Wednesday, 29 December 2010

Two Bombs Explode at Italy's Northern League Party Seat

Two Bombs Explode at Italy's Northern League Party Seat

Tuesday, 28 December 2010

Italian embassy bombs linked to anarchists, Rome on high alert 2010-12-25 09:04:48 FeedbackPrintRSS
by Eric J. Lyman

ROME, Dec. 24 (Xinhua) -- An Italian anarchist group with ties to the country's famed Red Brigade extremist organization claimed responsibility for two embassy bombings that left two people seriously injured and put the Italian capital on high alert.

The bombs arrived via post Friday to the Rome-based embassies of Switzerland and Chile, seriously injuring the hands, arms, and chest of both embassy clerks who opened the packages.

Police said the Swiss clerk might have to have one or both hands amputated, while the Chilean worker is at risk of losing sight in one eye.

A group called the Informal Anarchist Federation -- known by its Italian-language initials FAI -- Friday claimed responsibility for the blasts. Both of the packages included a message that read: "Long live FAI! Long live anarchy!"

The burned remains of a note found in the parcel at the Chilean embassy read: "We have decided to make our voice heard once again, with words and with deeds. We will destroy the system of domination."

The notes were signed by the FAI, but they claimed they were the work of a previously unknown FAI member group called the "Lambros Founas Cell." Lambros Founas was a Green anarchist killed in a shootout with police in March.

Italian Minister of the Interior Roberto Maroni said the attacks were likely related to Conspiracy of Cells of Fire, a group that carried out 14 similar attacks in Greece in November. Those attacks also included bombs sent to Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, as well as to the leaders of France, Germany and Greece.

Italian authorities said the choice of the Swiss and Chilean embassies was likely linked to the arrests of anarchists in those countries, though the claim of responsibility from FAI made no mention of that.

Soon after the two explosions, police in Rome went on high alert, calling for x-rays of packages arriving to other embassies, while there was a visible police presence on the streets of the capital.

On Friday, the Pope gave his traditional Christmas Eve mass amid tightened security that Vatican authorities said was a response to the bombings the day before. In an apparent reference to the attacks, the 83-year-old pontiff used his homily to call on those listening to become "people of peace."

Police said Friday they believe the anarchists behind the two postal bombs were also responsible for helping turn protests in the wake of the Dec. 14 parliamentary confidence vote that allowed Berlusconi to narrowly hold on to power into violent clashes that sent dozens of people to the hospital and burned several cars and damaged shops.

It is the third time in less then a decade that FAI used the holiday season to launch a series of attacks.

In 2003, the group launched what it called "Operation Santa Claus," mailing hollowed out books full of explosives to four European Union government bodies, including one to Italian political leader Romano Prodi, who was then the president of the European Commission.

And a year ago, the group claimed responsibility for a bomb that went off just before Christmas in a pedestrian tunnel near Bocconi University in Milan.

According to the U.S.-based National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism and Italian intelligence documents between 2008 and 2009, the FAI is an umbrella group of small anarchist groups that has also claimed solidarity with the Red Brigades, the leftist guerilla group behind a long series of deadly attacks that ravaged Italy in the 1970s and 1980s and was responsible for the kidnapping and death of Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro in 1978.

Editor: Zhang Xiang

Russia: The Return Of Fascism

St. Petersburg Times

Friday, 24 December 2010

Tool Time: Palin Loves/Hates WikiLeaks?

THE ALYONA SHOW : Tool Time: Palin Loves/Hates WikiLeaks?

Saturday, 18 December 2010

The captialist crisis explained in no uncertain terms.

A legend.

Unequal Britain

FRFI 218 Dec 2010 / Jan 2011
Thursday, 16 December 2010 11:11

We live in a massively divided society. Britain today has the highest level of income inequality for 60 years, with the household wealth of the top 10% of the population 100 times greater than that of the poorest 10%. 30% of children in Britain live in poverty. Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Black African men earn around 20% less than white men and nearly half of Bangladeshi and Pakistani households live in poverty. NICKI JAMESON reports.

