Newspaper of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
170, Wandsworth Road, London, SW8 2LA. Phone 0171 627 0599,
Return to Workers' Weekly Index Page
Vigorously Oppose US and British Warmongering against Iraq
The Spectre of Communism: 150 Years of the Manifesto of the Communist Party
Action against MAI Is Needed Urgently
The Big Powers Should Cease all Interference in Algeria and Elsewhere
Opposition to Military Strikes against Iraq
Northern Regional Council of UNISON Calls for Action against the Ant-Social Offensive
The Increasing Anti-Social Offensive against the People
Public Sector Pay Rises to Be Staged
CPC(ML) Prepares for Success of its 7th Congress
Kim Jong Il's Birthday to Be Celebrated
For Your Information: JOINT NGO STATEMENT ON THE MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT (MAI)
| TONY BLAIR arrived in Washington on Thursday for three days of talks with US President Bill Clinton having declared that Britain is ready to use force against Iraq, saying that "there has to be a real threat of force and the use of force if necessary". Tony Blair and the Labour government have shamelessly done everything they can to align themselves with the US imperialists. While the Prime Minister has gone to Washington, the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, flew to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, following on from US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's mission to the Middle East and the Gulf, to try and win them over to the Anglo-American line. Tony Blair and Robin Cook in particular have gone overboard as propagandists for US imperialism and unleashed streams of venom against Saddam Hussein, as well as backing the US imperialist warmongering threats with British armed forces. Their concern has been to show the entire world what will happen to any country or people which refuses to bow down to the dictate of US imperialism. The British government, fuelling the warmongering and increasing the atmosphere of hysteria against Iraq, has made public in a stage-managed way documents of the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) which they allege demonstrate that Iraq has built up "an appalling stock" of "weapons of mass destruction". These are said to include nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, together with ballistic missiles. Of course, Britain was only too ready to arm the Iraqi regime and give them specialist advice when it was in their interests at the time of the Iran-Iraq war. However, the issue is that now they wish to character assassinate Saddam Hussein, but with the same ulterior motive of establishing superpower hegemony, and in the process tearing up all the norms of international diplomacy. Specifically, the "evidence" the Foreign Office so dramatically produced does no such thing as demonstrating the US and British claims. It lists weapons which UNSCOM has destroyed and then goes on to say that because of "Iraq's obstructionism" UNSCOM needs to continue to monitor its facilities, because, "given the chance, Iraq would undoubtedly resume WMD (weapons of mass destruction) production", and goes on to list what Iraq "could" produce. The British government then turns truth on its head by claiming that Iraq is trying to "dictate" to the United Nations. The United States and Britain have become very isolated on the world stage. While these imperialist powers have been stepping up their threats, other countries have been trying to seek a solution to the situation and have been opposing the use of force. Russia has insisted that the mission of its special envoy Viktor Posuvalyuk to Iraq was producing results and that Baghdad had offered concessions. US officials said these were inadequate and US imperialist chieftain Bill Clinton vowed to make Baghdad comply "one way or another". China has consistently opposed the use of military force, and despite the frenzied diplomacy of the Anglo-Americans, the Arab nations do not back a military strike, and nor does Israel. France has categorically said that it would not join any military action against Iraq. The French Foreign Minister, Hubert Vedrine, said on Thursday that "apart from the British, no country has said it favours, in principle, the use of force". Pointing out that bombing raids would not resolve the problem, he said, "That is not just the French position, it is the position of all Europeans as far as I can see, apart from the British. Obviously it is the position of the Arab world, the Russians, the Chinese." As the threat of a US military strike grows closer, an extremely dangerous situation is being created. The British working class and people must condemn this fascist warmongering of US imperialism and demand that the British government immediately end its backing for this superpower and forthwith withdraw its warships and all other armed might from the Gulf. |
