|
|
Intern@tional Newsletter Number 36 July 21, 2003 Weekly information dossier published by the Table of Contents - Presentation Presentation The international campaign for labour rights in Iraq continues, while the North American occupying authorities have just named a "Government Council" to rule in their service. The Council was formed on the basis of ethnicities and is destined to contribute even further to the process of the dislocation of the Iraqi nation. In this situation, everyone understands the importance of the publication in Arabic - by one of the Arabian trade union federations present in Geneva-of the Black Book developed by the North American labour union coalition USLAW, about the North American multinationals that are vying for the riches of Iraq. In the coming issues of the newsletter we will take on this issue again. In the framework of the preparation of the European Conference "for peace, democracy and workers' rights, for the free and democratic union of the free nations of Europe" (September 20th and 21st of 2003 in Paris, we are publishing a first analysis of the "European Constitution Project" presented by the former president of the French Republic, Valery Giscard d'Estaing. This project means, among other things, that the European institutions will have primacy over the national institutions, which it empties of content, forming an autonomous institutional framework, "independent" of the interests and aspirations of the workers and people of Europe. We are also reproducing the editorial of Informations Ouvrières, the paper of the Workers Party of France, after the victory of the NO vote on the Corsica referendum, the expression of the will of millions of European workers to say NO to a Europe of Regions. The Campaign for Labour Rights in Iraq On June 14, 2003, in Geneva, representatives of US Labor Against War (USLAW), the American labor movement against the war; representatives of the International Liaison Committee of Workers and Peoples and from the International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions (CISA) met and decided to launch an "International Campaign for Labor Rights in Iraq." The call for this international campaign was presented before the International Conference in Defense of the Conventions of the ILO and for Labor Rights on June 15th. This call was signed by the delegates to the conference. It projects the organizing, at the beginning of October, of an international labor delegation to Iraq. The ILC International Newsletter will regularly inform its readers of the developments of this campaign, of which they can become a part by adding their organizational endorsements to those listed below. We published this call in issue number 31 of the ILC International Newsletter. Back orders can be sent upon request. Contact Information: - US Labor Against War, PO BOX 153, 1718 M Street, NW Washington DC,
20036 (USA). - International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions, PO BOX 3225, Damascus
(Syria) Fax: 963-1144-20323. - International Liaison Committee of Workers and Peoples, 87, rue du
Faubourg-Saint-Denis, 75010 Paris (France). Tel.: 331-4801-8828. Fax
: 331-4801-8836. What type of democracy can arrive on the tanks of war? Words from a union leader from Lebanon at the International Conference in Defense of the Conventions of the ILO Geneva, June 15 of 2003 It doesn't surprise us to be meeting here to defend the conventions of the ILO and to protest against deregulation because we believe that those conventions should be untouchable, and our actions should guide us to seek new assistance in our struggles. What does surprise us is that even though we are in the 21st century, there are many who would impose archaic principles and ideas on the world. They would lead us backwards, towards the time of empires and dictatorships. Is it possible to explain what is currently taking place? Is it conceivable that from the very heart of the International Labor Organization (ILO), which should be the first line of defense of labor rights, there are violent attacks on the ILO conventions - with the objective of making them compatible with the interests of the new leaders of the world's economies? The tyrants who began these hostilities in an attempt to revise the ILO conventions (on the pretext of making them more suited to the interests of the workers), now intend to impose a new revision and an adaptation in accordance with their ambitions and interests. The workers and their unions will by the first victims of these attacks. The U.S. privatizations and wars on the weaker peoples of the world (whose only crime was to be an obstacle to US control of oil), are the forms in which these ambitions manifest themselves. Is it conceivable that what happened in Iraq occurred in front of the eyes of international public opinion and the United Nations? What is the significance of the fact that nuclear weapons inspectors were ordered to abandon Iraq several days before the attacks began? How can this be explained? Was it complicity or distraction? Naturally, both terms are valid. What happened in Iraq is a dangerous precedent because the United States and its allies launched a war on the pretext of liberating the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and to defend democracy. However, what kind of democracy are the Iraqi people enjoying today? What kind of democracy can arrive on the tanks of war? Is democracy the cause of the chaos, instability, insecurity and fear of the future? I will be brief because everyone in the world knows the great tragedy of these people, the great tragedy suffered by the women, the elderly, the youth and the