|
|
A dossier of weekly information published by the January 23, 2007 Number 219 Introduction: On March 31, 2007, a delegation of doctors, hospital workers, and trade unionists from throughout Europe will participate in a delegation to the European Union. "The Destruction Of Public Healthcare Systems Throughout Europe Must Be Stopped Immediately." A new European directive is being prepared. A communiqué of the European Commission on September 26, 2006, evokes "respect for member state's responsibilities concerning health care and medical care," and adds: "The Court of Justice has declared that this position does not exclude the possibility of imposing on member states adaptations to their national regime of social security, in the name of other dispositions of the treaty, such as Article 49 EC." Great Britain: We are printing an article about the mobilization to defend hospitals and maternities. Germany: As the vote on the "reform" of health care approaches, the situation in Germany is becoming more and more tense. France: We are printing a preliminary declaration by Gerard Schivardi, mayor of Mailhac and general councilor of Aude, candidate of the mayors in the presidential election, during the press conference on January 15 in Paris. Austria: You will find below a correspondence on the struggle for a minority SPO government. Venezuela: Chavez has announced a proposal for the reform of the Constitution to codify the nationalization of the oil and energy. Mexico: Ten million Mexicans are threatened with hunger. "The poorest Mexicans cannot believe their eyes: One month after the swearing in of Calderon, who in his first speech promised to do everything to fight against poverty, the price of corn tortillas, the elementary staple of the people, virtually tripled. Š A kilo of tortillas, which usually costs no more than 7 pesos (.5 Euros) now costs 18 pesos." Uruguay: We are publishing an interview with Ariel Quiroga Bangladesh: On January 11, ten days before the general elections set for January 22, the president of Bangladesh proclaimed a state of emergency, prohibited demonstrations and gatherings, ended constitutional guarantees, and installed censorship. Subscribe to the ILC International Newsletter and support the ILC! ------ Table of Contents P2 - France: Communiqué of Schivardi. Subscriptions
What lies ahead for the pensions? The Orientation Council on Pensions (COR) published its report on January 11. It calls for the undermining of the special regimes (SNCF, EDF-GDF, RATP). What will happen to security if the train conductors are forced to work until they are 60-plus years of age? A postponement on retirment for seniors (55-64 ans), which particularly
means the undermining of the ability to find steady employment for those
over ----- Communiqué by Gerard Schivardi, the mayor of Mailhac and the candidate of the mayors for the presidential election (Excerpts) Until what age would the European Union like us to work? The program elaborated by the COR aims to be a road map for whoever is the future president of the republic. Isn't it necessary to point out the origin of this program? This COR report was established by the European Union and I note once again that none of the candidates focused on by the media mention this, though this is an essential question. In fact, it was the European Summit of March 2002 in Barcelona that dictated: "It will be necessary, from now until 2010, to progressively augment by five years the average retirement age in the European Union." And last October 12, the Brussels Commission published new injunctions on the state members, particularly calling for "major reforms aimed at eliminating early departures from the job market and encouraging senior employment." This same document gives the example of Denmark, where "the retirement age has gone from 65 to 67 years of age." Is it necessary to say anything? Up until what age would the European Union like us to work? Up to 67, 70, or even more years of age? Is it necessary to accept all this to satisfy the demands of the Maastricht Treaty? As I said on January 11 on the RMC, the defense of the pension regimes passes through the return of the 175 billion euros of exonerations for the bosses destined for the Social Security funds. **************************
Resist a grand coalition government: For a SPO minority government! While Angela Merkel, the German chancellor and the current president of the European Union, puts forward the "German model" of the grand coalition between the CDU and the SPD for all Europe, a true crisis has hit its neighbor, Austria. "Never before in the history of the SPO has it been so shaken by a victory," states an Austrian newspaper. What has taken place? On October 1, 2006, the main bourgeois party, the OVP, which since 1999 has governed with the extreme-right, suffered a heavy electoral defeat. That very day, demonstrations organized by the Socialist Youth (SJO) called for a "minority SPO (Austrian Socialist Party) government." But the leader of the SPO, Gusenbauer, does not want to hear it and is looking for a grand coalition government with the OVP. He has abandoned, one after the other, the few electoral promises made to the workers and youth, such as the abrogation of the very unpopular purchase of 17 Eurofighters. On