Open
World Conference of Workers
In Defense of Trade Union Independence & Democratic Rights
OWC Report on USLAW National Labor Assembly for Peace: Appendices to Text
Appendix One:
USLAW MISSION STATEMENT
Adopted by the NATIONAL LABOR ASSEMBLY for PEACE in Chicago, 10/25/03
The Current Situation We are living in an era in which the government has
manipulated our nation's fear of terrorism to launch wars, destroy our
economic security, undermine government services, erode our democratic
rights and intensify racism, sexism, religious discrimination and
divisions among working people.
Under the mantle of National Security, the present Administration seeks to
reverse decades of victories won by working people to regulate corporate
conduct, protect the environment, strengthen the rights of workers, defend
civil liberties and end, racism, sexism and discrimination and provide an
adequate social safety net. Democracy as we know it is under threat.
The USA Patriot Act threatens our fundamental rights under the
Constitution. This crisis is aggravated by the government's policies of
military intervention abroad and attacks on working peoples' rights at
home. Only corporations and the wealthy have benefited. Our nation faces a
domestic calamity - unemployment, declining wages and benefits,
deunionization of the workforce, privatization and reduction of public
services, crumbling health care and educational systems, underdeveloped
communities, cuts in veterans benefits, escalating public debt and
decreased economic, social and personal security. These government
policies have hit women and people of color hardest.
We cannot solve these economic and social problems without addressing U.S.
foreign policy and its consequences. The foreign policy of the Bush
Administration, with the consent of Congress, is based on military
aggression and the threat of force. It has weakened, rather than
strengthened security in the U.S., creating enemies around the world and
alienating friends. This policy has done immense harm to innocent
civilians abroad and to our friends and family members in the military.
The wars against Iraq and Afghanistan have turned into hostile occupations
that are developing into Vietnam-like quagmires.
The policy of Permanent War has been based on lies and false promises to
the American people and lucrative contracts to large corporations. This is
coupled with a strategy of unbridled economic globalization with so
-called 'Free Trade' Agreements aimed at exploiting workers abroad,
controlling natural resources and destroying jobs and communities at home.
War has become a strategy for advancing the interests of US corporations
in international markets. The massive military spending, combined with tax
cuts for the rich, are creating colossal budget deficits that threaten to
destroy needed social programs for decades, further undercutting the
standard of living of working people here at home.
Our Principles
To protect our members and the lives and livelihoods of working people
everywhere, we will advocate, educate and mobilize in the US labor
movement for:
- A Just Foreign Policy that will bring genuine security and
prosperity to working people. A policy that strengthens international
treaties, supports human rights institutions, respects national
sovereignty and upholds the right of self-determination for all peoples. A
foreign policy that solves disputes by diplomacy rather than war. A policy
that promotes global economic and social justice rather than the
race-to-the-bottom, job-destroying, discriminatory practices favored by
multinational corporations.
- An End to U.S. Occupation of Foreign Countries, replaced by the
reconstruction of war-devastated nations with the full support of the
international community and the full participation and decision-making
power of affected peoples.
- Redirecting the Nation's Resources from inflated military
spending to meeting the needs of working families for health care,
education, a clean environment, housing and a decent standard of living
based on principles of equality and democracy.
- Supporting Our Troops and their Families by bringing the troops
home now, by not recklessly putting them in harm's way and by providing
decent compensation, veterans' benefits and domestic policies administered
without discrimination that prioritize the needs of working people who
make up the bulk of the military.
- Protecting Workers' Rights, Civil Rights, Civil Liberties and the
Rights of Immigrants by promoting democracy, not subverting it.
Ethnic, racial and religious profiling and stereotyping must be replaced
by policies that promote dignity, economic justice and respect for all
working people.
- Solidarity With Workers and their Organizations Around the World
who are struggling for their own labor and human rights, and with those in
the U.S. who want US foreign and domestic policies to reflect our nation's
highest ideals.
WE PURSUE THESE OBJECTIVES AS US LABOR AGAINST THE WAR (USLAW)
******************
BILL FLETCHER'S KEYNOTE ADDRESS TO USLAW ASSEMBLY
When does silence become complicity?
When does ignorance become culpability?
Presentation to USLAW National Assembly///Chicago, Illinois///10-25-2003
By Bill Fletcher, Jr.
<?/center>Good morning. On behalf of TransAfrica Forum and
United for Peace and Justice, I wish to thank you very much for inviting
me to speak before this Assembly today.
