|
|
A dossier of weekly information published by the ----- Introduction On February 2-3, 2008, an European Conference "No to the 'new' European Treaty! Abrogate all the past treaties!" called by 252 activists and leaders of 16 countries of Europe (see issues 256 and 257 of the ILC International Newsletter) will take place. We are publishing in this issue a brief analysis of this treaty. Germany: We are publishing a contribution from three transportation workers to the Caçak Serbia conference (October 28-29). Italy: There is discussion in the workers' movement after the Yes in the referendum on the July 23 agreement on pensions. Portugal: While the heads of state of the European Union sign the "new European treaty," 200,000 workers demonstrated in Lisbon against "flexicurity," in response to the appeal of the General Confederation of Workers of Portugal (CGTP). Switzerland: You will find below the article, "Concerning the October 21 legislation: The Submission of the SP to the European Union was rejected in the polls." Afghanistan: We are re-printing a contribution and message to the January 2008 Mumbai conference. "The workers, the oppressed, and their organizations should fight for peace and their rights because they are the true owners of the world." Antilles: On September 17, 2007, in an interview given to the Parisien, professor Dominique Belpomme, cancer specialist at the Georges-Pompidou hospital in Paris, noted the "true poisoning of the people of Martinique and Guadeloupe." United States: We are publishing excerpts from an interview with Malcolm Suber, after the October 20 election in New Orleans: "We are enthusiastic about the perspectives for building the Reconstruction Party."
----- Table of Contents p.1: Introduction ----- CONTACT Informations internationales ***************************
The Summit of European Heads of State adopts a "new" European treaty In Lisbon on October 18, 2007, Summit of European Heads of State adopts a "new" European treaty On the night of October 18 to 19, the 27 heads of state and European governments adopted a new European treaty, called the "Lisbon treaty." A true denial of democracy! This new treaty takes up everything from the draft European "Constitution" that was rejected on May 29, 2005 by the French and Dutch peoples. Right before this, in France, a power strike movement began in transportation and numerous public administrations and services, even stronger in transportation than in 1995, in defense of the pensions systems that the European Union would like to destroy. Confronter with this continued resistance of the workers of France and all Europe, the bosses, the governments, and the partisans of social dismantling more than ever need to strengthen the institutions of the European Union. But democracy and the defense of the living conditions of the workers and people of Europe demand an end to this straightjacket. This is the sense of the appeal of the workers' activists and elected representatives throughout Europe, who are organizing a conference next February, with the support of the ILC. Throughout all the countries of Europe, from the East to West, they together say No to the new European treaty. The new treaty confirms all the old treaties (Rome, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice) Privatization Maintained: Article 14 (of the Maastricht-Amsterdam treaty) concerning the interior market and the free circulation of goods, peoples, services, and capital, in the name of which all the European directives on the privatization of public services (postal, telecommunication, electricity, gas, railroads) were transposed into the different European countries. Prohibition of State Subsidies Maintained: Article 87 concerning the prohibition of state subsidies, which make all subsidies to public services or enterprises illegal - and prohibits any (re)nationalization. It also strangles all the public budgets and social expenses." Maintained: Article 104 on excessive public deficits, in the name of which, throughout Europe, the governments have strangles all the public budgets, brutally diminished health funding, and raised the age of retirement. The Lisbon treaty should be officially by the 27 European heads of state next December 13; then begins the ratification process in each of the 27 countries. Concerning France, Nicolas Sarkozy declared at the end of the Summit: "I suggest that this ratification take place in the quickest manner possible, that is in the month of December 2007. I would be very happy to see France be one of the first countries in Europe because, after having blocked the Constitution Š I only see advantages for France setting an example." "The government is planning on submitting the text on December 14 to the Constitutional Council, which should judge its conformity with the Constitution, before submitting it to the two chambers of Parliament." (AFP) A more anti-democratic framework The Lisbon treaty strengthens the supranational and constraining character of the institutions of the European Union. - The Presidency of the European Union: Up until the present, the presidency of the EU rotated every 6 months. In general, it was the head of state of the given country that headed the presidency. But it is planned for "the European Council to elect its president through a qualified majority for a length of 2.5 years, a term which can be once renewed." And the new treaty specifies: "The Presidency of the European Council cannot exercise national mandate." He or