E:\mn312

MIM Notes 312 · January 2005 · Page 1

MIM Notes

January 2005, Nº 312

The Official Newsletter of the Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM)

Free

INSIDE: Carol Andreas obituary * Snicket review * Una Página en Español...

MIM
PO Box 29670
Los Angeles, CA 90029
Return Service Requested

PRESORTED STANDARD

U.S. POSTAGE PAID

PERMIT #56365

BOSTON, MA

On the web: www.etext.info/Politics/MIM

You are not on a mailing list. You will not receive this paper again unless you take action.

The government of the Netherlands

recently defended its decision to halt the

social benefits and freeze the bank

account of political refugee Professor

Jose Maria Sison. Prof. Sison is a Filipino

with long history of activism on behalf of

the exploited and oppressed and against

U.$. imperialism. Under pressure from

the United $tates and without due process

the Netherlands declared Prof. Sison to

be a "terrorist" in 2002. This ruling froze

Prof. Sison's bank account and removed

all state subsidies for food, housing, health

insurance and other basic necessities

which he had received for over a decade

as a recognized political refugee.

The U.$. State Department has listed

the Maoist Communist Party of the

Philippines and the New People's Army

(NPA) as "foreign terrorist

organizations" and encouraged other

governments "to take action to isolate

these terrorist organizations, to choke off

their sources of financial support, and to

prevent their movement across

international borders." On 12 August 2002

the U.$. Treasury Department listed Prof.

Sison as a "terrorist" whose assets must

be frozen. The Dutch government passed

the "Sanctions ruling on terrorism 2002

III" that criminalized Sison the next day.

The actions of the United $tates and

Pressed by U.$., Dutch gov pursues case against revolutionary Sison

the Netherlands

against Prof.

Sisons's survival

rights are a

microcosm of

the imperialists'

b r u t a l

repression of the

survival rights of

the peoples of

the Philippines and other Third World

nations. Forty percent of households in

the Philippines live below the poverty line

of $200 per persyn; about one-third of

pregnant wimmin do not have access to

prenatal care. The majority of the

population lives in the countryside under

conditions of feudal exploitation, with

tenants paying as much as 50% of their

yearly produce in land rent to large

landlords.

This poverty and the resultant suffering

are due to the exploitative policies of the

imperialists and their local cronies, who

rob the Philippines of its natural resources

and exploit its workers in labor intensive,

import- and export-dependent industries.

Over 100 years as an Amerikan colony

and neo-colony has devastated the

economy of the Philippines--and when

the oppressed of the Philippines rise up

to try and change that, the U.$.-funded

and trained Armed Forces of the

Philippines cracks down on them and

chases their leaders out of the country.

Here is a press release describing the

latest hearing on Prof. Sison's case. Prof.

Sison is not the only persyn affected by

these charges--they also restrict the

speech rights of residents of the United

$tates or its European allies. (Note the

Dutch government's position that those

who provide help or accommodation to

Prof. Sison are legally punishable.) Even

those who defend publication of Prof.

Sison writings or those of the CPP on the

grounds that this is necessary for fully

informed public debate may face

harassment or deportation under the

"USA Patriot Act." Standing up for Prof.

Sison is also standing up for our own ability

to speak and organize freely.

For more information about Prof.

Sison and the revolutionary movement

in the Philippines, see www.etext.info/

Politics/MIM/countries/phil/.

More starting on page 4:

-- Statement from Committee Defend-

Netherlands

--Who is Jose Marie Sison?
-- Dutch spies ran "Marxist-Leninst

Party"

By MC12

This is the headline you didn't see in

the Amerikan newspapers when the U.$.

military forced more than a quarter million

people from their homes in Fallujah, Iraq,

in a futile attempt to weaken the anti-

Amerikan uprising.

Fallujah had a population estimated at

250,000 to 300,000 at the time of the

Amerikan invasion (1). The population of

Iraq is about 24 million (2). That means

1.1% of the Iraqi population lived in

Fallujah before the invasion.

To find a metropolitan area in the U$A

of comparable relative size, look at Seattle,

Washington. The Seattle metro area,

which includes Tacoma and Bellevue, had

a population estimated at 3,122,000. That

is 1.1% of the total U.$. population of

288,369,000 (3).

So what happened to this population in

Fallujah? They were driven from the city

before and during the Amerikan invasion.

