RE: Re: Bill Tabb is gone: A new direction??

["Lisa & Ian Murray" <seamus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 2.  Will Americans be really more receptive of left ideas in the
  event of recession?  If so, which kind of left ideas?  Given the main
  currents of Seattle & like movements as well as the Nader/Green
  campaign, is the likely winner -- *if* left-wing ideas gain more
  currency at all -- a protectionist America-First politics in the name
  of "social-clause, fair-trade" high-mindedness, with or without more
  China bashing?
************

Whoa! Let's back up for a second. Post-Seattle was hijacked by all the
policy wonks and NGO's that flew out from DC. They neither solicited or paid
attention to grassroots organizers opinions  as to what to do next. They
f****d it up big time. See the Elaine Bernard/Ken Wong piece below for their
backtracking. In their perpetual arrogance they will probably continue to
suffer the illusion the Bretton Woods Institutions can be reformed. Thea Lee
stated that the AFL-CIO won't work with groups that seek to abolish the WTO
because it's "part of" US law; that is, it's recognized by the state and
they accept that. She has yet to answer the common rejoinder "does that mean
you accept the CIA and NSA given what they've done to and with you over the
last 50+ years?" Clearly, they have a long way to go with their
internationalisms. "Fair Trade" was merely a term of coalition building
convenience; the WTO is the ultimate social clause as it regulates the
ability of governments to regulate commerce, the currently ultimate form of
social activity on the planet.

>>I think that they will be more receptive, whether they are accepted or
 what kind will be effective is an open question.  Again, I think that we
 should try to learn more about them.

 It's possible that a severe recession will cause a legitimation
 crisis of sorts, if it comes soon enough, especially given how Bush
 "won" his presidency.  It is hard to believe, though, that the
 beneficiaries of this hypothetical legitimation crisis will be folks
 like you, Ian, Marty Hart-Landsberg, etc.  On the bright side, Max &
 possibly Doug may get more invitations to mass media punditry than
 before, though merely as token leftists to help the media project an
 illusion of fairness, their recommendations -- capital controls, more
 social spending, etc. -- otherwise ignored.  Then we'll get to
 lecture Max here to go easy on America-First stuff.  :)

 What do you intend to do in the event of a _severe_ _global_ recession?

 Yoshie
***********

If Max and Doug are [un]fortunate enough to get invited to talk with Ted
Koppel and Charlie Rose ;->, all they have to do is be enticing and lucid in
their explanations. Oh, and Max might have to get a haircut. That's the job
I'll be doing.......gettin' my scissors sharpened as I type this. By the
time I'm done we'll be out of a recession.

Ian

********

RETHINKING THE CHINA CAMPAIGN

By Kent Wong and Elaine Bernard


By Kent Wong, Director of the UCLA Center for Labor Research, and Elaine
Bernard, Executive Director of the Harvard Trade Union Program

On May 24,2000, the American labor movement suffered a significant defeat in
their
attempt to block Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status for China.
The House of Representatives voted 237-197 to approve PNTR for China. This
was the labor movement's largest legislative campaign in years, which
mobilized resources of the American labor movement from coast to coast. But
was this the best step to take on the heels of the powerful anti-WTO
coalition that emerged in Seattle last November?

Why did this relatively narrow legislative issue (PNTR) deserve such
prominence on the labor movement's agenda? The debate around China became a
symbol for the American labor movement. It emerged as a test of labor's
ability to influence Congress, and established a litmus test for
politicians. The American labor movement's campaign against granting China
PNTR as a prelude to its admission to the World Trade Organization became a
symbol of labor's opposition to the threat of globalization and unfair trade
agreements.

Fundamentally, however, this approach and this campaign were
counter-productive. While the campaign was launched with the intent of
promoting internationalism and avoiding China-bashing, we fear that the
ultimate impact of the campaign has been to fuel cold war politics,
encourage an unholy alliances with the right wing, and has resulted in
racially offensive messages. As well, the campaign has weakened the strong
anti-corporate and international solidarity focus coming out of the anti-WTO
protests in Seattle and dissipated some of the positive momentum from the
Seattle action.


