Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is the touchstone on which the real understanding and recognition of Marxism is to be tested.   V. I. Lenin 
Economic & Philosophic Science Review 
Subscriptions (£25 p a.) & circulation:  078679 96074                                   www.epsr-marx-lenin.co.uk
[P&P Bulletin Publications PO B0X 50, London SW 17 9NL] [ Post Office Regd.]     
No 1185 May 20 2003                                                                                                                                           25p 
Next week's EPSR may be late due to school Whit holidays.

Much healthier debate still growing about how serious a crisis this is for the imperialist system. US warmongering's logic is inescapable. The whole world is going to have to be blitzed and colonised for "evil to be defeated"; and the West's general "anti-terrorist" hysteria only encourages this insane, pointless, aggressiveness, - undermining the wiser doubts that poking the angry Third World with a stick will only make it more and more enraged, and more and more desperate. Incurable economic contradictions deepen towards global collapse and slump. A conscious, revolutionary-science input more materially needed than ever.

Third World terrorists gave an explosive answer last week to Western imperialism's doomed neo-colonial warmongering; and America's control-failure in Iraq has gone from bad to worse.

These powerful symbols still don't show exactly how the underlying and insoluble capitalist economic crisis is going to bring the class-dominated, bogus, "free world" to total revolutionary collapse, but fittingly add to the evidence of how great a turning point in history is being approached, as the EPSR has long been explaining to the jeers of those critical of "crisisism" and doubting its imminence.

But for those on the fake-'left' capable of hearing anything but the sound of their own voice, the warning remains as clear as ever that capitalism is facing TERMINAL decline, - and the disciplined organisation of CONSCIOUS political agitat[ion] by a party of revolutionary theory (Leninism) is still civilisation's prime need.

When late converts to revolutionary understanding, plus philosophical agnostics, come in a rush to the forefront of realisation that the capitalist world really is in terminally serious trouble, it is quite possible that the small voice of the EPSR will not be the most prominent one heard; but the purpose will have been served of forcing the spontaneous material developments, which make up the revolution, to grasp CONSCIOUS expression, without which the working class cannot seize and hold onto power.

The revolutionary party only finally gets built because of persistent constructive agitation; and the philosophical doubters, forever bowing to spontaneity, may finish up outnumbering the Leninists, but it is only the science of revolution which will have successfully prevailed in the long run.

Apart from being a mindless Revisionist (although, at the same time, a truly heroic agent of the Soviet workers state) George Blake has performed his greatest disservice on his 80th birthday in Moscow by doubting that the USSR, in 70 years of planned socialist society, had brought up people to be any better than what capitalism's rat-race consumerism was turning out in terms of selfishness, greed, and enmity.

As a factual observation, it is one which millions of Marxists with personal experience of life in the Soviet Union will bitterly dispute. People were growing up in the USSR much more community-minded; much better culturally-educated; much more philosophically-enlightened; and much more capable, ambitious, and scientifically-minded (considering the still-greatly-restricted technological and material basis of the society after two total war-devastations and permanent economic embargo and sabotage in just 70 years) than in the crime-ridden and vice-ridden West, sinking steadily into drugs stupor.

As a historical observation, it is even more stupid since the transformation of society from the dog-eat-dog national rivalry of capitalism (with its individual, money-rationed, rat-race for wealth, wellbeing, and prestige) - to a world of international socialist cooperation; - non-antagonistically competing only in the novelty and worth of contributions for the good of all mankind and its planet, - is obviously the work of centuries and not just 70 years of history's most savage warmongering crises on record.

But it is as a contribution to political understanding that it stinks the most. It is an obvious tragic shame that Soviet Man could not have benefited that much from socialist society, or more of a fight would have been put up when the Revisionist bureaucracy in 1989-90 insanely invited bourgeois market forces to replace the dictatorship of the proletariat as the dominant influence in the state.

But what was most missing in Soviet society's philosophy????

PRECISELY the total lack of a WORLD REVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE, - steadily killed off since the 1920s by Stalinist Revisionism's political authority for which Blake himself must presumably bear some blame.

The Soviet people were utterly disarmed (from rising up against the betrayal to market forces) by Stalinism's idiot perspective that COEXISTENCE with imperialism would eventually see the socialist system prevail over all the world (see EPSR 2002 Perspectives for a full survey of Stalin's theoretical works establishing the insane notion that imperialism would die by being OVERTAKEN, in productive capacity and technology, by the egalitarian Socialist Camp; an impossible task, IMPOSSIBLE).

The suggestion that a material conditions explanation for Soviet disintegration is the only 'Marxist' view possible, dismissing Stalinism's ideological failure as an "idealist" explanation, merely continues Trotsky's own bureaucratic difficulty in grasping dialectics.

Needlessly, Trotsky 'Marxistically' postured in Revolution Betrayed that overly paranoid and bullying state-control-tyranny would eventually stifle all technological initiative in the USSR, bringing certain economic collapse by the end of the 1930s.

Under that same state bureaucracy, the Soviet workers dictatorship eventually vastly outperformed in space science, and other military/science technology, history's greatest-ever imperialist power.

Only in VOLUME of output did the Soviet planned economy still suffer by comparison with the West in essential technology, due to its still much smaller wealth and size, (and even more so in consumer goods, where the equality of incomes throughout the Socialist Camp also made for poor comparisons, - with quality shirts on Oxford Street sold cheaper than GUM shirts because made by virtual slave-labour in Bangkok sweatshops).

The material conditions behind Stalinist ideology's fatal infections of the Soviet workers state, which killed it, were clearly influential.

Early hopes of expanding the anti-imperialist camp after 1917 all ended in failure.

Subsequent strategies in Stalin's Third International (China, Germany, Spain, collectivisation, etc) ended in even greater disasters.

World isolation and hostility persisted; and in the siege mentality which followed, a mainly consolidation, safety-first, outlook prevailed.

Internationally, Marxist understanding outside of the USSR proved to be equally limited, obsessed by the existence of the world's first workers state; - split between a hostile extreme, denouncing the Soviet dictatorship as the way to go; and a spontaneity extreme, insisting that only Moscow loyalism was required to bring the whole world eventually to socialism.

But building the SU into a world soviet republic clearly required much more than just routine material growth.

Philosophically, the material conditions needed ideological input from a Leninist party of revolutionary theory more than ever.

The socialist epoch of world history itself will require exactly the same struggled-for triumph of reason, - based, necessarily, on the favourable material conditions once achieved.

That the Stalin group's conservative theoretical mediocrity prevailed undoubtedly reflected the USSR's material history.

But to claim this as a triumph of 'Marxist inevitability' is to corrupt Marx's conditional determinism with the anti-dialectical decadence of philosophical agnosticism, the favourite retreat of all clever intellectuals.

