FEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS Athens, Greece 17.05.2012

May 28
This is the date for the elections at the International Labour Organization (ILO) to elect a new Director General to replace the Chilean Juan Somavia.

The World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), representing 82 million workers and affiliates in 120 countries, considers that instead of referring to the characteristics of each of the candidates, the most important aspects to take into account are the following:

1.

If we ask the millions of employees and unemployed workers in every country of the five continents about their views on the impact of the ILO in their countries and the benefits for workers, the answer will be almost unanimous: it is useless for them. In the last decades the workers have been deprived of their rights and conquests and fundamental ILO conventions are blatantly violated. What will the new Director General of the ILO do to reverse this situation?

2.

In the Governing Body of the ILO there are representatives of governments and employers that have imposed neoliberal policies and adjustment plans in their respective countries, undermining the rights of workers and violating the international labor standards (ILS). For this reason, the ILO is not reflected as an organization in defense of workers. What is the position of the new Director-General on these issues?

3.

The current situation of precariousness for workers requires a Director General free of the influence and pressure from such governments and employers that undermine the ILS, acting against the values of the ILO. Does the new Director General intend to take a truly independent attitude?

4.

Under the current structure of the ILO, in the decision-making bodies and the Governing Body, there is a monopoly of a single trend of interests of neoliberal governments, employers and the leaderships of one part of the workers representation. Would the new Director General be willing to drive the changes needed to break the monopoly and allow plural participation in the Governing Body with proportional representation of the other group of opinion in the workers group?

5.

The WFTU considers it necessary to modify the structure and regulations of the ILO to adapt them to the current conditions in order to be an efficient instrument to guarantee unconditional respect for the conventions and fundamental rights of workers. Does the new Director General intend to promote such changes?

6.

The ILO at central and regional level as well as the new Director General must respect the autonomy and self determination of the unions. They must respect the decisions, the foundations and the democratic functioning of trade unions. Unfortunately, lately these principles are being violated and the management and administration services of the ILO intervene in the internal affairs of unions, trying to support some of them over the others, promoting some unions and unfairly blaming others, etc. This phenomenon is against the founding objectives of the ILO. The WFTU condemns such phenomenon and it will continue the struggle for equality among all unions, equality irrespective of ideological, political and trade union differences.

7.

Just as the peoples of the planet demand the democratization of the Organization of the United Nations (UN), all of us who from the WFTU demand the democratization of the ILO. Would the new Director General be willing to promote a true democratization of the ILO?

8.

The WFTU considers that under the conditions of the deep crisis of the capitalist system and the intensification of the imperialist aggression, the ILO should support the struggles of workers, pensioners, unemployed workers, poor people and immigrants; it should defend trade union rights, democratic and trade union freedoms and free collective bargaining. The challenges for the ILO, its cadres and its new Director General are enormous.

9.

The geographical composition represented by the General Directors of the ILO throughout history, shows that for 78 years
, 8 General Directors were from developed capitalist countries (2 respectively from United States, Britain and France) (1 respectively from Belgium and Ireland). The first Latin American Director-General was the Chilean Juan Somavia, elected in 1999 to the present.
The WFTU and its affiliates are willing to work with the ILO in order to clear our concerns and questions; to implement these aspirations, guided by the Athens Pact, the central document adopted by the XVI World Trade Union Congress.
THE SECRETARIAT

Organizers of the May 20 protest at the presence of the NATO war-wongerers in Chicago estimate that 15,000 protested Sunday. It was significant that in spite of the city-police-corporate media campaign to scare people away from attending, 15,000 came out, the largest ant-war protest in years, and the largest in Chicago since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The highlight of the protest was the closing rally, given over to Afghan and Iraq invasion war veterans. One by one they took the stage to explain why they were throwing back their medals. This can be seen in the May 21 program of Democracy Now, starting at about 9:38 in the program.

http://www.democracynow.org/

A combination of about 15 representatives of Midwest justice for Cuba and committees to free the Cuban 5 participated in the protest. We had three banners about Cuba taped up surrounding the stage at the opening rally, where they were seen by all. Two called for freeing the Cuban 5 and one called for ending the U.S. blockade of Cuba. We also carried 3 banners with the same message during the march. These were banners of the Chicago Committee to Free the Cuban 5, National Network on Cuba, Pastors for Peace and Detroit Metro Committee to Free the 5. Many people came up to us and congratulated us for carrying the message of the Cuban 5, and countless numbers of people took photos of us carrying the banners in the march.

