Democratic Socialist Movement (DSM)

For struggle, Solidarity and Socialism in Nigeria

Committee for a Workers' International

Home

Join DSM

Contact DSM

About us

Our Manifesto

Statements

Socialist Democracy

Newspaper of the DSM

Campaigns

NCP

Trade Unions

Students

Women

International

Downloads

email

Socialist Democracy Feb - Mar 2003 Continued ... |  Back

The recent election of Lula in Brazil has raised the hopes internationally, particularly in the third world countries like Nigeria, amongst the working masses of the prospect of a radical shift from the prevailing global pro-rich, pro-capitalist policies to ones geared towards fundamental improvements in the living standard of the ordinary Brazilian masses. What in your views are significance of Lula's election? What are the programmes and outlook of Lula and the PT leadership? Are they capable of bailing Brazil out of its social and economic crisis?

Andre: On the question of election of Lula, we think that it was a big step forward for the working class in Brazil. Lula is a former metal workers who first because publicly known as a representative of metal workers in the ABC industrial districts around Sao Paulo during the military rule in Brazil in the end of the 1970s and beginning of the 1980s. It was the first time a country as unequal as Brazil, one of the most unequal in the world, had elected a former worker as president.

Brazil is very close to Nigeria in some aspects on the question of oppression and exploitation of the masses. In a country like this, the election of a metal worker as a president is a big step and it has a big impact on consciousness internationally. This election also represented a defeat for the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie are mainly the imperialists, the IMF and the speculators and bankers. They didn't want Lula victory in this election. They did what they could to stop this.

They tried to build a bourgeois alternative. When this did not work, they tried to bring Lula more close to their ideas and policies. But we think that the election of Lula was not in the plans of the bourgeoisie. It's a defeat for the bourgeoisie. But how should we now view the PT's situation and the policies of Lula? There is a danger that the masses' expectation of a radical change will be happen, does not really happen. So, the election it is a big step forward but it is not finished yet.

The PT in 1980s was characterised as a left wing party that was against including the tradition of social democracy of Europe and also against the Stalinists, given the experience of Stalinist parties in the eastern Europe and USSR and so on. So, the PT in the 1980s supported the idea of non-payment of foreign debt, the nationalisation of the banks, workers' control in the main sectors including the nationalisation of multinationals and so on. It was a really radical left programme in the 1980s.

Things changed in the 1990s after the collapse of the Stalinists, the PT suffered a shift to the right. Now, the situation is very different. The PT of the 1990s is not the same thing with PT of the 1980s. But there is still something left of the PT of 1980s namely the mass base that PT has among workers and peasantry, etc. But now the main intention of Lula during the election was to convince the Brazilian bourgeois and the imperialists that he will not represent a challenge to them. So, this was the main intention during the election. So, the PT perhaps compromised with an agreement with the IMF because Brazil was in August and September of 2002 in a situation, very close to Argentina situation. We were talking of "Argentinisation"

of the situation in Brazil on the question of economy and Lula during the campaign signed an agreement with the IMF that the PT government will help to cut in social services and continue to pay the debt, etc. So, the problem of PT during the election was not the traditional problem of the PT. It was not the problem that we in the left wing of the social movement and PT supported. But we think that in the government, there will be a new situation. There will be the pressure from below. From one side to the other side, there will be economy crisis with the struggle not with the negotiation but with the struggle of mass movement on the streets to put pressure with the breakdown of IMF, etc. That is the main issue. That the mass movement will have to go to the street and this will precede what will happen in Brazil in the next period.

What are the slogans put forward by your organisation during the said elections?

Andre: Without the mass movement, it will mean Brazil will go toward Argentina situation. There is no alternative to this. But for us during the election, the first thing that we think was important was to make clear that the PT we supported is not the current PT, is not the position of the majority of the leadership of the party during the election. So, simply, we stand against the alliance with bourgeoisie parties like liberal party that has the vice-presidency now. Lula's vice-president is not a member of PT.

He is a bourgeoisie, he is a member of liberal party, so, we stand against these alliances and during the election, we did not call for votes in general for the PT-led alliance, we called votes for Lula a critical votes because of the PT's programme and the alliances. We also called the vote for the candidates for members of parliament who were from the left wing of the PT.

We thought it as necessity to give more strength to the left wing of the party, not all the party with one of our slogans "Our PT is socialist and without bosses". Just to show the social basis of the PT that there are really two PTs. There is one that is close to the bourgeoisie and there is one confined by the leadership but has links with mass movement and trade unions and the youth.

We also stood against the general economic programme presented by the PT on the agreement with the IMF, on the payment of debt and general economic policies. Lula for example said Brazil needs more 10 million jobs in the country and this generated big expectation of this question. We agree that Brazil needs 10 million jobs and also Lula said every Brazilian needs to eat 3 times a day and this is a big issue in Brazil as there is hunger.

So, we supported this. But what we think is that the only way to get this is to break with IMF and imperialist, non-payment of the bad debt with nationalisation of financial system and with the economic plan for nationalisation of some enterprises that are needed for the economic plan of anti-capitalist and socialist character. We stood for these during the elections and we went to build a support for left wing idea as the left wing is still alive in the workers movement in Brazil and also in PT.

We think that in the first period, the PT proposal for social pact was supported by Bush strongly because they did want workers to organise strike but just to wait for the solution peacefully. But we think that some layers of the workers could have illusion in the first period. They will think that they have the president now (a worker) with the bosses in the table and the trade unions and the movement that they are in majority and may be they could get something without hard struggle, etc. For a period, probably, this illusion will remain, but this will not be forever.

What are the perspectives for the working masses as a consequence of this victory?

Andre: In our own opinion, the question of return of masses struggle in new situation with Lula's government will be prospective in the next period, in next year. For example, the question of minimum wage for the public sector workers could provoke demonstration and struggle, which has not been increased for 8 years.

The question of land, the landless movement and the question of agrarian reform and the question of the demand of the students' movement that is very strong, etc. So, there is prospect that the mass movement will be done with more force than before. There is also the perspective of very difficult economic situation because, probably in the next year, we will be in recession.

More than this, there is possibility of financial crisis because of the problem of the debt in the country. This is a time-bomb that can explode at any moment including the first month of next year. So, the question of mass movement with financial crisis can provoke an explosive situation like in Argentina but with a difference that there is a little bit organised left PT and out PT can put the possibility of building socialist force stronger than before. So, there is no solution for the economic crisis if Lula doesn't break with imperialist, IMF, etc. So, that is going to be a build-up to instability, crisis, struggles, resistance and the opportunity to build socialist alternative.

You had elections recently in Sweden. What is the political significance of the outcome of the said elections?

Ingrid: Less people voted than before, the most important thing was that the right wing had a catastrophic result. They lost a lot of votes because people rejected their policy of big privatisation and cuts in the welfare system. The most important issue for us is to defend the public sector, the welfare system and also the public workers and demand wage increases and better working conditions for them. That has been our main campaign during the eleven years we have been councillors in Sweden but also we raise naturally the question about socialism being necessary to protect the welfare system. In the long run, we have to have control over the big banks and the big companies in Sweden. Another important question is that of racism, to fight both racism and racism that have developed in Sweden. We have grassroot campaigns with young and old people who will be active every night and day in the working class areas.

We stood out in different parts of the town and met people and discussed with them. I think we have the most energetic campaign in all the parts of our town and the response was really good. We have very strong feeling that a lot of people spoke about us. They discussed us on work places and so on. Not all of them voted for us, but we had feeling that a much broader layer of people is looking at us and are interested and follow what we do on our work and perhaps in the next election, some of them will vote for us. So we increased our votes by 40% and won an extra seat.

Another important issue is that people are angry with the salaries the politicians give themselves at the same time as they demand that the low paid workers should not demand high wages. We have the policy that we remain on a workers wage. We get some money to be in the council but all that goes directly to our campaigns and to our party. This is a big thing for us, we always tell people that we don't earn any money being councillors. We do not personally keep our salaries. We give them away to campaigns and so on. And also often in our leaflets publicise the wages of other councillors and a lot of people like to read that and to really get to know how much they earn, what privileges they have and so on.