children. I hope that our voice is listened to by the officials of the United Nations and that they awaken from their lethargy so that they become conscious and fulfil their natural work as the organism that deals with international problems, and which has as its task of granting the rights of the legitimate owners and confronting transgressors. If it is not possible to reach that objective in a practical form, it is at least necessary to reach it morally by means of the public condemnation of the invasion of the Iraqi territory by the United States of America and its allies and of the imposition of military control over the Iraqi people. We have the obligation, throughout the entire world, as workers and free people, to continue the fight against deregulation and the privatisation, to defend the conventions of the ILO, the fruit of long years of efforts and of peoples' struggles, as well as to defend our rights as workers, rights that are the foundation of our existence. We have the obligation to reject war and demand peace, a peace founded on justice. Khadye El Husaini Document FLUOR CORPORATION (Fluor) Fluor is a publicly traded corporation that provides services on a global basis in the fields of engineering, procurement, construction, operations, maintenance and project management. Headquartered in Aliso Viejo, Calif., Fluor is a Fortune 500 company with over 50,000 employees in 25 countries on six continents, and revenues of $10 billion in fiscal year 2002. In 2002, Fluor reported earnings of $173 millions, a 33 percent increase over 2001. Fluor's various subsidiaries involve it in a wide range of industries including biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and petrochemicals, microelectronics, mining and manufacturing, oil and gas production and processing, power generation, commercial and institutional equipment, government services, transportation and telecommunications. Labor Relations: Undetermined Description of Contract: On April 4, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awarded Fluor Intercontinental, a subsidiary of Fluor, and two other companies, Perini Corp and Washington Group International, three indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts with a minimum guaranteed contract value of $500,000 and a maximum contract value of $100 million. The performance period is one year. The contracts allow the Army to call upon the contracted companies to rapidly execute design and construction services as needed anywhere in the US Central Command's area of operations to support military operations, other U.S. government agencies, or friendly foreign governments under established agreements. According to Engineering News Record, a trade publication, "sources in Iraq say the contracts likely will involve a broad range of fast-track infrastructure repair work throughout Iraq. This could include some responsibility for maintaining key Army supply routes where security conditions permit. A contracting officer may seek proposals from any or all of the awardees for individual 'task orders' or award urgent work more directly." Connections to Bush Administration: Philip Carroll, Chairman and CEO of Fluor from April 1998 until February 2002, and formerly President and CEO of Shell Oil Company from 1993 until 1998, was appointed by the Defense Department as chairman of an advisory committee to oversee the production of Iraqi oil. Carroll receives more than $1 million a year from Fluor in retirement benefits and bonuses pegged to the company's performance. He also owns about 1 million of its shares, worth about $34 million. Kenneth Oscar, former deputy assistant secretary of procurement for the US Army under President Clinton, is Vice-President of Strategy for Fluor. Fluor's Board of Directors includes Bobby R. Inman, Admiral, U.S. Navy (retired) and former director of the National Security Agency and deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency; and Dr. Martha R. Seger, a financial economist and former member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Political Contributions: (1999-2002) Contributions: $489,378 (57 percent to Republicans) Total to President Bush: $3,500. Social Responsibility Record: Labor Rights (Domestic & International): In April 2003, lawyers representing a group of black South Africans sued Fluor for at least $1 billion as compensation for discrimination and abuse under apartheid. The suit was filed in a US federal court in California, where Fluor is headquartered. Allegedly Fluor and Sasol, a formerly state-owned South African corporation, paid black workers less than their white colleagues, acted violently to quell legal strikes and subjected the workers to "slave-like" working conditions. The lawyers alleged that during a strike in 1987, Fluor and Sasol managers used state police and their own security personnel to assault and set dogs on the striking workers. Some workers were killed in the conflict and all the employees were fired. In 2002, Fluor's Massey Energy subsidiary settled a civil case in the amount of $6.9 million for delinquent workers' compensation premiums from the late 1980s and early 1990s. In five other employment or labor-related cases involving a Fluor subsidiary, the company paid fines or settlements totaling more than $1.1 millions. Environment: In 1997, a chemical tank exploded in a deserted factory at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation outside Richland, Wash., the final storage location for more than two-thirds of US highlevel nuclear waste. The explosion was the result of mismanagement by Hanford's lead contractor, Fluor Daniel, a wholly owned subsidiary of Fluor. An internal