|
MAY DAY 2003
May Day Rally and Celebration in South Tyneside
[As reported in North East Workers and Politics, Vol 3, No.2, May 7, 2003, a publication of the Northern Regional Forum on the Mass Party Press.]
On Thursday, May 1, the South Tyneside May Day Rally and celebration was held in the Iona Club, Hebburn.
About 50 people attended the event, which consisted of a rally and social.
At 8pm the Chair of May Day Committee opened the rally.
He introduced the first speaker, Nader Naderi, a long standing resident of South Shields and its immigrant communities, who has taken an active role in fighting for their rights and interests.
Nader in his contribution exposed the newspaper owners and their close links with New Labour and George Bush in identifying the source of the new and virulent climate of division and hatred that had moulded racism into what he said was a politically correct and socially acceptable form of proxy racism which had categorised asylum seekers and economicmigrants.
He said that they had done this with headlines screaming; we are being swamped, economic migrants posing as asylum seekers, Britain is a soft touch, etc.
He said that the policy of divide and rule is not a new idea but what was alarming was the fact that this was all happening at thedawn of the 21st century.
Nader then spoke about the move to the right and what he called the even bigger and greater injections of doses of the right wing ideologies in to our daily lives. This was the consequence of the deepening economic crisis in which he spoke about the lack of incentive to produce and the parasitic robbery by the big companies. This in turn brought about a whole host of new policies including foreign policies that propped up what he called vassals in charge of countries that supply the raw materials while promoting repression and poverty in those countries that find their assets in the arena for globalisation, yet their citizens marginalised and their human rights systematically eroded.
Nader exposed the medieval nature of the New Labour governments policies by drawing parallels between the application of the Poor Law in 17th century Britain and the treatment of the migration of the poor to the richer parishes and the inhuman treatment of asylum seekers and immigrants in Britain today.
He pointed out that having put the current perception into the minds of the public of being overrun by an army of asylum seekers, Tony Blair sets himself the goal of dealing with the problems of the NHS, and asylum seekers.
Nader pointed out that this goal was not to deal with the horrific crimes caused by the social and economic divisions, or the crumbling transport system, or to stop the hocking of the national assets, such as fire engines and hospitals and myriads of other problems facing our nation.
These, he said, are not Blairs primary concern, but asylum seekers are to be crushed and jailed if not hung and drawn.
Commenting that 29 Afghans are being forcibly sent back to Afghanistan at huge cost, he noted with concern and how strange it was how 2.5% of immigrant population in Britain bolstered with asylum seekers could be presented as jeopardising the well-being of therest of the 97.5% of the population.
Nader concluded that these policies of division are to distract the attention of people from the real and worrying problems they arefacing.
He urged people to start to become really informed setting out to find the real truths behind theheadlines.
His opinion was that democracy is the concept that has empowered the people in trying to balance the odds against them.
Our forefathers have marched, fought and died for this concept, and so it is high time to start usingit before you lose it!
Nader's thought-provoking contribution was warmly received by the rally.
Alan Newham then spoke on behalf of the South Tyneside Stop the War Coalition.
He spoke about the way in which concern over the impending attack on Iraq had brought many people from all over the borough, not previously political, together to oppose the war.
These were the same concerns, he said, echoed around the world by ordinary people.
He said any organisations were welcome to send representatives to the meetings of STSWC, but he stressed that the emphasis was on individual participation in the work.
He said it matters not what your religious or political persuasion is the issue is: Do you want to live in peace?
In his contribution Alan Newham posed the question: Do we continue now that Bush says the war is over?
What hasnt finished, he said, is the so-called war on terror which is being promoted by the US government, and he outlined the plan of the US to implement the principles of the Project for the New American Century in its quest to dominate the world.
He pointed out that millions around the world have different projects for the new century like waging a war on poverty and disease.
He said it was worrying for everyone that the US ignored the UN and Iraq was now in chaos.
He said these issues will keep us going and said that STSWC was shortly organising a Public Forum to discuss the way forward.
He pointed out in his conclusion that ordinary people can change the world, that they are sick and tired of wars and they want something different.
After warm applause for that contribution, the Chair then introduced Kenny Bell, Deputy Convenor of Unison in the Northern Region, and thanked him for standing in for the advertised speaker.
Kenny Bell in his contribution said that it was very interesting that in terms of a May Day meeting in Hebburn the focus of what was being discussed was local issues but relating them very much to the international context.
He said what we have seen today in May Day meetings around Britain and across the world is that global issues and international issues are being discussed.
He said that the three key issues that we are facing are war, racism and privatisation and there is a linkage between all three.
He then spoke of the promotion of racism in the face of worsening conditions of the people under the Labour government.
