Read this article in:
21 June, 2000Speakers in the IMF Central Committee discussion on liberalised global trade insist on core labour standards in rules on trade.
BIRMINGHAM: Before the debate got started on "Trade and Sustainable Growth & Development," which is the theme of this year's IMF Central Committee meeting, John Monks, British TUC general secretary, covered the whole scope of the discussion in his remarks to the delegates. Trade unions, he said, must adapt to the new age of globalisation and see how they can best deal with the multinationals and governments. "Establishing a collective bargaining relationship with the MNCs," said Monks, "is your core concern." Regarding corporate codes of labour practice, Monks said that they cannot be an alternative to collective bargaining and are only a part of the trade union response to globalisation.
Leif Pagrotsky, minister of trade in Sweden's Social Democratic government, urged the trade unions to get involved in trade in order to influence the direction of globalisation. "There is both room and need for a larger role than you have played so far. Unions ought to play a more active role as an advocate for change." He stressed that trade offers the opportunity of more efficient production and economic growth. But we are much too worried in Europe and the United States about competition from poorer countries. "If we say no to imports, we also say no to new jobs. Saying no to globalisation will prove fruitless," Pagrotsky said. "But a conditional 'yes' could prove very worthwhile. Globalisation does not wait for politics. It happens." Why leave the scene to the interests of big business, he asked. "I call on you to widen your involvement!"
Robert Borosage, co-director of the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for America's Future, observed that although the world is smaller and more connected, there is growth in some countries and catastrophe in others, growing opportunity and continuing misery. Perhaps the solution was debt relief and pressure on the IMF and World Bank to greatly change conditions on crisis financing. Workers' rights had to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. There had to be greater control over speculative capital at both national and international level, rules of global trade which protect the rights of people as well as those of property, and include core worker rights. "Workers' rights are not a luxury for the rich but a necessity for development," declared Borosage. "Under its current rules, the global economy is not neutral: it actively undermines the ability of workers to organise." Low-road competition undermines global economic growth. "We are witnessing the return of depression economics: too much capacity, too few consumers with money to buy," went on Borosage. The U.S. is serving as a market of last resort, but this cannot be sustained. Developing countries are going up a down escalator, running harder just to stay even. If countries are to grow from the inside out, workers must be empowered to capture a fair share of the profits they produce. This requires protection of core worker rights. Markets must be embedded in laws, the human costs tempered by social protection. We are not talking about eliminating comparative advantage but about eliminating unconscionable advantages based on trampling internationally-agreed moral principles. It will take a long struggle, relentless organising, new thinking, new institutions, new rules."
Michael Leahy, ISTC, Great Britain, said that democratic countries can make progress for workers' rights and agreed that debt relief was necessary in order to give people in poorer countries basic needs.
Jerry Fernandez, USWA, USA, asked who had global trade benefited? Society, he said, was serving global trade, but global trade ought to benefit society and protect people's rights. It required a rational approach and laws to govern it. There was no debate at the WTO on the disparity between the rich and poor, he said, and jobs producing goods with added value are being lost. "We have been betrayed by Wall Street and our governments."
Peter Unterweger, IMF Secretariat, says we must ask advocates of a liberalised world economy why its benefits do not result in higher growth, but instead in more poverty. Sustainability means it must be balanced. And what happens when it is no longer sustainable? There is a catastrophic crash. If you restrict demand and the deficit shrinks, you will lose exports and your economy will also shrink. This results in a worldwide recession. Europe and Japan must stimulate their economies.
Kjell Björndalen, Fellesförbundet, Norway, said that there is no alternative to the WTO. "But it should be reformed and democratised. A social clause would be one step."
José Rodriguez, Smata, Argentina, was surprised by the Swedish minister of trade because he spoke about workers needing social justice. "We are fed up hearing about these things. George Soros is at the top of Argentina. We, as workers, are losing our dignity."
Brian Fredricks, IMF assistant general secretary, said "it is our task to protect the jobs of our members, and the best protection for jobs is to be able to provide the jobs." He underlined the importance of organising and solidarity. Speaking about China, he asked: "What do we do about China? We can't put our heads in the sand. The answers must be found in the labour movement."
Mario Sepi, FLM, Italy, remarked that "human and trade union rights are the basis for development, but global projects are needed to re-establish the balance in development by reforming international institutions." The American development model cannot be applied to all countries.
Hlokoza Motau, Numsa, South Africa, asked what comes first: development or social clauses? "Developing countries are suspicious of social clauses. In the IMF, we haven't addressed how developing countries can obtain the advantages of social clauses."
Napoleon Kpoh, ICU, Ghana, said that, regarding foreign direct investments, Africa is being bypassed. "Even though Africa is one of the largest continents and endowed with huge natural resources, its total share of foreign investments was about 2 per cent during the last years. Every country is striving hard to outpace each other in world trade. Africa faces intense competition in liberalisation of global trade."
Teruhito Tokumoto, IMF-JC, Japan, felt that there should be stronger sanctions in the WTO, but "we need to work with the WTO." And the IMF must encourage the multinational companies to adopt codes of conduct.
Mun Sung-hyun, KMWF, Republic of Korea, was visiting for the first time an IMF Central Committee meeting. In previous years he had always been in jail because of his trade union activities. He asked what efforts were being made to get better labour standards. A system for social security to help developing countries should be considered and created.
