[The following article appeared in the September issue of International,* the organ of the International Marxist Group, the British section of the Fourth International.]
Some people expressed scepticism on seeing the cover of a recent issue of International with the legend: "The
Revolution Reaches the
Permanent U. K." Well, no one doubts now the revolutionary nature of the struggle in Northern Ireland; but will it be permanent? By permanent we mean that it is a problem which has no solution under any foreseeable circumstances in capitalist terms.
At time of writing there is a lull in the
Labour's biggest struggle, and smoothy, Callaghan, is doing the rounds trying to calm everyone down. However, the air is heavy with social tension and a spark could start a prairie fire.
The policy of the Wilson government is very plain —it wants to appear to be doing something and yet wants to avoid upsetting the very status quo which led to the crisis in the first place. Above all, it is frightened of a Protestant "counterrevolution." Hence its shuffling on the question of the B specials. 1 Once again an immutable law of politics has been vindicated: social democracy, which is so firm against the left, will always capitulate in face of a firm right wing.
Until now the Tory party has behaved with "responsibility," no doubt heeding the warnings of serious bourgeois journals like the Economist of the consequences of trying to take advantage of the situation for electoral reasons. It has been left to wild-man Enoch Powell to raise an anti-Irish bogey-so far with little effect. How-
8 Toynbee
St.,
Manager, London, E. 1, England.
ever, the left should be on its guard on this front, particularly if Irish political tendencies take to terrorist methods of struggle.
In Ireland an element of dual power exists in Bogside [the Catholic ghetto in
Bpour
WILSON: A sterling friend in times of trovble. Can be counted on to see that Ireland gets its share of British bayonets.
Derry City], with the local defence committees administering justice and many functions of local government. This reached the point where, on one occasion, the British army was obliged to provide material for a barricade to replace a new bus which the bus company wanted back.
However, no one should be fooled by the friendly atmosphere the British army is trying to create: if those barricades can't be got down by a combination of trickery and threats, the British army will be used to take them down by force. It is quite intolerable for a bourgeois state to allow within its boundaries a little island of workers' power.
The hypocrisy of Wilson and Callaghan is best demonstrated by the fact that they took no steps whatsoever to deal with discrimination against the Catholic minority, the political gerrymandering, and the police state repression until forced to do so by pressure of events. Now they appeal for calm, denounce the use of violence, and ask the Catholics to dismantle their barricades. They have refrained from denouncing the daily violence of the Stormont [Belfast] regime against political prisoners, and the more insidious violence of enforced unemployment. 2
Wilson, that doughty defender of democracy against the threat of communism, knows full well that for years the Unionists manipulated the ward boundaries in Derry, giving themselves a majority in a town with a two-thirds Catholic population; that in [County] Fermanagh, where over half the population is Catholic, the Unionists hold 38 seats out of 50; that discrimination is practiced against Catholies in "employment appointments and housing" (the Economist 23/8/69); and that a set of repressive laws exist in Northern has ruled
Northern
Ireland since the enclave was created during the Irish war of independence (1918-22). It is organized as a communalist party dedicated to maintaining Protestant supremacy.
The term
"Unionist" derives from the fact that the Protestant community, which was originally settled as a garrison-colony to hold the country for England, has generally been closely associated with British rule in Ire land and therefore supported union with Great Britain. - IP.
Ireland comparable to those of South Africa. Yet he has done nothing until now.
Not least in making sure that the struggle will have a permanent nature is the economic situation. Northern Ireland government officers have estimated that unemployment will rise to 10% in the province this winter, reaching and exceeding 20% in towns like Derry, Newry, and Enniskillen.
Northern Ireland already has an unemployment rate of 7.3% (compared with the too high 2.5% in the rest of the United Kingdom). But this figure obscures a basic tendency: unemployment is much higher in the Catholic areas of Northern Ireland than the average. In July, 1969, there were eleven towns in Northern Ireland with an unemployment rate of more than 10% (more than four times the national average). Every one of these towns had Catholic populations in the 1961 census of around 50% or more; two of them, Strabane and Newry, having over a 75% Catholic population. In July, unemployment in the Catholic towns of Kilkeel, Enniskillen, Strabane and Derry was 20%, 18%, 18%, and 13% respectively. All this compares with the Belfast rate of around 3.5% (in Belfast the Catholic population is about 25%, the same as in Lancashire).