Let me pose two questions to you: when does silence become complicity?
When does ignorance become culpability? These are two questions with which
organized labor must today grapple because these two questions haunt our
movement like an apparition in the night.
The US trade union movement, as redefined and reorganized by Samuel
Gompers in the late 19th century made a choice. The choice was both
ideological and strategic. It essentially came down to a definition of
trade unionism as being a movement to protect jobs. Despite A. Philip
Randolph’s aphorism to the effect that the essence of trade unionism is
social uplift and further that trade unionism is the voice of the
dispossessed, that simply has not been a consistent truth in the USA.
The US trade union movement, overall, defined itself in relationship to US
business and to the US political state. It accepted the notion that there
was a commonality of interests that could be summarized in a particular,
indeed, in a peculiar notion of patriotism. Don’t get me wrong. There
were criticisms of US foreign policy that were offered by organized labor,
but the US trade union movement did not, by and large, see itself as
having a role as a central critic of US foreign policy. Nor did it place a
premium on building solidarity with workers in other countries.
Ironically, the fact of US unions being termed “Internationals” was
the result of their expansion from the USA into Canada, and later an
attempt to expand into the Caribbean, an expansion to accompany US
imperial expansion. These unions, however, were not seen as a partnership
with the workers of these countries, but seen as US-based initiatives. A
further irony of this, and I mention it as an anecdote, is that the
efforts by several US so-called Internationals to expand into
Cuba—following the Spanish-American War—came to an end when the
US-based unions could not determine who, definitively, were black workers
vs. who were white.
In World War I, the American Federation of Labor made a fateful decision
to support the US entry into what was in essence a war to redivide the
world. The AFL saw possibilities for the growth of US unions through an
alliance with the US government and supporting the war effort. Thus, the
AFL was prepared to turn a blind eye to the causes and objectives of the
war, but rather focused on which trade union institutional interests could
be satisfied through support of US entry into the war.
The US trade union movement has allowed itself to be buffaloed time and
again by calls to patriotism, which more often than not has meant
withholding criticisms, differences, etc., and going forward silently with
whatever the government happens to say. It has often meant that we lock
arms with big business proclaiming that our interests are identical while
workers on the ground are getting their clocks cleaned; while business is
proceeding forward to enrich itself; and while soldiers and civilians are
being killed if we happen to be in a time of war.
Particularly following World War II, organized labor in the USA allowed
itself to be silenced, in large part through anti-communist repression,
when it came to US foreign policy. It was not just the trade union
movement, however. In the African American movement great giants such as
Paul Robeson and W.E.B. DuBois were driven to the margins of US society,
or driven out of the country entirely for daring to raise fundamental
questions about US foreign policy. Too many of these giants, as well as
regular grass roots activists, had their lives ruined for posing concerns
about the objectives of US foreign policy; for raising their hands to
advance a question; for disputing the notion that we should all walk lock
step without answers being offered.
And the trade union movement remained silent.
It was not enough, however, to remain silent. Union leaders wanted to
dumb-down the members, discouraging them from raising questions,
frustrating their ability to articulate different points of view. Union
educational programs and institutions of note, such as the Highlander
Center in TN, were either isolated and/or destroyed. Outstanding union
educators like Leo Huberman were driven out of the movement. Union
education was reduced to skills training on limited subjects, or worse
yet, a field to retire staff and/or leaders who were no longer of value.
Our movement, and US workers generally, were more than prepared to settle
into a cocoon of ignorance. Ask no questions, and we would get no lies, at
least so we thought. It was actually more of …ask no questions, and
challenge no lies…
As the living standard of the US worker improved, too many of us were
prepared to accept this as a trade off for our silence, for our supposed
ignorance.
It reminds me, all too unfortunately, of an incident related to me from
the period immediately after World War II in Germany. A young German woman
asked her elders why they had not spoken up about the concentration camps
and the extermination of the Jews. Her elders held up their hands and
pleaded that they really did not know that it was happening. The young
German woman, with a level of insight far beyond her years, responded:
“You knew as much as you wanted to know.”
How true, it seems, that this is for us in the USA. It is not that the
facts were entirely unavailable. True, there are many things that have
come out over time that have further damned US foreign policy, but even in
the repressive 1950s, information was coming out about atrocities being
committed in our name overseas. The overthrow of the duly elected leader
of Iran, Prime Minister Mossadegh and his replacement by the US puppet,
the Shah of Iran. The overthrow of the duly elected president of
Guatemala, Arbenz, in a CIA operation along with mercenaries and unmarked
airplanes.
