ILC INTERNATIONAL NEWSLETTER NO. 137
A dossier of weekly information published by the International
Liaison Committee of Workers and Peoples
June 21, 2005
Introduction:
In this issue, you will find the introductory presentation to the
June 12 ILC Conference in Geneva In Defense of the ILO Conventions and
Trade Union Independence.
The speech sparked a real debate. We will publish in upcoming issues the
presentations and speeches made in the course of the conference, as well
as some interviews.
After the 93rd Annual Session of the ILO there are important tasks
facing us. These tasks concern the whole labor movement.
"The ILO is at the crossroads. The debate has been opened. It will
be furthered in relation to the preparation of the UN Summit and in
relation to the issues confronting the international union
movement," concluded the statement of the 12th ILC conference.
We are publishing the documents that have been sent to us, so that all
of us can, on the basis of the facts, form our opinions.
"Nationalization of the natural gas!" is the demand of
hundreds of thousands of Bolivians who swarmed the capital of La Paz
over a month ago. You can read in the report below the mandate given to
the National Popular Assembly constituted in El Alto-La Paz. You will
also find a communiqué of the Bolivian Federation of Mine Workers.
We also publish a letter from Brazil and the Declaration of the O
Trabalho current of the PT.
Last week we informed you about the liberation of the Romanian unionist
Miron Cozma. You can find the communiqué of the ILC, as well as a
summary of the facts.
Table of Contents:
p.1: Introduction
p. 2-5: 12th International Conference In Defense of the ILO Conventions,
Geneva, June 12, 2005
p. 6: Brazil -Correspondence
-Declaration of the O Trabalho current of the PT
p. 7: Bolivia: -The creation of a National Popular Assembly in El Alto-
La Paz
-Colombia
p.8: Romania: -The liberation of Miron Cozma
-Message from the ILC
-Correspondence
********************
12th International Conference In Defense of the ILO Conventions,
Geneva, June 12, 2005
Introductory Presentation by Daniel Gluckstein
This is the 12th year that we have organized this Conference in
Defense of the ILO Conventions. Only three months ago, many of us met in
Madrid at the World Conference initiated by the ILC. At this World
Conference we took note of the fact that the labor movement, on an
international scale, is confronted with the proposal of what has been
called the "governance of globalization." The labor movement
is being told that from now on it should dissolve itself into the NGOs,
civil society, and the Social Forums - and that it should accept
becoming the instruments the implementation of the policies of the IMF,
World Bank, and WTO.
We are here today in Geneva on the occasion of the Annual Session of the
ILO. It must be admitted that through the report given by Juan Somavia
in this assembly of the ILO and in all of the debates that took place,
there is evidence of an unprecedented offensive taking place to reform
the ILO - moreover, this is admitted officially. The ILO is being
invited to integrate itself into the preparation of what it called the
Millennium Forum, which will take place next September at the time of
the General Assembly of the UN.
For those of us who have fought for more than twelve years for the
defense of the ILO and its conventions, there is a need to discuss among
ourselves the long process aiming to put into question the ILO
Conventions, the existence of the organizations through which the
working class has constituted itself on a national and international
scale, and the rights won by the workers of each country. What is more,
the very bases of political democracy are being put into question by the
drive against the existence of workers' organizations and labor rights
in each country.
We should recall that the drive against the founding principles of the
ILO was accelerated with the 1998 Declaration that proposed to
substitute a new system founded on "recommendations" for the
traditional binding system based on ILO Conventions.
All of this is familiar territory for those brothers and sisters who
have participated in our conferences; since this modification took place
in 1998, we have not ceased to alert the workers' organizations
throughout the world about the serious dangers of this change. But it is
necessary to return to this question today because we have reached a
moment where this modification is finding its expression in practice.
Unfortunately, our fears from the beginning have been confirmed.
In 1998, at the same assembly of the ILO, for the first time, the
president at that time of the United States, Bill Clinton, decided to
promote a declaration titled "ILO Declaration Concerning the
Fundamental Rights and Principles at Work." This declaration made a
formal reference to the ILO Conventions, but introduced the following
change: "The Declaration includes an important new element. First,
the recognition that even the members of the ILO that have not ratified
the principles in question are obliged to follow in 'good faith' the
principles concerning fundamental rights at work that are covered by
said Conventions."
Until the present, the normative system that was adopted in 1919 was
based upon the adoption of the 185 Conventions. These Conventions, once
formulated in the framework of a tripartite system based on
representatives from states, employers, and workers, was then submitted
for ratification by each ratifying country. After being ratified and
written into national laws through national Parliaments, they had the
force of law, and the power to make the governments respect the ILO
Conventions.
But since 1998, there has been growing drive to substitute the binding
system of Conventions with a system of recommendations which the
corporations and governments are asked to abide by based on "good
faith." This substitution leaves the door wide open to all the
forms of deregulation of the workers' rights which were codified into
the national social legislation. This has been confirmed largely since
that time.
Today, in 2005, the report presented by Juan Somavia in the Annual
Session of the ILO expresses a substantial change in relation to what
had been the traditional report presented at the Sessions of the ILO.
Already, in 2002, there was the creation of a commission under the aegis
of the UN on the so-called "Social Dimension of
Globalization," about which we spoke quite a bit in the Madrid
conference.
