Mahathir makes a joke

[Stephen E Philion <philion@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Below are two articles. If you want to get to the punch line, read David
Bacon's (as usual) outstanding article for the first 1/3 or so that talks
about the fate of Malaysian workers and then jump to the 2nd article.
Mahathir has to be credited with having a good sense of humor and
showmanship.  Steve

Subject: Can Global Workers Beat Globalization?

The Progressive Populist
COVER STORY/David Bacon
Can Global Workers Beat Globalization?
Over 160,000 people, mostly women, work in Malaysia's big electronics
plants -- a production workforce the size of that in Silicon Valley. The
bosses are all foreign high-tech giants. Chips and circuit boards
assembled on the line in Penang are shipped out of Malaysia,
overwhelmingly to the U.S., Japan and western Europe -- the rich
countries with the markets.
Like their sisters on the line in Sunnyvale, California, Malaysian
electronics workers have a very hard time organizing unions. In fact,
the same number of plants are unionized in both places: 0.
It's not because workers don't want unions. Ten years ago, RCA's
Malaysian assemblers organized one. They went to the government to
register, and were told they couldn't belong to a union that tried to
organize the whole industry -- only to a union limited to the one
company. Then, when they tried to get recognition for that union, RCA
changed its name to Harris Solid State, and claimed to be a different
company. Over the years since, the company has changed its name three
times, each time again denying recognition to the union. Workers in the
plant still have no bargaining rights.
"Workers really can't have a union there," says G. Rajasekaran,
secretary-general of the Malaysian Trades Union Congress. "The law says
they can, but in practice they can't. Our government says thousands of
jobs are leaving Malaysia because our unions are too militant. The
governments of Asia seem to have been convinced by employers that
workers shouldn't have the right to organize and bargain. And U.S.
companies are among those most guilty of violating our rights."
Rajasekaran made his plea in Seattle, at a forum held during the WTO
negotiations last year. His description of class battles at RCA would be
familiar to workers and unions in many developing countries, as they
confront one face of the global economy. Corporations build factories to
exploit low wages, producing goods for markets in developed countries
where the standard of living is much higher. Governments assist them by
restricting unions, and those social rights and benefits which might
discourage foreign investment.
The WTO's Seattle meeting also saw huge demonstrations organized by
workers confronting globalization's other face -- the loss of jobs in
developed countries as companies relocate production in a race to lower
their labor costs to the bottom. Unions joined together with
environmentalists, youth and fair trade campaigners who realized they
had a common enemy -- a corporate-dominated global economic system.
One protester was Michael Everett, a worker from the Hollywood studios.
Everett and the Hollywood Fair Trade Campaign accuse the studios of
sending movie production to Canada and Mexico, in the wake of NAFTA's
relaxation of restrictions on the movement of investment between the
three countries.
"Our own political leaders have arranged a system of trade agreements
designed to enhance corporate profits by shipping our jobs offshore,"
Everett says. "In exchange for NAFTA-sanctioned subsidies from Canada
and elsewhere, the studios have turned their backs on their own
community and have engaged in the wholesale destruction of the Hollywood
jobs base."
Last fall Everett and other Hollywood union activists organized
demonstrations during a dinner hosted by the Motion Picture Association
of America at Sony Studios, honoring Commerce Secretary Bill Daley and
his "Free Trade Education Tour." Daley's dog-and-pony show seeks to make
the case that when the administration pushes free trade to help U.S.
corporations, the public benefits.
But Hollywood jobs are not only going to Canada, say studio unions.
Twentieth-Century Fox made last year's most popular move, Titanic, in a
maquiladora in Rosarito, 60 miles south of the border. In a scenario
reminiscent of the problems suffered by Malaysia's electronics workers,
the independent and militant Mexican union which represented workers
there was forced out by government support for a union more friendly to
foreign companies.
While Everett sees the impact of globalization on Hollywood in terms of
job loss. across the Pacific, Korean unionists see it in terms of the
destruction of their country's film industry.
