Il ministro difesa tedesco difende il massacro a Kunduz/ Crisi del governo tedesco per il massacro a Kunduz
● Il britannico Guardian ha definito il massacro nel Kunduz di 142 uomini, compresi numerosi civili, causato dall’attacco delle forze tedesche “l’operazione militare più sanguinosa dalla fine della Seconda Guerra Mondiale” condotta dalla Germania.
● L’intero governo tedesco (pienamente a conoscenza dei fatti) ha cercato di dare informazioni false all’opinione sull’operazione militare;
● quanto accaduto nel Kunduz è stato anzi utilizzato per preparare e giustificare l’espansione delle operazioni militari.
o Le dimissioni dell’ex ministro della Difesa, Jung, dell’ispettore generale delle forze armate tedesche, Schneiderhan e del segretario di Stato, Peter Wichert, servono a sviare l’attenzione dalla Cancelliera Merkel che ha difeso tale crimine: il suo portavoce: la Cancelliera ha fiducia che Jung abbia agito con spirito della responsabilità e secondo l’imperativo della trasparenza.
o Jung ha dichiarato che si dimette per consentire al governo di proseguire senza ostacoli il proprio lavoro e a non danneggiare la Bundeswehr. (Faz, 27.11.2009)
o La Commissione Difesa si riunirà come commissione di inchiesta (richiesta espressamente da SPD, Linke, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen) ma, diversamente dal solito, non pubblicamente.
o Il presidente della associazione della Bundeswehr: l’Ispettore generale Schneirderhan non può essere accusato di nulla, non può essere stato lui a prendere decisioni politiche; le direttive le ha ricevute dalla direzione politica». La responsabilità di possibili errori è da cercare nel precedente governo.
● La Bundeswehr, le forze armate tedesche, è oggi impegnata in 10 operazioni internazionali.
● La Cancelliera ha potuto contare sul fatto che nessun partito parlamentare osa opporsi alla politica bellica:
o Il governo rosso-verde (SPD- Grüne, 1998-2005) ha ampliato in modo significativo le missioni internazionali delle forze armate tedesche, inviando soldati in Afghanistan;
o da allora i rosso-verdi hanno sempre difeso l’impegno militare tedesco in Hindukush, criticando da destra le Merkel:
o ad es. Susanne Kastner, presidente SPD della commissione parlamentare Difesa: «l’affare dell’attacco aereo di settembre e le vittime civili» hanno indebolito l’impegno dei soldati tedeschi in Afghanistan; «è un carico supplementare per i soldati e per tutti i membri delle forze armate tedesche». Il ministro Difesa Jung ha contribuito con la sua cattiva informazione «al calo del consenso popolare per la missione militare».
● La Linke gioca un ruolo equivoco: i suoi parlamentari criticano l’impegno militare in Afghanistan, mentre il partito segnala continuamente di non voler causare difficoltà al governo sulla questione,
o e se fosse invitato ad entrare nel governo potrebbe appoggiarlo su questo.
o La Linke ha 3 suoi membri nel comitato parlamentare Difesa, che informati del massacro a metà ottobre da un rapporto confidenziale Nato che criticava l’attacco tedesco, non hanno dato battaglia contro ministro Difesa e Governo.
o I 3 hanno lasciato alla destra il compito di informare la stampa (il giornale Bild).
– Ad una settimana dal giuramento, il nuovo ministro Difesa CSU del nuovo governo, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, ha pubblicamente appoggiato la decisione presa dal colonnello Klein, comandante della Squadra di ricostruzione provinciale del Kunduz, di lanciare un attacco aereo, e giustificato il massacro in Kunduz;
– zu Guttenberg approfitta della disputa in corso per rafforzare la propria influenza nelle forze armate, sostituendo con un uomo di sua scelta l’ispettore generale della Bundeswehr, Schneiderhan, che aveva assunto l’incarico nel 2002 con il governo rosso-verde.
– Zu Guttenberg ha garantito all’Amministrazione USA il proprio appoggio all’espansione della guerra in Afghanistan, la Germania sarebbe pronta ad assumersi “un peso maggiore”, e ci sarebbe maggior consenso popolare.