Attempts to deal with these terrible figures have been confined to attracting investment (most British but some foreign) by offering all kinds of inducements. This has not even held the position: each year Northern Ireland's farms, heavy engineering, and shipyards shed 5,000 workers, and another 4,000 young people come on to the labour market. Against this total of 9,000 jobs required, construction and service industries create 4,000 jobs, thus leaving a gap of 5,000. Stormont and Westminster have created an average of 3,300 jobs per year in manufacturing. Unemployment would have been even higher had it not been for large-scale migration.
The policy of tax concessions (mostly to British big business), while it has led to soaring profits, has done little to assist the people of Northern Ireland. Firstly, the investment is capital intensive, thus raising few jobs for a given amount of investment. Secondly, it has been concentrated in only a tew 'industries (notably man-made tibres), thus leaving the small-scale economy excessively reliant on a small number of products.
In fact, Northern Ireland has many features of an internal colony in the United Kingdom: low wages and high productivity (the growth rate in the six counties4 has been twice that of the
THE REV. IAN PAISLEY: His own followers recently decorated him with stones.
United Kingdom as a whole over the last ten years); a virtual single-product migrating labour (thus economy; countering the effects of full employment); etc.
As a result of the recent struggles, the economy will be hit in two different ways. Firstly, the entire situation is one in which investors will be very reluctant to build new factories, plants, etc. This will not have an immediate effect on unemployment because there is a two-year time lag between investment and jobs being realized. On the other hand, lower investment potential will mean a lessening of construction and the creation of service facilities - this will hit employment almost straight away.
An immediate and damaging effect of the "troubles"5 will be to drastically reduce tourism. Over the last period this has netted Northern Ireland's invisible earnings some £28.5 million per an-
Ulster, which also includes the counties of Cavan, Monaghan, and Donegal in the so-called Irish Republic.- IP.
num. This reduction in tourism will both reduce seasonal employment and generally worsen the economic position.
The British government, itself in a very difficult economic situation and under an obligation to keep government expenditure down, will find it hard to put in money to create a basis for the giving of reforms to mitigate the social crisis. Already it will have bills amounting to over £10 million promised to Stormont to enable the latter to speedily pay compensation for fire damage (again mostly to British big business). In addition it has the not inconsiderable cost of recent military operations (not forgetting the upkeep of the army of occupation).
Westminster is already pouring money into Northern Ireland at the rate of approximately £150 million per year. This includes "balancing items" to level up industrial and social benefits of nearly £40 million. £25 million is received in direct agricultural subsidies, and then there is the so-called assumed deficit for Northern Ireland's nominal share of external affairs and defence. Wilson is paying nearly £100 per person per year lof the Northern Irish population] to keep the Ulster Unionists in power; in return he gets ten or so hard-line Tory MPs6 in Westminster.
We thus see that the economic situation is one which shows no chance of removing high unemployment, low wages, and all the other things which have underpinned the recent struggles. What of the political situation?
One outstanding feature of the political situation is that every existing political organization is discredited. Furthermore, there have been no claimants on the scene, as yet, likely to quickly win the loyalty of the disillusioned. Even Paisley has been stoned by his own supporters and nobody on the Catholic side has established anything like hegemony. Saying this in no way decries the heroism of the civil-rights leaders like Bernadette Devlin.
A revolutionary leadership has yet to be built and no working-class organization has won any honours in the recent situation. There seems to be no immediate political solution of any kind on the horizon. On the contrary, the
853 853.
uneasy truce could be broken at any time.
If the crisis is likely to be permanent, if there is no revolutionary leadership and no workers' solution to the crisis likely in the coming period, then working out a correct political approach is of the highest importance. Whilst we have the task of assisting the Irish people in their day-to-day struggles to the absolute best of our ability, we cannot afford to neglect the long-term problems.