"The colossal power of Hollywood -- one of the major sources of American
global dominance -- is destroying the fragile Korean film industry,"
says a statement by the country's militant Korean Confederation of Trade
Unions. The KCTU criticizes the government of reformer Kim Dae Jung for
scrapping the quota on foreign-made films. Korean directors and actors
even shaved their heads in protest. The measure, demanded by the
International Monetary Fund in return for bailout loans, was made "to
appease American pressure," according to the KCTU.
Workers in neither country benefit from Hollywood's global operations.
In fact, it was clear in Seattle that unions and workers around the
world believe that the global economy is attacking their standards of
living, their jobs, and their rights as workers. It is a perception held
in common, in countries on both sides of the world's great economic
divide between rich and poor.
The KCTU, for instance, condemns the "inherently undemocratic nature of
the ideology of globalization," saying it leads to "the ever-widening
gap in development and wealth between rich and poor countries, and the
rich and the rest [of the population] in individual countries, despite
all the rhetoric about the virtues of the free market and liberalization
championed by the institutions of global capitalism."
Ron Judd, head of Seattle's central labor council, said the WTO protest
was designed to send a message "to all administrations around the world,
that the rules as they're written do not work for workers and
communities, and that they undermine environmental and health standards.
Something has to change."
But while they recognize a common problem, it was also evident in
Seattle that unions internationally don't agree on what should be done
about it.
The AFL-CIO believes that future trade agreements can be written in such
a way that they protect workers rights and the environment, much as
existing agreements protect corporate profits. The federation called on
the WTO to incorporate five international labor conventions into the
text of future treaties. These five agreements, adopted by the
International Labor Organization, would guarantee workers everywhere the
right to organize unions and to bargain collectively with employers, and
would restrict child labor, prohibit forced labor, and outlaw
discrimination. They would be enforced by the WTO, which already uses
the threat of vast financial consequences against governments which
violate existing trade rules.
Juan Somavia, the ILO's secretary-general, says his organization "is
putting in place the social ground rules of the global economy." Even
Somavia, however, doesn't believe the conventions are a cure-all.
"There's no vaccination against the ills of work," he admits.
Nevertheless, Barbara Shailor, who heads the AFL-CIO's international
affairs department, says that incorporating protections for workers into
trade agreements can protect their rights. She compares it to the effort
at the turn of the century to adopt national laws in the U.S. to enforce
fair labor standards like the minimum wage and eight-hour day.
"We have to create the political will to get them into [trade]
agreements in an enforceable fashion," she asserts. "That's the
challenge we face. If we didn't believe it was possible, I don't know
why we'd be doing all this mobilizing. As you know, there are rules for
capital that are successfully incorporated into these agreements, and
this is the time and the place to get them for labor."
Putting the WTO in charge of enforcing labor standards is supported by
some unions in the developing world, but opposed by others. "Some of our
colleagues fear linking trade to labor standards, and fear that labor
standards will be used as a tool for protectionism," explains
Rajasekaran. "India, for example, has lots of child labor, and they fear
that sanctions will be applied to them because of it."
Zwelinzima Vavi, general secretary of the Congress of South African
Trade Unions, recognizes that "there is a controversy in the developing
South about labor standards. Workers are worried about the loss of jobs,
and suspect these proposals are a disguise for protectionism by unions
in developed countries."
But for Vavi, head of one of the world's most progressive labor
federations, the idea is worth a try. "These standards are really
nothing new -- they've been around for decades," he points out. "The
real reason for much of the protest is that everyone knows that the ILO
has no enforcement mechanism. Many countries know they're guilty of
violating the conventions, but that the ILO can't take the matter
forward. And the lack of enforcement has itself become a means of
attracting investment."
Vavi admits that "there is an inherent contradiction in giving the WTO
this responsibility. But that doesn't mean that we should drop trade
union rights from the overall trade system. It's a struggle."
Suspicion in developing countries grew even more intense when President
Clinton endorsed the idea before the WTO meeting. He trumpeted U.S.
passage of an ILO convention on child labor, calling on other
governments to do likewise. Clinton neglected to point out, however,
that the convention only banned child prostitution and the most extreme
forms of child exploitation. ILO Convention 138, which takes a much
stronger prohibition against the labor of children under 14, remains
unratified.
