Workers Daily Internet Edition Year 2003 No. 5-6

Year 2003 No. 5-6, January 23-24, 2003	ARCHIVE	HOME	SEARCH	SUBSCRIBE

On January 19, US Secretary of State Colin Powell demanded that "the nuclear issue" of the DPRK should be brought to the United Nations Security Council and "concrete countermeasures including economic sanctions would be seriously considered". The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) is justly against any move by the United States to internationalise the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula. The nuclear issue is a product of the anti-DPRK policy of the United States and the problem should be resolved by the US and the DPRK rather than by any third party, including the United Nations Security Council.

Referring to Powell's demand to take the issue to the UN Security Council, a January 20 commentary by the Korean Central News Agency points out:

"This fully represented the hostile intention of the Bush administration to shift the responsibility for the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula, which was authored and has been hyped by it, and the resultant serious developments on to the DPRK and use the UN platform as was the case with the IAEA for internationalising its campaign to pressurize, isolate and stifle the DPRK.

"The US is entirely to blame for the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula. This issue was unreasonably put on the UN agenda to be discussed there in the past as the US instigated the IAEA to create artificial difficulties and complexity in the way of settling the issue.

"But the crisis over the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula in 1993 was settled through negotiations between the DPRK and the US, not by the UN. This historical fact proves that the issue can be settled only through equal and fair dialogue and negotiations between the DPRK and the US, not by any third party's unjust intervention.

"If the United Nations wants to show its principled stand and attitude to settle the issue with a fair concern for it, it should call into question the US unreasonable policy toward the DPRK that compelled it to take a self-defensive step to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

"The US abandoned its commitments to fully normalize the political and economic relations with the DPRK, provide light water reactors to the latter and supply heavy oil to it, thus unilaterally and totally ditching the DPRK-US Agreed Framework and causing an acute shortage of electricity to the DPRK. It also singled out the DPRK as a target of its pre-emptive nuclear attack after listing it as part of an 'axis of evil', creating extremely grave danger of a nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula.

"Such act of threatening the DPRK's vital right is a crime against humanity quite contrary to the spirit of the UN Charter for peace of humankind as it is intolerable political violence in the modern society.

"If the US drives the developments to the extremes, turning aside the DPRK's fair and aboveboard proposal for settling the issue in a peaceful way through the conclusion of a non-aggression treaty with the US and clamouring for any 'countermeasures', the DPRK will be left with no option but to counter it with the toughest stance."

The January 2003 Bulletin of CILRECO (International Liaison Committee for Reunification and Peace in Korea) carried the following article.

The "North Korean nuclear problem" that everybody is fussing about now is the result of the non-respect by the USA of their obligations to provide the DPRK with two light-water reactors (to replace the two graphite-gas reactors that the DPRK froze in 1994, thus honouring its promise; the first reactor was scheduled for delivery in 2003, but so far only the foundations of the site have been laid) and with regular shipments of fuel during the period of construction of these two reactors to compensate it for its energy loss (in the past these shipments were often delayed, and now there are none).

This non-respect by the USA of their obligations (the 1994 Agreed framework) has provoked a serious energy crisis in the DPRK, and has considerably harmed its economy and the living conditions of its population. At the same time, the USA has not lifted economic sanctions and blockade, it has not done anything to normalise the relations between the two countries, it has refused to assure the DPRK that it would not resort to use of nuclear weapons against it; so many broken promises replaced by a policy of permanent hostility.

These are the reasons why the DPRK has decided, as a last resort, to lift the freeze on its nuclear programme, partly in order to cope with the energy crisis, worsened by the interruption of fuel shipments, but also to respond to threats of aggression by the USA, all while pointing out to them that whether the freeze is lifted or not depends on their attitude.

The Americans are perfectly informed of this situation. They do know that the solution to this "nuclear problem" depends on them, since this is an issue that is strictly related to their relations with the DPRK. That is why, unlike in 1994 when they were forced to reach an accord with the DPRK, they are now trying to "internationalise" this "nuclear problem on the Korean peninsula", hoping with this strategy to turn it into an issue opposing the international community and the DPRK, that would allow them to liberate themselves from their responsibilities.

The government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea issued a statement on its withdrawal from the NPT on January 10. Follow the full text of the statement.

A dangerous situation where our nation’s sovereignty and our state’s security are being seriously violated is prevailing on the Korean Peninsula due to the US vicious hostile policy toward the DPRK.

The United States instigated the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to adopt another "resolution" against the DPRK on January 6 in the wake of a similar "resolution" made on November 28, 2002.

Under its manipulation, the IAEA in those "resolutions" termed the DPRK "a criminal" and demanded it scrap what the US called a "nuclear programme" at once by a verifiable way in disregard of the nature of the nuclear issue, a product of the US hostile policy toward the DPRK, and its unique status in which it declared suspension of the effectuation of its withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Following the adoption of the latest "resolution", the IAEA Director General issued an ultimatum that the agency would bring the matter to the UN Security Council to apply sanctions against the DPRK unless it implements the "resolution" in a few weeks.

This clearly proves that the IAEA still remains a servant and a spokesman for the US and the NPT is being used as a tool for implementing the US hostile policy towards the DPRK aimed to disarm it and destroy its system by force.

A particular mention should be made of the fact that the IAEA in the recent "resolution" kept mum about the US which has grossly violated the NPT and the DPRK-US Agreed Framework, but urged the DPRK, the victim, to unconditionally accept the US demand for disarmament and forfeit its right to self-defence, and the agency was praised by the US for "saying all what the US wanted to do". This reveals the falsehood and hypocrisy of the signboard of impartiality the IAEA put up.

The DPRK government vehemently rejects and denounces this "resolution" of the IAEA, considering it as a grave encroachment upon our country’s sovereignty and the dignity of the nation.

It is none other than the US which wrecks peace and security on the Korean Peninsula and drives the situation there to an extremely dangerous phase.

After the appearance of the Bush administration, the United States listed the DPRK as part of an "axis of evil", adopting it as a national policy to oppose its system, and singled it out as a target of pre-emptive nuclear attack, openly declaring a nuclear war.

Systematically violating the DPRK-US Agreed Framework, the US brought up another "nuclear suspicion" and stopped the supply of heavy oil, reducing the Agreed Framework to a dead document. It also answered the DPRK’s sincere proposal for the conclusion of the DPRK-US non-aggression treaty and its patient efforts for negotiations with such threats as "blockade" and "military punishment" and with such an arrogant attitude as blustering that it may talk but negotiations are impossible.

The US went so far to instigate the IAEA to internationalise its moves to stifle the DPRK. Putting its declaration of a war into practice. This has eliminated the last possibility of solving the nuclear issue of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful and fair way.

It was due to such nuclear war moves of the US against the DPRK and the partiality of the IAEA that the DPRK was compelled to declare its withdrawal from the NPT in March 1993 when a touch-and-go situation was created on the Korean Peninsula.

As it has become clear once again that the US persistently seeks to stifle the DPRK at any cost and the IAEA is used as a tool for executing the US hostile policy towards the DPRK, we can no longer remain bound to the NPT, allowing the country’s security and the dignity of our nation to be infringed upon.

Under the grave situation where our state’s supreme interests are most seriously threatened, the DPRK government adopts the following decisions to protect the sovereignty of the country and the nation and their right to existence and dignity.

Firstly, the DPRK government declares an automatic and immediate effectuation of its withdrawal from the NPT, on which "it unilaterally announced a moratorium as long as it deemed necessary" according to the June 11, 1993, DPRK-US Joint Statement now that the US has unilaterally abandoned its commitments to stop nuclear threat and renounce hostility towards the DPRK in line with the same statement.

Secondly, it declares that the DPRK withdrawing from the NPT is totally free from the biding force of the safeguards accord with the IAEA under its Article 3.

The withdrawal from the NPT is a legitimate self-defensive measure taken against the US moves to stifle the DPRK and the unreasonable behaviour of the IAEA following the US.

Though we pull out of the NPT, we have no intention to produce nuclear weapons and our nuclear activities at this stage will be confined only to peaceful purposes such as the production of electricity.

If the US drops its hostile policy to stifle the DPRK and stops its nuclear threat to the DPRK, the DPRK may prove through a separate verification between the DPRK and the US that it does not make any nuclear weapon.

The United States and the IAEA will never evade their responsibilities for compelling the DPRK to withdraw from the NPT by ignoring the DPRK’s last efforts to seek a peaceful settlement of the nuclear issue through negotiations.

US urged to give legal security assurances to DPRK

January 21 – The United States is keen to create the impression that it is deeply concerned for the solution of the nuclear issue through "dialogue" with the DPRK and "security guarantee." In this regard Rodong Sinmun today says in a signed commentary: This is not the true intention of the US but a charade.

By "dialogue" the United States does not mean a practical and productive dialogue based on equality but a meaningless dialogue devoid o any practice, a sort of "trial" at which the US will question and pressurize the DPRK.

The same can be said of the US clamour for "security guarantee." Insisting on its demand that North Korea scrap its "nuclear programme" before dialogue, the US asserts that there is the possibility of discussing the issue of "giving security guarantee" only after the DPRK lays down its arms.

The US ballyhooed "dialogue" and "security guarantee" are aimed to firmly convince the international community that DPRK is to blame for the nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula and to disarm the latter without fail.

The DPRK can never accept such US demands.

The key to the solution of the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula does not lie in the DPRK's abandonment of its "nuclear programme" before dialogue.

The fair benchmark for its solution is for the United States to remove all threats to the DPRK and give it legal security assurances.

