MIM Notes ***

MIM Notes 266 · September 15, 2002· Page 1

MIM Notes

September 15, 2002, Nº 266 The Official Newsletter of the Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM)

Free

INSIDE: Bogus BC Treaty * Under Lock & Key * Una Página en Español...

MIM
PO Box 29670
Los Angeles, CA 90029
Return Service Requested

PRESORTED STANDARD

U.S. POSTAGE PAID

PERMIT #56365

BOSTON, MA

On the web: www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext

by International Minister

August 20 2002

ven Reuters has managed to

report correctly that the people

of the Philippines through their

organization the Communist Party of the

Philippines and the New People's Army

have made it clear that U.$. troops can

and will be defeated in Filipino

territory.(1) We at MIM would like to

warn the Amerikkkan public about the

war it is sliding into in the Philippines

and state our own opinion about it.

In the Philippines today, there is a u.$-

lackey regime. If George Bush gave the

order, there would be an invasion of the

Philippines backed by the president of

the Philippines herself Macapagal-

Arroyo but opposed by the majority of

the Filipino population. Already the U.$.

troops assisting in "anti-terrorist"

operations are a major insult to the

Filipino people, given that the Filipino

Constitution prohibits U.S. troops on

Filipino soil.

The Communist Party of the

Philippines and New People's Army have

very good reasons to attack U.$. interests

militarily. Thus far, they have refrained

from doing so.

For more than 10 years the Communist

Powell names

CPP `foreign

terrorist

organization'

Toady Arroyo

regime steps up

red-baiting

.$. Secretary of State Colin

Powell declared the Communist

Party of the Philippines (CPP)

and the New People's Army (NPA) to be

"foreign terrorist organizations" on

August 9, less than one week after he

visited the Philippines and about the

same time Philippine President Gloria

Macapagal-Arroyo announced that the

NPA was now the military's number one

target. Powell's declaration makes it

illegal for persyns in the United $tates

to provide "material support or

resources" to the CPP or NPA and

requires U.$. banks to freeze such

supporters' accounts.(1)

Powell's announcement escalates U.$.

meddling in the Philippines and is clear

indication that MIM is right when it says

there is a U.$. war brewing in the

Philippines.

The leader of the bourgeois opposition

in the Philippine House of

Representatives denounced Powell's

classification of the CPP as intervention

in the Philippines' internal affairs.

"Whatever differences the government

and the [National Democratic Front]

have are an internal matter," said Rep.

Carlos Padilla. [The National

Democratic Front is an umbrella

organization of revolutionary groups led

by the CPP.] Membership in the CPP is

not a crime under Philippine law, and the

Philippines has no anti-terrorism law.

Rep. Satur Ocampo, from the

nationalist Bayan Muna party, said that

the Arroyo regime would use the U.$.

government's declaration that the NPA

is a "foreign terrorist organization" as

justification to allow U.$. troops to go

after NPA guerrillas and sympathizers.

"Everything seemed coordinated," he

said, "from Powell's visit to Macapagal's

declaration of all-out-war, and the U.S.

government's declaration of the NPA as

AMERIKAN MEDDLERS MAY

HAVE TAKEN ON MORE THAN

THEY CAN HANDLE

by MC5

August 27 2002

he past month has seen an

intensification of imperialist

maneuvering including an open

threat to redivide the world to the

exclusion of Russia from U.S. "Secretary

of Defense" Donald Rumsfeld. In

response, at least some spreading rumors

on the Internet have threatened U.$.

Warning to the U.$. public:

U.$. war brewing in the Philippines

Party of the Philippines and others in the

revolutionary movement have tried to

negotiate with U.$. imperialism through

its various lackeys in the Philippines. We

at MIM can attest, and it is a matter of

public record, that the CPP has tried

desperately to settle matters with u.$.

imperialism peacefully. At the same time,

with 70% of the population

malnourished, the Communist Party of

the Philippines can not tolerate less than

major change in the Philippines. The

Communist Party of the Philippines is

Nutcase Rumsfeld threatens

Russia with new global redivision

imperialism with a different redivision

of the world.

Rumsfeld put it in typical imperialist

terms: "My impression is that the

Russian administration is fairly

pragmatic at this stage and their interest

in the United States is greater than their

interest in Iraq."(1) He threatened Russia

with loss of business for doing business

with Iraq--contrary to the usual rhetoric

of "free trade" where borders are

supposed to be irrelevant, never mind

politics. The formation of trade blocs

w h e r e

countries are

allowed to

trade in the

bloc only if

they don't

trade in

others is

connected up

with every

major war in the past hundred or more

years.

Russia correctly responded that the

Pentagon has no legal authority to set the

trade policies of the U.S. business

community: "`This is not the first time

that the Pentagon has taken on the

unusual mission of making statements on

behalf of the American and foreign

business communities,' Malakhov

[Russian Foreign Ministry

spokespersyn--MC5] said in a statement.

`It is hard for us to judge to what extent

the Pentagon has the authority to do this

and who gave it such authority.'"(2) It

was a brilliant move by the Putin

administration, to consolidate public

opinion in Russia while putting Rumsfeld

in his place globally. It's already not far

from the Russian people's minds that

what Rumsfeld did proves the real nature

of the U.$. capitalist system.

Continued on page 6...

Continued on page 4...

Continued on page 8...

Despite many attempts by the revolutionaries to negotiate with U.$. imperialists, Arroy

and her U.$. puppeteers are driving hard toward a new U.$. was on the Philippines.

MIM Notes 266 · September 15, 2002· Page 2

MIM Notes

The Official Newsletter of The Maoist Internationalist Movement

ISSN 1540-8817

MIM Notes is the bi-weekly newsletter of the Maoist Internationalist Movement. MIM

grants explicit permission to copy all or part of this newspaper for any reason. Please
credit MIM Notes where appropriate. The paper is free to all prisoners. Overseas airmail
is $2 per issue. MIM Notes is the official Party voice. Material in the paper is the Party's
position unless noted to the contrary. MIM Notes accepts submissions and critiques from
anyone. The editors reserve the right to edit copy unless permission is specifically denied
by the author. Back issues of MIM Notes are available for $1 per issue. A bound volume
of the original MIM Notes 1-34 and MIM Theory 1-13 (old numbering) is available for
$15, post-paid. MIM has a complete literature list of progressive books and pamphlets.
Send $2 for a copy. MIM's ten point program is available to anyone who sends in a
SASE. MIM is an underground party that does not publish the names of its comrades in
order to avoid the state surveillance and repression that have historically been directed at
communist parties and anti-imperialist movements. MCs, MIM comrades, are members
of the Party. RCs are RAIL Comrades. The Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist League (RAIL)
is an anti-imperialist mass organization led by MIM. MIM runs a books for prisoners
program which provides Maoist and general political material to prisoners for free. Make
checks or money orders payable to "Books for Prisoners, Inc." Federal EIN: 04-3475938.
Send to: Books for Prisoners, Inc. c/o the address below. Donations and books can be
sent to the address below. Send cash or check payable to "MIM Distributors".

MIM

P.O. Box 29670

Los Angeles, CA 90029-0670

eMail: <mim@mim.org>

WWW: <http//www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext>

What is MIM?

The Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM) is the collection of existing or emerging

Maoist internationalist parties in the English-speaking imperialist countries and their English-

speaking internal semi-colonies, as well as the existing or emerging Maoist Internationalist
parties in Belgium, France and Quebec and the existing or emerging Spanish-speaking
Maoist Internationalist parties of Aztlan, Puerto Rico and other territories of the U.$. Empire.

MIM Notes is the newspaper of MIM. Notas Rojas is the newspaper of the Spanish-speaking
parties or emerging parties of MIM. MIM upholds the revolutionary communist ideology
of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and is an internationalist organization that works from the

vantage point of the Third World proletariat. MIM struggles to end the oppression of all
groups over other groups: classes, genders, nations. MIM knows this is only possibly by
building public opinion to seize power through armed struggle. Revolution is a reality for

North America as the military becomes over-extended in the government's attempts to
maintain world hegemony. MIM differs from other communist parties on three main
questions: (1) MIM holds that after the proletariat seizes power in socialist revolution, the

potential exists for capitalist restoration under the leadership of a new bourgeoisie within
the communist party itself. In the case of the USSR, the bourgeoisie seized power after the
death of Stalin in 1953; in China, it was after Mao's death and the overthrow of the "Gang

of Four" in 1976. (2) MIM upholds the Chinese Cultural Revolution as the farthest advance
of communism in humyn history. (3) As Marx, Engels and Lenin formulated and MIM has
reiterated through materialist analysis, imperialism extracts super-profits from the Third

World and in part uses this wealth to buy off whole populations of oppressor nation so-
called workers. These so-called workers bought off by imperialism form a new petty-
bourgeoisie called the labor aristocracy. These classes are not the principal vehicles to

advance Maoism within those countries because their standards of living depend on
imperialism. At this time, imperialist super-profits create this situation in the Canada, Quebec,
the United $tates, England, France, Belgium, Germany, Japan, Italy, Switzerland,

Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Israel, Sweden and Denmark. MIM accepts people as
members who agree on these basic principles and accept democratic centralism, the system
of majority rule, on other questions of party line.

"The theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin is universally applicable. We should

regard it not as dogma, but as a guide to action. Studying it is not merely a matter of

learning terms and phrases, but of learning Marxism-Leninism as the science of revolution."

- Mao Zedong, Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 208.

Editor, MC206; Production, MC12

MIM is looking for distributors and

sponsors to step forward. Sponsors pay for
papers; distributors get them onto the
streets and officers do both distribution and
financial support:

Distribute

Cost per year

12 (Priority Mail)

$120

25 (Priority Mail)

$150

50 (Priority Mail)

$280

100

$380

200

$750

900 (Express Mail!)

$3,840

900 (8-10 days)

$2,200

If you know you have some good places

distribute, we suggest starting at 200 and
working your way up. If you are not willing
to distribute, just send money. If you are
not willing to pay, then request papers after
somehow proving to the party that you are
serious (words won't count). You who will
cough up/raise the money to distribute 900
papers each issue and then do the
distribution -- you are what drives this party
forward.

Make anonymous money orders payable

to "MIM." Send to MIM, attn: Camb.
branch, PO Box 400559, Cambridge, MA
02140. Or write mim3@mim.org.

A call for MIM Notes sponsors and distributors!

Letters

We constantly update MIM's

coverage of the U.$. war on

our web site, with news and
opinion, agitation materials,
articles in English, Spanish,

French, Chinese and

Russian!

Read and distribute the

newspaper -- and get the

latest:

www.etext.org/ Politics/MIM

California prisoners:
Stop Operation
Gatekeeper!

Greetings comrades,

I received the Stop Operation

Gatekeeper! petition. This is something

near and dear to my heart, for most of

my family had to cross this border. I know

firsthand the violence being waged on

those who go through the U.$.-Mexico

border. This violence is not only against

Mexicans but also against Salvadorans,

Guatemalans and other peoples of Third

World countries categorized as "Latins.".

I am trying to get people here to sign in

solidarity with this movement. As soon

as I can I will send back the signatures,

even if it's only mine!

-- a California prisoner, 14 July, 2002

MIM responds: The "Stop Operation

Gatekeeper!" campaign is organized

around this demand:

"Open the U.S. border!

"The U.S. Immigration and

Naturalization Service's military-style

`Operation Gatekeeper' has killed over

600 Mexican migrants. This is part of the

systematic violence the U.S. government

uses to restrict people's free movement.

The U.S. Border separates families,

communities, and nations. It also keeps

Third World workers and farmers under

regimes where wage rates are drastically

depressed through violent repression --

this allows the United States to make

huge profits off of its investments abroad.

We the undersigned call for an end to

`Operation Gatekeeper' and an end to

policies restricting people's free

movement across the border."

If you want to add your efforts to those

of this prisoner and MIM's other allies,

you can find a copy of the petition and

supporting articles on our website: http:/

/www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/cal/

OpenBorder.htm If you are in prison and

have no access to the Internet, write us

for a copy of the petition and we'll help

you out.

Prisoner prefers MIM
line to RCP

Greetings Comrades, I was somewhat

relieved when I received your letter and

May issues of MIM Notes. The

information contained in your letter is

very helpful in our small study group,

especially the article by Mao and

definitions of revolutionary words. I can

explain the words' meanings from my

understanding, but it is better when it's

put out by the party itself for all comrades

will be on the same page. ... That's one

reason I commend MIM for sending

MIM Theory 10, because it gives a clear

view of the labor aristocracy, proletariat,

and bourgeoisie. It shows comrades,

myself included, how and why they are

only revolutionary when their rights are

denied. I've recently read a pamphlet by

David Gilbert, "Looking at the White

Working Class Historically," along with

the RCP ["Revolutionary Communist

Party-USA" -ed] line on the working

class and you're right MIM, ["RCP"

Chairperson Bob] Avakian wants to

include this group, the white working

class, as proletarian and revolutionary.

Anyway, while I admit I think there are

some elements in this class that are

revolutionary they are mostly moved by

the desire for more benefits. Presently in

the ["RCP" newspaper] Revolutionary

Worker, Avakian is being interviewed by

Carl Dix and the cat is trippin'. I disagree

with his class analysis as well as the

failure of parties in the past. Alternate

reading to send would be those MIM

Theories, without a doubt, so I can get

real deep into MIM's thinking.

