Hitherto philosophers have interpreted the world in various ways. The point however is to change it. Karl Marx 
Economic & Philosophic Science Review	
Subscriptions  £20 p.a. [P&P Bulletin Publications, PO Box 50 London SW17 9NL] [Post Office Regd] 
No 1006 July 14 1999                                                                                                                                               10p 

EPSR philosophical seminar Sunday. Phone. 

The debate about exactly why Revisionism led to the collapse of Marxist understanding must be held, and communist solidarity with SLP-building is pushing that debate further and further away. Fully analysing why 'Yugoslav defencism' was a bad idea fits integrally into such a debate about the crucial methods for developing the international anti-imperialist struggle. Revolutionary theory is the answer, not keeping fingers crossed for Milosevic or anyone or anything else. Only workers movements armed with the right ideas can defeat NATO. Cosy party building for its own sake is worse than useless.

In the ongoing EPSR struggle for Marxist understanding, differences have arisen over the extent to which Yugoslavia under Milosevic remained a workers state and therefore worth directly and openly 'defending' in terms of international communism's anti-imperialist slogans.

Parts of this argument have merged into previous discussions about how far to pursue building solidarity around the SLP in the light of differing estimations about how blatantly rotten Scargill's opportunist politics have already demonstrated themselves to be in workers eyes, or ought to be expected to do in the near future, — 'Yugoslav defencism' being a common thread.

So far, published opinions in EPSR circles have dismissed the idea that 'defending Yugoslavia' can be separated from the issue of defending Milosevic's Yugoslavia, the dominating regime in Serbia since the workers-state federation was broken up by overwhelming bourgeois imperialist interests and influence in the early 90s.

The dispute is about what the different remnants of the FRY workers state have become, and [if] the Serbia-Montenegro-Kosovo bit, calling itself 'Yugoslavia' still, has had its political character dominated by the Milosevic regime throughout this period.

It seems self-evident that the politics of Serb nationalism have been the overwhelming consideration and the controlling force. Belgrade's struggles against the even worse opportunist nationalist defections from the FRY (Slovenia, Croatia, etc), most blatantly manipulated by the most predatory outside imperialist interests (e.g. Germany pulling Tudjman's strings, and US imperialism pulling the KLA's) have appeared to limit themselves to rallying Serb national feelings (over disputed territory in Kraijina, Sarajevo, Republics Srbska, etc, and finally Kosovo). Despite frequently getting a say live on British radio and television, Yugoslav spokesmen were rarely, if ever, heard opposing imperialism (& its Fifth Column stooges for destroying FRY) in the interests of the working class of all former Yugoslavia, to be best served by maintaining the old workers-state unity of the FRY.

Nothing was ever advocated, even, just in the interests of Serbia's working class alone, or never noticeably so. The particular need for WORKERS to not go back under total Western imperialist control was never stressed, and certainly the interests of workers INTERNATIONALLY in not seeing Western imperialist bourgeoisie all-triumphant was not even remotely in the frame. 

Just clever propaganda tactics by a really shrewd secret communist-internationalist??? Highly peculiar tactics if that was supposed to be the case. No, the question of the international economic crisis of the imperialist system and the longterm interests of the working class everywhere was never even an intelligible idea in Belgrade's minds, let alone a practicable political programme. And there is little to suggest that any such perspectives were remotely live in Belgrade for quite some time too before the break-up of the FRY and before even the period of crude Milosevic nationalism.

But given that many attitudes and institutions continuing from the great achievements of the FRY workers state were still alive in Serbia at least, could not 'defend Yugoslavia' have been valid just on the basis that Serb national resistance to the more predatory Western domineering was a legitimate anti-imperialist struggle for self-determination, and the only hope of serious future opposition to imperialist domination in the region?

Serb nationalism could indeed play such a role, and it was the EPSR which uniquely argued from the start of the nationalist break-up of Yugoslavia that in all this degenerate retreat, Serb interests had the best historical claim to international communist sympathy, had contributed most to the FRY-workers state to make it a going concern and therefore least deserved to lose out through its break-up, and again by tradition had the most potential for developing future revolutionary socialist resistance to imperialist domination. 

In such circumstances of imperialism's deliberate overthrow of the remaining FRY workers-state structures after what Belgrade Revisionism had already done in terms of ideological and economic-control damage (both prior-to and contemporaneously with Gorbachevism's final liquidation of workers-state perspectives in the Socialist Camp at large and in the USSR in particular), there was no equality of 'self-determination' interests between the Serbs, Croats, Slovenians, Bosnians, Macedonians, Montenegrins, and autonomous minorities, — the EPSR argued. 

But translating that understanding into a slogan of 'defend Yugoslavia' or any notion of 'support' for Milosevic is a vastly different matter. Although inclined to favour the Serb struggle over that of the Croats, Bosnians, or Kosovo Albanians, say, for disputed territory or strategic interests, — the defence of Serb nationalism was hardly a progressive answer to the break-up of the Yugoslav workers state. 

It was also a degenerate retreat too. The progressive line open for anyone to call for was to defend the Yugoslav workers-state federation as such, calling on ALL workers of every nationality in the FRY to do just that, and calling on workers internationally to support such a call.

