================================================
01 es tut sich wasÝsomething on!
von: e.d. <evacomedia@gmx.net>
================================================
FYI -- Many NY artists/writers are supporters of this organization and
its events (Kurt Vonnegut, Laurie Anderson, Alice Walker, Russell
Banks, Grace Paley, Eve Ensler, Tony Kushner, etc.)Begin forwarded message:
Date: Sat Sep 14, 2002 18:14:54 America/New_York
Subject: New York, NY: Oct. 6, National Day of Resistance
The Not in Our Name Project invites and urges you to be part of
planning and building a mass protest on Oct. 6 in NYC against this war
on the world; against detentions and roundups of Muslims, Arabs, South
Asians and other immigrants; and to police state measures, including
attacks on civil liberties, efforts to suppress dissent, and moves to
establish a citizen spy network.
Imagine this: On Sunday, Oct. 6, the day before the bombing began one
year ago, ten thousand people of different nationalities, backgrounds,
communities, and political outlooks converge in Central Park to send a
message to the people of the world that we stand with THEM and not the
U.S. Government. People could hear the firsthand stories of those who
have been targeted by the Government's actions. A huge wall could be
created with children's artwork and messages from unions, community
organizations and religious congregations that could be sent to people
in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and other countries who are feeling
the effects of U.S. actions.
"Not in Our Name" - resounding from the heart of NYC on the
anniversary of the launching of this war without limits. Imagine the
power of this message that will be sent to the people of the world!
The day would signal a new breadth of commitment, a deepened resolve,
and a growing strength among people in this country to resist and stop
the horrors being done by the U.S. Government in our name.
It will be a challenge to actually realize this vision. But the times
require nothing less. Every willing hand and heart is needed to help
develop this vision and make it happen.
We must all of us, together, dare to change the course of history!

=============================================
02 Bunter Demonstrationszug gegen Eurofighter und Euro ˆ Armee
von: Friedenswerkstatt Linz <friwe@servus.at>
=============================================
OÖ-Plattform Nein zu Abfangjägern
p. A. Friedenswerkstatt Linz
Waltherstr. 15b
4020 Linz
Tel. 0732/771094
Fax 0732/797391
e-mail: mailto:friwe@servus.atPlattform Nein zu Abfangjägern/Demonstration/Widerstand gegen Abfangjäger
Bunter Demonstrationszug gegen Eurofighter und Euro-ArmeeRund 100 vorwiegend junge Menschen demonstrierten am Freitag, 20. September durch die Linzer Fußgängerzone. Die zentralen Forderungen des lautstarken und bunten Demonstrationszuges: Nein zu Abfangjägern, keine Fighter für die Euro-Armee, Bildung und Sozialpolitik statt Aufrüstung.
Breite politische Unterstützung für die Plattform Nein zu Abfangjägern
Der Aufruf der OÖ-Plattform Nein zu Abfangjäger wurde breit unterstützt: AK-Präsident Hubert Wipplinger und AK-Vizepräsident Johann Kalliauer erklärten in einer Grußbotschaft für die Fraktion Sozialdemokratischer Gewerkschafter ihre volle Unterstützung für den Aufruf der Plattform Nein zu Abfangjägern. Weiters unterstützten den Aufruf die Alternativen und Grünen GewerkschafterInnen, der Gewerkschaftlichen Linksblock, die sozialistischen Jugendorganisationen, die Grünen OÖ, Pax Christi, KPÖ, Internationaler Versöhnungsbund, ATTAC, sowie eine Reihe von Friedens-, Kultur- und AusländerInnenorganisationen.
In dem Aufruf Nein zu Abfangjäger heißt es u. a.: ŽWir sagen Nein zu Abfangjägern, weil es nicht einzusehen ist, dass viele Milliarden für neues Kriegsgerät bereitstehen, während bei PensionistInnen, SchülerInnen und Studierenden, ArbeitnehmerInnen und Arbeitslosen an allen Ecken und Enden gespart wird; weil diese vielen Milliarden viel sinnvoller eingesetzt werden könnten zur Behebung der Hochwasserschäden und für Arbeitsplätze in den Bereichen Gesundheit, Bildung, Kultur, Umweltschutz und soziale Sicherheit; weil der wahre Grund für den Ankauf der Eurofighter die Beteiligung Österreichs an globalen Kriegseinsätzen im Rahmen der EU-Armee ist.„
Keine Soldaten, keine Waffen und kein Euro für die Euro-Armee
Bei der Abschlusskundgebung hob Boris Lechthaler von der Friedenswerkstatt Linz hervor, dass es ein Erfolg der 625.000 UnterzeichnerInnen des Anti-Abfangjäger-Volksbegehrens ist, dass der Ankauf der Euro-Fighter bislang verhindert werden konnte. Das zeigt, dass Widerstand wirksam ist. Entwarnung aber ist nicht angesagt, denn die Abfangjägerlobby wartet auf ihre nächste Chance. Ab kommenden Jahr soll die Euro-Armee einsatzbereit sein, eine klassische Angriffsarmee, die erklärtermaßen für Interventionen in Afrika und am asiatischen Kontinent eingesetzt werden soll. Der Euro-Fighter ist das Paradeprojekt dieser EU-Armee. Neue Kriegsgeräte, wie z. B. die Radpanzer Pandur und Ulan sollen in nächster Zeit für ŽAuslandseinsätze„ (Scheibner) des Bundesheeres angekauft werden. Die Führungen aller Parlamentsparteien in Österreich treten derzeit für die Teilnahme Österreichs an der Euro-Armee ein. Die Friedensbewegung ist daher gefordert weiter Druck gegen die Militarisierung Österreichs zu machen. Lechthaler abschließend: ŽDie Neutralität ist ein Zukunftskonzept, weil sie auf Überwindung der Militärblöcke, Dialog und Abrüstung in den internationalen Beziehungen baut. Die Neutralität steht in diametralen Gegensatz zur Teilnahme an der Euro-Armee. Daher keine Soldaten, keine Waffen und kein Euro für die Euro-Armee.„
Nähere Informationen: Friedenswerkstatt Linz, Tel. 0732/771094, http://www.friwe.at
==============================================
03 Buchpräsentation 26.9.
von: Republikanischer Klub <Replikub@surfeu.at>
==============================================
EINLADUNG ZUR BUCHPRÄSENTATION:
Der Republikanische Club und der Promedia Verlag laden zur Buchpräsentation:
DIE BENES - DEKRETE - Zwischen tschechischer Identität und deutscher
Begehrlichkeit
mit dem Autor Beppo BEYERL, Moderation: Hannes Hofbauer (Promedia Verlag)
Donnerstag, 26. September 2002, 19 Uhr im Republikanischen Club, Rockhgasse 1,
1010
Das Buch kann in jeder Buchhandlung oder beim Verlag bestellt werden: Promedia
Verlag, Wickenburggasse 5/12, A-1080 Wien, Fax: 01 - 405 71 59 22
Republikanischer Club -Neues Österreich
Rockhgasse 1, Eingang Cafe Hebenstreit, 1010 Wien
www.repclub.at

==============================================
04 Hausbesetzung in Salzburg
von: <squat-salzburg@anarchymail.com>
==============================================
from: squat-salzburg@anarchymail.com
subject: hausbesetzerInnen in salzburg brauchen hilfe!die erste nacht überstanden, am morgen stress mit polizei und besitzer...
letzten freitag zogen wir, eine gruppe salzburgerInnen, in ein teilweise
leerstehendes haus in salzburg ein. nachdem die ersten zwei tage schon
kräftig für renovierungs- und einzugsarbeiten genutzt wurden, stand am
dritten tag der besitzer vor der tür. nachdem sich herausstellte, dass
dieser (ein etwas cholerischer richter...) an keinem gespräch interessiert
war und uns eigentlich sowieso nur anzeigen wollte, war wenig später auch
die polizei da und zwang uns zur aufgabe der besetzten räume. das haus
verliesen wir aber nicht da die derzeitigen mieterInnen uns als ihre gäste
einluden bei ihnen zu bleiben.