she, therefore, must be only accountable to the institutions of the EU. - The high representative of Foreign Affairs, in charge of covering all the domains of foreign policy: The new specification is the member states "respect the action of the EU in this domain." You can imagine, at the moment of the war preparation against Iraq, with a majority of heads of state approving Bush, what this would have meant: France and Germany would have had to unite behind Blair, Aznar, and Berlusconi. - The legal character of the EU: From now on, "the EU has a legal personality." This means giving the EU the power to make international agreements in all the domains, above the heads of the member states. ----- European Conference: February 2 and 3, 2008 No the "new" European treaty! Abrogate all the old laws (Rome, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice)! Around this demand, 252 activists and leaders from 16 countries of Europe (see issues 256 and 257 of the ILC International Newsletter) called for a European Conference on February 2 and 2, 2008. Here is an excerpt from their appeal: "Next February 2 and 3, a European conference will take place with the signers of the appeal, with the goal of helping to 'weld together on a national and European-wide level a united front of all the workers and their organizations to reconquer the democracy foundations upon which national sovereignty is based" and to help "preserve the existence of our union organizations." ***********************
After the referendum on the "agreement" of July 23 concerning pensions: What is the government's worry? On July 23, the Prodi government reached an agreement with the leaderships of the three big Italian trade union confederations concerning pensions. In the referendum organized to approve it, the Yes received 75%. But among the workers (metal, chemical, ports, etc.) the No was a strong majority. The FIOM, the powerful metalworkers union inside the CGIL (the General Italian Labor Confederation) rejected the agreement. Our correspondent discussion the debate concerning the role of the trade unions and their independence. This discussion is open inside the "Committee of Correspondence for a Workers Policy" that was built in Italy. The media and the government announced that July 23 "agreement" won with a 75-80% rate, but lots of worry was expressed concerning the clear victory of the No in many factories, among the metal-workers, the railway workers, and the workers of the Genes ports. In Mirafiorio, 76% voted against this "brutality" and in Genes, 479 out of 500 "rejected the plague." In Piaggo de Pontedera, the No reached 61%; in Ansaldo, it reached 67%; in the FIN Chantiers of Naples, it was 91%; it was 80% in the factories in Turin of the vice-president of Confindustria, Pinninfarina; in Cassino, 84% voted no; in Melfi, 85%; in Termini Imerese it was 79% (La Stampa). In the Turin Polytechnique University, the No was around 65%. (1) Thus, what is worrying the government if the Yes won with 75%? What is worrying it is the fact that despite the incessant propaganda for the yes, the threats, and the profound disinformation, the vote expresses a will of resistance of the working class from the North to South of the country, undermining the policies of the government and the agreement. On another hand, the government knows that those who voted for the agreement will not accept seeing the destruction of their pensions. The government knows also that numerous workers did not vote, because of their memories of the 1995 referendum, which was marred by irregularities and manipulations. But beyond the numeric results of the referendum, we would like to submit to all the workers, unionists, and leaders of trade unions a profound question. But beyond the numeric results of the referendum, we would like to pose a profound question to all workers and trade unionists. The trade union is an instrument to defend and reconquer workers' rights, while fully independent of the bosses and government. Its role is to freely negotiate the working conditions, wages, rights, etc. of the workers. In this sense, it is a pillar of democracy: In every country where there are no free and independent trade unions, there is no democracy. In democracy, the government has the right to make laws or modify them, often in agreement with the bosses' organizations, and the trade unionists can express their opinions on these measures and eventually struggle against these laws. An independent trade union cannot sit around a table with the government and Confindustria, write a law "protocol," and then push for the workers to accept it. This so-called "consensus" protocol empties the trade unions of their purpose and threatens the very nature of an independent trade union. The path is opened toward corporatism. After the referendum, the General Secretary of the CISL, Rafele Bonnani, declared: "This is a day that will change the face of confederative unionism." (La Stampa, October 11) Essentially, the danger is to head toward a corporatist union, tied hand and food to government, acting as a transmission belt for their policies. This process was already begun with the creation of the ETUC, which co-writes with the EU and the bosses European directives. The EU pushes for this co-legislation. Thus the new European draft treaty integrates Amendment 122 which stipulates: "The European Union recognizes and role of social partners. The Tri-partite social summit for growth and employment will contribute to this social