In struggle,

--A Texas Prisoner, August 2002

Imperialists get a clue

MIM has been shedding buckets of ink

and sweat about the Incarcerated $tate$

of Amerikkka for about ten years now.

So it is with a bitter pleasure that MIM

can now say to the capitalists "We told

you so." And here at least, they, and at

least a part some of them do, agree with

the facts as MIM states them.

The August 10th print edition of The

Economist, flagship of capitalism, has as

its cover story "Too Many Convicts."

That issue notes that the U.S. has a rate

of incarceration five times higher than

in England - which has Europe's highest

rate of incarceration.(The Economist,

August 10th 2002) That means in "the

land of the free" you are at least five times

more likely to land in jail than in the other

imperialist powers.To say nothing of your

chances of being shot "in self defense."

Or being killed in prison "by another

inmate."

As the bourgeoisie begins to wring its

hands and then do nothing -- for

capitalism cannot solve the problems it

creates -- MIM intends to continue to

put out the hard facts -- and to propose

real solutions.

--mousnonya@yahoo.com

MIM Notes 266 · September 15, 2002· Page 3

UNITED

FRONT

Get the new issue of MIM Theory, #14, and read the latest
theory on building the movement to overthrow
imperialism once and for all, in 174 pages. Articles include
MIM congress resolutions, history from the Spanish Civil
War to Puerto Rico, Kenya, and Stalin -- plus international
documents, reviews, and much more. Send $7.50 to the
address on page 2.

MIM Notes has seen a big spike in

circulation since the "war on
terrorism" began. It's not surprising:
MIM Notes is a free and independent

newspaper. Yes, there are especially
now knee-jerk patriots who believe
everything Bush says and pass by a

chance to read MIM Notes. There are
other patriots and internationalists
who realize that at this time papers

like MIM Notes can undo the huge
spectacle that Uncle Sam is creating
for its own benefit.

Sure, you have seen MIM Notes

around, but MIM Notes needs people
to do two simple things: 1) Pay for it

(postage and printing), 2) Distribute
it!

MIM is looking for sponsors,

distributors and officers. Sponsors pay
for papers; distributors get them onto
the streets and officers do both

distribution and financial support.

Distribute # Cost per year

12 (Priority Mail)

$120

25 (Priority Mail)

$150

50 (Priority Mail)

$280

100

$380

200

$750

900 (Express Mail!)

$3,840

900 (8-10 days)

$2,200

If you know you have some good

places to do distribution, we suggest
starting at 200 and working your way
up higher. If you are not willing to do

distribution, just send money. If you
are not willing to pay, then request
papers after somehow proving to the

party that you are serious (words
won't count). You who will cough up/
raise the money to distribute 900

papers each issue and then do the
distribution, you are what drives this
party forward.

A call for MIM Notes

sponsors and distributors!

Make anonymous money orders payable to "MIM." Send to MIM,

attn: Camb. branch, PO Box 400559, Cambridge, MA 02140. Contact

MIM in regards to this campaign by writing mim3@mim.org

Attention subscribers

MIM now sends MIM Notes

subscriptions to individuals in monthly

mailings, third class mail. If you have a

subscription and would like a refund for

the remaining months, please write to

MIM,PO Box 29670, Los Angeles, CA

90029-0670.

Ten political parties met and called for

the end of a state of emergency in Nepal

so that the parties can prepare campaigns

for upcoming elections in November.

Amongst those calling for elections were

CPN-United, CPN-Marxist, CPN-MLM

and CPN-Unity Centre Masal. (In each

case, CPN stands for Communist Party

of Nepal.)(1) It appears these parties (all

the existing parties basically) got their

way on August 28th, when the state of

emergency came to an end as scheduled

instead of being renewed for a third time.

The head of the Nepali regime is

someone from the Nepali Congress Party,

Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba.

However, his party has split over his

declaration of a state of emergency.

In recent weeks, it is apparent that

Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba

found himself threatened by a coalition

of his own party and other parties. The

second-largest parliamentary party, the

CPN(UML) told the prime minister he

would be politically finished if he did

not see to free and fair elections

happening on time.

Reactionary journalists are trying to

provide cover for the end of the state of

emergency. The Kathmandu Post says

that the strong showing of the

government since May has proved the

People's War too weak to attack police

or military outposts anymore. Hence,

they believe it is time for more peace

negotiations before hitting the Maoists

harder if they do not end the People's

War.(2)

As MIM has explained before, in

Nepal, the majority of the 25 million

people are vaguely communist as proved

by previous elections and the revolution

in Nepal. There is only a question of false

consciousness, a little fogginess about the

best way of going about things. That's

why no less than five parties calling

themselves "communist" as the first word

in their name appear to favor open

elections and an end to the state of

emergency. The only doubt would be

whether some of these factions have been

invented by the state.

In any case, returning to the point at

hand, the threat against Prime Minister

Deuba was apparently strong enough for

a newspaper to claim that Nepal's 1990

Constitution is under fire.(3) It is not

surprising that there is a constitutional

crisis, because there is no solution to the

problems that the ruling class in Nepal

faces without revolution.

Notes:
1. http://www.nepalnews.com.np/contents/
englishdaily/ktmpost/2002/aug/aug29/
index.htm#2
2. http://www.nepalnews.com.np/contents/
englishdaily/ktmpost/2002/aug/aug29/
editorial.htm#1 3. http:// Nepali rulers attempt
to lift state of emergency
3. http://www.nepalnews.com.np/contents/
englishweekly/telegraph/2002/aug/aug28/
index.htm#1.

Nepali rulers attempt to lift state of emergency

Written by RAIL-Canada

July 21, 2002

In May of 2002 the government of

British Columbia conducted a Treaty

Negotiations referendum in order to

"formulate an approach to negotiations

with Canada and First Nations" (1)

meaning recast a framework for the treaty

negotiation process around the issues of

land, natural resources and political

rights of the BC First Nations that has

been taking place for 9 long years ever

since its launching in 1993.

Among the 8 questions included in the

agenda were the suggestions that "private

property should not be expropriated for

treaty settlements"; that "hunting, fishing

and recreational opportunities on Crown

land should be ensured for all British

Columbians"; that "parks and protected

areas should be maintained for the use

and benefit of all British Columbians";

that "aboriginal self-government should

have the characteristics of local

government, with powers delegated from

Canada and British Columbia" and that

"the existing tax exemptions for

Aboriginal people should be phased

out".(2)

[MIM emphasizes that this referendum

asked the settler majority what the

framework for negotiations over First

Nations' sovereign rights. Once again, the

First Nations themselves are excluded

from the most important decisions

regarding their own livelihood.]

All 8 questions passed with 85 to 91

percent approval among valid ballots.

However, valid ballots made up only 36%

of the total of 2,127,829 mailed out.

Among those who did not vote were some

boycotters. These people "registered their

protest by redirecting their ballots, using

their ballots for art contests, writing

letters of support or by recycling their

ballots".(4)

Background of the referendum on
Treaty negotiations

Ever since the early days of

colonization of Canada by European

settlers resulting is slaughter, forced

displacement and land dispossession of

indigenous population, First Nations have

been waging incessant battles for their

legal and territorial rights- a process that

since its very inception has been

obstructed and halted in many ways by

the colonial and capitalist settler

governments of Britain and Canada.

In British Columbia, the creation of

Confederation in 1871 left a legacy of 14

treaties on Vancouver Island between

first nations and the British government

while the rest of the province was left

unresolved. (5) Having confined the

surviving indigenous population to a

system of "reserves" established at the

end of the 19 century, local governments

appointed commissioners to make "land

adjustments" resulting in "cutting off"

land from the reserves, while barring

litigation activity on the part of First

Nations and making it an offense to

collect funds for the purpose of

advancing claims (legislative restriction

not lifted until 1951). In 1938 B.C.

completed Indian reserve arrangements

and transferred most provincial land

within Indian reserves to the federal

government continuing to argue that

"there was nothing to negotiate". (6) It

was not until 1970's that a set of judicial

BC Treaty Referendum Seeks to Perpetuate Colonial Oppression

Continued on page 9...

MIM Notes 266 · September 15, 2002· Page 4

Trade conflicts smoothing
somewhat

One sign that the u.$. imperialists may

be serious about attacking Iraq is that they

were busy smoothing over old trade

differences with the European Union

(EU) and Russia--although recent

conflicts over new trade deals fudge that

up somewhat.

According to the Washington Post,

"Washington on Thursday [August 22nd]

exempted a final batch of 178 foreign

steel products from duties imposed in

March by President Bush to the fury of

U.S. trade partners.

"It said EU and Japanese producers

were the main beneficiaries of the latest

U.S. move, which brought total

exemptions to 727, chosen from more

than 1,300 requests.

"The Commission said that so far more

than 50 percent of EU exports had been

exempted from the duties, which were

imposed at between eight and 30 percent

on a range of products."(3) This means

that Bush eliminated new taxes on steel

from the European Union. The European

Union is still threatening to retaliate

against the united $tates for the trade

taxes Bush imposed to obtain future votes

from steelworkers.

Meanwhile, Russia and the United

$tates worked out a deal to resume U.$.

chicken imports into Russia in a market

worth $660 million. Why Russians

Rumsfeld threatens new global redivision

should pay to ship something they could

raise in their own backyards is another

question.(4)

Russian maneuvers noted by
imperialist press, upping the ante

Despite some smoothing on old trade

business, it was the new trade business

that saw the u.$. imperialists rock the

boat. The real headline grabber of August

was the deal between Iraq and Russia.

According to the Washington Post, "Iraqi

Ambassador Abbas Khalaf characterized

it as a five-year pact worth $40 billion.

A top deputy to Russian Prime Minister

Mikhail Kasyanov on Friday also said it

would be worth about $40 billion.

"The agreement will cover a variety of

fields, including oil, electrical energy,

chemical products, irrigation, railroad

construction and transportation."(5) A

Bush aide initially told the Washington

Post he did not think the deal was too

troublesome and that Putin was still on

board the coalition to fight "terror."

Republican Senator Richard G. Lugar

who has long played a senior role in

foreign relations matters for the Congress

said that the Russian deal was

"symbolic."(6) It was later that Rumsfeld

played the "hard-liner."

Putin also met with Kim Jong-il on

August 23rd. Kim announced plans to

buy some tractors, but the Russians are

selling the southern Korean regime a half

billion dollars of weapons, including

tanks. Nonetheless, Kim said he was

happy with his meeting with Putin.

At the time of the Korean meeting,

Putin called on the local Russian

authorities to hurry up and participate in

building the rail line that will connect

southern Korea to northern Korea to

Russia and then Europe. The southern

Korean trade will mean money for all

who participate in the railroad.

The New York Times pointed out the

stunning fact that Russia's economy is

now the size of the Netherlands's,(7) so

the Russians need business everywhere,

not just where Uncle $am approves.

Russia has the largest population of any

country in Europe, nearly 10 times larger

than the 16 million of the Netherlands.

That means capitalism has been a

catastrophe for the ex-Soviet people

compared with Russian glory days under

Stalin--a fact the New York Times did

not point out.

Meanwhile, in Georgia, Russian

warplanes struck at Chechen rebels

taking up sanctuary there. Georgia has

sought U.S. protection and has taken U.S.

military aid ostensibly for the purpose of

being able to drive out the Chechen

rebels, which Bush has agreed are

"terrorists," because of their reputed links

to al-Qaeda and the days of the Afghan-

Soviet war.(8)

The United $tates made some noise on

behalf of Georgia,(9) and more

significantly threatened several European

states over the World Court. The United

States told Europe that if it did not vote

to exclude U.S. troops from the

jurisdiction of the World Court, it would

withdraw troops from NATO.(10) MIM

will translate the meaning of this threat

for the common persyn: "Eastern Europe,

if you want to be under the Russian

sphere of influence, then go ahead and

vote against us. Western Europe: if you

want to pay for the consequences of that,

go ahead." Thus far only I$rael and

Romania have signed agreements with

the United $tates not to turn over U.S.

troops to the World Court.(10)

The number of threats the United $tates

made in the month of August alone shows

that the u.$. imperialists face too many

global enemies to handle. The

proliferation of weapons to the Third

World alone dooms the stability of the

current system and causes the

scientifically retarded U.$. rulers to lash

out in reactionary and widespread

directions. In some cases Uncle $am will

succeed in intimidation, but the overall

logic of the numbers and situation is

against him.

Saudi-U.$. relations in a pickle

The U.$. labor aristocracy landed a

one-two punch in U.$.-Saudi relations in

August, with perfect timing giving that

the kettle is already boiling in the Middle

Forbes magazine and the Financial

Times have already figured out that the

United $tates is not the place to be for

Saudi investors. They both ran stories in

August about an alleged withdrawal of

Saudi investment.

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of the Saudi

royal family had to deny that Saudis were

withdrawing money, $100-$200 billion

by some reports already. He even said he

was looking for ways to increase

investment in the united $tates.(1) It is

the same prince who donated $10 million

to September 11th survivors only to have

mayor Rudolf Giuliani return the money

after the Prince made a speech against

I$rael. He is also the one often mentioned

as a future prime minister of Lebanon.

