|
ILC ASIA BULLETIN NO. 3
(November 2003)
Introduction
This special issue of the ILC Bulletin aims at preparing the
CONFERENCE OF WORKERS DELEGATES OF ALL ASIA which is to take place in
Mumbai (India) on December 6th and 7th, 2003.
Our aim is to help set up the front of all those who believes in the
necessity for an action of the labour movement on the basis of
independence from all States and International organisms and the
so-called "civil society", as the only foundation for
defending effectively the interests of labour, trade union rights, peace
and national sovereignty, unity against the dismantling of nations. All
these rights are indeed threatened throughout our region by imperialist
onslaught, especially since the war against Iraq.
Independence supposes independent financial means, and this Conference
is therefore prepared with the participation fees and financial support
one way or another of all those agreeing with this aim.
We will publish all contributions to that end in that bulletin as well
as the account of the conference.
*********************
1)
Letter by CITU (India) Secretary W.R. Varada Rajan Regarding the
Statement by N. Vasudevan titled, "Questions About the World Social
Forum in India (January 2004)"
2)
Reply from Alan Benjamin to the Letter by Centre of Indian Trade Unions
(CITU) Secretary W.R. Varada Rajan Regarding the World Social Forum in
India (January 2004)October 9, 2003
3)
The United States is Eager to Build Private Port in Chittagong Through New
Cosnpirancy
4) Pakistan -- About the new
industrial policy of the Pakistan government
5)
The Hong Kong Confederation of Trade-Unions (HKCTU) published some
months ago a report on the first results for the Chinese workers of
China's accession to WTO : "Reading the signs : The WTO and
Chinese workers, years one"
6)
International Liaison Committee of Workers and Peoples
********************
1) Letter by CITU (India) Secretary W.R. Varada Rajan
Regarding the Statement by N. Vasudevan titled, "Questions About
the World Social Forum in India (January 2004)"
Dear Friends,
We thank you for posting on the e-mail list serve a copy of a document
dated June 24, 2003, raising certain questions on the WSF 2004 being
organized in Mumbai in January next. We have received this on 8th Sept.
2003. We are sorry if we had missed out the same, had it been posted
earlier.
Your document is addressed to the India Organising Committee/WorkingCommittee
of WSF India. A collective considered response must naturally wait for
some time. But, we deem it necessary to respond to some of your
questions, at least from the point of view of a trade union organisation
associated with the process. Hence this communication. We send in the
attachment two documents - one, the WSF Charter of Principles and two, a
write up (translated into English) by Francisco Whitekar on `WSF:Origin
and aims'. Surely, you must have had occasion to access the same
earlier. But, it is worth revisiting by you and your colleagues.
[Note: These texts can be accessed on the website of the World
Social Forum--A.B.]
The WSF is neither a movement nor an organisation with a top-down
hierarchy. It is at best a forum, free space, platform and a movement of
ideas. It seeks to provide space just for debate, formulating of
proposals, exchange of experience and visions of another world. It
interrelates organisations and movements and encourages the participant
organisations to situate their actions at local, national and
international contexts. In that sense it is a continuation of the
struggle against imperialist globalisation, which is gaining further
momentum with every protest against the forces and institutions, which
advocate and spearhead globalisation. But, it has confined itself to
seeking to increase the capacity for non-violent social resistance. (One
is free to debate whether this seeks to exclude `militant' actions or
not).
As far as our information goes, heads of governments or their
representatives are not allowed participation in the events organised by
the WSF Organising Committees. Even, when Lula addressed the WSF
gathering in January 2003, after he became the President of Brazil, it
was explained that as a customary courtesy, the head of the government
of the state, where the event is organised, was invited. Such
invitations were extended to his processor as well, but they were not
honoured. President Chavez of Venezuela, who was present in Porto Algre
during WSF 2003, did not address a WSF gathering; he was accorded a
reception at some other venue by some political groups in Porto Alegre.
Again, the WSF process is firmly opposed to imperialism. It is not
selective. Not does it confine itself to opposing US imperialism only.
The Charter clearly states its opposition to "domination by
capitalism and any form of imperialism".
You must have noticed that there is an upcoming trend, nationally as
well as internationally, where NGOs claiming to represent the 'civil
society', have been critical of political parties and traditional mass
movements/organisations. Even in India, while the mass organisations
have come together for united actions under the National Platform of
Mass Organisation (NPMO) , another outfit called National Alliance of
`People's Movement (NAPM) has also been active on various issues, in
different parts of the country. The WSF, which is inclusive, diverse and
open to pluralism, is participated by such NGOs as well. The terms
`civil society' `social movements' etc. have to be viewed in this
background.
As regards President Lula's participation in the WEF, it is his decision
as a head of the government and the idea of `building bridges' is
entirely his. Voices critical of Lula's participation in the WEF and his
idea of `building bridges' were loudly articulated during WSF 2003 in
Porto Alegre itself. The WSF - and the WSF 2004 at Mumbai - does not
have as its goal to 'build bridge' between WEF and WSF.