The clueless Amerikan media can't seem

to get the magnitude of this crime into

their heads. Consider this exchange

between NPR's Scott Simon and his

correspondent in Iraq from Weekend

Edition Saturday on December 18:

SCOTT SIMON (Host): Michael, can

you tell what it's like for people who

live in Fallujah to live day by day?

SHUSTER: No one is living in

Fallujah, Scott. Almost all the civilians

have left. It's impossible to live. There's

no water. There's no electricity. There's

no food. And many, many of the buildings

and houses have been flattened. All--

most of the residents of Fallujah went to

other cities to live with other Iraqis while

this happened and some went to refugee

camps not too far back. There's a lot of

talk about bringing them back, resettling

them. There have been various comments

from the Iraqi mayor of Fallujah and the

Iraqi government officials in Baghdad that

this process is going to start soon. But

the Marines tell you -- it's not clear how

that can happen, as long as there's

continued resistance and continued

attacks on Marine teams in Fallujah so I

Foreign army purges entire city

(the relative size) of Seattle

Continued on page 6...

DNC ARREST

CHARGES

AGAINST MIM

NOTES

REPORTER

DROPPED

BOSTON

District Court recently dismissed

trespassing and disorderly conduct

charges against a MIM Notes distributor/

reporter arrested at the Democratic

National Convention that nominated John

Kerry for president.

The Boston Phoenix also reported on

charges against four others arrested at

the Democratic National Convention--

all of Asian ethnicity. One of those

arrested complained of racial profiling.

MIM will report further on that in the

future as we learn the details of the

conclusions Boston reaches.

While the MIM Notes reporter was in

court, two Black men filed for restraining

orders against wimmin. A Black male

senior citizen with socks that did not match

and looking very frail was one of the

applicants. Although MIM finds it

disgraceful for the Black nation to have

to go through the u.$. court system,

Continued on page 6...

MIM Notes 312 · January 2005 · Page 2

What is MIM?

The Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM) is the collection of existing or emerging

Maoist internationalist parties in the English-speaking imperialist countries and their English-

speaking internal semi-colonies, as well as the existing or emerging Maoist Internationalist
parties in Belgium, France and Quebec and the existing or emerging Spanish-speaking
Maoist Internationalist parties of Aztlan, Puerto Rico and other territories of the U.$. Empire.

MIM Notes is the newspaper of MIM. Notas Rojas is the newspaper of the Spanish-speaking
parties or emerging parties of MIM. MIM upholds the revolutionary communist ideology
of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and is an internationalist organization that works from the

vantage point of the Third World proletariat. MIM struggles to end the oppression of all
groups over other groups: classes, genders, nations. MIM knows this is only possibly by
building public opinion to seize power through armed struggle. Revolution is a reality for

North America as the military becomes over-extended in the government's attempts to
maintain world hegemony. MIM differs from other communist parties on three main
questions: (1) MIM holds that after the proletariat seizes power in socialist revolution, the

potential exists for capitalist restoration under the leadership of a new bourgeoisie within
the communist party itself. In the case of the USSR, the bourgeoisie seized power after the
death of Stalin in 1953; in China, it was after Mao's death and the overthrow of the "Gang

of Four" in 1976. (2) MIM upholds the Chinese Cultural Revolution as the farthest advance
of communism in humyn history. (3) As Marx, Engels and Lenin formulated and MIM has
reiterated through materialist analysis, imperialism extracts super-profits from the Third

World and in part uses this wealth to buy off whole populations of oppressor nation so-
called workers. These so-called workers bought off by imperialism form a new petty-
bourgeoisie called the labor aristocracy. These classes are not the principal vehicles to

advance Maoism within those countries because their standards of living depend on
imperialism. At this time, imperialist super-profits create this situation in the Canada, Quebec,
the United $tates, England, France, Belgium, Germany, Japan, Italy, Switzerland,

Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Israel, Sweden and Denmark. MIM accepts people as
members who agree on these basic principles and accept democratic centralism, the system
of majority rule, on other questions of party line.

"The theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin is universally applicable. We should

regard it not as dogma, but as a guide to action. Studying it is not merely a matter of
learning terms and phrases, but of learning Marxism-Leninism as the science of revolution."

- Mao Zedong, Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 208.