On 11 October 2010, Equality and Human Rights Commissioner Trevor Phillips (salary £112,000 for a three and a half day week) launched the report of the first Triennial Review of equality in Britain. How fair is Britain? Equality, Human Rights and Good Relations in 2010* a massive piece of work amalgamating detailed research on inequality and discrimination on grounds of race, gender, disability, sexuality, religion and social class. Fact after fact, statistic after statistic hammer home the realities of unequal Britain; yet Phillips fantastically managed to introduce the report with the statement that: ‘Britain is a country where we despise prejudice, embrace equality and believe in the fundamental right of the individual to make the most of his or her talents in a free society. We are increasingly at ease with diversity of all kinds, and intolerant of discrimination of any kind.’

Instead of demands for immediate action in the face of the fact that, for example, the life expectancy of the richest men and women in Britain is up to seven years longer than that of the poorest, and that Black African women asylum seekers have a mortality rate seven times higher than that of White women, we are treated to platitudes such as that, ‘[although] many of the old biases are, if not vanquished, on their way out…there is a great deal still to be done and there are new challenges emerging.’

A matter of life and death

In today’s Britain skin colour and immigration status can be a matter of life and death. A quarter of homicide victims are from ethnic minorities, with Black people the most likely to be murdered. Despite all the handwringing since the Lawrence Inquiry about ‘institutional racism’ in the police force and prison system, Black people are still more likely than any other ethnic group to die following contact with the police.

While levels of violent crime are falling overall, this is not reflected in the number of incidents of hate crime and domestic violence. Domestic violence is generally under-reported, particularly amongst women from ethnic and religious minority communities, by disabled women who are abused by carers they depend on and by new immigrants and asylum seekers.

Behind bars

People from ethnic minorities are substantially over-represented in the prison population; one in four prisoners is from an ethnic minority. On average, five times more Black people than White people in England and Wales are imprisoned (relative to general population) – a greater disproportionality than in the US.

The number of women prisoners has nearly doubled since 1995, although women still comprise just 5% of the prison population. A higher proportion of women in prison have experienced domestic violence than have women in the population as a whole. Many people who are imprisoned have mental health conditions or learning disabilities, have been in care or have experienced abuse.

Racism and social inequality are bad for your health

The shocking statistic on the mortality of Black African women asylum seekers is described in the report as ‘partly due to problems in accessing maternal healthcare’. Following a series of court cases in 2008-9, hospitals have been instructed not to provide free health care to ‘failed asylum seekers’. The Department of Health has instructed that maternity care should be provided whether the woman can pay or not, but the very fact that bills are issued is sufficient to terrify some refugee women from going to hospital.

The report details the strong association between poverty and poor health: those who have never worked or are long-term unemployed have the highest rates of self-reported poor health. People in routine occupations are more than twice as likely to say their health is ‘poor’ as those in higher managerial and professional occupations; people from lower socio-economic groups are more likely to have a poor diet and less likely to take regular exercise. Not surprisingly, people living in poverty or subject to victimisation show high rates of mental illness.

Across ethnic groups, Chinese people report the best health, while Gypsies and Travellers experience the worst. Pakistani and Bangladeshi people are more likely than those from other ethnic groups to report poor health, experience poor mental health, report a disability or limiting long-term illness, and more likely to find it hard to access and communicate with their GPs. Infant mortality is highest in Black Caribbean and Pakistani families.

A two-tier education system

A generation ago nearly all university students were White British; today one student in five is from an ethnic minority. However, there are massive internal divisions within the system, which current government plans for higher education (see pages 8 and 9) will only serve to widen: fewer than 10% of Black students are at the most prestigious ‘Russell Group’ universities, compared to a quarter of White students, and about a third of Black students get a first or upper-second class degree, compared to two-thirds of White students.

Students from lower socio-economic groups begin their education at a disadvantage and the gap widens in the course of their school years. Students eligible for free school meals are less than half as likely to achieve five good GCSEs including English and Maths. Fewer than one in six Gypsy and Traveller children obtain five good GCSEs.

Black Caribbean children are permanently excluded from schools in England at a rate of 30 per 10,000 and Gypsy and Traveller children at 38 per 10,000, compared to five per 10,000 for Asian and nine per 10,000 for White pupils.

Working life

Despite years of struggle for gender equality, the pay gap between men and women remains significant. At age 40 men are earning on average 27% more than women. Women workers make up 83% of people employed in personal services. Over 40% of women are employed in the public sector, compared to 15% of men. A large proportion of women work part time.

