Arm The Spirit #16 - Fall 1993 (Part Two)

5) Each Stage Has A Specific Form Of Struggle - Interview With
Tupamaro Eleuterio Huidobro

     Since 1985, the Uruguayan urban-guerrilla group, the
Tupamaros, has been working in a legal form. The following is an
interview, translated from the Dutch left-radical paper
Konfrontatie No. 3, with Eleuterio F. Huidobro, one of the founders
of the Tupamaros. In the interview he discusses the history of the
Tupamaros, their current work with the Uruguayan people, and the
future of the left in Latin America in the 90's.
     Eleuterio Fernandez Huidobro, 49, was born the son of a
Spanish immigrant to Montevideo. In 1958 he became politically
active. He took part in the resistance to the new laws governing
the universities and was arrested for the first time in 1962. In
the following years he was active with the sugar planters' union
(UTAA) which was a part of the labour movement's left-wing.
     In 1965, along with Raul Sendic and others, he helped set up
the National Liberation Movement (MLN)/Tupamaros. The very next
year he was forced to go underground. He took part in urban-
guerrilla actions until he was captured in October of 1969. In
September of 1971, he gained his freedom in a spectacular escape
from prison, but just a year later he once again fell into the
hands of the army when a Tupamaro safe-house was stormed. Eleuterio
was seriously wounded in this attack.
     Weeks before the military coup of June, 1973, he and other
leaders of the Tupamaros were taken as "state-hostages" to far-off
military barracks where they were detained for 11 1/2 years. The
prisoners were often tortured and kept in isolation for years on
end.
     When the protests against the military dictatorship
heightened, the "state-hostages" were regrouped in April of 1984
and transported to the 'La libertad' prison. After the installation
of a civilian government in March of 1985, they were finally
released. On the day of his release, Huidobro declared, in the name
of the historic leadership of the Tupamaros, the new form of the
organization: a legal political movement.
     Presently Huidobro edits the periodical Mate Amargo and is
part of the collective leadership of the Tupamaros.

You began your career in political work in a legal political
movement. What made you decide to abandon legal means and start a
movement which carried out armed struggle?

     We never entirely abandoned legitimacy, because we never
limited ourselves to purely military actions. We carried out legal
mass-actions as well as armed actions. This was typical of the
Tupamaros, and that's why we differed from other guerrilla
organizations in Latin America.

OK, but unlike other leftist organizations in Uruguay, the
Tupamaros began their struggle at the military level.

     Actually, our initial goal was not to carry out armed
struggle, but to prepare for it. On the basis of our theoretical
analysis, it was our opinion that Uruguay was on the brink of a
deep social and institutional crisis. We thought this situation
would explode violently. We wanted to prepare for this, so that we
could play a role in this anticipated situation. And in our
preparatory stage, some unfortunate things happened. There were
confrontations, and several companeros had to go underground. But
we, the leadership, knew that these unfortunate occurrences would
be counter-productive. The necessary conditions for armed struggle
were not yet present.

Were you conscious of the fact that during the 60's the conditions
were not right for armed struggle?

     Yes, of course. Our task was to prepare, nothing more.
Starting in 1967, events happened very fast; the Uruguayan
president died suddenly, and he was succeeded by someone from the
far-right who took everything into his own hands. A sharp economic
and social crisis broke out. The class struggle took on a new
intensity. And a hard wave of repression followed. The national
parliament and high courts were suspended, and the state of
emergency became permanent. Given that situation, the armed
struggle was the only correct manner in which to react. With it, we
supported the legal mass-movement, because we only used forms of
military struggle which the people could understand.

So your concept of armed struggle was a defensive one? Defensive,
in that it was a way of responding to the illegal aggression and
brutality of the state apparatus?

     We reacted to what the state did with our actions. The first
political prisoners in my country were those rounded up as the
state of emergency was imposed, were not Tupamaros, they were union
leaders, students, and politicians. The same goes for the first
fatalities. The movement was, to a large degree, headed by
students; the workers, the politicians, and even us, followed. We
supported the electoral coalition of the leftist parties, while
carrying out armed struggle at the same time.

How did the rest of the left, for example, the Communist Party [of
Uruguay - ed.], react to the use of military violence? Because this
was a form of struggle which they were not using.

     The Communist Party (CP) dismissed our use of armed struggle,
although they were preparing for it as well.

Did they actually make preparations, or was it all just talk?

     They did prepare, but they never made use of their training.
That fact is a big issue within the CP in Uruguay at the moment.
The CP never used weapons, and they had a critical, although not
antagonistic view of the armed struggle of the MLN/Tupamaros and
other armed groups. And it's important to make a distinction
between the view of the CP leaders and the rank-and-file, because
many party members were in solidarity with our actions.

On the basis of what did the MLN attempt to bind together the use
of a variety  of tactics (base-movement, parliament, elections, and
guerrilla-actions)?

     We were of the opinion that all forms of struggle were
necessary, and depending on the specific situation, one form might
become temporarily more important than another, but that no form
should be totally abandoned. We tried to analyze the forms of
struggle to use in each political phase. The problem was, the
Tupamaros were known internationally for their guerrilla-actions.
Because what foreign correspondent would ever come to Uruguay to
write about the unions or the student struggle? Or to do a report
on the Tupamaros electoral strategy?

You just said that the Tupamaros weighed the significance of
certain forms of struggle against the political situation. But was
there one form of struggle which was, in principle, more important,
or which played a more strategic role? For example, the armed
struggle, or the mass-movement?

     Around 1969-70, it's difficult to say exactly when, we slid
towards militarism. We've determined this in our self-criticism.
The MLN was not, from its beginning, a military organization. Only
later did we learn through experience that it's strategically
important to gain the support of the people. If a guerrilla
movement tries to operate without the support of the people, they
are simply a problem for the police and the intelligence services,
but they're certainly not a political problem. The conflict gets
played out among a limited number of well-trained apparatuses.

How did the militarism of the Tupamaros manifest itself in
practice?

     Through the fact that despite constant analysis, people
notwithstanding came to the conclusion that military actions were
necessary. Some of these actions were pointless, even counter-
productive. At certain times when the mass-movement was really
strong, we put too little time into political work and didn't work
in the base-movement enough. The military defeat of 1972 showed
that the urban-guerrilla, even if it reaches its goal, can still
hit its limits.

How do you mean?

     If the urban-guerrilla has the support of broad levels of the
population, but continues to agitate merely as urban-guerrilla,
that has the result of turning the masses defencelessly over to the
death-squads and to fascism. This was even the case when the urban-
guerrilla was taking actions against the security apparatus, a
struggle in which the masses weren't involved. Even militarily,
this was a mistake because when armed struggle is necessary and the
guerrilla has achieved its goal of winning the support of the
people, then the guerrilla needs to change the character of its
actions. Then the guerrilla needs to transform itself into an army
which fights a war and liberates territory and so forth.
     That's what happened in Nicaragua and El Salvador. They
learned from our defeats.

So, you could say, the situation in Uruguay was like a cat-and-
mouse game, wherein the public stood passively by and applauded
when the mouse was successful?

     Yes, exactly. And as an extra point, the enemy decided to wage
an all-out war on the people's movement. Since it was possible to
get at the guerrilla by attacking the base-movement, since they
were inter-connected, the enemy just attacked the people full-
force.

Did the Tupamaros ever consider moving their struggle into rural
areas, to set up strategic points there, and to thereby support the
struggle in the cities?