In this sense there are two problems which just have to be tackled: the ending of British imperialism's exploitation of Ireland and the creation of a revolutionary leadership in Ireland, capable of leading a social revolution. The first of these tasks is a historic one handed down to us by the sins of omission of generation after generation of the English working class; the second amounts to giving revolutionary Marxists in Ireland every assistance we can and working among the million and a half Irish people in Britain to spread revolutionary ideas.
It is in this context that we have to examine some of the discussions which are taking place in the British labour movement.
"Self-determination for Ireland." There are a number of objections to this slogan and some say that this cannot be advanced without being qualified by the call for a workers republic. Others argue that Ireland has self-determination in the sense that there is bourgeois democracy in both parts of Ireland.
It first has to be made crystal clear in what context the slogan is used. It would be ridiculous for Marxists to insist that this is the main slogan to be advanced by the Irish movement. It is clear that the Irish movement must be won for the idea that the only solution for the problems of the Irish people and, moreover, the only way to unite the Catholic and Protestant workers is a socialist one.
Concretely, the slogan of a united Ireland in the form of a workers republic, with the perspective of becoming part of the workers federation of Britain which, in turn, would be part of the United Socialist States of Europe, is appropriate.
To achieve such a solution, power would have to be won by struggling against the bourgeoisie and its allies north and south. To facilitate this, Irish revolutionaries would have to work out a transitional programme which would 854
enable them to win the hegemony of the Irish workers and small farmers.
British Marxists in working out and defending a Marxist analysis of the situation in Ireland can put no other programme forward.
"British Imperialist Oppression." But this is by no means the whole story. We have today a continuation of the national oppression of Ireland by British imperialism. This takes two forms: one, the artificial division of the country, with one part being occupied, directly or indirectly, by British imperialism; the second is the neocolonialist type exploitation of the economy of southern Ireland (which is facilitated by the border: incredible as it may seem, there is relatively little trade between the two parts of Ireland; only 4.1% of the south's imports come from the north, and only 13% of the south's exports go to the north).
The second point is not generally understood in Britain. Despite formal political independence, the grip of British monopolies on the industry, banking, distribution, etc., of the Republic of Ireland is virtually as tight as it was before the first world war. Britain takes no less than 70% of the south's exports and provides 50% of its imports. This kind of relationship in the capitalist world always boils down to the stronger power being able to impose harsh terms of trade. It is estimated that it costs the Republic's government over £50 million in subsidies to farmers because of the British government's cheap food policies.
Under these conditions the only Marxist position is that of unconditional support for the self-determination of the Irish people. This means campaigning against all oppression and interference in Irish affairs. It cannot be conditioned by saying that we stand for self-determination if the Irish people opt for socialism. We can express opinions, offer advice, support Irish socialists; but in Britain, in the British labour movement and against the capitalist state machine, we must advance the slogan of self-determination without strings.
It is often argued that self-determination must also be extended to Protestants of Northern Ireland, too, and as they clearly want to be part of the
United Kingdom, we should support them in this.
First, a few facts: the relationship of numbers between Catholics and Protestants is not reflected by the electoral system in Northern Ireland. In the 1961 census, Catholics made up 35% and the combined total for Presbyterians and Anglicans was 53%. It seems almost certain (there are no separate figures for the Presbyterians and Aglicans) that the Presbyterians are in fact a minority. T
Catholics definitely are in a majority in the counties of Derry, Tyrone, and Fermanagh; they must be something in Armagh and Down near that [leaving the Protestants a clear majority only in Antrim].
But to argue along religious grounds is to confuse the issue: we are in favour of national self-determination; but membership of a religion does not constitute a nationality. The slogan of selfdetermination does not mean supporting the right of separation of every religious group (especially those under reactionary influence).
It is argued that self-determination means the ending of the border and the domination of the Protestants by the Catholics. Thus instead of having a Catholic minority discriminated against, we would have a Protestant minority similarly treated
The Protestants of the north certainly fear this very outcome. Our experience of the behaviour of the Catholic hierarchy in other countries shows this is not an idle fear.