Your understanding that WSF does not go beyond debate and discussion and
no calls for action emanate from the WSF event is correct. The WSF does
not come out with any declaration even. But, utilising the platform of
WSF, mass organisations and social movements can and have come out with
action programmes. The February 15th protest against US war on Iraq was
one such occassion, in the immediate aftermath of WSF 2003.
Your assertion that coordinated global action against imperialism is
urgent and necessary is unexceptionable. But under the WSF process, only
the participant groups and organisations can collectively plan such
actions and WSF itself will not attempt to do that. It is a fact that on
issues like linking social clause to international trade, even the trade
unions in the North and South are divided. It is also true that even in
opposition to globalisation, there are class and non-class approaches.
The WSF Charter unequivocally states its "opposition to a process
of globalisation commanded by the large multinational corporations and
by the governments and international institutions at the service of
those corporations' interests, with the complicity of national
governments". The `mutual recognition' you have referred to is not
to compromise on this opposition but only to develop solidarity in
resisting it. The slogan `Another World is Possible' visualises a
different world only outside the framework of imperialist globalisation
and not within that. Please also note that the foci issues for the WSF
2004 include opposition to imperialist globalisation, militarism,
communalism, religions fanaticism and sectarianism violence, casteism,
racism and work/descent based exclusions and discriminations and
patriarchy and for world peace.
We are unable to locate where exactly the language 'organisations that
seek to take people's lives as a method of political action' figures in
any WSF literature. We shall thank you if you can give the specific
reference. But, the WSF Charter only deprecates 'military organisations',
'use of violence
as a means of social control by the state' and 'all domination and all
subjugation of one person by another'. We agree with your view that
senseless sectarian violence has to be opposed. Nor do we have any
problem with the characteristics of the anti-imperialist struggle of the
present times noted by you.
The trade union sector consultations, so far held as part of the WSF
process, seek to broaden the global unity in action against
globalisation. Your suggestion that we should aim carrying further
forward the resistance struggle benchmarked by May 21 strike is very
much pervasive in the thinking of all of us, associating with the WSF
process in India, representing the working class.
The WSF process precludes party representations in the forum. But this
should not be constued to view WSF as an `apolitical' forum.
Globalisation is the political agenda of imperialism and resistance
thereto also has per force to be political. But, there is one
contentious issues over which debate lingers on, viz, interrelation
between social movements and political parties. We are aware that even
amongst us - trade unions opposed to the political agenda of imperialist
globalisation - there are
divergence of views. Yet we have come together to stage united actions.
The WSF, we beleive, seeks to create a climate of dialogue that will
facilitate such a process.
The practical utility of WSF in the arena of people's action against
globalisation is itself a subject-matter of debate inside the WSF. There
are many, even among those associating with the WSF process, who raise
the issue of the WSF transcending beyond debate and discussions. But, it
is left to the wisdom of individuals and organisations either to raise
this issue by associating with the process or take a view from outside.
The six days of WSF 2004 at Mumbai, will at best serve to explode two
myths - one that 'There Is No Alternative' (TINA) to imperialist
globalisation and two people everywhere have accepted this globalisation
without reservation and none can choose to stay away from it. The
struggle against globalisation will march on - with political parties,
mass organisations and movements spearheading it is their own ways and
according to their own perceptions and priorities.
It is from this point of view that those associating with the WSF
process in India feel committing time and resources for the purpose is
worth something and may not be an exercise in futility.
We explicitly state that this is not a comprehensive response to the
points raised by you. Other friends from the trade unions and members of
the IOC and IWC may enrich this dialogue with their enlightened
contributions and interventions. We trust you will come forward with a
positive response on associating with the WSF process in India.
We also request you to share this communication with all the recipients
of your document circulated through the list serve.
Greetings.
W.R.Varada Rajan
Secretary,
CITU & Member, IOC, WSF India
********************
2) Reply from Alan Benjamin to the Letter by Centre of Indian
Trade Unions (CITU) Secretary W.R. Varada Rajan Regarding the World
Social Forum in India (January 2004)October 9, 2003
Attention:
W.R.Varada Rajan
Secretary,
CITU & Member, IOC, WSF India
Dear Comrade Varada Rajan,
We thank you for sending us your remarks on Comrade N. Vasudevan's
letter regarding the World Social Forum (WSF) in Mumbai, India, in
January 2004.We are a bit surprised that you learned of the existence of
this letter only when it was posted to our ILC email list. Comrade
Vasudevan's letter was sent to the Organizing Committee of the World
Focial Forum in India on June 24th. As you are members of that
Organizing Committee, it is surprising that the letter was not
communicated to you at that time.
[Note: The original letter by N. Vasudevan titled "Questions About
the World Social Forum in India (January 2004)" is reprinted below,
following the Remarks by CITU Secretary W.R.Varada Rajan.--A.B.]
