 

Tahrir Square, the centre of Egypt's revolutionary mobilisations. Protests have 

taken place across Egypt and another protester was murdered by the military 

in Alexandria. 

It is clear now that, despite the fall of Mubarak, the struggle is far from over. 

Human rights abuses and military repression continue against Egyptian 

popular movements and activists. The huge protest on 18

th

 November and the 

resumed occupation of Tahrir Square marked the climax of a swelling wave of 

actions against military trials of civilians, the regime's murder of protesters in 

the joint Christian/Muslim demonstrations against anti-Copt prejudice, torture 

and coercion against prisoners, and repeated statements by the military that it 

would hold on to power even after elections. 

Three days after the murder of the 24 year old political prisoner Essam Ali Atta 

by police torture, the military on 30

th

 October detained prominent Egyptian 

blogger and activist Alaa Abdel Fattah along with another activist who was 

later released on bail for his opposition to military courts trying Egyptian 

civilians. Thousands of people angered by light sentences by the Criminal 

Court for police killers of civilians in contrast to harsh sentences handed down 

to civilians by military courts took to the streets demanding the release of 

political prisoners and an end to the unjust military trials, and called for 

international solidarity with their campaign.  

Nearly 12 000 Egyptian civilians have been tried by military courts since 

the fall of Mubarak, and the tribunals have convicted 8 071, in violation of 

Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which 

obligates states to protect and ensure the right to fair, independent and 

impartial trials and freedom of expression, and Egypt is a signatory to the 

ICCPR. For more recent  information on military trials in Egypt visit 

http://en.nomiltrials.com/.

The flawed election process in Egypt has led to the success of 'moderate' 

Islamic political parties, which are likely to strike a deal with the SCAF which is 

ruling Egypt and has refused to let any elected civilian government to draft a 

new constitution challenging its control over Egypt. 

*** 

Islamists seem to have been the beneficiaries of the democracy campaigns in 

North Africa. In Tunisia, the moderate Islamist party An-Nahda Party won 90 out of 217 seats in elections held in October to an assembly that will write a 

new constitution for Tunisia 

In Morocco with only 45% of registered voters turning out, and only less 

than 14 million of the 21 million Moroccans of voting age registering as voters 

(2 million fewer than in 2007) the moderate Islamist PJD party won the most 

seats (107 of 395) in the country's parliamentary election. The record of the 

Islamists has thus far been collaboration with those in power and cooperation 

with the monarchy is likely to continue in Morocco.  

It will eventually be the Egyptian working class which has begun to assert 

itself since 2008 along with the new generation of radical youth that will free 

Egypt from its military rulers and their American masters who continue to arm 

successive repressive regimes. 

For further informed comment on political trends in Egypt see Peter 

Custers  http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=197621; 

Samir Amin,  http://www.viewpointonline.net/samir-amin-on-egypt.html; and 

James Petras http://petras.lahaine.org/?cat=3. 

  

Somalia: Ethiopian Meddling 

Russian news agency Novosti reported, citing local elders as well as the BBC 

reporting eye witnesses to at least 20 vehicles carrying Ethiopian troops, that 

several hundred Ethiopian troops with  military vehicles have crossed into 

Somalia's southern and central parts, amid denial by Ethiopian authorities and 

joint military operations undertaken by Kenyan and Somali troops against AlShabaab in the southern provinces after the two countries accused it of being 

behind a wave of abductions of foreigners. 

On 19

th

 November, Xinhua reported that, according to residents of the 

central Somali town of Beledweyne in Hiran province along the border with 

Ethiopia, hundreds of Ethiopian  troops had gathered along the common 

frontier with Somalia where Al-Shabaab  rebels are in control. Reports from 

other areas in central Somalia also said that troops from Ethiopia were seen 

along the common frontiers of the two countries and that rebel fighters' battle 

wagons were seen heading towards the frontier. 

Al-Shabaab fighters currently control much of the south and centre of the 

war ravaged country while the 'internationally recognised' Somali government 

runs only the capital Mogadishu― from which it successfully drove out AlShabaab following a major offensive backed by African Union peacekeeping 

troops ―and few parts in the south. Ethiopian troops withdrew from Somalia in 

2009 after two years of occupation during which they unsuccessfully fought 

with insurgency led by the radical Islamist group of Al-Shabaab. LATIN AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN 

Community of Latin American and 

Caribbean States Founded  

Leaders from 33 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean met in Caracas 

on 2

nd

 and 3

rd

 December at the two-day founding summit of a new regional 

bloc― with the notable exclusion of the United States and Canada ―aimed to 

boost integration and economic development. Members of the newly-formed 

Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), which emerged 

out of the Rio Group and the Latin American and Caribbean Summit on 

Integration and Development, approved the Declaration of Caracas and 22 

other documents calling for the promotion  of regional integration in politics, 

economy and culture, and realising common regional development. 