But this year was the first year where the General Director of the ILO
did not present a report as such. All of those who are familiar with the
Annual Session of the ILO know that the leaders and representatives of
the ILO usually present big reports, written several months before,
which summarize the situation concerning the respect of the ILO
Conventions, their implementation, trade union rights-the evolution
essentially of the international working class.
This year, the report of the Director General was very modest in both
ambition and size. He explained this saying that from now on the report
of the ILO should be done inside the framework of the objectives of the
"Millennium for Development." In 2000 the General Assembly of
the UN adopted the "objectives for the Millennium" concerning
development, and it is in relation to these objectives that next
September the so-called Millennium + 5 Summit will take place. This
Summit will evaluate the implementation of these objectives.
What is the effect of this subordination, we must say, of the ILO to the
framework set by UN through the Millennium + 5?
Here is what the General Secretary of the UN, Kofi Annan, said about
this Summit: "The states cannot do the work on their own. We need
an active civil society and a dynamic private sector. Civil society and
the private sector have an increasingly important role to play in
relation to the spheres previously reserved to the states."
For the working classes of each country, the existence of norms codified
in national laws is a conquest. The drive toward the destruction of the
norms codified into national laws clearly benefits private businesses.
Today, as this process is evolving, Mr. Somavia invites the ILO to
participate from now on in the framework of the Millennium + 5 Summit.
It is worth spending a few minutes to read the report of the UN - which
is very thick - in preparation for the Millennium + 5 Summit. There you
will find the paradox: The report of the General Director of the ILO,
is, I think, eight pages long, and essentially says that our tasks are
inside the framework of the Millennium + 5 Summit of the UN. But the
preparatory report of the Millennium + 5 Summit is 150 pages long.
I will read to you a few excerpts from two chapters. Chapter Nine is
titled "Contribution to the Private Sector." It reads:
"In a market economy, private business contribute to the reduction
of poverty in various ways." Remember that the number one objective
of the Millennium 2000 Summit, as well as the Millennium + 5 Summit, is
the "reduction of poverty." Thus private businesses are
playing a bigger role in the reduction of poverty. Later, I will examine
this argument.
The report also reads: "A partnership between the public and
private sectors is needed, and it is worthwhile to distinguish between
the services provided and the source of their financing. Even if a
private company is in the best position to offer a service in an
efficient manner, many times it will be best for it to be financed by
public coffers."
Many comrades here know what this means. In all our countries for
the past years, we have seen the substitution of public services with
services provided by the private sector. The private sector has many
times benefited from public subsidies when they privatize public
services. In Europe, this is what they call "Services of General
Economic Interest," but this process is at work, I think in all
countries.
The report also states: "The public sector and the private sector
can combine their forces through partnerships. The privates sector can
use part of its assets to attain new markets. The public sector can
assure access to all by subsidizing the impoverished households, opening
hence to the private corporations vast new markets of consumers."
This is a completely new redefinition of the role of public services.
Until now, it was held that the role of public services was to assure a
certain amount of equality between citizens and a certain amount of
leveling.
This redefinition of public services would make public services the
benefactor for private companies. In other words, the criterion would no
longer be to satisfy social needs, but rather to help private companies
make profits.
Later, the report reads: "The proposal is for the State to grant,
from now on, markets on the basis of performance and for it to sign
contracts with private companies or NGOs to supply agreed-upon services
to a given population."
I know that many comrades - in particular in Africa, in Asia, and
unfortunately more and more in Europe - would be able to give us many
examples concerning the way in which the institutions have liquidated
public services by transferring the responsibilities to the NGOs in
conditions where the population have no recourse to obtain their rights.
This is the framework of the Millennium + 5 report that the leaders of
the ILO want to insert the ILO Conventions into. All of this has real
consequences for trade union organizations and the role of the workers'
movement.
In another document of the UN which presents the objectives of the
September Summit, we can find the following: "At the end of the
World Pact, Kofi Annan proposed that businesses that participate in the
pact begin to try to act in ways consistent with the key values of the
United Nations concerning human rights, labor rights, and environmental
rights. Soon after, 50 general secretaries and heads of important
associations of civil society and world trade union organizations have
met with the General Secretary since July 2000."
Here we have the idea that lies at the center of the current
developments in the ILO: the affirmation of the "social
responsibilities of corporations." We have already seen in the
quotes that I just cited that private businesses are supposed to now
play a central role in the fight against poverty. All the worker
activists in this room know through experience that poverty develops
based on exploitation and that the big corporations that are being
referenced here are big precisely because their incomes are big because
they make big profits, and these big profits are made off the
exploitation of the labor force. These businesses are thus not a
progressive factor in the struggle against poverty, but rather are
generally a factor spreading poverty, deregulation, and precarity
through different forms.
From the second when it is claimed that these "big
corporations," to use their rhetoric, are a progressive factor in
the fight against poverty, then it is easy to conclude that these
businesses, in general, have a "social responsibility" and
that it is not necessary to defend the rights won by the working class,
but rather to promote the "social responsibility of
corporations."
In Chapter 8, titled "Contribution to Civil Society and to Meet the
Objectives of the Millennium for Development," of the same report -
in the current vocabulary, the term civil society includes the trade
union organizations - one finds the following passage: "The
national strategies to meet the objectives of the Millennium for
Development, demand the support and participation of the organizations
of civil society, which represent important sectors of the populations
and which express the needs of a broad range of communities and which
respond to their needs."