We understand that your letter expresses your point of view and not
necessarily that of the WSF Organizing Committee. We think this
discussion is useful. First and foremost, we wish to insist that we
fully agree with Comrade Vasudevan's conclusion, when he writes, "[W]e
would like to reiterate that we are always ready to join hands in
concrete struggles against the imperialist globalization -- which is
exploiting our country and people."
We in the International Liaison Committee for a Workers' International (ILC)
are convinced that this principle applies internationally: Political and
ideological differences among working class and anti-imperialist
organizations should in no way prevent us from engaging in common
actions around those points where there is agreement. But precisely, as
you explain in your letter, the WSF is not about promoting concrete
actions. Rather, it presents itself as a framework for discussing the
issue of globalization.
And for us, the entire framework of that discussion -- as formulated in
the main documents of the WSF -- is questionable because these documents
imply there should be a consensual agreement on points which are
contradictory, in our opinion, with the class independence of workers'
organizations and the requirements of an effective struggle against
capitalist exploitation.
You, of course, state explicitly that you did not deliver in this letter
a comprehensive answer to all the questions raised by Comrade
Vasudevan's letter. Therefore please regard our answer as a first
contribution to what we hope will be a continued discussion.
After your introductory remarks, you mainly return to the Charter of
Principles of the WSF. You underline the fact that the WSF "has
confined itself to seeking to increase the capacity for non-violent
social resistance." And you add, "[O]ne is free to debate
whether this seeks to exclude militant action or not."
Of course, the working class and oppressed peoples do not seek violence
for the sake of violence. They rely on their numbers, their organization
and their consciousness to defend their interests in the battle for
democracy.
But we are all aware that the ruling classes resort to violence. For
instance, as you know, the Brazilian landless peasants are occupying the
lands left fallow by the big landowners. Theirs is not a violent action,
nor is it an anti-democratic action. But the landowners are reacting
mercilessly by sending their armed goons to evict the landless peasants
from lands that should be theirs and by requiring that the State take
action against the landless peasants.
It so happens that the Brazilian government minister in charge of
Agrarian Reform was one of the main organizers of the previous World
Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil. This very same government official
is now telling the landless peasants they must "respect the
law," thereby condoning the violence on the part of the landowners
and the police against the landless peasants. Is this simply a
"matter of debate"?
You say that the WSF Charter clearly states its opposition to
"domination by capitalism and any form of imperialism." On
that point, it is worth quoting how the Charter of Principles formulates
the problem. The text reads as follows:
"The World Social Forum is an open meeting place for reflective
thinking, democratic debate of ideas, formulation of proposals, free
exchange of experiences and interlinking for effective action, by groups
and movements of civil society that are opposed to neoliberalism and to
domination of the world by capital and any form of imperialism, and are
committed to building a planetary society directed towards fruitful
relationships among humankind and between it and the Earth."
It goes on to state in its conclusion that "[T]he World Social
Forum is a process that encourages its participant organizations and
movements to situate their action from the local level to the national
level and seeking active participation in international context. S"
In what type of institutions and "context" are the
organizations of the working class invited to participate? In the
general document, the WTO for instance, is not mentioned once -- and
therefore is not characterized. Could participation mean participation
in the WTO?
It is therefore not made explicit at all, as you claim, that "the
slogan 'another world is possible' visualizes a different world only
outside the framework of imperialist globalization and not within
that."
The ambiguity is reinforced by the permanent use of the formula
"civil society." But isn't that civil society divided into
social classes? Isn't society divided between exploiters and exploited,
oppressors and oppressed?
You say that NGOs are included in the WSF process. But the NGOs
explicitly present themselves as organizations that are not class
organizations. In this sense, the framework established by the WSF is,
on the one hand, so broad that it does not allow working class
organizations to express within that framework the needs of the working
class, and, on the other hand, it is so restricted that it eliminates
all the concrete problems faced by the workers and oppressed peoples.
For example such questions as representative democracy, national
sovereignty and unity, diminishing costs of labor, labor laws, wages,
pensions, etc., are not even on the agenda.
You refer to the February 15th demonstrations against the war in Iraq.
Of course, many organizations that were part of the WSF took part in
those demonstrations. But they were not the only ones. In fact, the
first call for an International Day of Action was issued by U.S. trade
unionists not involved in the WSF process. You should also know that
those who around the world are the backbone of the WSF -- for example,
some of the large NGOs like ATTAC -- tried to place that antiwar
movement in a straitjacket by insisting that it get behind and support
the role of United Nations in Iraq. You say further that the "WSF
Charter only deprecates "military organizations" or the
"use of violence' ... as a means of social control by the
State."
That is not exact. What is said in point 9 of the WSF Charter is that
"Neither party representations nor military organizations shall
participate in the Forum." You will admit that at the very least
this is unclear.
"Military organizations" could be national liberation
movements which have had to resort to military action against
imperialism and colonialism. This label could very well have applied in
the past to the Vietnamese National Liberation Front, or to the Algerian
National Liberation Front, and could apply today, for instance, to the
PLO.