US Department of Energy (DOE) assessment of the near-disaster allegedly skewered Fluor for numerous safety and reporting violations, noting that the chemical tank had not been inspected for over six months. Before the internal review was released to the public, Fluor's lawyers were successful in allegedly editing out key findings relating to possible violations of federal law, risks to human health and the extent of off-site contamination. In 2001, Fluor subsidiary Massey Energy (Martin County Coal) was fined and charged cleanup costs in the amount of $41.5 million (as of October of 2001) for violating the Clean Water Act by allegedly allowing 250 million gallons of coal slurry to pollute rivers and streams in Kentucky and West Virginia. In two other environmental legal cases involving Fluor subsidiaries, the company paid out $373,500 for fines or to settle claims against it. Two other lawsuits are still pending. Fraud: In 2001, Fluor Daniel settled a case in the amount of $8.5 million for charging millions of dollars in commercial costs to the government for violation of the False Claims Act in contracts with the Department of Defense. In 1997, Fluor Fernald settled another case under the same Act for $8.4 million for seeking government reimbursement for an employee party. In 1994, Fluor FD Services paid $3.2 million to settle a claim that it submitted heavily padded repair bills for cleaning up Navy bases after Hurricane Hugo. A law suit is still pending against Fluor Daniel for allegedly artificially inflating its reported profits and the price of its common stock so that top executives could collect millions of dollars in bonus compensation. Other Scandals:: In a 1997 US General Accounting Office report, a Fluor subsidiary that had a contract to clean up the US DOE's Fernald, Ohio federal nuclear site was criticized for a total of $65 million in estimated cost overruns and almost 6 years of schedule slippages for two projects. Also, some of the contractor's practices for maintaining performance and financial systems made it difficult for DOE and the contractor to exercise effective control and oversight of the contractor's costs and activities. Executive Compensation: See section above on Connections to Bush Administration for Philip Caroll's retirement benefits. The Corporate Invasion of Iraq: Profile of U.S. Corporations Awarded Contracts in U.S./British-Occupied Iraq Prepared by U.S. Labor Against the War (USLAW) for The Workers of Iraq and The International Labor Movement Corporations Profiled in this Report Halliburton Kellogg, Brown & Root [Note: You can download a copy of this 36-page report for free from the USLAW website at www.uslaboragainstwar.org . Hard copies can be obtained -- in the United States -- for $5 from USLAW, P.O. Box 153, 1718 M St., NW, Washington, DC 20036. Send $8 for a copy for all foreign orders.] Initial Analysis of the "European Constitution Project" (Excerpts of an article in the bulletin preparing the open worker' European meeting) The European Council of Salamanca approved the project for a European Constitution written by the Convention as a basis for the work of the Intergovernmental Conference that will start in October of 2003. This Convention was established at the European summit of Laeken, in December of 2001. The Constitution project, according to the predicted timetable, should be definitively approved in June of 2004. Some governments have already announced the holding of a referendum on it, parallel to the election of a European Parliament. … We believe, then, that we must analyse the consequences of this Constitution project and as a function of this analysis determine to what extent it is or is not a danger for the working class and its organizations, and for the existence of the European nations. A project for a very special "Constitution" 1. A radical modification of the European and national institutions
Thus, among other things it says: "The present Constitution, which was born of the will of the citizens and of the states of Europe to build a common future, creates a European Union, to which the member states contribute their competencies to achieve common objectives." (Article I - 1). "It will respect the essential functions of the state, in particular those that have as their objective guaranteeing territorial integrity, maintaining public order, and safeguarding domestic security." (Article I - 5). We observe here a qualitative change in relation to the previous situation. The attributes of the states are reduced to "guaranteeing territorial integrity, maintaining public order and safeguarding domestic security," that is to say, without entering into a false polemic, the Constitution says that not all of the institutions that have traditionally been products of the class struggle continue to be part of the attributes of the states. These include social protections, education, health care, transportation, and all of the public services. The least one can say is that it is a radical departure. 3. The institutions of the European Union Similarly, there are other institutions that have a particular importance and that are autonomous, in particular the Central Bank of Europe: a) "The European Central Bank and the national central banks of
the member States that have adopted the currency of the Union, the euro,
will carry out the monetary policy of the Union. …The principal objective
of the European System of Central Banks will be to maintain stability
of prices. Without endangering its objective of price stability, it
will lend support to the general economic policies of the Union with
the aim of contributing to the achievement of its objectives."