MIM Notes Production by MC12

Letters

MIM Notes

The Official Newsletter of The Maoist Internationalist Movement

ISSN 1540-8817

MIM Notes is the bi-weekly newsletter of the Maoist Internationalist Movement. MIM

Notes is the official Party voice; more complete statements are published in our journal,
MIM Theory. Material in MIM Notes is the Party's position unless noted. MIM Notes
accepts submissions and critiques from anyone. The editors reserve the right to edit
submissions unless permission is specifically denied by the author; submissions are
published anonymously unless authors insist on identification (prisoners are never
identified by name). MIM is an underground party that does not publish the names of its
comrades in order to avoid the state surveillance and repression that have historically
been directed at communist parties and anti-imperialist movements. MCs, MIM comrades,
are members of the Party. The Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist League (RAIL) is an anti-
imperialist mass organization led by MIM (RCs are RAIL Comrades). MIM's ten-point
program is available to anyone who sends in a SASE.

The paper is free to all prisoners, as long as they write to us every 90 days to confirm

their subsciptions. There are no individual subscriptions for people outside prison.

People who want to receive newspapers should become sponsors and distributors.

Sponsors pay for papers, distributors get them onto the streets, and officers do both
distribution and financial support. Annual cost is: 12 copies (Priority Mail), $120; 25
(Priority Mail), $150; 50 (Priority Mail), $280; 100, $380; 200, $750; 900 (Express
Mail), $3,840; 900 (8-10 days), $2,200. To become a sponor or distributor, send
anonymous money orders payable to "MIM." Send to MIM, attn: Camb. branch, PO Box
400559, Cambridge, MA 02140. Or write mim3@mim.org.

Most back issues of MIM Notes are available free on our web site. The web site con-

tains thousands of documents, with ordering information for many more.

MIM grants explicit permission to copy all or part of this newspaper for any reason, as

long as we are credited.

For general correspondence, contact:

MIM

P.O. Box 29670

Los Angeles, CA 90029-0670

eMail: <mim@mim.org>

WWW: <http//www.etext.info/Politics/MIM>

Here we go again with Sean Hannity

and his so-called smooth right-wing radio

host snakes! To the perceptive man, their

lies are so lame! So who believes them?

Well, unfortunately there are numerous

uneducated Americans who are easily

duped by their lying propaganda! I feel

for them. They are comparing Nick Berg's

beheading with the U.S. soldiers who

abused those prisoners at the Abu Ghraib

prison.

The beheaders are being called

"monsters" while the prison guards are

nothing but "mischievous kids" who did

not know what they were doing! They

were just kids who were bored and

stepped out of line in a non-serious way.

They were untrained to be M.P.s, they

say! I beg to differ. Anybody with a

healthy conscience would know that what

they did to those Iraqis was plain wrong

and immoral. And aren t these Americans

supposed to be the no. 1 civilized people

of the world? What happened is very

simple to those people who still have

some shred of good common sense.

-- a Texas prisoner,

21 May 2004

MIM adds: It's no secret that the

Amerikan national conscience is impaired

by imperialist plunder. The people of this

country enjoy a wildly inflated standard

of living, at great expense to people in

the Third World. Self-interest keeps

Amerikans from considering how

persynally the Iraqis might take having

their homes and cities decimated and their

natural resources turned over to

Halliburton.

While we don't see any Maoist

leadership in the struggle against the u.$.

occupation, it is to the credit of the Iraqi

resistance that it is forcing some

Amerikans take the war a little bit

persynally too. The whole point of anti-

imperialist resistance is to make wars of

conquest and the profiteering that follows

too expensive for the aggressor country

to bear. It is unfortunate that the u.$.

people are so far gone outside the

international community that seeing such

resistance is their best chance of waking

up to the horrors of their own militarism

and cutting it out.

Revolutionaries need

background checks?

Greetings as always with a clenched

fist salute. Recently I was sitting in my

cage reading a book titled The FBI and

Martin Luther King Jr. by D.J. Garrow.

The gist of this book is the effects of

COINTELPRO [the FBI's Counter-

Intelligence Program, a campaign aimed

at spying on, infiltrating and destroying

progressive and revolutionary

organizations in the united snakes] on the

civil rights movement. While I fully

comprehend its dynamics, I'm hard

pressed to figure out how/why those of

the revolutionary left didn't take any

drastic countermeasures to unearth those

agent/infiltrationist elements. They seem

to be able to slide into the ranks relatively

easy, with little or no investigation of

background!