He said that with the governments so-called war on terror and the war with Iraq it is a short step from launching a war on terror to a war on Muslims, to a domestic race war against Asians.
Kenny Bell then said that his members in local government are saying why is the union bankrolling the Labour Party that they do not get any true representation from?
He said that 15 schools, libraries and other projects are going to be subject to the discredited Private Finance Initiative (PFI).
He said they are privatising street lighting, council house management, swimming pools and sports centres and refuse collection.
He said that what is happening in Newcastle City is also happening in other boroughs.
He said the problem is that it is happening at such a pace that it is virtually impossible for trade union activists and the people as a whole to keep abreast of it and get the publicity out and inform people of what exactly is taking place.
This is why, he said; union members, and others are not voting for Labour.
Kenny Bell said that this privatisation of local authority services was part of an international agenda of big business through organisations like the World Trade Organisation (WTO), IMF (International Monetary Fund), and the World Bank.
As we international negotiations are taking place under the auspices of the WTO to extend the privatisation programme and make it irreversible, he said. These free trade negotiations, he said, are being conducted through the WTO under the General Agreement of Trade and Services (GATS).
He said GATS is something we must learn about and must intervene in and come to terms with.
He pointed out that the EU is presently saying to the governments: what companies that you represent do you want to privatise?
In the rest of the world there exists a submitted list of 109 countries, 50 of which are in the Southern hemisphere and the most poverty-stricken in the world.
He pointed out further that the war on Iraq has further illustrated that wars are fought in the interest of the big corporations and big business.
He said that in terms of policies that this Labour
government is now pursuing it is likely that in future wars will not only be fought in the interest of corporations but that they will actually be playing a key role in the war themselves.
The Labour government is going through a process of privatising the military operation.
He said companies are operating warplanes, war ships and army vehicles, and further private firms will even hire, train and employ soldiers under the PFI scheme.
The supply of tank transporters is already happening in this way now as we speak he remarked.
In his conclusion Kenny Bell said that racism, privatisation and war are the problems of an international economic system which is based on profit, but he spoke about movement that was rapidly developing in opposing racism, opposing privatisation and opposing war.
Kenny Bells speech was also received with warm applause the Secretary of the South Tyneside May Day Committee moved a motion of thanks to the speakers.
He then called on every one to join in and enjoy the social, which was a Ceilidh performed by the traditional Irish group Cappaquinn & Friends.
Discussion on many of the issues raised continued during the social late into the night.
+
Draft Report of Open Meeting, 18_11_2003
On Tuesday, 18th November, 2003, about two dozen people attended a free and open discussion meeting organized by South Tyneside Stop The War Coalition, at Trinity House Social Centre, South Shields.
The meeting coincided with the arrival of U.S. President George Bush for a state visit to the U.K., as an official guest of the Queen, at the behest of the British Government.
The meeting was intended to give the people of South Shields to openlyvoice their views on the visit in a friendly environment.
Supporters and opponents of STSTWC’s anti-war position were present.
Discussion focussed around a talk by Dr Barry Gills, a lecturer in International Relations at Newcastle University, who holds joint British and American citizenship and who was a founder of the main Tyneside Stop The War group two years ago.
Barry thanked us for inviting him, and said he was pleased to be visiting one of the many smaller local groups that had emerged and were continuing to develop as the movement developed its grass roots organization.
It was a friendly and boisterous meeting, with Barry freely debating with the people present, including those who did not share his views on key issues.
Although heckling was discouraged there were some interruptions to Barry’s talk, which he dealt with in a cheerful manner.
Roger Nettleship, who was chairing the meeting, encouraged those present to show respect for the views of others and the conventions ofopen debate
He said it wasn't a question of engaging the speaker in a point by point agreement, or disagreement, so one could be "convinced".
The aim of the meeting was not to "convince" anyone but let people make up their own minds by letting the speaker elaborate his arguments and then people could ask questions seek further clarifications and give their views whatever those might be.
In his talk, Barry surveyed the history of the American-led so called ‘War On Terror’.
He stressed that the Stop the War movement was set up to oppose this dubious concept of a ‘War On Terror’ and not only its specific manifestation in Iraq.
Several people questioned Barry on this in ways that highlighted some of the linguistic problems of the Stop The War movement in getting its message across.
How could we be opposed to something that was ‘against terrorism’?
In reply, Barry defined the differences between ‘State Terrorism’, in which the full force of national governments or bigger power blocks is used against weaker groups, and ‘Non-State Terrorism’, which is carried out by mostly small groups of people operating outside normal political frameworks.
He said the ‘War On Terror’ was an example of ‘State Terrorism’.