(Article I - 29, 1 and 2). Traditionally, the national banks have depended on the government elected by the national assemblies or parliaments. Therefore, they are subject to the political orientations of a majority arisen from the expression of national sovereignty. The Constitution project confirms and reinforces the "independence" of the monetary policy with respect to the different national governments as well as the institutions of the Union. Therefore, we have the right to ask: what is the reference for the European Central Bank? If we analyze, for example, the evolution of the euro in relation to the dollar since the creation of the euro, we are obliged to affirm that the economic and monetary orientation of the European Central Bank have a very direct relation to the North American Federal Reserve. c) And what is the relationship between the European institutions,
the different national governments and the international military institutions? Basically, these formulations are taken from the Maastricht Treaty, rounding them off even more, as the Maastricht Treaty recognized that the policies of the EU were based on those of NATO, while here the reader is left to make that conclusion. Indeed, if Germany, Great Britain, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, the Baltic states Romania…should adhere to their commitments in the framework of NATO, if the common politic of the EU is compatible with that of NATO, it must be said that all foreign policy, security and defense of the EU is dictated by NATO and the direct agreements with the United States in the framework of the "anti-terrorist coalition." Thus, Article I-42 includes in the Constitution that "The Union and their member States will act jointly […] to prevent the risk of terrorism in the territories of the member States." After the summit of Salamanca, there was an encounter between representatives of European security policies and the Bush government. This encounter took up the principle of preventative action against terrorism. c) An issue that deserves particular mention is the transfer of the competencies of the national parliaments and the location of the European Parliament: "The European Parliament, the council of Ministers and the Commission will keep in mind the motivated verdicts directed by the national parliaments or any of the chambers of a national parliament". (Protocol on the application of the subsidiary principles and proportionality, 6). Currently, 75% of the laws approved by the national parliaments are transcriptions of the European directives. d) In the operation of the institutions of the EU, it would be necessary to underline the European Commission in particular, constituted by the European commissaries. The Constitution proposes a system of 13 European commissaries selected with an equitable rotation system among the member states. Then it is said: "The Commission will exercise its responsibilities with absolute independence". (Article I - 25, 4) Again it causes one to wonder: from who are they independent? 3. - Democracy and the Letter of Fundamental Rights The Constitution project adds the "principle of representative democracy" (article I - 45) and the "principle of participatory democracy" (article I - 46) through which the citizens and "the representative associations" can "express" their opinions, in the framework of the "dialogue" between the institutions of the State and "civil society." The culmination of such a process seems to be the arrangement by virtue of which they will "Be able to request to the Commission, by the initiative of at least a million citizens of the Union coming from a significant number of member States that they present a proposal (…) to effect the application of the Constitution". Representative democracy, a product of the French Revolution, implies the recognition of classes with contradictory interests, that is to say, the recognition of political representations of those classes, therefore of political parties. But according to the European Constitution project, there are no political parties. There is on the other hand, according to the paragraph 4 of the article I-45: "The political parties of European dimension contribute to the political formation of the European conscience and to expressing the will of the citizens of the Union. Thus, the Constitution forecasts the existence of a new organization type, the European political party, that is to say, a party type that "contributes to the political formation of the European conscience." It is not, then, about political parties, but rather transmission belts for the European institutions, that is to say, for the negation of the freedom of creating parties. […] Let us see some articles of that Letter: To begin with, what is absent from them: in no passage does that letter indicate that it is inscribed in respect of the existent rights and national conquests. It is, then, a European letter that is situated above the conquests achieved in the classes struggle. Next, Article II - 52, titled "Reach and interpretation of the rights and principles", relativizes seriously when it is stated in the precedent articles, as it says they will "Only be been able to introduce limitations (...) when they are necessary." And the commentary on that article II - 52, edited in December of 2000 by the Presidium of the Intergovernmental Convention that had drafted it, is explicit: "According to a very well established jurisprudence, it is necessary to determine restrictions to fundamental rights, in particular in the framework of an organization common to the market, on the condition that such restrictions correspond effectively to objectives of general interest pursued by the Community." It is such that not only the fundamental rights of this Letter, as we will see, turn their back on the conquests achieved in each country, but the European Commission reserves at all times the possibility to restrict them