|
|
A dossier of weekly information published by the INTRODUCTION: The European Workers Liaison Committee: The European meeting was called for March 31, 2007 in Brussels and endorsed by 693 doctors, employees of social security, unionists and worker activists from 17 countries in Europe (Germany, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Turkey and Ukraine). It is not exaggerated to say that in their appeal they spoke of the need to immediately stop "the accelerated destruction of all public healthcare systems in Europe." The 15 doctors, hospital unionists and activists who participated in the discussion at the conference for the defense of public healthcare systems in Europe addressed the condition of parts of the problem. All testimonies showed that the setback of healthcare systems and social security pose a question of life or death. A brochure offering a complete report on the meeting and the delegation on April 2 will be available on April 20, 2007. Please forward your orders. United States: On March 23 the Congress, with the Democrats in the majority, voted on military spending -- US$100 billion -- to continue the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. In an article that appeared on the Internet, U.S. journalist Larry Everest, co-author of a collective work on Bush and Cheney, raises the question of the Democrats' double-talk on the subject of the war in Iraq. Subscribe to the ILC International Newsletter TABLE OF CONTENTS: Pg. 1.: Introduction Contact : *******************
The Congress, where the Democrats hold a majority, voted on military spending. The Democrats gave Bush $100 billion for his war. It is more than he asked for On Friday, March 23, in Congress where they hold a majority, the Democrats passed a law on 'training for U.S. troops, care for veterans and control of what happens in Iraq' by 218 votes for and 212 against. This law gives the Bush administration around $100 billion to continue the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, while calling for a return of the U.S. troops in Iraq by September 1, 2008. Bush refuted by one of his former advisors on Iraq One of Bush's former advisors, Matthew Dowd, publicly disagreed with Bush by saying "If U.S. public opinion says it has had enough of something, our leaders must understand what they want and what they said -- i.e., get out of Iraq." According to a poll published by Newsweek, 57% of North Americans were in favor of a time-table for a prompt return of U.S. troops from Iraq. Only 28% were in agreement with the Bush policy. Press reviews "The Congress has the power to end the war by refusing to vote additional financing for it. Instead of that, the Democrats chose to give Bush $100 billion so that he can continue this war: this is more money than he had requested." Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader of Congress, favored this decision, saying, "It was a vote to put an end to the war in Iraq." "This is not so," wrote U.S. journalist Larry Everest (see below), for whom "instead of aiming to end the war, this law aims to pressure the Bush regime to adjust its strategy in Iraq and the region in order to preserve U.S. imperialist interests. While speaking of ending the war, the Democrats are putting forward a plan to continue the war in Iraq, the widening of the war in Afghanistan while giving Bush the green light to attack Iran." The Washington Post on March 11 said: "It is a fact that the present doctrine of the Democrats if no different from that of Bush and Cheney. Numerous Democrats, including senators who voted in favor of the war against Iraq, have co-opted the idea of a strong foreign policy, founded on the world supremacy of the United States and its presumed right to intervene where it wants in order to promote democracy and defend the key interest of the United States. Even those who later turned against the war do not present a coherent alternative to the Bush doctrine founded on its confidence on the U.S. military superiority and the attraction exercised by the democracy of free markets. If the democrats win in 2008, they could still be linked to a vision of the Pax Americana that perfectly matches that of Bush." In The Economist of March 31 we read, "The confrontation between the White House and the Congress could have tragic consequences." This is in reference to the mounting political crisis now raging at the summit of the U.S. state. The article refers to the attacks against Bush through investigations against his adviser Karl Rove and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. The editorial observes that "many people undoubtedly, will be pleased to see the White House besieged and Messrs Bush and Cheney searching for cover. But independently of what one might think of the most inept presidency the United States has ever known, the present civil war in Washington is preparing a tragedy both for the United States and millions of people throughout the world. Sooner or later, the U.S. will leave Iraq, but it is essential that they leave it in good condition. If Bush is seen as rejected by the political developments in the United States, the capacity of the U.S. to influence the events in Iraq and throughout the region