     We did consider doing rural guerrilla actions, but never with
an eye to building up strategic points, because it is impossible in
our country. That's possible in a place like El Salvador, but not
in Uruguay. Our country is so big and flat, like a soccer stadium
full of cows. There's no way to build up strategic points.

So, considering the particular circumstances in Uruguay, you could
not fall back on the concept of a prolonged people's war or
uprising, political-military concepts which are so important in
Central America?

I'm reluctant to fall back on definite schemes and to answer with
stereotypes. The ideas which you are questioning carry with them
certain dangers. Political-military concepts are not universally
applicable, and that's one thing that always typified the
Tupamaros, being an organization which rejected set schemes. The
Tupamaros developed the urban-guerrilla at a time when the rural-
guerrilla was the norm. We never stopped working among the people
and developing an election strategy, while at the same time
carrying out guerrilla struggle. And at the time these concepts
seemed self-exclusive. But we used our own heads and developed our
own strategy and tactics based on our study of our own concrete
reality. Above all, it was clear that what happened in Argentina
and Brazil was of great significance to us.

The army and the death-squads began to bloodily suppress the masses
then. Did military advisors from the U.S. play a role in this? And
if yes, then how?

     They played an important role. The Uruguayan army was provided
with weapons and training by the U.S. The mentality of the officers
was heavily influenced by the training they had received in Panama.
The American advisors made sure that they saw everything in terms
of the Cold War, wherein communism was the devil that had to be
destroyed. But also Franquist and national-socialist ideals were
prevalent among the military.

So there were other instructors for the extremely horrible,
scientific forms of repression?

     Yes, but they were even more to the right of the Americans.
During the Second World War a club of officers developed in the
Uruguayan army which was openly pro-Nazi and which was heavily
influenced by the Falangists, Hitler, and Mussolini. Sure, they
were silenced, but they weren't forced out of the army. Many
Obrists and generals in 1970-72 were part of this club. After the
military dictatorship had been in place for a few years, the U.S.
halted military aid to these figures, who even regarded President
Carter as a leading communist.

What role did the death-squads and systematic torture play in
destroying the people's movement?

     The death-squads and para-military organizations came into
being all over Latin America. They mostly consisted of soldiers and
police officers, who, when not in uniform, committed truly heinous
deeds. There was also widespread torture once the class conflict
had reached a certain point. It was called 'Guatemalization',
because Guatemala was the first country to experience such
repression.

What do you consider to be the strengths and weaknesses of the
Tupamaros at that time period?

     The strengths: we developed a form of struggle which booked
many successes. We were not sectarian, and we helped build up a
people's movement. We made a definite contribution to bringing
about a revolutionary consciousness which still exists among the
Uruguayan people. The weaknesses: we didn't realize that we had
reached our goal, and we didn't see the responsibility we had to
develop new methods of struggle, including in the military sphere,
so as to be in a position where we could be totally handed over to
the enemy.

The Military Putsch And The Defeat Of The Tupamaros

In June of 1973, the army carried out a putsch. The people's
movement could not hinder the military dictatorship, even though a
general strike lasted for over two weeks. What remained of the
Tupamaros and the people's movement after the first wave of
repression?

     At that moment, the structures of the MLN which were
responsible for the people's movement were still intact. In June,
the coup was successfully ended. After the parliament was sent
home, the people's movement launched a really powerful general
strike. The people kept fighting, but they were defenceless,
because their military organs, the Tupamaros, had been wiped out.
Certainly other structures were still intact, like those of the
Communist Party, but these were never used. Presently, the fact is
still being discussed: why weren't they used.

What did the military do after it had defeated the resistance?

     They wrecked everything that the unions and the students had
built up, they outlawed political parties and university
occupations. Within a few months, Uruguay, which once had been
dubbed the Switzerland of Latin America, had become totally warped.
The prisons were overflowing, and thousands of people were being
tortured, killed, made to disappear, exiled - it was an
unmeasurable reign of terror.

Did the army basically function as the armed wing of the Uruguayan
bourgeoisie, or as the servant of U.S. imperialism?

     In my country, it has been difficult to differentiate between
the interests of imperialism and the bourgeoisie. The Uruguayan
population is a lumpen-bourgeoisie. They lack a national identity.
So they are really more of a buffer-figure than a real servant of
imperialism. Of course there are groups whose interests are in the
country and have no foreign contacts. But they aren't very strong,
they don't have a developed perspective, and consequently, they are
kept down. What the army did was essentially synthesize the two
elements; it acted as the armed wing of the oligarchy and at the
same time it served North American interests. At a historic moment,
the army began to act too single-handedly, and then things got out
of hand. That meant the end of the political rule of the army.

Did the army transform itself into an economic power, like the army
did in Guatemala?

     They were planning to. But due to the self-interest of a few
officers, they never reached that goal.

Did the officers and generals parade themselves as individuals, or
was the army more an institution - for example, were companies set
up that were actually just the army?

     The soldiers did things with individual titles. And they did
try to get control of the state industries. Directorships were the
most lucrative posts. But unfortunately for them, Uruguay is a
small country. So, there wasn't much to pass around, but there was
no shortage of ambitious soldiers. And then came corruption, and
that led to splits within the army itself.

In the latter half of the 70's, were there still organizational
structures of the people's movement, and the Tupamaros, intact?

     For practically that whole time, organizational work was done
within all segments of the left, although they were harshly
attacked. Even the Communist Party, despite the line they had
taken, was hurt, and many party members had bad times in 1975/76.
That was a black period, a heavy time. Work was limited to that
which was most urgent. In that period, work from those in exile was
important. Only in 1980 did the mass-movement begin to bloom again.

What led to that? Around what demands did a new base-movement
arise?

     To put it simply, the army messed up: they thought they had
been completely successful by crushing the mass-movement both
through force and through their systematic propaganda. They rewrote
textbooks, they banned gatherings of more than four people on the
street, and you had to get permission from the police to celebrate
a birthday. The left had either been driven out of the country or
thrown into jail, and so on.
     Then they organized a referendum to change the constitution in
order to legalize their hold on power and to give the impression
that there was not a dictatorship in place. All propaganda was
outlawed, and lots of people were brought in to be interrogated.
They were completely convinced that they would win. But without
propaganda, without a campaign, and without organization, the
majority voted "no". That was a heavy defeat for the dictatorship.
They lost their few remaining international allies, and
domestically they were headed for a fall.

Did the military make other mistakes?

     They tried to set up 'yellow' unions, ones which were to be
friendly to employers. The union leaders, who represented a new
generation, and who had little experience, were nonetheless
intelligent. They used what little room they had to build up class-
conscious organizations. And in 1983, when demonstrations on May 1
were permitted, there was a huge outpouring of people. That gave
the dictatorship the final push.

Did the military achieve its goal of individualizing people and
driving them apart?

     No, they did not succeed. Quite the contrary. An example:
before I entered prison, a stranger would greet you with formal
language on the street. But when I was released in 1985, everything
was casual. People had grown closer to one another.

Is this result different than with the Chilean dictatorship, which
did, to a degree, succeed in this?

     Yes, the Pinochet dictatorship did succeed in implementing an
economic model which is of interest to neo-liberals. In Uruguay,
the military model caused an economic disaster. That was, and I
forgot to mention this earlier, a major cause of the collapse of
the dictatorship.

The military junta in Uruguay did not succeed in building up new
production sectors?