We will skip over the vocabulary, but it seems that among the
"communities" in question, there must be the
"community" of wage workers, which we call the working class.
It says here: "The role of the organizations of civil society is to
contribute to the choice of investment priorities and the targeting of
zones and priority communities." In other words, one of the roles
of trade union organizations must be to help invest in one sector over
another. I think that the Brazilian comrades can tell us quite a bit
about their experience with the World Social Forums and Participatory
Democracy.
In this context, we are faced with a question that must be evaluated.
What position should workers' organizations adopt in relation to the
invitation made to them to place the social responsibilities of
corporations at the center of the defense of social rights? What
position should the workers' movement take? The traditional position of
the workers' movement is that the working class fights through its
organization to conquer rights - rights that are codified in labor
codes, collective-bargaining agreements, statutes, and social laws in
each country; rights that are reflected in the international ILO
Conventions. The traditional position is that the working class has
interests different from the other social classes and that it has
specific demands. The traditional position is that the workers must
organize to struggle to defend their specific interests in the framework
of their relations with other social classes, whether in the framework
of the ILO or on a national scale.
Today, the ILO Conventions still exist. Their continued existence is
what is at stake in our struggle. The long drive to put the ILO
Conventions into question has not been completely successful. There is
still a Norms Commission that examines the Conventions each year here in
Geneva. Similarly, though they are being threatened and though they are
weaker than they were ten or twenty years ago, the labor codes,
conventions, statutes, and social security systems still exist in our
respective countries. There is an urgent need for the working class to
defend each one of its conquests and to organize to ensure their
defense. We know very well that if workers cannot defend their past
conquests, then they won't be able to win new ones.
The drive to destroy the ILO's System of Norms is underway. The workers'
representative at the latest Annual Session of the ILO declared that it
is no longer possible to rely on the traditional Conventions of the ILO,
under the pretext that they are "too often not ratified or
implemented." He said that the world has changed, and that since
the world has changed it is no longer possible for workers to defend
past gains or to win new reforms.
This debate is going on an international scale as well as in each
country. I want to dwell on the international debate.
I have here a document titled "Trade-union Declaration On the
Agenda of the 6th Ministerial Conference of the World Trade
Organization." This conference will take place in Hong Kong next
September, and in preparation for the conference a union declaration has
been issued. It was ratified by Global Unions, which, it is stated,
includes International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), the
World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), the Consultative Trade Union
Commission in the OECD, the European Trade Union Confederation and
international sector trade unions such as Union Network International,
Education International, International Transport Federation,
International Metal Workers Federation, FITDB, UITA, ISP, FITTHT, FIJ,
and ISEM. In other words, every worker activist here today is concerned
with this declaration, which is presented in his or her name.
This declaration was made in the name of the international workers'
movement and in your names. It reads: "The creation of decent
employment must be at the center of governmental priorities and must be
the principal element of a cycle of trade negotiation really centered on
development." The "union" text specifies that
"decent employment" encompasses "jobs, the respect of
workers' rights, and social protection and social dialogue."
On this level of generalities, I do not know of a single country in the
world that would be burdened to respect this so-called decent employment
- except for maybe a few bloody dictatorships of which thankfully there
are not many. But there is always a certain form of
"employment," and a certain "respect for workers'
rights" in all the countries that have norms. In one way or
another, the workers are respected and there is always a form of social
protection and social dialogue.
After saying that the goal is "decent employment," the text
says: "There is something missing in the heart of the WTO due to
its separation from the UN's institutions responsible for social
development." The UN's institutions responsible for social
development? This refers to the ILO, since the ILO is part of the galaxy
of UN institutions. Therefore, it says the problem is that the ILO is
separated from the WTO. This "international union declaration"
is demanding a certain form of integration of the ILO into the WTO. This
is not the IMF, the World Bank, the government that are demanding this;
it is in the name of the world workers' movement that the demand for the
integration of the ILO into the WTO is brought forward.
So how can an organization mandated to defend the Conventions of workers
be integrated into an organization that regulates trade relations?
This is explained: "It is essential that the world governmental
system - which has granted the WTO, World Bank, and IMF excessive power-
be re-balanced so that social and environmental questions receive the
same attention as commerce and the economy."
The WTO is an institution that regulates commercial relations between
states, tariffs, customs barriers, and export quotas. If you give the
WTO the mission to include in its trade relations a social clause that
establishes the conditions under which such trade should be possible,
who will be the guarantor of such a social clause? The only ones who can
do this are those that are involved in the implentation of the trade
agreements; that is, the multinational corporations.
If you believe that the ILO must be integrated into the WTO, you soon
come to the conclusion that the multinationals must be entrusted to
oversee the implementation of the social clauses - which bring us back
full circle to the system of recommendations of the ILO in 1998 on the
basis of "good faith" - to which all corporations adhere.
Moreover, all this has a specific name: "codes of conduct,"
which the multinationals are being asked to adopt.
The same "trade union" document continues: "In these
trade agreements it is imperative that the ILO be involved." Thus
it is a demand that the ILO be integrated into the WTO.