To this end it is necessary to conclude a non-aggression treaty with the United States as proposed by the DPRK. This is the key to the solution of the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula.

As far as the dialogue between the DPRK and US is concerned, it should be a practical and productive one to find a fair and peaceful solution to the pending issues between them.

If the United States truly wants dialogue with the DPRK it should have a sincere and impartial approach to it.

The United States should drop its hypocritical and improper attitude toward "dialogue" and give the DPRK legal security assurances by signing a non-aggression treaty with it. Only then is it possible to settle the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula.

Everything depends on the US attitude.

Bush administration's base trick flayed

January 21 – High-ranking officials of the Bush administration recently blustered that they are "seeking ways except the use of strength to settle the nuclear issue of North Korea" and one of them is to convince other countries that "North Korea challenges not only the US but the rest of the world." In this regard Rodong Sinmun today says in a signed commentary: The US loudmouthed "ways except the use of strength" are a trick to isolate the DPRK internationally.

What the US seeks here is to create the impression that the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula is not one that should be settled between the DPRK and the US but one that should be solved between the DPRK and the international community in a bid to evade the chief blame for the nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula and put international pressure upon the DPRK by pitting it against the international community.

Such method of the US is, in fact, the last resort of those driven into the tight corner and an expression of their vulnerability.

The worst situation is prevailing on the Korean Peninsula because the United States, in conspiracy with the IAEA that departed from the principle of impartiality and international justice, kicked up a nuclear racket against the DPRK, gravely infringing upon its dignity, sovereignty and vital right.

After all, the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula is one to be settled between the DPRK and the US and, accordingly, there is no need for other countries to meddle in it.

The only solution to the issue is for the US to recognize the sovereignty of the DPRK and sign a non-aggression treaty with it through practical negotiations.

If the US persists in its moves to isolate and stifle the DPRK, the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula can never be settled.

KCNA on deceptive and hypocritical balderdash about dialogue

January 20 – Recently, high-ranking officials of the US administration spread the rumour that they have no "intention to invade North Korea," "may provide security" and will come out to "dialogue" and let loose a string of contradictory sophism that "it may talk but negotiations are impossible." In a word, this represented their arrogant attitude that they may have a dialogue with the DPRK but "would discuss only how North Korea implements its commitments."

It is self-exposed that the Bush administration's ballad on "dialogue" is no more than a hypocritical farce to mislead the world public.

Dialogue between sovereign states means that they sit face to face to settle the divergence of views through negotiations. This is the universal duty and right of both sides assuming before the international community.

It is a model of shamelessness based on the American-style superpower's view of value that the United States has the right to force its unilateral demands on the DPRK and the latter has only the duty to accept it.

Such attitude taken by the US is an insult to the unbiased world public and an unpardonable mockery of sovereign states.

Dialogue between the DPRK and the US should be one in which the two parties sit face to face to discuss and settle all the pending issues between them.

Now that the Bush administration blustered that it "has no intention to invade the DPRK" and "it would provide security guarantee," There is no reason why the US should not fix such a guarantee through a legal document. It is the unavoidable responsibility and moral duty of the US that spawned the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula and drove it out to the worst state as it is.

If the US wants a dialogue to force the DPRK implementation of commitments only, ignoring its responsibility and duty, there would be no more foolish thinking than this.

The Bush administration is well advised to act with discretion, mindful that the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula can be settled only when the US provides security to the DPRK by law through the conclusion of a non-aggression treaty.

DPRK to react to unreasonable "countermeasure" with toughest stance

January 19 – US Secretary of State Powell said that the nuclear issue of the DPRK should be brought to the UNSC and "concrete countermeasures including economic sanctions would be seriously considered." This fully represented the hostile intention of the Bush administration to shift the responsibility for the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula, which was authored and has been hyped by it, and the resultant serious developments on to the DPRK and use the un platform as was the case with the IAEA for internationalising its campaign to pressurize, isolate and stifle the DPRK.

The US is entirely to blame for the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula. This issue was unreasonably put on the U.N. agenda to be discussed there in the past as the US instigated the IAEA to create artificial difficulties and complexity in the way of settling the issue.

But the crisis over the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula in 1993 was settled through negotiations between the DPRK and the US, not by the UN. This historical fact proves that the issue can be settled only through equal and fair dialogue and negotiations between the DPRK and the US, not by any third party's unjust intervention.

If the United Nations wants to show its principled stand and attitude to settle the issue with a fair concern for it, it should call into question the US unreasonable DPRK policy that compelled it to take a self-defensive step to withdraw from the NPT.

The US abandoned its commitments to fully normalize the political and economic relations with the DPRK, provide light water reactors to the latter and supply heavy oil to it, thus unilaterally and totally ditching the DPRK-US Agreed Framework and causing an acute shortage of electricity to the DPRK. It also singled out the DPRK as a target of its pre-emptive nuclear attack after listing it as part of an "axis of evil", creating extremely grave danger of a nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula.

Such act of threatening the DPRK's vital right is a crime against humanity quite contrary to the spirit of the UN Charter for peace of humankind as it is intolerable political violence in the modern society.

If the US drives the developments to the extremes, turning aside the DPRK's fair and aboveboard proposal for settling the issue in a peaceful way through the conclusion of a non-aggression treaty with the US and clamouring for any "countermeasures," the DPRK will be left with no option but to counter it with the toughest stance.

US shameless threat lambasted

January 19 – Recently the US bellicose elements blustered that the "nuclear issue" of the DPRK "should be brought to the UN Security Council" and "concrete countermeasures including economic sanctions against the DPRK would be considered there." In this regard Rodong Sinmun today says in a commentary it fully revealed the shameless nature and wicked intention of the US to internationalise the DPRK's "nuclear issue" in a bid to brand it as a "criminal" and stifle it at any cost.

The nuclear issue and the present situation on the Korean Peninsula are entirely attributable to the US imperialists' hostile policy toward the DPRK, the commentary says, and goes on:

It is none other than the US that compelled the DPRK to withdraw from the NPT.

If somebody wants to remind the united nations of the nuclear issue, he should call into question the US hostile policy to stifle the DPRK, which compelled it to take a self-defence step.

However, the US, the assailant, is taking such a high-handed and menacing attitude towards the DPRK, the victim, just like a thief crying "stop the thief", blustering that it would bring the nuclear issue of the DPRK to the UNSC and take sanctions against the DPRK. This is the height of shamelessness.

It is ridiculous of the US to abuse the name of the UN for attaining its dirty goal for aggression.

"Sanctions" or military pressure can never work on the DPRK.

If the United States continues to drive the situation to the extremes while branding the DPRK as a "criminal", we will be left with no option but to react to it with the toughest stance. The US will be held wholly responsible for the ensuing consequences.

US is chiefly to blame for worst situation in Korea

January 19 – Rodong Sinmun yesterday carried an article entitled "The US is Chiefly to Blame for the Worst Situation on the Korean Peninsula." The article said:

As already reported, the DPRK Government in a statement solemnly declared its complete withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

In this regard, the US, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Japan and other countries and dishonest forces expressed "concern," asserting that it should be "reconsidered" and it would "put the nuclear non-proliferation system in danger".

The DPRK was compelled to withdraw from the NPT as a self-defence step taken after careful consideration to cope with the grave situation where its supreme interests are most seriously threatened by the US.

A close scrutiny made into how this situation was created, the background against which the nuclear issue surfaced and its nature from a historical point of view and on the basis of facts clearly explains the US is the author of the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula.

The nuclear issue surfaced on the Korean Peninsula as the US has posed a nuclear threat to the DPRK for scores of years by massively deploying and stockpiling nukes in and around South Korea, pursuant to its hostile policy toward Pyongyang in line with its strategy to dominate the world.

The US imperialists tried several times to use an a-bomb against the DPRK already during the last Korean War and began introducing many nuclear weapons into South Korea after the war.

The DPRK clarified its official stand to oppose the US shipment of nuclear weapons into South Korea at the 12th session of its Supreme People's Assembly held in 1956.

In April 1959, the DPRK Government warned the US imperialists against turning South Korea into a nuclear base and put forward a proposal to create a nuclear-free peace zone in Asia.

The US imperialists have staged ceaseless war exercises of different forms such as "Team Spirit", "Ulji Focus Lens" and "Foal Eagle" by mobilizing nuclear forces in South Korea and in its vicinity to threaten the DPRK with nuclear weapons and increase the danger of a nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula.

It was the United States that compelled the DPRK to withdraw from the NPT.

Under the DPRK-US Agreed Framework (AF) the US was committed to provide light water reactors to the DPRK by 2003 in return for the DPRK's freezing of its graphite-moderated reactors and related facilities.

Though it is already 9 years since the DPRK froze its nuclear facilities, only site preparation was made in the LWR project.

Under the AF both sides were committed to work for fully normalizing the political and economic relations, but the US has persistently enforced its hostile policy and economic sanctions against the DPRK.

The AF also called on the US to give formal assurances against its use or threat of nuclear weapons to the DPRK, but the US has increased its nuclear threat to the DPRK.

The US stopped the supply of heavy oil to the DPRK from December last year, the only commitment that had been implemented under the AF.

Under the situation where a vacuum is created in the power production due to the US stop of its supply of heavy oil to the DPRK, the latter lifted the freeze on its nuclear facilities, a measure taken as part of the simultaneous actions on the part of the two sides on the premise that the US would annually supply 500,000 tons of heavy oil to the DPRK under the DPRK-US Agreed Framework, and resumed the operation and construction of facilities to generate electricity.