World Socialist Web Site
Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI)
By Ulrich Rippert
– Former Defence Minister Franz Josef Jung (Christian Democratic Union, CDU) resigned at the end of last week from his present government post as employment minister. He has thereby paid the price for the lies used to hush up the Kunduz massacre at the beginning of September in which up to 142 people lost their lives, including numerous civilians.
– Also dismissed the previous day for the same reason were General Inspector Wolfgang Schneiderhan, the most senior military figure, and State Secretary Peter Wichert.
– These resignations must be seen within a larger political context. First of all, the defence minister, the military leadership and senior civil servants at the defence ministry were not solely responsible for the dissemination of false information about the circumstances surrounding the bombing of two petrol tankers and the ensuing civilian casualties. The entire government has tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the German public.
– Secondly, the government was only able to do this because the opposition parties in parliament, above all the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Greens, have unreservedly supported Germany’s participation in the Afghanistan war.
– And thirdly, the events have been used to prepare and legitimise a drastic expansion of the war and a large-scale military offensive.
– On the basis of the facts, the following picture emerges: In the early morning of September 4, only a few hours after the commander of the provincial reconstruction team in Kunduz, Colonel Georg Klein, called in an air strike on two gasoline-filled tankers that had been kidnapped, it was already well known that it was mainly civilians who had died.
– The next day, an interview was broadcast with an Afghan doctor who had treated the wounded in a nearby hospital and confirmed the victims included children. Two days later, the commander of the ISAF (International Security Assistance Force), US General Stanley McChrystal, visited the scene. A journalist accompanying him then published an article in the Washington Post providing numerous details about the extent of the massacre.
– On September 7, NATO’s first interim report about the incident was received in Berlin, in which the German Armed Forces were heavily implicated. The existence of this report was denied for four days by the German defence ministry and cabinet members.
– On September 8, Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) delivered a government statement to the Bundestag (parliament). She did not call for the circumstances surrounding the incident to be thoroughly investigated, but offered her support to the defence minister. With a sharpness not previously seen, she defended the actions of the army and rebuffed all criticism and any “prejudgement” of the armed forces. Merkel threatened openly: “I will not tolerate that from anyone, either at home or abroad.”
– The chancellor’s present claim that she had been insufficiently informed by the then-defence minister is just as spurious as her statement at the time that no criticism could be raised about the actions of the German Armed Forces. Her government statement was directed against the media reports, the truth of which has meanwhile been confirmed.
– Britain’s Guardian newspaper wrote at the time that the order for the bombardment had led to Germany’s “deadliest military operation since the end of the Second World War.” Merkel’s aggressive appearance in parliament was an attempt to intimidate any critical reporting of Germany’s war mission in Afghanistan and clearly smacks of censorship.
– In resigning, Jung, Schneiderhan and Wichert are playing the role of fall guys. Their departure is meant to take the heat off a chancellor who has defended the greatest war crime committed by the German army since Hitler’s Nazi regime ruled in Berlin.
– Chancellor Merkel has been and is able to rely on the fact that no party in parliament dares to oppose the war policy.
o When the SPD and the Greens formed the government (1998-2005), they drastically expanded the international missions of the German Armed Forces, despatching the army to Afghanistan. Since then, they have vehemently defended the military deployment into the Hindu Kush, criticising Merkel from the right.
– For example, in a debate last week, the chair of the parliamentary defence committee, Susanne Kastner (SPD), deplored the fact that the “affair about the air strike last September and the civilian victims” had sapped the commitment of Germany’s soldiers in Afghanistan. The SPD parliamentary deputy said, “This is an additional burden for the soldiers and for all German Armed Forces members.” Jung and his delivery of bad information had contributed to the fact that “acceptance for the deployment had diminished in the population.”
– The Left Party plays a particularly sordid role in the present debate about the war.
o While their parliamentary deputies criticise the Afghanistan operation, the party constantly signals that it will do nothing to cause difficulties for the government on this issue. Instead, it indicates that should it be invited to participate in government, it too could swing behind the administration on this matter.
– The party has three members on the parliamentary defence committee who were informed in mid-October about the contents of the confidential NATO report on the Kunduz massacre.
– None of the three Left Party deputies was prepared to take up the criticisms contained in the report and to challenge the defence ministry and the government.
