De Klerk Becomes Pretoria President

F. W. de Klerk was sworn in today as Acting President of South Africa and said that the country was about to enter an era of change. Mr. de Klerk reaffirmed his promises to phase out white rule and involve blacks in talks about South Africa's future, but without submitting whites to what he has called majority domination. ''There is no doubt that we stand on the threshold of a new era in South and southern Africa,'' Mr. de Klerk, the National Party leader, said in a prepared statement. ''History, I believe, offers us a unique opportunity for peaceful solutions.'' Expected to Be President

Mr. de Klerk is widely expected to become President if the National Party wins the parliamentary elections on Sept. 6, as seems probable. The low-key inauguration, in the presidential wing of the Union Buildings, was attended only by his wife, Marike, other Cabinet ministers and a few dozen journalists. At a news conference afterward, Mr. de Klerk paid tribute to his predecessor, P. W. Botha, who resigned on Monday after losing a confrontation with Mr. de Klerk and other members of his Cabinet. Mr. Botha refused to appoint a successor, so Mr. de Klerk was unanimously chosen by his colleagues to fill the vacancy.

Mr. de Klerk said Mr. Botha's ''greatest gift to South Africa'' was that ''he has put our country on the road to fundamental reform, that he successfully started pulling South Africa out of its dead-end streets and that he guided us in the direction of a totally new dispensation.'' A Contrast in Tone Mr. de Klerk's magnanimity contrasted conspicuously with the tone of Mr. Botha's address on Monday night, when he complained that his Cabinet ministers were ignoring him and that Mr. de Klerk was to travel to Zambia to meet President Kenneth D. Kaunda without his permission. Mr. Botha met with Mr. Kaunda in April 1982. Mr. de Klerk told reporters today that his new responsibilities might preclude the visit to Zambia. But tonight, it was disclosed that he had written President Kaunda, saying that he and Foreign Minister Roelof F. Botha would meet the Zambian leader as scheduled in Livingston on Aug. 28. The Foreign Minister's office released the text of a letter that Mr. Kaunda had written earlier assuring President Botha that he did not mean to undercut him but wanted to meet Mr. de Klerk as a person who would occupy a leadership position in the region.

In response to another question, Mr. de Klerk also said that Nelson R. Mandela, South Africa's best-known political prisoner, would not be released before a President was chosen by the electoral college on Sept. 14, a day after the new Parliament is to be convened. Mr. de Klerk said he should not ''in any way whatsoever try to arrange the future'' in his temporary capacity. Frosty Relations Since February Political analysts here said that President Botha, in taking his leave of politics, had tried to hurt Mr. de Klerk and the National Party by sowing doubts about their motives among the white electorate. Mr. de Klerk replaced Mr. Botha as party leader in February after Mr. Botha suffered a stroke, and their relations have been frosty since.

The reaction today of the South African press and public to Mr. Botha's resignation appeared to be one of relief. Business Day, the country's leading financial newspaper, said that ''seldom, if ever, has this country had a leader more widely detested,'' and added, ''It is well that he is gone.'' But one political analyst noted that Mr. Botha still commanded respect among some traditional National Party constituencies and that some whites might vote for the opposition, the right-wing Conservative Party, if they felt the retiring President had been ill used by his party. When a reporter asked Mr. de Klerk about his plans, he replied, ''We want to build a new South Africa in which all people will participate in decisions affecting their lives at all levels of government, but in such a way that no one group amongst the diversity which we have in South Africa will be in a position to dominate others.''

Source: New York Times

Botha, Rebuffed by His Party, Quits South Africa Presidency

P. W. Botha quit under pressure tonight as South Africa's President, complaining that his Cabinet ministers were ignoring him. His announcement, delivered in a disjointed and rambling address in Afrikaans on national television, followed a Cabinet meeting this morning in which the 73-year-old Mr. Botha lost a confrontation he had forced with F. W. de Klerk, his successor as leader of the governing National Party.

At issue was Mr. de Klerk's right to travel to Zambia later this month to meet President Kenneth D. Kaunda without getting Mr. Botha's approval first. But this was overshadowed by a wide perception among politicians, journalists and ordinary South Africans that the President had been trying to undercut Mr. de Klerk since the latter succeeded him as National Party leader about six months ago. President Botha said he would not approve Mr. de Klerk's trip to Zambia because President Kaunda has given refuge to the outlawed African National Congress, which is seeking to overthrow the white Government in Pretoria, and has encouraged foreign pressure on South Africa. ''I am of the opinion that it is inopportune to meet with President Kaunda at this stage,'' Mr. Botha said.

The President announced his resignation 23 days before the next parliamentary elections, which are the toughest the National Party has faced since it came to power in 1948. Mr. de Klerk has been trying to rally the party against its opponents, the right-wing Conservative Party and the liberal Democratic Party, in what has so far been a lackluster campaign for control of the white house of Parliament, and thus the Government. Had Mr. de Klerk not stood up to Mr. Botha today, his credibility as the leader of a party under fire would have been compromised and the likelihood of becoming the next President diminished. In his remarks, Mr. Botha disclosed that Mr. de Klerk and his allies proposed at today's Cabinet meeting that the President, who suffered a stroke in January, retire on grounds of ill health. Mr. Botha said he replied that could not leave ''with such a lie. It is evident to me that after all these years of my best efforts for the National Party and for the Government of this country as well as the security of this country, I am being ignored by ministers in my Cabinet,'' the South African President said. ''I consequently have no choice other than to announce my resignation.''

Mr. Botha, who submitted his resignation to Chief Justice Michael Corbett, did not name a successor. Foreign Minister Roelof F. Botha, who is not related to the President, indicated in a television interview tonight that Mr. de Klerk would be sworn in on Tuesday. The South African Constitution says that a Cabinet minister chosen by his colleagues may be acting President. It is expected that Mr. de Klerk will be elected President after the elections on Sept. 6. In a television interview after President Botha's announcement, Mr. de Klerk and Foreign Minister Botha took polite exception to the President's remarks. ''We are sad that a man who has done so much for his country has to retire under these unhappy circumstances,'' Mr. de Klerk said. Effects on Nation's Politics

He confirmed that the Cabinet ministers had suggested that Mr. Botha resign on grounds of poor health. ''We felt that his state of health justified this,'' Mr. de Klerk said, reinforcing a public perception that the stroke had affected the President more than he admitted. It appears likely that the National Party will win the election, but with a smaller majority in Parliament. The resignation was expected to help the party by reinforcing the image it is cultivating as a force for evolutionary change in South Africa.

The change in leadership is unlikely to immediately affect the situation of the black majority, which is excluded from the parliamentary elections. Though Mr. de Klerk is perceived as more enlightened than President Botha, he still supports the basic concept of racially separate groups and has promised that an end to white control will not lead to domination by the black majority. It was an ignominious finish to the career of a politician who began as a National Party organizer 54 years ago. Mr. Botha was elected to Parliament in 1948. He became Defense Minister in 1966, Prime Minister in 1978 and President in 1984 under a new constitution that combined the duties of heads of state and government. For a decade, he was simultaneously the National Party leader.

Under his rule, the South African Army became the most powerful military force in Africa. But Mr. Botha also promised political change and expanded the whites-only Parliament to include smaller chambers representing South Africans of mixed race and of Asian descent. After the President suffered his stroke on Jan. 18, his aides described it as a mild one. But Mr. Botha sent a letter to National Party members of Parliament on Feb. 2, announcing that he was stepping down as National Party leader, though not as President, and asking them to choose a successor. The legislators elected Mr. de Klerk.

Mr. Botha, who was understood to have preferred Finance Minister Barend du Plessis, never publicly congratulated Mr. de Klerk. And he remained as President, in a position to block any decisions by Mr. de Klerk. Old Scores Settled But Mr. de Klerk quickly won the loyalty of the party's members of Parliament, who had chafed under Mr. Botha's sometimes autocratic leadership. After Mr. Kaunda announced last Thursday that he would meet Mr. de Klerk, President Botha called a special Cabinet meeting for today to discuss the offer. Mr. de Klerk outflanked him by getting the backing of the other Cabinet ministers.

The President, in objecting to Mr. de Klerk's plans to meet President Kaunda, made no mention of his own meeting with the Zambian leader on South Africa's frontier with Botswana on April 30, 1982, when Mr. Kaunda was, if anything, even less sympathetic toward Pretoria. But his portrayal of Mr. de Klerk's pending trip to Zambia as unpatriotic did not seem likely to scuttle it, unless President Kaunda chooses to take umbrage at Mr. Botha's criticism or Mr. de Klerk decides it would hurt the party in the coming elections. Foreign Minister Botha observed that ''in every other African state except Lesotho and Swaziland, there is an A.N.C. presence.''

Source: New York Times

South Africa's Tide Shifts

Nelson Mandela holds the keys. He is South Africa's true jailer, and the country's white leaders his prisoners. That is the pronounced significance of Mr. Mandela's visit from prison to President Pieter W. Botha and the trek of Frederik W. de Klerk, Mr. Botha's heir-in-waiting, to the capitals of Europe. Soon Mr. de Klerk will visit Washington. A major U.S. initiative is possible.