on behalf of the general interest, which only it can interpret. Let us continue on to examine some of the articles of the Letter of Fundamental Rights, illustrating them with the comments from the Presidium. "Article II-30: Protection in the event of unjustified discharge All workers are entitled to a protection in the event of unjustified discharge" It is not necessary to read the comments of the Presidium, the very title of article 30 already tells everything. It is enough that the bosses affirm that the layoffs are justified by the crisis for the article to disappear. As for the protection, it speaks of one protection that is at best vague. "Article II-31: Condition of just and equitable work - 1. All workers are entitled to work under conditions that respect his health, his security and his dignity. The formulation is so vague that only the comments of the Presidium allow for clarification. It reads: "Article 31 is based on directive 89/391 relative to the implementation of measures dedicated to promote the improvement of the security and of the health of workers in their jobs." Now then, that famous directive of 1989 is one that in many countries questioned all of the existing conquests in connection with labor accidents. For example, in France, the law of April 9, 1898 declared the employer responsible a priori for labor accidents. Because the European directive of 1989 specifies: "It is necessary that the hard-working and/or their representatives […] are under conditions of contributing by means of a balanced participation […] to take the necessary protection measures". Speaking plainly, balanced participation means that the workers are now jointly responsible for their security. If there is an accident, they are also to blame and it is no longer, a priori, the employer's responsibility. […] We are forced to wonder if they are not seeking instrument to lower the bar on all of the conquests of the workers in the various European countries. 4. A first conclusion A first study of the European Constitution project has led us to reach some conclusions that we think they should be discussed thoroughly. Firstly, the institutions of the EU have primacy over the national institutions, and as such they are institutions that wipe out the content of the characteristics of national sovereignty. In second place, there are an entire series of institutions like the European Central Bank or the defense institutions that escape the control of the group of European or national institutions, because they answer to external powers. In third place, the European law being superior to national law, any position of a country that is further advanced can be the object of a levelling down to the lowest common denominator (for example, retirement pensions). In fourth place, democratic rights, the right to organization, to collective negotiation, that is to say, the attributes of democracy that exist in the national frameworks, are substituted by general principles that don't guarantee any of those particular rights. We can thus say, as a first conclusion, that the break between the institutions of the Union and the electoral body cannot but produce the establishment of an autonomous institutional framework, independent of the interests and aspirations of the workers and of most of the European population. For this reason, in our view this Constitution is an authentic danger to the future of the workers and the European nations. Andreu Camps Brazil The meaning of the struggle of public sector workers against pensions' "reform" Introduction On July 8th, federal workers began a national strike against the government bill of retirement pensions' "reform" (Proposition of Constitutional Amendment #40, or PEC 40), submitted to National Congress by Lula government and State governors. Public sector workers demand PEC 40 withdrawal and reopening of negotiations. The strike has been called by CONDSEF (national federation of federal workers), which is composed of eleven unions. The proposed counter-reform concerns all three categories of public sector workers - federal, state and local (Brazil is a federation of states) - and destroys a whole string of public sector workers' rights, according to IMF's wishes. PEC 40 suppresses retirement with a pension equivalent to the worker's last full wages, imposes on actual retirees a fee on the retirement fund itself, increases the minimum age for the retirement of public workers and diminishes 30% widows' pensions. The heart of this counter-reform is to to turn over the retirement funds of the public workers to the speculators who handle the private pension funds. According to a leaflet distributed by the union of federal workers in the Federal District (SINDISEP-DF), "bankers will benefit from it, because from now to year 2010 the reform would create a pension-funds' market of about 610 billion reais…". At present rate, that means more than 200 billion dollars, turned over from public-sector workers salary to speculative funds. From correspondents At its fifth day, strike is strengthening, enlarging to fresh sections of public sector, totalling more than 400,000 strikers, over 50% of federal workers. Speculators are getting nervous The strike has opened the floodgates of social, political and institutional crisis. Trying to face it, José Dirceu (former president of Workers Party and presently government minister) and João Paulo Cunha (president of National Congress, also a Workers Party member) proposed some changes in the reform bill, promising to maintain the full pension in exchange of an increase of retirement age from 55 to 60 years for men and from 50 to 55 years for women. But this proposal achieved nothing but a deepening of the crisis. The unions say the new bill is unacceptable. It has even encouraged the continuation of the strike, according to Ramiro Lopes, coordinator of FENAJUFE (federal justice workers). On the other side, financial capital