Actualité - L'ASEAN veut devenir un bloc régional avec un pouvoir

L'Association des pays du sud-est asiatique (ASEAN) a tenu son 12e sommet à Cebu, aux Philippines, du 13 au 15 janvier, précédé par des consultations internes et suivi par des rencontres avec d'autres partenaires régionaux: Australie, Chine, Inde, Japon, République de Corée et Nouvelle-Zélande. Le gouvernement des Philippines, qui se livre au terrorisme d'État contre l'insurrection armée de son peuple qui dure depuis des décennies, et qui est notoirement corrompu et maintient son peuple dans la pauvreté abjecte, a donné au sommet le thème: «Une communauté de partage et compassion». Selon les représentants gouvernementaux, ce thème représente les objectifs d'intégration et de coopération de l'ASEAN pour ce qui est du commerce, de la sécurité et de l'énergie. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, présidente des Philippines, a dit que «l'ASEAN est engagée à élargir sa zone de commerce afin de devenir un des grands blocs commerciaux du monde».

Plus de 10 000 soldats et policiers ont été déployés pour «assuer la sécurité» du Sommet.

L'ASEAN est un bloc régional de dix pays: Brunei, Cambodge, Indonésie, Laos, Malaisie, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapour, Thaïlande et Vietnam. Elle fut créée à l'insistance des États-Unis pour forger un front commun contre le communisme lors des interventions de ces derniers en Indochine pour nier au Vietnam son droit à l'autodétermination. Avec l'effondrement de l'Union soviétique en 1989-1990, l'ASEAN a perdu sa raison d'être et cherche depuis à se réinventer en un bloc commercial et politique du Sud-Est asiatique.

Le Sommet avait entre autres à son ordre du jour le renforcement organisationnel pour mieux centraliser le pouvoir décisionnel. Une commission de haut niveau a été créée pour rédiger la charte de l'organisation avec pour but d'en faire une organisation de type Union européenne. Elle remplace le Groupe de Personnes éminentes (GPE).

La Charte de l'ASEAN sera également muni d'un mécanisme de résolution de conflit sans consensus, ce dernier ayant été le principe du processus décisionnel depuis quarante ans.

Les diplomates disent qu'il est devenu nécessaire de créer ce mécanisme puisqu'il est devenu plus difficile de réaliser le consensus quand l'ASEAN a élargi ses rangs.

Le GPE avait déposé un rapport et des recommandations sur la volonté politique, l'intégration régionale et les commissions décisionnelles après douze mois de consultation auprès des représentants gouvernements, des parlementaires, de la société civile et d'autres groupes, écrivent les agences de presse.

Le Rapport du GPE recommande que les principes et objectifs de base de la charte de l'ASEAN reflètent la devise: «Une vision, une identité, une communauté».

La clé de l'avenir de l'ASEAN, selon le rapport, est d'être concurrentielle, d'accroître sa part du marché économique régional et d'exploiter différentes possibilités de «dialogues gagnants» avec les partenaires.

Le GPE recommande également de remplacer le «Sommet de l'ASEAN» par le «Conseil de l'ASEAN» en tant qu'instance suprême de l'organisation.

Il propose aussi d'ajuster la politique traditionnelle de non-intervention de l'ASEAN et d'imposer des sanctions pour non-respect des décisions des pays membres «dans des circonstances exceptionnelles».

Le GPE recommande de donner plus de pouvoir au secrétariat de l'ASEAN et d'accroître ses capacités de recherche, d'analyse, de planification et de contrôle.

L'ASEAN cherche à s'établir comme marché unique et comme base unique de production d'ici 2020. L'ASEAN et la Chine veulent établir un accord de libre-échange d'ici 2010 pour une population totale de près de deux milliards de personnes et un Produit intérieur brut (PIB) dépassant les 2 billions $. Pour le mettre en contexte, à l'heure actuelle le PIB du Japon représente environ 55% du PIB combiné de l'ensemble du Sud-Est asiatique.

Le Sommet a abordé le sujet de la coopération dans le secteur des services, notamment la question du travail migratoire et en particulier celui des infirmières. Les infirmières des Philippines et d'autres pays membres pourraient se déplacer librement dans la région aux termes de l'Accord de reconnaissance mutuelle signé par les ministres des Finances des pays membres.

L'accord sur les travailleurs migrants a pour but de donner à ces derniers un libre accès aux tribunaux du pays où ils travaillent.

Sur le plan énergétique, l'ASEAN et ses partenaires régionaux «réduiront la dépendance sur les carburants conventionnels grâce à des programmes d'efficience énergétique, à l'expansion des systèmes d'énergie renouvelable et à la production des biocarburants. Ils cherchent également à réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre et veulent établir un approvisionnement énergétique stable en investissant dans des infrastructures régionales, comme les réseaux électriques et les oléoduques», écrit People's Daily Online.

Les chefs d'État de l'ASEAN ont également adopté une convention sur le terrorisme. Les gouvernements des pays membres auraient exprimé leur inquiétude «face au grave danger que représente le terrorisme pour la vie d'innocents, les infrastructures et l'environnement, la paix régionale et internationale».

L'accord appelle les pays membres à améliorer leur coopération régionale pour prévenir les attaques et partager les renseignements et les avertissements. Par contre, aucun pays ne peut mener des opérations anti-terroristes sur le territoire d'un autre.

On rapporte que durant les rencontres qui ont précédé le sommet, on a proposé des pourparlers pour trouver des voies pacifiques pour le règlement de la crise nucléaire dans la péninsule coréenne. L'ASEAN s'est engagée à n'épargner aucun effort pour la réussite des pourparlers à six et réitéré son engagement envers une Asie- Pacifique libre des armes nucléaires. Des centaines de manifestants ont scandé des slogans et battu les tambours à plusieurs kilomètres du centre de Cebu pour protester contre le sommet, rapportent les agences de presse. Ils ont dénoncé les nouvelles lois anti-terrorisme en disant qu'elles mènent à la multiplications de atteintes aux droits humains. Ils ont également dénoncé les plans de libéralisation du commerce parce qu'ils vont faire du tort aux industries nationales, notamment à l'industrie de la pêche.

Quelques faits concernant l'ASEAN

L'ASEAN regroupe l'Indonésie, la Malaisie, les Philippines, le Singapour, la Thaïlande, le Brunei, let Vietnam, le Laos, le Myanmar et le Cambodge.

Elle fut créée le 8 août 1967 à Bangkok, en Thaïlande, par cinq pays: Indonésie, Malaisie, Philippines, Singapour et Thaïlande. Le Brunei s'est joint au groupe en janvier 1984, suivi du Vietnam en 1995, du Laos et du Myanmar en 1997 et du Cambodge en 1999.

Les buts et objectifs de l'ASEAN sont: 1) accélérer la croissance économique, le progrès social et le développement culturel de la région et 2) promouvoir la paix et la stabilité dans la région par le respect de la justice et de la primauté du droit afin de maintenir des relations amicales entre les pays de la région et en adhérant aux principes de la Charte de l'ONU.

Le document Vision 2020, adoptée par les chefs de l'ASEAN lors du 30e anniversaire du groupe en 1997, décrit l'alliance comme un «concert des nations du sud-est asiatique tourné vers l'extérieure, vivant dans la paix, la stabilité et la prospérité, liée par un partenariat dans le développement dynamique et dans une communauté de sociétés humanitaires»

En 2003, les chefs des pays de l'ASEAN ont résolu que la communauté établisse trois piliers constituants: la communauté de sécurité, la communauté économique et la communauté socio-culturelle.

La région a une population combinée d'environ 537 millions de personnes, ce qui est plus que l'Union européenne et des trois pays membres de l'ALÉNA (États-Unis, Canada et Mexique). Elle couvre un territoire d'environ 4,5 millions de kilomètres carrés.

Les pays de l'ASEAN ont un produit intérieur total de 876 milliards $US, et un revenu per capita de 1,582$. Le commerce total était de 1,22 billions $, plus que le Japon.

La coopération économique de l'ASEAN couvre le commerce, l'investissement, l'industrie, les services, les finances, l'agriculture, la foresterie, l'énergie, les transports et communications, la propriété intellectuelle, les petites et moyennes entreprises et le tourisme.

La plus grande instance décisionnelle est le Sommet. Le secrétaire général de l'organisation, qui est nommé sur la base du mérite et selon le statut ministériel, a un mandat de cinq ans et est responsable d'initier, de conseiller, de coordonner et d'appliquer les activités de l'ASEAN.

(Sources: People's Daily Online, Al-Jazeera, Prensa Latina)

(Le Marxiste-Léniniste)

Actualité - US nuclear sub collides with Japanese tanker

(9 January 2007) - The BBC is reporting that a US nuclear-powered submarine has collided with a Japanese tanker near the Straits of Hormuz, Japanese and US government officials have said.

The collision follows news revealed in December, 2006 of US Central Command plan's for an aggressive naval buildup in the Persian Gulf as part of its preparations to widen the imperialist war, including the addition of a second aircraft carrier to the US fleet.

Canadian warships are regularly stationed in the region.

The collision strips bare Canadian Defence Department propaganda about the "safety" of the "visits" of U.S. nuclear ships to Canadian ports and its disinformation that the prime "threat" is posed by "terrorists."

"The likelihood of a nuclear reactor accident involving a nuclear-powered vessel visiting a Canadian port is extremely remote, even though it cannot be entirely ruled out," says a Defence Department backgrounder on the topic.