Mr. Mandela's tea with President Botha need not mean his imminent release from detention after 26 years. Nor does his recent family birthday party in prison, his comparatively comfortable accommodations there and the attention being paid to him and his movements by all South Africans. Nevertheless, the gradual shift of Mr. Mandela, 71, from antihero to hero, is intended by the white-minority Government to confer a new legitimacy on him and, according to a recent speech by Mr. de Klerk, also on the African National Congress, Mr. Mandela's exiled and banned guerrilla movememt.

Mr. Botha, Mr. de Klerk and most other white political leaders now know that Mr. Mandela and the A.N.C. are essential to any solution of South Africa's color crisis. Mr. Botha wanted, in the last three months of his tenure as President, to measure the mettle of his foremost adversary. He and Mr. de Klerk at last well appreciate that he must be released. But when? And how? To free Mr. Mandela before the national election on Sept. 6 (from which black voters are excluded), would adversely affect the fortunes of Mr. de Klerk's ruling National Party. Mr. Botha might release him during those few weeks after the election when he is still in power, before turning the presidency over to Mr. de Klerk. But a new government would be ill-equipped to deal with the tumultuous result. Moreover, the National Party is also intensely interested in the results of the Constituent Assembly election in neighboring Namibia. The election there will be held Nov. 1, and the National Party hopes to obtain as many votes as possible for the white-led Democratic Turnhalle Alliance in its competition with the South West Africa People's Organization. Although there is a conference of Commonwealth heads in late October, and Mr. Mandela's release would prevent any renewed threat of sanctions and gain South Africa the backing of Britain, the impact of such a release on the Namibian election would prove more decisive for South Africa. For these reasons, and because Mr. de Klerk will, understandably, want carefully to prepare South Africa for Mr. Mandela's release, the beginning of the end of apartheid is not yet at hand.

The fact that white South Africa courts Mr. Mandela, may even be negotiating at a low level with the A.N.C. and hardly tries to prevent large delegations from making the trek to Lusaka, Zambia, to meet and be impressed by the A.N.C. leaders, adds excitement and new hope to those who seek peace in South Africa. Certainly the African National Congress, having largely shed its rampant Marxism in the post-Gorbachev era, is ready to help plan South Africa's future with whites. Both sides are studying constitutional options anew. Once Mr. Mandela is free, other political prisoners are released and the A.N.C. unbanned, then the guerilla movement, internal African opponents of apartheid and the Government will be able to negotiate.

That scenario, once a fantasy, is now - according to the representatives of the Government and A.N.C. -very much closer at hand than at any time since 1948. No one believes the National Party wants to give up all its power, but a weariness of combat and miserable economic forecasts impel change. South Africa has severe balance of payments problems, high inflation, a falling index of business confidence and little room for maneuver. Only a political settlement can permit a return to positive rates of growth. Mr. de Klerk will come to power knowing that Mr. Mandela's freedom and negotiations with the A.N.C. are the costs of prosperity.

When Mr. de Klerk visits Washington this month to see Secretary of State James Baker, many Congressmen and perhaps President Bush, he can be reminded how much the U.S. wants to see a negotiated settlement. More than that, Mr. Baker or Mr. Bush can offer to convene and preside over a Camp David session for South Africa. It might even make sense for President Bush to offer to preside with Mikhael Gorbachev, who also wants a negotiated peace in South Africa. The African National Congress is ready to talk, and so might whites be also willing to talk, realistically in a prestigious setting about their future in a united South Africa.

Source: New York Times

The Role of the Socialist

The Socialist International was founded a hundred years ago in order to coordinate the worldwide struggle of democratic socialist movements for social justice, human dignity and democracy.

Democratic socialism is an international movement for freedom, social justice and solidarity. Its goal is to achieve a peaceful world where these basic values can be enhanced and where each individual can live a meaningful life with the full development of his or her personality and talents and with the guarantee of human and civil rights in a democratic framework of society.

The idea of democracy is based on the principles of freedom and equality. Therefore, equal rights for men and women - not only in theory, but also in practice, at work, in the family and in all areas of social life - are part of the socialist concept of society.

Individual rights are fundamental to the values of socialism. Democracy and human rights are also the substance of popular power, and the indispensable mechanism whereby people can control the economic structures which have so long dominated them. Without democracy, social policies cannot disguise the dictatorial character of a government

Freedom from arbitrary and dictatorial government is essential. It constitutes the precondition whereby peoples and societies can create a new and better world of peace and international cooperation - a world in which political, economic and social destinies will be democratically determined.

In addition to the principles which guide all democratic socialists, there is a clear consensus among socialists on fundamental values. Despite all diversity, it is common ground that democracy and human rights are not simply political means to socialist ends but the very substance of those ends - a democratic economy and society.

Individual freedom and basic rights in society are the preconditions of human dignity for all. These rights cannot replace one another, nor can they be played off against each other. Socialists protect the inalienable right to life and to physical safety, to freedom of belief and free expression of opinion, to freedom of association and to protection from torture and degradation. Socialists are committed to achieve freedom from hunger and want, genuine social security, and the right to work.

Inequality between men and women is the most pervasive form of oppression in human history. It may be traced almost to the origin of the species itself and has persisted in almost every socio-economic order to the present time.

In order to generate employment and prosperity all across the world, there is a need for ecologically balanced development. Growth which is not designed to meet ecological and social imperatives runs counter to progress, since it will cause environmental damage and destroy jobs. The market system alone can never ensure the attainment of the social goals of economic growth. It is the legitimate function of democratic economic policy to promote development which opens up future opportunities while improving the quality of life.

To achieve these objectives on a global basis, it is imperative to establish a genuinely new international economic order. This must reconcile the interests of both industrialised and developing countries. A fundamental reform of financial relations must create the conditions for international economic cooperation. A more equitable international economic order is necessary not only for reasons of solidarity, but also in order to create a more efficient, productive and balanced world economy.

It is unrealistic to assume that justice and peace can be legislated in a world of fundamental inequality where many millions barely cling to life while a favoured few enjoy a standard beyond the dreams of most of their fellow human beings. Socialist struggles in the original capitalist nations made gains in welfare and solidarity, which in turn made the extension of democracy possible in individual countries. Likewise the work of abolishing international inequality will be a crucial step forward on the road to a democratic world society.

Source: http://www.socialistinternational.org

Global Change and Future Prospects

The idea of Socialism has caught the imagination of people across the world, promoted successful political movements, decisively improved the lives of working men and women, and contributed to shaping the 20th century. However, justified satisfaction about the realisation of many of our goals should not prevent us from clearly recognising present dangers and problems. We are aware that essential tasks still lie ahead which we can master only through common action, since human survival increasingly depends upon the joint efforts of people around the world.

Current economic, technological, political and social changes reflect a profound transformation of our world. The fundamental issue we now face is not whether there will be change in future years, but rather who is going to control it and how. The socialist answer is unequivocal. It is the people of the world who should exercise control by means of a more advanced democracy in all aspects of life: political, social, and economic. Political democracy, for socialists, is the necessary framework and precondition for other rights and liberties.

All the peoples of the world should be involved in the process of transforming our societies and promoting new hope for humankind. The Socialist International calls on all men and women committed to peace and progress to work together in order to translate this hope into reality.

The challenge of global change opens up enormous possibilities:

• The internationalisation of the economy and wide-spread access to information and new technologies can, if brought under democratic control, provide a basis for a world society better suited to cooperation. It is obvious that a world family is no longer a utopian dream, but, increasingly, a practical necessity.

• The technological revolution can and should be used to preserve the environment, create new employment and provide the means to liberate people from routine work rather than ruthlessly impose unwanted idleness.

• On the basis of suitable and humane democratic structures, freedom, equality, security and prosperity can be achieved within the framework of a democratic world society.

However, many current trends also give rise to unprecedented threats:

• Proliferation of the technologies of destruction promote a precarious balance of terror where there are inadequate guarantees for the security of humankind.

• The physical conditions for life on the planet are threatened by an uncontrolled urban and industrial expansion, the degradation of the biosphere, and the irrational exploitation of vital resources.

• Hunger, famine and death threaten whole regions and communities in the South, even though the world has enough natural and technical resources to feed itself.

This transformation of social and economic structures is at least as dramatic and far-reaching as the transition from laissez-faire to the corporate capitalism and colonialism of pre-World War I days. The social cost of these transformations - unemployment, regional decline, destruction of communities - has affected not only the very poor but also working people in general.

The rapid process of internationalisation and interdependence in the world economy has given rise to contradictions within existing political, social and national institutions. This growing gap between an international economy and inadequate international political structures has been a contributory factor to the poverty and underdevelopment of the South, as well as to mass unemployment and new forms of poverty in many areas of the North.

Real progress has been made since World War II in vital areas such as decolonisation, the growth of the Welfare State and, more recently, disarmament, where the first hopeful steps have been taken. However, age-old injustices remain. Human rights are still violated, racial and sex discrimination are rife, and individual opportunities in life are still determined by the region and class in which people are born.