It was quite obvious, that unlike 8-9 years ago, many people knew of the case and many were supportive of our work. Art Heitzer noted that a good number also stopped to take photos of his Cuban 5 t-shirts. He added, “When I was giving out literature to younger activists, especiallly those of color, I frequently asked them if they knew anyone who wanted to become a doctor but could not afford it, and then told them of what Cuba has offered. The reactions were universally and strongly positive, with some already having some awareness. In other conversations, I sometimes mentioned the recent firebombing of the travel agency in Miami, which none had heard of unless they were on some Cuba email list.”

We handed out about 1100 glossy palm cards about the Cuban 5 case put out by the Chicago Cuban 5 committee. We also distributed about 900 NNOC flyers with information on the U.S. blockade of Cuba, the Cuban 5 and the summer travel challenges to Cuba by African Awareness Association, Venceremos Brigade and IFCO/Pastors for Peace.

Many thanks to local representatives of Chicago Pastors for Peace, Chicago Committee to Free the Cuban 5, Louisville Committee to Free the Cuban 5, Wisconsin Coalition to Normalize Relations with Cuba, and NNOC who participated in the 90 degree heat.

Check out this link:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/education/student+strikes+Montreal+protest+goes+international/6660739/story.html

David Rovics is not just a musician with a social conscience, but also a social justice activist with real talent as a composer and musician. Many of us remember his concerts at the peak of the war in Iraq. Well, he’s back in Texas, making three stops this time, and showcasing his latest compositions.

Thursday, May 31st, 8 pm
Houston Center for Culture
708 Telephone Road Suite C
Houston, Texas

Friday, June 1st, 7 pm
The Pavilion
915 Lazy Lane
San Marcos, Texas

Saturday, June 2nd, 6:00PM–Reception, followed by concert

Interfaith Peace Chapel at the Cathedral of Hope,

5910 Cedar Spring Road
Dallas, Texas

From his website:
David Rovics grew up in a family of classical musicians in Wilton, Connecticut, and became a fan of populist regimes early on. By the early 90’s he was a full-time busker in the Boston subways and by the mid-90’s he was traveling the world as a professional flat-picking rabble-rouser. These days David lives in Portland, Oregon, and tours regularly on four continents, playing for audiences large and small at cafes, pubs, universities, churches, union halls and protest rallies. He has shared the stage with a veritable ‘who’s who’ of the left in two dozen countries, and has had his music featured on Democracy Now!, BBC, Al-Jazeera and other networks. His essays are published regularly on CounterPunch, and the 200+ songs he makes available for free on the web have been downloaded more than a million times. Most importantly, he’s really good. He will make you laugh, he will make you cry, he will make the revolution irresistible.

For more on David Rovics, see www.davidrovics.com

by James Thompson

It is well-known that the top 1% control 42% of financial wealth in this country. What does this mean for the 99%? This brief paper will be a quick and simple look at this from the perspective of the 99%.

In 2009 the estimated total net family household wealth for the entire country was $54.2 trillion. The population of the United States was 305 million in 2009. Let’s talk about equitable wealth distribution.

As indicated above, this is a very simple analysis. If you do the simple math and divide $54.2 trillion by 305 million people, that would mean there should be $177,049.18 for every man woman and child in this country in 2009. 42% of $54.2 trillion comes to $22,680 billion. Again, this is the share of the top 1%. If you divide that figure by 305 million people, that comes to $74,360.66 for every man, woman and child in this country.

In 2007, the aggregate annual net family household income was $7.723 trillion. The top 3.65% (those earning more than $200,000) earned 17.5% of that total family income or $1.351525 trillion for that year. If that $1.351525 trillion was distributed equally among the 305 million people living in this country, that would amount to $4431.23 for every man, woman and child.

These simple calculations are not intended to be a final solution to all of our nation’s financial problems. However, it can be easily seen that if incomes and wealth were more equitably distributed, all people could be quite comfortable.

Obviously, more sophisticated analyses are needed to come up with a plan for distribution of wealth to all peoples in this land. However, it is also obvious that the current system is not in the interest of the 99%.

Via www.mltoday.com

Written by Fidel Castro

I will hardly refer to the Cuban people, who one day rid their country of the United States domain, when the imperialist system had reached the height of its power.

Men and women of different ages paraded on May Day down the most symbolic squares in all provinces of the country.
Our Revolution emerged where it was least expected by the empire, in a hemisphere where it was used to act like an all-powerful master.