reacted angrily. A first symptom was the drop at São Paulo's Stock Exchange on two consecutive days after the government announced it had agreed to modify the reform. Speculators consider that to maintain the one hundred per cent pension hinders the development of speculative pension-funds. Unity with CUT During the discussion in the 8th Congress of CUT (United Workers Federation), not one of the 2,735 delegates to the CUT's National Congress defended the government's proposed reform of the pension system, not even the leaders of the main current of the union (Articulation), close to Lula. This fact is a leverage point to achieve unity of all CUT components against the reform. But the Congress decided to present proposals of amendments to the government's bill. This put public sector unions affiliated to CUT in a difficult situation, because these unions are for withdrawal or suspension of the reform. Taking advantage of that, majority current (close to Lula) as well as ultra-left' currents of CUT, by different ways, tried to prevent unity of the union against the government bill and in support of present strike On July 1st, National Executive Commission of CUT met with the leaders of public sector workers' unions affiliated to CUT. One of these, Gilberto Jorge, submitted a draft resolution rejecting the proposal of some union leaders not affiliated to CUT to form an "autonomous" union of public sector workers. This proposal used the differences among national leadership of CUT and public sector unions. The draft resolution submitted by Gilberto Jorge asserted full support by CUT to July 8th strike and proposed a new march on Brasilia, in August, uniting the whole public sector. This draft resolution was not even put to a vote. Zé Maria, member of the National Executive Commission (a leader of 'ultra-left' organization PSTU) said it would be difficult to establish a common text. João Felicio, a leader of the Articulation, dismissed the need of a resolution, and meeting was finished. Also, the representative of DS current (Socialist Democracy, regrouping in Brazil the friends of Alain Krivine and Olivier Besancenot) in the National Executive Commission of the CUT stated squarely: "this strike is suicidal". The strength of the strike as well as the doubts in the government favoured a development of the battle for an effective support of CUT. In several states, the CUT has led strikes and demonstrations. In other states, the CUT calls common meetings of all public sector unions (of federal, state and local workers) to organise delegations to a national public sector workers meeting, on July 24, to set up proposals of common actions embracing the whole public sector, in August. On July 15th a fresh meeting of the National Executive Commission will assess the situation. Confusion inside the Workers Party The great majority of state governors contrary to the PT, with whom President Lula reached an agreement for pensions 'reform', are reproaching federal government for what they consider a retreat in face of strikers. Bowing to governors, Lula government has called a meeting on July 15th with five of those governors, those most close to former president, Cardoso, to calm them down. Those governors have direct links to international financial capital and to IMF interests. Such is the case of Geraldo Alckmin, the governor of Sao Paulo state. After this pressure, the leadership of Workers Party, in a meeting held on July 12th, decided to put an end to the discussion and to impose on PT members of parliament full solidarity with the 'reform' bill, that will be finally presented this week. By 52 votes in favour, 26 against and 4 abstentions - the Workers Party proposal will maintain full retirement pension for present public sector workers, but impose a salary ceiling on future recruits, which will diminish their pensions. On one had, government was obliged to change its draft. On the other hand, it stood by the decision taken at last meeting of National Leadership of PT to bring before a disciplinary commission three federal deputies and senator Heloisa Helena, on the grounds that they opposed the first proposal of pensions 'reform'. The strike is the decisive factor In this situation, where confusion and perplexity combine with the will to divide CUT and denature PT, the essential factor is the will and the fighting ability present in the public sector strike. That brought the government, or at least important sectors of the government, to modify first proposal on pensions. That is why many militants think that support for and solidarity with the strike must be at the centre of PT's and CUT's action. And that concerns private sector as well as public sector workers. Indeed, we are nearing a situation where the attack on the right of public sector workers to a pension meets the reaction of large estate owners against land reform (even by means of armed bodies and a fresh upsurge of assassinations in countryside). And at the same time, in the industry short time working generalises, preparing a new wave of lay-offs. I thought this account of the resistance to pensions counter-reform in Brazil would also be a help for resistance to similar measures in countries like France or Germany, for example. Anísio Homem Corsica Short memory (article published in Informations Ouvrières #597 of July 9-15, 2003) The day after the referendum of Corsica, the first secretary of the Socialist Party, François Hollande, is congratulated on the "clear government failure." Hadn't the Socialist Party called for a yes vote? In the end, isn't the victory of the no at the same time the failure of government and of the Socialist Party? It seems that the socialist leaders suffer from collective amnesia. They not only forget their slogan for the previous week's vote, but also the continuity of their politics over several years. Because the referendum of Corsica was legitimate child of the one celebrated "Process