ILC international newsletter No. 187

ILC INTERNATIONAL NEWSLETTER
A dossier of weekly information published by the International
Liaison Committee of Workers and Peoples
June 20, 2006
Issue 187
Price 0.50 Euros

INTRODUCTION

On Sunday, June 11, delegations from 21 countries came together in
Geneva at the 13th Conference of the ILC In Defense of the ILO
Conventions and Trade Union Independence.

This conference opened up a needed discussion concerning the reality
of the "new trade union international," which is set to be founded on
November 1st in Vienna, after the dissolution of the ICFTU and the
WCL.

In his introduction, Daniel Gluckstein, coordinator of the ILC, spoke
of the connection between the threats to the International Labor
Organization (ILO) and the questions posed by the "new trade union
international," as well as the World Summit of the U.N. of last
autumn.

The ILC is not in competition with any other organization of the
workers´ movement.

Due to the quality of the discussion at this conference, we will be
publishing all of the speeches. This week, we are publishing the
first part of the report by Daniel Gluckstein. Each week we will
publish a special section on this discussion.

All our readers will be shocked by the Map of Europe, which was
published by the London Times. What is planned is a true
dismemberment of the nations by the European Union, to crush all the
rights and conquests won in the framework of nations.

To illustrate this offensive, we are publishing in this issue
articles from Belgium and Italy.

From Brazil, we are publishing an appeal from the Justice for
Anderson Committee.

You will also find an article on China, "Seventeen years ago in Beijing."

To follow these debates, which concern all worker activists and to
support the ILC, subscribe to the ILC International Newsletter.


TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Contact:
Informations internationales
Entente internationale des travailleurs et des peuples,
87, rue du Faubourg-Saint-Denis -75010 Paris - France
Tel: (33 1) 48 01 88 28
E.mail: eit.ilc@fr.oleane.com - Site: www.eit-ilc.org

13TH CONFERENCE IN DEFENSE OF THE ILO CONVENTIONS AND TRADE UNION INDEPENDENCE

Geneva, Sunday, June 11, 2006

The countries represented were Algeria, Germany, Bangladesh, Belgium,
Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Ivory Coast, France, Gabon, India,
Italy, Niger, Pakistan, Romania, Senegal, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria,
Togo, and Chad.

A discussion began concerning the questions posed by the "new trade
union international"

On Sunday June 11, delegations from 21 countries came together in
Geneva at the 13th Conference of the ILC In Defense of the ILO
Conventions and Trade Union Independence

This conference opened up a needed discussion concerning the reality
of the "new trade union international," which is set to be founded on
November 1st in Vienna, after the dissolution of the ICFTU and the
WCL.

In his introduction, Daniel Gluckstein, coordinator of the ILC, spoke
of the connection between the threats to the International Labor
Organization (ILO) and the questions posed by the "new trade union
international," as well as the world summit of the U.N. of last
autumn.

Due to the quality of the discussion at this conference, we will be
publishing all of the speeches. This week, we are publishing the
first part of the report of Daniel Gluckstein.

------

Part 1 of Daniel Gluckstein's introductory speech

We are here today at the 13th Conference of the ILC In Defense of the
ILO Conventions and Trade Union Independence.

For the last 13 years we have met here to discuss together the
threats against the ILO Conventions and to reflect on the ways for
the workers´ movement, while respecting its diversity, to face these
problems.

This year, we are confronted with important new developments.

Everybody who participates in this annual conference and all those
who are delegates to the International Labor Conference of the ILO,
which takes place each year in Geneva, know that this year there is a
very important event that will take place on November 1st in Vienna:
The creation of a new trade union international. (It may be necessary
to put quotation marks around the word trade union -- in any case,
this is a discussion we should begin.)

There is a relationship between what is going on in the ILO and the
developments in the trade union movement.

All this is also linked to the World Summit of the U.N. which took
place a few months ago, last Autumn. The question that must be posed
is the following: Aren't we faced with a brutal modification, that
is, the disappearances of the system on which the ILO is based?

I say this because the ILO, as we all know, is a based on a
tripartite conception, with representatives from the governments, the
bosses, and the trade unions. However, there is a particularly
deepened tendency on an international level (which does not fail to
strike the ILO) aiming to undermine the tripartite character of the
ILO, and in doing so, the existence of independent workers´
organizations -- and, linked to this, the existence of sovereign
states.