The US has increased its nuclear threat to the DPRK by staging nuclear war exercises one after another in and around South Korea after massively deploying nuclear weapons there in violation of the letter and spirit of the NPT.

US President Bush officially declared its policy of confrontation with North Korea in what he called a "statement on the North Korea policy". Early last year the Bush bellicose forces listed the DPRK as part of an "axis of evil" and later a target of its nuclear strikes.

They stepped up the preparations to develop and deploy a new type of nuclear weapon to be used for destroying underground facilities of the DPRK in case of "emergency" on the Korean Peninsula and ordered the US air force in South Korea to load large warheads which can go down deep into the ground and blow up targets.

After flying into Pyongyang, a special envoy of the US President demanded the DPRK clear the US of its "security concern," absurdly clamouring about the DPRK's "enriched uranium programme". He also threatened and blackmailed the DPRK, saying that if the DPRK does not accept the US unilateral demand first, there will be no progress in the DPRK-Japan and inter-Korean relations, to say nothing of the dialogue between the DPRK and the US

The DPRK told the special envoy who was taking such an extremely menacing and high-handed attitude that it is entitled to have something more powerful than a nuclear weapon to cope with the US escalated offensive to stifle it with nukes. This was an entirely legitimate exercise of its sovereignty.

Nevertheless, no sooner had the special envoy gone back to the US than it escalated the moves to internationally pressurize and isolate the DPRK while spreading the rumour that the DPRK "admitted its nuclear programme."

The US raised the unreasonable and brigandish demand that the DPRK scrap its nuclear programme before dialogue, far from honestly responding to the DPRK's constructive proposal for concluding a non-aggression treaty with the US.

When the DPRK reacted to this with a tougher stand, the US bellicose circles called for a "military retaliation," clamouring about a "nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula" and "victory in wars against Iraq and North Korea".

Moreover, the US instigated the IAEA to adopt an unreasonable resolution against the DPRK. At the beck and call of the US, the IAEA issued an ultimatum threatening sanctions, treating the DPRK as a "criminal".

Facts clearly indicate who is chiefly to blame for the present grave situation.

Nevertheless, recently the US, in conspiracy with the IAEA, kicked up a row, blustering that the "nuclear issue" of the DPRK should be put before the UN and sanctions be imposed upon it.

Though the DPRK withdrew from the NPT, its nuclear activity at the present stage will be limited to such peaceful purposes as electricity production.

KCNA urges US to sincerely approach dialogue

January 17 – James Kelly at a press conference on Jan. 13 during his visit to South Korea as a special envoy of the US President said that the US is willing to consider energy aid for North Korea and have "multi-faceted dialogue" with it if it ends "nuclear weapons development". In this regard, some of the international community describe his remarks as some sort of change made by the US to peacefully settle the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula. This is, however, a wrong understanding of the US black-hearted intention.

What Kelly said is, in essence, nothing different from the US unilateral assertion that "North Korea should scrap its nuclear programme before dialogue."

If the US truly wants peace on the Korean Peninsula and the settlement of the nuclear issue, it should conclude a non-aggression treaty with the DPRK and formally declare the abandonment of its hostile policy toward the latter at the negotiating table.

Only when the US does so, it is possible to clear the US of its worries and ensure peace and stability in Northeast Asia because Washington is chiefly to blame for the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula.

The DPRK withdrew from the NPT and restarted its nuclear facilities entirely because of the US gross violation of the NPT and the DPRK-US Agreed Framework.

Moreover, Kelly is chiefly accountable for dreaming up the fiction of the DPRK's "development of nuclear weapons" in a premeditated manner.

When Kelly listened to the DPRK's serious warning during his visit to the DPRK as a special envoy of the US President in early October last, he should have prudently approached it and admitted that the US hostile policy toward the DPRK was anachronistic.

But Kelly played first fiddle to hatching a sinister plot to publicize the DPRK's warning as its "admission of nuclear weapons development".

He is now talking about "multi-faceted dialogue" and "energy aid," insisting on the absurd demand that the DPRK "scrap its nuclear programme before dialogue." This is the height of folly.

If the Bush administration has nothing to regret over the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula before the international community, there is no reason for it to fail to come out to negotiations with the DPRK to settle bilateral pending issues.

The DPRK is fully ready for both dialogue and confrontation.

The US should bear in mind that all the issues can be settled satisfactorily at the dialogue with the DPRK only when the former has a sincere attitude based on good faith.

KCNA on unjust behaviour of IAEA

January 16 – The DPRK's decision to completely withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was entirely attributable to the US hostile policy towards the DPRK and the unwarranted attitude of the International Atomic Energy Agency, its tool. As already known, the DPRK, a non-nuclear state, acceded to the NPT and concluded the safeguards agreement with the IAEA mainly for the purpose of removing the danger of a nuclear war to it.

It is well-known fact that the DPRK has been exposed to the constant nuclear threat from the US, the world's biggest possessor of nuclear weapons.

But the IAEA has behaved menacingly, repeating the US fiction of the DPRK's "nuclear suspicion" since its signing of safeguards agreement early in 1992.

The IAEA should strictly identify international justice, equality and impartiality with a basic principle governing its activity as it is a UN body tasked to monitor and control the nuclear activities of other countries.

Its rules forbid it from using any information provided by a third country for the inspection of nuclear facilities and commit it to protecting the data obtained through the inspection.

Nevertheless, it inspected DPRK nuclear facilities not in line with its rules and the safeguards agreement but at the beck and call of the US.

There are too many examples to cite of the biased and tricky acts done by it in dealing with the DPRK it is self-evident that the DPRK can no longer remain bound to the NPT and the IAEA now that they are being used for the US moves to stifle the DPRK.

The US and the IAEA cannot shirk the blame for compelling the DPRK to withdraw from the NPT in disregard of the DPRK's efforts to peacefully solve the "nuclear issue" through negotiations.

Infeasible Korea strategy of US

January 16 – With the US anti-DPRK campaign escalated, the DPRK could not but take such a self-defence step as withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The "nuclear" row kicked up recklessly by the United States betrays again its brigandish ambition to stifle the DPRK by force of arms.

The US strategy for dominating the DPRK, however, is infeasible.

In the three-year Korean War they started in the 1950s with the mobilization of huge forces for the purpose of dominating the whole of Korea, the US imperialists suffered a disgraceful defeat for the first time in their history.

Korea today is quite different from that in the 1950s.

It is guided by Kim Jong Il, an invincible and iron-willed commander and supreme commander of the Korean People's Army. And it has an invincible army and a heroic people.

KCNA holds US chiefly responsible for nuclear proliferation and threat

January 15 – Nowadays, the US and some countries insist on the wrong assertions, expressing "concern" over the nuclear issue of the Korean Peninsula and saying that the DPRK should return to the NPT. Their argument contrary to truth and reason is intended to justify the unreasonable behaviour of the IAEA, a servant of the US, and list the DPRK as "a criminal" charged with nuclear proliferation and threat and a target of international pressure. Then, who is chiefly accountable for nuclear proliferation and threat between the DPRK and the U.S, parties concerned responsible for the solution to the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula? Proliferation of nuclear weapons in our planet was started by the United States. In 1945 the US produced three a-bombs and tested one of them in its mainland and dropped the other two on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, inflicting nuclear holocaust on Japanese for the first time in human history.

After that, the US developed H-bomb and tested it in the atmosphere, bringing another nuclear disaster to humankind and, later developed and possessed neutron bombs, called weapon of evil in the 20th century.

It demonstratively showed off its production and use of nuclear weapons and regarded them as a political and military leverage to threaten, blackmail and dominate other countries while holding strategic supremacy through nuclear arms build-up and brandishing nukes. Such moves compelled other countries to competitively step up their nuclear development and, in the long run, triggered off the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

At present all of the UNSC permanent member nations have become nuclear weapon states and Israel and some other countries have nukes. This was entirely attributable to the US as their access to nukes was motivated and urged by the US development, production and proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The facts prove that the US is the epicentre of the nuclear proliferation and that it should be the first to totally scrap nukes if the nuclear proliferation is to be prevented actually and fundamentally.

The US is also chiefly to blame for nuclear threat.

After it dropped a-bombs on Japan, posing a threat of nuclear disaster to humankind, the US unleashed the Korean War and threatened the DPRK and China with nukes several times during the war.

Fleeing from the northern half of Korea after the temporary occupation of it, the US took a large number of inhabitants to South Korea, threatening to use a-bombs. As a result, millions of family members and relatives have lived separated in the north and the south of the country for over half a century, undergoing sufferings.

The US nuclear threat has been escalated since the appearance of the Bush administration. The administration, in a report on the review of nuclear posture, singled out seven countries including the DPRK as targets of the US nuclear attacks and has called for the development of new-type nukes capable of destroying any underground facilities and for pre-emptive nuclear attacks.

This is a brigandish threat and blackmail against peace and security of humankind and the world community as it openly revealed a vicious intention of the US to mount any nuclear attacks without limit anytime on any targets of those countries incurring its displeasure.

All the facts prove the historical truth that the world community should place the united states in the dock, if it is to bring to justice the true criminal who escalates nuclear proliferation and threat while constantly the creating danger of nuclear war and nuclear calamity against human civilization.

DPRK FM spokesman on US rumour about dialogue

January 15 – A spokesman for the DPRK Foreign Ministry gave an answer to a question raised by KCNA today as regards the rumour about " dialogue" with the DPRK spread by the united states recently in a bid to mislead the public opinion. He said:

Some high-ranking officials of the US were reported to have said that the US has willingness to have dialogue with the DPRK and discuss the matters of energy and food aid if the latter scraps its "nuclear weapon development programme".