of Matignon," launched exactly three years ago, in July of the 2000, under the direction of the Prime Minister of the time, Lionel Jospin (who, some weeks ago claimed in the press that he had fathered it). Is it necessary to remind the leaders of the SP that only a single minister at the time - Chevenement, with whom we have many disagreements - resigned to protest against this process? The ineffable Melenchon who today, according to the press, "celebrated the event with champagne," at the time declared: "it means more to lose Corsica than the Republic," criticizing the resignation of Chevenement (it is true that he himself was in that held a ministerial position and wasn't about to give it up). On the other hand the Workers Party assumes the totality of its present and past positions. Three years ago we published a special pamphlet of Informations Ouvrières titled "Corsica: What is truly at stake in the process of Matignon" (in the next issue we will publish excerpts of this pamphlet, so that each person can judge for his or her self: one more reason to subscribe, if you haven't already done so). To the socialist leaders of 2003 (and to some others) suddenly affected with amnesia we remind them of some elements of the critique that we did of their project, from the analysis of their documents. The process of Matignon, we wrote, constitutes a true "offensive against the work force, that "puts as the order of the day the breakup of the nation and the Republic." Its "central objective" it is to immediately "dismantle the Labor Code" and to transfer "the essential competencies to the territorial collectivity." Our special pamphlet demonstrated that it is the Europe of Maastricht that organizes and finances the breakup of the working class and the nation. We reminded readers that after Corsica, the aim was to generalize this deregulation, occurring in particular through "the destruction of the departments." We called for the "open the necessary discussion between workers and activists on the meaning of the political events around the "Corsica question" and to organize "in defense of the unity of the working class, in defense of the Labor Code and the independence of labor organizations, the Republic and laicism, for the overturn of the Europe of Maastricht, for democracy and the Constituent Assembly of elected and revocable delegates." This was three years ago. We have changed nothing of these political lines. This is the continuity of the Workers Party, fighting for democracy, the unity of the working class and the Republic. It is in opposition to the "continuity" of all of the leaders of the institutional left, which opened the way for the offensive to dismantle the Republic. It is they who, no matter how much they deny it, today are in the camp of those who lost politically in the referendum of the July 6th of 2003. In this field of losers on July 6th is the European Union, the great organizer of the "regionalized dismantling" of the nations, all the institutional parties, both left and right, submissive to this Europe. Also there is the International Monetary Fund, which incessantly demands the indispensable social deregulation for the companies, that is to say for the bosses, and above all the multinationals. In the field of those who gained on the 6th of July, is, unquestionably, the working class, which for many months fought united with the unions, in defense of the retirement system and the personnel statutes and against decentralization - regionalization. There is no doubt that those who failed the 6th of July are going to try to continue at all costs their policy of social dismantling dictated by Europe. We can see it now with the temporary workers (artists, technicians... theatre workers). Nonetheless, nobody can debate that the result of the 6th of July - although it is not reduced to it - owes much to the "transference" of the direct class struggle to a specific electoral plane. In this sense, it is an indisputable point of support for working people that across the country fights against the breakup of the Republic and for the unity of rights and guarantees, for the unity of the working class in the nation and the Republic Daniel Gluckstein Italy What is hidden behind the polemic about Berlusconi´s presidency in the European Union? In order to answer this question, we will use elements published in the Italian daily La Repubblica. La Reppublica (June 14th) published excerpts of the European Constitution: "The Constitution will have influence over laws, the economy, trade and the behavior of states and European citizens." In La Reppublica on June 26th one could read: "Yesterday Bush initiated a press conference with Prodi remembering the fact that since the Second World War the United States had always supported European integration." Consequently, this means that the construction of the European Union and their enlargement are part of the American politics. The paper continues: "Bush and Prodi committed all of their efforts to reactivating the negotiation in the WTO about the general liberalization of trade; but the main obstacle is agricultural protectionism: Prodi continues to be Chirac's hostage, Bush is hostage to the votes of the agricultural lobby of the Midwest." On the other hand, it should be mentioned that on June 23rd the leadership of General Motors approved the FIAT plan for dismantlement throughout the world: 12,800 laid off, of them 2,800 in Italy, and the closing of 12 plants worldwide. La Reppublica on June 24th said: "the meeting with GM was good. On returning from Detroit, with the agreement of the powerful allies in his pocket, the only left for Giuseppe Morchino to do (general administrator of Fiat) was to present his plan." Destroying agriculture in Europe, closing factories and de-industrializing, this is what the institutional system established in the framework of the European Union allows, with the help of the United States. La