December 29, 2006, the ISP ("Initiative for a Socialist Policy in the SPO") published a declaration with the SJO of Vienna: "The OVP of Schussel has been defeated. We do not want a coalition at any price. We prefer a minority SPO government, free to find a majority in parliament, to the abandonment of our principles. We must not threaten the unity and credibility of our party!" But Gusenbauer still doesn't want to listen to what the youth and workers want, what the ranks of SPO militants (who number 500,000 out of a population of 8 million) want. The announcement of the formation of a SPO-OVP grand coalition government on January 11 aims to ensure the non-respect of the promise to abolish the inscription fees for the university, a measure imposed by the right. Hundreds of young socialists and trade unionists occupy the headquarters of the SPO. In the big cities of the country, Vienna, Graz, Linz, and Salzburg, demonstrations of thousands take place, saying "No to the dictates of the OVP! For a SPO minority government! Stop the inscription fees! Fulfill your promises!" as well as "Traitors!" A few hundred SPO activists have left the party in disgust, but the resistance in the party goes all the way to the top. About 25% of the national leadership has taken a position against the formation of a grand coalition government and the list of SPO organization that demand the abolition of inscription fees grows by the day: Oberösterreich, Vorarlberg, Kärnten, Salzburg Š Groups are forming everywhere in the SPO against the "capitulation of the Gusenbauer minority," such as, for example, Wir sind die SPÖ, which had over 1000 militants from the ranks as well as leaders join in a few days. Hans Sallmutter, a leader of the important OGB trade union, who is known for having played an important role five years ago in the biggest post-war strike has declared: "We say: Leaving the SPO is not a solution! Don't let them steal the SPO. We want a SPO government, which implements a social-democratic policy, for the workers, not the dictates of the OVP!" It is impossible to not see in this revolt the links with their German cousins, who for months have mobilized against the reform of the health care, a struggle which puts on the agenda the rupture of the SPD-CDU grand coalition government. One thing is certain. While Gusenbauer goes out of his way to give his "full support" to Merkel to "relaunch the European Constitution" against all the peoples of Europe, the Austrian working class and youth, after a long post-war trek in the desert, imposed by the a powerful apparatus, is rising again to join the resistance of the workers to the "grand coalition" yoke that the European Union would like to impose on all. *************************
Preliminary declaration by Gerard Schivardi, the mayor of Mailhac and the general councilor of Aude, the candidate of the mayors in the presidential election, during the press conference of January 15 in Paris Good evening ladies and gentleman, As you know, I was designated by my mayor colleagues to be a presidential candidate in the November 18 presidential election. The events that have taken place since then have confirmed the reasons why I am running. Madam Merkel, who was sworn is as the new head of the European Union, declared: "We are going to do our job. The energy debate does not depend on the results of elections in France." In other words: If you elect a government and parliament that wants to renationalize EDF-GDF, you cannot do so because the European Union (EU) has decided on its privatization, as well as the privatization of the public services. This is a violation of universal suffrage. This is a prohibition on a government and parliament, elected by universal suffrage, to implement the mandate that they were elected to implement. That is why we say it is necessary to break with the European Union. And I note that I am the only candidate to say so. Do you want another example? Concerning the postal service: You know that there were 2,500 municipal councils that have mobilized to save their post offices. I read the newspapers this week: In Le Monde there was an article titled: "The single price for postage threatened by Brussels." Unfortunately, this newspaper is correct; in the name of the liberalization of postal services, the state is told that it no longer has the right to intervene to assure equal fees and access. Article 87 of the Maastricht Treaty prohibits, "All aid given by states or with state resources under any form that threatens competition by favoring specific enterprises or specific branches of production." Aren't we justified to say "maintain the equal fees and access throughout the entire republic! Break with Maastricht!" Let us be even more specific. One of the mayors wrote the following to me: "We succeeded in mobilizing the people to maintain the current hours of the post office. But management obstructed the postal boxes in our station." One of them told me that they took apart the postal sorting machine and brought it to the head of the post office, demanding the maintenance of the activities of the post office. Š Aren't we justified to say: Maintain the post offices, abrogate the Postal Directive 097/60/CE and directive 2002/39/CE, which open up postal services to competition? Wasn't it against this offensive that the majority of the French people voted No in the May 29, 2005 referendum? 