"One of the main criticisms of the American government is that it has
double standards," Vavi says. "It hasn't ratified most ILO conventions
itself, while shouting about enforcing them everywhere else."
But the difference in point of view between unions in developed and
developing countries is more basic than just suspicion over hypocrisy.
Bill Jordan, head of the International Confederation of Free Trade
Unions, told the Seattle forum that "unless the WTO takes on the call
made by the President of the United States, for a social dimension to
globalization, then globalization will fail.."
The failure of globalization, however, at least in its present form, is
exactly what many progressive unionists would like to see. That is
because the current trade structure, which the WTO has come to
symbolize, enforces conditions on developing countries designed to make
their economies more open and attractive to foreign investors.
In Brazil, "after a quarter century of liberalization, the difference
between rich and poor is wider than ever," according to Nair Goulart of
Forza Sindical. "Unemployment is over 9.5 percent, and workers buying
power is 27 percent of what it was in the 1980s. The UN Development
Program says the goal of investment and trade liberalization is to
improve the quality of life. Yet we are competing to sell our natural
resources and our workforce for the lowest possible price."
In addition, the gap between rich and poor countries is getting bigger.
The difference in standard of living between the U.S. and Mexico, which
was about 3:1 in the 1950s, is about 16:1 today, according to Mexican
economist Alejandro Alvarez Bejar. That difference impoverishes Mexican
workers, and is the cause of the loss of U.S. jobs as corporations
relocate production.
Labor standards alone will not address that gap. There's a bigger
struggle going on, over who controls the economies of developing
countries, and what development program they can follow.
The trade structure enforced by the WTO fosters a favorable climate for
foreign investment, including low wages and weak unions. National
development programs are its antithesis -- encouraging the formation of
an internal market based on the rising income of workers and farmers,
protecting national industries, including by nationalization, and
guaranteeing workers the right to organize, bargain and exercise
political power.
For the KCTU and other leftwing union federations in developing
countries, national development policies are crucial to winning control
over the economies of their own countries. They represent "the principle
of a balanced growth strategy, sustainable development, and the right of
people to pursue an alternative path, not dictated by some nebulous
force, but determined by their political and social aspirations through
the democratic process."
Yet the international institutions supported by the U.S. government,
from the WTO to the IMF, do everything in their power to keep developing
countries from exploring independent national development. Governments
that pursue this alternative become pariahs in the international trade
system, labeled rogue nations and subject to sanctions.
"Governments are told that workers' rights and economic development are
a zero sum game, that improving workers' lives slows development," Vavi
says. "This is a scare tactic. In the pursuit of profit, they are told
to remove worker protections, and then use that as an inducement for
investment. This policy always leaves humankind and the environment as
losers.
"Development is a wider concept. It includes social development, and the
living conditions of the people. An approach which seeks to erode
workers' rights and wages undermines development. Development can't
exist with mass unemployment and poverty. Labor rights is a development
issue."
Even inside the AFL-CIO, a number of unions don't think it's possible to
make the WTO enforce workers' rights. "It's like asking the fox to guard
the henhouse," says Brian McWilliams, president of the International
Longshore and Warehouse Union. He calls Shailor's position "an honorable
thing to do," but says "it's not good enough. Nor will it answer the
exploitation of workers. There has to be another mechanism outside the
WTO to police workers' rights worldwide."
The ILWU, as a union for dockworkers, owes its existence to
international trade, but also inherits a tradition of working-class
internationalism from its radical past. It was one of the leftwing
unions which left the CIO in the late 1940s at the beginning of the cold
war in labor, and over the following decades used its power on the docks
to defend unions and workers in Central America, Chile, Korea and South
Africa. During the WTO demonstrations, it shut down every west coast
U.S. port on November 30. While unions which oppose the WTO process are
often called protectionist, McWilliams retorts that "we're not against
fair trade, we're against free trade."