Unrealistic? The Castro regime in Cuba is doing exactly that in almost exactly similar circumstances, — constantly threatened with air-bombardment obliteration, but seriously (and believably) taunting US imperialism and its vicious sanctions blockade to just come and try it, and face being humiliated and beaten in any final invasion-occupation attempt on Cuba, however many bombs were dropped first.

And although this would have been the argument anyway, — just to remove any doubts, Castro has just told an international cultural congress held in Havana exactly this himself:

During his deeply analytical speech, Fidel described what he called the 'colossal battle for sovereignty and for culture" which unfolded in the UN Security Council in regard to the issue of Yugoslavia; the monetary system; Europe and the creation of a supra-national state; the Latin American situation; and new philosophies. Including global threats. 

There is a clear policy of eliminating sovereignty using the pretexts of drugs, human rights or internal conflicts, all of which give the United States a reason for intervention, he added.

The president considered what would happen if such a doctrine were to be applied to other countries in addition to Yugoslavia, where the United States and NATO engaged in a war which he described as cowardly, morally pyrrhic and genocidal. 

"In the case of Cuba" he stressed, "we'll never give in. Here we have sacred values to defend, and the men and women responsible for this Revolution would die before making one sole concession of principles to the U.S. empire, before renouncing one iota of our sovereignty." 

Despite Castro's own very uncertain grasp of the full role that the struggle for Marxist-Leninist science ought to be playing in the world, and how such a struggle should be organised, plus the dubiousness of many past Cuban decisions on where to stand in the international anti-imperialist movement (too long in Moscow's shadow, e.g.; misleading about Allendeism; badly wrong in backing Maurice Bishop; etc, etc;) the Cuban workers state makes no bones about its unyielding refusal to ever readmit parliamentary (bourgeois) 'democracy', and as such can be unconditionally supported with confidence in all disputes with imperialism, no matter how critically the continuing Cuban weakness (in world revolutionary theory and fully analysing the Revisionist mistakes of the past) has to be assessed.

Cuba is a proletarian-dictatorship workers state and defiantly determined to remain so. For all its theoretical weaknesses in terms of world revolutionary leadership, Cuba can be confidently held up as an example to follow for workers everywhere. 

Although a long way from complete clarity, the notion to 'defend Cuba' or 'support Cuba' could never fail to be a blow for progress and a likely source of encouragement for anti-imperialist struggles everywhere, — given the immediate current paucity of conscious Leninist revolutionary movements on earth.

What is a bit surprising about the 'defend Yugoslavia' persistence is that the outcome of such precedence of hope over experience is already known. In the circumstances, Milosevic nationalism looked a backward-moving dubious quality to expect to rout imperialism with, compared to the former triumphs of the Yugoslav workers state. 

Humiliating muddle and embarrassment for NATO was nevertheless still a possibility, for various reasons, and earnestly to be looked forward to. 'Let NATO be defeated' was the EPSR's forward-looking argument. 

But 'defend the Milosevic regime' was not at all necessarily implied by sloganising for NATO's humiliation, and was a bad idea. The Milosevic regime was not any kind of model for workers anywhere to aim for or emulate, degenerating backwards as it was doing from the greatness of the Yugoslav workers state, and it was a pointless diversion from contemplating NATO's imperialist rottenness to pose a Milosevic triumph (by saying 'support Yugoslavia') as the way to establish it.

And the confused argument that 'defend Yugoslavia' was not the same as 'support the Milosevic regime' was shown up by the actual outcome. Such remnants of workers-statehood as there might be still hopes of finding in the FRY former territories might well be claimed to have appeared in the defiant resistance by the populace to the ferocious NATO aerial blitzkrieg and in the phenomenal skilled determination and efficiency with which the Yugoslav armed forces won the ground war in Kosovo (against the KLA and the colossal might of the NATO airforces), and prepared brilliant defensive positions which might well have inflicted a shattering and possibly even an epoch-making defeat on NATO's ground forces when eventually they would have been obliged to invade Kosovo (unless Western imperialism wanted to be completely humiliated even without a fight).

What happened? The degenerate Revisionist-nationalist politics of Milosevicism proved utterly unreliable as anticipated, — and utterly decisive, as anticipated. 

Defeat for anti-imperialist struggle as such is not necessarily always a disaster. Much can be learned. Circumstances are sometimes impossible but need to be fought against anyway.

But misleading the international working class into a belief in or hopes in Milosevicism WAS a bad idea, and remains a bad idea.

The situation for real Leninist revolutionary internationalists outside Serbia was exactly the same as that for any communists inside Serbia. Attacks on Milosevicism while the NATO/KLA onslaught was in full spate would have been out of the question.

'Defeat for NATO' would have been the only line, while at the same time refusing to spread any support or illusions in Milosevicism, and ready (if strong enough) to overthrow his regime when his ultimately disastrous 'resistance' to imperialism failed. It would have replicated the Bolshevik attitude towards Kerensky's regime when the Kornilov counter-revolution tried to restore the autocracy in August 1917. 
 
'Defeat Kornilov' but 'No illusions in or support for the Kerensky regime'.

It has been argued that if Milosevic's nationalism has been scorned, why not Sinn Féin's?? But Sinn Féin did not have the luxury of choosing whether to fight the remnants of British colonialism with a workers-state perspective or a national self-determination appeal. Then as now, it was unrealistic to imagine seeing sufficient proletarian class forces (and sufficient economic and political crisis for British imperialism) to mount a socialist revolution. 