1. We want to defend our 36,000 communes, which are faced with faced intercommunality. My friend, the mayor of Miermaigne, in Eure-et-Loire, just informed me: The prefect, against the unanimous advice of the municipal council, is integrating into a community of communes. The mayor told me: "We are not against intercommunality and we defend the intercommunal trade unions in which we participate. But who will pay the price for all this? Won't they get rich by multiplying the number of poor?" Is it democratic to integrate a commune against its will, taking away its decision-making and its revenue? What will remain of communal democracy if all the small communes of the country are merged, if they crush the cantons, and merge all the public services? 2. We want to defend public services We also want to defend our communal schools: A mayor friend from Moselle called me yesterday. The National Inspector of Education explained in Montigny-les-Metz on January 8: "There is a draft decree to implement the Public Establishments for Primary Education (EPEP). This is no longer the communal school, but rather an intercommunal school led by an administrative council presided over by an elected representative. Your communal schools will no longer exist as such, because they will be part of an intercommunal regroupment. The 36,000 communes and their 36,000 schools is a thing of the past. You will receive the draft decree in the coming days." They decided to begin by closing throughout the country 21,00 schools with less that four classes. Between 1981 and the year 2000: 11,948 communal schools closed down and 5,833 communes lost their communal school. At the same time, 500 maternal schools were closed! Where are we going? They are closing our communal schools and want to force us to finance private schools, through Article 89 of the Decentralization Law of August 13, 2004. We demand the end to the closing of our communal schools and their reopening. That is why we deliberated in numerous municipal councils to abrogate Article 89. We want public funds to go to public schools. Private schools should be funded with private funds. We want to defend our hospitals and child care centers. My colleague and friend, the mayor of Monnetable in the Sarthe, Christian Fleury, told me that he assisted the childbirth of a woman in a parked car because the neighborhood maternity center had closed. After the Maastricht Treaty, 86,000 beds have been closed; since 1992, 381 hospitals have closed; and between 1996 and 200, 20% of maternities have been closed. This is all the result of the Stability Pact. Yesterday Madame Merkel insisted on TV France 3 on the independence of the European Central Bank and confirmed this by declaring in Les Echos on January 11: "The independence of the European Central Bank is inscribed in the Maastricht Treaty and is not up for debate." Aren't we correct to say: Break with the Stability Pact, break with Maastricht and the European Union? You heard the declarations of Marion Fischer Boel, the European Commissioner on Agriculture, concerning the decisions of the Commission for the 2007-2010 period, particularly the end of aid. They want to make the farmers work part time. In my region, which grows mostly wine, the European Union demands the rooting out of the vineyards. The wine growers are on the edge of bankruptcy. We cannot accept a scorched earth policy. We are the country of wine. The same phenomenon hits our factories: In the name of free competition, they are off-shoring our enterprises, throwing workers into precarity and unemployment. A government, here too, that wants to intervene to the protect jobs and prohibit off-shoring must break with the European Union. I note that I am the only person to say this. We mayors, particularly from the small communes, are confronted with these problems. We are forced to work with fewer and fewer means and more and more responsibilities to defend and improve the lives of the population that elected us. That is why so many mayors support our campaign. Of course, we are not the big shots that take up all the time on the television. We have no means other than the small means we give ourselves. But we have a profound respect for universal suffrage and we intend to have it be respected. My colleagues write to me to detail the pressure on them to not give me their signatures for the presidential campaign. In their name, I will take the opportunity to publicly denounce these pressures. A mayor told me he received a phone call from a sub-prefect who advised him to not give me support if he wanted to receive the subsidy that he wanted for his commune. Also, the political leaders are pressuring mayors to do the same. I say to my mayoral colleagues: We know how to resist the pressure of the management of the Post Office which is closing our post offices, we know how to resist the national Inspector of Education when he wants to close classes, and we know how to fulfill our responsibilities, including faced with a prefect, and we do not hesitate to act in the name of mandate given to us by the population. Isn't it in the name of the respect of this mandate that you have designated me to raise our problems to all the electors of the country? That is why I need your signature of support for the presidential election. Please provide this signature to the representatives of my support committee who are coming to meet with you. Together we will succeed in making our voices heard. I thank you. Website: www.schivardi2007.com ***************************
