WDIE Masthead

Year 2001 No. 204, November 28-29, 2001 ARCHIVE HOME SEARCH SUBSCRIBE

Anti-terrorist Legislation Reaches Lords

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

Anti-terrorist Legislation Reaches Lords

K&C Hospital Day of Action:
Massive Demonstration Supports Fight to Save Hospital

British Coal Sector Poised For Further Cuts

EU Militarisation and Drive to War

To Ensure Security and Long-Lasting Peace World-Wide, It Is Necessary to Fight against All Forms of Terrorism

Daily On Line Newspaper of the
Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)

170, Wandsworth Road, London, SW8 2LA. Phone 020 7627 0599
Web Site: http://www.rcpbml.org.uk
e-mail: office@rcpbml.org.uk
Subscription Rates (Cheques made payable to Workers' Publication Centre):
Workers' Weekly Printed Edition:
70p per issue, £2.70 for 4 issues, £17 for 26 issues, £32 for 52 issues (including postage)

Workers' Daily Internet Edition sent by e-mail daily (Text e-mail):
1 issue free, 6 months £5, Yearly £10

Anti-terrorist Legislation Reaches Lords

The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill was subject to a guillotine on Monday, November 26, when it passed through its Committee, Report and Third Reading stages in the House of Commons.

Despite opposition from the Liberal Democrats and dissent from a significant number of Labour MPs, the bill passed its key third reading by a vote of 323-79. The following day, it began its scrutiny in the House of Lords with the second reading of the bill.

MPs had had to complete the debate on the bill in three days, which included the Committee stage of the whole House, where detailed scrutiny of the bill is supposed to take place.

Home Secretary David Blunkett had agreed to insert a "sunset clause", which requires a new Act of Parliament in November 2006 if the government wants to continue the provisions of holding suspects without trial. The detention measure applies to foreign nationals who cannot be deported to their home countries because they would be in danger there.

The European Convention on Human Rights bars countries from detaining people indefinitely without trial. However, article 15 of the convention says countries can derogate, or opt out of, this provision "in times of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation in extraordinary circumstances", and this is what the government has invoked.

In the Lords, senior peers have served notice on the government that swathes of the Anti-Terrorism Bill have nothing to do with the post-September 11 terrorist emergency. The bill has eight days in committee and report stages in the second chamber. Two Lords committees, the constitution committee and the delegated powers committee, have already published reports critical of the speed with which the legislation is being pushed through parliament.

During the second reading debate in the upper chamber on Tuesday, opposition peers condemned the measures as "premature". Conservative peer Lord Dixon-Smith described the bill as a "premature baby dragged kicking and screaming into the world far too soon". Liberal Democrat spokesman Lord McNally said the bill contained some measures that would not be passed by peers in other circumstances. "This house will not sign a blank cheque on these measures," said Lord McNally. "Where powers sought are unjustified or lack proportionality – particularly as they affect the judicial process, civil liberties or human rights – then we will oppose them."

Responding for the government, Home Office minister Lord Rooker said that terrorists were becoming effectively stateless because the country they came from would not want them back. "The old way of working where you knew where the enemy was doesn't quite work in today's international terrorism and we have to modify our rules to meet that," said Lord Rooker.

In the debate on Monday in the House of Commons, several Labour MPs attempted to block the clauses in the legislation related to a new offence of incitement to religious hatred. David Blunkett had refused to drop these clauses from the bill. Twenty-one Labour MPs voted against the plans for new laws banning such incitement. The government overcame the opposition to pass the anti-incitement measures by 328 votes to 209.

The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Simon Hughes, opened the debate to oppose the clauses, saying efforts to stamp out religious hatred should not be linked to the September 11 atrocities. Arguing that the issue ought to be tackled separately, Simon Hughes said the plans were not the best way of protecting religious minorities. He said, "The maximum protection will come from legislation that treats all faiths equally, that does not give protection to a denomination of one faith and that ensures that the law is clear and does not restrict the freedom of speech, which some people fear might happen. There is nothing between us on that, but should we rush through legislation that might be subject to row, division and wrong construction later?"