But naturally, the other parties and politicians don't like it. They get angry. But in Sweden, being a councillor, there is not so much money and privilege. You get some small money every month because its only a part-time. It's one day and most people have ordinary job on the other days. But the higher politicians in the government and also in the councils, there are those who work full time for the councils, have high wages and travel to many places. We never do that stuff. We used to display our protests against this on the fence outside our party office.

We were a bit afraid in the beginning that people will not be motivated to stand in the streets collecting money. We have both increased our subs and our incomes from the daily work with paper sales and fund raising. And we try to use the money that we get from the council seats to both to campaigns and investing in a better party apparatus.

The CWI of which your party is an affiliate strongly believes in a party or organisation primarily funded by the subs of its members so as to avoid corruption and influence of alien ideas.

How has the financial fortune of your party (arising from the huge sum being paid to elected councillors) affected the payment of the subs by the generality of the members of the party?

Ingrid: In the beginning, when we first were elected to council in 1991, we had a lot of discussions about two and we were all afraid that perhaps some members would think that now it's not necessary to be out in the streets to collect money and so on. But it hasn't happened. People are more motivated now because we have the council seats. They can see that we can take issues from work places and from the streets directly into the council. So, it has not been the case.

The US imperialism and its allies are planning to wage a war on Iraq ostensibly as part of the struggle against international terrorism. How does the Socialist Alternative view the reasons put forward by the Bush administration over this issue?

Tyron: On the question of Bush war on Iraq, we recently held a public meeting called "Ending Bush's lies -argument for anti-war movement". And at that meeting in January, we put forward that the supposed motivation for war-weapon of mass destruction, bringing democracy to Iraq and threat of terrorism the Bush is using to justify this war are completely bogus. We believe that the real motivation for this war for US imperialism is to give an example of its military power and secure control over Iraq, which has the world's second largest oil reserves.

The Bush administration is seeking to use the events of September 11 to justify to American people and working masses of the world US imperialist aims. So we say this war is fundamentally about the attempt of the US multinationals, the US ruling class to create a new world order which Bush senior initially declared. Now Bush junior wants to fulfil his father's dreams and establishing US capitalism as even more damning and repressive force around the world. This war on Iraq is to send a message to anyone, any movement, any nation, who will stand up against the interest of US imperialism and to show them that they will face complete destruction if they stand up against US imperialism.

Against the background of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 on the WTO, what is the general mood of the US workers and youths over the proposed war on Iraq?

Tyron: After the September 11 of course, the nation was shocked into confusion. US workers raged at the mass destruction in New York in particular and are enraged that anyone for any reason who chose to conduct this outrageous attack on ordinary New York workers. However, in the aftermath of Bush war on Afghanistan and now the preparation of war on Iraq, the mood has so much shifted. In fact, we see a tremendous polarisation of views in our society. There is still a section of workers, young people and of course middle class who still feel for security and therefore are behind the Bush administration.

But there are growing layers who see the fact that Bush is not only attacking working people abroad with his supposed war on terrorism but is using the strength that he gained from this war to cut living standards at home by attacking working people, young people and immigrants. So, there is a growing mood of anti-Bush sentiment and that is crystallised in the anti-war movement in the US which is big now, before the war on Iraq has actually started, as was the anti-Vietnam war movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s after 5, 10 years of fighting. The culminating event of the anti-Vietnam war movement was 200,000 people marching in the Washington DC , today's anti-Iraq war protests have been at least the same size.

As the most developed capitalist country in the world today, that is a country accounting for 76% of the total economies of the advanced capitalist countries in the western hemisphere, what is the living standard of the American working class like?

Tyron: Living standard of American workers is quite different and I think most people around the world imagine is nothing like you see on the TV or on the movies. In reality, American has one of the highest polarisation of wealth in the world. The gap between the rich and the poor in America is bigger than its been in the entire history of our country today. And we see now the new economic recession forcing conditions of the working poor even worse. So, most workers have been forced to take two jobs, 3 jobs, the cost of living in many US cities is rising at a much faster rate than workers are able to compensate for and this fact is captured by the fact that an average American worker is deeply finding it difficult with living standard.

What is the overall living conditions of the black Americans today as compared with the pre-civil right movement of the 60s?

Tyron: Of course, the civil right movement in the 60s tremendously raised, especially on the political level, the conditions of Black Americans but from the point of view of social condition, actually, for most black Americans, the situation has gotten worse. They face naked racism and American version of apartheid up to the 1960s. But they certainly face racism in terms of employment, in terms of housing, in terms of schools, in terms of police brutality and on the question of segregation of the schools, one of the major initiatives that the civil right movement took up, in fact, today, even though segregation ego sense has been bent, in reality, the cities and towns in America remain segregated.

And the public schools, in fact for all intents and purposes remain quite segregated. And of course, the schools for young blacks and other minorities in the US attract the worst funding, worst conditions and these have expressed themselves in mass demonstrations against police brutality, and we can foresee in the future a growing mass movement of working black people in resistance to racism but also to the economic condition and we think in the next period, this will express itself in class terms.

What are the perspectives for the growth of the socialist alternative in the US?

Tyron: I think the first thing to say is that there is a tremendous vacuum in US society that is huge outrage, huge anger at the establishment. The scandals of Enron and co. have had a tremendous impact. But the fact is that the defeats of the last two decades have left the working people without the kind of class consciousness that we find in most countries around the world. And so, it is a question of rebuilding the class consciousness and beyond that for a need of socialism for building the fight for social condition against the capitalist class and in fact, to take them over.

So, we feel that in the next coming period, there will be explosive movement of US workers and youth and the prospects of building the currently small socialist forces in this country are quite good. We are setting a target in the next period of growth and we find more and more as we go into community, we've getting a better and better response. The old days of the cold war, with people equated socialism/communism with totalitarianism are disappearing, especially for the young generation and there is a new opening to socialist and revolutionary ideas that we've not seen in decades.

On the 2nd December, 2002, Venezuela's opposition leaders declared a national strike, demanding the immediate resignation of the President Hugo Chavez. Earlier in 2002, the opposition had demanded a referendum, which the National Electoral Council had acceded to before the Supreme Court annulled the decision.

As it ground on through a seventh week, the national strike has effectively crippled the oil industry; it has also led to a shutting down of the state's oil firm, PDCSA, where production has reduced by more than 90% (and that is because the strikers chose to supply enough fuel to keep the lights on and protect heavy industries, whose machines would be damaged by a shutdown). Venezuela, the world's fifth exporter of oil, is losing around $50m per day in oil exports alone. The strike has also started hitting other industries and there are fears of food and gasoline shortage and increased street violence among the populace.

The Class War

The national strike (which probably includes element of a lock-out) isn't exactly a class war between the Venezuelan working class and the presidency. Rather, the opposition is headed by the bosses organisation FEDECAMARAS, most of the middle class and their "civic" organisations, section of the military and the labour bureaucracy in the leadership of the Venezuelan confederation of workers (CTV). This bloc is also supported by the corrupt, rich 'oligarchy', which sees Chavez's constitutional and land reforms as the work of a "crazed Marxist".

However, Chavez is no socialist revolutionary. He is a former army chief, who retains passionate support amongst most poor Venezuelans, which depends on oil revenues within a creaking capitalist economy. The country's is thus enmeshed in series of pro-Chavez and anti Chavez demonstration often ending in clashes with police.

The background to this bitterly fought class struggle is Venezuela's parlous economy. Like other south and central American countries, the downturn in world economy and the collapse of stocks and shares on world financial markets has also hit Venezuela. Its economy shrank by a massive 10% between April and June 2002 alone, mainly as a result of the ruling class and international financiers moving money out of the country.

Capitalism's Failure

Around $8 billion (equivalent to 8% of Venezuela's economy) was siphoned out of the country in 2002 alone. By some measures, 85% of the country's 23.5 million population live on the bread line. Capitalism has failed and must be replaced. In fact, the US government does not hide its disdain of the Chavez regime (despite his own limitations); he is alleged of trying to install a Cuban-style communism in the oil rich nation. The US state department has called for national elections as the only possible solution!

