Dear Sisters and Brothers,
We
are shocked and deeply disappointed by the election
of the All China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU)
to the ILO Governing Body as a Worker Deputy Member
on June 10. This not only marks a major defeat for
workers in China who are struggling to achieve the
right to freedom of association (a struggle which
only recently led to the imprisonment of workers in
Liaoyang and Daqing for exercising this right), but
also raises serious questions about the current strategy
of the international trade union movement vis-a-vis
China.
As the ICFTU acting General Secretary, Guy Ryder,
stated in the conclusion of the first meeting of the
China Working Party of the ICFTU Human and Trade Union
Rights Committee on March 15, the ACFTU is clearly
not a genuine representative of workers in China and
should not be treated as such. The significance of
this cannot be understated, just as we cannot underestimate
the longer-term implications of the ACFTU's success
in gaining a seat in the ILO Governing Body.
As we have known for some years now, dating back to
the ICFTU high-level delegation to Beijing in 1997,
the ACFTU leadership has been intent on gaining a
seat in the ILO Governing Body at the behest of the
Chinese Government. The purpose, stated very clearly
at that time, was not only to prevent criticism of
the Chinese Government over violations of freedom
of association and other fundamental human and trade
union rights, but also to push for the downward revision
of the international principles and rights embodied
in the ILO Conventions. It is the view of the Chinese
Government, the Chinese Communist Party, and the ACFTU
that is subordinated to it, that fundamental worker
rights such as freedom of association must be conditional
upon the level of development of a country and must
take into account "unique social and cultural
characteristics." Ultimately this is an argument
that excuses the Chinese Government for its brutal
repression of independent workers' movements and disavows
its obligations as a member of the ILO. It is with
sad irony, then, that a Government that refuses to
abide by its obligations under Conventions no.87 and
no.98 as a member of the ILO should succeed
in having its state- and Party-controlled trade union
organization gain membership of the ILO Governing
Body.
Yet the implications extend beyond China. Through
the ACFTU the Chinese government is able to defend
similar violations of trade union rights in other
countries and support claims that principles such
as freedom of association must be subordinate to social
or cultural "values" or the level of development
of each country.
As such we believe it is necessary to review the current
strategy of the ICFTU and its affiliates concerning
China, and to consider seriously the longer-term implications.
We not only seek a comprehensive and critical evaluation
of the impact on the independent workers' movement
in mainland China, but also to consider the implications
for democratic, independent trade unions in Hong Kong.
While debates over strategy and tactics vis-a-vis
China among the affiliates of the ICFTU and GUF have
involved a wide range of views, it is clear that there
has been a marked shift towards more "critical
dialogue" or "critical engagement"
as a means of establishing and maintaining contact
with the ACFTU. Such approaches have always assumed
that while the benefits of this contact are unclear,
it at least "does no harm." However, we
strongly believe that the ACFTU's victory in gaining
a seat in the ILO Governing Body is clear evidence
of the harm that can be done. To give international
"legitimacy" to a trade union organization
that makes absolutely no commitment to supporting
the right to freedom of association and the right
to organize, whilst remaining subordinated legally
and institutionally to the Government and the ruling
Communist Party, is a major setback for the independent
workers' movement in China. Moreover, the ACFTU has
achieved this diplomatic victory without having to
make any substantive changes to its policies and outlook,
and without having to support any kind of political
or legal reform that would surrender its trade union
monopoly and allow workers the right to form unions
freely, and of their own choosing. As such, it is
extremely doubtful that any future "critical
dialogue" or "engagement" would succeed
in applying any significant pressure on the ACFTU.
Rather, it has learned from this experience that no
real changes need be made to gain international "legitimacy"
and to fulfill the diplomatic task laid down by the
Government that controls it.
It is clearly time to reflect seriously on the strategy
and tactics employed to date, and to respond to the
very great challenge posed to us by the ACFTU's new
international "legitimacy" gained by its
accession to the ILO Governing Body.
We hope that we can work together in facing this challenge
and strengthening our solidarity with workers in China.
In
solidarity,
Lee
Cheuk-yan
General Secretary
Next>
ACFTU "represents workers"
in ILO
