This month's letters from SW readers…

Pro-Nuclear Greens?

I AM writing to you in response to a further article in The Age regarding the Greens MLCs voting against a supposedly anti-nuclear Bill in the Victorian Parliament, and the Victorian ALP's decision to circulate posters and postcards labelling the Greens as pro-nuclear and accusing us of selling out the anti-nuclear campaign.

The simple truth is the Bill was a bad piece of legislation, because: It would have given sole responsibility for crafting a question for a plebiscite on nuclear energy to the Minister, and the Minister only.

There was nothing to prevent the Minister writing the question in such a way as to make nuclear energy appear acceptable.

Our MLCs will be drafting a private members Bill to enshrine in the Victorian constitution that it will be the Parliament, not an individual Minister that decides on questions to be put to a plebiscite.

Amazingly Steve Bracks, who apparently does not support nuclear energy, voted to dump the ALP's three-mine policy at their national conference.

This is a diversion from the real issue being the expansion of uranium mining under a federal Labor government, which Bracks voted for and supported.

Our Party remains resolutely anti-nuclear and we're the only major anti-nuclear Party in Australia.

Victorian Greens,

Melbourne

40 years of occupation is enough!

IN JUNE 40 years will have elapsed since the 1967 war, which concluded the complete occupation of Palestine.

As Izzat Abdulhadi, Palestinian Ambassador to Australia said during the recent launch of the Australian Friends of Palestine Association in WA "40 years of occupation is enough!"

Izzat Abdulhadi was confident that the new Palestinian peace proposal will be accepted by Israel. All Palestinian political factions are united behind this peace plan, included Hamas, despite recognition of the Israeli state's right to exist within the pre-1967 war boundary.

The Palestinian Unity Government is only demanding that which is already sanctioned by United Nations resolutions and is agreed to by the UN, the European Union and Arab and Islamic countries. These demands include:

(1) Israel to return all land taken during the1967 war including East Jerusalem, the future capital of the new Palestinian state

(2) The issue of refugees will be negotiated, with either a right to return or compensation.

(3) All settlements to be dismantled

(4) Water resources to be guaranteed

It needs to be argued that the Palestinians are prepared to make huge compromises and that a window of opportunity exists for a just peace settlement based on a two state solution.

Whether this two state solution is sustainable is not the issue. The issue is that Israel has been practicing planned systematic ethnic cleansing in Palestine since the 1948 invasion, which is still on going.

This peace proposal turns the spot light onto Israel. The alternative to this peace will be a massive escalation in violence and war and will expose Israel as the "terrorist" state.

Alan Woodcraft, Perth

Wrong on Zimbabwe cricket tour

Bill Garlick's article on Zimbabwe (SW #569) argues for cancelling Australian sporting trips to Zimbabwe, most obviously the upcoming cricket tour. I disagree that this, in the circumstances, is an offering of solidarity with the workers of Zimbabwe.

The banning of sporting tours was most famously raised in apartheid-era South Africa.

Liberal politicians, of the ilk of Howard and Downer, were against banning sporting ties, as they supported the apartheid regime in South Africa and white, minority-rule in Rhodesia (modern Zimbabwe).

The ANC called for international sporting boycotts of South Africa and the anti-apartheid movement in the West did so.

Does the movement for democracy in Zimbabwe call for sporting bans? Is there a movement in the West calling for bans? Not that we know of.

The only people "pressuring" sporting teams to cancel tours are the imperialists like Howard and Downer. Incidentally violating their own conservative dictum that sport and politics don't mix.

The only way to argue against the hypocrisy of Howard and Downer is not to echo their calls for sporting bans.

We end up lining up with imperialism if we call for sporting bans, lining up with the same people who opposed black-majority rule.

The Left in Australia can offer real solidarity with union-to-union links, union bans on the Zimbabwe Embassy and businesses, and collecting funds for opposition groups in Zimbabwe.

Tom Orsag, Melbourne

Right of reply

I reply to Tom Orsag's letter knowing that the cricket tour has been cancelled, much to the disappointment of the Mugabe government.

I agree that the Left in Australia should try to offer practical solidarity.

In the last month we have toured Munyaradzi Gwisai (see page 13) and collected about $1000 for the struggle at meetings in Melbourne and Sydney.

But this is not counterposed to opposing sports teams going on tour. Sport is political.

Tom is wrong to say that only hypocrites like Howard and Downer support the ban.

We know that some of the democracy movement in Zimbabwe support the sports ban-but not sanctions which make life even worse for Mugabe's victims.

This includes former test fast bowler Henry Olonga, now living in exile, and Zimbabwe's Catholic bishops.

Of course sport is the last thing on most of the people's minds as they struggle to find enough to eat and to avoid police beatings.

There is a long list of governments with whom socialists oppose links.

If the Burmese played cricket would we support a tour there? Burmese activists in Australia oppose any visits to their country while it's under military rule.

Isn't it best to take a lead on this-as well as making practical solidarity where we can-and to apply it consistently, unlike Howard and Downer?

Bill Garlick,
Sydney