|
(from ILC International Newsletter No. 181 - May 2, 2006)Call for 13TH CONFERENCE OF THE ILC IN GENEVA Dear friends and comrades, As we do each year on the occasion of the Annual Session of the ILO, the International Liaison Committee of Workers and Peoples (ILC) invites you to discuss with us in a conference where we can exchange experiences and information on the questions which the workers' movement is facing today on an international level. ----- For several years, we have raised the danger of the plan for a "new
world governance." "It is not surprising, then, that the current wave of globalization should have put global governance back on the agenda as an item for discussion. Š If the concept of governance disappeared in the 16th century with the emergence of the State, it is because the two notions "governance" and "government" are profoundly different. Governance removes the political dimension from government. The latter belongs to States and their particular modes of government, legitimacy and representativity. Governance is a decision-making process which focuses on permanent negotiation between stakeholders. Through consultation, dialogue and exchange, governance seeks to ensure coexistence and in some cases coherence between different and sometimes divergent points of view. This involves seeking some common ground and extending it to the point where joint action can be envisaged." (WTO News) Isn't it true that this plan aims to explicitly put into question representative democracy and replace it with "consultation," which can overcome "different points of view"? But in a society divided into social classes, aren't "different points of view" the expression of separate and antagonistic social interests? This offensive led in the name of the "new world governance" against nation-states is also supported, for its part, by the alter-globalization movement. Thus, one of the leaders of Attac argues: "The nation-state can no longer solve various problems. Its legitimacy has become largely formal and has been highly questioned. Š It thus seems illusory to aim to re-establish the independence and sovereignty of nations." (www.France.Attac.org/a43-26) ----- This plan for a "new world governance" developed during 2005, through the reform of the U.N. According to its General Secretary, Kofi Annan: "The Economic and Social Council has too often been relegated to the margin of the world economic and social governance. Š It is the only institution of the U.N. that is explicitly mandated by the Charter to coordinate the activities of the specialized institutions and to coordinate with the NGOs." He proposed "that the Social and Economic Council should organize annual ministerial meetings to evaluate the progress achieved in relation to development objectives, particularly concerning the goals of the U.N. Millennium Project." It is necessary to modify the role of the Economic and Social Council in order to officially integrate the NGOs into the plans for the "new world governance." Isn't it necessary to inquire into this proposal for an annual meeting to follow the goals of the Millennium Project? The goals of the Millennium Project are shared by all the big international institutions --- the U.N., the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the WTO, and the European Union (EU) -- as well as numerous heads of state and numerous multinational corporations. They are also supported by the Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization of the ILO. Consequently, the proposal for an annual meeting concerning the Millennium Project reinforces the place of the Economic and Social Council of the U.N. and threatens the role of the ILO. The ILO's structure, based on the representation of the states, workers' organizations, and the employers' organizations, is founded on the institutional understanding of the existence of social classes with different interests, which do not necessary coincide with those of the state. All unionists know that the System of Norms of the ILO allows for the codification of workers' rights on an international level. The norms must then be ratified into the framework of nation-states. The System of Norms of the ILO is a point of support for the workers' movement in each country and on an international level. Of course, for many years now, the System of Norms of the ILO Conventions has been attacked and put into question, notably, after 1998, when the Charter of Fundamental Rights -- initiated by Bill Clinton -- was introduced to substitute the existing system. Today, isn't the very existence of the ILO at stake? The ILO is an institution which is dependent on the U.N. If the Economic and Social Council reinforces its power, if it meets annually, if it organizes itself around the goals of the Millennium project, what role will be left to the ILO? This question is raised at a moment where various other plans are also underway. ----- We have been informed of the report of November 2005 of the "Working group on the social dimension of globalization." (294/WP/SDG/1). This group proposes the "organization of a forum on globalization. Š The ILO should look to make the demand for decent work a common goal which can bring together the most important partners of the official multilateral system and which can associate in a larger perspective, the various actors -- governmental and non-governmental institutions -- of the emerging world community." In order to organize for the forum which should take place in April 2007, the text underlines the need to "identify the regional and international associations, the networks, and the pertinent alliances which would be interested in the Agenda for Decent Work. It would be a question, in fact, of targeting not only the international associations and networks which already maintain direct relations with ILO -- including, of course, networks consisting of ILO associates and the special list of ILO -- but also a broader circle of potential partners that share the values and the objectives of ILO, in particular the Members of Parliament, the local authorities, associations of economic and social councils, the co-operatives, associations of consumers, the NGOs and most important, the organizations of young people, the foundations, the 'think tanks', the academic world and the media." According to this report, this proposal is made in the framework of the "Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations on the Report of the World Commission." (A-RES-59-57). Aren't we facing a proposal that aims to put into question the very cornerstones of the ILO? Isn't there an offensive to weaken