*----------------------------------------------------------*
|                                                          |
| x   x x x   x   x  x  xx  xxx xxx  xxx                   |
| xx xx x xx xx   xx x x  x  x  x   x       Issue #23      |
| x x x x x x x   x xx x  x  x  xx   xxx                   |
| x   x x x   x   x  x x  x  x  x       x   04/28/86       |
| x   x x x   x   x  x  xx   x  xxx  xxx                   |
|                                                          |
|----------------------------------------------------------|
|    Newspaper of the Maoist Internationalist Movement     |
*----------------------------------------------------------*


   
   WWIII HEATS UP
   
   SO-CALLED SECOND WORLD GOVERNMENTS BACK LIBYA SCAPEGOATING
   French government officials said that they would have 
supported an all-out attack on Libya to replace Khadafy. 
Hours before the U.S. raid, the U.S. asked for an airfield 
for bombers to take-off from. The French declined. Later they 
said that it would only pique the Arabs to bomb Libya with no 
resulting change in government.
   Meanwhile, England supported the U.S. raid completely by 
letting American planes start from airbases on English soil. 
England has gone farther in isolating Libya than the United 
States in terms of sending Libyan students home. The U.S. is 
not sending home Libyan students in the U.S. because it 
claims that after Khadafy the students will have a good pro-
American influence on Libya.
   Meanwhile, West Germany expelled 41 Libyans from the 
embassy there. W. Germany also covered American plans by 
confirming a few days before the attack that there was no 
danger of a military act by the United States. Through these 
standard procedure military lies, W. Germany and the U.S. 
hoped to catch Libya off guard.
   Denmark expelled several Libyan diplomats and restricted 
the movements of the rest. (Detroit Free Press, 4/23/86)
   By law, the U.S. government can not appear to support the 
assassination of leaders of foreign governments. This law put 
Reagan in the position of denying that the U.S. tried to 
assassinate Khadafy by bombing his headquarters. It turns out 
that Khadafy was indeed inside when the bombing started. Thus 
by calling for Khadafy's assassination, France took the 
hardest line.
   Indeed, France indicated its anger with the U.S. for not 
backing past military actions against Khadafy in regard to 
Libyan activities against Chad. Apparently, the U.S. did not 
share relevant intelligence information when France undertook 
military operations in Chad. France also complained about a 
lack of support for French strikes in the Bekaa valley in 
1983. (New York Times, 4/25/86) French "socialism"--ah so 
inspiring.
   
   DEMOCRATS--WHERE ARE THEY WHEN WAR GETS GOING?
   True to form, the Democrats sought to take advantage of 
the chauvinist upsurge surrounding the attack on Libya. 
Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill supported the action as a 
"justified" "defense" of the 12 mile limit recognized by 
European sponsored "international law." Obviously, none of 
the major Democrats stood up against the invasion, and 
certainly none with presidential aspirations.
   
   SOVIET UNION GAVE GREEN LIGHT FOR BOMBING OF LIBYA
   Asked before the military action what the USSR would do if 
the U.S. took military action against Libya, Soviet diplomats 
said their role would not be to further escalate world 
tension. Concretely, the Soviets pulled out their technicians 
manning anti-aircraft missile batteries in Libya just before 
the U.S. attack. During the attack itself, the Soviet Union 
did not provide any intelligence information to Libya. 
(Chicago Tribune, 4/20/86, p. 13)
   After the attack, the Soviet Union did cancel its pre-
summit meeting with Secretary of State George Schultz. 
However, one Nigerian newsman in Moscow asked Soviet 
officials: "'Is that all?'" (Chicago Tribune, 4/20/86, p. 13)
   A Middle Eastern diplomat grasped the role of Libya. 
"'Every good politician needs his 'bad boy' to do the dirty 
work.... That was Khadafy's job for the Soviet Union.'" 
(Ibid.) Furthermore, "'but it doesn't mean that the Soviet 
Union is automatically ready for war with the U.S. on his 
behalf.'" (Ibid.)
   Libya is indeed a proxy for the Soviet Union despite its 
Islamic government. Western observors estimate that the 
Soviets have sold $15 billion in arms to Libya in the last 
twenty years. In 1980, the Soviet Union may have received 10% 
"of its hard currency earnings from the exchange of Libyan 
petro-dollars for Soviet hardware and advice." (Ibid.)
   However, there are tensions between the Soviets and its 
proxy. The Soviets support Iraq in the war against Iran. 
Libya supports Iran with Soviet weapons. Libya has no Treaty 
of Friendship with the Soviet Union unlike Syria, Iraq and 
South Yemen. Last October Khadafy did not show up for a 
reception in his honor in the Kremlin. (Ibid.) Perhaps for 
this kind of recalcitrance, the USSR allowed Khadafy to see 
what would happen if he did not toe a more pro-Soviet line. 
Days after the attack the Soviets sent a military vessel to 
Libya's ports. Along with diplomatic mouthings this showed 
that the USSR would only go so far in leaving Libya on its 
own.
   