Reppublica of June 27 reveals that "The Italian Financial Court demands an immediate reform of the pension system, in order to push back the retirement age by 5 years." It is a demand of the European Union, which at the Barcelona summit of March 2002, decided to generalize this measure to level the path towards North American style pensions funds. But two days before Berlusconi was to assume the presidency of the European Union, on June 29, La Reppublica says: "Careful, the cavalry is coming! A cry of alarm from the European press." Indeed, this newspaper mentions all of the European press and summarizes its position with the following sentence: "From France to Spain, from Germany to Greece, a compact choir of criticism: Berlusconi uses implacable, but also offensive language that we don't want to hear in the assemblies." La Reppublica of July 2 gives the position of Prodi - president of the Commission of Brussels - about the presidency of Berlusconi: "There will be collaboration. The institutions are the institutions, we know how to manage problems when they arise. A piece of advice: it is necessary to agree on everything, with everybody." La Reppublica of July 5 reports on a press conference with the participation of Prodi and Berlusconi. Prodi declared: "there is wide convergence between the European Commission and the Italian government on the objectives to be carried out in the course of the semester." Doesn't all of the polemic around the personality of Berlusconi therefore have as its objective the divergence of attention in order to try and impose the unacceptable? In conclusion we mention La Reppublica of July 2: "Whether or not you like the driver in control, everybody has interest in the European car advancing and that it go forward as quickly as possible, without incidents." The first "incident" has just taken place with a NO to the referendum in Corsica. It will continue. Correspondent Mexico
"Building the political expression of the working class" (editorial from the newspaper El Trabajo) (excerpts) The Mexican nation is feeling the consequences of almost a decade of the application of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which has delivered devastating blows to agriculture, given Mexican youth the perspective of unemployment, reduced the real wages of the working class and caused the loss of social and labor rights and conquests. The political meaning of the abstention of more than 37 million Mexicans is similar to the cry launched in the streets by tens of thousands of electrical workers', peasants and many other sectors of workers: "our country is not for sale"!. […] In recent months the Bush government launched a war on Iraq: Now that same government is undertaking an embargo against the Mexican nation. The republican senators and the American multinationals have manifested their desire to directly take possession of Mexican petroleum and energy. The parties, large and small, turn their backs on the big national problems and the daily necessities of the working class masses. […] In relation to the national elections of federal deputies between 1997 and 2003, we have the following figures for the three big institutional parties:
The "structural counter-reform" of the Panista government means the delivery of the energy sources (electricity, gas, and further on, Pemex), to the big foreign companies; the counter-reform of Abascal means the destruction of fundamental labor rights such as the right to the collective bargaining and conquests like the eight-hour day and overtime pay, higher pay for Sunday work, night work, etc.; the fiscal counter-reform means more burden on wages to fulfill the faithful payment of the interests of the internal and external public debt; etc. In these days we have already seen the first initiatives against wage and labor conquests. The Supreme Court of the nation agreed to burden the social benefits of public workers (Christmas bonuses, food vouchers, vacation pay, etc.), which will be a hard blow for the wages of these workers). In Chiapas, the state government seeks to lengthen the retirement age from 30 to 35 years of work in the case of the men, and from 28 to 32 years of work in the case of women. The parties don't have real representation, they don't have the votes of the majority, not even if they combined all of the votes. If instead of only calculating the percentages of the three most important institutional parties only in relation to those that voted, compare the votes of those three parties with the total of the national electoral census, you get that the PRI only received 12 percent of people that are in that census! The PAN, 11 percent! The PRD, 6 percent! The parties don't have the representation to take measures like the privatization of electricity and the elimination of labor rights. They are minority parties. The national will is not embodied in them. The workers will resist the politics that they seek to apply. July 6 of 2003, they launched a warning. In next months they will look for points of support to actively express their needs. Helping that resistance is indispensable. It is necessary to work because the unions function as an instrument of defense of the interests of the workers and of the nation. It is also necessary to build the political expression of the working class and the oppressed peoples, an independent expression whose platform expresses the cry of the masses: "our country is not for sale, we will defend the land, the electricity, the rights and the conquests!". […] July 10, 2003 Subscribe to International Newsletter: 10 issues, 10euros - 20 dollar, 20 dollar - 30 issues, 30 dollar, etc. (Support to the international diffusion of bulletin included) Name: Address: Country E-mail: Cheques payable to: CMO Send to : International Newsletter - Entente internationale des travailleurs et des peuples, 87, r. du Faubourg-Saint-Denis, 75010 Paris. FRANCE.
|
Open World Conference of Workers