On March 31, a delegation delivering thousands of signatures collected in each country will be presented to the heads of the European Union in Brussels. This is a struggle for the organization of the resistance in each one of our countries. The appeal has received 261 endorsements on the European Appeal asking for an meeting with representatives of the European Union in Brussels on March 30th. There were 72 signatures from Germany, 12 from Austria, 25 from Denmark, 62 from France, 46 from Spain, 13 from Portugal, 1 from Sweden, 4 from Switzerland, and 1 from Turkey. Excerpts of the European Appeal: "We are doctors, healthcare workers, and trade unionists throughout Europe. We are raising a cry of alarm - and we do take this action lightly. We know what we are talking about. We have made a precise analysis of the situation in each of our countries. We have documented facts that prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that our healthcare systems and social security systems - which have guaranteed up to the present, under various legal forms, equal access to health care to all the citizens of our countries - are being dismantled. This is why we demand to be received by the heads of the institutions of the European Union, who coordinate the "reforms" that are raining down on us. Š We will come to bring our memorandums of each of our countries, all of which condemn the European Union, its directives, and its treaties. Will you dare to tell us Š that the dramatic situation facing us has nothing to do with the decisions that you make every day and that you impose on all the European governments?" ***********************
Mobilization to defend hospitals and maternities The Blair government recently decided on new cuts in the public health care budget. Twenty-nine hospitals are being threatened with closures. Forty-three maternities are also threatened with closure. This policy is provoking the resistance of the health care workers and the population. Several trade unions are part of a campaign against the closures and regional demonstrations are scheduled for March 3. Already, demonstrations have taken place on a local level. The British media underlines that the Blair government is shaken by an internal crisis on this topic, because not only Labor MPs but also members of the government have participated in various local demonstrations. One of the trade union leaders that is coordinating the campaign against the hospital closures underlines the contradiction: "Ministers that approved the governmental policy are now demonstrating against the closure of hospitals in their regions. But are hospital closures justified in other parts of the country?" Brendan Barber, the General Secretary of the Trade Union Congress, sees a "attack on the government's responsibility concerning public health care. The people are profoundly against these measures." Correspondent ****************************
Last September 26, the European Commission published a report on health care services, launching a "public consultation" that would "take place until January 31, 2007." On this basis, the European Commission will propose a directive. So what does the Brussels report say? Evoking the "respect for member state's responsibilities concerning health care and medical care," it adds: "The Court of Justice has declared that this position does not exclude the possibility of imposing on member states adaptations to their national regime of social security, in the name of other dispositions of the treaty, such as Article 49 EC." What is Article 49 EC? This article demands the open distribution of services. The national Social Security regimes (e.g., the monopoly of Social Security won in 1945 in France) will be directly threatened by this new directive. In the name of "better cost-value ratios" and "transborder care," the Brussels speaks of economies of scale resulting from coordinated actions of all states. Econocmies of scale! This is the term used in industry to organize the lay-offs and the restructuring. Imagine, this could mean the "fusion" and "regroupment" of the hospitals in Metz, Thionville, and Luxemburg! The preparation of this European directive on health reinforces the importance of the March 31 delegation to Brussels. **************************
