Indonesia and the left
I'm coming up to my 30th year in radical politics. In that time the organised left in this country has been challenged by many issues. Despite tactical differences — which will always exist — what has truly divided the left, polarising it into opposing camps, has been very few issues.
In this time it was initially the question of Stalinism — a point that separated the traditional "old" from the emerging "new" left of radicalising youth and students.
Then it was Labor's Prices and Incomes Accord, soon followed by the question of the Labor Party itself — focused around the challenge of the Nuclear Disarmament Party in the 1984 elections, but later more clearly posed by the continuing rightward shift of the Hawke/Keating government.
Today what seems to be emerging, in my estimation, is a division primarily around international issues. The Australian left is not now being asked to pontificate on the Cuban or Sandinista revolutions, or give the final word on 1917. Rather, it is confronted with one primary task: to offer unconditional support to the burgeoning democratic movement in Indonesia.
It remains to be seen which tendencies will live up to their internationalist rhetoric and comply with the credentials they subscribe to.
Brisbane
Prosser diversion
The recent parliamentary controversy around the minister for small business Ian Prosser — a welcome diversion from the bi-partisan crimes against the environment (greenhouse) and the unemployed (work for the dole) — shouldn't divert our attention from other conflicts of interest in that institution.
According to the June issue of Land Rights News, members of the parliament with pastoral interests include Pauline Hanson, Ian Causley, Tim Fischer, Bob Katter, Ian Sinclair, John Anderson and Senator Amanda Vanstone. In the next sitting they will be discussing how to boost their interests at the expensive of native title holders.
Newtown NSW
Correction
In our letter in GLW #279 concerning the Spartacist League's attitude to the East Timor and Indonesia question we said that "The Spartacists claim that pro-Megawati members of the PDI destroyed PDI headquarters".
While we stand by our other comments in the letter about the Spartacists' approach to solidarity with the PRD and East Timorese's struggle for self-determination, this specific statement misrepresents the actual position printed in the current issue of the Australasian Spartacist.
Sydney
Ireland
Martin Thomas, in his letter (GLW #279), is forced to recognise that Sinn Fèin is "the most militant voice of the worst-off 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ of the oppressed Catholic minority in Northern Ireland". But he never asks himself why this is the case, or why Sinn Fèin has just become the only party represented in both the Dail and Westminster. Isn't it because Sinn Fèin has managed to present itself as a force "for working class unity and for self-determination"?
Sinn Fèin's aim is not to "push Britain to coerce the ... Protestants", but simply to demand that Britain withdraw and let the Irish work it out. Nor can it be claimed that Protestants would be as badly off in a united Ireland as Catholics are in the north, given the lack of anti-Protestant discrimination in the present-day south.
Martin's argument only lessens chances of Irish working-class unity and Irish self-determination — by supporting the continuing privilege of one section of it above the interests of the class as a whole and by giving that Protestant minority a "veto" power over Irish unity. Such a policy would be no different than arguing that Apartheid could only be dismantled with the consent of the whites or that self-determination for the East Timorese requires the advance support of non-Timorese transmigrants.
Enmore NSW
New Labor Party 1
While the New Labour Party's decision to expel members of registered parties such as the DSP is reprehensible, and many people had hoped for a better outcome, the response by Ben Reid in GLW #278 only worsens matters.
Isn't it about time that such labels were consigned to the dustbin of history? Ben Reid's labelling of groups as "Stalinist" typifies the sort of approach we should be dispensing with. It only confirms the arguments of the proscribers and does not open the way for further cooperation. I know efforts were made at earlier stages to include the DSP in the new party, but did not draw much response from the DSP.
It appears the NLP is seeking to be a true working-class party opposed to all other working-class parties. This is a pity and contradicts expectations of more reasonable NLP members. As the Communist Manifesto noted, communists do not form separate parties opposed to other working-class parties and it is a blight on Australian left politics that such tendencies keep on surfacing.
ACT
New Labor Party 2
The report (GLW #278) on the NLP national conference did GLW and its readers a disservice. How 20 hours of formal gasbagging with elected chairs is "limiting debate" beats me. A majority of delegates from every branch except Melbourne supported the proscription resolution brought to the conference by Wollongong NLP branch, which contains ex-DSPers, ex-Greens, ex-CPAers, ex-ALPers, but in its vast majority, people new to political parties.