Proletarian dictatorship will only "inevitably" replace bourgeois class rule in history BECAUSE the party of revolutionary theory, organising men's material minds for collective struggle, WILL be one of the necessary MATERIAL factors shifting society on via intolerable MATERIAL crisis.

When organised rational thinking, welded into a MATERIAL force, is absent, then revolutionary crises can come and go but with NO successful revolutionary outcome.

On various cynical, materially complacent, or déclassé perches, the doubt that ideas can catch fire, challenging the dominance of spontaneity-worship in working-class politics, is still all-powerful.

But material conditions have much to do with this, - and material conditions change.

The latest world developments are the most crucial reflection of this.

It becomes ever more important to see it as bourgeois ideology itself sees it. The complacency of the fake-'left' will shift as the bourgeoisie itself begins to shuffle uncomfortably at how unfavourably all the perspectives are shaping up from various middle class viewpoints.

The 'war on terrorism' and the attempt to return to 19th century colonial conquest and pacification, are looking particularly unsuccessful at the moment, even to capitalist press eyes:

PLANS by America and Britain to rebuild Iraq were descending into chaos this weekend as officials admitted they had scrapped plans for a transitional government and Spain revealed a gaping hole in funding for reconstruction.

Allied officials told leaders of the Iraqi exile community, who have flooded back to Baghdad that they had abandoned plans to allow Iraqi opposition forces to form a national assembly and transitional government by the end of the month.

Instead, say opposition sources who attended a meeting on Friday with Paul Bremer, the Pentagon appointed civilian administrator in Iraq, US and British diplomats announced they would remain in charge for an undisclosed period.

Bremer, who was accompanied by John Sawers, a British diplomat representing Prime Minister Tony Blair, told the meeting the Allies now preferred an 'interim authority' in which Iraqis would assist by creating a constitution for Iraq, revamping the educational system and devising a plan for future democratic elections.

'It's clear you cannot transfer all powers to some interim body, because it will not have the strength or resources to carry those responsibilities out,' said Sawers. 'There was agreement that we should aim to have a national conference as soon as we reasonably could do so.'

Huge divisions are now apparent within Iraq's opposition, not least between returning Iraqi exiles, like Ahmed Chalabi, who have been demanding prominent positions in any transitional government, and the grassroots movements, many of them focused on local Shia leaders who are demanding an Islamic state.

Meanwhile there is a crisis overfunding for reconstruction following claims that oil revenue will fall far short of the $41 billion (£26bn) required over the next two years to get the shattered nation on its feet.

Before the war senior US administration officials, including President George W. Bush, suggested that the sale of Iraqi oil - at present still covered by UN sanctions and administered by the UN's Oil For Food programme would largely pay for the reconstruction.

But new figures produced by Spain's Ministry of Economic Affairs and sent to the World Bank, UN and International Monetary Fund have led the Spanish government to conclude that oil revenues are likely to fall far short of the contribution originally envisaged.

According to the Spanish figures, renovating and modernising Iraq's oil industry will cost $3.5bn alone. The scale of the expected shortfall in funding has been underlined by the US commitment to reconstruction, a slim $2.5bn approved by Congress. US Treasury Secretary John Snow insisted last week that countries like France and Germany, who opposed the war, would have to make substantial contributions.

The US, UK and Spain are now sponsoring a UN resolution to end sanctions against Iraq and the oil for food programme, instead placing Iraqi oil revenues first under the Pentagon's control, then under a transitional Iraqi authority through which the money could be channelled for reconstruction.

The resolution, which would give the occupying powers authority in Iraq for at least a year, would also call for an international fund to rebuild Iraq. The resolution, which is expected to be tabled this week, is being opposed by France, Germany, Russia and China.

This is because the President and the men who answer to him and his allies are not winning the war on terror, they are losing it.

The reason for this is to be found in the second part of Bush's statement. He believes eliminating al-Qaeda will end the threat of Islamic militant terrorism. Though this is rubbish, as a close analysis of recent terrorist attacks shows, it is the conventional wisdom among most of those charged with ending the violence that we are now being subjected to.

Al-Qaeda, conceived of as a tight-knit terrorist group with cadres and a capability everywhere, does not exist in that form. It barely existed before the war in Afghanistan in 2001 destroyed Osama bin Laden's carefully constructed infrastructure there. It certainly does not exist now. Instead, we are facing a different kind of threat. Al-Qaeda can only be understood as an ideology, an agenda and a way of seeing the world that is shared by an increasing number of predominantly young, predominantly male Muslims. Eliminating bin Laden and a few hundred senior activists will do nothing to counter this al-Qaeda. Hundreds more will come forward to fill their ranks. Al-Qaeda however understood, will continue to operate. The threat will remain and it will grow.

It is too early for us to have any real idea of how Friday's attacks in Casablanca were brought about. But a year ago there was an unsuccessful attempt to launch a series of suicide attacks in Morocco and they give us a clue both to the specific organisation of the most recent blasts and more generally, to how modern Islamic terrorism works. It was led by a Saudi called Mohammed al-Tubaiti. He had made his way in late 1999 to Afghanistan, where he had requested a 'martyrdom mission' from al-Qaeda. He had received short shrift from bin Laden's lieutenants.

According to his Moroccan court indictment, they told him to come back when he had his own plan, and then they would consider it. Al-Tubaiti went to Morocco, recruited some young men and returned to, the Afghan camps with a scheme. He was given money and told to go back to Morocco and start work. Though he successfully recruited more people to join his team. mistakes allowed local police to roll up the group before the attacks could be launched.

Al-Tubaiti's story tells us two important things. The first is that the hard core of senior al-Qaeda figures operating in Afghanistan until late 2001 acted as a clearing house for projects that were submitted to them, not vice versa. Most of al-Qaeda's terrorist operations originated in the minds of volunteers all over the Islamic world who then made their way to Afghanistan and bin Laden to seek help in executing them. That would imply that, even if bin Laden and his associates are eliminated, there will still be young men with dreams of destruction. If bin Laden no longer exists to give them aid, they will simply find someone else. Given that all a terrorist needs is a hand grenade, a nightclub and a desperate will, that is a stark and frightening truth. 

The second element is revealed by the ease with which al-Tubaiti found volunteers. That indicates that such young men are plentiful.

In fact, to understand what is happening we need to look beyond the big headline attacks such as that at Riyadh midweek and examine the 'background noise', now almost continuous, of Islamic violence. On Thursday morning 18 small bombs detonated virtually simultaneously at Shell petrol stations in the Pakistani port city of Karachi. Pakistani investigators suspect a local group, probably led by someone who was in Afghanistan with bin Laden, is responsible. Like al-Tubaiti in Morocco, that individual has been able to draw together local people, probably already in some kind of activist organisation, to undertake a more effective terrorist action. No longer do local militants need to head to Afghanistan to find someone to help them turn their dreams into reality. Someone will come to them.