The question of "the use of violence as a means of social control
by the states" only comes up in paragraph 10, and is introduced by
a sentence which says: "The WSF is opposed to all totalitarian and
reductionist views of the economy." Many people -- as we are sure
you will agree - argue that Marxism is "reductionist."
The way in which the World Social Forum is funded is a legitimate
concern. For instance, as one of the preparatory stages of the World
Social Rorum, a European Social Forum is being held in Paris in the
coming weeks. The organizers boast about the fact that 87% of the
expenses are being paid with "public funds." But from where do
those public funds come? Mainly from the French government and from the
European Union institutions.
The present French government is engaged in a full-fledged attack
against workers' rights and gains, especially their pensions and
health-protection system. The assault on the working class by the French
government provoked this spring momentous strikes and huge
demonstrations. But this is the
very same government that is funding the European Social Forum.
Let us remember that previous World Social Forums were funded by various
sources, including, for instance, the Ford Foundation, the UN
Development Program and the departments of foreign affairs of various
governments (such as the Italian government, the Danish government, the
German government, and others). This is, of course, only a first reply
to your remarks. The discussion
must go on. We will, of course, share this exchange with all the
recipients of comrade Vasudevan's letter.
In solidarity,
Alan Benjamin,
for the ILC Support Committee United States
*******************
3) THE UNITED STATES IS EAGER TO BUILD PRIVATE PORT IN
CHITTAGONG THROUGH NEW CONSPIRACY
After the historic verdict of the Bangladesh High Court (declaring
null and void the port agreement with SSA) and subsequent upholding of
the same verdict by the Supreme Court, the American administration
started new conspiracy to build private container port in Chittagong by
the same company. For this beside the American embassy official some top
bureaucrats from the state department (US) are having parlays and secret
meetings with Bangladesh bureaucrats both in Dhaka and Chittagong. They
are also talking with local influential peoples.
It has been revealed that the question of "container security
initiative" (CSI) is less important then the construction of their
own terminal. They are now ready to relax some of the condition of the
previous agreement (with SSA). For this top official of the
"Bangladesh Desk" of state department Mr. Osman Tat is in the
country. In various parlays with different people they are suggesting
their opinion about gas export and collecting the opinion of their
counterpart. Two top officials of the American "Homeland Security
Department" Mr. Piter R. Darbas and Patric Ady had secret meeting
with the Commissioner of Custom Mr Rashidul Ahsan Chaudhury and Chairman
Chittagong Port Trust Mr. A.M.M. Shahadat Hossain on Monday last. In the
two meeting of these official during last two months, the deputy chief
of mission Miss. Judith Chamas and economic officer Mark Tans were also
present.
In those meeting the American official wanted to know from Bangladesh
bureaucrats, the results if SSA builds a private port in the proposed
location. Other the this they wanted to know the security and the future
expansion plan of the port. They wanted to know about the scanning
system of the exportable containers in the port.
During the meeting of the U.S.official with the Port Chairman, member
(engineering) A.K.M. Rashiduddin Ahmed, member (operation) Capt. Amirul
Islam, chief engineer Mr. Shafait Ahmed were present. Their secret
meeting with the commissioner of custom lasted for one hour . No other
officials or person were allowed in that meeting. When asked both the
port Chairman and the custom Commissioner confirmed the meetings but
declined to say the subject or the results.
In a seminar held last Monday at the Chittagong Chamber hall, the top
officials of the U.S. government told that to ensure the safety and
security of the U.S. bound cargoes, there are "container security
initiatives" in Singapore & Colombo. There will be sudden
checking also in Bangladesh. For this "Custom Trade Partnership
Against Terrorism" agreement have to signed.
Before these, last Friday the Bangladesh Desk officials of state
department Mr. Osman Tat and the political secretary of the U.S. Embassy
in Dhaka Mitz Michel Labante suddenly visited Chittagong and throw a
dinner for the elite, politician, educationists and others. Ex. Mayor of
Chittagong and J.P. leader Mr. Mahmudul Hasan spared his house for this
pre-arranged party. Among others the party was attended by central Awami
league leader Mr. Ataur Rahaman Kaiser, secretary of the south district
Mr. Moslehuddin, Jamaat-e- Islam Chittagong city Ameer Maolana Shamsul
Islam, Vice chancellor of Chittagong university Dr..A.Z.M. Nuruddin
Chaudhury, Ex.chairman of Chittagong port. Chittagong Development
Authority, Chittagong WASA, Capt. M.Zakaria, President of Chittagong
Chamber of Commerce & Industries Mr. Amir Humayun Mahmus Cxhaudhury,
BGMEA first secretary S.M.Nurul Haque attended the dinner.