wir sind wenige und hoffen dem besitzer bald klarmachen zu können, dass wir
dieses haus instand besetzen und uns dort freiräume schaffen wollen. wir
wollen einen ort wo wir autonom unsere lebensräume gestalten können, wo wir
UNSER leben führen können.
nach den ereignissen rund um die diesjährigen anti-wef proteste und der
rolle die das SSF (salzburg social forum) dabei gespielt hat, war vielen
von uns mehr oder weniger klar, dass die global-bewegung den punkt ihrer
spaltung erreicht hat. die bürgerlichen kräfte verabschieden sich richtung
reform und somit zum reproduktions-prozess des kapitalismus. das kann nicht
unser weg sein und deswegen werden wir unsere eigenen strukturen brauchen.
diese müßen wir uns erkämpfen.es ist derzeit nicht klar was der morgige tag bringt, und schon gar nicht
was übermorgen sein wird. aber wir wollen auf jeden fall dran (und drin!)
bleiben, steckt doch schon einiges an arbeit in unserem wunderschönen haus.
wir werden wahrscheinlich jede form von unterstützung brauchen, das heißt
vor allem euch!
kommt nach salzburg, besucht uns, macht mit! oder helft mit diesen stein
weiter ins rollen zu bringen: besetzt häuser bei euch, macht infoläden auf
oder lasst euch sonstwas einfallen. die zeit des wartens muss irgendwann
vorbei sein, antikapitalistische strukturen müßen aufgebaut werden.wir freuen uns über jeden besuch, je mehr und je öfter desto besser!
vorläufig erreichen könnt ihr uns unter squat-salzburg@anarchymail.comweitere infos folgen sobald wie möglich...

================================================
05 Angriff gegen Demonsrationsrecht
von: Elfie Resch <11ie@chello.at>
================================================

Am Dienstag den 1. Oktober um 13 Uhr 15 wird am Bezirksgericht Wien 1,
Riemergasse 7 im Saal 45, erhebt der Staatsanwalt Anklage gegen die Obfrau
des FrauenLesbenMädchenZentrums ein wegen Sachbeschädigung.
Die Justiz hat Saalschutz angefordert, mehrere Polizisten werden als Zeugen
aufgerufen und werden unbekanntes Bildmaterial vorlegen. Also frau kann sich
auf was gefaßt machen. Daher ist es unbedingt notwendig, daß wir Frauen im
Saal sitzen und der Frau den Rücken stärken. Eine Vorbesprechung findet am Samstag den 28. September um 17 Uhr im LFMZ statt. Entschuldigungen gibt's für das Nichterscheinen eigentlich keine. Es gilt
Angriffe gegen das Demonstrationsrecht abzuwehren. Die LFMZ-Nachrichten
veröffentlichten im Frühjahr 2002 folgenden Text zur Causa: ANGRIFFE AUF DAS DEMONSTRATIONSRECHT Vorgeschichte:
Bei der 8. März Frauendemonstration 2001 wurde vom Schwedenplatz bis zum
Sozialministerium eine ca. 3 m große Strohpuppe mitgefahren, die den
Minister Haupt (1) symbolisierte. Bei einer Straßenaktion wurde diese Puppe
mit nassen Fetzen geschlagen bis sie zerfiel.
Die Strohreste am Boden wurden spontan angezündet. Einzelne versuchten das
Feuer zu löschen, weil sie darin eine Verbrennung einer "Strohpuppe"/Person
sahen und dies als politischen Ausdruck ablehnen. Andere sahen darin
Strohreste, die mit Rufen "Feuer und Flamme dem Patriarchal" angezündet
wurden und brannten.
Der ORF und andere filmten, die Polizei sah zu, schrieb mit und
fotografierte. Die Demo ging dann weiter und einige Frauen blieben, bis die
Reste des Feuers ausgingen. die "Folgen": der Versuch Reinigungskosten für Demonstrationen einzuheben
und
Demoanmelderinnen persönlich für angebliche
Straftaten während
der Demonstration anzuklagen Mitte März 2001 erhielt das FZ als offizielle Demoanmelderin eine Rechnung
und später eine Mahnung von der MA 6 (im Auftrag der MA 48) für eine
Leistung für den "Verein Kommunikationszentrum für Frauen".
Das FZ schrieb zurück, daß uns keine Leistung der MA 48 bekannt ist, die wir
in Anspruch genommen hätten. Daraufhin erhielt das FZ eine Stellungnahme von
der MA 48, daß "im Zuge der Demonstration am 8. März vor dem
Sozialministerium (...) Kosten für die Reinigung der Straße angefallen sind.
Von der Bundespolizeidirektion Wien wurde gegen den brennenden Strohballen
die Feuerwehr zur Brandbekämpfung alarmiert. Gleichzeitig wurde von der
Polizei die MA 48 zur anschließenden notwendigen Reinigung angefordert. Für
Leistungen dieser Art werden von der MA 48 die entstandenen Reinigungskosten
dem Verantwortlichen in Rechnung gestellt.
Das FZ als Demoanmelderin lehnte die Forderung auf Bezahlung der
Reinigungskosten mit einem Schreiben von einer Rechtsanwältin (vom Sept. 01)
ab. Rechtlich gesehen ist eine Demonstration nicht für Reinigungskosten
verantwortlich. Die Forderung auf Reinigungskosten, ist ein direkter
Versuch, Demonstrationen (DemonstrationsanmelderInnen) für das politische
Recht zu demonstrieren, bezahlen zu lassen. (2)
Laut Bericht vom "Büro für Staatsschutz" im Gerichtsakt " wurde Ende Nov. 01
von der Rechtsabteilung des Rathauses eine "Empfehlung" an die MA 48
übermittelt die Summe abzuschreiben(...) da die Zahlung von ATS 1000,00
rechtlich nicht durchsetzbar wäre."
Am 28. November 01 wurde due Obfrau und (rechtlich) Hauptverantwortliche für
die Demoanmeldung zur Einvernahme vorgeladen. Laut Bericht vom "Büro für
Staatsschutz"
im Gerichtsakt wurde die Ladung, sowohl an die Wohnadresse als auch ans FZ
geschickt. Sie sollte laut Ladungsbescheid zum "Vorfall 8. März" befragt
werden und macht keine Aussage.
Bei der Einvernahme hieß es laut mündlicher Aussage des Polizeibeamten, daß
sie doch Demoverantwortliche sei.
In dem schriftlichen Bericht zu dieser Ladung, die im Gerichtsakt liegt,
steht, daß sie als "Beschuldigte, betreff auf Sachbeschädigung und
Verunreinigung der Straße" geladen war. Im Jänner 02 erhielt sie ein Schreiben von der Staatsanwaltschaft Wien, daß
das Büro für Staatsschutz" gegen sie am 30.7.01 Strafanzeige erstattet hat
mit dem Verdacht. "Sie haben am 8.3.01 (...) bei einer Demonstration mehrere
Strohballen auf der Hauptfahrbahn der Ringstraße in Flammen gesetzt (...)
die Hauptfahrbahn der Ringstraße gröblich verunreinigte (...) dadurch das
Vergehen der Sachbeschädigung nach §125 StGB begangen." Ihr wurde die
Möglichkeit angeboten die Strafe und die Reinigungskosten in einem
außergerichtlichen Tatausgleich zu bezahlen (mit dem Hinweis, daß daraus
keine Vorstrafe entsteht). Bei Nichtzahlung wurde ein Strafprozeß angedroht,
der nun stattfinden wird. Der Prozeß
Der Prozeß findet am 1.10. 2002 ab 13.15 Uhr, im Saal 45/ Erdgeschoß, am
Bezirksgericht Innere Stadt, Riemergasse 7, 1011 Wien statt.