To do what? "At the Sixth Ministerial Conference of the WTO, all
the members of the WTO must renew their formal adoption of the
Fundamental Norms at Work." I draw your attention to this formula:
a "formal adoption of the Fundamental Norms at Work." There is
a footnote that explains that "the Fundamental Norms of Work"
are the famous eight fundamental rights of workers, which were included
in the Declaration of Rights of 1998.
It says: the condition is that everybody adopt the formal respect of
norms. We have gone from a system of constraining Conventions guaranteed
by the State to a bunch of simple recommendations. But what does it mean
to formally adopt these recommendations?
A CEO of a multinational solemnly declared on the podium of the WTO that
he adopted formally, solemnly, definitively, profoundly, and even
sincerely the Fundamental Norms. He signed some papers to say: "I
adopt these norms." But there was no other requirement placed upon
him.
Three hundred workers died a few weeks ago in Dacca, Bangladesh. These
workers worked in wretched condition and were paid below the (however
meager) minimum wage of Bangladesh. No conventions of even minimum
security were being respected. This factory produced for six
multinationals in the clothing industry, all of which had signed the
code of conduct, including Carrefour in France. Each CEO had sworn, with
hand upon heart, that they would formally adopt the Fundamental Norms.
I participated in a conference in Beijing three years ago. A young woman
spoke about life in a Nike factory that employed 20,000 workers in the
Philippines. Nike adopted the codes of conduct. And when this young
woman, who was a member of a NGO, went to visit the factory to see how
the codes of conduct were being applied, they told her: "Madam, we
are going to show you that there is no problem here." In the heart
of the factory there was a shiny new building that was called the
"Center for Educating Workers About Their Rights" with
classrooms. The code of conduct was being respected. There were no
problems. But this shiny new building was permanently deserted.
Why? Because the extremely heavy and long work day (of 10 to 12 hours)
and the long travel to the factory made it impossible for any worker to
have any time to go to this education center. But the code of conduct
was still being respected, you see. And Nike organized tours for NGOs to
say: "Look at how we have adopted the principles." It is
clearly understandable why the bosses and the governments strongly
support this new system. But does the workers' movement need to support
it too?
The report of Juan Somavia stated: "The WTO must therefore permit
an integral examination of the relations between trade, labor, and labor
norms. The WTO must, with the ILO, implement a formal structure whose
function would be to examine the implementation of the codes of
conduct."
I think this is quite a drift from the traditional rules of the ILO,
which are, moreover, the rules of political democracy in each one of our
countries.
This question is far from being resolved. They talk to us about the
social responsibilities of corporations. I know that what I'm about to
say is not "modern," but I'm inclined to think that the
"social responsibility of corporations" is to make profits,
thus their social responsibility is to create the most favorable
conditions, from the point of view of the capitalist investors, to make
these profits- in other words, to create the most favorable conditions
for the largest possible exploitation of the working class. I don't
think that any corporation has any other social responsibility than
that.
The social responsibility of the working class and its organizations is
to defend itself, as a class, against exploitation, and I don't think
that a social class can pass on to another class the responsibility to
ensure its very existence. Democracy is the understanding that there are
different and even contradictory interests inside the same society. It
means that each of these social interests has the right to freely
organize to defend its interests; thus the working class has the right
to have independent organizations that defend its specific interests. To
demand the social responsibilities of corporations and the integration
of the ILO into the WTO is to reject the independent organization of the
working class.
We must carry on this debate. For his part, Juan Somavia claimed in his
report that the upcoming proposed fusion of the ICFTU and the WCL is a
positive development.
On what basis is this fusion being planned? On the basis of the joint
declaration of both parties in preparation for Millennium + 5 Summit of
next September. Everybody is inside this framework.
What does the declaration say? "It is necessary to demand adequate
revenues which can assure security, dignity, and autonomization, as well
as the essential aspects of the fight against poverty and the creation
of sustainable development."
I do not have a word fetish, but nevertheless there are some words that
are repeated so often that it cannot simply be an accident. The word
"sustainable" has taken on a particular connotation in the
last few years. When they talk to us about "sustainable
development," we know what they're talking about. Sustainable
development means generalized deregulation and the putting into question
of all the rights and guarantees.
Here they speak to us about its corollary: the "level of
sustainable sustenance." I have no idea what that means. I know
what minimum wages recognized in labor codes are Š these are precise
guarantees. But a level of sustainable sustenance is as arbitrary as it
gets.
I note that in these documents, it is said that the ILO norms exclude
any minimum level for salaries. It's true that this facilitates the
level of sustainable sustenance.
The same ICFTU-WCL document states: "It is necessary to create a
good framework of regulation to promote the participation of the private
sector in the reaching of the Millennium for Development goals. This
framework must include the Fundamental Norms at Work and assure that
corporations fulfill their social responsibilities and keep an open and
positive attitude toward unions."
In order for corporations to adopt an open and positive attitude toward
unions, I know of only one reliable instrument: the law. A national law
is constraining. For example, in our countries there is a law that
allows collective-bargaining agreements on a national scale. Many people
have attacked this law, including Jacques Delors in his time. That
hasn't prevented it from being a law. Tomorrow they may pass another law
that states - and it is in the spirit of the times to do so - that the
bosses no longer need to respect collective-bargaining agreements .
