Workers' Weekly V.28 No.

AS WE GO TO PRESS, all reports are pointing to the management and unions at the Rover Longbridge plant being about to sign a deal which will keep the plant open, but at a severe cost to the workers. It is being indicated that it is likely that 2,500 workers will lose their jobs on top of the 1,500 job cuts and a four-day production week that the workers have already been forced to accept. Further "radical" new "flexible working practices" are likely to be imposed with possible big wage cuts for those workers remaining. In other BMW plants in Europe, instead of workers being paid overtime, extra hours worked during busy periods are added to leave entitlements to be taken during "slack" production times. This is what is termed as "radical" and which is on the table for Rover's 39,000 workforce.

Such is the uncertainty and fear for the future, that workers are said to be "queuing to quit". The scare has been created among the workers and in the community by the BMW monopoly that Longbridge, which employs 14,000 workers, would completely close down, with devastating effect in human terms and to the West Midlands economy. Trade and Industry Secretary Peter Mandelson has been talking about "rapid response" units for "alternative employment" for regions hit by factory closures. The same thing was said about Leyland DAF. But this "alternative employment" somehow never materialised, and no one can see how it can materialise now. Therefore, with this threat hanging over the workers' heads, any deal which keeps the plant open, no matter how draconian in terms of the burden and stress on the workers, is being painted as being a "victory". Furthermore, the government and TUC leaders are waging an insistent ideological offensive against the workers, that to make business successful in the global market, workers and unions must work in "social partnership" with the management and the monopolies and abandon their own rights and interests. So, for example, in this vein a Rover management briefing lays out: "Against a hostile competitive environment we are continuing to press for a significant contribution to cost reductions to be realised in 1999." However, the fact that the announcement that a deal has been struck has been delayed signifies that workers are not prepared to accept such a scenario without opposition, and that more arm-twisting is necessary to hammer out an agreement in this one-sided "partnership".

How much more are the workers supposed to accept to keep this "partnership" going? It is already shocking that so many are forced to keep at work at Longbridge, for example, when suffering from injuries sustained during work. Health and safety under these conditions of stepping up competitiveness is hardly on the agenda. The Rover management shows no concern for workers who are sick and injured. They even check up on them in their own homes! At the same time, workers are sacked on the slightest pretext such as falling asleep on the night shift or leaving work a few minutes early, no matter what the problems the workers are faced with. Workers are moved around to one shift after another in the drive for "flexibility".

And what stand does the Labour government take? Peter Mandelson is already on record as saying that the Rover workforce will have to redouble its efforts, on top of what has already been done, to increase productivity and make efficiency moves. Chancellor Gordon Brown has also said that there is absolutely no doubt that productivity is an issue. In other words, the intensification of exploitation and the squeezing of wages to increase profits is the order of the day. If productivity is the issue, say the BMW monopoly in response, the government must give us grants for modernisation. Hand us over £200-£450 million from the state treasury for new investment, despite the fact that we have just made a £130 million profit.

The workers cannot accept that it is the drive for maximum profits of the monopolies which must take precedence over every other consideration, including the well-being of the workers and the general interests of society. At the same time, if the workers were to solely rely on their militancy with no alternative programme of their own to lead society out of the crisis, what can their fight achieve?

The cut-backs at Longbridge are part of the anti-social offensive being waged against the working class and people in the name of being competitive in the global marketplace. The Labour Party is extremely sympathetic to the plight of the monopolies faced with falling rates of profit, and will give no public guarantees to workers or other sections of society in this situation. Everyone must fend for themselves in this "bracing" situation of cut-throat competitiveness as global recession bites and bites. The Labour Party has rejected everything "socialist" and will do everything to out-Thatcher Thatcher. This it regards as "ethical" or "prudent", or even "sexy". In this situation, they will also seek to pit worker against worker, and render them passive and fatalistic, saying that the recession is beyond their control, but all must follow the Third Way and embrace "change" for the benefit of the rich. In this situation, how much longer can the TUC leaders continue to push for "partnership" on the one hand or the workers be exhorted simply to be "militant" on the other?