In this regard, some of the world community have shown impromptu views that the US made a switchover in its position from its stand of denying dialogue and compensation to that of expressing its willingness to do so.

But, in essence, there is no change in the US conditional stand that it would have dialogue with the DPRK only after it scraps its "nuclear programme". It is clear that the US talk about dialogue is nothing but a deceptive drama to mislead the world public opinion.

It has been evidenced by the oft-repeated remarks made by a spokesman for the white house on January 14 that the US would not negotiate with North Korea but would have a dialogue to discuss the issue of urging it to fulfil its commitments.

We prudently examined the matter of dialogue raised in the Jan. 7 joint statement of the US, Japan and South Korea for the first time, and made its utmost efforts to have dialogue with the US side.

Until the day before the DPRK government's statement was published on January 10 we seriously dealt with the US "willingness" for dialogue conveyed by a third country and directly got in touch with the US State Department through a New York channel for DPRK-US contacts.

However, what we heard from the US side was simple words that the US had nothing to say about the resumption of dialogue.

To cite one more example, the US has often said that it would not link the humanitarian matter to the political issue, but, after the nuclear issue was raised, craftily put up such preconditions as opening all parts of the DPRK in a bid to invent a pretext for stopping food aid to the DPRK.

By such preconditions the US meant in a word that food aid would be possible only when the DPRK opens its military objects sensitive from the viewpoint of national security to the outside world.

As seen above, the US loudmouthed supply of energy and food aid are like a painted cake pie in the sky as they are possible only after the DPRK is totally disarmed.

The US assertion that negotiations for conclusion of a non-aggression treaty and economic aid are possible only when the DPRK unilaterally lays down its arms is against common sense as the DPRK and the US are now standing in the most acute military confrontation. It is, in essence, a stand of denying dialogue and negotiations.

Such contradictory remarks made by the authorities of the US administration prove that they seek to gain time for some other purpose and, therefrom, resort to false propaganda to fool the DPRK and the world public.

It is the consistent stand of the DPRK to settle the issue on an equal footing through fair negotiations that may clear both sides of their concerns.

We have already clarified that the DPRK is ready to solve the nuclear issue through negotiations on condition that the US recognizes the DPRK's sovereignty, assures it of non-aggression and does not obstruct its economic development.

Nobody will be taken in by any tricks employed by the bush administration. The US can never evade the blame for the present crisis unless it makes a fundamental switchover in its hostile policy towards the DPRK.

Rodong Sinmun on DPRK's withdrawal from NPT

January 14 – The DPRK Government's recent decision to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was a self-defensive measure for safeguarding the whole nation against the US reckless moves to stifle the DPRK and the partial behaviour of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), follower of the US Rodong Sinmun says this in a signed commentary today.

The DPRK Government's measure is the only proper choice for the interests of the whole Korean nation, the commentary says, and goes on:

It is none other than the US that has aggravated the situation compelling the DPRK to withdraw from the treaty.

Uneasy about the progress of the independent reunification movement in the Korean Peninsula, the Bush administration has deliberately and systematically scrapped the DPRK-US Agreement and led the situation of Korea to extremes.

Dancing to the tune of the US, the IAEA adopted an anti-DPRK "resolution," which is a clear proof that the Bush war-like group has finally decided to provoke a war of aggression against the DPRK though it talks about "dialogue" and "security ensurance."

It would be foolish for the DPRK to sit idle with folded arms under this situation. Moreover, it can never remain a passive onlooker because the US is going to inflict nuclear holocaust upon the Korean nation to exterminate it.

At this crucial juncture when its dignity and security are exposed to threat, any country that has pluck and strength will have to make such a decision.

KCNA accuses US of mocking at UN and international community

January 14 – The US is scoffing at the UN and the international community over the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula and the IAEA and some countries are acting its spokesman and servant dancing to its tune. The US is working hard to internationalise the nuclear issue of the DPRK in a desperate bid to misrepresent the cause of the issue and the responsibility for it and create the impression that it is the issue between the DPRK and the international community. Through this it seeks to cover up its criminal moves that spawned the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula and craftily evade its responsibility for the solution of the issue.

That is why the US describes the DPRK's withdrawal from the NPT as a "violation" of its commitments under international law and a "challenge" to the international community and advertises its unilateral assertion as the common view of the international community. This is, however, sheer sophism.

It is none other than the US that has systematically violated the NPT and reduced it to a dead document.

The US as a depository committed itself not to use nukes against nor threaten with them non-nuclear states that acceded to the treaty but has wantonly violated its commitment.

This caused a nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula in 1993 and, therefore, it could be settled only through negotiations between the DPRK and the US responsible for the issue.

Nevertheless, the Bush administration took a negative approach toward what was achieved in improving the DPRK-US relations during the time of the preceding administration and once again escalated nuclear threat to the DPRK.

While systematically violating the official agreement reached between the DPRK and the US, the administration stopped the supply of heavy oil, the only commitment which had been implemented, thus totally breaking the basic promise made by the two sides for the solution of nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula.

As seen above, the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula surfaced because of the nuclear threat posed by the US, the assailant, to the DPRK, the victim, and this is an issue of bilateral nature that can be solved by the parties concerned peacefully through negotiations.

A public opinion was built up on the international arena on this issue to create the impression that this is an international issue of universal significance related to the fate of the NPT in the past.

It was because the IAEA served as a tool for carrying out the US hostile policy toward the DPRK after discarding its principle of impartiality as an international organization.

This was also attributable to the wrong thinking and mode of action on the part of some countries that blindly followed the US stand, reading its face and currying favour with it because they gave priority to their unilateral interests and relations with the US, the only "superpower" in the world.

This tendency should be eradicated without fail as it is quite contrary to international justice and the genuine desire and will of humankind for peace, security and stability of the world.

Otherwise, the UN and the international community will continue to serve the purpose of meeting the US unilateral interests, giving it the chance to fish in troubled waters, and then they will be unable to represent the genuine interests and desire of sovereign states and people to defend national independence, dignity and sovereignty.

The UN and the international community are called upon to reject and check the US high-handed and arbitrary practices in order to observe justice and equality in international relations and establish a fair international order.

KCNA refutes US sophism about DPRK's decision

January 14 – Some of the international community are reported to have made such unreasonable remarks as expressing "serious concern" and "regret" over the DPRK's decision to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The US President, Vice-President and other senior US officials let loose a whole string of sheer sophism misrepresenting the nature and cause of the grave situation.

As the US is to blame for spawning the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula and driving it to the worst phase, there is no need for the international community to "worry" about the decision.

The DPRK Government has already clarified that though the DPRK withdraws from the NPT, it has no will to produce nuclear weapons and its nuclear activities will be confined to the production of electricity at the present stage.

If the US had not listed the DPRK, a sovereign state, as part of an "axis of evil" and a target of its pre-emptive nuclear attack in wanton violation of the NPT and the DPRK-US Agreed Framework (AF), such a crisis would not have occurred.

The US talk about the DPRK's "admission of its nuclear development" is nothing but a product of the despicable premeditated plot hatched by the US bellicose elements.

The US is seriously mistaken if it calculates the DPRK will remain a onlooker to the situation where the US adopted it as its policy to overthrow the DPRK's system and mobilized even the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a dirty political servant, to isolate and stifle it.

While frantically stepping up its preparations for a war of aggression against the DPRK, the US unilaterally stopped the supply of heavy oil to it and thus abandoned even its last commitment that had been fulfilled under the AF, causing an enormous loss of electricity to the DPRK and creating the most acute shortage of electricity in the country.

This compelled the DPRK to defreeze its nuclear facilities.

It is an inviolable legitimate right of a sovereign state to withdraw from the NPT to develop its independent nuclear power industry under the present situation where its supreme interests are seriously infringed upon by the US.

Ours is a people of strong will who put into practice anything they determined to do. Even if the worst thing happens, they have nothing to fear.

Some countries and media are so foolish as to describe the step taken by the DPRK as "brinkmanship". But it is not "brinkmanship".

The DPRK regards any US sanctions against it as a declaration of a war and is fully combat-ready to cope with it.

It is the unshakable will of the Korean people that if the ten million-strong army and people unite as one and fight in a do-or-die spirit, they can surely emerge victorious.

If the US politicians value the interests and future of their country, they had better properly understand the DPRK's resolute stand and stop going reckless.

US frantic moves to stifle DPRK under fire

January 14 – Recently the bush group spread a rumour that some economic difficulties in the DPRK are attributable to its wrong policy. Rodong Sinmun today in a signed commentary dismisses it as a shrill cry of those who are upset by the might of the DPRK dynamically advancing to speed up the building of a powerful nation under the banner of the army-based policy. The commentary goes on:

Temporary economic difficulties in the DPRK were caused by the blockade policy persistently pursued by the US for over 50 years.

Right after the foundation of the DPRK, the United States set up the "COCOM" and has since controlled the export to the DPRK and its trade. It has massively brought its aggression troops to South Korea and frequently committed dangerous war exercises and armed provocations, constantly aggravating the situation on the Korean Peninsula. This has hamstrung the DPRK's efforts to push ahead with the economic construction and improve the people's living standard.

It is beyond doubt that but for the US persistent obstructions, our economy would have advanced faster than now and the living standard of our people would have improved remarkably.