On 12 October 2006, the Halifax Chronicle Herald reinforced the message, declaring, "There has never been an accident in a Canadian port involving a nuclear-powered vessel." ("Planning for disaster; "Terrorist" attack focus of exercise", Chris Lambie, http://www.shunpiking.com/ol0309/0309-AC-CL-mock.htm).

The USS Newport News did not suffer substantial damage, and there were no injuries to crew, a US Navy spokeswoman told the AFP news agency.

There were no oil spills from Japanese tanker, the Mogamigawa, and no injuries, a company official said.

The tanker will dock in the United Arab Emirates to check the damage.

The bow of the submarine collided with the stern of the oil tanker at 1915GMT just outside the busy shipping lanes of the Straits of Hormuz.

The Mogamigawa is operated by Kawasaki Kisen Ltd, the Kyodo news agency reported.

Japanese oil company Showa Shell Sekiyu K.K. told the agency the ship was en route from the Gulf to Singapore with a crew of eight Japanese and 16 Filipinos.

A US Navy spokesman in Bahrain said that there had been a collision.

"I can confirm that an incident took place between one of our submarines and a merchant ship," said Commander Kevin Aandahl of the US Fifth Fleet.

The 110-metre (360-foot) USS Newport News carries a crew of 127.

The BBC's Chris Hogg, in Tokyo, says there will be embarrassment for the US navy over the incident but also relief that the collision was not more serious.

In February 2001, the US nuclear submarine Greenville sank a Japanese fisheries training vessel, the Ehime Maru, off Hawaii, killing nine sailors on the fishing boat.

(Shunpiking)

Actualité - Balochistan's history of insurgency

Pakistan’s south-western province of Balochistan has been the site of an intense struggle for self-determination against the federal government. Despite the province being rich in natural resources, the Baloch remain economically marginalised and receive little benefit from development in Balochistan. In its efforts to counter the Baloch struggle, Pakistan’s government has employed summary executions, disappearances, torture and indiscriminate bombing and artillery attack. The first part of this article was published in Green Left Weekly #692.

The end result of the expropriation of Balochistan’s natural resources and the marginalisation of Baloch from development projects is the province’s low standard of living. It is the poorest province in Pakistan. According to the Social Policy and Development Centre (SPDC) in Karachi, Balochistan has the highest levels of poverty in Pakistan, nearly double that of the Punjab. Over half the population subsists below the official poverty line, less than 50% have clean drinking water, only 50% of children attend primary school and only 33% of children up to two years old have any form of immunisation. Women’s literacy is the lowest in Pakistan, standing at just 7%. The federal government’s 2003-04 Labour Force Survey shows urban unemployment of 12.5% in Balochistan compared to 9.7% for Pakistan as a whole. Electricity is supplied to barely 20% of the population.

The Musharraf regime has long blamed the nationalist leaders for Balochistan’s underdevelopment, arguing that they are “anti-development”. However, research conducted by the SPDC in 2001 shows those areas under control of nationalist leaders, such as the late Nawab Akbar Bugti, Nawab Khair Mari and Sardar Attaullah Mengal, were often better developed. A number of indicators, such as road networks, primary school enrolments, access to clean water and irrigation are often ranked higher than areas aligned to the federal government.

Balochistan’s history of struggle

The Baloch have a long history of struggle against impositions by the Pakistani state. Their history, however, pre-dates the formation of Pakistan. The Baloch lay claim to a history reaching back 2000 years. In the 12th century, Mir Jalal Khan united 44 Baloch tribes; in the 15th century the Confederation of Rind Laskhari was established and the Khanate of Balochistan in the 17th.

During the British Raj, Britain annexed a strip of land adjoining Afghanistan (“British Balochistan”) but beyond that did not interfere in the affairs of Balochistan so long as the Baloch allowed the British Army access to Afghanistan. The Baloch campaigned for independence during the final decades of the British Raj but were compelled to join Pakistan in 1947.

The government in Islamabad sought to subsume Baloch identity into a larger Pakistani identity. Part of its strategy was an attempt to destroy the power of the tribal chiefs and concentrate all authority in the central government. This strategy continues to this day. Even the first two constitutions of Pakistan did not recognise the Baloch as a distinct group.

Since independence, Islamabad has come into open conflict with the Baloch on four occasions — 1948, 1958, 1962, and, most bloodily, from 1973 to 1977, when a growing guerrilla movement led to an armed insurrection that ravaged the province.

Within 24 hours of the creation of Pakistan in 1947, the Khan of Kalat (the largest “princely state” in Balochistan) declared independence. On April 1, 1948, the Pakistani army invaded and the Khan capitulated. His brother, Karim, continued to resist with around 700 guerrillas but was soon crushed.

Islamabad merged the four provinces of West Pakistan into “One Unit” in 1954. This was a bid to counter the strength of East Pakistan (which later became Bangladesh) and the possibility of the minority provinces (Balochistan, North-West Frontier Province, Sindh) uniting with the east against the Punjab. A large anti-One Unit movement emerged in Balochistan.

To crush this movement the Pakistan army again invaded. The Khan of Kalat was arrested and large-scale arrests were carried out. Nauroz Khan led a resistance of 1000 militia that fought the army in pitched battles for over a year. In May 1959 Nauroz Khan was arrested at a parley with the army and died in prison in 1964, becoming a symbol of Baloch resistance. Five of his relatives, including his son, were hanged.

Following a 1973 visit of President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to Iran, where the Shah warned him against allowing nationalist movements on Iran’s border, the elected government of Balochistan was dismissed. The provincial government, led by Sardar Ataulah Mengal, had been seeking greater control in areas of development and industrialisation. The pretext used for dismissal was that a cache of 350 Soviet submachine guns and 100,000 rounds of ammunition had supposedly been discovered in the Iraqi attache’s house and were destined for Balochistan.

The Pakistani army invaded Balochistan with 78,000 troops supported by Iranian Cobra helicopters and were resisted by some 50,000 tribespeople. The conflict took the lives of 3300 Pakistani troops, 5300 tribespeople and thousands of civilians. In 1977 the military staged a coup and overthrew Bhutto, declared “victory” in Balochistan and withdrew.

There are distinct similarities between the period immediately prior to the 1973 insurrection and the current situation. After the 1962 conflict Baloch nationalists began planning a movement capable of defending their national interests.

Under the leadership of Sher Mohammed Marri what would later become the basic structure of the 1973 insurrection was created. In July 1963, 22 rebel camps were set up covering large areas of Balochistan, ranging from lands in the south belonging to the Mengal tribes to those of the Marris in the north. This structure later became the Baloch People’s Liberation Front (BPLF) and initiated the 1973 insurrection.

The current insurgency

The groupings that underpin the current Baloch national movement emerged gradually after the 1973-77 conflict.

The Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) is a clandestine militant group that was formed in the early 1980s. It is believed to be headed by Khair Bux Marri of the Marri tribe. It has taken responsibility for most of the attacks against the Pakistan military. The BLA calls for the creation of a Greater Balochistan, including the Baloch territories in Iran and Afghanistan.

The Baloch National Party (BNP) is an amalgam of moderate forces that concentrate on winning political support for nationalism amongst the Baloch. It calls for extensive provincial autonomy, limiting the central government to control of defense, foreign affairs, currency, and communications.

The Balochistan Students Organisation (BSO) campaigns for a multinational Pakistan and for the revival of Baloch nationalism. It generally represents the aspirations of the educated but underemployed Baloch middle class. It calls for the continuation of quotas and for the recognition of the Baloch language as a medium of instruction in the province.

The Bugti tribe, formerly led by Nawab Akbar Bugti, fields a force of some 10,000 tribal fighters. The Dera Bugti district has been the site of intense operations by the Pakistan military in 2005-06.

As well as the Bugti tribe, the Mengal (the second largest tribe in Balochistan) and the Marri are in open revolt against the government. The conflict is not, however, limited to these tribal areas but spread throughout the province. There is conflict between the tribes but they are united against the Pakistani army.

Between December 2005, when the Pakistan military launched its most recent assault on Balochistan, and June 2006, more than 900 Baloch have been killed, 140,000 displaced, 450 political activists (mainly from the BNP) disappeared and 4000 activists arrested.

In late 2005-early 2006 the Pakistan military laid siege to Dera Bugti, attacking with artillery and air strikes. Many civilians were killed and 85% of the 25,000-strong population fled. The town of Kohlu also came under siege from Pakistan forces around the same time, virtually imprisoning the 12,000 inhabitants for weeks.

As well as the military attacks, the Frontier Corps (FC) has been responsible for indiscriminate rocket, artillery and helicopter gunship attacks on civilian areas. There has been widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure, including schools and houses, particularly in Dera Bugti and Sui districts. Military operations occur throughout the province.

The insurgents, however, strike back on a daily basis. Targeting military and FC personnel, gas and oil pipelines, communications infrastructure and police barracks, the insurgents launch rocket, grenade and mortar attacks. Some areas are heavily mined by the nationalist fighters.

On Pakistan TV on January 10, 2005, President Pervez Musharraf told the Baloch nationalists: “Don’t push us … it is not the 1970s, and this time you won’t even know what has hit you.” Unfortunately for the president, it is beginning to look exactly like 1973 as the insurgency gathers strength and ties down Pakistan army divisions in guerrilla warfare.

(Green Left Weekly - Ray Fulcher)

Actualité - East Timor: Roots of the political crisis

Franc-Parler publie un article à propos de l'intervention de l'impérialisme australien au Timor Oriental. Le gouvernement australien du premier ministre John Howard s'immisce militairement et politiquement dans une série de petites nations du Pacifique Sud. Il semble que ces invasions servent un projet d'expansion colonial de l'oligarchie australienne dans le but d'élargir leur "zone d'influence".