In the framework of what is being called the march to the "world
governance," isn´t what´s at stake the disappearance of independent
workers´ organizations and the disappearance of states and nations?

These are subjects which we have discussed in previous conferences;
those of you who participated in these are familiar with the subject.

But with every year that passes, this question is becoming more and
more serious. Undoubtedly, today, we must ask ourselves if quantity
is transforming into quality.

Before returning to the heart of the discussion, permit me one
parenthesis, seeing as we are in Europe.

Luc Deley, the Swiss delegate who opened our conference spoke of the
policies of the European Union. The majority of you have surely heard
that a few weeks ago, Europe saw the creation of a new "sovereign"
state: Montenegro -- with its 600,000 citizens and its 14,000 square
kilometers - is now "independent," due to a referendum organized by
the European Union (EU). The EU set in advance the percent needed for
"independence" at 55%. Miraculously, this percent was reached, with
55.4%. But the most significant thing was not that Montenegro was
proclaimed independent, but rather that immediately after the
referendum, the European Union declared: "The independence of
Montenegro opens the path to a new era, in which a multitude of new
states in Europe will prosper."

The newspaper The London Times, whose credibility cannot be doubted,
went so far as to publish a map (see Page 4).

It's the map of what they announce will be new "sovereign states" in
the European Union between now and the year 2020. And there is even
discussion that many of these "states" might be summoned into
existence long before that.

The list is significant: Scotland, Ireland, Wales, the French and
Spanish Basque Country, French and Spanish Catalonia, Andalusia,
Sardinia, Corsica, Walloon separated from Flanders -- making Belgium
disappear -- with the South Tyrol proclaiming its independence. Also
on the list: the Serb republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the remainder
of Bosnia-Herzegovina of the Serb republic, Kosovo, the republic of
Transniestria, in the east of Moldavia, South Ossetia, Chechnia,
Nagory-Karabak, Kurdistan and North Cyprus.

Beyond the whimsical character of the list -- though the London
Times, we should note, is not a whimsical newspaper -- there is a
certain logic. This is the logic of the atomization of states and
nations, the generalized dismemberment of sovereign states. This is
the logic of unending balkanization.

There is a connection between this and what they are proposing in the
framework of the ILO.

The U.N. Summit met a few months ago. The World Commission on the
"Social Dimension of Globalization" -- created by the ILO in February
2004 -- successfully proposed to the Summit a perspective (reiterated
in the ILO´s documents this year) that affirms that "we are in favor
of fair globalization. And we have decided to make full employment
and decent and productive jobs for all our fundamental objectives for
our national policies."

The ILO is thus mandated by the World Summit of the U.N. to work for
the implementation of "fair" globalization.

In one of the reports presented this year, the ILO referred to this
mandate -- more or less given to it by the U.N. I would like to read
to you three or four quotes from these reports prepared for the
Annual Conference of the ILO, which is taking place at the moment.

In one of these reports, we find the following quote: "Important
programs are currently being implemented, dedicated to the
development of the business spirit." Comrades, this poses a problem.

It is perfectly normal that in a tripartite meeting, compromises
between the governments and states, bosses, and trade unions should
take place. But the "business spirit" is a whole separate matter. The
"business spirit" is implemented by the heads of companies.

In relation to the Europe which the ILO has decided to work for, we
find the following formulation: It is necessary "to work for the
reform of pensions in Europe." All the labor activists present here
know the meaning of the "reform of pensions in Europe."

It means the undermining of all the existing pension systems in our countries.

The second strategic objective set by the report proposes to "promote
the business spirit at all levels" and mentions the "growing interest
for ILO activities concerning the corporate responsibilities." This
is not the logic of necessary compromise between trade union
organizations and organizations of the bosses.

Activists deal with compromises on a daily basis. But when one
mandates the companies with a "social responsibility," you substitute
the framework of demands for the framework of "social progress." This
can only take place through the integration of the workers´
organizations into the company and, in general, into the
transnationals.

In the report of the President of the Administrative Council of the
International Labor Bureau, we find: "It was admitted that the
regulation of the labor market could have inconvenient consequences,
if it is poorly conceived or implemented in too strict a manner."

Comrades, the workers throughout the world have heard all the
arguments concerning the "too strict" or "too constraining" nature of
labor regulations. The bosses and governments tell us this so that
they can impose deregulation, and the undermining of collective
rights and of labor codes in all countries. It is normal that this be
the language of the bosses and the governments.