The circumstances were ripe, however, for a national-liberation struggle for the defeat of the failed Partition-colony and the completion of Ireland's self-determination. It has been a worthwhile and important anti-imperialist struggle, and open support for its progressive aims and its revolutionary fighting content has been obligatory for anyone claiming to be communist or Marxist.

In a different direction, it has been queried what makes the Revisionist-nationalism in Beijing more trustworthy than in Belgrade when capitalist inroads into the Chinese workers state have posed just as many problems as Belgrade's collaboration with bourgeois values have done. But surely the anti-imperialist CLASS content of the defence of proletarian dictatorship at Tiananmen Square; of the rejection of Western 'human rights' attempts to destabilise workers-state rule in Tibet; and of the dismantling of British colonial rule in Hong Kong; etc, etc; all testify to the continuing genuine potential of China as a powerful and successful workers state, — not remotely comparable to the shallow nationalist limitations of Milosevic.

When did the Milosevic regime ever speak up against imperialist manipulative intrigue in international matters (going beyond local Serb interests) in the way that Beijing regularly returns to, periodically? And leaving aside the obvious size advantage, how can it ever be imagined that the Chinese workers state would ever tolerate the slightest scrap of imperialist domination or infringement of China's sovereignty? 

The anti-bourgeois-imperialist class understanding of the Chinese communist revolution remains a potent force notwithstanding all of the criticism that has to be made of abiding Revisionist confusion in Beijing and of the perils of its experiments in capitalist economic management.

Whatever longterm Marxist political clarity and immediate firmness of purpose in standing up to imperialist world domination that can be found anywhere need to be highlighted and encouraged. Without wishing to create illusions in Beijing where continuing Revisionist lack of clarity and its subsequent instability still rule the roost, the Chinese workers state nevertheless consciously and confidently still holds firm against all imperialist attempts at 'democratic' subversion (to follow up its economic penetration). 

Potentially important international political consequences can still flow from this continuing major anti-imperialist conflict.

It was a matter of judgement that building up hopes in the Milosevic regime's anti-imperialist consciousness would prove an unsound analysis, and the shattering of more shallowly-held illusions is not the healthiest diet for the international working class; and it has been on it for far too long, thanks to the dreadful consequences of generations of Revisionist woolly-mindedness on the one hand, and Trotskyite despair and cynicism and the other.

It is nothing remotely like an exact science, and wrong judgements in such matters are not the end of the world. But how a political movement forms its judgements, and what quality of judgement its chosen leadership can provide, are without question absolutely priceless issues in all class-struggle history. 

What joke of an anti-imperialist workers movement can be built by philistine ultra-left posturing which fails to hail the colossal anti-imperialist triumph of the national-liberation struggle in Ireland, and with defeatist cynicism hints all the time at its 'failure'? What joke of an anti-imperialist workers movement can be built by museum-Stalinist shell-shock which refuses or is incapable of analysing how the anti-revolutionary fatal confusion first seeped into Revisionism, and spends the rest of history keeping fingers crossed at various periods for either Mao, or Kim, or Hoxha, or Gorbachev, or Bishop, or Scargill, or Milosevic, or whatever, instead of starting to polemicise and debate about a ruthless scientific analysis of the world of imperialist crisis and Revisionist collapse? 

And the idea that a party with well-meaning numbers on its side is automatically the best bet for solving the historic tasks facing the working class is as potentially lethal as letting a pyromaniac loose in a gunpowder factory, or letting an alcoholic buy a brewery. It was precisely the 'niceness' and the numbers which were such a stifling factor in the slow self-strangulation of the mighty world communist movement. 

Every 'official' CP and scores more fringe parties just looked hurt or embarrassed when the staunchly pro-Soviet EPSR insistently pointed out that Gorbachev was actually undermining the dictatorship of the proletariat with his imperialist collaboration, his glasnost, and his perestroika, — that the Emperor everyone was admiring was in fact wearing no clothes. 

The EPSR was tutted and hissed out of meetings as though being hustled out of church for farting.

Astonishingly, not only has the EPSR now been hustled out of the SLP (even before it was required to discuss the revisionist weakness of the SLP's Euroelection stance and its facing-both-ways totally confused message on the Kosovo crisis, and merely for being in church at all), — but supposed communists have rationalised their acceptance of this so as to make it possible to keep the SLP's 'niceness' and numbers going, — the very worst effects of the Revisionist disease in the first place, the very essence of the paralysis of the Marxist-Leninist scientific philosophy which has resulted in the catastrophic Socialist Camp retreat in the late 20th century.

Just building a collaborative 'socialist' organisation for its own sake as supposedly the way to get to the overthrow of capitalism is to repeat exactly the mistakes of the past. Being in the old CP with its 'niceness' and its numbers and its official supporting links with the Socialist Camp victories and the communist tradition of struggle gave a pleasant feeling too. But what happened when you did fart in church and started wondering whether the whole Revisionist complacency might be missing a trick or two about the modern world?, — wondering whether the whole official communist mentality and way of proceeding was really what was now required of the anti-imperialist struggle???? You were pushed out of sight and out of mind as quickly as possible, dismissed as of no further consequence or interest, and as no longer part of the family. 

The numbers and the niceness were all the discipline that was needed, — the class/tribal loyalty, the belonging to the great revolution.