   SOVIETS COOPERATE IN TURNING IN ALLEGED PALESTINIAN 
TERRORISTS
   A German newspaper--Die Welt--said that the Soviet Union 
turned over the names of 30 Palestinians suspected of 
belonging to terrorist groups to the West German government. 
This occurred after the hijacking of the Achille Lauro last 
October. (Detroit Free Press, 4/23/86, p. 15a)
   American officials have admitted to asking Soviet help in 
preventing the attack on the West Berlin disco that the U.S. 
used as a pretext for attacking Libya. (Chicago Tribune, 
4/20/86, p. 13)
   
   U.S. DOES NOT RECOGNIZE INTERNATIONAL LAW IT CLAIMS TO 
PROTECT
   The United States is not a signatory to the treaty that 
establishes the 12 mile limit on territorial waters. Nor does 
the U.S. recognize the international court that handles 
conflicts surrounding the 12 mile limit. Of course, the U.S. 
does not acknowledge the international court ruling against 
U.S. aggression against Nicaragua. The U.S. is hypocritically 
defending "international law" in the name of fighting 
"terrorism," which international courts find the U.S. guilty 
of.
   This is not to say that the U.S. does not have an interest 
in the 12 mile limit as imposed on other countries. Freedom 
of the seas is important to American capitalists who wish to 
exploit the fishing and mineral resources claimed by other 
countries. For example, Third World countries such as Peru 
have suggested a 200 mile limit. This would give oppressed 
countries rights to the resources on the ocean shelf 
extending from a country's coast. Oil and minerals are often 
found on this shelf. "Freedom of the seas" means "freedom to 
exploit" for American capitalists. The United States and 
European countries hope to exploit ocean resources without 
paying anything to countries claiming the 200 mile limit.
   
   REAGAN PLAYS ON ANTI-ARAB RACISM
   Reagan put Iran and Syria on notice that as "terrorist 
countries" they are on the U.S. hit list. Besides widening 
his target and possibilities for world war, Reagan listed 
Libya, Iran and Syria as entire countries, not just 
governments with certain leaders or places where certain 
organizations are active. (Wall Street Journal, 4/24/86) This 
took advantage of and perpetuated anti-Arab racism that 
equates Arabs with terrorism.
   
   REAGAN LINKS LIBYA TO NICARAGUA, VIETNAM
   In attempt to carry "success" in battle from one part of 
the world to another, Reagan said that Libya has given 
Nicaragua $400 million in aid. "'And in this sense they are 
trying to build a Libya on our doorstep. And it's the 
contras, the freedom fighters, who are stopping them.'" 
(Detroit Free Press, 4/23/86, p. 15a) Indeed, the situations 
are connected. The U.S. is overcoming the "post-Vietnam 
syndrome" according to Reagan (Ibid.) and taking a global 
approach to defeat its Soviet rivals.
   Backing this point of view is illustrious scholar Daniel 
Pipes who published an editorial saying "the U.S. should next 
time go all out against Col. Qadhafi--destroying his air 
force, crippling his oil facilities, and so forth." (Wall 
Street Journal, 4/23/86, p. 34) Pipes, son of Richard Pipes, 
Harvard scholar and former foreign policy adviser to Reagan 
on the Soviet Union, said that Reagan was stuck in the 
Vietnam syndrome himself. Speaking against "proportionate 
response" and "incrementalism," as seen in Vietnam according 
to Pipes, the U.S. should deal Khadafy one death blow and end 
the fighting. Pipes concludes that "like Grenada, Libya is 
unusually vulnerable to American power." (Ibid.) Surely the 
son will follow the father into "public service."
   
