By Ravi Naidoo, Director of NALEDI
The world's largest labour body, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), always emphasises that it represents the free, independent and democratic union movement. However, judging by the ICFTU-Afro Congress held in Nairobi from 22-25 May 2001, the ICFTU has a long way to go before it can claim to actually putting those principles into practice.
In the plenary of the Congress, South African and Nigerian representatives described the proceedings, attended by 53 national centres from 44 countries in Africa and numerous foreign observers, as a "nightmare" and a "disgrace".
Indeed, most objective participants will regard the Congress, meant to be Africa's most important regional labour event, as an indictment on the state of Africa's labour movement and the ICFTU as a whole.
South African interest in the ICFTU increased after the end of the Cold War, with the need for global labour solidarity becoming more urgent in the face of a renewed global assault from multinational and international financial institutions. Ending years of non-alignment, COSATU joined the ICFTU in 1998. COSATU also hosted the ICFTU World Congress in 2000, the first time that the Congress was hosted by an African affiliate.
The challenges The reality that confronted delegates to the ICFTU-Afro Congress seriously undermined that early optimism, however. Some of the major concerns were the following:
q Important rules were disregarded or arbitrarily applied - First, when the Congress began, there was no credentials report reflecting which members were entitled to vote or speak. The credentials report was only presented late in the evening on the final day, just before the election of office bearers.
This meant that much of the Congress was, in terms of its own rules, unconstitutional. Second, there was a co-ordinated attempt to block a COSATU resolution on Cuba on the grounds that ICFTU-Afro was not able to resolve on matters "outside Africa". Yet nothing in the ICFTU rules supported such an assertion.
- Congress proceedings did not allow for meaningful policy debates - Many delegates were amazed by the structure of the Congress that totally crowded out any meaningful policy discussion. Over two-thirds of the Congress time was spent on "fraternal greetings", and not a single policy resolution was adopted by the Congress.
- The representivity, capacity and primary interests of many national centres can be questioned - While the ICFTU-Afro has many affiliates, many of them are small, poorly resourced, and often dependent on external support. Further, their membership figures reflect "declared membership" and not paid-up membership, meaning that actual membership may be even lower.
All of this contributes to an impression that unrepresentative and ineffective unions face low barriers to entry in the ICFTU regional structure. Indeed, many affiliates seemed untroubled by the ICFTU-Afro secretariat view that called for union involvement in the "design and implementation" of the World Bank's repackaged structural adjustment programmes (now called poverty reduction strategies).
The small advances achieved Despite the many problems, progressive unionists could still come away from the Congress with reasons for optimism. First, there is a coming together of progressive national centres in Africa. In particular, South Africa, Nigeria, and Ghana - among the largest ICFTU-Afro affiliates - have much in common. Several other national centres, traversing the French and English-speaking divide also shared similar views and concerns during the Congress. These links need to be strengthened.
Second, some real debates did take place in smaller committees. The Resolution Committee saw several important resolutions being forwarded to Congress for adoption. These included resolutions on the need for unity between African regional labour structures, condemnation of the World Bank/ IMF programmes, and support for Cuba against the illegal US blockade.
However, due to an apparent lack of translation capacity, not one resolution was put before the Congress for adoption; all have been deferred to the next Executive Committee of the regional structure. These resolutions need to be adopted by the Executive Committee, which was mandated by the Congress for this purpose.
The way forward The ICFTU World President, Fakshin Shaminda, stressed at the Congress conclusion that the problems and internal differences that emerged could "make Africa stronger". Indeed, these problems have been with the ICFTU structures for a long time, possibly since their inception. The highlighting of these problems, in a somewhat dramatic fashion at the Congress, may be related to the presence of a powerful South African delegation, which for the first time included COSATU.
In going forward, ICFTU structures and members would do well to consider the following steps to improve the state of their regional organisation:
First, consider ways to ensure that national centres are representative and accorded the appropriate status within the ICFTU structures. One way to do this is to undertake an audit of ICFTU-Afro current affiliates "declared" versus paid-up membership gap, and ascertain the extent to which affiliates meet acceptable benchmarks for being "free, independent and democratic".