Reflecting on the assassinations of

Jonathan & George Jackson by pigs in

70 & 71, respectively, they were both

eliminated utilizing agents provocateurs

that had been serving law enforcement

for years! My point is you have very lax

security when unknown/untested

strangers can simply walk in off the

streets, claim allegiance to some ideology

and by virtue of a look be embraced into

the fold. George tried to warn the BPP

of Cleaver's background, i.e., his conduct

while in prison to no avail. His writing &

oratorical skills superceded his potential

for derailing the BPP. Now here we are

in 2004 still taking two steps forward &

three backwards. Where is the effective

front line? In the manifesto Blood in My

Eye, both George & Jonathan observed

a primary obstacle to collective progress

was the lack of a formal military cadre

strictly devoted to internal investigations

& neutralization of traitors! They felt then,

as I do now, that it isn't a lack of training

in ideology that stagnates a progressive

class struggle. Rather it's these boot-

licking sellouts amongst us, who are

working to kill us!

-- a Federal prisoner in Colorado

17 August, 2004

A RAIL Comrade and MIM reply:

Revolutionary organizations are always

at risk of being infiltrated. We can learn

not only from the example of FBI

infiltration into the Black Panther Party

and other U.$. groups, but from our

predecessors in other countries as well.

We look especially to the model of Lenin's

Russia. When asked about the presence

of a state agent on his Central Committee,

Lenin remarked that the agent must have

done a lot of revolutionary work to earn

the position. We take security seriously,

but no background check is going to weed

out every infiltrator.

At this time, the imperialist police

agencies in the U.$. have far greater

material resources than the revolutionary

camp and can easily concoct false

backgrounds for their agents. What they

cannot fake is activism that supports our

revolutionary goals. We expect the same

level of contribution of all comrades at a

given level of membership. In other

words, comrades and allies will prove

themselves through hard work rather than

through background checks. We may not

deflect every leech trying to suck the life

out of our movement from within, but we

will be sure to extract the greatest level

of work for the least amount of exposure

from every persyn we work with.

Iraqi insurgents vs. Abu Ghraib guards: Who are the monsters?

Sean

Hannity,

radio host

snake.

MIM Notes 312 · January 2005 · Page 3

by International Minister

El Diario International has reported that

Carol Andreas of Colorado died at age

71 on December 7 of a cerebral

aneurism. She was a professor and

revolutionary. The people of Peru and

Amerika both have special reason to

mourn.

Although in the 1960s there were over

1 million self-described revolutionaries

among u.$. college students, by 1976, the

number of people still active in

revolutionary struggle in the united $tates

fell to about 0.1% of its previous level. El

Diario International led by Luis Arce

Borja mentioned her support for the

People's War in 1980 and after, but Carol

Andreas has international significance to

Maoism as well.

In 1976, when most of the world's

communists fell for Hua Guofeng and

Deng Xiaoping after the death of Mao,

Carol Andreas held firm. Her study group

immediately published a book upon the

death of Mao upholding the Cultural

Revolution and denouncing the capitalist

restoration. This should have been

unremarkable given the preparation Mao

and the "Gang of Four" gave the world

for capitalist restoration in China, but in

practice relative to others, Carol Andreas

proved to have great foresight and

firmness on this question while most of

the world's communists temporarily fell

off course. It was only in succeeding years

that Hua Guofeng and Deng Xiaoping

revisionism went into the minority in

parties outside China.

As El Diario International correctly

pointed out, Carol Andreas also held firm

in 1992-1993 when the "peace accords"

controversy in Peru arose. MIM will add

that Carol Andreas confided to MIM that

we should uphold Luis Arce Borja in exile

against others arising at the time to

diminish his stature outside Peru. In

knowing what's what in 1976 and 1992,

no one can do better than Carol Andreas

did.

MIM also conducted activity to support

the Cultural Revolution and Luis Arce

Borja, so the question arises about the

unity of Carol Andreas and MIM. One

would guess that the issue dividing us

would be the labor aristocracy, and we're

still not entirely convinced she accorded

this issue the proper weight, but Carol

Andreas claimed not so much to disagree

with MIM on this point. In fact, she

pointed out that even in Peru the labor

aristocracy was quite a problem. She

stressed repeatedly that she had read all

of Lenin's Collected Works and she knew

where MIM was getting all those

suspicions about the oppressor nation

workers. With regard to others agitating

for labor aristocracy demands she said,

"let them bang their heads against the

wall."