   WALL STREET JOURNAL CRITICIZES REAGAN AS SOFT
   The Wall Street Journal criticized Reagan for even trying 
to appear to uphold the SALT II treaty. "Death Knell for SDI" 
said that Reagan must stand up to the Soviets or his SDI 
program will suffer because of treaty claims. (The Journal is 
implying that if Reagan is going to uphold SALT II, what 
about SALT I? Won't he give up SDI for SALT I?) (Wall Street 
Journal, 4/23/86, p. 34)
   
   RETIRED ISRAELI GENERAL ADMITS $2 BILLION DEAL WITH IRAN
   An Israeli retired general attempted to export $2 billion 
in arms to Iran. He claimed that Israeli authorities quietly 
authorized him to make the deal. (Wall Street Journal, 
4/24/86)
   
   SOVIETS STRIKE BACK IN INTERNATIONAL SITUATION--
AFGHANISTAN
   Moslem rebels in Afghanistan admitted that Soviet 
commandos captured and destroyed the most important rebel 
base near the border with Pakistan. (Wall Street Journal, 
4/24/86) The Soviet strike demonstrates that while the U.S. 
may have control in the Libya situation, the Soviets can also 
accelerate progress toward nuclear holocaust and make a point 
of it when the U.S. flexes its muscle.
   
   SOVIETS STRIKE IN ERITREA TOO
   An April 14th communique from the Eritrean People's 
Liberation Front stated that three to five thousand 
"additional Soviet technicians and pilots have recently 
arrived in Asmara in connection with the Dergue's ongoing 
preparation for yet another large-scale offensive against the 
EPLF.... This raises the number of Soviet military advisors 
in Eritrea to 6,500-8,500."
   The EPLF has chosen not to confront the Soviet Union with 
a fully Maoist analysis. In the communique it "calls upon the 
Soviet Union to stop its steadily escalating intervention in 
support of Ethiopia's policy of expansionism and 
destabilization and, instead, use its authority and 
influence, as a big power, to bring about peace and 
stability."
   In any case, the Soviets moves in Ethiopia coincided with 
its removing anti-aircraft experts from action in Libya prior 
to the U.S. attack. The Soviets thus demonstrated that its 
international posture is not weakening and that properly 
subservient countries such as Ethiopia will receive the aid 
they need.
   
   SOUTH AFRICA CHANGES INFLUX CONTROL
   South Africa apparently abolished pass laws for Blacks and 
released prisoners convicted for pass law offenses.
   In the past, Blacks carried around a passbook everywhere 
to justify their presence in white areas. Without official 
permission as indicated in the passbook, Blacks were subject 
to arrest and imprisonment. Most Blacks suffered under the 
law at one time or another.
   Now it appears that all peoples in South Africa will carry 
around identification cards. (New York Times, 4/25/86)
   AZAPO denounced the appearance of reform in South Africa: 
"The removal of influx control is a very minute step towards 
the removal of the racist laws that entrench white 
supremacy." (Ibid.)
   AZAPO also pointed out that economic influx control will 
replace legal influx control. Blacks may have the right to 
visit the white areas, but they may not remain without a 
residence. In other words, South Africa's extreme housing 
shortage for Blacks will mean a different law will keep 
Blacks out of the white areas. (Ibid.)
   "'Local authorities... still will have control over the 
movement of people. It will take place within the framework 
of provisions to control squatting, to enforce health 
regulations, to deal with loitering and congregating,'" said 
Mary Burton of the Black Sash a civil rights organization 
composed of women. (Chicago Tribune, 4/27/86, p. 10)
   