Historic Perspective

History is important, and though we might wish it to be otherwise, we need
to examine the recent campaign against PNTR for China in the context of the
long history of the American labor movement's policies towards China.
Running as a fault line throughout its history, the US labor movement has
been hostile to Asian workers. The early AFL had an explicit policy of
forbidding Asian members from joining the ranks of the American labor
movement. In 1903, for example, the Japanese Mexican Labor Association in
California was denied charter membership with the American Federation of
Labor, solely because they had numbers of Japanese American members. The
American Federation of Labor under its first President Samuel Gompers
embraced an exclusionary policy towards China and Chinese workers. This
policy of exclusion and hostility continued well into the 20th century.
American unions were major proponents of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act,
which for the first time in U.S. history enacted racially exclusive
immigration policies against a single country, China. Subsequently, these
racist immigration laws were expanded to include other immigrants from Asia.

While hostility to China declined somewhat during the Second World War with
nationalist Chinese as allies in the war against Japan the post war victory
of Mao Tse-tung and the Chinese Communist Party marked the beginning of the
Cold War. During the Cold War, U.S. attitudes towards China led to renewed
racist portrayals of China and Chinese people as "inscrutable", sinister,
untrustworthy, and ruthless killers who do not value life. The yellow
hordes of coolies, low wage workers' and strike breakers of the 19th
century, were transformed into the red hordes of the 20th century as
Americans were taught to fear the hundreds of millions of "Red Chinese" who
were considered a threat to U.S. security. The FBI was convinced that there
were "Red Chinese" spies, and launched special investigations targeting
Chinese American communities.

Throughout this period, the US labor movement was at the forefront in
supporting US Cold War policy. And while labor today has made an important
change in its attitude towards immigrants, siding with undocumented workers
and their right to organize many Cold War, anti-Chinese vestiges still are
alive and well within U.S. society. China continues to be a major target of
the conservative and religious right, who maintains this Cold War ideology
in their crusade against China. The discrimination against Chinese Americans
and Asian Americans continues. A few years ago, due to allegations of
illegal fundraising activities involving a handful of Asian Americans,
donors with Asian surnames were singled out by the Democratic National
Committee and requested to produce proof of their ability to contribute to
the DNC. Currently Dr. Wen Ho Lee of Los Alamos is being prosecuted for
mishandling classified information. This case has generated national outrage
from the Chinese American community amid charges of racial profiling, and
unfairly scapegoating Chinese Americans because of their suspected
disloyalty to this country.

This historical context is vital for labor to take into consideration when
deciding on tactics. It doesnt mean that labor cannot criticize actions by
the Chinese government, but it does mean that extra care must be taken
because of the legacy of racism and hostility against Chinese and Asian
workers.


Singling Out China

The most recent campaign to deny China PNTR and admission to the WTO has
been a step backwards in the campaign against corporate sponsored
globalization and for fair trade, development and global solidarity. The
AFL-CIO advanced the slogan, "No Blank Check for China." Not only was this
slogan misleading, as PNTR was hardly a blank check but merely giving
China the same status that the US gives other nations it trades with, but it
also shifted the focus of the debate on globalization from corporations and
the actions of the U.S. government to China. And China is hardly driving
globalization. Whether or not China is granted PNTR does not change the
fundamental problems of corporate control of trade policies. Whether or not
China is admitted to the WTO does not change the fundamental problems of the
WTO's refusal to address issues of labor, human rights, and environmental
standards.