East Timor’s current political crisis began when a group of soldiers from the country’s west — which grew from 140 to 591 — signed a petition claiming discrimination inside the 1300-strong East Timorese Defence Force (FDTL). In March they were dismissed by the FDTL chief of staff and former commander of Falintil (the armed wing of the pre-1999 national liberation movement), Taur Matan Ruak.

On April 28, a demonstration by the petitioners turned violent. In the rioting that followed, at least 25 people were killed and 130,000 people fled their homes. Rebel army leader Major Alfredo Reinado took to the mountains with a separate group of soldiers, demanding Prime Minister Mari Alkatiri’s resignation and claiming to be loyal to President Xanana Gusmao.

Reinado, who was trained at the Australian Defence Force Academy, has “at least implicit support from Catholic Church leaders, and the Australian and US governments”, according to Sydney University lecturer Tim Anderson.

While claiming to be “neutral” on the dispute between the economic nationalist Alkatiri and Xanana and other elite politicians, the Australian government has been quick to condemn Alkatiri’s leadership, declaring East Timor a “failed state”.

PM John Howard claims East Timor has been “badly governed”. Foreign minister Alexander Downer — responsible for depriving East Timor of $1 million per day in oil and gas revenue — declared “the East Timorese themselves are responsible for what has happened ... no-one else is”. And defence minister Brendan Nelson chimed in with: “If East Timor is allowed to be a failed state in our region, we know that it will be a target for trans-national crime, also for terrorism.”

The Australian ruling class is increasing its interference in East Timor’s political affairs, seeking to further undermine the 1999 victory of the East Timor solidarity movement, which reversed a 24-year policy of support for Jakarta’s military occupation of East Timor and forced the Howard government to acquiesce to a UN intervention that assisted the nation’s self-determination.

Forgotten history

After the arrival of 2200 troops from Australia, New Zealand and Malaysia in late May, a concerted campaign began in the Australian corporate media to demonise Alkatiri, while presenting his rivals — Gusmao and recently promoted defence minister Jose Ramos Horta — as “responsible leaders”.

On June 1, the Australian’s Greg Sheridan asserted that “Alkatiri has been the author of every calamitous decision the East Timorese Government has made”. Sheridan called for Alkatiri’s resignation on June 3, claiming, “If [the Australian government] cannot translate the leverage of 1300 troops, 50 policemen, hundreds of support personnel, buckets of aid and a critical international rescue mission into enough influence to get rid of a disastrous Marxist Prime Minister, then [it is] just not very skilled in the arts of influence, tutelage, sponsorship and, ultimately, promoting the national interest”.

Sheridan’s defence of Australia’s “national interest” was not a call for peaceful relations with the people of East Timor, but a blatant bid to strengthen an Australian corporate monopoly over US$30 billion worth of oil and gas in the Timor Sea.

Chris Barrie, former chief of the Australian Defence Force, told the Age: “Maybe we were too quick to blame the whole [pre-independence] problem on the militia and Indonesia, rather than the East Timorese themselves and their own unresolved societal tensions.” Likewise, the Sydney Morning Herald’s Gerard Henderson blamed “clan-based violence in East Timor”, claiming this was endemic both “before the Indonesian army arrived in 1975” and “since the pro-Indonesia militia was dispersed by Interfet in 1999”.

Yet Australia’s corporate media has avoided reference to the collective trauma experienced by East Timor’s population during 24 years of military occupation.

The Reception, Truth and Reconciliation Commission (CAVR), established in 2002 to investigate and document human rights violations in East Timor between 1974 and 1999, estimated that the number of conflict-related deaths in that period was 102,800-183,000, out of a total population of well under a million. CAVR concluded that 90% of the killings were carried out either by the Indonesian military (58%) or their East Timorese auxiliaries (32%).

A study published in The Lancet in 2000, based on a survey of 1033 East Timorese households, found 975 had suffered trauma during the occupation, three quarters had experienced combat and more than half had come close to death. In addition, 39% had suffered torture, 22% had witnessed the murder of relatives or friends and one-third had symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

As a result of the Serious Crimes Unit, which operated between 2002 and 2004, 339 suspects were charged — mostly former Indonesian generals. Despite this, and a sham Human Rights Court in Jakarta, all of the non-Timorese perpetrators remain at large, not only protected by Indonesia, but by the Australian, British and US governments, which have strongly opposed an international war crimes tribunal.

To date, Gusmao, Horta and Alkatiri have also opposed calls for an international war crimes tribunal. Last year, Horta negotiated with Indonesia to set up a Commission of Truth and Friendship that will recommend the granting of amnesties to war criminals.
The failure of East Timor’s political elite to address this injustice remains a deep source of discontent, along with the extreme impoverishment of the majority of the population. Unemployment is over 50% and more than 40% of East Timorese people still subsist below the poverty line on less than $0.55 per day.

UN disaster

The primary responsibility for this social disaster rests with the neoliberal economic policies imposed on East Timor under the United Nations Transitional Authority for East Timor (UNTAET) between 1999 and 2002.

Following the withdrawal of the Indonesian military, the UN handed the World Bank the job of managing East Timor’s reconstruction by administering funds donated by UN member states through the Trust Fund for East Timor (TFET). East Timor’s donors demanded a compliant government beholden to powerful corporate interests.

Since 1999, international donors have committed an estimated $3 billion for “post-conflict reconstruction” in East Timor. A European Commission evaluation of the TFET noted that over a third of allocated funds were eaten up by foreign consultants’ fees, overheads and tied procurements, leaving little to address urgent problems of malnourishment, food security, clean water, preventable diseases and unemployment. Many former Falintil fighters particularly suffered.

In 2001, UNTAET established the FDTL and the PNTL through an agreement with the National Council, a consultative body of East Timorese political leaders headed by Gusmao. On advice from Kings College, London, UNTAET and the National Council set criteria for recruitment to the FDTL that could not be met by many former Falintil guerrilla fighters. Falintil veterans who were not successful were “reintegrated” into civilian life through a World Bank-funded program that left many poor and destitute.

According to Rahung Nasution, a Dili-based film-maker working for the Popular Education Institute, the transformation of Falintil into a regular army “destroyed the relationship which evolved along the struggle ... between the armed guerrilla fighters”.

The demobilisation of Falintil — a force that could potentially have been mobilised for reconstruction projects within the country — was symptomatic of the demobilisation of the broader national liberation movement and an increasing reliance on foreign governments — particularly Australia and Portugal — to assist in reconstruction.

“In 1975, Fretilin integrated the struggle for national liberation with people’s liberation through cooperative programs, eradication of illiteracy and development of a national culture. At that time Fretilin became a people’s political force with a clear vision about the future of an independent Timor Leste. Unfortunately, these popular ideas which flourished in the 1970s are considered by many sections within Fretilin as outdated”, said Nasution. “The liberal democracy promoted by the UN has turned political parties into electoral machines ... in which popular participation is removed.”

Alkatiri

While East Timor’s political elite — including many of Alkatiri’s Fretilin “comrades” — have sought to position themselves to benefit from their relationships with foreign donors, Alkatiri has so far resisted pressure to accept World Bank and IMF loans.

Alkatiri’s government has established a Petroleum Fund, seeking to invest 90% of the national wealth obtained from oil and gas in long-term investment, while committing 10% to spending on health, education and agricultural programs. The Alkatiri government also plans to set up a state-owned petroleum company, assisted by China, Malaysia and Brazil, aimed at obtaining a bigger share of oil and gas revenue from the Timor Sea.

A domestic rice industry has increased production from 37,000 to 65,000 tonnes between 1998 and 2004, using aid to fund public grain silos, against policies advocated by the Australian government and the World Bank.

Through bilateral agreements between East Timor and Cuba, 220 Cuban doctors and 30 Cuban health technicians are working in clinics across 13 districts; hundreds of East Timorese students are studying medicine in Cuba (there are only 55 trained Timorese doctors); and Cuban education trainers are working alongside local teachers as part of a program of illiteracy eradication.

These modest measures have come under attack from much of East Timor’s elite. In 2005, Alkatiri’s opposition to compulsory religious education in schools prompted church-led protests, which had the backing of the US ambassador. These protests demanded the criminalisation of homosexuality and abortion, Alkatiri’s resignation and the removal of “communists” from the government.

At the same time, Alkatiri has also been roundly criticised for a defamation law that severely curtails civil liberties.

Author Clinton Fernandes, in his book Reluctant Saviour: Australia, Indonesia and the Independence of East Timor, observed in 2004 that the East Timorese leadership “remains wary of harnessing the momentum of its people, choosing instead to make deals with Australian and Portuguese corporate interests, as well as with other international forces. [East Timor] finds its political independence constrained by its dependent, neo-colonial economy.”

Today an East Timorese bourgeoisie — represented not only by Horta and Xanana, but also by an increasingly dominant faction within Fretilin — is consolidating its strength, based on close ties with Australian and other Western governments.

If Alkatiri is ousted, it will mark a significant setback for the East Timorese people and will consolidate Fretilin’s transformation from a national liberation movement into a club of beneficiaries of foreign donor funds and the country’s oil wealth.

If East Timor is to be genuinely free of the designs of its neo-colonial masters, it will require the mobilisation of its people, backed by the revival of a powerful solidarity movement in Australia.