In print, a newsletter published by

Carol Andreas on Peru openly debated

MIM's contributions in passing. She

reported that she had spoken with those

who had found MIM to be a rejuvenation

of Maoism in Amerika and integration of

Maoism with U.$. conditions while others

say MIM made no contribution to the

struggle in Peru.

Our criticisms of Carol Andreas were

public before she died. What we have

not reported before is that she told MIM

she "did not have energy" for inner party

struggle and democratic centralism

anymore. Her attitude was something like

"been there, done that."

We do not doubt that Carol Andreas

told Luis Arce Borja there is no vanguard

party in Amerika, but we only criticize

Carol Andreas and some Third World

comrades for a liquidationist line. Carol

Andreas was an articulate activist

regarding the Cultural Revolution and

Peru and this translated into invitations

to speak to international communist

conferences. In this practice of

promoting individual personages at

conferences, MIM has found a

liquidationist attitude catering to the

imperialist country petty-bourgeoisie.

Some have gone so far as to invite Carol

Andreas as an individual to speak while

excluding parties.

Sartre spent his most correct years

criticizing intellectuals who refuse

vanguard parties. Intellectuals chafe

against discipline for their own persynal

mental needs at the expense of the

international proletariat.

The disease of petty-bourgeois

intellectuals obtains orthodox aid from

those who have quoted Stalin on

vanguard parties in the West against

MIM. Stalin made a list of conditions

organizations must meet to call

themselves vanguard parties. Yet we

challenge our critics to find in Stalin

anywhere that it is OK not to join a party

until it meets those conditions and if Stalin

did any such liquidationist thing, then he

was wrong. Our international comrades

do a disservice to the international

proletariat with cynical comments

denying the need to take sides and join

organizations. That does nothing to

encourage youth in countries where no

one claims to be Maoist either.

The relationship of Carol Andreas to

the vanguard party idea and Stalin's

theses on vanguard parties raise a basic

question of materialism. The problem in

the day of Lenin and Stalin was to choose

among parties or factions wishing to join

the Comintern especially from Germany,

but also typically from Italy. These

factions Lenin and Stalin could choose

among had five and six digit

memberships. That sort of luxury does

not apply today in the imperialist

countries. When we materialists are

choosing among factions and parties, we

can use conditions like those prepared by

Stalin for use in the Comintern.

The decision on how to recognize one

faction or party over another discussed

by Stalin is completely different than what

Carol Andreas and some of her

international admirers have done-- which

is to deny any choice at all. If we have a

choice between factions or parties, we can

compile a list of conditions. When we find

ourselves saying there is no vanguard

party at all when at least one claims to be

one, then we have fallen into

liquidationism.

There is always a most advanced line

in any society--a basic fact of

materialism. If Carol Andreas did not like

MIM or other organizations, she should

have declared herself vanguard in

Amerika and forced the issue. The

passive attitude that no one else has

People mourn the death of Amerikan

revolutionary Carol Andreas

already established nicely running

vanguard parties that we can join as cogs

in the machine must be banished as anti-

Leninist and fatal to this stage when so

many countries need to form vanguard

parties.

One thing we like about what Carol

Andreas did is that she took a liquidationist

line which she made up for to some extent

with internationalism. In her last decade

or so she could not see straight to leading

revolution in the united $tates, but she

gave her energy to the revolution in Peru.

Comrades who would like to remember

Carol Andreas should read her book Peru:

When Women Rebel. And if anyone

clings to any stereotypes about wimmin

not being able to hold firm lines, digest

Lenin or lead politically, we point to Carol

Andreas. No one in Amerika, male or

female did any better than Carol Andreas

did in 1976 and 1992.

If anyone in direct contact with the

Forever 21 struggle disagrees with this

press release or believes it to be false,

please contact mim3@mim.org.

A recent agreement reached by the

Garment Worker Center and Forever 21,

Inc., among others, stipulates that the

Garment Worker Center contact the

owners of websites deemed by Forever

21, Inc. to contain information pertaining

to the disputes resolved by the

aforementioned agreement, and to ask

those owners to post the statement that

follows on any page containing said

information.

We apologize if you believe you have

been contacted in error.