Faced with such crucial issues, the Socialist International reaffirms its fundamental beliefs. It is committed, as ever, to the democratisation on a global scale of economic, social and political power structures. The same principles and political commitments which socialism has always held have to be attained in a world that has changed radically since the Frankfurt Declaration of 1951.

The Socialist International was founded a hundred years ago in order to coordinate the worldwide struggle of democratic socialist movements for social justice, human dignity and democracy. It brought together parties and organisations from different traditions which shared a common goal: democratic socialism. Throughout their history, socialist, social democratic and labour parties have stood for the same values and principles.

Today the Socialist International combines its traditional struggle for freedom, justice and solidarity with a deep commitment to peace, the protection of the environment, and the development of the South. All these issues require common answers. To this end, the Socialist International seeks the support of all those who share its values and commitment.

Source: Socialist International
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES OF THE SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL
Adopted by the XVIII Congress, Stockholm, June 1989, para 11-11

Political and Economic Democracy

Recent events have made the achievement of political, economic and social democracy on a world scale more feasible than ever before. Democracy represents the prime means for popular control and humanisation of the otherwise uncontrolled forces which are re-shaping our planet without regard for its survival.

Human rights include economic and social rights; the right to form trade unions and to strike; the right to social security and welfare for all, including the protection of mothers and children; the right to education, training and leisure; the right to decent housing in a liveable environment, and the right to economic security. Crucially, there is the right to both full and useful employment in an adequately rewarded job. Unemployment undermines human dignity, threatens social stability and wastes the world's most valuable resource.

Economic rights must not be considered as benefits paid to passive individuals lacking in initiative, but as a necessary base from which to secure the active participation of all citizens in a project for society. This is not a matter of subsidising those on the fringe of society, but of creating the conditions for an integrated society with social welfare for all people.

Democratic socialism today is based on the same values on which it was founded. But they must be formulated critically, both assimilating past experience and looking ahead to the future. For instance, experience has shown that while nationalisation in some circumstances may be necessary, it is not by itself a sovereign remedy for social ills. Likewise, economic growth can often be destructive and divisive, especially where private interests evade their social and ecological responsibility. Neither private nor State ownership by themselves guarantee either economic efficiency or social justice.

The democratic socialist movement continues to advocate both socialisation and public property within the framework of a mixed economy. It is clear that the internationalisation of the economy and the global technological revolution make democratic control more important than ever. But social control of the economy is a goal that can be achieved through a wide range of economic means according to time and place, including:

• democratic, participative and decentralised production policies; public supervision of investment; protection of the public and social interest; and socialisation of the costs and benefits of economic change;

• worker participation and joint decision-making at company and workplace level as well as union involvement in the determination of national economic policy;

• self-managed cooperatives of workers and farmers;

• public enterprises, with democratic forms of control and decision-making where this is necessary to enable governments to realise social and economic priorities;

• democratisation of the institutions of the world financial and economic system to allow full participation by all countries;

• international control and monitoring of the activities of transnational corporations, including cross-frontier trade union rights within such corporations.

There is no single or fixed model for economic democracy and there is room for bold experimentation in different countries. But the underlying principle is clear - not simply formal, legal control by the State, but substantial involvement by workers themselves and by their communities in economic decision-making. This principle must apply both nationally and internationally.

In societies structured in this fashion, and committed to genuine economic and social equality, markets can and must function as a dynamic way of promoting innovation and signalling the desires of consumers through the economy as a whole. Markets should not be dominated by big business power, and manipulated by misinformation.

The concentration of economic power in few private hands must be replaced by a different order in which each person is entitled - as citizen, consumer or wage-earner - to influence the direction and distribution of production, the shaping of the means of production, and the conditions of working life. This will come about by involvement of the citizen in economic policies, by guaranteeing wage earners an influence in their workplace, by fostering open and accountable competition both domestically and internationally and by strengthening the position of consumers relative to producers.

A democratic society must compensate for the defects of even the most responsible market systems. Government must not function simply as the repair shop for the damage brought about by market inadequacies or the uncontrolled application of new technologies. Rather the State must regulate the market in the interests of the people and obtain for all workers the benefits of technology, both in work experience and through the growth of leisure time and meaningful possibilities for individual development.

Source: Socialist International
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES OF THE SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL
Adopted by the XVIII Congress, Stockholm, June 1989, para 56-64

Freedom, Justice and Solidarity

Democratic socialism is an international movement for freedom, social justice and solidarity. Its goal is to achieve a peaceful world where these basic values can be enhanced and where each individual can live a meaningful life with the full development of his or her personality and talents and with the guarantee of human and civil rights in a democratic framework of society.

Freedom is the product of both individual and cooperative efforts - the two aspects are parts of a single process. Each person has the right to be free of political coercion and also to the greatest chance to act in pursuit of individual goals and to fulfil personal potential. But that is only possible if humanity as a whole succeeds in its long-standing struggle to master its history and to ensure that no person, class, sex, religion or race becomes the servant of another.

Justice and Equality. Justice means the end of all discrimination against individuals, and the equality of rights and opportunities. It demands compensation for physical, mental and social inequalities, and freedom from dependence on either the owners of the means of production or the holders of political power.

Equality is the expression of the equal value of all human beings and the precondition for the free development of the human personality. Basic economic, social and cultural equality is essential for individual diversity and social progress.

Freedom and equality are not contradictory. Equality is the condition for the development of individual personality. Equality and personal freedom are indivisible.

Solidarity is all-encompassing and global. It is the practical expression of common humanity and of the sense of compassion with the victims of injustice. Solidarity is rightly stressed and celebrated by all major humanist traditions. In the present era of unprecedented interdependence between individuals and nations, solidarity gains an enhanced significance since it is imperative for human survival.

Democratic socialists attach equal importance to these fundamental principles. They are interdependent. Each is a prerequisite of the other. As opposed to this position, Liberals and Conservatives have placed the main emphasis on individual liberty at the expense of justice and solidarity while Communists have claimed to achieve equality and solidarity, but at the expense of freedom.

Source: Socialist International
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES OF THE SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL
Adopted by the XVIII Congress, Stockholm, June 1989, para 12-16

Disarmament and Development

Disarmament agreements between the Superpowers will do more than remove the threat of annihilation from the planet. With such agreements in place, many of the resources now wasted on thermonuclear, chemical, biological and conventional weapons could be released for investment in economic and social development programmes in the South. Disarmament between the East and West should be linked with programmes for justice between the North and South.

A proportion of the substantial funds which the highly industrialised countries of the West and the East would save as a result of negotiated disarmament should be utilised to create a multinational fund to promote a secure and sustainable development in the countries of the South.

Source: Socialist International
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES OF THE SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL
Adopted by the XVIII Congress, Stockholm, June 1989, para 54-55

XVIII Congress of the Socialist International, Stockholm

The XVIII Congress of the Socialist International was a historical landmark. Hosted by the Swedish Social Democratic Party (SAP) – itself celebrating a century of political activity – it came 200 years after the French revolution and almost 100 years after the founding of the Second International in Paris in July 1889.

In addition to the main Congress resolution on the current world situation, the meeting also adopted a new Declaration of Principles of the Socialist International, which provides the SI with a guiding platform for action in the decades to come. After several years of rigorous discussion and preparation – launched at the Madrid Congress in 1980 and further developed at Lima, Peru, in 1986 – the new charter supersedes the 1951 Frankfurt Declaration (which reestablished the SI in the wake of the Second World War). Presenting the new declaration to Congress, Heinz Fischer of the Austrian Socialist Party (SPÖ) and a member of the committee which drafted the document, said that democratic socialists had an ideal opportunity to get their message across. Communism was in crisis and conservatives faced growing difficulties throughout the world. Democratic socialism was clearly the force of the future.

Anita Gradin, the President of the Socialist International Women (SIW), declared that there should be no contradiction between the protection of individual civil and political rights and the social rights of individuals. The causes of violence, poverty and inequality, however, were structural and it would require political action to bring about a solution. She also drew attention to the subordinate position of women, both North and South, saying that wherever human rights were violated, it was often women who were most exposed. A comprehensive programme of action was needed to defend human rights in all countries, and to protect those who were working in this field.

What was needed was a pattern of economic growth that was sustainable in both social and ecological terms. The life style of the industrialised countries placed the earth’s life-support system at risk. The environment was a question of the quality of everyday life, she said, and environmental considerations would have to form an integral part of policies on food, housing, energy, transport, industry and urban development.

Source: Socialist International

Massacre in Tiananmen Square

Several hundred civilians have been shot dead by the Chinese army during a bloody military operation to crush a democratic protest in Peking's (Beijing) Tiananmen Square.

Tanks rumbled through the capital's streets late on 3 June as the army moved into the square from several directions, randomly firing on unarmed protesters.

The injured were rushed to hospital on bicycle rickshaws by frantic residents shocked by the army's sudden and extreme response to the peaceful mass protest.