dialogue." It is time to institutionalize this, in the framework of the Maastricht treaty and its directives. The agreement foresees, implementing the European directives, among other things, the rise in the retirement age, the aggravation of precarious work, the extensions of tax breaks for the bosses in the name of free competition, and the de-taxing of overtime. It also aims to empty the budgets of the state, resulting in attacks against public services. It is the implementation of the dictates of the EU. It is not the role of trade unions to reach an agreement with the government and decide the means to make it pass. The Council of Ministers just adopted (with a few small modifications) the "agreement." Paolo Ferrero, minister of the PRC, and Bianchi of the PdCI abstained. Two other ministers of the radical left voted "yes, with reservations." The agreement should now be presented to Parliament as a law to be passed. But beyond the official propaganda and despite the evident obstacles, the fight is not over for workers and inside the trade unions. We noted that the FIOM was right to say no. Numerous trade union leaders and delegates said No and organized. The results of the referendum demonstrate that the workers will not accept this process of destruction. The day the results were announced, the Fiat de Cassino factory went out on strike and on October 26 there will be a public workers strike called for by all the trade unions. To all those who search for a path to help the resistance, we say, it is necessary to open and deepen a discussion to defend trade union independence, reject corporatism, and fight for a government that really implements policies for the workers. The question of the break with the European Union is an integral pat of this question. That is why we propose to all that we build the Committee of Correspondence for a Workers Policy, which we have founded with activists from various political trajectories. We propose to you to join the signers of the 15 countries of Europe a Appeal for the No to the new European Treaty. ----- Endnotes (1) It should be noted that no definitive statistic has been given concerning abstention rates. The 75%-80% participation figure concerns 110,000 ballots. The PdCI Euro MP, Rizzo, demonstrated that the workers could vote two or three times in one hour. Cremaschi, the general secretary of the FIOM, declared on October 12, these stats "are not credible, they were obtained only in the factories where the Yes one." (La Repubblica, October 12) ----- A million demonstrate in Rome "against precarity" On October 20, in Rome, a million workers demonstrated, from all over Italy, "against precarity." Nobody expected this turnout, not even the organizers, the Party of Communist Refoundation, the Party of Italian Communists, which are part of the Unione government with Prodi. More than one million workers demonstrated in Rome because they have had enough of the policies of the Prodi government, policies that are at the orders of the European Union. They have had enough of this government that just voted on raising the retirement age five years.
They demonstrated only a little bit after, from the North to the South of Italy, the workers of all the big factories, including Fiat, said No to the agreement on pensions and welfare (organizing generalized precarity), signed on July 23 by the leaders of the trade unions. They were supported in this No by the federation of metal workers (FIOM). According to the organizers, "the demonstration (was) a leftist, but not against the government" - a "critical" demonstration. How are we supposed to understand this? The organizing parties that are part of the Prodi government know, like Prodi, that all those who protested did so to defend their rights against Prodi and the dictates of the European Union, which undermine these rights. All demonstrated against the July 23 agreement. In the demonstration, there were many CGIL flags, though the leader of the confederation asked that there not be. On October 26, all the workers of the public administration struck, on the appeal of their trade unions. Despite all the obstacles, everybody understands that nothing is pre-determined: the working class aims to unite through its organizations. In this situation, the activists of the ILC in Italy build with unionists and militants of diverse origins, a Committee of Correspondence for a Workers Policy. The question of the break with the European Union is at the center of the discussion. ********************
In Lisbon, while the heads of state of the European Union sign the "new European treaty," 200,000 workers demonstrate against "flexicurity" While the heads of state of the European Union sign the "new European treaty," 200,000 workers demonstrated in Lisbon against "flexicurity," in response to the appeal of the General Confederation of Workers of Portugal (CGTP). The 200,000 workers, farmers, and students from all over the country filled the streets of Lisbon to clearly reject "flexicurity", the destruction of the rights and guarantees won through the class struggle and codified into the constitution imposed thirty years ago by the Revolution of the Carnations. "Flexicurity" and the destruction of the rights is being orchestrated by the European Union in Portugal and throughout Europe. We should note that on the eve a meeting took place of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), which took a position in favor of the signing of an agreement with the bosses concerning "flexicurity," an agreement considered historic by the Portuguese Prime Minister, Jose Socrates. At this meeting, the CGTP delegation took a position against this agreement. The General Secretary of the CGTP, Carvalho Da Silva, explained this position at the rally that ended the demonstration by noting that "20% of the Portuguese people are poor. Š The balance sheet of ten years of the European strategy for employment demonstrates that its implementation has meant mostly the liberalization of wide sectors of employment. What we have observed in our countries is the maintenance of a high rate of unemployment, a rise in precarity (more than 46% in 10 years), more inequality, a wave of immigration of more than 100,000 workers each year, and deepening attacks against the rights of workers, public services, and social protection." One thing is clear: The profound aspirations expressed by the workers and youth of Portugal at this demonstration is contradictory with the European Union and its new treaty. Correspondent *****************************
Concerning the October 21 legislation: The Submission of the SP to the European Union was rejected in the polls The federal elections in Switzerland took place on October 21 in the context of a generalized offensive against social gains and the privatization of public services. As in other countries of the European Union, even if Switzerland is not part of it, the Federal Council (government) transcribes the European directives into Swiss law. Two ministers of the SP participate in the government. Last March, it voted on the opening of the electricity market up to 50%, while the people rejected this through a popular vote in 2002. It foresees the opening of the postal market by breaking the post office's monopoly. Social insurance is seeing its budget cut and a law foresees a rise in the retirement age of women, a proposal which also was rejected in 2004. These were the policies rejected in the elections. The Swiss Socialist Party (PSS) lost 9 seats out of 43 and dropped 4.2%. In the big cities, the loss was even bigger in the workers' centers. While in Zurich canton the PSS lost 5.85% of votes, this rate rose to 11% in the workers' neighborhoods in the town of Zurich; the same goes in Berne and Geneva. The turnout of 48.9%, almost identical to 2003, covers a rise in rightwing turnout and a drop in turnout in the poorer neighborhoods, particularly among the PSS electorate. In 2002 and 2004, the PSS fought the laws stemming from the Brussels directives. It launched several victorious referendums against these laws. This attitude resulted in a rise in votes in the 2003 elections. Since then, the PSS leadership has shifted politics, demanding the acceleration of the Swiss joining of the EU, which has led it in the last period to implement the policies of privatization and social dismantling. While, as the press relates, the radical right party, UDC, rose 2.75% and won 7 new seats, this was largely by winning the losses of the two parties of the institutional rights. The UDC included in its program the No to the European Union, while, in reality, its MPs regularly voted for all the laws in conformity with the EU; in this way, it has attracted the votes of sectors of the petit-bourgeoisie worried about the consequences of social dismantling. While the construction capitalists, in implementing the bilateral agreements with the European Union, and with the support of the PSS and the union confederation (USS), just denounced the national collective contract on wages, the building workers demonstrated massively in September and continued their mobilization through several strikes. Yes, there is a way out: defend the collective contracts, fight against privatizations, and defend social welfare services. For this, isn't it necessary to take a clear position against joining the European Union? Correspondent *******************
The majority of the German population rejects the continued privatization of the railways Three union activists of Transnet (the German railway union) and delegates from S-Bahn (the rapid urban train) of Berlin wrote the following contribution to the workers' conference that took place on October 28 and 29, which brought together activists from the countries of the ex-USSR, Eastern Europe, and the Balkans, which we will report on later this in this issue. Dear Comrades, We are comrades unionized into Transnet and delegates of the workers of the S-Bahn in Berlin. We heard of your initiative of a workers' conference of activists from the ex-USSR, Eastern Europe, and the Balkans. In your invitation you draw the balance sheet of the devastating effects of the policies of privatization imposed in your countries since 1991. We read with great interest when you wrote about the resistance of workers against these policies, for example, in Serbia where the great majority of workers have been and continue to be against privatization and where there are virtually no unions in postal services, railways, and energy sectors that directly dare to support privatizations. We are delegates of the workers of the S-Bahn. For you to understand our struggle, we would like to take a brief step backwards. The S-Bahn of Berlin belonged to the Reichsbahn of the RDA. With reunification, in 1989, it was fused together, as were all the goods of Reichsbahn, with the Bundesbahn (the railways of the RFA), the state public enterprise. At first it was an autonomous affiliate; now it is part of the urban transport of the DB (Deutsche