Sincerely,

Garment Worker Center

STATEMENT:

Forever 21, Inc., the Garment Worker

Center, Sweatshop Watch, and the Asian

Pacific American Legal Center, on behalf

Sweatshop agreement reached

of several Los Angeles garment workers

represented by it, have reached an

agreement to resolve all litigation between

them. In addition, the parties have agreed

to take steps to promote greater worker

protection in the local garment industry.

The parties are pleased to announce the

resolution of this matter as a positive and

symbolic step forward in demonstrating

respect and appreciation for garment

workers. Under the parties' agreement,

the national boycott of Forever 21 and

related protests at the Company's retail

stores, initiated by the Garment Worker

Center in 2001, have ended. The parties

share a belief that garment workers

should labor in lawful conditions and

should be treated fairly and with dignity.

Forever 21, the Garment Worker Center

and Sweatshop Watch all remain

committed to ensuring that the clothing

Forever 21 sells in its stores is made under

lawful conditions.

For more on the fight against sweatshops, visit:

http://www.etext.info/Politics/MIM/agitation/sweatshops/index.html

MIM Notes 312 · January 2005 · Page 4

by Committee Defend-

Netherlands

Prof. Jose Maria Sison's appeals

against the Dutch Minister of Finance

and the COA (Central Organ for

Reception of Asylum Seekers) were

taken up at the court hearing at the

Utrecht Court on 29 October 2004 at the

Vrouwe Justitiaplein 1 in Utrecht. Also

taken up was the appeal of Ms. Julieta

de Lima against the Ministry of Finance.

Present at the hearing were Prof. Sison

and Ms. De Lima and their lawyers: Mr.

J.M. Langenberg and Mr. D. Gurses for

Prof. Sison and Mr. Gerard Scholten for

Ms. De Lima. The Minister of Finance

was represented by Mr. A.B. van Rijn

and the COA by Mr. R. van Duffelen.

Ms. De Lima's appeal was first taken

up. Mr. Scholten argued against the

continued freezing of the Euro 1.700

amount in the joint account of Ms. De

Lima and Prof. Sison. He strongly

asserted that this amount is for paying

medical, food and other necessary bills.

These havenothing to do with terrorism.

Ms. De Lima had been saving up money

to pay the bills, thus running into deficits

in her other accounts. Mr. Van Rijn, on

the other hand, reiterated the Finance

Minister's position that any direct or

indirect provision of financial and

economic means to Prof. Sison is

prohibited by the EU listing.

The presiding judge declared that the

court would issue a decision on Ms. De

Lima's appeal within four weeks.

Mr. Langenberg, speaking on behalf of

Prof. Sison, started with the statement

that the issue at hand was how, in a

modern democratic society, the minimal

fundamental rights of an individual must

be protected or cannot be protected. This

concerns the right to survival, he said.

Mr. Langenberg stated that since 9/11

the world appears, as in the Cold War of

the past century, to have been divided into

two camps: terrorists and fighters against

terrorism. The events in the US have led

to the hardening of society, especially

American society, and to a wide-ranging

internationalization of the fight against

terrorism. He cited reports on violations

of international law regarding torture of

prisoners in Guantanamo. There is now

the question of protecting fundamental

rights of individuals and protecting

democratic society against terrorist

attacks.

Langenberg added that it was an

executive order of US President Bush that

put Prof. Sison on the terror list. This was

followed by the Dutch government

through a Sanction Regulation that took

away his basic allowances for survival.

However, through an authorization of the

Minister of Finance, the Municipality of

Utrecht was allowed to grant the minimal

needs for food, accommodation and

insurance. Langenberg declared that he

assumes, from the humanitarian

standpoint, that one who cannot secure

his basic needs because he is not allowed

to work and may not be expelled, cannot

be made to starve or be put in danger of

losing his life through denial of his basic

allowances.

Mr. Langenberg strongly criticized the

Ministry of Finance's hard line position

that it is the policy of the Dutch Cabinet

not to provide any financial means to those

on the list of terrorists and the granting of

authorization would contravene the

cabinet policy.

And yet, Langenberg said, Justice

Minister Donner declared, when

questioned in parliament, that "in the end,

the government has to give a certain

welfare allowance because he (Prof.

Sison) may not be expelled. That is the

dilemma in which the law has put itself

into."