Thus the "open attitude" toward unions. I have no idea what
that means. If the law gives unions the freedom to freely negotiate
contracts, if it requires that the bosses open negotiations with unions,
if it recognizes the right to strike, then to a certain extent the
corporation will be forced to have an open attitude toward unions. If
the law is not binding, if one holds to the hope that "the
corporation will fulfill its social responsibility and adopt an open and
positive attitude toward unions" then one turns to codes of conduct
- and, in this way, deregulation is generalized.
We must continue the discussion: Does the working class exist through
its organizations and institutions? Or does it is meant to be part of
the world governance? The most fundamental questions are posed: the
questions of peace, the sovereignty of nations, and the independence of
organizations.
On the agenda of the session of the ILO is the question of "decent
work for youth." The content of this idea is that to guarantee
youth a "decent" job, it is necessary to put into question all
the constraining norms that apply in each country for the whole of the
working class. Thus a special status has to be created for young people,
a status without guarantees and rights.
They tell us that a young person's access to the labor market depends on
the destruction of all the "social" constraints that are
imposed on the bosses. These policies are being implemented in every
country. In France, for example, a Minister named Borloo is initiating
directives that take the form of "first employment contracts."
This "contract" signifies the destruction of a labor contract,
and not only for young people.
However, at the same time, there are a number of things taking place
internationally that are worthy of reflection. Has the time come for the
destruction of national governments and nations? Behind this notion is
the idea that if the corporations have a social responsibility, then
national legislation no longer has one. The WTO and the multinationals
do not cease to explain that governments are not responsible.
I note that in Bolivia, the mobilization of the workers' organizations
is taking place around the demand "nationalization without
compensation of the gas and subsoil." Within this demand there is
not only the call for the control of the natural resources of the
country, but also the call for the sovereignty of the nation. The demand
for nationalization is being addressed to the Bolivian government. For
good reason. The multinationals are opposed to this; they say that the
Bolivian government doesn't have the sovereign right to nationalize.
Yes or no, do nations have the right to control their own resources? The
events in Bolivia pose a more general issue: the question of
nationalization is posed in Bolivia, in Venezuela, in Brazil, in
Argentina. It is a demand of the working class that is opposed to all
the formulas of "co-management," "co-ops," etc., all
of which boil down to the same idea: the social responsibility of
corporations, into which the workers' organizations should integrate
themselves. In opposition to these policies, we counterpose the
responsibility of governments to safeguard democratic rights, meaning
principally the right and responsibility for workers' organizations to
defend the interests of the working class in full independence from the
representation of other social classes and the state.
What is going on in Bolivia is also going on, in a different form, in
Europe. What is the European Constitution, which has suffered defeat
after defeat? This so-called constitution is aimed at getting rid of the
rights won by the working class in each country, under the pretext of
the supra-national "Charter of Fundamental Rights" - which is
an instrument to put into question the rights and guarantees won by the
working class in each country.
The success of the "No" vote in France and in the Netherlands
show that these policies are not irreversible. The substitution of the
rights and guarantees won by the working class with "the social
responsibility of corporations" is not irreversible. It is a moment
where the working class is saying, "We have rights and guarantees
won in the framework of the nation and we are going to defend
them." This movement converges with the movement of the Bolivian
workers who are saying: "We demand the sovereign right to control
our gas and subsoil."
This problem is posed on an international scale. I read in Kofi Annan's
preparatory report to the Millennium + 5 Summit the following
formulation:
"After the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fall of
the Afghani governmentŠ" Comrades, the fall of the government of
Afghanistan was not at all like the fall of the leaves in autumn. It was
not a natural phenomenon. It was the beginning of a long chain of
military interventions that have put into question the existence of
sovereign nations. In Afghanistan then Iraq, these policies are now
being generalized.
We have seen the threats against Venezuela, Iran, Syria, and Zimbabwe.
You heard the speech of the representative of the U.S. administration a
few months ago in which he listed the seven countries that are part of
the "new axis of evil." Comrades, can the workers' movement
subscribe to a logic which questions the sovereignty of nations, which
destroys nations, and which spreads wars? And if so, on what grounds?
When the ILO was created, despite its limitations, it was constituted on
the basis of the recognition of a certain number of principles, amongst
which is the recognition of the sovereignty of nations. (Because without
the sovereignty of nations, you couldn't have a tripartite system where
the governments represent the nations.") There were therefore two
founding principles of the ILO: the existence of the sovereignty of
nations, and the existence of the inalienable right for the working to
exist in an independent manner. These two principles are under fire, and
organizations speaking in the name of the workers' movement, without
moreover having received even the slightest mandate, are participating
in the drive against these two principles. The existence of the ILO is
even being put into question.
I would like to conclude so that we can open our discussion. There is in
effect two logics. There is the logic which transforms the workers'
organizations and the ILO itself into components of the WTO. This is
what the "social responsibility of corporations" consists of.
There is also the logic that is, let's say, the traditional logic of
political sovereignty, which consists in saying that the working class
has no social responsibility other than to organize itself as a class
and to defend its rights. It cannot transfer this responsibility to
anybody else. It must use all the means at its disposal, including the
ILO, to act and fight to defend the independence of its existence as a
class.
The extraordinary pressure that is being orchestrated by the heads of
the financial institutions aims to transform workers' organizations into
components of government. This pressure is running up against the
resistance of the workers, of the activists, of the union leaders, who
think that the working class cannot renounce being what it is, and
cannot renounce its right to exist.