The effect of taking time out of work to bring up children is greatest for the women with the lowest income to begin with. Women with degrees are estimated to face a 4% loss in lifetime earnings as a result of motherhood, while mothers with mid-level qualifications face a 25% loss and those with no qualifications a 58% loss.

The government is currently rolling out punitive plans to force people with disabilities off benefit. The Triennial Review reveals that, despite anti-discrimination legislation and measures, between the 1970s and 2000s the chances of working for low qualified British men with disabilities halved from 77% to 38%. Of disabled people in their early 20s, 45% are Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET).

The British labour market continues to be characterised by a high level of occupational segregation. For example, around 25% of Pakistani men are employed primarily as taxi drivers. Muslim people have the lowest rate of employment of any religious group. Only 47% of Muslim men and 24% of Muslim women are employed and 42% of young Muslim people are NEET.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer

The average net household wealth of the top 10% is £853,000 – almost 100 times higher than the net wealth of the poorest 10%, which is £8,800 or below. One person in five lives in a household with less than 60% of the median income (after housing costs); this rises to one in four for families with disabled people and nearly one in three for Bangladeshi households.

Across the board, class intersects with race, gender and disability to increase disadvantage. Ethnic and religious minorities and disabled people are over-represented in the most deprived neighbourhoods; a quarter of Bangladeshi households are overcrowded; two-thirds of Bangladeshi and Pakistani people lack savings and half of Bangladeshi and Pakistani pensioners live below the poverty line.

When the Labour government came to power in 1997, Tony Blair pledged to end child poverty. Today 30% of all children in Britain grow up in poverty – one of the highest rates in the industrialised world. This rises to 50% for Black African children and 75% for Bangladeshis.

People from lower socio-economic groups are more likely both to need care and to provide it. Better-off people are more likely to use formal childcare and people on low incomes, non-working parents and single parents less likely to use formal childcare. Bangladeshi and Pakistani people are significantly more likely than average to provide informal paid care (more than twice as likely as White people). There are a significant number of young carers (175,000 aged under 18 in 2001); a disproportionate number of whom are from ethnic minority backgrounds.

An agenda for fairness?

Although Phillips states in his introduction that the report’s function is descriptive, rather than ‘a prescription for change’, the research culminates with an ‘agenda for fairness’. The five key aims are: to reduce the effect of socio-economic background on health and life expectancy; to ensure that every individual has the chance to learn and to realise their talents to the full; to give every person the opportunity to play a part in strengthening Britain’s economy; to put an end to identity-based violence and harassment; to give more people greater personal autonomy and civic power. Each is accompanied by a series of subsidiary goals, such as ‘close the infant mortality gap between ethnic groups’ or ‘close the gender pay gap faster and further’. Other than the debatable notion of participation in ‘strengthening Britain’s economy’ this is in some senses a fairly uncontentious wish-list; however, there is no chance, especially given the current ‘slash and burn’ of public spending, of the generalised proposals being made more concrete, nor of funding being allocated to even begin to implement those parts of the agenda which could be realised this side of a socialist revolution.

Britain is an imperialist nation. The racism which permeates the country’s institutions and the resulting entrenched discrimination at all levels are a reflection of Britain’s world role as a nation which has systematically plundered and colonised, and which continues to invade, occupy and oppress other nations. Despite the existence of all sorts of ‘anti-discrimination legislation’ and the setting up of bodies like the Equality and Human Rights Commission, racism remains legally enshrined in the form of immigration laws and freelance prejudice is encouraged in the media, including the publicly funded BBC. No serious fight against racism can take place without simultaneous support for the struggle against imperialism.

This is an important report and contains a mass of information, all of which illustrates that, although the inequalities and prejudices of today are not the same as those of 30 years ago, Britain today remains a divided society, polarised along racial and class lines. This inequality cannot be resolved by capitalist government quangos or legislation even in times of prosperity. In the coming times of enforced austerity, there is even less chance of greater ‘fairness’ being handed down from above. Inequality is fundamental to capitalism and the struggle for equality is the struggle for socialism.

Fight racism! Fight imperialism!

