om Malo IL WORLD = Evidence shows U.S. guilty in Nicaragua Lawyers for Nicaragua have summed up the testimoney of witnesses at the International Court of Justice in The Hague which clearly show the United States is in violation of international law by its policy of trying to overthrow the legal govern- ment of Nicaragua by violence and terror. Six witnesses, including a French Roman Catholic priest, a former CIA central American specialist, a former counsel to the foreign relations committee of the U.S. Senate and a former top leader of the contra group NDF, testified either in person or by affidavit. The testimoney established several key Nic- araguan charges: J e That there is no evidence of Nicaraguan arms shipments to El Salvador; e That the contra attacks are directed and financed by the CIA; e That CIA agents carried out military opera- tions against Nicaragua then directed contra groups to claim responsibility; e That torture, rape and acts of terror by contras against civilians is a conscious policy; e That U.S. actions reflect policy decisions at the highest levels of the U.S. administration. The United States was absent from the World Court proceedings. Washington had earlier de- elared last January it would not recognize the court’s jurisdiction in matters involving Central America. Contacted by the Tribune for comment on the evidence being presented in the Hague, Nic- aragua’s Consul general in Toronto, Pastor Valle-Garay said “‘it is clear proof of Nicaragua’s allegations made during the past four years. “Evidence shows,” he continued, ‘‘that the U.S. government is openly involved in a campaign of terror which has now cost the lives of 17,000 Nicaraguans. In this, the U.S. is in violation of international law, and indeed, of U.S. law for- _ bidding direct or indirect attack on Nicaragua. “Proceedings at the Hague also show clearly that Nicaragua will use all means open to it, all international forums such as the World Court, to bring a halt to the terrible aggression being carried out against it,”’ Valle-Garay continued. Secret ‘emergency’ agreement _ undercuts British sovereignty. Secret agreements between Britain and the U.S., which include the handover of sweeping powers of con- trol over large areas of Britain to the U.S. armed forces, are exposed in a series of articles in the weekly New Statesman. Intended to be put into force in the event of a ‘‘war emergency,’ the plans have led to spreading pro- test as people realize the extent of the attacks on British sovereignty and civil liberties. It is revealed that the Thatcher government signed an agreement with the Reagan administration in 1983, at the same time that it approved three emergency powers bills. These would be put into effect as soon as an emergency is considered to exist. Not only was all of this done in utter secrecy, but no part of it was ever presented to parliament for debate. The secret arrangements came to light during a two- week war exercise in Britain, called ‘“‘Brave Defender.” Involving 65,000 regular and auxiliary troops, it is the biggest military exercise in the country since World War II and is supposed to defend the nation against *‘Soviet infiltrators.’’ Some of the measures in the emergency plans are being practised in the ‘‘games.”’ In addition, 1,000 U.S. troops are rehearsing their role. Brave Defender (which the Committee for Nuclear Disarmament posters term ‘‘Grave Defender’’) goes further than other NATO war games in openly depicting the Soviet Union as ‘‘the enemy.’’ Up to 5,000 British troops have been dressed in ‘‘Soviet’’ garb as, alleged ‘special forces’’ infiltrators, saboteurs and agitators. These are dubbed ‘‘Spetsnaz”’ in current NATO anti- Soviet propaganda, an invented word peddled several years ago by a Soviet defector. Those who demonstrate outside U.S. and British military bases, it is made quite plain, are to be included with *‘the enemy.” The secret Emergency Powers (no. 1) Bill, for exam- ple, would give the special home defence committee in the central government the power to designate any part of the country a Ground Defence Area (GDA). Those who live or who are staying ina GDA (which would most likely be a wide area in the vicinity of a military base, installation or communication facility) could be rounded up and detained without charge or trial. Emergency Powers (no. 2) Bill authorizes the exten- sion of these powers over the entire country. The bill includes outlawing strikes in major industries, strict censorship and arbitrary requisitioning of food, fuel, and From London William Pomeroy other necessities. Road and rail transport would be taken over, and, of course, all aircraft. ‘_ Emergency Powers (no. 3) Bill gives legal status to the central body that would have power to rule by decree, including the issuing of orders to intern “‘subversives.’” The authority would include setting up ad hoc summar courts to impose unlimited penalties including death. The manner in which these legislative steps were drawn up and approved has drawn opposition from all other parties in the British parliament. Labor Party defence spokesman Denzil Davies as- sailed the secrecy. He said this shows the contempt the goverment ministers, especially the minister of de- - fence, has for parliament and for civil rights. ‘‘We are not talking about defence but the powers that lie behind defence,’’ he said, pointing to the fact that similar mea- sures had been debated in the parliaments of West Ger many, Norway, Netherlands and Denmark. a National Council for Civil Liberties general secretary Sarah Spencer said that carrying out of the plans * ‘would destroy the very system they claim to defend.” : A Liberal Party MP, Paddy Ashdown, denounced the legislation that would ‘‘give