Forward To A Peoples Take Over

In April 2002, Venezuela's oligarchy, backed by the US administration, attempted a coup d'etat, removing Chavez and installing a businessman, who promptly set about suspending democratic rights. The coup attempt however fell apart on the third day, when thousands of pro-Chavez supporters, mainly from poor neighborhoods of the capital Caracas, marched on the presidential palace demanding his release and restoration as president.

The lessons of the April failed coup and the mass protests that led to its failure should guide the Venezuelan working class and should inform the need for them to organise to prevent the forces of reaction from succeeding.

Democratically elected committees of workers and the poor must be set-up in the work places and neighbourhoods, with armed defence militias. Soldiers too should establish rank and file committees. There should be no trust in reactionary officers.

Above all, the workers and peasants must build their own independent and democratic movement and fight for a workers’ government with a programme of socialist change.

What are the issues behind the seemingly endless war, suicide bombings, etc., going on between the Israeli state and the Palestinian masses?

At the roots of the conflict are, basically, the socialist issue at work, meaning inability of capitalism to provide decent standard of living for the masses of the region, the unfulfilled Palestinian aspirations for a state and the fact that Israeli state tends to serve the interest of imperialism in the region. Their term of achieving peace of course is due to failure because on the capitalist basis, it was not possible nor would it be in the future to solve this difficult issue. Same also occur to Palestinians. Most Palestinians, their living standard deteriorated, their living standard does not improve and this meant that an eruption was likely to happen at certain point which is what happened in September, 2000.

How does your organisation view the militaristic, strong arm strategies of the Israeli state vis a vis the agitation of the Palestinians for self-determination on the one hand and the security and economic welfare of the Israeli working class people and youths?

It is clear that there is no military solution. It is clear that it is not possible for the Israeli ruling class to quash the intifada by force. They've been trying this for the last two years, they've not been able to quash the intifada and of course these repeated offensive incursion into populated are the curfew, the closure, etc., they cannot provide security for ordinary Israeli. That is very clear to anybody with opened eyes. They can perhaps prevent at a cost some of the bombings but the presence of the army, the ongoing occupation, curfew, the humiliation of hundreds of thousands of the Palestinians create the condition for the next wave of bombings. So, we have in a way a dead end now because the intifada strategy that couldn't lead to genuine national and social liberation and on the other side the Israelis ruling class is totally incapable of providing general security and peace to Israelis.

You have many Israelis who are sent to carry out reserved duties in the occupied territories repeatedly for a number of days. Emergency call-ups are increasing. At the age of 18 or 19 Israeli men serve 3 years in the army and women two years, after that they go back to serve at least one month a year in the army until they are in their 40s. We now have a growing number of reservists who are refusing military service not necessarily because of political objection but because they cannot provide for their families. Generally, the conflicts are exacerbating sharp economic recession. Israel is going through over the last two years. It is not solely responsible for the economic crisis. The other reason includes the world economic downturn but the Israeli are paying the price for huge defence expenses, the collapse of stories industries, fleeing of investments from the country, etc.

The militaristic strategies of the Israeli state has obviously failed to stamp out the spate of suicide bombings by the Palestinians activists of Israeli targets, what effects has this being having over the ordinary Israeli people? 

Put differently, has this approach produced or likely to produce a mood amongst ordinary Israeli masses capable of forcing the Israeli state to acquiesce to the demand of the Palestinians for a homeland?

We approach this issue of suicide bombings not from moral point of view because some action carried out by the Israeli military and some of the Jewish Settlers in West Bank in Gaza strip just as appalling but form the point of view of the strategy needed for the Palestinians to liberate themselves, the suicide bombings turn totally unproductive because the political outcome of these bombings is that ordinary Israeli workers are driven to the hands of the most reactionary politicians because they feel that their families existence is threatened. An effective strategy for the intifada will be instead first of all to democratise their struggle to build democratic popular committees to conduct struggles from below and at the same time to appeal to ordinary Israelis as well as soldiers against the Israelis ruling class because Israelis workers also suffer from the policies of the government not just on the issue of peace and security. They suffer from the exploitation by the Israelis capitalists, from the right wing neo-liberal economic policies of Israeli government.

What in your views are the issues and programmes needed to achieve an atmosphere of permanent peace and economic security for the working masses of both Israeli and Palestine?

It is clear that the National Liberation of the Palestinians and the social liberation of the masses Israeli-Palestine and all regions of the Middle East will only possible within the framework of struggle against capitalism. Basically against the ruling elite of the whole region which means against Israeli capitalism, against the corrupt Palestinian authorities and against bourgeoisie of the whole region. 

So, the struggle may not be united at the onset but as the class struggle develops, as the Palestinian masses increasingly see the treacherous and damaging role of the leadership of the Palestinian authorities as well as the Islamic organisation offering no way forward, there could be possibility of linking the struggle. So, its primarily the tasks of Israeli workers and youth to topple the government and ruling class in Israel and for Palestinians to struggle both against Israeli occupation and against the wrong, repressive and corrupt leadership of the PLO. 

Only through struggles on both sides will it be possible to create unity in struggle that could provide basis for genuine lasting peace and we mean by that creating, out of revolutionary struggle, a socialist Israel and independent socialist Palestine. Of course, we call for the right of the Palestinians to self determination unconditionally but the past years have shown that there cannot be a genuine independence for Palestinians under the framework of capitalism and the struggle to socialist state could provide the basis for socialist confederation of the whole middle-east which could then relatively swiftly move to solve the issues of poverty, unemployment, on refugees problems as well as the right of Palestine refugee. This is really the only way.

It's now over one decade that capitalism has been re-introduced into Kazakhstan after the collapse of the planned economy of the former Soviet Union, what are the conditions of the working class and youth in capitalist Kazakhstan?

IONUR: The result was the called, in neo-liberal slang, the extraction of the economy. Now, we have total collapse of all sectors of our economy and social structures which means health insurance, schools, hospitals and everything. It was old communist party bureaucracy which got everything in this country. And it was youth and the working class which lost everything: hospitals, schools, free education, future.

Internationally, the collapse of Stalinism is presented as the failure of socialism as an organisation fighting for a socialist world, how does the Kazakh workers and youth react to your programme and activities?

IONUR: At the beginning of the 1990s it was mixed, although many people still believed in the vision of a about Marxist system, despite all the terrible effects of Stalinism. But now, according to social research, 80% of people do not like their position, the situation in the society and 70% of people live on the thin line of poverty. It is determined by the economic situation that very wide layers of young workers came into our movement, came into socialist organisation. It's not just the problem of choice, it's the problem of life, of survival. People want to survive. We think that our main task now is to free the communist movements, to free workers' movements from any remaining Stalinist influences. Now, a lot of people come to our organisation, not to Stalinist organisations but to us. There are less illusions in the West as Kazakhs can see that American, British, French, Belgium multi-national companies coming in and buying everything in terms of plants, mines and everything. This helps the real, anti-Stalinist, communists.

No doubt, the December 6th, 2002 judgement at the court of appeal in a case between UI students' union and university authorities is a major victory for UI students in their struggle for independent students' unionism. The ruling will go down as one of the decisive victories won by the students since inception of students' unionism on that campus.

It would be recalled that the UI authorities filed a suit at the Federal High Court, FHC, Ibadan, against students' union over an election conducted by students on 29th November, 2000.

The judgement at FHC delivered by Justice DJK Lawson reads thus "--- it is hereby ordered that the Defendants (Lawal Akeem, Sangotade Tinuade, Wale Eleto, Musa Toyin, Bello Temitpe, Lawal Ibrahim) shall be restrained from acting as duly elected officers and\or parading themselves as duly elected officers of the students' union of University of Ibadan ---- it is further ordered that the Vice-chancellor shall direct that the students' union shall conduct a Fresh election on or before the end of the first quarter of the year 2001.