Comrades, the 93rd Annual Session of ILO was faced with a new stage in
the contradiction between the two conceptions, the one which, if it
succeeded in going all the way, would mean the triumph of a
supra-national totalitarianism and corporatism, which destroys nations
and working class organizations. The other, which persists in saying
that the only path to end exploitation and oppression is the defense of
the independence of the organizations, of the conquests, and the
workers' institutions.
That is why, for the past 12 years, we have been fighting to defend the
Conventions of the ILO. This struggle is today confronted with an
infinitely heavier threat than when we initiated this campaign. Should
we give up? Certainly not. The struggle between these two conceptions -
which are two opposing conceptions of human civilization- has just
begun. In this context, the working class has a major responsibility on
its shoulders.
Thank you.
********************
BRAZIL
To Defend the Workers Party (PT), it is Necessary to Drive Out the
Policies of Lula, Palocci, and Rosseto"
A profound political crisis has shaken Brazil for the last month in
the wake of the publication of an article in the magazine Véjà
concerning a video showing the head of the Department of Contracts and
the Post Office, Mauricio Marinho, who was nominated to his post by the
Lula government. He was shown receiving from the owner of the Novadata
company a bribe in exchange for a contract to sell informational
materials.
In the following days, there was a veritable avalanche of
"revelations" and denunciations of corruption, in which the
blame focused on members of the government and the rightwing parties
that make up the "allied base" of the government, which has
left the activists of the PT completely dumbfounded.
Robert Jefferson - the current president of the Democratic Party of
Labor (PDT), one of the rightwing parties, and a man with a questionable
reputation who was the head of the shock troops of the reactionary
populist government of Fernando Collor de Melo (who was impeached from
the presidency), testified to the Ethical Commission of the National
Congress.
He implicated 20 national deputies from all parties of the presidential
majority. Conscious of the dangers, in a situation that seems to be
spiraling out of control, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, the former
president of the Republic, was the first to sound the alarm: "The
opposition must show wisdom and reserve."
From then on, the offensive was shifted away from Lula, the president,
and the government - and instead focused on the Workers Party as a
party. Thus, the O Estado daily newspaper wrote an editorial
titled, "The Discredited Party" (June 10), which states that
Lula expressed his profound discontent with the PT. There is not a
single daily paper that has not gone after the PT.
"Maybe Lula is right," declared the editorialist of Valor
on June 15, "The responsibility for the crisis lies with the PT-
or, better said, with the ruling group in the party that Lula rested
upon to reach the presidency."
On June 17, in Sao Paulo, the leadership of the PT called a meeting in
defense of the PT. Over 2,000 activists were present. José Dirceu, the
general secretary of the President who just resigned, and José Genoino,
the president of the PT, launched an appeal to "Take to the Streets
to Defend the PT."
A solemn declaration of the O Trabalho current of the PT was distributed
in the National Directorate of the PT, which met on June 18 to examine
the crisis. Markus Sokol, one of the representatives of O Trabalho
current, called on "all the members of the PT, regardless of what
tendency to which they belong, to regroup around this statment."
Declaration of the O Trabalho current of the PT
The workers, our social base, are asking themselves, "How have
we gotten into this mess? Will this crisis ever end? We do not want our
party to end this way. How can we escape this swamp?"
We in the O Trabalho current of the PT say: There is still time! But is
the solution to throw all the blame at the doorstep of the PT? Is the PT
responsible for all of this?
No, the PT is not responsible. No it is not the responsibility of the
activists who make up this party, who dedicate all their energy, their
generosity, and who pin all their hopes on the party.
The people responsible are those who have implemented policies that turn
their backs on the founding program of the PT, who look for
"allies" in the camp of reaction. The people are those who, in
the face of the dramatic situation of our country and our party, want to
go even further in the implementation of these disastrous policies.
Is it acceptable that the first measures of Lula and the government were
to nominate Marcos Lisboa to privatize the Brazilian Ministry of
Insurance; to hand out 4.83 billion reals in tax exemptions to the
bosses; to cut the public budget to meet the primary fiscal surplus,
which goes toward the payment of the debt - or, further, the
recomposition of the Cabinet ,which now depends even more on
"alliances" with the corrupt bourgeois parties like the PL,
PTB, PP, and PMDB?
We will not accept this! It is not acceptable to refuse to open
negotiations with public sector workers on strike who demand lifelong
employment and an 18% wage increase to make up for lost income.
Continuing down this path can only lead the country to chaos, deepen the
demoralization of our party, and, finally, lead to its
destruction."
It is time to drive out of the party the policies of Lula, Palocci
(Minister of Economy, and prized pupil of the IMF and the financial
markets) and Rosseto (Minister of Agrarian Reform, member of the
Socialist Democracy current), who refuses the land to the peasants and
who allows the assassinations of the landless peasants.
Yes, we must defend the PT, but can this be done by supporting the
policies that have led to the present crisis? To defend the PT, a party
founded 25 years ago to end exploitation, misery, corruption, to give
land to the landless peasants, to establish the sovereignty of the
nation, we must drive out the policies of Lula, Rosseto, Palocci, and
the unprincipled alliances at the service of these policies.
It is necessary to immediately end the project of privatizing the post
office and the closing of the National Rail System (RFFSA) and to cancel
the private concession of roads and the wholesale auctioning of national
oil zones.