The DPRK Government's step to withdraw from the NPT is an expression of our steadfast will and pluck to foil the US imperialists' economic blockade and moves to isolate and stifle the DPRK. Any increased US pressure on the DPRK only hardens its people's will to speed up the building of an economic power.

The US imperialists should lend an ear to the just voice of the international community and immediately drop its anachronistic economic sanctions and hostile policy to stifle the DPRK before imprudently interfering in its internal affairs.

DPRK, too, has option

January 14 – If the US and its followers respond to the DPRK's recent exercise of its option with new sanctions, blockade and pressure offensives, it will exercise the second and third corresponding options, says Rodong Sinmun today in a signed article. Saying that no one can estimate what they would be, the article continues:

The DPRK Government's measure to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a manifestation of its legitimate option.

The DPRK has so far showed the utmost self-control and patience, warning the US against pursuing the hard-line policy to stifle the DPRK.

There is a limit to its patience and self-control. By making the bold political decision to withdraw from the NPT, the DPRK put its option into practice. This showed to the world once again that the DPRK does not play on words but practices what it says.

The DPRK's option is guaranteed by its powerful military capacity.

It is its unshakable revolutionary stand and mode of independent counteraction to respond to a hard-line with the toughest one and to a bullet with a shell.

The US should not unilaterally exercise an option, facing up to the option of the DPRK.

KCNA refutes US officials' lies about cause of economic difficulties

January 13 – Some elements of the Bush administration hostile to the DPRK are floating sheer lies that some economic difficulties in the DPRK are attributable to its wrong policy. This is nothing but a US hypocritical political propaganda to cover up the criminal nature of its blockade policy, a crime against humanity, committed against the DPRK for several decades.

Temporary economic difficulties including the acute shortage of electricity and food in the DPRK were partly caused by consecutive years of natural disasters. But they are chiefly attributable to the US aggressive and hostile policy of blockade towards the DPRK.

The US has pursued this policy for over half a century since its military occupation of South Korea in 1945. This was, in fact, aimed to deprive our state and people of their right to existence.

The US cooked up a "COCOM" in 1949, taking advantage of its monopolistic position in the capitalist world after the 2nd World War and has controlled the export of technology and trade with the DPRK in different fields.

It fabricated "US rules on controlling assets" of hostile countries in December 1950 in a bid to apply a trade and financial embargo against the DPRK.

Inestimable is the mental and material damage done by this US hostile policy to the DPRK.

The US imperialists' hostile policy toward the DPRK was escalated after they cooked up a military "regime" in South Korea and stepped up the preparations for a new war in the 1960s.

In order to cope with this situation the DPRK advanced a line of simultaneously carrying on the economic construction and defence upbuilding and had no option but to direct enormous efforts to boosting the country's defence capability.

Since the 1970s the US has carried on extremely adventurous and provocative moves to ignite a nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula, annually staging "Team Spirit" joint military exercises.

The US policy of aggression and blockade became more vicious and desperate in the 1980s and the 1990s under the pretext of the non-existent "nuclear issue" of the DPRK.

Taking advantage of the collapse of the former soviet union and other socialist countries in East Europe and their return to capitalism, the US escalated its political and military offensive to destroy the DPRK's socialist system and tightened its economic blockade and sanctions against the DPRK to bring its economy to a total collapse.

It is a universally known historical fact that the DPRK was compelled to proclaim a semi-war state in 1993 as the US desperately escalated its pressure and sanctions against it under the pretext of its "nuclear issue" through the IAEA and the UN.

The US was so mean and perfidious as to grossly violate the spirit of the agreement reached between the two sides through a series of DPRK-US talks.

It refused to implement the DPRK-US Agreed Framework which calls for the provision of light water reactors to the DPRK in return for its freeze on nuclear facilities, thus causing a tremendous loss of electricity to the DPRK.

The army and people of the DPRK have defended the sovereignty and the right to existence of the country and successfully carried out the "arduous march" and the forced march, despite the US vicious and desperate blockade policy and war moves, thus opening a favourable phase for the building of a powerful nation. This was possible only thanks to the invariable correct policy of the Workers' Party of Korea and the DPRK.

The US should stop falsifying truth with sheer lies.

It should pay heed to the voices of the international community and drop its wrong anti-DPRK policy before meddling in other's internal affairs.

More than one million Pyongyangites support DPRK's withdrawal from NPT

January 11 – Today more than one million Pyongyangites met to fully support the statement of the DPRK Government on withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and firmly resolve to devotedly protect the sovereignty, vital right and dignity of the country and the nation. People from all walks of life thronged to Kim Il Sung Square and other parts of the city, the meeting places, with burning hatred for the US imperialists.

Seen in the meeting places were slogan boards titled "Let us fight against the US imperialists to the finish and protect the nation's dignity and sovereignty" "Let us win certain victory in the sacred anti-US war with the might of army-based policy" "Let us wipe out the US imperialists to the last man if they invade the DPRK" etc. And posters reflecting the iron will of the Korean people to wage a life-and-death battle with the aggressors.

Present at the meeting held on Kim Il Sung Square were senior party and state officials.

Premier of the cabinet Hong Song Nam conveyed the DPRK Government's statement at the meeting.

Representatives of different strata in their speeches made at the meeting said that the DPRK's withdrawal from the NPT is a just and legitimate measure of self-defence as it reflected the unanimous will and demand of the Korean people.

The DPRK Government's statement is a bold decision that can be made only by General Kim Jong Il strongest in faith, will and pluck and a bomb-like declaration that humbled the US imperialist aggressors and their followers, they stressed.

The current measure demonstrated to the whole world once again the revolutionary principle and determination of the DPRK that it does not say an empty word but does what it intends, they said, adding that if the US brings dark clouds of war to hang over this land, the army and the people of the DPRK will remove the land of the US from the earth and root out the very source of evil and war.

The aid pipeline on which six million to eight million people in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) depend is drying up, a United Nations envoy who just returned from that country warned on January 22.

"There is an urgent need to keep that pipeline flowing," Maurice Strong, Adviser to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, told reporters at UN Headquarters in New York. Earlier on Wednesday, Maurice Strong briefed the Secretary-General on his recent mission to Pyongyang, which focused on the humanitarian side, although discussions were also held on the nuclear issue, which the UN envoy said was closely linked.

"I am primarily reflecting the information that [UN officials] gave me on the spot and their concerns," Mr. Strong said, adding that his own field trip to a children's hospital and children's centres, and seeing the state of those youngsters and how dependent they were, proved "that this is a real crisis".

He noted that for the first quarter of this year, some 97,000 tons of food aid is urgently needed and that the UN's appeal for $215 million for emergency operations for the rest of the year has been met with just a "meagre response".

Turning to the DPRK's announced intention to reactivate its nuclear programme, Mr. Strong said the authorities in Pyongyang told him that they would regard punitive actions by the UN Security Council as "a declaration or act of war".

As for the suspension of humanitarian aid by some countries, the UN envoy said that some donors have cited the current political and nuclear crisis as a reason for stopping their assistance. "That crisis does make it more difficult to get donors to move," he said. "It's not just a matter of political conditions, the North Koreans say as much as they need - and they clearly need - humanitarian assistance, they cannot and will not accept it if it is attached to political conditions."

Emergency International Conference

January 23rd and 24th, 2003

No to war!

No to the massacre which is under preparation!

INTERNATIONAL LIAISON COMMITTEE

Dear friends, dear comrades,

In the name of the International Liaison Committee of Workers and Peoples, I wish to invite you to participate in an international emergency conference which will take place in Paris on January 23rd and 24th 2003, to say:

– No to the imminent war, no to terror and slaughter against the Iraqi people.

– No to the continuation and the worsening of a policy which since twelve years by the means of the embargo, has produced the death of more than 500,000 Iraqi children (500,00 thousand is the figure of children who died as a result of the embargo given by an official report of UNICEF in 1996. Since then, how many have died?).

– No to a war that the spoke-persons of the US Administration as well as the French and British leaders of the European Union present as dreadful and bloody. The United Nations have already "planned" nine hundred thousand refugees and four to six million people who won't be able to find the food necessary for their survival! The carving up of the country could lead to the compulsory displacement of 4.5 to 9 million persons out of a total of 22 millions of inhabitants. There is no doubt that the horror of that war will go beyond those dramatic expectations.

– No to a war for which the great capitalist powers headed by the United States have already concentrated two hundred and fifty thousand soldiers which will be ordered to march to Baghdad and impose the partition of Iraq in three or seven pieces, all of them under the yoke of a military occupation and governed by foreign powers.

– No to a war for oil. Iraq is a high priority target because it has giant open-air oil deposits which are not yet exploited and that oil reserves are very important and the cost of exploiting oil in Iraq is five times less than in Latin America and eight times less than in the United States. Iraq is one of the few oil producing countries in which the American oil companies are totally absent since the seventies. Already American multinationals, but also European ones, have been allocated the parts of the Iraqi sub-soil they will have the right to plunder whilst the population will be placed in conditions of total destitution.

– No to the march towards war the US Administration wants to impose upon the whole world from Iraq to Palestine, from Korea and Afghanistan to Latin America, to the Balkans and to Africa, taking along with it all the governments of the capitalist countries and the international institutions (IMF, World Bank, European Union, etc.),

– No to the war of terror against the people of the whole world.

– Yes to peace an to the fraternal unity of the people of the world.

The International Liaison Committee of Workers and Peoples was formed in Barcelona twelve years ago at the eve of the first war against Iraq, in an international conference. A Manifesto Against "War and Exploitation" was adopted.