We knew as much as we wanted to know. We knew as much as we were
comfortable knowing. We knew as much as would not shatter our mythical
world, where everyone was happy; everyone could make it if they tried;
everyone except those populations both here in the USA and overseas who
were deemed to be irrelevant, if not inferior.
The US trade union movement refused to speak up when clear and
unadulterated atrocities were being committed by our own government.
Contrast the response to September 11, 2001, with the response to
September 11, 1973. On September 11, 2001, we witnessed what seemed to be
an unimaginable crime committed where over 3000 people were murdered,
irrespective of their political or religious beliefs, or their ethnicity
or gender; a crime for which there should never be any forgiveness. A
crime that the US trade union movement spoke up against, but often in the
most bizarre manner.
Yet, on September 11, 1973, the US trade union movement was directly
complicit in a CIA-backed overthrow of the duly elected president of
Chile, an overthrow that resulted in the deaths of somewhere between
10,000 – 25,000 Chileans. A coup that brought to power one of the most
repressive, anti-worker, anti-people regimes of Latin America. Where was
the outrage on the part of the US trade union movement? Where was the
furor about the crimes being committed? Where was the contempt for
terrorism?
Silence by our leaders and feigned ignorance by too many of us.
"hey, we did not know" -- as if this somehow relieves our guilt.
On September 12, 2001 we were told by the President of the USA that one is
either with the USA or one is with the terrorists, a comment typical of
someone brought up on John Wayne films. But where was the response of the
trade union movement to such cowboy attitudes? Of course we are against
the terrorists, but where was a trade union movement reminder to our
members, and to the US public that our government...yes, our
government…in the name of fighting its enemies: communism, the Soviet
Union and a China under Mao Ze dong, was prepared to support a massacre in
Indonesia in 1965 of almost unparalleled proportions. 500,000 to 3 million
people murdered by a right-wing, military regime overthrowing the
recognized government of the country and eliminating all opposition.
Somehow this massacre was acceptable to the US, acceptable to the US trade
union movement, and something about which most of us were prepared to
remain silent.
As I have been asking, particularly since September 11, 2001, at what
point does silence become complicity? At what point does ignorance become
culpability? At what point can we ourselves be challenged for denigrating
the lives, hopes and aspirations of millions of people around the world,
upholding our own lives as somehow superior? At what point can we
challenge the leaders of organized labor who claim to support
international working class solidarity, but in the past have been prepared
to either remain silent or participate in the subjugation of peoples who
have followed a path different from that proposed by the White House, the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank?
For this reason the work of USLAW is so critical, and more than timely.
Through the leadership of USLAW, and the courage of its founders,
supporters and sympathizers, I would suggest that you have opened up a new
path for the US trade union movement. You have opened up a path of
redemption.
USLAW is different from, though built upon the work of so many predecessor
organizations. Union caucuses in workplaces around the US that challenged
the US aggression in Indochina; committees, caucuses and networks that
openly opposed US intervention in Latin America; networks that rallied
thousands to the cause of opposing apartheid in South Africa, and US
complicity in that illegal regime. Most of these efforts, as important as
they were, and as critical in shifting the politics of the US trade union
movement, made limited headway into the leadership of organized labor.
USLAW, however, building upon this work, has gone broader and deeper. It
is not a project of a particular political party or organization, though
it is open to all constructive viewpoints. It is also resonating among
leaders of locals, central labor councils, state federations, and yes,
some national and international unions.
Yet there is a mighty challenge for USLAW. Yes, we came together to oppose
the Bush administration’s pending aggression against Iraq. USLAW spoke
out when many others were silent. But the job cannot stop there. It cannot
even stop with the notion of opposing the US occupation of Iraq. Don’t
get me wrong. That is all very critical, but we must press on beyond that.
There are two main lines of thinking in US ruling circles these days. One
I call the “first among equals” view. This is articulated by people
like Bill Clinton and, to some extent, Colin Powell. It is the velvet
covered steel bat. It basically suggests that global capitalism is the
only economic system and that US should collaborate with other capitalist
powers to make sure that it runs well. This view supports free trade; the
limitations on or suppression of workers’ rights; but all done
nicely…smoothly.
The other view is the cowboy orientation of the current administration.
This view holds that the US must shape the process of the restructuring of
global capitalism. There is no velvet cover to the steel bat because their
explicit orientation is global domination by the US, and within that, by
the multi-national corporations. Their current piracy of Iraq is a basic
example of the cynical objectives that they have. They seek the
affirmation of the US Empire, in no uncertain terms.