But these arguments miss some important facts:
1. Catholics are being discriminated against, shot down in cold blood, and suffering police repression here and now -this cannot be compared with the possible exploitation of Protestants in the future.
2. A united Ireland would be a very different kettle of fish from the present setup in the south; in fact, the present regime is hardly likely to survive such an eventuality, as the two Tory parties of the south have been able to keep a
7. The Northern Irish Protestant community itself is divided into castes, the Anglicans representing the upper caste and the Presbyterians the lower. Since in certain periods Presbyterianism was persecuted by the Anglican ascendancy, the original Presbyterian upper class went over to Anglicanism. The basic Presbyterian stock came from Scotland; the basic Anglican stock is English in origin. The Anglicans are generally much more closely tied to England by culture, spirit, and interest. Some of the civil-rights leaders in Northern Ireland have referred to representatives of the Anglican ruling class as "Englishmen." - IP.
radical posture on the grounds of their national struggle against the English.
The infusion of a militant working class from the north, together with the existing level of struggle and the absence of the national question to confuse things, would clear the decks for a clarification along class lines of the political situation. In this state of affairs, the Protestants of the north could ally themselves with a working class fighting both the bourgeoisie and its frocked backers.
3. The removal of the border and the abstracting out of the national and religious question would lay the basis for a much greater degree of unity of the working class especially, and in the first instance, mainly, in the industrial field.
Having said all this it must be emphasised that an important part of a transitional programme for Ireland will be an absolute guarantee against any form of discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, etc.
A further argument against self-determination -that this would mean a reduction in the standard of living of the workers of Northern Ireland, both Catholic and Protestant-is factually correct but politically wrong.
There is a huge difference in the spending on social services in north and south. Stormont, covering about half the population of the south, actually spent more last year on education (£51 million against £49 million). In the social services the gap is even greater: £82.5 million for the south against £126 million in the north. The average wage in industry in the north was just over £16 for a man, against £14 6s in the south (this should be compared with Britain's average of about £23). The south's level of unemployment pay is only about twothirds of the north.
These arguments cannot be avoided: this is why for Irish Marxists it is absolutely essential to put forward a comprehensive transitional programme which would demand the raising of the south's living standards to at least those of the north as immediate corollary of the ending of the border.
Needless to say, such a drastic redistribution of wealth is impossible without the workers and small farmers of all Ireland laying hands on the riches of the country. Hence the ending of the border would be directly linked both bourgial revolution overturning
By struggling against the border in September 29, 1969
Britain via the slogan of self-determination, we will, in fact, be laying the conditions for a move toward the workers republic we all want.
"Withdraw British Troops Now." This slogan flows directly from the position of self-determination; but there are people who are willing to support the line of self-determination but not the slogan of immediate withdrawal of British troops. Again we have to make it clear to whom the slogan is being directed and in what context it is being used.
The civil-rights movement of Ireland is opposed to this slogan and is anxious that the British solidarity movement does not advance it. It argues that the arrival of British troops prevented a pogrom, and for it to demand their recall would be suicidal.
This dilemma cannot be dodged by shouting about "revisionism" and "sellouts." These are real problems inale volving - as has been demonstratedpeople's lives.
The slogan demanding the withdrawal of British troops is an educational one designed to clarify the actual political relationship of forces. In the Vietnam campaign we advance the slogan of victory to the NLF, solidarity with the Vietnamese people, and selfdetermination for the people of Vietnam, to explain the nature of the struggle.
The demand for withdrawal of British troops, coupled with a demand for the ending of Westminster support for the Stormont regime, carries out a similar function.
If the left were strong enough to enforce the withdrawal of British troops, it would also be strong enough to do many other things, too. The only real solution to the danger of a pogrom is the self-defence of the Catholic peopleas they demonstrated. A movement capable of enforcing the withdrawal of British troops would be able to take real steps to assist the self-defence of the oppressed Catholic minority of Northern Ireland.
On the other hand, it is extremely shortsighted indeed to think in terms of British troops "protecting" that minority. Inevitably, as the national struggle develops, those troops will be used against the Irish people. But even leaving this aside, the presence of British troops is aimed to perpetuate the very state of affairs which leads to the danger of a pogrom in the first place.