Some Labour MPs with Muslim communities in their constituencies, including former minister Gerald Kaufman, were among those to back the clauses defining an offence of incitement to religious hatred. Muddying the waters, Gerald Kaufman said, "It is very easy indeed for white Christians to say that they are an agnostic, an atheist or a humanist, but although Jews, Muslims or Hindus can decide within their convictions that they are an agnostic, an atheist or a humanist, to everybody else they will still be a Jew, a Muslim or a Hindu." He continued, "Whether or not I want to be a Jew, I am a Jew, and because of that, I can be hated as a Jew. My hon. Friends--and many more people outside the Chamber--who are Muslim or Hindu or of other minority faiths can have humanist views but they will be hated outside the House, by those who are inclined to hate them, as Muslims, Hindus or members of minority faiths." On being asked by the Hemsworth MP Jon Trickett if he were not "confusing ethnicity, in relation to which incitement to hatred is already forbidden in law, with a belief system or religion? It seems to me that it is possible to be a white European Muslim or an Asian Muslim," Gerald Kaufman replied, "There is no confusion in my mind about ethnicity versus religion. I am talking about religion, not ethnicity. Over the years, when I was at school and at other times, I have been the object of anti-semitism, although happily it does not happen very much now. My ethnicity was never the reason for that anti-semitism because my ethnicity is British; my religion was the reason for it." What there is confusion about here is that it is the state which is defining the problems in terms of religion, and Jon Trickett has some justice in accusing Gerald Kaufman of confusing ethnicity with religion. This is because the state wishes to institutionalise the concept of "minority faiths", about which there should be tolerance and not "hatred", and create confusion about the conception of religious belief, an individual matter, by identifying certain religions with various national minority communities and their identity. Gerald Kaufman adds a further confusion by mixing up citizenship and ethnicity. Rights of all citizens should be guaranteed equally, irrespective of national background, religion or any other criteria, and this is what is not being addressed. Far from it being addressed, the issue of "religious hatred" is being made a law and order question. It is religious pogroms and communal violence which are organised by the state which are to be condemned, and it is with this background that this law is being introduced. "Islamic fundamentalism" is being portrayed as a "perverted" form of Islam and an abuse of human rights, but this source of "incitement to religious hatred" is ignored by the government. The main point of such clauses in the bill is to link the question of terrorism and religion, as was done by including "religious motives" as a defining cause of terrorism in the Terrorism Act 2000, and suggest that one of the causes of terrorism is religious hatred (which is what the evidence against Osama bin Laden amounted to), and get the government off the hook.

Furthermore, motive itself is being criminalised, rather than criminal actions which follow objective criteria. Diane Abbott made the point that those who have sought to defend the bill "have wilfully confused racial discrimination with religious discrimination and are obliged to talk about acts of discrimination, whereas the Bill deals with acts of incitement to hatred".

Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin warned the anti-hatred plans could prove counter-productive because they could prevent legitimate debate about religion. He said, "The problem we face … concerns a set of words that, if the Home Secretary has his way, will be a statute; the law of the land. That will be interpreted by judges in ways that none of us can wholly predict and about which the Home Secretary has been almost wholly silent." Oliver Letwin went on to ask the question that if the provisions are used against Muslims, "will that further the cause of dampening the serious fires that are raging in our country, or will it inflame them? That is part of the problem both of enacting legislation at a time when the country is in some turmoil and of enacting legislation that is ill considered." The shadow home secretary’s contention was that, though there is a distinction between what is "reasonable or unreasonable" and what "ought to lead to people going to jail", the parties ought to "commit ourselves to the early introduction of proposals which can gain consensus, will deal with the whole issue of religious discrimination and religious tolerance" but on a basis that "will not curtail free speech in this country". But how to guarantee such freedom of speech, as well as freedom of association, given that motive and intent are being legislated on, is the point at issue.

Earlier, Oliver Letwin told BBC News he was worried the government was sneaking through new powers for the police to get confidential information under the guise of fighting terrorism.

Despite the criticism, Mr Blunkett stood by his proposals, saying that he had no intention of withdrawing the clauses although he was willing to see the new law reviewed after two years in force. He seemed, however, to acknowledge what a number of MPs had alleged, which is that the "public order" legislation exists which already can be applied to the actual offences the new bill envisages. He said: "It is particular groups, under the Public Order Act 1986 and within public order in general, that we are dealing with today."