A undesirable discussion Axel Zutz (SPD, president of the regional AfA) reports on a public meetings with the minister of health, Ulla Schmidt. As the vote on the "reform" of health care approaches (the measure must be submitted to the Bundestag on February 2) the situation in Germany is becoming more and more tense. Angela Merkel, supported by the SPD vice-chancellor Muntefuring and the SPD minister of health, Ulla Schmidt, is doing everything to push through this deadly counter-reform. The SPD MPs who have expressed their intentions to vote against the measure have been brutally reprimanded. Despite all this, seven SPD MPs out of the eleven in the Health Commission of the Bundestag have indicated that they cannot support this law. The battle is raging in the workers' movement and even inside the SPD. This report on the meeting which took place in Berlin on January 15, sent to us by the initiators in Germany of the appeal against the destruction of public health care regimes in Europe, testifies to this resistance. The SPD MPs from Berlin were invited to a discussion concerning the health care reform. The big auditorium in the Berlin Charity Hospital was completely full; more than 300 people came to make their voices heard to the MPs. Everything occurred to prevent discussion. The written questions were confiscated by the chair, who then reformulated them. The responses were given by the SPD minister of health, Ulla Schmidt. Concerning the MPS themselves, they had to keep quiet. In front of the big media TV stations, it was necessary to demonstrate that the Executive Branch is in control. But despite all this, the questions arose, particularly, "What will happen if my health fund goes bankrupt?" Ulla Schmidt did not hide her intention to diminish the number of health funds and reduce the amount of employees, which currently number 165, 000. She called for a "reduction of bureaucracy." A physically handicapped woman, who every day faces cuts in the assistance she has the right to receive, criticized the end of free choice concerning orthopedic services and the obligation to choose the cheapest offer. One unemployed was against having to pay ahead of time, while the Hartz-IV reform that hits him already prevents him from any having any sort of social life. A Ver.di trade unionist criticized the freeze on the contributions of the bosses and the forced competition of health care funds, which threatens to create a two-tier system, to the detriment of the workers. A pensioner in tears expressed his fear that he wouldn't receive certain important but costly medications against rheumatism. These fears and worries were not questioned by anybody. One person asked: "You tell the workers that they could be obliged to pay up to 4.99%sumplemental quota before the bosses even finance anything? Is this is a real perspective?" Most of the other questions submitted in writing were ignored. This occurred with the following question: "Do you want to undermine the health care system? Do you want to let the CDU and Chancellor Merkel destroy our system of solidarity health insurance? Do you hear the worries and protests of the people, the trade unions, and in your own ranks? Don't you want to fulfill your duties and mandate by rejecting the health care reform?" At the end of the meeting, 75 patients and workers from the hospital signed the open letter to the SPD MPs in the Bundestag, calling on them to vote NO on the health care reform. The Berlin initiators of this letter, which will send a delegation to the preparatory meeting for the March 31 delegation to Brussels which will take place in Köln on January 27, decided, after the meeting, to address once again the Berlin MPs to demand that they receive a delegation of the signers. ----- At the heart of the "reform" of health care is the crushing of the system of health insurance based on the principle of parity In the future, the rise in the quotas to the health funds should no longer be set by the funds themselves, but now by the government. All the quotas (from the workers, the bosses, and the differed salary) will no longer be sent to the funds, but to a "health fund" that will then will distribute a specific to each contributor to the fund. The objective is to pit funds against each other. This specific sum is also supposed to be set by the government. The first year, the specific sum should be 100% covered by the funds' budgets, then the government will set the rate of coverage: 95%, 90%,80%... in conformity with the dictates of the European Union. Thus the funds will be systematically under-financed and, thus, forced to raise a "complementary quota" from the contributors, while the bosses will be exempt from any extra contribution. The parity of the financing of the funds by the workers and bosses, already undermined, will be totally thrown overboard. The law foresees that funds can become insolvable, which would mean all their members would lose their health insurance. ************************
Reform the Constitution to renationalize all the energy companies After his speech on January 8, 2007, President Chavez presented, on January 13, his new government to parliament. He declared that the objective was to bring under the control of the state all the energy resources, namely, the oil, electricity, and gas. He recalled that he confirmed, through the adoption of the 1999 Constitution, the national character of the PDVSA enterprise, which extracts 70% of the country's oil resources. But it should be added that it was through an ordinance in November 2002 that this nationalized enterprise was put under the control of the Minister of Mines and Energy. Until that point, the enterprise was still outside the control of the government. The management of the enterprise acted autonomously - as a true state within a state - but, in reality, it acted in a subordinate manner to the U.S. multinational corporations. Until 