This resolution said simply that those in a political party (or its electoral vehicle) registered in Australia can't also belong to the NLP. Surprised? Well, the DSP doesn't allow dual membership, nor the ALP, nor the Greens (in my city), nor the Democrats. It seems sort of obvious that one person can't build two or three parties at once. Those of us who made the trip down from the 'Gong didn't leave the conference "feeling less than enthusiastic" either. But what pisses me off most is that in his article Ben Reid called Bob Leach and Rod Noble "Stalinist social democratic conservatives". Next time, can I be one too, please?
Wollongong
New Labor Party 3
I believe effective alliances are a vital way to go in building a mass organisation which includes the aims of both reforming and transforming society.
Surely the NLP merits welcoming and supporting in its aims of building alliances, but so must its safeguards be understood while setting itself up — safeguards involving trustfulness and trustworthiness. Naturally any new party must aim at its own cohesion before launching into an alliance.
Regarding membership of any political party, people in another party could well be a threat within a new party as well as to their old party. Whose policy and leadership do they follow?
According to Ben Reid's report (GLW #278), the recent first national conference of the NLP proscribed DSP members. Whether perceived rightly or wrongly, this is no reason for general denigration of the NLP and many of its members. Obviously such denigration also slows down future alliance possibilities for the left.
As a supporter of GLW, I cannot believe Ben's article correctly reflects GLW policy. While allowing for differences, left parties must be united and seen to be united around urgent policies calling for ever-widening public involvement and support in implementation.
How else can the economy be effectively turned around, corporate globalisation defeated and the ever-widening gap between the richest and the poorest ended? Socialism is shaped by the way we fight for it.
Gladesville NSW
New Labor Party 4
I'm afraid it is these various attempts to downplay or excuse the actions of the NLP leadership in proscribing the DSP which constitute "denigration". My article simply points out that from the standpoint of someone who wants to see a regrouping of the left the NLP's proscription of the DSP suggests that the new party is not a step towards this.
First, there is nothing inaccurate about describing the politics of the Association for Communist Unity or the Maritime Union's Socialist Activities Association as Stalinist. Both groups emerged as splits from the Communist Party of Australia, based on support for the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, and have never embarked on any serious reassessment of their Stalinist politics.
Their conservatism is evidenced by their support for the ALP-ACTU Accord which they have never repudiated. The point is that it is a defining reflection of the NLP leadership's conservative and social democratic politics that they were included, while the DSP, which opposed the Accord, was proscribed.
Second, to be sure any party can determine who can or can't be a member. The real point, however, is that if the NLP is to succeed in Australia it needs to be serious about regrouping the left. We are not in the same situation as New Zealand where the authority of founding figures of the NZ NLP, such as Jim Anderton, provided an instant mass following. Nevertheless, in 1989 the NZ NLP welcomed activists from other left parties. The fact that the leadership of the Australian NLP resorted to proscription at an early stage suggests that the leadership is not serious about regroupment.
Contrary to Chris Warren's assertion, the leadership of the NLP never made moves to include the DSP. When a couple of DSP members applied to join the NLP they were promptly told by Bob Leach and Rod Noble that the DSP would be proscribed.
I will be watching to see if the NLP's attempts to build alliances work out and will welcome any positive outcomes on this level. The DSP has continually attempted build and participate in such alliances with some modest successes. However, if the NLP leadership's willingness to use the politics of exclusion is a reflection of their approach to unity I'm not convinced of their sincerity.
North Carlton Vic
Sri Lanka
We, Friends for Peace in Sri Lanka, are an organisation incorporated in Australia. Our main objective is to promote a durable and peaceful settlement of the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka that recognises the aspirations and security of all peoples in the island. We also aim to create an awareness amongst concerned persons about all facets of this conflict so that a just resolution can be reached.
We are extremely concerned at the escalation of war, as reported in the media recently, and the immense suffering brought upon innocent civilians living in the war-torn area. There have been a number of independent reports of civilian deaths and rape of Tamil women. While we appreciate certain steps the Sri Lankan government has taken in the recent past to investigate such incidents, we urge the government to make independent investigations and to take strong action against persons found guilty.
The continuation of the war has already brought suffering, pain, destruction and death to many thousands of innocent civilians. We believe that the continuation of civilian casualties and suffering will lead to further alienation of the Tamil people and make the reconciliation process more difficult.
Following upon the recent British peace initiative in Sri Lanka, we call on the international community to assist the warring parties to abandon the military path and resume negotiations. Will the warring parties take up this challenge and work for genuine reconciliation and a lasting political solution to the conflict, respecting and recognising equality, justice and the security needs of all the people of Sri Lanka?
Nicholls ACT