will be largely undermined." Bush wants to prepare public opinion for a direct attack on Iran Le Monde (March 30) headlined an interview with Flynt Everett, an expert on the Middle East who has worked for the CIA, and the national security council at the White House and the State Department thus: "Bush wants to prepare public opinion for a direct attack on Iran." When asked the reason for the Bush administration's opposition to a dialogue with Iran he replied: "President Bush considers that the Islamic Republic is fundamentally an illegitimate regime." This attitude is dictated by the following considerations: "Oil, Israel, the balance of powers and the role of the United States in that region." "What was most interesting in Bush's state of the union address in January, he concluded, is that it did not concern Iraq, but Iran. By accusing Teheran of furnishing 'material support' for the attacks against U.S. troops, he sought to prepare public opinion for a direct attack without going through Congress or the UN." Larry Everest also stated that, "the Democrats have removed a clause from the law that would have forced Bush to seek approval from the congress before attacking Iran. Now that the United States is openly threatening Iran, that preparations for a war are already in an advanced stage the Bush regime feels it has nothing to account for and is ready to launch a preventive war justified by lies. This gives him the green light to attack." ********************
We are doctors, hospital workers and unionists from all of Europe We are raising a cry of alarm: "We must immediately stop the accelerated destruction of all systems of public healthcare throughout Europe." The brochure containing the full report of the meeting and the delegation on April 2 to the headquarters of the European Union will be available on April 20, 2007. Please forward your orders. In the framework of the European Workers Liaison Committee, the appeal to the European meeting launched and endorsed by 693 doctors, social security employees, unionists and labor activists from 17 countries in Europe (Germany, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovakia, Czech, Turkey and Ukraine) was held on March 31, 2007 in Brussels. Is it exaggerated to speak of the need to immediately end "the accelerated destruction of all public healthcare systems in Europe?" The 15 doctors, unionized hospital workers and activists who participated in the discussion at the conference for the defense of public healthcare systems in Europe replied to this question by addressing the state of affairs in their countries. Excerpts from the testimonies, which you will find on these pages, will make you gasp, because we know that the undermining of healthcare systems and social security pose a question of life or death to all. In Germany, Klaus Schuller, leader of the DGB trade union in the Land of Thuringen and vice president of the labor commission of the SPD in Thuringen, explained that from now on a premium of 600 euros will be charged to those who for one year have not seen a doctor or had any medical intervention. In Belgium, Rudy Janssens, federal secretary of the Brussels region of the CGSP, explained that in 1971 there were 50% public hospitals and 50% private hospitals. Today there are only 25% public hospitals. The difference in each region is flagrant: in Flanders there are simply no public hospitals. In Romania, Violeta Tudor, SANITAS unionist, said it is not unusual for patients to be sent home before they are cured, because of the awful conditions in hospitals. In Turkey, Fatih Artvinli, leader of the trade union for healthcare and public services, explained: As in other European countries, public hospitals have been transformed into autonomous establishments before they are completely privatized. Certain public hospitals are simply closed. The children's hospital in Istanbul that cared for around 40,000 children a year was closed because the number of patients was considered insufficient. In Switzerland, Antonio Herranz, trade unionist, noted that the press announced there were 120,000 citizens (out a total of 7.5 million) who have no social protection. Gerard Schivardi's dramatic report states: "We, the mayors of the small communes have received the mandate of the people who elected us to represent and defend their living conditions, and improving them where possible. We have a serious problem with the closure of maternity wards. One of my colleagues, the mayor of Sarthe, told me about the difficult birth experienced by a young mother in a parking lot because the maternity ward in Amboise had been closed and she had to travel 80 kms to give birth." In Great Britain, Tony Richardson, leader of the bakers' trade union, recalls: "When I was the municipal councilor for the Labor Party in Wakefield from 1998 to 2004, I was responsible for healthcare and social assistance. During that time I was particularly aware of the state of healthcare services, and I saw how healthcare services had been reduced. Under the leadership of government representatives in the commissions, I saw the number of beds cut by 20%. In Wakefield, 80% of retirement homes and healthcare centers were privatized." In Spain, Dr. Joaquin