Tony Blair Condemned by African Leaders at Earth Summit

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

Tony Blair Condemned by African Leaders at Earth Summit

No to War Option and Dictatorship – Solidarity with Iraqi People for Freedom and Democracy

Russia and the Contradictions of the One-Sided World

Agencies report that African leaders at the Earth Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa, condemned Prime Minister Tony Blair on Monday for the crisis in Zimbabwe.

Tony Blair's embarrassment was compounded by the loud applause of other leaders as President Nujoma of Namibia accused him of being a modern-day colonialist and later President Mugabe of Zimbabwe told him: "Blair, keep your England and let me keep my Zimbabwe."

Mr Mugabe, who staged a walkout when Tony Blair rose to address the summit, also threatened to shed blood if that was what it would take to continue his controversial land reforms, under which hundreds of white farmers have been evicted from their land.

The first condemnation of Tony Blair came moments before he was due to speak, when Mr Nujoma accused him of causing misery in Zimbabwe by the imposition of sanctions.

Mr Nujoma said: "We here in Southern Africa have one big problem, created by the British. The honourable Tony Blair is here and he created the situation in Zimbabwe. The EU who have imposed sanctions against Zimbabwe must raise them immediately, otherwise it is useless to come here."

Mr Nujoma said that he supported Mr Mugabe's evictions of hundreds of white farmers from their land, and referred to Africa's suffering under the slave trade.

Mr Mugabe, speaking several hours later when the Prime Minister was not present, said that the black majority of Zimbabwe had been pitted against "an obdurate and internationally well-connected racial minority largely of British descent . . . colonial farmers now being supported and sustained by the Blair Government". He said that no white farmer would be left without land and that his policy was to allow them one farm each.

Mocking Tony Blair's call for "good governance" in Zimbabwe, Mr Mugabe said that the "imperialist interest" of Britain "does not represent good governance. Our cause is that land comes first before all else." He made light of EU sanctions and said that he did not want to be part of Europe. "Small as we are, we have won our independence and we are prepared to shed our blood in . . . protection of that independence."

Tony Blair had restated Britain's commitment to intervening in Africa. He said, "Development is our priority. Africa for me is a passion. This is not charity, it is investment in our collective future. Of course poverty damages the poor most, but it also damages the whole of the world. It means changing the way we consume resources, particularly energy, and it means the whole world facing up to the challenge of climate change. Kyoto is right and it should be ratified by all of us."

The Prime Minister's spokesperson said that the criticism by African leaders "was greeted with a shrug, not by shock horror".

The full statements of Dr Sam Nujoma, President of the Republic of Namibia, and the President of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, are to be found at http://www.un.org/events/wssd/statements/namibiaE.htm and http://www.un.org/events/wssd/statements/zimbabweE.htm respectively.

The following is from a news bulletin issued by the Iraqi Communist Party Information Bureau Abroad, August 31, 2002.

As US threats to wage war against Iraq increase, under the cover of its "war against terrorism", and while the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein resorts once again to brinkmanship policy to remain in power at any cost, the Iraqi Communist Party has declared its firm opposition to the war option and called for international solidarity with the Iraqi people and their patriotic forces, against war and dictatorship; for freedom and the democratic alternative: a unified democratic and federal Iraq.

At its recent meeting, the Central Committee of the party dealt in detail with the objectives of US policy towards Iraq and the area, its intention to bring about "regime change", and the strategy of "pre-emptive strikes".

The party also exposed Saddam Hussein's regime "desperate efforts to defend its rule, trying not only to mobilise forces to avert the external threat, but also, first and foremost, to contain the popular resentment which threatens to explode". The rulers continue to put their selfish interest "above the people's national interest", refusing to allow the return of UN weapons inspectors, and thus "preventing action to spare our people and country looming dangers".

In this context, the Central Committee also noted the mounting opposition to American unilateralism, which is voiced by "governments, social movements, political forces and sections of the world public opinion". This growing movement has, at the same time, "rejected the dictatorial regime in Iraq and its practices, and its delay in implementing UN Security Council resolutions with regard to enabling UN weapons inspectors to return to Iraq".

The meeting drew attention to "the grave dangers caused by reliance on the war option and foreign military intervention as means for change". It said: "Numerous experiences have proved that they leave behind death, destruction and tragedies, and do not bring about democracy. For achieving democracy relies mainly on the participation by the masses of people and their political forces in the process of change."

The Central Committee stressed that "achieving change is a task for our people and their armed forces, led by the alliance of patriotic opposition forces, and with legitimate international support".

