|
ILC INTERNATIONAL NEWSLETTER NO. 135A dossier of weekly information published by the International Liaison Committee of Workers and Peoples June 7,2005 To contact us: ILC International Newsletter PRESENTATION: The annual meeting of the ILO is presently being held in Geneva. The international meeting organized by the ILC will be held on June 12, 2005. The ILC plans to participate, with its own agenda, in the debate on the future of the ILO that, as we have explained, is presently at a crossroads. This meeting will discuss principally the complaints raised by trade union organizations that the ILC has supported and which we have included in our preceding issues. In this issue we publish a free tribune as a contribution to the debate on the Conventions relatives to health and safety at work, that are on the agenda in today's session of the ILO. A press-release following the referendums in France and the Netherlands, indicates the concerns raised in Great Britain, where the Financial Times headline reads "Europe in the storm." The political class in the United States deplores the results, which weakens the European heads of states and prejudicial to the support their countries needed. We received an appeal from Italy for a meeting of the National Committee for the "NO" to the European Constitution, and for the defense of the Italian Republic. In Belgium a meeting for the NO to the European Constitution is being prepared before parliament. Roger Giarocco, a trade unionist, sent a contribution to this debate. A report from Uzbekistan recounts the terrible events that occurred mid-May. A Colombian trade union tour, received by four trade union confederations, held a press conference in the department of Rhone, in mid-May on the massacre of trade unionists. We publish excerpts. The theme of the parliamentary sessions of the Workers' Party of Algeria was "the reasons for the murderous evolution on the African continents." We publish the report along with conclusions reached by the journal Fraternité of the PT of Algeria. From Germany, we publish a report preparing for a conference in Berlin
on June 15, and details Schroder's responsibilities. Subscribe to the ILC International Newsletter ******************** TABLE OF CONTENTS: P. 1: Introduction ********************
The annual meeting of the ILO is debating the question of health and safety at work. The ILC submits this contribution drafted by a work inspector for the consideration of all the delegates to the ILO and all the activists of the world labor movement. The ILC publishes it in a open forum. In Point 4 of the conclusions adopted by the international labor conference at its 91st session in 2003 we read that, "A culture of preventive safety and health on a national level, as well as the introduction of a systemic approach to the management of the SST counts as one of the essential pillars of a global strategy in the matter of the SST." In his introduction, Juan Somavia, director general, highlights the necessary culture of safety as a pillar of "decent work." The report prepared by the general assembly in 2005 emphasizes the indissoluble link between "decent work" and safety at work. Clearly, the document admits that it is through the general assemblies in 2003 and 2005 that a new orientation, "towards a systemic approach to the management of health and safety at work (STT)" can be created. According to the report, "we have gone from industrial safety and safety and health at work, from protection to prevention and the evaluation of risks. The modern norms highlight not only collective responsibility in the matter of safety and health but also the respective roles, rights and responsibilities of the employers, the workers and their representatives as well as the domains in which they must cooperate." We also gather from the report that "the idea is that the improvement of safety and health at work requires the participation of the entire society. All considerations relative to safety and health abide by convictions, values, attitudes and behaviour that can be strongly influenced by national culture. Where the report details what can be understood by a culture of safety we read, "a culture of safety implies a strong commitment in regard to the ethics of safety" and "while accidents happen, a company should be prepared to learn from them." As to the systemic approach of SST management on a company level, it is "founded on the idea of an improvement in performances by the execution of a PF VA cycle (plan, execute, verify, act). The document is divided into five chapters: policy, organization, planning and undertaking, evaluation, improvement measures." According to this same report, the systemic approach allows the methodical planning and organization of preventive actions at work that are the result of collaboration between employers and workers. On a national scale, "it is not simply about setting up legislation and taking steps to have it respected" but to advance towards a tripartite collaboration. This new orientation of the ILO accompanies, is inscribed or follows a new "approach" in numerous countries. That is how the recent health at work plan 2005-2009 in France claims to be a component of the public health plan that is included in the environmental health plan prepared at the level of the European Union. This approach is characterized by a break with the past national regulations and the constitution of the ILO itself on the definition of the place of responsibility of employers. When the ILO was constituted in 1919, its introduction fixed the objective of "social justice" and perceives the situation of workers under the angle of protection and rights as well as for example, the goal is to improve "protection of workers against general or professional diseases and accidents resulting from work." The first convention adopted by the ILO in 1919 refers to the hours of work and that limits to eight hours per day and 48 hours per week the number of hours work in industrial establishments, after having defined the field of its application, it decreed the employers' obligations: "every employer shall" followed by a list of obligations (Article 8 of Convention No. 1). The systemic approach of the SST is no longer presented as a series of protections ó besides, the report indicates that it is not longer the heart of the orientation, but a series of principles that are applied to all the ëactors' of an establishment. This approach is not new even if it constitutes a break with the foundation of the ILO and the different national social legislations and especially those in countries considered ëindustrialized' that served as the model. One must remember in the case of French legislation, to take an example, throughout the 19th century, the tribunals estimated that the regulations of the workshops that detailed safety instructions could be eliminated from the employer's responsibility in the case of an accident. It was only in the absence of such a regulation that this responsibility could be called into question on the foundation of article 1383 of the Civil Code: "Each one is responsible for the damage he caused, not only by what was done, but also through negligence or his own imprudence." Although as the administration of work noted, "Industrialists had the idea of protecting themselves from the administration by establishing certain regulations in their factories that fined the workers for transgressions but most of the time these regulations were not applied." On February 22, 1883 the court of annulment prevented this by declaring: "The law in proposing technical precautions intended to protect the workers and especially children not only against the dangers inherent in the exercise of their profession, but also against their own imprudence." The law of 1898 in setting up a system of insurance against work-related accidents assigned the principle of responsibility without fault of the employer, while the employer was responsible for insuring the protection of workers, firstly protection for the most vulnerable workers ó the women and children followed by everyone else. On a judicial basis, the distinctive criteria of the labor contract is judicial subordination, that is to say the result of a judicial plan to economic subordination. At the end of the 19th century there was the establishment workers' right to protection. In the Labor Code in France, there existed two base articles: Article L 232-1: "the establishments and places mentioned in Article L 231-1 must be kept in a constant state of cleanliness and present conditions of hygiene necessary for the health of the personnel." Article L 233-1: "the establishments and places mentioned in article L 231-1 must be equipped in such a manner as to guarantee the safety of the workers." Of course it is the employer who must be responsible for respecting these dispositions and who