     On the contrary, they destroyed the production sectors and led
Uruguay towards an economic catastrophe. All they did was make the
country a paradise for financial transactions. They sold all the
banks to big international banks. And this led to sharp internal
contradictions between the junta and the bourgeoisie.

The Contemporary Politics Of The Tupamaros

Now, I want to come to some more actual questions. I'm especially
interested in what role the Tupamaros play within the mass-
movement. Let's begin with the campaign against the amnesty for
those accused of human rights violations. What did the government
want?

     The government, which was under heavy pressure from the
military, came up with a plan to allow the military to remain
intact and unpunished. When the dictatorship collapsed, there was
a wave of evidence and witnesses implicating the military in any
number of horrid crimes. After a parliamentary inquiry, evidence
was taken to court and many soldiers were being threatened with
convictions. When the first officer was due to appear before the
court, the army showed its contempt for the law and stated that no
officers would stand trial. This was essentially a technical coup,
and an "institutional crisis" developed.

And then?

     The leading civilian politicians and the military came to a
secret agreement of which the left knew nothing. On December 22,
1986, the right-wing parties voted in a law which put aside all
punishments. Many civilian politicians who had led the opposition
to the dictatorship suddenly defended this law, much to everyone's
surprise. The Uruguayan oligarchy and the imperialists hereby tried
to retain an armed grip on power. Because the investigations into
human rights abuses did not merely reveal misconduct on the part of
a few officers, but revealed that it was in fact a systematic
policy of the entire army itself. And standing trial would have
been a heavy blow to the army as an institution. The next day the
Mothers of the Disappeared demanded that a referendum be held to
repeal this law.

Who organized the campaign for the referendum?

     A broad alliance was created, the "National Campaign for a
Referendum", which included all of the left, the human rights
organizations, the churches, and even a number of civic
organizations. We succeeded in getting the signatures of 634,702 of
Uruguay's 3 million inhabitants. 

And what role did the MLN/Tupamaros play in this movement?

     We were the first organization to support the Mothers' call.
We were also in the movement. For a year and a half there was a
massive mobilization. When went from house to house, explained the
issue, and gathered signatures. The military, in refusing to appear
in court, was attempting to block the inquiry into human rights
abuses. But just the opposite happened. For two years, a gigantic
tribunal was held, and its central theme was human rights abuses in
Uruguay.

What importance did this have for the relationship between
Montevideo, which had long been the centre of political activity,
and the rest of the country? 

     The left, for the first time ever, became really active in the
country's interior, and people heard for the first time ever about
the military's crimes. The people were confronted with a reality
which was new to them. So the campaign really politicized and
organized people.

The referendum eventually lost. What was the result: frustration at
the defeat, or a strengthened left?

     Many people voted for the left for the first time ever,
something which gave us strength. The activists were, of course,
really upset at the defeat, but they knew they had accomplished a
lot and they were willing to go on. Uruguay is the only country in
Latin America where the question of whether or not to punish the
military was not reduced to an accord between a handful of
politicians and the military, or the decision of a court. Here, the
question was debated for two years by a tribunal run by the people.
This led to the growth of the left.

About the election: the left succeeded, thanks to the alliance
"Frente Amplio" (Broad Front), in breaking into the traditional
two-party system (Colorados; Partido Nacional) in 1989, and the
left even gained a majority in Montevideo. How did the Tupamaros
fit into this election campaign?

     We are a part of the Frente Amplio. Other groups are in this
alliance as well, and we and some others are part of the Movement
for the Participation of the People (MPP). That is a mass-movement,
one which is broader than the MLN, and it does more than just
elections. It works also with youth, women, and cultural
organizations, and it does a variety of activities. As a part of
the Frente Amplio, we also take part in elections.

Did the Tupamaros field candidates as well?

     No, the MLN does not field candidates. The known leaders of
the MLN were not candidates, but we did help with the Frente
campaign and we heavily supported MPP candidates.

But why didn't you all, as an organization, field candidates?

     That was the subject of intense discussions within the Frente
Amplio, the MPP, and the MLN. Within the MLN, we had debated the
problem of elections for a long time already. To further the unity
of the left, and to support the growth of the MPP tendency, the MLN
held back in favour of more independent candidates. The other
reason is that the Tupamaros, in the past and in the future, see
their strength in other realms than elections. We think the people
know us and expect differently of us. They don't expect us to be
candidates in elections. That was a difficult discussion, but it
was eventually decided with a majority within both the MLN and the
MPP.

I sense in your statements a certain reservation from other leftist
tendencies concerning the possibility of MLN candidates. Why is
this?

     There are different reasons for this. They are afraid that MLN
candidates will get more votes than their own, since we have a lot
of support among the population. But even within the left, there
are lots of people, who are not part of the MLN, who felt we should
take part, since we might be able to attract votes for the Frente
Amplio. Others, from the right, felt that by not taking part, we've
be slighting the democratic system and planning to renew the armed
struggle.

How do you rate the possibilities of the Frente Amplio being able
to implement its politics, considering it has a majority in
Montevideo, and a mayor there? Because it is the most important
city, although the central government controls the money, and the
country's economic situation is bad...

     We won the election in Uruguay's most important electoral
district and inherited a paradox: we have a right-wing central
government, but the most important city has a left-wing mayor. So
that will naturally cause problems, as you imply. But in addition
to this, there are other problems as well. The bureaucratic
apparatus of this super-centralized city has been built up and run
by the right-wing for ages. This inheritance is a pure catastrophe.
     But until now we've struggled against these problems and
haven't been able to change much, because we haven't been able to
push through all our plans. An important point for us is the
democratization of the city, so that the residents of the various
neighbourhoods can solve problems in their own neighbourhood
councils.

...so you're planning to really democratize the city?

     We are striving for direct neighbourhood control of planning,
financing, and control. Because Montevideo's bureaucracy is
terrible. It's in no position to solve the problems of the outlying
areas from out of the centre. That's why we want to create 18
smaller local governments, so that the residents themselves can
control things, even if they are from the traditional parties, the
Colorados and the Blancos. The right-wing doesn't care if local
government functions well, or if a new botanical garden is built,
or if the street-lights work. But our plan of putting control
directly in the hands of residents really annoys the right-wing.

Do you all have more to offer than democratic reforms and clean,
technical-administrative improvements?

     Yes, something very important, especially for a government
like that in Montevideo: an end to corruption and embezzlement.

Are you all also doing something to improve the economic situation
of the majority of the population? Things like affordable public
transportation and housing?

     We kept our election promises and lowered the prices for
public transportation. We can tackle some things you've suggested,
but not all. We just don't have the money, it's as simple as that.
So we're trying to stimulate self-help, like our cholera-prevention
program. And although there's no money to build housing, we do make
building materials affordable for community reconstruction. And the
poor can purchase basic foodstuffs at reduced prices in
neighbourhood stores.

In Lima, the United Left (UI) had these same problems, as did the
Workers' Party (PT), which is in power in Brazil's major cities. In
Peru, getting a number of mayoral posts actually weakened the
parliamentary left, since they had such big problems to deal with.
Do see this as a danger for the Frente Amplio?

     We've tried as much as possible to learn from our mistakes and
not to repeat our errors. And above all, the Uruguayan people are
very politicized, and they are conscious of the fact that, even
with a left-wing city council in Montevideo, they have not achieved
a paradise on Earth. But the people do look to see that you're
doing everything possible, and that you're not getting corrupt.

What, in your opinion, is the strategic importance of the
parliamentary struggle and the activities of the people's movement?