Langenberg stressed that, since Prof.

Sison is covered by the absolute protection

of Article 3 of the European Convention

on Human Rights (EVRM) and may

therefore not be expelled, he should be

granted a welfare allowance by the

COA. He referred to cases of many

Afghan refugees who continue to receive

allowances from the COA, despite their

being declared excluded from the

protection of the Refugee Convention.

Langenberg criticized the "head in the

sand" tactic of the defendant and its

"ostrich policy". He further asserted that

UN Security Council Resolution 1452 and

European Council Regulation 561/2003

should apply to Prof. Sison and the claim

of the Minister of Finance that these apply

only to Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda and

the Taliban violates the purpose of the

UNSC resolution. It would mean that

Prof. Sison and others put on the terror

lists since 9/11 have less "humanitarian"

rights than Osama bin Laden and

members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Mr. D. Gurses assailed COA's position

that Prof. Sison has no legitimate stay in

the Netherlands. He stressed that Prof.

Sison is a recognized political refugee,

with status of 1A according to the

Refugee Convention and is covered by

the absolute protection of Article 3 of

EVRM. He therefore has a right to a title

to stay since he has been tolerated in this

state for more than seven years. It is

inhuman, stated Gurses, to tolerate a

refugee (he may not be expelled) but to

deny him the right to a humane existence

by taking away the necessary means of

existence. This has an impact on the

psyche, not only of Sison but also on his

wife and his children who live in the

Netherlands. He is, as it were, artificially

kept alive by gifts from friends so that he

will not starve to death. Gurses said that

this manner of tolerating someone violates

the principles of a socially just state and

also Art. 3 of EVRM.

Mr. Gurses pointed out that since it is

crystal clear that Prof. Sison may not be

expelled, there is indeed in a farreaching

manner a "detournement de pouvoir"

(abuse of power) by the Dutch authorities

who must be considered as negligent and

improper. The conclusion of the COA that

the appeal of Prof. Sison is to be rejected

is therefore unfair and unreasonable.

Mr. Van Rijn, speaking on behalf of the

Minister of Finance, reiterated the latter's

position that no benefits may be given to

Prof. Sison, especially since the decision

of the Council of the European Union is

stricter than the Sanction Regulation of

the Dutch government. The latter allowed

the Dutch Minister of Finance, in

consultation with the Minister of Foreign

Affairs, to grant an exception. But the

EU decision requires the consultation

with other Member States, the Council

and the European Commission.

Mr. Van Duffelen, speaking on behalf

of the COA, maintained that the order to

leave the Netherlands had been given to

Prof. Sison. He ignored the fact that Prof.

Sison's recognition as a political refugee

and his protection by Article 3 of EVRM

effectively countered the order to leave.

He reiterated that the decision of the COA

to declare Prof. Sison's appeal not

grounded should be confirmed by the

court.

In a brief question and answer period,

the presiding judge asked about refugees

whose procedure had ended but still

received welfare allowance. An assistant

lady judge said that a new law, issued in

September 2004, ordered the stopping of

such allowances. To a question whether

those who have helped Prof. Sison and

Ms. Julieta de Lima who has provided

accommodation to Prof. Sison are legally

punishable, Mr. Van Rijn said "yes".

The Court asked if Prof. Sison wanted

to speak. Prof. Sison stated that he has

been subjected to inhuman and degrading

treatment in violation of Article 3 of

EVRM and to violations of his democratic

right to due process. He has been unjustly

demonized and branded a terrorist. His

life has been put in danger. All this and

the view of the Minister of Finance's

representative that those who help him

are legally punishable are indications of a

Hitler-like fascism creeping into Dutch

society. He added that his lawyers had

already presented his position.

The presiding judge announced that the

Court would issue its decision within four

weeks.

--From Committee Defend-

Netherlands, October 31/04

[December 15 2004 comment by

MIM: We have no further news as of

this date.]

Report on 29 October 2004 Court Hearing in Utrecht on

Appeals of Prof. Jose Maria Sison and Ms. Julieta de Lima

Who is

Jose Maria Sison?

Prof. Sison helped found the Kabataan

Makabayan (Patriotic Youth) in 1964 and

led some of the first protests against

Amerikan intervention in Vietnam--of

particular relevance as the United $tates

used the Philippines as a staging area for

aggression in Southeast Asia.