Bahn, the current name for the German railways). In 1994, through a modification of the constitution, a reform transformed the Bundesbahn into a privatized enterprise, through the legal form of a shareholder company (AG in German). The path was thus opened for a privatization of this big public service. This reform of the railways resulted in a massive destruction of jobs, closings, de-localizations, partial privatization and wage cuts. Between 1994 and 2004, to prepare the privatization and the entry into the stock market, reunified Germany close 5000 KM of railways and 400 stations. From 1994 to 2005, the number of workers dropped in half; today there are only about 230,000 workers in the railways. The Landers of Eastern Germany were particularly hard hit. With the current legislative plans to continue the privatization, this essential sector for public social infrastructure will be opened to the appetites of the profits of the world markets of Capital. The German federal government, in this, follows the demands of the EU, according to which the passenger coaches should be liberalized in all the member states since 2010. According to the former Social-Democrat MP Peter Conradi, this privatization was a "diversion from public property." While the railway infrastructure was valued (by the official statistics of Verkehr in Zahlen) at 130 billion Euros, the Grand Coalition government estimates the value of the railways to be 15-20 billion Euros. And through the privatization, it would now like to reach 7-10 billion Euros. The DGB is on the watch and fears that a privatization would lead to a rise in prices and that it would be necessary to have new closing of lines, up to 10,000 kms and rises in the prices of tickets. Experts of the Landers are on the watch for the cut of 5-10% of the total offer of local railway transportation from here to 2011. The organism of transportation of Berlin and Brandebourg (VBB) fears that this would lead to the cutting of one out of six trains, with the loss of 700 km in railways and closure of 177 of the 522 existing stations. Only the reduction of the networks, the cutting of the trains and the abandonment of some stations can create the profits needed by the market, according to the administrator of the VBB. But the privatization also threatens the trade unions, which are pushed toward unprecedented atomization. The majority of the German people and members of the SPD reject the continued privatization of the railways. We approve the demands of the DGB unions that demand the end of the sell-off public property, but we disapprove when the president of Transnet, our DGB union, encourages the privatization of the railways. He has not received the mandate of the members of Transnet. This orientation threatens the existence of our trade union of the DGB, Transnet. The numerous steps taken toward privatization threaten the existence of our Berlin S-Bahn and the Deutsche Bahn. The delocalization, sub-contracting, 260 contracts, and the atomization are measures against the railways. There can only be one solution: The abrogation of all the privatization measures. The railways, as a constitutive element of the big public services, should return fully to the state. Only through this can they return to the role codified by the Fundamental Law. In December 2006, the workers' delegates of the Berlin S-Bahn unanimously adopted an appeal which we wrote: "As railway unionists of Transnet, our union of the DGB, we reject the entry into the stock market of the Deutsche Bahn AG, all other attemps of privatization, and subcontracting. In particular, we support the Social-Democratic MPs in Parliament who oppose the current privatization plans. We are for the retransforming the Deutsche Bahn Ag into a state enterprise under the full control and financing of the federal states, because all the experience of the last years show that this is the only way for a railway to function well and to respond to its public mission, in respect of democracy, society, and the environment. When we went from private railways to public railways, there were good reasons - reasons that are still valid today. Those who claim the opposite are lying and remain silent concerning the victims of accidents and the costs. There are good reasons for uniting in a united railway union, TRANSNET, member of the DGB. Those who question this today, question the capacity for struggle of the comrades and their organization. We are for all the railway workers to be organized into the DGB TRANSNET union, on the basis of the principle of trade union independence and membership in the DGB. The dissolution of our trade union, TRANSET, would only benefit the privatizers, for whom our union is an obstacle to their profits. That is why we address all our colleagues. Struggle with us in our joint union, TRANSNET, against all the attempts of privatization and the outsourcing plans, as well as against the seperation of the network and traffic. Defend the independence of our union in relation to the state, the government, the parties, and the churches and defend its membership in the DGB! We address the unions linked to us in the DGB and we address the DGB itself: Do not allow the dissolution of TRANSNET! Defend with us the trade union unity built after the war and the division of Germany! The only way to defend the railways against atomization is through our union." Dear Comrades, You raise in your invitation the danger of the permanent threats to isolate the workers. The