The Home Secretary claimed that the new laws targeted hatred stirred up by groups such as the British National Party. This is the justification on allegedly humanitarian grounds that is being put forward by the government. This is despite the fact that, as was stressed during the debate, prosecutions under the Race Relations Act have rarely been made. Instead, the issue has been made one of "public order", under which the victims of racist attacks are themselves made the target. However, where the Home Secretary is coming from can perhaps be gauged from his statement that "there is a fear that those who sought to stir up hate against those whom they described as the infidel were equally untouchable under the existing law". If the issue is made one of public order, then the state will claim itself justified in bringing in repressive legislation to maintain such public order, and the issue of the rights of minorities, as well as all citizens, including the right to conscience, will go out of the window, and political protest and dissent will be further criminalised.

When the debate moved on to the new additional police powers, again several MPs voiced their opposition and disquiet. For example, the bill strengthens the powers of the Terrorism Act 2000 itself in regard to the powers of the police to take fingerprints. At present, fingerprints can be taken from a person detained under that Act only to establish whether he or she has been involved in certain offences under it or in acts of terrorism. According to the government, valuable time could be wasted, and that "finding out someone's true identity could prevent acts from taking place".

Jeremy Corbyn made the point that "when the police take fingerprints that are subsequently proven to be unnecessary, as the suspect has been released and no charge has been proffered, there is no case for keeping them. Otherwise, the police can have a permanent record on somebody who is wholly innocent of all suspicions, and one then has to ask why any records of any sort are being kept. During the passage of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, many of us suspected that it was intended more to enable the police to haul people in and keep records on them than to lead to serious prosecutions." "Secondly," he said that the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights "reveals serious anxieties about the way in which clause 89 and associated provisions have suddenly been thrust into the Bill when they have little to do with its purported intention. It is supposed to deal with a terrorist emergency; indeed, hon. Members have been asked to decide that there is such an emergency. It would therefore be helpful if the Government withdrew clause 89 and the associated provisions. If there are genuine anxieties about fingerprinting and right of access, the Government should introduce a separate measure that can be properly scrutinised. It is inappropriate to deal with such a major topic in a 15-minute debate in the middle of considering an enormous Bill that is being rushed through at inordinate speed."

On the proposed powers of the police to order demonstrators to remove what the bill refers to as "disguises", Jeremy Corbyn said: "Under existing legislation, the police can require the removal of a disguise only if they think that violence has been committed. The proposal will give far too much unfettered power to the police, and the Human Rights Committee has suggested that it should be reconsidered. Because of the results of the last Division, which I regret, the power to take fingerprints will be widely available to the police, so why on earth will they need to go to the lengths of arguing about the removal of disguises with people who would become hostile to what the police are trying to achieve?"

Jeremy Corbyn went on to say that "it is as if a storeroom of Bills has been festering for a long time and someone has had the bright idea of pushing them through, given the opportunity--and this is the opportunity. After the declaration of some sort of state of national emergency, the Bill has been drafted to introduce very draconian legislation."

Just how much the new provisions on police powers have to do with "public order" and how little to do with eliminating terrorism was evidenced by Beverley Hughes for the government, who said: "During the May day demonstrations, central London was designated an area where face masks could be seized. That gives hon. Members an idea of the judgment that the police are using in these circumstances. They are considering an event that will take place in a specific location which could be used not only to indulge in violent behaviour but to commit many other offences. It would clearly be open to people whose motives were associated with terrorism or serious crime to use the camouflage of a large public event to perpetrate certain acts." In other words, the equation is made between political protest and terrorism, and the law is to legislate on motives. This whole set of measures is to allow the police and the state to act with impunity. There is to be power to "stop and search in anticipation of violence" and extra powers for Ministry of Defence police.

In addition, the bill "widens the gateways" for disclosure of information of public bodies to the government. One MP pointed out: "Clause 17 provides for the extension of existing disclosure powers to enable the exchange of information between Government agencies and Departments in a way that is unparalleled in our history. There is no restriction or fetter on the exchange of information, which is contained in schedule 7, and the provision can be applied in any criminal investigation from a speeding offence to high treason. Schedule 4, annexed to it, shows that the information cuts right across Government. Much of that information concerns matters that are, at present, surrounded by specific confidentiality clauses relating to the information imparted to the particular Government agency or Department. Thus it will now be possible for the Inland Revenue to share information with any other Government agency. Medical information, including the records of individuals, will be capable of being shared. The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, with which I am particularly familiar, contains a specific clause which provides that statements may be obtained from individuals--indeed, they are compelled to provide them. That information, too, may now be shared, even though the 1974 Act specifically provided that it could be made available only for legal proceedings relating to the Act or in circumstances in which the individual consented."