     Elections are important fields of struggle, just like union
and student work. But we don't consider it the most important
arena, like other left groups do. Just like before, we realize that
a higher priority may lie elsewhere.
     Right now, it looks like the left could win the national
elections in 1994. This would strengthen the left; but this won't
happen solely because of the parliament and the election. Social
mobilizations, like the campaign for human rights and workers'
struggles, must also be factored in. Our strength sometimes
manifests itself in an election, another time in a massive strike.

So the parliamentary work, like the base-movement work, are at
different levels, an attempt for the left to tie together different
strengths?

     Exactly. Our strategic goal is to unite different forces.
Right now, the situation is paradoxical, because although we're
winning elections, we're losing labour struggles. Almost all
strikes fail and disappoint the workers. In the student movement,
as well, things aren't going as well as they once did. At the same
time, a lot is going on in poor neighbourhoods. What we win on one
front, we lose on another. So our bundle of strengths is a paradox.
For us, as for all of the left, the decline in the number of
activists ("militants") is our biggest worry.

How do you account for this decline?

     Many people are withdrawing from active struggle. This is
happening all over Latin America, and, like I said, the same is
true in Europe. In Uruguay, one can to point to several causes: to
survive here you literally have to work two jobs at least. The
companeros come home exhausted and they don't have as much time as
they once did for political activities. The end of socialism in
Eastern Europe is another reason. That disoriented a lot of people,
especially within the Communist Party, and has caused them to
rethink a lot of things.

Are these symptoms also noticeable within the MLN?

     Yes. The Uruguayan CP was hurt the most, but so was the
Socialist Party, the MLN, and other groups.

What other factors led to a decline in the number of activists?

     We think the left made a lot of mistakes, mistakes which the
Frente Amplio leadership made under the influence of social-
democratic and reformist tendencies, and this led to a
demobilization. Deals were made with the government which many
activists did not agree with. And a lot of strike actions went
wrong. So a lot of factors led to this disappointment. But we
consider this a temporary phenomenon.

And what about the youth? Are they active, or do they have other
problems?

     The youth played an important, albeit not decisive role in the
fall of the dictatorship. Their involvement began during the
dictatorship, so they missed out on the experiences of the older
leftist cadres who were either in prison or exile, and yet they had
to lead the struggle against the dictatorship. They believed the
fall of the dictatorship would bring with it an end to the economic
problems as well. But they soon realized they were mistaken. This
was a great disappointment for them. Also, the left never succeeded
in getting a big following among the youth.

Could it be that the older militants returned from exile, or, in
your case, were released from prison, and had an unbelievable
wealth of experience and theoretical knowledge...

     We came out of exile and out of prison with our old truths,
with our paternalism, and with a comprehensive knowledge. We
treated our younger comrades like little children who needed to
learn from us. We were terribly arrogant, and we just repeated our
old themes and disregarded the new insights of the youth, although
they were much more in tune with the current reality than we were.
This caused lots of conflicts at the universities, in the unions,
and so on.

Do you think the idea of the "true" activist played a role in this:
someone who was involved in the struggle every day of their life?
Maybe the youth want to be more active as well, only not 24 hours
a day like people did before.

     You're certainly right about this. In the 60's, the people's
movement experienced a phenomenal growth, so that everyone was busy
all day long ("todo el mundo militaba todo el dia").
     But that wasn't so much conceptual, rather it had to do with
the class struggle. You didn't "take part", rather you simply were
a part of it all. No level of intensity can remain constant in a
historical process. There are historic moments, and then there are
periods of calm. If activists come along with that old spirit and
expect a lot from the youth, then they come into conflict with
reality. Because times are different now. It would be different now
if we were underground, or if we were being pursued by the death
squads. At this time, it's pointless to be involved 24 hours a day.
     This has led to a decline in both young and old activists.
This is something aggressively approached. They get called civic
and reformist, and this just offends them.

We had the same phenomenon (in Europe). The mobilization during the
Gulf War was initially really successful, and for those who are
still organized, surprisingly so. But if you look at who was
actually organizing things, it was the same old faces. The masses
came, demonstrated, and them went home. 

     In Uruguay, lots of people participate in demonstrations. Our
books and magazines sell well. But few people attend meetings.

So far, we've talked a lot about the mass-movement, elections, and
coalition politics. In the beginning, you said all forms of
struggle are important. Do illegal actions still play a role for
you all?

     At this moment there are almost no illegal actions. Only the
far-right carries these out now. Leftist leaders are threatened by
death squads who do sometimes take actions.

Is this an ideological question for you all? Is it that you think
that armed struggle no longer has a role, and that you want to
achieve your goals through legal means? Or is it simply that the
historic conditions are not right at present for the armed
struggle?

     It's more the latter, I suppose. It would be absurd to
consider this an ideological question. If you handle it that way
you'll just make mistakes, like if you decide to act illegally
because of a doctrine or something. These are tactical and
strategic problems which have to do with daily reality, not
ideology. You only go underground if there's no alternative.

So you only use weapons when they're necessary?

     Of course. It's always a question of what means are
appropriate.

A comrade of yours, Marenales, has suggested that the MLN might be
driven into illegality again if you all are successful.

     That's not unlikely. If the left is successful, it will be
driven into illegality. Uruguay is under a constant fascist threat.
You don't have to quote Marenales for this. A short while ago, one
general made it clear what would happen if the left won in 1994.

How are you preparing for this?

     (laughing) Very well! Especially by strengthening the mass-
movement. We have experience in working underground, and we pass
that experience on to our friends and comrades, so that they'll be
prepared if necessary. We must never lose sight of the threat we
live under. The far-right certainly won't let anyone forget. Me and
five other leaders have been issued death threats by a fascist
group. That forces you to protect yourself.

6) Revolutionary Anti-Racist Action Communique

(Editor's Note: The following introduction originally appeared in
the issue #2 of our Info Bulletin (July/August 1993) as an
introduction to a shorter press statement that RARA released to the
Dutch media before the release of the communique that appears
below.)

     At 2am, the police and fire services received a call that a
timed explosive device would detonate on the third floor of the
Ministry of Social Affairs building in The Hague. A search of the
building by authorities revealed nothing. Then, precisely at 3am,
the bomb exploded, causing extensive damage to the building. Just
like their last bombing, this blast originated in a toilet, but the
damage affected most of the entire floor of the office building.
When the automatic sprinkler system came on and sprayed liters of
water everywhere, even more damage was caused to equipment in
offices not directly touched by the blast itself. At the time of
the explosion, no people were in or around the building.
     The Dutch media went into full-effect immediately after the
action. RARA made the smart move of issuing two statements
regarding the bombing: the first, a press release, summarizing the
main reasons for the action, which was sent to all major media, and
the second, a much longer and more extensive communique, which was
sent to left-radical media one day later. The capitalist media
began acting like the mouthpiece of the BVD, the Dutch internal
security agency, in the days following the action, printing
allegations like: "Rene R. is one of the suspects in the
bombing...", "The BVD knows exactly who carried out the action.
It's a group of four or five people who were also responsible for
the attack on Kosto's house..." All of this to make up for the fact
that RARA have never been caught and are still - as this action
showed - in a position to strike.
     Unlike the aftermath of the Kosto action, the liberal-left
were generally left speechless by RARA's communique. After the
Kosto action, liberals complained that militant actions would only
make things worse for refugees. But at this point, how can things
get any worse? Illegal migrants cannot work or live in The
Netherlands; they face constant threat of police brutality and
immediate deportation if they are ever caught. In short, they are
not considered people. So how can their situation be made any
worse? Therefore, RARA's bomb was very welcome indeed. Not only was
the action a blow to the state agencies responsible for the
persecution of refugees and asylum-seekers, but it was also a blow
against apathy, a wake-up call to the (radical-)left.
     We anxiously await "the next time".