At very best, the presence of the British troops may have stopped a pogrom in 1969, only to preserve a state of affairs which could lead to further slaughter in 1970, 1971, 1972. ...
The demand for the withdrawal of British troops is one which the British movement must adopt if it is to correctly implement a policy of fighting for self-determination. The emphasis given at a particular time to this slogan is a tactical question.
Obviously, there are big difficulties in making this the main slogan of demonstrations taking place at a time when the civil-rights movement is strongly opposed to it. Moreover, for the civilrights movement itself, the emphasis should be on the right to armed selfdefence.
But for revolutionaries it is essential to include the demand in all their statements on the situation. This is the only way that they can struggle for a correct line on the question; they have, moreover, the job of helping to clarify the problems in Ireland itsell. For the civil-rights movement to confine itself to demands for the disarming of the B specials (by whom?), etc., is to doom it to a reformist trap.
In the Republic, the demand must be for arms to enable the minority in the north (and those who wish to assist them) to defend itself. The Irish people in Britain can make the same demand of the Eire government. The left in this country, whilst it cannot make this demand itself, should assist the Irish militants to make and implement it.
In the last analysis, all these differences are around one issue: do we stand for a revolutionary struggle and solution in Ireland, or are we trying to calm things down by working out solutions for the present bourgeois governments to implement?
Revolutionary struggle by the people of Ireland themselves, aided by a solidarity struggle among the British people based upon the working class, is the only way to complete the liberation of Ireland and set it on the road towards a workers republic.
U.S. Base Still Safe in Libya
Libya's Premier Mahmoud Soliman al- Maghreby, appointed September 8 by the military junta, announced still secret September 17 that the U.S. will not be asked to give up its giant Wheelus air base near Tripoli before the agreement on the strategic concession expires next year.
Haiti
The Deepening Struggle Against Duvalier
The following interview was given by Gérard Pierre-Charles, a Haitian exile living in Mexico, to María Eugenia Saúl of the Inter Press Service. Gérard Pierre-Charles is known in Mexico for his two books, La Economía Haitiana y Su Via de Desarrollo (The Haitian Economy and Its Path of Development), 1963; and Radiografia de Una Dictadura (X-ray Picture of a Dictatorship), 1969. The interview was published in the Mexico City daily Excélsior August 24. The translation from the Spanish is by Intercontinental Press.]
Question: What group is most influential in the opposition to François Duvalier?
Answer: At present it is very difficult to say which group abroad is the strongest. The most well-known group in the USA was founded in 1966 under the name Haitian Coalition of Democratic Forces. It was created with the objective of uniting many groups and persons who had been fighting against Duvalier in the United States. This group was founded at the direct suggestion of the State Department, which was already concerned about finding some alternative for replacing Duvalier.
In the beginning, even technicians working in Washington joined the coalition, as well as some personalities like Paul Magliore (who took over the chairmanship) and Louis Fouché. They were able to work with an American radio station in New York, the New York World Wide, and broadcast an hour of anti-Duvalier propaganda to Haiti every day. They established relations with Haitian groups in Canada and some African cities. In 1967 they established a good base in the Bahamas, where a large number of illegal Haitian immigrants live.
It was this coalition that organized the invasion in May 1968. After that, the coalition broke up into two groups. One is headed by Colonel R. Léon, a former officer in the Haitian armed 856
forces. This group is believed to be responsible for the latest bombing of Port-au-Prince on June 2.
The other group, called the November 12 Revolutionary Movement, is headed by François Benoit, also a former officer very well known in Haiti. His family was murdered on Duvalier's order because the dictator thought (without foundation) that Benoit was implicated in an attack on one of his daughters.