Wir freuen uns, wenn viele Frauen und auch (Frauen) Presse zum Prozeß
kommen. Laut Gerichtsakt wird für den Prozeß Saalschutz angefordert und einer der
Polizeibeamten, der als Zeuge geladen ist, wird ersucht eventuelles
Fotomaterial zu übermitteln. Für Interessierte Frauen, Unterstützerinnen, die am Prozeß teilnehmen
wollen, treffen wir uns am Samstag, 28.9.02, 17 Uhr im FZ (Währingerstr. 59/Stiege 6) im 2. Stock

<<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><
MELDUNGEN UND KOMMENTARE
<<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><

================================================
06 Workers Power Global Week
von: NEWSWIRE <newswire@workerspower.com>
================================================
WORKERS POWER GLOBAL WEEK
E-newswire of the LRCI
22 September 2002
============================================================
WELCOME TO ISSUE #111
Workers Power Global Week is the English language e-newsletter of the LRCI.
To unsubscribe go to: http://www.workerspower.com/wpglobal/newsform.html
Please forward this to a comrade.
============================================================
IRAQ: NO TO THE RETURN OF UN INSPECTORS!
GERMANY: A TIGHT FINISH IN THE ELECTIONS
AUSTRIA: ANTI-CAPITALISTS TAKE THE STREETS OF SALZBURG
SWEDEN: ELECTIONS CHANGE VERY LITTLE.
USA: A CLASH ON THE WATERFRONT LOOMS
============================================================
IRAQ: NO TO THE RETURN OF UN INSPECTORS!
Workers Power Global, London
Shortly after George W Bush's speech to the United Nations on 13 September demanding it back his plans to invade Iraq, he was upstaged by his arch enemy. Saddam Hussein penned a short letter agreeing to the unconditional return of the UN weapons inspectors after a five year absence.
This immediately threw the imperialist led coalition against Iraq into a crisis. Bush denounced Iraq's offer and Britain opined that Saddam was not to be trusted. Meanwhile, France welcomed the move and Russia declared that no new UN resolutions were now needed.
War seemed to be delayed, if not indefinitely, then for a month or more while negotiations between Iraq and the UN over the "practicalities" of the return of the inspectors take place. No one suggests that this cold be much before the end of October, however.
It is hardly surprising that Saddam blinked first. In the days between Bush's speech to the UN and Iraq's climbdown, the Arab League turned up the pressure on Iraq's ruling regime; even Saudi Arabia's rulers hinted that a failure to allow the inspectors back in would see Saudi Arabia back US-led and UN-backed military action to oust Saddam.
So Saddam bowed to the inevitable and by its timing, he hoped his letter would forestall a new, tougher UN resolution which devised even more hoops for Baghdad to jump through.
However, though the timing of future military action against Iraq may have to be revised and the US provocations that eventually "allow" for it refined, No doubt, if the inspectors cannot find any weapons it will not be because they do not exist but because the "treacherous Saddam" has hidden them well! And for this reason he will have to go! Bush will simply not give ground at all on the need to overthrow Saddam's regime. Why?
Because the real motives for the war are not any supposed connection between Iraq and al-Qaida "terrorists" or Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. Neither are true.
The motives for war are: total world domination and the plunder of the oil reserves of the Middle East for the United States The Bush administration is bent the creation of world-wide US hegemony over both its allies and its enemies. Economically it would gives the US the ability to pump oil to undermine the bargaining power of OPEC and thus lower oil prices to fuel a US economic expansion phase in the years ahead.
It is out to occupy Iraq - the country with second largest oil reserves in the world. Iraq's enormous oil reserves held the potential to support a large army and weapons able to match those held by Israel, the US gendarme in the region. This was clearly intolerable. It could unravel the whole divide-and-rule system, which the USA had been running since the old colonial powers.
The attempt to change the regime in Iraq to a puppet one represents a massive expansion phase of US world dominance. For this very reason it has stimulated enormous world-wide alarm. This will in the weeks ahead re-mobilise a truly global anti war movement. The new antiwar mobilisations will dwarf in scale those of 2001.
Revolutionaries have to be unsparing in their criticism of the "antiwar" forces who dial into their opposition the escape clause- "only with the approval of the United Nations." Bush and his British messenger boy are already hard at work threatening and bribing the members of the Security Council with a veto. These men all have a price or an Achilles heel.
The UN "pacifists" of today are tomorrow's warmongers - just as they were in 2001. Their task is to round up as many spontaneous but unwary antiwar people as possible and then, when the UN actually gives the green light for war, convince them of the necessity of following the "international community" to war.
We need to give no recognition to any UN-bestowed legitimacy. The US has enormous powers of coercion, both economic and military. The Security Council is truly a thieves' kitchen. If Russia is given a free hand in Chechnya and China in Tibet and Xinjiang- if the IMF and the WTO make the price right, Bush will get his way.
Our position has to be "US and UN hands off Iraq!" No return of the weapons inspectors. Immediate lifting of all existing sanctions. All US and British forces out of Arabia, all its warships out of the Gulf and the Indian Ocean. All its bases out of Central and South-East Asia.
We seek to stop this war by mass mobilisations that will shake the system to its foundations and topple the warmongers. First and foremost this must happen in the imperialist countries themselves. When fighting breaks out we must call clearly and unequivocally for the total defeat of the imperialist invasion and victory for the Iraqi resistance to it.
This alone distinguishes revolutionary opposition to the war from those simply call for "peace" or for UN intervention or mediation. The reformist left will oppose this position on the grounds that it means supporting Saddam Hussein, just as they claimed that defeatism in the Afghan war meant support for the Taliban dictatorship, etc.
For us only the Iraqi people- Arabs and Kurds- have the right to overthrow Saddams' brutal dictatorship and at the same time ensure the independence of their country. To do so at the price of colonisation by the USA, Britain etc. would be a disaster, Liberation can only be achieved if the workers youth of the cities rise up and replace the Baathist and military regime with a democracy based on workers and peasants council's.
Only if they do so from the basis of defence of their country, of its independence from the imperialists, will it be possible for there to be a democratic let alone a socialist outcome.
FOR MORE ON THE US CAMPAIGN AGAINT IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN SEE:
http://www.workerspower.com/wpglobal/afghan-index.html
============================================================
GERMANY: A TIGHT FINISH IN THE ELECTIONS
Workers Power Global, Berlin
A lame campaign has ended in a tight finish. On the eve of the general election Schröder's SPD are ahead of Stoiber's CDU/CSU in the polls. The neo-liberal FDP and the Greens - likely coalition partner of the large parties are running neck and neck for third place. Whether or not the left reformist PDS gets any seats could be decisive for the outcome of the whole election.
A few months ago it seemed that the conservative and liberal opposition would definitely win. The bosses had turned their backs on Schröder and Fischer. They had done well - but not well enough - for German imperialism, the capitalists and their media opined. Another SPD-led government would make too many concessions to the union leaders, would be too corporatist.
In this period the bourgeois media "discovered" and published one SPD or Green Party scandal after another. Helmut Kohl's corruption was forgotten.
The working class on the other hand was disappointed with the SPD in government; the PDS were only an alternative for a section of the more politically advanced workers.
So why did the SPD regain much of its lost ground?
At the end of spring, Schröder made a turn to the trade unions. It was clear by then that the ruling class had decided to support Stoiber and the liberals to build of for an all-out, open attack on the working class without making concessions to the union leaders. At the end of March, when the SPD was down to 30 percent in the polls Schröder and the leaders of the trade unions met. They struck a deal.
The SPD would not introduce any measures against the trade union (bureaucracy) - on the other hand the unions would not attack their social democratic brothers and sisters and would turn their fire against Stoiber.
Despite this deal the workers, and even many union officials, remained unenthusiastic. After all, there are four million unemployed (officially) in Germany, the red-green government has waged two wars (against Yugoslavia and Afghanistan), fulfilled some minor promises for the workers and handed over billions of euros in tax cuts to the rich.