The speculations increased after some

600-odd September 11th victims'

relatives filed suit against Saudi Arabians

for more money than the Saudis have

invested in the United $tates. According

to the Chicago Sun Times, one of the

outlets to say the September 11th suit

against Saudis is for over $100 trillion,

the Saudis have $750 billion invested in

the United $tates and one of those named

in the suit has already spoken out against

the labor aristocracy that brought the suit:

"This is an act to extort Saudi money

deposited in the United States and a way

of meddling in the region."(2)

Every Saudi knows why he does not

want to invest where there is political

instability, especially a likelihood of

socialism or communism. What Saudis

have failed to calculate so far is the fact

that the United $tates really does back

I$rael and that means a state of war,

which means instability threatening their

investments. The I$raeli$ do the most to

remind Amerikkkans of their origins in

posses massacring First Nations people.

President Bush will try to appease the

Saudis by saying he persynally opposes

the lawsuit, but that is not how politics

works in Amerikkka. The social-

democrats at the "Nation" have already

sounded the call and criticized Bush for

not getting behind the lawsuit: "But

President Bush would never move

against the Saudis because American

corporations, some led by close Bush

family friends and associates, do too

much business there." (2) That's how

Robert Scheer sees it. There can be no

doubt that means a large portion of the

ruling-class does too. A Gephardt or a

Buchanan would make a deal with the

labor aristocracy to take over Saudi

assets--with the enthusiastic support of

a swamp that Stalin once referred to as

"social-fascism" to speak of social-

democrats and "national socialists"

united in patriotic super-exploitation

against other countries.

An Arab bank estimates that Gulf

Arabs have about $1.2 trillion in liquid

assets abroad.(3) There was already a

buzz that Arab money would flow into

Euros and cause the currency to rise

before the latest Amerikan labor

aristocracy lawsuit.(4) Since the time

speculation started at the end of 2001,

the Euro has risen 10 cents against the

dollar to be almost par at 98 cents for a

euro.(5)

Thrown off airplanes for looking Arab,

being attacked at mosques--the Arab

businesspersyn faces obvious enemies in

the Amerikkkan labor aristocracy. Now

there is a suit for $1 trillion or over $100

trillion depending on which philistine

news outlet you believe. Even if this suit

does not result in nationalization of Arab

assets followed by their redistribution

this time, there's nothing to stop a similar

event and lawsuit in the future.

Notes:
1. http://www.forbes.com/home/newswire/2002/
08/22/rtr702286.html
2. http://www.thenation.com/
doc.mhtml?i=scheer&s=20020820
3. http://www.suntimes.com/output/terror/cst-
nws-saudi21.html
4. http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/
StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2256
5. www.news.ft.com August 28th

Amerikkkan labor aristocracy threatens Saudi capital

Yahoos make Amerika `unstable investment climate'

Photos from www.pakistannation.com/
Arti_Pub/Y2001/SepOct01/hatecrimes.htm

TOP: A Pakistani-owned Goodyear Tire
Store was burned in Houston, Texas two
days after the owner received threats.

BOTTOM: A Muslim owned bookstore
and neighboring business become a
scene of a three alarm fire after the Sept.
11, tragedy. The FBI is investigating the
incident as a hate crime.

Continued from page 1...

Continued on next page...

MIM Notes 266 · September 15, 2002· Page 5

East. We are speaking of the lawsuit

brought by relatives of the September

11th World Trade Center crash.(11)

To be sure, this is a labor aristocracy

invention. First of all, it is virtually a

move to nationalize Saudi assets. In

general, we will not see the imperialists

initiate discussions of nationalizing

assets. It's not good for the business

environment which depends on long-

term trust and tolerance for stabiilty.

However, the labor aristocracy has made

its move in a way that fits in the whole

"War against Terror" theme of the day

set by the imperialists. What is more, the

labor aristocracy does not call it fascist

nationalization of assets, but instead

refers to it as "damages" in the language

of lawsuits.

The labor aristocracy has shown its

colors perfectly. One, suing the Saudi

ruling class in a typical all-Arabs-are-

terrorists kind of racism. Two, it reached

for the ones with the money, the way

every parasite is trained in the imperialist

system.

The second blow landed by the labor

aristocracy was in the newsrooms. The

suit is so large, that the mathematically

illiterate newsrooms alternately reported

the suit was for $1 trillion, $1.6 trillion--

and in at least two major outlets--$116

trillion.(12) No doubt this contributed to

the consternation of the Saudi

bourgeoisie while simultaneously giving

the enlightened public an insight into just

how stupid the mainstream media is. Our

readers will forgive MIM for not

bothering to check what the astronomical

suit is really for. Apparently not

compensated sufficiently already, the

labor aristocracy suit-mongers are

searching for at least 9 digit figures for

every persyn killed in the World Trade

Center.

The hard-line imperialists are playing

this lawsuit as leverage against the Saudis

and u.$. global domination. It is

essentially a threat to take over Saudi

Arabia's U.$. assets (less than $1 trillion)

and/or the oil fields themselves in the

name of 911.

Thus far, Arab billionaires have denied

that they are pulling money out of the

united $tates to avoid being involved in

future conflicts. According to the U.S.

Embassy, the Saudis alone have $600 to

$700 billion invested abroad.(13) Others

sources say Arabs have $500 to $700

billion in the United $tates.

In actual fact, this lawsuit is a no-lose

proposition for communists globally. If

the suit should win, the Arab bourgeoisie

will have its stake in U.$. imperialism

cut off, greatly contributing to revolution

and the war that would follow. The

solidarity of the Middle East would be

hugely increased thanks to the

overreaching greed of the U.$. labor

aristocracy.

If the suit loses, it will be a blow to

racism naming all Arabs terrorists, when

the ones who carried out the attack all

died in the crash. Nonetheless, in the

future, we will also use this lawsuit to

remind the labor aristocracy what it

thought the lives of people are worth,

when it comes time for reparations for

the killing of slaves, most of which died

on the boat on the way to North America,

and the 10 million indigenous people

killed.

A rumor on the Internet discusses how

an all-out trade conflict with Saudi

Arabia would play out. The Saudis would

close their embassies in England and the

United $tates, and trade with their oil in

the European Union, which would be

allowed to re-sell to the United $tates and

England. Another element in play is the

land forces of Russia, which could easily

move into Iraq and the rest of the Middle

East if so invited to prevent Uncle $am

from forcibly taking over the oil fields

once ties have been cut.

Such an alignment would be very

attractive to countries around the world

and would pose significant challenges to

u.$. imperialism. In such an arrangement,

suddenly economic ties to Russia and the

European Union do not look so bad to a

host of Eastern European, Middle East

and Central Asian countries. Those who

have played Othello or the more complex

Go game can see the risks that the above-

average-but-overmatched Bush is

playing with.

Hard times for u.$. imperialism

We are beginning to see the limits of

U.$. imperialist power as the imperialists

calculate how to flip all the pieces on the

board at the same time without losing

them all again in subsequent moves by

opponents. The operation in Afghanistan

is such a failure that the U.$. government

has had to admit that President Karzai is

an extension of the U.S. State

Department. Despite the U.S. ousting of

the Taliban so many people were trying

to kill Karzai that the U.S. military was

protecting him. Now it will be troops of

the State Department providing for his

security.(14) Thus the game pieces are

barely staying flipped Uncle $am's way

in Afghanistan, where there is already a

considerable military commitment.

Meanwhile, U.S. ambassadors have gone

repeatedly to Pakistan and India to make

sure that a war does not heat up there and

introduce more wild cards into global

game of imperialism.

Notes:
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/22/
international/middleeast/22IRAQ.html
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/
0,1280,-1969596,00.html
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
articles/A52873-2002Aug23.html
4. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/24/
business/worldbusiness/24CHIC.html
5. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
articles/A38019-2002Aug19.html
6. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
articles/A33847-2002Aug18.html
7. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/24/
international/asia/24KORE.html 8. http://
www.nytimes.com/2002/08/24/international/
europe/24CAUC.html
9. http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/
international-russia-georgia.html ; http://
www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/
international-russia-georgia.html
10. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
articles/A64476-2002Aug26.html
11. http://www.foxnews.com/story/
0,2933,61257,00.html
12. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/020816/140/
d7kah.html has the $116 trillion figure
13. http://usembassy.state.gov/riyadh/
wwwhet00.html
14. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
articles/A55181-2002Aug23.html

by International Minister

August 20 2002

The June 2002 U.$. trade deficit was

$37.2 billion, exceeded in all history only

by the month before. The projected trade

deficit for the year is $412 billion.(1)

However, the real news is that after 30

years of this pattern, so-called Marxists

still do not show understanding of how

it is possible.

According to bourgeois economic

theory (better known as trivia) a trade

deficit increases the supply of the

currency in deficit and that currency's

value should decrease. When the

currency decreases in international value,

goods in that currency become better

priced just by virtue of new exchange

rates. With the new exchange rates, trade

deficits are supposed to return to zero or

reverse themselves.

Lately we have become aware of

another twist, which is that the currency

market can be affected by investments

in the united $tates, as investments in

stocks and securities increase demand for

U.S. dollars. So in theory, the united

$tates could be paying for its perennial

trade deficit by transferring ownership of

U.S. property to foreigners, and that is

why the dollar does not collapse despite

humongous trade deficits. In the past two

months, at least two separate

organizations claiming to uphold Mao

who we will not criticize by name have

put forward the bourgeois economic

theory as a sign of the collapse of the u.$.

system, because it will need to devalue

the currency but will not be able to

eradicate the trade deficit. These

organizations claiming to be Marxist

simply repeat what they have heard

before (2) without creatively

understanding the conditions they live in

in 2002. Specifically, they fail to

understand that the U.S. trade deficit is

closer to being an indicator of parasitism

than an indicator of imminent collapse.

Ideologically, the capitalists have

changed their tune about trade deficits.

Instead of having deficits automatically

adjust themselves out of existence

because of capitalism's supposed

inherent stability, the bourgeois

propagandists are now at least sometimes

taking another tack--that ideologically,

large deficits prove the power of the u.$.

economy.(3) Of course, the bourgeois

change of tune is not based on anything

scientific underlying it, and we Marxists

have a higher standard to meet.

Some analysts claiming to uphold Mao

and some social-democratic economists

such as Mark Weisbrot marvel at the

inflow of foreign finance capital and

claim that it cannot be sustained. In fact,

Weisbrot connects the recent trade deficit

to a stock market bubble and advocates

RUMSFELD: From previous page...

U.$. trade deficit expanded in June; so-called Marxists don't get it

Quarterly U.$. Trade Deficit in "goods and services": 1976-2002

($ Billions)

tiny reforms to limit speculation and put

capitalism on a more stable basis.(4) So

it is that social-democratic economists

limit themselves to advocating how

capitalism can stabilize itself and better

extract wealth from abroad. Weisbrot

goes on to cry for more jobs for U.$.

citizens.

In fact, the stock market bubble

reminds Marxists of the difference

between surplus-labor and realized

surplus-value. If in fact foreigners get

sucked into speculative bubbles forever,

the united $tates does not ever have to

pay for its imported goods and services

with anything but worthless paper. In

exchange for goods and services,

foreigners buy U.$. stocks in companies

which go bankrupt or lose most of their

value.

Thinking about this, some will say that

cannot be sustained forever either.

Continued on page 9...

MIM Notes 266 · September 15, 2002· Page 6

composed of the starving and people who

directly know the starving.

Now Bush & Company say they are

going to settle scores with "terrorists,"

but in this case they mean to go on the

offensive and start armed violence where

none existed. In contrast, we at MIM

believe that the United $tates should

spend its money another way--buying

out the landlords of the Philippines,

giving them citizenship in the United

States and handing over the agrarian

economy to the Communist Party of the

Philippines, the only non-corrupted force

able to address the poverty in the

countryside and prepare the advance of

the Philippines into the modern economic

world, the same way Mao did in China.

Only complete land confiscations

enabled Taiwan, southern Korea and

Japan to become economically

prosperous, and this the World Bank

itself admits.(2) The reason for this is that

old landlord classes are used to using

backward methods of production while

living lives of idle luxury and thus have

nothing progressive to contribute to the

Philippines or other countries like it.

With a land reform led by the

Communist Party of the Philippines, the

Philippines would see its economy grow

like in Taiwan, southern Korea and post-

World War II Japan, without landing any

U.$. troops. The growing economy

would consume expanded imports from

the u.$. people and contribute to a

solution to the current economic crisis.

The Amerikkkan people should make

one last effort to prevail on their leaders

to act for peace, and choose costly

peaceful solutions instead of costly

military "solutions" which will only

impoverish everyone and increase

terrorism by the united $tates and

increase violent acts of resistance to that

u.$. terrorism.

Notes:
1. http://www.reuters.com/
news_article.jhtml?type=search&StoryID=1342484
2. http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/faq/
worldbanklandreform.html ; see also Jose
Edgardo Campos and Hilton L. Root, The Key
to the Asian Miracle: Making Shared Growth
Credible (Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution, 1996).