Second, the ICFTU needs to establish norms and standards that can guide the regional structures on how they should conduct themselves, at least at an administrative level. For example, the norms and standards could cover the auditing of affiliate membership, management of finances and affiliation fees, and protocols regarding the running of Congresses and executive boards.
Finally, develop strategies to enhance the positive potential and actual impact of external funding on trade union structures in the developing world. External donors, mainly from a variety of developed countries, contribute 90% of ICFTU-Afro total funds and clearly have a major impact on how the ICFTU-Afro functions. An overall arrangement needs to be identified to ensure that this funding contributes towards the development of free, independent and democratic unionism in practice.
Unless these important and urgent steps are taken, progressive unions may find that their nightmares in the fight against neo-liberal globalisatzion remain worse than they have to be.
*This article will appear in the July 2001 edition of the NALEDI Bul
ICFTU Statement
The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), has provided labour's input to the discussions continuing over the coming months to determine the agenda of the World Trade Organisation's 4th Ministerial Conference in Qatar in November 2001. It calls for three measures:
- Assisting developing countries to withstand the negative pressures of WTO agreements;
- Setting up a formal structure to address core labour standards;
- Clear limits to the current negotiations on trade in services.
The ICFTU argues that "little of substance has changed since Seattle to indicate that any of the underlying reasons for the failure of the 3rd WTO Conference have changed. Governments and their trade negotiators must heed the lessons of Seattle if they are to regain public confidence in the multilateral trading system."
"A full assessment of the economic, social, labour, gender, environmental and developmental impact of previous WTO negotiations and the potential impact of any further negotiations is needed. The member states of WTO must break out from the present status quo," says ICFTU General Secretary, Bill Jordan.
The ICFTU statement draws on the experience of Seattle and elsewhere to propose a reorientation of the multilateral trading system to promote sustainable world economic growth and development.
On public services, governments must retain the right to keep main services such as education, health, water and postal services in the public sector, and this liberty of action for both present and future governments should be explicitly guaranteed. The WTO's members must make an explicit undertaking to protect social services that are provided or regulated by the government from the need to liberalise or open to market access.
The WTO should draw lessons from the controversy in Seattle provoked by that WTO meeting's failure to address developing countries' concerns. Democratic reforms are needed to ensure that all WTO members (particularly the least developed) are able to take part fully in all WTO activities and procedures.
Supporting development priorities, the ICFTU calls for more operational WTO provisions for special and differential treatment, to enable those countries to have increased flexibility. It calls for assistance to developing countries so they can withstand business pressures to introduce patent laws that preclude socially responsible actions under the TRIPS intellectual property agreement.
The ICFTU further stresses the long-standing WTO issue of core labour standards, which has been gaining in support ever since Seattle. "The urgency of the need for labour standards to be respected at the WTO is shown by the number of export processing zones that has all but doubled in just five years, while China, a huge country that systematically violates fundamental workers' rights, is generally expected to become a member of the WTO in the near future.
"It is therefore a priority to protect the fundamental rights of workers in developing countries and elsewhere against unscrupulous governments or employers who seek to gain an unfair advantage in international trade through the violation of core labour standards," the statement argues.
"Seattle was a watershed in the short lifetime of the WTO, marking a crisis in the legitimacy of the multilateral trading system," concluded Bill Jordan. "Failing to heed its message can only reduce the WTO's credibility and legitimacy among the general public, and intensify the backlash against globalisation."
COSATU's Central Executive Committee in April condemned the Israeli government's assault on the Palestine people and reaffirmed its support for the right of the Palestinians to sovereignty. Simon Boshielo, COSATU International Secretary, looks at the background to this epic struggle.