150 Years of the Manifesto of the Communist Party150 years ago this month, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels first published the Manifesto of the Communist Party. The publication came off the press at the end of February, 1848. The cover bore the clarion call which has echoed down the intervening years and still remains the slogan of the international proletariat: Workers of all countries, unite! Marx and Engels prefaced the Manifesto with this observation: A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of Communism. All the Powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies. Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as Communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the Opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries? Two things resulted from this fact. I. Communism was already acknowledged by all European Powers to be itself a Power. II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a Manifesto of the Party itself. These remarks not only characterised the situation at that time, but they have continued to stamp the whole of history since then. Beginning with the next issue and continuing until the end of February, we will print material on the Communist Manifesto and on the modern communism of this time. |
| SECRET NEGOTIATIONS have been taking place in Paris behind the backs of the people since 1995 on what is called the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). Britain is participating in these secret negotiations which seek to completely usurp the people’s right to set the direction of the economy and constitute a dangerous move to provide foreign investors and multinational corporations unrestricted freedoms to operate within the boundaries and jurisdictions of other national territories. The agreement is set to impose unprecedented responsibilities on countries, which have to forfeit the right to hold those investors and corporations responsible in any way whatsoever. The participants in the negotiations are the 29 countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an unelected, unaccountable economic bloc dominated by the United States, plus the European Union (EU). Although the official deadline for finishing negotiations on MAI is in April, the negotiation session on February 16-20 is considered to be decisive. Accordingly, February 7-14 has been announced as International Week of Action against MAI. We take this opportunity to print below the Joint NGO Statement on MAI of October 27, 1997. They are planning to publish on February 9 a list of over 100 organisations that have up to now signed the statement. Opposition to MAI, whose principal promoter is the US, is an urgent task which all democratic people must take up against the moves of the monopolies to hasten the so-called “single global economy” which violates the sovereignty of peoples and lays waste national economies. |
| In recent weeks the EU has stepped up its attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of Algeria on behalf of the European monopolies and signalled its intention of increasing its interference in other parts of the world, including the Middle East, and most notably in Iraq. For example, from January 19-20, an EU mission headed by Derek Fatchett, Minister of State at the Foreign Office visited Algeria. According to Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, this was a humanitarian mission, organised in order “to examine how the EU can help to end terrorism, and demonstrate the strong feelings of the peoples of Europe for the terror and sufferings of the people of Algeria at this time”. It appears that the Algerian government only reluctantly permitted the visit and warned against the EU meddling in its internal affairs. This scenario is taking place against a background of the indiscriminate massacre of Algerian people. Who is responsible for this carnage? No one claims to know, and the EU, adopting a “humanitarian” cloak, is using the bloodshed to attempt to gain a foothold. Why are they so interested in this “terrorism” in Algeria? Have they a guilty conscience? In 1992, the Algerian government annulled the national elections in which the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) were poised to win victory, the armed forces intervened to cancel the second round of the elections and the FIS was banned. Not only did not a single European government, not to mention the US, protest at this serious infringement of the right of the people to choose their government, they were only too pleased to see the Islamic movement, which is hostile to the dictate of the big powers, stopped in its tracks. Furthermore, bloodshed has not stopped since that time. At this time, when the European powers are trying to secure their southern flank and seek ways of furthering their interests on the African continent, they begin to scream righteous indignation at the atrocities. The working class and people must draw the warranted conclusion from these events. Whenever did the intervention of the big powers benefit the people of Africa? From Somalia to the Congo, from Libya to southern Africa, all the serious economic and political problems have their source in the interference of the major European powers in the recent past, or of US imperialism and its allies, or are a consequence of the legacy of imperialist and colonial rule. “Humanitarian” or economic “aid” has and always has had the aim of furthering the interests of these powers. In the conditions of the collapse of the bi-polar world, and where US imperialism is seeking to impose a unipolar world and other big powers are asserting their interests, the African continent is becoming a theatre for the contention