It is necessary to nationalize the occupied factories and renationalize
public services and the national riches that were sold off in the
privatizations.
It is necessary to finally implement the Agrarian Reform by giving land
to a million families of landless peasants. It is necessary to end the
dictatorship of primary fiscal surplus - which has reached 44
billion reals and will reach 84 billion by the end of this year. These
84 billion reals should be immediately redirected toward agrarian
reform, health, education, and the creation of jobs. It is necessary to
affirm the sovereignty of the nation.
There is still time. But it depends on us.
********************
BOLIVIA
June 6: The Creation of a National Popular Assembly in La Paz-El Alto
Nationalize the Gas and Oil!
It is now over a month since thousands of Bolivians invaded the
capital of La Paz. They demanded the nationalization of the energy
resources (energy and gas), the creation of a Constituent Assembly and
the rejection of all attempts to break up the unity of the nation.
The popular mobilizations have now spread throughout the country,
paralyzing, by means of more than 70 blockades, all the systems of
communication.
A National Popular Assembly (Asamblea Popular Nacional y Originaria) has
just been created in El Alto, the massive working class suburb of La
Paz.
"Its immediate tasks are to control the neighborhoods, to control
the means of communication , to feed the population, and to provide the
means for self-defense," reports the Econoticias Bolivia news
service (June 9). The popular assemblies under the leadership of the
Bolivian Workers Federation (COB) on a national level and of
departmental workers' confederations on a regional level have the task
of excersing power in their respective territories." [Read its
mandate in the box below.]
The origin of the popular uprising was the law on hydrocarbons (oil and
natural gas, primarily), voted last May 17 by the Congress. In the name
of increasing the returns paid by the multinational oil corporations
(most of which are American) to the Bolivian government, the law gives
away all State control over the amount of extraction and the sale of oil
and gas, in practice ratifying the pillage of the resources of the
country.
It is to repeal this law and to completely nationalize the gas and oil
that the popular masses have risen up.
The masses are also fighting against the attempt to organize a
separatist coup d'etat by the four richest "regions," with the
support of the Chamber of Industry, Trade, and Services (CAINCO) of
Santa Cruz.
The Brazilian O Estado newspaper of May 26, 2005, wrote:
"The leaders of four of the nine departments (provinces) of Bolivia
unilaterally convened a referendum on autonomy for August 12. According
to the representatives of the other regions of the country, this would
mean the disintegration of BoliviaŠ . Santa Cruz is the richest and
most populated region; Tarija (the second region demanding autonomy)
possesses the second most important reserve of gas in South
America."
A Bolivian "sociologist" stated in the Brazilian newspaper Fohla
de Sao Paulo:
"The problem is that there is a strong populist current which wants
to modify the system of exploitation and use of these resources (gas and
oil.) The demand for autonomy appears thus as a defensive recourse to
maintain the current system of exploitation, that is, a system more open
to the presence of foreign capital and more linked to the world
market." (May 31)
There is thus not even a shadow of doubt that this separatist drive is
encouraged by Washington, whose policies are leading, like in Iraq, to
the break-up of nations.
Hundreds of thousands of mine workers, teachers, peasants, and youth
converged from all the regions with their organizations, principally the
COB and its Mine Workers Federation, converged on the capital, La Paz,
to prevent the re-initiation of the plans of Congress, according to the Folha
de Sao Paulo, to "try to convene a plebiscite to define the
autonomy of the departments and the direct election of mayors. The
discussion was suspended on May 20, under fierce popular pressure,
before the question could even be formulated. Defended by the rich
department of Santa Cruz, with the support of three other regions, the
proposal was rejected by the majority of the protestors, who demand
first of all the convening of a Constituent Assembly. Moreover, they
defend the nationalization of the oil and gas." (June 1)
A week later, the Bolivian newspaper La Razon noted that
"the situation is irreversible."
At the end of the day on June 6, "some groups of peasants occupied
an oil pumping station in Sayari, in the east of the country. The
stations belonged to an affiliate of the Shell multinational, which was
forced to interrupt its exportation to Chile." (Jornada do
Brasil, June 7)
The Church tried to negotiate the resignation of the president, so that
"the president of the Supreme Court, Eduardo Rodriguez, would
assume power and convene a presidential election next December." (O
Globo, June 7)
Although the protestors - many of whom belong to Evo Morales' party, the
Movement for Socialism (MAS), the main opposition party that is linked
to the World Social Forum - are demanding the establishment of a
sovereign constituent assembly, Morales has declared himself in support
of the scheduled elections.
In a press release on June 7, the Bolivian Mine Workers Federation
declared:
"Whereas the people have mobilized with their union, civil, and
local organizations around the demand for the nationalization of the gas
and oil, the Parliament and all the institutions linked to the decadent
neo-liberal State, have orchestrated a huge spectacle to sidestep the
demand that is posed. They never thought that the struggle for
nationalization would be national and generalized; they preferred to
deal with other superficial problems that won't solve the problem of
unemployment and poverty. Š The existence of the State's crisis, which
is due to the power vacuum, created by the defeat of neo-liberalism,
means that the working class and the people must create their own
revolutionary government through a genuine Parliament which should be
the Popular Assembly."