* Available at The Equality and Human Rights Commission was set up in 2007 by the Labour government, which amalgamated the Commission for Racial Equality, Disability Rights Commission and Equal Opportunities Commission into a single body. Its duties include reporting every three years on progress towards a society ‘where every individual has the opportunity to achieve their potential, and where people treat each other with dignity and respect.’

Thursday, 16 December 2010

Spending cuts 'will see rise in absolute child poverty'

Institute of Fiscal Studies analysis shows that government programme will push 200,000 into penury

Randeep Ramesh, Social affairs editor, Thursday 16 December 2010

Child poverty is predicted to worsen, according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies. Photograph: Save the Children

The government's radical programme to slash spending will see the first rise in absolute child poverty for 15 years, with almost 200,000 children pushed into penury, according to an analysis by the Institute of Fiscal Studies.

Tax changes introduced by the coalition government will, the leading independent fiscal thinktank finds, increase absolute poverty by 200,000 children and 200,000 working-age adults in 2012-13.

Cuts to housing benefit alone will force a further 100,000 children into poverty.

In the next three years the IFS says average incomes are forecast to stagnate and this, coupled with deep cuts in welfare, will see a rise in relative poverty for children and working-age adults of 800,000 and a rise in absolute poverty for the same group of 900,000.

The institute directly challenges the government's claim that the impact of the budget would have no effect on child poverty.

Sally Copley, head of UK policy at Save the Children, said: "George Osborne promised in his spending review that child poverty would not get worse over the next two years. These new figures show the government will meet this commitment.

"But standing still on child poverty is never good enough and the prospect of it actually rising after 2012 is totally unacceptable."

Absolute poverty, set at 60% of 2010's average income, is used to set legally binding targets in the landmark Child Poverty Act passed this year with cross-party support.

Robert Joyce, a research economist and an author of the report, said: "We find that the coalition government's measures act to increase poverty among these groups slightly in 2012–13, and more clearly in 2013–14. Meeting the legally binding child poverty targets in 2020 would require the biggest fall in relative child poverty after 2013–14 since at least 1961."

Campaigners said the work sounded "an alarm on a future crisis".

Chris Goulden, poverty policy manager at the Joseph Rowntree Trust, which commissioned the research, said that the rise in inequality and impoverishment were mainly caused by pegging benefits to rates less than inflation, freezing child benefit, and the slew of changes to the housing benefits system which affects 4.6m households.

"It is a reversal of fortune for the poor. The coalition have said that the increases in child tax credits will help but that's sticking plaster," said Goulden.

The Treasury questioned the figures, saying that the IFS admitted "considerable uncertainty", which means the "small differences they identify may not be meaningful".

The coalition has queried how poverty should be measured, and a report for it by Labour MP Frank Field recommended augmenting current poverty indicators with a set of "life chances" indicators. Some on the centre-right say these could include reducing the number of households where no one works, or the 350,000 children living with drug-dependent parents.

A Treasury spokesman said: "The government has been clear child poverty isn't just about getting above an arbitrary line, but is about improving people's life chances, as outlined in Frank Field's review. The steps taken to reduce welfare spending are to incentivise work and remove people from getting stuck on benefits.

"Any consideration of the impact of the government's reforms on child poverty should take into account the wider [government] work to encourage work and improve children's life chances."

Neil O'Brien, director of the right-leaning Policy Exchange thinktank, said: "The problem with what the IFS is saying is that the measure they use isn't an indicator of real poverty; it's a measure of inequality. It defines 'poverty' as being below 60% of the average income.

"This is a hangover from the Gordon Brown era. Real poverty isn't the same as inequality. The IFS's definition would mean that there are actually more people in poverty in Britain today than there are in Poland."

Friday, 3 December 2010

No war against Korea!

U.S. warships, jets are the real threat
Published Dec 1, 2010 10:01 PM

Scores of U.S. warships and fighter jets, carrying more than 6,000 crew members and reinforced by ships, planes and 70,000 soldiers of the armed forces of south Korea, began carrying out joint military “exercises” in the sea west of Korea on Nov. 28. They have brought the divided peninsula to the brink of war.
In July some 20 U.S. warships and 200 planes had carried out similar maneuvers with the armed forces of the south. So this is the second time in less than six months that Washington and the right-wing south Korean regime of Lee Myung-bak have carried out a grave provocation against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (socialist north Korea).