But can the ILO respect its tripartite structure by associating all
its members to this struggle against the "too strict" labor market?
If we answer yes to this question, it follows that the workers´
organizations themselves should join the fight for "less strict"
labor regulations. This is precisely one of the problems posed today
by this march to the "world governance" and the "new united
international trade unionism" promised for us at the Vienna Congress.
The purpose of the trade unions would no longer be to defend the
material and moral interests of the wage earners by preserving their
full independence vis a vis the capitalist class and the state.

The mission of the trade unions would be to become the social
components of globalization, that is, the social component of the
"world governance." Is this an exaggeration?

Before responding to this question, I would like to remind you of the
definition of Pascal Lamy, the General Director of the WTO,
concerning the definition of governance. He notes the difference
between the words "governance" and "government." He states:

"'Governance'" aims to ensure a co-existence (and sometimes a
consensus) between different and sometimes conflicting points of
view. Evidently, this is different from government. In most cases,
governments arise from universal suffrage and are supposed to
represent the general interest -- but they are not supposed to
synthesize different or conflicting interests.

"In a democratic and organized society, the different or conflicting
interests are expressed through trade unions and, on a political
plane, through political pluralism. But the framework of governance
aims to make different or conflicting interests permanently co-exist
-- the meaning of the term is the same concerning both "world
governance" and "corporate governance."

In reality, this is a new form of the labor-capital partnership, a
new form of corporatism, in which divergent interests must always
result in a common decision. This is the true meaning of this term
"governance," utilized everywhere for the past few years.

The real problem facing us is the following: Do we still live in a
society divided into social classes with antagonistic interests? If
this is so, why should the workers throw out truly independent
organizations?

Don´t we still live in a society where capitalist exploitation rests
on the extorsion of surplus-value and a relationship of exploitation?

We have the right to pose these questions because, by putting forward
the plan for "world governance," all the international institutions
(the IMF, the World Bank, the U.N., and also the so-called regional
institutions, such as MERCOSUR, FTAA, ALENA, ACEAN, and OECD) are
demanding to be part of the construction of this "world governance."

In reality, what is planned is the integration of the international
trade union movement. This is why the "world governance" must be
unified on an international level.

---

(part 2 of this report will be published in the next issue of the ILC
International Newsletter)

---------------

The ILC is not in competition with any other organization of the
workers´ movement. Its mission is not to formulate a program. Its
responsibility is to inform, alert and discuss these questions which
affect the future of the workers´ movement. At the end of the rich
debate, the following proposals were made:

-- To organize the debate and continue the discussion, not only on a
national level, but in the framework of the newsletter of the ILC. In
the ILC International Newsletter we will include, until November, a
special section on this discussion, beginning with the publication of
speeches presented at the Geneva conference.

-- To mandate the bureau of the ILC to write a letter to all the
affected organizations and all the delegates to the November 1st
Congress in Vienna, to discuss with them the need to preserve the
independence of trade union organizations.

BELGIUM

The London Times published the map of the upcoming dismemberment of
nations in Europe.

To end this dismemberment, break with the European Union!

The map published by the British newspaper The London Times, which we
are republishing below, is a cause for worry. Aside from the more or
less whimsical character of the list, the announced "new sovereign
states" clearly indicate the European Union´s plans to dismantle
nations.

Are these wild fantasies? Based on the recent events which we note
below, you can judge for yourselves.

In Belgium, the special congress of the CMB (metalworkers federation
of the FGTB) approved, at the end of April, new statutes which divide
the finances of the union between francophones and Dutch-speakers,
thus "communizaling" the federation.

Let us recall that on June 1st the House of Representatives voted on
a proposed law from Vlaams Belang (an extreme-right Flemish
organization) aiming to dismember Belgium and make Flanders and
Walloons two sovereign nations.

In Italy, the referendum on the reform of the constitution which will
take place on June 25 aims to transfer numerous duties of the state
to the regions: health care, education, and taxes. This is the
continuation of the drive toward the implementation of federalism and
the creation of "20 Little Italies," based on a consensus between
Berlusconi´s right and the "left" of Prodi-Bertinotti, supported by
the Italian friends of Krivine and Besancenot in France.