of the big powers and for the control of markets and raw materials. It should be remembered in this connection that Algeria is the world’s second largest gas exporter and also a major exporter of oil to Europe. It is vital for European oil and gas supplies, currently supplying 25% of the EU’s gas. In fact, in 1995 the British monopoly BP signed a £3.5 billion contract to open up new gas supplies in Algeria. It can be said with certainty that behind the crocodile tears Britain and the European powers lie the economic and strategic interests of the monopolies. In this situation, the peoples must affirm their sovereignty and fight to maintain their independence. The working class and people must oppose all imperialist interference in the affairs of other countries, and must demand an end to Britain’s interference and intervention elsewhere in the globe as it further pursues its dreams of empire and resurrects its colonial past. As in Iraq, they use the rhetoric of humanitarian concern and other devices to try and justify their actions. But it is precisely these actions to interfere and intervene and dictate in north Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere which present the greatest dangers for the peoples not only of these countries but throughout Europe and on a world scale. The EU’s interference in Algeria’s internal affairs, under the leadership of the British government, must be vigorously condemned. |
| On Thursday, January 29, the Northern Regional Council of the public sector union UNISON met in Gateshead. In a report of the meeting, which was attended by around 120 delegates from across the region, the council passed an emergency motion condemning the Labour government’s inadequate revenue support settlement to local authorities and supporting the council workers in North Tyneside who had just voted for a one-day strike against the 500 redundancies. In a separate motion the Northern Regional Council of UNISON called for a “campaign of action to fight against the increasing attacks on their public services, their job security, their pay, terms and conditions and to discuss and decide upon such alternative demands and actions that focus not only the public service workers but people through out the community on a modern vision of society”. In moving this motion which was passed unanimously, one of the delegates pointed out: “The union should have as a strategy one that gives a truly modern vision of society and not the vision of a government which is trying to take society backwards, a government that is withdrawing the notion that society must provide for all its members.” He said that “the government is telling us that they can no longer pay for public services as before, they can no longer pay vital benefits to the disabled, single mothers, to the unemployed and so on. ... So, today it is true that our society hangs in the balance and that there are only two directions. Where should the collective wealth of society go? Into increased investments in public services, social programmes, pensions, welfare benefits, etc. – or to pay the rich? So why doesn’t our union adopt the strategy of demanding a moratorium on debt repayment to the rich – in other words: stop paying the rich and demand increased investments in social programmes and on social spending.” He concluded by saying that “passing this motion means that Regional Council should initiate discussion in our branches and start to immediately plan a campaign of action that has as its focus such a modern vision of society”. |
| On Monday, February 2, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott announced the final settlement for central funding for almost 100 English councils. It is reported that bids made by the councils in the Northern Region to “stave off crippling cuts in the front-line services fell on deaf ears”. Ian Swithenbank, Labour leader of Northumberland County Council, was reported as saying: “This year, under a Labour government, the people of Northumberland will be paying more still for even less.” As a result of this decision North Tyneside Council, which is facing a £12.6 million budget deficit for 1998-99, announced on Tuesday that it was implementing a £6 million package of cuts effecting every area from schools to old people’s homes. This followed the announcement of the same council before Christmas of its intention to make 500 council workers redundant. This situation is a reflection of the serious shortfalls in funding for Council services across the region. In Northumberland, people are facing budget cuts of £4 million and a possible 18% rise in Council Tax Bills as a result of the revenue settlement. Even in Newcastle, which was supposed to be the main beneficiary of the government’s decision to “give back” £1.6 million to the city in this year’s spending settlement, people will still face rises of 10% in their Council Tax bills and a £3.75 million cut from services. At the same time, in the provision of health care, hospitals and Health Authorities are facing massive deficits in their funding which is leading to cut-backs on an almost daily basis. |