A CLOSER LOOK at the terrorist activities of the last few days reinforces this pattern. In Algeria, where militants returning from Afghanistan have sparked an upsurge in violence, a locally recruited group fought a gun battle with government security forces trying to liberate a group of hostages. In Yemen, the native land of a huge number of the volunteers that made their way to the Afghan camps, a local group bombed a court where a militant had been convicted a few weeks earlier; in Lebanon, police arrested nine men plotting an attack on the US embassy. They were not linked to al-Qaeda, the authorities said. In Chechnya, well-established militant groups who have no real connection to bin Laden pulled off two suicide bombings that killed scores. The decision to halt British flights to and from Kenya was prompted, intelligence sources say, not by the supposed sighting of a senior al-Qaeda operative in Somalia alone, but by reports indicating that he might be about to link up with 'local groups' in Mombasa or Nairobi to attack a British Airways plane. This picture of interaction between hardened activists, some of whom are linked to bin Laden, and local groups is repeated everywhere.

There are two major differences from the pre-1996 situation, however. First, 11 September, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the crisis in Israel-Palestine, and the actions of governments and Islamic campaigners all over the Muslim and non-Muslim world, have led to an unprecedented wave of anger and resentment that easily translates into violence. The Islamic world is a far more radicalised place than it was previously. That the conflict in Iraq led to a rise in recruitment for radical groups is now so clear that even US officials admit it. This is a huge setback in the 'war on terror'.

Second, the militants' targets are not, as they once were, merely the regimes in their own countries. The target now is the so-called 'Crusader-Zionist Alliance' and that means all Westerners are enemies. There are no civilians. There are no safe havens.

The spate of attacks and threatened attacks last week owed less to 'the return of al-Qaeda', as trumpeted by some headlines, and more to a broad-based Islamic militant movement that is growing in strength everywhere between Malaysia and Morocco. Those involved may share many of the aims of bin Laden and his associates, they may even accept temporary help from experienced senior individual activists, but they are not part of his group. They do not carry membership cards, they have not taken any oath of allegiance. If these groups, cells and individuals are part of al-Qaeda, they are merely part of an 'al-Qaeda movement' not any structured, hierarchical organisation. This movement is as diverse as the many countries from which its members come.

Once again, these developments do not bear the slightest suggestion that Third World terrorist hatred, as such, - or Iraqi anti-colonial pride, as such, are any solution to the world crisis which the decadent imperialist system is imposing.

But what they do show is that class and national conflict is escalating rapidly everywhere as capitalism's underlying economic and political crisis (of an exploitation system which cannot stop throwing up ever greater inequalities and injustices) sinks deeper and deeper into the intolerable financial chaos of an insoluble "overproduction" sickness.

Nominally, the imperialist powers are TOGETHER in this economic crisis, just as they are supposedly together in fighting off Third World terrorism.

In reality, although still meeting (in France at the weekend, as below) and vowing to get their "anti-terrorist" act together, the practice of serious CONFLICTING economic rivalry interests, reflected too in rival geo-political interests, means that the great imperialist powers must inevitably be driven further and further apart as their SYSTEM of economic and political world-rule suffers incurable inbuilt CONTRADICTIONS:

Stock markets fell sharply around the world yesterday as fears that the Bush administration is deliberately driving down the value of the dollar led to a headlong flight out of the US currency and nudged the euro close to a record high. "America has launched its own weapon of mass destruction," said Nick Parsons, a currency strategist with Commerzbank. "The US solution to deflation is to export it to the rest of the world".

Weekend comments by the US treasury secretary, John Snow, had been an open invitation to sell the dollar, with a strong sense that the Bush administration was seeking to boost American business by making foreign imports dearer.

The greenback dropped by two cents against the single currency in early trading in Europe, rallying only slightly when the Japanese government intervened heavily on the foreign exchanges in an attempt to put a halt to the yen's rise.

Pedro Solbes, Europe's monetary affairs commissioner, put a brave face on the relentless rise of the euro, saying a strong and stable single currency would be good for the 12 nation eurozone. 

With the European Central Bank coming under mounting pressure to boost growth by cutting rates next month, the bank's president, Wim Duisenberg, said he was unsure whether the eurozone would be able to reach expected growth of 1% this year after the economic stagnation in the first six months of 2003.

The trigger for yesterday's sell-off was remarks by Mr Snow at the meeting of G7 finance ministers in Deauville, France, in which he described the dollar's fall of 36% since February 2002 as "modest".

David Brown, a European economist at Bear Stearns, said: "Snow has pulled the carpet out from underneath the currency. The dollar is on a hiding to nothing, and it's going a lot lower."

Germany's DAX index of leading shares dropped by almost 5% amid concern over the impact on industry of a stronger euro. Stock markets in London and New York also suffered, despite the weakness of the pound and the dollar in recent weeks.

London's FTSE index was down 107.7 points at 3941.3, with Wall Street's Dow Jones industrials falling 185.58 points to close 2.14% down at 8,493.39. Dealers pointed to a resurgence in terrorism and profit taking as other factors affecting sentiment.

John Smith, the chief investment officer at Solus Fund Managers, said: "We've got currency worries about the dollar; we've got currency worries about the strong euro and we've got uncertainty about coordinated terror attacks."

Worries about the health of the world's leading economies intensified when Japan's finance minister, Masajuro Shiokawa, was forced to return home early after the near collapse of Resona Holdings, Japan's fifth-largest banking group.

Before he left, Mr Shiokawa promised Japan would step up efforts to fight deflation, but Resona's crisis puts renewed pressure on Tokyo to tackle at long last the scourge afflicting the world's second largest economy.

RESONA, one of Japan's big five "megabanks", has been effectively nationalised to save it from total financial collapse.

The struggling bank, crippled by non-performing loans, applied on Saturday for an £ll billion injection of public funds. The Japanese Government agreed after an emergency meeting chaired by the Prime Minister, Junichiro Koizumi. The Bank of Japan will also extend an unlimited amount of loans without security.

The central bank said it would also supply funds to the money markets if there is any run on other banks or if there is a sharp fall in share prices.

Mr Koizumi assured Japanese depositors and taxpayers that the injection should prevent a financial crisis but analysts and political observers said it showed how close the country was to a major banking collapse.

Resona - the recent creation of a merger between Asahi and Daiwa banks - has been regularly touted as the most vulnerable of the sector. But its chief rivals, including UFJ, Sumitomo Mitsui and even Mizuho, the world's largest bank by assets, are not seen as being in significantly better shape.

Although Resona deposits are guaranteed by the Government, the entire banking sector is mulling plans to raise levels of cash to cope with a possible run on the cash machines.

The nationalisation has sent shockwaves throughout the Japanese business and political communities, which had both hoped that the worst of the country's banking crisis was behind them. The event has also sharply split opinion over whether it would have been better to allow Resona to fail naturally under the weight of market forces.