Barry suggested that what was now happening in Iraq was effectively a war between the ‘State Terrorists’ of the American and British governments and allied corporate interests and the ‘Non-State Terrorists’ of the remnants of Saddam’s regime and their allies.
Several people present, including some former servicemen, described some of the practical and psychological difficulties of fighting an ‘unseen enemy’.
Some believed that ‘terrorism can never be defeated’.
Barry replied that indeed it could not be beaten by the methods now being used by the British and American governments ‘there is no military solution to terror’.
Events in Iraq and elsewhere were clearly showing how attempts to fight it out with non-state terrorists only increased the level of violence around the world.
He said that by going into Iraq in the manner they did, the American and British forces ‘might as well have put up a red flag and said: “Attack here!”.’
The result was the ‘bloody mess’ that all could see on the television news.
Barry thought that even American people who had previously been very pro-war were now beginning to understand that Bush had led them into an ‘impossible situation’.
He stressed the importance of searching for thoughtful peaceful responses to non-state terrorism rather than just allowing rages of the moment to drive understandable reflex reactions.
American policy since the 9/11 terrorist outrages had been too much driven by such reflex actions and there was even strong evidence that a ruthless ruling elite had taken advantage of the natural American anger after that attack to wage an aggressive war they had been planning for a long time.
John Tinmouth of STSTWC wondered aloud whether the American policy had really been planned in advance or whether it had just been a bad sequence of confused and mistaken decisions.
Barry conceded that it was possible to view events as one big ‘cock up’, and he detailed how things had gone wrong. But he said there was growing evidence that there had been a long-term plan and that the U.S. government had deliberately blocked attempts at a diplomatic solution, including last minute peace gestures from Saddam’s regime.
He traced the course of recent events back to the 2000 U.S. election.
He said there were many lingering doubts about the conduct of that election, especially those in the state of Florida, where George Bush’s brother is governor with influence over many legal and political processes.
The election looked ‘rigged’ to many people and tantamount to an ‘electoral coup’.
A ‘very narrow corporate group’, which wanted to use state power in the interests of a small corporate elite, had seemed determined to get into power ‘by hook or by crook’.
As a consequence of the doubts about the 2000 election, ‘the whole system looked corrupt’.
There should have been fresh election called to clean out the system, but this had not happened.
Events since then had flowed from this ‘corruption’ of the American system, with a small elite group, apparently ‘drunk on power’, determined to impose a new policy of ‘imperial neo-liberalism’ on the world.
This was effectively a policy of global privatization backed by military force with the invasion and occupation of Iraq as the main example.
‘Talk of “liberation” is propaganda,’ Barry said.
Some people present at the meeting expressed scepticism that an alternative American government would pursue a greatly different policy.
They said the present American energy policy, for example, was effectively institutionalized into the U.S. system, and governments of any party would have practical difficulties changing it
In reply, Barry agreed that a major change in American energy policy would be difficult for anyone, but he said that Bush was the personal representative of the oil corporations, and did what they wanted.
Someone less entangled with such narrow corporate interests might at least be able to start a change in energy policy and such a change was ‘demanded’ for the sake of the world’s future.
There was general discussion on how much of the present situation in Iraq centred on control of the Iraqi oil supplies. It was generally agreed that the U.S. government and the oil corporations were attempting to impose a military-based imperial control.
Veterans of the British army present at the meeting said they recognized similarities between their own experiences in the Middle East in the post-Second World War period and the present situation there.
‘They are doing what we were doing,’ one said.
‘It is the American public that needs to be better informed about what is happening,’ another said.
Barry agreed, but expressed concerns about the difficulty of this happening when sections of mainstream American television broadcasted ‘almost pure propaganda 24 hours a day’.
He said, however, that as was happening in Britain this week, Bush himself was unwittingly stimulating his opponents to get better organized and to spread the word of the folly of his ways.
Opposition to prolonged military occupation of Iraq was growing in America.
It seemed that even Bush and the group around him were realizing that their plan was failing and they were looking for a way out.
He said the task now for the anti-war movement was to set clear goals.
Precise dates had to be demanded for an end to the U.s. control of the occupation and the setting up of a truly sovereign Iraqi government that was not a puppet of the corporations.
But solutions to the Iraq crisis had to be linked with wider peace agreements in the Middle East.
In particular, there had to be a political solution in Palestine based on true international agreements and an end to Israeli control of security there.
There could be no lasting peace in the Middle East and wider world while the problems in Palestine remained unsettled.
At the end of the meeting Roger thanked Barry for his talk and everyone else for their contributions to what had been an enjoyable and thought-provoking evening.
[Philip Talbot, 20.11.03, Roger Nettleship, 23.11.03 ]
|