U.$. war brewing in the Philippines

Continued from page 1...

By Rep. Satur C. Ocampo

Satur Ocampo is a member of the

nationalist Bayan Muna (People First)

party, one of the legal "political

advocacy" groups the U.$.-lackey regime

threatened in its declaration of "all-out

war on the Communists." In fact, the

Philippine military had already killed

more than 40 Bayan Muna members

before the government's early-August

declaration of war. Now the Philippine

government is moving to ban Bayan

Muna and has dug up 13-year-old

weapons-possession charges on Rep.

Ocampo.

The following is a speech Rep. Ocampo

prepared for the International Solidarity

Mission Against U.S. Armed Intervention

in the Philippines. We reprint it here to

give our readers important background

on the U.$. war of aggression brewing

in the Philippines.

July 28, 2002

I cannot recall the names of the two

Filipino soldiers who, on the warm

moonlit night of February 4, 1899, were

shot dead by American sentries, nor,

indeed, if their names were ever recorded.

But whoever they were they are

remembered as the first casualties of U.S.

armed intervention in our nation's affairs.

That encounter served as U.S.

imperialism's pretext to begin the

conquest of the Philippines and heralded

the Filipino-American War--a heroic

struggle by the Filipino people against

the United States whose revolutionary

legacy extends to this day.

By now I am sure we are all aware why

the Philippines figures so prominently in

the United States' hegemonic ambitions.

As it was a century ago, we are

strategically important as a staging post

in the region from which the United

States can protect and advance its

imperial interests. But also, as it was a

century ago and indeed in all the time

since, the Filipino people do not meekly

submit to U.S. imperialism's designs.

The Filipino nation was born in the

battlefield, through over 200 uprisings

during three centuries of Spanish

colonialism and then with the 1896

Philippine revolution under the

leadership of the Katipunan. These

culminated in our distinguishing

ourselves as the first nation in Asia to

wage and win the old democratic

revolution against a colonial power.

When we fought U.S. aggression

beginning in 1899 we fought it as a

sovereign nation. When we fight U.S.

imperialism today, we do so as a

sovereign people.

Filipino-American War

The sounds and images of the Filipino-

American War reverberate to this day. In

all the important things, U.S.

imperialism's deep grip on Philippine

society was established through its war

of conquest and in the course of the

colonial and then the neo-colonial puppet

regimes in its wake.

U.S. Armed Intervention in the Philippines and

the People's Struggle for National Freedom

The extent and brutality of the U.S.'

war of aggression against the Philippines

are lost or obscured in history written

from the U.S. viewpoint.

The defiant resistance of the fledgling

Filipino republic against the then still

maturing but already mighty imperialist

behemoth is undeniable. The Spanish-

American War lasted less than four

months in its entirety with insignificant

losses for the U.S.: less than 800 dead

from direct fighting, mainly in Cuba. Yet

the Filipino-American War dragged on

for virtually 17 years in Luzon and the

Visayas, up to 1916, and at least 14 years

in Mindanao, up to 1913. When the U.S.

formally declared colonial rule in 1902,

only three years into the fighting, there

were already 4,234 American dead and

2,779 wounded.

The U.S. had unleashed its vast war

machine. Some 60% of the U.S.' 216,029

Army regulars and volunteers in 1898

were deployed in 639 outposts across the

archipelago. Indeed, the 50,000 Army

regulars of 1898 were doubled--some

estimates say even quadrupled--because

of the Filipino-American War.

Prosecuting the war cost the U.S.

anywhere from U.S.$400 million to over

U.S.$600 million, staggering amounts for

the time.

Clearly then, it was by no means the

small "Tagalog rebellion" as it was called

by then U.S. President McKinley. Nor

was it fought just by what U.S. General

Otis called "a rag tag army." U.S. history

has recorded the Filipino-American War

as an "insurgency" or an "insurrection"

by insurgents, outlaws, brigands and

bandits. It was far more than that.

The Filipino fighting forces came from

the working classes, mainly the

peasantry--hacienda tenants,

dispossessed farmers, small farmers and

agricultural laborers--and some urban

working people. They fought with

whatever weapons were at hand. Maybe

one in four had rifles captured from the

Spanish and the rest were armed with

bolos and other crude weapons. This

against the U.S. troops' modern rifles,

revolvers, artillery, rapid-fire guns, flame

throwers, explosives and their navy's big

guns. But the guerrilla war we fought

drew its strength from much more: the

people.

Even General Arthur MacArthur

couldn't but concede:

"The success of this unique system of

war depends upon almost complete unity

of action of the entire native population.

That such unity is a fact is too obvious to

admit of discussion; how it is brought

about and maintained is not so plain...

but fear as the only motive is hardly

sufficient to account for the united and

apparently spontaneous action of several

millions of people."

And it was the people who paid the

price for their fierce patriotism and

determined struggle for independence.

Filipino soldiers and civilians alike were

wantonly killed. We were beaten,

dismembered, burned alive and subjected

to the infamous "rope torture" and "water

cure." Our villages, crops and property

were indiscriminately burned and

destroyed. Public assassinations,

beatings, intimidation, rape and other

wanton violence and terror tactics were

in daily use.

As early as May 1901, U.S. General

Bell estimated that there were already

600,000 Filipino casualties in Luzon

alone of which perhaps only between

15,000-20,000 were soldiers. This was

only after two years of fighting and

before the systematic "pacification

campaigns" in Luzon and the Visayas.

Entire populations were herded into so-

called "zones of protection" and so many

tens of thousands died from hunger,

exposure and disease. Perhaps, 100,000

Muslims were also killed in their

resistance from 1903 to 1913 in

Mindanao. It is certain that U.S.

imperialism killed between 10-15% of

our population then of some 8 million,

or from 800,000 to over a million deaths.

By any account, that is a staggering

amount.

Colonialism and neo-colonialism

We rake up these brutal events not out

of any historical curiosity but because

they are of the greatest relevance today.

As so well put by one of our country's

nationalist historians, the present is a

continuation of the past.

The Filipino-American War and the

succeeding decades of colonial rule

aimed to destroy any vestiges of the

sovereign Filipino nation and erect in its

stead a vassal state, be it in colonial or

neocolonial form. Brute military force,

as we have seen, was used to deadly

effect. But the colonial period also saw

U.S. imperialism using the rest of the

powers of the state against the Filipino

people.

Repressive laws like the Sedition Law

(1901), Brigandage Act (1902),

Reconcentration Act (1903) and Flag

Law (1907) were put in place to sanction

the use of force against all nationalist

Filipinos. The U.S. also started

organizing and training surrogate armed

forces to help suppress resistance to

American rule. The Armed Forces of the

Philippines (AFP) and Philippine

National Police (PNP) we know of today

trace their anti-people lineage to the U.S.-

created Philippine Scouts and the

National Police Force of 1901.

There is an important point worth

stressing. The people's armed

revolutionary and anti-colonial resistance

continued well after U.S. President

Theodore Roosevelt declared the so-

called "Philippine insurrection" over on

July 4, 1902 and long after the ilustrado

elite had reverted to attending to their

political and economic affairs.

Armed fighting continued in

Pampanga, Laguna, Nueva Ecija,

Pangasinan, Zambales, Rizal, Cavite,

Batangas, Tayabas, Isabela, Albay,

Samar, Leyte, Negros, Cebu and

elsewhere under the leadership of Sakay,

Montalan, Felizardo, San Miguel,

Guillermo, Ola, Toledo, Manalan,

Tomines and many others until 1916.

Defiant Mindanao Moro resistance

Continued on next page...

MIM Notes 266 · September 15, 2002· Page 7

continued still in Cotabato, Sulu and

Lanao until 1913 in the face of equally

ferocious massacres by U.S. troops. As

late as 1935, some 60,000 Sakdalistas

rose up in arms in 18 municipalities of

Southern Tagalog and proclaimed

independence shouting, "Long live the

Republic of the Philippines!"

Despite the death penalty or long

prison terms under the Sedition Law for

anyone calling for independence, open

legal struggles against U.S. imperialism

and its colonial rule continued to flourish.

The pro-independence Partido

Nacionalista was organized in 1902 and

Congreso Obrero de Filipinas (COF) in

1913. The Union Obrera Democratica de

Filipinas (UODF) led the

commemoration of the first labor day in

1903 with some 100,000 workers

shouting, "Down with U.S. imperialism!"

Filipino journalists and writers opposed

colonial rule through nationalist plays

like "Tanikalang Ginto" and newspapers

like El Renacimiento and Muling

Pagsilang. And doubtless to the great

dismay of the U.S. colonial government,

the Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas

(PKP) was launched on November 7,

1930.

Flag independence was granted the

Philippines on July 4, 1946. By that time,

however, decades of colonial rule had

succeeded in politically, economically,

ideologically and culturally fettering the

Filipino nation to U.S. imperialism. The

very puppet governments and the big

business and landlord interests beholden

to U.S. imperialism carefully put in place

then--as its proxy rulers--are the very

caretakers of the system today.

Continuing U.S. intervention

Sustained U.S. intervention in the

Philippines' affairs in the past half

century is no less armed just because

American fingers haven't been pulling

triggers of guns aimed at Filipinos. The

most glaring example of this in the post-

colonial period are, of course, the U.S.

military bases guaranteed under the RP-

U.S. Military Bases Agreement (MBA)

of 1947 and the Mutual Defense Treaty

(MDT) of 1951.

Is there any doubt that the U.S. military

presence is, in the final analysis, what

lay behind such outrageously anti-people

laws as the U.S.-RP Treaty of General

Relations Property Act (1946), the Bell

Trade Act (1946), the Parity Amendment

(1947) and the Laurel-Langley

Agreement (1954)? These blatantly

affirmed the country's neo-colonial

character, especially by upholding and

deepening the interests of U.S.

monopolies over our economy--by

granting Americans equal economic

rights as Filipinos, by skewing trade and

investment relations in their favor, and

so on.

And is there any doubt that, in the

decades that followed until today, brute

U.S. military might is, in the final

analysis, what underpins IMF-WB

stabilization and structural adjustment

programs, World Trade Organization

(WTO) "commitments," and imperialist

globalization in all its forms? We are not

naive.

That U.S. forces haven't been openly

mobilized against Filipinos--because it

is certain that they have--is testament

more to the complete servility of the U.S.

imperialism's puppet Philippine

governments, and especially its armed

forces, than to any real independence. We

note how the AFP, the U.S.' proxy armed

force in the country, has historically been

active not against any external aggressor

but mainly against Filipinos--in the

peasant uprisings of the 1930's, against

the Hukbong Bayan Laban sa Hapon

(Hukbalahap) [Anti-Japanese People's

Army] and Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng

Bayan (HMB) [People's Liberation

Army] in the 1940's and 1950's, against

the New People's Army (NPA) since the

1960's, and against the Moro people

since the 1970's.

But even then it's important to

highlight our complete solidarity with

national freedom movements around the

world. Since 1946, the U.S. has

conducted hundreds of military

operations in over 70 countries, not even

considering yet countless covert

operations. It actively had a hand in

attempts to overthrow some 40 foreign

governments and in efforts to crush 30

freedom and liberation movements. We

know that the U.S. used their military

bases here in the Philippines as major

staging areas in at least the Korean War

and the Vietnam War. They have also

been key transit points during military

operations in the Middle East such as

against Iraq. Most recently of course was

the use of Philippine facilities by the U.S.

in its war against the Afghan people. Our

struggle against U.S. imperialism

dovetails with the sovereign rights of

other peoples to be free from outside

intervention.

In any case, it's clear that the U.S.

exercises the overtly military option even

in the Philippines when, as, and how it

sees fit. We recall the December 1989

"persuasion flights" by U.S. Air Force

jets from Clark Air Base that helped the

Aquino regime put down a rightist coup.

And of course the current military

operations under the guise of Balikatan

"training exercises."

But the Filipino people's struggle for

national freedom has continued, in the

open mass movement and in the armed

struggle. Against the backdrop of 1950's

U.S.-orchestrated anti-communist

hysteria, militant Left organizations

spurred a resurgent nationalism and

directly opposed U.S. imperialism from

the late 1950's and in the 1960's. Sparked

by the youth and students, the workers

and peasants movements revived

nationwide and flourished. The

Communist Party of the Philippines

(CPP) was re-established on December

26, 1968 and the NPA organized on

March 29 the following year. National-

democratic (ND) mass organizations took

root among the people and the National

Democratic Front of the Philippines

(NDFP) was formed in 1971 aiming to

build a sovereign, democratic,

progressive, just and peaceful society.

Despite the imposition of martial law

and harsh repression by the U.S.-backed

Marcos dictatorship, millions of people

were swept into the struggle for national

freedom and democracy. The people's

movement continued to draw broad

swathes of the country's patriotic and

progressive into its fold, coalescing into

the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan

(BAYAN) formed in 1985, and was

instrumental in toppling the regime in

1986.

The ND forces spearheaded the anti-

bases movement with the militant

Abakada (Anti-Baseng Kilusan) and

Anti-Treaty Movement (ATM) at its core,

also driving other broad anti-bases

initiatives forward. It was a truly

nationalist force that couldn't be resisted.