| On January 29, the government revealed that it is to stage public sector rises this year. Although the average increases recommended by the Pay Review Bodies for 1.3 million employees in education, health, the civil service and the armed forces was 3.9%, the pay awards will be limited to 2% in the first six months from April 1998 with the balance paid in December. The phasing of the pay rises means that the annual rise will be reduced to an average of 2.9% compared with the official annual headline inflation at 3.6%. Tony Blair, in a written Commons answer, said that the government would accept the recommendations by the various Pay Review Bodies “in full”. “However, to ensure that departments can accommodate the costs without damaging frontline services ... we have decided that it is essential to stage their introduction.” Responding to this decision, TUC General Secretary John Monks said that the phased increases would “demoralise millions of key public sector workers who will feel their skills and contributions are not properly valued”. It was also reported that Karlene Davis, General Secretary of the Royal College of Midwives, said: “The hope that the new government would bring justice and fairness to public sector pay has turned to despair.” This latest announcement is an attempt by the government to create the impression that it is implementing the recommendations of the Pay Review Bodies for public sector workers when in reality it is cutting all the recommended rises to well below the official figure for inflation. It also has another purpose because it will set the scene for all the non pay review public sector workers, in health, education, local authorities and so on. ThePay Review Bodies are a mechanism which the ruling class previously used to limit public sector pay. Today, whilst trying to maintain the Pay Review Body system, which takes the initiative away from public sector workers, the government, on behalf of the financial oligarchy, intends to implement even lower rises than recommended for millions of public sector workers this year as part of its mission to step up the anti-social offensive against the people. |
| THE NEWSPAPER of the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), The
Marxist-Leninist (TML) Weekly, in its edition of January 4, 1998, reports
on the work in preparation for its 7th Congress, which is to be held from March
28-31.
The Congress is being held in the context of CPC(ML)’s Historic Initiative
and Five-Year Plan of Action, launched on January 1, 1995. TML Weekly
reports that CPC(ML) is preparing for its 7th Congress by involving the
working class, women, youth and all Canadians in elaborating their vision for
society as it prepares to enter the 21st century. CPC(ML) has launched a
nation-wide discussion on its programme, Preparing for the 21st Century:
Stop Paying the Rich – Increase Funding for Social Programmes. It is
putting forward its nation-building project to lead the discussion. It points
out that at a time when the bourgeoisie is hell-bent in pursuing all-sided
activities which destroy the nation, putting all its human, material and
natural assets at the disposal of the monopolies in their drive to be
competitive on the global market, CPC(ML) has advanced a vision for society and
is calling on the working class, youth, women and the entire polity to join the
discussion on this crucial issue.
The newspaper carries an article reporting on the convoking of a National
Consultative Forum in the last week of December 1997 to set the agenda for the
Party’s 7th Congress. The National Consultative Forum is convoked by the
Central Committee to involve Party members and activists in deliberating on
matters of concern to CPC(ML). In this context, the December Forum discussed
the work of CPC(ML) to provide Canadian society with an aim consistent with the
needs of a modern society as it prepares to enter the 21st century. It
discussed the destructive activities of the bourgeoisie which is presenting no
aim apart form the one of creating an environment for the success of the
monopolies in the global market. It summed up the work of CPC(ML) to implement
its Historic Initiative and Five-Year Plan of Action, launched by Hardial
Bains, the late National Leader of CPC(ML), on January 1, 1995, and established
the progress made in this work. On the basis of this summation and
CPC(ML)’s analysis of the level of the movement in Canada, it discussed
how to further develop the work.
Recognising that the Party’s 7th Congress is to be held in the fourth year
of its Five-Year Plan of Action, the National Consultative Forum made important
recommendations to the Central Committee and engaged in all-sided preparations
for their implementation. The Forum reflected the determination of CPC(ML) to
put the full weight of the Party’s organisation behind the work to turn
the success achieved in this work to date into lasting victory.
TML Weekly reports that the National Consultative Forum adopted seven
resolutions, recommending certain decisions regarding the work of CPC(ML) to
the Central Committee.
The first of these recommended the following agenda for the 7th Congress of
CPC(ML):
1) Adoption of the Party’s Historic Initiative and Five-Year Plan of
Action;
2) Adoption of the Programme of CPC(ML), Preparing for the 21st Century:
Stop Paying the Rich – Increase Funding for Social Programmes;
3) Adoption of the Constitution of CPC(ML) for a Mass Communist Party;
4) Election of the new Central Committee.