Image of Rover Group

The crucial thing in this situation is that the workers must fight for and elaborate their own independent politics and programme, which points the way forward out of the crisis. Their starting point is that they have rights which must be recognised and guaranteed by society, and that it is their claims and the general interests of society that must take precedence over the claims of the monopolies and the rich that they must make their maximum profits and that the total resources of society be put at the disposal of this aim, and the rights of the workers and the well-being of society can go to hell. With the perspective that the direction and motive of the economy must be changed, the workers can go into battle in defence of their rights and interests and to defeat the anti-social offensive. It does not help the workers one bit to keep on singing dirges to how bad things are becoming under capitalism, full stop. Nor to create illusions that the issue is for Labour to change its ways. In their struggles, the workers themselves must be drawn into elaborating the programme which leads the way out of the crisis, this independent programme of the working class which will open the door to the new society, which will give rise to socialism.

Workers' Weekly stands firmly on the side of the workers at Longbridge. It is fervently of the belief that the development of the workers' movement against the anti-social offensive and for a pro-social programme will provide the way forward for society out of the crisis. We will do everything we can to assist in providing the consciousness and organisation necessary for the victory of that movement.

Return to Article Index

National Consultative Conference – Preparation for Third Congress

THE SIGNIFICANCE of the National Consultative Conference on November 28-29 is that it will be a stepping stone in preparation for the Third Congress of RCPB(ML). The Congress is scheduled to take place by the 20th anniversary of the Party, March 16, 1999. The essence of this Congress is that it will set the seal on the work of RCPB(ML) since January 1994, when the Coventry International Seminar initiated the current period of the Party's work, place the Party in a strong position to enter the 21st century, and set the tasks which need to be carried out by the Party and the working class as the new millennium is ushered in.

The way this second National Consultative Conference of 1998 is to be organised is to bring out its aim of being preparatory to the Congress. It will concentrate on identifying and elaborating key theoretical and practical problems which face the Party and the class as Britain and the world move forward into the 21st century so as to prepare the ground for considering what should be the themes and agenda of the Congress. In this context, the most important discussion will take place on the editorial policy of Workers' Weekly, strengthening the newspaper organisationally and building its distribution among the working class and people.

We invite all workers, youth, women and other sections of society concerned about opening the door to lead society out of the crisis to attend this important National Consultative Conference and join in the discussions.

For an invitation, please write to RCPB(ML) at 170 Wandsworth Road, London SW8 2LA, telephone 0171-627 0599, fax 0171-498 5407 or e-mail jbbooks@lineone.net

Return to Article Index

Demand that the Security Council of the United Nations End the Sanctions against Iraq

Despite eight years of intrusive weapons inspections in Iraq, in which UN inspectors have gone to any site they wanted to, the Americans are spreading the biggest disinformation campaign over what they call Iraq non-compliance to justify their aggression against Iraq. Even maps are published in which previously unheard of "weapons facilities" figure prominently as targets for possible airstrikes. No "expert" asks even the basic question: If such facilities really exist, why did the UNSCOM never come across them?

Iraq is demanding an end to open-ended sanctions. It says it has complied with every demand, but the demands are never-ending. What is it supposed to do, Iraq asks, to bring an end to the nightmare of sanctions? Already, the sanctions have killed 1.5 million Iraqis over the past eight years and 8,000 more die each month.

Cuban Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs Isabel Allende, speaking at the Conference against the blockade of Cuba being held in Brussels by European legislators and other organisations, pointed out that since the Second World War, the United States has adopted 104 unilateral sanctions against different nations, half of them during the last four years. She pointed out that this violates the UN Charter and international laws.

Demonstrations are being organised throughout the US and around the world to oppose the US threat against Iraq and to demand an immediate end to the sanctions. Organisers point out that sanctions are genocidal weapons of mass destruction. Brian Becker of the International Action Centre points out that: "The weapons inspection process proved itself to be an endless farce. It is incredibly hypocritical for the US — with more weapons than all other countries combined — to be leading the way. Iraqis have a right to assert their sovereignty and their right to self-determination without aggression from any foreign power."