The mandate of the Popular Assembly of El Alto
The general secretary of the COB, Jaime Solares, proclaimed on June
6, in front of hundreds of protestors, the constitution of a National
Popular Assembly. The COB is at the head of a coalition whose backbone
is made up of the Mine Workers Federation, led by Miguel Zuvita; the
Federation of Teachers of La Paz, led by Wilma Plata; as well as the
Federation of Peasants and the Federation of Juntas (popular and
neighborhood assemblies) of El Alto.
In its June 8 meeting, the National Popular Assembly adopted a series of
resolutions defining its mandate. The first resolution declares that it
"has been voted that El Alto should be recognized as the vanguard
of the revolutionary process, that El Alto should be declared the seat
of the National Popular Assembly (Asamblea Popular Nacional y Originaria);
the third "ratifies the National Popular Assembly as the instrument
of Popular Power"; the fourth calls for "the strengthening of
the National Popular Assembly through the nomination of delegates
elected in the assemblies at the base and the creation of departmental
and local popular assemblies" ; the fifth constitutes the
"committees of self-defense and food distribution"; the sixth
"ratifies the struggles for the nationalization of the gas and oil
and the declaration of an unlimited general strike and the blockade of
the means of communication"; the seventh "rejects all the
traps of the bourgeoisie meant to assure the succession through the
instrument of the scheduled elections."
********************
ROMANIA
Miron Cozma Released After a Six-Year International Campaign!
Statement from the International Liaison Committee of Workers and
Peoples
The International Liaison Committee of Workers and Peoples (ILC) is
pleased with the decision taken by Romanian judicial system on Tuesday,
June 14, at the tribunal in Cracovia, to reverse the annulment of the
presidential pardon, and therefore release the mining trade union leader
Miron Cozma, after more than seven long years in prison under atrocious
conditions.
The International Liaison Committee of Workers and Peoples recalls that
Miron Cozma, mining trade union representative, was arrested and
sentenced to 99 years in prison for exercising his trade union mandate,
for having organized the miners' marches to Bucharest in 1991 and 1999
in order to promote the workers' legitimate demands.
To arrest and sentence a trade union representative for carrying out the
mandate conferred on him by his fellow trade unionists is contrary to
International Labor Organization (ILO) Conventions 87 and 98. Cozma, in
fact, had represented the workers of his country before the ILO in 1994
and 1995.
This is why thousands of worker activists, trade union and democratic
organizations throughout the world had not ceased to protest over the
past six years against the sentencing of Miron Cozma and other mining
trade union representatives in Romania. Their protests became louder and
broader after the presidential pardon conferred on Miron Cozma in
December 2004 was annulled the day after his release, following the
intervention of the European Union and the Embassy of the United States.
The International Liaison Committee of Workers and Peoples has
participated these past six years in this campaign, alongside trade
union and democratic organizations of the labor movement. What is
important today is that all charges against Miron Cozma and his comrades
be dropped, in accordance with the dictates of justice and democracy.
Paris, June 16, 2005
-------
Summary of Events
1977 - Miron Cozma became the trade union leader of the miners of
the Valley of Jiu following "illegal" strikes against the
bureaucratic regime of Ceaucescu.
1990 - Following the crisis of the regime and mobilizations that led to
his fall (Ceaucescu), Miron Cozma was elected the spokesman for the
whole Valley of Jiu.
1991 - The miners went out on a general strike due to non-payment of
their wages. They marched to Bucharest. After the demonstrations of
1991, the government opened an investigation, which was not concluded
until 1997. In the meantime, Cozma was designated as the representative
of the Romanian workers to the ILO.
1997 - Cozma was sentenced to 18-months in prison for "instigating
a subversion of the power of the state." During his imprisonment,
the government laid off 25,000 miners. Upon his release, Cozma was
re-elected on December 12, 1998, as president of the miners' trade union
of the Valley of Jiu.
January 4, 1999 - A new miners' strike commenced. After their several
days' march, the prime minister met with representatives of the trade
union in order to negotiate. A guarantee was given that there would be
no sanctions against the trade union leaders. But one month later, on
February 15, Cozma was arrested and sentenced to 18 years in prison.
The ILC launched an international appeal for the release of Cozma. This
marked the start of a six-year (international) campaign, with the
participation of among others, the CUT of Brazil, and representatives of
the San Francisco Labor Council (AFL-CIO). Thousands of statements of
support were received from trade unions in France, Germany, and numerous
countries in Africa, America and Asia. A second trial concerning the
events of 1999 resulted in the sentencing of Miron Cozma to a prison
term of 90 years!
End of December 2003 - An international delegation of trade union
representatives went to Romania to meet with all the parties involved.
The conclusion of the International Commission of Inquiry stated the
following: "Miron Cozma and the other trade unionists participated
in the events as trade union representatives charged with carrying out
the miners' demands." Consequently, in virtue of ILO Conventions 87
and 98, the Commission demands their release."
December 15, 2004 - President Iliescu pardoned Miron Cozma, who was
released on December 16 at 4. 30 p.m. On December 17, President Iliescu
who was nearing the end of his term in office, and the newly elected
president, Basescu, went to Brussels to attend the European Council.
December 17 - That evening Cozma was arrested and imprisoned again, as
President Iliescu annulled his pardon under pressure from the United
States and the European Union.
Back to Home Back to
ILC Newsletter Index
|
Open World Conference of Workers