When the MBA lapsed in 1991, the

Senate rejected its extension by voting

against the new proposed RP-U.S. Bases

Treaty and caused the removal of U.S.

troops and facilities--a truly historic step

towards genuine freedom for our people.

The return of U.S. troops

But U.S. imperialism apparently can't

long stand being deprived of Philippine

facilities so crucial to its geopolitical

interests.

When the U.S. came to our shores a

century ago, it was continuing a wave of

territorial expansion conducted

throughout the 19th century--from its

east coast across the mainland continent

to the west coast and various Pacific

islands, then into Central America, then

across the Pacific to the Philippines. We

were desired not only for our rich forests

and vast minerals but also as a staging

post from which to expand into the

markets of China and the rest of Asia--

in short, extending the U.S.' imperial

reach into this part of the world. Senator

Beveridge said to the U.S. Senate in

1900: "...the archipelago is a base for

commerce of the East. It is a base for

military and naval operations against the

only powers with whom conflict is

possible."

Things have changed little even after

the Cold War. The U.S.' 1995 East Asian

Strategy Report of the Department of

Defense: "reaffirms our commitment to

maintain a stable forward presence in the

region, at the existing level of 100,000

troops, for the foreseeable future... for

maintaining forward deployment of U.S.

forces and access and basing rights for

U.S. and allied forces... If the American

presence in Asia were removed... our

ability to affect the course of events

would be constrained, our markets and

interests would be jeopardized."

U.S. imperialism first tried to extract

an Acquisition and Cross-Servicing

Agreement (ACSA) which would have

allowed U.S. forces to refuel, repair and

store war materiel in the country.

Vigorous protests and mass

demonstrations put this down. This was

repackaged in 1997 as the Status of

Forces Agreement (SOFA) and, again,

was met with great opposition and put

down.

Yet, quietly, RP-U.S. military exercises

were still held in the country even after

total U.S. withdrawal in 1992. These

exercises allow the U.S. to gain

familiarity with other countries' forces

and potential battlefield terrain, as well

as cement political and military ties of

dependence.

The U.S. was finally able to force a

Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)

through in 1999 despite the protestations

of our Junk VFA Movement. Approved

by the Senate as a treaty--and by the U.S.

as a mere executive agreement--the VFA

effectively makes the country one

gigantic U.S. military facility at its

convenience. Full access to Philippine

territory is granted by giving U.S.

military and civilian forces, including

their personnel, warships, and warplanes,

extraordinary rights and privileges.

The VFA is fully a piece of the U.S.'

global military spread spanning over 800

military installations (including 60 major

facilities) in over 140 countries,

significant troop deployments in 25

countries, and at least 36 security

arrangements. It's part of a string of

dozens of security treaties, arrangements,

ACSAs and SOFAs in Asia stretching

from North Asia through Southeast Asia

to Australia and the South Pacific--

including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong

Kong, Burma, Thailand, Singapore,

Indonesia, Brunei, the Philippines,

Australia, New Zealand, the Marshall

Islands and so on.

The U.S. lost no time in taking

advantage of this and conducted

Balikatan 2000 in January 2000 in Nueva

Ecija, Tarlac, Pampanga, Zambales,

Bataan, Cavite and Palawan--i.e., in

exercise venues exceeding the scope of

any before it.

We have always argued that these

agreements make a mockery of

Philippine sovereignty and lay the basis

for a return of U.S. troops to the country

and direct armed intervention. Well a

scant decade after the ejection of the

military bases, the foot soldiers and

grunts of U.S. imperialism are well and

truly back--this time for their "war on

terrorism."

The "war on terrorism"

U.S. imperialism, which has had little

qualms in targeting civilians in defense

of its hegemony, [now invokes "the war

on terrorism"] for its own self-interested

ends. All the end of the Cold War has

meant for the U.S. is a golden opportunity

to expand its economic, political and

military hegemony ever wider across the

world.

Consider what the important U.S.

Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)

2001 says. It begins from the premise that

America's overseas presence posture,

concentrated in Western Europe and

Northeast Asia, "is inadequate for the

new strategic environment, in which U.S.

(economic and security) interests are

global and potential threats in other areas

of the world are emerging." It thus calls

for an even more aggressive U.S. global

security posture reoriented to:

a) develop a basing system that

provides greater flexibility for U.S.

forces in critical areas of the world,

placing emphasis on additional bases and

stations beyond Western Europe and

Northeast Asia;

b) provide temporary access to

Continued from previous page...

Continued on next page...

MIM Notes 266 · September 15, 2002· Page 8

facilities in foreign countries that enable

U.S. forces to conduct training and

exercises in the absence of permanent

ranges and bases;

c) redistribute forces and equipment

based on regional deterrence

requirements;

d) provide sufficient mobility,

including airlift, sealift, pre-positioning,

basing infrastructure, alternative points

of debarkation, and new logistical

concepts of operations, to conduct

expeditionary operations in distant

theaters against adversaries armed with

weapons of mass destruction and other

means to deny access to U.S. forces.

Largely written before the 9/11 attacks

though released a few weeks after,

implementation of the recommendations

of the QDR 2001 gained momentum with

the creation of the "war on terrorism" as

a propaganda pillar.

The Philippines was quickly declared

as the "second front" after Afghanistan

with the return of U.S. troops

sycophantically embraced by the Arroyo

regime. As ever, the country is critical to

the U.S. strategy of fortifying its presence

in Southeast Asia, a presence somewhat

weakened after the ouster of the bases.

The region is rich in natural resources

like oil, gas and minerals. With over 500

million people, it's a vast market for U.S.

goods and services and a significant

destination for U.S. investments. Its east-

west sea lanes connect the Indian and

Pacific Oceans and its north-south routes

link Australasia with Northeast Asia.

These are vital not only to international

commerce but also to any movement of

U.S. forces from the western Pacific to

the Indian Ocean or the Persian Gulf.

Mainland Asia is also home to three

nuclear powers: China, India and

Pakistan.

Tenuous links of the CIA-created

bandit Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) with the

Al Qaeda were played up to bolster the

U.S. campaign for deeper military ties

with the Philippines and a stronger

military presence. Spuriously invoking

the VFA, Balikatan 02-1 was a qualitative

leap for RP-U.S. relations with open joint

RP-U.S. field military operations

conducted for the first time. Mindanao

is clearly of special significance with

U.S. Combat Engineers ("Seabees")

working on a network of roads and

airfields that come on top of earlier

U.S.AID-funded development of

military-ready "civilian" airports and

seaports.

More to come

The VFA--a toned-down ACSA--is

apparently still not enough for the U.S.'

tastes. In her trip to the U.S. last

November, President Arroyo took up a

a foreign terrorist organization. These are

all part of a plan for direct intervention

of the United States in the

counterinsurgency campaign."(2)

Philippine Defense Secretary Angelo

Reyes admitted that $25 million out of a

$55 million military aid package Powell

promised to the Philippines during his

recent visit would be used to train elite

commando units to go after the NPA.(1)

Amerikan forces will again join Filipino

soldiers for war exercises in Luzon this

October. The NPA is very active in

Luzon, while the bandit Abu Sayaaf

gang--the original justification for

sending U.$. troops to "train" Philippine

soldiers--does not operate there.

The height of hypocrisy

In his announcement declaring the CPP

and NPA to be "foreign terrorist

organizations" Powell claimed that the

NPA "has killed U.S. citizens [in the

Philippines]."(1) This was apparently a

reference to the alleged NPA

assassination of Col. James Rowe of the

Joint U.S. Military Advisory Group

(JUSMAG) more than a decade ago. The

JUSMAG trains Filipino officers in

counter-insurgency tactics.

Powell should take a cue from the Bible

and take the log from his own eye before

removing the supposed speck from his

neighbor's. The United $tates has a long

history of killing Filipinos, from the

millions killed during the Filipino-

Amerikan war at the turn of the last

century to the tens of thousands killed

and tortured under the U.$.-backed

Marcos dictatorship and its so-called

democratic successors. The Philippine

military's abuses of combatants and non-

combatants in its recent campaigns

against the Abu Sayaaf and the Moro

Islamic Liberation Front caused even the

New York Times to question whether the

United $tates was supporting the real

terrorists by committing to "train"

Philippine soldiers.(5)

Thus, according to the most proper

definition of "terrorism"--the killing of

civilians to spread fear with the purpose

of achieving a political goal, in this case

the preservation of a corrupt government

favorable to U.$. business interests--the

United $tates is the biggest supporter of

terrorism in the Philippines.

The CPP and NPA are working to

overthrow the corrupt semi-feudal and

semi-colonial system in the Philippines

using the strategy of protracted people's

war. People's war is targeted at police and

military forces, not the general civilian

population; hence, people's war should

not be counted as "terrorism."

In a Maoist people's war, whether it is

in Peru, Nepal, the Philippines or

anywhere else, the use of force does not

have the design to produce fear and hence

a change of policy. Rather the strategy

of people's war is to wear down an

imperialist invader or overthrow a regime

that is opposed to the toiling workers and

peasants. Quite the contrary to producing

fear, a People's War only succeeds if it

garners popular support, not fear, because

the governments People's Wars oppose

historically--in China, Peru, the

Philippines etc.--all have

technologically superior weapons and

financial backing from U.$. imperialism.

Without popular support, the People's

War would have a severe disadvantage

against any invader or lackey regime of

imperialism.

We laugh in the faces of Attorney

General Ashcroft, President George W.

Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell

when they accuse Maoists of having a

"philosophy of violence." Ashcroft, Bush

and Powell also have "philosophies of

violence" as proved by their actual use

of violence.

All the hype about "terrorism" merely

serves to cover the United $tates true

interests in sending troops to the

Philippines: preserving an important

military base and neo-colony. (See article

by Satur Ocampo in this issue of MIM

Notes.)

Red baiting

Philippine lawmakers also expressed

concern that the U.$.-Arroyo regime is

calling groups with anti-U.$. views

"terrorists." Padilla specifically recalled

U.$. President George Bush's threat that

those against the United $tates' "war on

terrorism" were themselves terrorists.(2)

The U.$.-Arroyo regime has already

attacked legal national democratic

organizations like the militant mass

organization Bayan and its electoral party

Bayan Muna. It has threatened to freeze

the official bank accounts of Bayan Muna

representatives and dug up 13-year-old

gun possession charges on Satur

Ocampo.(4)

In her early-August speech declaring

Mutual Logistics Support Agreement

(MLSA) which is presently being

negotiated secretly by the two

governments. The preamble of the

working draft says the MLSA aims to

"further the interoperability, readiness

and effectiveness" of the RP-U.S.

military forces "through increased

logistics cooperation." The basic aim

though is simply to allow the U.S. to set

up logistics support network in the

country--covering supplies, billeting,

transportation, communication and

medical materiel--by storing or

procuring them locally. Though

involving seemingly innocuous items

they clearly have a darkly military

purpose.

The joint combat operations against the

trifling ASG are also obviously meant to

lay the ground for similar operations

against the NPA, Moro Islamic

Liberation Front (MILF) and the Misuari

faction of the Moro National Liberation

Front (MNLF). The Arroyo regime has

been conspicuous in floating and pushing

the idea of allowing the U.S. troops to

go well beyond Basilan. In her State of

the Nation Address (SONA) last week

the president even boasted of

"[enhancing] our strategic relationship

with the U.S. through continuing training

exercises." Clearly the deployment of

U.S. forces against the ASG was meant

to start a chain of events for rationalizing

further U.S. military intervention and

aggression, which can only wreak havoc

on the Filipino people and our struggle

for national freedom. Bayan Muna joins

U.S. Troops Out Now in confronting U.S.

imperialism's machinations.

[Since this speech was written,

President Macapagal-Arroyo declared

the ASG defeated and launched an all-

out war against the Communist-led

revolutionary movement in the

countryside which is not limited to the

small Southern island of Basilan. The

NPA operates in 128 guerrilla fronts,

covering 823 or around 54 percent of the

total number of Philippine towns and

cities.]

Our history is replete with experiences

that show U.S. imperialism is a deceitful

and brutal enemy of the people. The

widespread poverty, social inequity and

deep exploitation we suffer today is in

large measure due to its domination of

Philippine society. Yet our history also

shows that the hard and valiant struggle

and, indeed, the sacrifices and martyrdom

of so many are not in vain.

We are unrelenting in our struggle and

convinced that each battle we fight, no

matter the outcome, is a step in the right

direction. A step towards national

freedom and liberation.

all out war on the communists,

Macapagal-Arroyo equated workers'

strikes and protests with kidnapping and

drug smuggling. She pointedly kept

Bayan and Bayan Muna off of her list of

"communist organizations" not engaged

in armed struggle--giving the police and

military "a license to kill and harass

[Bayan's] leaders, making them targets

of her government's brutal [so-called]

anti-insurgency... campaign," according

to Bayan Secretary General Teodoro

Casino.

"This is no trivial thing," Casino said.

"Ms. Macapagal's announcement about

who is and who is not a communist or

terrorist can mean death or torture for

many people. As it is, her recent

statements are death warrants for many

of our leaders."