Former US Attorney General Ramsay Clark is leading another delegation to Iraq to deliver medicine, as was done in May 1998. He points out that sanctions are a gross human rights violation. The delegation will participate in activities in Baghdad commemorating the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Parliamentarians, religious leaders, human rights activists, writers, artists and trade unionists from all over the world will gather in Iraq to launch a campaign to include economic sanctions in any universally accepted definition of human rights abuses. The Baghdad Conference will focus on the UN's role with regard to sanctions and human rights.

Return to Article Index

Britain Criticised for Human Rights Record

THE UNITED NATIONS' COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE on November 19 issued a report criticising Britain on its human rights record. In particular it condemns the British state's record in the north of Ireland. It is the third time that the Committee has protested against the British government's attitude to human rights.

The 10-member UN committee is comprised of international experts, elected by the UN member states. Its authority derives from the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly in 1984 and which came into force in 1987. The Committee is based at the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, Switzerland. As a signatory of the Convention, the British government is obliged to periodically appear before the Geneva panel.

In 1995, the Committee called for the closure of Castlereagh and other similar interrogation centres in the north of Ireland, it questioned the British government's deployment of plastic bullets and called for the ending of emergency legislation. On all counts, the British government failed to respond. Appearing before the Committee on November 16, British officials could only express "regret" that the government has been "unable" to carry out the wishes of the Committee outlined during Britain's last appearance. On factors and difficulties impeding the application of the provisions of the Convention, the Committee, referring to the continuation of the state of emergency in the six counties, noted that no exceptional circumstances could ever provide justification for failure to comply with the Convention.

The Committee also expressed concern about the number of deaths in police custody and Britain's failure to provide an effective investigative mechanism to deal with accusations of police and prison authorities' abuse. The number of prisoners in the north of Ireland who have died while in police custody rose from zero in 1996 to 11 last year. The Committee was also concerned, among other things, with the rules of evidence in the north of Ireland that admitted confessions of so-called suspected "terrorists" upon a lower test than in ordinary cases. It also drew attention to the dramatic increase in the number of inmates held in prisons in England and Wales over the last three years.

The Committee questioned the operation of the non-jury Diplock courts in the north of Ireland. British officials were specifically asked about the case of Davy Adams, who sustained serious injuries during a brutal beating in Castlereagh.

In its principal recommendations, the UN Committee called for the closure of Britain's interrogation centres, particularly the Castlereagh detention centre, where those detained have endured torture sessions of up to seven days' duration; and the abolition of plastic bullets, which have been used to kill and maim hundreds of Irish people.

A representative of the Committee for the Administration of Justice, based in the six counties, who attended the hearing, pointed out that the Labour government has widely demanded human rights improvements from other countries, but has ignored calls to practise what it preaches in its own jurisdiction. A member of Sinn Fein, who had attended the UN hearing in 1995, said, "There is a new British government but we're hearing the same old story."

The Committee finally recommended that in the case of General Pinochet, the matter be referred to the office of the public prosecutor, with a view to examining the feasibility of and if appropriate initiating criminal proceedings in England, in the event that the decision was made not to extradite him. That would satisfy Britain's obligations under articles 4 and 7 of the Convention and article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969.

Return to Article Index

OPINION

Labour Party's Foreign Policy Based on Outdated, Reactionary Conceptions

IN THE WORLD SITUATION TODAY which is characterised by growing disequilibrium, the Labour Party is reinforcing a British foreign policy which gives itself the right to intervene globally wherever it wishes. Not only this, but it does so under the signboard of "ethical foreign policy".

A crucial issue to grasp here is that the peoples of the world have the inviolable right to determine their own affairs nationally and internationally. In other words, peoples and nations have the right to assert and defend their sovereignty. All the peoples of the world have the right to live according to the system of their choice. A modern foreign policy has to be based on the principles of the equality of all sovereign states, of non-intervention and opposition to all military blocs like NATO and to all trade blocs like the European Union.