the ILO (which recognizes the specific interests of workers) through the creation of a fourth group, that of the NGOs? ----- The "new world governance" aims to impose the idea that the trade unions should abandon the defense of the specific moral and material interests of the working class and should be transformed into a "social movement" linked to the NGOs. >From all sides, we are told that there are no longer social classes, only individuals, that the basis of society should no longer be the recognition of antagonistic interests, but the recognition of "communities." Let us pose the question: Should the workers' movement remain as it is, should it defend the conquests won in the framework of the nation-states, or should it dissolve itself in a "social project?" Is it the purpose of the trade union movement to adopt a political project and transform itself into a social movement? At a moment when the decomposition of the regime based on the private ownership of the means of production is threatening all the rights won by the workers' movement through generations of struggle, at a moment when the very existence of the working class is threatened, isn't is necessary for the workers to have specific organizations, their trade unions and confederations? ----- The ILC is not in competition with any existing organization and does not aim to substitute itself for any organization. We only aim to contribute to the debate and to facilitate the discussion of the fusion plans of the ICFTU and the WCL, as well as other organizations. In relation to this plan for a "new world governance," numerous questions touching on the very essence of unionism are raised: Is it possible for the trade union movement to place itself in the framework of the creation of a "democratic governance of the globalized economy"? Isn't the notion of a "world trade union" in contradiction with the existence of national union federations and internationalism? Doesn't the proposal of the "united trade union" raise the problem of the respect of federalism and the respect of the existing confederations? Isn't the Social Responsibility of Businesses in contradiction with the collective conventions, the labor codes, and the social laws won in the framework of the nation states? We invite you to come discuss these questions with us at the Conference of the ILC, on Sunday June 11, 2006. To prepare this discussion, we invite you to read the ILC International Newsletter and to send us any thoughts or documents you have which you feel will contribute to the debate. ********************
Trade Union Movement or Superstructure? This is a dilemma the trade union movement is still faced with today -- as it has in the past. The trade unions are first and foremost and by definition class organizations. As soon as it arose, at the same time as industrial society, the trade union movement built itself and its structures with the determination to defend the interests of the workers who gave the trade unions a mandate and, more generally, of all workers, in other words of all those driven by the power of capitalism, by its material demands and its logic of exploitation, to sell their only property: their labor power, whether physical or intellectual. Between the 19th and the 21st centuries many things have changed. On the one hand living conditions have evolved considerably, as a result of the class struggle waged against rising capitalism, but on the other hand the stage of capitalism we are living through at the moment is a brutal reminder that the system of exploitation based on the extraction of surplus value can only make things worse. For many modern sociologists or commentators, the working class, the proletariat, social classes, the class struggle, and capitalist exploitation itself are all outmoded concepts, in a society where the favorable influence of globalization and the world economy prevail. Everywhere, when you consider the figures, you have to admit that today the system based on the exploitation of labor power by the capitalist mode of production has never been so powerful. We have had the opportunity in the past to publish figures provided by the ILO itself, which reveal that poverty is hitting an ever increasing number of people throughout the world. For some time, the populations of the so-called Third World ranked first in the poverty list. Today, however, millions of workers in industrialized countries face unemployment, casual work and poverty. "Relocations "and "offshoring" make up for the declining rate of profit by transferring production to low-cost countries, thereby increasing the exploitation of labor power in these countries and encouraging widespread destitution. The example of China, based on an allegedly "communist" liberal and authoritarian system, provides the most vivid demonstration. In this case, industrial, commercial and financial activity is undertaken outside the country as capital is bought and money invested, which in no way benefits the workers where such investments are made. It is especially the case in Africa, when the manufacturing methods completely disrupt the local economy, based, for example, on cotton and textile processing. Chinese workers gain no advantage from such expansion, which only benefits the nomenclature linked with the totalitarian regimes and the western multinational companies, and companies from Japan and Korea, which have invaded China. The ILC continues fighting this global system of exploitation, even if this exploitation is concealed by the dramatic rise of appearances of all things immaterial, which, with the complicity of an increasingly uniform worldwide media network tends to show us the flashy veneer of more and more elaborate exploitation. It is important to recall that the capitalist mode of production cannot live unless it feeds on surplus value and the buying of labor power. The present crisis is characterized by the development of a ficticious economy, based on financial speculation. The fact remains that this financial base keeps feeding on the exploitation of labor power bought at the lowest possible cost. Disorders results from this situation, because the masses' purchasing power is plummeting everywhere. To counter this phenomenon, social reactions can be seen in every country, in various forms, depending on the origins of the attacks and national traditions. In France, the riots that broke out in several suburbs of large cities and which were followed by impressive demonstrations that forced the Chirac-Villepin government to withdraw the youth employment contract (CPE), reveal, broadly speaking, a much more serious social