Not satisfied with the jugdement, the students' union filed an appeal against the order granted to the UI authorities at FHC. While the legal action was on, the battle also took political dimension. As a result of the battle, students were attacked with obnoxious, anti-students policies, some students' union leaders/activists were victimised and some are still penciled down for 'disciplinary' action through one of the authorities instruments of discipline students, Students Disciplinary Committee, SDC.

The reason for all these attacks cannot be separated from UI authorities’ readiness to desperately control the unions, both of students and staff, not only for their selfish interest but to implement to the anti-poor policies of the Obasanjo administration whom authorities are representing. It is to facilitate the emergence of pro-authority leaders in the students' union who will be incapable of defending students' rights and interest at all time.

But while the ruling at Court of Appeal represents a big step forward for independent students' unionism, it should be seen as an avenue to struggle for better welfare conditions of students and staff, well-funded education, democratisation of all decision making bodies of the management of higher learning etc.

A part of the battles ahead is the "review" of Students' union constitution by the UI Senate despite the Court of Appeal ruling that recognizes the students' rights of association and independent organisation of their activists. The greatest headache of UI authorities, however, is the determination of the Students' Union to exert its independence and free itself from the control of the authorities. The November 29th 2000 election was conducted on the basis of a new constitution. The constitution which had been approved by the Students' Representatives Council, the legislative arm of the union is more democratic than the previous constitution. The "review" of Union constitution by the UI Senate, a body on which the students do not have a single representative is very undemocratic and therefore it should be thrown into waste bin of history.

The arbitrary increment and introduction of fees such as ID card, hall maintenance where a bed space is being sold at the rate of N3,500, N10,000 and N25,000 for undergraduate and postgraduate respectively, with extraneous agreements called tenancy agreements, and others. But with the education commercialisation and privatisation policies of Obasanjo administration and constant demand on school management, including UI, to increase internally generated revenue, this means that students will be asked to pay more for not-up-to-standard education they receive. So there must be a pounding pressure by students and other change-seeking individuals towards hike in school fees.

Having gone through years of battle, the confident of students of UI must be first of all restored back to the union. The students' union leaders/activists should make it as a point of duty for proper dissemination of information to students if the need arises. There is the compelling need to produce periodic leaflets, posters, organise rallies, symposia, mass protests / demonstrations to educate students and members of the public, and equally press home their traditional demands. To guide against isolation, efforts should be made to have working relationships with academic and non-academic union, labour union, change-seeking organisations/individuals, and if possible a political party that has focus and genuine leaders that have the interest of the poor people at heart, with programmes and manifestoes where workers and poor masses shall seek to struggle for power in order to an build new society for all and stop the looters ruining us again.

More importantly, it should be cleared that a major step that can gives total confident of students in the rebuilding of their union is to ideologically reorientate and rearm the mass of students and establishment of socialist groups. The primary task of these groups will be the training of a new layer of socialist cadres among the students and workers.

The primary task confronting all genuine activists/socialists including the cadres of Democratic Socialist Movement, (DSM), therefore is the task of rebuilding student movement into a virile, programmatic, democratic, mass-based and fighting organisation leading struggles against anti-poor capitalist policies and programmes in the short-run and as partners of the working class in the struggle for the transformation of the society. It is only the socialist transformation of the society and nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy under the democratic control of the working class will bring the required long-lasting solution to the working masses, youths, traders, artisans, professionals, peasants, of the country and no amount of tinkering of the present market forces (capitalist) economy will alleviate the mass poverty and misery in which poor masses are forced to live.

Without the persistent pressure and agitation by students and other organisations like DSM, pro-democracy activists, UI authorities as agents of Obasanjo would have succeeded in violating the democratic rights of UI students by denying them the freedom to organise and conduct their affairs independently. Who then says struggle does not pay for a just cause. If we fight we can win!

By: Alayande Stephen T, NANS Zone D Coordinator

On the 1st and 2nd of December, 2002, the National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) Zone D and the students of Adekunle Ajasin University Akungba held a protest march and a 2-day lecture boycott on the campus to press home the demand for the immediate reinstatement of Iranlowo Ojuri and 18 student leaders.

It would be recalled that the affected students' union leaders were rusticated and expelled following their roles in a student demonstration of April 2002 when they demanded an improvement in the appalling state of infrastructures on the campus with the provision of standard lecture rooms, a modern well-equipped library, laboratories, adequate offices for lecturers, toilets and recreational facilities etc. It is on record that prior to the said student demonstration, facilities available on the campus for learning, teaching and research were nothing to write home with about 8-9 lecturers sharing a single staff room, students falling over themselves to receive lectures in very small and dusty rooms, library is of capacity for less than 50 students out of thousands, amidst many unpalatable situations.

It is important to state that while the authorities of the institution found the student demonstration as a necessary impetus to awaken them to their responsibilities in providing facilities in the institution as some of the demand of the students are now being gradually met, they still thought it wise to make those who acted as the "messengers of truth" the sacrificial lambs.

Unfortunately, it was in the cause of the second day lecture boycott and peaceful protest march that a detachment of mean-looking armed mobile policemen swooped on the peaceful congress of the students, firing indiscriminately, beating and maiming innocent defenceless students. Several students were wounded , seven including the students' union president (Ojuri Iranlowo) were arrested, tortured and taken away to Akure by mobile policemen. They were however released alongside the impounded Mercedes Benz 1414 bus belonging to the OAU students' union (one of the buses in which the NANS Zone D had used to conduct the intervention to the campus) seven days of after the unlawful detention.

It is disheartening that despite the current civil rule with the toga of democracy, the current custodians of the peoples' mandate who are supposed to hold the respect for fundamental rights of citizens like Governor Adefarati of Ondo State chose to maintain the Abacha like despotic manner, by giving orders to mobile policemen to shoot at students, arrest, detain and even refuse them bail after intervention of lawyers.

We commend the revolutionary intervention and solidarity of all the unions that have contributed to the struggle of the Akungba 19 and most importantly the resoluteness and doggedness of the students of the institution, but it must be stated that it is not over until it is finally over, for if we continue to struggle and mobilise we can win but if we do not, we have lost already. The battle continues politically, legally etc until our colleagues are recalled.

In a related development, it is note worthy to say that our struggle at the Osun State College of Education Ilesa, has yielded some fruits, ranging from the reopening of the institution, a slash to the reparation fee to N300, dropping of the planned victimisation of students' union leaders, purchase of a new students' union bus by the college authorities who had earlier sold the bus, conduct of students' union election as against the supposed ban on union activities amidst others.

Lastly, this further buttresses our point that our strength lies in our collectivity, we have nothing to lose but our chains of oppression.

Since 29th December, 2002, academic activities in all universities have been halted as a result of industrial action of the Academic Staff Union of Universities, ASUU. The ASUU decided to embark on the strike to demand the immediate implementation of the June 2001 agreement signed between it and the federal government. The agreement, which basically centres on funding, university autonomy and restructure and basic salary contains among other things allocation of the 26% of the budget to education in line with the UNESCO recommendation and reinstatement of the 44 sacked lecturers at University of Ilorin.

The government has since flagrantly violated the agreement. For instance, the allocation to education thereafter has even been less than the previous one before the agreement and it has been progressively decline.7.0% was allocated in 2001, 5.9% in 2002 and 1.83% is proposed by the government for 2003 in its appropriation bill currently before the National Assembly. Moreover, in relation to the 44 lecturers of UNILORIN, the government has not only repudiated the agreement, it has also openly aided and abetted the sustenance of their criminal and unjust persecution by the then despotic Vice chancellor of the university, Shuaib Oba Abdul Raheem and General Salihu Ibrahim, the pro-chancellor and a former Chief of Army Staff. This is to mention but few.

The government and ASUU have gone back to the negotiation table. The crux of the matter now is that the government is calling for the review of the agreement while ASUU insists on its Implementation. But meanwhile the government has announced the 30% increase in the over head cost for the university and the full approval of Universities Academic Staff Scale. This is a bait for the ASUU as it is an attempt to limit their struggle to basic salary and to divide their rank and file, since some members may tend to jump at such carrot. The struggle of ASUU as contained in the agreement is to revamp the collapsing education.