2002, 70% of the profits of PDVSA were invested in the United States. That is why the November 2002 decision to directly control the enterprise provoked a lock-out which paralyzed the enterprise for months and which was defeated by the mobilization of the workers. It was on the basis of this struggle that a new trade union, the National Workers' Union (UNT), was formed. The UNT is now the majority trade union. In his speech to Parliament, Chavez announced a reform of the Constitution to include the national character of gas and electricity, thus giving the nationalizations a constitutional character. He indicated that the foreign companies that had benefited from the measures taken by the Caldera government in 1994 to open up new operations in Orinoco - BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron-Texaco, Total and Repsol - should submit to a partnership agreement with PDVSA, that is, to the creation of mixed enterprises where PDVSA would have majority control. All these measures are the direct expression of the extreme social polarization taking place and the depth of the pre-revolutionary process expressed during the elections of last December 6, 2006 through the massive victory of Chavez and his supporters, who won with 63% of the vote. ***************************
Ten million Mexicans threatened with hunger A correspondent of El Pais (Spain) writes on January 17: "The poorest Mexicans cannot believe their eyes: One month after the swearing in of Calderon, who in his first speech promised to do everything to fight against poverty, the price of corn tortillas, the elementary staple of the people, virtually tripled. Š A kilo of tortillas, which usually costs no more than 7 pesos (.5 Euros) now costs 18 pesos." Lopez Obrador's PRD party - which voted in favor of the budget presented by Calderon - demanded that the government declare a state of emergency, that the Minister of Economy be kicked out, and explained that the nourishment of 10 million poor people depended on tortillas. In addition, for weeks the country has experienced violent confrontations between the police and narcotraffickers, a conflict that already has produced dozens of deaths. But why should Mexico, the home of corn, live today through this shameful rise in tortilla prices? Today, Mexico imports corn from the United States, which decides how much corn it exports. These are the direct consequences of the NAFTA free trade agreement, which has been in place since 1994. This treaty liquidated the tariff protection for the Mexican peasants, provoking their ruin. Over half the agricultural collectives (ejidos), products of the Mexican Revolution of 1910-1921, disappeared. These ejidos had allowed for an equilibrium between the production of corn and its consumption. The free trade agreement destroyed this equilibrium in the name of the importation of U.S. corn, which is cheaper. Now the Mexican nation is subordinate to the dictates of the U.S. multinationals. Is there any other way forward other than breaking with this free trade agreement? **************************
An interview with Ariel Quiroga, a PIT-CNT trade unionist Rejection of the signing of the Free Trade Agreement (TLC) with the U.S.: "National sovereignty and the independence of the trade union confederation" The congress of the trade union confederation of Uruguay, the PIT-CNT, took place in a context marked by the uprising of the mass of workers and peoples of the continent, in Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico, and the U.S. The people are expressing their will to be free and sovereign and their rejection of a policy which, in the name of paying the foreign debt and "good governance" destroys their rights won through bitter struggle. In Uruguay, last October 10, millions of electors participated in this movement by pushing the Frente Amplio (an alliance of left parties and workers' and popular organizations) into power. In this movement, the mobilizations of the trade unions, workers, and youth imposed the rupture with the Free Trade Agreement (TLC) that U.S. Capital wanted to impose on the country. Next, the congress of the PIT-CNT voted against joining the so-called "International Trade Union Confederation." (Read issue 214-215 of the ILC International Newsletter for more on this subject.) In this context, we spoke with Ariel Quiroga, a trade union activist. ILC: The 9th Congress of the PIT-CNT adopted two particularly important resolutions: the rejection of the signature of the TLC with the U.S. and the refusal to join to the new ITUC. What do you think? Quiroga: These two decisions were very important. They affirm the sovereignty of the country and the independence of the PIT-CNT. In both cases, they are rejections of proposals emanating from the Bush government, which aims to implement its war plans and destruction of nations through commercial agreements such as the TLC and through subordinating the trade unions to the "democratic governance" of institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank. This, by the way, is explicit in the declaration of principles of the new ITUC. Through organizing mobilizations for the rejection of the signing of the free trade agreement, the PIT-CNT of Uruguay has played a determining role in the decision