Greens (WA)
As the Â鶹´«Ã½ reported (# 17), I posted a letter on Pegasus about the involvement of the Greens (WA) in the national liaison process. I made a statement which was cited in this paper to the effect that actions were taken in virtual secrecy. This was based on initial investigations that proved to be in error. I corrected that statement with a further posting on Pegasus the following evening. There appears to have been some breakdown in communication and process, but I am happy work with my Local Group to address these problems through the means available within the Greens (WA). I have faith that the problems can be resolved, and that the basic values of the Greens (WA), and our commitment to participatory democracy, are sound.
"Dhanu River"
Greens and DSP
Ian Murrell (GLW #18) suggests that the DSP is in favour of a Green Alliance at this stage of building a national green movement. He is correct. The recent fiasco of an attempt to ram a national party structure on to all of the very loose and emerging movement indicates that this is the wiser course. And yes, we do see the Green Alliance experience in Brisbane as a positive example.
DSPer Maurice Sibelle, who was the elected coordinator of the campaign, certainly was praised highly by most involved for doing so much to enable the campaign to function. We are not alone in regarding it as positive. Here is Senator Powell of the Australian Democrats:
"On the positive side of the ledger, an alliance would be easier to achieve, and a successful model exists. Queensland's Green Alliance brought parties and community groups together in an effective campaign in the recent local government elections."
In the second part of his letter, Ian Murrell argues that the DSP cannot be trusted to be "loyal" to a coalition or alliance because we ask members to be loyal to our party and carry out its work. Of course this is true of most every party! In our case we have stated publicly on many occasions that any DSPer elected on an Alliance platform would be expected to represent the views of the Alliance. Since this is what the DSP would want (and expect from all the elected representatives of an alliance) there is no conflict of loyalty whatsoever.
Finally, contrary to Ian Murrell's assumptions, DSP members do participate in an open way in broader meetings. They
engage in the give and take of discussion, change their views, disagree with each other if they do disagree and in general behave like rational human beings.
If Ian Murrell actually knew much about the DSP as it really is he might find a lot more "participatory democracy", lack of "individual competitiveness" and "real love and caring for the group". This is the real experience of our members. Why would they stay in the party otherwise? We try to bring these qualities and experiences into other areas too. We wish we could say that for everyone.
Jim Percy
National Secretary, DSP
Sydney
Expelled in absentia
As an activists who has worked in two green election campaigns this year alone (in Brisbane and Sydney), and a member of the Queensland Green Network, I was most disturbed by the acceptance of proscription clauses by that organisation in negotiations for a national green party. These clauses would affect me as I am also a member of the Democratic Socialist Party.
I am a proven, committed and loyal grassroots activist, and all of a sudden I am essentially expelled in absentia. Why? Because my political opinions are unacceptable to the "Melbourne Group" (whoever they may be) and their supporters. Wonderful!
Ian Murrell's letter in GLW 18 provides the closest thing to an explanation for this. He asks: How can the DSP be trusted in an alliance? Without asking how Ian Murrell can be trusted, I will quote from the Program of the Democratic Socialist Party:
"The party's members in parliament ... should work closely under the party's direction, remaining accountable to it, or in the case of parliamentary representatives of electoral alliances, they should maintain the closest contact and remain accountable to the broader formation as well."
There you have it. The fundamental policy statement of the DSP says DSP members representing broader alliances must remain accountable to these alliances. This is a stronger guarantee of accountability than that of any independent, or for that matter any green politician to date.
Regardless of the formation of any green party based on the Melbourne Group proposals, some of us will keep working for a broad-based and non-exclusionary alliance of green and progressive activists. If this doesn't happen, the green movement risks being forever subject to the whims of "high profile" personalities and elitist cliques.
Alan Bradley
Sydney
Green and Red
Organised socialism should get out of the unity process of the green movement. The current imbroglio will be a political disaster for an idea that has already suffered many setbacks. It is morally unacceptable to ask a political current whose philosophical traditions are distinct from ours to open its doors without qualification. They are absolutely right to proscribe and demand that their tradition has a right to self determination.
Socialists must build their own constituency without any pretension that we are anything but Red. We must make a start on this long and difficult road as soon as possible. I believe that the main stumbling block to making a beginning is property. Perhaps we can, in this regard, learn from the history of the Uniting Church in Australia. I am certain there will be many similarities!
Jeff Richards
Prospect SA
Nufarm pollution
Greepeace was right to expose 25 years of toxic pollution history at the Nufarm herbicide plant in Melbourne.
Not only did we lift the lid on Nufarm's disastrous operating history, which has left behind one of the most dioxin contaminated sites in the world — at levels up to 255 times the United States action standard — Greenpeace also exposed two decades of monumental chaos in the Victorian regulatory system. Much of our information was obtained, after considerable stalling, through the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
We have to seriously wonder about the values of society — when a company that has been illegally dumping the most toxic compounds known to science into the Melbourne environment for 25 years seeks an apology from Greenpeace. Are we supposed to apologise for catching them out?
It is important to know that not only did Nufarm make DDT, they still sell 2,4,5-T (only to Queensland in Australia), and manufacture copious quantities of 2,4-D. 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D are the essential components of Agent Orange. This information becomes of extreme environmental concern when we know that Nufarm has been illegally discharging their wastes for the better part of two decades. Nufarm are currently dumping dioxins and furans into the sewerage system, accounting for over 50% of the toxic dioxin load to Werribee Sewerage Farm.