Resolution VI reads as follows: The National Consultative Forum recommended
that the 28th anniversary of the founding of the Party on March 31, 1970, be
marked with a memorial meeting in honour of Comrade Hardial Bains and the work
he carried out to establish and build the Party. The memorial meeting is to be
held on March 31, 1998, in Ottawa.
Resolution VII reads: The National Consultative Forum recommended that all the
work of the Party in 1998 and its 7th Congress be dedicated to Comrade Bains.
Workers’ Weekly, on behalf of the British working class and people,
joins with the members and activists of CPC(ML), the Canadian working class,
youth, women and the entire Canadian polity in wishing the 7th Congress of
CPC(ML) every success.
For further information on the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist) and its work, see its web site at <http://www.cpcml.ca> |
| The Korea Friendship and Solidarity Campaign (KFSC) has issued an invitation to a social event to commemorate the 56th birthday of Kim Jong Il, General Secretary of the Workers’ Party of Korea. The social will take place on Saturday, February 14, at 2.00pm, at King’s Cross Neighbourhood Centre, 51 Argyle Street, London WC1. For further details, please contact KFSC at BM 7970, London WC1N 2XX |
| NGO/ OECD Consultation on MAI Paris: 27 October, 1997 INTRODUCTION As a coalition of development, environment and consumer groups from around the world, with representation in over 70 countries, we consider the draft Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) to be a damaging agreement which should not proceed in its current form, if at all. There is an obvious need for multilateral regulation of investments in view of the scale of social and environmental disruption created by the increasing mobility of capital. However, the intention of the MAI is not to regulate investments but to regulate governments. As such, the MAI is unacceptable.MAI negotiations began in the OECD in the Spring of 1995, more than two years ago, and are claimed to be substantially complete by the OECD. Such negotiations have been conducted without the benefit of participation from non-OECD countries and civil society, including non-governmental organisations representing the interests of workers, consumers, farmers or organisations concerned with the environment, development and human rights. As a result, the draft MAI is completely unbalanced. It elevates the rights of investors far above those of governments, local communities, citizens, workers and the environment. The MAI will severely undermine even the meagre progress made towards sustainable development since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. The MAI is not only flawed in the eyes of NGOs, but conflicts with international commitments already made by OECD member countries: The MAI fails to incorporate any of the several relevant international agreements such as the Rio Declaration; Agenda 21; UN Guidelines for Consumer Protection (1985); the UNCTAD Set of Multilaterally Agreed Principles for the Control of Restrictive Business Practices (1981); and the HABITAT Global Plan of Action. The MAI fails to comply with OECD commitments to integrate economic, environmental and social policies (1). The MAI removes responsibilities on transnational enterprises which were previously agreed by the OECD under the OECD Guidelines for Multilateral Enterprises 1976 (2). The exclusion of developing countries and countries in transition from the negotiations is inconsistent with OECD policy on development partnerships (3). Problems with the MAI stem both from the broad restrictions it places on national democratic action, and from its failure to include sufficient new systems of international regulation and accountability. As the MAI stands, it does not deserve to gain democratic approval in any country. All the groups signing this statement will campaign against its adoption unless changes, including those cited below, are incorporated into the body of the MAI. SUBSTANTIVE CONCERNS As drafted, the MAI does not respect the rights of countries - in particular countries in transition and developing countries - including their need to democratically control investment into their economies. The level of liberalisation contained in the MAI has already been opposed as inappropriate by many developing countries. However, non-OECD countries are under increasing pressure to join. There are differing investment and development needs of OECD and non-OECD countries. In particular, the potential for economic diversification and development of the developing countries - especially the least developed countries - and countries in transition would be severely undermined by the provisions of the MAI. The standstill principle would cause particular problems for countries in transition, many of which have not yet developed adequate business regulation. The MAI’s withdrawal provision would effectively bind nations to one particular economic development model for fifteen years; prevent future governments from revising investment policy to reflect their own assessment of the wisest economic course; and force countries to continue to abide by the agreement even if there is strong evidence that its impact has been destructive. The MAI contains no binding, enforceable obligations for corporate conduct concerning the environment, labour standards and anti-competitive behaviour. The MAI gives foreign investors exclusive standing under a legally binding agreement to attack legitimate regulations designed to protect the environment, safeguard public health, uphold the rights of employees, and promote fair competition. Further, citizens, indigenous peoples, local governments and NGOs do not have access to the dispute resolution system, and subsequently can neither hold multinational investors accountable to the communities which host them, nor comment in cases where an investor sues a government. The MAI will be in conflict with many existing and future international, national and sub-national, laws and regulations protecting the environment, natural resources, public health, culture, social welfare and employment laws; will cause many to be repealed; and will deter the adoption of new legislation, or the strengthening of existing ones.The MAI is explicitly designed to make it easier for investors to move capital, including production facilities, from one country to another; despite evidence that increased capital mobility disproportionately benefits multinational corporations at the expense of most of the world’s peoples.