China is not a major player in establishing international trade policies,
nor have they been beneficiaries of corporate global domination.
Historically, like other developing nations, China has been exploited for
its natural resources and cheap labor by other countries. The campaign
against China shifts the attention from the structural problems of the
global economy created by unregulated corporate power, to targeting one
country, China. Trade unionists and all people of conscious must actively
oppose human rights abuses, labor rights abuses, and environmental
degradation in China. Workers in China should be supported in their struggle
to build democratic trade unions and to fight for social and economic
justice. But the American labor movement must have a clear, consistent
policy on global trade and development and human rights that does not
unfairly single out China.

The violations of political, labor, and human rights do not distinguish
China, alas, from other countries that have permanent trade status with the
U.S., or some of the 135 governments who are presently members of the World
Trade Organization. The U.S. government itself has a deplorable track record
of supporting repressive regimes from Indonesia, Iran, the Philippines, the
Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile, and the list goes on. In
many instances, the U.S. has used armed intervention to support military
dictatorships.

For the U.S. to challenge China's entry into the WTO because of political
and human rights abuse amounts to hypocrisy. China should not be singled out
for some of the very same human rights abuses that occur in the U.S., such
as widespread use of prison labor. For union leaders to lead the campaign
against China implies that China is the biggest threat to US workers, not
corporate driven globalization, and the corporate dominated institutions
driving the race to the bottom such as the WTO, World Bank, and
International Monetary Fund. Worse yet, the campaign inevitably builds on
the Cold War framework and racially hostile sentiment against China. The
April 12, 2000 demonstration against China held in Washington, D.C. had the
embarrassing consequence of providing a forum for Teamster President James
Hoffa, Jr. and right-wing demagogue Pat Buchanan to address union members
from the same stage. At the AFL-CIO rally, union leaders denounced China as
a "godless" society. Unionists wore T-shirts demonizing China and Chinese
people, promoting an image of Chinese as ruthless killers and torturers. At
another rally in Washington, D.C. immediately preceding the congressional
vote, union members joined a rally being chaired by an ally of right-wing
Republican Gary Bauer.

The new leadership of the AFL-CIO has done much to break with the Cold War
positioning of the labor movement, and to construct a new alliance with
communities of faith, immigrants, and social movements, on international as
well as domestic issues. Unfortunately, the anti- China campaign has
undermined some of these efforts.



Evaluating Arguments Supporting the Anti-China Campaign

Progressive proponents of the anti-China campaign argue that this was an
important tactical battle in the fight against corporate-led globalization.
Because major U.S. corporations are at the forefront of advancing PNTR,
labor should oppose it. They also argue that this campaign could undermine
the corporate agenda, and force change within the WTO and in future trade
negotiations.

Progressives further argue that granting China PNTR and allowing its entry
into the WTO would adversely affect the lives of workers in both China and
the U.S. As they correctly point out, policies of corporate globalism have
resulted in greater economic inequality, dislocation of workers, and more
opposition to worker rights and organized labor. Finally, they argue that
China is a major human rights violator and that its entry into the WTO will
make it difficult if not impossible to include labor and human rights in
trade relations.

With regard to the first argument, the tactical campaign against PNTR has
failed. Worse than just losing an important campaign, however, the loss has
left some in labor tactically aligned with the conservative right. Further,
it has continued the long tradition of demonizing China, without adequately
educating American workers on the true nature of the global economy.

The campaign was also tactically flawed, because it undermined labor's own
political agenda in this crucial election year. It has promoted greater
divisions within labor and with labors efforts in working with the
Democrats to recapture the House and Senate. Industrial unions have been the
most vocal in denouncing the White House's campaign for PNTR. These same
unions have historically been strongest in the Midwest states, which have
emerged as the central battleground for the November Presidential election.
If this conflict is not brought under control, the resulting political
fallout could be considerable.  Finally, while PNTR was clearly an important
issue for business, for labor even a victory in denying China PNTR status
would be a Pyrrhic victory at best. If labor had won, it would simply mean
that the debate over China would have continued annually on the renewal of
its Most Favored Nation (MFN) status.