   NEW YORK TIMES NOTICES DIRECT AMERICAN TROOP ROLE IN 
CENTRAL AMERICA
   Although U.S. servicemen are flying contras in and out of 
battle- zones in Nicaragua and Honduras, the New York Times 
has chosen to make a front page story out of a different 
fact: American Army helicopters and 50 American soldiers took 
a role in flying Honduran troops to areas near the Nicaraguan 
border where supposed Sandinista aggressions were taking 
place. (NYTimes, 3/27/86, p. a1) This apparently is "news fit 
to print." Wonderful American troops are protecting tiny 
sovereign and defenseless Honduras.
   The same actions by Americans for contras is not fit to 
print partly because the war in Central America is semi-
covert still: The American press does not report American 
supplied bombing in El Salvador or the role of Americans in 
the contra war. The U.S. government actually does conduct a 
semi-covert war thanks to the media.
   
   HONDURAN OFFICIAL BLOWS SCRIPT
   The American sponsored regime in Honduras is in quite a 
bind. On the one hand, the president of the country told the 
press of a supposed international incident in which 
Sandinistas pursued contra enemies into Honduras. Honduras 
requested military aid and received the American troop 
support discussed above. However, there is a certain price to 
pay for this lackeyism. Honduran officials later covered 
themselves by saying that it was Reagan who suggested the 
whole uproar and military aid in the first place. This keeps 
Honduras from appearing to want to fight Nicaragua on behest 
of the United States. "'The United States interest was that 
this situation have the connotation of an international 
incident,'" said a Honduran official. "'We had no interest in 
this.'" (New York Times, 4/3/86, p. a1) The irony of American 
supported regimes is that they sometimes can not appear too 
slavish lest they upset the nationalist sentiments of the 
people they need to repress at the smallest cost possible.
   Still, the United States threatened to cut off military 
aid if Honduras did not complain about Nicaraguan incursions. 
Once it did complain, Honduras received $20 million in 
military aid. (Detroit Free Press, 3/29/86, p. a1)
   
   NPA SPLINTERING?
   One of Aquino's first acts in power was to free 500 
political prisoners "including Jose Maria Sison, founder of 
the Communist Party, and Bernabe Buscayno, first leader of 
the New People's Army." (New York Times, 3/25/86, p. 3) Such 
actions can obviously cause both leadership quarrels amongst 
the rebels and popular sympathy for Aquino.
   Reports have trickled out of NPA units' surrendering. 
However, one such surrender involved only 20 guns and 1,000 
supposed communists. It is not clear how much that particular 
incident is merely a staged surrender created by the 
government. (Ibid.)
   
   HOW TO SURVIVE NUCLEAR WAR, BY THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE
   The front page of the "Tomorrow: Science, medicine and 
technology" section of the Chicago Tribune featured 
instructions to build a fall-out shelter.
   The Federal Emergency Management Agency operates with the 
philosophy that "'You need civil defense for the same reason 
you wear seat belts. Pulling seat belts on doesn't mean you 
drive more recklessly.'" (Chicago Tribune, 2/16/86)
   It's enough to make one wonder why the government does not 
tell people to carry around pillows: "You need civil defense 
for the same reason you carry around pillows. Carrying 
pillows around doesn't mean you will jump off more buildings 
and bridges."
   "The U.S. Defense Department estimates that a limited 
nuclear war could result in as few as 5 percent fatalities, 
or about 12 million Americans." (Ibid.) That's quite a few.
   Obviously the government and its vigilant press are 
preparing the public for an escalation of war hostilities to 
the level of nuclear holocaust. So don't wait, save your 
C.O.D.s and send cash or check to the "Survival Center," NY, 
NY for a "one-year food supply costing $975 per person that 
can be purchased on a layaway plan." (Ibid.)
   The recommended food supply is found in "Life After 
Doomsday." "8 cans of crackers or cookies; 4 pounds of candy; 
a pound each of sugar and salt; 16 jars of coffee, tea or 
cocoa; 8 dozen bottles of soft drinks; 16 cans of evaporated 
milk; 16 cans of fruit; 32 cans each of vegetables, soups and 
entrees such as meat or fish; 16 jars of peanut butter; 8 
jars of jam; and 56 single-serving packets of cereal." 
(Ibid.)
   Of course, "the comfort level of the shelter varies with 
the cost... A section of basement can be converted to provide 
some additional fallout shelter for as little as $500." 
(Ibid.)
   