invitation notes that the inviting organization, The Alliance for a Workers Policy is a part of the International Liaison Committee of Workers and Peoples (ILC), which offers a framework for free discussion between activists of all political orientations throughout the world. We learned of your initiative thanks to the editors of Soziale Politik und Demokratie in Germany, which is linked to the ILC and which supports its initiatives. We are convinced that your conference in Cacak can be a new step to break isolation and to allow the free discussion between us concerning how to oppose the destructive policies of privatization and fight for the reconquest of social gains, public enterprises, and state property. German comrades will be participating in your conference and will report on the resistance in our country. We are certain that at the end of your conference, the exchange of experiences will continue, in particular at the European conference proposed for the beginning of February. Solidarity, Kerstin Fürst, Peter Polke, Percy Baarts Berlin, October 16, 2007 **********************
"The workers, the oppressed, and their organizations should fight for peace and their rights because they are the true owners of the world" On January 19 and 20, 2008, there will take place in Mumbai (Bombay) in India, an Asian conference for peace and the independence of the workers' movement (see Issue 256 of the ILC International Newsletter). We are publishing a contribution from Hanifullah Hanif, member of the Left Radicals of Afghanistan (LRA) Dear comrade, We read the appeal of the Asian conference and we agree with all the points that pointed to them in that appeal. This conference is a good means towards the introduction and bringing together the all working forces especially regional working forces in a closer cooperation, solidarity and contacts. The workers' enemies from West to East and from North to South are united and making alliances to reach their plundering goals, then why workers and progressive forces must not make a china great wall against their class enemies and against their exploitive and criminal policies? We believe that just solidarity messages and declarations cannot bring changes; we have to find practical ways how to coordinate, collaborate and become closer to each other to defend our shared interests and defeat our hostiles. Therefore, we think that this coming conference in Mumbai will provide such opportunity for working forces especially for regional countries to discuss the prepared agenda, meanwhile talk on their problems, resources, tools and any possible and practical ways to make our presence legally, effective and finally emerge as an active and considerable alternative in the political environment of our countries. Left and working forces in Afghanistan have been suffering from multiple problems created by imperialist occupiers and their puppet regime in Kabul. According to the new constitution there is no permission for those forces to act legally who struggle for socialism against private property, against exploitation, which believe in secularism and do not subordinate to occupiers and their puppet regime. the revolutionary left forces in Afghanistan because of the mistakes of ex PDPA and invasion of soviet union under the name of internationalism and defending workers that not only defamed the socialism but committed many crimes under the banner of workers, face a lot of challenges to compensate and give a new and real concept to the people from socialism and workers struggle in our country. To overcome these challenges we need solidarity, cooperation and assistance of our regional and international comrade parties, trade unions and all progressive forces. We believe, US imperialism and its allies in NATO will not withdraw their forces easily and in a short period. There is a risk of widening of war in region which obviously threatening the interest of workers and peasants and oppressed people of the region. Within struggle for peace and running anti war campaign we can win the support of workers and oppressed and can ensure our interests and reach our goals. It is possible only within a joint regional struggle of all workers and oppressed people. We hope this conference being proved a means towards such goal. Hanifullah Hanif ----- Following is our first sent message to you: Dear comrades We support and appreciate your initiative for proposing holding an Asian conference in defence of peace, nations' rights of the labor movement independence from world governance. Yes it is the need of time and necessary for workers and people movements. We have to show that it is not only the imperialist countries and their subordinated governments that act and have their way. We, as believe in class struggle and as the main contradiction is between labor and capital, then we have to prove it, that the worker movements and trade unions are not tools in the hands of imperialist mercenaries to play them counter to the interests of working class and oppressed but, as a powerful means which strongly defend their own rights against imperialism in world level and against their own bourgeoisie. Imperialism wage war, to divert the public attention from its local crisis and unfair and inhuman exploitive capitalist system. It victimizes the worker and oppressed to ensure gaining economic interest from the ocean of blood of poor people in occupied/ subordinated countries. So, against the imperialism and bourgeoisie plundering military, economical