US President George Bush said he deeply deplored the use of force, and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said she was "shocked and appalled by the shootings".

Source: BBC

Khomeini, Imam of Iran And Foe of U.S., Is Dead

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran's spiritual and political leader, died today, 12 days after he underwent surgery for bleeding in his digestive system, the official Iranian news agency reported. He was believed to be 89 years old. ''The leader of the Islamic revolution and founder of the Islamic Republic, Imam Khomeini, passed away at a Teheran Hospital,'' the Islamic Republic News Agency reported in an urgent dispatch.

Yesterday, Iran had said Ayatollah Khomeini's health was deteriorating and urged the nation to pray for the leader, who underwent surgery last month for bleeding in his digestive system. Iran's state-run radio and television, monitored in Nicosia, had said the Ayatollah's condition was declining but it gave no details.

Both carried a brief statement from Ayatollah Khomeini's office that said: ''At 3:00 P.M. on Saturday a complication arose in the imam's condition, which the doctors are trying to control. We urge the nation to pray for the imam's health, and hope that their prayers will be answered.'' Earlier in the week, the television said a ''slight cardiac complication'' had arisen May 27, but that it was relieved the next day.

Iran's main opposition group, the Mujahedeen Khalq, or People's Holy Warriors, said last week that Ayatollah Khomeini suffered a heart attack on May 27. The statement by the Iraq-based group said the heart attack came five days after he underwent surgery on the duodenum, a part of the small intestine close to the stomach. The Mujahedeen's claim could not be independently confirmed.

Ayatollah Khomeini had been reported ailing since he suffered a heart attack in 1986. Since then he was rarely seen outside his home in the north Teheran suburb of Jamaran. But his hospitalization heightened already intense speculation about who will succeed Ayatollah Khomeini as leader of the theocratic state. Political turmoil has gripped the country since Ayatollah Khomeini launched a radical resurgence in February with his death decree against British author Salman Rushdie for allegedly blaspheming against Islam in his novel, ''The Satanic Verses.'' A purge of so-called moderates who apparently favored rebuilding ties with the West followed as the 10-year-old Islamic regime withdrew into its traditional isolationist stance.

Ayatollah Khomeini in March ousted his designated successor, Ayatollah Hussein Ali Montazeri, 64, who had openly criticized the regime's shortcomings, and then appointed a 20-member committee to review the succession. But in the absence of a single personality who could match the patriarch's political and revolutionary authority, there was widespread speculation that Iran may be ruled by a collective leadership in the post-Khomeini era.

Source: New York Times

TRUST PROPERTY CONTROL ACT 57 OF 1988

The purpose of the Trust Properties Control Act is to regulate further the control of trust property; and to provide for matters connected therewith.

Source: SABINET

A HAITIAN PRIEST IS OUSTED BY ORDER

A Roman Catholic priest who has been one of the most outspoken critics of social injustice in Haiti has been expelled from his ecclesiastic order and accused of using religion to incite hatred and violence.
In a statement prepared in Rome, the Salesian order, one of the largest groups in the church, accused the Rev. Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a 35-year-old Haitian priest, of desecrating the sacraments by using them for political purposes.

Father Aristide, who preached on a need for a ''real revolution'' in Haiti and alluded to armed warfare as a means of ending military domination of the country, had refused an order by Salesian officials to leave Haiti by Oct. 17 and take up duties in Canada.

The priest, who has been seen in public only once since narrowly escaping death in early September in an attack on his church in Port-au-Prince, the Haitian capital, has been in contact with Haitian radio stations by telephone, but has expressed no reaction to his expulsion. No Public Response From Avril
The expulsion order came as the Government of Lieut. Gen. Prosper Avril began its third month in office at a time of rising disappointment over its slow progress in moving the country toward democracy.

For several days in October, thousand of Haitians protested the efforts to transfer Father Aristide to Canada. But there has been no public reaction since the expulsion was first reported on Haitian radio stations on Thursday. There has also been no comment from either General Avril or the Haitian Conference of Bishops. Both have been criticized by Father Aristide.

In a statement in November on Radio Metropole, an independent station, Father Aristide accused several bishops of plotting against him. He said the Avril Government was incompetent and guilty of failing to curtail violence by right-wing thugs known as Tontons Macoute.

Shortly after General Avril, an adviser and confidant to the dictators who ruled Haiti for nearly 30 years, assumed power in a coup in September, he said he wanted to go down in history as a leader who had ''saved the country from anarchy and dictatorship'' and had established ''an irreversible democracy.'' Washington Is 'Still Encouraged'

Though no date has been set for elections, United States officials in Haiti say that they are ''still encouraged'' by the things General Avril ''has been doing and saying'' and that they feel he is making progress toward democracy.

The Haitian Government said Friday that the last comments and suggestions by political and civic leaders on a proposal by General Avril to form a body to conduct elections would be accepted Thursday and that a public meeting to discuss the plan would be held in early January.
Many Haitian political leaders have expressed concern that General Avril is trying to limit the independence of the electoral body But have praised him for fostering debate on the plan.
In recent statements, General Avril has reaffirmed a pledge to respect human rights. But he has been criticized by some religious and civic leaders for jailing a group of noncommissioned officers who he asserts tried to overthrow him in mid-October.

There have been continued reports of unrest within the armed forces and new rumors of a coup circulated this week as the retirement and transfer of a half dozen key noncommissioned officers was announced.

Source: New York Times

Gunmen in Haiti Kill 3 In Attack on a Church

Gunmen burst into the church of a radical Roman Catholic priest during Mass today, shot and killed at least three parishioners, wounded 60 and and burned the building down, Radio Haiti-Inter reported.

A foreign journalist attending the Mass telephoned The Associated Press in New York and said the Rev. Jean-Bertrand Aristide had just begun 9 A.M. Mass when a group of men began throwing rocks at the church, panicking 600 to 800 parishioners, who rushed for the doors. ''Suddenly the doors at the back of the church burst open and 20 to 30 men with machetes, huge sticks and guns came in,'' said the journalist, who spoke on condition of anonymity. ''They started shooting people, beating them, and stabbing and slashing them.''

The journalist said at least five parishioners were wounded by bullets or stabbed and at least three were killed. The reporter said parishioners surrounded and protected Father Aristide, who was not injured.
The priest heads the Catholic Church's radical wing, which opposes military rule. There have been several attempts on his life by people widely believed to be connected to elements in the army loyal to the deposed Duvalier dictatorship.

Source: New York Times

Address to the Nation: Hussein bin Talal

Recognizing the desirability of supporting the Palestinians in their struggle for independence, on July 28, 1988, King Hussein announced the cessation of a $1.3 billion development program for the West Bank, explaining that the measure was designed to allow the PLO more responsibility for the area. Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature. Finally, on July 31 he announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties—with the exception of guardianship over the Muslim Holy Sites of Jerusalem—with the occupied West Bank.

This severance of ties allowed Jordan’s electoral law to be changed, redrawing the map to include only East Bank districts. Disengagement therefore marks the turning point that launched the current democratic process, and began a new stage in Jordan’s relationship with the Palestinians.

Source: The Royal Hashemite Court

Death in Detention

According to the South African Police, Maisha "Stanza" Bopape, General secretary of the Mamelodi Civic Organisation, was arrested in Hillbrow on June 9, 1988 and "disappeared".

His death at John Vorster Square came to light only at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in March 1997, when 10 security policemen applied for amnesty for his death. Five said they had been involved in his torture, three said they had covered up the reasons for his death and two said they had disposed of his body. It was never found.

Source: Sunday Times Heritage Project

White Foe of Pretoria Injured by a Car Bomb in Mozambique

A prominent intellectual in the outlawed African National Congress was seriously wounded early today by a car bomb outside his home in Mozambique. The wounded man, Albie L. Sachs, a 52-year-old legal scholar and author, was among the first whites to join the Congress in its fight against the Pretoria Government, and was a key figure in the group's recent efforts to draft constitutional guidelines for a South Africa without racial barriers.

A report from the official Mozambican press agency said the explosion occurred as Mr. Sachs tried to unlock the door of his car in central Maputo, the capital. The force of the blast reportedly shattered every window in the block and damaged the nearby Portuguese Embassy.

Mr. Sachs, who was conscious, was rushed to a hospital, where his shattered right arm was amputated, according to Congress officials. They said he was expected to live. Ideologue for the Congress Spokesmen for the guerrilla group and for the Mozambican press agency blamed South Africa for the attack, which occurred a week after the assassination of the Congress's chief Paris representative, Dulcie September.

The South African Foreign Minister, Roelof F. Botha, denied that his Government had any connection to either attack, and hinted that the attack on Mr. Sachs was the result of internal disputes in the guerrilla group.

Mr. Sachs, who went to Mozambique after the Marxist revolution that overthrew the Portuguese colonialists in 1976, has never been a full-time Congress official but has played an important role in its revolutionary thinking. As a university professor and an employee of the Mozambique Ministry of Justice, Mr. Sachs was one of the few Congress officials allowed to remain in Maputo after a 1984 agreement with South Africa in which Mozambique promised to expel Congress members.