Robert Borosage, in his final remarks, said that labour would re-enforce its power, a moral power, when workers from the North will speak in concert with those of the South. He thought it was a remarkable contribution by the trade unions that these questions are back on the world agenda.
Leif Pagrotsky mentioned China in his final remarks: "We should welcome China to the outside world. Isolating them isn't good for anything. For example, the Internet will bring an efficient end to the monopoly on information."
Leif Pagrotsky, minister of trade in Sweden's Social Democratic government, urged the trade unions to get involved in trade in order to influence the direction of globalisation. "There is both room and need for a larger role than you have played so far. Unions ought to play a more active role as an advocate for change." He stressed that trade offers the opportunity of more efficient production and economic growth. But we are much too worried in Europe and the United States about competition from poorer countries. "If we say no to imports, we also say no to new jobs. Saying no to globalisation will prove fruitless," Pagrotsky said. "But a conditional 'yes' could prove very worthwhile. Globalisation does not wait for politics. It happens." Why leave the scene to the interests of big business, he asked. "I call on you to widen your involvement!"
Robert Borosage, co-director of the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for America's Future, observed that although the world is smaller and more connected, there is growth in some countries and catastrophe in others, growing opportunity and continuing misery. Perhaps the solution was debt relief and pressure on the IMF and World Bank to greatly change conditions on crisis financing. Workers' rights had to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. There had to be greater control over speculative capital at both national and international level, rules of global trade which protect the rights of people as well as those of property, and include core worker rights. "Workers' rights are not a luxury for the rich but a necessity for development," declared Borosage. "Under its current rules, the global economy is not neutral: it actively undermines the ability of workers to organise." Low-road competition undermines global economic growth. "We are witnessing the return of depression economics: too much capacity, too few consumers with money to buy," went on Borosage. The U.S. is serving as a market of last resort, but this cannot be sustained. Developing countries are going up a down escalator, running harder just to stay even. If countries are to grow from the inside out, workers must be empowered to capture a fair share of the profits they produce. This requires protection of core worker rights. Markets must be embedded in laws, the human costs tempered by social protection. We are not talking about eliminating comparative advantage but about eliminating unconscionable advantages based on trampling internationally-agreed moral principles. It will take a long struggle, relentless organising, new thinking, new institutions, new rules."
Michael Leahy, ISTC, Great Britain, said that democratic countries can make progress for workers' rights and agreed that debt relief was necessary in order to give people in poorer countries basic needs.
Jerry Fernandez, USWA, USA, asked who had global trade benefited? Society, he said, was serving global trade, but global trade ought to benefit society and protect people's rights. It required a rational approach and laws to govern it. There was no debate at the WTO on the disparity between the rich and poor, he said, and jobs producing goods with added value are being lost. "We have been betrayed by Wall Street and our governments."
Peter Unterweger, IMF Secretariat, says we must ask advocates of a liberalised world economy why its benefits do not result in higher growth, but instead in more poverty. Sustainability means it must be balanced. And what happens when it is no longer sustainable? There is a catastrophic crash. If you restrict demand and the deficit shrinks, you will lose exports and your economy will also shrink. This results in a worldwide recession. Europe and Japan must stimulate their economies.
Kjell Björndalen, Fellesförbundet, Norway, said that there is no alternative to the WTO. "But it should be reformed and democratised. A social clause would be one step."
José Rodriguez, Smata, Argentina, was surprised by the Swedish minister of trade because he spoke about workers needing social justice. "We are fed up hearing about these things. George Soros is at the top of Argentina. We, as workers, are losing our dignity."
Brian Fredricks, IMF assistant general secretary, said "it is our task to protect the jobs of our members, and the best protection for jobs is to be able to provide the jobs." He underlined the importance of organising and solidarity. Speaking about China, he asked: "What do we do about China? We can't put our heads in the sand. The answers must be found in the labour movement."
Mario Sepi, FLM, Italy, remarked that "human and trade union rights are the basis for development, but global projects are needed to re-establish the balance in development by reforming international institutions." The American development model cannot be applied to all countries.
Hlokoza Motau, Numsa, South Africa, asked what comes first: development or social clauses? "Developing countries are suspicious of social clauses. In the IMF, we haven't addressed how developing countries can obtain the advantages of social clauses."
Napoleon Kpoh, ICU, Ghana, said that, regarding foreign direct investments, Africa is being bypassed. "Even though Africa is one of the largest continents and endowed with huge natural resources, its total share of foreign investments was about 2 per cent during the last years. Every country is striving hard to outpace each other in world trade. Africa faces intense competition in liberalisation of global trade."
Teruhito Tokumoto, IMF-JC, Japan, felt that there should be stronger sanctions in the WTO, but "we need to work with the WTO." And the IMF must encourage the multinational companies to adopt codes of conduct.
Mun Sung-hyun, KMWF, Republic of Korea, was visiting for the first time an IMF Central Committee meeting. In previous years he had always been in jail because of his trade union activities. He asked what efforts were being made to get better labour standards. A system for social security to help developing countries should be considered and created.
Robert Borosage, in his final remarks, said that labour would re-enforce its power, a moral power, when workers from the North will speak in concert with those of the South. He thought it was a remarkable contribution by the trade unions that these questions are back on the world agenda.
Leif Pagrotsky mentioned China in his final remarks: "We should welcome China to the outside world. Isolating them isn't good for anything. For example, the Internet will bring an efficient end to the monopoly on information."