[In Gérard Pierre-Charles's opinion, one of the most significant indications that the USA is preparing the way for a successor to Duvalier is the pressures being applied to bring about the integration of the Tonton Macoutes into the army. Some contingents have already been incorporated into the regular army. (In mid-June the chief of the Tonton Macoutes, an ex-baker, Elie Maître, was stripped of his command when this integration began.)]*
Q: Does that mean that in choosing a successor the influence has been excluded of the Dominique clique (headed by Duvalier's son-in-law, Max Dominique, and Dominique's wife, Marie Denise Duvalier), and likewise the Foucard clique (headed by Duvalier's other son-in-law)?
A: The family conflict does enter in. Max Dominique and his wife have in practice secured control of the government apparatus, even denying Foucard the right to visit his father-in-law. And so long as Duvalier stays, Dominique and Marie Denise will remain powerful figures.
[The interview then revolved around the other opposition, the new left. This opposition took its most definitive step February 12 when the Parti d'Entente Populaire (Party of Popular Union), PEP, and the Parti Unifié des Démocrates Aïtiens (United party of Haitian Democrats), PUDA, united under the name of the Parti Unifié des Comunistes Haïtiens (United party of Haitian Communists-PUCH). They united on the basis of a common ideology, program, tactics, and leadership.
Both groups had been publishing subversive material clandestinely since 1960 and carrying out clandestine actions. In its constitution, the new party noted that preparing the way for guerrilla struggle was "the keystone of the present tasks." And a paragraph explained: "We must pit the organized violence of the class struggle against the reactionary violence of Duvalier's Tonton-Macoutism in order to annihilate the Duvalier system."]
Pierre-Charles: Underlying the present situation in Haiti is a fact that is unprecedented in twelve years of Duvalierism. A left-wing armed movement is arising, composed of young ele ments who have nothing to do with the old political school. These youth initiated a struggle in the interior of the country at the end of March.
The events began with an assault on a village in the interior, Cazale. This assault was followed by an outbreak of bombings in Port-au-Prince. The agitation provoked the passage of the anti-Communist act.
Q: Who are the leaders of these actions?
A: The most brilliant and well known of those involved is Gerald Brisson. He has assumed the stature of the main leader. He is a national champion in the high jump and a Pan-American runner-up. He is a musicologist, a lawyer, and the son of a prominent legal figure in Port-au-Prince. Brisson was arrested in 1959 and the police went as far as ordering him to dig his own grave. But he was saved, thanks to his father's influence. He was deported from the country, later returning clandestinely.
Q: What support do these groups have among the Haitian population?
A: Essentially, the support of the peasantry. Two [only one is mentioned-
IP., measures taken by the government indicate its awareness of this support— the closing down of the governmental National Literacy Campaign Office, because, according to the authorities, it had been infiltrated by the Commuists.
Q: Is this resistance Marxist to a monolithic degree?
A: Basically there are two groupings among the resistance forces in the interior of Haiti- the wing controlled by the Communist party (PUCH) and the Catholic wing controlled by Progrès Haiti (Progress Haiti], which could be called Christian Democratic and which is inspired by young priests.
[Gérard Pierre-Charles noted that the young priests are in open dispute with their hierarchy (which has capitulated to Duvalier, who designates the bishops by virtue of the present Concordat with the Vatican). The position of these priests is categorically "condemned" in the anti-Communist law itself, one of whose paragraphs imposes penalties on priests and preachers who "aid the Communists."
Q: How do you interpret the presence of Dominican troops on the frontier?
A: As a measure to prevent the expansion of the guerrilla nuclei. It must be remembered that there was a clash between the Haitain army and the guerrillas in early May in the mountains of Ouanaminthe, a border region near the Dominican city of Dajabon. Any guerrilla nucleus that survives, immediately gains the possibility of re ceiving help from the Dominican revolutionists and widening the struggle to the whole island.
Q: Has the Duvalier government halted the guerrilla activity?
A: For one thing, it is known that 500 men from the tactical battalion at Las Salinas base are tracking the guerillas.
This much is certain. If Duvalier had stamped out the guerrilla action, he would have issued an official statement or taken the usual measures when the repression is at its worst-public firing squads or putting the bodies of the leaders on exhibition.
Army, the P. L. A. units in the Peking area, the Peking garrison command and other quarters, including Wang Hsin-ting, Li Chiang, Han Nien-lung, Ma Wen-po, Hsieh Huai-teh and Wu Hsiao-ta."