Insausti, member of the Association for the defense of Devero Ochoa hospital, said: An infamous campaign has developed to accuse the doctors for the death of patients, whereas these deaths are the tragic consequence of the policy of privatization of healthcare imposed by Brussels. In France, the delegates were overwhelmed when they heard the testimony of Professor Guerin, president of the Association in defense of the code of ethics and the rights of patients (AMDDDM, France) and who read a letter from by Dr. Lemonnier reporting on the scandalous conditions in which aged patients, for lack of space, are virtually crammed into waiting rooms, while the doctors and nurses search with anguish for beds to accommodate them. In France we have experienced an unprecedented attack against our retirement system (reduced to 37.5 years of payment) by the Fillon Law of 2003, following the Balladur measures of 1993. In Germany the age of retirement has been increased to 67 years, in Hungary to 65 years. Is this a simple coincidence asks Nicole Bernard, a social security unionist? "Isn't it the dictate of the European Union's recommendations, and in particular the Barcelona summit of March 2002, which recommends in Point 32 of its list of conclusions to progressively increase by five years the effective age in which professional activity ends in the European Union? Isn't the closure of millions of beds, complete hospitals, the consequence of the policy of the European Union as advocated at the Summit in Thessalonica in June 2003, ordering surveillance of the efficiency of measures taken to unravel the spiral of expenses in the healthcare sector and take their evolution to a more supportable level?" This also applies to countries that are not yet members of the European Union In Turkey, Fatih Artvinli indicated that the implementation of the plan proposed by the International Monetary Fund that increases the cost of medication by 60% is one of the conditions demanded by the European Union for Turkey to be able to join. So, what can we do for the defense of our healthcare systems in Europe, asks Fulvio Aurora, member of Democratic Medicine and leader of the healthcare commission of the Party of Communist Refoundation in Italy? The discussion brought up answers. "We are here, doctors, hospital workers, leaders and trade union activists, and it is natural that we fight within our organizations to defend our hospitals, the status of personnel and through them, that of the patients," said Luc Delrue, hospital unionist (France). In Great Britain, numerous initiatives have been taken by trade union organizations over the past years, to defend a hospital, and the NHS in general, said Tony Richardson. Philippe Larsimont of Belgium, who presided the conference, read a message from doctors, trade unionists and Portuguese socialist activists that recalled the large demonstration these last few weeks of the people, their elected representatives, and the trade unions for the defense of healthcare emergency services. In Germany the massive rejection of the "healthcare reform" by 80% of the population led several deputies of the SPD in the Bundenstag to vote against this counter-reform proposed by the government of the "grand coalition". It is not only about the defense of what is left, but also recovering what has been taken away, because what is at stake is civilization! This struggle is linked to the fight on a European scale to have the European Commission face its responsibilities in addressing the dramatic state of affairs of public healthcare systems. Some delegates explained that they reached the conclusion of the need to break with the European Union. Others did not share this point of view, but all participants recognized the crushing responsibility of the European Union in this situation. A delegation was received on April 2, 2007 by the director of the office of the European Commissioner on Healthcare The 72 participants at the meeting on March 31, 2007 mandated a delegation made up of Fatih Artvinli (leader of the healthcare and public services employees' trade union, Istanbul, Turkey); Hans Mees (leader of the Ver.di trade union of the hospital group VKKD in Dusseldorf and member of the leadership of Ver.di-healthcare in Rehnanie); Henning Frey (member of the SPD, Cologne); Rudy Janssens (federal secretary for the Brussels region CGSP ACOD ALR LRB, Belgium); Philippe Larsimont (coordinator of the Workers' Defense Movement, Belgium); Nicole Bernard (social security unionist, France); Philippe Navarro (hospital unionist, France): Christel Keiser (European Workers Liaison Committee). The delegation was received by Philippe Brunet, director of the European Commissioner's office for healthcare and the protection of consumers, and Markos Kyprianou. Brunet explained to the delegation that "the European Commission has neither competence nor responsibility in the organization or furnishing of healthcare. No one in Brussels says one must reduce healthcare expenses. The only thing imposed by the European directives is the fight against public deficits." Some problem! Healthcare expenses derive, like all public expenditures from Article 104 of the Maastricht Treaty and consequently from