Documents adopted at the summit covered the issues of the US embargo on 

Cuba, social inclusion, food security, counterterrorism and drug trafficking.  

The summit marks a significant move by Latin America away from its status 

as the backyard of the US to assert its importance as a player in its own right 

in international politics. With CELAC  countries holding much of the mineral 

wealth of the globe including its largest oil reserves, building on existing interregional bodies like the Union of South American Nations and the proposed 

Bank of the South will place it on a strong footing economically. 

The fact that Cuba, excluded from the Organisation of American States 

(OAS) for daring to challenge US imperialism and defend its revolution, was 

not only included but asked to host the 2013 CELAC Summit. Thus, there is 

reason to expect that the consolidation of CELAC will be the final nail in the 

coffin of the US-dominated OAS. It is therefore significant that the founding of 

CELEC occurred at a time when US economic and political power is on the 

decline and the European Union is struggling to avert economic collapse. 

The US had tried everything possible to stop CELAC and, recently, former 

Colombian president, Alvaro Uribe, a US puppet, during his recent visit to 

Venezuela had urged the right-wing opposition to issue a "public statement" 

denouncing the growing relationship between Colombia and Venezuela. But 

Colombian President Manuel Santos, despite adhering to Uribe's neoliberal 

and repressive politics at home, is adopting a foreign policy that contrasts with 

that of Uribe in seeking to integrate Colombia into regional organisations and 

strengthening bilateral relations with other Latin American countries. This does 

not mean that Colombia and other Latin American countries which follow US 

foreign policy dictates will change their attitude or enable CELAC to supersede 

the OAS. What is certain, however, is  that the US cannot for long bully the 

countries of the American continent the way it did only a decade ago. EUROPE  

Greece: Deepening Debt Crisis  

The recent sequence of events in Europe is a sequel to the public debt crisis 

of the US government. On 21

st

 July, representatives of European governments 

agreed to a new package of loans to Greece, to pre-empt Greece defaulting 

on its obligations to foreign creditors. The approval of the package rather than 

point to a solution to Europe's debt crisis, led to the failure of the first package 

for Greece agreed in 2010. Europe's financial markets continued to slide in the 

face of fear that Greece will eventually default with knock on effect on other 

European states. French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor Merkel, 

representing the strongest economies of Europe held a hasty bilateral summit 

in mid-August, and called for coordinated economic policy making in Europe 

and levying of taxes on financial transactions. The proposals met with 

scepticism so that, following the summit, share prices on Europe's financial 

markets continued to tumble with those of some European banks falling by 30 

to 40% in two weeks. The Western world is thus beset by major debt crises in 

the US and in Europe. 

When the world financial crisis erupted in 2008, most Western countries 

lent massive amounts of money to save their tottering banks. The obligation of 

the Euro zone countries to keep budgetary deficits within strict limits was 

temporarily relaxed following the crisis and public debts grew in most 

European countries. In 2010, Germany's debt constituted 80% of its GDP, and 

that of Italy 120%. Thus, Greece with public debt at around 150% was not 

alone in failing to prevent a rise in debt level. However, unlike other Euro zone 

countries, it became target to ruthless speculation which forced it to pay 

usurious interest rates in the region of 15% (much higher than the rate paid by 

any other in the EU) to private lenders including French and German banks, 

showing the dominance of Europe's leading banks over the EU and its 

member states. 

When Greece first threatened to default on its repayment in April 2010, the 

EU and the IMF jointly devised an 'aid'-package accompanied by standard 

austerity measures like reductions in social spending and wages of state 

employees and in addition the obligation to sell-off 56 billion Euro in state 

properties. The impact of austerity measures and privatisation on Greece was 

disastrous: contrary to the claim by the EU and IMF that balancing of Greek 

government budget is necessary for economic growth, the Greek economy 

showed a negative growth rate of 6.9% in 2010. Thus, the imposed conditions 

only worsened the crisis for Greece. 

Austerity measures imposed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis led to 

Europe-wide protests including, among many others, the sustained protest 

movement by the newly emergent youth movement, the 'indignados' in Spain. Violent riots of the unemployed youth August 2011 in the UK were preceded 

by a series of protests against austerity measures and corporate tax 

avoidance. In Greece, following parliamentary approval of austerity measures 

in May 2010 to accommodate extra budget cuts of 30 billion Euros over three 

years as part of a deal with the EU and IMF for a bailout― the first ever in the 

EU ―anti-austerity protests unequivocally took the form of civil disobedience. 

