Victoria: Bracks budget for the bosses. Vicious legislaion against unions
In Victoria, the bosses are over the moon. They have the budget they wanted - from the "Labor " govern�ment. No Labor government in any state nor federally has received greater accolades than this. Bracks has introduced billion dollar cuts in land tax, an eight hun�dred dollar cuts to WorkCover premiums and draconian ant-iunion legislation. This legislation enables striking or locked out workers to be ordered back to work if it is deemed that their actions threaten the public interest.
The business community is ecstatic. The Age quotes Neil Coulson, Victorian Finance Chamber of Commerce: "The package will go a long way to serving business interests into the future ". The Liberals are a bit disori�ented. They quibble about lack of specifics. But on the whole they support the general direction which basically, is theirs. Bracks has done everything possible to pander to the bosses. It appears to have worked.
The people disgruntled by all this are the trade union movement: "Draconian and a sop to the business com�munity" is how acting VTHC leader John Boyd describes it. Indeed he's right! The unions also point out that such legislation is unnecessary. There has been a thirty per�cent reduction in strikes under Bracks compared to the previous Liberal government. Given the attacks on working people this speaks volumes about the trade union movement. Bracks basically wants an insurance policy to guarantee the bosses that if things change, his government will be ready.
Bracks fully acknowledges vvhat class he is serving. There is simply no way that he will listen to unionist objections, even "reasonable" ones. No doubt there will be plenty of policy resolutions from branches. Bracks will treat these with contempt. This is especially true if unions despite all this maintain their Labor loyalty and remain affiliated. Bracks and cohorts would be expelled from a decent workers party. That is not on the agenda. Rank and file should ask the serious question of what they are doing paying dues to such a party. These are being used to attack the workers movement, not pro�mote it.
Unions should disaffiliate from the Labor Party. Reforming such a reactionary party is simply a pipe dream. Of course disaffiliation is not the total answer. Many non-affiliated unions share reformist assumptions and sell out just as effectively. Disaffiliation is only the start. The next step is to draw out the conclusions on how a naive but well meaning group of reformists degenerated into such an antiunion reactionary cancer. Bracks is the logic of reformism. It is the logic of the fail�ure of Cain's alternative capitalist economic fiddling, which didn't work. Basically if you can't beat them, join them is how Bracks figures things. The workers move�ment must organize to fight his reactionary legislation
and bring down his government NOW!
Defend Craig Johnston
Craig Johnson is a leading Victorian unionist. He is for�mer state secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Union. As a militant, part of the Skilled Six, he faces serious charges concerning a picket outside which if convicted could result in a long term in prison.
In fact the Bracks Government is out to get him, to set an example to show what happens to militant unionists. So is the AMWU leadership defending him? Of course not! Very much the contrary! They lobbied the VTHC to ensure that they wouldn't come to his assistance. The Cameron leadership find him and his type of unionism an embarrassment. They want to crawl to the bosses and not fight them
The leadership has a clear political strategy. They want to pressure any future Labor governments to play a van�guard role in developing Australia. They want Labor to do this basically through protectionism as well as increasing government spending. By supporting Aussie bosses they hope to defend Australian manufacturing and Australian jobs. The AMWU leadership has drawn out the explicit reactionary logic of this - abandon militant unionism. Occasionally they put on a show to keep the member�ship happy. They also oppose bosses who are oppres�sive and especially those who don't want to talk to the union. But basically they reject offensive trade unionism. Instead they want to pressure a future Labor government to help the bosses.
Craig Johnston is a member of the oppositional faction within the AMWU called Workers First. He also is a member of Socialist Alliance. He, in general, supports the protectionist programme to defend Australian manufactur�ing. But he has not taken it to the same reactionary logic as the Cameron leadership has. He still supports the principle of trade unionism and it is for this that he is under attack. Craig Johnston should be defended uncon�ditionally irrespective of the merits of the charges or what we think of his tactics.
It is the responsibility of every union to do their utmost to keep Johnston out of jail. Resolutions should be passed. Every union should be represented at pickets and rallies. Strike action should be threatened unless all the charges are dropped. Unions should send money to his defence fund
In calling unequivocally for his defence, in no way are we endorsing either his politics or the praxis of Workers First. His politics should be challenged with revolutionary communist politics. But he should be dealt with through political argument and workers democracy. We totally oppose the bureaucratic exclusionist methods of the Cameron leadership. There should be maximum democ�racy for the rank and file can debate strategy. In the sev�enties the AMWU held mass meetings to debate mili�tant tactics to fight the boss. Today, both the tactics and the meetings are totally absent.