the so-called procedure of excessive deficits. This is the mandate given to the delegation endorsed by the 72 participants: We, the undersigned doctors, hospital workers, social security personnel, unionists, worker activists, gathered on March 31, 2007 in Brussels in the framework of the appeal launched by the European Workers Liaison Committee. We have established the following: In all European countries in reference to the European directives, our public healthcare systems and those of social security have been dismantled, thereby upsetting the equality of access to care. The dossier on the status healthcare in Europe we have begun to compile indicates that in all countries, the governments over the past decades, regardless of their political inclinations, have undertaken the following: - Closure of certain hospitals, maternity wards, emergency services, drastic reduction of expenditures on healthcare, suppression of millions of beds and as a consequence the reduction of millions of jobs: Between 1992 and 2003, 86,000 beds were closed in Germany, 83,000 in France; between February and November 2006, 21,000 jobs were suppressed in the NHS (national health service) in Great Britain; between 2000 and 2003, 185,000 jobs were suppressed in Italy and in Lombardy, 7,200 beds for seriously ill patients were closed; in Hungary, the number of 'active' beds went from 60,000 to 44,000 in 2007. - Privatization of hospitals through the "Public/private partnerships" (PPP), which has led to massive suppression of beds and jobs but also higher costs for patients: In Great Britain, numerous hospitals have been built by private groups in exchange for an annual rent running for 30 years; in France, the hospitals are obliged to borrow from financial institutions to renew their buildings and their equipment; in Italy, the local healthcare centers were transformed into private companies to control expenses; in Spain, the township of Madrid has just launched the construction of seven new hospitals in accordance with PPP procedures; in the Czech Republic, the 14 regions are in the process of transforming public hospitals into mixed-capital companies; in Hungary, some activities have already been privatized (maintenance, labs, radiology service); - Regionalization of public healthcare systems: In Italy, where healthcare has been regionalized since 2001, some regions have sold hospitals, others suppressed services or entire hospitals and/or increased the fixed rates for patients; in Spain since 1992, the management of the healthcare network has been given to the regions, leading to the privatization of hospitals and the downgrading of the status of personnel; - Dismantling of the social security systems by increasing the retirement age, reducing the rights of the insured and suppressing the monopolies of the social insurance fund. As the EU directives grant more and more exemptions from social contributions to the employers (particularly in Germany, Italy, France and Belgium), the retirement age has been increased (67 years in Germany and Denmark, 65 years in Hungary, 42 annuities for employees in the private sector in France) the contribution by the insured increases (increase in the 'health ticket' in Italy, establishment of supplementary fees in Belgium hospitals, establishment of franchises for certain medical services in France, increase in employee contributions in Hungary.) Are these simultaneous measures and attacks against our public healthcare systems coincidental, or are they the implementation of a concerted policy? We consider that memorandums that we have established in each country allow us to make the following accusation: This policy of destruction is without any doubt coordinated by the institutions of the European Union. Is it not the European Union that requires each member state as well as each region, to strictly respect the rules of the Stability Pact and reduce the public deficit to less than 3%, as fixed by the Maastricht Treaty? Is it not the establishment of Article 104 of the Maastricht Treaty that stipulates: (1)The member states must avoid excessive public deficits; (2) The Commission supervises the evolution of the budgetary situation and the amount of public debt in the member states to detect manifest errors?" Article 104 specifies what is to be understood by public: "What is relative to general government, that is to say central administrations, regional or local authorities and social security funds." Didn't the Italian government implement this article when the finance law for 2007 foresaw the suppression of 3 million euros to the healthcare budget in order to reduce the public deficit to 2.8%? Was it not the European Union that decided to increase the retirement age when it indicated in its conclusions at the Barcelona Summit in 2002 that: "Beginning here and through to 2010 we must progressively increase by five years, the average age in which professional activity ends in the European Union?" This obligation is confirmed in the integrated directive line No. 2 of July 12, 2005, which stipulates: "The member states must take into account the costs of an aging population, 1) Reducing their debt at a sufficient rhythm; 2) reform their retirement