Read this article in:
8 July, 2000
A handful of countries managed not only to block any reference at all to a social dimension for globalisation in the final outcome document of the U.N.'s follow-up Social Summit conference in Geneva, or Copenhagen +5, at the end of June, but also forced it to take a step backwards.
Representatives of some authoritarian regimes, such as China, Egypt and Pakistan, but also democratic governments such as India, blocked the proposal to give the International Labour Organisation a central role for the defense of trade union rights and for the promotion of social dialogue. Free, democratic and independent trade unions scare the dictators. Social dialogue is not necessary when a government controls everything through violence and repression of basic human rights. Therefore, it is not surprising that China, Pakistan and Egypt acted the way they did.
But it is disappointing that the government of India did the same, with their official reason being that the rich countries want to protect themselves by introducing social clauses in trade agreements.
I wonder what the Indian government is going to say when TNCs - not only American, European and Japanese, but also Indian - leave the country to go to China or Vietnam and elsewhere, where labour costs are much lower than in India. The example of Malaysia should make the Indian government reflect on this.
The Malaysian government, after having encouraged TNCs to invest in Malaysia, is now complaining bitterly because some of the largest of these TNCs are leaving the country to go to Vietnam and China, where salaries are ten times lower than in Malaysia.
The best protection for workers and their jobs is a strong trade union which can make possible the lifting of working and living standards to the extent that everyone is able to buy what he or she produces.
The ILO, with its experience and normative role, would be the best organisation within the U.N. system to watch and monitor that internationally-agreed conventions and norms are applied and respected universally. This would also be in the best interests of all countries.
On the other hand, some of the criticism is well-founded.
If leading countries, such as the USA, continue in not ratifying core ILO Conventions, the credibility of the ILO and its possibilities to play a more active role will be undermined. Or, like the Australian government, which continues to harass trade unions by refusing to give them the right to excercise their fundamental role of negotiating collectively for the workers.
Moreover, the review of the implementation of the Copenhagen Social Summit commitments shows that poverty has increased and the gap between rich and poor among countries and within countries has widened rather than lessened, as it was supposed to after the Summit in Copenhagen. One can feel frustrated and very disappointed after such a failure. But what is the alternative?
Social dialogue, in the largest possible form, encompassing social partners and also other representatives for consumers, the environment and human rights activists, must be one way to arrive at a solution.
Another is to make use of politics, to allow everybody to practice his or her right to make decisions together with all other citizens through the democratic vote.
It requires considerable effort to make politics transparent and open, and not just the monopoly of a few.
Some governments should start already now, by instructing their representatives in the different international organisations to act coherently and stop sending different messages.
Representatives of some authoritarian regimes, such as China, Egypt and Pakistan, but also democratic governments such as India, blocked the proposal to give the International Labour Organisation a central role for the defense of trade union rights and for the promotion of social dialogue. Free, democratic and independent trade unions scare the dictators. Social dialogue is not necessary when a government controls everything through violence and repression of basic human rights. Therefore, it is not surprising that China, Pakistan and Egypt acted the way they did.
But it is disappointing that the government of India did the same, with their official reason being that the rich countries want to protect themselves by introducing social clauses in trade agreements.
I wonder what the Indian government is going to say when TNCs - not only American, European and Japanese, but also Indian - leave the country to go to China or Vietnam and elsewhere, where labour costs are much lower than in India. The example of Malaysia should make the Indian government reflect on this.
The Malaysian government, after having encouraged TNCs to invest in Malaysia, is now complaining bitterly because some of the largest of these TNCs are leaving the country to go to Vietnam and China, where salaries are ten times lower than in Malaysia.
The best protection for workers and their jobs is a strong trade union which can make possible the lifting of working and living standards to the extent that everyone is able to buy what he or she produces.
The ILO, with its experience and normative role, would be the best organisation within the U.N. system to watch and monitor that internationally-agreed conventions and norms are applied and respected universally. This would also be in the best interests of all countries.
On the other hand, some of the criticism is well-founded.
If leading countries, such as the USA, continue in not ratifying core ILO Conventions, the credibility of the ILO and its possibilities to play a more active role will be undermined. Or, like the Australian government, which continues to harass trade unions by refusing to give them the right to excercise their fundamental role of negotiating collectively for the workers.
Moreover, the review of the implementation of the Copenhagen Social Summit commitments shows that poverty has increased and the gap between rich and poor among countries and within countries has widened rather than lessened, as it was supposed to after the Summit in Copenhagen. One can feel frustrated and very disappointed after such a failure. But what is the alternative?
Social dialogue, in the largest possible form, encompassing social partners and also other representatives for consumers, the environment and human rights activists, must be one way to arrive at a solution.
Another is to make use of politics, to allow everybody to practice his or her right to make decisions together with all other citizens through the democratic vote.
It requires considerable effort to make politics transparent and open, and not just the monopoly of a few.
Some governments should start already now, by instructing their representatives in the different international organisations to act coherently and stop sending different messages.