(Green Left Weekly - 28 June 2006)

Actualité - Australian government presses ahead with plans to dominate East Timor

Franc-Parler publie un article à propos de l'intervention de l'impérialisme australien au Timor Oriental. Le gouvernement australien du premier ministre John Howard s'immisce militairement et politiquement dans une série de petites nations du Pacifique Sud. Il semble que ces invasions servent un projet d'expansion colonial de l'oligarchie australienne dans le but d'élargir leur "zone d'influence".

Having established an army of occupation in East Timor, the Australian government is engaged in ongoing political warfare on several fronts to ensure its predominance over the half-island. In the United Nations, Australian diplomats are pressing to ensure that Canberra retains control over any new UN mission. As part of this offensive, the Australian media is conducting an unrelenting campaign against Prime Minister Mari Alkatiri, who is regarded as too close to rival Portugal and thus an obstacle to Australian interests.

Murdoch’s Australian has again outlined the agenda most openly. In a comment on Saturday, foreign affairs editor Greg Sheridan argued that while other countries needed to contribute to the reestablishment of a police force in East Timor, Canberra had to retain overall control. “The UN Security Council is considering East Timor and its future policing requirements right now. It is a vital task for Australian diplomacy to get the form of this right,” he stated.

Sheridan declared it was vital that “Australian do the job alone” in police training. “The UN in Timor has been a route to confusion and dysfunction. In particular it has been a route to Portuguese influence, a baneful business indeed.” Early this month, Sheridan branded Portugal as “Australia’s diplomatic enemy in East Timor” and identified Alkatiri as “the key to their influence”.

While the Howard government cannot afford to be so open, with the backing of Washington, it is involved in a diplomatic offensive to guarantee that Australia leads any UN operations in East Timor. The push is particularly cynical as the US and Australia have consistently opposed calls by the UN, East Timor and Portugal for an extended UN presence in the country. As recently as early May, Canberra and Washington vigorously opposed any extension of the UN mission.

Differences surfaced openly in the UN Security Council last week when Australian ambassador Robert Hill opposed a proposal by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan for a formal peace-keeping operation to take over from the present Australian-led military force. The Howard government’s plan, modelled on the Australian-led occupation of the Solomon Islands, is to retain exclusive military control, while at the same time presiding over a multi-national police force and installing Australian officials in key administrative posts. Hill argued for a foreigner to be put in charge of the East Timorese police force, privately suggesting former Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Palmer for the post.

Portugal and Malaysia, both of which have police contingents in East Timor, backed Annan’s call for the UN to take full control of the military and police presence. Portugal’s ambassador Joao Salgueiro told the Security Council: “Timor-Leste is a child of the United Nations. So it needs the universality and impartiality of the United Nations, which must once again take a leading role.”

A meeting of foreign ministers from the Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries on Sunday decided to send a mission to East Timor to assess the situation. Portuguese Foreign Minister Diogo Freitas declared: “East Timor is not a failed state. We have to defend the necessity of sending a United Nations force in which all member nations participate actively.”

Last week the European Commission, which has backed Portugal’s ambitions in East Timor, signed an agreement with the Alkatiri government to provide 18 million euros in aid with a focus on “institutional capacity building,” as well as poverty alleviation.

Yesterday US ambassador John Bolton stepped into the diplomatic arena to back Canberra’s bid for control. Opposing “a UN presence forever” in East Timor, he argued it was necessary “to support the Australians and New Zealanders who are there”. Of course, if the Solomon Island intervention is any guide, the Howard government intends to stay in East Timor not just for months, but years.

This diplomatic arm-wrestling reflects sharpening inter-imperialist antagonisms, not just over East Timor, but internationally. At stake is control over significant oil and gas reserves in the Timor Sea as well as East Timor’s strategic position in South East Asia, astride key naval routes. The Howard government exploited factional conflict in the East Timor’s government and security forces to begin dispatching 1,300 Australian troops to the island on May 24. The last concern of any of the competing powers is the plight of the poverty-stricken East Timorese, many of whom have fled to refugee camps.

Campaign against Alkatiri

The divisions in the UN are paralleled in the factional struggle in East Timor itself, where Australian allies—President Xanana Gusmao and Foreign Minister Jose Ramos Horta—are engaged in a barely veiled campaign to oust Alkatiri. Under the country’s constitution, the president does not have the power to sack the prime minister without a vote of no confidence in parliament, where Alkatiri’s Fretilin party has the overwhelming majority. As a result, the Australian media has been seeking to dredge up the basis for criminal charges against Alkatiri, which would force him to step aside.

The latest shot in the campaign was fired last night on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s “Four Corners” program. In a shameless piece of propaganda, ABC reporter Liz Jackson sought to demonstrate that Alkatiri, in league with former interior minister Rogerio Lobato, had supplied weapons to former Fretilin fighters to form a hit squad against his political opponents. Openly contemptuous of Alkatiri and his denial of any wrongdoing, Jackson presented, unchallenged, a patchwork of comments and documents, all fed to her by the prime minister’s political enemies and torn out of context.

It should be recalled that the alleged misdeeds took place amid incipient factional fighting, in which 600 rebel soldiers, joined by sections of the police force, were threatening to wage civil war if Alkatiri did not immediately step down. Even if completely true, all the “evidence” demonstrates is that Alkatiri and Lobato, like the rebels, were arming their supporters. The ABC program’s partisan approach verged on the farcical as Jackson pressed Alkatiri on the illegality on “arming civilians,” while ignoring the fact that those she painted as “the heroes of the anti-Alkatiri struggle” were, in strict legal terms, guilty of mutiny and treason.

In its efforts to present Horta as the popular prime minister in waiting, “Four Corners” perhaps revealed more than was intended. Horta has tried to present himself as above political infighting—the man to bring all the factions together. But the ABC’s coverage of his meeting with rebel leaders in Gleno, immediately prior to an opposition rally in Dili on June 6, showed Horta openly factionalising with anti-Alkatiri forces. Asked about this activity, Horta declared unabashed: “Everywhere I have been to—Baucau and everywhere—and I have had tremendous sympathy, support, warmth from the people by the thousands, by the hundreds. And I feel overwhelmed, maybe because they are desperately looking for leadership, looking for people they can trust.”

Neither Horta nor his Australian backers want to test this “tremendous support” at elections due next year. “The problem is, obviously, can the country afford the next six months, the next nine months of this continued pressure on the prime minister to resign?” Horta asked. “Can we afford this increasing loss of credibility of the government and the poor image of the country? Or should the prime minister say, ‘Well, I step aside in the interests of my own party. It seems that I am a liability to my own party, if not the country’.” The threat of criminal charges is obviously designed to compel Alkatiri to make that decision.

According to the Melbourne-based Age newspaper on Monday, President Gusmao is considering using his constitutional powers to launch a judicial inquiry into the allegations unearthed by the ABC and other Australian media. Horta was considering a visit to the alleged leader of the Fretilin hit squad, Vincente “Railos” do Concecao, to gather evidence and report back to Gusmao. “The president is not indifferent, quite the contrary. He is attentive to these allegations, and... he’s garnering whatever information is available, and he will take action in due course if he has to,” Horta explained.

These sordid political machinations highlight the absurdity of the so-called independence proclaimed in 2002 as a step forward for the East Timorese people. In the era of globalised production, the tiny half island was never going to be independent of the global and regional powers, or the institutions of international finance capital such as the World Bank and IMF. Far from enjoying peace and prosperity, East Timor has become another arena for imperialist rivalries, in which each local clique seeks to secure its political position by obtaining the backing of one or other of the competing powers. Far from ending conflict in East Timor, the Australian intervention is laying the basis for a future civil war as Canberra seeks to install its own clients.

(World Socialist Web Site)

Actualité - Australian foreign minister unveils plans for the colonial occupation of East Timor

Franc-Parler publie un article à propos de la situation dans la zone de l'Océanie. Récemment invité par Stephen Harper, le premier ministre autralien John Howard dans les derniers a organisé une série d'actions de destabilisation dans le Pacifique Sud. Actuellement, l'Australie organise et maintien une force d'occupation contre le Timor Oriental.

Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer visited East Timor last weekend and laid out the broad outlines of Canberra’s plans to establish a long-term colonial-style occupation of the country. Downer arrived in Dili on Saturday amid continuing looting and violence by rival street gangs, despite the presence of an Australian-led force of more than 2,000 troops and police.

It is now clear that Canberra’s military intervention was aimed, not at ending the disorder in Dili, much less at assisting the estimated 100,000 displaced persons living in squalid camps. Rather its purpose has been to enable the Howard government to dictate terms to East Timor’s leaders and preempt Australia’s Asian and European rivals, most notably the former colonial power, Portugal.

The continuing chaos in Dili is serving as a useful political lever to achieve these ends. While Downer was in Dili, Australian Justice Minister Chris Ellison was at the UN in New York pressing for agreement with an ongoing Australian-led operation, along the lines of Canberra’s takeover of the Solomon Islands in 2003. Under the guise of assisting a “failed state”, Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomons Islands (RAMSI) controls all the main levers of executive power—finance, the police, courts and prisons—in the country.

Monday’s Sydney Morning Herald provided details of Downer’s three key proposals for a new UN mandate in East Timor. He argued firstly for “a large police force, comprising officers from a broad group of countries, preferably under an Australian commander.”

“Second, it [Canberra] wants a more capable UN role in helping the East Timorese with governance and administration. East Timor has a budget surplus yet scant investment in vital infrastructure, shoddy systems of administration and justice, and no serious economic activity beyond the oil sector,” the article explained. Finally, Downer proposed that “a role for the UN in reconciliation of a shattered society”.