system, their social security and healthcare in order to render them financially viable?" Also through the document of the European Commission of January 25, 2006 titled, "Let us rapidly pass on to: the new partnership for growth and employment" that requires: "In the framework of their reforms of public retirement systems, member states must reinforce the financial incentives for workers who continue to work, for example by adapting the legal age of departure to that of retirement?" Is it not the integrated directive No. 15 of the European Union which stipulates: "The member states must strengthen the economic incentive measure including a simplification of fiscal systems and a reduction in the non-wage cost of labor" which imposes the exemptions from employer contributions and organizes the plunder of social security and retirement funds? Doesn't the report of the European Commission on Social Protection and Social Inclusion, published on February 19, 2007 imposing "fixing ceilings for expenses, the participation of patients in the costs of benefits" which leads to an increase in the costs borne by the insured? On September 26, 2006, the European Commission published a communication on healthcare services launching a "public consultation." It asks for "the respect and responsibility of the member states in the matter of healthcare services and medical care," and further, "The Justice Court declared that this disposition does not exclude the possibility of imposing on member states adaptations to their national a system of social security, as in other dispositions of the Treaty as in article 49 CE that stipulates: The restrictions on the offering free services within the communities is forbidden." Is the objective of this future directive not to get rid of the national systems of social security? These facts raise one question: Is the defense and reconquest of our public healthcare systems compatible with the European Union and its directives? There may be many answers, but this question must be debated by all those who are attached to the defense of public healthcare systems and social security. We, the undersigned, have decided that the mandate of the delegation to be received on April 2, 2007 by the institutions of the European Union is to obtain answers to these questions, on the basis of the facts we have explained and the memorandum we have constituted. We have decided to deploy all our forces to defend and reconquer our public healthcare systems and our social security systems. We have participated in numerous demonstrations against the closure and/or the privatization of our hospitals, against the undermining of our retirement systems, against the decrease in budgets allotted to healthcare, etc. We, the undersigned, have decided to constitute ourselves in a Permanent Committee of Correspondence to continue to gather information and to continue this meeting through initiatives that will provide an answer commensurate to the seriousness of the situation. Signatories: Germany: Carla Boulboullé, editor of SOPODE, Berlin; Keustin Bunz, Ver.di, Cologne; Ellen Engstfeld, SPD, Ver.di, Cologne; Elke Falk, Ver.di, Berlin; Heinke Först, SPD, Berlin; Henning Frey, SPD, Cologne; Eva Gürster, SPD, Ver.di, Cologne; Bertrand Kalipé, anesthetist, Duisburg; Monika Leisling, Berlin; Hans Mees, Ver.di, Düsseldorf; Volker Prasuhn, SPD, Ver.di, Berlin; Danita Riemer, Ver.di, Düsseldorf; Ingo Röser, Ver.di; Anna Schuster, Ver.di, Düsseldorf; H.-W. Schuster, SPD, Ver.di, Düsseldorf; Günter Schwefing, Ver.di, Düsseldorf; Beate Sieweke, SPD, Ver.di, Düsseldorf; Inge Steinebach, SPD, Ver.di, Düsseldorf; Monika Wernicke, Ver.di, Berlin. Belgium: Luc Bertrand, engineer; Philippe De Menten, member of the executive comité of the Brussels regional of the CGSP-education; Kamal Dhif, FGTB; Roberto Giarroco, unionist CGSP-FGTB; Rudy Janssens, federal secretary of the Brussels region CGSP ACOD ALR LRB; Philippe Larsimont, coordinator of the Movement in Defense of Workers (MDT); Benoy Laursen, unionist; Pierre Marlhioux, elected member of the excutive bureau SETCa/FGTB BHL; Philippe Massenaux; Georgette Molitor, affiliate CGSP; Serge Monsieur, trade union delegate CGSP; Michel Nagel, PS, CGSP; Victor Ntacorigira, unionist; Esther Stark, unionist; Nicolas Vandaele, unionist FGTB; Paul Wattiez, trade union delegate FGTB-SETCa. Denmark: Kirsten-Annette Christensen, education trade union in Copenhague;
Eva Hallum, Popular Movement against the European Union; Benny Lauersen,