The ILWU president points out that the definition of labor standards
should be broadened to include those which would impact the U.S.,
including the prohibition of strikebreaking, the right to free health
care, living wages, and protections for the rights of immigrants. As
long as the gap in living standards between developed and developing
countries exists, he says, jobs will leave high wage countries, with our
without WTO agreements. Therefore, U.S. unions should "take a critical
position toward U.S. economic and military policy that plays a role in
enforcing that living standards gap," McWilliams emphasizes.
George Becker, president of the steelworkers union, calls the WTO and
the trade structure fundamentally flawed. "There's nothing in it for
working people. Nothing. That law exists to support multinationals. It's
not for workers. There's no way that you can put a comma here or change
a word there to make it compatible. It's not our law. Scrap it."
According to McWilliams, Becker and their allies, the NAFTA agreement
has already demonstrated that worker protections are unenforceable. When
NAFTA was negotiated in 1994, it included a side-agreement, the North
American Agreement on Labor Cooperation, which was supposed to protect
workers' rights in Mexico, Canada and the U.S. In the last five years,
however, over 15 cases have been filed alleging that the U.S. and
Mexican governments especially have not enforced labor laws, and that
workers have been fired and unions broken as a consequence.
The best-known example has been the effort by workers at the Han Young
factory in Tijuana to organize an independent union and conduct a legal
strike. Judicial authorities in both the U.S. and Mexico have agreed
that their right to do so was illegally denied by the Mexican
government, but the NAFTA process failed completely to make any
meaningful change.
Leo Girard, a national vice-president of the steelworkers, says labor
solidarity is a better answer, pointing to his union's long support of
the Han Young workers. "The kind of trading regime represented by NAFTA
and the WTO is not meant to improve the quality of life," he argues.
"This trade simply benefits the employers. It represents an extension of
exploitation rather than a diminishing of it."
The AFL-CIO counters that the NAFTA side agreement didn't have teeth for
enforcement, a problem it says can be corrected by having the WTO
enforce labor protections, just as it enforces those which protect
corporations. McWilliams is doubtful, pointing out that the U.S.
government itself has only ratified one of the five ILO conventions, and
is unlikely to push the WTO to enforce international agreements it
doesn't itself recognize. "We have one of the worst records of
subscribing to international labor union rights of any industrial nation
anywhere," he notes.
In November, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney signed a letter from the
President's Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations,
endorsing administration goals for the WTO talks. Sweeney sits on the
committee with heads of major corporations, who also signed it. The
letter supports administration action to gain greater access for U.S.
corporations and investors abroad.
Sweeney said he'd gained assurances from the administration that it
would press in return for a working group on labor issues. An AFL-CIO
statement calls the commitment "a sharp departure from the business
community's previous position that workers' rights are in no way the
domain of the WTO," and calls for a hard fight "to make the WTO a more
democratic and accountable institution."
The Canadian Labour Congress was blunt in differing with the AFL-CIO
approach. "The struggle by unions, social justice groups and
environmentalists is about more than just winning a seat at the table,
or a 'social clause' or environmental rules," a CLC statement declared.
"We're determined to change the entire trade regime."
Sweeney's move stunned many U.S. union leaders as well. Steven Yokich,
president of the United Auto Workers, resigned as chair of the AFL-CIO
Manufacturing and Industrial Committee in protest. "I'm as cynical as I
can be about putting the WTO in charge of enforcing labor standards," he
said in Seattle. "I don't think the WTO is going to do anything. It's
nonsense."
Yokich noted that his union, together with the ILWU, the Teamsters and
the federal workers union all refused to vote for Al Gore's presidential
endorsement at the AFL-CIO convention in October. Gore's unwavering
support for administration trade policy was the big stumbling block.
"Clinton made a huge mistake on NAFTA, which created nothing but minimum
wage jobs in the U.S.," Yokich explained. "NAFTA failed completely to
protect labor rights in Mexico. The administration just hasn't been
right on trade. We now have a $300 billion trade deficit this year --
that represents the loss of a lot of jobs. Ultimately, the
administration has left us high and dry -- that's why we're here."