will, if need be, be sanctioned. Is this orientation specifically for France? No, since the introduction of a specific right of protection for workers is the direct product of the action of workers and their organizations, these principles have found their place in all industrialized countries. The 1919 constitution of the ILO translates this same orientation, as follows: the workers must be protected at their place of work. The states are responsible for establishing legislation in this sense and see that they are applied; these will consist in a series of obligations on the employers. In the 1919 introduction we read: "It is understood that a universal and lasting peace can only be constructed on the basis of social justice: Understood that there are working conditions that imply a great number of injustices, misery and privations that engender so much discontent that universal peace and harmony are endangered and it is understood that these conditions must be improved: For example: concerning the regulation of the working hours, the establishment of a maximum working day and week, the recruitment of labor, the fight against unemployment, the guarantee of a wage that ensures a decent standard of living, the protection of workers against general or professional disabilities and accidents resulting from work, the protection of children, adolescents and women, the old age and invalid pensions, the defense of the interests of workers' hired abroad, the affirmation of the principle ëfor equal work, equal pay', affirmation of the principle of trade union freedom, the organization of professional and technical training and other analogous measures: Understood that the non-adoption by a whatever country of a really human labor regime is an obstacle to the other countries desirous of improving the lot of the worker in their own country: The High Contracting Parties moved by sentiments of justice and humanity as well as by the desires to ensure a durable world peace, and with the view of attaining the objectives set out in this introduction, approve the presence of the Constitution of the International Labor Organization." The idea presented is a wish taken from the second last paragraph that the most protective rules for the workers should be progressively extended to all countries. The 1944 declaration of Philadelphia in its considerations takes up the idea of a progressive extension. In Point V (the last point) it affirms: "that the principles announced in the present declaration are fully applicable to all the people of the world, and that if in the manner of their application, it must be duly heldÖ. the degree of social and economic development of the people, its progressive application on people who are still dependent, as well as those who have attained the stage where they govern themselves interest the whole civilized world." In fact, these principles are not contained in the new SST approach. The objective of protecting the worker has not disappeared to the point that we have seen that the report openly justifies a break; because as indicated on page 5 we "go from protection to prevention and the evaluation of risks" this "protection" is no longer conceived as relying on the responsibility of the employers whom the states have imposed a series of obligations via legislation or regulation. In fact, we go from the notion of "avoiding risk" to the notion of "management of the risk" and the consequences are no longer the same either for the workers or for those who one will ask (especially the trade unions) to participate in this management. Also, indicated in the conclusions "the governments, the employers and the workers are actively employed in ensuring a safe and clean working environment by setting up well-defined system of rights, responsibilities and obligations where the principle of prevention is accorded the highest priority." As regards Point 15 which reads: "modern norms highlight not only the collective responsibilities in the matter of security and health but also in the roles, rights and respective responsibilities of the employers, the workers and their representatives, as well as the domains in which they must cooperate," or a formulation that notes that there are employers and workers, and both are on the same footing. The systemic approach that is advocated by the ILO is the form in which the transition between one approach to questions of health and security at work in terms of social relations and an approach in terms of "actors", an approach in terms of "avoidance" to an approach in terms of management. This is the way the systemic approach is presented in the report: Level of the company -Fix the policy of the company in the matter of the SST -Define the manner of organization and the responsibilities within the company -Plan and implement the elements of a management system of the SST -Evaluate and verify performances within the company -Do what is necessary for improvement to continue National level -Fix the policy of the country in regard to SST -Define and elaborate progressively a national SST system -Formulate and implement national SST programs -Review the national SST programs -Formulate new national SST programs for improvement to continue As regards the culture of safety, the report gives the following definition on page 26: "The group of convictions, values, attitudes and manner of behaviour of organizations and individuals, who concur that prevention be given the highest priority." We can observe that there is not an approach to social terms, and terms that would permit the state of economic inferiority (or economic subordination or exploitation regardless of the term employed but that includes the idea that the wage relation between employer and worker is not on the same level). From this approach the necessary progress of protection and generalization (harmonizing from above) that benefits the worker logically disappears in time. There is no longer a search for a continued progress through time but a systemic approach, non-historic and periodically revisable. This new approach can be brought closer to the pre-eminence of ISO norms that are supposed to guarantee the quality of a product starting from the definition of manufacturing procedures. The SST becomes and element of this new ënormalization.' Respect for quality procedures are supposed to guarantee the health and security of the workers. Of course one of the aspects of these norms is that the link at the end of the chain, as well as the intermediary links on which the responsibility for breaches and gaps regarding the procedure lies. By so doing, the new approach gives the upper hand to the company on questions of security. This new approach is preceded by a certain number of modifications that went into force in the 1980's. I quote several excerpts from the ILO conventions in the domain of protection of the workers' health, the variation in formulas along the course of time is significant and we will see that it flows in 1993 to an approach that integrates the constraints of the market (reasonable measures) that we have also found the policies of the European Union in this area, or equally in the law on prevention of industrial hazards in France where the environmental right collides with the right to work. In the end the consequences for the ILO are explosive. (One should note in passing that it is interesting that in the report on employment of youth one sees the passage of a logic of protection to a logic of prevention: "employability" where the accent is placed on "company culture.") Convention concerning the use of lead in paint (Note: the date it was put into practice was 31.08.1923. The date of its adoption was 19.11.1921) Article 3 1. The employment of males under eighteen years of age and of all females shall be prohibited in any painting work of an industrial character involving the use of white lead or sulphate of lead or other products containing these pigments Article 5 Each Member of the International Labour Organisation ratifying the present Convention undertakes to regulate the use of white lead, sulphate of lead and of all products containing these pigments, in operations for which their use is not prohibited, on the following principles: I. (a) White lead, sulphate of lead, or products containing these pigments shall not be used in painting operations except in the form of paste or of paint ready for use; (b) Measures shall be taken in order to prevent danger arising from the application of paint in the form of spray 2. Convention on protection from machinery, 1963 3. All set-screws, bolts and keys, and, to the extent prescribed by the competent authority, other projecting parts of any moving part of machinery also liable to present danger to any person coming into contact with them when they are in motion, shall be so designed, sunk or protected as to prevent such danger.