operations that impose war, killing, immigration, barbarism, human rights violation and so on, workers and oppressed and their organizations as the main victims of mentioned disasters, have to stand, to resist for peace and their rights as real owners of the world. US imperialism occupied Afghanistan to restore peace and democracy for us!! But we are witness of the deterioration of the situation more than before: bombardment, killing, bomb blast, imprisoning and torturing, home searching, poverty, unemployment, beggary, inflation, corruption Š are the gifts of US imperialism/NATO for our people. We would like that the comrades also discuss the following points: The fate of hundreds of thousands Afghan workers in Iran and Pakistan. The discriminative and inhuman attitude of Pakistani and particularly Iranian ruling bourgeoisie against our workers reached its epoch. The rival policies between ruling classes in Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan, demonstrate its enmity to revenge from our workers and refugees in those countries. There is no one to defend them. US/NATO beside their military presence and occupation, impose its economical policies as well. Free market and privatization is their priorities. Any one can see its unfair and awful impacts only in Kabul since introducing and implementing these policies, the gap from sky to earth between rich and poor. Establishment of private schools and universities to deprive workers and poor people and youth to get education anymore. From more than 60 thousands youth registered their names for universities this year, but the government admitted only less than 20 thousands. One of the main reasons of the deprivation of youth from higher education is to make depending Afghanistan to foreign experts, and also to push youth to join National Army and police to safeguard the interest of ruling bourgeoisie. In Afghanistan, there is not independent trade union to defend workers rights. A symbolic official union of workers just is serving for government not workers. Thus, we request our comrades, trade unions and progressive forces to assist us to build our independent real union in Afghanistan to defend our rights and represent Afghan workers in world events from Afghanistan. As the imperialism focus on Afghanistan, Iraq and Š the workers movements and organizations also must understand the importance and sensitiveness of the issue and propound their own alternative as main side of world contradiction (contradiction between labor and capital), only solidarity message cannot challenge them. ********************
An overpowering report from professor Dominique Belpomme, cancer specialist at the Georges-Pompidou hospital in Paris: "A true poisoning of the people of Martinique and Guadeloupe" On September 17, 2007, in an interview given to the Parisien, professor Dominique Belpomme, cancer specialist at the Georges-Pompidou hospital in Paris, noted the "true poisoning of the people of Martinique and Guadeloupe." Belpomme, after having investigated in April and May in the Antilles, presented to the National Assembly, a day after the interview, an "expert report concerning pesticide pollution in Martinique." A heavy silence greeted the mentioned facts, which were directly caused by the government. The profits of the landowners remains the top priority. And the "Grenelle de l'environnement" only serves to cover up for a world policy of deregulation and privatization, which is evidently environmental only in name. "It is a disaster of agricultural sanitation that is already perceptible now, but it is truly a bomb that will explode in the future because the health disaster is really still to come," declared the author of this 52-page scientific report. This report examines in detail the consequences for the land, vegetables, water, fish, aquatic environment and public health of the use for 30 years of chlordécone (1) and other pesticides in the banana plantations of Martinique and Guadeloupe. Concerning pollution, "islands are weaker than continents." The Biochemist Phillipe Igaray, co-author of the report, indicated that, "Martinique has the second highest rate of prostate cancer after the United States." Concerning pollution, "islands are more fragile than continents." The bio-chemist Philippe Igaray, co-author of the report, explained: "Martinique has the second highest rate of prostate cancer in the world, after the U.S." And he added: "However, this rise has not been observed among other populations." And professor Belpomme indicates in his report on the Antilles: "We can foresee that one man out of two will have prostate cancer in the coming years." In 1977, already, in a first public report (the Snegaroff, of the INRA, report) denounced the pollution through pesticides in the Antilles. Since then, seven other reports have been published. Victorin Lurel, president of the Guadeloupe region, declared recently on the RFO radio: "We have seen during the last thirty years the depth of this catastrophe and the state has been perfectly informed. Some ministers did not receive the MPs who wanted to know more. The problem of pesticides is the equivalent of contaminated blood or the scandal of asbestos." Once again, they want to tell us that they "did not know," while, for 30 years, scientific reports have proven the hugely toxic nature of chlordécone for living organisms. There has been no government or minister, from the left or the right, who opposes this poising of the peoples of Guadeloupe and