This changed dramatically with the beginning of the "hot phase" of the campaign after the summer holidays. Schröder for once started with a clear message: No war against Iraq! The CDU's response made their campaign looking weak for the first time. War on Iraq is not a question of immediate importance, Stoiber replied, raising doubts about his view of the world.
The floods make Stoiber look even worse. The SPD and the Greens delayed tax reductions for the rich to finance the costs of repairing the damage caused by the floods. The CDU and the liberals opposed this in the name of German business. If the SPD could not prove that Stoiber and the FPD were and are the preferred choice of German capitalists, the CDU did.
The trade union campaign became more outspoken as well. Again this was fuelled by the deeds of the conversative and liberal parties and the demands of the capitalists' organisations. All the national bosses' organisations praised the programmes of the neo-liberal FPD and the need to shift to Stoiber - in order to break the "might" of the organised working class and the trade unions.
The war and these open threats mobilised the working class behind the SPD. A day before the elections the SPD were standing at around 37 to 40 percent in the polls, generally a little bit ahead of the CDU/CSU.
The reformist election rallies - apart from the PDS who suffered from the turn back to the SPD as well - were surprisingly well attended. In Berlin alone, Schröder and the SPD had two rallies with about 20,000 and 25,000 attending. In many towns and cities they filled central squares or large halls with 5,000 - 15,000. In a number of cases several thousands had to wait outside because they could not get into meeting halls.
The trade unions organised a national rally in Dortmund and the trade union youth held one in Köln. The latter demonstration, an anti-Stoiber rally on 14 September. was attended by 40,000 - 50,000 young workers from all over Germany. A poll held amongst the young trade unionised workers revealed their preferences: 55% SPD, 18% PDS, 13 % Greens, 9% CDU, 3 % FPD.
The idea of many "radical" German leftists that the SPD had broken its links with the working class and was no longer a reformist, bourgeois workers' party was ridiculed in practice during this election campaign.
This could also be seen in a party (Streikhelferfest -strike supporters festival) held by IG Metall Stuttgart for the strike activists of this year's wage bargaining round. About 3,000 shop stewards, members of the strike committees and pickets from the strike attended this - and applauded the SPD speakers who had been invited (no other party had been invited).
Whether or not all this is enough for the SPD to win is uncertain. Whether or not the SPD will maintain the coalition with the Greens, whether it will lean towards a greater coalition or towards the PDS (if it makes it into government) is unclear.
Certainly, Schröder would prefer to rule with the Greens in the first place or to form a grand coalition with the CDU, or one with the liberals even. He will do what he can to avoid forming a coalition with the PDS or a minority government backed by the PDS.
Whatever the precise percentage of votes will be it is important to insist:
No coalition with the bosses' parties! For an SPD or SPD/PDS government!
The unions, the base organisation of the SPD and PDS, all mass working class organisation have to put demands on this government to deal with the scourge of unemployment, against the bosses' attacks and against the war threat:
* No to all redundancies! For occupations and strikes! Nationalisation of all companies which sack or plan to sack workers without compensation and under workers' control!
* Against unemployment: For a programme of socially useful public works under workers' control!
* Reduce the working week to 30 hours without loss of pay!
* Against a low wage economy! Turn all insecure, temporary contracts into contracts covered by the minumum wage or wage bargaining agreements!
* Defend health, and pensions insurance! No to privatisation! Renationalise all privatised hospitals etc. without compensation! Free education for all! No to privatisation of universities and schools to the church or private corporations!
* The rich must pay! Tax the rich! For a progressive taxation on profits and property!
* No to state racism: Against all immigration controls! Open the borders! Full political and citizens' rights for all who live in Germany!
* Full democratic rights! Repeal the "security laws" introduced by the SPD/Green government in the "war against terrorism"!
* No to war against Iraq! No support for the US and the UN! Lift the embargo against Iraq immediately and unconditionally! German troops out of Afghanistan, the Middle East, Kovosa and Macedonia!
The workers, the youth and the anti-capitalist movement have to ally themselves and mobilise for such demands from 23 September onwards!
Schröder, the SPD, PDS and trade union leaders will do their best to water down demands and avoid any open struggle with bosses. This is why we not only call for the reformist leaders to act, but also for the workers to organise the struggle - with their current leaders where possible, without or against them, where necessary. Just as we say: Stop Stoiber! Vote SPD/PDS! Organise the fight back!
FOR MORE ON THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN SEE:
http://www.workerspower.com/wpglobal/GermanElections-reformism.html
www.arbeitermacht.de (German site of Gruppe Arbeitermacht, German section of the LRCI)
============================================================
AUSTRIA: ANTI-CAPITALISTS TAKE THE STREETS OF SALZBURG
Workers Power Global, Vienna
Last Sunday around 4,000 anti-capitalist demonstrators marched against the annual summit of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Salzburg and against the effects of global capitalism on our lives. The day before around 1,000 people participated in the demonstration organised by the immigrant community.
The WEF is an association of businessmen and women and their politicians who focus on how to advance the "achievements of free market" in Eastern Europe. It is no accident that this meeting takes place in Salzburg since Austrian firms are among the biggest foreign investors in Eastern Europe and Austrian banks play a central role in the region's financial system.
Austria is a small but genuine imperialism. This is why organising such protests is vital for the Austrian workers' movement to fight its own imperialism and why we should aim for united mobilisations of Austrian and Eastern European workers' delegations to counter the "divide and rule" strategy of the bosses.
The main organisers of the mobilisations were the Social Forum, the Communist Party, Stalinist Turkish organisations like ATIGIF, the social democratic youth and radical left-wing organisations, among them ArbeiterInnenstandpunkt - the Austrian section of the LRCI - and the youth group REVOLUTION.
The number of the participants in the demonstrations were higher than last year. Last year the demonstrations in Salzburg hit the news. It was the first real anti-capitalist mobilisation in Austria and it ended in clashes with the police and a six hour encirclement of 1,000 demonstrators by the police.
The mobilisations last weekend marked a clear step forward since they underline the consolidation of the anti-capitalist movement in Austria. This is particularly important given the traditional national-centeredness of the Austrian workers' movement and the general "island of the blessed"-mentality in the country.
The weakest aspect of the demonstration was the lack of trade unionists. While the railway workers trade union formally backed the call for the demonstrations the bureaucrats didn't mobilise its members at all. They hesitated to bring the rank & file into contact with radical ideas.
ArbeiterInnenstandpunkt and REVOLUTION formed a militant and vocal contingent of around 30 people. In our speeches - quoted in the TV news -, our flags and banner "Fight imperialist war - Defend Iraq" we expressed clearly the main tasks of today:
* Oppose global capitalism and imperialist war!
* Defend all social conquest against the offensive of the bosses!
* Defend all victims of imperialist aggression!
* For an international and internationalist solidarity movement!
* Only social revolution can put an end to the horrors of war and economic crisis!
The police restrained themselves and did not provoke the demonstrators as they did last year and which led to the clashes widely reported in the media. It only went to show that the police are the source of violence. If the ministers - concerned about their reputation in public - tell their hooligans in uniform to restrain themselves, no clashes happen.
The next step must be a massive mobilisation for the European Social Forum between 6.-10. November in Florence. The Austrian Social Forum and the railway workers union have already booked a train for 700 people. And next year we need an even bigger demonstration against the WEF in Salzburg!
FOR MORE ON THEE ANTI-CAPITALIST MOVEMENT SEE:
http://www.workerspower.com/wpglobal/globalisation-index.html
============================================================
SWEDEN: ELECTIONS CHANGE VERY LITTLE.
Workers Power Global, Stockholm
The national, regional and local elections in Sweden in mid-September didn't change much in the relationship of forces at the national level between the two competing blocs of parties. The social democratic minority government will most likely continue, as during the last four years, to rely on support from the Left Party and the Greens.