Nor can China, which lies just 200 miles to the northwest, fail to be alarmed at such aggressive military moves by the U.S. Two days before the joint maneuvers began, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said: “We hold a consistent and clear-cut stance on the issue. We oppose any party to take any military acts in our exclusive economic zone without permission.” (Xinhua, Nov. 26) Nevertheless, the U.S. and south Korea went right ahead with the maneuvers.

Hostilities began with shells fired at DPRK

This time the south Korean forces went a step further than in July. Days before the joint exercises with the U.S. were scheduled to begin, they fired live shells into the waters right off the DPRK from the island of Yeonpyeong, which lies far west of the south Korean mainland and very close to the coast of the DPRK. Both the island and the waters are disputed territory. The U.S. had arbitrarily drawn a line on a map years ago claiming the island for south Korea, but the DPRK has never accepted that.

Thus, the military that ordered these shells be fired at 1:00 p.m. on Nov. 23 knew full well that this was a brazen provocation against the DPRK — one that could easily lead to a response in kind, especially since the DPRK had already characterized the “exercises” as a simulated invasion of the north.

If south Korea and its huge sponsor, the U.S., had wanted to avoid confrontation with the DPRK, would they have fired shells into a disputed area?

The provocation comes from the U.S. and the Lee Myung-bak regime, not the DPRK.

An hour and a half later, at 2:34 p.m., after making immediate verbal protests, the DPRK retaliated by shelling the south’s military base on Yeonpyeong. According to officials in Seoul, two soldiers were killed. They later claimed that two civilians had died as well.

Immediately, the propaganda blast from both the U.S. and south Korea went to earsplitting levels, blaming the DPRK for “irrational” and “brutal” behavior. The Pentagon announced it would have to send the USS George Washington — a nuclear-powered carrier with nearly 6,000 sailors and an air wing of 75 fighter jets that had taken part in the July “exercises” — plus five other warships to back up the forces of the Lee regime in joint naval maneuvers.

While the south Korean military ultimately takes its orders from the Pentagon, the U.S. claimed it had not been involved with the south Korean “exercises” at the time of the exchange of artillery. But the facts show otherwise. on Nov. 23 reported that “Some U.S. forces had been helping the South Koreans in a military training exercise, but were not in the shelled area.” Right. They were part of the provocation but stayed out of range. Like U.S. “advisers” in Vietnam in the early years of that war.

However, even with a media blitz focused on inventing reasons for north Korean “aggression,” sometimes an article slips through that blows a hole in the fairy tales.

Thomas D. Farrell, a former U.S. Army Reserve intelligence officer who served in Korea and says he is “no apologist for North Korea,” explains how these events were seen by the DPRK: “This attack occurred on an island in the West (Yellow) Sea. Although there is a clearly defined Military Line of Demarcation on land, there is no clearly defined line running into the ocean. The so-called Northern Limit Line has never been accepted by North Korea, and has been the subject of many skirmishes over the years. A look at a map shows that Yeonpyeong Island is rather close to North Korea. The ROK [south Korean] Navy was dropping shells in nearby waters as part of its annual Hoguk military exercises which, like all military exercises, are condemned by the North Koreans as a provocation and rehearsal for invasion.

“The point is that when one views this event from the mindset of the other side, it is perfectly understandable. The grand theories attempting to explain it are gaseous. The real story is that the North Koreans saw the ROK Navy’s actions as a provocation and responded as they might well be expected to.” (Honolulu Star Advertiser, Nov. 29)

China also feels threatened

The imperialist media are saying that the DPRK’s “belligerence” is trying the patience of China. China has been an ally of the DPRK since 1950, when U.S. forces under the command of Gen. Douglas McArthur invaded north Korea, bombed all its cities, and threatened the new revolutionary government of China with nuclear war.

But while China is seeking a peaceful solution to the present crisis, there can be no doubt that it sees U.S. belligerence toward the DPRK as a threat to its own peaceful development.

Li Jie, a researcher with the Chinese navy’s military academy, wrote about the U.S.-south Korean “exercises” scheduled for last July:

“A joint drill with the ROK [south Korea] in the key waters off its Asian military bases will help the U.S. realize multiple strategic goals in the Asia-Pacific region,” said Li.