It all turned into total catastrophe, and it was this 'organisation for its own sake' which was the class/emotional root of this complacency, a petty-bourgeois misappropriation of Marxism which had shorn it of its own self-correcting cutting edge.

The key to that fatal wrong-turning in history was the banning of genuine debate, the failure to dialectically hold fast the conflicting opposites in order to see understanding further grow out of the contradiction, and to benefit from it, — the failure to grasp the very essence of all scientific method but especially that of Marxist analysis, — the wish to kick out the discordant voices and have everyone singing the same tune in perfect harmony. 

Stalinism was right to clamp down on counter-revolutionary factionalism. It was the disastrous start to Revisionist ultimate catastrophe when all conflicting views about how imperialism would develop next, and how to tackle it, were banned as well. 

Without genuine conflict and contradiction, correct Marxist scientific analysis can only slowly die. The ultimate debacle of the self-liquidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat under longtime steadily maturing (beginning with Stalin) delusions about the development of imperialist crisis and its nature, and about Soviet relations with imperialism, duly followed.

The key lesson for renewed communist struggle at the end of the 20th century has to be that not only must the free conflict of ideas be allowed but it must be positively encouraged as the most fertile educative source for the working class of all.

How was the whole world communist movement originally educated? Via virtually nothing but polemical writings by the best leaders against other leaders' mistaken ideas INSIDE the communist internationals (I, II, and III), and INSIDE the Bolshevik Party. 

The communist education of mankind in the works of Marx, Engels, and Lenin consists of virtually nothing but polemics, in book, pamphlet and article form, against other communist leaders; — against Plekhanov, Martov, Trotsky, Kautsky, Bernstein, Proudhon, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Lassalle, Liebknecht, etc, etc. 

But as soon as Stalin's polemics against Trotsky, Bukharin, etc, petered out at the end of the 1920s, to be replaced by loftily ignoring alternative voices or silencing them, the inevitable deterioration in Marxist scientific understanding and ability began slowly to infect the whole world party. 

And what crucially helped drive out Marxist scientific inquiry (and the method of all-ideas-in-conflict as the only source of development, through contradiction) was this stifling human wish to belong, this stifling wish to be part of the team at all costs, this stifling complacency, the reactionary bourgeoisification of the former communist leadership of the workers movement.

A party has lost its way the moment that organisation and activism come first and the conflict of ideas is relegated to second place (or banned altogether if possible). The perfunctory organisational 'debates' on the fringe of political questions miss the point entirely which is to make the continuing conflict of political theory itself the main driving force of all political activity. 

As the EPSR has explained before, Scargill got it exactly 100% wrong when he declared at an SLP House of Commons meeting in the New Year that anyone thinking there should be any further political debate between then and the June Euro-elections, with so much work to be done, had to be living on another planet. So wrong and silly it is not even worth commenting on. 

To prepare for the October Revolution in 1917 which they could see coming with complete clarity, the Bolshevik Party organised a full party congress that August, PRECISELY to prepare the party and the working class all the better for the crucial revolutionary work ALREADY BEING UNDERTAKEN. 

All political work is first and foremost an act of convincing the mass movement of the need to take the next steps forward, — to vote in a certain way, to organise demonstrations and agitation, to make a revolution, whatever. And the key to that successful activity is to enthuse and educate still further the workers party itself which has to lead the mass movement into struggle. 

And that work will precisely include reconvincing the party that the leadership's line is correct against the doubters and wrong-thinking which would otherwise hold the party back from giving 100% of its best. Such reconfirmation of the correctness of the party's line needs to go on ALL THE TIME, CONTINUOUSLY, THE MORE THE BETTER. No party can ever be educated enough in political understanding.

The SLP's organisational activities trundle on, and they will no doubt include some gestures of education and some elements of political debate, but none of the issues the EPSR has been raising on the methods of building a party of Marxist understanding, where at least debate flourishes at every important political moment, are going to get a look in. The culture of the SLP is already set fast: Scargill's syndicalist adaptation of Revisionist bureaucratic complacency.

Communists supporting the SLP as an improved platform for the working class struggle for socialism should press for debates on the historical methods of Revisionist catastrophe, linked to current SLP disasters in programme and analysis (Eurochauvinism, Yugoslav defencism, censorship of ideas, etc), fostered by the inadequacy of Socialist News, the absence of a theoretical journal, and specifically the need for the EPS Review to be invited back into the party. Without revolutionary theory, revolutionary socialist practice will be non-existent. 

Build Leninism. Royston Bull

World Revolutionary Socialist Review
(edited extracts from a variety of anti-imperialist struggles).

"The only terrorist is the Mexican government"

Rosario Ibarra's struggle began after the disappearance of her son, Jesus Pedra Ibarra.  Rosario's son was involved in a political struggle when he was arrested. 

"My country is a very rich country and has a lot of natural resources, but the people have suffered from hunger and malnutrition. Because of this unbalance, our children were involved in the struggle. And the government responded in a very severe manner. They called our sons terrorists and in fact the only terrorist is the Mexican government. They are practising a way of state terrorism that has been carried to its ultimate consequences,  because the torture, the robbing and kidnappings are very severe crimes that are carried out by the government and are not covered by any law."

An Amnesty International report, points out that most of the latest disappearances in Mexico have taken place in the context of alleged counter-insurgency and anti-narcotics operations and victims include members of peasant organisations, indigenous people, students and teachers.