The attack on Mr. Sachs bore strong similarities to a bombing in Maputo in 1982, when Ruth First, a leading anti-apartheid campaigner and Congress member, was killed by a parcel bomb in her office at Eduardo Mondlane University. Like Mr. Sachs, Miss First was an early foe of apartheid and a member of the outlawed South African Communist Party. Mr. Sachs has since left the Communist Party.

A witness to today's bombing, Jacinto Sitoe, said Mr. Sachs left his apartment dressed in a T-shirt and shorts and appeared to be on the way to the beach. Today was a public holiday in Mozambique. Mr. Sitoe said the blast left a hole 12 inches deep and 35 inches wide in the tarred road.

Born in Cape Town, Mr. Sachs is the son of a prominent Communist trade-union organizer, E. S. (Solly) Sachs. Albie Sachs was one of 20 whites to join the Congress movement's nationwide defiance campaign in 1952. He was briefly arrested for entering the black entrance of a post office, but the charges were dropped. Held in Solitary In the 1950's he defended anti-apartheid campaigners in political trials, gaining a reputation as an able lawyer. He also defended his former wife, Stefanie Kemp, a member of the African Resistance Movement. In 1963, Mr. Sachs was one of the first held under South Africa's law allowing detention without trial, and was kept in solitary confinement for 168 days. After his release, he wrote an autobiography, ''The Jail Diary of Albie Sachs,'' part of which was adapted as a play. It was first performed by the Royal Shakespeare Company and was recently on British television. It was staged in New York in 1979 at the Manhattan Theater Club. Shortly after his release, he left South Africa for Britain, where he lectured on law for more than 10 years at Southampton University. Assailed Pretoria Justice System

Mr. Sachs joined the African National Congress in 1969, when its ranks were first opened to whites. Tom Lodge, a political scientist at Witwatersrand University and an expert on the Congress, said Mr. Sachs's 1973 book on the South African legal system, ''Justice in South Africa,'' was the ''first powerfully argued critique of the South African system of justice.'' Since 1977, when he emigrated to Mozambique, Mr. Sachs has worked at Eduardo Mondlane University and has recently been employed by the Mozambican Justice Ministry to devise a legal system for a post-revolutionary socialist Mozambique. A prominent member of the Congress's commission on constitutional change, Mr. Sachs was also the author of a study, ''Towards a Reconstruction of South Africa,'' that served as the Congress's blueprint on constitutional change. It was published in 1985. U.S. EDUCATORS EXPRESS SHOCK

In New York yesterday, deans of the Columbia and Harvard Law Schools issued a statement expressing shock at the attack on Mr. Sachs, who had lectured widely in the United States. The statement praised his ''idealism, his courage and his unyielding struggle against apartheid,'' which they said had ''inspired thousands of American law students.'' It was signed by Barbara A. Black and Jack Greenberg, the dean and vice dean of the Columbia Law School, and by James Vorenberg, the dean of the Harvard Law School.

Source: New York Times

Foe of Apartheid Is Shot Dead in Paris

The Paris representative of the African National Congress was shot and killed today as she arrived at her office. The official, Dulcie September, a 45-year-old South African of mixed race, has served in France since 1984 as spokeswoman for the A.N.C., the most prominent anti-apartheid group.

Tom Sebina, a spokesman at the organization's headquarters in Lusaka, Zambia, blamed the South African Government for the killing and called on governments to crack down on all secret agents of the South African Government operating in their countries. But South Africa said it ''could not be held responsible'' for Miss September's death, and Foreign Minister Roelof F. Botha issued a statement noting that ''serious quarrels exist in the ranks of the organizations that utilize violence to obtain political objectives.''

The A.N.C. and the South-West Africa People's Organization have had political representation here, without diplomatic status, since 1981. Miss September came to Paris from Lusaka, where she worked as administrative secretary at the organization's offices. The French police said she was killed with a .22-caliber weapon as she was opening her office. She was found still holding her morning mail with two bullet wounds in the head and six empty shells on the floor.

The group's treasurer in Paris, Maurice Cukierman, said that Miss September had received several threats against her life over the last eight months and had told French police, but that ''nothing was done.'' On Sunday the Belgian police defused a bomb placed outside the A.N.C. office in Brussels, and in February shots were fired at the Belgian office of the group.

The congress maintains guerrillas in countries around South Africa, including Lesotho, Mozambique and Botswana, and has some 20 offices around the world to lobby for political support. It has been outlawed in South Africa since 1960, and its principal leader, Nelson Mandela, has been jailed there since 1962. Two slayings of A.N.C. figures in countries bordering on South Africa drew wide attention in the early 1980's.

Joe Gqabi, a congress representative in Zimbabwe, was killed by gunfire July 31, 1981, at his home in Harare, then called Salisbury. And on Aug. 17, 1982, Ruth First, was killed by a parcel bomb in her office in Maputo, Mozambique. She was a leading member of the A.N.C. and the wife of Joe Slovo, a South African Communist leader and a principal figure in the military wing of the A.N.C.

The killing here today quickly became an issue in the French presidential campaign. Prime Minister Jacques Chirac's Government was criticized by opponents on both the right and the left for what was called a lax attitude toward Miss September's security.

The Socialist Party called for a protest rally in front of the South African Embassy, and the Communist Party's presidential candidate, Andre Lajoinie, accused Mr. Chirac's Government of ''political complicity'' with South Africa. Mr. Chirac is a candidate for the presidency in the election next month, as is the Socialist incumbent, Francois Mitterrand. Mr. Mitterrand's wife, Danielle, said the killing of Miss September today provoked a sense ''of horror in the face the cowardice of this act.'' 4 GUERRILLAS REPORTED KILLED

JOHANNESBURG, March 29 -South African security forces announced today that they had shot and killed four suspected guerrillas of the African National Congress near the border with Zimbabwe on Monday. The gun battle in the northern tribal homeland of Venda brought the number of suspected guerrillas reported killed by the South African military to 12 in the last five days. The attacks follow repeated warnings by Pretoria in recent months to neighboring countries that allow guerrillas to use their territories.

The killing of the four guerrillas was announced today by Brig. Albertus Botha, Chief of Staff of the Far North Military Command in northern Transvaal. He said in an interview on state-run television that he did not regard the recent activity as new infiltration by guerrillas.

Source: New York Times

South Africa Bans New Anti-Apartheid Group

The South African Government today banned a new church-led anti-apartheid movement headed by Archbishop Desmond M. Tutu. The authorities also banned its first meeting, which was to have been held Sunday on a university campus near Cape Town. Several thousand people had been expected to attend.

A Government decree prohibits the committee from engaging in ''any activities whatsoever.'' Speaking 12 hours after the decree was published in the official Government newspaper, the archbishop announced that a prayer service would be held in St. George's Anglican Cathedral at the same time the banned meeting had been scheduled for Sunday afternoon. ''It is clear to us as it must be to everyone in the world that we are dealing here with a Government that is virtually totalitarian and determined to bludgeon God's people into submission,'' Archbishop Tutu said at a press conference.

Archbishop Stephen Naidoo, a Roman Catholic, said at the same conference that churches were now the only place where legal protest meetings could take place. The new movement, known as the Committee for the Defense of Democracy, was formed in Cape Town this week to continue the work of the United Democratic Front, the major anti-apartheid umbrella group, and 16 other groups effectively banned Feb. 24 from engaging in political activities.

Archbishop Tutu emphasized that the church service was not intended to replace the banned meeting and said there would be no attempt to form a new committee. But he added, ''We will get someone representing the community to speak.'' A nationwide crackdown on Feb. 24 effectively outlawed any organized anti-apartheid dissent except that expressed in places of worship.

Archbishop Tutu and the Reverend Allan A. Boesak, a patron of the United Democratic Front, were among 150 churchmen briefly arrested last month for protesting the bannings. Sunday is National Detainees Day, the day on which anti-apartheid groups usually organize meetings to pay respect to an estimated 25,000 people, about 10,000 of them children, who have been in detention without trial under a 21-month-old state of emergency. But the Detainees' Parents Support Committee, the group that organizes such protests, was banned last month along with 16 other anti-apartheid organizations and the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the major black trade union federation. The union federation and three of the anti-apartheid groups restricted in the crackdown have begun legal proceedings to challenge it in the courts.

Four church services to be held in other centers to mark National Detainees Day were not banned today. The most prominent of these was to be held in Regina Mundi Roman Catholic Church in Soweto, the sprawling black urban complex outside Johannesburg. Archbishop Tutu asked today what more proof President Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher needed before they realized that they were dealing with a Government that ''will tolerate no opposition to its evil and immoral policies.'' ''We refuse to be treated as a doormat for people to wipe their jackboots on,'' he said. ''We refuse to be manipulated into a position of oppression.''

Source: New York Times

Bantu Holomisa deposes Stella Sigcau as President of the Transkei

On 30 December 1987, Major General Bantu Holomisa, commander of the Transkei Defence Force (TDF), a staunch African National Congress (ANC) activist, led a bloodless coup against the Transkei government. Holomisa, who would become Deputy Minister of Housing in President Nelson Mandela's cabinet, suspended the civilian constitution and refused South Africa's repeated demands for a return to civilian rule. He insisting that a civilian government would be a puppet controlled by Pretoria.