In Spain, the reform of the statute of Catalonia proposes to make
Catalonia an agency of the European Union and to have Catalonia
accept its values, principles, and obligations, notably the right to
"general interest" public services and the integration of the trade
unions into the regional institutions.

What is the relationship between these different events? After having
organized the referendum in Montenegro, the European Union, in the
international framework set by American imperialism and its
institutions (the IMF and the World Bank), intends to go fight to the
end for the dismantling of nations and the working classes in all
Europe, thus destroying all the conquests won in the framework of
nations.

Thus, a few days after the "split" of the CMB in Belgium, the Flemish
branch signed with the Flemish bosses an agreement of principle
concerning the flexibilization of the auto sector.

According to 6 Com, the daily internet press review published by the
metalworkers of Liege, this agreement "implements instruments
allowing for more hours of work when the situation demands it and
less during light periods. Thus, certain companies could choose to
have their workers work six hours per week outside the system of
overtime. Others could implement work-days of 10 hours. .. This
system, based on an individual approach, does not yet exist in
Belgium."

Would this deregulation agreement have been possible had the CMB
remained federal?

It is necessary to underline, despite the brutal character of this
offensive, that this drive is faced with the resistance of the worker
activists and leaders of all levels.

Thus, at the Geneva Conference, an Italian delegate noted that in the
face of the upcoming referendum union leaders who in the past were in
favor of regionalization now say that it is necessary to oppose the
new reform of the Constitution.

In Germany, as a delegate to the Geneva explained, during the recent
strike of hospital workers, the leadership of the Ver.di union, for
the first time in the history of Germany, accepted negotiating within
the framework of the municipalities and Landers, thus breaking the
unity of the national collective contract and opening up the path to
the undermining of the union and DGB confederation itself.

In Belgium, the General Secretary of the Interregional in Walloons of
the FGTB declared: "Those who speak of a ´francophone´ nation are
only promoted under-nationalism. We want federalism with three
regions -- not two communities." This perspective was reaffirmed by
Rudy De Leuw and Annde Demelene, leaders of the FGTB, who declared at
the regular congress of the FGTB on June 9 that a "strong and united
FGTB and solidarity" is needed.

When Marc Goblet defends the "federal character of the right to
employment, labor contracts, and social security," it is necessary to
take into account that Belgium is a federal state, and thus he is
defending a single and united system for employment rights, a single
and united social security for the working class of Belgium, with all
its components, Flemish and Walloon. He is completely correct in
doing so.

In the face of the dangers facing the working class of Belgium and
faced with the balkanization drive implemented by the European Union,
it is an urgent necessity to defend the unity of the FGTB and the
unity of the Belgian working class. It is necessary to preserve the
independence of all the workers´ organizations in Belgium and in all
the European countries. This struggle requires the break with the
European Union!

-----

"Faced with threat of the dismembering of Belgium, what is the
political solution?"

Excerpts from the editorial of Workers´ Tribune, the newspaper of the
Movement in Defense of Workers (MDT), member of the ILC

"In a very short time, a series of events have taken place that
attest to the growing dangers for workers. After the abominable
killing in Andre, we see in the return of the Charleroi "affair,"
leading to turmoil on all levels, the threats concerning the future
of the organized workers´ movement.

Seven days after the killing in Anvers, the Vlaams Beland proposes to
the House of Representatives a draft resolution concerning the
"dismemberment of the state of Belgium" -- something taken into
account by all the Flemish parties and rejected by all the
Francophone parties. Three weeks earlier -- this time on the
initiative of the francophones -- the congress of the CMB
"communalized" this important FGBT federation.

Of course, these developments do not all have the same origin. One
cannot put the killing in Anvers on the same plane as the return of
the Charleroi "affair." But the facts demonstrate that a rapid and
worrisome evolution is taking place, in a political situation marked
by a continued offensive against social rights. These two
developments are inseparable.

They want to go "all the way"

We know that the base of our social model is now in the collimator:
social security and federal collective bargaining contracts. To
undermine these, to "go all the way," all means are allowed. And if,
at first, it seemed that the killing in Anvers and Charleroi "affair"
are unconnected events, it is now clear that they are politically
exploiting these events as a battering ram to smash our social model.

On May 1, in front of a meeting of Socialist Party (PS) activists in
Liege, Marc Goblet, the regional president of the FGTB, declared: "We
need to reinforce the unity of the left to guarantee the federal
character of the right to employment, labor contracts, and social
security."