Since September 2000, the world has seen the murder of over 500 Palestinians by the Israeli Zionist military, backed by the USA. They are now even using warplanes to try to bomb the Palestinians into submission. The slain died struggling to liberate themselves from the chains of Israel.
Many Jewish people start from the premise that because fellow Jews were held as slaves by Egypt in the period before Christ (BC), that constitutes a title deed to ownership of Palestinian territories. Since then, they have been on their way to a promised land, which, said the bible, has honey and milk and no people living there.
The Canaanites lived in the present day Palestine/Israel between 3000 BC and 1700 BC and the Hebrews from 1020 BC until 587 BC and again from 164 BC. The Roman Empire conquered the territory in 63 BC. Many nations were conquered, just as many countries in Africa were later conquered by stronger European colonial powers.
The Jews at the end of the 19th Century were looking at the possibility of establishing a Jewish state and founded a Zionist movement in 1897. Amongst the ideas mooted at the time was a possibility of a Jewish state in Madagascar, Argentina or Uganda. This movement grew and raised millions. In 1919 the intention to occupy the territories of Palestine was mooted.
To justify this, they used the fact that some Jews had been inhabitants of the territories for about 2000 years. However the Kingcrane commission concluded at the time that occupying Palestinian territories "based on occupation of 2000 years ago can hardly be seriously considered".
In the 1948, however, the imperialist powers feared the spread of Sovietism amongst the Arab nations. They needed an outpost of imperialism, which could be accountable and owe its loyalties to the superpowers of the West. So they agreed to partition Palestine and its capital Jerusalem into two, thereby founding the Jewish state of Israel.
In 1949 Israel gained in war a much larger share of the Palestinian land and following the 1967 war with the neighbouring Arab states, Israel annexed Gaza and West Bank.
Ever since, Israel has used different tactics to refuse to get out of the annexed territories. Over the years, through the efforts of various international players including the UN, the Israeli government has agreed to return the land back to Palestinians but at no stage have they lived up to their promise.
The UN has passed many resolutions calling for the cessation of hostilities between the nations in the Middle East. Resolution 242 calls for de-occupation of both the West Bank and Gaza. But Israel has has defied all UN resolutions and continued to escalate its occupation.
In 1993, under the Oslo Accord, both Israel and the Palestinians again committed themselves to peace. The accord said the Israeli government should give back what was taken in the 1967 war. However, the Israel regime is not determined to see the peaceful settlement on the matter of Palestinian self-determination.
They vindicate this by saying that today, Israel does not have boundaries and that "the Jews cannot be stopped from occupying the Palestine territories as long that process comes as a result of natural growth of Jewish families".
What compounds matters is that Israel has a law that calls on all Jews throughout the world to come and seek citizenship in Israel. This 'the right of return' implies that all Jews from wherever can be given land at the expense of legitimate owners, i.e. the Palestinian people.
As on numerous occasions, the Zionist regime is in cahoots with the Americans to keep Palestinians colonised. The US and Israeli have always voted against the independence of Palestine when the UN has attempted to resolve the issue.
In addition, the US government has strengthened the military might of the Israel, which receives a higher level of support from the US agencies, including foreign aid, than any nation in the world.
Obviously, this aid is intended to get Israel's loyalty on matters of interest to the US (you scratch my back and I scratch yours). At all times, as in the blockade of Cuba, the sanctions against Libya, and the case of Taiwan, Israel has sided with the US.
In the recent past the US been holding 'public shows' supposedly aimed at mediating the Middle-East question. But it is impossible for the US to mediate the Palestine/Israeli debacle without taking sides. Since the US still wants Israel as an ally on the international platform, it is not in their interests to resolve conflict speedily. Like the Israeli regime, they can only accept a resolution only if it guarantees the subjugation of the Palestinians.
Under a US mediated settlement, the peace process is unlikely to resurrect. The present crisis and the further maiming of Palestinians is possibly intended to paralyse the potential of the Palestinian Authority to pioneer a process of building a fully fledged Palestinian state.