taken by President Tabare Vasquez and the government of the Frente Amplio, which brings together left parties and workers' and popular organizations, to not sign the TLC with the U.S. It could not be otherwise, seeing as a large part of the millions of youth and workers that pushed the Frente Amplio into power on October 31, 2006, are organized in the framework of the confederation. We workers and youth do not want a free trade agreement because we do not want privatizations, not of the water, not of the ANTEL (the national telephone enterprise), and not of any public service. We do not want other industries to close like the metal industries and textile. We do not want there to be more unemployment, a shortage of infrastructure, education services, and health care services. That is why we support the decision of the government to not sign a free trade agreement. ILC: The government just announced a series of measures concerning a reform the health care and the state. What is the content of this? Quiroga: The government has set the objective for next year to reform the taxes, the state reforms, and the health care. How are we supposed to understand it? These are measures that are part of the logic of the free trade agreement. For example, there is the 50% cut in the bosses' contribution to the BPS (pension funds) and the reform of the state, which aims to modify the statutes of government workers. Concerning health care reform, it is announced that all should equally contribute to the new system, without explaining if there will be an egalitarian distribution of health care. Aren't these the very reforms that have led the youth and workers to push the Frente Amplio into power? How are we supposed to understand that they are letting what the people chased out the door come in through the window? ILC: You have taken the initiative, with other trade unionists, to issue an open letter to the leadership of the PIT-CNT. What is the goal of this? It has been possible, with the support of the PIT-CNT, to lead the government of the Frente Amplio to not sign the free trade agreement with the U.S. The signers of the letter are addressing the leadership of the PIT-CNT to propose that they call for a large mobilization with the goal of demanding that the government not pay the foreign debt (in order to thus invest in public health care and in public education) and to nationalize all enterprise or private health service that close. Since December 19, 1992, the majority of Uruguayans (72%) have taken a stand against any privatization of enterprises and public services. The mandate of the October 31, 2006 election is the ratification of all the previous referendums against privatizations. These measures of government can and must, we think, be implemented immediately because the situation demands it and the vast majority of those who voted for the Frente Amplio demand it. Indeed, the existence of this majority allows for the implementation today of these measures, which are part of the continuity of the decision to not sign the free trade agreement with the United States. **************************
On January 11, ten days before the general elections set for January 22, the president of Bangladesh proclaimed a state of emergency, prohibited demonstrations and gatherings, ended constitutional guarantees, and installed censorship. At the same time, the elections were postponed to an undetermined date. The pretext for denying the people of Bangladesh their right to expression was the "troubles and violence" that, since November, has led to the death of 45 people and hundreds of injuries. What has created this situation? Constitutionally, three months before the elections, the government is supposed to pass power to a transitional government which has the task of preparing the elections and assuring the transparency of its preparation. However, the party in power, the Bangladesh National Party, chose the president as the head of the provisional government. Thus, the government mandated to prepare the election is anything but neutral. Also, the electoral lists were plagued by millions of "errors." The main opposition party, the Awani League, has organized a campaign of popular mobilizations, strikes, and demonstrations against the "provisional government," demanding a new Prime Minister and a re-doing of the electoral lists. Faced with this mobilization, which rapidly grew past only the issue of elections, the head of the provisional government declared a state of emergency and stepped down soon afterwards to be replaced by a direct agent of the world bank. More than ever, explains the Democratic Workers Party, "the demands that were at the origin of the big action led by the workers of the city and countryside are the primary concern of our people. The workers of Bangladesh want to see these demands met. They want to choose freely and without fear their representatives, who will be mandated to implement these demands. One cannot defend democracy by forbidding it in practice. That is why the workers oppose the establishment of the state of emergency. The people of Bangladesh have full rights to association, assembly, and protest. It is through this that Bangladesh can democratically resolve its problems."
|
Open World Conference of Workers