In many cases, there is strong or even incontrovertible evidence of official participation in disappearances. However, the detentions are repeatedly denied by army, police and the Mexican government and neither the victims nor their relatives appear to have any effective resource before the law for seeking redress for these gross human rights violations.

After two years of looking for her son through all possible government institutions "and after [being met with] a permanent denial," Rosario decided to find the mothers of other people who had disappeared in similar circumstances as her son. This was the beginning of the Committee for the Defence of the Prisoners, the Prosecuted, the Disappeared and the Political Exiled.

Then years after its creation, the mothers decided to add the word Eureka to summarise their fight— Eureka means "I have found" in Greek — as they have found alive 148 out of the 500 disappeared.

"We are the relatives of the 500 disappeared people. The more active group is of around 100 mothers in all the national territory. The most numerous group will be from the state of Guerrero, as 360 people disappeared in that area during Luis Echeverria's mandate. My son disappeared from the North of Mexico at that time, on 18 April 1975, in Monterrey. If he is still alive, they have taken away more than 20 years of his life."

Rosario understands that what is happening to their sons is not an isolated fact. Rosario Ibarra thinks that their situation is another element of the unjust situation in Mexico. 

"I am ashamed and sorry to say that there are more than 12 million people in my country that actually do not have shoes to wear, and there are millions of indigenous people who do not speak the official language, that do not know how to read or write. Every four minutes a child die due to malnutrition. Many women die giving birth for the same reason. The government is more interested in gaining one point in the stock market that in the life of an indigenous person. They worried when the dollar goes up or about the price of a barrel of petrol, but they do not care about the life of a child or the situation and problems of the indigenous people in the country."

Despite her strong views on Mexican politics and the fact that she has been the candidate for the Workers Revolutionary Party, to the Presidency of the Mexican Republic, Rosario finds it very difficult to commit herself to a political cause. 

"If I was going to become a member of any party, I would not be able to work for the party, as all my time is devoted to the fight for the disappeared. I would like to be a full time grandmother and a full time mother, but the repression in Mexico did not allow me to be what I wanted."

The mother's struggle has not been in vain. Out of the 500 disappeared, 148 were found alive. They were left on the streets or the road under death-threats. 

"However, they managed to see the mothers to tell us they have seen some of our sons in the Camp number 1 in Mexico city or in another clandestine army prison. They carried with them a message of hope. The government has never said that the disappeared are dead, so we are not reclaiming corpses. Our war cry has been “They took them alive, we want them alive'. For this reason we travel all around the world asking for solidarity."

The first reference for them was the fight of the Argentinean and Chilean mothers and grandmothers who are still asking the government in those countries for information about their disappeared relatives who were arrested during the dictatorship regimes.

The Eureka Committee has organised demonstrations, pickets and hunger strikes — one hunger strike lasted 26 days. They travelled to the Mexican southern state of Chiapas, to visit the Zapatista Communities and then around the world, "going back and forth to denounce what is happening, trying to create a wave of solidarity with our plight".

Rosario knows that the weakest point of the Mexican government is especially sensitive to international opinion, so international solidarity could be the way to recover their sons/daughters. 

"They want to keep a good image to sell the country bit by bit. The government wanted its Treaty for Free Trade and for that reason denied the situation in Chiapas. The then president, Salinas, knew of the rising in Chiapas and he did not say anything because he did not want it to interfere with the Treaty."

On 1 January 1994, the very day the Treaty was being implemented, the Zapatista National Liberation Army rose in Chiapas. "Many people did not know what was going on in Mexico, as the government have managed to deceive other governments around the world. This finished with the Zapatista rising, when the indigenous people decided that enough was enough".

Since then, the San Andres Treaty has been signed, but nothing has changed for the indigenous people in Chiapas. "They have lied to the mothers these 23 years, and they are treating the problems of the indigenous people in Chiapas in the same way, The current president, Zedillo, went to Chiapas after the flooding saying he was carrying food, medical supplies and tools for the people affected by the storm and he only gave the medicines and the tools and the food to those who voted or would promise to vote for his party, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI)".

The mothers have met every Mexican president "including your undesirable neighbour Salinas, who is living here in Dublin", without getting any response or information about the fate of their relatives. Rosario thinks that "this is the largest case of impunity in Mexico, where the government have carried out all the range of crimes: murder, kidnaps, massacres. And we have been fighting unflagging for the last 23 years.

"We do not know what is happening, whether our sons/daughters are cold, hungry, suffering torture or if, in fact, they are dead... Whatever is left of our sons is ours. It does not matter what they are, they belong to us. These 23 years of fighting will be worthwhile if we can save a life."

Following national and international campaigns on their behalf, some have reappeared a week or month later bearing signs torture. In a small number of cases the bodies of the  (disappeared) were subsequently recovered, evidence that they were extra-judicially executed.

After years of dealing with the Mexican authorities, Rosario feels a deep bitterness towards them. "The government are two-faced. They lie when they say that in Mexico we do not have problems. We called them the Portrait of Dorian Grey. The nice face is for the international audience. The horrible face is presented to the Mexicans themselves."

Rosario will never forget her meeting with Carlos Salinas de Gortari — former president of Mexico, who is now living in Dublin and whose brother Raul has been sentenced for his involvement in the murder of another presidential candidate.