Sharon's rise to power is to ensure that the Zionist state grows at the expense of the Palestinians. Like successive Israeli governments he has risen to power on the ticket of annexing further Palestinian territories.
That is why Israel is the only country in the world with no defined borders. They are defined by what they loot militarily everyday from the Palestinian people. This looting of land and killing of people is done under the cloak of the bible to give them justification. This cannot be true. A bible cannot be a title deed!
In the recent past the Israeli ambassador to South Africa has launched a media roundabout, trying to draw similarities between democratic South Africa and Israel. What he never raises, is the similarity of the Zionist state of Israel to apartheid South Africa, or that Israel government and business associates were running sanctions-busting activities, despite the call by the United Nations to isolate apartheid South Africa.
Nor does he mention that Israel denies the Palestinians who all sorts of human rights. It is a racist state because it only gives rights to Jews all over the world come and join in consolidation of a Jewish state, yet 4,5 million Palestinians are in no way allowed back to Palestine.
The SACP and ICFTU have recently been to Palestine. The ICFTU observed that, "in addition to the consequences of the occupation and the heavy toll inflicted by the use of weapons of war against the population, the delegation found the Palestinians badly affected by problems of massive unemployment and rising poverty.
"The closure of borders as well as the virtual standstill of the Palestinian economy due to severe restrictions on movement of goods and people have left hundreds of thousands of Palestinian workers and their families without any income".
The only possible way forward to achieve Palestinian independence and the cessation of hostilities with Israel is:
- Unconditionally withdrawal from all territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war and an end to further occupation under the cloak of the 'natural growth' of Jewish settlements on Palestinian land.
- Ending of military and all forms of aid to Israel by the US, and their false mediation. No mediation should take place with the US as a referee and a player simultaneously.
- The UN should accelerate its intervention and send a peacekeeping mission to protect the weak and the vulnerable in the conflict.
- Immediate international recognition of Palestine, including the West bank and Gaza strip and the capital Jerusalem.
- An end to the border blockade of Palestine. The people of Palestine are also people and there should have a right to visit, work and establish links as and when it pleases them, as in other nations of the world.
This is the opportune moment for the UN to redeem itself by intervening directly, save the Palestinians and stop the further loss of life and limb. Otherwise the UN is likely to discover the opportunity lost, as in the conflicts in Rwanda and Burundi.
The world's progressive community and working class in particular, must keep Israel on its toes and cut any diplomatic ties, for it represents ideology that has long been characterised by the dehumanisation of other races and the creation of Bantustans.
The world defeated Hitler's 'herenvolkism' in World War II. Instead of forging a just world where peoples are emancipated, the Israel government and its imperialist cousins want to 'turn the clock back'.
Forward to an independent Palestine! Down with Zionism! Solidarity is forever!
Support for the government of Cuba has come from a most unexpected quarter - the World Bank! For decades the big business, the US government and the international media has been telling lies about the achievements of the Cuban people and the World Bank has refused to have any dealings with the government of Fidel Castro.
But now, this most prestigious institution of global big business has revealed the truth, and confirmed what COSATU has been saying for years about Cuba. That is has been a success! This report was written by Jim Lobe, of IPS, Washington.
World Bank President James Wolfensohn on 30 April extolled the Communist government of President Fidel Castro for doing "a great job" in providing for the social welfare of the Cuban people.
His remarks followed Sunday's publication of the Bank's 2001 edition of World Development Indicators (WDI), which showed Cuba as topping virtually all other poor countries in health and education statistics.
It also showed that Cuba has actually improved its performance in both areas despite the continuation of the US trade embargo against it, and the end of Soviet aid and subsidies for the Caribbean island more than ten years ago.
"I think Cuba has done - and everybody would acknowledge - a great job on education and health," Wolfensohn told reporters at the conclusion of the annual spring meetings of the Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
"I have no hesitation in acknowledging that they've done a good job, and it doesn't embarrass me to do it. ... We just have nothing to do with them in the present sense, and they should be congratulated on what they've done."