This time the Greens have demanded a higher price for their support. They not only want to have their most important election promises accepted, they also want three ministers. This is a bit strong coming from a party that barely managed to reach 4 percent of the votes nationally they needed to get any seats in parliament.
The Left Party, for their part, is not putting forward any unconditional demands. Party leader Gudrun Schyman says that the Left is first of all interested in blocking any (openly) bourgeois government and laying the basis for "left politics".
The fate of her own party is subordinate to this question. This is not surprising since the Left and its former incarnation, the Communist Party, have been an important parliamentary support for social democratic minority governments for decades.
Despite the show that the Greens' leaders are putting on, the most likely scenario at the moment is still a social democratic minority government. This will be a sort of informal coalition, where important domestic issues will be solved in negotiations behind the scenes with the Left and the Greens. When it comes to foreign policy and Sweden's role in the imperialist alliance behind Bush in the "war against terrorism" the government can, on the other hand, rely on the openly bourgeois parties.
The national elections confirmed the strength of the two blocs - 174 seats for the social democrats and the Left, 158 for the openly bourgeois parties, and 17 for the Greens. But significant changes took place inside the blocs. The social democrats gained at the expense of the Left, almost reaching 40 percent.
The Left lost more than 3 percent, which can be explained by the fact that the result in the last elections, almost 12 percent (1998), was an all-time high for the party. At that time many social democrats were dissatisfied with their party and voted for the Left Party to put pressure on the leadership to turn left.
Its true that the social democrats' campaign sounded more to the left than usual - stressing the fight against unemployment, resistance to privatisation of hospitals and some other public services, and opposition to racist proposals for a second rate labour market for unemployed immigrants. But it is also true that the Left abstained from criticising social democracy. The Left made a decision to bury its own policy in favour of a common front against the openly bourgeois parties. This made it unclear why anyone should vote for the Left, when social democracy seemed to be enough.
The biggest re-shuffling of votes took place between the openly bourgeois parties. The Conservatives (the Moderates) lost 8 percent, most of which went to the Liberals. The Conservatives have now lost their leadership of the bourgeois opposition, but this doesn't represent a step to the left. It's more correct to say, as TUC leader Wanja Lundby-Wedin did on election night, that Sweden now has three right-wing parties: Conservatives, Liberals and Christian Democrats.
The Conservative's defeat has acted as a catalyst for a real purge in the party, where the initiative seems to be with younger and more neo-liberal forces. The old guard is spent and will probably have to retire. The reputation of the Conservatives was badly damaged by a TV journalist who fooled a number of respected local politicians by appearing as an open racist.
He recorded their reactions to his lamentations, and this was broadcast on prime time a few days before the elections. Almost all the politicians who proved to be disgusting racists belonged to the Conservatives. The leadership was hastily forced to disown these local representatives, but the damage was already done. It was clear to all that behind the respectable image of the Conservatives there lurked a cesspool of racism and xenophobia.
Some Conservatives now blame either the journalist, who fooled the "poor" politicians into saying these terrible things, or the employers' organisation for their defeat. They claim that support from the employers was insufficient both in financial terms and in terms of public support. They also claim that the employers courted the social democrats behind the scenes.
If nothing really changed at the national level, there are some worrying signs at the local level. The extreme right gained in a number of local councils, ending up with 38 councillors. This is certainly characteristic of the southern region (Skåne) where not only the Sweden Democrats have been successful, but also local extreme right and/or right-wing populist parties won significant parts of the electorate.
For example, in Malmö, the third biggest city in the country, these extreme right and populist parties got more than 12 percent. Even the more extreme split from the Sweden Democrats, the National Democrats, have now got a few councillors.
The gains made by the extreme right represents a growing threat to the labour movement and immigrants. Above all, it looks like the Sweden Democrats are emerging as a real national party. Since the split with the more extreme National Democrats, the Sweden Democrats have been able to build alliances with and recruit local rightists and Conservatives in conflict with their party, especially in Skåne.
This is the road taken in the past by Le Pen's National Front in France, and it comes as no surprise that the Sweden Democrats received considerable financial support from the National Front in the last EU elections. The figure for their votes in the national elections are as high as 76,300.
This danger from the extreme right calls for determined resistance from the left and the labour movement. Protests must be built in all areas where they are active. Their propaganda must be met by information and determined resistance. Such a campaign must not be restricted to the small left groups. It will have to draw in the masses of organised workers and immigrants.
The issue of immigrants and refugees were introduced during the election campaign by the Liberals. Their gains from the Conservatives were made on typical Conservative themes: putting more demands on immigrants, language test for citizenship, separate labour market for immigrants on welfare with very low wages. This is hardly compatible with the image the Liberals want to create of themselves as the most anti-racist party in Sweden.
The recent turn by the Liberal leadership in an openly racist direction have also resulted in some strange comments. The Sweden Democrats have offered cooperation in some areas and the racist Danish People's Party claim to be very satisfied with Liberal leader Leijonborg.
As for the left outside parliament, their votes in the national elections have not been counted yet - a sign of their insignificance. But there is one exception, the Norrbotten Party, a regional party in the northern part of Sweden. It is the creation of former miners' leader Lars Törnman, a populist somewhat to the left of social democracy. This regional party split the Left Party vote in Norrbotten.
With almost 10 percent in the region - 12 percent is needed in one region to be represented in parliament - Törnman can probably be held responsible for the loss of the one seat who could have secured a social democratic and Left majority government.
A few more or less fossilized Stalinist sects also contested the elections, mostly at the local level. They only received significant support where they have representatives who can aspire to be the voice of the ordinary citizen against bureaucracy - usually connected to the EU - and small time corruption.
The centrist groups, sections of respectively the USFI and the CWI, only made an small impact in two or three towns where they have a bit of a base. The most important of these are in Umeå in the north west where the Justice Party Socialists (CWI) got 4.6 per cent and three councillors. But in the national elections these groups are not even insignificant. The results for the Justice Party Socialists were 1, 519, a loss of more than 50 percent from 1998, and the Socialist Party (USFI) 3, 213. This in an electorate of 6 million!
The openly bourgeois parties were defeated, which is very good, but this is not a time for celebration. It's a time to prepare the battles of the coming months and years. Battles will have to be organised against the extreme right and to pressure the social democrats and the Left to keep their promises during the elections.
Social democracy and the Left will administer capitalism at the sacrifice of the interests of the working class. They are bourgeois workers' parties, but they are in government thanks to the votes of the workers and youth. Almost 75 per cent of TUC members voted for them, among the youth a majority voted for them. Those voting for the first time made it clear that a shift to the left is not impossible; almost 19 percent voted for the Left, while 30 percent voted for social democracy.
In the coming battles a revolutionary socialist party must be built, to ensure the final victory of workers and youth. The Swedish section of the LRCI, Arbetarmakt, is working to lay the foundations for such a party.
FOR MORE ON THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN SEE:
http://www.workerspower.com/wpglobal/Sweden-Elections2002-2.html
============================================================
USA: A CLASH ON THE WATERFRONT LOOMS
Workers Power Global, London
The International Longshore Workers Union (ILWU) is locked in a dispute with the their employers over a new contract. Threats of a lockout by the employers were issued on 19 September in response to what they claimed was go-slow by the longshoremen. Marcus Gomez holds a sign during an Oakland, California rally workers.
The Bush administration indicated in August that it will seek to block a West Coast dockers' strike by any means necessary. Claiming national security and the "war on terrorism" as a pretext, Bush is looking for any excuse to add a strategic victory over "the enemy within" - as Margaret Thatcher used to call the British workers' movement - to his hoped for victory over Saddam Hussein .
The West Coast ports handle more than half of the nation's trade, around $300 billion worth of cargo each year - or more than 7 per cent of the total gross national product. Either a dockers' strike or a lockout by employers could paralyse Pacific Rim commerce during the peak shipping months before the Christmas holiday - the great festival of consumerism.