Article 6 1. The use of machinery any dangerous part of which, including the point of operation, is without appropriate guards shall be prohibited by national laws or regulations or prevented by other equally effective measures: Provided that where this prohibition cannot fully apply without preventing the use of the machinery it shall apply to the extent that the use of the machinery permits. 2. Machinery shall be so guarded as to ensure that national regulations and standards of occupational safety and hygiene are not infringed 3. Convention on hygiene (commerce and offices) 1964 Article 11 All workplaces shall be so laid out and work-stations so arranged that there is no harmful effect on the health of the worker. 4. Convention on the working environments (air pollution, noise and vibrations) 1977 Article 4 1. National laws or regulations shall prescribe that measures be taken for the prevention and control of, and protection against, occupational hazards in the working environment due to air pollution, noise and vibration Article 6 1. Employers shall be made responsible for compliance with the prescribed measures. Article 7 1. Workers shall be required to comply with safety procedures relating to the prevention and control of, and protection against, occupational hazards due to air pollution, noise and vibration in the working environment. Article 9 As far as possible, the working environment shall be kept free from any hazard due to air pollution, noise or vibration-- 2. The aim of the policy shall be to prevent accidents and injury to health arising out of, linked with or occurring in the course of work, by minimising, so far as is reasonably practicable, the causes of hazards inherent in the working environment.
2. The aim of the policy shall be to prevent accidents and injury to health arising out of, linked with or occurring in the course of work, by minimising, so far as is reasonably practicable, the causes of hazards inherent in the working environment. Article 6 The formulation of the policy referred to in Article 4 of this Convention shall indicate the respective functions and responsibilities in respect of occupational safety and health and the working environment of public authorities, employers, workers and others, taking account both of the complementary character of such responsibilities and of national conditions and practice. Article 12 Measures shall be taken, in accordance with national law and practice, with a view to ensuring that those who design, manufacture, import, provide or transfer machinery, equipment or substances for occupational use-- (a) satisfy themselves that, so far as is reasonably practicable, the machinery, equipment or substance does not entail dangers for the safety and health of those using it correctly; Article 16 1. Employers shall be required to ensure that, so far as is reasonably practicable, the workplaces, machinery, equipment and processes under their control are safe and without risk to health. 2. Employers shall be required to ensure that, so far as is reasonably practicable, the chemical, physical and biological substances and agents under their control are without risk to health when the appropriate measures of protection are taken. 3. Employers shall be required to provide, where necessary, adequate protective clothing and protective equipment to prevent, so far is reasonably practicable, risk of accidents or of adverse effects Article 19 There shall be arrangements at the level of the undertaking under which-- (a) workers, in the course of performing their work, co-operate in the fulfilment by their employer of the obligations placed upon him; 6. Convention on the prevention of major industrial accidents, 1993 Article 1 1. The purpose of this Convention is the prevention of major accidents involving hazardous substances and the limitation of the consequences of such accidents Article 7 Employers shall identify any major hazard installation within their control on the basis of the system referred to in Article 5. Article 8 1. Employers shall notify the competent authority of any major hazard installation which they have identified Article 9 In respect of each major hazard installation employers shall establish and maintain a documented system of major hazard control which includes provision for: (a) the identification and analysis of hazards and the assessment of risks including consideration of possible interactions between substances; (b) technical measures, including design, safety systems, construction, choice of chemicals, operation, maintenance and systematic inspection of the installation; (c) organizational measures, including training and instruction of personnel, the provision of equipment in order to ensure their safety, staffing levels, hours of work, definition of responsibilities, and controls on outside contractors and temporary workers on the site of the installation; (d) emergency plans and procedures, including: (i) the preparation of effective site emergency plans and procedures, including emergency medical procedures, to be applied in case of major accidents or threat thereof, with periodic testing and evaluation of their effectiveness and revision as necessary; (ii) the provision of information on potential accidents and site emergency plans to authorities and bodies responsible for the preparation of emergency plans and procedures for the protection of the public and the environment outside the site of the installation; (iii) any necessary consultation with such authorities and bodies; (e) measures to limit the consequences of a major accident; (f) consultation with workers and their representatives; (g) improvement of the system, including measures for gathering information and analysing accidents and near misses. The lessons so learnt shall be discussed with the workers and their representatives and shall be recorded in accordance with national law and practices Article 14 1. Employers shall, within a fixed time-frame after a major accident, present a detailed report to the competent authority containing an analysis of the causes of the accident and describing its immediate on-site consequences, and any action taken to mitigate its effects Article 20 The workers and their representatives at a major hazard installation shall be consulted through appropriate cooperative mechanisms in order to ensure a safe system of work. In particular, the workers and their representatives shall: (a) be adequately and suitably informed of the hazards associated with the major hazard installation and their likely consequences Article 21 Workers employed at the site of a major hazard installation shall: (a) comply with all practices and procedures relating to the prevention of major accidents and the control of developments likely to lead to a major accident within the major hazard installation; (b) comply with all emergency procedures should a major accident occur. On the manner in which the right to environment affects the right to work, we cite as an example an excerpt from Preventive Security, September/October 2003 ñ No. 71 on the subject of the law on prevention of technological risks, June 30, 2003. The legal requirement on the formation of employees of external enterprises (modification of Article L.231-1 of the Labor Code) is new since up to the present the obligation for practical and appropriate training was in charge of the bosses of the external enterprises and did not concern independent workers. The requirement is criticisable if one considers it from the point of view of the right to work as it translates into a weakening of the responsibility of the bosses of external enterprises but is perfectly logical if one considers it from the point of view of the right to environment. This last that doesn't recognize the exploiter and only regards the safety of the public and the environment can easily set aside the responsibility of each enterprise. The crossing of the rights of work and the environment that the law initiates must have lasting effects on their respective evolutions. ********************