In moving the Third Reading, David Blunkett said: "Whatever success we can gain in Afghanistan--in freeing the people, in pushing the Taliban, the al-Qaeda group and bin Laden back into the mountains--we are still at risk. Those who dismiss that risk, who pretend that because 11 September is 11 weeks ago, we can set it aside, are making a grave error. That is why we are asking the House and, subsequently, the House of Lords to take measured, proportionate but necessary steps to protect the people of this country. The only people who have anything to fear are those who bring fear and dread to others. That is why I move the Third Reading."

The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill was given a third reading by 323 votes to 79, Government majority 244. The Liberal Democrats voted against it, as did 21 Labour MPs.

Following Monday's vote, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Simon Hughes said: "The terrorism bill as it finished in the Commons with large sections not debated was sadly not fit for the statute book and so we felt we had no choice but to vote against it. Any legislation approved by parliament must get the balance right between giving necessary powers to the state and upholding the individual's civil liberties. This bill has still got the balance badly wrong. We shall work with colleagues from all parts of the House of Lords to make significant amendments in the days ahead."

In the House of Lords, the Labour Party does not have a majority, and commentators are predicting a confrontation unless ministers provide some concessions.

Lord Strathclyde, Conservative leader in the Lords, said: "We want to see a tough bill that deals with the problems of terrorism but the home secretary has included some measures which are not strictly emergency measures or are so controversial that I doubt the House of Lords will be able to accept them." The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are to put forward joint amendments that would provide narrowly defined grounds for judicial review of the bill's plans to introduce detention without trial of suspected foreign terrorists. They also want proposals to introduce a new criminal offence of incitement to religious hatred dropped from the bill.

The opposition also wants to reduce the amount of information that would have to be kept by internet companies for potential handover to the police for detection of terrorist activity. They are also against the bill's provisions that would allow parliament to adopt European Union anti-crime measures by secondary rather than primary legislation.

Article Index

K&C Hospital Day of Action:

Massive Demonstration Supports Fight to Save Hospital

The largest demonstration Canterbury has ever seen demanded on November 17: Save the Kent and Canterbury Hospital!

As many as 15,000 people protested against the downgrading of the "K&C" and pledged to continue the fight. The demonstration, called by Concern for Health in East Kent (CHEK), marched through the city centre to the Westgate Towers. Elderly people, people in motorised wheelchairs, councillors, MPs and people from the community, motivated by a sense of injustice and anger that their hospital is to be reduced to cottage hospital status, thronged the streets, carrying banners and placards aloft. Children participated, some in a special Children’s March contingent, carrying such placards as, "We All Need A&E and K&C", and "Save Lives Not Money!".

The protesters staged a sit-down demonstration, led by MP Julian Brazier and the Mayor of Canterbury, Fred Whitemore, blocking the ring-road and stopping traffic for half an hour. David Shortt, chairman of CHEK, who had stood in the general election as an independent candidate on the platform of saving the K&C, said that the sit-down protest was "spontaneous, borne out of the anger of the moment and was not malicious". The police complained that "it is illegal to obstruct a public highway".

Immediately after the march, the Mayor told a public meeting at the Westgate Hall: "The turn-out exceeds our wildest expectations. I have never known a demonstration that has filled the High Street from one end to the other."

Representatives of the East Kent Health Authority (EKHA) and the East Kent Hospitals NHS Trust had turned down invitations to discuss the downgrading of the K&C at the meeting, on the grounds that there would not be a "proper reasoned debate of the complex issues involved". David Shortt said: "I think their absence speaks volumes – they have no answer to our questions." The meeting closed with a resolution calling on Health Secretary Alan Milburn to maintain the K&C’s A&E with full services. Videotapes of the meeting were due to be sent on to the EKHA and the NHS Trust. "We have told EKHA that the issue isn’t dead. It has sent a message that we are going to fight this all the way," David Shortt said.

The day of action ended with a choral concert in Canterbury Cathedral. The performers were the 210-strong Sing For Your Life choir, who performed with a 90-member orchestra. Christ Church University College music lecturer Grenville Hancox, who was inspired by the campaigning of terminal cancer victim and choir singer Larissa Lovelock, formed the choir in 1998. The singer died in her early twenties fighting for the future of the K&C from her hospital bed.