The fear of a clash continues to concern companies that rely on just-in-time production and goods that pass through West Coast ports from Asian-Pacific suppliers.
Because of their strategic location the 10,500 dock workers on the West Coast have a traditionally strong union and a negotiation system covering 29 ports right along the West Coast. Dockworkers have played a key role in recent labor and anti-capitalist movement protests, including participating in demonstrations and taking strike action during the Seattle protests at the WTO conference in 1999.
The shipping companies plan to install new technology that will eliminate many jobs. The union wants to ensure the new technology is run by existing union members and ensure that newly created jobs are then included in an ILWU-negotiated contract.
Two months ago, the ILWU revealed that a Labor Department official, Andrew Siff, issued threats on behalf of the administration to ILWU union officials. In the event of strike, Siff said, Bush was prepared to mobilise the National Guard to take over ports, bring in Navy personnel to move cargo and petition the US Congress to declare the ILWU a monopoly, thereby legalising the break-up of the union into 29 separate bargaining units for each port.
The President of "the land of the free" has considerable powers under the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947- better known as the Taft-Hartley Act. He can ban a strike or lockout for 80 days and impose arbitration All he needs is to proclaim that it would "imperil the national health or safety." In fact the people of the USA would not go short if the ports were to be shut. All that would be "imperilled" would be the profits of the shipping companies and the retail companies who import goods. This, of course, to a capitalist is a "national" emergency.
By showing such eagerness to intervene, Bush has emboldened the shipping companies to refuse to meet the union's demands.
Stevedoring Services of America (SSA) the largest of the dock employers has systematically blocked negotiations between the ILWU and Pacific Maritime Association (PMA.) SSA wants to move as much dockwork away from unionised sectors as possible. It has moved several hundred ILWU jobs off the West Coast docks in recent years.
Bush and the employers clearly want to smash the International Longshore Workers Union (ILWU) just as Ronald Reagan smashed the air traffic controllers union Patco in 1981. This defeat was a terrible blow for the whole US Labor movement. It led to nearly twenty years of falling real wages and shrinking unions.
American labour has only just begun to recover from this over the past few years. Now Bush wants to use recession and war to knock them down again. Dockers, wharfies, longshoremen - whatever the name - have played a key role in international solidarity over the last decade. All workers around the world should prepare for a massive movement of solidarity with the ILWU the moment a strike or lockout starts.
FOR MORE ON CLASS STRUGGLES IN THE USA SEE:
http://www.workerspower.com/wpglobal/linkamericas.html#Anchor-USA-63368
============================================================
BECOME A CORRESPONDENT FOR WPG
The LRCI has members across the globe - but there are many countries where we have no correspondents. Send us your news and views:
newswire@workerspower.com
============================================================
NOW FORWARD THIS TO A COMRADE >> NOW FORWARD THIS TO A COMRADE

================================================
07 U.S. abandons Germ Warfare Accord
von: Paul Davidson <p.davidson@btinternet.com>
================================================
U.S. Abandons Germ Warfare Accord
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, 19 September, 2002
The Bush administration has abandoned an international effort to strengthen
the Biological Weapons Convention against germ warfare, advising its allies
that the United States wants to delay further discussions until 2006. A
review conference on new verification measures for the treaty had been
scheduled for November.
Less than a year after a State Department envoy abruptly pulled out of
biowarfare negotiations in Geneva, promising that the United States would
return with new proposals, the administration has concluded that treaty
revisions favored by the European Union and scores of other countries will
not work and should not be salvaged, administration officials said
yesterday.
The decision, which has been conveyed to allies in recent weeks, has been
greeted with warnings that the move will weaken attempts to curb germ
warfare programs at a time when biological weapons are a focus of concern
because of the war on terrorism and the administration's threats to launch a
military campaign against Iraq. It also comes as the administration, which
has angered allies by rejecting a series of multilateral agreements, is
appealing to the international community to work with it in forging a new
U.N. Security Council resolution on Iraq's programs to develop weapons of
mass destruction.
The 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, which has been ratified by the
United States and 143 other countries, bans the development, stockpiling and
production of germ warfare agents, but has no enforcement mechanism.
Negotiations on legally binding measures to enforce compliance have been
underway in Geneva for seven years.
The administration stunned its allies last December by proposing to end the
negotiators' mandate, saying that while the treaty needed strengthening, the
enforcement protocol under discussion would not deter enemy nations from
acquiring or developing biological weapons if they were determined to do so.
Negotiators suspended the discussions, saying they would meet again in
November when U.S. officials said they would return with creative solutions
to address the impasse.
Instead, U.S. envoys are now telling allies that the administration's
position is so different from the views of the leading supporters of the
enforcement protocol that a meeting would dissolve into public squabbling
and should be avoided, administration officials said. Better, they said, to
halt discussions altogether.
"It's based on an incorrect approach. Our concern is that it would be
fundamentally ineffective," a State Department official said. Another
administration official said the "best and least contentious" approach would
be to hold a very brief meeting in November -- or even no meeting at all --
and talk again when the next review is scheduled four years from now.
Amy Smithson, a biological and chemical weapons specialist, said the
administration is making a mistake by halting collaborative work to
strengthen the convention. "It sounds to me as though they've thrown the
baby out with the bath water," said Smithson, an analyst at the Henry L.
Stimson Center. "The contradiction between the rhetoric and what the
administration is actually doing -- the gulf is huge. Not a day goes by when
they don't mention the Iraq threat."
The Stimson Center is releasing a report today that criticizes the U.S.
approach to the convention. Drawn from a review by 10 pharmaceutical
companies and biotechnology experts, the document argues that bioweapons
inspections can be effective with the right amount of time and the right
science and urges the administration to develop stronger measures.
"To argue that this wouldn't be a useful remedy would just be a mistake. I
think it's because they're looking through the wrong end of the telescope,"
said Matthew Meselson, a Harvard biologist who helped draft a treaty to
criminalize biological weapons violations. "We're denying ourselves useful
tools."
The administration has focused publicly on a half-dozen countries identified
by the State Department as pursuing germ warfare programs. Undersecretary of
State John R. Bolton said the existence of Iraq's bioweapons project is
"beyond dispute." The U.S. government also believes Iran, North Korea,
Sudan, Libya and Syria are developing such weapons, he said.
Meselson concurred with the administration's position that a limited
enforcement provision for the bioweapons treaty could not provide confidence
that countries are staying clean. But he said that a pact establishing
standards and verification measures would deter some countries while also
helping to build norms of international behavior.
Bolton, on the other hand, told delegates to last year's review conference
that "the time for 'better-than-nothing' protocols is over. We will continue
to reject flawed texts like the BWC draft protocol, recommended to us simply
because they are the product of lengthy negotiations or arbitrary deadlines,
if such texts are not in the best interests of the United States."
With only hours to go at the meeting, Bolton stopped U.S. participation in
the final negotiations. He said of the resulting one-year delay, "This gives
us time to think creatively on alternatives."
In Bolton's view, each country should develop criminal laws against germ
warfare activities, develop export controls for dangerous pathogens,
establish codes of conduct for scientists and install strict biosafety
procedures. The administration has proposed that governments resolve
disputes over biowarfare violations among themselves, perhaps through
voluntary inspections or by referral to the United Nations secretary
general.
Such an approach is "at best ineffectual," said the specialists gathered by
the Stimson Center. At worst, they concluded, the approach could damage U.S.
interests because it would not be structured to deliver "meaningful
monitoring."
"If a challenge inspection system is not geared to pursue violators
aggressively, then it does not serve U.S. security interests," the 65-page
report states. The participants strongly favored establishing mandatory
standards backed by penalties and "robust" inspections, which goes
significantly further than the proposed protocol backed by the EU and other
nations.
The State Department Web site has not yet been changed to reflect the change
in policy. It says, "The United States is committed to strengthening the BWC
as part of a comprehensive and multidisciplinary strategy for combating the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism. .
. . We would like to share these ideas with our international partners."
