By Fred Gabaoury
The question of how best to integrate worker and environmental protections into the world trade order is a matter of intense debate in the international labor movement. On one side are trade unions in industrial countries, supporting the concept of a "social clause" in the World Trade Organization (WTO) while unions in underdeveloped countries argue that enforcement should be left in the hands of the International Labor Organization (ILO).
Hassan Sunmonu, general secretary of the Organization of African Trade Union Unity, is adamant in his opposition to social clauses in trade agreements. In a half-hour interview during a break in the proceedings of the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) Congress, he explained the reasons for his opposition.
"I want to make it clear," he said. "We agree that the ILO Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights, which is built, around eight ILO Conventions that prohibit forced labor; guarantee the right of freedom of association and collective bargaining; outlaw discrimination, and eliminate the worst forms of child labor, should have universal application and strong enforcement."
There is absolute unity in the world labor movement on the need for these provisions. The disagreement comes over the issue of enforcement. "We do not agree that power should be given to the WTO. Instead, it should remain with the ILO," Sunmonu said. He also said there was "near unanimous" agreement within the world labor movement on the role of WTO - that it is a tool of the transnational banks and corporations, that its rules are enforced by "experts" meeting behind closed doors, and that its original mandate to lower and eliminate tariffs has been subverted to include non-tariff barriers to trade.
"The WTO should not deal in such issues," Sunmonu said, "for us, issues that directly affect our basic rights - our livelihoods, food, health, education and environment - are non-trade issues."
Therefore the question: If there is agreement on these questions, what's the beef? The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), in which the AFL-CIO is a major player, argues that trade agreements should include a "social clause" outlining minimal labor standards and that the WTO should have the authority to enforce it by imposing trade sanctions on countries found guilty of violating the relevant ILO conventions.
On the other side are unions in developing countries who argue that a grant of such authority to the WTO is a step toward the "recolonization" of the Third World and a threat to their sovereignty that has already been seriously undermined by the policies of the International Monetary Federation (IMF) and World Bank.
Or, put another way, they contend that putting the WTO in charge of protecting workers' rights is akin to putting a fox in the henhouse to defend the chickens. The debate on this question did not begin - nor end - in Seattle.
It was an issue at the very first meeting of WTO ministers in Singapore in 1996 where it was agreed that enforcement of labor standards should remain the prerogative of the ILO. However, the campaign for a social clause in trade agreements continued unabated, with the AFL-CIO one of its most vigorous proponents. All of which raises a number of perplexing questions beginning with why not the ILO? Proponents of linking trade with labor standards reply that the ILO lacks enforcement teeth, something that the WTO, with the authority to impose trade sanctions, has in oversupply.
Sunmonu and other union leaders in Third-World countries argue that given its historic responsibility for developing international norms for workplace related issues and its tripartite composition that brings government, employers and unions together at the same table, the ILO is the logical place to deal with labor standards. And, they add, if the ILO lacks teeth, a fight should be launched to deal with that question rather than giving carte blanche to the WTO where labor has no participation.
The AFL-CIO should take the initiative on a couple of questions, beginning with the fact that the United States has ratified only 12 of the 182 ILO Conventions and but two of the core standards that are at the heart of the debate. When it comes to workers' rights and labor standards, wouldn't workers everywhere, including American workers, be better off if the AFL-CIO were leading a struggle to get the United States to ratify these conventions?
Or what would happen if the AFL-CIO were to follow the lead of the United Students Against Sweatshops? Couldn't they launch a campaign requiring U.S. transnational corporations and their contractors operating abroad to abide by the ILO's core labor standards pay a living wage, make public the location of factories and provide for independent monitoring under threat of losing tax breaks that apply to profits earned over seas?
True, these campaigns would take some doing, but they offer several advantages, beginning with the fact that they would target the transnational corporations. That, in itself, would be a giant stride toward unity.
Fred Gaboury is a People's Weekly World labor reporter based in Chicago. He recently attended the WFTU congress in New Delhi, India.