In the past year, police, soldiers and

paramilitaries killed 39 Bayan and Bayan

Muna leaders. All had been named

"communist sympathizers" before their

deaths.(4)

The Philippine police and military have

repeatedly violated humyn rights

agreements their own government signed

with the National Democratic Front.

These violations include summary

executions of captured NPA combatants

and torture.

Notes:
1. Philippine Daily Inquirer, www.inq7.net, 11
Aug 2002.
2. Philippine Daily Inquirer, 12 Aug 2002.
3. Philippine Daily Inquirer, 16 Aug 2002.
4. Philippine Daily Inquirer, 13 Aug 2002.
5. MIM Notes 254, 15 Mar 2002.

POWELL: Continued from page 1...

Continued from previous page...

Powell names CPP `foreign terrorist organization'

MIM Notes 266 · September 15, 2002· Page 9

Foreign capitalists will not go for it. In

fact, even that "common sense," is not

necessarily true. If in crisis, the capitalists

feel that they would only do worse

somewhere else, the capitalists will keep

returning with hope, for the same reason

a company going down the tubes may still

advertise goods at slashed prices.

Granted, in a politically demoralizing

situation like that, the capitalist may in

fact become either more desperate for

more war and fascism or more resigned

to the end of capitalism itself.

That could be the situation. However,

more likely, there is another more

important and widely applicable scenario

we are seeing played out. Marx taught

us that surplus-value is the secret of

capitalism. When we see the united $tates

carry a trade deficit in goods and services

in every quarter since 1976, (with the

Gulf War rent-a-cop surplus of 1991

showing up in another line of the

accounting), we Marxists should ask

ourselves if this is one and the same

mystery.

The capitalists spend money on

advertising, which on the face of it seems

to be only a loss of money, but which

aids in obtaining sales--the realization

of surplus-value as Marx said. Likewise,

the trade deficit is connected with the

process of realizing surplus-value as the

economic system exists in 2002 with a

huge parasite at the center of the world

economy--the united $tates.

We will not comment here on what fad

seizes the bourgeoisie politically. The

very huge numbers involved in trade and

budget statistics send shivers into the

spines of countless petty-bourgeois, so

we at MIM are not able to anticipate the

particular bourgeois strategy that is going

to become dominant in the upcoming

period.

Nonetheless, we need for our own

political activities a realistic grip on the

question of the trade deficit. With a trade

deficit of $412 billion a year, which is in

the realm of the kind of number that total

profits could be, is it inevitable that the

u.$. currency is going to collapse and the

economy end up in foreigners' hands?

MIM says no. The only reason the united

$tates has sustained the trade deficits it

has sustained is the invisible transfer of

surplus-value to the united $tates such

that wealth increases more rapidly than

the trade deficit. The size of the trade

deficit and the fact that the u.$. economy

has not collapsed combine to point to the

trade deficit being smaller than the super-

profits absorbed by the united $tates.

Goods transferred to the united $tates

realize their value in the united $tates and

that is the reason Amerikkkans merely

pay back foreign countries with the

surplus-value extracted predominantly

from the Third World.

The key to understanding the mystery

is that the surplus-labor arrives in the

united $tates from the Third World, but

does not take final monetary form until

the U.$. consumer turns over his/her

dollars for it. This as of yet unseen wealth

does not show up in the trade deficit. It

only shows up in final U.$. wealth.

There is no way around a global

bottom-up strategy of the international

proletariat to fight u.$. imperialism. The

United $tates can sustain very large trade

deficits with its own wealth and foreign

wealth both expanding even faster than

the trade deficit. Surplus-value has to be

cut off at the source for imperialism's

crisis to intensify. Conversely, setbacks

like the restoration of capitalism in 1976

in China do inject new sources of surplus-

value into the system.

The leaders of the Third World

proletariat must study this question for

themselves. Strategically useful outbursts

of the anarchy of capitalism are not to be

found in connection to the trade deficit,

as we have seen it these past 30 years,

and that means waiting to stage an

offensive for an international economic

collapse on that basis would be wrong.

Even government budget deficits and

the taxes they imply can only shake a

sector of the imperialist- labor-

aristocracy alliance, namely the labor

aristocracy. Such government deficits

show up when the "openness" of the

economy comes under threat as in 911.

A downward psychological spiral and

increased budget deficit occur as a result

of the level of simultaneous class struggle

globally.

There is no point in exciting the

imperialist country so-called worker

about fictitious collapses that some

U.$. trade deficit expanded in June; so-called Marxists don't get it

supporting Mao have been proclaiming

over 30 years now with regard to the trade

deficit. Such fear-mongering only

inspires the labor aristocracy to want a

racist-nationalist movement to

nationalize foreigners' assets. Continued

recitation of old political formulas only

becomes more regressive as time goes on.

Notes:
1. http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/
trade/2002-08-20-trade-gap_x.htm
2. See for example the Chinese Maoists
publishing in Peking Review point to the
modern I$raeli trade deficit as early as June 28
1968, a deficit caused by the war economy.
"Because of the war economy, the adverse trade
balance has greatly increased, there is inflation
and a lot of people are out of work." Of course,
they said the same thing about the United $tates
too, and in the early 1970s, that was indeed a
new trend to observe.
In a 1971 interview, Zhou Enlai also pointed to
the growing U.S. government budget deficit.
Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars,
China! Inside the People's Republic (NY:
Bantam Books, 1972), p. 365. Today supposed
Marxists still point to it without understanding
it, as if some iconic power would create the final
collapse of imperialism.
3. See the Libertarian right-wing Cato Institute,
http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-21-01.html ; See
also the major newspaper in the "Motor City,"
Detroit, http://detnews.com/EDITPAGE/0102/
22/1edit/1edit.htm
4. http://www.cepr.net/globalization/
trade_deficit_commission_testimony.htm

Continued from page 5...

decisions called Nisga's Treaty

acknowledged "aboriginal rights,

constitutional protection for such

rights..... and a general acceptance that

major changes must occur". However

even after Canada's constitution was

amended in 1982 to reflect the

recognition of first nations' rights to

litigate, British Columbia refused to

participate in the Nisga's Treaty

negotiations maintaining there was no

aboriginal land title in the province. (6)

In 1993 Canada, British Columbia and

the First Nations Summit agreed to

initiate a treaty negotiation process

following the province's final acceptance

of aboriginal rights including inherent

right of self-government as official

government policy. B.C. tabled 19

recommendations, and called for the

establishment of a six-stage process for

negotiating treaties with First Nations.

There are currently 53 First Nations

participating in the BC treaty process,

representing 122 Indian Act bands and

two-thirds of all aboriginal people in

B.C., and 42 sets of negotiations

underway. (7)

A 1997 Supreme Court of Canada case

decision secured a further shift in the

treaty negotiation process by confirming

the existence of aboriginal title to land

as land ownership itself as opposed to

the right to hunt, fish or gather and

ordering First Nations' compensation for

use of Crown land whenever aboriginal

rights were affected. (6) This decision

served as an impetus for a tripartite

review of the BC treaty process resulting

in a proposal to accelerate lands and

resources discussions in treaty

negotiations. The legal framework

provided by the court decision fueled

continuing court battles. In March of

2002 Haida Nation initiated a lawsuit

against the provincial and federal

governments claiming ownership of land

and resources of the entire archipelago

off the north coast of B.C., as well as

halting of commercial activities and

repayment of benefits proceeding from

the territory collected over years.

Another lawsuit launched by The

Tsawwassen First Nation involves

shutting down a BC port and Ferries

terminal. (8)

Conclusion

This so-called "referendum on treaty

principles" does not come as a surprise.

In fact, it is more of the same old story:

a "democracy" appeal trick (although this

time below the usual "majority" margin

in terms of voting numbers) used by a

supremacist settler government to back

its way out of what might have begun to

resemble progress in the 9 year long

negotiation process entailing threats to

profits and business interests. To the less

conservative sector of bourgeois

politicians and scholars hoping for the

best, this referendum casts a shadow over

what otherwise they consider a slow but

overall successful system: "over a

century to get over crown immunity, a

quarter of that to re-establish aboriginal

title as property right, and only fours

years to confirm that aboriginal title has

some clout even before it is litigated"

seems like a reasonable pace. (9)

RAIL considers this widely spread line

of reasoning ridiculous. One does not

need 130 years to be awakened to the eye-

opening truth that a people that has lived

on and labored land for centuries has

"some clout" to claiming its title. That it

should take that long to recognize a

nation's right to what it was illegally

disposed of while justice continues to

be obstructed through legislative games,

court bouncing, never ending treaty

negotiations and referendums speaks for

the fact that the present capitalist system

is unable to abolish colonial legacy that

shapes the relationship between

oppressed nations and imperialist

governments.

Notes:

1. www.fns.bc.ca/treaty/t-time.htm

2. www.gov.bc.ca/tno/news/2002/
referendum_treaty_principles.htm

3. www.elections.bc.ca/newsrel/n_020703.html

4. www.ubcic.bc.ca/docs
5. www.bctreaty.net/files/aboriginalrights.html

6. http://www.bctreaty.net/files/

aboriginalrights.html; www.bctreaty.net/titles/
aboriginalrights.html

7. http://www.bctreaty.net/files/status.html

8. http://www.fns.bc.ca/treaty/t_time.htm
9. www.bctreaty.net/titles/aboriginalrights.html

Referendum

Continued from page 3...

Militarism is war-mongering or the advocacy

of war or actual carrying out of war or its

preparations.

While true pacifists condemn all violence as

equally repugnant, we Maoists do not consider

self-defense or the violence of oppressed nations
against imperialism to be militarism. Militarism

is mostly caused by imperialism at this time.

Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism--
seen in countries like the United $tates, England

and France.

Under capitalism, capitalists often profit from

war or its preparations. Yet, it is the proletariat

that does the dying in the wars. The proletariat

wants a system in which people do not have self-
interest on the side of war- profiteering or war for

imperialism.

Militarism is one of the most important reasons

to overthrow capitalism. It even infects oppressed

nations and causes them to fight each other.

It is important not to let capitalists risk our

lives in their ideas about war and peace or the

environment. They have already had two world

wars admitted by themselves in the last 100 years
and they are conducting a third right now against

the Third World.

Even a one percent annual chance of nuclear

war destruction caused by capitalist

aggressiveness or "greed" as the people call it

should not be tolerated by the proletariat. After
playing Russian Roulette (in which the bullet

chamber is different each time and not related

at all to the one that came up in previous spins)
with 100 chambers and one bullet, the chance

of survival is only 60.5% after 50 turns. In other

words, a seemingly small one percent annual
chance of world war means eventual doom.

After 100 years or turns of Russian Roulette,

the chances of survival are only 36.6%. After
200 years, survival has only a 13.4% chance.

WHAT IS MILITARISM?

MIM Notes 266 · September 15, 2002· Page 10

MIM on

Prisons & Prisoners

MIM seeks to build public opinion

against Amerika's criminal injustice sys-

tem, and to eventually replace the bour-

geois injustice system with proletarian jus-

tice. The bourgeois injustice system im-

prisons and executes a disproportionately

large and growing number of oppressed

people while letting the biggest mass mur-

derers -- the imperialists and their lack-

eys -- roam free. Imperialism is not op-

posed to murder or theft, it only insists that

these crimes be committed in the interests

of the bourgeoisie.

"All U.S. citizens are criminals--

accomplices and accessories to the crimes
of U.$. oppression globally until the day
U.$. imperialism is overcome. All U.S.
citizens should start from the point of view
that they are reforming criminals."

MIM does not advocate that all

prisoners go free today; we have a
more effective program for fighting
crime as was demonstrated in China
prior to the restoration of capitalism
there in 1976. We say that all prisoners
are political prisoners because under
the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, all
imprisonment is substantively
political. It is our responsibility to
exert revolutionary leadership and
conduct political agitation and
organization among prisoners --
whose material conditions make them
an overwhelmingly revolutionary
group. Some prisoners should and will
work on self-criticism under a future
dictatorship of the proletariat in those
cases in which prisoners really did do
something wrong by proletarian
standards.

Under Lock & Key

News from Prisons & Prisoners

Northern State Prison
reading mail after
hunger strike

To MIM,

Revolutionary Greetings to all

comrades inside the belly of the beast.

I have received the past MIM Notes of

the months of Jan. & February and I just

received the issue for the month of May.

The issue for the month of May was

almost denied due to a letter written by a

comrade in the same institution

concerning the Hunger Strike, but I

received it, since there was no response

in the newsletter indicating what should

be done. At this moment due to that

incident of the Hunger Strike & because

it was printed out, they will be reading

all MIM letters going out &

correspondence from MIM coming in, I

guess they are trying to see if they can

catch the person who wrote it by

investigating all MIM correspondence

coming in. So now it will even take

longer than the usual to receive MIM

Notes & to receive you're

correspondence

--A New Jersey prisoner, June 2002

MIM replies: This should go as a

warning to comrades organizing within

prisons. Under Lock & Key is a forum

to get the word out about your organizing

to the outside as well as to other

prisoners. But be aware that the pigs can

and will read our correspondence and

take the proper precautions. You should

avoid giving any information that could

help the prisoncrats crush or repress a

movement.

Comrades should also be aware that in

April Northern State Prison returned all

MIM Notes saying MIM is an

"Unauthorized Correspondent" at NSP.