Leading Greek trade unions have staged general strikes when the first 

international plan against a default was adopted in May 2010 and in early 

2011. Besides, 50% of Greece's population supports what's called the  'We 

Won't Pay' offensive, which has taken the form of people's refusal to pay the 

reportedly corrupt road-tolls, refusal to pay for the city's metro tickets in 

Athens, and a bus-fare boycott in Thessaloniki, the country's second largest 

city. The struggles against privatisation and road-toll protests have put the 

parliament and government on the defensive.  

The Euro zone's rescue package for Greece hammered out by the leaders 

of France and Germany in October 2011 was unlikely to be popular with the 

people of Greece and Prime Minister George Papandreou, much to the anger 

of the sponsors of the package, proposed a referendum on it, which the rightwing opposition as well as some members of his centre-left coalition rejected. 

Papandreou was forced to resign on 9

th

 November and an interim coalition 

government was formed on 10

th

 November with Lucas Papademos, a former 

vice-president of the European Central Bank as Prime Minister. 

The rescue package is not a long term solution and Greece is likely to 

default and leave the Euro zone, which will pave the way for others like 

Portugal and Ireland to follow suit with adverse consequences for the Euro 

and the finance capitalists of Europe whose interests are actually defended by 

the EU. 

[For an extensive analysis read "Europe's Debt Crisis Fuels Civil Resistance" 

by Peter Custers, http://www.countercurrents.org/custers030911.htm] 

Kosovo: NATO's War on Serbs 

Disturbances occurred in Northern Kosovo on 23

rd

 November as Serbs 

thwarted attempts by a Kosovo  Force (KFOR) contingent under NATO 

command to dismantle a barricade near the town of Zvecan in Northern 

Kosovo. In response to NATO claims that the clashes injured 21 of its soldiers, 

Serbian Deputy Prime Minister Ivica  Dacic called on the Prime Minister of 

Kosovo, Hashim Thaci to restrain his NATO led forces from attacking Serbian 

civilians and warned the Kosovo regime against any further provocation. 

The Serbian minority of Kosovo, comprising 10 per cent of the population 

and mainly resident in northern Kosovo, lost its legal status when Kosovo, 

backed by the West, unilaterally proclaimed independence from Serbia in 2008. The Serbs consider themselves citizens of Serbia, while the majority 

Albanians expect them to leave their homes and move to Serbia. 

Until July the Serbs enjoyed a measure of independence and right to free 

contact with mainland Serbia. When the Kosovo regime moved to take control 

over the border with Serbia in July, to install customs stations, the Serbs saw it 

as an initial step infringing upon their remaining freedoms, and erected 

barricades in response. Tensions have been on the rise for months over the 

disputed border crossings, and a compromise was proposed that the stations 

will be controlled by KFOR forces and not Albanians. But the Serbs, who see 

KFOR as a force that implements the policies NATO, which enabled the 

secession of Kosovo, and protects Albanian interests to the detriment of the 

Serbs, rejected it. 

[Sources: http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/11/tear-gas-barbed-wire-isolation-nato-toolskosovo-raid; http://rt.com/news/kosovo-serbs-barricades-kfor-267/] 

NORTH AMERICA 

US: Occupying Wall Street and Beyond 

Inspired by the mass protests in Cairo's Tahrir Square and Madrid's Puerta del 

Sol Square, hundreds camped out in Zuccotti Park near Wall Street since 17

th

September, as part of the "Occupy Wall Street" (OWS) campaign. On 15

th

October, its global day of action, it drew protests by thousands  in 1,500 cities 

world-wide, including more than 100 in the United States.  

The protest campaign is going on despite cold weather and snowfall. As 

the slogan "We are the 99%" sums up, the protest is against the capitalist 

system. Although there are similarities with the anti-globalisation movements 

earlier this century against imperialist globalisation there are essential 

differences. 

By the 1990s individual issue-based protest movements (e.g. environment, 

anti-globalization, peace, women's rights, climate change etc.) had been 

promoted through NGOs mainly as substitutes to a cohesive mass movement. 

This pattern was evident in the counter G7 summits and People's Summits of 

the 1990s. The Seattle 1999 counter-summit, once upheld as a triumph for the 

anti-globalization movement, in fact, ended up helping globalisation by 

undermining the growing public awareness and resentment of globalisation by 

allowing NGOs not only to infiltrate  but also decide the agenda of the antiglobalization campaign. 50,000 people from diverse backgrounds, civil society 

organizations. The protest movement was found to have received funding 

from big corporations, and is for all practical purposes dead.