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

===============================================
08 Bush proclaims U.S. to bet he worlds ŽSUPREME POWER„
von: Paul Davidson <p.davidson@btinternet.com>
===============================================
Bush proclaims the U.S. to be the world's "SUPREME POWER"
JIM CASON AND DAVID BROOKS
La Jornada Correspondents in
Washington (DC) and New York
September 20, 2002
The United States is the world's "supreme power", proclaimed today the
government of President George W. Bush who warned that he will not tolerate
challenges to his country's lead in power. He explicitly established the
right of intervention in any part of the world with "pre-emptive" attacks
and declared that it is all justified in defense of "freedom", the free
market, private property and other elements of "free and open societies".
This power, said the leader, will not be employed to draw a "unilateral
advantage" for his country.
In a document sent to Congress today, Bush establishes that U.S. supremacy
will not tolerate any competition to its power: "the president will not
have any intention of permitting any foreign power to catch up with the
enormous lead that the U.S. has achieved since the fall of the Soviet Union
more than a decade ago...Our forces will be sufficiently strong to dissuade
potential adversaries from undertaking a military buildup that would
surpass or match the power of the U.S.
He emphasized that his country "must have and keep the capacity to defeat
all enemy attempts, whether they be from a state or non government entity,
to impose their will over the U.S., our allies, or our friends."
The four-part document, Strategy for U.S. National Security, must be
presented to Congress by any U.S. president, but this is the first instance
in which the Bush government detailed its global policy in a comprehensive
form, although many elements had already been expressed and known.
Worries will increase
For William Hartung, New York's World Policy Institute analyst on military
policy, the document expresses that the government wants "the unlimited
capacity to use force to shape the world in a way that they would deem
best", and, in interview with La Jornada, he thought that "if one trusts
the judgement of this administration, that may be fine, but many countries
had already been nervous over U.S. unilateralism and this will worry them
even more."
The "strategy" discards the basic elements of "deterrence" and
"nonproliferation" which are (or have been) at the center, at least
officially, of U.S. foreign policy for the past 50 years.
In its place, it promotes the concept of "counter-proliferation", that is,
the forced disarmament of all powers that defy or present a threat to U.S.
interests.
Deterrence is useless against enemies who "hate the U.S. and all that it
represents", claims the document and adds that the nation "is now being
threatened less by states that pursue conquest than by those that have failed."
Regarding the struggle against the threat of adversaries with weapons of
mass destruction, the concept of "proactive counter proliferation efforts"
to attack nations and "terrorists" is advanced, because the U.S. "can no
longer depend on a posture of reaction as it did in the past" and,
therefore, has the right to act against "a threat before it is unleashed".
Regarding the war against terrorism, it repeats the position depicted by
Bush since September 11, 2001. The U.S., it states, jointly, or alone -only
if it becomes necessary- "will exercise our right to act pre-emptively in
self defense".
"We have to adapt to the concept of imminent threat according to the means
and objectives of today's adversaries. These scoundrels and terrorists do
not intend to attack us with conventional means...they rely on acts of
terrorism and, potentially, weapons of mass destruction. Generally, the
U.S. has kept the option of pre-emptive action against a sufficient threat
to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater the risk of
inaction and the argument in favor of taking prior defensive action is more
convincing, despite the uncertainty of times and places of an enemy attack.
If necessary, the U.S. will act pre-emptively to delay or prevent hostile
acts by our adversaries.
On the economic front, it delineates diplomatic efforts using and changing
the role of foreign aid and multilateral organisms such as the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to carry out a battle
between "values and ideas", particularly in the Moslem world.
In this environment, policies will be promoted to nourish the free market,
attract investors and provide "access to markets", in other words, "we
shall actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free
markets and free trade to every corner of the world".
The document starts by mentioning that "the great struggles of the XX
Century between freedom and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory
for the forces of freedom and one single sustainable model for national
success: freedom, democracy and free enterprise."
It affirms that, for the XX Century only those countries embracing
political freedom, as well as, the protection of basic human rights will
make progress.
It points out that every human being "wants freedom of expression, to elect
his/her government, educate his/her sons/daughters and enjoy the fruit of
their labor...as well as, the right to own property".
Marcus Corbin
In the document, the government "speaks of shaping the world into a group
of freedom-loving nations, which is not the case, in spite of so much
reference to free markets, freedom and democracy", said Corbin.
He pointed out that "any one who reads this document, would think that
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan could be included in the list of targets, the
ones that the U.S. would attack after Iraq, if one would seriously think
that democracy is what it's all about. But in real terms, that's not what
it's saying".
Latin America and Mexico
The document points out that the U.S. "has formed flexible coalitions with
countries that share our priorities, particularly Mexico, Brazil, Canada,
Chile and Colombia". Together with them and the hemisphere's organizations,
such as the Organization of American States and the process of the Summit
of the America's, it adds, "democracy", security and prosperity will be
promoted.
It points out the existence of regional conflicts in the Americas and
highlights the vehicles between the violence of narcotraffic, ties among
narcotraffickers and "terrorist and extremists" groups that threaten some
countries in the region. Here it bases itself on cooperation with Colombia
to combat the combined threat.
Translation: Luis Martin
www.puntosdevista.cafeprogressive.com
A project of the Peace & Justice Education Project
in Albuquerque, New Mexico
-------------------------------------------
Introducing NetZero Long Distance
Unlimited Long Distance only $29.95/ month!
Sign Up Today! www.netzerolongdistance.com

================================================
09 Noch ist nichts gewonnenÝ
von: <widerstand@blackbox.net>
================================================
Liebe Widerständische !
Dieser Tage haben ja viele das Ende von schwarz-blau gefeiert, und das ist sicher legitim.
Allerdings ist vor dem 22.11. noch einiges zu tun, im worst-case könnte - glaubt den Umfragen, und die sagen dass sich Schüssels ÖVP knapp hinter der SP liegt - dann könnte auf blauschwarz schwarzblau folgen - mit einer gestärkten ÖVP, die dann ihre neoliberale, asoziale Politik fortsezen könnten.
Ich finde deshalb, dass wir auch aktiv in den Wahlkampf eingreifen sollten, und zwar eindeutig natürlich gegen ÖVP und FPÖ (im Sinne des geringeren Übels). Man muss den Leuten sagen, dass jeder, der ÖVp wählt, auch automatisch (das hat Schüssel auch bereits in Interviews kundgetan) für eine neue schwarzblaue Koalition stimmt.
Ich wäre deshalb für eine grossangelegte Kampagne gegen ÖVP,FPÖ und schwarzblau - beispielsweise in Anzeigen in grossen Tageszeitungen, etc.
Hiermit möchte ich die Diskussion zu einer solchen Aktion eröffnen !
In diesem Sinne:
WEITER WIDERSTAND !