(adapted from the Dutch leftist bi-weekly "NN" #140)

     On the night of June 30/July 1, after numerous timely
warnings, we detonated explosive devices on the third floor of the
Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment. The target of this
action was the office of the DIA (Labour Relations Inspection
Service - trans.) which is located on this floor. The DIA plays a
key role in the hunt for illegal immigrants. On average twice a
day, this service, along with local law enforcement agencies,
organizes raids of businesses that are suspected of employing
illegal immigrants. In the coming years, this service is to be
doubled. This means more raids, more victims, more fear. With our
action, we sought to draw the line and to let the man-hunters feel
for themselves what it's like to be hunted. To let them know what
it's like to be a target, to be stigmatized. Initially, we released
a shorter press statement. In this communique, we'd like to take
the time to go into matters more deeply.

"Sobering, But Humane"

     The illegals-debate has suddenly arisen once more. An optimist
might say that this is because of the fierce reactions to the
humiliating attempt by Rottenberg and Kosto to draw in the
Bolkenstein right-wing last spring. The reactions were indeed
fierce, almost encouraging one might say. Public comments from the
PvdA (social democratic party - trans.) leadership, namely their
apologies that everything slipped out so unfortunately, gives the
appearance that they have retreated back to their corner. But
sadly, things don't work that way. Policies stand hard and fast,
and they are designed by a select club of bureaucrats and the
ministers that frequent European conferences. Policy, one that
backs out of the rules of the managed democracy. Torch-light
processions, rallies, and demonstrations against racism give some
hope that people won't just sit back and accept what's going on.
But the politicians have charted their own course, and although
they notice that the number of demonstrators is high, they realize
that these people won't overstep the boundaries which dictate
appropriate conduct in The Netherlands. So the politicians can keep
doing what they are doing and remain relatively undisturbed. The
hate-campaign against illegals has been going on for some time, and
now it has been given form in policy. A policy that dictates that
illegals may be subjected to the most draconian and inhumane
authority measures. Sobering, but humane; Kosto allowed commissions
like the Zeevalking Commission to design a policy of starvation.
The purpose is to make life for illegals impossible here. Illegals
are a problem, that's the message, in differing but nonetheless
harsh tones, which politicians from the right to so-called 'left'
are sending out. A wave of accusations and insults are hurled at a
group of people that are easy to attack. And not only at them.
Everything that reeks of being foreign is suspected of being here
for no good reason. It's easy to mobilize people on the fear that
their wallets will be stolen. Mayor Peper said that police had
discovered 1,100 Turks all registered at the same address:
"Busloads full of people come here, collect their welfare, and then
go back to Turkey." Perhaps he didn't want to be outdone by his
colleagues in Amsterdam, who said they needed to expand the police
force due to the 15,000 illegal immigrants from Ghana that were
dealing drugs in the city. It doesn't matter that there are no
facts whatsoever to back up these claims. The media spreads these
claims, and the message does its work. News is news. A small note
on page 17 in the newspaper a few weeks later, noting the errors of
the previous story, has little effect. The tone has already been
established. Anyone who thought that illegals would be left alone
for a while has been deceived. If anything, this is the calm before
the storm. Nawijn and Kosto recently added another shovel-full to
the mountain of filth they have already spewed forth about
illegals. This time it was the story that illegals must be deported
before 'genuine' refugees can be allowed in to be housed. Yet
another proclamation from those that have the power to make and
administer policy. The course has been charted, and the hunt
continues. Anyone trying to get a glimpse behind the scenes of the
fatherland's political stage is left to ponder a question, like a
wasp on a jar of honey: Where are all these idiotic statements
coming from, that are so degrading and insulting to so many people?

From 'Guest-Worker' To 'Economic Refugee'

     Illegality is actually a political definition, nothing more,
nothing less. In the 60s and 70s, businesses used to recruit
workers who were wandering out of the countries by the
Mediterranean Sea. Tens of thousands of these 'spontaneous
immigrants', as they were then called, were allowed to find work.
And a good thing, too, because the work they got was often hard and
dirty labour, and there was a shortage of man-power. Between the
mines of Limburg, the oil tankers in Rotterdam's harbour, and
toilets all over, there was one thing in common: cheap labour did
the work, provided these people were 'guest-workers'. This seemed
like a strange way to treat 'guests', as they were described in the
flexible political jargon, so something had to be done about the
actual situation. This was actually quite simple: these people were
only brought here for reasons of economic gain. The importing of
'guest-workers' was necessary to allow for the economic growth at
that time. Those industries that had rapidly developed were
hampered by a shortage of labour, thus a portion of the nation's
productive capacity was not being utilized. This process had
nothing to do with 'tolerance' or 'hospitality'. So it's even less
of a surprise that this situation didn't last long. Ever since the
70s, a time of economic decline and increasing unemployment, this
recruitment process has stopped. This policy was given the
following credo: "Holland is not an immigration land." With the
stroke of a political-judicial pen, 'spontaneous' immigration
became 'illegal' immigration, and the state created its 'illegals
problem'. This didn't matter that much to the migrants themselves.
Their arrival wasn't dictated by the changing judicial categories
of this country, but rather by the increasing gap between the rich
North and the poor South. Illegals are, above all else, human
beings. In search of a future, a little bit of happiness. People
who have left house and home behind, in Turkey, Morocco, Ghana,
people who have decided to flee from hopelessness in the hope of
building a better existence here in the wealthy West. They don't
succeed, they aren't wanted, and they are stigmatized as 'economic
refugees'. Their motives for coming to the wealthy West are not
accepted. Hopelessness is not a motive, not a reason to flee. What
matters is their economic usefulness, not their economic and social
emergency. But for illegals, there is no way back, they prefer the
insecurity of an illegal life to the security of a hopeless one.
And people profit greatly from this. The racist double-standard in
the labour market and in the society, which was created in the 60s,
still exists today. In short, this is because 'guest-work' (read:
poorly paid, boring, and difficult work) is not a temporary but
rather a structural condition. It's a myth to think that economic
growth makes labour more agreeable, let alone to think that
everyone shares in the well-being. The 'guest-workers' are living
proof of this, in spite of the fact that they are literally hidden
away in invisible, cage-like, fire-hazard hostels and special
neighbourhoods. Most migrants are already forced to the bottom of
society, and for illegals this is doubly true. And they are
shamelessly exploited. Thanks to their illegal labour, certain
sectors of the Dutch economy continue to function. Illegal workers
are cheap, because they are illegal. Everyone knows damn well that
deporting these illegals would force hundreds of businesses in the
food, catering, green-house, and cleaning industries to go
bankrupt. Oppression, exploitation, and humiliation form the basis
of the silent compact between the state, politicians, and industry
regarding illegality. And these peoples, the numbers vary, but it's
certainly not more that a sold-out stadium for an Ajax-Feyenoord
soccer game, are supposedly the embodiment of the threatened
destruction of our country.

"To Keep The Problems Here In Control..."