In effect, the Howard government is demanding control of East Timor’s administration via a large, permanent police presence, the installation of Australian officials in key positions of finance, justice and security, and the means for political manipulation via “reconciliation”. Completely absent is any desperately-needed aid to provide basic services including welfare, education and health for the poverty-stricken country—one of the poorest in the world.

What “reconciliation” means is indicated by the ongoing efforts to oust Prime Minister Mari Alkatiri, regarded as too closely aligned with Portugal. In less than a fortnight, Alkatiri has been compelled to cede substantial control over the country’s security forces to President Xanana Gusmao and has lost two close allies—the defence and interior ministers—who have been forced to resign.

While Downer declared on Saturday that he would not take sides in East Timor’s political conflict, Australia is obviously backing moves against Alkatiri. Yesterday, around 2,000 anti-Alkatiri demonstrators were shepherded into Dili by Australian troops to protest outside the current session of parliament and demand the sacking of the prime minister. At the same time, Major Alfredo Reinado, an anti-government “rebel leader”, who, in other circumstances would be treated as a renegade and terrorist, is being feted by Australian military commanders, officials and media as a political leader-in-waiting.

The hypocrisy and cynicism of the military intervention is highlighted by the abrupt reversal of the Australian government’s position on extending the UN mandate for East Timor. In early May, Washington and Canberra vigorously opposed calls from the East Timorese government and the UN special representative Sukehiro Hasegawa for a one-year extension of the UN Office for Timor-Leste (UNOTIL). UNOTIL had organised police, military and civilian advisers in all the areas outlined by Downer.

Both the Bush administration and the Howard government regarded UNOTIL as being too closely aligned with Alkatiri—and with Australia’s rivals in Portugal and elsewhere. With UNOTIL’s mandate due to expire on May 20, Washington and Canberra initially opposed any renewal, then, on May 12, reluctantly accepted a one-month extension.

On the same day, without informing Dili, Prime Minister Howard announced that Australian warships would be deployed to waters near East Timor, then boarded a plane for Washington. Less than a fortnight later, using the pretext of violence stirred up by figures such as Reinado, Australian troops began landing in Dili.

Now Downer is demanding a mandate for a long term UN presence—dominated by Australian officials and police. Not surprisingly, he has also called for the current UN representative Hasegawa to be replaced and has objected to Portuguese paramilitary police operating independently of Australian military command.

At a regional security conference last weekend, Australian Defence Minister Brendan Nelson called for Asian countries, including Singapore and South Korea, to contribute to the international force on East Timor—a transparent attempt to further dilute any Portuguese or European involvement.

A “weighter role” for Australia

While Downer was careful to use diplomatic language in Dili, Murdoch’s Australian has felt no such constraint. In his comment last Saturday entitled “A weightier role in Dili”, editor-at-large Paul Kelly drew attention to Downer’s plan, endorsed by cabinet’s National Security Committee, for “an Australian military-civilian strategy for East Timor’s future”. “This envisages that Australia will control military security in the short term through the Australia-led coalition that now exists and influence East Timor’s military structure in the long run. The aim is to minimise the influence of the UN or other nations, notably Portugal, on East Timor’s military structure,” he explained. The UN could be confined to “a stronger civilian role in East Timor’s governance, its civil service and its police.”

Kelly, who had clearly been briefed by the government, made no bones about the object of the exercise. “The lesson Australia has drawn from the intervention is that its security views cannot be marginalised any longer as they were ignored at the time of independence. The feature of East Timor’s brief history is that Portugal has exercised more influence than Australia, notably on its language, constitution and institutions. This is one of the reasons for its failure. It is obvious that as ultimate security guarantor, Australia must exert a greater authority,” he wrote.

Kelly’s call for Australia to become a regional hegemon was, however, quite restrained compared to what foreign editor Greg Sheridan penned on the same day. In his column entitled “Throw Troops at Pacific Failures”, he argued for a far broader and more aggressive Australian role, writing: “Australian policy in the South Pacific has been undergoing an agonising and profound revolution, from hands-off respect for South Pacific sovereignty to deepening involvement. But it may be that we still have not conceived of our involvement in the most useful strategic terms.”

Sheridan openly called for Canberra to use its power and influence to get rid of Alkatiri. “Certainly if Alkatiri remains Prime Minister of East Timor, this is a shocking indictment of Australian impotence. If you cannot translate the leverage of 1,300 troops, 50 police, hundreds of support personnel, buckets of aid and a critical international rescue mission into enough influence to get rid of a disastrous Marxist Prime Minister, then you are just not very skilled in the arts of influence, tutelage, sponsorship and, ultimately, promoting the national interest,” he declared.

Sheridan went on to outline his vision for the region, insisting: “It is perhaps time that Australian conceived of itself as the ‘US of the South Pacific’.” He attempted to blunt the sharp edge of his message by referring to America’s post war role in East Asia, but then continued: “Like the US in Asia, we should do this in part through a system of military deployments, though naturally we would not call them Australian bases... What I am arguing is that, as part of a wider program of assistance involving lots of Australian personnel operating in South Pacific government agencies, deployments of Australian soldiers should be semi-permanently stationed in East Timor, Solomon Islands and, if necessary, other regional basket cases.”

Sheridan is simply stating what the Howard government is actually doing. Having secured the backing of the Bush administration by extending unconditional support for the US military subjugation of Afghanistan and Iraq, Australian imperialism is aggressively carving out its own sphere of influence in the South Pacific. Its strategy involves, not just transforming “failed states” into dependent vassals, but setting the course for broader inter-imperialist conflicts throughout the region.

(World Socialist Web Site)

Actualité - Howard, hands off young workers' rights!

Franc-Parler publie un article sur une importante mobilisation de la classe ouvrière et de la jeunesse australienne contre l'offensive antisociale et l'assaut contre les droits des travailleurs du gouvernement australien. Depuis dix ans, le gouvernement de John Howard mène une opération de destruction sociale sans précédant. En ciblant principalement la classe ouvrière et la jeunesse, il vise la désorganisation des masses.

The June 1 student strike against the federal government’s anti-union “Work Choices” legislation has struck a real chord around the country, with students responding enthusiastically to the call to strike and organising for the action at their schools and campuses. The initiative has received support from a broad range of trade unions, student associations and progressive community groups.

Brianna Pike, the Melbourne strike coordinator and an activist in the socialist youth organisation Resistance, explained to Green Left Weekly, “I think the reason the strike is being well received in the community is because young people are turning the widespread opposition, resentment and anger towards the government into a public demonstration of resistance”. She said many in the wider community are excited that young people are fighting Work Choices.

In 2003, the Books Not Bombs student strikes against the Iraq war inspired many people, including older people, to be part of the struggle. Pike told GLW that Resistance is hoping June 1 can help play a similar role. “The central message we want to convey on June 1 is that everyone, of all ages, should join the trade union protests against Work Choices on June 28".

Sydney strike coordinator Simon Cunich told Green Left Weekly: “Everyone can see the injustice of this legislation, but there is an urgent need to build the movement against it. We believe that this fight can’t just happen at the ballot box in the next elections — many young workers who are going to be adversely affected by the laws do not even have the right to vote. The struggle needs to happen in the streets.” Cunich gave the protests in France, against the anti-youth First Employment Contract (CPE) law, as one of the inspirations for the protest. “In France, students and workers forced their government to back down by building a mass movement that drew millions into the streets in ongoing demonstrations and strikes.”

Youth at work: disposable?

The June 1 strike will demand that the Howard government repeal the Work Choices legislation, and will call for more rights for young workers. Young people, who will be affected particularly badly by Howard’s legislation, already suffer severe exploitation in the workplace.

Young workers are often viewed as being “worth less” than older workers, putting them in a very weak bargaining position. Lack of work experience and the need for training is often given as justification for paying them “youth rates”. Young people are forced to do the same work for less pay than older employees — some teenagers earn as little as $4 per hour — and are often dependent on penalty rates for weekend and night shifts to make up their income.

Because many young people are working to augment another source of income while they study — usually from their family or welfare — casual work, with its insecurity and lack of rights, is common.

A youth poll commissioned by the Democrats last year found that almost three-quarters of those surveyed believed the Youth Allowance age of independence should be 18 or younger, rather than the current 25; half of the respondents thought it should be 16.

As well as poor wages and working conditions, young workers are often subjected to bullying, sexual harassment and physical and verbal abuse, and are more likely to put up with it than other workers because of their weaker position in the workplace.

The proportionally higher unemployment rate among youth contributes to their weak bargaining position, as there is a reserve pool of potential employees to hire if a worker refuses to accept bad conditions or bullying. In May 2005, the Dusseldorp Skills Forum found that the teenage unemployment rate was 3.5 times greater than that of people aged 25 and over.

If young workers’ didn’t already have a high enough degree of job insecurity, Work Choices means that 90% of all workers are no longer legally protected from being unfairly dismissed.

The government has made a concerted effort to ensure that young people stay dependent on their families to survive for as long as possible. This creates the situation where it is “acceptable” for young people to have insecure jobs and be paid youth rates, because their families will have to assume responsibility for their welfare — and if they can’t, or won’t, too bad.

Students from wealthier families may not need to work while they are studying, but the majority of students do. Attacks on free education and the welfare system have contributed to this. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 60% of those studying for a qualification in May this year were also working.

In February, Rose Jackson, president of the National Union of Students, compared the state of higher education before and after Howard’s decade of power: “The comparison shows that most students are paying much more to study while the Commonwealth has been reducing its contribution. Financial assistance is harder to get and students are spending less time on campus because of the increased need to do large amounts of part-time paid work just to survive.”