Six months ago Resona had a capital adequacy ratio of about 7.9 per cent but this crashed to just 3.78 per cent

Part of the problem has been created by the tumbling Japanese stock market, where the Nikkei 225 index has spent the past three months skirting 20-year lows. Resona has also suffered particularly from the deepening economic downturn since 78 per cent of its corporate loans were to small companies. that have not weathered the storm well.

As part of the Government's financial services revival plan, Resona under went an audit that applied much stricter rules to capital generated by deferred tax accounting.

IF you find Alan Greenspan's economic statements hard to follow; you will find US Treasury secretary John Snow's pronouncements on the dollar positively inscrutable. According to Snow, the administration (a) has a "strong dollar policy.. we've had it forever"; (b) is delighted that the weaker dollar is helping American industries to sell more goods abroad; and (c) "has no conscious policy . . . to move the dollar at all". Oh yes, the Treasury secretary is also in favour of "a sound [US] currency".

By comparison, the Delphic Greenspan is a model of clarity.

It's best to start with the facts. Although the dollar has fallen only 6% against the average of all the currencies of America's trading partners, it is down by more than 25% against the euro in the past year. This has delighted the politicians to whom the euro is a political project for creating a rival to the dollar, and who don't care too much about the economic consequences of their "project". But hard-pressed European manufacturers are watching their goods become increasingly expensive in the crucial American market. Indeed, some newspapers in America are listing made-in-the-USA substitutes for higher priced German cars, French wines and Italian designer goods.

Meanwhile, America's politicians continue to spout support for a strong dollar policy, while keeping their eyes on the most politically sensitive indicator of all - the unemployment rate. The White House is desperate for the rate to decline early enough next year so the president can campaign on a platform of "my tax cuts are setting the economy right".

So the president's men are eager to see job-creating American exports increase, and consumption of domestic-made products rise at the expense of imports. Normally they would worry that a falling dollar, by making imports more expensive and relaxing the pressure on domestic manufacturers to keep prices down, would trigger inflation.

But the latest figures, showing that producer prices declined 1.9% in April, have experts worrying more about the possibility of deflation than of inflation.

The fear in the Treasury and the White House is that the dollar's decline may turn into a collapse. There are reasons to worry. The trade deficit in March was up 7.6% on the previous month, to the second-highest level on record, and up to the 5%-of-GDP level that economists consider unsustainable. This means America has to attract about a billion dollars in capital investment from overseas every day to offset the trade deficit, a task made more difficult by our low interest rates and lacklustre share prices. Should investors decide to unload their dollar assets, the trade deficit could cause a flight from the American currency. Of course, those investors would have to find an economy with brighter longterm prospects than America's no easy chore.

Then, too, the mounting trade deficit is adding to pressure on the president to retreat from his support for the Doha round of trade opening talks. America had a $7.8 billion trade deficit with western Europe in March, only a bit higher than the $7.7 billion with China. Other countries that sell a lot more to America than they buy are Japan, Canada and Mexico, with which America ran trade deficits of $5.8 billion, $5.2 billion and $3.9 billion, respectively, in March.

All this is stirring up protectionist sentiment. The deficit with western Europe is blamed on France's refusal to allow the EU to reduce barriers to American farm products, and to such interventions as its diversion of a $3 billion engine order from Pratt & Whitney, the low bidder, to a French-led consortium.

Japan, say many American trade experts, maintains its advantage over America by intervening in currency markets to keep the yen from rising sufficiently to make Japanese exports unattractive in American markets.

China is another country that is effectively manipulating the value of its currency to gain an unfair advantage over American producers. China pegs its renminbi to the dollar, so that the decline in the value of the American currency relative to other currencies cannot be reflected in a lower value relative to China's currency.

To complete the list, those who want America to get tough with its trading partners are blaming the deficits with Canada and Mexico on unfair advantages conferred on those countries by the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Bob Zoellick, the US trade representative, is going to have a tough job maintaining congressional support for trade opening talks as the 2004 election approaches, especially if the unemployment rate hasn't come down significantly. The battle is already hotting up. America, backed by 3,000 scientists and a dozen nations, has filed a suit at the World Trade Organisation challenging the EU's moratorium on imports of genetically modified crops. The EU, for its part, has won WTO backing for its demand that America repeal by September the $4 billion tax break it confers on its exporters or face trade sanctions. But the EU's bureaucrats don't realise that the American election campaign officially kicks off on Labor day, which falls on September 1. That's not a time when American politicians want to be seen giving in to a threat, especially one from their nation's new adversaries, France and Germany.

The classical perspective out of all this utter chaos of backstabbing and incomprehension would be towards ever-sharper inter-imperialist trade war leading on towards inevitable inter-imperialist shooting war some time later on.

And that perspective for yet another World War crisis (following World Wars I and II which almost sank capitalism under a revolutionary red tide) hardly needs any extra dramatising-up from what the EPSR has consistently already given it, - an intolerable situation which mankind would surely regard as TERMINAL as far as continuing with a capitalist free-for-all in the world was concerned.

Nor has this farcical and humiliating inter-imperialist conflict disappeared from view even in the capitalist press's own cautiously-nervous comments and reports, desperately at the moment trying to pretend that the Big Powers are at last again "seeing sense" and are resolving to "work cooperatively once again to solve all the world's problems", etc, etc:

FRANCE delivered a furious letter to the White House yesterday in which it accused the Bush Administration of feeding false stories to the American media that alleged French complicity with Saddam Hussein's regime.

The unprecedented letter, signed by the French Ambassador to the US and drafted in the Foreign Ministry in Paris, details an "organised campaign of disinformation" from within the US Government over the past nine months.

A two-page list attached to the letter, which was also delivered to the Senate and House of Representatives, details news reports including alleged French weapons sales to Iraq and a report last week accusing French officials in Syria of issuing French passports to former Baath party officials.

The stories, all of which France has denied, are from anonymous "administration officials", states the letter, which is signed by Jean-David Levitte, the French Ambassador to America. They are part of an ugly campaign to destroy the image of France, one French official said.

Marie Masdupuy, of the Foreign Ministry in Paris, said: "As part of the campaign of explanation we are undertaking in the United States, we have decided to counter the untrue accusations which have appeared in the US press and which have deeply shocked the French."

One White House official called the accusation "utter nonsense".

It is clear that the Franco-American bitterness will last long after the war. A White House spokesman said: "The substance of the complaint has no basis in fact. I think Secretary [of State] Colin Powell stated it well recently when he said the US and France have been in marriage counselling for the past 200 years."

The letter, however, was more like divorce papers. The list begins with a New York Times report in September alleging that, in 1998, France and Germany had supplied Iraq with high precision switches used in detonating nuclear weapons. A French denial at the time said that Iraq had ordered the switches as "spare parts" for medical equipment, but that France blocked the sale and alerted the Germans.