(http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21110).The OWS campaign from its outset had a strong spontaneous element 

comprising the growing public dislike and distrust of capitalism. But it is far 

from adequate to overthrow capitalism and replace it with the only feasible 

alternative, namely socialism,   

Capitalism— which has now taken the form of globalised imperialism and 

neo-colonialism wields control over  the world economy through its highly 

centralised international trade and financial arms backed by far reaching 

military might —cannot be defeated by  disorganised groups without a clear 

goal and programme of struggle. The need for an international mass 

movements led by well organised Marxist Leninist parties is therefore even 

greater than in the colonial era. Failure of the left to act will be taken 

advantage of by imperialism through its  subversive agencies, especially the 

NGOs. 

The struggle has therefore to be directed against the main enemy, namely 

imperialism, as well as its agents among class collaborative trade union 

organisations and 'left-of-centre' political parties which do not want to upset 

the capitalist apple cart, but only rearrange things slightly so that life goes on 

the way they are used to. 

The OWS campaign, despite growing mass support within the US and 

outside and growing public frustration about the failure of the state to defend 

the interests of the people against a handful of capitalists, is at risk of not only 

failing in its general objective of taming capital but also of denying the people 

the opportunity to mobilise themselves in a struggle to be rid of the capitalist 

system. It cannot be allowed to suffer the same fate as the fore-doomed antiglobalization projects of the last decade. The task of organising the masses 

and building a left alternative political movement can no longer be postponed. 

It will, be terribly wrong to remain aloof and mock at the campaign. The 

correct approach will be to use the opportunity to educate the masses about 

the capitalist system and the need for an organised struggle not only to 

overthrow capitalism but replace it with  something that is fair and humane.  

The building blocks for a revolutionary Marxist Leninist communist party are to 

be found from among the protesters, especially the members of the working 

class. The task before Marxist Leninists is to recognise them and organise. 

***** (Continued from inside front cover)

Now preparing food by boiling the top of Sisnu

3

 in water 

Now preparing food by boiling the tip of tongue for taste 

Is it tasty or tasteless; is it hot or bitter? 

Seemed as though they've lost the taste; seemed ever hot 

The narrative of Gamalis 

Used to seem very old; used to seem unknown 

Seemed like the potato skin leftovers of porcupine 

Like heat-withered potato- plants 

Ever like the tear-drop fallen on account of weight of potato- sack 

Seemed as though potato's what defined their life 

It seemed strange. 

The story of Gamalis 

The uneducated Gamalis, who knew not the first letter of the alphabet 

Can know if now even in a poem 

While searching image and reflection 

They seem to be making pens of a bamboo 

Those whoever searched their identity on potato leaves 

Are writing these days slogans of movement on those leaves 

It seems totally new 

The narrative of Gamalis these days. 

Gamalis do not come down to Pyuthan carrying timmur these days 

Are rather busy making new chemical out of the same timmur 

Gamalis do not even grow potatoes these days 

They grow martyrs 

Gamalis do not break their head in quarries 

They carve martyr's statue on those stones; 

Wonderful Gamalis! Real, wonderful Gamalis!! 

(Source: "Poems of the People's War" published by Ichchhuk Cultural Academy) 

1. Gaam: a village development committee in Rolpa

4

, where class struggle got 

intensified. Inhabitants of Gamm are called Gamalis. Gamaliharu is plural of 

Gamali. 

2. Timur is a species of tree which produces small fruits used as spice. 

3. Sisnu is a plant, whose nettle the poor people in the villages of Nepal eat as 

substitute for food. 

4. A place in Western Nepal, known as a place of the People's War.  (

Registered as a Newspaper in Sri Lanka 

Published by E Thambiah of Upstairs Room 6, 571/15 Galle Road, Colombo 06 

Phone: 071 4302959; Fax: 011 2473757; E-mail: newdemocraticparty@hotmail.com 

Website: http://ndpsl.org 

Printed at Comprint System, HL ½ Dias Place Colombo 12 

Phone: 011 7201738

IN THE DARK DEPTHS 

Jose Maria Sison

The enemy wants to bury us 

In the dark depths of prison 

But shining gold is mined 

From the dark depths of the earth 

And the radiant pearl is dived 

From the dark depths of the sea. 

We suffer but we endure 

And draw up gold and pearl 

From depths of character 

Formed so long in struggle. 

10 April 1978