Ten years of Howard’s offensive

Work Choices is already dramatically worsening young people’s rights at work. Now more young workers will be forced to sign an individual contract — an Australian Workplace Agreement (AWA) — with their boss before they are given a job, and only a few minimum conditions are legally protected. Survey results released by the Youth Action Policy Association on April 25 showed that less than one in five young people believe they will be better off on an AWA than under the award system.

Trade unions have historically been vital in informing workers in vulnerable situations of their rights and standing up for them, but Work Choices is restricting unions’ ability to enter workplaces and workers’ rights to strike.

Cunich told GLW that the ideas behind the legislation are “sickening”. “The idea that our only point of living is to make money for some boss, for some corporation. That we aren’t entitled to a voice, to have the right to secure employment with decent working conditions, that we’re disposable.”

Fred Fuentes, the national coordinator of Resistance, explained that Work Choices “is sending a signal to young people that society doesn’t value them, their contribution, their time or their future”. “These extreme attacks on our rights are the latest in a decade-long offensive by the Howard government, which has been a decade too long for young people. Everything that is important to our lives — education, health care, welfare, our rights at work — is under attack by the Howard government. Howard represents a small, greedy elite that’s only interested in profits.”

Unsurprisingly, the mental health of young people has suffered. Coping with stress, often related to study and work, is a major concern for young people. A 2005 Mission Australia survey of people aged 11-24 found that suicide and self-harm were among the top three concerns of 41.3% of respondents (up 7.6% from 2004). Two in five were significantly concerned about suicide, and one in three about depression.

Fuentes commented, “Most young adults in Australia today have grown up in the grip of neoliberalism. Their whole lives have been lived against a background of wars for profit, privatisation, corporate scams and environmental destruction, with political 'leaders’ cynically propagating racism and individualism. We can see that something is seriously wrong with this society, with this system, and young people are suffering the most. Many have become disillusioned, depressed and alienated. But many are also determined to not give up our future without a fight. We’ll fight Howard — and everything he stands for — all the way.”

Despite the ideological war that the Howard government has conducted against left-wing ideas, most young people today have progressive views on a number of important issues, such as the “war on terror”, racism and the environment.

The Democrats’ 2005 youth survey found:

-71% of young people believe the government should enter into a treaty with Indigenous Australians;

-60% do not support the mandatory detention of asylum seekers (compared to 42% in 2004); and

-55% support marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples.

A 2004 ALP-commissioned youth survey found that two-thirds thought that Australia had made a mistake in going to war in Iraq and shouldn’t maintain such a close relationship with the United States.

Cunich told GLW: “I think it’s a credit to young people who’ve grown up in ‘Howard’s Australia’ that they can see through the bullshit and spin we get every day in the media, from the government, even in our schools. Despite all of it, young people are willing to put up a fight against unjust laws like Work Choices, to lead the way and dare to struggle when some others in the community lack the confidence and political will to do so.”

Fuentes said, “Ultimately Resistance’s vision is for a lot more than just the repeal of Work Choices and for better wages and conditions. We want to organise young people to create a completely different sort of society, one based on cooperation instead of competition and guided human need rather than private profit.

“We take inspiration from the international struggles for justice and we are in complete agreement with the call made by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on the need to create a ‘new socialism for the 21st century’. It is through resisting attacks on our rights like Work Choices that the struggle to create such a society can begin.”

He concluded: “On June 1, we can demonstrate our real value, show what young people are ‘worth’, when we lead the fight-back against Work Choices. We hope everyone will support us, and then join us on June 28 when we march shoulder-to-shoulder with the trade unions for our rights and our future.”

(Green Left Weekly - 31 mai 2006)

Actualité - Solomon Islands: Australia’s neo-colonial “model” for East Timor?

Franc-Parler publie un article à propos de la situation dans la zone de l'Océanie. Récemment invité par Stephen Harper, le premier ministre autralien John Howard dans les derniers a organisé une série d'actions de destabilisation dans le Pacifique Sud. Actuellement, l'Australie prépare le même genre d'invasions au Timor Oriental.

Twice in the past six weeks, Australian troops and police have been dispatched to Asian-Pacific states to put down serious unrest and reinforce Australian economic and diplomatic interests. Last month, hundreds of soldiers were sent to bolster the three-year-old Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands (RAMSI), followed by last week’s military intervention in East Timor.

While the operations are nominally “multinational” and a response to “invitations”, both intervention forces are overwhelmingly dominated by Australia, with the two local governments given little choice, economically or militarily, but to accede to their arrival.

Within days of the Timor deployment, Prime Minister John Howard was refusing to rule out the possibility of setting up a longer-term presence in the tiny former Portuguese colony, along the lines of RAMSI, which has virtually taken over the Solomons.

His comments are particularly noteworthy because just before the recent events, the RAMSI operation was being hailed in Australian and other Western strategic and foreign policy circles as an “innovative” template for a new kind of neo-colonial intervention. A report published in March by the Lowy Institute for International Policy, an Australian corporate thinktank, boasted of “growing international interest” in RAMSI.

The report quoted an article in International Peacekeeping, a British-based journal specialising in military interventions, which commented that RAMSI had “arguably broken new ground in lowering the threshold for intervention in the indisputably internal affairs of a sovereign state... To a degree not witnessed in international peacekeeping, insidious levels of crime, corruption and poor governance had become a primary impetus for external intervention, rather than a large humanitarian crisis”.

In other words, RAMSI has provided a model whereby interventions in the name of “humanitarianism”—used to justify the NATO war against Serbia in 1999 and the Australian-led occupation of East Timor in the same year—could be superseded by operations conducted under the banner of rescuing “failed” or “failing” states.

“Nomenclature can be highly sensitive in this field,” the Lowy report noted. “States are understandably reluctant to be dubbed ‘failed’ or ‘broken’; hence the search for euphemisms such as ‘countries at risk of instability’.”

Regardless of the label under which they are mounted, these operations have had nothing to do with protecting the welfare or uplifting the living standards of the local population. Rather, the spiralling levels of poverty, social crisis and debt have been used as a pretext by the intervening powers to pursue far-reaching geo-strategic interests, combat the influence of rival powers and impose predatory economic agendas.

The RAMSI model

Officially, under the RAMSI model, the Solomon Islands remains a sovereign country. According to RAMSI’s publicity material: “RAMSI does not control the government or make national decisions on behalf of Solomon Islands. The Parliament, Government, constitutional office holders and the public service all remain responsible for exercising their respective functions, and they remain accountable to the people of Solomon Islands.”

Closer examination shows that the situation is very different. For all intents and purposes, RAMSI runs the Solomon Islands, with its officials controlling all the key levers of power—the finance ministry, police force, courts and prisons.

To police a population of about half a million people, the RAMSI military and police has a presence in all provinces, with 17 police posts outside Honiara. It also supervises and trains the Royal Solomon Islands Police (RSIP), whose chief commissioner is a seconded Australian Federal Police officer. Similarly, RAMSI’s prison contingent supplies the Commissioner of Prisons, the General Manager of the Central (Rove) Prison and more than 40 prison guard supervisors and support staff.

RAMSI’s legal contingent literally runs the legal system. It consists of 20 lawyers and other legal staff, including the Solicitor General (the country’s legal chief), Deputy Legal Drafter (in charge of drawing up legislation), Public Solicitor and seven assistants (controlling the provision of legal services to people charged with offences), two High Court judges, two senior magistrates, four senior prosecutors and four police prosecutor advisers.

Another 60 RAMSI-appointed officials dominate senior posts in government departments, with a heavy concentration on the Ministry of Finance. Led by the Accountant-General, who personally vetoes project funding, 17 “advisers and in-line personnel” control the budget and draft foreign investment laws and guidelines. An Economic Reform Unit “coordinates and drives” a restructuring program dedicated to “improving business conditions, encouraging investment and creating jobs and income-earning opportunities”.

RAMSI’s economic agenda is aimed at a radical restructuring of the country’s finances. A report, Solomon Islands: Rebuilding an Island Economy, launched by Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer in 2004, called for the privatisation of basic services such as telecommunications, electricity and water, as well as the scrapping of communal land tenure. It also prescribed the removal of “cumbersome investment regulations” and labour market deregulation to lower workers’ wages and conditions.

At the top of the “economic reform” priorities listed on RAMSI’s web site are assisting the reactivation of the Australian-owned Gold Ridge Mine and Solomon Islands Plantation Limited; removing import duties; reducing the “regulatory burden that drives up the costs of doing business”; cutting taxation rates; and improving the “financial viability of state-owned enterprises”.

Among the first fruits of these policies are the generous tax and duty exemptions given to Australian Solomons Gold (ASG), which has been granted rights to rehabilitate the Gold Ridge mine. An ASG spokesman told Reuters this month that only 3 percent of the mine’s expected annual revenue of SB$600 million ($US78 million) would be split between the government and local landowners.

While Australian companies stand to reap a windfall, RAMSI’s economic program will have devastating consequences for the majority of Solomon Islanders, who depend on village and communal relations, kinship support and subsistence farming.

Despite its budget of nearly $250 million this year, RAMSI provides only pittances for social programs. Education and training were allocated $A1.6 million for 2004-05; basic health services $27.2 million for 2001-10; community support programs $32 million for 2005-10; and service delivery by Australia NGOs $5 million for 2004-07.