– They left it to right-wing circles to pass on this and other information to Bild-Zeitung. The new defence minister, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, is now using these exposures in order to push through personnel changes, preparing the army leadership and government for a drastic expansion of the Afghanistan war. General Inspector Wolfgang Schneiderhan had taken up his post under the SPD-Green Party government in 2002. His resignation now provides Guttenberg with the possibility of filling this top army position with a man of his choosing.
– Defence Minister Guttenberg is leaving no doubt about the fact that he wants to use the present dispute in order to strengthen the influence of the army.
– In his inaugural visit to Washington last week, he assured the US administration of his full support for an expansion of the Afghanistan war. Germany was ready to bear “more of the burden,” Guttenberg told his hosts. Moreover, he would ensure that German participation in the war meets with better public acceptance.
– The German Armed Forces are presently engaged with their own units in 10 operations worldwide. It has become an army of active deployment, he stressed, adding that the significance of its foreign missions would increase.
– Guttenberg considers it necessary to put an end to the previous excuses and to plainly elaborate Berlin’s war aims. He summarised his view with the words: “What today is an exceptional case, must become a matter of course.”
About the WSWS | Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Top of page
Copyright © 1998-2009 World Socialist Web Site – All rights reserved
——————
Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI)
– One week after taking the oath of office as defence minister, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg (Christian Social Union—CSU) justified the Kunduz massacre in Afghanistan. He has publicly endorsed the decision taken by Colonel Georg Klein to order an air strike in Afghanistan September 4 on two fuel tankers, in the course of which well over 100 civilians died.
– Guttenberg defended this atrocity, the bloodiest incident in the post-World War II history of the German armed forces, without waiting for the outcome of ongoing investigations. At a press conference in the defence ministry, he declared that the bombardment of the trucks near Kunduz was “militarily appropriate.”
He referred to a recently concluded NATO investigation, which he refuses to make public, and which has so far only been made available to the top officials of Germany’s parliamentary parties.
– Guttenberg said that after studying the report, he had no doubt that the views of armed forces inspector general Wolfgang Schneiderhan were correct in their entirety. A few hours after the incident, Schneiderhan had already called the bombardment militarily necessary and appropriate—regardless of the civilian victims.
– Guttenberg told the media that he assumed there had also been civilian deaths and he regretted this “from the bottom of his heart.” As to whether the number of such victims was now known, about which there had been conflicting reports over the past several weeks, Guttenberg answered that according to the NATO report, up to 142 people had died. He could not confirm this information, however, because the investigation was not yet completed.
– The original investigating authority, the Dresden chief public prosecutor’s office, passed the case on to the Federal Prosecutor’s Office in Karlsruhe, where no decision has yet been made about further proceedings.
While the official investigation is thus still in its initial phase, and the number of victims has not even been clearly established, Defence Minister Guttenberg defends the actions of the army command and declares the Kunduz mission as militarily “appropriate.” To support this view, he cites the opinion of the highest-ranking German general, who in light of the war crimes of the German army in the first half of the last century is no longer called the general chief-of-staff but inspector general.
Guttenberg’s statement has far-reaching consequences, of which this qualified lawyer is quite conscious. If the legal system does not provide the basis for evaluating the activities of the armed forces, but rather the views of the military leadership itself form such a basis, then the army stands above the law and is not subject to any constitutional control.
– Although Guttenberg admitted that the NATO report comes to the conclusion that there had been “procedural errors” and “a lack of training in certain areas,” he added: “Even if there had not been any procedural errors, it [the episode] would still have had led to an air strike.”
Why? The only reason that Guttenberg gives was that from a military perspective it was necessary, and therefore can only be evaluated by the military.
– Guttenberg has sought to silence or intimidate all opposition to the cover-up campaign with which the military leadership first denied and then justified the Kunduz massacre. He repeated the improbable statement that the duty officer, Colonel Klein, had ordered the destruction of the two tankers without consulting his superiors because he feared a suicide attack on the German camp in Kunduz and was under time pressure.
– He makes no attempt to respond to the media reports and local investigations that contradict these statements by the military. Already in mid-September, Der Spiegel published a map of the area and an exact timeline of the events, which revealed the fuel trucks were hijacked a few hundred metres from the German camp, but afterward were driven some 6 kilometres away until they finally became stuck on a sandbank in the Kunduz River.