     The problem of illegals is only a problem in the (...) and in
the realms of policy where things are threatening to get out of
hand. And at a moment when things need to be speedily prepared for
the coming European unity. At that point, some explanation needs to
be sought for the non-stop horror film that is being played out at
the Binnenhof (Dutch parliament - trans.), an explanation of the
crazy ideas and the xenophobia that seems to be controlling
politics in this country.
     The political side of the economic and social restructuring of
Europe is not going as well as they would like. The euphoria of the
Europe of the Citizen is starting to wane, now that the contours of
the Europe of Capital are beginning to take shape. At first, a
United Europe seemed like an amazing, over-ripe apple tree which
just needed to be lightly shaken to provide enough capitalist fruit
for everyone. Now there is more and more fear and dissatisfaction
with the political and social changes taking place. A struggle in
primarily ideological terms is forming and reaching out into
increasingly broad sectors of the population. These are all signs
of a crisis of legitimacy wherein politics and the economic system
are at fault. Racism is utilized to create a new sense of social
consensus, over the backs of the 'others', the 'illegals', the
'foreigners'. Taking a crowbar in hand against the social
contradictions. Kosto put it literally: "...remove them to keep the
problems here in control...". Racism finds fertile ground in a land
where, for as long as people can remember, the Western man has been
the measure of all things; a country whose own colonial history has
never been questioned.

A Slice Of Bread And Satisfaction

     Because the problems which the politicians are dealing with
seem so massive, they have broadened their horizons. Not only
migrants, but also other sectors of the population can now rejoice
in the great importance which the politicians see in their
existence.
     What is immediately obvious is the connection which is being
made between the so-called illegals problem and another huge social
problem: unemployment. The problem isn't that there is a shortage
of jobs, like the politicians want us to believe, or that their
labour policies have been wrong for years. Unemployment seems to be
a national disaster which the unemployed themselves have created.
And more and more fraudulent reports are fed to the media, that x%
of the population is cheating the system, 40% are cheating, 75% are
cheating...Now we just have to wait for a report that says that in
this or that neighbourhood, 132% of all welfare recipients cheat
the system and like it that way. And politicians like Robin
Linschoten come to the original conclusion that welfare payments
need to be reduced to people in those neighbourhoods and that the
unemployed need guardians placed over them. First it was the WAO (a
form of welfare - trans.) recipients that had to be taken to task.
During the industrial restructuring one decade ago, entire sectors
of the working class got stuck in the WAO reservoir. Ten years
later, they are presented as profiteers and fakers so as to stop
the expansion of the social services budget. This new work-ethic
that is preached, often in connection with 'illegals', and linked
to complaints of how our degraded and derailed society, in which
welfare fraud seems to be a national sport, is simply a means to
approve plans to cut costs. The notion of social security has
become a short-lived myth that needs to be cut back. The conditions
under which the welfare compromise, the welfare state, and social
security were created were directly linked to capitalist expansion.
That means, according to the margin of profit. The economic
restructuring which is taking place at the moment, and whose goal
is to secure profits and conditions to bring about new expansion,
is coupled with a firm grip on production and labour relations and
intensified competition. Massive lay-offs and big problems at major
corporations like Hoogovens, Fokker, DAF, Phillips, and KLM are the
result. Unemployment rises sharply every month. The model of social
security, formulated in a period of unlimited prosperity and
growth, and which was supposed to serve as a safety net to catch
those that nonetheless fell out of the boat, now seems out of
place. Austerity measures, cutting benefit payments, and making the
model less attainable for people by putting increasing pressure on
the unemployed, the introduction of the notion of 'temporary work',
forced re-schooling, and other such things are the order of the
day. This has nothing to do with a policy that aims at
full-employment, something which is impossible under capitalist
relations. This also makes the call for 'more jobs' pointless. What
kind of jobs? More polluting production? More useless products and
services? Instead of fundamental discussions about a human
interpretation of the notions of labour and production, a
discussion of the social value of labour, a discussion of the
fundamentals of an economic and social model, the needle remains
lost in the haystack of the interests of the ruling powers. A
climate is created in which work, at any price, is deemed
acceptable, and thus the model of social security becomes minimal
and even less accessible. The new work-ethic gives free-reign to
draconian measures under this model. The welfare state has been
making the underclasses artificially satisfied for decades now.
That time is now gone. In the welfare state of the future, you can
choose to rent your own cell, or a waterproof cardboard box. Or you
end up in a re-education camp, chewing on a piece of bread with
satisfaction, guarded by soldiers trying to imitate Elco Brinkman.
There's nothing the politicians won't say to create a climate in
which they can push through their measures.
     The most direct and cynical manner of exploitation is that of
shame. As if it wasn't bad enough to introduce yourself as an
unemployed person at someone's birthday party, now you are made to
feel like total shit, a part of the legion of people responsible
for all of society's problems. Exclusion, compulsion, and the
limiting of rights, these will all become normal means of making
this "God forsaken country", to use Lubbers' (Dutch prime minister
-trans.) words, healthy again. The society is shaken up with a
heavy hand, and a new jacket is fitted to its underside. New social
divisions are created. Minimum-wage earners, migrants, so-called
inactive people, these are the different sectors of society that
are forever excluded from any sort of future, a future where no one
has to stand on the sidelines, just as long as you work. "There is
no bigger modern illusion, or deception, than the use of that one
word 'work', something which is utterly degrading, painful, and
socially inferior for some, and wonderful, status-enhancing, and
economically rewarding for others." (J.K. Galbraith) This exactly
describes the logic of capitalism. A system that generates
world-wide wealth, precisely because it also produces poverty and
sorrow, and that to an increasing degree.

A Reactionary Neurosis

     The great leap forward to a United Europe, which we are
witnessing, is being lead by spirited language and crass
proclamations. All the big mouths in the Binnenhof are trying to
out-do one another in the category of messing up and making idiotic
statements. In the search for an ideological glue to legitimize
their policy approach, and no one is waiting for this except for
the political and economic elite itself. Within the developed
relationship between, on the one hand, the realization of European
goals, and, on the other hand, the construction of concrete
changes, lies the explanation of a number of specific mechanisms
which set the political climate these days. To draw attention away
from the underlying political and economic goals of this policy,
the political elite tries to always focus attention on the internal
necessity of taking these measures. "Fraud is ruining our society,"
said an angry Wim Kok (leader of the social democrats - trans.),
who usually only gets emotional if someone questions his
bookkeeping abilities. This is said to legitimize budget cuts with
the goal of bringing the Dutch state in line with surrounding
states. You see the same thing in the struggle against the moral
decay which Holland seems to be suffering from, something which is
called social renewal by the policy makers. This social renewal is
the quasi-positive term which is really just a cover to create an
ideological climate which will allow for more control. Politicians
would like to present social renewal as the struggle against dog
droppings in the playground around the corner, but under this same
motto, new crime packages are enacted which increase the power of
the state at the expense of the accused. Every escape and every act
of petty theft is used to justify prison camps, bodily punishments,
more cops, and iron-fisted politics. And you see the exact same
mechanism in the paranoia around asylum-seekers and migrants. They
are defined in terms of being an internal enemy, the fifth column,
the death of Dutch culture. And all this to justify the decisions
being taken at the European level to close all doors to migrants.
The golden rule of advertising has taken hold of politics as well:
Repeat something often enough, and you can push even the most nasty
of products down someone's throat. Kosto's policy is the Iglo
TV-dinner of Dutch politics.
     The reactionaries are in control in the Europe of the 90s. In
the gap between distress and ideology, an attempt is being made to
push back all of the gains made by the left since the 60s. Through
the unambiguous words of the growing extreme-right organizations,
through the major parties' minority-debate couched in neutral
terms, in the renewal of norms and values, and in the harmonization
of laws and duties. After years of a combination of social and
economic impoverishment and the pointing-out of scape-goats,
neo-liberal politics has dressed its monsters in brown shirts. The
major parties then attack these extremists, thus giving themselves
a respectable image, while taking another step to the right at the
same time. Together they are creating political disorder, they are
opening wounds and pertly declaring that they are discarding
taboos. It is this drift to the right that is deciding political
relations. The fuss over illegals is nothing else but a licence for
racist language. The fuss over welfare fraud is nothing else but a
licence for control and repression and the linking of all existing
databanks. The fuss over rights and duties is nothing else than a
licence for eroding the social system and sticking people with
flexible, insecure, and poorly-paid jobs. A reactionary neurosis
has taken hold of politics. The nuances can only be detected by
those with perfect hearing.