In 1969 unionists and workers came to the defence of Tramway Union leader ClarrieO'Shea, jailed for defying the penal powers, although the powers remained techni�cally on the books. The power of the workers made this reactionary legislation inoperable. A victory for Johnston would be a defeat for Bracks and his variant of penal powers. So by coming to the defence of Johnston, union�ists could be saving not just Johnston but many other unionists from prison. It would be a big blow to the Bracks reactionary anti-union offensive;
In 1969 the unions which became the AMWU were wholehearted in their defence of O'Shea. Today they don't even give token support for Johnston in fact they support his imprisonment. This shows how far our unions have degenerated. It also shows how far Stalinists have degenerated. Let�s stop the rot. Of course if the leader�ship doesn�t act, the rank and file should. Factory commit�tees should organise independent of the official trade union structure if the bureaucrats refuse to lift a finger or worse still, condone his imprisonment
It is a matter of urgency that rank and file workers in the AMWU dump not just the politics but the politics which led to this total subservience to capitalism and the capi�talist state.
Guantanamo Bay: Free the prisoners
After two years being detained in hell, David Hicks is finally going to face trial by the US military authorities. It has been difficult for the authorities to work out how to handle Hicks legally. Hicks is an Australian Muslim. He went on a pilgrimage to Pakistan and then Afghanistan. He fought with the Taleban against the Northern Alliance. He has never been a combatant against the United States. So what's his crime?The Australian government can't find a charge for him either. According to a US interrogator, Hicks trained under EI Quaida but refused to become involved in sui�cide bombing. This was before Howard declared it a crime to be trained by terrorist grouping including El Quaida. The Americans it appears have now found a charge to pin on him. He will be appearing in a military tribunal which his lawyers fear, will not give him a fair go as it is not bound by the same rules of evidence as a civil court. No matter how misguided Hicks may be to get involved in such a reactionary movement he is still not a war criminal.
David is just one of prisoners in Guantanamo many cooped up like chickens, deprived of basic rights such as contact with families and legal assistance. This bar�barity has been rationalised by September eleven and the war against terrorism. But many of the prisoners did not even know about the horrific terror raids, let alone condone them and let alone party to them. As an English speaking Australian citizen, Hicks is more fortu�nate than Afghans Pakistanis Arabs and others who do not have the same publicity, legal back up and con�cerned family prepared to go to America to put their case. But they might be even greater victims of injustice. Many are no doubt simple soldiers who believed they were defending their country.
Communist Left calls for the release of all from Guantanamo without exception. This includes those who are hardened terrorists and not merely (like Hicks) caught up in an unfortunate situation. We oppose the imprisonment because we oppose the US invasion of Afghanistan.
The Taliban were not responsible for September eleven. They have co-operated with El Quaida and it was acknowledged that Osama Bin Laden was camped in Afghanistan with their consent. Before charging in and invading there was some onus on the US to negotiate for his hand over. But this they refused to do. In fact the Talban authorities offered to hand over Bin Laden so long as the Americans could provide proof. The Americans didn't negotiate, they invaded. And whilst their Northern Alliance allies control Kabul there is still plenty of countryside under Taiwan control. The war is a long way from being over yet.
Actually, it didn't matter what the Taleban did or didn't do, America wanted a war anyway. The world super�power could not be seen as a weak victim. Actually, the eyes of many of the hawks of the Bush administration were on Iraq who they assumed must be involved with�out even a glimmer of evidence. Colin Powell persuaded them to see sense. After September eleven America had the sympathies of virtually the whole world. An invasion of Iraq, he argued correctly, would have blown this support away. Invading Afghanistan appeased the hawks. It enabled America to show the world who was boss and that it wouldn't take the terror raids lying down. It then prepared the ground to invade Iraq, giving this a veneer of respectability with falsified arguments about "weapons of mass destruction" All this has not stopped El Quaida as the Bali bombings and the recent bombings in Spain have show
The Taleban has been and is a force for reaction. It was promoted by the US to counter the Soviet sponsored regime there. This regime was far more liberal and pro�gressive than any other regime in the area, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq etc. But for the sake of world imperialist con�trol, the Soviets had to be taught a lesson. To this end the imperialist blocked with the most reactionary force imaginable. Women in the Taleban's Afghanistan have been forced to starve as it is illegal for them to earn an income. They have been deprived of a right to an edu�cation. US imperialism attack Muslim fundamentalism. But it is thanks to America, the Taleban were in power in Afghanistan and are still controlling much of the coun�tryside.Imperialism is not the way to defeat Muslim fundamen�talism. On the contrary it is promoting it. As the Taleban have more and more victories in Afghanistan the more they appear in the eyes of many in the Arab Middle East and Muslim world as liberators.