builders trade union in Copenhague; Spain: Luis Gonzalez, healthcare unionist, CCOO; Joaquin Insausti Valdivia, doctor; Blas Ortega, President of the Medical Association in defense of the Rights of Patients and Doctors (AMDDMM), unionist UGT; Rafael Palmer Juaneda, member of l'AMDDMM. France: Nicole Bernard, unionist, Social Security; Anne Chahwakilian, geriatric doctor; Catherine Cochain, unionist nurse; Marie-Thérèse Cousin, retired doctor; Danièle Dabilly, social assitance; Luc Delrue, hospital unionist; Daniel Dutheil, unionist; Régis Jacquot, hospital unionist; Christel Keiser, European Workers Liaison Committee; Jean-Philippe Laporte, hospital doctor; Marie-Paule Lemonnier, doctor; Frédérique Mugnier, administrator CHU in Dijon; Philippe Navarro, syndicaliste hospitalier; Louiza Nourri, syndicaliste; Bruno Ricque, hospital unionist; René Sale, hospital unionist; Gérard Schivardi, Mayor of Mailhac; Dominique Vincenot, European Workers Liaison Committee; Florence Widmer, hospital unionist. Great Britain: Nick Phillips, former leader of a local section of UNISON; Tony Richardson, unionist, Local union of TUC in Wakefield & District. Italy: Fulvio Aurora, leader of "Democratic Medecine"; Lorenzo Varaldo, teacher unionist, European Workers Liaison Committee, Romania: Violeta Tudor, unionist. Switzerland: Joëlle Gyselinck, unionist healthcare SSP, Nyon; Antonio Herranz, nurse unionist SSP, Lausanne; Yolanda Nobs, nurse; Yasmina-Karima Produit, trade union secretary SSP, Neuchâtel - Turkey: Fatih Artvinli, leader of the healthcare employees trade union and social services, Istanbul. - - - We invite you to organize meetings reporting on the March 31, 2007 meeting, to say in touch with the correspondence committee and to endorse the statement above. Bulletin No. 1 of the Correspondence Committee will be available on April 20, 2007. Table of Contents of this bulletin: This bulletin costs 2 euros to unionists (support: 5 euros or more) and 12 euros for 10 bulletins (plus shipping charges) My order:_________ bulletins Name:..................................... Send your order to: Entente europeenne des travaileurs, 87 rue du Faubourg Saint-Denis,
75010 Paris ********************
200,000 workers demonstrate again in the streets of the capital: Background A presidential election took place in Mexico on July 2, 2006. After mass electoral fraud took place, with the support of the United States, Calderon was declared president although Lopez Obrador had won the election. Huge protests took place, gathering millions of Mexicans from all around the country, and demanding that Obrador to become president, so that he could constitute a government that would satisfy the needs of the people. A first session of the National Democratic Convention was organized on Obrador's initiative on September 16th and gathered more than a million workers in Mexico City. … PRI: Institutional Revolutionary Party, is the traditional party
of the Mexican oligarchy. ----------- Interview of a PTDI militant from Mexico after the second session of the national democratic convention From March 21st to 25th, a second session of the National Democratic Convention (CND) was organized by Lopez Obrador, the legitimate president of Mexico. On March 25th, more than 200,000 workers protested in Mexico City against the destructive social security "reform". We are publishing an interview with a militant from the Democratic and Independent Workers' Party (PTDI), which is affiliated with the ILC. You were a delegate at the second democratic national convention (CND). Could you tell us about it? The CND began on March 21st with an inaugural rally where more than 3,000 people were present. On March 22nd and 23rd, about 2,000 delegates organized five working commissions which were subjected to the approval of the assembly. Lastly, on Sunday March 25th, 200,000 people marched to the Zocalo, where Obrador spoke. Felipe Calderon's government, which was formed after the scandalous electoral fraud of July 2nd, 2006, was put in power on December 1st under heavy military protection, which encircled Congress to prevent hundreds of thousands of protesters from getting in. In a hundred days, this government has waged an unprecedented economical and social war against workers and the Mexican nation. While the speculative increase in the price of basic necessities, particularly the tortilla, reached 46%, the increase in the minimum wage was only 3.8%! At this very moment, he (Calderon) is trying to implement a brutal counter reform of the ISSSTE (1), which would eliminate the solidarity system not only for pensions, but also for health care services. The second CND was not the same success as the first one, which gathered more than a million workers, peasants and youth in Mexico City. Why? Both in the CND working commissions and in the March 25th protest, we saw the will of the majority of working people to defend the ISSSTE, PEMEX (2), and the country's natural resources. However, in contradiction with this will of the workers, the convention leaders did not present them and the unions with a concrete united mobilizing proposal to defend social security, which is part of the national patrimony. At the end of his message to the nation on March 25th, Obrador made two proposals to the people gathered at the Zocalo. He first asked them if they would be ready to mobilize and fight if the illegitimate government presented a law which would privatize PEMEX. The answer was an enthusiastic "Yes". The second proposal was to organize a third CND on November 20th. The lateness of this choice triggered a rejection from some of the people, who shouted: "Earlier! Earlier! Earlier!", making "No" signs with their arms. This request was not heard. What do the PTDI militants offer in these circumstances? The newspaper "La Jordana" has mentioned the "absence of the leaders of the PRD in the work of the CND, which is a boycott against Obrador by his own party". The representative