However, it is instructive to state that while the struggle of ASUU is commendable, the task of revamping of education should be shouldered by the every staff union in the sector (i.e. ASUU, ASUP COEASU, SSANU, NASU, SSAUTHRIAI, NUT etc. ) along with the Nigerian students. There should be joint action among the staff unions and the students with formation of a formidable force that can give the required strength to the struggle. In the meantime, ASUU should take the struggle beyond the four walls of campuses by organising public rallies and symposia in order to enlist physical participation of the working people and to mount a political pressure on the government.

This government's brazen and shameless violation of the agreement is not unconnected with its characteristic contemptible attitude to the education in line with the IMF/World Bank dictated neo-liberal policies of privatisation and commercialisation of education and other social services.

Our institutions lack adequate and necessary facilities for qualitative studies like libraries, laboratories, classroom, portable water supply etc. The institutions are run like military barracks with brazen infringement on the rights of the students and members of staff to freedom of expression , association, etc. The calling for the return of police posts back to campuses, by Committee of Vice-chancellors, is a pointer to the fact that various school authorities are hell bent to suppress popular and genuine struggles of students and workers for better academic and welfare condition.

Contrary to ASUU position and demands of Nigerian students, the government has resolved to shirk its social responsibility of adequate funding of education as it has created basis, through under-funding of education, for the authorities of institution to impose various obnoxious charges and fees on the students. This has been making the education the exclusive preserve of children of the few rich and treasury looters. Moreover, the sorry state of our institutions, from the primary to tertiary, is not a concern to the governments since they can afford to send their wards to private schools or abroad to acquire good education.. The education is expected to be funded from the abundant resources of the country and the tax payer money not from the pocket of the government functionary.

As ASUU and other staff unions along with the students are fighting for proper funding of education, the sight must not lost on the fact corruption is another phenomenon that has compounded the financial crisis of the education sector. Therefore, we must equally demand for democratic management of our institutions with the elected representatives of the students and academic and non-academic staff.

Ultimately, the struggle must be linked with the overall struggle of the working people against the entire IMF/ World Bank induced neo-liberal policies of deregulation of essential services, privatisation of commanding heights of economy, commercialisation of social services, devaluation of Naira. The struggle must be equally elevated to political realm for a socialist reconstruction of the society as against the exploitative, oppressive anti-people and pro-rich system called capitalism.

It seems that the authorities of the University of Ilorin (UNILORIN) have placed itself above the law. In the past five years, UNILORIN authorities have ignored several orders of the various courts of the land. It is on record that the immediate past vice-chancellor of the institution, Professor S.O. Abdulrahhem treated various court orders to reinstate both victimized staff and students with impunity.

When Abdulraheem failed to get the extension of his tenure and he was eventually kicked out of office, the general feeling was that the new vice-chancellor would correct various injustices perpetrated by the administration of Abdulraheem. But, instead of correcting the injustices, the new Vice-chancellor, Professor Shamsideen Amali is determined to maintain the status quo.

It is on record that the National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) wrote a letter to the new vice-chancellor urging him to obey the various court orders in respect of victimized student activists. He was urged to ensure the immediate release of final statement of results of Lanre Akinola and Rasheedat Adesina being withheld since 1999 and reinstatement of Tosin Akinrogunde, Hammed Balogun and Kayode Mogbojuri in the interest of justice and in obedience to various court orders on the matters. But, up till today none of the student activists has been reinstated or their final statement of results released.

The administration of UNILORIN under Professor Shamsideen Amali has also refused to address the case of the sacked lecturers. Instead, his administration has been victimizing lecturers operating under the UNILORIN ASUU Coordinating Committee. Their offence is that they are calling for the reinstatement of their sacked colleagues.

To show the crudeness of the present vice-chancellor, recently, he mobilized some deans and directors to make representation to the Federal Government that UNILORIN community does not want the sacked lecturers back on campus. But, the fact is that majority of students and staff want the sacked lecturers' back on campus.

Finally, the on going ASUU strike over the sacked lecturers at UNILORIN and other matters should be supported by Nigerians. Instead of calling on ASUU to suspend the strike, Nigerians should put pressure on the government of President Obasanjo to honour the agreement reached with the ASUU in June 2001.

Meanwhile, the position of the Federal Government that ASUU should accept the posting of sacked UNILORIN lecturers to other Federal Universities is laughable and untenable. This present position of the government reveals that the sacking of lecturers can no longer be justified but instead of compelling the administration and Governing Council of UNILORIN to reinstate the sack lecturers, the government wants Nigerians to believe that UNILORIN community does not want the lecturers back hence the idea of posting them to other universities.

If truly, the government does not want to 'impose' the sack lecturers on UNILORIN, why did the same government want to impose them by way of posting on other universities? In any event, the lecturers were not sacked because they were rejected by the university community but for their participation in ASUU nationwide strike in 2001. Hence, the issue that UNILORIN community does not want them should not arise.

Conclusively, the truth of the matter is that both President Obasanjo and Minister of Education, Dr. Babalola Borishade have realized that the sacking of the lecturers is unjustifiable but they do not want to go against their earlier statements that the decision of UNILORIN administration and Governing Council to sack the lecturers is irreversible and final. The issue at stake is ego and nothing more.

Residents of the Ajegunle Community witnessed a different ball-game entirely on Saturday December 28th, 2002 as members of the National Conscience Party (NCP) in the area stormed the streets of the community, armed with leaflets, posters and solidarity songs.

It was an eventful day as the procession started as about 12.pm. from the secretariat at 5, Kojo Lane. Despite our limited resources and materials, we were able to make the desired impact and it goes down in history as one of the most important events of the party in the area.

Though, the turn out of party members was not too impressive as most members present were members of the exco which was as a result of the festive season, the significance of the programme cannot be over-emphasised. In fact, some of the people of the community even joined us in the course of the procession while a handful of them demanded for more leaflets so as to give to people in their neighbourhood.

The procession took us through Ago Hausa, Achakpo to Tolu via New Road and down to Boundary where we all parted. So lessons which have emanated from that programme, I think are as follows:

So many people who have been impoverished by the past and present governments and who see the National Conscience Party (NCP) as a party that can savage them from penury are out there waiting, without knowing how to reach us. It is only through avenues such as this that we can be able to get across to them and possibly recruit them.

The question of education also comes to the fore. During the rally, some of our new comrades could not give answers to some of the questions being asked by the people. This is as a result of the fact that some of us are not truly rooted in the ideas, philosophy and programmes of the party.

The issue of recruiting women also is of utmost importance, as there was only one lady who took part in the procession.

And also, when next a programme like this is to hold, we should provide more leaflets as that also constitute a setback in the rally.

But in all, I think we have done well and should not relent in our efforts to emancipate the downtrodden people of the society form the stranglehold of the oppressors.

Sometimes in August 2002, at the height of the impeachment saga when the National Assembly was planning to impeach him, President Olusegun Obasanjo reaffirmed that his administration will implement the remaining aspect of the year 2000 minimum wage agreement from January 2003. . But since the beginning of the year, there has been a debate whether the federal government actually accepted to increase the minimum wage by 12.5%. While labour leaders insist that the federal government did mention this, the leaders of government are denying that they ever agreed to it.

The 2000 Minimum Wage Agreement

A cursory look at the year 2000 minimum wage agreement will show that part of the agreement signed was that the minimum wage will be increased by 25% in may 2001, 15% in May 2002 etc in order to bring it level to the true rate of inflation in the country but ever since the increase in May 2000, the government has refused to implement the other part of the agreement. The government has continually waged a propaganda war in the media that the chunk of the federal budget goes to wages and that only a small percentage is left to carry out any meaningful projects for the people. This is contrary to the fact the wages and benefits of political office holders and official corruption, combined with inflation of contracts is responsible for the consumption of the largest chunk of government budget. The position of government is no different from the position of private sector employers of labour whose interest is always to keep wages of their workers low so as to continuously be declaring large profits to themselves and their shareholders yearly while their workers continue to live in object poverty.