Cuba came to be the last country to get rid of Spanish colonialism and the first to shake off the heinous imperialist tutelage.

Today I am thinking particularly about the sister Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and its heroic struggle against the ruthless plunder of the resources with which Nature has endowed that noble and self-sacrificing people who one day sent their soldiers to faraway places in this continent to bring the Spanish military power to its knees.

Cuba has no need to explain why we have been in solidarity not only with all the countries of this hemisphere but also with many others in Africa and other regions of the world.

The Bolivarian Revolution has also been in solidarity with our homeland. Its support was transcendental during the years of the Special Period. That cooperation, however, in no way came up at Cuba’s request. Neither did we demand any condition from any of the peoples that required our educational or medical services. We would have offered Venezuela our maximum support no matter the circumstances.

For revolutionary Cubans, to cooperate with other poor and exploited peoples has always been a political principle and a duty towards humanity.

I feel great satisfaction to watch, as I did yesterday, through Venezolana de Televisión and Telesur, the profound impact that the adoption of the Labor Organic Law enacted by the Bolivarian leader and president of the Republic, Hugo Chávez Frías, caused among the people. I had never seen anything like that in the political landscape of our hemisphere.

I paid attention to the huge crowds that gathered in the squares and avenues of Caracas, particularly the spontaneous comments made by the citizens who were interviewed. I had hardly – ever, perhaps – seen the level of emotion and hope that transpired in their statements. It became evident that the overwhelming majority of the people are humble workers. A true battle of ideas is being powerfully waged.

Rafael Correa, President of Ecuador, courageously stated that we are living through a change of times rather than through times of change. Both Rafael Correa and Hugo Chávez are Christians.

But, Obama, what is he? What does he believe in?

One year after the murder of Bin Laden, Obama is competing with his rival, Mitt Romney, to justify that action which was perpetrated at a facility close to the Military Academy of Pakistan, a Muslim country allied to the United States.

Marx and Engels never talked about murdering the bourgeois. According to the old bourgeois concept, the judges were the ones who judged and the executioners were the ones who executed.

There is no doubt that Obama was a Christian; one of the facets of that religion helped him to learn the trade of conveying his ideas, an art that meant a lot to him during his meteoric rise to the upper echelons of his party.

The principled declaration of Philadelphia of July of 1776 stated that all men were born equal and free and that they were all endowed by their Creator with certain rights. As far as we know, three quarters of a century after independence the black slaves, with their wives and children, continued to be sold at public squares; and almost two centuries later, Martin Luther King, a Nobel Peace Laureate, had a dream, but he was murdered.

The Oslo Nobel Committee awarded Obama his prize, and he almost became a legend. However, millions of persons must have watched the images. Nobel Laureate Barack Obama traveled hurriedly to Afghanistan as if the world ignored the mass murders, the burnings of Muslims’ sacred books and the desecration of the corpses of murdered persons.

No honest person will ever assent to the perpetration of terrorist actions. But, has the US president any right to judge or kill, to become both the judge and the executioner and commit such crimes in a country and against a people on the opposite side of the planet?

We watched the US President in shirtsleeves, running up a steep staircase, walking at quick pace down an overhead corridor and stopping to give a speech to a large military contingent that applauded unwillingly the words of the illustrious President.

Those men were not all American-born. I thought about the colossal expenses this meant, whose burden is being borne by the world. After all, who is bearing the burden of that huge cost which exceeds already 15 trillion dollars?

That is what the illustrious Nobel Peace Laureate offers humanity.

May 3, 2012

By Zoltan Zigedy

Via http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/

You have to marvel at the bizarre media circus triggered by the zany tale of “human rights activist” Chen Guangcheng. Chen’s saga began fantastically, evolved strangely, and continues as a hypocritical argument between Republicans and Democrats over who is the real friend of human rights.

Media accounts are vague on what earned Chen the mantle of “human rights advocate.” Some point to his opposition many years ago to the campaign in the Peoples’ Republic of China to limit population growth by urging families to birth only one child. There is also agreement that Chen was convicted and served four years in prison and was under home detention until the night of April 22.

On that night, according to Chen’s friends and repeated by the US officials, Chen escaped from his detention, scaled at least eight walls, and wandered around for 20 hours until he hooked up with a fellow dissident who drove him a considerable distance to an ultimate rendezvous with officials from the US embassy in Beijing. This feat is all the more remarkable because the media reports that Chen is blind. US news outlets hailed this accomplishment without any incredulity. Nor did they suggest that there was any connection between the “escape,” the resulting furor, and the beginning of high-level US-PRC talks scheduled to begin 10 days later. For the happily gullible US media these steps were mere happenstance.