   ROUTINE BRUTALITY PROCEDURE BACKFIRES
   Police barged in on a supposed narcotics dealer's house. 
The attack was a surprise attack. No one in the house was 
prepared or asked in advance to surrender.
   However, this was not an ordinary raid. A different squad 
of police were already inside questioning their suspects--not 
aware of the other squad's plans to barge in.
   This time there could be no lies or cover-up at least on 
some of the basic facts. In the end two Detroit police 
officers were shot dead. Police officers shot police officers 
before asking questions, all within twenty seconds. (Detroit 
Free Press, 3/2/86)
   For once, American "democracy," "procedure" and "due 
process" did not victimize the oppressed. But will anyone 
believe the police's story about restraint and procedure 
after the next police murder?
   
   NATIVE AMERICAN OPPRESSION: ANOTHER CHAPTER
   U.S. plundering of American Indian land has still not 
ended for the inhabitants of Big Mountain. The U.S. 
government has threatened these tribes with military force 
unless they evacuate their land for the use of uranium mining 
companies. But the Indians are not giving up; for hundreds of 
years the Navajos and Hopis have shared the joint use area 
(JUA) of Northeast Arizona. Relocating them would be 
traumatic and impossible.
   Women of the Navajo tribes (the Navajo, or Dine, are 
matrilineal) have led the fight; many have been arrested. The 
military option is only one step in the U.S.'s long 
domination of these peoples. In the 1960s, herbicides were 
sprinkled on the area to justify reduction of livestock on 
"overgrazed" land. The mass of the American public has heard 
only, if at all, of the Navajo-Hopi land dispute, which the 
government hopes will justify its brutal relocation plan. In 
reality corporate intervention caused the infighting, and its 
exaggeration only obscures the real issue of genocide; both 
groups have been denied fundamental human rights. The most 
obvious results are the framing of Leonard Peltier, the 
record suicide and alcoholism rates among Indian peoples.
   Concerned people should write: Big Mountain Legal 
Defense/Offence Committee, 124 N. San Francisco, Flagstaff, 
AZ, 86001. In her letter to the feminist newsmonthly 
Sojourner, Lynn Rose asks, "what about the Native Americans? 
While we work to keep our homes free of the nuclear threat, 
we virtually ignore the very source of that threat: the 
mining of uranium. We may not be aware of the very high rates 
of cancer, miscarriage and death due to uranium mining on 
Indian lands. The antinuclear movement is made up largely of 
white people. Are we on some level acting as a white self-
interest group?" (Soujourner, Oct. 1985)
   
   THE KILLING OF JUDITH PENLEY: MASS EFFORTS NEEDED TO 
DISCOVER TRUTH
   September 26, 1985--Tennessee Valley Authority nuclear 
plant worker Judith Penley is shot to death by two shots in 
the head as she sits in a friend's care near a parking lot. 
Later the county police find indications that the murder has 
been the work of a professional, maybe a contract killer. 
Many friends, who know that Penley complained about the 
nuclear plant's disregard of safety precautions, now believe 
she was killed to silence her. Where is the truth?
   Local authorities have suggested that the killing involved 
Judith Penley personally. But they have failed to uncover any 
reason why Penley, a quiet mother of 2 children, happily 
married, should have aroused such animosity.
   The investigation of Penley's murder is important, but can 
any real justice be done by an FBI which may well have helped 
cover up the killing of Karen Silkwood? (Off Our Backs, Dec. 
1985)
   
   SHUTTLE LOSS AGGRIEVES PENTAGON
   According to so-called "Defense" Secretary Caspar 
Weinberger, "' the actual shuttle capacity has been reduced 
by more than a quarter, so we are going to have to delay and 
push back many of the programs-- payloads as they're called--
that we had planned for the shuttle, including some of the 
Strategic Defense' programs."
   