In November, The Washington Post quoted an "American intelligence source" saying that France possessed prohibited strains of the human smallpox virus. Paris issued an angry denial and the paper later printed a rebuttal.

Several other stories detailing arms sales to Iraq, all denied, followed in various newspapers, but French sang-froid finally evaporated on May 6 when The Washington Times ran a story quoting "American intelligence sources", that France had helped wanted Iraqi officials to escape. The US State Department denied the story on May 9.

France has also been angered by reports in the British press about alleged Iraqi memoranda that showed a close diplomatic relationship between Paris and Baghdad.

But if France's imperialist position is vulnerable and upset in such murderous conditions for monopoly capitalism's survival worldwide, then how much more shaky is Britain's own situation?

Having been trashed by Short and Cook, and constantly being made fools of by the Americans who have not the slightest respect in reality for "their most loyal allies in Europe", the New Labourites are now knocking lumps out of each other over major disagreements on how to proceed with the European Union.

The issues of the federal constitution and the common currency are guaranteed to split apart not just the Government but the entire ruling-class Establishment.

The shallow, easy, option has rapidly degenerated in recent years to being not just anti-Europe in this country, but to being anti-Europe with venomous abuse, and to be xenophobically anti-foreigner as never before on almost every issue, and in totally new ways.

The latest warmongers' alliance with aggressive US imperialism has only confirmed these shallow sentiments to the hilt; but all this bellicose chauvinism has at the same time caused some very deep worries and fears.

Crashing around in gung-ho flag-waving may temporarily look superficially impressive, but what about the longer term perspectives????

It was because of British imperialism's classically-weakened position (100 years of irreversibly steady decline) that Britain joined the Common market in the first place, under its Tory ruling class first eleven, the Conservative Party.

It is a measure of British imperialism's even further decline, since, that the Tory Party is now simply unelectable, - such a ridiculous collapsed ghost of the past has it become.

New Labour are the New Tories, but the decline remains constant. It is permanent. British imperialism is firmly among the sick men of world monopoly-capitalism.

But now Blair & Co have to put their money where their gobby pro-American-belligerence mouths have been, - or not, as the case may be.

For the US imperialist executive, - with 50 over-production unprofitable states on its hands already, needs a 51st "over-production" unprofitable state on its hands like it needs another Sept 11.

Blair & Co know that in reality, they are about as loved in Washington as a dog with fleas.

And it is a plain matter of fact that in the international trade war, the USA treats rival British interests just as hostilely as it bullies any other competitor.

Even within the ridiculous temporary NAZI posturing to strut "imperialist triumph" all over the poor people of Iraq, there has been far more US-UK tension than tangible rewards for neocolonial bravura and enterprise.

On New Labour's extremely sensitive political sore point, - the failure to find the "weapons of mass destruction" whose "imminent worldwide onslaught" was sold to Parliament to get approval for blitzkrieg on Iraq, - Blair is being contemptuously left in the lurch by his Washington dog-trainers:

The US military task force hunting for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq is to leave within a month, having found no trace of any illegal weapons.

Of a US central command list of 19 top weapons sites, all but two have been searched already. Another 45 sites searched so far from a list of 68 thought to contain some evidence of banned weapons have also yielded nothing.

"We came to bear country, we came loaded for bear, and we found out the bear wasn't here," an officer with the US defence intelligence agency was quoted as saying.

Hitler and Goebbels would have made more sensible and reliable "Allies".

Worst of all for Blair, British middle class opinion is horrified at his alliance with American neo-con fascist warmongers, and the BBC itself is firing startling broadsides into US credibility, such as the TV exposure of Washington's
"rescuing Private Lynch" propaganda stunt which was more Goebbels than Goebbels ever dreamed of being in his wildest "master-race" fabrications:

One story, two versions. The doctors in Nassiriya say they provided the best treatment they could for Lynch in the midst of war. She was assigned the only specialist bed in the hospital, and one of only two nurses on the floor. "I was like a mother to her and she was like a daughter," says Khalida Shinah.

"We gave her three bottles of blood, two of them from the medical staff because there was no blood at this time "said Dr Harith al-Houssona, who looked after her throughout her ordeal. "I examined her, I saw she had a broken arm, a broken thigh and a dislocated ankle. Then I did another examination. There was no [sign of] shooting, no bullet inside her body, no stab wound - only RTA, road traffic accident;' he recalled. "They want to distort the picture. I don't know why they think there is some benefit in saying she has a bullet injury."

The doctors told us that the day before the special forces swooped on the hospital the Iraqi military had fled. Hassam Hamoud, a waiter at a local restaurant, said he saw the American advance party land in the town. He said the team's Arabic interpreter asked him where the hospital was. "He asked: 'Are there any Fedayeen over there?' and I said, 'No'. " All the same, the next day America's finest warriors descended on the building.

"We heard the noise of helicopters," says Dr Anmar Uday. He says that they must have known there would be no resistance. "We were surprised. Why do this? There was no military, there were no soldiers in the hospital."

"It was like a Hollywood film. They cried, 'Go, go, go; with guns and blanks and the sound of explosions. They made a show - an action movie like Sylvester Stallone or Jackie Chan, with jumping and shouting, breaking down doors." All the time with the camera rolling. The Americans look no chances, restraining doctors and a patient who was handcuffed to a bed frame.

There was one more twist. Two days before the snatch squad arrived, Al-Houssona had arranged to deliver Jessica to the Americans in an ambulance. "I told her I will try and help you escape to the American Army but I will do this very secretly because I could lose my life." He put her in an ambulance and instructed the driver to go to the American checkpoint. When he was approaching it, the Americans opened fire. They fled just in time back to the hospital. The Americans had almost killed their prize catch.

Releasing its five-minute film to the networks, the Pentagon claimed that Lynch had stab and bullet wounds, and that she had been slapped about on her hospital bed and interrogated. It was only thanks to a courageous Iraqi lawyer, Mohammed Odeh al-Rehaief, that she was saved. According to the Pentagon, Al-Rehaief risked his life to alert the Americans that Lynch was being held.

Just after midnight, Army Rangers and Navy Seals stormed the Nassiriya hospital. Their "daring" assault on enemy territory was captured by the military's night vision camera. They were said to have come under fire, but they made it to Lynch and whisked her away by helicopter. That was the message beamed back to viewers within hours of the rescue.

Al-Rehaief was granted asylum barely two weeks after arriving in the US. He is now the toast of Washington, with a fat $500,000 (£309,000) book deal. Rescue in Nassiriya will be published in October. As for Lynch, her status as cult hero is stronger than ever. Internet auction sites have listed at least 10 Jessica Lynch items, ranging from an oil painting with an opening bid of $200 to a $5 "America Loves Jessica Lynch" fridge magnet.

