Why does the TUC do the government's bidding over Burma but ignore identical situations in countries that are capitalism's allies? Is it already an arm of the Foreign Office?
TUC: chasing shadows
WORKERS, NOV 2007 ISSUE
So a High Court judge has declared the CWU postal strike illegal (on technicalities). Any union activist who has been involved in organising an industrial action ballot knows that it is now virtually impossible to conduct a legal strike, again on technicalities. Add to this the self inflicted wound in the form of legal advice requested by the Universities and Colleges Union leadership to torpedo a policy that could have led to a boycott of Israel. Getting legal advice on this implies lawyers will decide what we can discuss in union meetings.
With all this going on, you could be forgiven for thinking that the TUC and the ITUC (International Trade Union Confederation) would soon be off to the International Labour Organisation to argue for the right to withdraw labour and to have right of association in Britain.
Wrong. Both bodies have nailed their colours to the mast of free market capitalism, the deadly enemy of organised labour. The ITUC sees one of its roles as "spreading democracy" in the world. Where have we heard that before? For example, it applauds the EU trade sanctions on Belarus, imposed because of a "lack of trade union rights". (When did the EU ever support workers?) The ITUC hit list of countries mirrors that of the EU and US. It tries to interfere in other countries in Eastern Europe and Asia.
Meanwhile, the TUC and most of the big British trade unions meekly adopt the British government's line on immigration and on most international matters (the notable exception being Cuba). Union leaders grovel to agree, at Brown's request, not to rock the boat at Labour Party Conferences while union officials, both lay and full time, scramble over one another to get a Parliamentary seat.
Who's influencing whom?
The new Unite union plans to abandon Britain to spend its time lobbying the European Parliament and to merge with US unions. The executive says because it is so big, and has appointed Brown's old PR guru as its Political Officer, it can influence Brown and the EU. Who are they kidding?
The TUC has echoed Brown's call for strong EU sanctions against Burma. OK, Burma is ruled by the military, but so is neighbouring Thailand where a military coup overthrew the elected government last year, and so is neighbouring Pakistan whom the US and Britain lavish with military hardware and aid.
Why does the TUC do the government's bidding over Burma but ignore identical situations in countries that are capitalism's allies? Is it an arm of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?
In fact the British media would have us believe that General Musharraf in Pakistan has just been elected President by a landslide when, in truth, only 252 of his cronies were allowed to vote out of a population of 165 million. The US-sponsored deal for a Pakistani power sharing pro-US government with ex President Bhutto was done in Britain.
Why the double standards over Burma? Are Buddhist monks there a force for progress? Those, for example, who call for the separation of Tibet from China and the return of the Dalai Lama seek the restoration of feudalism? The situation in Burma is a matter for, and can only be resolved by, the Burmese people.
The TUC parrots Gordon Brown's call for Zimbabwean President Mugabe to be banned from attending the Africa-EU conference in Portugal in December despite all African countries and the Commonwealth insisting that it is up to Zimbabwe to decide who represents it.
And the TUC supports the concept of "smart" sanctions on Sudan over Darfur as if there were only one side to this dispute, and it opposes Chinese loans to Africa that are made without conditions. Instead, it prefers the strings of World Bank and IMF loans that had led to such suffering.
What Burma, Zimbabwe and Sudan have in common is that they have not bent their knee to American imperialism. That's why they are singled out. It's become almost normal to assume that European and US governments have the right to interfere in any country's internal affairs. This is increasingly becoming the view of the TUC and many unions.
Are they sleepwalking into a corporate relationship with the government, or are they already there? Whatever happened to the independent trade unions that we were so proud of? Is the TUC chasing shadows internationally to avoid the reality of issues facing British workers at home?