Hsinhua added that the reception "proceeded in a friendly atmosphere."
In Rawalpindi, representatives of the Maoist regime presented gifts to the chief of staff of the Pakistani army at a reception following the military paradés.
Hsinhua described this event as follows in a September 7 dispatch from the Pakistani capital:
"A military display of various units of the armed forces was inaugurated here yesterday morning by Lieutenant General Abdul Hamid Khan, chief of staff of the Pakistan army.
"He also gave a reception to mark the 'Defence of Pakistan Day' here yesterday evening.
"President Yahya Khan and highranking officials and officers were present.
"Chang Tung, Chinese ambassador to Pakistan, and Sun Pi-jung, military attaché of the Chinese embassy, were among the guests.
"In the reception hall, ten oil paint-
Pakistan
Peking Lends a Helping Brush
General Yahya Khan, head of the ruling junta in Pakistan, commemorated the fourth anniversary of the India-Pakistan war September 6 with massive military parades in Rawal-
Karachi, Dacca, and pindi, Lahore, other cities.
The show of force was intended as a threat to the Pakistani masses as much as to the Indian bourgeoisie.
Yahya Khan made the nature of the demonstration clear in a public declaration.
"Pakistan," he said, "is conscious of all threats to its security and is ever watchful and ready to meet them with all forces at its command."
Yahya Khan came to power last April. Six months of strikes, student demonstrations, and peasant land seizures had forced his predecessor, Ayub Khan, to abdicate. Since April the miliary regime has used the threat of a bloodbath to intimidate the Pakistani masses.
Yet, despite the openly reactionary character of the September 6 show of force, the Maoist regime in Peking publicly applauded and even participated in the festivities of the junta.
(The Maoists, cultivating "friendly" diplomatic relations, have abstained from any criticism of the Yahya Khan regime. The Peking press never even ings vividly depicting the heroic war of resistance waged by the Pakistan armed forces and people in September, 1965, were exhibited. Those oil paintings were done by Chinese artists who had been invited to Pakistan."
It will take more than a coat of paint, however red, to sell the neocolonialist regime of Yahya Khan to the workers and peasants of Pakistan.
Watch What You Read
Fatihua, the binda c
6 from Peking:
"The 'Defence of Pakistan Day' was celebrated here this evening at a re ception given by Group Captain Ghulam Haider and Colonel Mian Abdul Qayoom, military attachés of the Pakistan embassy in China.
"Present were Chinese Vice-Minister of National Defence Hsiao Ching-kuang, and leading members of various general departments, services and branches of the Chinese People's Liberation
The repressive Special Powers Act is still being enforced in Northern Ireland. The fact that the British government took over responsibility for law and order there has made no difference.
Francis Luke Campbell, a County Armagh truck driver was jailed three weeks and then fined £10 - the equivalent of a week's pay- September 2. His crime? Possession of a copy of the constitution of the banned Irish republican party Sinn Féin.
Campbell denied belonging to the organization. He was not given a stiffer penalty, the judge said, because of his "previous good character."
Notes
* International is published monthly. For a one-year subscription, send the equivalent of £1 or US$2.00 to Connie Harris, Business
1. The auxiliary police force which plays a vigilante role. — IP. 852
2. The Northern Irish regime follows a policy of forcing Catholics to emigrate by limiting job opportunities for them. This is done through manipulation of investment, discrimination in government hiring, and by encouraging discriminatory practices in private industry. - IP.
3. The Unionist party, which is dominated by the Anglo-Irish big landowners, capitalists, and merchants,
4. Six of Ireland's thirty-two counties are included in the Northern Irish enclave. These six counties form part of the historic Irish province of
5. The guerrilla warfare which led to the formal independence of the major part of the island is sometimes referred to as the "troubles." - IP.
6. The Unionists are affiliated to the Conservative party in Great Britain. - IP.
* The paraphrasing of Pierre-Charles's words appears in the original. "Tonton Macoutes" is the name of Duvalier's private goon squad. - IP.