Any insight comrades at NSP might have

into why that occurred would be helpful

in future campaigns to keep MIM Notes

flowing into that facility.

Attica censors
MIM Notes

To: V. Herbert, Superintendent

From: [a New York prisoner]

Date: July 19, 2002

Re: MIM Notes newspaper

Sir:

It has come to my attention that this

facility is not letting in any of the MIM

Notes newspapers sent to me by MIM

Distributors. No reason has been given

to me for the rejection of these

newspapers. Indeed, I was not even aware

this particular facility was rejecting the

MIM Notes until recently.

I have a First Amendment right to

receive political oriented publications,

even if they speak about revolution or

criticize the government or even the

prison system. The right to political

dissent is fundamental and one upon

which the United States of America is

supposedly built upon. Although I am a

prisoner, I still have certain fundamental

rights and the one to receive political

material is one of them.

From Great Meadow to Sing Sing to

Upstate I have received MIM Notes

without difficulty. MIM Notes do not

advocate violence in prison or the

overthrow of government. Yes, MIM

Notes does criticize the government and

prison system but this is constitutional

protected speech; hence, the rejection or

banning of MIM Notes from Attica is

also an infringement upon MIM

Distributors' First Amendment [right] to

free speech.

This is a formal request that you order

the discontinuing of the ban this facility

has on MIM Notes and allow them to be

evaluated through the appropriate media

review procedure. It is illegal and

arbitrary to put an outright ban on MIM

Notes, and a reason for such is at least

warranted. Thank you.

MIM adds: First we need to clarify

that MIM does advocate the overthrow

of the government. But we are clear that

we do not engage in or advocate any

illegal activities at this stage of the

struggle in Amerika. We are currently

engaged in work to build public opinion.

Attica Correctional Facility has been

returning virtually all material sent by

MIM, since the fall of 2001, usually with

a message written on the envelope saying

"not allowed." For a while we could not

even communicate with comrades there

because simple letters were not

permitted. Since then we have been

carrying out a postcard campaign to

protest this censorship and have sent

letters to the superintendent of Attica

with no response. We encourage those

on the inside and outside to continue to

put pressure on Attica to address these

concerns and to abide by their own

regulations regarding media review.

Letters of protest can be sent to:

Superintendent Victor Herbert

Box 149

Attica, NY

14011-0149

Let's have an anti-
censorship column

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I am writing this letter to let you know

that I have once again begun to receive

the MIM Notes. The May issues were

recently delivered by our friendly postal

worker here at the Menard Corr. Center.

I was saddened to learn about the

increasing censorship by prison

administrations that are afraid of the

messages in supposed anti-establishment

publications. Unfortunately, I did not read

much in the line of legal challenges being

mounted against this continued and

ongoing oppression. Have you thought

about starting a legal column to respond

to most frequently-mentioned problems

regarding censorship? While I feel that

it is important to bring problems we are

confronted with to the public's attention,

wouldn't we be better served by using

the legal system to challenge these people

with their own laws? Just a thought from

one who believes that the best way to

secure justice is to expose these

prisoncrats' illegal policies.

In solidarity,

-- an Illinois prisoner, 22 June, 2002

MIM responds: Go to it! MIM also

believes in fighting for partial demands

-- those demands that will not bring

immediate revolution but will protect our

bourgeois democratic rights and those of

prisoners. We want to defend our right

to free speech, a right all people should

fight for in an Amerikan-style

democracy, and we encourage prisoners

to defend their own rights in the ways

that they can. We welcome all

contributions to a Frequently Asked

about Censorship column.

California: another
senseless stabbing

Well comrade, pass on my undying

respects to all involved in the struggle.

Sadly, in these places, the population is

too ready to fight among each other,

rather than against the real enemy. Just

the other day a white man stabbed

(punctured his lung) a brown man over

nothing important. Now we wait in our

cells to see if all hell is going to break

loose when these doors open. Being a

warrior at heart, times like these do not

worry me. I train my mind and body to

react to anything this world within a

world can throw at me. Nevertheless, I

greet such senseless violence lamentfully.

My fight is not with any of these prison

factions.

In solidarity,

-- a California prisoner, 23 June, 2002

Virginia: exporting
bed space, importing
prisoners

I'm currently being held at one of

Virginia's so-called SuperMax prisons

(Wallens Ridge). Although the general

population here is now reduced from

Level 6 to Level 5 (segregation is Level

6), there is another SuperMax 15 miles

away from here, and that one is Level 6.

There are now two Level 5 prisons:

Sussex and Wallens Ridge, and one Level

6 prison. Now that Washington, D.C. has

removed its prisoners from the Virginia

Department of Corrections due to abuse

by staff, Sussex II (which had housed

them) is now reduced from Level 5 to

Level 4. My point is Virginia is simply

concerned with building prisons and

filling the bed space in them.

Our Dictator Director Ron Angelone

resigned last month. Now the Governor

says that he wants a more lenient Director

who would ease the oppression and

attract out of state prisoners to fill up

these empty beds. It's all about money.

-- a Virginia prisoner, June 2002

Legal struggle over
long hair

Dear Comrade,

In response to my comrade in MIM

Notes 258 (May 15), I would ask that you

print the following legal information. I

am a white inmate in the Texas State

Prison system (TDCJ). TDCJ has a

policy that prisoners must keep short hair

(crewcuts basically) at all times. For 2

years as part of my religious belief I

refused to comply with the policy

because I was already in seg for refusing

MIM Notes 266 · September 15, 2002· Page 11

Facts on U$ imprisonment

The facts about imprisonment in the United $tates are that the United $tates has been the world's leading prison-state per capita for the last

25 years, with a brief exception during Boris Yeltsin's declaration of a state of emergency.(1)

That means that while Reagan was talking about a Soviet "evil empire" he was the head of a state that imprisoned more people per capita.

In supposedly "hard-line" Bulgaria of the Soviet bloc of the 1980s, the imprisonment rate was less than half that of the United $tates.(2,3)

To find a comparison with U.$. imprisonment of Black people, there is no statistic in any country that compares including apartheid South

Africa of the era before Mandela was president. The last situation remotely comparable to the situation today was under Stalin during war
time. The majority of prisoners are non-violent offenders(4) and the U.S. Government now holds about a half million more prisoners than
China; even though China is four times our population.(5)

The rednecks tell MIM that we live in a "free country." They live in an Orwellian 1984 situation where freedom is imprisonment.

Notes: 1. Marc Mauer, "Americans Behind Bars: The International Use of Incarceration 1993," The Prison Sentencing Project, 918 F. St. NW, Suite

501, Washington, DC 20004 (202) 628-0871 Reference: SRI: R8965-2, 1994
2. Ibid., 1992 report.

3. United Nations Development Programme, "Human Development Report 1994,:" Oxford University Press, p. 186.

4. Figure of 51.2 percent for state prisoners there for non-violent offenses. Abstract of the United States 1993, p. 211.
5. Atlantic Monthly December, 1998.

to be a slave. After all my good time was

gone they took me and sheared me

against my will. A prisoner that wishes

to grow his hair because of his religious

belief can now do so. In 2000 the

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized

Persons Act was signed. It can now be

located at 42 USC 2000 cc. To find it, it

is located in the pocket part (the little

pamphlet at the back of the book) in the

United States Codes Annotated Title 42

USC 2000e5 to 2010 book. When

grieving this issue specifically cite 42

USC 2000 cc-1(a) and 42 USC 2000 cc-

2(a).

Getting this information to all our

comrades may be a way to stop some of

the abuse. I am pursuing my case here in

Texas. I'll try to update our comrades on

my results as I go. Just by pointing out

the statute since my assault has led to a

whole new attitude here. My only regret

is that I was growing my hair to donate

to wigs for kids, and I never bothered to

express to my keepers my knowledge of

he law because after 2 years of growing

it I really didn't think they'd assault me

and take it. When they decided to cut it I

was given no warning and not allowed

to first grieve the issue to try to stop it.

Power to all the people.

--A Texas Prisoner, August 2002

CaDC visitation: same
old shit, new policy

Greetings comrades,

I read the proposed changes that they

are trying to make to our visits, and

thanks for informing us as now most of

these changes have been implemented.

I've been down since 1996, and they had

barely given family visits to lifers, or to

those in "C" and "D" status (Ad Seg or

SHU). These prisoners only get one hour

visits, behind glass.

Everyone who wants to visit has to

submit a CDC form 106. The CDC

checks to make sure visitors are not on

probation/parole, have not been locked

up, and do not have any type of warrants

on them. [If the visitors fail this test] they

are denied approval to visit.

Other items in the visitation proposal

get imposed depending on the pigs on

duty that day. These are the rules on not

being able to hold your kids, or only

being able to embrace families at the

beginning and end of visits. This is the

way it's been since I've been down.

I have tried to appeal these issues, for

I am a lifer and these types of changes

concerning visits do and will affect me

and others alike. Nothing ever comes of

the grievances. I am always denied and

given the same answer: the policy has

been implemented and it's the law now.

It's been a while since I tried to contest

these decisions. I know that protests and

pressures from the streets by yourselves

and others do bring to light the effects

that these policies have on prisoners.

They are denying the only real thing that

we look forward to: having contact with

our families, being able to hug our kids

and play with them, and enjoy these visits

as much as possible. For the most part

they keep us hundreds of miles from our

families, so we are not able to have a lot

of visits due to the time, funds or whatnot.

It is important that we take action, do

something before they restrict something

else.

-- a California prisoner, July 2002

Get your money on
release; interest
belongs to prisoners

Dear Comrades,

Greetings in the name of the struggle.

Recently I was transferred. The move

was a mixed blessing, I'm closer to my

family and I have more access to the law

library, and I seek to make them pay for

it. Some fellow comrades and I were

researching the issue of whether we are

entitled to the interest the institutions

earn from our trust fund account. I recall

that I'd read about a Federal case where

we had won the right to be paid this

interest.

This slave state has alleged laws that

we are entitled to this money up to a year

after our release. If we don't request the

interest money by then, it goes into the

prisoners benefit fund. Yet the

pri$oncrats don't tell this to the prisoners.

Recently I asked a brother who attends

the mandatory pre-start (pre-parole) class

whether they have mentioned this, and

he said no! So I asked him to inquire

about the interest in his trust fund account

and they told him that the money goes to

the prisoners benefit fund.

I can find anyone who remembers

giving them consent to deposit their

interest in the inmate benefit fund. If you

can provide a case citing it would be of

great help. Any other information would

be a blessing as well.

Peace,

--an Illinois prisoner, April 2002

MIM responds: The Prisoners' Self-

Help Litigation Manual has plenty to say

on this issue. Your memory is correct;

the courts are solidly in your favor.

Boston and Manville write "There is no

question that an inmate's interest in the

funds in his prison account is a protected

property interest." It looks like this is one

of those rare instances where good ol'

Amerikan property values work in

prisoners' favor. "In general, the courts

have upheld that money is property and

is protected by due process."(Alexanian

v. New York State Urban Development

Corp.)

The Federal 9th Circuit specifically

addressed the issue of inmate benefit

funds, deciding that "the prisoner is

clearly entitled to the interest if state

statutes create a property interest in

prisoners' funds and the interest in them."

Eubanks v. McCotter and Washington v.

Reno are the two cases that applied

specifically to prisoners.

The Manual goes on: "regardless of

state law, interest is considered the

property of the person who owns the

principal, and if public officials

appropriate it, they violate the Fifth

Amendment ban on taking of property

for public use without just

compensation."

The only cases in which states have

been allowed to take prisoners' money

have been to pay the costs of

incarceration (Burns v. State, Arkansas);

State, Michigan State Treasurer v.

Turner) or the enforcement of debts such

as child support.(State v. Murray, Hawaii)

"However, state law also places limits on

the collection of debts; you should

consult your state's law of debtors' rights

and creditors' remedies to determine if

any of these limits protect you. For

example, in some states, there are

minimum amounts of money that a debtor

must be permitted to keep."

Following are all the relevant decisions

cited in the Boston & Manville book:

Scott v. Angelone, 771 F. Supp. 1064,

1067 (D. Nev. 1991), affirmed in 980 F.2d

738 (9th Cir. 1992); Alexanian v. New

York State Urban Development Corp.,

554 F.2d 15, 17 (2d Cir. 1977); Tellis v.

Godinez, 5 F.3d 1314, 1316-17 (9th Cir.

1993); Eubanks v. McCotter, 802 F.2d

790, 791-93 (5th Cir. 1986) Webb's

Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith,

449 U.S. 155, 164 (1980). (Reasoning

applied to prisoners' accounts in these

two unreported decisions: Douglas v.

Ward, No. 77 Civ. 2559-CLB,

Memorandum and Order (S.D.N.Y,

January 3, 1980); Fayerweather v.

Wainwright, TCA 75-3 (N.D.Fla., Aug.

20, 1976), quoted in Smith v. Robinson,

456 F.Supp. 449, 453-54 (E.D. Pa. 1978);

Washington v. Reno, 35 F.3d 1093, 1101-

04 (6th Cir. 1994); Burns v. State, 303

Ark. 64, 793 S.W.2d 779, 780 (Ark.