WE CALL ON THE OECD AND NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS TO: With regard to substantive concerns: 1) Undertake an independent and comprehensive assessment of the social, environmental, and development impact of the MAI with full public participation. The negotiations should be suspended during this assessment.2) Require multinational investors to observe binding agreements incorporating environment, labour, health, safety and human rights standards to ensure that they do not use the MAI to exploit weak regulatory regimes. Ensure that an enforceable agreement on investor responsibilities takes precedence over any agreement on investor rights. 3) Eliminate the investor state dispute resolution mechanism and put into place democratic and transparent mechanisms which ensure that civil society, including local and indigenous peoples, gain new powers to hold investors to account. 4) While none of the undersigned NGOs object to the rights of investors to be compensated for expropriation by a nation state, there are adequate principles of national law and jurisprudence to protect investors in circumstances such as these. The current MAI exceeds these well accepted concepts of direct expropriation, and ventures into areas undermining national sovereignty. We therefore request that OECD members eliminate the MAI’s expropriation provision so that investors are not granted an absolute right to compensation for expropriation. Governments must ensure that they do not have to pay for the right to set environmental, labour, health and safety standards even if compliance with such regulations imposes significant financial obligations on investors. With regard to process concerns: 1) Suspend the MAI negotiations and extend the 1998 deadline to allow sufficient time for meaningful public input and participation in all countries. 2) Increase transparency in the negotiations by publicly releasing the draft texts and individual reservations and by scheduling a series of on going public meetings and hearings in both member and non member countries, open to the media, parliamentarians and the general public. 3) Broaden the active participation of government departments in the official negotiations beyond state, commerce and finance to a broader range of government agencies, ministries and parliamentary committees. 4) Renegotiate the terms of withdrawal to enable countries to more easily and rapidly withdraw from the agreement when they deem it in the interest of their citizens. Developing countries and countries in transition which have not been a party to the negotiations must not be pressurised to join the MAI.
CONCLUSION The current MAI text is inconsistent with international agreements signed by OECD countries, with existing OECD policies, and with national laws to promote sustainable development. It also fails to take into account important work carried out by investment experts and official bodies such as the UNCTAD “development friendliness” criteria for investment agreements (4) and other work on investor responsibility.If the OECD policy statements are to have any meaning, the above provisions must be fully integrated in the MAI with the same legal force as those on economic liberalisation. Given our grave concerns about the MAI and the unrealistically short time frame within which the MAI is being concluded, we look to the OECD and its member governments to fundamentally reconsider both the process and substance of the draft agreement. We call on the OECD to make a specific and detailed written response to our concerns. We also call on the OECD to avoid talking publicly about its consultations with NGOs without also talking about the serious concerns raised at those consultations. Finally, we will continue our opposition to the MAI unless these demands are met in full. Notes: (1) OECD Ministerial Communiqué May 1997 (2) OECD Code of Conduct for Multinational Enterprises, Paris 1992 (3) “Shaping the 21st Century: The Contribution of Development Cooperation”, OECD 1997 (4) UNCTAD, World Investment Report 1997; UNCTAD Expert Meeting,” Development Friendliness Criteria for Investment Frameworks”, 1997. |