Article Index

British Coal Sector Poised For Further Cuts

The British coal industry, which employs 5% of the miners it did in 1975, is poised for further contraction it is reported.

The country's biggest coal mining company, UK Coal, has warned that it is continuing to probe the "viability of the deep mine business". The firm, which employs more than three-quarters of British miners, said it had identified mines with potential for "significant improvements in productivity to be achieved". Mines where factors such as rock faults increase the changes of "uneconomic production" are also being reviewed, the firm said in a statement.

A spokesman for UK Coal, formerly RJB Mining, declined to rule out mine closures. "When you are making £100m profit, you can afford to do things you can't when you are making a £10m loss, as we did in the first half of the year," the spokesman told BBC News Online. "The deep mine business alone lost £35m."

He said that whereas in the past UK Coal would have been prepared to swallow costs needed, for example, to overcome an unexpected geological fault, such investment would now be less likely. "What we are saying is that there are areas of mines that will not be working that might in the past have been working," the spokesman said.

Three month's production at Rossington Colliery in Yorkshire have been lost to a strike over bonus pay. The firm now expects to produce about 8 million tonnes of coal, "lower than expectations".

A decline in the size of UK Coal operations would hit a sector which employs about 10,000 people today, compared with more than 200,000 in 1975. The firm, as RJB Mining, in 1994 took over the core operations of British Coal as the then Conservative government progressed its privatisation programme. In 1995, the company reported a pre-tax profit of £173m, rising to £189m the next year. But profits had fallen to £11m, before exceptional items, by 1999.

The firm in May changed its name to UK Coal, following the resignation as chief executive of Richard Budge, after whose initials RJB Mining was named.

The fate of the British coal industry is a commentary on the decline in the manufacturing base of the economy, the imbalance in the economy, and the fact that the making of maximum profits for the financial oligarchy is no longer to be found in such sectors, as the neo-liberal agenda took precedence. But the decline of the coal industry also underlines that workers must place on the banner the fight for the right to a livelihood.

Article Index

EU Militarisation and Drive to War

For the information of our readers, WDIE is reproducing the following article by Brian Denny, which appears as the lead article in the November 2001 issue of The Democrat, paper of the Campaign against Euro-federalism.

The events of September 11 and the US attacks on Afghanistan have provided the catalyst for the West to extend and entrench its New World Order – in Europe this means the accelerated militarisation of the European Union. The federalists were prepared for these terrorist outrages and any ensuing war in order to exploit them for their own ends.

The European Commission’s forward planning unit predicted in 1996 that it would be "difficult to achieve political union without there being the perception of an external political threat. A terrorist outrage would contribute to the perception of an external threat." Therefore, right on cue, European Commission president Romano Prodi declared at the October EU summit in Ghent: "The current crisis could be seen as favouring integration by stressing the need for action at a higher level than a national one."

The Nice summit already put militarisation and a single EU foreign policy firmly on the agenda despite widespread opposition. These moves will allow Brussels to become a world imperial player, complete with plans for global "peacemaking" and so-called "conflict resolution". In order to implement this war drive a 60,000 strong military intervention force was to be built by 2003.

However, Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt, current president of the EU Council, now says the EU summit in Laeken in December will declare the so-called European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) operational, ignoring the fact that four EU member states are "neutral". To facilitate EU militarisation a second "capabilities conference" will take place on November 19. It will bring together EU defence ministers and European military committee chairman Finnish General Hagglund to co-ordinate military harmonisation, identify "shortcomings" and urge more arms spending.

Belgian defence minister Andre Flahaut says: "We must be ready to take on our responsibilities if American deployment were to create a security vacuum in the Balkans." While Verhofstadt announced the Belgian EU presidency would present an action plan for resource-rich central Africa at Laeken and has visited oil rich Central Asia to bolster support for US attacks on Afghanistan.

It is clear Brussels is pushing its global military agenda in the shadow of the US war drive. The EU/US NATO alliance has already used the KLA in the Balkans as a surrogate guerrilla force to impose its corporate will on the region. Now Afghanistan and former Soviet states are to be carved up in the same way by giving so-called "aid", military and otherwise, in order to subdue and control the entire region.

Although oil is a massive factor in this latest western aggression, the goal is the wholesale annexation of the region along with its natural resources from oil, gas, forests, gold, territory and markets. This strategy will also allow the West to contain the biggest rival to Western power and the fastest growing economy in the world, China. Russian leader Putin has openly used the slogan: "Better the US in Afghanistan than the Taleban in Tartarstan." However, the idea that the West will stop at this juncture and that corporate power will be satisfied is a serious delusion.