One month later, this appeal remains an important appeal to reason
and action. What is necessary is the unity of the PS and SP.A to
defend the fundamental conquests evoked by Marc Goblet.

But at this moment, the PS and SP.A are in a government with the
liberals, thus dividing the socialists. This government destroys, one
after another, the basic gains, unemployment rights (to reach the
so-called generational "pact" and promote competitiveness), our
wages, and our social security.

They want to divide us to smash our rights

Clearly, to destroy the rights of the house of labor, it is necessary
to divide it.

All these policies of social regression are dictated, to the detail,
by the European Union. The EU demands, for the benefit of the
transnationals, an acceleration of this drive and, presto, we see an
unprecedented offensive against social security and federal
collective contracts.

That is why it is essential that the FGTB, in preparation of its
congress, reaffirms the need to defend federal social security and
the federal unity of the federation in this struggle.

Seeing as PS and SP.A ministers participate in a government in
contradiction with these needs, isn´t the FGTB the only force that
can put the PS and PS.A leaders to order and demand that they defend
the "right to employment, labor contracts, and social security" and
their federal character? Aren 't they in their right to put the
"clocks back on the correct time"? The FGTB, with its 1.3 million
members, has the force to do so. All that is required is initiative
from its leaders.

This objective is in contradiction with the existence of a coalition
government with the liberals, which, in the last analysis, implements
all the demands of the European Union. We saw this with the
generational "pact."

Consequently, in the face of the threat of catastrophe, shouldn´t we
all demand that the PS and SP.A break the coalition with the liberals
and, taking up the demands of the FGTB, mobilize with the federation
to create a government in defense of the social rights, which,
inevitably, means a government of rupture with the European Union?

Doesn't the seriousness of the situation put this solution on the agenda?


ITALY

Against the "20 little Italies," for Italian unity

Why do all the parties agree that "it is necessary to reform the Constitution?"

The stakes of the June 25 referendum

The referendum that will take place on June 25 is centered around the
question of "devolution," which would give regions full powers over
health care, education, the police force, and virtually the whole tax
system.

This "devolution" would deepen a process begun with the "reform" of
Title V of the Constitution (called "federalism") of 2001 by the
center-left government and it would open the perspective of "20
little Italies," all in competition with one another.

In addition to "devolution," the "reform" that we are called to vote
on proposes a Regional Senate, the end of the bicameral system the
reduction to 400 MPs to the House, a rise in the power of the head of
the government, and the marginalization of the role of the president
of the republic.

All the parties agree that, "It is necessary to reform the Constitution

At a moment when millions prepare to vote "No" to affirm the unity of
the country and defend the conquests written into our Constitution,
all the political forces of the Unione who call for the "No" vote
nevertheless call for "a revision in agreement with the opposition"
following the referendum; they also propose to re-open a dialogue,
including with Bossi (the President of the Northern League). On the
other hand, the program of the Unione also proposes a Regional
Senate, the regionalization of the labor market, full fiscal
"federalism," the strengthening of the power of the government head,
and the end of the bicameral system.

The program of the Unione proposes to implement in its term
"federalism" through "the respect of a domestic pact on budgetary
equilibrium."

Regionalization is thus a tool to cut all the budgets, to respect the
Maastricht criteria.

The Example of Health Care

The example of the health care sector is illuminating.

Up until the mid-1980s, health care was organized nationally; the USL
(Local Health Units) were nothing more than the administrative and
organization bases of the system. The funding was guaranteed for the
USL, depending on their needs, by the state.

If a USL needed more financing, they could ask for the state to intervene.

The first step toward the destruction of this system was the
transformation of the USL into ASL (Local Health Enterprises), headed
by a chief who´s primary duty was no longer to care for the sick, but
to control the budget.

In the early 1990s, under pressure from Maastricht and in the
framework of the respect for the Stability Pact, a new reform was
imposed to push through drastic budget cuts. This reform was
implemented by the Prodi government: it meant the suppression of the
"obligatory national health contribution" from the bosses and the
workers, and its substitution with the IRAP, a tax which greatly
reduced health-care funding.

However, these "reforms" against health care were not sufficient to
appease the demands from Brussels. This is what is at stake with
"regionalization."