Martinique. Ten years ago, the importation of pesticides into these two "departments across the ocean" were, in relation to each citizen, the equivalent of 7 kg of product and 120 kg for cultivated hectares. These statistics are even more significant and shocking when they are brought back to any continental France department. Concerning the air spraying of chlordécone on bananas, here is what a habitant of Lorrain, in Martinique, says: "My house is surrounded by bananas. They are everywhere around us. Several times, we were directly sprayed by plane. They don't care about precision. We have seen our fruit trees disappear and the water in the well is polluted." And this women of 56 years added: "I have thigh cancer, an enourmous tumour that is as big as a coliflower, which was operated on twice, unsuccessfully, after chemotherapy. They told me there was not much they could do." But behind the commercialization and massive use of pesticides in these countries for several decades, there is something more than there so-called charançon of the banana: profits. The search for maximum financial profits by those who control the virtual totality of the importation sector is the cause of all this. This cast, the "bekes," of which the big planters came out of, only represents about 1% of the population! With their control of the economy of the two islands, they have the ears of all the governments, left and rightwing. For years and years, in Guadeloupe and Martinique, associations, lawyers, unionists, elected representatives, etc., basing themselves on the reports, denounced the massive use of pesticides and the disastrous consequences for human health and the environment, but the status quo continued. The most recent example to date, given by Roland Sabra in a document on September 20, titled, "How the public powers tried to minimize the Belpomme report on chlordécone in Martinique:" Rachida Dati, Minister of Justice, wrote a letter to the president of the National Assembly to explain that the creation of a parliamentary investigatory committee, demanded by the MPs of the Antilles, was in contradiction with the Constitution and, thus, she opposed it. She went on to try to abrogate the categorization of "poisoning" registered by the appeals court of Basse-Terre (Guadeloupe). This categorization was retained by the courts, following many rallies, press conferences, and demonstrations organized by the collectives, organizations, and trade unions in Guadeloupe. Thus, while a whole masquerade is developed about the "Grenelle
de l'environnement," what do they have to say about the poisoning
of the Even to establish the truth about this scandal - like democracy - is contradictory with the so-called "environmental" policies decided on by the governments and international institutions that participate in the world policies of deregulation and privatization. It is the working class and its organization, by defending the existing legislation and regulations, public institutions, and all workers' gains, that can safeguard the health of the people and organize the scientific control of humanity over nature. ----- Endnotes (1) This product, patented in the United States in 1952, was prohibited in 1976 following the catastrophe in the Hopewell factory in Virginia. It was classified, in 1979, as possibly carcinogenic. ********************
Excerpts from an interview with Malcolm Suber, after the October 20 election in New Orleans: "We are enthusiastic about the perspectives for building the Reconstruction Party" Malcolm Suber was a candidate for City Council At Large in the October 20 election in New Orleans. He ran as an independent Black candidate, promoting the need to build a Reconstruction Party during his campaign. The following interview with Brother Suber was conducted on October 22 by The Organizer editor Alan Benjamin. THE ORGANIZER: What is your assessment of this election and your vote total? After underlining the brevity of the campaign - six weeks- and the lack of financial means, as well as numerous political obstacles, Malcolm Suber noted: "Everywhere we went, our campaign got strong support. We participated in numerous debates and our message was received with enthusiasm. We made some real gains in terms of organizing, putting together a solid core of activists to build the Reconstruction Party. T.O.: What are the next steps necessary to build the Reconstruction Party? SUBER: We are excited about the prospects for building the Reconstruction Party, though we understand fully that our task will be difficult. The people we need to reach out to and mobilize with our Reconstruction message -- that is, African Americans, working people and all the oppressed -- are alienated from the political process. But that should not deter us from what we need to do. We need to send a signal to our class enemies that we're going to fight them in every arena. This will require a powerful and concerted effort in cities across the country to build the Reconstruction Party, so that every effort undertaken in one city is supported by a vast network of Reconstruction Party activists and local organizing committees nationwide. We lacked that with this campaign in New Orleans. Still, we are pleased with what we were able to accomplish. We affirmed our Reconstruction message among the working class and the oppressed. We took a first step. We brought people around our campaign and put the issue of building the Reconstruction Party on the agenda."
|
Open World Conference of Workers