At the time of the coup Transkei was under the leadership of Stella Sigcau who would also be a Cabinet Minister in Mandela’s government. The Transkei was then ruled by a Military Council, with General Holomisa as Chairperson. Holomisa and his accomplices later applied for amnesty to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) for what they did in 1987.

Source: SA History Online

Israeli Soldiers Kill a Palestinian and Wound 15

Israeli troops shot and killed a West Bank resident and wounded at least 15 other Palestinians today as violent unrest continued for the second day and spread throughout the occupied territories. In the city of Gaza and in refugee districts throughout the Gaza Strip, where a 17-year-old youth was killed yesterday by troops, Palestinians gathered in throngs, burned tires, threw stones at vehicles and blocked roads, witnesses said. Army reports said 5 people were wounded by gunshots in the West Bank and 10 were wounded by gunfire in the Gaza Strip. In addition, a dozen people were hurt in scuffles between Palestinian students and the Israeli police outside a school north of Jerusalem, according to radio reports.

Soldiers fatally shot the 19-year-old Nablus man today when a group of Palestinian youths in the northern West Bank city surrounded a military patrol, pelting it with iron bars and rocks, an army spokesman said. ''The forces tried to disperse them with rubber bullets and tear gas,'' a spokesman said. ''But the force was endangered when its officer was wounded from an iron bar, and the soldiers had no choice but to shoot to get themselves out.''

A woman tried to stab a Border Police soldier in the nearby Balata refugee district but he managed to grab the knife from her hand just in time, an army spokesman said. In the Khan Yunis refugee district in the Gaza Strip, soldiers opened fire and wounded at least eight people after crowds threw gasoline bombs at a military patrol, an army spokesman said. At least two wounded people were brought into the Shifa hospital in Gaza, where merchants along the main street closed their shops and schools were disrupted by protesting students, an army spokesman said. Investigations by Army The army said it was investigating all of the shooting incidents. One unidentified soldier, serving in Gaza city, told Israel's Army Radio, ''We try to be restrained and not let things heat up to much, but when there's a situation that puts us in danger we have to act accordingly.''

By late afternoon, the riots and clashes that had continued throughout the day subsided, the army spokesman said. The Jabalya refugee district, where a resident was shot to death Wednesday after a teenager threw a firebomb at soldiers, remained sealed today.

In the West Bank areas north of Jerusalem, two gasoline bombs were thrown at vehicles today but did not explode. Six Israeli policemen and as many Palestinian teen-agers were injured when the police tried to control students who poured out of a high school at Kalandia, north of Jerusalem, and started stoning passing vehicles, radio reports said.

Burkina Faso President Thomas Sankara's 'Against debt' speech 1987

Thomas Isidore Noël Sankara (December 21, 1949 – October 15, 1987) was a Burkinabé military captain, Marxist revolutionary, Pan-Africanist theorist, and communist President of Burkina Faso from 1983 to 1987. Viewed as a charismatic, and iconic figure of revolution, he is commonly referred to as "...Africa's Che Guevara."

Sankara seized power in a 1983 popularly supported coup at the age of 33, with the goal of eliminating corruption and the dominance of the former French colonial power.He immediately launched "the most ambitious program for social and economic change ever attempted on the African continent." To symbolize this new autonomy and rebirth, he even renamed the country from the French colonial Upper Volta to Burkina Faso ("Land of Upright Men"). His foreign policies were centered around anti-imperialism, with his government eschewing all foreign aid, pushing for odious debt reduction, nationalizing all land and mineral wealth, and averting the power and influence of the IMF and World Bank. His domestic policies were focused on preventing famine with agrarian self-sufficiency and land reform, prioritizing education with a nation-wide literacy campaign, and promoting public health by vaccinating 2.5 million children against meningitis, yellow fever and measles. Other components of his national agenda included planting over ten million trees to halt the growing desertification of the Sahel, doubling wheat production by redistributing land from feudal landlords to peasants, suspending rural poll taxes and domestic rents, and establishing an ambitious road and rail construction program to "tie the nation together." Moreover, his commitment to women's rights led him to outlaw female genital mutilation, forced marriages and polygamy; while appointing females to high governmental positions and encouraging them to work outside the home and stay in school even if pregnant.

In order to achieve this radical transformation of society, he increasingly exerted authoritarian control over the nation, eventually banning unions and a free press, which he believed could stand in the way of his plans and be manipulated by powerful outside influences To counter his opposition in towns and workplaces around the country, he also tried corrupt officials, counter-revolutionaries (and) "lazy workers" in peoples revolutionary tribunals. Additionally, as an admirer of Fidel Castro's Cuban Revolution, Sankara set up Cuban-style Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR's).

His revolutionary programs for African self-reliance as a defiant alternative to the neo-liberal development strategies imposed by the West, made him an icon to many of Africa's poor, and despite his excesses, Sankara remained popular with most of his country's impoverished citizens. However his policies alienated and antagonised the vested interests of an array of groups, which included the small but powerful Burkinabé middle class, the tribal leaders whom he stripped of the long-held traditional right to forced labour and tribute payments, and the foreign financial interests in France and their ally the Ivory Coast. As a result, he was overthrown and assassinated in a coup d'état led by the French-backed Blaise Compaoré on October 15, 1987. A week before his execution he declared that, "While revolutionaries as individuals can be murdered, you cannot kill ideas".

Source:

SYRIA: STRUCTURE OF SOCIETY

In the mid-1980s, Syrian society was in a state of flux. The social, political, and economic developments of the preceding two decades precipitated profound changes and realignments in the social structure, but the implications and probable outcomes of these changes were not entirely clear. This uncertainty arises from the division of Syrian society by vertical cleavages along religious and ethnic lines, as well as by horizontal cleavages along socioeconomic and class lines. Minority groups tend to segregate themselves in their own neighborhoods and villages. Although within a minority group there is a high degree of integration and homogeneity, the group as a whole is often ascribed a certain social status. Traditionally, Syrian society has been divided between landlords and tenants, between urban dwellers and rural peasants, and between a Sunni elite and minority groups.

Until the revolutions of the mid-1960s, a syndicate of several hundred Sunni Muslim extended families living in Damascus and Aleppo had dominated life in Syria. Some of these families were of the Sharifan nobility, which claims genealogical descent from the Prophet Muhammad. Most had accumulated great wealth and wielded virtual feudal power as landlords possessing vast agricultural and real-estate holdings. Others made fortunes in industry and trade in the late ninteenth century. Another component of the ruling class was the ulama (sing, alim). This group consisted of religious scholars, Islamic judges (qadis), interpreters of law (muftis), and other persons concerned with the exposition of Sunni Islam. Prosperous Sunni bazaar merchants allied with the great families occupied the next level in the social heirarchy.

The Syrian elite was at the forefront of anticolonial struggle against the Ottoman Empire in World War I and later against the French Mandatory regime. At independence in 1946, Syria's first government was dominated by the old ruling class. However, the elite had never been a monolithic entity, and the new parliament was splintered by factionalism, feuding, and generational differences. These divisions provoked a military coup d'état in 1949 that ushered in a new era in Syrian society.

The armed services and the Baath Party were the mechanisms for the rise of a new ruling elite. Although military service traditionally had been disdained by the old Sunni elite, a military career was often the only avenue of upward mobility open to rural minority group members who could not afford an education. Such men enlisted in disproportinate numbers and came to dominate the officer corps and the enlisted ranks of Syria's armed forces. Likewise, disenfranchised elements of society joined the Baath Party. These dual trends culminated in the 1963 Baath Socialist Revolution and the 1970 takeover by the military of the Baath Party.

The land reform legislation of 1963 and the nationalization of larger financial, commercial, and industrial establishments virtually eliminated the economic and political power base of the old elite. At the same time, the new elite, comprised of the upper echelon of military and civilian leaders, consolidated its position by cultivating the support of peasants and the proletariat, who benefited from the new economic order. The regime's socialism eroded the position of the bazaar merchants while its secularism removed power from the ulama.

After coming to power in 1970, President Hafiz al Assad reversed or relaxed the more strident socialist economic measures instituted in 1963. His expansion of the role of the private sector led to the emergence of a relatively small, but highly visible new class of entrepreneurs and businessmen who made fortunes in real estate, importing, and construction. This class, nicknamed in Syria "the velvet generation," includes higher- ranking government bureaucrats and their relatives who have capitalized on their official positions to monopolize lucrative government contracts. It also has assimilated many members of the old Sunni elite, who have been coopted by the Assad regime and have accommodated themselves to the new elite. To some extent, the old and new ruling classes have merged through business partnerships and marriages that combine the money and prestige of the old elite member and the power and prestige of the new elite member. Despite a well publicized anti-corruption campaign, patronage and favoritism have remained important forces in Syrian society.

