Write on: Letters to the editor

German Greens

Since your paper didn't get much feedback on your provocative April 11 front page headline “German Greens betray anti-nuclear movement”, and the accompanying article, I better let you know what I thought of it. As an anti-nuclear activist who participated in many events in Germany as well as the UK, I reckon I am entitled to pass informed comment about the lousy accusations you made against the German Greens.

If the writer of your misleading article ever lived and worked in Germany he might have gained a different perspective of things. I can only say that I was involved in many actions and many debates throughout Germany and I reckon that was the best compromise the Greens could have achieved in these drastic circumstances. The phase-out of the nuclear power industry was the key condition that nearly broke the current Labour-Greens coalition government at the federal level.

The Greens argued long and hard in every way possible and while this might not be the ideal outcome, it was the closest agreement that was likely to get full support in parliament. Not many individuals or groups supported a total stop to nuclear power generation nor did they guide along possible solutions as to where the final deposit sites for the radioactive waste were going to be.

Gorleben might not be the perfect site for this problem, but there are not really any perfect sites in Germany. At least the Greens and the German government had the decency to take proper responsibility for what they had created instead of certain other nuclear-fuel using countries which offload their waste onto poorer nations like the former Soviet Union or various Pacific islands, etc.

Jim Green should not forget that Germany uses lots of power during winter when temperatures in some areas get as low as -30^oC, so heating uses up lots of energy and cannot be that quickly or easily replaced. On the other hand, Germany is leading the way with energy production based on renewable technologies as well as far more stringent regulation to prevent unnecessary energy loss through sub-standard construction in the housing sector. All buildings are far better insulated and rated on energy-efficient criteria than most buildings in Australia.

These facts are positive and are visible evidence of the tireless work done over many years by the German Greens and other concerned folks. Australians will have to also finally come to terms with the nuclear waste situation out here, what solution does your paper and its writers offer in this regard?

Gaby Luft
Nambour Qld

Excellent exposure

Congratulations on your excellent exposure by Sarah Stephen “Refugee crisis: Ruddock’s lies exposed” (GLW #450).

It is a total disgrace that these matters have not been raised by the federal ALP opposition who support the policy of mandatory detention of refugees, with the only qualification by Kim Beazley that the ALP will institute a judicial inquiry into these detention centres rightfully called “concentration camps”.

Steven J. Staats
East Brunswick Vic

Unrealistic

I have been following the articles regarding the Refugee Rights Action Network (RRAN) with interest. In support of Don Owen’s letter (GLW #446), the “complete abandoning of any restrictions on refugee intake” is totally unrealistic. To simply open the gates could possibly leave us in a situation similar to Thatcher’s Britain — overcrowding, a decreased socio-economic environment and a huge strain being placed on public services such as health care and education.

I completely support the RRAN in their push to provide refugees with more humane living conditions during their detainment. The current situation is appalling and the alleged beating of inmates is completely unacceptable in any environment. However, I feel that it is not a realistic course of action to simply demand that all refugees be set free.

First and foremost, the inhumane treatment of detained refugees should be the main point of protest. The fact that the Howard government has turned to a profit-oriented private company to operate its refugee detention centres, a company which in 1998 was found to be negligent in providing a safe working environment for its employees, is outrageous!

If the Australasian Correctional Management organisation is failing to protect its workers then it can't be expected that the rights of its refugee prisoners are of a high priority.

From a humanitarian point of view it saddens and angers me to see the Australian government denying these refugees of the basic rights that we take for granted. But in saying that however, from a realists' point of view, to simply “demand freedom for the refugees” is not addressing the main problems at hand.

Andrew Plimer
Merewether NSW

Socialist Alliance I

I disagree with Michael Birch (Write on, GLW #451) who argued that the Socialist Alliance would be better calling itself New Labour. For a start, that name is already registered by the Canberra branch of the ALP. This would mean that we would be unable to use the name in electoral campaigns. Moreover, I would argue that more than 20 years of “New Labor” from Bill Hayden onwards has wiped out any remaining vestiges of sentimental affection for “traditional” Social Democracy.

For the polity, Labor means nothing more than what we have now.

I would agree with the proposition that “Communism” is a politically useless name to use for a party, at least in Australia. There are simply too many associations with the total failure of political and economic elites in Eastern Europe and too many connections in the minds of people with bureaucratic dictatorships in China and North Korea. Socialism does not have the same profound associations with bureaucratic power.

There are good reasons to publicly argue for socialism at this time. The social coalitions that gave neo-liberals and conservative liberals the opportunity to govern and implement policy have fallen apart, as big business turns on the petty bourgeoisie and makes them the victims. There are now no “visionary” projects to replace the failed promise of individualised prosperity (and the sanctification of greed) made by liberalism. Populism is too fragmented and backward looking; environmentalism has become too all encompassing to be a countervailing vision.

Socialism still has resonances that stand it on the opposite side to the privatisation of social life. As a “vision” it has the difficulty of not having a solidly worked out public policy agenda. That is one of the tasks of the Socialist Alliance.

Jeff Richards
Stepney SA

Socialist Alliance II

Michael Birch writes (GLW #451) that “due to media bias and reactionary politics, terms such as socialism ... have been discredited in the minds of a lot of people”, and concludes that the name Socialist Alliance is not useful. Yet Birch's alternative suggestion is for the alliance to give itself an infinitely more discredited name — New Labor!

Whatever name an organisation uses, if it is against the interests of those who currently hold power, they will try to discredit it. The key then, is to expose to as many people as possible what the organisation really stands for.

The SA is not ashamed, and should not hide, what it is — an alliance of parties and individuals who believe that the world-threatening problems facing humanity can only be solved through a fundamental reorganisation of society along a democratic, socialist basis.

Socialist Alliance, while an accurate and useful name for such an alliance, will only attract a certain pool of people through its name alone, as Birch suggests.

Our challenge then, is to attract people by something far more important than our name — what we stand for, our activity, what we are. And we should proudly say to all we come across “if you want freedom for the refugees; if you want to axe the GST and tax the rich instead; if you want public services fully funded, then don't worry about labels — join us and together we'll fight for it!”

Paul Benedek
Harris Park NSW