It was here the trucks were discovered at around 9:15 p.m. by a US Air Force bomber equipped with night vision technology, which transferred live video recordings to the German base. The hijacked tankers were kept under observation by the plane until midnight, which was then replaced by two F-15 fighter-bombers from 1:08 a.m., which relayed further live pictures until finally at around 1:50 a.m. the deadly bombs were dropped.
– Thus, Klein had been able to keep the hijackers under observation for a good four and a half hours before the air strike took place. It is extremely improbable that this commander, described in the media as sensible and reserved, did not consult with his superiors. Moreover, he must have known that the order to attack was contrary to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) rules of engagement. These permit the deployment of air support only when soldiers are in combat or face a direct danger. Neither condition prevailed in Kunduz.
Guttenberg told the press conference he could not speak about the details and operational sequence of events because the NATO investigation report was classified as secret. This too is only partially correct. Above all, it was the German military high command that insisted on the report being kept secret.
A NATO spokesman in Brussels stressed that with the completion of the report and its handing over to the German government, the case was now closed as far as NATO was concerned. Everything else was now down to Berlin, Deutsche Presse Agentur (DPA) reported on November 4.
According to other press reports, “high-ranking NATO officers in Brussels,” quoted in the investigation report, had accused the “responsible German officer” of acting against instructions and regulations. Above all, Klein alone could not have ordered the bombardment by US fighter jets. The decision for the bombardment could only have been taken by the commander of the ISAF Afghanistan security forces, US General Stanley McChrystal.
Several times, Guttenberg has stressed that one of his main objectives involves creating more legal security for the soldiers being deployed. He obviously understands this to mean the freeing of the army command from existing legal restrictions and the establishment of its own military jurisdiction.
It is in this context that the defence minister’s oft-repeated claim that the deployment in Afghanistan is a “non-international armed conflict” should be seen. Focus, the German weekly magazine, commented last week that this cumbersome term—”non-international armed conflict” (i.e., a conflict between governmental forces and non-governmental armed groups)—really signified what was “popularly regarded as war.”
In Guttenberg’s opinion, according to the magazine, the military’s actions in Afghanistan should not be judged on the basis of the German penal code designed for peacetime. “Should this view become accepted, it would also end the question as to whether German soldiers fired deadly shots in self-defence or in need: An attack on a militarily legitimate target would be justified.”
Just a few weeks after assuming office, and even before Chancellor Angela Merkel has delivered her first official government statement, the new administration has demonstrated that it stands in the unspeakable tradition of German militarism, which in the past century formed a state within the state and also played such a horrendous role in domestic affairs.
About the WSWS | Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Top of page
Copyright © 1998-2009 World Socialist Web Site – All rights reserved
————–
Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI)
What happened in Kunduz? – The German army steps up its deployment in Afghanistan
– Two weeks after the bloodiest military action in the history of the post-war German army, questions are mounting over what exactly happened in Kunduz on September 4.
– The commander of the Province Reconstruction Team in Kunduz, Colonel Georg Klein, ordered an air strike in the early hours of the morning against a hijacked truck filled with gasoline. According to official Afghan sources, 119 people died in the attack. The report by a commission of inquiry set up by President Hamid Karzai listed among the victims 69 Taliban and 30 civilians dead, with 11 Taliban and 9 civilians wounded. A physician, who treated the victims in a nearby hospital, confirmed that children were among the victims.
The German government reacted to this massacre with a systematic campaign of disinformation. Along with broad sections of the German media the government defended the air strike and continues to defend it up to the present. The spokesmen for the German Defence Ministry issued a string of unmitigated lies. What has been described by some as an “information disaster” on the part of defence secretary, Franz Josef Jung, is in fact a deliberate campaign to hoodwink the public.
– Although the first details of the attack emerged after just a few hours, with high-ranking NATO representatives admitting there had been civilian victims, Jung repeatedly maintained for days that this was not the case. Jung kept to his story even after a statement by the ISAF commander, US General Stanley McChrystal, who personally visited the scene two days after the attack in the company of a journalist in Washington Post, who published numerous details of what had taken place.
