On Tue, 16 May 2000, Max Sawicky wrote:
>
> LOS ANGELES TIMES
>
> Tuesday, May 16, 2000
>
> China, Mexico: Same Depressing Tale on Labor Rights
> World affairs: Economic openness doesn't cure all ills, as we have learned
> with NAFTA.
>
> By HARLEY SHAIKEN
>
I have a feeling that this question of China is a no win one; we just keep
going around in circles. But, . . . .
Max previously quoted a labor publication which opposed giving China PNTR
based on a variety of arguments including that the country was communist,
that the government did not follow free market policies, that workers were
repressed, and that China's entrance into the WTO would unleash an export
flood that would hurt US workers.
Clearly, we would not want to support positions that argue against the
vote on the basis of a country following a non-free market economic
policy, or that the regime was communist (leaving aside the fact that the
country is much closer to state capitalist). This is a very problematic
result of a campaign like this. As for supporting Chinese workers, I
think it is clear that this is not a solidarity movement like those that
endorsed boycotts for apartaid South Africa and Burma. Even Chinese labor
activists in Hong Kong who are working for independent unions in China do
not support a no vote. So, fundamentally we have the argument of
protecting U.S. workers.
There are many issues underlying this legitimate concern for U.S. workers,
issues that are also present in Shaiken's article on Mexico. Among the
most important are the devastating consequences of export-led economic
development and the behavior of U.S. multinational corporations. These
issues can best be responded to by building movements to dissolve the IMF,
World Bank and the WTO. It is these institutions that promote actively,
led by the U.S., export-led growth. As for the behavior of U.S. mncs,
should not we figure out how to limit or control their activities, rather
than attack other countries.
I think that fundamentally the China issue is being pushed by labor
leaders as a way to allow U.S. workers to vent their frustration. It is a
way to open up a non-class avenue of protest. If U.S. workers really
wanted to address the problems they face then they would have to look at
U.S. labor law; U.S. government policy relative to the IMF, WB, and WTO;
and the behavior of U.S. MNCs. This would lead to a class agenda which
would require the US trade union leadership to organize a real struggle.
It is far better to lead workers to attack China, as an unfair trader,
dictatorship, and violator of neoliberal rules of the game (and even EPI
has advanced this argument). Even though this movement includes
recognition of the negative role of U.S. mncs, it is revealing that little
is being done to orient workers to take on the actions of mncs or the
export-led capitalist growth stategy that benefits them.
We were on the verge of targeting in a powerful movement the IMF, WB, WTO,
third world debt cancellation, and building international solidarity. Now
we find ourselves battling over the question of China's admission into the
WTO. Which should be our priority?
We can do the most for Mexican and Chinese workers if we build a strong
class conscious labor movement in this country and work to change the
international economic environment. As to the former, lets work to gain
ratification of core ILO labor standards in the U.S. (we have ratified
only one) which would highlight the fact that US labor laws are far from
satisfactory and might help to promote organizing. Lets work to promote
living wages. As for the latter, lets concentrate on defunding the IMF
and WB, and dismantling the WTO (not creating the basis for a weak set of
social regulations to legitimate it).
The China fight is the wrong fight; it confuses the class clarity that we
are getting closer to building. Regardless of how the vote on China goes,
it is an argument that takes away from the kind of movement we should be
building.
Marty