June 25, 2005, meeting of the "National Committee for the NO to the European Constitution, for the Defense of the Unity of the Italian Republic and Against Regionalization." Since the National Committee for the NO to the European Constitution, for the Defense of the Unity of the Italian Republic and Against Regionalization has committed since 2003 in Italy to make known the real content of the so-called "European Constitution", we invited all our contacts and all those who support us, all the workers who have entered into dialogue with us in these last few years, to read our declaration and that of the Workers' Party of France, to make it known and come to Turin, to the meeting of the editors of Tribuna Libera to decide together how to relaunch a mobilization against the European Constitution and against the directives of the European Union, after the veritable defeat of the Brussels institutions, a defeat that opens new perspectives for all workers, for all those who seek a way to resist the destructive plans that will be introduced throughout Europe within 20 years. After having participated in all the European meetings organized by the ILC, from which thanks to the enormous contribution of the French Workers' Party. the first European appeals for the victory of the NO were launched, we submit the proposal to organize a "National Conference" to freely discuss the group of problems that we are confronted with, and in this sense we invite all out contacts from Turin and other towns to a preparatory meeting to the National Conference on Saturday, June 25. A representative of the French Workers' Party who has played an important role for the victory of the NO will be present at this meeting. There are winners and there are losers, and not just in France! Yes, there are winners and there are losers, and not just in France! There are winners and losers in Italy as well, and certainly among the losers there are all the parties of the government and the opposition that ratified the European Constitution in parliament, that have faithfully applied the policies of the European Union for the past 12 years, and that made propaganda for the YES. Yes, there is a close relationship between the victory of the NO in France, the rejection of policies put forward by all governments of the right and the ëleft', the defeat of Schr–der. And why not connect these results with the "political earthquake" that this past April 3 and 4 shook the government of Berlusconi? How can we not connect them with the big demonstrations, the strikes the mobilizations of all sectors that have characterized the political life in our country with the workers, who on several occasions have demonstrated that they have the strength and the will to fight to defend their conquests? Why not indicate that these events are connected: the rejection of the same policy of destruction of conquests, of public services, of jobs, of wages, of collective bargaining, of pensions, that all governments, of all political shades have imposed for over 12 years in application of the European directives of the Treaty of Maastricht? Yes, it's true, "All the people of Europe are winners who share with the French people the same aspiration to sovereignty, to the defense of rights, to guarantees, to democratic conquests, and the same preoccupations about the machinery set to destroy all the conquests of human civilization that the European Union and its Constitution represent." Enough! The people of Italy spoke on April 3 and 4. The German people did so several days before. On Sunday, May 29, the French with their victory for the NO that cast doubt on the European Constitution. Enough of this policy! On May 29 the people said: "We want to live, we want a future for our youth." But aren't these problems contained in the declaration of the Workers' Party in effect identical to those faced by the workers and the majority of the Italian population? Now more than ever, the problems posed in April are burning issues On April 7, three days after the defeat of Berlusconi, we took the position that we renew today: the government of Berlusconi must leave immediately and all the measures they have taken or about to be taken must be retired or abrogated. A law forbidding layoffs at Fiat and at other threatened industries, that save our country from these disasters is necessary. A law that abrogates the Moratti "reform", the Biagi-Treu laws, the reform of pensions. We need a government that will save the unity of our Republic, the conquests, and the national contracts. But nowadays more than ever, we note that all the measures are in total contradiction with the policy of the European Union that the French people have rejected. On April 7, we posed another problem here, a problem that we are encountering again: Who could believe for one instant that Prodi, who has dictated all the measures for Berlusconi over the past five years, who has never for one instant forgotten to carry through to the end all the plans of the European Union, can satisfy these legitimate aspirations? Who can believe this today, after the French referendum, when Prodi says he is "greatly pained" by the results and hopes the process will continue, he who is one of the promoters and therefore one of the first losers. As the French declaration stated, the problems are concrete. They are concrete in France, in all European countries, and concrete in Italy as well. The problems are concrete The workers and employees at Fiat don't want indemnities based on technical layoffs (cassa integrazione). They want an end to a policy that year after year produces hundreds of layoffs. It's about their life and that of their families. They want a government that satisfies their demands. Isn't that why they went on strike? The teachers, the parents of students, the entire population want the abrogation of the Moratti "reform" and the defense of public education, the re-establishment of all jobs, diplomas, national programsÖ As the French declaration states: "the teacher who asks: why don't I have the right to teach youngsters throughout the Republic respect for secularism?" Aren't the concrete problems raised by hundreds and thousands of teachers and parents of students of over 700 Italian communes who sent an open letter to Ciampi that said: "Why haven't our children the right to national programs, to national diplomas recognized throughout the labor world, and the same education of previous generations?" The 90% of doctors who went on strike said, "The hospitals, with regionalization are threatened with failure; we want to heal but we no longer can." Aren't they right? Isn't this what we all want? Isn't it fair to say, "Stop the suppression of beds and services in the hospitals!" it is bad enough to be unable to care for the sick that are penniless!" As the declaration of the PT says, "You will have to answer the nurse who says: why haven't I the means to care for the sick? Why do they close down the services?" One must reply to the Alitalia personnel laid off, the thousands of workers relegated to the technical unemployment indemnity fund in all industries, to mobile workers, to precarious employment, to the new poor. We ask: Who can really offer us a perspective for the satisfaction of these legitimate demands? It is clear to all that this is impossible with Berlusconi who announces daily his will to continue on the same route, who implements, with total disregard for the will of the majority of the April vote, the Moratti decree on higher education, that suppresses the jobs in schools in each level, who is anxious to approve the university "reform" who announces this dismantling of the IRAP and from there, the destruction of other services and privatisations. Today more than ever, Berlusconi who headed the government that who last October 29 approved, in Rome, the European Constitution, has been defeated and should leave. Who can reasonably think that the demands can be satisfied with Prodi, who absolutely favors the stability pact that is the basis of all the destructions that have occurred these last few days, to publicly offer his ëcollaboration' to Berlusconi, and promises to launch with the Finanziaria a common program for "the present government and the next one" that will be introduced by the realization of privatisations as yet not effected? For our part we consider that only a break with the European Union and its so-called Constitution can open a path to the legitimate aspirations of the majority, the hopes of the entire population. We don't have a recipe for a solution handy. We think that in view of the situation we are in, it is necessary above all for us to gather more people together, to widen the discussion, to search together for a way. We must discuss and start to get together to prepare "a national conference." It is this spirit that we make the following proposition to all the workers with whom we are in contact, to all the subscribers and readers of Tribuna Libre, to all the delegates and trade union leaders, to all who question a possible issue: let us get together in September and prepare a "National Conference." Each in his or her sector, his school, his university, in the health area, the public service, at Fiat, in every workplace, let us commit to defend our conquests. We propose to all to start to get together so that the discussion will be wider and freer among all those who are concerned about the attacks against their rights, lives, and democratic rights. ********************