The 2001 reform of Title V of the Constitution by the Prodi
government, in fact, imposed the regionalization of health care and
other services; through this reform, the regions and their
governments were forced to strictly respect the decisions taken in
Brussels and Rome.

The regions are thus now directly responsible for all expenses and,
thus, they must chose between cutting services or raising taxes. This
was the beginning of the harshest attacks against public health care,
with the destruction of thousands of beds and the closing-down of
whole hospitals, the limitation of medical prescriptions, growing
(and almost unbearable) waiting lists.

In response to each attack, the governments are confronted with a
organized resistance by the trade unions nationally

The workers´ conquests (national contracts, pensions, health care,
and education) are structured on a national level and, each time that
they are threatened, under pressure from the EU, the governments are
confronted with resistance in all the country, a resistance organized
by the trade unions on a national level. But the Maastricht criteria,
the dictates of the EU, and the Stability Pact impose continual
budget cuts to privatize and liquidate all the conquests.

It is clear that states are being threatened with "regionalization"
to try to crush this resistance -- and also because the EU itself
pushes for this "regionalization."

This takes two forms: First, the implementation of "subsidiarity,"
one of the basic concepts of the EU. This allows for the directives
to be implemented all the way down to the communes and regions.
Second, this takes places through the Constitution of the Regional
Committee of the EU, which is mandated to have the directives be
implemented as quickly as possible. On this basis, dozens of regions
have opened Brussels "embassies."

Despite all the demagogy about the "United Europe," the EU is an
institution which prepares the dismemberment of nations and forced
competition between regions.

The Prodi government, in order to respect all the decisions of the EU
and impose all the demanded budget cuts, must attack the very unity
of the country. Isn´t this the reason for the "collaboration" offered
by the Unione to the House of Liberties to together push through the
necessary reforms?

This is why the "Committee Against the European Union, For Democracy,
Public Services, and the Unity of the Republic," constituted during
the campaign around the slate in the municipal elections in Turin,
fights for the victory of the "No" vote in the June 25 referendum.

Moreover, it is against any reform of the Constitution -- whether its
author is the Unione of Prodi-Bertinotti or the right of
Berlusconi-Bossi -- as all the so-called reforms are all ultimately
aim at breaking up the unity of the Italian nation.

We think, this poses the question of the rupture with the European Union.

Lorenzo Varaldo,
Editor of Tribuna Libera


CHINA

Seventeen years ago in Beijing

"Without democracy, we cannot eliminate corruption"

Seventeen years ago, on June 4, 1989, the army -- under orders from
the highest authorities of the state and the Chinese Communist Party
-- violently broke up a mass protest in Tiananmen square.

Seventeen years later, the Chinese authorities refuse to allow for
free discussion on the situation and continue to denounce as
"counter-revolutionaries" the demonstrators who call for the end of
corruption and arbitrary rule.

The international press commemorated the event in its manner. The
tone was set by the New York Times, which writes that the events of
May-June 1989 were caused by "the actions of students -- many of whom
were shot in Tiananmen square and its surrounding areas -- who the
government labeled ´counter-revolutionaries" aiming to overthrow the
government."

Of course, the students were at the origin of the movement, but in
the end of April and in May-June 1989, millions of workers (and not
only in Beijing) took to the streets. This immense majority
threatened the power of a leading caste which aims through the
"reforms" to destroy the economy based on state property and opens up
the path for imperialist penetration.

Whatever the costs, "order" had to be maintained in Peking. This was
demanded by the need to maintain the world order.

The French daily Liberation (June 3, 1989) republished excerpts from
a documents distributed to the party members and published by the
Hong Kong press. The main leader, Deng Xiao Ping, declared: "The
agitation has a national dimension; we should not underestimate it.
We should prepare ourselves for this national struggle and crush
without weakness this agitation. Otherwise, this will be the end of
tranquility. I told Bush: ´If China authorizes mass demonstrations,
how can we speak of stability?´ And without stability, we will not
succeed in anything."

The workers and youth demanded democracy, that is, a representation
of the people with powers to govern.

Why? A Chinese worker responded: "Without democracy, we cannot
eliminate corruption."

This corruption became a way of life for a social layer. This
corruption was linked to and strengthened by foreign investments and
the spread of "Special Economic Zones."

It was against these policies that the Chinese workers and youth fought.

None of the leading forces in the movement called for the destruction
of social property and none argued that capitalism could solve the
problems of the Chinese people.