The World Of Peter Stuyvesant

     A village-mentality is dominant in The Netherlands.
Discussions about the causes and consequences of substantive
developments hardly ever take place, let alone about the
international relations which are involved. A kind of universalist
lie is created, which functions as the basis of the defence of the
West's privileged position. The economic war being waged against
the countries of the southern hemisphere knows no changes from the
transition from the Old to the New World Order. If anything, these
changes have made it easier for Western countries and corporations
to manoeuvre. Capital is moving across the world at an even faster
pace, with anonymous institutions like the World Bank and IMF
having ever more influence. It hides from all discussions, from all
controls, from all choice. Countries and peoples are temporarily
taken up into the 'course of humanity', used, and then tossed away
like a pair of old socks. The international division of labour has
ruined the Third World. The capitalization of agriculture has
driven millions of people from the countryside to the slums of the
big cities. Excessive cultivation of nature and the forced
introduction of mono-cultures has led to an ecological disaster
which is impossible to overlook. The hunger in Ethiopia, Somalia,
and the lands of the Sahel is a direct result of this. It is
cynically stated that the only thing some countries are capable of
producing is refugees. And the West has no need for this export
product. The Third World's debt now totals 1350 billion dollars. In
contrast to 55 billion in annual development money, they are
saddled with 154 billion in annual interest payments on previous
debts. There are 80 million people world-wide who are fleeing from
hunger, sorrow, poverty, hopelessness, persecution, and (sexual)
violence. These are cold, abstract numbers which hide the terrible
levels of human suffering which exist. As long as that suffering
stays in its place, everything's OK. As long as it stays
circulating within the Third World, everything's fine. But if that
suffering comes too close to Europe, all hell breaks loose. Instead
of a discussion of causes and consequences, about the West's
responsibility for the desolate conditions in the South, then you
get a minority-debate on how to keep these profiteers outside our
door. And increasingly, people state openly that it's their own
fault anyway. After all, we send them development money and blue
helmets, and what do they do? Nothing! Consciousness about the
connection between the (neo-) colonial history of the West and the
present refugee migration movement is crushed between the truth of
right-left discussions. When the terms migration, integration, and
refugees are presented, then people seem to suffer from an acute
case of historical amnesia. Ideologies based on racism and white
supremacy still form a fundamental part of Western culture. A
Eurocentric view of the world permeates the thought of both the
right and the left. The end of ideologies, of history, post-
modernism, post-materialism, post-whateverism, these are all just
philosophies, mind-games that are only relevant to a very limited
part of the world. From a situation of overflow, people presume
that Stuyvesant is a good example of how people from other
countries should act. The few refugees that ever make it to the
West are looked upon with suspicion. If they are even admitted,
then they are expected to be polite and listen to Bolkenstein. He
goes through the entire liberal corpus, searching for elements of
strange cultures. Racism is evident in all aspects of the
administration's refugee policy, if one can even call it that. Or
maybe this politicizes the question too much. Interests and
contradictions are then put on the table, while everyone does their
best to make the policies seem kind of funny and boring or
whatever, but certainly not evil.

No Man's land

     The political and leadership crisis of the system, as we
analyze it, does not mean that there are many possibilities for the
militant-left to intervene. Of course there are lots of little
dents and tears that undermine social consensus. But at the moment,
there are not enough signs of a growing cultural and political
resistance which is in a position to question the legitimacy of the
Ayatollahs of liberal democracy. The political caste operates in a
given manner in a no man's land. Just as the dynamics of European
unity have started, it's more correct to speak of a management
crisis than a happy ending, now that the weight of the Cold War can
be thrown overboard. And everyone now finally agrees that the
society we live in is the best there can be. They are lost in the
wilderness, afraid that they can't fulfil their necessary
historical task of completing Project Europe. Or the fact that
maybe it won't turn out to be the Europe of their dreams, that
doesn't matter so much. What matters is to push through those
measures that are necessary for the next phase of competition,
plundering, pollution, and destruction. Those sectors of society
that are no longer needed in this right-wing paradise need to be
kept in check, and, most of all, they must not affect expansion.
Those people that already had politics and the society already turn
their backs to them are now fed with cheap images of the enemy;
everything's fine, just as long as discontent is not directed at
the political caste itself. The left is operating in this same no
man's land, but it is hardly able to utter anything significant.
Many people have the will, but due the pressure of the right-wing
roll-back, no one seems to have the time nor the nerve to precisely
analyze what's going on.
     In these times, when even a consistent humanist is considered
a political radical, it is necessary that a radical, permanent, and
uncompromising resistance exist. We want to break into that
political field of power, with means that no one can negate. This
is not merely an expression of radical opposition. Nor is it an
unnecessary luxury in a time when the body-snatchers go into action
right after a Boeing jet crashed into Bijlmer (a high-rise
apartment neighbourhood in Amsterdam where lots of migrants live -
trans.), so as to deal with those illegals once and for all. It is
also necessary to react to all the lies in this country. Sure, the
parliament can adopt an anti-racism law that states: "We maintain
that respect for all people is a fundamental part of a democratic
society, and everyone living in The Netherlands may share fully in
our society; we shall do all we can to combat discrimination and to
be a good example ourselves." And then they go on and continue
making their policies which contradict these nice words. The same
politicians that define racist policies then march at the head of
demonstrations against the hatred of foreigners. And dropping
people off across the border is called 'courageous'. It is of
strategic importance that we place our fingers on the pulse of the
fundamental contradictions of the post-Cold War era in the
so-called liberal democracies. Breaking into political conditions
usually doesn't win any applause or bouquets of flowers. The shock
waves that went through The Netherlands in November 1991 were
significant. At the risk of journalistic wrath, everyone
immediately set out to distance themselves (from RARA's attack - 
trans.). And who was not guilty of this? Committees and
organizations gave their Pavlovian reaction and individuals
distanced themselves, as though Kosto himself had been attacked.
What people feared was being excommunicated from the (already
marginal) political sphere from which they could exercise political
influence. And there was also a great fear that there was no way in
which people could give a substantive reaction. Even on the left,
everyone was sure what they didn't want: no more bombs, not on
people, not in that way, and especially not at this time. Only
later, when the asylum policies were sharpened even more and
structural violence increased, did the positions change somewhat.
It also became more clear the trusted democracy had had its time.
How can political influence be exercised, if the boundaries and
rules of the national policy game are dictated at the European
level? It's no surprise that the cabinet is on a collision course:
the course has been set and it will be put through at any cost.
Lubbers' call to the employers' associations to hold the line and
to allow for strikes, so that WAO cuts could be pushed through, is
indicative of how hard-line Holland has become. Street protests are
dealt with by letting riot cops have their fun. The question
remains whether those youths and students that demonstrated in The
Hague on May 8, many of them for the first time, will have had
'politics driven home to them', or whether they are now too
intimidated to fight for their rights. It wouldn't be the first
time that a movement has been wrecked by the arrogance of power,
symbolized by the barking and biting blue line. Our militancy
arises from such experiences. For us, it is an option, in
conjunction with other methods of struggle, to force a necessary
broadening of political possibilities to open up and break through
the relations here which have rusted shut. To fight for the
necessary space in which a political and cultural counter-movement
can further develop itself and grow out into a counter-power.
     Breaking into relations is not a question of immediate
successes. It's not a matter of forcing Kosto to resign, after the
November action, and to atone for his actions by sheltering an
illegal immigrant in his cellar. We wouldn't want to subject any
illegal immigrant to that. A new wave of radical resistance, like
that of the early-80s, is not realistic. You can't just call out
and create a resistance, nor can you immediately mobilize people.
You can't just cry out that you want a 'counter-movement', no
matter how much you want one. Resistance also doesn't come into
being 'of its own accord' when the system takes its next step in
its long history of humiliation and destruction. What we want to do
is make the political self-truths and the borders of political
discussion and action, as they are being defined, perfectly clear,
in a way that no one can ignore. Nowhere are responsibility and
guilt so clear in the debate as they are with respect to Kosto and
Bolkenstein. We want to put this element of responsibility back on
the political agenda. We want to draw the line and to put a price
on policies that are inhumane and degrading. A policy with a name
and a seat in parliament, one that can be attacked.