The recent peer review of studies into Nufarm were seriously limited in scope.
The Victorian EPA themselves admitted this when they released the reports:
"Whether the low levels of PCDD's and PCDF's detected have any ecological significance cannot be determined ..."
In other words, the Victorian government undertook a $1.5 million study that did not look at the impact on the broader environment. Further it makes no sense trying to look at the effects of dioxins and furans in a vacuum. The reports have ignored other dioxin like compounds and do not consider the cumulative impact of further toxic, persistent waste discharges to the chemical load that already exists in Port Phillip Bay and the Bass Strait.
Greenpeace maintains that we can no longer afford to use the world as a large scale laboratory, waiting for conclusive proof of harm. There is more than enough evidence that it is no longer accecptable to discharge any toxic, persistent and or bioacummulative compounds into an already burdened environment.
Lynette Thorstensen
National Coordinator, Toxics Campaign
Greenpeace Australia
[Edited for length.]
Delusions
Those who, like Ian Bolas (GL #17), believe that the problems of the world are purely political and can be cured by
Marxism alone, and that economic growth helps the starving, are just as deluded as those who believe in life after death, crystal healing and channeling.
David Munn
South Brighton SA.
[The "Ian Bolas debate" having gone on for 10 weeks, further letters on this topic will not be printed. — Ed.]
Gulf War
Unfortunately, Ian Bolas' "Reply to Critics", (GLW No. 17) does little to address the political issues in the debate initiated by his article in Â鶹´«Ã½ No. 9.
The main point of contention was whether, "The only correct positon for a socialist in the anti-war movement to adopt was unequivocal support for Iraq. This meant support for its existing leaders, irrespective of past activities."
In any analysis of the Gulf War we had to look beyond the two ruling elites. To be ant-imperialist does not necessarily mean support for the Iraqi leaders, but rather the Iraqi people. The war itself was not in the objective interests of the Iraqi people. (Indeed the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was not in the interests of Arab nationalism.)
It was never a question of whether we should support one regime against the other; this was a war initiated, planned and entirely controlled by US imperialism. In the midst of such a war, to be anti-imperialist meant to support an immediate end to the war. To simply take the side of one regime against the other, as Bolas suggests, would be to limit ourselves to the imperialist agenda.
This raises the question of how we could have stopped the war. Ian Bolas said, "We must work with the world as it is." As Marxists, we understand that power not only lies with the ruling regimes, but in the hands of the organised majority. It is our role to mobilise this force, which is most definitely part of "the world as it is." This is the only strategy that can succeed in the long term. There are no short cuts.
Bolas' repetition of the mainstream media caricatures of environmentalists, pacifists and christians, does not in any way advance the debate. And it only serves to divide the movement. As Marxists we recognise that in order to understand and change the world it will be necessary to enter into a genuine dialogue with all those seeking fundamental social change.
We hope this goes some way in addressing the substantive political issues of the debate.
Adam Hanieh, Catherine Gough-Brady, Anne Pavy, Andrew Watson, Rebecca Meckleburg, Russel Norman, Teresa Dowding
Adelaide
Spiritual imperialism
Re the statement of L. Murrell and others in GL of 29 May that christianity is based on principles of "non-violence" and "anti-militarism". Recently I had an interesting conversation with an appointee to a library which specialises in women's issues. This woman is a christian. When I asked how she reconciled christianity with the church's historical antagonism towards women's rights and questioned biblical doctrine she said, yes the bible says women are
subservient to men but this was fair and "holistic" because men are subservient to the church.
I challenged bible-inspired thinking that says non-believers will perish at the hands of god's armies at the apocalypse. I said I was an atheist and did she believe I would perish if the apocalypse was now, she said yes. Am I supposed to accept this type of imperial as non-violent? Give me a break. It serves the basest forms of bigotry and discrimination.
The church coerced its followers for hundreds of years. If you dared question church doctrine you were tried by the church, allowed no jury and if found guilty you were murdered or lost all property and civil rights. History has hidden the number of persons violated in this way but estimates range from thousands to millions.
Christianity thinks it is superior to any other belief system. I wonder if the Vietnam war could have been supported for so long if churches hadn't been pushing a violent anti-communist line for years. John F. Walvoord, a respected Christian theologian, I'm told, in "Armageddon, oil and the Middle East crisis" (1990) writes such non-violent gems as "in the end Russia will reap a terrible judgement from god for her atheism, blasphemy and hostility towards Israel" and "the rebels who have not accepted Christ as their Messiah ... will be put to death". Norman K. Robertson in "End time prophesy" (1989) writes "China and ten other massive European and Mediterranean armies will be dissolved into a pool of blood that covers an area of 200 miles".
An anti-militaristic and non-violent vision or psychotic megalomania? Christian thinking is very divided and contradictory — it is not non-violent and judging from support for George Bush over Kuwait, it is not anti-militaristic. However, it is spiritual imperialism.
PS to I. Murrell. No, I'm not a DSP member, just an incensed reader fed up with people who think they have exclusion rights for petty reasons.
Julie Senior
Blaxland NSW
[Edited for length.]