(Extensive excerpts of the Communiqué, issued by the meeting of the Central Committee, are published on the web site of the ICP: www.iraqcp.org . Iraqi CP Information Bureau Abroad, BM Al-Tarik, London WC1N 3XX. E-mail iraq@iraqcp.org .)

The following article about Russia and the contradictions of a unipolar world was written by journalist José Reinaldo Carvalho, vice-president of the Communist Party of Brazil (PCdoB), responsible by International Relations. The article was published in Diario Vermelho (www.vermelho.org.br) of August 29.

----------------------------------------------------------

The international situation has been tense in recent days as the United States plans a unilateral attack on Iraq that may reach devastating proportions. But important political contradictions are manifested in these threats to peace, and their development also conditions international relations. To start with, there is the isolation of the United States, which has up to now not obtained the acceptance of its allies regarding its announced attack on the Arab nation. In fact, many moves are being undertaken both in the diplomatic field and in terms of international political alliances. Despite the intentions of George W Bush's government and the suppositions of those who are fascinated by or assent to US global totalitarianism, the international situation hardly conforms to Washington's foreign policy.

Last week Russia announced a co-operation pact with Iraq amounting to 40 billion dollars for a period of five years designed to support bilateral relations relating to the petrochemical, transport, energy and irrigation sectors. The United States reacted furiously: "To the extent that Russia decides that it wants to parade its relationships with countries like Iraq and Libya and Syria and Cuba and North Korea, it sends a signal out across the globe that that is what Russia thinks is a good thing to do, to deal with terrorist states," US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in very non-diplomatic terms last week. However, two days later Russian president Vladimir Putin, turning a deaf ear to the US official's outcry, received North Korean president Kim Jong Il in Vladivostok, who he met with for three hours during which Russia agreed to assist the construction of a railway connecting the north and south of the Korean Peninsula, an important step towards the definitively ending the state of war between the two Koreas and the future unification of the country.

These facts indicate two contradictory trends in the international situation. The first is the maintenance of the US strategy that consistently imposes its one-sided hegemony and curbs the manifestations of global or regional competitors. Rumsfeld's statement echoes the dominant conception of George W Bush's government, according to which all countries are divided into those that are against or with the United States. This is the concept on which US imperialism has based and will base its relations with the other leading players on the world stage: Europe, Russia, China and Japan. The other trend implies a sense of multipolarity of which Russia's foreign policy is a component.

Public opinion, under the influence of the media, is getting used to considering ex-socialist Russia as an appendage of the United States or, in broader terms, the "West". This impression became stronger after the attacks on September 11 last year, when Putin's government intensely engaged in the "anti-terrorist effort" under the terms proposed by Bush, and after the Summit Meeting in Rome that ratified the constitution of the NATO-Russia Council. There are many controversies, though. Italian journalist and specialist on international affairs Giulietto Chiesa presents a different analysis of the matter on the Italian magazine L'Ernesto: "As far as Russia is concerned, I believe that in the Meeting in Rome no integration has occurred. The idea that is being transformed into common sense (Russia joining NATO) is absolutely false. The documents that were prepared do not change the substance of the current situation." The same magazine quotes statements made by the Russian president after the Meeting in Rome that are against the expansion of NATO: "Since the beginning we have maintained the opinion that widening NATO could not be justified by any objective need."

When Putin receives the North-Korean president, Russia is making its Asian move in a region that concentrates its main interests, where great geopolitical contradictions are mixed and where important episodes will certainly take place, leading the world towards multipolarity. In fact, shortly after the summit in Rome that ratified the NATO-Russia Council, the Russian president took part in the second meeting of chiefs of state of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation of which – aside from both Russia and China – Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are members. Their main concern is the creation of US military bases in Central Asia after the war in Afghanistan.

At the same time as he is approaching the United States and the "West", Putin is reaffirming the strategic value of the agreement signed in 2001 with China, convinced as he is that the "co-operation between Russia and China is an indispensable factor to the strengthening of peace and international safety" and that "the People's Republic of China is definitely able to exert an enormous influence and play a fundamental role not only in Asia, but in the world, in order to create a system in which, be it in the West or in the East, countries that take part in regional organisations may act according to a single idea: the creation of a multipolar world and the sense of responsibility for the fate of humankind" (interview in the Chinese newspaper People's Daily, June 5, 2002, as quoted in L'Ernesto, May/June 2002). The progressive and revolutionary forces will certainly take into account such contradictory objective facts in their international action.