Her rescue will go down as one of the most stunning pieces of news management yet conceived. It provides a remarkable insight into the real influence of Hollywood producers on the Pentagon's media managers, and has produced a template from which America hopes to present its future wars.

When it was shown, General Vincent Brooks, the US spokesman in Doha, declared: "Some brave souls put their lives on the line to make this happen, loyal to a creed that they know that they'll never leave a fallen comrade."

None of the details that the doctors provided Correspondent with made it to the video or to any subsequent explanations or clarifications by US authorities. I asked the Pentagon spokesman in Washington, Bryan Whitman, to release the full tape of the rescue, rather than its edited version, to clear up any discrepancies. He declined. Whitman would not talk about what kind of Iraqi resistance the American forces faced. Nor would he comment on the injuries Lynch actually sustained. "I understand there is some conflicting information out there and in due time the full story will be told, I'm sure," he told me.

To try to keep the lid on this monstrous scandal, Private Lynch has now been declared to have had an official "memory loss" about the whole injury, capture, and rescue incident, so that questioning of her should not reveal this pack of nasty racist lies.

And as well as being contaminated from association with American NAZI imperialism, Blair is now being shamed by British imperialism's own rotten fascist tyranny in Occupied Ireland where a rearguard action by Britain's Gestapo (all the various secret-police agencies, MI5, FRU, RUC, Special Branch, etc) is again trying to muddy the waters of the clear-cut Sinn Féin/IRA national liberation revolutionary triumph by mind-boggling "revelation" rigmaroles about state assassinations; facilitated murders; double agent killings and cover-ups; and every other kind of smear to try to brainwash public opinion away from seeing a Republican victory in Ireland and an "anti-terrorist security" defeat for the British ruling-class Establishment. (Further examination next issue).

All of which leaves Blair's Government a very troubled and isolated regime, in spite of all the propaganda bluster about being "at the centre of EU opinion against federalism" and "fully in partnership with the USA's wise and winning policy for a successful war on terrorism", etc, etc.

On one side, the Franco-German axis will continue to harden to resist America's global bullying. On the other, the USA will continue going it alone all the way to Armageddon, with no guarantees at all about who will be fighting on whose side, and for what, by the time this incurable imperialist economic crisis plunges the whole "free world" into revolutionary turmoil. Build Leninism. EPSR supporters.

World Socialist Review
(edited extracts from a variety of anti-imperialist struggles).

Statement from the leadership of Óglaigh na hÉireann passed to the two governments on Sunday 13 April

"The leadership of Óglaigh na hÉireann takes this opportunity to give our view of the current phase of the peace. In particular we want to address unionist concerns. 

The political responsibility for advancing the current situation rests with the two governments, especially the British government, and the leadership of the political parties.

Accordingly, the IRA leadership have assessed commitments from the two governments and the UUP.

The IRA has a genuine interest in building an enduring political process because we want to see the removal of the causes of conflict in our country. Although the Irish Republican Army is not a party to the Good Friday Agreement, we are disappointed that the Agreement has not been implemented.

We are disappointed also that the commitments in the Joint Declaration are conditional and protracted. Despite this, we want to give them a fair wind.

Óglaigh na hÉireann supports the peace process. We want it to work. We affirm that our cessation is intact.

We are resolved to see the complete and final closure of this conflict. The IRA leadership is determined to ensure that our activities, disciplines and strategies will be consistent with this.

Furthermore, the full and irreversible implementation of the Agreement and other commitments will provide a context in which the IRA can proceed to definitively set aside arms to further our political objectives. When there is such a context this decision can be taken only by a General Army Convention representing all Volunteers.

We want to enhance the climate at all levels of society so that unionists and loyalists, nationalists and republicans, free from threats to their rights and safety, can engage together in community, political and other areas of cooperation and work.

The IRA leadership poses no threat to the unionist people or to the peace process.

The IRA leadership reiterates our commitment to resolving the issue of arms. The commitments from the two governments, including the ending of the suspension of the political institutions, and the firm pledge by the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party that he will actively support the sustained working of the political institutions and other elements of the Good Friday Agreement, enables us to do this.

We have authorised our representative to meet with the IICD with a view to proceeding with the implementation of a process to put arms beyond use at the earliest opportunity.

We have also authorised a third act of putting arms beyond use.

This will be verified under the agreed scheme.

These initiatives are part of our ongoing contribution to the collective endeavour. The commitments made by the two governments and the UUP are a necessary part of this.

We support genuine efforts to build a just and peaceful future for all the people of this island. This is a collective task for all sections of society. Unionist political leaders have a special contribution to make.

We are Irish republicans. Our objective is a united Ireland. We are not unionists or British and no-one should expect us to set aside our political objectives or our republicanism.

We do not claim to fully understand unionist perceptions. But we are prepared to listen and to learn.  And we are committed to playing our part in creating the conditions in which unionists, nationalists and republicans can live together peacefully.

Building the collective trust to achieve this is a huge challenge for everyone. Given the experience of nationalists and republicans during decades of conflict and before, this is a particular challenge for us. It is also a challenge for unionists and the British government.

Much hurt has been inflicted by British government policy, by successive British governments and by the old unionist regime. Great pain has been caused by the British Army, the RUC and loyalist paramilitaries. Irish republicans and nationalists have a proud and honourable record of resistance against these forces. We know unionists do not see it like that.

We are also conscious that non-combatants were killed and injured as a consequence of some of our actions. We offer our sincere apologies and condolences to their families and friends.

The IRA is committed to supporting every effort to make conflict a thing of the past. To this end the IRA leadership has previously authorised a series of unprecedented initiatives to enhance the search for a lasting peace.

On occasions these have been undervalued or dismissed. Despite this we are persisting in our endeavours. The initiatives outlined in this statement involve further substantive and additional contributions by the IRA.

Both governments - and unionists and republicans alike have now an opportunity which cannot and should not be wasted."

P O'Neill, 	Irish Republican Publicity Bureau, Dublin.

The following statement was issued by the leadership of Óglaigh na hÉireann on Tuesday night 6 May.

"The IRA leadership is committed to making the peace process work.

That is why we called our cessation.

That is why we have maintained it.

That is why we have taken a series of significant initiatives.

That is why at the beginning of April we shared concepts and drafts with others. While that process was ongoing these concepts and drafts were mischievously leaked and misrepresented by the two governments. This was an abuse of trust.

Despite this, on Sunday 13 April, the IRA leadership closed on a statement setting out our view on recent developments in the peace process and on:

•	The current disposition of Óglaigh na hÉireann and the status of our cessation.

• Our future intentions.

• Our attitude to re-engagement with the IICD and engagement in a process of putting arms beyond use.

•	A third act of putting arms beyond use to be verified under the agreed scheme.

•		A willingness to address unionist concerns.

• An apology to the families and friends of non-combatants killed as a consequence of our actions.