It is learnt from the dinner sources that 2 U.S. officials was telling
about the good result of the gas export. They also wanted to know that
"if a new agreement is signed for the container port(with SSA)
without the earlier controversial clauses, will there be any
opposition". When contacted, Mr. Mahmudul Islam said that " it
was not a secret that there was a dinner for two top U.S. officials nor
it was un-natural", but he refused to reveal the contents of the
discussion in the dinner meeting. Awami league leader Moslemuddind said
that "the Friday meeting was pre-arranged and for the invited
guests. In the dinner officials of the U.S. state department wanted to
collect the opinion of the guests about the consequence of a fresh
agreement with SSA under new formation. When asked the Chittagong
Chamber president Amir Humayun Mahmud Choudhury and BGMEA first vice
president told that "two U.S. official wanted to know our opinion
about a fresh agreement for port with SSA and export of gas etc"
It may be recalled that both Awami League & present 4 party alliance
government approved the controversial port agreement with SSA, which was
later declared "illegal" by the Supreme Court" in June
last Year.
NOTE:-
This is a first page news item of the highest circulated national daily
news paper "PROTHOM ALO" dated 1st October 2003.
*******************
4) PAKISTAN
About the new industrial policy of the Pakistan government
(This bulletin publishes excerpts of a report prepared by Gulzar
Chaudary, general secretary of All Pakistan Trade Union Federation.)
New Industrial policy violates ILO Conventions
This industrial policy stop of inspection by labour inspectors in
factories and cease of education cessions on 25th June by the Chief
Minister of Punjab would definitely have a negative impact on labour
class, irrespective of the fact that it inflicts a positive impact on
industry or not. The labour class plays a significant role in the growth
of industry, but all government efforts to uplift industry have
unfortunately ignored this role badly. The free hand to feudal employer
under the garb of industrial policy has melted down all claims regarding
the welfare of working class.
The capitalist already exploiting the labour intensive laws and
departments, and the present policy has diminished their remaining fears
and let them play openly against the rights of Labour laws. APTUF would
launch a complaint against the new policy at the central ILO office. It
is a bitter reality that 85% of employers don't ensure the social
security cards of their employees and the Industrial Policy is entirely
anti labourers and would add more miseries to the plight of labour class
instead of bringing prosperity.
Labour class was expecting relief from the democratic setup after a
period of three years, but the democratic government has preferred to
support the capitalist and has broken all previous records of anti
labour moves. It is highly unfortunate that all policies base upon anti
labour class strategy in Pakistan, because in present industrial policy
al type of inspection on employer have been withdrawn and nothing has
been mentioned about the right of union, collective bargaining and job
security of labourer that is the focal point of not only local laws but
also ILO Conventions; This policy would proved further free and to the
industrialist to exploit the labourers according to their own will and
desire.
A campaign was launched through out the country against this policy to
protect the rights of workers.
An emergency meeting has been organised of Pakistan Workers
Confederation Punjab in Lahore to in which further program and strategy
chalk out. The Central General Council meting of PWC organised in
Islamabad capital city of Pakistan on July 8, 2003. It was decided to
hold protest rallies and gate meetings and it was also decided to
organise demonstration in Rawalpindi/Islamabad on August 5, 003 and
September 17,2003 in Lahore.
On August 5,2003, a big demonstration under the auspices of Pakistan
workers Confederation held in Rwalpindi/Islamabad capital against this
industrial policy as well as unemployment, not implementation of labour
laws, retrenchment of workers, high inflation. More than two thousands
workers participated in demonstration.
September 17th, 2003
On 17th of September 2003, under the umbrella of Pakistan Workers
Confederation Punjab, workers organised protest rally in Lahore against
anti workers policy, price hike, unemployment, privatisation,
downsizing, banned on trade union activities, discrimination and
violence against women, fascism and aggression. Thousands of workers
belong to nine national trade union federations participated in this
rally. When demonstration reached Latshmi Chowk, Lahore, heavy-armed
police contingent stopped the procession and put barriers in the way of
demonstrators. But demonstrators strongly agitated and refused to stop
their march. In spite of police hurdle demonstrators continued their
march towards the Parliament house.
Workers use their basic rights of agitation but the police registered
Criminal cases against M. Gulzar Ahmed Chaudhary, president of the
Pakistan Workers Confederation Punjab, General Secretary of All Pakistan
Trade Union Federation, M. Khrshid Ahmed, General secretary of all
Pakistan Workers Confederation, and six other trade union leaders, on
the basis of holding procession without the permission of district
administration, and of criticising Government policies and chanting
slogan against the government, of violation of section 144, stoppage of
traffics, MPO 1, etc.
All these cases are baseless and unfounded and registered due to trade
union activities. We strongly condemn and protest against these
anti-workers practices and urge take immediate action for fulfilment of
workers following demands:
- Drop the charges against the All Trade Union leaders accused to take
out of the procession without the permission of district administration,
criticising government policies and chanting slogan against the
government.
- Stop work place threats and harassment against the workers.
- Negotiate with the union leaders in good faith.
We assure all the peace loving and democratic workers and people of the
world that our struggle will continue till the emancipation of the
working class.