Today, when the imminent threat of a new war against Iraq is looming, the ILC assumes the responsibility of calling this emergency international conference: everything must be done to prevent this unjust and terrible war of which the consequences can't be evaluated. Those who say that the military intervention will take place in the name of "international law" lie. It is an outright lie! It is already being stated that the twelve thousand pages of the report handed out to the United Nations by the Iraqi government contain omissions. It is also said that some harmless products could be used to develop dangerous weapons. Sheer lies!

Let's not forget twelve years ago when a first war started against Iraq. George Bush Sr., who was then President justified it for two reasons:

– American satellites had checked the presence of two hundred sixty five thousand Iraqi soldiers in the desert near the Saudi Arabia's borders poised to invade the country,

– Testimonies spoke about newly borne Kuwaiti babies who were killed by being pulled out of their incubators and thrown on the floor.

Those two "facts" were eventually exposed as total lies. Declassified satellite photographs made by the military intelligence services in 1991 show that there was no Iraqi soldier in the Saudi desert on the eve of the American onslaught. The young Kuwaiti woman who had made a "confession" about the killing of babies admitted later that she had lied.

But it was too late: the harm had been done. The war had taken place and the embargo which would kill five hundred thousand Iraqi children was being implemented.

It is exactly the same thing which is being prepared today. We reject in advance that under the cover of one interpretation or another or of an omission in one section or in another of a twelve thousand pages' report, a justification be given to a massacre of which the real motives are: plunder and terror against the people.

No, three times no to a war which serves only the interests of exploiters and oppressors!

No, three times no to that war which is a war against all the people of the world including the working classes of the United States, of France, of Germany and of Britain, a war against their organisations and against their rights and gains threatened by the same governments serving the interests of the multinationals which threaten to destroy the Iraqi people and all the peoples of the area.

No to that war which is already used as a pretext by all governments to undermine democratic rights in all countries.

In that international conference we will state: the workers and the peoples bear no responsibility for wars, those who are responsible are those who seat in governments.

The working class has always said no to wars. Once more whatever the different tendencies and ways of thinking within the labour movement, whatever the differences it is time to unite the struggle of workers, of organisations and of democrats all over the world in a common action to prevent the war and to save the Iraqi people.

Unite all efforts to save the bases of human civilisation threatened by an imminent war. There is no more urgent task today!

That is why we invite all of you to take part in the International Emergency Conference Against War and Exploitation due in Paris on the 23rd and 24th of January. The Conference will be conclude by a public rally in which, by thousands, workers, activists and youth will congregate to state:

Stop the war! Stop the massacre!

In the name of the International Liaison Committee of Workers and Peoples,

the Co-ordinator of the ILC,

Daniel Gluckstein

The Emergency International Conference Against War will begin Thursday the 23rd. of January 2003 at 10 a.m. in Paris. It will end on Friday the 24th. in the afternoon. A rally where the conclusions of the Conference will be reported will take place in the evening. To register, to deal with all the organisational questions, please contact the ILC.

International Liaison Committee

87, rue du Faubourg-Saint-Denis. 75010 Paris - France

Tel. (33 1) 48 01 88 28 - E-mail eit.ilc wanadoo.fr

NO BASIS FOR WAR

NO BASES FOR WAR

FAIRFORD USAF BASE

in Gloucestershire is one of 3 worldwide that has been expanded to take B2 Stealth Bombers capable of delivering the "new" smaller bunker busting nuclear weapons.

See http://www.gwi.org.uk

Become a weapons inspector and demonstrate at Fairford Base

Sunday 26th Jan

Assemble Fairford village at noon

Bring food and drink

Bring personal items and messages to decorate the fence.

If you want to be an inspector-dress for the part in all over decontamination white suit

FROM JCT. 15 M4 – A419 TOWARDS SWINDON, CARRY ON THIS ROAD, OVER LOADS OF ROUNDABOUTS, THRU OUTSKIRTS THEN TURN RIGHT ONTO B4019 AT BROAD BLUNSDON, ABT. 4 MILES JCT. TURN LEFT ONTO A361 TO LECHLADE. TAKE A417 TOWARDS CIRENCESTER, ABT. 5 MILES TO FAIRFORD VILLAGE

CONTACT 01267 253479

Monday 27th January from 6.30PM until he leaves Protest at the visit of Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon,
at Lambeth Town Hall, Acre Lane, Brixton

The crisis in the Labour party has grown so deep that they have had to send the Defence Secretary himself, in the middle of planning a major war, to try to dampen down the opposition. He will be holding a "Question and Answer Session" for local Labour Party members in the Town Hall.
Labour Party members are encouraged to go in and ask pointed questions. Everybody else is encouraged to be outside to give him the reception he deserves.
If you can bring relevant banners, placards etc, so much the better. The meeting is scheduled to go on until 9.30PM.

THURSDAY 30TH JANUARY...6.30PM...

Connahs Quay Labour Club, Connahs Quay, Flintshire

PROTEST AGAINST GEOFF HOON'S VISIT

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon will be speaking to local Labour Party members in North Wales, attempting to drum up support for military action against Iraq. Mr Hoon will face a barrage of criticism from Labour party members inside the meeting. Outside, hundreds of protestors will also be making their voices heard.

Please Come Along And Demonstrate Your Opposition To The War On Iraq!

(Speakers: Jeremy Corbyn MP [invited], Owen Hardwicke and others)
Organised by Mold Stop the War Group

Thursday 30th January 5-7PM

"No Licence to Kill - No War on Iraq"
Vigil/Protest at MI6, south side of Vauxhall Bridge

Vauxhall tube; meet at 5PM at the junction of Vauxhall Bridge and Albert Embankment or come later and join in

"MI6" is officially the "Secret Intelligence Service" of the British Foreign Office. As such, it would have had a major part in producing the British government's "dossier" published last September. This was meant to prove the Iraqi "threat". But weapons inspectors have found no evidence at all since then to back the dossier up, and it has "sunk without trace". MI6 has a long and bloody history in Iraq and the whole Middle East stretching back through the 1990s, the 1980s and for decades before that. In particular it has a central role in the current war preparations!

Public Meeting

NO TO WAR IN IRAQ

Speakers : George Galloway MP
Salma Yaqoob (Chair B'ham Stop The War)
Dr Maseem (Chair Central Mosque)
Carol Naughton (Chair CND)
Phil Goldby (Chair West Mids. FBU)
Lindsey German (National Convenor Stop The War Coalition)

Saturday 1st February

7pm Carrs Lane Church,
City Centre, Birmingham
(behind Marks and Spencers)

Public Meeting

Alternatives to War on Iraq

Saturday 1 February 2003

2.30pm to 4.00pm

Speakers include:
Jim Cousins MP

St Johns Church Hall

Corner of Grainger St and Westgate Rd, Newcastle

Saturday 1st February

Conference: No War on Iraq - Reclaim the Party for Peace

10.30-3.30

Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, Holborn
Speakers include Tony Benn q Barry Camfield Assistant General Secretary TGWU q Jeremy Corbyn MP q Mark Seddon Tribune editor and Labour NEC member q Ann Black Labour Party National Policy Forum q Sabah Jawad Iraqi Democrats Against War and Sanctions q Keith Bennett former editor Asian Times q David McKenzie Trident Ploughshares q Betty Hunter Palestine Solidarity Campaign
Panel discussions on War on Iraq q The US drive to war q Changing party policy
Organised by Labour CND

Sunday 2nd February 2.00-5.00 pm

PUBLIC MEETING AND FILM

DON'T ATTACK IRAQ - NO TO WAR
Walthamstow, Lloyd's Park Theatre

Lloyd's Park, Winns Avenue, London E17
Film: 'Hidden Wars of Desert Storm'

Speakers include: Jeremy Corbyn MP, Voices in the Wilderness

A powerful documentary film using archival footage, moving images recently brought back from Iraq and interviews with key personalities, narrated by John Hurt. Based on two years of investigation "Hidden Wars' provides insight into the real background to this threatened war against Iraq, into the devastating impact of sanctions on Iraqi people, the history of big power involvement, and the 'Gulf War Syndrome' continuing to affect thousands of local people and Gulf War veterans.
Bush and Blair are determined on war – war that people don't want – we must stop them. Add your voice.
Organised by Waltham Forest & Redbridge Stop the War

Monday 3 February

Demo/vigil with direct action at US Air Force base Lakenheath, in East

Anglia. 12-3pm. Organised by Lakenheath Action Group 01508 550446.

University Lecture – Free

Alternatives to International Conflict

Professor Paul Rogers

Tuesday 11 February 2003, 5.30pm

Curtis Auditorium, Herchel Building, (Opposite Haymarket Metro), Uni of Newcastle

14-16 March

The Alternatives To Violence Project (AVP) Level 1 Training, at Department of Peace Studies, Bradford. Cost: £15 student/unwaged, £25 waged -

includes

2 meals & refreshments. TO BOOK, contact http://peaceliaison@bradford.ac.uk or 01274 235171. For more info: http://www.avpbritain.org.uk

Saturday 15 March

7th International Day Against Police Brutality

http://www.mojuk.org.uk

Saturday 22 March

National demonstration outside Fairford USAF base, called by Bristol

Stop The War Coalition

- james@venables.plus.com

Tuesday 22 April

The Really Big Blockade, Faslane nuclear submarine base, Scotland. 0845 4588367

http://www.tridentploughshares.org

NO WAR ON IRAQ

Stop the War National Demo

Saturday 15th February 2003 - Don't Attack Iraq (backed nationally by UNISON)

Assemble 12 noon at Embankment, London (nearest tube Embankment) to march at 12:30pm. The demonstration is being jointly organised by the Stop the War Coalition, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Muslim Association of Britain. If Britain goes to war demonstrate at 6pm in your town centre (in London, go to Trafalgar Square), and a national demonstration will be called immediately.