This statement, which contained significant proposals to move the process forward, was given to the two governments on 13 April. They described it as positive, welcomed the obvious progress and said that the statement showed a clear desire to make the peace process work.

On 23 April the British Prime Minister, in a clear breach of protocol, publicly misquoted aspects of our statement and went on to pose three questions.

This and the subsequent word games have caused justifiable anger and annoyance.

Despite this, the President of Sinn Féin responded in a clear and unambiguous way. His answers accurately, reflected our position.

There is no lack of clarity. Our statement and the commitments contained in it was dependent on agreement involving the two governments, the UUP and Sinn Féin.

With regard to putting arms beyond use, our representative met several times, with the IICD. In order, in particular, to facilitate the UUP and to enhance the process to achieve agreement, we made preparation for a quantity of munitions to be put beyond use.

In the event of agreement, we were prepared to act immediately and our preparations were at an advanced stage.

Regrettably, the two governments and the UUP rejected our statement and our initiatives.

Our 13 April statement has now been overtaken by events. We are placing it on the public record so that people can judge for themselves the significance of our proposed initiatives to advance the peace process."

World Socialist Review
(edited extracts from a variety of anti-imperialist struggles).

London's tragic word-game relapse will fail to dim the triumph of Ireland's national-liberation war.

Last week, the British, acting outside the Good Friday Agreement and against the wishes of the Dublin Government, cancelled the election and published the two government's joint document.

Last weekend's Sunday Business Post outlined many of the failings of the document that are of concern to republicans and nationalists. The SBP described the document as a "shoddy piece of draftmanship, riddled with holes and ambiguities".

The document retrospectively legitimises Britain's four suspensions of the North's institutions, all of which were probably illegal under international law and were definitely outside the Good Friday Agreement.

It makes no provision for removing Britain's power to 'postpone' elections and permits 'Irishness' to continue to be treated as a second-class form of citizenship by the North's institutions.

It provides no protection for Irish citizens, their political representatives or even the Dublin Government from British securocrats and their continuing covert war. The document contains no mechanisms to bring the British Government to account if it fails to meet its obligations or timetables. And it contains no default procedure for full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement in the event of further unionist intransigence.

According to the IRA, after its initial statement was given to the two governments on 13 April, they described it as positive and welcomed the obvious progress and said the statement showed a clear desire to make the peace process work.

But ten days later, the British Prime Minister, "in a clear breach of protocol", publicly misquoted aspects of the IRA statement and went on to pose three questions.

According to the IRA, Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams responded in a clear and unambiguous way and "his answers accurately reflected our own position". The statement rejects the British allegation of a lack of clarity and points out that the subsequent "word game" caused justifiable anger and annoyance amongst republicans.

THE JOINT DOCUMENT

Republicans have been further angered by the fact that despite the clear flaws and limitations of the joint document offered by the two governments, they had been prepared to accept it as part of a process to move forward and on that basis had responded positively.

The publication of the IRA statement of 13 April, "now overtaken by events", put on public record the Army's statement to the British and Dublin Governments, intended as part of an overall initiative towards full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. In a second statement dated 6 May, the IRA commented on subsequent events.

After receiving the 13 April statement, in what most republicans see as an act that was both a breach of trust and of protocol, the British Prime Minister Tony Blair publicly called for clarification. According to McLaughlin, Sinn Féin responded to an invitation from the two governments, who said they would accept clarifications by Gerry Adams. "Tony Blair went further and said he did not care what form of words were used," said McLaughlin.

Adams responded with specific reassurances but once again the British Government called for further clarification in relation to alleged IRA activities. Adams gave a comprehensive response in which he said that the IRA leadership "is determined that there will be no activities which will undermine in any way the Peace Process and the Good Friday Agreement".

When Tony Blair rejected the statement and called for further clarification, Adams responded curtly: "What part of 'no activities' doesn't he understand," said Adams as republicans declared the paper chase over.

'The IRA last night, as you are aware, made clear that Gerry Adams' answers to Tony Blair's questions accurately reflected their position and I think public opinion will share the view that there is absolutely no lack of clarity in the IRA position or its intentions," Mitchel McLaughlin told the media.

The Sinn Féin chairperson was speaking after the IRA released two statements. "I think people, given the history of politics and conflict in this region, will study very carefully indeed the statements by the IRA and all the other protagonists and make a judgement," said McLaughlin. Calling for the reversal of the British Government's decision to cancel this month's election, McLaughlin asked "who is afraid of politics and peace?"

"The real problem, as disclosed by Jeffery Donaldson's very honest and unambiguous answer, is that the joint document would be rejected by the Ulster Unionist Council and from that flows the rest, the cancellation of the election and the removal of the franchise," said McLaughlin.

Indeed, when announcing his decision to suspend elections, the British Prime Minister acknowledged the real reason behind the decision was a fear of anti-Agreement unionism and a desire to save David Trimble from the ravages of his own party.

The issue of the full implementation of the GFA goes to the core of how we successfully bring forward conflict resolution processes and embed the primacy of politics as well as the practice of politics," said McLaughlin.

"And those that are retreating from that are quite clearly the Ulster Unionist Party, the Ulster Unionist Council and unfortunately they have been supported in this by the two governments. I think the issue of how we can establish what the electorate make of all of this would begin with the reversal of the decision not to hold the election," he said.

WHAT THE IRA SAID

Clearly, the statement of 13 April represented a major initiative by the IRA, despite the obvious conditionality of the two governments' Joint Document. Paragraph six makes clear the IRA's support for the Peace Process and the following paragraph expresses their desire to see the complete and final closure of the conflict.

The statement spells out the IRA's view that the full and irreversible implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and other commitments such as addressing the issue of OTRs [on the runs] and representation for Northern nationalists in Leinster House would provide a context in which the IRA can proceed to definitively set aside arms.

According to the 6 May statement, the IRA was in the final stages of carrying out a third act of decommissioning when the British Government rejected the initial statement, together with the subsequent clarification.

"In the event of agreement we were prepared to act immediately and our preparations were at an advanced stage; said the IRA.

The 13 April statement repeats IRA reassurances to the unionist community to whom they offer no threat and goes further by recognising that the IRA does not fully understand unionist perceptions and by making a commitment to "listen and learn". The statement also includes an apology to the friends and families of non-combatants killed by the IRA.

Describing the 13 April statement as "overtaken by events" in the May 6 statement, the IRA reiterated the leadership's commitment to making the Peace Process work.

"The British Government is ducking the central issue," said McLaughlin on Wednesday. "The issue is, are we going to embed politics or not, are we going to allow people to vote or not, are we going to get on with the political process or not." 

The evidence of last week, which is indisputable, is that they will put questions, they will be answered and then they will hit you with another range of questions. Because they don't want to knuckle down to the core issue, which is we are entitled to elections, it is time for an election, the electorate are entitled to have their say. We are back to a 1969 scenario of demanding the right to vote. They've taken away the right to vote and republicans are justifiably angry with that," said McLaughlin.•
World Socialist Review
(edited extracts from a variety of anti-imperialist struggles).