These allocations are deliberate. RAMSI insists that essential social facilities and services will be provided only through the creation of a market economy. According to the RAMSI web site: “With more people and businesses paying their taxes, duties, customs and licensing fees, the government is receiving more revenue, which should translate into the provision of better services to the people of the Solomon Islands—better schools, doctors and supplies for clinics, and repair and building of roads, wharves and bridges.”

Far from alleviating the social crisis, the three-year-old occupation has exacerbated poverty and widened the gulf between ordinary people and the elites associated with RAMSI. According to relief agencies, the Solomons’ people remain among the poorest and most deprived in the world. Less than 40 percent of students complete primary school, functional adult literacy is as low as 22 percent, and 38 out of 1,000 babies die before their first birthday, mainly from preventable diseases.

Although cynically labelled Operation Helpem Fren (pidgin for “Helping Friend”) the Australian intervention in 2003 was never aimed at helping the Solomons’ people. Rather, it was part of a wider assertion of Australian hegemony over the South Pacific.

The Lowy Institute report reveals that RAMSI is set to become the blueprint for future interventions. In all but name, the Australian ruling class, which ruled Papua New Guinea until 1975, is back in the business of colonialism in the Asia-Pacific region, from East Timor to the Solomon Islands and beyond.

(World Socialist Web Site)

Actualité - Le professeur philippin Sison placé arbitrairement sur une liste de terroristes

Franc-Parler publie un article à propos de la situation du Professeur José Maria Sison, une personnalité progressiste philippine en exil au Pays-Bas. Le gouvernement européen en a fait une cible de la soi-disant lutte antiterroriste. Pendant qu'au Philippine durant des décennies le professeur Sison a participé à la lutte du peuple philippin contre l'impérialisme et l'occupation américaine.

Les ministres des 25 peuvent-ils qualifier une personne de terroriste, et l'exclure de la vie économique sans preuves ni procès? C'est l'enjeu du recours contre l'inclusion de Sison dans une liste noire.

Né en 1939 à Cabugao, Ilocos Sur (Philippines), le professeur Sison s'est rendu célèbre comme enseignant, poète, politologue, et écrivain. Il a été président du Comité Central du Parti Communiste des Philippines (CPP) avant d'être arrêté par le régime dictatorial de Marcos en 1977. Il a été détenu jusqu'au 5 mars 1986 et a subi pendant plus de huit ans diverses formes de torture physique et mentale. En septembre 1988, le gouvernement philippin a annulé son passeport alors qu'il était à l'étranger pour une tournée de conférences dans différentes universités. Le professeur Sison a alors demandé l'asile aux Pays-Bas.

Le 28 octobre 2002, le Conseil de l'Union européenne a inclus dans la liste des organisations terroristes Jose Maria Sison comme personne physique et la Nouvelle Armée du Peuple (New People's Army, NPA) comme organisation prétendument liée à lui.

La décision du Conseil de l'UE, qui considère le professeur Sison comme une personne participant ou facilitant des actes terroristes ne repose sur aucun élément concret. José Maria Sison ne fait actuellement l'objet d'aucune condamnation ni même d'aucune poursuite pénale dans les pays qui l'ont placé sur la liste. Il est impossible de connaître les raisons et les éléments matériels qui ont amené le Conseil de l'Union européenne à le qualifier de terroriste. Les avocats du professeur Sison ont introduit plusieurs demandes d'accès aux documents, mais ce fut à chaque fois refusé, le Conseil considérant que leur divulgation pourrait mettre en cause la sécurité publique et les relations internationales de l'Union.

Suite à l'adoption de cette liste, le compte en banque conjoint de José Maria Sison et de son épouse a été gelé. Sur ce compte, il recevait depuis de nombreuses années une allocation sociale et les époux Sison utilisaient ce compte pour payer leurs achats quotidiens, payer leurs factures d'électricité, etc. Le solde du compte n'a jamais dépassé 2.000 euros. Le Conseil de l'UE n'a jamais pu expliquer en quoi le blocage de ce compte ou des droits d'auteur de ses ouvrages, la cessation de l'aide sociale perçue par Sison, l'interdiction de souscrire une assurance couvrant ses soins de santé ou sa responsabilité civile pouvait concrètement contribuer à contrer le financement du terrorisme...

Au nom de la lutte contre le terrorisme, une personne est donc privée de tous les droits sociaux les plus élémentaires et les autorités tentent de le réduire à l'état de mendiant et sans abri.

La décision de placer le professeur Sison sur cette liste et la procédure qui l'a précédé violent de manière flagrante les droits fondamentaux élémentaires (droit à un procès équitable, à la présomption d'innocence, droit de la défense). Les conséquences de cette décision mènent à la négation du droit de mener une vie conforme à la dignité humaine.

Le recours en annulation contre l'inclusion du professeur Sison dans cette liste, introduit en février 2003 sera examiné le mardi 30 mai 2006 devant la 2ème chambre du Tribunal de Première Instance de l'Union européenne de Luxembourg.

(www.solidaire.org - Jan Fermon)

Actualité - Australian troops dispatched to Solomon Islands to suppress local population

Franc-Parler publie un article à propos de l'intervention militaire de l'Australie dans les Îles Salomon situées dans l'Océan Pacifique.

Nearly three years after its virtual takeover of the Solomon Islands, the Howard government has sent fresh contingents of troops and police to put down serious political and social unrest in the small South Pacific country. The Socialist Equality Party unequivocally opposes this neo-colonial operation. Its aim is to suppress the Solomons people and reinforce Australian military and economic hegemony over the region.

This week’s emergency deployments of more than 300 heavily-armed soldiers and police serve to shatter the myth, carefully cultivated by the Australian political and media establishment, that the Australian-led military intervention in July 2003 was a humanitarian mission to bring peace, prosperity and democracy.

In 2003, the 2,500-strong Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands (RAMSI) force was supposedly dispatched to protect the local population from rival ethnic gangs and gunmen. Now, the troops have been deployed openly against the population itself—to quell mass demonstrations and rioting involving thousands of ordinary people in the capital, Honiara.

For all Australian Prime Minister John Howard’s talk of “restoring democracy,” his government has intervened to protect and prop up an openly corrupt elite, which has helped Canberra rule the country over the past three years. It has done so in clear defiance of the wishes of the voters who, at a general election on April 5, threw out the Australian-backed government of Sir Allan Kemakeza and his deputy prime minister Snyder Rini.

The immediate trigger for the eruption of widespread political protests, followed by looting and burning throughout Honiara’s commercial and tourist districts, was Rini’s installation as prime minister-designate on Tuesday. Rini’s selection—in a closed-door meeting of the 50 newly-elected members of parliament after several days of horse-trading—was clearly the product of what local people call “money politics”.

On April 5, voters had done their best to oust the Kemakeza-Rini regime. In an election closely monitored and certified as “free and secret” by 50 Australian-led international observers, some 453 candidates and 13 party groupings contested the 50 seats, with more than 300 of the candidates listed as independents. Many called for the defeat of incumbents accused of corruption. As a result, Kemakeza’s government was routed. Half the parliament, including 11 of Kemakeza’s 20 Peoples Alliance Party MPs, lost their seats. Rini barely survived, retaining his seat with just 29 percent of the vote under the “first past the post” balloting system.

Having voted out a notoriously corrupt government, the Solomons people discovered on Tuesday that much the same group had returned to office, via backdoor methods, reportedly involving bribes of thousands of dollars. Kemakeza had stood aside from the parliamentary ballot and endorsed Rini, but his former deputy initially secured only 17 votes, against 22 for Job Dudley Tausinga, whose Rural Advancement Party had gained popularity by calling for an end to corruption, and 11 for former prime minister Manasseh Sogavare. For the final count, 10 MPs switched to Rini, giving him a 27 to 23 margin over Tausinga.

Just two weeks earlier, the Australian media had hailed the holding of the general election, the first since the RAMSI takeover, as proof of the “success” of the military intervention in returning democracy to the Solomon Islands. But the routing of Kemakeza’s government served to demonstrate, above all, the level of popular hostility to the country’s tiny political and financial elites. Courtesy of the RAMSI occupation, which has taken over all the key posts in the country’s police, prisons, courts, finance ministry and other government departments, these people have seized upon the opportunity to further enrich themselves.

While money has poured in for luxury hotels, expensive supermarkets and upmarket shops and cafes to cater for the highly-paid RAMSI officials and officers, and profitable investments have been made in fishing, timber, tourism and mining to plunder the islands’ rich resources, the already appalling conditions facing ordinary people have only deteriorated. Out of a population of 550,000, an estimated 80,000 are jobless or underemployed. Nothing has been done to restore thousands of public sector jobs, provide decent housing or repair devastated education, health care and other basic services.

To pursue their own interests, RAMSI and the Howard government deliberately kept Kemakeza in office. He had been under police investigation for misappropriating compensation funds for victims of communal fighting, while his own family received $1.5 million. But moves to prosecute Kemakeza in 2003 stalled, after Howard publicly expressed confidence in his Solomons counterpart. Having rubberstamped the Australian military intervention, Kemakeza was regarded as an important political asset despite his connections with the Malaitan Eagle Force (MEF)—one of the country’s militias. By contrast, four of Kemakeza’s ministers who voiced mild criticisms of the RAMSI takeover were promptly dismissed and charged with corruption offences.