– For no less than four days the Ministry of Defence denied the content of an interim NATO report, which arrived in Berlin on September 7 and strongly implicated the German army in the massacre. Even after the publication of the official Afghan report, which confirmed the deaths of 30 civilians, Jung communicated in offhand fashion through a spokesman last Monday: “This attack was necessary from a military point of view,” and his ministry rejects any “premature judgments.” The federal government wanted to wait until further investigations by NATO, the UN and the Red Cross were completed.
– On September 8, Chancellor Angela Merkel (Christian Democratic Union, CDU) delivered a government declaration in the German parliament, the Bundestag, giving her backing to the Defence Secretary. She also rejected any “pre-judgments” of the German army and publicly threatened: “I will not tolerate such (judgments) at home or from abroad.”
– Merkel, who usually likes to play the role of the conciliatory politician ready to listen to the other side, allowed her mask to drop for a moment. Following what the British Guardian described as the “deadliest military operation by Germany since the end of the Second World War,” Merkel refused to tolerate any criticism! In so doing she not only sought to blame her NATO allies, which had publicly criticized the air strike, but also sought to intimidate any critical reportage and opposition inside Germany. Merkel’s aggressive stance, together with the shameless campaign of disinformation by the Defence Ministry, smacks of censorship.
Two weeks after the massacre the German government has barricaded itself behind a wall of the silence. Numerous details of the attack have emerged in the meantime, but questions remain unanswered about who is ultimately responsible, who ordered the attack and on what basis the order was given. The information given so far in response to these questions stands in glaring contrast to the known details.
Incompatible with the facts is the much repeated statement that Colonel Klein gave the order for the destruction of the two tankers without consulting his superiors because he feared a suicide attack on the German field camp in Kunduz and was under time pressure.
– In its latest edition the German magazine Der Spiegel published a map of the region and an exact time plan, which makes clear that the tankers had been hijacked just a few hundred meters away from the German camp, but then drove six kilometres away until becoming bogged down on a sand bank in the river Kunduz.
They were discovered at this location at 21:14 by a US bomber equipped with night sights, which transferred live video recordings back to the German field camp. It continued to observe the hijackers until midnight and was then replaced by two F-15 fighters at around 1:08 a.m. The F-15s continued to send live pictures until beginning their bombing run at 1:50 a.m.
– This means that Klein had the hijackers under observation for over four-and-a-half hours before the air strike took place. Known to be a temperate and experienced officer, it is very unlikely that the colonel did not consult his superiors during this time. He must also have known that his instruction to bomb violated ISAF engagement regulations, which only permit such offensive strikes when soldiers are in combat or in direct danger. Neither case applied in Kunduz.
– If the hijackers had really planned an attack they would have had to free the two tankers from the sand and then drive back the six kilometres they had already travelled. This was sufficient time for the German army to prepare an appropriate reaction. The fact that the tankers drove away from the German camp, before becoming bogged down, indicates that the rebels never planned such an attack.
It is also evident that based on the intensive aerial observation the German commanders must have known that civilians were in the immediate vicinity of the tankers. This is underlined by the presence of a tractor, which is known to have been destroyed in the attack.
– The question then arises: has Colonel Klein been made a scapegoat under conditions where the order for the attack was given at a higher level, in an attempt to set a precedent? Despite the serious violation of engagement regulations Klein remains on duty and has not been suspended.
– He also has the support of prominent politicians plus inspector general Wolfgang Schneiderhan, the highest-ranking officer in the German army, who travelled to Kunduz in order to back Klein’s version of events.
– For some considerable time there has been a chorus of opinion from military and right-wing political circles that it is time the German army pulled off its kid gloves and conducted a “proper” war in Afghanistan.
– There are also intense conflicts between the different national contingents of troops inside Afghanistan. German soldiers have been ridiculed as “cowards” because the German army does not participate in the violent fighting in the south of the country.
– For their part German sources have repeatedly criticised the actions conducted by American forces against the civilian population. When General McChrystal along with a reporter from the Washington Post then appeared in Kunduz and publicly criticized the latest air strike, German political and military circles spoke of a “tit for tat” action.