AFL-CIO leaders are obviously concerned over the potential fallout from
a big battle with the Clinton administration over trade policy. While it
went all-out to mobilize union members to Seattle, the federation faces
an uphill battle to get those same members to vote for the very
politicians who support free trade, especially Gore.
Hollywood's Michael Everett is probably their worst nightmare.
"Hollywood workers will not roll over for policies that export our
jobs," he announced. "We won't give endorsements, we won't walk
precincts, we won't give money, and we won't vote for any politicians of
any party who support trade agreements that export our jobs."
Everett took that position to the political endorsement convention of
the California Labor Federation in January, where he tried to block
labor support for seven Democratic Congress members, all of whom voted
for NAFTA. While he didn't make much headway in opposing six of them,
anger over Democratic support for free trade was nevertheless palpable.
When a seventh Congressman, Monterey's Sam Farr, failed as well to
support striking Teamsters last year, that anger boiled over and was
enough to block his endorsement.
Trade is clearly the most volatile element reshaping the relationship
between U.S. union members and the Democratic Party. Free trade has been
the bedrock policy of every U.S. administration since World War Two,
Democrat or Republican. Throughout the cold war decades, labor's
anticommunist support for free trade led U.S. unions to line up behind
neoliberal economics and foreign intervention, from the Marshall Plan to
the Vietnam War.
Labor opposition to free trade is now the key that unlocks that
unquestioning support. And greater political independence is a necessity
if U.S. unions are to challenge free trade and the global economy.
At the same time, the trade debate is changing the way U.S. labor looks
at the working class in the rest of the world. While there are still
sharp differences of opinion, for the first time since the 1940s,
millions of U.S. union members see their fate intimately tied to workers
in virtually every other country. Forging that realization into a real
program of solidarity is the biggest challenge U.S. unions confront.
Workers and unions in other countries remain suspicious that U.S. unions
are motivated by self-interest in seeking to enforce international labor
standards. But there is also a growing global awareness that no national
union federation can avoid being whipsawed by the global economy if it
cannot find links to a larger world movement.
The KCTU speaks for many unions when it observes that "peoples' actions
in far-flung corners of the world are no longer disparate and isolated.
They're creating a global movement with a new spirit of international
solidarity, recognizing the integrity of all struggle, while debunking
the attitude of established movements and organizations."

David Bacon is a writer and photographer based in Berkeley, Calif.

Subject: Be serious about concerns of developing world: Malaysian PM


Bernama (Malaysia)
MALAYSIAN NEWS : GENERAL
Febuary 12 , 2000 22:54PM
  BE SERIOUS ABOUT CONCERNS OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, SAYS MAHATHIR

WORLD LEADER...In Bangkok on Saturday Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr
Mahathir Mohamad is addressing the first plenary session of the 10th
UNCTAD conference which was earlier opened by Thai Prime Minister Chuan
Leekpai.
 From Mikhail Raj
BANGKOK, Feb 12 (Bernama) -- Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad has called
on the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) to
take serious notice of the fears of developing countries about unbridled
globalisation which threaten their vulnerable economies.
Only by accomodating their concerns would globalisation evolve to become
an effective instrument of all countries and people from which
developing countries gain and not suffer, the Prime Minister said.
"You have to let the developing countries have a say in the
interpretation and shaping of the new forces that are being unleashed by
a globalised world where policies and practices are to be standardised
so as to facilitate trade and investment," he said.
"UNCTAD must assume a leading role in achieving this objective," he said
in his speech here today at the first plenary session of the 10th UNCTAD
conference which was earlier opened by Thai Prime Minister Chuan
Leekpai.
He reminded delegates converged at the Queen Sirikit National Convention
Centre here from 190 member countries that UNCTAD was not just about
trade but very much about development which was of particular importance
to the Third World.
Established in 1964 as a permanent inter-governmental body, UNCTAD is
the principal organ of the United Nations General Assembly in trade and
development and helps developing countries maximise opportunities from
trade, investment and development.
Lamenting over unequal trade agreements, he said: "We see greater
marginalisation from globalisation and we see growing inadequacy of
global institutions to deal with developmental problems." He said income
inequity was growing, citing the Gross Domestic Product per capita
income of major developed countries at US$25,000 while the poorest have
as little as US$100.