Under Assad, rural peasants have reaped significant gains in their standard of living, primarily through government transfer payments and grants of land redistributed from the original upper-class owners. However, land reform has not been entirely successful in transforming the social structure of the countryside. In many cases, farmers who had previously depended upon their urban landlords to give credit for financing their crops until harvest and to deal with the government have drifted back into similar relationships with urban interests. The landlord's role as an influential advocate and local leader has not been filled by elected Baath Party representatives. In other cases, rich proprietors have begun to regain control over agricultural land and reconstitute large estates.

Since the 1963 Baath Revolution, the approximate middle of Syrian society has remained remarkably stable, both as a percentage of the workforce and in terms of the standard of living and social mobility of its members. Because Syria has not yet developed a large industrial sector, it lacks a true proletariat of wage-earning factory workers. The number of persons employed by private and public sector industry in 1980 was 207,000, or 12 percent of the working population, according to statistics compiled by the Syrian General Federation of Trade Unions. This approximates the size of Syria's "working class."

Syria compensates for its lack of a large proletarian class of industrial factory workers by a large and flourishing group of artisans and handicrafters who produce basic commodities such as soap, textiles, glassware, and shoes in small cottage industries. This group is a main component of Syria's traditional middle class, which also encompasses small proprietors, tradesmen, and white-collar employees, and has remained at about 30 percent of the population.

Since the 1963 revolution, a new and upwardly mobile class of teachers, scientists, lawyers, technocrats, civil servants, doctors, and other professionals has slowly emerged. This new upper-middle class consists of men and women who rose from the old lower or middle classes by virtue of technical or secular higher education.

Even before the revolution of 1963, secular education had become a criterion of status among many ordinary Syrians, especially as higher education ensured a virtually automatic entry into admired and well-paying occupations. The importance of education in this context will probably grow.

Values taught in the schools and emphasized in the media reflect those of the group controlling the government and have gained some currency. Nevertheless, the traditional conservatism of the peasants as well as the economic problems of daily survival that have not been alleviated by changes in government policy militate against any sudden change in the values or way of life of the masses.

As in other Middle Eastern countries, Syrian society has for millennia been divided into three discrete systems of organization based on ecological factors; these are the town, the village, and the tribe. Although closely interrelated, each fosters a distinct and independent variation of Arab culture. The cities of the Middle East are among the most ancient in the world; urban life has been integral to the society of the region throughout recorded history. Therefore, the townsman and his role are well known to all segments of the population. The tribesman, or beduin, although suffering irreversible changes since the mid- twentieth century, has also been a widely known and admired figure throughout history. The peasant farmer, or fellah (pl., fellahin), although less admired than the townsman or the tribesman, also occupies a position of recognized value.

The members of each of the three structural segments of society look on the others as socially distinct. This social distance is symbolized by easily recognized differences in clothing, food, home furnishings, accent, and custom; intermarriage between village, town, and tribal families is usually considered irregular.

Traditionally, the cities have been an expression--at the highest level of sophistication and refinement--of the same Arab culture that animated the villages. As Western influence grew, however, during the late nineteenth and the twentieth centuries, the social distance between the city and village increased. Western customs, ideas, techniques, and languages were adopted first in the cities, especially by Christians, while the villages remained ignorant of them. The introduction and adoption of elements of a radically alien culture opened a gap between the city and the village that has not narrowed with time. Only in recent years have modern transportation and mass communication begun to bring the countryside once again into the same cultural orbit as the cities.

Although the town, village, and tribe are socially distinct, they depend on each other for services and products and so are related by overall functional ties. The town supplies manufactured, specialty, and luxury products; administrative and governmental services; education and higher learning; sophisticated culture; law and justice; and financing. The village supplies agricultural products; and the tribe provides protection and navigation for caravans, travelers, and traders in the desert. As more and more villagers become educated and move to the cities, and as the beduin surrender their sole mastery of the desert to motor vehicles and the police power of the modern state and begin to adopt a sedentary life, the traditional distinctions will continue to blur.

Towns
Villages
Tribes

Thomas Collelo, ed. Syria: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1987.
Source: U.S. Library of Congress

Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin, Germany on June 12, 1987

President Reagan's remarks on East-West relations at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin, Germany on June 12, 1987.

For more information on the ongoing works of President Reagan's Foundation, visit us at http://www.reaganfoundation.org

Source: Regan Foundation

Reagan’s Dangerous Game in Nicaragua

By supporting the contras, the president is undermining democracy in Central America

Natividad Vargas shifted his weight from one foot to the other, awkwardly folding and refolding his arms as he answered questions from the visiting journalists. The Honduran peasant sounded confused and a little frightened. It is the way refugees always sound when war sweeps over the countryside and drives them from their homes. He did not understand, he said, why two foreign armies were fighting in his native land — Nicaragua’s Sandinista army and the American-backed contras.

“We campesinos don’t understand politics,” Vargas said. “I don’t know why they’re fighting. The contras say they are fighting communism. But I don’t understand that.”

Eight days earlier, Vargas and his family, along with scores of others, had abandoned their farm a few miles from the Nicaraguan border after the Sandinista army had attacked contra strongholds there. In all, at least 15,000 Hondurans, perhaps many more, have been displaced by the war and forced to find squatter homes in towns away from the fighting. Neither the Honduran government nor the United States has provided them with any help.

Another peasant, a gaunt old man with white stubble on his dark face, gave a vivid account of the bomb, mine and mortar explosions he had heard as the opposing forces fought across his fields. “I was really frightened,” he said. “I don’t want to go back as long as there is firing.”

“The Sandinistas only come in because the contras are here,” said Eldermarina Gonzales, a displaced mother with five small children. “If the contras were gone, the Sandinistas would not come.”

The refugees we talked with were living in Nueva Esperanza, a hillside barrio outside of Danli, a quiet little farm town about an hour’s drive from Tegucigalpa and only fifteen miles from the border and the fighting. The contras operate a small hospital in Danli to treat their sick and wounded.

The more the peasants talked about the contras, the angrier they became. They did not like having to live with a foreign army in their midst — men who are well armed and well financed by the United States. “Look around you — this is a very poor country,” Jose Amaya, a merchant, said. “If we had money, we would all go to the United States. I think the contras should get out. They have no business being here. These countries are sisters. We should find a way to exist in peace.”

“I’m going to tell the truth, even if I get in trouble,” Natividad Vargas declared. “The truth is the contras treat us very badly. Imagine. You’re going to town and the contras are guarding the road and they ask us for papers. What right does a foreigner have to ask us for papers in our own country? They accuse us of helping the Sandinistas. They killed one of my neighbors and they killed his son. We don’t know why. It’s not our land anymore. They do whatever they want.”

As we were touring the neighborhood, we could hear the distant clatter of helicopters. Children pointed knowingly to the north at a few small, dark specks that were passing above a far mountain ridge and moving down the valley. Soon the specks became a swarm as more than a dozen American helicopters, Cobras and Chinooks, crossed overhead and disappeared to the south. They were ferrying Honduran soldiers to the war.

“The people have become so used to it,” a woman said. “They don’t even get scared anymore.”

Later, we drove a few miles south from Danli to the site where the helicopters were landing. It was a small airstrip built by the United States in the valley of Jamastran. Honduran soldiers — some serious, some loose and joking — were disembarking in the swirls of dust and trotting off down the country lanes. They were pulling heavy mortars behind them as they fanned out to set up defensive positions on the surrounding farms. An American army lieutenant named Lappas stepped forward from a circle of Honduran officers and told us to get lost. He pretended to be puzzled by our questions.

“What war?” he asked blandly. “I didn’t know we were at war. What makes you think there’s a war here?”

The Reagan administration is playing a dangerous game in Honduras: intentionally flirting with war. While the White House continues to claim that its military buildup here is strictly for training exercises, the Sandinistas and most Hondurans believe that the administration is trying to push both sides toward war in order to justify American military intervention in Nicaragua.

As a result of the occasional border clashes with Honduran troops, the Sandinistas might be drawn into a larger war against Honduras or, alternatively, the Honduran military might be shamed into launching a full-scale attack against Nicaragua. In either event, the Reagan administration could claim that a valued ally was under assault and that it must provide support by bombing Managua or even landing American troops inside Nicaragua. Fortunately, neither Honduras nor Nicaragua intends to play along. “What the United States fears,” Miguel D’Escoto, Nicaragua’s foreign minister, told me in Managua, “is not that we will attack Honduras. What they fear is that we won’t. They would like nothing better than for us to do it. We would be serving them on a silver platter the pretext they are looking for to make a direct intervention. They are concerned, they are angry that we don’t fall into the trap.”

