Read this article in:
10 November, 1999It is surprising and disappointing that the Congress of the SI completely ignored the role of the trade unions.
Somebody has proposed a new definition of the Socialist International: the United Nations of the Left.
I hope the leaders who gathered in Paris for the Socialist International (SI) Congress do not try to transform the SI into a United Nations.
The comparison with the UN is wrong. It was never meant to be an organisation based on ideology, with clear political goals.
The SI, however, is an ideological organisation which strives to obtain political power in order to change society for the benefit of the poor and underprivileged.
This is the fundamental difference between the two organisations, so the person who made the comparison has missed the point.
Everyone working at international level is aware of the importance of diplomacy and the need to compromise and find consensus. But a consensus in the UN is not the same as a consensus in the SI.
The basic requirement for becoming a member of the SI is to have a belief in democracy, freedom and that all people of the world are equal, without exception. This principle is not required for membership of the UN, or in any case there are a number of member countries which ignore or neglect the practice of such a fundamental right.
So where is the SI going?
At the IMF Congress in 1993, we tried to resume our close relationship with the SI. Their president, Pierre Mauroy, who spoke at our Congress, emphasised the need for strong links between the political left and the trade unions. Encouraged by his speech, we waited for the SI to renew contacts with us.
It was only in February 1999 that I again had the opportunity to speak with the SI leadership, at a conference they organised together with the Swedish Social Democratic Party (SAP).
At the conference, I criticised the SI for ignoring the international trade union movement. My criticism was and still is based on history, as both the SI and the International Trade Secretariats (ITSs) originated from the same roots. In fact, metalworkers attending the SI's congress in 1893, in Zurich, founded the IMF, as other workers attending other SI congresses before and after founded other ITSs such as the IUF, IFBWW, ITF.
Throughout our history we have been together at national and international level. Indeed, the trade union movement has always been proud of being identified with socialism because it represents our ideals - but also because we have always been able to give it pragmatic, practical and concrete meaning.
Both the SI and trade unions know that it is impossible to achieve our goals without close links to one another. This is why it is surprising and disappointing that the Congress of the SI completely ignored the role of the trade unions.
It looks as though the SI does not want contact with us anymore. And this is very much in line with what is happening at national level in many countries.
Are trade unions only useful during election campaigns?
I hope that the newly elected president of the SI, Antonio Guterres, of Portugal, will find the time to discuss with the organisation's closest allies and friends.
I hope the leaders who gathered in Paris for the Socialist International (SI) Congress do not try to transform the SI into a United Nations.
The comparison with the UN is wrong. It was never meant to be an organisation based on ideology, with clear political goals.
The SI, however, is an ideological organisation which strives to obtain political power in order to change society for the benefit of the poor and underprivileged.
This is the fundamental difference between the two organisations, so the person who made the comparison has missed the point.
Everyone working at international level is aware of the importance of diplomacy and the need to compromise and find consensus. But a consensus in the UN is not the same as a consensus in the SI.
The basic requirement for becoming a member of the SI is to have a belief in democracy, freedom and that all people of the world are equal, without exception. This principle is not required for membership of the UN, or in any case there are a number of member countries which ignore or neglect the practice of such a fundamental right.
So where is the SI going?
At the IMF Congress in 1993, we tried to resume our close relationship with the SI. Their president, Pierre Mauroy, who spoke at our Congress, emphasised the need for strong links between the political left and the trade unions. Encouraged by his speech, we waited for the SI to renew contacts with us.
It was only in February 1999 that I again had the opportunity to speak with the SI leadership, at a conference they organised together with the Swedish Social Democratic Party (SAP).
At the conference, I criticised the SI for ignoring the international trade union movement. My criticism was and still is based on history, as both the SI and the International Trade Secretariats (ITSs) originated from the same roots. In fact, metalworkers attending the SI's congress in 1893, in Zurich, founded the IMF, as other workers attending other SI congresses before and after founded other ITSs such as the IUF, IFBWW, ITF.
Throughout our history we have been together at national and international level. Indeed, the trade union movement has always been proud of being identified with socialism because it represents our ideals - but also because we have always been able to give it pragmatic, practical and concrete meaning.
Both the SI and trade unions know that it is impossible to achieve our goals without close links to one another. This is why it is surprising and disappointing that the Congress of the SI completely ignored the role of the trade unions.
It looks as though the SI does not want contact with us anymore. And this is very much in line with what is happening at national level in many countries.
Are trade unions only useful during election campaigns?
I hope that the newly elected president of the SI, Antonio Guterres, of Portugal, will find the time to discuss with the organisation's closest allies and friends.