His remarks reflect a growing appreciation in the Bank for Cuba's social record, despite recognition that Havana's economic policies are virtually the antithesis of the 'Washington Consensus', the neo-liberal orthodoxy that has dominated the Bank's policy advice and its controversial structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) for most of the last 20 years…
Cuba is living proof in many ways that the Bank's dictum that economic growth is a pre-condition for improving the lives of the poor is over-stated, if not downright wrong. The Bank has insisted for the past decade that improving the lives of the poor was its core mission.
Besides North Korea, Cuba is the one developing country which, since 1960, has never received the slightest assistance, either in advice or in aid, from the Bank. It is not even a member, which means that Bank officers cannot travel to the island on official business.
The island's economy, which suffered devastating losses in production after the Soviet Union withdrew its aid, especially its oil supplies, a decade ago, has yet to fully recover. Annual economic growth, fuelled in part by a growing tourism industry and limited foreign investment, has been halting and, for the most part, anaemic.
Moreover, its economic policies are generally anathema to the World Bank. The government controls virtually the entire economy, permitting private entrepreneurs the tiniest of spaces. It heavily subsidises virtually all staples and commodities; and its currency is not convertible to anything. It retains tight control over all foreign investment, and often changes the rules abruptly and for political reasons.
At the same time, however, its record of social achievement has not only been sustained; it's been enhanced, according to the WDI.
It has reduced its infant mortality rate from 11 per 1,000 births in 1990 to seven in 1999, which places it firmly in the ranks of the western industrialised nations. It now stands at six, according to Jo Ritzen, the Bank's Vice President for Development Policy, who visited Cuba privately several months ago to see for himself.
By comparison, the infant mortality rate for Argentina stood at 18 in 1999; Chile's was down to ten; and Costa Rica at 12. For the entire Latin American and Caribbean region as a whole, the average was 30 in 1999.
Similarly, the mortality rate for children under the age of five in Cuba has fallen from 13 to eight per thousand over the decade. That figure is 50% lower than the rate in Chile, the Latin American country closest to Cuba's achievement. For the region as a whole, the average was 38 in 1999.
"Six for every 1,000 in infant mortality - the same level as Spain - is just unbelievable," according to Ritzen, a former education minister in the Netherlands. "You observe it, and so you see that Cuba has done exceedingly well in the human development area."
Indeed, in Ritzen's own field, the figures tell much the same story. Net primary enrolment for both girls and boys reached 100% in 1997, up from 92% in 1990. That was as high as most developed nations - higher even than the US rate and well above 80-90% rates achieved by the most advanced Latin American countries.
"Even in education performance, Cuba's is very much in tune with the developed world, and much higher than schools in, say, Argentina, Brazil, or Chile."
It is no wonder, in some ways. Public spending on education in Cuba amounts to about 6.7% of gross national income, twice the proportion in other Latin American and Caribbean countries and even Singapore.
There were 12 primary school pupils for every Cuban teacher in 1997, a ratio that ranked with Sweden, rather than any other developing country. The Latin American and East Asian average was twice as high at 25 to one.
The average youth (age 15-24) illiteracy rate in Latin America and the Caribbean stands at 7%. In Cuba, the rate is zero. In Latin America, where the average is 7%, only Uruguay approaches that achievement, with one percent youth illiteracy.
"Cuba managed to reduce illiteracy from 40% to zero within ten years," said Ritzen. "If Cuba shows that it is possible, it shifts the burden of proof to those who say it's not possible."
Similarly, Cuba devoted 9.1% of its gross domestic product (GDP) during the 1990s to health care, roughly equivalent to Canada's rate. Its ratio of 5.3 doctors per 1,000 people was the highest in the world."Is the experience of Cuba useful in other countries?" asks Ritzen. "The answer is clearly yes, and one is hopeful that political barriers would not prevent the use of the Cuban experience in other countries. Here, I am pretty hopeful, in that I see many developing countries taking the Cuban experience well into account."