– According to reports from the front line of the war there has also been a marked change of mood amongst German soldiers.
o massacre at Kunduz destroyed the myth that the role of the German army in Afghanistan is to support reconstruction and establish democracy. Instead there is open talk of combat and retaliatory measures. According to Der Spiegel, whose reporter visited the field camp in Kunduz shortly after the air strike, one NCO commented, “Today I thought it was absolutely right to bombard those tankers. We cannot bomb enough of these bastards.”
– In Afghanistan, as is the case in all colonial wars, the content of the war determines its form and not the reverse. Contrary to all official propaganda the military occupation of the country serves imperialist purposes. At stake is control of a country that lies at heart of a region with the world’s richest energy deposits. The roots of the present war lie way back before the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. The US and its allies have interfered into the country’s affairs for years and temporarily backed both their current opponents (Al Qaeda and the Taliban) and their current allies (the warlords and drug barons).
– The imperialist occupation of the country inevitably brings the foreign troops into increasing conflict with the population. “The stream of insurgents is infinite,” writes Der Spiegel, “and each new death produces dozens, perhaps even hundreds of new enemies; brothers, sons, cousins, who want revenge.”
– The US has reacted to this situation by stocking up its troops and expanding the war to Pakistan. The German government is determined not to be left out and does not want the US to monopolize the field. In this regard the massacre of Kunduz represents a turning point.
– Now there are calls from all sides that the German contingent be increased and its combat mandate extended with the argument that it is necessary to give the support needed for German soldiers risking their lives in Afghanistan.
– In this respect a commentary last Saturday in the Süddeutsche Zeitung is typical. Peter Blechschmidt writes that political circles and the media finally have to publicly acknowledge that Germany is at war: “German soldiers are being attacked and are dying, German soldiers shoot back and extinguish human lives…. There has to be an end to all the attempts to sugar-coat the situation.”
– If one maintains the deployment, “one has to finally do it properly…” and “fundamentally change the conditions for the deployment.” Blechschmidt demands: “The current stand of 4,500 soldiers is insufficient to successfully fight the ever stronger Taliban.” Germany can “no longer refrain from the delicate task of providing air support” and its soldiers need “more legal security.” Or to put it clearly, Blechschmidt demands more German troops, the deployment of German bombers and exemption from punishment for soldiers in Afghanistan.
– All of the parties in the Bundestag have reacted to the Kunduz massacre in similar fashion.
– Ruprecht Polenz (CDU), the chairman of the foreign committee of the Bundestag, said on Monday, “If it is necessary to increase our troop levels in order to assure the security of the northern region for which we have responsibility, then we will have to discuss it.”
– In the Kölner Stadtanzeiger, the spokesman for the Greens on security issues, Winfried Nachtwei, expressed his support for Colonel Klein and stated that the bombardment had to be seen in the context of “the development of the overall situation in the last few months…. Every day of ambushes, each day of engagements. Against this background something like this becomes plausible….” Besides, one cannot easily differentiate in the Hindukusch between the Taliban and civilians. Nachtwei reported that he had personally experienced in June how Colonel Klein had been criticized by the local secret services chief because of the restraint employed by the German military. The only way to proceed, however, was by striking back hard.
– The chancellor candidate of the Social Democratic Party and foreign minister, Frank Walter-Steinmeier, reacted to the massacre of Kunduz with a 10-point program, which involves a substantial increase in the numbers of German security forces. Among other demands, Steinmeier wants to double the number of police trainers in the German sphere of responsibility, strengthen the Afghan army and concentrate military forces in “regions with a critical security situation”—i.e., intensified combat operations in such regions. These measures should then form the basis “for the withdrawal of the German Armed Forces from Afghanistan” in the next legislative period, according to the Steinmeier plan.
– When some newspapers then reported that Steinmeier was calling for a withdrawal of German forces by the end of the legislative period in 2013, he rushed to explain that this was not in fact his position.
– This was not enough to prevent Oskar Lafontaine, the chairman of the Left Party, from praising Steinmeier in the highest tones. “It is evident that the message is slowly reaching other parties, i.e., that there must be an end to the German Armed Forces mission in Afghanistan,” he stated. In fact, Lafontaine’s support for Steinmeier’s plan makes clear that the Left Party is quite prepared to reconcile itself to the German military mission in Afghanistan.
About the WSWS | Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Top of page
Copyright © 1998-2009 World Socialist Web Site – All rights reserved
————————————