Not in our name Mr Blair! March & Rally in Glasgow

Saturday, 15 February 2003, from 11:00 to 17:00, George Square, Glasgow

All Scotland March and rally at Labour Party Conference in SECC. Assemble: 11am in George Square, march off at 12 noon. Surround the SECC at 1.30pm. Rally at 2.30pm

As well as groups from across Scotland organising transport to attend, anti-war groups from as far away as Manchester are planning to come to Glasgow.

Organised by Scottish Coalition for Justice Not War, More details 0141 423 1222

Events on 14 or 15 Feb

Rally in London

Friday, 14 February 2003, from 13:30 onwards, outside the Queen's Building of QM University, Mile End Road
Organised by Queen's Mary students

Friday 14th February Labour CND and Scottish CND will be hosting a 'No War on Iraq' fringe meeting for the Labour Party Conference in Glasgow at 7.15pm at Adelaides, 209, Bath Street with Tam Dayell MP, Rozanne Foyer (Campaign for Socialism), Bill Speirs (STUC), Ulla Roder (Menwith Hill Women's Peace Camp), Wael Shawish (Scottish Campaign for Palestinian Rights) and Elinor McKenzie Scottish Coalition for Justice Not War).

International Video Link Up with Dr Edward Said and Mrs Al Durrah (mother of Mohammad Al Durrah, whose death whilst shielding behind his father at the Netzarin Junction in Gaza, was captured on film broadcast around the world last year) organised by the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Globalise Resistance Scotland. 7pm Boyd Orr Building Glasgow University and venues across Scotland. Tickets for this event are also available from the Scottish CND offices. (For details of venues close to you please visit www.grscotland.net or www.scottishpsc.org.uk ) Overnight accommodation on the Friday and Saturday may be available - please contact the CND office.

Scottish CND 15 Barrland Street Glasgow G41 1QH scnd@banthebomb.org 0141 423 1222

Stop the War - Around the World

The February 15th demo will be a global day against the war with demonstrations in Amsterdam, Antwerp, Athens, Bangkok, Barcelona, Belfast, Berlin, Berne, Brussels, Cairo, Copenhagen, Dublin, Glasgow, Helsinki, Istanbul, London, Malta, Manila, New York, Oslo, Paris, Ramallah, Rome, Skopje, Stockholm, Tallinn, Tokyo, Vienna, Warsaw and New Zealand

Statement of the meeting to coordinate European wide action against war on Iraq

As agreed at the assembly of the social movements in Florence in November, activists from 11 European countries, the USA and the Philippines have come together in Copenhagen to coordinate European wide action against war on Iraq.

We endorse the anti war call launched at the assembly in Florence. We believe that a war on Iraq, with or without UN support, would be a disaster for the people of the Middle East and beyond.

It is clear there is majority opposition to war in almost every country in Europe and across the world. That is why this war cannot be fought in our name. This is also why we believe it is vital to build the broadest possible anti-war alliances everywhere around the demand No War on Iraq.

Our meeting showed that the movement against the war is gaining strength. All the countries represented have called action on the 15 February.

We reinforce the decision to protest in every country immediately war starts, to hold national protests the following Saturday and to organize coordinated mass national demonstrations in capital cities on February 15.

To this end we have decided to continue our coordination at a European level, to set up a European wide anti war website, and to have a common banner on each of our demonstrations demanding No War on Iraq. We are committed to spreading anti war coordination both inside and beyond Europe, and to holding another enlarged meeting after the February 15 demo. We will continue to campaign until this war is stopped.

We urge the movements in countries not represented at our meeting to join in our initiatives. We urge every organization that opposes this war to work for a massive mobilization on February 15. Together we can stop the war.

Copenhagen, December 15th 2002.

If war breaks out

24 hour Picket in London

opposite Downing Street, Whitehall

24-hour picket outside Downing Street from the moment hostilities start
Organised by ECIP

Mass sit down protest in Glasgow

from 12:00 onwards, in George Square, Glasgow

Join the sit down protest if Iraq is attacked, George Square, midday first Saturday after war starts.

Organised by Scottish Coalition for Justice Not War, More details from 01414 23 1222

It is a measure of the growing feelings of anger and passion against Bush and Blair’s preparations for war against Iraq that, despite torrential rain, well over 600 people crowded into the Rivoli Ballrooms in Brockley, South East London on January 21 for a Stop the War rally. This rally was organised by the Lewisham and Greenwich branch of the Stop the War Coalition. The atmosphere of this packed rally can only be described as electric; there were loud cheers for powerfully argued speeches by Lindsey German, Bruce Kent, Glen Clark from the Fire Brigades Union and Tony Benn. All four speakers spoke not only of the thousands upon thousands of ordinary Iraqi people that would be killed in this war, if it were allowed to go ahead, but the potentially devastating far-reaching consequences of such a war, both at home and abroad.

Lindsey German (Stop the War Coalition) said that we were seeing the biggest ever anti-war movement. She pointed out that, despite the hysterical claims of Bush and Blair of the threat to world peace supposedly posed by Iraq, it is the US, Britain and Israel who, unlike Iraq, undoubtedly possess "weapons of mass destruction". She said that Bush needs the backing of Britain to give "credence" to his war aims and spoke against Blair’s nefarious and devious role in this. She said actions and demonstrations can make a difference as in the opposition to the war against Vietnam. She urged everyone to rally support from friends, workplace for the mass demonstration on February 15.

The veteran anti-war campaigner and leading CND member Bruce Kent spoke of the strong opposition by many church leaders against the war preparations. He said that the Iraqi people had suffered enough from 10 years of sanctions imposed by Britain and America and that the "war against terror" had resulted in the slaughter of 7,000 Afghan civilians. He pointed out that the UN was being pulled apart and would collapse if Blair had his way; there was no legal justification of war against Iraq unless all non-violent means had been exhausted. He further pointed out that there was "one law for the rich and another for the poor": "we" can have nukes but not you. Aldermaston and Sellafield should be inspected for "weapons of mass destruction".

Glen Clark from the Deptford branch of the Fire Brigades Union received a tremendous ovation. He said that the workers and trade union movement supports the anti-war movement. He spoke of the reign of terror on Iraqi men women and children and the terrifying humanitarian results if war was unleashed. He said the public sector should speak out loudly against war. Glen Clark read out a very powerful and moving message from the GFTU – the General Federation of Trade Unions (Iraq) – who expressed feelings of hurt that Blair had attacked the fire-fighters. The GFTU said the Iraqi people would "fight to the death" whatever the sacrifice and "we will win". The message ended "yours in solidarity". After reading the message he went on to speak of the growing trend within the trade union movement to break with New Labour. He said that it was the Blair government that had broken down the wage negotiations branding the fire-fighters "criminally irresponsible". He said that New Labour had abandoned the traditional real labour values of fairness, respect and solidarity and that it was neither "new" nor "labour". He pointed out that the fire-fighters' union stood for real change and progress and that the fire-fighters were not in it as a business for profit.

Tony Benn in his speech said that people were becoming very angry and no longer believe what the political leaders are saying. He pointed out that Bush’s remark that "my patience is exhausted" is the same as Hitler’s. Benn exposed the absurdity of Blair’s argument for war: "terrorists in Wood Green, therefore bomb Iraq." He pointed out the hypocrisy of Blair’s "concern" for the Iraqi people under Saddam while wanting to kill untold thousands in a war of aggression. He spoke of the devastating consequences of such a war spreading throughout the Middle East and beyond and that it would be a fraudulent war for oil. He pointed out that Bush and Blair were set on destroying the international rule of law established in the UN charter of human rights after the Second World War and seek to destroy the democratic values we all believe in. It is they who want war but not the ordinary people, the fire-fighters, pensioners, students, teachers and many others. Benn ended with the hope of a future world of peace and justice for his grandchildren’s generation to grow up in.

The Rally ended up with all four speakers and people from the floor calling on everyone to build the anti-war movement. Over 10,000 leaflets for the February 15 demonstration were given out and there was a tremendous feeling of solidarity and optimism that we, the ordinary people, can change things.

On Wednesday, January 15, a militant meeting of the community took place against war with Iraq at Trinity Methodist Church Hall in Farnham Road, Handsworth. The meeting was very well attended by working class people and provided a spur for the work to go ahead against the war. Speakers at the meeting included Shaista Anjum from Stop the War Coalition, the Reverend Chris Shannahan, a fire-fighter and local councillor, John Tyrell.

The meeting hailed the work of the movement against a war with Iraq and proposed to enlarge the local committee so that it could be effective against the impending danger of war with Iraq. In particular a call was made to mobilise for the coming demonstration in London on February 15 and called on everyone present to be active. There was much enthusiasm for this.

Shaista outlined how she had become active in the struggle against the global designs of US imperialism and its war in Afghanistan and pointed to the need to understand how to develop the movement. The Reverend Chris Shannahan gave a very lively speech against war and pointed to the need to take a principled stand on issues of third world debt and other problems caused by imperialism and colonialism. A local fire-fighter addressed the meeting and raised important issues surrounding the present dispute and important links were made to the financing of war and refusal by the government to finance the fire service.