"When Salinas de Gortari was the Mexican president, he received seven mothers of the disappeared and promised us that we were going to see our children in a period of twenty days. This was at the time he was preparing the Treaty of Free Trade (signed by Mexico, Canada and the US). He gave us hope and kissed each of us on the cheek... And we have never seen our sons."

World Socialist Review
(edited extracts from a variety of anti-imperialist struggles).

Gerry Adams tells An Phoblacht how British colonial militarism has the primary responsibility for removing ALL unwanted guns out of Ireland's politics, via sticking to its obligations under the Good Friday Agreement.

AP: Tony Blair has now given the impression that there are circumstances in which Sinn Féin could be thrown off the Executive? How do you respond to that?

GA: Already Mr Blair has made a number of comments which may reflect a British government perspective but which are not part of the Good Friday Agreement or of the joint statement released by the two governments on Friday last.

I'm thinking here particularly of Mr Blair's assertion on Monday that "I can ensure Sinn Féin aren't in the Executive, if they default". Here the impression is given that Sinn Féin can be expelled if Mr Blair's version of decommissioning does not succeed. But of course this cannot be so. There can be no question at Sinn Féin being expelled or excluded or of Mr Blair ensuring that Sinn Féin aren't in the Executive while our party keeps to the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. And let there be no doubt about this, Sinn Féin strategy is wedded to the Good Friday Agreement and we are working to see this Agreement implemented.

Mr Blair knows this but now he is promising legislation in response to unionist brinkmanship to underpin the fail-safe clause of last week's joint statement by the two governments. The UUP is also demanding that the SDLP provide guarantees that they also will expel Sinn Féin. But under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement this is not possible. Mr Blair knows that the legislation demanded by the unionists would be a breach of the Good Friday Agreement. The SDLP know that the guarantees being sought by unionists would also be a breach of this Agreement, as well as politically damaging to their party.

If legislation is to be introduced, and there is no requirement for legislation at all beyond that already in place, it has to be based on the review section of the Good Friday Agreement. And this section is crystal clear. So too is the section on prisoner releases. So suggestions by a Downing Street spokesperson that prisoner releases could be looked at is not what his briefing of the press lobby was about. It is about pandering to unionism regardless of how this unsettles republicanism. And of course the prisoners issue has nothing to do with decommissioning The accelerated programme for the release of prisoners is available to prisoners affiliated to organisations which are on cessation So while the cessations are maintained nothing can be done by Downing Street to stop the prisoner release program.

AP: Did Sinn Féin give commitments on decommissioning beyond the party's previously stated position?

GA: Our position has been consistent on this issue. We have always made it clear that we do not represent any armed group. Sinn Féin is not the IRA and neither do we have a sole responsibility on the issue of decommissioning. This is a matter for all of the parties to the Agreement to work constructively and in good faith and to use any influence they may have to bring about decommissioning within two years and in the context of an overall settlement. Under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement all of the participants have a responsibility to deal with the decommissioning issue. This includes the two governments. The British government in particular has been a hugely negative factor in the development of conflict in Ireland. It was the British government which brought the gun into Irish politics. I believe this British government can be different and that Mr Blair has a sense of responsibility.

He knows that Sinn Féin's position has been consistent and that we too want to play a full and advanced role in this quest. But he knows also, as does the Taoiseach, that we do not represent any other organisation, that we have made it clear that Sinn Féin is not the IRA, and we have made it clear that we cannot and we will not enter into any commitments on behalf of the IRA

Our public position is our private position. I am totally committed to doing everything in my power to maintain the peace process and to removing the guns forever from the politics of our country.  But I do not accept any block whatsoever on the right of all sections of our people to enjoy full rights and entitlements or of anyone to withhold those rights or entitlements.

AP: Old the Garvaghy Road and other contentious Orange parades figure in the negotiations?

GA: The Garvaghy Road parade figured very much in the negotiations but Sinn Féin made it clear that the issue of contentious parades was a stand alone issue and that we supported the residents' groups. I also made it clear that we defended the right of the Orangemen to march but that the issue of contentious marches could only be negotiated by people from the beleaguered communities which are under siege. The people of Garvaghy Road have to live with the consequences of any negotiation so therefore they are the only people who can conduct that negotiation. 

During the talks we issued a statement making it clear that there was no absolute right to march and calling upon the Irish and British governments and the Parades Commission to defend the rights of the residents. May I take this opportunity to commend the people of these beleaguered nationalist communities. Can I also commend our local representatives and all of the international observers who travelled to Ireland to highlight these matters.

AP: Do you believe a majority of the unionist community still supports the Agreement?

GA: Yes. There is clear evidence that the majority of unionists want this process to work. Given the lack of positive political leadership from the main unionist party I think this indicates a very solid and commendable commitment to the Good Friday Agreement from grassroots unionists and certainly from the business community, the churches, community activists, and from civic unionism. That is the message we are getting. Republicans should not underestimate the debate going on within unionism or the difficulties all of this presents to unionism. We are Irish republicans. We make no apologies for that. In fact it emboldens us who want to see unity of Catholic. Protestant and dissenter to reach out to those who disagree with us. We want to work with unionism. It obviously has to be on the basis of equality and I think that positive and thinking unionism knows that the old days are over. For them to allow the refusniks or the bigots to rule the roost once again would be a disaster both for unionism and for the rest of us.