As soon as Rini was named prime minister, an angry crowd besieged the parliament building, claiming the election was fixed and the votes had been bought. After four hours, Rini and his parliamentary supporters were rescued by RAMSI officers, who provoked a violent confrontation by opening fire with tear gas. They overrode the relevant parliamentary authority, the Speaker, Sir Peter Kenilorea, who accused them of ignoring his request for more time for talks with the demonstrators. Kenilorea told reporters he had asked the officers “not to use tear gas on them because it would simply aggravate the situation”.

In the ensuing clashes, 28 police officers, including 17 Australians, were reportedly injured when they were pelted with stones. In addition, nine Australian police cars were torched and others damaged. Anti-government and anti-RAMSI protests then spread across Honiara, accompanied by looting of upmarket hotels, shops and businesses throughout Tuesday night and Wednesday.

Howard later claimed there was no evidence of hostility toward RAMSI. Yet buildings associated with the RAMSI force were specifically targetted. One Australian eyewitness, an Air Vanuatu pilot, said that the newly-built 104-room Pacific Casino Hotel was filled with Australian tourists, RAMSI officials and staff from international aid organisations when it came under attack by a stone-throwing crowd.

Some of the looting seemed indiscriminate, as people took off with anything of value they could find—a measure of the poverty and pent-up social tensions. There were reports of teenagers and women carrying away basic foodstuffs, such as bags of rice, and elementary school requirements, such as pencils and marker pens.

Disturbing signs also emerged of racialist politics being injected into the crisis as a deeply reactionary diversion from the real culprits and underlying causes of the widening social divide. Chinese and other Asian business people were blamed for bankrolling vote-buying and corruption, and most of Honiara’s Chinatown district was burnt down, with people of Asian descent being attacked or threatened, simply on the basis of their skin colour or appearance.

Those actually responsible for imposing the social and economic catastrophe in the Solomon Islands are now using colonial-style methods to suppress the inevitable discontent, with heavily-armed soldiers patrolling city streets. Before the troops arrived, the Australian-appointed commander of the Solomon Islands police, Shane Castles, met the country’s governor-general and instructed him to invoke emergency powers to impose a dusk-to-dawn curfew and “lock-down” Honiara. Police and troops were given sweeping powers to ban assemblies, order people off the streets, set up road blocks, carry out searches and arrest anyone on the basis of “suspicion” of involvement in, or inciting, unrest.

While an uneasy clampdown is currently being imposed, none of the underlying tensions have gone away.

Howard and Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, have declared their readiness to send in more troops if necessary to quell any further disturbances after Rini was secretly sworn-in yesterday.

In 2003, many Solomon Islands people may have initially believed Canberra’s claims to be acting in their interests. The country had been engulfed in political turmoil since the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis caused an economic breakdown, followed by punishing job cuts and austerity measures imposed by the IMF and World Bank. The ensuing downward spiral ignited fighting between rival armed gangs from the main islands of Malaita and Guadalcanal, leading to the virtual collapse of social services and the police force.

Over the past three years, however, social conditions for the majority of the population have not improved and the role of RAMSI as an occupying force has become increasingly evident. Far from raising living standards, RAMSI has focussed on implementing further economic restructuring. One of the first actions of the inaugural RAMSI chief, Australian official Nick Warner, was to insist on the reversal of a small wage rise of $8 a fortnight for lowly-paid public sector workers who were earning about $30 a week. By contrast, Australian advisers and consultants were being paid salaries 100 times higher—around $14,000 a month.

Neo-colonial operation

The RAMSI intervention was never aimed at helping Solomon Islanders, but at re-asserting Canberra’s traditional sphere of influence in the South West Pacific. After joining the Iraq invasion, Howard almost immediately drew on Washington’s support to mount his own “pre-emptive action”. Branding the Solomons a “failed state” that could become a breeding ground for “international terrorists and criminals”, he bullied Honiara into accepting an Australian occupation and other Pacific Islands nations into backing his plan.

For the past three years Howard has helped prop up a thoroughly discredited political and business elite. Now he is exploiting the resulting social conflicts to further bolster the Australian government’s position as the strongman of the region, with the loyal support of Helen Clark’s Labour government in New Zealand, a smaller regional power. At Howard’s request, police reinforcements have been sent from New Zealand and Fiji.

Howard yesterday declared that Australian forces would remain committed in the South Pacific for the “long-term” to deal with “failed states”. In language reminiscent of the “white man’s burden” claims for colonising Africa in the nineteenth century, he insisted that as “the biggest and wealthiest and strongest country in the region,” Australia had to “shoulder the burden” of restoring stability.

Echoed by the Australian media, Howard and Downer have seized upon the racist component of the riots, as well as a fierce contest between Taiwan and China for influence over the region, as an added pretext for sending in troops. Downer referred to “racially-inspired riots” and Taiwanese “influence-peddling” as reasons for extending the RAMSI operation for “quite some time to come yet”.

These comments reveal Canberra’s growing preoccupation with defending its position in the South Pacific under conditions of intensifying rivalries. Taiwan gives about $4 million annually in financial aid to the Solomons, one of half a dozen countries in the South Pacific that diplomatically recognises Taiwan rather than mainland China.

Taipei also provides a secret prime ministerial slush fund, which is allegedly used to buy MPs’ loyalty. Rini, a former finance minister, has visited Taiwan and his party, the Association of Independent Members (AIM), is accused of being a Taiwanese-sponsored caucus. AIM gatherings were reportedly held at Honiara’s Flamingo Nightclub under the patronage of prominent businessman Sir Thomas Chan, whose son was Kemakeza’s foreign minister.

On the day Rini was anointed prime minister, troops from two visiting Taiwanese naval ships staged a parade in a Honiara sporting stadium, in a not-too-subtle display of diplomatic muscle. The visit came just weeks after Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao landed in Fiji for talks with the eight South Pacific nations that recognise Beijing, rewarding them with offers of $US375 million worth of preferential loans.

For its part, Canberra doles out hundreds of millions a year in the region. Moreover, it has sent police and officials to supervise the governments of Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Fiji, as well as setting up what legal experts have labelled a “parallel government” in the Solomons. For the RAMSI operation alone, the Howard government had budgetted $850 million for 2005-09, even before the latest expansion of its intervention. The “money politics” of the Solomon Islands is financed, above all, by Australia.

And definite interests are at stake. While Australian governments have long been totally indifferent to the plight of its people, the Solomon Islands is a strategically-located country of 992 islands covering more than a million square kilometres of ocean between PNG and Fiji. It was first occupied by the British in the nineteenth century and proclaimed a protectorate, in order to counter the German takeover of Papua to the west and the French colonisation of Vanuatu and New Caledonia to the south.

In the opening years of the twenty-first century, the region is once again the target of imperialist rivalry. The Australian’s foreign editor Greg Sheridan voiced the neo-colonial designs of the Australian ruling class in an opinion column yesterday. He declared that “independence has been a disaster” throughout Melanesia, which covers seven million people in PNG, the Solomons, Fiji and Vanuatu. Sheridan contemptuously blamed “Melanesian culture” for being “warlike and tribal” and “comprehensively corrupt” and therefore unsuited to democracy.

Sheridan went on to say that while he was not pushing recolonisation, Australia had decolonised PNG “far too quickly” in 1975. Moreover, he asserted, “Melanesian culture,” particularly “communal ideas of property ownership,” made “serious economic development almost impossible”. Australia, he insisted, “has adopted some of the burdens of colonialism and will inevitably have to deal with the most serious security problems in the Melanesian world... We are likely to be in the Solomon Islands for a long, long time to come”.

In other words, the mission should take complete command of the region indefinitely, not only in order to protect the predatory interests of Australian capitalism but to batter down resistance to the imposition of a corporate free-market agenda.

Responsibility for the violent and dictatorial methods now being unleashed in the Solomons lies with the entire Australian political establishment. Over the past three years, the Howard government’s intervention has received unanimous support from all the parliamentary “opposition” parties—Labor, the Greens and Democrats. Labor leader Kim Beazley’s only criticisms of the latest deployment have been from the right—accusing the government of not sending enough troops and not acting earlier.

The police-state methods being employed on the streets of Honiara are a warning of what is being prepared for the streets of Sydney, Melbourne and other Australian cities as anger erupts over the mounting social and economic crisis at home. Working people in Australia must oppose the Howard government’s military intervention into the Solomon Islands by developing a common struggle with the working class and oppressed masses of the entire Asia-Pacific region against Australian imperialism and its ruthless political and economic agenda.

(World Socialist Web Site)

Actualité - Protests Escalate in Nepal

Franc-Parler publie une dépêche de Prensa Latina News Agency à propos de la lutte du peuple népalais contre le coup d'État du roi Gyanendra. Le peuple népalais mène une lutte déterminée depuis plusieurs mois pour ses droits démocratiques.

Kathmandu, Apr 16 (Prensa Latina) - Thousands of people across Nepal have stepped up pro-democracy marches, but police charged Sunday at the demonstrators firing tear gases in the capital.

The demonstration came as political parties opposed to King Gyanendra started to enforce a nationwide shutdown in demand that the monarch relinquish absolute power.

Nepal´s capital, Kathmandu, is at a standstill with food and fuel in short supply and prices rising as protests continued escalating.

Around a dozen hotel and restaurant workers were arrested after more than 1,000 people took to the streets in Thamel, Kathmandu´s tourist area.

The parties ousted when Gyanendra sacked the government and took direct control 14 months ago called a general strike April 6 in a move backed by Maoist rebels

Demonstrations entered its 11th day and the capital´s streets were largely free of vehicles, as young opposition activists set out to enforce a ban.

About 20 journalists were arrested as they took part in a protest demanding the restoration of press freedom and the release of journalists.

(Prensa Latina News Agency)