The Financial Times (Great Britain, June 2, 2005): "Europe inside the storm": "The European political crisis grew more profound yesterday, when the Dutch voters took the road of France by massively rejecting the draft of the Constitution. Ö One of the immediate results of the Dutch vote is that the other countries who were planning on organizing a referendum will probably cancel it, starting with Great Britain. Ö Thomas Meyer, an economist at the Dutch Bank, said that the economic indicators would evolve negatively, but that ëthe political uncertainty adds to the economic weaknesses.' The financial markets reacted negatively to the German reports in which the Central Bank of Germany and the Minister of Finance discussed the risk of an explosion in the Euro zone. The Bundesbank declared that they were absurd speculations. But the experts at the Bundesbank, the National Assembly, prepared a report which explained the European economic and financial union is not irreversible." The same issue summarizes Blair's plan: "Open the market of services of the European Union (70% of the European Union); control, in the name of the Commission, the rescue of the State's companies; reduce the budget for the political joint agriculture and adjust funding to raise the competitivity of the European Union. France will be opposed." --- The Guardian (Great Britain, June 2) "It came as little surprise last night when Dutch voters said an overwhelming no - 63 %. - to the EU new constitutional Treaty. But there should be no underestimating the impact. In just four days two of the six founding members of the then European Economic Community, forerunners of today's union of 25 countries and 455 million people, have rejected a document designed to meet the challenges of the continent's future. Having waited politely for the Dutch result, the EU must now tackle the problem of what to do next with its eyes open. It would be wrong to ignore the unmistakable if wrong-headed message of these two referendums. It would be wrong to ask either people to vote again. It would be pointless too, to go ahead with planned referendums in Denmark, Poland, Ireland and the Czech Republic, risking a domino effect of ever larger 'nos' - despite calls by Germany and some French europhiles anxious to dilute the damaging effect of their vote. The same is true for a referendum in this country. It would be sensible if Jack Straw were to announce next week that preparations for a UK referendum are being suspended. That would leave a collective decision for the EU summit in mid-June. Volatile times now lie ahead on the European front and it would be unwise of this government to crow too loudly about the moment being ripe for a British reform agenda. --- The Guardian (June 2) "A crushing defeat" "The Dutch revolt against their rulers in The Hague and Brussels was without parallel. For 50 years, The Netherlands has been a stronghold of European integration, home to the Maastricht Treaty that produced the most striking instrument of unification - the euro single currency. As in last weekend in France, the no triumph was ascribed to multiple factors all merging into a voters' mutiny. For Europe as a whole, the next weeks and months, coinciding with the British assumption of the EU presidency, seem likely to produce bitter clashes on everything from Turkish accession and enlargement to budget agreements and economic policy. --- New York Times (United States, June 1) The New York Times ran an article titled "Business Goes On As Usual," but which explained that: "An important representative from the administration said that the vote posed a problem because it made Europe more unforeseeable. ... Republican commentators underlined that the destabilization of Chirac .... who could be replaced by Nicolas Sarkozy ... was not badly received at the White House -- similar to the fact that Schroder had to call for early elections." --- New York Times (June 2) : "The governing parties of the right and left said the same thing to the people: 'The painful free market reforms are the only path toward rectification, more jobs, and a better future. But the people, who identified the idea of a bigger Europe as a threat to the system of social protection from cradle to grave responded: 'We don't believe you.' Charles Kupchan, professor of international relations at Georgetown University, explains: "I think there is a revolt against the establishment which is leaving the governments of Great Britain, France, Germany, and Italy particularly weak ... this can cause nothing but worries for Europe, but also for the United States, which need Europe's help on different fronts'." ---- New York Times (June 2) : "After the French and Dutch rejections, the leaders of all 25 countries tried to show that these votes would not paralyse the Union. That was the message they sent to Washington. "These are serious defeats," said Benita Ferrero-Waldner, commissary of foreign relations for the EU. "But we will continue to work, and nothing will keep us from continuing our important co-operation with the United States." Condoleeza Rice, for her part, assured that the European Union would remain an essential partner in the implementation of common goals ó an Israel-Palestine agreement; the spread of democracy to Libya. Condoleeza Rice insisted that Europe should look outwards and should not retreat into itself." ********************
Meeting before the Brussels parliament, Friday, June 17, 2005 at 2 p.m. NO to social regression, NO to the Bolkenstein directive, NO to the draft of the so-called European Constitution. Speakers at this meeting: Guy Biamont, president federal de la CGSP-ACOD ; Jean-Maurice Dehousse, ancien vice-president du groupe socialiste au Parlement europeen ; Jean-Pierre Knaepenbergh, president de la FGTB-ABVV de Bruxelles ; Philippe Larsimont, coordinateur du Mouvement de defense des travailleurs (MDT) ; Hendrick Vermeersch, secretaire du secteur industrie du SETCa-BBTK de Bruxelles-Hal-Vilvorde ; Celine Delforge, deputee ecologiste ; a unionist from the CGT (France). At the press conference the organizers of the meeting for the NO to the European Constitution on June 8, before the Walloon parliament, Jean-Maurice Dehousse spoke thus: "The NO expressed in France and the Netherlands come from Belgium's neighboring countries. To my knowledge they are not socially or categorically different from their Belgian or Walloon neighbors." Le Soir, June 3, 2005. In the Netherlands as in Belgium and France, there are bosses and workers, there are factories, public services, there is a working population that represents the majority of the population and who suffer the blows of the policy imposed by the European Union and youth who aspire to a future. The draft of the European Constitution has been rejected by 62% of the voters with a turnout of 60%. A bunch of journalists and "specialists" then explained that the Dutch NO was not the same as the French NO, a theory immediately picked up by Barroso, the president of the European Commission. They attempted to deform and camouflage that, as in France, the Dutch workers voted massively against the European Constitution to defend their social conquests (here under the term "social" of the country) before the anti-worker offensive orchestrated by the European Union. Even in Maastricht, the symbolic town of the treaty, sadly named after it, and therefore more "europhile" than others (the tourism bureau considers the Treaty of Maastricht as a "gift from God"!), voted 56% for the NO. It is the anti-social policies of the European Union that has been rejected. It was edifying to see a serious report on TV regarding the referendum in the Netherlands. The reporters had interviewed workers at a factory. They said: "There is nothing good for us in the European Constitution." Then the bosses of the same factory were interviewed and they were full of praise for the draft of the Constitution. There's no doubt: it is the workers of the Netherlands and the youth who have rejected, as in France, the policy of social destruction of the European Union. -- Roberto Giarrocco, trade unionist ********************