Sacked Workers

As a result of the implementation of the May 2000 minimum wage agreement, hundreds of workers were thrown out of their jobs all over the country. An example of such was in Lagos state where comrade Ayodele Akele, state chairman AUPCTRE also the chairman of the council of industrial unions (in the public sector) was retrenched with thousands of workers all over the state just after the partial implementation of the May 2000 agreement in Lagos state. Worse still, those sacked both in the state and federal civil services are yet to be paid their pension and benefits on required by law. While political office holders are awarding to themselves huge wages and benefits backed by inflated contracts. Up and down the country sacked workers are been on the street demanding for the payment of their gratuities and pensions to no avail. The Nigeria Labour congress (NLC) should take up the fight of these people while at the same time demanding the implementation of the minimum wage agreement as signed since May 2000. It is necessary to commend the ASUU led by Dr. Dipo Fashina of Obafemi Awolowo University who has taken up the struggle of its sacked colleagues at the University of Ilorin who were unjustly victimised as a result of their participation in a nationwide strike called by their union.

The NLC

The Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) leadership should insist in the implementation of the increase. It should embark on a comprehensive mobilisation of all sections of workers showing with facts and figures that the federal and state government have the capabilities to pay the minimum wage. It should be ready to embark on a strike action if necessary just as ASUU is doing. The NLC should map out strategies to call out its workers on a 24 hours or 48 hours etc general warning strikes if it really want to see that the minimum wage is implemented as signed as a first step towards bringing the minimum wage of civil servants to meet the rate of inflation in the country.

The NLC leadership should also draw into its fold the hundreds of sacked workers as a result of the partial implementation of the May 2000 agreement. It should take up the plight of the pensioners both at the federal and state levels in order to ensure workers that if the government decides to retrench or sack them as a result of the implementation of the minimum wage agreement in full, it will meet stiff opposition from the NLC or else workers’ enthusiasm will be low to fight for the increase in the minimum wage and the fight would have been lost before it even takes off.

Inflation

While on the one hand, it is always assumed that an increase in minimum wage always means that workers are going to be better off on the long run, it should be realized by all workers that no amount of wage increment will put a final end to the misery of all workers in the country. The previous increases has shown that inflation has always led to complete fall in the real wage of workers. Price rises of goods and services produced by both the private sector and public sector has always made the cost of living very high for workers. Increases in prices of fuel, food, transport, accommodation, telecommunication, electricity, education, etc, will sooner or later turn any increase in minimum wage to be worthless.

It is therefore necessary that workers and all other strata of society strive to see that the domination of the Nigerian economy by the capitalists at both internal and international levels is put to an end. This is what is responsible for the continuous impoverishment of the Nigerian workers. The profit motive of all capitalists will always make sure that what is given to the workers through one hand returns back to them through the other. It is only under a nationalised planned economy which is democratically controlled by the working class can we see incessant hike in cost of living and thus an endless cycle of demand for wage increases and struggle against retrenchment and sack combined with lack of payment of pensions and gratuities.

Rufus Olusesan, a worker, trade union activist, socialist and DSM member, who was on 7th December, 2002 unjustly and arbitrarily sacked by the management of Nexans Kabelmetal Nigeria Plc, Ikeja, Lagos, has been reinstated. This followed eight days of strike by workers which brought work and other activities at the company to a standstill. To make the strike action which commenced on 16th January, 2003 effective, the workers also picket the factory daily.

The workers were demanding the reinstatement of Rufus who was sacked because of his consistent defence of workers' rights in the company. They also demanded the immediate resignation or removal of Mr. Muyiwa Owotumi, the deputy general manager (human resources), whom workers think was the architect of most of the anti-worker policies and actions of the company.

The sacking was a pure act of victimisation. Rufus did not commit any offence. No allegations were made against him, no offence was stated and above all, he was not given any opportunity to defend himself. The sack letter from the management simply says his appointment was being terminated "for acts inimical to the interest of the company". Only Kabelmetal management knew these acts. But in reality, the sacking of Rufus was meant by the management to serve as a lesson to any union activist who may want to stand up to fight for decent working and living conditions for their members. It was meant to keep the workers in perpetual slavery and oppression. But workers resolved that enough is enough.

The immediate cause of the Rufus' victimisation was a levy of N1,000 deducted from workers' November salaries by the then pro-management local union leaders in connivance with the company management. The money was deducted unilaterally without any consultation with the workers by the local union executive and the management. On 3rd December, 128 workers out of about 200 workers in the company wrote and signed a petition protesting against the deduction and demanding a refund. The next day, 4th December, the pro-management local union leaders wrote to the management asking that action be taken against Rufus Olusesan and some other workers for alleged acts of "insubordination".

The national leadership of the Steel and Engineering Workers Union (SEWUN) played a commendable role during the dispute, supporting the strike and picketing. The Campaign for Independent Unionism (CIU) also helped to organise solidarity against Nexans Kabelmetal both within and outside Nigeria. As a result, some trade unionists and working class organisations in Nigeria and abroad wrote to the company management to demand the recall of Rufus Olusesan. Protest letters were sent to the company from Germany, Britain, Belgium and United States.

The workers are still demanding the refund of N1,000 deduction, the removal of Mr. Muyiwa Owotumi, an end to the victimisation of union activists, refund of the National Housing Fund deducted from workers' salaries, and an end to casual labour.

The Democratic Socialist Movement (DSM) salutes the workers on their well-deserved victory which shows that only struggle can guarantee victory for the working class. We call on the new union executives, who were elected during the struggle with Rufus as the chairman, to conduct the affairs of the union in an open, transparent and democratic manner. Mass meetings of workers should be held regularly to discuss the programmes of the union and take collective decisions.

The Gulf is now in a serious nightmare, the incubus of monstrous American war machine has gripped the region. The Armageddon has concluded preparation to pay visit; blood shall flow. All for the oil. The chief warmonger, George Bush has deployed over 150,000 soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines out of the 250,000 billed by the Pentagon to wreck havoc in Iraq, to the Gulf. Tony Blair has sent 25,000 troops, a quarter of the entire British Army, and much of the Royal Navy as well. This was much before the United Nations weapon inspectors led by Hans Blix and Mohammed El Baradei of the International Atomic Energy agency submitted their first reports to the UN Security Council on January 27.

Hans Blix in his progress report on the two-month weapon inspection stated that Iraq had only reluctantly complied with the United Nation's latest demand to disarm and that there was no genuine co-operation from Iraq. He said further that Iraq left large gaps in its December 7 2002 12,000 page arms declaration. According to him Iraq had not accounted for up to 300 rocket engines and 650 chemical bombs. Moreover, Iraq blocked private interviews with the scientists and it balked at U2 surveillance flights over the whole country, Hans Blix stated. However, Blix was unable to corroborate the claims of the US that Iraq had rebuilt the weapon of mass destruction arsenal, saying that he could not give a categorical verdict. Equally, Mohammed El-Baradei in his report said that he had no proof of an Iraqi nuclear weapon programme. And, unlike Blix, he asked the Security Council to give more time for their work to be comprehensive.

These reports were seized upon by the US and British governments to step up their propaganda for war. To Bush, the whole essence of the weapon inspection is to justify the planned military action by all means and to probably carry along more countries particularly among those permanent members of the Security Council who are still not prepared to support immediate war.

Oil For Blood - The Actual Reason For The War

As at present, Bush has looked beyond the war; he has started thinking of the post Sadaam Iraq. Colin Powell has made clear that the US plans that its military will take the essential decisions in the event of winning a war. To sugar this pill the Bush administration said, in a report sent to the Congress on Tuesday January 21 2003, 'Should it become necessary to take military action against Iraq the United States, together with its coalition partners will play a role in helping to meet the humanitarian, reconstruction and administrative challenges facing the country in the immediate after the conflict'. The report further stated that, 'The US is fully committed to stay as long as necessary to fulfil these responsibilities, but is equally to leave as soon as the Iraqi people are in position to carry those responsibilities'.