   SOVIET ACADEMICIANS STRUGGLE AGAINST STATE CAPITALISM
   "A leading Soviet economist has published an article 
asserting that economic opportunity in the Soviet Union is 
still determined to a large extent by a person's social 
status, connections and geographic location." (New York 
Times, 1/27/86, p. a4) It seems that Tatyana Zaslavskaya has 
taken to criticizing the Soviet social structure by comparing 
it with communism. It is hard to say how far the economist is 
willing to go in criticizing the Soviet Union, but outsiders 
must remember that struggle takes different forms in 
different conditions. At the very least, this economist is 
criticizing the Soviet Union from the left.
   Most encouragingly, Tatyana Zaslavskaya argues that the 
Soviet Union has yet to meet Marx's expectations of 
socialism, never mind communism. For instance, she says that 
pay is not according to work in the Soviet Union.
   "'Opportunities for the timely development of one's 
abilities are still dependent to a large extent on one's 
geographical locations and on the social standing of one's 
parents.... The higher the level of study, the greater is the 
difference among social groups.... The majority of students 
in the most prestigious schools are the graduates of the best 
Moscow schools.... The majority of girls who graduate from 
village schools have to go to work at cattle farms because 
there are no other jobs for them, while graduates from urban 
schools have a wide choice of professions.'" (Ibid.) It seems 
unlikely that any faction of the state capitalist class would 
point up these factors as roadblocks to classless society.
   Another article suggested that Gorbachev's modernization 
program would result in large bouts of temporary 
unemployment. (Ibid.) Again this could represent the struggle 
of one faction of one group of state capitalists against 
another. Often in the Soviet Union since the 60s, sections of 
the government have argued unemployment to get workers to 
ally with one section of the state capitalist class against 
another. On the other hand, talk of large unemployment opens 
the way to criticisms of the Soviet social structure and may 
be interpreted quite extensively in the Soviet context.
   
   PLO/ISRAELI COLLABORATOR MAYOR KILLED
   A pro-Soviet faction of the PLO working with Abu Nidal 
killed a mayor on the West Bank upon the failure of Jordanian 
"peace talks" with Yasser Arafat. Reportedly, 50,000 
Palestinians attended the funeral of Zafer al-Masri. They 
carried pictures of the slain mayor and Arafat. Arafat had 
endorsed the mayor after Israel made it clear it would 
appoint him and after he claimed to have found that Zafer al-
Masri was indeed popular. (Detroit Free Press, 3/4/86)
   Apparently the death of the mayor evoked some nationalist 
sentiments that deserve respect. Of course, there are also a 
number of Palestinians economically dependent on Jordan on 
the West Bank. 2,500 receive civil servant salaries from 
Jordan. Many others sell farm produce to Jordan. (Ibid.)
   The assassination by the mayor represents stepped up 
efforts of the anti-Arafat and pro-Syrian factions of the 
PLO. Arafat is clearly getting tagged as a collaborator with 
Israel and Jordan. On the other hand, the attackers appear 
equally dependent on Syria.
   Overall Arafat is in a difficult position. He benefits 
from the sympathy for the assassinated mayor, but he is also 
clearly identified with Israel in that sympathy.
   MIM would like to ask various long-standing cheerleaders 
of the PLO: who are they waving the flag for now? Nothing 
could cause greater disorientation than hitching one's cart 
whole-heartedly to this opportunist-led organization. Arafat 
has done everything short of taking an Israeli salary and 
appears to realize his value to Israel and the United States 
as a potential ally relative to more pro-Soviet leaders in 
the PLO. He is left to holding out for the best deal until 
the day he gets one or is assassinated by impatient Israelis. 
While the PLO's cause deserves support, its factionalization 
and opportunism points up that it was not always the perfect 
vehicle of revolutionary nationalism it was cracked up to be 
by its tag-along supporters. The Palestinian people deserve 
better leadership.
   
   APARTHEID NORMALIZES VIOLENCE
   The white settler regime occupying Azania (South Africa) 
lifted its seven month state of emergency. It is no longer 
considered an emergency to shoot the Black people of Azania 
every day. Indeed, the settler regime's violence has 
increased: "The rate of killings has risen to five a day from 
fewer than four before the emergency was lifted." (New York 
Times, 3/27/86, p. a1)