However, the thinking promoted by the Labour Party is that in Britain, which should be made "Great" again, everything is basically civilised compared with, for example, the actions of Serb reactionary chauvinism against the Kosovan people, the "monster" who is Saddam Hussein supposedly stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, the "dictator" Pinochet and his undoubted acts of genocide. Therefore, the government portrays the question of intervention as being necessary to keep all these rogues in order, to ensure they behave according to a "civilised" standard. A veil is drawn, not only over Britain's colonial past and its crimes in enslaving whole peoples and committing genocide itself in building its empire on which the sun never set, but over its present abuse of human rights, as in the north of Ireland, its refusal to meet the claims of all members of society, especially the most vulnerable, which in themselves constitute crimes against humanity, its imposition of "British" thinking and "British" values represented by "the mother of parliaments" and its archaic institutions which have caused such damaging results world-wide. The list could go on and on. Similarly in Africa, where according to Robin Cook it is perfectly ethical to assist one political force to power while overthrowing another, as in Sierra Leone. In other words, the Labour foreign policy is one where you have the old conception of the "white man's burden". This is its "ethical foreign policy". It is sometimes put forward that it is despite the Labour Party's ethical foreign policy that Britain's unjust acts of intervention, its close alliance with US imperialism, happen, or that these acts of intervention show the hypocrisy of this policy. The point is, this is precisely Labour's "ethical foreign policy", this imperialist policy of intervention, of making Britain great again.

In other words, Britain's foreign policy is based on advancing Britain's interests, by which is meant those of the monopolies and the financial oligarchy. Labour's "ethical foreign policy" is not ethical, or rather it is the ethics of nineteenth century values, a foreign policy based on the values of the Paris Charter, signed in November 1990 at a meeting of the heads of state or government of the OSCE (Organisation on Security and Co-operation in Europe) by all the countries of Europe, with the exception of Albania, which signed later, together with Canada and the US. This document was a declaration of the bourgeoisie of Europe, the US and Canada, under the sway of the monopolies, to impose on the whole world their conceptions of "free market economy", pluralism and "human rights" based on private property, and to enslave the world anew with these Eurocentrist values. To impose these values around the world is a recipe for intervention and war, carried out for Britain's own strategic and geopolitical aims.

The working class must condemn this Eurocentrism, this foreign policy of British chauvinism. To make a break with such an outlook, which the government exhibits in spades, would be a major contribution which the working class could make, as a contingent of the international proletariat, against imperialist intervention and the danger of world war and to bringing about socialist revolution in this country. The repercussions of such a break would be not least the impetus to establishing modern sovereign states of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, and a free and equal union between them if they so desire, as well as to ending all Britain's colonial and neo-colonial relations. With such a stand, the working class of Britain can not only emancipate itself, but give the most sincere and genuine support to the workers of all countries struggling for national and social emancipation.

Return to Article Index

NEW LABOUR TO FURTHER BACKTRACK ON EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS:

Workers Must Take a Stand in Defence of their Rights

NEXT WEEK it is expected that the government will include its proposals on the "Fairness at Work" Bill in the Queen's Speech. Over recent days there has been speculation that the government will go even further back on its manifesto commitments to trade union recognition than it made in its White Paper in May. Then it went back on the commitment that unions should have the right to be recognised by companies if they won a majority in the ballot of a work force by including the provision that at least 40% of those eligible to vote in a "bargaining unit" must support recognition. On November 4, Peter Mandelson was questioned by the Commons Trade and Industry Committee. In his replies he gave the strongest possible hint that the commitment in the White Paper that unions would be recognised automatically without a ballot if they recruited more than 50% of the workforce to the union would be watered down. He said that "there will be a desire to see safeguards incorporated into the procedure to meet valid concerns". He also said that plans in the White Paper to abolish the £12,000 upper limit on compensation for unfair dismissal may also be abandoned.

Since coming to power, the Blair government has continuously pushed for the necessity for "social partnership" between employers and employees. This was even stressed at the TUC's Organise 98 conference held on November 14, which was supposedly to revitalise trade union recruitment. Ian McCartney, Minister of State for Trade and Industry, said there should be "partnership" and "harmony" between unions and employers. The "valid concerns" which Mandelson says the government should meet are those of big business and the financial oligarchy. What is becoming clear is that even the compromises made by the TUC on union recognition and other measures do not satisfy the Labour government in their drive for competitiveness in the global market and to intensify the anti-social offensive against the people.