Gulzar Ahmed Chaudhary, General Secretary.
*******************
5) The Hong Kong Confederation of Trade-Unions (HKCTU)
published some months ago a report on the first results for the Chinese
workers of China's accession to WTO : "Reading the signs : The
WTO and Chinese workers, years one"
How does the Chine government deal with workers' protests?
"... Unified national workers' movements on the other hand can
- and some have - brought governments down, especially dictatorial ones.
According, the Chine government has gone to great lengths to prevent
workers' protests from spreading beyond their immediate local and
generally avoided violent blanket oppression, precisely so as to avoid
provoking sympathy action. As the massive unrest in North-East-China in
the spring and early summer of 2002 made clear, this involves media
blackouts, denial of the right to demonstrate, police spies, snatch
squads and "visits" to workers' homes from various organs of
the state, including the All China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU).
As long as worker unrest can be contained, it has not generally led to
mass arrests and/or pitched battles with large numbers of protestors.
For sure, while the People's Armed Police (PAP - China's riot police)
and in the case of former oil worker protests in the town of Daqing in
Spring 2002, even army units, are often on hand in large numbers to
intimidate, they are rarely used to physically break up protests except
as a last resort. The central government has issued orders to local
authorities to avoid sparking the proverbial "prairie fire".
Protesting workers are paid off with a small handout and the promise of
investigation into their demands. Organisers are targeted, arrested when
it is deemed politically expedient, and charged with offensives serious
enough to keep them out of circulation for long periods. Yao Fuxin, Pang
Qingxiang, Xiao Yunliang, Wang Zhaoming, Zhao Changqing and Di Tiangui
are among those who have been on the receiving end of this policy since
China joined the WTO.
"The government's response to worker unrest is hardly rocket
science. It is the tried and tested carrot and stick approach aimed at
preventing an increase in anger, solidarity action and above all
strikes. It is important to bear in mind that although strikes do take
place, the overwhelming majority of worker protests are stage by retired
or unemployed workers which, as they do not directly effect production,
the government can afford to sit out."
Dissent within the ACFTU
"... On July 1, 2001, President Jiang Zemin presented a major
speech outlining his "Theory of the Three represents". The
theory attempts to argue that the CCP represents not just the working
class, but the broadest and most advanced strata of society i.e.
advanced forces of production, advanced culture and "the
fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the Chinese
people." This includes top cadres, managing directors,
entrepreneurs, out of work labourers and rich and poor peasants alike.
In short, all things to all men. In a scathing response, former
alternate general Secretary of the ACFTU and propaganda chief Han Yaxi
issued an open letter condemning Jian's theory as a gross
oversimplification of social forces and an attempt to pander to the
forces of globalisation :
"Labour has already become a commodity today. Workers enjoy
extremely little of democratic rights in enterprises, and even that
little they have is not guaranteed at all. Those sayings of yours [Jiang
Zemin] contain little practical content. Workers leave their work posts,
and their seniority benefits are bought out, all as they are ordered
(sic). Nowadays masses of workers have lost their jobs; they can resort
to no means to halt the process. After the left (sic), masses of young
peasants flow in. As compared wit the city workers, except for the fact
that the peasants are rather younger and paid less and that they have
much looser relations with the enterprises, there is noting that can
result for them in improvement in terms of education, skills, and
political vision and individual personality. The conditions of the
workers in private businesses of either domestic or foreign investment
are even worse, insufferable, and without any guarantee. So under these
conditions, how can it be said that the status of the working class has
not changed?"
Comments such as these should not be interpreted as a sign of high
level support for China's nascent labour movement or for the right to
organise independently of the Party. Their importance lies in
acknowledgement. First an acknowledgement that workers have lost out in
the reforms and that the "win-win" formula presented to
workers is so much stuff and nonsense. Secondly an acknowledgement that
politics in China is perhaps more diverse that it has ever been since
1949 and that control is increasingly a question of reconciling the
interests of various elites into a reasonably coherent and unified
ruling class. It is just possible that workers will be able to use the
space made available in this scenario - in which the WTO is an integral
component - to push for reform. It is equally possible that we will fail
to make any progress. At least part of the result lies in the responses
of the international labour movement to our struggles."
WTO and mass unemployment
"...The most conservative estimates of the short-term impact of
the WTO forecast a loss of five million jobs per year. However, a
government blue paper issued in April 2002 admitted that urban
unemployment would reach 20% and the 10th Five Year Plan has
incorporated a national rate of 5% unemployment rate during its
lifetime. Researchers in China generally agree on a rough three-phase
pattern of unemployment over the next 18 years :
- 2002-2005 : a dramatic increase. Workers in primary industries such as
auto, steel, chemical, fertiliser and textile will be hit particularly
hard.
