In a $A30 million deal Executive Outcomes subsidiary Sandlines International, which recruits heavily from former soldiers of the apartheid-era South African army, will send a reported 150 mercenaries to assassinate leaders of the Bougainville Revolutionary Army, which is leading the independence struggle. They are also charged with freeing five Papua New Guinea soldiers captured by rebels last September, and moving on the Panguna copper mine, closed for eight years by the fighting.

As the deal was being negotiated the Chan government began moves to buy out the majority share-holding in the mine owned by giant Anglo-Australian corporation RTZ-CRA.

The BRA reported March 3 that the offensive had begun with mortar fire near the capital Arawa, following several days of increased helicopter reconnaissance activity. Some 40 white mercenaries and 150 black soldiers in PNG Defence Force uniforms, some of whom could also be mercenaries, have landed on Bougainville at six locations, the BRA reported, with one unit moving to within 10 kilometers of the BRA-held mine site.

The mercenary operation follows a series of military and political disasters for the Chan government on Bougainville. A military offensive against the BRA in the middle of last year was defeated within weeks. Then after assassinating Theodore Miriung, the Chan-appointed premier of Bougainville October 12 on suspicion of collaborating with the BRA, soldiers of the PNG army killed more than 20 civilians in a series of massacres in southern Bougainville in December. Some 200 soldiers refused to go back to Bougainville after returning to Papua New Guinea for their Christmas leave.

Canberra, the former colonial power in Papua New Guinea, has distanced itself from Chan's hiring of mercenaries, declaring it "unacceptable." Long accustomed to being the policeman of the region, Canberra is concerned about the impact political instability in Papua New Guinea will have on the $A4 billion that Australian companies have invested in the country. At the end of an official visit to Port Moresby, PNG's capital, February 19-21, Australia's minister of foreign affairs, Alexander Downer, stated the Australian government's view that an assault "on hardline rebels and any reversion to military solutions is simply going to be unsuccessful."

Francis Ona, the president of the Bougainville Interim Government, declared February 23 from BRA-held territory on Bougainville, that "the coming of the mercenaries is not going to change anything. We are fighting for our social, political, economic, cultural rights and self-determination, and nothing will change our people's resolve."

Addressing himself to Chan, Ona said, "You will go down in history dishonored by this infamous act, loathed by all moral people of goodwill."

Bob Aiken

Sydney, Australia

`People vs. Larry Flint''
Evidently the new film, The People vs. Larry Flynt has generated a sharp debate about the question of First Amendment rights and the exploitation of women. I have not seen the film and have no intention of doing so. However, some important questions have been raised by the various forces in this discussion and some clarity needs to be brought to the matter.

The defenders of the film, including Chicago Tribune columnist Mike Royko, want to give some sort of credit to Larry Flynt [publisher of the pornographic magazine Hustler]. Royko puts it this way: "But the movie isn't dishonest when tossing honors Flynt's way. There are constitutional experts who agree that as unworthy a guy as Flynt might be, his successful court battles were important defenses of our free speech rights."

Those on the other side point out, correctly, that Flynt's magazines represent violent, despicable and abusive images and portrayals of women.

However, the nub of the matter is elsewhere. In the first place rights are neither won nor lost in court battles of any kind. They are won through public, social protest and mobilization. After rights have been won in this arena, often the ruling class is forced to permit their codification through legislation or court decision. However, as the Larry Flynt case proves once again, the aim of the ruling class through its agents in the court system, even in the face of defeat, will make yet another attempt to minimize and undermine the right in question with their court decision.

In this case they took the most offensive case dealing with the issue and let that be used as the supposed yardstick. Their goal in this was to confuse the issue as much as possible and, therefore, undermine the liberty in question and any further efforts to extend it. Not a few people must have had the response at the time, and even more so now with the movie, that if that is what free speech means, then I am not so sure I am for unrestricted free speech.

Larry Flynt's case did not establish any rights at all. And the wide publicity his case received was intended to do as much damage to free speech as possible in the context of a right already secured by efforts of the working class. Obviously, as the ruling class moves to the right, dragging various sectors of the middle class like directors and producers of the ilk of Milos Forman and Oliver Stone along with them, a vigorous response clarifying the matter is in order.

John Votava

Chicago, Illinois

The letters column is an open forum for all viewpoints on subjects of general interest to our readers. Please keep your letters brief. Where necessary they will be abridged. Please indicate if you prefer that your initials be used rather than your full name.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home