situation. In any case, whatever the outcome, it can be considered that we have now entered a period of great unrest. In consequence, the trade union movement, because of its historic responsibilities must more than ever before make its presence felt on the ground of the class struggle. * * * Since the 1989 uprising, imperialism, and above all US imperialism, tends to attack the political framework of Nation-States to substitute them with cosmopolitan "spaces", based on the universal character of individuals brought together in communities based on religion, ethnicity and various interests; such spaces are in charge of the "problems of society." The purpose of setting up such a system is clearly to erase -- at best to put in the background -- the capitalist relations of production and the contradiction it generates, principally, the exploitation of labor power. The governing bodies of worldwide policies play a major role in the working of the world economy, in the generic sense of the word, and almost reduce state policies to the status of vassal state's policies. Regional structures, such as the EU, Mercosur, Nafta, Asean, etc. act as subsidiary elements of the central dome consisting of the IMF, the WTO, the OECD, together with the UN and its institutions, which tend to become a smoke screen of this construction. The mission that is assigned to them is to build the "new world governance." "Governing" implies "State." "State," in the democratic sense of the word, implies "counterbalances", in the name of the balance of opposites defined in the 18th century by Montesquieu, the author and member of the Académie Francaise, in "l'Esprit des lois " (The Spirit of Laws). In contrast to those democratic principles, the present tendency is based on a global movement, which is neo-totalitarian and excludes any form of challenge. The function of the State is to be reduced to the "royal prerogatives": the army, the police, and the law. As for the "social balance", it would be implemented by "Non Governmental Organizations." The latter are known to have assumed an important role, especially in developing countries, first of all in Africa, where their strategy has been to privatize States, thereby complying with the dictates of the "Washington Consensus," which makes financial aid dependent on the complete privatization of public services. It has led to the ruin of many small producers who have to rely on public funds provided by the State. The best example of this can be found in Mali with the "Compagnie Malienne du Département textile." * * * To return to this text and its title "Trade union movement or superstructure," it should be said that the international trade union movement is at the center of a transformation which tends to be imposed by the forces of imperialism. The question is raised again: should trade unions remain class organizations, in charge of defending the workers' specific interests, or should they be transformed into a "societal" movement, an institution of "world governance"? In several articles I have been able to express and explain this danger. Since then, several elements have confirmed our concern. At the recent French CGT convention, international leaders took the opportunity to meet to prepare the Vienna International Conference which, on November 1, 2006, is set to proclaim the birth of a new "International Trade Union (as it is to be called for the moment).The ICFTU and WCL are to vanish from the trade union scene. As you read the various documents published so far, you realize that a lot of difficulties are far from being resolved, on the role of the "Professional International Federations" and "trade union regions." The unification of the two historic currents, the "social democrats" on the one hand and the "social Christians" on the other is also far from being achieved. At the time of writing, there emerges a line that expresses a profound change, compared with the traditional class orientation. In fact, the idea is to prepare the "world trade-union movement" to be integrated on both the political and material level into the structures of the budding world governance. All this has to be related to the reform of the UN, in which the NGOs have an institutional role. We have to hammer home the point that in many respects the NGOs have become instruments of the privatization of States, as explained in the "Washington Consensus," particularly in the area of public services, social services, health-care services, as they assume, according to accepted terminology "missions of public services." Added to this are several related elements which confirm our worries. One of them is the situation created in the aftermath of the split which occurred within the US trade union movement. The ILC International Newsletter sums up the background: "At the end of July 2005, at the congress of the AFL-CIO in Chicago, four big union federations announced that they were leaving the AFL-CIO, the mass union federation united fifty years earlier. With three other union federations, they decided to form the Change to Win coalition, under the leadership of Andy Stern, because -- as Stern put it -- the workers´ movement is still too wedded to the "outdated concept of class conflict." The leadership of Change to Win has become the main supporter in the United States of the fusion of the ICFTU and the WCL and for collaboration between Capital and Labor." In the article published by the ILC International Newsletter, comrade Alan Benjamin reveals that in an interview with Lenny Mendonca published by the global think-tank McKinsey & Co. and reprinted in the Feb. 27, 2006 issue of Epoch Times, Stern explained his view on such partnerships: "SEIU's goal for 2006 is to go global and to bring unions and corporations together as 'partners, not enemies,' Stern told Mendonca. 