These events expose the fact that the international law itself is being torn up by the uneasy EU/US alliance and the UN Charter on the right of nation states to self-determination is being totally ignored. Both Washington and Brussels are guilty.

However, the anti-war movement is ignoring EU militarisation and Brussels’ part in the war drive due to a lack of understanding of modern EU imperialism. The EU is building a military force to secure resources for European corporations and to extend their global economic interests. Prodi made this clear when he boasted that Brussels had "completely changed the nature of the nation states. The pillars of the nation state are the sword and the currency, and we changed that. The euro changed the concept of the nation state."

It is a recipe for eternal conflict inside and outside the bloc, which will embroil all EU states, neutral or otherwise, in the name of EU empire building. Put another way, support for the euro is support for a global war policy.

Article Index

To Ensure Security and Long-Lasting Peace World-Wide, It Is Necessary to Fight against All Forms of Terrorism

The Bulletin of CILRECO, the International Liaison Committee for Reunification and Peace in Korea, carries an article with the above title in its November 2001 issue. The article says that the terrible September 11 terrorist attacks against the US, in which several thousand civilians were killed, were unanimously condemned by the international community, which called for mobilisation of forces, under the aegis of the UN, to fight terrorism and those who support it. It continues:

CILRECO, which, ever since it was founded, through its persevering support to the cause of the peaceful and independent reunification of Korea, has been working in favour of constructing a world of peace and security, strongly condemned these terrorist attacks against the USA and underlined the necessity to fight against all forms of terrorism.

In fact, through its work in favour of the cause of the Korean nation, victim of a tragic division of its country imposed by foreign forces (and maintained for more than half a century), CILRECO could measure all the dramatic consequences of a "state terrorism" practised by American imperialism in order to maintain its domination in South Korea and strangle the popular regime in North Korea, and block the independent and peaceful reunification of Korea. That is why, in its declaration of September 12, CILRECO warned the public against the possible danger of President Bush’s call for a "crusade" for stability and peace in the world.

Totally ignoring the opinion of the international community and scorning once again the role of the UN, the American government assumes the right to impose its point of view, threatening all those who do not give it their unconditional support.

All the events that have occurred since the end of the Second World War show that the American policy has always been conditioned by the objectives of global hegemony of American imperialism. In other words, it has always been directed against freedom and independence of peoples, and has shown no respect for their desire for emancipation, social progress, security and peace.

No one could possibly forget that the American government has been systematically practising "state terrorism", that resulted in millions of victims in Korea, Vietnam, Chile, and many other countries, without even mentioning assassinations and assassination attempts of heads of state, fomented by the CIA because they were considered as obstacles to American policy.

The article says further on that people world-wide are seriously worried about this situation, and continues:

Certainly they want to see all forms of terrorism eradicated, but they realise that these horrible terrorist attacks against the USA, their dramatic consequences, and the way they are used as political issues, have created instability that is dangerous for global security and peace.

Increased tension in the Korean peninsula, with all the American-South Korean armed forces in South Korea in a state of alert under the pretext of filling a military void resulting from the use of American troops in military operations in Afghanistan, shows that these fears of peace-loving people are justified.

What a coincidence! This military provocation against the DPRK happened just at the time when, following the initiative of the North, the North-South talks were to resume, in order to continue the reconciliation-reunification process in Korea, that ensued from the Joint Accord of June 15, 2000, and, obviously, in a period of such tension, the dialogue and the implementation of the measures already decided on came to a halt.

This proves that the United States wants to use the "war against terrorism" as a pretext to intensify its policy of force throughout the world, and, as far as Korea is concerned, this clearly shows its intention to continue with its hostile policy towards the DPRK in order to strangle it, and block the process of the independent and peaceful reunification of the country.

CILRECO firmly denounces this unacceptable use of the war against terrorism by the United States to reactivate tension in the Korean peninsula, and to try to block the peace process in Korea.

Waging a war against terrorism also implies eradicating state terrorism, and, therefore, working in favour of putting an end to all military provocation by the USA against the DPRK and its interference in the internal affairs of the Korean nation, which consequently implies the immediate withdrawal of all American troops from South Korea.

Article Index

RCPB(ML) Home Page

Workers' Daily Internet Edition Index Page