He went on to found the Communist

Party of the Philippines on December 26,

1968, the New People's Army on March

29, 1969 and the National Democratic

Front of the Philippines on April 24, 1973.

The CPP, NPA and NDF continue to

wage revolutionary armed struggle for

national liberation from imperialism, for

socialism, and against feudalism,

imperialism, and crony capitalism. Under

the pen name Amado Guerrero he wrote

"Philippine Society and Revolution," a

concrete application of Maoist principles

to the reality of the Philippines that

remains a guiding document of the

Philippine revolutionary movement.

Prof. Sison was imprisoned by the

Marcos fascist regime from 1977 to l986.

Soon after his release the U.$.-puppet

Aquino regime exiled him. Dutch courts

previously upheld his refugee status and

granted his wife and son political asylum.

While in exile, Sison has served as a

political consultant to the revolutionary

National Democratic Front of the

Philippines in peace negotiations with the

Government of the Republic of the

Philippines. He also speaks and publishes

articles in support of the revolutionary

movement of the Philippines and against

U.$. imperialism; he is a strong critic of

the "war on terrorism" and the U.$.

invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

To give their campaign to silence Prof.

Sison the flimsiest of justifications,

Philippine and Amerikan spy services and

their media mouthpieces claim without

evidence that Sison still heads the CPP.

However, as the CPP puts it in a

statement reprinted on page six, "the

Party's collective leadership effectively

operates in the consolidated revolutionary

guerilla bases in the Philippines, safely out

of the immediate reach and mischief by

the US and local reactionary armed

forces."

MIM Notes 312 · January 2005 · Page 5

by PIRAO chief

On December 10th, Dutch government

radio admitted that the Dutch government

infiltrated or set up three organizations--

the Marxist-Leninist Party and two

friendship societies, one for Kampuchea

and one for Albania. These organizations

also did succeed in recruiting genuine

members between 1969 and some date

in the 1980s. Among other goals of the

organizations set up by the Dutch spies

was to obtain support from China, which

the Dutch intelligence agencies claim they

succeeded in doing. In the West, the

governments deliver money to their

lackeys running for election or serving as

dictators around the world, even where it

is illegal. On the other hand, the majority-

exploiter governments make a big stink if

China or some other competitor spends

money on politics in their allegedly free

countries that supposedly allow a free

competition of ideas as a selling point for

the whole organization of their societies.

This incident shows that the Dutch

government in its zeal to catch the

Chinese government cheated its own

people of a chance to organize Dutch

communist organizations without

interference. This alone gives the lie to

the "free world" often discussed by the

Dutch and the rest of Western Europe

and the united $tates. Infiltration by the

state is especially damaging to communist

and anarchist organizations, because

people often join them because they

detest the idea of secret services, so any

talk of "fair play" in a "democracy" needs

to be taken with a grain of salt.

Far more damaging to the international

proletariat is the setting up of

organizations where armed struggle is

going on or about to happen. These

organizations set up by cops and spies

seek to divert the naive where struggle

has reached a certain level of intensity.

Peru and Nepal have a plethora of parties,

mostly because of the needs of the

exploiters. Equally damaging is those

instances of organizations that suddenly

have major support in the imperialist

countries arranged by the CIA. In Iraq, it

is public knowledge that the "Communist

Party USA" works with the U.$. puppet

regime, (a case of minor support) but

similar activities are also happening

covertly in many Third World countries.

On the other hand, an additional

complication is that sometimes the

exploiters do briefly ally with the exploited

when the exploiters are in a bad squeeze.

The case of Germany sending Lenin back

to Russia in a train car in World War I is

an example. When there is a war going

on or could be going on in a given region,

we cannot rule out that a faction of

exploiters would ally with the exploited

on fairly positive terms.

From the bourgeois point of view, the

infiltration of communist groups serves

dual purposes. One is to dampen or track

activity in those groups and the other is

to prevent activity in the first place. As

the people learn that communist

organizations are infiltrated, they may give

up trying to work with them. Even

planting false stories of infiltration aids in

this goal. In response, we Maoists have

dual duties--one is not to deny enemy

activity and the other is never to justify

cynicism or paralysis of the exploited and

oppressed.

Speaking of an eastern European

comrade, Comrade Stalin said "what does

he know?" in reference to the idea that

there are no enemies in his party. De-

classified documents also show that U.$.