What happened in Uzbekistan in May? What happened in Uzbekistan in May? We now know the riots that broke out in the village of Andijan, in the East of this ancient Soviet republic in Central Asia, who were savagely repressed, did not provoke the indignation of the "great defenders of human rights." Le Figaro described the present regime as "a dictatorship dominated by the former KGB security services." (May 14 and 15, 2005). In reference to Karimov's regime it recalled "during the student riots of 1992 after the increase in prices and the growing popularity of the opposition, he was scared and opted for ferocious repression. This regime, pinned under Breshnev for having covered up the biggest cotton traffic ever organized is corrupt and subject to the discretion of the prince." (May 16) Liberation reported that the regime's economic policy, the "VOIE uzbek," was carried by the crisis of the monoculture of cotton, where the revenues are the principal source of currency of the state. Incapable of carrying out reforms, especially agrarian ones, the country was flooded by foreign investors. The enrichment of the Karimov clan became objectionable in view of the miserable background." On the other side of society, a power composed of Mafiosi, in which Karimov's daughter was the model. Le Monde reported (May 26, 2005): "The forty-year-old is the most visible business woman in the country. She reigns over a vast financial empire of factories, mobile phones, nightclubs, and travel agencies. This elite courtesan prospers, while the rest of the country is plunged into misery." Karimov is a mafioso, called on by his North American masters to destroy the country and to develop military bases! It is under these conditions that the demonstrations took place, first of all for the release of 23 small businessmen accused and sentenced for "Islamism". Immediately, the riots had a social content in a situation where 70% of the population is unemployed: "They wanted better wages and live a normal life and not like sheep or pigs," according to a witness (Le Figaro, May 16, 2005). With the brutality that characterizes him, the powers that be sent in the army and police force to crush the insurgents. In Andijan, the toll was 500 to 1,000 dead. Putin immediately welcomed the blood bath under the pretext that is was a fight against the "talibans". Former KGB members know how to recognize the good old methods! As for Bush and U.S. imperialism, they raised an eyebrow and the press cannot hide that "their meager balance sheet is worth something nonetheless for Islam Karimov, especially after 9/11, the unconditional support of the United States great purveyor of military aid to the country. They don't miss an opportunity to denounce Alexandre Loukachenko (1) as "the last dictator in Europe", Condoleeza Rice, the Secretary of State, does not as zealously condemn the Uzbek president. In 2004, the State Department had stopped a 12 million dollar aid package because of the attacks on freedom in the country; the Pentagon then announced that it would double its aid "to fight terrorism." (Le Monde, May 26, 2005). For the Bush administration, in its race to control oil, it had to preserve the "air base of the U.S. Army in Qarshi Hanabad. A strategic link in the surveillance of the Central Asian, Caspian and Middle East region, with 1,500 men based there, has completed the installation of the Kirghiz base in Manas." Le Figaro, May 14 and 15, 2005. Of course, for its interests and those of the oil magnates, Washington will not hesitate in the future to overthrow the Karsimov through a so-called "revolution" as it has in Georgia, in Ukraine and in Kirghiztan. Also, NATO has appealed "to pressure" Uzbekistan (AFP, May 25). Le Figaro reported "in the plane that carried her from the Far East, Condoleeza Rice for her part called on the Uzbek government to undertake political reforms and have a more open system." It is true that in Uzbekistan as in Kirghiztan, in the Ukraine and Georgia, the North Americans will have no difficulty in finding among the Mafiosi born from the Stalinist bureaucracy candidates to replace Karimov to continue to serve Washington. Correspondent (1) Alexandre Loukachenko is the president of the Belorussian republic. ********************
A Colombian trade union mission is in France for the defense of trade union freedoms 16 trade union leaders have been murdered this year A Colombian trade union delegation, accompanied by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) was received last week by French trade union confederations CGT-FO, CGT, CFDT and CFTC. They held a press conference presided by Marc Blondel, of the CGT- Force Ouvriere, on Thursday, May 12 at the headquarters of the Economic and Social Council in Paris. The objective of this step, several days before the annual conference of the ILO, was to appeal for the defense of trade unionism in Colombia, in view of an attempt at liquidation that accounted for 16 assassinations between January 1 through April 31, 123 death threats and 40 arbitrary detentions of trade union activists belonging to the three confederations. To respond to this appeal or for further information contact: Union departmental FO du Rhone "The representatives of three Colombian confederations (CUT, CGT and CTC) explain how the Colombian population continues to be impoverished and is less and less protected. Unemployment and under-employment are on the rise. The ministries and public social service organisms have been weakened, reformed or dismantled. For example, the Labor and Health ministries have been consolidated and are now the Ministry for Social Protection. Their workers have been laid off or given part-time work, both in the private and the public sector. These sectors are continually restructured, with laws that promote flexibility at work and allow avoidance of different types of obligations. To organize a trade union, conclude collective bargaining or organize a strike is complex ó actually, impossible. Those who want to create a trade union are laid off, harassed or receive death threats. Those who want to enforce the trade union mandate in order to improve the condition of workers are under the same pressures. As precarious work increases, the more the difficulties rise in trade union work. Impunity prevails for those who violate labor rights (including the murderers of the trade union leaders and trade union workers), while the whole weight of the law falls on the workers even in situations where they are clearly acting within the law. It is also worth noting that functionaries in the judiciary are also subject to pressures while they complete their mandate and defend workers' rights. In Colombia, because of its policies, over six million workers survive through the informal economy and have no social benefits. At least four million are unemployed and plunged into misery. Colombia is the most violent country in the world for trade union and social leaders. From January 1 through April 20, 2005, 16 homicides of trade union leaders were registered and numerous other leaders were victims of all sorts of violations of their most elementary rights: 123 received death threats, two attempts, six forced transfers, 40 arbitrary detentions, 23 harassments and four kidnappings. Over 95% of murders and other violations of the integrity of trade union leaders registered in these last years have gone unpunished. These situations have been denounced repeatedly to the ILO, as well as the Commission on Human Rights of the UN." A trade unionist from the departmental union of the Force Ouvriere of Rhone, reported on the testimonies collected in Colombia that throw light on the existence of a "Dragon Operation" whose goal is the physical extermination of trade unionists and defenders of human rights in that country. A list of people to be killed was made public by a trade union mission that went to Colombia and was able to meet with representatives of the democratic trade union movement. She was particularly interested in the fate of two trade union leaders who are being held in secret in a detention center of the security police (DAS) in Bogota. The representatives of the French trade union federations and the ICFTU have indicated that they will again intercede forcefully for the defense of trade unionism in Colombia at the next session of the ILO in June in Geneva. ********************
Reasons for the Murderous Evolution That Threatens the African Continent: Conclusions of the Algerian Workers Party's (PT) Parliamentary Hearings on May 14-15, 2005 The Parliamentary Group of the Workers Party organized a Special Hearing of the National Popular Assembly of Algeria on May 14- 15, 2005 on the subject of the murderous evolution that threatens the African continent. Speakers at the two sessions of the Hearing were FranÁois Yao, General Secretary, Synaseg (Oil and Gas) Trade Union Federation (Cote d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast); Paul NKunzimana, President, University Workers Union (Burundi); Norbert Benissan Tetevi, General Secretary, UNSIT Trade Union Federation (Togo); Colia Clark, Long-time Civil Rights activist, co-organizer with Medgar Evers of Mississippi NAACP Voters Project (USA); Abdel Madjid Sidi Said, General Secretary, UGTA Trade Union Federation (Algeria); Louisa Hanoune, General Secretary, Workers Party of Algeria; Dan Moutot, representative of the International Liaison Committee (ILC), coordinator of the Conference for Peace in Cote d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast. The two-day hearing on the situation in the African continent was chaired by Djelloul Djoudi, president of the Parliamentary Group of the Workers Party. The hearing was opened with the reading of a message from Lybon Mabasa, president of the