After his arrival, confusion reigned. No one could quite figure out what Chen wanted, including US embassy officials. According to The Wall Street Journal, US officials found him “self absorbed.” They remarked how it “feels like the guy is unfairly attacking the US.” What began as another opportunity to show the PRC’s insensitivity to human rights was quickly dissolving into a fiasco.

At different times Chen insisted on talking by phone with PRC Premier Wen, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, and Representatives Chris Smith and Nancy Pelosi in the US. For days, US embassy personnel chatted with Chen about his wishes. At the same time, he called friends in the PRC and the US to discuss his options. PRC officials calmly dialogued with the embassy—no doubt bemused by the increasing impatience of the US officials.

After six days, US officials believed they had determined Chen’s intention. He wanted to stay in the PRC, but with the caveat that he be admitted to law school in his native province. Despite his lack of a formal education, PRC officials quickly granted his wish. But wait: first, he wanted to be reunited with his family. Again, officials granted his wish, whisking his family to Beijing on a fast train.

Thinking the “incident” had been resolved, embassy officials drove Chen to a Beijing hospital to be treated for minor injuries. Overnight, he changed his mind again and demanded he be sent to the US to take advantage of a visiting scholar offer tendered by Jerome Cohen of NYU. He alluded to vague threats by PRC authorities that were denied by embassy officials. Finally, the Chen “human rights” struggle was capped off by a remote open mike dialogue with the US House of Representatives where he surprised House members with the revelation of his forthcoming journey to the US. By the way, Chen has since announced that he reserves the right to return to China when his US R&R is completed. Human rights indeed!

One obvious lesson of the Chen episode is that there is an avenue for convicted criminals to extort a law degree or a trip overseas if he or she plays the cards right, though I would not recommend that anyone try this in the US.

But the more serious lesson is for the myriad human rights groups in the US and Europe. Their ready acquiescence to “causes” that coincide with the interests of their respective ruling classes casts a shadow on their body of work. The critical observer cannot help but notice the coalescing of many human rights campaigns with the foreign policy objectives of the US and its NATO allies.

It’s an old story, beginning in the Cold War with a noticeable tendency for the most prominent rights groups to find human rights violations in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, but curiously overlooking the ravages of anti-Communism in the US. But after the Helsinki Accords of 1975, the human rights provision (though no other element) became an anchor for US and European foreign policy. Millions of dollars were directed towards Western human rights organizations and NGOs that compromised any objectivity for the routine payoff. Human rights pressure intensified on the Socialist countries while waning in the West. Of course some groups and activists were merely gullible; they inherited blindness to repression and oppression in their beloved backyard while bearing a nativist distrust of things foreign or different; cultural ignorance and disrespect of differences always exacerbated the blunders of human rights campaigners. And imperialists were quick to exploit these weaknesses.

In recent history, the irresponsibility of human rights activists has contributed to the dismemberment of Yugoslavia and the demonization of countries seeking an independent path from that chosen by the US and its allies, countries such as Cuba, the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea, the PRC, Venezuela, Iran, Libya, and Syria. Some groups seem to have forgotten the other nine points of the Helsinki Accord.
This institutionalization of human rights organizations, along with their penetration by governmental agencies, has challenged their credibility. The obscene campaign against Libya has resulted in civilian deaths and the brutal rule of bandits and racists. And the current campaign against the Syrian government brings frequent bombings by opponents and a great loss of civilian lives. Surely some human rights advocates owe us an accounting.

As The Colombia Journalism Review reports, the recent Mike Daisey account of workplace abuses in the PRC went viral after paradoxically appearing on This American Life (They show little interest in American workplace abuse). Eight hundred and eighty-eight thousand downloads followed. Consequently, Change.org, the ubiquitous on-line petition campaigner, solicited 256,425 signatures opposing this alleged abuse.

But Daisey’s account was a fraud, laden with inaccuracies and spurious charges. Consequently, This American Life retracted the Daisey episode. Yet only 486 people signed a petition urging the withdrawal of the Change.org petition. The damage was done. The stain remains.

We deserve better human rights advocates: less obsequiousness and gullibility, more responsibility and seriousness.

Zoltan Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com