Iraq
The United States has continued to remind the world that it will be handing over power to the Iraqis after June 30, 2004. The US Coalition Provisional Authority will hand over power to some form of Iraqi government from this date. What form the new government will take is unknown. What is known is that it will have no legitimacy.
The war in Iraq between the occupying powers and the Iraqi resistance continues unabated. The US has said that it will not allow elections to occur prior to the handover of power because it doesn't believe there is sufficient time to organise them. The real reason is that the US knows it can't control the outcome. It also knows that despite having 130,000 troops in the country, it cannot provide the security that is needed to allow for orderly elections.
Whether elections occur before or after June 30, however, is quite irrelevant to who will control Iraq. US forces will still remain in the country and can be used to pressure any interim or permanent Iraqi government to comply with US demands. The US has stated that it envisages having forces in Iraq for years to come.
The US has clearly decided that Iraq will remain its puppet for many years. The debate over when elections occur is merely a charade to try to convince the outside world that real progress is being made towards Iraqi independence.
Whatever happens between now and June 30, you can be assured the chaos that envelops Iraq will continue because the resistance is fighting to free their country from foreign domination. The debate over so-called elections is irrelevant to the resistance because they are seeking a higher aim — the removal of foreign forces from their soil.
Reconstruction of Iraq can only begin when the resistance is either killed off or lays down their arms. Neither is remotely likely. Those who oppose the US occupation grow with each passing day.
The real question then is whether the US is willing to withdraw its forces in order to allow Iraq to begin its own reconstruction?
Adam Bonner
Meroo Meadow NSW
Che and gays I
Darryl Croke (Write On, GLW #570) criticises the presence of a Che Guevara banner at Melbourne's Pride march. He claims that Che was homophobic. Croke does not cite any specific actions by Che that harmed gays, but says: "The history of the Cuban revolution and queers is abysmal. Post-revolution queers have suffered from state-sponsored oppression".
It is true that there was discrimination against gays in the early years of the Cuban Revolution. Many Cuban revolutionaries shared the homophobic prejudices of the broader society. These prejudices did not disappear overnight when the revolution was victorious.
There was a period between 1965 and 1967 during which many gay men were sent to so-called Military Units to Aid Production (UMAP), which were in effect labour camps. These began as a civilian alternative to military service for those deemed unsuitable to be soldiers (including gays), but some gays not of military age were also sent to UMAP.
According to Jose Yglesias, who spent several months in Cuba in 1967, the initiative for the creation of UMAP seems to have come from within the Cuban army. Fidel Castro initially acquiesced, but became increasingly opposed to UMAP and eventually insisted on its abolition. (Yglesias, In the Fist of the Revolution, Penguin 1968, pp. 13-14, 268-9, 273-4, 286.)
I am not aware of Che's attitude to UMAP. He was out of Cuba for much of the 1965-67 period, leading guerrilla struggles in Congo and Bolivia.
In subsequent decades, the position of gays in Cuba has improved markedly. The Cuban government has recognised and corrected its past errors. Today the government consciously combats anti-gay prejudice through education, the media etc.
To get a feel for both the legacy of prejudice and the struggle to overcome it, it is worth seeing the Cuban film Strawberry and Chocolate if you get a chance. The two main characters are a gay man and a Communist Party member who is vehemently anti-gay. The film ends with the CP member overcoming his prejudice and embracing the gay man. In real life, the struggle against prejudice is far from over. But the fact that the film was made and shown in Cuba shows the progress that has been made.
Incidentally, the Che banner at the Melbourne Pride march was a Resistance banner. (Croke gives the impression it was a Socialist Alliance banner).
Chris Slee
Melbourne
@letter =
Che and gays II
In his condemnation of Che Guevara and the Cuban revolution, Darryl Croke (Write On, GLW #570) makes a number of superficial generalisations, which are not only ahistorical but also disingenuous.
Croke is wrong in asserting that while queers "are no worse off" in Cuba "than in other countries", this "isn't much of a boast from a country that claims to be socialist and liberators of humanity".
While state-sanctioned homophobia has existed in the past in Cuba, the social advances made as part of the revolution have ensured that the lives of gays, lesbians and queers are in fact far better than those of their counterparts in many places around the world, particularly compared to other Latin American and Third world countries. This is because ordinary, working, people are better off in Cuba than in these other countries.
Queers, like everyone else in Cuba, have access to free healthcare and education, subsidised housing and food as a result of the revolution. Without the revolution, the lives of homosexuals would have continued to be determined by all the socioeconomic and political limitations which constrain the majority of the population in capitalist countries.
In other parts of Latin America and the capitalist world, queers are still hounded by the press, subject to criminalisation, city-wide arrests, witch hunts and assassinations.
In Cuba, as writer Erika Bjorklund points out, while homophobia may exist on the part of individuals, it is no longer state-sanctioned and as a result "it is not the kind that makes homosexuals risk being assaulted, battered and murdered because of their orientation".
Kim Bullimore
Lakemba NSW [Abridged]
Without prejudice
I read your paper from time to time. Thank you for your efforts in bringing green issues to the attention of the community. I am particularly interested in the story by Anthony Benbow, "Rally for a canal free Coogee" (February 11, 2004).
It is important to report the facts on issues within the community, so I wish to bring to your attention that part of Benbow's story does not state the facts. I make reference to the sentence, "A large part of the beach is in danger of being swallowed up by the proposed Port Coogee development."
A beach does not exist where the proposed development is to "swallow it up". It is, in fact, a small section of coast, lined with limestone rock armour. Behind the armour wall is a derelict, debris strewn , industrial wasteland! The site of the proposed development, does not consist of a white, sand beach frequented by the public, as Benbow portrays.
In my opinion, on this occasion you have not accurately researched or reported the facts regarding "WA's Coogee beach".
Perhaps you may care to visit the area — Owen Anchorage, not Coogee Beach — in person, in order to form your own view.
Alan Davison
Cockburn WA [Abridged]
Rotten and more rotten
Thank you for your February 4 article "Indonesia: Broad opposition to 'rotten' politicians". The acquittal of Akbar Tandjung by the Indonesian Supreme Court is a crowning example of why a widescale populist movement is needed in Indonesia to oppose rotten politicians.
Indonesian voters have the opportunity in the coming elections to remove the corrupt elite from political power but it can only happen if voters receive the right messages and education from a free press and voices who can freely express opposition without fear of intimidation.
Helen Yaxley
Partai Pelopor DPR-RI candidate for Maluku
Indonesia
From Green Left Weekly, February 25, 2004.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.