There can be no doubt that the US's agenda is 'regime change' in Iraq. Although, the US has tried to make the world to believe that raison d'être for the war with the Iraq is the possession by Baghdad of weapons of mass destruction, in reality it is the demonstration of US's world position as the super power and its oil and strategic interests in the Middle East that has necessitated such military action. To holistically actualise these set goals, Saddam must be ousted, a pro-US regime be installed with heavy US financial, material and military backing. Bush is highly interested in the control of the massive Iraqi oil reserve , the second largest in the world, due to the foreseen loss of influence over Saudi Arabia with the possible ascendancy of the Islamic fundamentalists to power. Moreover, the US sees Sadaam as a fly in the ointment of the New World Order proclaimed by George Bush the first, hence he must be eliminated or removed.

It should be stated categorically stated that Sadaam Hussein is a ruthless dictator who deserves to be removed. Since his assumption of office in 1979, it has been a reign of terror. On coming to power Sadaam's first victims were Iraqi left-wingers. He has only brought poignant agony, hallowing sorrow and untold hardship to the Iraqi people. The country has never known peace. He plunged the country into 9-year US backed war with Iran (1980-88), the Gulf War 1990/1 and its attendant economic sanction that has ruined the economy and claimed hundreds of thousands of lives so far. The task of removing Sadaam does not lie in the hands of the US, but the Iraqi people themselves. This is because regime to be installed by the US would not be democratic but autocratic. It would be a matter of Satan replacing Lucifer.

Scott Ritter, a former chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq and an ex-US Marine officer has disproved the claim of the US government that Sadaam has weapons of mass destruction. He said that his team ascertained 90-95% level of destruction of Iraq's offensive weaponry. He stated further that 

" this figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agents produced by Iraq".

More so, according to him, if Iraq were rebuilding factories to produce new weapon, the evidence would readily be detectable since the country has been monitored via satellite and other means which has also made the procurement of necessary technology by Sadaam for such production extremely difficult.

Hypocrisy Of The Us

Moreover, it should be noted that North Korea another country, along with Iraq and Iran, that Washington has branded as part of the "axis of evil"

has begun the process of reactivating its nuclear programme after the Korean government chased out the UN weapons inspectors, caused their installation to be removed and repudiated the 1994 nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. The Bush administration provoked this action by cutting aid to North Korea but now Washington has ruled out possibility of war in the reaction but diplomatic resolution. Quoting Colin Powell, he said, "We don't want to escalate any crisis, we don't want war". This betrays the hypocrisy of Iraq Bush as regards the nuclear programme or manufacturing of weapons as a basis for the war with Iraq.

The above stated view on the US hypocrisy was corroborated by Richard Butler, the immediate past chief UN weapon inspector when he accused the US of what he called shocking double standard. He said that the US motive to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction lacked credibility due to the failure of the US to deal with others on the same terms. He pointed tot he fact that some of the US allies like Israel, Pakistan and India have nuclear arsenals and have not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel has severally violated different UN resolutions. Moreover, according to him the US and other permanent members of the Security Council are themselves the possessors of the world's largest quantities of nuclear weapons.

Global Opposition Against The War

There is increasingly growing opposition against the war globally even in the United States, but George Bush has refused to grow goose pimples over that. He's determined to go to war and hopes that a quick "victory" will answer those opposed to war.

At Bush's backyard in Washington there have been two protests of at least 200,000 against the war. These protests took place on October 26 2002 and on January 18 2003. The 18 January protest involved nothing less than 500,000 in cities across the whole USA. Some of the slogans of the protesters are, "America, not Iraq a 'Rogue Nation'", "Disarm Bush", "No Blood for Oil" etc. The protest had as participants the relatives of the military personnel that have been deployed to the Gulf under the auspices of Military Family Speak Out and some veterans of the Gulf war: Veterans For Common Sense.

Internationally a mass anti-war demonstration took place in London, Britain last September with 400,000 protesters. But the size of this protest was overtaken in Florence, Italy, on November 9 2002 when1,000,000 (one million) demonstrators marched, the biggest so far. many other cities around the world have also seen mass protests. February 15 has been declared as international anti-war day of action. Demonstrations have already been planned to come up on that day in New York, London Berlin, Paris, Rome, Athens, Oslo, Amsterdam, Cairo, Stockholm, etc.

Three permanent members of the Security Council viz.: Russia, France and China along with Germany a rotational member have, so far, refused to support a war now. It has to be stated that this seemingly progressive stands of these permanent members of the council particularly Russia and France are not borne out kindness of heart or sympathy to the Iraqi people but as a result of their own economic interest that are at stake. 

They have huge investment in Iraqi oil industry and their own general interests to protect. They claim to be against the war, yet they refused to veto the portion of the resolution 1441 that empowers the US to go ahead alone after the report of weapons inspectors when the issue came up in November,2002 They are trying to maintain balance so that whether the US take over Iraq or not, there would be a basis to sustain their interests. From all indications they will not join the US in any fighting, but they may let a war go ahead. 

Meanwhile in line with resolutions, Collin Powell has started categorically that the US does not need the security council and the superpower will go to the war with its allies. However, in reality none of the tradition allies of the US except its traditional hand bag the Blair's Britain and Australia, is ready to join it in its predatory expedition. Indeed they are all very cautious about a war. Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, all allies of the US have registered their strong reservations about a war, fearing that their governments will be swept away by a tide of anti-imperialist protest if a war starts.

They were together with Syria, Jordan and Iran at a meeting of the Foreign Affairs ministers of the middle East countries. The resolution of meeting objects the war. They are all fearful of violent civil disobedience and the rise of Islamic fundamentalists, the development that may lead to the attempt to topple the moderate pro-west ruling oligarchy of Egypt, and Saudi Arabia in particular. In fact, in order to avoid the war, some of the countries have been asking Sadaam to leave the power voluntarily and there is thinking towards sponsoring a coup to topple Sadaam. However, either option, they are requesting international amnesty for Sadaam and his associates when he is out of the office.

The Effects Of The War

To the US war mongers, there is no going back in spite of the universality and the strength of the opposition against the war. Bush is waging this war with Blair. The war has been estimated to cost nothing less than $200 billion. Also the cost would depend on how long the war last. No country except the US will bear the bulk of this massive expenses. This is unlike the last Gulf War which cost $60 billion and was largely paid for by Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia and others. Who will actually pay for the war this time? It will be the ordinary working people of the US and Britain that will pay the price through spending cuts and tax rises.

The spectre of war along with the Venezuela crisis had already pushed up the price of oil in spite of the increase in the output quoted by 1.5 million barrels a day, the price of oil was still $33.98 as at last week of the January 2003, the actual war in the Gulf would skyrocket the price to the extent of pushing the world economy into serious recession. The workers and the poor would be the worst hit.

The US will not be insulated, it will have its own fair share of the effects of the war. Already, the US crude inventories have fallen near their lowest level in the last two decades. The current economic crisis in the US that has so far witnessed loss of 200,000 jobs between November and December 2002 alone will be surely aggravated. This together with any record of massive US casualties in the war, which is not unlikely, will arouse mass political opposition and social unrest in the country.

Israelis have started procuring gas masks in the anticipation of the attack on the country if US goes to war with Iraq. Actually, Sadaam will attack Israel if the US strikes in order to provoke crisis in the Middle East. The Palestinians have been looking up to Sadaam to avenge their ill-treatment by the Israeli ruling class. One of their placards during a protest against the war in read: "our beloved Sadaam, strikes Tel Aviv", Tel Aviv is the largest city of Israel. Iraq has also vowed to march on Kuwait if it is attacked by the US. This is because thousands of the Americans are stationed in Kuwait.

In the Middle East, the sights of corpses on the streets of Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq and the fellow feelings for the suffering masses of Iraq would arouse anger among the Arabs and aggravate their deep seated hatred for the US and the West. Besides, the resultant tumultuous social unrest in the Middle East, this would lead more people into desperation, hence the increase in number of the terrorists and the justification for their action. Thus, there may be terrorist attacks on the US and Britain which may not however draw much sympathy as that of September 11.