In the face of this anti-social offensive, the workers have the right to organise as they see fit and as necessary in defence of their rights and interests. They can never accept arrangements that leave them subservient to the operation of the laws of the capitalist system and the plan of the government to implement further the system of paying the rich. It is the right of workers to have a livelihood, decent wages and working conditions. At the same time as fighting against all attempts to deny these rights, the workers have to develop the movement to defeat the anti-social offensive and bring about a society which guarantees these rights.

Return to Article Index

Verbatim Report of Proceedings of National Consultative Conference Published

BY DECISION of the Central Committee of RCPB(ML) and in accordance with the recommendation of the Preparatory Committee of the National Consultative Conference, the Verbatim Report on the proceedings of the July 18-19 Conference were published earlier this month.

The report is not only a record of the deliberations at the July Conference, but its publication constitutes an integral part of the work towards the Consultative Conference on November 28-29. Activists of the Party are studying the document as part of their preparations for participating in this Second Consultative Conference of 1998. This work is going hand in hand with the work to prepare for a vigorous discussion on the Party's newspaper, Workers' Weekly, at the Conference. From the reports that Workers' Weekly has received of the work, it is evident that the level of discussion attained at the July Conference will be built on, and Workers' Weekly is very encouraged by these reports. It urges its readers who have not already purchased the Verbatim Report to order a copy from Workers' Publications Centre or visit John Buckle Books where it is stocked. See advert for details.

Return to Article Index

Metin Göktepe Case: Still Awaiting Justice

IN MARCH this year, five policemen were sentenced to 7 years 6 months imprisonment for the murder of Metin Göktepe, the Evrensel Daily journalist who was beaten to death while in police custody on January 8, 1996, in Eyup Sports Stadium in Istanbul. However, the Supreme Court recently overruled the verdict of the Afyon Penal Court on a legal technicality. The case was re-heard on October 15, and again on November 13.

Metin Göktepe's murder created a huge public outcry in Turkey and internationally, and was the first case where police were unable to cover up the fact that the death occurred in police custody. There have been more than 40 extra-judicial killings of journalists in Turkey, none of which has been subject to investigation until the case of Metin Göktepe.

Metin Göktepe's lawyers have issued a call to all individuals, pro-democracy and human rights organisations to attend the continued trial hearings to ensure that the previous convictions are upheld. The next hearing is to take place on December 11.

For more information, please contact the Campaign for Human Rights in Turkey, which was launched by the Liverpool Dockers' Shop Stewards' Committee, c/o Bishop Goss School, Rose Place, Liverpool L3 3AN. The website for the Campaign is: http://www.migranet.org/daymer/campaign/metin.htm.

Return to Article Index

Students March

Around 8,000 students from all over Britain marched through London on November 18 to protest against the introduction of fees and loans. The demonstration was organised by the Campaign for Free Education. The students marched to a rally in Hyde Park. The demonstration was part of a Europe-wide week of action. Protests were also held in Paris and Rome. Striking electricians on the Jubilee Line, together with the Avesta steelworkers who are fighting the closure of their plant in Sheffield, sent messages of solidarity.

Students Oppose PFI Project

Westminster City Council were faced with the opposition of 1,000 school students to its plans for a PFI project to rebuild Pimlico School and sell off a quarter of the site for development as luxury flats. Under the deal, the school will be rebuilt and run by a consortium of property developers for 35 years. Teachers, pupils, parents and local residents are also opposed to the deal.

The 1,000 students at Pimlico refused to return from their mid-morning break last week when they heard that a meeting organised by the Council at the school to justify the project had been transferred from the school and rescheduled, and they were not able to give their views. Instead three of their representatives delivered a message of protest to City Hall.

Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, is chairperson of the school governors, and has recently received a vote of no-confidence.

Return to Article Index