With regard to the negative impact of China's PNTR status, the verdict is
still out. Increased trade with China may cause downward pressure on wages
in the United States, though trade with China has been on the increase
without PNTR. Clearly, the US corporate agenda of free trade, privatization
and deregulation are taking their toll on workers domestically. But to blame
China for U.S. capital flight, and U.S. corporations shifting production to
the Third World, is neither fair nor accurate.

China's admission to the WTO may have a negative impact on Chinese workers.
However, it is problematic for the U.S. labor movement to attempt to speak
on behalf of Chinese workers. When we advance international policy, it must
be in the spirit of internationalism. There is no clear consensus among
human rights and labor activists in China with regard to PNTR or WTO. It is
chauvinism for the American labor movement to unilaterally speak on behalf
of Chinese workers, without even engaging in dialogue with Chinese workers.
Within the international labor arena, there clearly is no consensus of
support on the U.S. labor movement's anti-China campaign. The campaign
amounts to unilateralism, not internationalism.

China will no doubt oppose the inclusion of human rights and worker rights
in trade agreements. China, however, is not alone in this stance. Most Asian
countries, indeed, most third world governments oppose such linkage. China
will not have a veto within the WTO, and like all 135 member countries will
be expected to follow its rules. The WTO has unequivocally opposed inclusion
of labor and human rights in its mandate, and while this will hardly change
with Chinas inclusion in the WTO, its hard to imagine that rejection of
PNTR status to China would have forced a change in the WTOs stance.



Where do we go from here?

With or without PNTR trade with China is increasing, and relations between
our two countries will grow. Labor needs to encourage critical engagement
with China, not isolation. This does include criticism of Chinas human
rights practice. But China is too important for the US labor movement to
simply speak to via the US media alone. The American labor movement should
take a bold step and seek to open up dialogue and cultivate relationships
with workers and trade unions in China. While American labor leaders should
continue to meet with Chinese political dissidents, it would also be
important to meet with other union leaders and workers in China.

China is home of the largest trade union confederation in the world. While
it is true that Chinese trade unions are not independent from the
government, they are legitimate worker organizations with 100 million
members, and reflect great diversity depending on the industry, sector,
geographic area, and individual union leadership. The policies of the Cold
War have prevented the American labor movement from establishing fraternal
relations with trade unions in China. Decades after President Nixon went to
China, opening US relations with the People's Republic of China, maybe its
time for AFL-CIO President John Sweeney to consider such an initiative and
reach out to Chinese workers.

As recently as 1995, American labor movement representatives were
discouraged from attending the Beijing Women's Conference, sponsored by the
United Nations, because China was hosting it. To this day, the AFL-CIO does
not recognize the Chinese trade union movement, and Chinese trade unionists
cannot visit the United States as official representatives of their unions.

The reality is that China has undergone tremendous change in the past few
decades. The Chinese economic system has rapidly transformed from one that
was centralized and state-run towards a mixed economy, with a growing market
and increasing foreign investment. The results have been both positive and
negative for Chinese workers. The economy has experienced significant growth
and development, along with dislocation and growing economic inequality.
Human rights, political repression, and environmental degradation are
crucial issues. In this context of change, would not more worker-to-worker
and union-to-union exchange be positive?  Inevitably, the problems facing
China will have to be addressed by the Chinese people themselves. There is a
wide range of political and philosophical perspectives among Chinese trade
unionists. There is a major generational transition taking place in China,
and a new emerging leadership within the government and within labor unions.
Through engaging in more dialogue and exchange with Chinese workers and
unions, the American labor movement could identify new leaders of China who
embrace a similar perspective on global corporate domination, and the need
to defend human rights and labor rights.

The main threat to economic security, dignity and human rights of U.S.
workers is domestic and global corporations and their institutions: the WTO,
the IMF, and the World Bank. We need to keep our eyes on the prize, move
beyond the Cold War, move beyond unilateralism, and move toward genuine
international labor solidarity.