USLAW cannot remain agnostic about what the ruling circles seek to
achieve. Our immediate challenge is one of confronting these cowboys,
these terminators for global capitalism. At the same time we can afford no
illusions about the objectives of the “first among equals” crew. Their
interests are not our interests. They may invite us in for tea or to feel
our pain, but their objectives are diametrically opposed to our own. How
many times do we have to be kicked in the rear in order to understand that
simple point?
Sisters and brothers, we must find a way to speak with our members about
what is underway. This is not about passing one more resolution. This is
about speaking with our members, and with those not in unions, about what
is taking place. We must put in context what Bush is doing. This is not
the first, illegal invasion the US has undertaken, and it will probably
not be the last. But it must be the one that signals a change in the
attitude and voice of organized labor.
Organized labor needs its own foreign policy proposals, proposals that
begin with the notion of the promotion of democracy, human rights and
self-determination. Not the US imposition on other peoples of our version
of democracy, but rather supporting countries in determining their
political and economic systems. We should be advancing proposals for a
foreign policy that supports the rights of workers to organize; of small
farmers to flourish; of women to be respected in all aspects of society;
of countries to buy or produce generic pharmaceuticals to confront
HIV/AIDS, malaria and TB. We should be in opposition to war as the means
of resolving international conflict, and instead we should be advancing
the role of democratic, international institutions.
We cannot sit back, as a trade union movement, hoping that some existing
political leader or candidate for elected office will come up with these
ideas. It is up to organizations such as USLAW to insist that this should
be the foundation of labor’s platform.
One of the most difficult tasks confronting us is to speak with rank and
file workers about in whose interests US foreign policy is being advanced.
We must speak candidly about the charlatans who use the word
“patriotism” in order to hide their myriad of sins. We must point out
how, in the name of patriotism we are witnessing the Jolly Roger emerge as
the true flag of the United States, flying high as we plunge further and
further into a world of chaos; a world of ruin.
It will be difficult for many of our constituents, and even for many of
our friends to accept that the manner in which the term “patriotism”
is used in the USA by corporate elites and the political Right is aimed at
not only enlisting our support in their campaigns for global domination,
but as well in suppressing ourselves. As my parents would say time and
again about the impact of racism on white people in the USA, “…if you
want to keep someone in the sewer you must stay there with them to make
sure that they do not escape…”
How many times do we have to be reminded of this? After dutifully serving
and supporting the US government in World War I, the labor movement fell
prey to an offensive by employers and abandonment by the government.
African Americans, encouraged to move North during the war to work in
factories, or to serve in the military, found themselves victims of mass
pogroms or race riots, such as the infamous Chicago Riot of 1919.
After accepting a no strike pledge in the interest of national security in
World War II, organized labor came under vicious assault through the
Taft-Hartley Act, and the anti-communist witch-hunting mentioned above.
Black workers and women were cast out of industry, despite their
dedication during the war.
Do I need to cite any more examples? Even in the aftermath of the
September 11th horror, organized labor pledged its support for Bush's
alleged war against terrorism. What was the response? Barely had the World
Trade Center collapsed that corporate America manipulated the situation to
rid itself of thousands of workers. And, to add insult to injury, the Bush
administration bogarded through Congress its infamous USAPatriot Act,
allegedly to fight terrorism, but instead representing one of the greatest
threats to civil liberties we have seen since the McCarthy era.
We are told to be patriotic and at the same time the corporate elite and
their political allies are patriotic only to the US dollar! US troops are
being killed in Iraq; Iraqi civilians are euphemistically referenced as
collateral damage, and one US corporation after another gets an outrageous
contract to pillage Mesopotamia. Tell me what this has to do with
patriotism! Tell me what this has to do with human rights!
Silence and ignorance are no longer acceptable, if they ever were. For it
is now, in growing murmurs turning into cries that we hear from the
world's people these questions: are you, the people of the United States,
stupid, OR have you made a decision to tolerate, if not support,
atrocities committed in your name? If you are not stupid, they ask, then
at what point will you halt this global criminality?
The actions of organizations such as USLAW, along with the growing
anti-war/anti-occupation movement may be one step in the right direction.
But that step must now turn into a quick and forceful charge against the
forces of injustice. Anything else, any other course of action will have
our own children asking us: why did you not do anything about the
atrocities committed in your name? We will be unable to answer: sorry, we
did not know.