Socialist Party of Azania/SOPA (Azania/South Africa) and convener of the International Tribunal on Africa, who was unable to travel to Algeria. This meeting focused on the unity of the continent and the international dimension of the continued problems that confront it. This has been the ongoing focus of the International Liaison Committee of Workers and Peoples (ILC) ever since its first conference against the debt, held in 1987 in Caracas (Venezuela), and through the numerous ILC-organized international and continental conferences, including the two full sessions of the Africa Tribunal and the Special Session of the Tribunal on the Cote d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast. The participants in the Parliamentary Hearings agreed to give new impetus to the international mobilizations to defend the African continent and to prevent its fate from being generalized on all continents. Based on incontrovertible facts, reliable reports, testimony from participants, and an in-depth assessment of the foreign debt, the participants in this these two-day Hearings established the following: - The reimbursement of the debt is a system of pillage knowingly practiced by international financial institutions and the big powers to impose drastic austerity budgets, as well as the dismantling of the workers' and peoples' conquests gained in the aftermath of national independence. The US $350 billion of the African debt and the reimbursement of $35 billion a year takes away any possibility for social progress for the vast majority of African countries, including those that have considerable natural resources. This is illustrated in the case of Nigeria, the leading oil producer in Africa and the fifth exporter in the world. Nigeria has witnessed continuous general strikes because 80% of the population wallows in misery, while the price of oil has skyrocketed because of IMF enforced conditions and the reimbursement of the debt. The reimbursement of the debt and its interest is used by the international financial institutions to impose upon peoples and states the IMF's Structural Adjustment Plans (SAP); that is, the privatizations and pillage of the natural resources and deregulation, which are the source of massive layoffs and the increase in unemployment and savage exploitation. The participants in the Parliamentary Hearings from Burundi, Cote d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast and Togo noted that these policies are at the origin of the wars (supposedly ethnic in origin), the armed conflicts, and the political crises that have broken out in almost every country come election time. The participants established the responsibility of the multinational corporations, the great powers and the international institutions in their service in the unfolding deadly conflicts that have arisen across the continent as a result of the break-down of the social fabric, the conscious exacerbation of pseudo-ethnic divisions and the distribution of arms to all the warring factions. The participants established that the destruction of the Labor Codes and social services provokes the break up of the unity of the working class and thus facilitates the manipulation of ethnic and religious differences and the pillage of natural resources on the basis of the collapse of the states. The destruction of national social legislation aims to destroy the trade union organizations and dismantle the nations as they have been constituted. The participants affirm that the spread of epidemics, particularly AIDS, is a direct consequence of budgetary restrictions on health care imposed by the Structural Adjustment Plans and the wars, themselves a result of the policies of pillage propagated by the debt. These epidemics more and more appear as a physical liquidation programmed throughout the continent: On top of the devastation induced by AIDS, the International Labor Bureau (ILB) estimates that 50 million African workers will die from now through 2015 if the present trend continues. This means that the policies that flow from the reimbursement of the debt imposed by the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO and the European Union are in fact organizing the physical destruction of the workers as a social class, just as they attack their social rights. These policies are also responsible for the African brain drain and the exploitation of women and children in conditions not that unlike those of slavery. As for privatizations, the participants in the Parliamentary Hearings noted that the report of the African Economic Commission published in 2003 states that out of 2,300 companies privatized between 1991 and 2000 in Sub-Saharan Africa, only 66 companies have survived. All the others were closed down. According to the ILO, 350 million Africans subsist on less than one dollar a day, and the average life expectancy is 49 years. It has been established that the so-called "peace plans" for the region haven't re-established peace because they sanction political representation on the basis of ethnic quotas, contrary to democracy and equality of rights. More fundamentally, these so-called peace agreements leave out the central questions that are at the origin of the crises; namely, the socio-economic collapse as a consequence of the repayment of the debt and the pillage of natural resources of the continent. The African trade union leaders and the representative of the ILC established that crises and conflicts spread each time the discovery of new oil deposits is announced. This only confirms the prefabricated character of the so-called ethnic conflicts. The participants registered that the heads of African state themselves noted on April 19, 2005 at Charm El-cheikh that four years after its creation, NEPAD [regional program for African development] has not improved the situation on the continent. For them, the question that is still at the heart of all the problems is the question of the debt. In October 2004, the Algerian president gave a speech in Johannesburg concerning the mechanism of pillage via the debt: "I borrow ten dollars, I reimburse 26 dollars so that my debt is reduced to nine dollars", he said. The Algerian president went on to describe the efforts by the heads of state to cancel the debt ó efforts that fell on the deaf ears of the big powers and international institutions. The participants, basing themselves on the position taken at the Summit of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in July 1999 in Algeria in favor of the cancellation of all the African debt, affirmed their determination to search for, in the framework of international solidarity between workers and peoples, the means to assist the mobilizations calling for the cancellation of the debt. This debt is not the peoples' debt, nor does it benefit the workers or the peoples of rich countries and great powers, since they, too are confronted with the disastrous consequences of globalization. The participants took note of the motion adopted recently by the Nigerian Parliament, which calls upon President Obasandjo not to pay the debt that is strangling the country. Together with the Parliamentary Group of the Workers Party of Algeria, the participants in the Hearings call on all African politicians, regardless of political affiliation, to support this step and to adopt similar motions throughout all of Africa, for the survival of the African continent. What is needed is to forge the broadest unity to save the African continent, just as was done in the struggles to attain national independence. On the question of land, the participants support unconditionally the right of the Black majority in Zimbabwe to re-appropriate the agricultural lands held by a white minority. They denounced the racist campaign orchestrated by world powers against President Mugabe, who has undertaken an agricultural reform that benefits the Black people. The participants noted the declarations of Thabo Mbeki, president of South Africa, who indicated that the situation is even worse in South Africa, where the white minority continues to hold most of the farmland that the Blacks are denied. Within this framework, and in view of the terrifying figures on poverty and the terrible toll from AIDS in South Africa, the participants affirmed that the Black people of South Africa cannot be held responsible for the repayment of debt of the Apartheid regime. They affirm that the complete destruction of this system of racial segregation is indissolubly linked with the re-appropriation by the Black majority of the wealth of the country, more than half of which still remains in the hands of the white minority. The participants assert that the plunder by the debt, which is at the origin of the disaster devastating the African continent, is the continuation under other forms of slavery and colonization by the big powers, which in the past pillaged