Councillor John Tyrell, a local Labour Council member, addressed the meeting and denounced the role of the New Labour government in proposing to assist the Americans in a war. A member of the audience praised the councillor for taking a stand against the war and whether or not other councillors would form a "Councillors Against the War" committee. John Tyrell said that he thought this was an excellent suggestion and that he would take this back to the Birmingham City council with a view to carry this out.

In the question and answer session at the end of the meeting a number of people suggested boosting the numbers on the demonstrations against the war. It was suggested that the committee should expand by those taking part in the meeting taking a positive stand and coming forward. Many of the participants in the meeting agreed to do so, asking for the time and place of the next meeting.

One participant said that it was interesting that the first speaker had spoken about how to move the movement forward. He said that in the past he had taken part in many actions against imperialist war including Vietnam, the Falklands, the war with Afghanistan and Iraq. He said that he too would not like the situation where he had to be at meetings in the future talking about other wars such as aggression against North Korea. A number of people had raised issues where the government were at odds with the people over principle he pointed out, such as whether fire-fighters and the fire service should be fully funded, whether or not there should be privatisation of public services. Also it was pointed out by the speaker that the workers and people supported funding education and health and that third world debt cancellation and other issues surrounding it, as the reverend had remarked on his speech, were principles people again thought that governments should adopt.

A major political principle was that problems between nations should not be solved by violent means anymore. "So why are big political parties not taking this up?" the contributor asked. "Who is putting forward this alternative?"

The speaker from the floor said that the issue was one of representative democracy where the political system had from the outset of elections put forward that candidates are selected by parties and not people. "Worker and people's politicians," he said, "must come forward, selected from the grassroots and a different mechanism for selecting and electing must be developed."

The speaker from the floor continued, "The other day Blair had to have members of the cabinet persuaded, as he wants to persuade us all, that we should follow America to war. We are trying our best to with our demonstrations and leaflets to persuade people the other way. We seem today to have absolute government – in the past we had absolute monarchies but in Westminster, Washington, Europe and elsewhere. We have a very small minority deciding for the majority; this has got to change. Just think, if we had the principles and policies and the mechanisms to stand in front of these political parties and say to them that if they won't do it differently then someone else will, then think of how this alternative could be presented to the vast majority of the people, which could change the direction of things once and for all and maybe we would be fully successful in opposing war and change for the good many other aspects of life."

The contribution was very warmly received by the audience and the level of discussion and other contributions continued at a very high level.

A MORI poll of 21 January showed that only 61% of the British public supported a war in Iraq with UN support – down from 71% support that it commanded in September. Without UN approval, support for a war drops to 15%. A Yougov poll revealed 74% support for British contribution to a UN-approved war in Iraq and only 23% support without such approval. A different poll, conducted by ICM for The Guardian, put opposition to any war at 47%.

Across Europe polls indicate there is growing opposition to Iraq. In Germany, a poll published by Infrasrst-Dimpa found 76% against a UN-approved war. In Spain the Royal Eclano Institute found that 60% would find an attack justifiable if it could be demonstrated that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. In Italy a survey in La Repubblica found that 61% were against a war.

The poll conducted by expression-publique in concert with Le Monde and Yahoo France concluded that 41% of those polled believed that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction (as opposed to 75% who apparently believe the same thing in the UK). Nonetheless, 89% of respondents felt that the US had decided upon military action regardless of the findings of UN inspectors.

The SNP mounted an attack on the government's Iraq strategy in the angry debate in the Scottish parliament on January 15.

SNP leader John Swinney said: "The British prime minister could take this country to war tomorrow – without having sought the approval of the House of Commons. Westminster has left a democratic void. Our Scottish parliament – today – can help to fill that void."

John Swinney said, "The dossiers have been published and the talk of the threat posed by Iraq has grown louder." He continued, "Along with many others in Scotland today I fear there can only be one conclusion: the US and UK governments are currently pursuing an inevitable path to war. And I believe it is our duty to steer the government away from this approach."

"Threatening to take unilateral action does not uphold the UN's authority – it helps to destroy the UN's authority – and we as a parliament should have none of it," the SNP leader said. "The United Nations route is not a soft option – it is the right option."

Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said in Tehran on Wednesday that the US was looking for a pretext to attack Iraq in the face of UN opposition, but he hoped that the Security Council could do something to stop Washington.

"I think America wants to look for a pretext to attack Iraq, but as we have said we are opposed to that since an attack will not benefit anybody, even America," he told reporters after a cabinet session, according to an Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) report.

"We hope that the UN Security Council will act so that the issue is resolved without a war," Khatami said, adding, "I think the Security Council will not simply agree with an attack".

Asked about US and Britain's proposal to Saddam Hussein to voluntarily quit power in order to avert a war, the Iranian president said, "We believe that any change of government in Iraq must come from its people since this will benefit both Iraqis and the region."

"We think it is wrong to interfere in Iraq in order to change its government. We do not propose a government to quit power by force. However, Iraq must definitely submit to international principles," Khatami said.

The president welcomed a regional meeting, to be held in Istanbul the following day, in order to find a peaceful solution to the standoff between Iraq and the US.

"We defend any conference which entails coordination, unanimity and consultation over security and stability in the region," he said as foreign ministers of Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia prepared to meet in Istanbul ahead of another meeting of the same countries' heads of state.

"We hope that we would reach a common ground on regional security, not only restricted to Iraq, during the summit conference which will be held after the foreign ministers' meeting in order to prove that regional issues have to be resolved by their people without need of outside interference," Khatami said.

Turkey has invited the six countries to take part in the conference, aimed at finding a peaceful solution to the Iraqi crisis amid US threats to oust Saddam Hussein.

China is worried about the military concentration in the Gulf area, hoping that the Iraq issue be resolved through diplomatic and political means within the framework of the United Nations.

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue made the remarks at a regular press conference on January 23.

China looks favourably on the proposal by some countries to hold a meeting to discuss the Iraq issue, and China hopes the meeting will make progress to settle the Iraq issue, Zhang said.

China's special envoy to the Middle East Wang Shijie is also keeping close contacts with relevant parties, according to Zhang.

Taking a similar stance to France and Germany, China hopes to resolve the Iraq issue through diplomatic and political means, Zhang said when asked to comment on the two European nations' opposition to the use of force against Iraq.

"Any move taken by relevant countries should be conducive to resolving the Iraq issue through diplomatic and political means," Zhang said in response to a question that the Australian government is to send a transport carrier to the Middle East region.

A West Midlands engineering firm is preparing to shed 90 jobs. The Wellman Group, which is based in Oldbury, owns a number of firms around the country.

Wellman furnaces chief executive, Peter Lawrence said that the majority of the jobs would go from Oldbury.

Workers have been told that they only have until today to opt for voluntary redundancy before the firm starts to implement compulsory sackings.

Workers Plan to Stop Telecoms Plant from Closing in Coventry

Workers and their unions have decided to meet on Tuesday of next week to discuss plans to stop the closure of the Jabil Circuit plant, an American company, which bought the former Marconi plant recently. 400 jobs are at stake.

The closure of the Horizon Park factory in the Foleshill area of Coventry is due to close in August. The company intends to drop the existing workforce for more profitable pastures new in Hungary, where the labour rates are cheaper.

Amicus regional spokesperson, Tom Keogh accused Marconi of betraying its former staff. He said that workers thought their jobs were safe after Jabil bought the plant from Marconi two years ago. Danny Carrigan, also of amicus said, "This is a very bleak day for the workforce, many of whom have been at the factory for more than 30 years."

Opposing Colin Powell's Demand to Take the DPRK's "Nuclear Issue" to the UN

Opposing Colin Powell's Demand to Take the DPRK's "Nuclear Issue" to the UN

What They Do Not Tell You about the "Nuclear Problem" on the Korean Peninsula

DPRK Declares It Withdraws from NPT

Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) Commentaries:

Aid to DPRK Drying Up UN Envoy Warns

Calendar of Events against the War on Iraq

No to war!

No to the massacre which is under preparation!

NO BASIS FOR WAR

NO BASES FOR WAR

Assemble Fairford village at noon

Monday 27th January from 6.30PM until he leaves Protest at the visit of Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon, at Lambeth Town Hall, Acre Lane, Brixton

THURSDAY 30TH JANUARY...6.30PM...

Thursday 30th January 5-7PM

Public Meeting

NO TO WAR IN IRAQ

Public Meeting

Alternatives to War on Iraq

Saturday 1st February

Conference: No War on Iraq - Reclaim the Party for Peace

Sunday 2nd February 2.00-5.00 pm

PUBLIC MEETING AND FILM

Monday 3 February

Demo/vigil with direct action at US Air Force base Lakenheath, in East

14-16 March

The Alternatives To Violence Project (AVP) Level 1 Training, at Department of Peace Studies, Bradford. Cost: £15 student/unwaged, £25 waged -

Saturday 15 March

7th International Day Against Police Brutality

Saturday 22 March

National demonstration outside Fairford USAF base, called by Bristol

Tuesday 22 April

The Really Big Blockade, Faslane nuclear submarine base, Scotland. 0845 4588367

Events on 14 or 15 Feb

Stop the War Coalition Rally in Brockley, South East London

Militant Anti-War Meeting Held in Handsworth

Latest Poll Results

SNP Condemns Tony Blair's Inevitable Path to War

Khatami says US Looking for Pretext to Attack Iraq

China Worried about Military Concentration in Gulf Area

West Midlands News In Brief

Black Country Firm to Cut 90 Jobs

Workers Plan to Stop Telecoms Plant from Closing in Coventry

Monday 27th January from 6.30PM until he leaves Protest at the visit of Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon,
at Lambeth Town Hall, Acre Lane, Brixton