In Tegucigalpa, Honduran officials put the matter more obliquely, but they also do not intend to be drawn into a war. Even while Sandinista soldiers were fighting inside Honduran territory, and Honduras was responding with troop deployments and bombing, Honduran diplomat Roberto Suazo Tome, an adviser to the minister of foreign affairs, was emphasizing the peaceful relationship between the two nations. “The Sandinistas have penetrated our borders from time to time, and there has even been sporadic fighting between our troops and theirs,” Suazo said, “but the level of political and diplomatic relations are good. We’ve had many meetings with high-level Sandinista officials. Our economic minister has traveled three times to Nicaragua to increase trade between the countries. Honduran businessmen have traveled to Nicaragua, and we are planning a visit to Honduras by Nicaraguan industrialists. So we have many different forms of economic cooperation. Nicaragua is a sister country. We do not use aggressive rhetoric toward them. We can exist with them, and we have mutual respect between our two systems.”

In any case, the Hondurans do not believe America can defeat the Sandinistas, through either military conflict or political agitation. “The contras are already defeated,” Suazo said. “It’s only a question of time.”

Suazo has proposed a solution to the problem along his border: the United States should grant asylum to the 20,000 contras and get them out of Honduras. “Our government has declared on many occasions that the presence of the contras in our territory is neither desired nor authorized nor tolerated,” he insisted. “But it is beyond our capacity to impede their presence.”

The civil government is not in control of events here. The generals are. The Honduran constitution forbids the stationing of foreign military forces without congressional approval, but the Honduran congress was not consulted. It was the Honduran military that provided sanctuary for the contra army and allowed the deployment of American troops. In return, the generals received generous military aid from the United States.

“The contras are like an unwanted guest,” Honduran sociologist and journalist Victor Meza explained. “But they are tolerated by the military because they bring money, and it means money to the military. The contras are their blackmail — their card to blackmail Washington for more aid. It’s also their card with which they can negotiate with the Sandinistas, behind the backs of thecontras. And the contras are good for business. They have made people rich here, civilians and military personnel.”

In Managua, Carlos Chamorro, editor of the Sandinista newspaper La Barricada, described the game being played by the Honduran generals. “They have to sell themselves to the U.S. to get the aid,” Chamorro said, “so they participate in actions against our army on the border, but they have been restrained. Why? Because they do not want to fall into a total death trap with Nicaragua.”

In the Honduran capital, Victor Meza offered a similar analysis. “The Honduran military,” he said, “knows that war should be avoided. Even if Honduras could win, they know that the real winner would be the United States and the contras, not Honduras. They know that if they were to win, this war, all the U.S. aid currently going to Honduras would then go to Nicaragua. So they know if they win, they lose. For that reason, they have done everything to avoid going to war.”

But if either the Honduran generals or the Sandinista leaders should miscalculate, then the Reagan administration may get what it wants — a regional war in Central America. American planes and troops could then be dispatched to fight another war in the name of freedom.

In Tegucigalpa, a city ringed by mountains, every window seems to have a spectacular view. Unlike Managua, the Honduran capital has a false glow of prosperity — downtown streets are clogged with traffic, store windows are filled with American toys and appliances. Militarization can be good for business without doing anything to improve a country’s basic economy; there was a similar bustle of commerce in Saigon at one time.

Honduras has been a passive nation for many decades, resigned to the dominance of military oligarchs and accustomed to blatant manipulation by American ambassadors. The country served as the staging area for the CIA’s overthrow of Guatemala’s elected government in 1954; now it has allowed itself to become the support base for America’s proxy war against Nicaragua. “The United States has a democracy inside,” said Efrain Diaz, a Christian Democrat in the national assembly, “but the U.S. acts as an empire in its relations with countries such as Honduras. We have let the United States do what it wants. We have been so easy.”

Popular dissent, nevertheless, is slowly finding its voice. Antiwar petitions proliferate as more and more organizations demand that the government stop America’s military adventure here. A blue and white peace poster proclaims, OUR COUNTRY — NOT FOR SALE, NOT FOR HIRE, NOT FOR LOAN … GRINGO TROOPS OUT … CONTRAS OUT.

“The worst problem this country has is that eighty percent of its people live in poverty,” Diaz explained. “Our main problem is development. It is not this problem with Nicaragua. But as long as we have this permanent conflict, I don’t think there is any way in which Honduras can really grow, no way Honduras can really develop. To me, that’s one of the consequences. The other is that we’re going to become a very polarized society. You cannot destabilize Nicaragua without destabilizing Honduras and the other countries in Central America.”

America’s Cold War-inspired foreign policy is creating some of the same problems in Central America that it produced twenty years ago in Indochina. While the Reagan administration claims to be defending the region’s democracies against Soviet domination, its military presence is actually undermining them. Anxious voices from the region plead futilely that East-West conflict is not the relevant issue. Poverty is the issue. So is the right of self-determination.

Miguel D’Escoto, Nicaragua’s foreign minister, has offered a powerful metaphor to explain why the American government cannot tolerate the revolutionary regime in his country. “We do not accept what the U.S. would like to impose — the status of a backyard nation,” he said. “The U.S. is afraid because it realizes that if Nicaragua is allowed to get away with this, then others will demand the same. The situation is like what you once had here in Nicaragua with the landowners. They related to peons in a very special way. The peon never entered the house. He came up to the front steps, he never sat down, he stood up. He took off his hat and he always addressed the señor as usted, the formal way of saying ‘you.’ Imagine the landowner’s reaction if one day, out of the blue, this peon walks right into the house, goes right into the living room and sits in the rocking chair. He folds his legs and calls the señor by the informal tú. He begins to relate as an equal. That’s what Nicaragua has done, too.”

Many citizens of Honduras would love to do the same someday.

America should realize that it has nothing to lose by abandoning its patronizing policies toward Central America’s small and struggling nations. Only then will the region be ensured of democractic and economic growth. As long as our government bullies, bribes and manipulates these countries, as it is now doing in Honduras, it can only expect that they will remain backward, cynical and utterly dependent.

Unfortunately, a new American perspective on Central America will have to wait until there is a new president in Washington. Even if Congress cuts off financing for the contras this year, the White House will not lose its hunger for conflict. The Sandinistas will continue to offer a mutual-security agreement for the region, but no one really expects Ronald Reagan to negotiate a peaceful settlement. The most we can hope for is to get through the last two years of this administration without stumbling — or being tricked — into a larger war.

Reagan’s final days will be a difficult period for all the players in Central America. The Sandinistas know that they are capable of defeating the contras in battle, even wiping them out, but they also know that a clear-cut victory would increase the risk of direct American intervention. The Reagan administration, mired in the contra-gate scandal, knows that it has little time left to defeat the Sandinistas. Will it simply walk away from a lost cause? Or will it launch a desperate strike against the Nicaraguan government? The recent announcement by the United States that it would be sending 3000 troops and 4500 national guardsmen from eight states and Puerto Rico to Honduras to participate in joint military exercises indicates that Reagan intends to raise the stakes in this dangerous game.

As for the contras, they may be pushed by the White House to go for quick victories inside Nicaragua this year in order to maintain political support in Congress. Given the Sandinistas’ superior forces, that could be a suicide mission. “I wouldn’t like to be with the contras right now,” said Victor Meza, “because I think everyone is trying to negotiate behind their backs. Possibly what will happen to them is that they’ll be forced into Nicaragua and they will be defeated by the Sandinistas.”

And if the United States finally abandons the struggle, as it did in Vietnam, a lot of Ronald Reagan’s “Freedom fighters” are going to be left behind when the last American helicopter departs.

Honduras, meanwhile, faces its own problems. Politicians here are beginning to wonder what will happen if Congress cuts off aid to the contras and Reagan abandons them. What will become of the occupying army that now virtually governs the southern flank of this country? Who will be able to control the contras?

“If the U.S. cuts off aid,” Roberto Suazo said, “the contras will need to eat. They’ll still need medicine. That could create very serious problems for Honduras…. What I mean to say is that a person with a gun will get what he needs. As we say in Central America, we need to feed our people today, not tomorrow. And the contras will do the same.”

Source: Rolling Stone

SOMALI LEADER GETS 99.9%

Somalia's official radio announced today that President Mohamed Siad Barre had won a new seven-year term with more than 99.9 percent of the vote in an uncontested election. The Somali radio, in a broadcast monitored in Nairobi, said 4,887,592 people voted for General Siad Barre and 1,486 against him in the election on Tuesday.

The President was seriously injured in an automobile accident in May, and there have been conflicting reports as to the extent of his recovery. But he was nominated for another term last month by the Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party, the country's only legal political party. Virtually the only overt opposition in Somalia is a sporadic insurgency by two guerrilla groups.

General Siad Barre has governed his East African nation since 1969, when he took power in a military coup. He has presided over a radical shift in his country's foreign policies. His army invaded a disputed area of southeastern Ethiopia called the Ogaden in 1977 when Somalia was allied with the Soviet Union and adhered to Marxist policies. At about the same time, Ethiopia split with the United States and became more closely aligned with the Soviet Union. With the help of Cuban troops and billions of dollars' worth of Soviet weapons, the Ethiopians turned back the Somalis.

General Siad Barre subsequently denounced the Russians and Marxism, and the United States has emerged as Somalia's chief ally. The Government continues to exercise extensive control over the economy, but the private sector has expanded sharply in the last two years. Secretary of State George P. Shultz is tentatively scheduled to visit Somalia next month.

Source: New York Times