“First, the drill will help the U.S. maintain high-pressure against what it calls a restive DPRK regime. It is also believed to be an explicit indication of the U.S. stance that the world’s sole superpower would stand firmly behind the ROK and Japan in case of a military conflict between Pyongyang and Washington’s two traditional Asian allies.

“In addition, a well-deliberated military exercise in the Yellow Sea will also help the U.S. collect geographic and military information about some Asian countries [especially China — d.g.] bordering the vast waters.

“General Ma Xiaotian, deputy chief of general staff of the People’s Liberation Army, has expressed ‘firm opposition’ to the scheduled U.S.-ROK military maneuver.” (China Daily, July 12)

But the July maneuvers took place anyway, and are now being repeated at an even higher level of provocation. China has called for an emergency meeting with the U.S., south Korea, the DPRK, Russia and Japan to defuse the situation. As of Nov. 29, this call has been ignored by the Obama and Lee administrations.

There is nothing “irrational” in either the response of the DPRK or the worries of the Chinese. U.S. imperialism waged a horrendous war against the Korean Revolution from 1950 to 1953, one that resulted in millions of deaths. It has occupied south Korea ever since, with a force that still numbers almost 30,000. It has refused to even discuss a peace treaty to formally end that war.

Should it be surprising, then, that the DPRK knows it has to be ready at any time to repel another invasion? If even a retired U.S. Army intelligence officer knows that the shelling by the south would force the north to respond, didn’t those who ordered the shelling know it too? Wasn’t it deliberately intended to provide the excuse for greater threats against the DPRK, with the intention of provoking “regime change”?

U.S. pundits are now openly talking about the “reunification” of Korea based on the south swallowing up the north — in other words, an invasion and counterrevolution that would allow capitalism and imperialism a free hand to exploit the workers and farmers there.

This is something that the DPRK leaders and masses will never allow.

Is it surprising that the Chinese leaders are also alarmed when U.S. imperialism, while making money off investments and trade there, nevertheless tries to encircle China militarily?

The chair of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, reveals the mindset of the Pentagon: “I don’t think this will be the last exercise,” he said. “This is a part of the world that we’ve exercised in for decades and we will continue.” (CNN, Nov. 28)

Instead of putting out anti-DPRK propaganda in the guise of psychoanalyzing its leaders, why don’t the media ask why the U.S. leaders do what they do? Why have they maintained a hostile policy against the DPRK for more than 60 years, ever since its anti-colonial and anti-capitalist revolution? Why won’t they sign a peace treaty with the DPRK so that the Korean people can work for real disarmament and reunification?

But that would be to acknowledge that the U.S. is ruled by a class of billionaires that has fattened itself on war and exploitation all over the world and has a long history of creating excuses for the bloody expansion of its imperial reach. The media have been part of this inglorious history, ever since the Hearst papers invented an excuse for invading Cuba in 1898.

Let’s not fall for another “Gulf of Tonkin” or “weapons of mass destruction” lie. The enemy of the working class is right here, in the boardrooms and banks of U.S. capitalism, that are taking away everything the workers have won over generations of struggle and hard work.

No aggression against socialist Korea! End the war “games,” lift the sanctions, sign a peace treaty with the DPRK, and bring U.S. troops and ships home!

WORKERS WORLD PARTY STATEMENT Stop U.S. aggression in Korea!

Published Dec 1, 2010 9:58 PM

Workers World Party stands in complete solidarity with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea at this critical moment, as U.S. imperialism and its client regime in south Korea are threatening war.

We reject the deafening blast of deceitful propaganda that presents the DPRK as the aggressor, even as it bravely holds off a potential invading force of hundreds of warships and fighter planes that have been deployed by Washington and Seoul in the West Sea near the DPRK.

The U.S. billionaire rulers have waged class war against the DPRK ever since it was founded by revolutionary forces, led by the legendary guerrilla fighter Kim Il Sung, who had ousted Japanese imperialism from the north of Korea and liberated the workers and peasants there from colonial slavery.

The class of capitalist financiers and industrialists, who today are sucking the working class here dry to keep their record profits, could not tolerate a socialist north Korea. Through their economic and political control over Washington, they launched a devastating three-year war against the DPRK in 1950-53, killing millions of Koreans and tens of thousands of U.S. youth. But they could not break the will of the people in the north to be free of foreign domination.