Blair's rabid self-righteousness from reactionary Gulf-war stunt infects Good Friday deal but can't quell irresistible Republicanism.

The Agreement offers the promise of bringing about a united Ireland by peaceful means. Devolution, demilitarisation, and a new beginning to policing will erode the British presence in Ireland, while an evolving North-South agenda renders the border increasingly irrelevant. Worked, to its full potential, the Agreement will not be an endpoint, but the start of a process leading inexorably to Irish unity.

Republicans have laboured with considerable success to realise that promise, building political strength, pushing relentlessly for the full implementation of the Patten Report on policing, and developing the North-South agenda. Now that success has called forth a determined effort on the part of unionism to call a halt to our further progress. This is why the process is in crisis.

Tony Blair talks of "acts of completion", as if when the Agreement is implemented the problem of the North will be solved, the process of political transformation over. For republicans, the only "act of completion" will be the departure of the last British soldier from Ireland, on the same plane as the last British Minister ever to meddle in the affairs of our country.

For the British Government, the Peace Process is to stabilise the Six-County state. For republicans, it is the beginning of a process that will see an end to British rule in Ireland.

Instead of defending the Agreement, the British Government has capitulated to unionist rejectionism by making demands on republicans that go far beyond its terms and deferring the Assembly elections to bolster David Trimble.

At present, unionists are not looking for a deal they are looking for a surrender. And that is not something they are going to get.

Bertie Ahem said during the week the assurances offered by Gerry Adams as to the IRA's intent were enough for him, but republicans must offer more to convince unionists. Such an argument is ridiculous. Must republicans keep jumping through semantic hoops to satisfy every capricious demand unionists may come up with to delay the process of change? Does unionism really want to be convinced? The test is not whether unionists are satisfied by republican assurances, but whether they have been offered enough to convince any fair-minded observer - and by Ahern's own admission, republicans have passed this test.

The Agreement was a compromise. The framework document the two governments have concocted under the pressure of Trimble's repeated walk-outs makes demands on republicans over and beyond the Agreement. By linking the re-establishment of the institutions to the effective disbandment of the IRA, and introducing sanctions aimed at Sinn Féin, the governments are pandering to rejectionist unionism.

Unionist demands are driven less by genuine concerns about the intentions of the IRA than by a desire to see the exclusion of the largest nationalist party from the process.

Enough is enough. Unionists cannot have a veto over change. And they will not. In the end, they will have to deal with republicans, because far from going away, we are only going to get stronger.

In the meantime, if Trimble wants to walk, let him walk. We all know how good David is at walking. He won the leadership of unionism by walking down Garvaghy Road hand in hand with Ian Paisley, and he has walked hand in hand with the most reactionary elements of unionism ever since.

What has changed is that republicans are no longer marginalised and excluded from politics on this island. We have not one, but many political options.

Even if the institutions remain in suspension, republicans can press the British Government to implement those aspects of the Agreement which depend on it alone. Progress on policing, demilitarisation, criminal justice, the equality agenda, human rights, and the Irish language, is not subject to Trimble's pouting and tantrums.

We can develop the North-South agenda across a range of issues. There is a vast potential, and compelling practical arguments, for cross-border co-operation on many matters, over and beyond those set out in the Agreement. There is no reason why progress on these should be stymied by the suspension of the institutions.

The important issue of voting rights for Irish citizens from the Six Counties in elections in the South lies wholly within the competence of the Dublin Government. We can continue to build political strength in the North, with or without the Assembly elections. Above all, we face the task - and the opportunity - of reclaiming the 26 Counties for republicanism.

A Republican Movement isolated and cut off from the body of Irish nationalist opinion will never, by any method, attain Irish unity. But a Republican Movement that can carry the Irish people with it need set no bounds to its ambitions. Between 1918 and 1921, such a movement wrenched 26 Counties from the grasp of the world's mightiest imperial power. Demographic, economic and political shifts since have altered the balance of power between Ireland and Britain, and between nationalism and unionism within this island, in our favour. If that sense of national unity and purpose can be regained, nothing will stand between us and the attainment of the Republic.

The same forces will force unionists to do a deal with republicans. Their majority is eroding, if it is not already gone. Economically; they survive on a British dole and must bow to British pressure if it is applied.

By what right does a British Prime Minister decide whether Irish people cast their ballots or
not? And what right has a British Government to lecture republicans about democracy while cancelling an election because the predicted result is not the one they would like?

About as much right as Tony Blair has to preach about 'exclusively peaceful means" while his hands are wet with the blood of Iraqi children.

But what do we expect? We should know by now what kind of 'democracy' Britain affords its colonies. After all, we have had 800 years' experience.

The process of conflict resolution demands a movement beyond old, entrenched positions. But the past months have seen unionists and the British retreating to the bunkers of prejudice and exclusion. While a seemingly endless list of concessions is demanded of republicans, first the unionists, and now the British Government, seem to be pulling back from the Agreement.

The same dreary whine of negativity that unionism has kept up through the entire Peace Process has been raised by several decibels. Republicans have bent over backwards with clarification after clarification to provide them with reassurance, only to have it flung back in our faces with contempt.

Tony Blair has fallen into the old, failed game of backing unionism. Every major party in the Assembly and the Dáil called for elections to go ahead - with the sole exception of the Ulster Unionists. Blair weighed David Trimble in the balance with almost the whole of Ireland - and Trimble carried the day.

What does Tony Blair hope to gain by postponing the election until October? By caving in to unionist pressure, he has rewarded intransigence: Such a lesson can only bolster the rejectionist element in unionism.

Meanwhile, the Dublin Government accepted the postponement with only the mildest whimper of protest. As Gerry Adams said last Friday, they have accepted the role of junior partners in the Peace Process. Bertie Ahem and his government are too busy keeping step with Tony Blair as he dances to the tune of Ulster Unionism, to fight the corner for nationalist Ireland. Indeed, they don't even want to. Hasn't Michael McDowell described the Dublin Government as "honest brokers", in other words, neutral?

Republicans today are stronger than at any time since the beginning of the current conflict. If unionism and the British Government want to replay their old failed policies, if Dublin defends nationalist interests with all the ferocity of a startled sheep, that strength remains to guarantee there will be no returning to the past. If history has taught us anything, it is to look to our own efforts to bring about political change. Only republicans will deliver the Republic.

The British Government has put enough questions to republicans over the past weeks. Let them be answered by a renewed determination on the part of each one of us to build this movement. Let them be answered by feet on the streets and voices raised in protest on 29 May. Let them be answered by the determination of a risen people that never, ever again will a British Prime Minister be in a position to deny us our democratic rights.