AP: Do you believe that the Ulster Unionists will reject the deal, or have they done so already?

GA: I don't know. Sinn Féin has to prepare contingencies for both scenarios. We need a contingency for the UUP rejecting the deal and one for the UUP accepting the deal. One thing is for certain — unless Mr Blair makes it absolutely clear that he is going to establish the institutions and to transfer power within the timeframe he has given and unless he resolutely proceeds to do this then the UUP will continue to delay and prevaricate. The challenge is at the moment not just for the unionists but for this British government. Within a week we will know whether the unionist veto continues or the Good Friday Agreement is implemented.

AP: Do you believe that David Trimble is genuine or is this entire exercise viewed by unionists as another stalling tactic? Also, how do you rate him as a leader and do you believe his leadership of the UUP is in jeopardy?

GA: As I've said earlier we should not underestimate the difficulties which unionists have with this entire process. If I was David Trimble I would do things differently. But I'm not David Trimble. In my opinion he is dragging this out because he is defending as he sees it the interests of the unionists. If this is the case it means that he isn't entirely committed, or wholeheartedly promoting the Good Friday Agreement. That is wrong and he deserves justifiable criticism for not giving his own electorate the leadership they deserve and in my view the leadership they desire at this time. I said after one of my first meetings with Mr Trimble that I could do business with him. That remains my position. This process is about building equality and justice. It is not about cosseting or saving political leaders, nor is it about making life more difficult for them than it needs to be. Whatever Irish republicans think about me or the Sinn Féin leadership we are only useful to the peace process if we deliver on that process. So too with Mr Trimble.

AP: In terms of advancing the republican position now, what Is your message for republican activists?

GA: First of all let me say I appreciate that there were lots of wobbles and there continue to be wobbles within republican activism. That is the nature of this process. But I think that this is a time for republicans to hold our nerve. For the last number of years there has been a wholehearted debate, an informed debate within Sinn Féin and at all levels of our party about how we develop and promote our strategy. This strategy has been democratically adopted by us and all activists have a duty to promote it. They also have the right to be fully informed of all developments and we have endeavoured in a pro-active way to ensure this. The growing strength of Sinn Féin throughout the island puts us in an advantageous position to get out the republican message. The fact that we represent people on councils throughout the island, in Leinster House and in the Assembly, that Section 31 and the British censorship laws have been scrapped means that we have more opportunities to get the republican message across. And it is our responsibility to do that. 

Interestingly, despite the end of formal censorship, elements of the southern media, particularly in RTE, are still on the old agenda. This must be challenged by articulate, informed spokespersons, particularly at local level.

There is a special job here for people in the South. The referenda North and South gave the people of the island ownership of the Good Friday Agreement. It isn't a northern thing. It isn't something that the unionists or the British can cherrypick over. 

There is huge goodwill for the peace process and particularly for Sinn Féin stewardship of it. That must be consolidated. An indication of the strength of the republican position outside of Ireland is that both South African President Thabo Mbeki and President Clinton contacted us by telephone. These two world leaders from two different political cultures have shown consistent support for the quest for peace in our country. The South African involvement may have been overshadowed on the world stage by the US endeavours but those who have attended Sinn Féin Ard Fheiseanna and listened to the ANC contribution will know how much they want this to work. Both Nelson Mandela and President Mbeki have made wonderful contributions to this process. So as well as the outreach work that is required in Ireland, the international dimension needs also to be built upon, particularly in Britain.

All in all, Sinn Féin activists need to have ownership of our party strategy. They need to hold their nerve. They need to have confidence in themselves, in our republican analysis and in our ability to bring this struggle to a successful conclusion.

We should never reduce this struggle to a spectator sport. It may be good television but our strategy is not about reducing republican activists to couch potatoes. It's about empowering people. It's about getting things done. It's about engaging with all those layers of society on this island who want this to work. Where we are is where the struggle is. Sinn Féin isn't a talking shop. We cannot be mesmerised by the pace of events or the confusing illusions of the latest spin This is not a time for navel gazing. This a time for doing. We are a campaigning party wedded to our republican objectives. Let's make these reality. •

World Revolutionary Socialist Review
(edited extracts from a variety of anti-imperialist struggles).

Anti-Irish colonial tyranny no less barbaric,— and no more successful in quelling resistance,— than 800 years ago.

WHY was Diarmuid O'Neill killed? Because, so the argument goes, he was an IRA Volunteer, this was war and he made himself a legitimate target. This argument, however, is fatally undermined by the British government's perverse insistence that the conflict in Ireland was not war, merely crime. As a consequence, the Metropolitan Police have had to resort to manipulating the law, lying, and covering their tracks.

The surveillance tape transcript reveals a straight-forward shoot-to-kill operation, but because of the British refusal to acknowledge the war, the Metropolitan Police have been obliged to continue to claim that 'Kilo' — the officer who fired the fatal shots — believed his life to be in danger when he killed Diarmuid. However, the tape manifestly contradicts this claim. The men had clearly surrendered, and Diarmuid was struggling to open a door which had been damaged by the police attempting to batter it down.

As can be seen from the transcript, at no time was either his demeanour or his language threatening in any way. It also does not explain why, after Diarmuid had been hit by the initial burst of gunfire, Officer 'Kilo' was ordered by another officer to "shoot the fuckers", an order which he duly obeyed, hitting Diarmuid a total of six times. 