the human and natural resources of the continent. The participants established that it is this same system that is the origin of the oppression of Black Americans who built the U.S. economy, oppression that takes the form of heightened discrimination and the use of Black youth in particular as cannon fodder in the horrible wars of occupation, such as the one inflicted upon the people Iraq. The black civil rights activist from the United States called for the withdrawal of all occupation troops and for the respect for the sovereignty of nations. More generally, the participants in the Hearings affirmed that such world developments as the extension of wars, speculation, drugs, the horrifying social regression on all continents, the industrial desertification, the massive layoffs, the assault on social rights and on the role of the states are rooted in the world's capitalist system -- a system that threatens the very bases of civilization. The participants refuted the pseudo-inevitability of this system. On the contrary, they affirmed that the survival of peoples and workers, of civilization, requires a united fight to defeat this system. The participants in the Hearings declared themselves in agreement with the General Secretary of the National Union of Algerian Workers (UGTA), who insisted on the fundamental role of trade union organizations in the defense of workers and nations via the total cancellation of the debt, just as he insisted on the need to preserve the trade union organizations and the initial role of the ILO. In fact, the tripartite structure of the ILO has been threatened by the introduction of the NGOs. Generally this question is bound up with the assault on the sovereignty of states in the name of "good governance" -- which implies the substitution of social and public services with NGOs financed by the international institutions. The participants reaffirmed their commitment to the existence of sovereign states working exclusively in the service of the needs of the peoples and the workers. At the end of the first day of the Parliamentary Hearings, a delegation consisting of trade union leaders from Cote d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast, Burundi, Togo, as well as the Black activist from the United States, the deputies of the Workers Party of Algeria and the representative of the ILC went to the headquarters of the UGTA, where they were fraternally received by its secretary general, Sidi Said, in conformity with Algerian traditions of hospitality. The exchange resulted in the following proposals: - Prepare a memorandum on the tragic consequences of the debt on the African countries in general and on the workers in particular, so as to inform the workers and their organizations in the framework of international solidarity. - Prepare the necessary conditions to organize an African Conference for the Cancellation of the Debt on the basis of an appeal to all the workers' organizations in Africa, the United States, and the world. - Pursue initiatives for peace in Cote d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast. - The African trade union leaders will report on the state of the preparation of the memorandum and the contacts established with workers' organizations on the occasion of the next General Assembly of the ILO in Geneva. An international conference of the ILC in Defense of Trade Union Organizations and ILO Conventions will be held on June 12 in Geneva, and the participants will be informed of the conclusions of these Parliamentary Hearings in Algeria. (Excerpt reprinted from FraternitÈ, the newspaper of the Workers Party of Algeria) ********************
National conference in Berlin on June 25 "If the SPD is to survive, it must make a 180o degree turn" (Ulrich Maurer, board member of the SPD in Bade-Wurtenberg) "What is worst about Schr–der, is his cynicism, his offhand manner and his contempt for all who work and suffer. He has shown this on live TV, grossly mocking the unemployed who were heckling him at an electoral meeting. For seven years he has conducted the worst policy we have ever known. The CDU-CSU could never even have imagined to even undertake a minor part of the 2010 Agenda. It would have had to face the workers and their trade unions and the SPD. That is where what is most terrible and contemptible lies. Schr–der set up this policy in the name of a party that had contributed to construction of conquests, conquests that he tries to destroy. He is the one who has led the SPD to a crushing defeat on May 22 in Rhenanie-du-Nord-Westphalie. He set the trap in which the workers had to debate. He constrained them to reject his dishonourable policy, to turn their backs on the party for which they had voted for many a year. That wasn't enough for Schr–der. Several minutes after the results, he announced that he would call for anticipated general elections in autumn, probably on September 18. He announced that he would head the list and he would conduct the campaign for the continuation of his policy and that his calendar was ready and that he had no option but to follow it. As if he had decided to put down attempts at resistance to his policy in the SPD in order to continue the destruction before passing things on in good conditions, that is to say after he attempted to dislocate even more the working class organizationsóAngela Merkel and the CDU-CSU in order to continue the destruction dictated by the European Union and the European Central Bank. What happened? I have discussed this with my colleagues, members of the SPD, trade union activists who do not wish to abandon the SPD to the hands of Schroder and his team. They are preparing a national conference in Berlin on June 25. I will trace the principal elements of this discussion." "The question is not to know where Schroder is taking the country, everyone knows that. He is leading the whole country into a disaster, and the SPD to a great loss. Nowadays it is Maurer at the Bundestag, who has addressed the leaders of the SPD and said: "If the SPD is to survive, it must make a 180o turn." In his letter he assaults Schroder, contests his right to lead a campaign and says one should get rid of him. He expresses a majority opinion in the party. Never mind that all the decisions were taken without conferences, without debates, by those who were the organizers of the Rhenanie debacle. How is it possible to accept this without disowning our history, without disowning the generations of workers who, supported by the party with the trade unions, have gained the pension system financed by solidarity, that guaranteed pensioners up to this moment a dignified, the right to medical attention in the framework of a system of obligatory social security, the right in case of unemployment to indemnities and assistance in finding a new job in the framework that guaranteed respect for his qualifications and wages. Schroder can decide what he wants, he can even momentarily succeed in imposing this or that decision. But does he have the power to prevent all these questions from arising? Quite simply, the survival of millions of human beings is at stake. Does he have the power to prevent the SPD activists, the workers, the trade unionists to ask more and more questions, to gather in their sections, to gain strength week after week in order to finally, get rid of Schroder and set the SPD back on track? I say no, he doesn't have the power. We are on the eve of big battles. One must respond to the unemployed who are driven by the Hartz IV law into social decline, to the privation of their rights, to humiliation. Must they content themselves with hearing that the work force is worthless and that the contributions of the workers are no longer sufficient to finance the equivalent of his wage, as had been possible for decades? Shouldn't the unemployed have the right to benefit from unemployment insurance, though the European Union has reorganized the system of Social Security and the lowering of the cost of wages? Or should they be content with some "corrections" to the Hartz IV so that they can take the road to social exclusion several months later? Isn't the task of a real social-democratic policy to immediately abrogate the Hartz IV law and re-establish unemployment insurance system that had previously been in force? Is it inevitable that the pillars of the social security system conquered by the struggle of the labor movement, the worker and trade union rights, the public social infrastructures are today ëreorganized' and reformed, that it is necessary to deregulate and privatize them, because the European Union said so? We must urgently address this problem. We must organize this fight in which I will participate at the Berlin conference on June 25, in order to debate and take the necessary political and organizational measures throughout Germany.
|
Open World Conference of Workers