Their Struggle, Our Struggle...

     Our politics are certainly internationalist in their
orientation. Any form of left-wing politics that is not
internationalist has little perspective. Except for the fact that
the conditions under which people around the world live are always
changing, internationalism is a historical truth. The liberation
struggles in Latin America, Vietnam, and South Africa were an
inspiration to many people, and they led to a consciousness about
the West's organized exploitation and oppression of the countries
of the southern hemisphere. But still, the left can no longer rely
on the perspectives of struggle that were relevant in the 70s and
80s. The liberation movements and struggles have changed their
character. The revolutionary storm of the late-70s and early-80s,
under the influence of the Sandinista revolution, which swept
through Latin America, faded away with the election defeat of the
Sandinistas. The way in which the revolutionary process in
Nicaragua was sabotaged, through hunger and war, has led to the
idea that imperialism has triumphed and to the long-term question
of how to develop new struggles and strategies. Some are trying,
after decades of hard and bloody conflict, to consolidate their
position at the negotiating table and to effect change from that
position. Guerrilla movements have reformed themselves into legal
organizations and some have chosen the parliamentary path. And then
there are the struggles in the slums, the struggles of base
movements, the struggles to change day-to-day life. Some of the
popular organizations that came into being in the relative
political spaces created by 'democratization' have grown into
powerful movements. All of these developments have confused the
European left. Just as fast as the hope for quick revolutionary
change has faded, so, too, dies the very interest in it. Solidarity
movements are falling apart or disbanding themselves because
there's no more work to be done. Mandela is free, the ANC and De
Klerk are 'on speaking terms', and elections are coming soon...And
that has always been the weakness in the way in which the left has
taken on internationalist or anti-imperialist struggle.
     The left has made itself too dependent on attractive struggles
being waged elsewhere and has not shown the effects which
imperialism has back here. Despite the consciousness of linking the
struggle there to here, the struggle was generally too relative to
the conditions there. The collapse of solidarity movements, for
example, those concerned with South Africa, El Salvador, and
Nicaragua, says a lot. But support is just as needed now as it ever
was. It remains true today that the best form of solidarity to
fight for changes here. The European left is now more dependent on
itself, in a certain sense, and needs to now find its roots in its
own society. More attention needs to be paid to our own
experiences, history, culture, and tradition. Fighting for
fundamental changes in Western societies is not only of importance
to the self-determination of countries in the 'Third World'; it's
also about living conditions, freedom, and self-determination here.
In other words: their struggle, our struggle, international
solidarity.
     What this is about is a consciousness of connections. Cause
and effect need to be placed in the correct order once again.
Europe was born from slavery, genocide, and colonialism. Our
welfare system is the result of centuries of oppression and
exploitation. Our so-called 'multi-cultural' society is a product
of a colonialist past and a neo-colonial present. Increasing racist
aggression, violence against migrants and asylum-seekers,
smear-campaigns against illegals, and the closing of borders to
refugees are all examples of this. And just as they are written off
so that the few may profit while the many are degraded, great
groups of other people are becoming victims to the golden calf of
capitalist progress. There is much to be won in the struggle for
fundamental change!

Room For Change

     We went to the floor where the DIA has its offices. This
agency plays a key role in the hunt for illegals. The raid on
Blokker (a Dutch department store - trans.) gave just a hint of
their potential: they utilized dogs, helicopters, and 120 cops to
comb through a distribution centre looking for people with
suspicious skin colour. If a person's nationality was dubious, they
were made to say the word "kwartje". If their pronunciation was not
Dutch enough in the finely-tuned ears of the bureaucrats, they were
taken away. A stamp on the hand and they are transported to city
hall, where a smiling CDA politician remarks that compulsory ID
cards could have prevented all of this. But these cops aren't above
carrying out smaller actions as well. Day in and day out, they ride
around in their little vans, carrying out raids. The agency was
created in 1987 on the assumption that unemployment can never be
solved so long as there are still illegal immigrants in the
country. Recently, their efforts were rewarded with a doubling of
their budget and man-power. That means, more raids, more victims,
more degradation, more fear. Their location in the Ministry of
Social Affairs and Labour Relations illustrates the link between
the erosion of social security, the hunt for illegals, and refugee
policies.
     We don't want to look on meekly while human lives are ruined.
While racism stealthfully becomes part of normality. We let the DIA
man-hunters have a taste of what it's like to hunted. Now they know
what it's like to be a target, to be stigmatized. We are struggling
against a policy and a political culture where victims fall but
where the victimizers are never named. The struggle against asylum-
and refugee-policies is a struggle for a humanitarian society. A
society that offers everyone a future! Where no one has to fear
hearing a knock on the door in the middle of the night, from an
agency that ruins lives with cold calculation. To reach this goal,
we need to create a space for change, by means of actions, building
structures, and exchanging and examining ideas. We wanted our
action to be a part of this process.

Until the next time,

Revolutionary
Anti-
Racist
Action

July 1993

Clarification of names from this communique:

Rottenberg: head of social democratic PvdA party, racist, often
speaks of the "clash of cultures";

Bolkenstein: head of parliamentary fraction of the right-wing VVD
party (Party of Freedom and Democracy), Holland's third-largest
party, he's very big into spreading anti-Islam hate;

Peper: mayor of Rotterdam, very racist, likes to spread lies ("1110
welfare cheaters at ONE address!") and xenophobic sentiments;

Nawijn: director-general of internal affairs at the justice
department, highest bureaucrat in this area, 15 years at this job,
maintains the secret so-called 'Nawijn list' of countries which
allegedly false refugees come from;

Kosto: minister of internal affairs, responsible for refugee and
asylum policies in The Netherlands;

Linschoten: an ambitious, young VVD conservative politician;