These world-class exploiters never gave up their ambition to control all of Korea. That is why the U.S. has imposed sanctions on the north, maintains tens of thousands of troops in the south, and refuses to meet with the DPRK to sign a peace treaty ending the state of war that still exists, 57 years after the ceasefire. They have left the DPRK no choice but to develop the means to defend itself against constant threats from Washington and the Pentagon.

The Korean people, north and south, want peace and the reunification of their divided country. Even as a war fever was being drummed up in Seoul, courageous demonstrators there demanded “No war!”

Workers and poor people in the U.S. are also sick and tired of the politicians’ deadly priorities that put the enormous Pentagon budget ahead of vital human needs, even as hunger, unemployment, homelessness and ill health keep growing.

We demand: End the sanctions and the war threats! Bring U.S. troops and warships home now and sign a peace treaty with the DPRK! Money for jobs, schools, housing and health care, not for war!

International League of Peoples’ Struggle condemns U.S. war threatsPublished Dec 1, 2010 9:56 PM

The following statement was issued on Nov. 26 by Professor Jose Maria Sison, chairperson of the International League of Peoples’ Struggle.

We, the International League of Peoples’ Struggle, condemn in the strongest possible terms the recent and ongoing provocations being made by the U.S. and the south Korean puppet government against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

We refer to the mobilization of 70,000 troops for a week of military maneuvers just off the border of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in order to simulate an invasion of the DPRK. ...

The south Korean puppet forces fired many shells into territorial waters of the DPRK on Nov. 23 at 1 p.m. Only after an hour and a half later did the DPRK retaliate in self-defense by firing shells at the Yonphyong Islet held by south Korea.

The south Korean puppet forces have made the provocations obviously at the instigation of the U.S. U.S. officials and mass media have misrepresented the DPRK as the one making the provocations and have quickly beaten the war drums for the deployment of U.S. forces and weapons of mass destruction against the DPRK.

In a far bigger act of war provocation, the U.S. has announced plans to send the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS George Washington and its battle group, including war ships, destroyers and hundreds of fighter jets, into the area to participate in new military exercises to threaten the DPRK.

Let us recall that the U.S. military forces have been involved in all the war maneuvers by south Korea, going back to the 1950-53 war, have killed millions of the Korean people and have occupied south Korea since the end of World War II.

We demand that the U.S. withdraw its 30,000 troops from south Korea in order to allow the peaceful reunification of Korea and let the Korean people exercise their right to national self-determination.

We demand that immediately the U.S. and South Korea stop their war maneuvers and exercises against the DPRK. They must remove their warships from the territorial waters of the DPRK. The U.S. must end the sanctions it has instigated against the DPRK.

Long live the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea!

Down with U.S. imperialism and its south Korean puppets!

Long live the Korean people of both north and south!

Global anti-imperialist group denounces war exercises
Published Dec 1, 2010 9:52 PM following statement was released Nov. 30 by Manik Mukherjee, Vice President of the All India Anti-imperialist Forum and General Secretary of the International Anti-imperialist and People’s Solidarity Coordinating Committee.
The International Anti-imperialist and People’s Solidarity Coordinating Committee denounces the conspiracy of the U.S. imperialists to heighten the war tension in East Asia by launching a joint military exercise with south Korea in the Yellow Sea.

The U.S. has long been militarily threatening the [the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] with a view to staging a counter-revolutionary overthrow of socialism in DPRK and bringing about a “regime change” there. The present joint military drill is another such exercise directed against the DPRK.

We also condemn India’s pro-imperialist stand on this issue. Instead of strongly voicing a demand for stopping the joint military exercise, it has taken an ambivalent stand by appealing to both parties to maintain peace, thereby effectively taking side with the imperialist camp.

However, it is heartening that the people in south Korea are beginning to see through the nefarious design of the U.S. and are staging protests against the joint exercise, holding placards proclaiming, “No War” and “We Want Peace.”

The IAPSCC demands that the U.S. totally withdraw its military presence in the Korean region and allow the two Koreas to peacefully resolve their differences through mutual dialogues.

IAPSCC calls upon all the peace-loving people of the world to rise up in protest against the U.S. war maneuvers and to build up a strong global international movement against the imperialist war designs.

Articles copyright 1995-2010 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011