Ramon Pacheco (PT), explained in his declaration to the commission on national patrimony that a part of the PRD representatives refused to take the presidium of the chamber of representatives, which would have allowed them to block the vote which approved the new law on the ISSSTE. The representatives from the PTDI, together with others from various places in the country, are calling for a national meeting on April 14th with those who consider important the defense of the ISSSTE and national patrimony. They will go forward with Obrador's call for the resignation of Calderon and for the creation of CND committees all over the country. --- Endnotes (1) ISSSTE: Institute for the security and social services to state workers. It ensures social security for 3.5 million of federal, state and local workers, of 6 million of their family members and for about 500,000 retired people. (2) Mexican nationalized oil company. ------------------ Resolution Adopted by the Popular Assembly of Magdalena Contreras On March 10, the Popular Assembly of Magdalena Contreras, a working class suburb of Mexico City, took place, with 250 delegates in attendance. The Popular Assembly was called by the Mexican Electrical Workers Union (SME), the Alliance of Social Organizations, the Popular Committee For Lopez Obrador of Magdalena Contreras, the National Democratic Committee of the UNAM university, and the Independent Democratic Workers Party (PTDI). This Popular Assembly showed the strong determination of the Mexican people to fight back. Despite the heavy rain and cold, the delegates did not leave the outdoor assembly, voting a final resolution, excerpts from which are printed below. Today we gather together in this Popular Assembly to prepare the participation of the people of Magdalena Contreras in the Second Session of the National Democratic Convention. These first 100 days of Calderon have been a sample of what this spurious government will be if we allow it to continue for six more years. After nearly three months, there have been price increases in the tortilla, the basic food products, and gasoline. The privatization of the highways has been announced. Calderon has also committed to the privatization of PEMEX and the electricity sector (Luz y Fuerza and La Comisión Federal de Electricidad) as well as breaking up the ISSSTE by privatizing its pension funds and turning them over to the banks. And, as if this was not enough, the fraudulent and spurious government of Calderon gave a slap in the face to the working people by giving a salary increase of 46% to the Army and the Navy while the wage earners as a group received a miserable increase of 3.8%. This can not continue. We can not doubt for a moment that the illegitimate government was imposed in order to destroy our national sovereignty and civil rights and that this enjoys the support of the government of the United States. To achieve its objectives, Calderon and Bush are trying to end the social upheaval and therefore are getting ready, under the pretext of "The War Against Drugs", for militarization of the country on one hand and the structural reforms on the other, which today are disguised as "Government Reform", a reform that has the objective of fulfilling the commitment that Calderon has to the Bush Administration, as well as the multinational businesses, the World Bank, the IMF and the greedy "national" businesses. This commitment means the privatization of PEMEX, the electricity sector, and the public water supply systems, the application of the IVA tax to food and medicine, the breakup of the social security system, the "reforming" of Federal Labor Law, the dismantling of public education, and the most serious is to allow the police and the soldiers of the United States to enter our national territory, in a plan that has been called the Alliance for the Security and the Prosperity of North America (ASPAN). We declare ourselves to be against these plans and also against those that either publicly or by their deeds intend to grant legality and legitimacy to the Calderon government and that say that there was not any fraud. We once again state our commitment to the political program of the CND and the twenty points of the legitimate government that resulted out of the Transfer of Power on November 20. We believe that the fact that that the illegitimate "president" remains in the government is a deadly threat against the population and the nation and that is why this Popular Assembly demands: Out with the Usurping Government of Calderon! We declare that far from being exhausted or disappearing, as the television and the big media would have people believe, the resistance movement of the working population and the youth continues to grow stronger. The defense of the popular will, national sovereignty and the civil and worker rights is the order of the day. This was demonstrated in the mobilizations of January 8 and January 31 in which thousands of protestors, from both the Federal District and from Oaxaca, demanded, "Out with Calderon", expressing also its willingness to impose the legitimate government of Lopez Obrador, giving it all the power to carry out the demands of all the population. Nevertheless, this will