large chunks of the civil and military establishment to the U.S.” The 1983 agreement is known as the Joint Logistil Plan. It is reported to hand over to the U.S. military commanders based in Britain full control of at least 30 main ports and airports, hospitals and other areas and facilities. U.S. control of these areas would be in accondandll with the GDA system, meaning that U.S. troops would seize and detain British citizens. = The Morning Star newspaper said the aim of Brave Defender is for ‘‘rehearsing how and when peace ai tivists and other democrats would be picked up....9 Throwing around the idea of an invasion of ‘Soviet infiltrators’’ is intended to discredit Soviet peace prop- osals and wreck the Geneva disarmament talks. International Focus Tom Morris Clark, Lewis and others who oppose real sanctions against racist South Africa argue, ‘‘We'd be hurting those we’re trying to help.” Both Mulroney and Clark ~ have said it just that bluntly. Canada’s UN ambassador Stephen Lewis devoted an en- tire speech to the matter but came up with the same (Tory) line. The British Sunday Times last month hired Markinor (an affiliate of Gallup) to conduct a poll among South African Blacks (‘those we’re trying to help’’) and, one question was: “‘Do you think that other coun- tries are right or wrong to impose economic sanctions on SA unless _ SA agrees to get rid of the apar- | theid system?” Seventy-seven per cent answered “‘right’’. And, re- member, South African law provides a five-year jail sen- tence for advocating sanctions. In the same Markinor poll 59 per cent believed apartheid will not exist 10 years from now; 69 per cent said civil war was like- ly and 83 per cent backed international sporting boycotts against Pretoria. Mandela, 34 per cent Bishop Tutu and six per cent Chief Gatsha Buthelezi. Ninety per cent believed Mandela should be released at once without any conditions. Someone should send the Sunday Times poll results to Mulroney, Clark and Lewis. An insight into the condi- tions under which the poll was conducted is contained in the following preamble the Sunday Times ran: ‘‘interviewers did report that more people than usual refused to be questioned; most said they feared the poll was connected to the police or - government . . . It was not pos- sible to poll in the East Cape, for fear of the interviewers’ lives. Opinion there is likely to be more radical still ....” And, for closet racists who argue that an end to apartheid will mean chaos and terror against whites, the poll found eight out of 10 Blacks support a multi-racial government. For the love of money “The dollar has no patriot- ism’’, says an old adage. - 42 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, OCTOBER 2, 1985 1 rting whom? When asked who they would The latest example came last Helpi whom? support for the country’s presi- | week when the NHL Detroit ng : dency, 49 per cent chose im-. Red Wings managed to lure a __ attention. People like Mulroney, — prisoned ANC leader Nelson 20 year-old foreward, Peter Klima, member of the Czecho- slovak national team, to the U.S. for a yet undisclosed sum. In itself, people chasing the big buck isn’t especially news. There are still those who would trade family, friends and home- land for money. But the way in which the Klima deal went down shows that the U.S. wanted more than a hockey player. To them it’s politics. Klima’s team was training in West Germany last month when, lo and behold, he’s meeting with the assistant gen- eral manager and the executive vice-president of the Red Wings. A deal is struck. In to the picture comes Max Fisher, described as a ‘*Detroit millionaire, philanthropist and political financier’ (figure that title out!). Fisher recruits prominent U.S. lawyer Leonard Garment (who once represented Nixon and Ford). Garment uses his connections and talks to Lowell Jensen, deputy attorney-general of the U.S ; Jensen, whose Justice Department runs the U.S. Immigration and Natural- ization Service, asks the INS “*to give it (the Klima matter) *’ Presto! Surprise! The INS classifies Klima a *‘re- fugee’’ with ‘‘a well-founded fear of persecution’’. Klima got money. He even convinced his backers to bring his Czechoslovak girl friend to Detroit. In the four weeks in ‘hiding’? in Europe he was provided with a Mercedes which he drove on the auto- bahn. ‘‘No speed limit’’, said one Red Wing official. ‘‘The car was totalled. Peter thought it was funny.” His former coach said part of it: ‘“‘He was lured by money. He betrayed the collective of his team mates.’ He betrayed more than that. Perhaps one day he’ll recall the beauty of Prague from the inner city of Detroit. That ‘special’ relationship That ‘‘special relationship”’ Mulroney says he has with Reagan is really special. Our PM campaigned hard to con- vince us he will re-establish friendly U.S.-Canadian ties. Remember him saying that the. Liberals. had wrecked our “‘traditional”’ relationship with. the Americans and how he would change all that? Reagan says he'll never forget what’s-his-name. It’s one campaign promise he’s kept. So ‘‘special’’ is the relation- ship today that Canada wasn’t even invited to participate in last week-end’s currency talks in New York. The big guys were all there — the U.S., Bri- tain, Japan, France, West Germany — but Canada, the U.S.’s largest trading partner, watched the event on the 10 o’clock news. Remember last year when the U.S. embassy at Ottawa re- leased to the press a copy of the outcome of Canadian-U.S. talks — two hours before they happened? Now that’s special. Perhaps the latest snub is re- ally not so surprising. After all, Washington knows what Ot- tawa thinks. But for Mul- roney’s public image at home perhaps he might have been invited as an observer.