The War And Religious Crisis In Nigeria

Some religious volatile countries like Nigeria may not be immune to the effect of the war. If the war break out, Nigeria may boil, there may be violent protests in the northern parts of the countries that may degenerate to killing and maiming of people, particularly the southerners and Christians and to touching of public and private property particularly the churches and the American and British property within their reach. The attack on the churches would be as a result of the misconception that the US is a Christian country. The extent of the retaliation from southerners and Christians may set the country on fire. In deed, considering the peculiarity of this transitional period in Nigeria, the violence may be politically motivated, more so, since religion is a means of satisfying political end.

There Must Be Anti War Protests In Nigeria

It is imperative now for the Nigeria Labour Congress and National Conscience Party as an anti-imperialist political platform, to lead the students, workers, the masses, Christians, Muslims, the northerners and the southerners into a nation-wide protest against the imperialist war in Iraq. Besides the need for the solidarity with the suffering working people of Iraq in the spirit of internationalism and the need to avert the looming global economic catastrophe that will have the working people at the receiving end, the character of such a protests led by the NLC and NCP will prevent the anti-war movement developing a religious, particularly Islamic, character. Even if any demonstration is organised by any Islamic group thereafter the risk of it being turned into an inter-religious crisis would have been greatly reduced. In alternative, an anti-war coalition may be formed to carry out this historic task. It should be stated that the anti-war protests must be linked to the overall struggle against capitalism and imperialism. War, like poverty, hunger, homelessness, joblessness etc. are products of the horrible capitalism.

The December 27th General election in Kenya resulted in a massive defeat of the Kenya African National Union (KANU) and the rise to power of the National Rainbow Coalition (NARC) which brought together sixteen opposition parties. The defeat of KANU was historic because it brought to an end 39 years of KANU's iron grip on power while it also marked the end of 24 years of dictatorship by the 78 year-old Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi.

Mwai Kibaki, NARC's 71 year-old Presidential candidate who had also held the position of vice president and Minister for Finance for 10 years in former Dictator Moi's regime before he was sacked by Moi, won the Presidential vote by over 3.5 million votes (64%) out of the 5.7 million votes cast.His closest rival, Uhuru Kenyatta named by Moi as his preferred successor, polled just over 1.7 million votes (31%).

At a Parliamentary level, NARC got a clear majority by capturing 126 seats (61%) as compared to KANU which assumed the role of the official opposition after capturing only 60 seats (29%). What this means is that NARC does not need a coalition government because it has a comfortable majority to rule and to pass legislation in Parliament. Other parties that captured seats were Ford-People (14 seats) and Safina (2 seats).

A new phenomena was that both Mwandawiro Mghanga and Koigi wa Wamwere were elected into parliament. Both have been in exile and been connected to left wing politics. Mwandawiro Mghanga, who lived in exile in Sweden, was elected MP for the coastal province Wundanyi. Koigi wa Wamwere, who was forced to live as a refugee in Norway after Moi's witchhunt on left activists in the 1980s, won in Subukia. Wamwere was elected on a NARC ticket and the two could be critical voices in parliament.

Split In Kanu

The massive defeat of KANU was largely due to a last minute strategic mistake by the octogenarian Moi who attempted to impose an un-sellable Presidential candidate on KANU thereby splitting the party down the middle. After the 1997 General election, the National Development Party (NDP) made a pact with Moi's KANU. This included a secret agreement that at the 2002 elections, Mr. Raila Odinga, the then leader of NDP, would become KANU's Presidential candidate and help the party retain power.

This agreement was based on cynical "ethnic arithmetic" that could have seen Mr. Raila Odinga bring to KANU more than one million votes from his Luo community from where the NDP drew its support. As soon as this agreement was sealed on March 18 last year, the NDP dissolved itself and merged with KANU as election campaigns also got underway. This merger followed the appointment of Raila Odinga and other NDP Parliamentarians to the Cabinet. This was a move that heralded the birth of what was seen as the first "Coalition government" in Kenya.

Last year, as pressure mounted on Moi to name his preferred successor in the run up to the elections, the Dictator committed an expensive mistake that cost the party the elections on December 27. The dictator dumped Raila for President and settled for the inexperienced Uhuru Kenyatta, the youthful son of Kenya's first Dictator Jomo Kenyatta who died in 1978. The major reason why Moi failed to keep his promise to Raila was because Moi was scouting for a puppet who could safeguard the political and economic interests of the Kalenjin ruling class that also formed the core of Moi's kitchen Cabinet.

Behind The Scenes

This arrangement could also have enabled Moi to surreptitiously continue pulling the political strings from his base in retirement where he could have retained the power to sack the President by simply expelling him from KANU. For Moi, Raila's independence did not match the profile of a puppet while the former detainee's massive following of more than one million voters from Luo, gave him ultimate authority to make political bargains from a stronger position. This compared to the weaker Uhuru Kenyatta who was rejected by his own constituents at Gatundu in Central province during the 1997 Parliamentary elections.

After Moi ditched Raila, the former detainee quickly organised a rebellion within KANU to defeat what became known as Moi's "Project Uhuru". The consequence of this rebellion is that Raila eventually resigned from his Ministerial position together with other long standing boot-lickers of the dictator like former Vice President George Saitoti and KANU's former Secretary General Joseph Kamotho to form the "Rainbow Alliance".

The birth of Rainbow triggered a series of alignments to the Alliance by KANU stalwarts as the party began to crack. As a crisis of sorts brewed within KANU, members of the Rainbow Alliance quit KANU and joined the nascent National Alliance of Kenya (NAK). It is the new fusion between NAK and the Rainbow Alliance that created the National Rainbow Coalition that dislodged KANU from power.

After the elections, the big problem facing the 30 million Kenyans is a crisis of expectation from the NARC government which has promised free primary education, the creation of 500,000 jobs, eradication of corruption, an end to embezzlement of public funds, eradictation of tribalism among other hefty promises.

In The Hands Of The West

While NARC does have the characteristics of a populist movement which supposedly stands for social reform, the background of many of its leading lights shows that the leadership is pro-capitalist.

In the circumstances of dire poverty and unemployment the Kibaki administration will not be able to deliver on all of its grand promises on a capitalist basis. Delivering half a million jobs will not be possible because the country's major wealth generating institutions are in the hands of Western multinational companies. The promise of half a million jobs is further dampened by the fact that 11 million able-bodied Kenyans are out of work in a country where half a million people enter the job market every year. The rhetoric about eliminating corruption in high office will soon evaporate because corruption is part of the capitalist system of government which Kibaki has inherited.

During NARC election campaigns, the party systematically avoided putting forward solutions to key problems facing Kenya namely landlessness of millions of Kenyans, rising poverty, class differentiation, privatisation of profitable State enterprises by the Moi dictatorship, starvation wages which has ravaged over 6 million workers in the country, collapsed health care and education system together with collapsed social services.

Likewise, NARC did not address the critical issue of the domination of the country's economy by multi national companies together with persistent intervention of IMF and World Bank in the country's economic and political affairs. There was no word about the reduction of MPs salaries of half a million Kenyan shillings, the re-instatement of thousands of retrenched civil servants and other workers under the IMF/World Bank programmes together with measures to curb external dependencies and internal exploitation of Kenya's massive human and natural resources.

Instead, Raila Odinga, a leading light of NARC, went out of his way to promise that a NARC government will continue with the privatisation of state enterprises while Kibaki, the new President, said that his government was interested in working with IMF and World Bank. He appealed to the two imperialist institutions to resume aid to Kenya.

Same Neo-Liberalism

From the Kenyan elections, what is clear is that the Kenyan bourgeoisie has come to power after dislodging another bourgeoisie party. The Kibaki administration will continue with the politics of liberalisation that in reality, does not provide solutions to the crisis facing the country. With a NARC government, the biggest progress could be the opening of a "democratic space" in Kenya where socialists (who were banned by Moi) can emerge with a clear revolutionary programme that can effectively address the crisis of capitalism in Kenya.

Only a fundamental struggle for socialist change where economic power is transferred into the hands of Kenyan workers and poor peasants lay the basis for changing the poverty filled existence of the country's population.