only be possible by strengthening the CND with representative organizations and actions from the rank and file in the settlements and cities that can be popular defense committees, committees of the CND and popular assemblies. In this way, this popular assembly should result from the initiatives so that the settlements of Contreras can organize the assemblies and committees and name delegates to the CND on the basis of a platform of struggle and resistance that has as its objective: All Power to the Legitimate Government of Lopez Obrador! Down With the Illegitimate Government of Calderon! We call on all workers and young people to participate in the CND in order to: stop the surrender of PEMEX, the electricity sector and the rest of the natural resources of the country; stop the privatization of the ISSSTE and the public health services; confront the pressure from the imperialist government of the United States over the country with the wall and the anti immigrant policy; and stop the breaking up of our nation. We invite you to participate because it is an urgent necessity to promote the resistance policy of the Mexican people and take a step forward in its level or organization. ********************
In an article widely circulated on the internet, U.S. journalist Larry Everest, co-author of a book on Bush and Cheney, exposes the double-speak of the Democratic Party leaders, particularly in relation to Iraq. Below are some excerpts from this article, dated March 28, 2007. On Friday, March 23, the Democrats in the House of Representatives pushed through the "U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act" by a vote of 218-212. The bill gives the Bush administration some $100 billion to continue the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, while calling for U.S. combat troops to leave Iraq by September 1, 2008. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi hailed this as a vote "to bring an end to the war in Iraq." But it is no such thing. This bill (and a similar Democratic Party bill under consideration in the Senate) is not a step towards ending the U.S. occupation of Iraq or the larger "war on terror" it is part of. This bill doesn't represent a condemnation of-or accountability for-the U.S.'s unprovoked war of aggression against Iraq. Rather the bill's stated goal is to "help fight the war on terror." And the bill certainly doesn't call for U.S. forces to leave the Middle East/Central Asian region. ... The Democrats are not demanding that U.S. forces immediately leave Iraq-the only just solution-or that they ever leave Iraq. Both Bush and the Democrats envision that thousands of U.S. troops will be in Iraq for years to come-just not on the frontlines of combat in the same way or in the same numbers. ... These open-ended commitments, and the Democrats' refusal to renounce permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, mean that thousands of American troops could be stationed in Iraq for decades to come. ... California Democrat Lynn Woolsey said on Democracy Now! (March 22), "There are virtually no enforcement measures in this legislation that will make the President do anything that we're telling him to do when we get to the end of August 2008 and the war is still going on." All these steps flow from the Democrat Party's agreement with the Bush regime's basic goal of maintaining and strengthening U.S. imperialist global dominance-even as they have deep disagreements over how to realize it. ... In November, millions voted for the Democrats to protest Bush and the war, and in hopes they would end it. Today, many-including people who worked energetically to elect Democrats and who've been lobbying them to cut off war funding-feel bitter, betrayed, and outraged. They should be outraged. The lesson is not that the Democrats "sold out" or are "spineless." The lesson is that the Democrats are a ruling class party (and this is deeply institutionalized, regardless of the desires or intentions of its supporters or even some elected Democrats), acting to advance the interests of a capitalist-imperialist system they're part of and represent. These interests are directly antagonistic to the interests and sentiments of billions of people globally and the vast majority in the U.S. ... What is needed to end the war is a massive upheaval from below. But such an outpouring cannot and will not happen as long as millions are putting their hopes in the Democrats-either passively by waiting for 2008, or even actively, by focusing their energy, efforts, hopes, and yes money into pressuring the Democrats to "do the right thing" instead of putting them where they can really count for something: into mobilizing the one force that can stop the war and drive out the Bush regime- the millions, from all walks of life, who oppose them. Inspiring and organizing these millions to take independent mass political action based on the just demands of ending the war and turning back all the outrages of the Bush regime from torture to spying to theocracy, is the only realistic option and the only way these crimes will be stopped. It will never happen by hoping the Democrats become something they're not, and never have been.
|
Open World Conference of Workers