There are other serious discrepancies for which no explanation at all has been offered. During the trial of Pat Kelly and Brian McHugh, who were with Diarmuid, the court heard that hundreds of MI5 operatives where involved in a six-week surveillance operation of the men but no attempt had been made to detain them. The intensity of the surveillance leaves little question that if there was enough evidence against them to go in with CS gas and automatic weapons in the early hours of 23 September 1996, there was also sufficient evidence to arrest them for some time prior to that.

Diarmuid was an active member of his local community in Hammersmith, London, a member of the Trades Unions Council and other community groups. He was visible. He could very easily have been arrested for questioning at any time over a period of several weeks. He wasn't. The decision was made to use force instead.

Officer Kilo's excuse does not explain why, to the anger and dismay of the medical staff who attempted to treat him when he finally arrived at hospital, there was the imprint of a boot on Diarmuid's face. As he lay dying on the floor, a police officer had seen fit to stand on his face.

Why? Did Kilo still believe his life was in danger? And why was no ambulance called? Indeed the police prevented members of the public woken by the noise from calling one for some 30 minutes.

After the shooting and as can be heard on the tape, Diarmuid was dragged out of the building and the image of his blood smeared down the front steps of his home is eloquent testimony to the way in which he was treated in being taken out onto the street. Again, no explanation has been offered by the police as to why they felt it was necessary to take him out of the room.

Certainly, the CS gas — which was used in such unprecedented quantities that four days later forensics teams entering the building still had to wear masks — would have made it difficult to treat him where he lay, but these difficulties are insignificant in comparison to the danger of dragging such a seriously injured man down two flights of stairs. Neither, incidentally, did he receive any first aid.

Finally, and even more damning of the police in the light of the tape, was their conduct in regard to the press. Bogus 'witnesses' were dredged up for the benefit of the press to promulgate the outrageous lie that there had been a shoot-out and that the house was some kind of ammunition dump. For example, several papers carried the claim from one that: "There were police everywhere. They were shouting 'Throw down your weapon' and 'Throw down your gun'." Another claimed that there was an exchange of fire".

"There were about eight shots and I heard a policeman saying 'I have got the gun, I have the gun, the son of a bitch'." The Guardian had someone saying: "We heard them shouting from the ground, 'Drop your gun, you've got no chance'." The headline in the Daily Mirror which accompanied the picture of the bloody steps was: "Don't cry for him. He was going to blow up the Channel Tunnel tomorrow.”

The Metropolitan Police enthusiastically supported these claims for some three days before they were forced to admit, via a one-paragraph report buried in the inside pages of The Times that there were no guns, no explosives in the house and "no evidence of any intended target".

The Metropolitan Police and the British government may assume that the great get-out clause so useful to policemen who indulge in shoot-to-kill or the murder of civilians — "I thought my life was in danger" — comprehensively answers their accusers, but they are wrong. Too many other issues have been raised by the tape and the prior and subsequent conduct of the police.

Neither campaigners for Diarmuid nor his family accept the paucity of the explanation provided by Officer 'Kilo' and will continue to insist, for as long as it takes, that an independent inquiry is the only way obtain answers to these questions    •

TRANSCRIPT OF DIARMUID O'NEILL POLICE SURVEILLANCE TAPE

Tape begins with the sound of breaking glass as CS gas canisters fired through the window.
All: Jesus Christ!
Sound of police attempting to batter down the door and shouting 
All: All right, all right! We give up, we're unarmed, we give up. All right. Whoa, whoa whoa whoa. We're unarmed. Whoa, whoa, whoa. 
Police: I'm a police officer, get on the floor.
Diarmuid: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Police: Open the fucking door now!
Diarmuid: OK, we're down.
All: We're down, we're down.
Police: Open that door!
Diarmuid: OK
Police: (shouting over Diarmuid's answer): Get to that fucking door now and show us your hands!
Diarmuid: OK
Police: Show me your hands now!
Diarmuid: They're up, they're up.
Police: Get out here.
Ail: We're on the deck.
Police: Show me your hands through the door! Show me your hands through the door!
Diarmuid: OK
Police (again): Show me your hands through the door!
Diarmuid: OK.
Police: Open it, open the door.
Diarmuid: I can't, it won't...
Police: Open it! Show us your hands!
Shouting by police followed by short burst of automatic gunfire.
Police: Shoot the fuckers!
Diarmuid: Fucking hell!
Another burst of automatic gunfire, longer than the first.
All: Whoa, whoa.
Sound of choking.
Police (entering the room): Just stay where the fuck you are. Just stay on the floor. Stay on the floor... one in the bathroom and one on the floor. Just keep your hands where we can see them OK and don't fucking move!
Several minutes of police arresting the others and searching the room. Diarmuid can be heard groaning.
Police: We're going to have to take him out because (obscured by shouting). Take him out. Give him first aid, that's it.
Police: Right listen up. We want to take him outside to the pavement now!
Police: Yes, he's going.
(Shouting)
Police: Everyone all right?
(Shouting)
Police: We're ready to take the suspects out. They can't come in because of the gas.
Police: All right, just hold on for a second, hold on for a second
Police: Shift him! Pick his knees up. Move him out now!
Police: Hold it, hold it! (Shouting)
Police: Right, bring him out now. Come on!