During one of the immense protests in Beijing, on May 18, marked by
"the appearance of the worst nightmare for any government, the
participation of organized labor," (New York Times), a worker
explained to a journalist: "The reforms and the opening have brought
us nothing. Of course, our wages have risen for the past ten years,
but not fast enough to match inflation. Moreover, they force us to
buy bonds to fill up the state accounts, while speculators pocket
money at will and do not pay taxes."

The initial target of the 1989 movement was parasitism. Point 7 of
the charter published on April 21 by the organizing committee of
students of Beijing University demands "that the leaders of the state
publicize to the people and the country their revenues and their
wealth, including that of their families. An investigation is needed
that will publicize all the details."

For its part, one of the first independent workers´ organizations to
form, the Autonomous Union of Workers of Beijing, declared on May 21:

"The working class is the most advanced class; in the democratic
movement we should be the shock troops. The Popular Republic of China
is under the leadership of the working class. We have the right to
chase out all the tyrants.

"In production, the workers completely understand the need for
knowledge and technique. That is why we will not allow the students
to be subjected to outrages. We must destroy tyranny and the
dictatorship, promote the democratization of the state. Our force is
our unity In the democratic movement, we have nothing to lose but
our chains and a whole world to win."

The various movements of workers and peasants in 2006 -- the
authorities have noted more than "80,000 mass incidents" (strikes and
demonstrations) in one year -- have the same demands as the uprising
of 1989. They are against the consequences of policies which, in the
last analysis, would make all China a "Special Economic Zone." These
protests express the will to defend, reconquer, and extend the
conquests of the revolution. As a worker said in 1989 in relation to
corruption -- this is all impossible without democracy.

(This article was published in Informations Ouvrieres, Issue 746,
June 8-14, 2006)

BRAZIL

Justice for Anderson Committee

The Brazilian unionist Luis Anderson was assassinated on April 10, 2006.

On April 19, a "Justice for Anderson Committee" was formed in Rio de
Janeiro, which published an appeal to all workers´ and democratic
organizations of the world. An international campaign is being
organized throughout the world.

In Brazil, the Committee met twice with the secretary of Human
Rights, once with the sub-prosecutor of Human Rights of the Public
Ministry, and once with the secretary of the secretariat of Public
Security of Rio de Janeiro. The authorities affirmed that, in
response to the national and international campaign, an investigation
is being conducted. But almost two weeks after the assassination, the
truth has still not come out.

The Committee has launched a new appeal to the democratic and
workers´ organizations of the world.

Justice for Anderson

Headquarters: Sintrafrio-RJ - Rua Ibituruna, 14 - Maracana - Rio de
Janeiro - RJ - CEP: 20.271-020 - Tel./Fax (21) 3872-7843
Telephone: Gabinete Molon: 21- 25881402
Contact: comiteanderson@grupos.com.br

------

To all workers´ and democratic organizations
Rio de Janeiro, June 5, 2006

As you probably know, the president of the trade union of the
milk-product sector (Sintafrio-RJ) and leader of CONTAC-CUT, Anderson
Luiz, was assassinated on April 10, 2006.

His assassination was the cause of indignation and a great commotion
amongst trade unionists and all those who fight for justice and
democracy, particularly, because this is part of a series of unsolved
assassinations of unionists.

A national and international campaign for the punishment of those
responsible of this barbarous crime has begun and created a Committee
that will follow the investigation and demand a rapid resolution.

The publication of posters and publications, the very functioning of
the Committee, and the financial relief we are providing for
Anderson´s family can only be provided with the help of an
international financial campaign inside all levels of the
organizations which understand the importance of this struggle. This
is why we are asking for your financial help. Donations can be
deposited into

Bank of Brazil Branch 4480-6. Savings Account 0100185940.
Or into the Savings Account 18594-9 variaçao 01, in the name of
Christiane Nunes Granha.

You can also contact us concerning how to donate your funds. We thank
you in advance.

Justice for Anderson Committee

Contacts: comiteanderson@grupos.com.br Sintrafrio - (21) 3872-7843 e 22645838;
Cabinet Molon - (21) 25881402; Christiane Granha - (21) 81052910; Syndicat des
Nutritionistes - (21) 22245122; Sindipetro-RJ

www.owcinfo.org/ILC/NEWS/Index_ILC_news.html
More issues of ILC Newsletter in English
home