- 2006-2010 : an easing of pressure on the labour market as reforms to
the State sector bear fruit and jobs created via foreign direct
investment (FDI) and private capital continue to increase;
- 2011-2020 : a stabilising period during which the medium-terms
benefits of WTO entry will kicking especially in high-tech manufacturing
and certain service sectors such as finance, insurance and information
technology.
Such forecasts cannot include the destructive capacity of either a
global or regional slum. Although China successfully avoided the worst
impacts of the 1997-98 financial crisis the government's ability to
isolate China from such shocks in future will be limited. For example, a
significant proportion of the 8% growth in gross Domestic product (GDP)
over the last year has come from exports. Yet over 50 % of exports
result form FDI, compared to 17% in 1990. The Asian financial crisis
demonstrated just how fast foreign investors can pull out, especially
when the creditability of a nation's banking system is on the line, as
South Korea workers learnt to great cost. And the creditability of
China's banking system is very much on the line.
The crisis of unemployment has swept over SOE workers in China since the
15th Party congress in 1997 has not been alleviated by the 16th Congress
held in 2002. The former gave the green light for the privatisation of
SOEs under the slogan "zhua da fang xiao", which roughly means
that government policy will continue to protect key large-scale SOEs
from the negative impact of the market while exposing the
small-and-medium-scale enterprises to market forces. The 16th Congress
also signalled the continuation and gradual expansion of restructuring,
mergers, sell-offs and foreign capital buy-outs as the state continues
its attempts at the "[R]econciliation of two potentially
conflicting goals - furtherance of economic restricting and maintenance
of social stability."
The reduction of agricultural tariffs will gradually drive more
farmers off the land and this will also put enormous pressure on urban
labour markets. Part of the government's response is a plan to build
small towns, which it hopes will take at least some of the pressure off
larger cities. The demographic changes that will result from this policy
will only further highlight the need for profound changes to traditional
forms of social control. The household registration system or hukou
which prevents farmers from taking up permanent urban residence will
have to be adjusted to allow more freedom of movement i.e. farmers - who
still constitute the bulk of the population - will need to be permitted
to live in urban areas and the scope of the still nascent social
security system will have to enlarge. At present, the land tenure system
is the only means by which rural residents can stave off hunger in old
age, by relying on their own produce. If land continues to be directed
away form cop production and sold off for industrial development, former
farmers will need social security, from which they are entirely excluded
at present.
Meanwhile conferences have been held, government decrees issued and
workers exhorted to "liberate thinking" (jiefang sixiang)
as they attempt to come to terms with bleak or even non-existent
employment prospects...
Crucial to our research will be to monitor just how much FDI and private
capital can be relied upon to provide jobs - and what kind of jobs at
that. There is already evidence to suggest that the rate of
re-employment (zai jiuye) is slowing and that long-term
unemployment is already a reality for middle-aged workers. The problem
is thrown into sharp relief by the gradual phasing out of the status of xia
gang or off-duty workers. Xia gang, which applied only to SOE
and COE workers, was, in theory, accompanied by three years of job
retraining, a reduced wage, medical allowances and continued forma
attachment to the one's place of work. If a worker was till out of work
after this three-year period, he or she must register as formally
unemployed. From 2002 onwards, workers no longer get xia gang statutes
and must take the fast track route to formal unemployment. This has
already led to a rise in disputes over compensatory redundancy (mai
duan gongling)."
The struggle of the retired workers
"... Retired workers are at the forefront of working class
unrest in China. Thousands of them have taken to the streets to demand
prompt payment of monthly pensions that their former employers either
will not or cannot pay. The problem is so serious that SOE retiree Di
Tangui risked forming the Retired Workers' Association (Qi tui zhignong
lianhe hui). A pensioner from Taiyuan city in Shanxi province, Di, is
only too aware of the fate of millions of retired workers in China. In
fact, pensioners have proved themselves fearless in demanding prompt
payments of their pensions - often delayed for months on end. They have
blocked roads, railways, led marches of other workers, and staged
sit-ins outside government offices and company headquarters to demand
their well-earned due. A former auto worker explained why she and two
hundred retired employees from the former Beijing Automobile and
Motorcycle Works blocked traffic in the capital for six hours in March
2002. The protest was against alleged management corruption, forced
retirements, and denial of worker benefits :
"[W]hen we were young, we endured hardship and exhaustion at the
factory, and now we are old and sick. But they don't give any welfare
for us to live on, so we get sicker. And then when we buy our medicines
they don't reimburse us."
Despite their courage and militancy, Di Tiangui realised there was
something missing and identified a possible opportunity. As retired
workers, China's pensioners are no longer formal members of the ACFTU
and while there are other "mass organisations" covering other
sections such as women (the All China Women's Federation) and youth
(Communist Youth League) the old have nothing. Di wrote down some
preliminary ideas and articles and handed them out in his hometown. They
went down so well among retired workers that many were photocopied and
passed on by pensioners at their own expense. Thus encouraged, Di issued
a five-page statement on May 22, 2002, calling for the phrased-on
establishment of a national retired workers' federation. He argued that
:
"Ever since the reforms began there has been too much injustice.