The COSATU Central Executive Committee in April called on the Swaziland government to desist from its repressive measures. As a contribution to the debate on Swaziland and Zimbabwe, we are publishing this article by Philemon Lukhele, a member of the banned Swaziland Youth Congress who is exiled in South Africa and Deputy Secretary General of Southern African Youth Forum.
The hypocrisy of racist capitalists against Zimbabwe has been exposed. Are human rights, rule of law and freedom of expression only applicable when whites and wealthy capitalist interest are at stake? If not, why the silence on Swaziland?
Much racially motivated agitation and imperialist-led struggle has been launched against Zimbabwe, for having resolved on a decisive land redistribute programme. Too much noise and castigation has been levelled on the lack of democracy and complete defeat of the rule of law.
Imperialist countries like Britain and America, together with their frontline agent - the Democratic Alliance of South Africa - lead much of the agitation. The irony of this debate on Zimbabwe however is that the oppressors of yesterday are emerging strongly today as the advocates of democracy and good governance. We the black victims of colonialism and apartheid capitalism have been turned into the perpetrators of today.
While young people in particular should vigorously and critically acknowledge and debate the multi-dimensional problems in Zimbabwe, we need first and foremost to make our own definition of democracy and good governance in our region, to avoid being narrowly confined within neo-liberal definitions of democracy and human rights.
Our strategic framework should be to end the legacy of the century of colonialism and apartheid political rule and the economic bondage of black people. From this premise, the agrarian revolution remains the pillar of our struggle towards resolving land and economic inequalities.
It is quite ironical, and it has exposed the neo-liberal agenda behind the outrage against Zimbabwe, that while more noise has been made on 'the rule of law', 'independence of the judiciary', 'press freedom' and 'respect for property rights', there is no equal noise on the lives of thousands of Zimbabweans who were arbitrarily dispossessed their land by the British colonialists.
No one seems to be concerned how black people were maimed and heartlessly forced out of their fertile land by colonial invaders, the very same invaders who are conveniently calling black people 'invaders' today.
Just on the doorstep of South Africa in Swaziland. Since 1973, a King has been ruling that country with his family with no basic democratic rights for its citizens. The royal decree passed in 1973 has bestowed all legislative, executive and judicial powers on the King - a direct and institutionalised defeat of the rule of law.
The Guardian newspaper and the monthly magazine, The Nation, have been closed recently for publishing stories exposing the King's rein of terror and oppression.
Currently public meetings of trade unions, student organizations, the youth movement and communities are forbidden from discussing the political future of Swaziland.
Equally with the judiciary, Justice Ben Dunn was demoted after having acquitted political prisoners in 1998, several magistrates have been summoned to the royal palace and royal judgements on political cases have been imposed on then.
One magistrate, Sipho Gumede, in 1997 was immediately removed from proceeding with a case between the state and trade unions and an unqualified prince, Mcabango, was appointed to take the case.
- What have the Democratic Alliance said about this mess?
- Why have the 'press freedom fighters' remained quite on this matter?
- What have the judges of South Africa and the International Bar Council said about the complete defeat of the rule of law in Swaziland?
- Why has there been no pressure for President Mbeki to condemn the legalised and institutionalised oppression by the King of Swaziland?
The gross human rights violation by the royal monarch on the poor people of Swaziland remains a non-issue to the bunch of whites liberals calling themselves democrats, including Britain and America. If all these atrocities were directed to white farmers or wealthy capitalist in Zimbabwe, South Africa, or in Swaziland as well, surely Swaziland would have long been economically sanctioned and politically isolated.
For the better deepening of democracy and human rights in our region and continent, we should as young people join hands in the call for 'land to the people' as a basis for economic emancipation of the oppressed, exploited and landless people of Africa.
In doing so, there should be no creation of a dichotomy between the struggle for land power and the establishment of democratic governance based on respect for human rights and human freedom.
 |
 |