Israel steals Palestinian land and kills their leadership with impunity.
Israeli war criminal Sharon has just returned from the United States in triumph. He has successfully persuaded George Bush the merits of new peace proposals which may be imposed on the Palestinian people. Basically Israel claims part of the West Bank occupied by Jewish settlers. The Palestinian people are understandably angry. Basically George Bush is endorsing land stealing.
Tony Blair disagrees with this. As he has observed Bush has abandoned his neutral pretext and has come around to virtually wholeheartedly endorsing Israel. This is to be expected.
The Israeli's have also declared their right to kill Palestinian leaders, notably Hamas, with impunity. This year they have murdered Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and his successor Abdul Aziz Rantisi. They have promised to murder future leaders of Hamas. Israel is demanding the right to kill with impunity. Using the war against terrorism as a pretext, it argues that Israel is legal and its oppo�nents "terrorists". US imperialism has general agreement but it warns Israel not to kill Yassar Arafat who their eyes is a leader which represents relative stability.
Irrespective of international legality, it is the Palestinians who we must support. They were dispossessed and kicked into the desert. Only recently, after decades of fighting as any form of ministate been recognised by Israel or the imperialists. This ministate is totally unsatis�factory. We must stand for military victory for the Palestinians against Israel and imperialism.Australia only changed course when it realised that it
had something to gain.
Oil robbery under the Timor Sea
East Timor wants its oil back. It claims that the division of oil control within the Timor Sea is unfair. We agree. Timor is paying the price of being "liberated" by Australia
These days it appears to be cool to support the Australian military tradition. In the past young people cor�rectly knocked ANZAC Day as worshipping imperialism bloodshed and warfare. Today diggers are seen as cool groovy people who sacrificed to defend Australia. It has been forgotten that Australia has been either a lackey to imperialism or played an imperialist role in its own right.
One episode which has contributed to this change of image was Australia's intervention to defend East Timor. It must be stressed that for the previous four decades, Australia backed Indonesia, to the hilt. Australian govern�ments, Labor and Liberal, backed Indonesia and its mili�tary junta to the hilt. They did not flinch even when it was exposed that hundreds of thousands of Timorese had been killed.
Billy McMahon made it clear to Indonesia that Australia would not oppose the takeover. But Gough Whitlam was far more committed to Indonesia. His idea of strong cen�tralised states in the South Pacific meant philosophical as well as practical opposition to independence, not just for Timor but Bougainville also. Representatives of FRETILIN came to Australia and lobbied all parties, including the Liberals. They pleaded that they weren't communists but bourgeois nationalists (this was true). But it didn't stop the Liberals from wholeheartedly sup�porting Indonesia and denouncing them as communists.
During October 1975 the Democratic Republic of East Timor was established. This was overthrown in December that year whilst Australia was in the midst of a constitutional crisis. The incoming Fraser Government showed solidarity with Indonesia by closing down FRETILIN's radio transmitter in Darwin. When news came through of the massacre of East Timorese civilians Fraser maintained his solidarity with Indonesia. The Hawke and Keating governments did likewise despite opposition from within the Labor Party
The Timorese only get access to oil under their continental shelf. Australia gets the rest. As the Timorese point out, Timor is a poor coun�try which needs infrastructure such as schools and health services. Of course there is still much reconstruc�tion to be carried out after a long war. Timor needs oil to pay for it. Whilst coffee exports and tourism can supply a bit of money, oil is the export needed to get the neces�sary money for reconstruction. That is as long as Australia doesn't pinch i; all.
We wish the Timorese all the best in their negotiations for a better deal. But the Timorese need more than wishes, they need force. The workers movement must back the Timorese with strike action to enforce a=air deal - to give the Timorese control over their oil!
When Indonesia threatened Timor and then invaded.
FRETILIN has every reason to be angry at the deal imposed upon it.
,there was action on Australian waterfronts - throughout Australia. This must happen again.