This is especially the case for retired workers - for all the people in
fact. The flow of petitions [to the authorities] has been as endless.
But, as the evidence shows, relying on yourself to petition is not
enough, nor is relying on a few dozen people, a work unit, hundreds of
people or even thousands or tens of thousands of people. Surrounding
government [buildings] , blocking main roads and railways or even
resorting to violence is not getting us anywhere either. Sometimes we
are bought off with small one-off layouts ; sometimes we are attacked or
seized by the Public Security bureau, People's Armed Police. As we can
see from reports, repression and arrest of our leaders is common enough,
as are beatings and water cannon. This shows that in a dictatorship we
have no choice but to swallow our anger and obey. All this reaches us
the necessity of uniting together, which we must do. We must united and
form - step by step - an organisation for retired workers."
Within ten days of issuing this statement, police detained the
57-year-old labour activist on June 1, on suspicion of "setting up
an illegal organisation". Still in custody, Di Tiangui was formally
arrested on July 5 on charges of "incitement to subvert state
power" and faces a prison sentence of up to 11 years."
*************************
6) International Liaison Committee of Workers and Peoples:
WHO ARE WE?
The International Liaison Committee of Workers and Peoples (ILC) was
set up in Barcelona (Spain) in January 1991 at the First Open World
Conference by delegates from 63 countries. These delegates represented
various organisations and various political currents in the working
class. Our purpose was to help unite the working class, youth and
oppressed people of the world to fight back against the onslaught by
global capitalism. Our program was clear and simple: No to privatisation,
deregulation and war. We adopted on this basis a "Manifesto
Against War and Exploitation."
Another central point of the ILC's platform was the defence of the
independent organisations of workers throughout the world, particularly
the trade unions.
The International Liaison Committee firmly believes that the
emancipation of the working class from the yoke of oppression imposed by
global capitalism will be achieved only by the workers themselves. The
history of class struggle has shown that every gain has been won through
the fight of independent organisations. Since that first meeting, the
ILC has grown into a multi-tendency regroupment of unionists and
political activists in 94 countries.
The International Liaison Committee held three Open World Conferences in
1991, 1993 and 1996. In February 2000, we held a Conference organised in
common with the San Francisco Labor Council (AFL-CIO). Six-hundred
unionists and activists representing unions and democratic organisations
from 56 countries met in that Open World Conference in Defence of Trade
union Independence and Democratic Rights, expressing clearly in their
final declaration the goals of the Conference:
"Our aim is to improve living and working conditions and to
defend the rights and guarantees codified in collective-bargaining
agreements, labour codes and Conventions of the International Labour
Organisation (ILO). These are the conditions for a genuine peace in the
world. These are the conditions for a real democracy in all countries,
which can only be based upon the right of peoples to self determination
and equality between races."
In February 2002, in Berlin (Germany), the ILC -- together with the
Continuations Committee of the San Francisco Open World Conference and a
large Committee of German trade unionists -- convened the International
Conference Against Deregulation and For Labour Rights for All. For the
first time in decades, an International Conference in Defence of Working
Women's Rights took place on the eve of the conference against
deregulation.
Since its foundation, the ILC has been involved in a permanent campaign
in defence of ILO Conventions. That's why every year in Geneva, on the
occasion of the ILO yearly assembly, the ILC holds a Conference for the
Defence of ILO Conventions. The ILC is also involved in a campaign
against Child Labour and we participated in the various sessions of the
International Tribunal Against Child Labour and Slavery. At the same
time, we organized various regional campaigns and initiatives. We
supported actively the International Tribunal to Judge Those Responsible
for the Murderous Course Imposed on the Peoples of Africa. The first
session of this Tribunal was held in Los Angeles at the initiative of
numerous Black organisations in the United States in February 2000. A
permanent campaign has been organised around the verdict pronounced by
that Tribunal.
In the same way, we organised multiple campaigns against "Free
Trade" agreements -- for example against NAFTA in America, and
against the Maastricht Treaty in Europe. The ILC has also organised many
workers' defence campaigns, demanding the release of activists jailed
for their trade unionist activity in China, Romania, Korea, Togo, and
countless other countries.
The International Liaison Committee does not intend to substitute itself
for the existing international worker organisations, does not enter in
competition with them. The ILC takes as its historical model the
International Workers Association -- the First International founded in
1864 in London. The goal was then as now, to organise all the currents
genuinely fighting for the defence of workers, on the basis of workers'
democracy, respecting their diversity, to allow united action.
On January 23 -24, 2003, we organised an Emergency Conference Against
War and decided to build the "International Labour Movement
Against War."
This is a short summary of our campaigns and goals. Every week, we
publish an 8 pages three languages electronic bulletin of international
information concerning ILC activities.
WEBSITE / www.owcinfo.org
Back to
ILC Newsletter Index Back
to Asia Workers Conference Index
|
Open
World Conference of Workers