================================================
10 Parlament und Neuwahlen
von: Conte di Ferro <conte.di.ferro@aon.at>
================================================
Die Bürgerinitiative Neuwahlen ist wohl gewissermaßen die erfolgreichste, nachdem die Regierungsparteien FPÖ und ÖVP dem Wunsch der UnterzeichnerInnen nun selbst nachkommen und den Antrag auf Neuwahlen am 20. September selbst in den Nationalrat
einbrachten, sie ist auch die einzige BI die sich jemals mit einem Neuwahlantrag ins Parlament gewagt hat :
Bemerkung am Rande der Kundgebung "Tschüssel mit blau/schwarz", der DonnerstagsDemo
und des gelungenen, ja rauschenden Abschiedsfestes der Botschaft besorgter Bürger vom 19.09.2002 am Ballhausplatz 1a :
16 Personen aus dem Kreis der Donnerstagsfreunde, BBB -AktivistInnen, BI Neuwahlen ProponentInnen, allesamt UnterzeichnerInnen der BI Neuwahlen, fanden sich anschließend an die DonnerstagDemo und des BBB-Festes noch zu spätabendlicher Stunde im Parlament als Beobachter der laufenden Sitzung auf der sonst menschenleeren Zuschauer- und Pressetribüne ein :
( An dieser Stelle herzlichen Dank an die 16 TeilnehmerInnen die dazu ihre Teilnahme am BBB-Fest mit Speis und Trank unterbrochen hatten ! )
Bekanntlich wurde am Donnerstagabend des 19.September 2002 im Parlament in der 115. NR-Sitzung der XXI. GP vom 19.09.2002 unter Tagespunkt 5 der Sammelbericht des Ausschuss für Petitionen u. Bürgerinitiativen ( BI ) und damit auch das Anliegen der BI Neuwahlen behandelt :
Abstimmungsergebnis: Mehrheitlich mit den Stimmen von ÖVP. FPÖ und SPÖ wurde der Bericht angenommen. ( Gegenstimmen : Grüne )
Das heißt : der ursprünglichen Abstandnahme von einer weiteren Behandlung der Bürgerinitiative Neuwahlen wurde im Sammelbericht auch von der SPÖ zugestimmt . . Einzig die Grünen stimmten dem Sammelbericht nicht zu, stimmten damit der ursprünglichen Abstandnahme von einer weiteren Behandlung der Bürgerinitiative Neuwahlen nicht zu und sind damit eigentlich als einzige Partei für die BI Neuwahlen eingetreten, die wohl die erfolgreichste war, nachdem die Regierungsparteien FPÖ und ÖVP dem Wunsch der UnterzeichnerInnen nun selbst nachkommen sind und den Antrag auf Neuwahlen am 20. September gewissermaßen selbst ins Nationalratsplenum einbrachten.
7 Mandatare meldeten sich dann ab 21:33 bis 22:16 Uhr in einer kurze Debatte unter eher spärlicher Beteiligung zu Wort, insbesonders die grüne Abgeordnete
Theresia Haidlmayr lobte diejenigen, die Petitionen initiieren und sich derart politisch betätigen und hat die aktiven Bürger aufgerufen, sich durch den skandalösen Umgang mit BI nicht abschrecken zu lassen, sondern weiter beharrlich dieses Recht zu nützen und fand bezeichnend, dass VertreterInnen der Regierungsfraktionen darüber gar nicht mal diskutieren wollten, da dies "undemokratisch" sei. ..
Wolfgang Pirklhuber (G) ging in seiner Rede auch direkt auf die BI Neuwahlen und auf die auf der Pressetribüne zu nächtlicher Stunde anwesenden 16 ProponentInnen und Unterzeichner ein, ein intensiver Blickkontakt und mehrmaliges Heraufzeigen seinerseits unterstützte seine Rede . . .
Übrigens : Einige UnterzeichnerInnen der BI Neuwahlen sitzen als Mandatare im Nationalrat. Man sollte sie fragen ob sie etwa nicht für Neuwahlen waren, oder ob sie für die Weiterbehandlung gestimmt haben . . .Quelle : http://www.parlament.gv.at/pd/pk/2002/PK0224.html
relevanter Teilauszug aus :
Ressort: II
Schlagworte: Parlament/Petitionsausschuss/Biomedizin
PARLAMENTSKORRESPONDENZ/02/03.04.2002/Nr. 224
. . . . . . Gegen den Willen der Opposition wurde auch von der weiteren Behandlung einer Bürgerinitiative Abstand genommen, die auf die Abhaltung sofortiger Neuwahlen abzielt. SPÖ und Grüne hatten sich für die Einholung von Stellungnahmen des Bundeskanzleramtes, des Verfassungsdienstes des Bundeskanzleramtes und des Justizministeriums ausgesprochen. Die UnterzeichnerInnen hätten ein Anrecht darauf, dass die zuständigen Stellen zu ihren doch massiven Bedenken Stellung nehmen, meinte dazu etwa Abgeordneter Wolfgang Pirklhuber (G). In der Bürgerinitiative wird der Koalition u.a. vorgeworfen, schwer wiegende Eingriffe in das soziale und demokratische System Österreichs vorgenommen und die Präambel zum Regierungsübereinkommen in mehreren Punkten gebrochen zu haben.
Abgeordnete Maria Theresia Fekter (V) wertete den Vorwurf der Bürgerinitiative, in Österreich zeigten sich immer mehr Merkmale einer Willkürherrschaft, als "eine ungeheuerliche Unterstellung". "Wir haben eine funktionierende Demokratie in Österreich", bekräftigte sie. Abgeordneter Gerhard Kurzmann (F) unterstrich, die Bundesregierung solle weiterarbeiten und ihre Vorhaben zu Ende bringen. Abgeordneter Alois Pumberger (F) wies darauf hin, dass immerhin zwei Drittel der Österreicher keine Neuwahlen wollten. . . . . . . . . . . .
26/BI (XXI. GP) - "Unverzügliche Neuwahlen, ermöglicht durch ein Bundesgesetz, mit dem die XXI. Gesetzgebungsperiode des Nationalrates vorzeitig beendet wird"
Bürgerinitiative betreffend unverzügliche Neuwahlen, ermöglicht durch ein Bundesgesetz, mit dem die XXI. Gesetzgebungsperiode des Nationalrates vorzeitig beendet wird
Kurzfassung, erstellt am 28.03.2002 von der Parlamentskorrespondenz: Nr. 217/2002
Zl. 17020.0005/3-L1.3/2002 (Geschäftszahl der Parlamentsdirektion)
Quelle : http://www.parlinkom.gv.at/pd/pm/XXI/rednerliste/rzvrl_115.html
( Teilauszug )
TOP 5 -5 Normaldebatte
Sammelber.d.Aussch.f.Petitionen u.Bürgerinitiativen
Nr. Redner Start Dauer Limit
1 + Theresia Haidlmayr (G)
c
21:33 14:21 12*
2 + Mag. Gisela Wurm (S)
p
21:48 9:07 6*
3 + Dipl.-Ing. Wolfgang Pirklhuber (G)
c
21:57 3:00 3*
4 + Hermann Reindl (F)
p
22:02 3:12 7*
5 + Ing. Wilhelm Weinmeier (F)
p
22:05 5:15 7*
6 + Heidrun Silhavy (S)
p
22:10 1:55 3*
7 + Anton Heinzl (S)
p
22:13 3:16 20

================================================
11 Slowakei/Wahlen/Gratulation
von: KPÖ Steiermark <kpoe_stmk@hotmail.com>
================================================
PRESSEAUSSENDUNG DER STEIRISCHEN KPÖ
Graz, 22.9.02

Slowakei: Comeback der Kommunisten
Bei der Parlamentswahl in der Slowakei gibt es ein Comeback der Kommunistischen Partei. Mit einem Stimmenanteil von 6,32 Prozent und 11 Mandaten schafft sie den Sprung über die Fünf-Prozent-Hürde. Im Jahr 1998 hatte die Partei 2,8 Prozent erreicht.
Der Landesvorsitzende der KPÖ-Steiermark, Franz Stephan Parteder, gratulierte am Sonntag zu diesem Erfolg. Parteder: "Es kommt darauf an, die Interessen der arbeitenden Menschen und der soziual Benachteiligten konsequent zu vertreten, dann bekommt auch der Name Kommunismus wieder einen guten Klang."
Nach Auffassung des KPÖ-Politikers ist es bezeichnend, dass in der Slowakei das Konzept einer "modernen Linkspartei", die anstelle der KP treten sollte, auf dramatische Weise Schiffbruch erlitten hat. Die "Partei der Demokratischen Linken" erlitt eine schwere Wahlniederlage und ist im neuen slowakischen Nationalrat nicht mehr vertreten.

KPÖ-Steiermark
Lagergasse 98 a
8020 Graz
Tel.: 0316 71 24 36
Fax 0316 71 62 91
email: kp.stmk@kpoe-graz.at; kpoe_stmk@hotmail.com