'I think that what we're going to see happen within ten years, if not sooner, is a convergence of a global labor movement, a global corporate responsibility movement, and nongovernmental organizations." As is noted by Alan Benjamin, the use of the language of the "New World Governance" is quite emblematic, as Andy Stern goes on to say: "Employers need to recognize that the world has changed and there are people who would like to help them provide solutions in ways that are new, modern and that add value to companies. ... A partnership between labor and corporations would be a step toward the intended goal." And Stern concludes: "On the other side of the coin, union members have to understand that companies are not their enemy, but must think about increasing shareholders' wealth. ... Labor should ask itself, 'how can I contribute to meeting those [shareholders'] expectations in a way that also meets mine'?" And of course, Andy Stern takes on the AFL-CIO leaders, especially John Sweeney, who is accused of being "wedded to "outdated concepts of class conflict." Andy Stern's position was to be formulated again at the international meeting that preceded the CGT Conference, which brought together all the leaders of the international trade union movement. The minutes give a brief account of the speech made by Jean Louis Moynot, former member of the CGT's NEC: "I'm speaking to introduce a project. Globalization challenges the relevance of the national framework in which we were trained. The trade union movement still lacks most of the instruments needed to respond to the challenge. A bridge must be built between every-day activity and our ambitions for the world. Something original must be brought to the redefinition of the world. We should move on from the national level, which trade unions are accustomed to, to the regional level. The trade unions should avail themselves of the enhancement provided by associations, experts, NGOs, to build the project which is called: the social question in a global economy. Regional teams must be created." This project is the product of exchanges with Gabaglio and enjoys the support of Ryder and Thys, Moynot-Stern, all united!" All the arguments developed above can be found in every country, in different forms, concerning job status, to long-life job security, and compulsory membership to a trade union. All totalitarian regimes have relied on such concepts to establish workplace community, which fits in with a system of "organicism" decreed at the top and spreading into civil society on the basis of the subsidiarity principle. * * * France, confronted with the social problems everybody knows about, is also seeking a system that should revive trade unionism and at the same time determine its place in society. This is not a new subject. The same is true in the USA, as in many European countries, as in most industrialized countries. Due to the demands of globalization, the trade union question is posed, as it will be in Vienna on November 1st. In France, the authorities, the employers, the political parties, whether left-wing or right-wing, have always turned their attention to the future of the trade unions, to lament their "small membership," which is however in contradiction with their strong influence within the working-class as a whole, with their role as a force to be reckoned with. French trade unionism has its own story, resulting from the movement of ideas, the product of the 1789 French revolution. As they consider that small membership forces trade unions to compete with each other and always try to outdo each other, the state and the employers are always seeking means to integrate the "protesters" either into the State machinery or into the corporate structure, and most often into both. Each period of the social and political history of France has been marked by integration attempts that inevitably undermine the trade union movement, the need to be independent from governments, employers and political parties of all hues. The French trade union movement is still characterized by deeply rooted class consciousness, even though Christian trade-unionism has done its utmost to deny reality, in favor of community spirit. In this age of globalization, the same questions resurface. The French
government has given two well-known public figures the responsibility
of writing two reports. The other one, called the "Hadas-Lebel report" is about the representativeness of trade unions and public funding. The "Chertier report," in charge of reorganizing the "social dialogue," intends to make use of the "Conseil économique et social" (CES) in which all the trade unions and employers' federations participate, and which has at the moment only an advisory function. It would be given a deliberative function and the task of working out a "public social order." Even if the power to take political decisions is not clearly finalized in the report, it is obvious that the reasoning that underlies the report is bound to lead to such a move. When the report comes to the "transformation" of the Conseil économique et social, it says that there would be a review of its formation and it would in particular be composed of three groups: the employers, the workers, and civil society. Consequently the workers, represented by their trade unions, are excluded from "civil society," in the same way as the organizations representing employers. This is more than ambiguous, to the extent that it confirms our concern about the transformation of trade unions into institutional superstructures cut off from their natural constituency: the workers. From that point, the trade union movement -- whose historical approach stems from the division of society into social classes that have contradictory interests -- would become an instrument of "governance" in a given geographic area. It would be given an organicist function, the task of transcending the class struggle in the name of common interests, if we can refrain from calling them community interests. The "Hadas-Lebel report," which deals with the representativeness
and the funding of trade unions, puts forward a material supplement
to the political orientations expressed in the "Chertier report"
on "social dialogue." It leads the State to impose on trade
unions a structural, material, financial and therefore political framework
and to assign to them a position above "civil society." And
there, only NGOs would be entitled to act. On world level, neither the UN, nor for that matter the ILO, can escape this movement creating a "civil society," in which NGOs are given an increasingly crucial role. What we fear is that the future "International Trade Union Confederation" might join this universal world organization. We must never stop repeating that, more than ever, civil society is not a homogeneous block. It is divided into social classes that have antagonistic interests. It is therefore essential that the trade unions in charge of defending the workers ' specific interests refuse any integration into corporate organization, the State or the governing bodies of world governance. The creation of a new international trade union is a major event, which has countless repercussions for millions of workers worldwide. Consequently, our responsibility for what will come next is all the greater. Roger Sandri ----- Contact: Entente internationale des travailleurs et des peuples ******************** |
Open
World Conference of Workers