"The current belief by the global community that countries must embrace
liberalisation and adopt global rules and development would then follow,
have not been proven correct.
"It would seem that the current practices in trade and investments are
not capable of distributing wealth equitably," the Prime Minister said.
Dr Mahathir also expressed concern over big corporations becoming giants
via mergers and acquisitions, some of which are financially more
powerful thatmedium-sized countries.
"While we welcome their collaboration with our local companies, we fear
if they are allowed into our countries unconditionally, they may swallow
up all our businesses," he said. He said: "Frankly speaking, I am
worried and frightened at the preparations being made by corporations in
certain industries and business activities in order to take advantage of
liberalisation and globalisation."
Against such a scenario, he cautioned against a situation of worldwide
oligopoly which seemed to be already emerging and if market forces are
allowed free play then oligopolies may end up as monopolies, adding that
the general consensus is that monopolies are unhealthy.
He also questioned the possibility of corporations which may not be a
monopoly in their own countries of domicile but a monopoly in the rest
of the world. "In such a case, whose laws will apply, and if we restrain
them, would we be accused of not subscribing to globalisation and
liberalisation," he said.
In achieving all round development which is beneficial for all, he said
that developing countries must firstly continue to enhance domestic
resilience and capacity. Besides this, industrial nations have a special
responsibility to facilitate the development process by helping the
Third World to gain access to knowledge, ideas and inventions and which
must be available at a reasonable price.
Turning to the rapid advances in information technology, he said UNCTAD
could undertake a set of programmes to promote better understanding and
capacity building in IT. Describing the Internet as a force of
tremendous potential, he said that "those who can see the usage it can
be put to will gain tremendously."
"Those still dazed by the ease of access to information, to the market
and to people in general will just stare at the screen while their
little businesses get pulverized by the amazing dot-com companies (and)
by the time they awake to the potential it may be too late," he said.
As for the World Trade Organisation (WTO), he said greater flexibility
must be given to developing countries for a wide variety of options and
responses to deal with the complexities of development and nation
building. "Developing countries cannot and should not be expected to
undertake obligations at similar levels as developed countries" (and)
market opening measures of the former must commensurate with the level
of development.
He said that the principle of progressive liberalisation must not only
be an integral element of any WTO trade liberalisation initiative, but
must be fully recognised by all.
The Prime Minister also hit out at developing countries not being
allowed full participation in the decision-making process in all
international institutions, saying that these institutions "must have
the mechanisms to allow the views of all to be heard."
Even in the Group of 20 (G20), he said membership into the grouping
seemed to be heavily influenced by the views of developed countries. Dr
Mahathir said yesterday that when the G-20 was first set up, there was
not a single Asean country included, "only later did they bring in
Indonesia and that too not as a single member."
The Southeast Asian group of nations or Asean had expressed their
dissappointment with the Group of Seven (G-7) industrialised nations for
failing to initially include at least one Asean member country in G-20
which was formed in September last year.
The 10-member Asean grouping expressed their concern to Japan, prompting
Japanese Finance Minister Kiichi Miyazawa to promise that the issue
would be taken up with G-7.
The G-20 is a mix of seven wealthiest nations in G-7, emerging market
economies and two institutional representatives that play a significant
role in the world economy.
The economies include Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, India,
Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, while
the institutional representatives come from the European Union (EU) and
International Monetary Fund/World Bank.
Dr Mahathir said this was why Malaysia remained pessimistic on their
outcome including the Financial Stablisation Forum to reform the
international financial architecture, he said concrete measures were
sorely lacking in regulating market players.
He said that the decision-making process must reflect not just the views
of big business and big governments but those of the threatened small
business and small governments as well, he said, citing the recent WTO
meeting in Seattle where the need to include non-governmental
organisation (NGOs) in the process was clearly demonstrated.
"It is time that the relevant NGOs be given a proper forum to air their
views, but added that street demonstrations can serve as a wake-up call
but their usefulness is quite limited," he said. -- BERNAMA
   ==================================