1990); State, Michigan State Treasurer

v. Turner, 110 Mich.App. 228, 312

N.W.2d 418, 420-21 (Mich.App. 1981);

State v. Murray, 621 P.2d 334, 340-43

(Haw. 1981).

Source: John Boston and Daniel E.

Manville, Prisoners' Self-Help Litigation

Manual, Third Edition (New York:

Oceana Publications, Inc.) pp. 231, 348-

351. (Book is available from Oceana

Publications, Inc., 75 Main Street, Dobbs

Ferry, NY 10522.)

MIM does not have copies of this book

to distribute to prisoners, but we strongly

recommend our comrades get a copy if

possible: we need to use the system's

laws to our favor whenever possible. We

would also welcome donations to MIM's

Books for Prisoners program of either

copies of this book or money to purchase

this book to send to prisoners.

From the MIM "Frequently Asked

Questions" page, http://www.etext.org/
Politics/MIM/faq.

Internationalism is the ethical belief or

scientific approach in which peoples of
different nations are held to be or assumed to
be equal. Internationalism is opposed to
racism and national chauvinism.

We Maoists believe the nationalism of

nations experiencing oppression of
imperialism is "applied internationalism." We
oppose nationalism of oppressed nations
directed at other oppressed nations, because
the economic content of such nationalism is
intra-proletarian conflict. We seek a united
front of oppressed nations led by the
international proletariat against imperialism.

"I must argue, not from the point of view

of `my' country (for that is the argument of a
wretched, stupid, petty-bourgeois nationalist
who does not realize that he is only a plaything
in the hands of the imperialist bourgeoisie),
but from the point of view of my share in the
preparation, in the propaganda, and in the
acceleration of the world proletarian
revolution. That is what internationalism
means, and that is the duty of the
internationalist, of the revolutionary worker,
of the genuine Socialist."

V. I. Lenin, "What Is Internationalism?"

The Proletarian Revolution and the
Renegade Kautsky (Peking: Foreign
Language Press, 1965), p. 80.

What is internationalism?

MIM Notes 266 · September 15, 2002· Page 12

Notas Rojas

setiembre 15, 2002, Nº 266 Fragmento del Periodico Oficial del Movimiento Internacionalista Maoista Gratis

¿Que es el MIM?

El Movimiento Internacionalista Maoísta (MIM) es un partido revolucionario

comunista que ejerce el Marxismo-Leninismo-Maoísmo. El MIM es una organización
internacionalista que trabaja desde el punto de vista del proletariado del Tercer Mundo;
es por esto que sus miembros no son amerikanos sino ciudadanos del mundo.

El MIM lucha para acabar con la opresión de todos los grupos sobre cualquier otro,

naciones por naciones, clases por clases, y géneros por géneros. La revolución es una
realidad para los Estados Unidos mientras su ejército continúa extendiendose en su
esfuerzo por asegurar la hegemonía mundial.

El MIM difiere de otros partidos en tres puntos basicos: (1) El MIM sostiene que

después que el proletariado conquiste el poder estatal, existira aún el potencial para una
restauración de tipo capitalista, bajo la dirección de una burguesía nueva dentro del
mismo partido comunista. En el caso de la Unión Soviética, la burguesía se apoderó del
gobierno después de la muerte de Stalin, en 1953; y en China después de la muerte de
Mao y del derrocamiento de la llamada "banda de los cuatro' en 1976. (2) El MIM
sostiene que la Revolución Cultural en China es la fase ms avanzada a la que llegó el
comunismo en la historia. (3) El MIM afirma que la clase trabajadora blanca de los
EE.UU. es primordialmente, una élite trabajadora no revolucionaria en el presente. Es
por esto que no es el principal vehículo para avanzar el Maoísmo en este país.

El MIM acepta como miembro a cualquier individuo que esté de acuerdo con estos

tres puntos basicos, y que acepte al centralismo democrtico, el método de gobierno por
la mayoría en lo que se refiere a cuestiones de línea del partido. El MIM es un partido
clandestino que no publica los nombres de sus miembros para evitar la represión estatal
dirigida históricamente contra los movimientos revolucionarios comunistas, y anti-
imperialistas. Si Ud. desea una suscripción para cualquiera de nuestros periódicos o
libros teóricos, en español o en inglés, por favor mandar dinero en efectivo o un cheque
al nombre de MIM a esta dirección:

MIM · P.O. Box 29670 · Los Angeles CA 90029-0670

Traducido por Células de Estudio para la

Liberación de Aztlán y América Latina

A principios de julio la corte del Perú

declaró culpable al ex-activo de la CIA,
Vladimiro Montesinos, acusado de
"usurparción de autoridad" por apoderarse
del infame Servicio de Inteligencia Nacional
cuando oficiaba como asesor de éste. El juez
le dictó lo que parece ser una sentencia
pesada por el detalle que resultó en su
enjuicio- una multa de 2.8 millones de
dólares más una cadena de 9 anos y 4 meses
de prisión- pero que en realidad es leve en
comparación con lo que se merece por los
crímenes cometidos al ejecutar la ley marcial
bajo dirección del ex-presidente Alberto
Fujimori. Cientos de miles fallecieron a
causa de la guerra genocida del gobierno
oficial en contra del movimiento
revolucionario dirigido por el Partido
Comunista del Perú (PCP) o "Sendero
Luminoso." Este verano durante el juicio
Montesinos enfrentará cargos de corrupción,
narcotráfico, contrabando de armas,
homicidio e incluso acusasiones de que él
dirigía un escuadrón de muerte paramilitar.
El hecho de que este títere de la CIA estaba
metido en todas estas cosas fue reportado por
el MIM y otros amigos del PCP hace más de
diez años. Durante este tiempo los medios
de comunicación en Amérika y el gobierno
yanqui se mantuvieron en silencio y hasta
aclamaban a Montesinos por sus
sanguinarios esfuerzos "contrainsurgentes."
A continuación imprimimos una nueva

traducción de un artículo que apareció en
MIM Notes detallando la relación entre el
gobierno yanqui, Montesinos y como los
portavoces burgueses consetían a este último.

En la década de los 90 los principales

medios de comunicación imperialistas
difamaban al "Sendero Luminoso" y a su
líder, el Camarada Gonzalo, con acusasiones
de que se asociaban con narcotraficantes.
Ahora son los imperialistas y otros
reaccionarios quienes admiten que el
gobierno del Perú estaba metido en el
narcotráfico tal como lo habia dicho el
"Sendero Luminoso."

En MIM Notes Nú. 216 le informamos al

lector que el Tío Sam se había fastidiado con
su entonces lacayo y maestro de espionage
Vladimiro Montesinos. Este es un fin común
para los lacayos quienes llevan a cabo el
trabajo sucio de los yanquis sólo para
descubrir luego que ya no le hacen falta al
patrón. El problema con lacayos tipo
Montesinos es que quedan descubiertos ante
el pueblo -como en el Perú- y luego sólo es
cuestión de tiempo antes de que el Tío Sam
se deshaga de ellos. Y claro, el próximo
lacayo cobrará más para llevar a cabo las
órdenes del Tío Sam.

En cada país existen personas como

Montesinos, listas para convertirse en
traidores y lacayos. Tanto el Tío Sam como
sus lacayos merecen ser derrotados.
Los medios de comunicación yanquis
protegen a Montesinos

El día 10 de julio de 2001 CNN dijó:

"Después de ser expulsado de las fuerzas
armadas y un corto plazo en prisión por
vender secretos a la CIA, el licenciado
Montesinos abogó a favor de
narcotraficantes." (1) Cuando esto fue
anunciado por CNN Montesinos acababa de
terminar su huelga de hambre de 9 días en
una prisión en el Perú después de haber sido
entregado por las autoridades venezolanas.
Ahora Montesinos enfrenta varias
acusaciones criminales las cuales incluyen
narcotráfico y homicidio.

Sin embargo, una búsqueda en las páginas

de internet del supuestamente imparcial
vocero CNN, revela que antes de que
Montesinos huyera del país, es decir antes de
que el Tío Sam se enfadara con él, CNN no
menciona nada en relación con la protección
que le ofreció Montesinos a los
narcotraficantes. Basta con decir que CNN
es una extensión del gobierno yanqui. Cuando
el Tío Sam pide aclamaciones, CNN las
entrega. Y cuando el Tío Sam le pide que
muerda, CNN muerde.

Ya el día 19 de mayo del 2000 CNN decía

lo siguiente sobre Fujimori y, por implicación,
de su "mano derecha," Montesinos: "Será una
difícil decisión para EE.UU. soltar a Fujimori
ya que él ganó grandes aclamaciones durante
los primeros dos años de su mandato por la
eliminación de la producción de cocaína en
su país, por aplastar a la guerrilla izquierdista
de los movimientos de Sendero Luminoso y
los Tupac Amaru y por controlar la
superinflación." (2) Pero ya que el gobierno
yanqui decidió resistir por completo a
Fujimori y Montesinos, CNN y toda la prensa
del monopolio capitalista cambió de tono y
se le permitió hacer la conexión entre éstos y
el narcotráfico.

La misma búsqueda en las páginas del

periódico New York Times demuestra que
desde 1996 este vocero nunca mencionó a
Montesinos en conexión con el narcotráfico
hasta después de la crítica del gobierno
imperialista en el año 2000. Por cierto, uno
de los pocos artículos del New York Times
en el cual se les critica a los líderes peruanos
se basa en fuentes provenientes de medios de
comunicación israelítas en el Perú.

Los lectores de MIM Notes, al contrario,

conocían todo el panorama desde 1994 por
medio de MIM Notes no. 90 o artículos de
Luis Arce Borja, quien en el mismo año
comenzó su exilio en Bélgica. Periódicos al
estilo Christian Science Monitor o Houston
Chronicle y ediciones burguesas de
Latinoamérica como el Venezolano, Caretas,
sólo sueltan pequeños trozos de información.

Los periodistas lacayos sólo se atreven a

imitar la práctica del MIM y presentar los
hechos importantes ahora que el Tío Sam se
deshizo de Montesinos. Antes de que se
declarara "muerta" la Guerra Popular en el
Perú los lacayos voceros del imperialismo
temían perjudicar a la guerra del Tío Sam en
contra de ésta y su jefe el Camarada Gonzalo
y sus seguidores, pero ahora la cuestión del
narcotráfico vuelve a tomar el escenario.

Ahora los voceros imperialistas hablan

sobre la separación entre el Tío Sam y
Montesinos y explican porqué escondieron
los hechos. Durante los años 90, la agencia
estadounidense contra el narcotráfico (DEA)
y la CIA buscaban continuar las relaciones
con Montesinos, mientras que la ex-Secretaria
de Estado Madeline Albright y el ex-Zar de
Narcotráfico Barry McCaffrey se oponían a
las mismas, según aseguran ahora después de
haber seguido una disciplina de soldados
fieles a la máquina mentirosa de propaganda
del Tío Sam. De hecho, fue el FBI el que
capturó a algunos de los socios de Montesinos
en Miami y ayudó a tronar a Montesinos
mientras que ambas agencias- la CIA y DEA-
siguieron unidas hasta el fin.

El Tío Sam decide intencionalmente
apoyar a los traficantes de coca

Además de subrayar lo poco confiable que

son los medios de comiunicación yanquis, el
caso de Montesinos también señala los
huecos/vacíos en el gobierno que se supone
debería bloquear la corriente de drogas que
alcanzan llegar a EE.UU. De por sí es una
atrocidad que la DEA favoreció las relaciones
con Montesinos pero también el mismo
McCaffrey, el jefe superior de EE.UU. contra
el narcotráfico, se vio rebajado al nivel de un
cabildero interno y tuvo que mantener silencio
mientras el gobierno yanqui apoyaba a los
que destinaban la cocaína a EE.UU.

Sólo ahora se conoce todo esto ya que los

autores de Knight Ridder, Kevin G. Hall y
Lucien Chauvin han desenmascarado los
detalles y algunos periódicos como el Boston
Globe los han publicado. Ahora el Boston
Globe admite que Montesinos enfrenta
acusasiones de que él dirigió escuadrones de
muerte y que traficaba la droga y las armas.
El Boston Globe imprimió el reportaje en la
cadena de Knight Ridder el cual decía que
Montesinos era "el hombre a quien muchos
creían ser el verdadero no elegido líder del
Perú desde 1990 hasta el 2000." (3) No es
sorprendente, entonces, que la administración
de Bush haya tardado en soltar todos los
asquerosos detalles del trabajo de la
adminstración de Clinton en el Perú ya que
temen que éstos puedan poner en peligro al
"joven gobierno democrático del Perú." (3)
La palabra "democracia" en boca de los
imperialistas es una palabra clave que
significa narcotráfico, contrabando de armas
y otras cosas por el estilo que hacen del
mundo entero un lugar seguro para las
ganancias norteamericanas.
Notas:
1. http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/
americas/07/10/peru.montesinos.reut/
index.html
2. http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/
americas/05/19/peru5_19.a.tm/index.html
3. Boston Globe 26June2001, p. a10.

Procesamiento de Vladimiro Montesinos Justifica la

Guerra Popular en el Perú

Por el MIM