>My concern is the Bush policy and what I see as 1)
>Sweeney's unequivocal support for it 2) his refusal to publicly question
any
>aspect of Bush's foreign policy and 3) his presumption that, as the elected
>leader of the US labor movement, he represents us
Sweeney and the AFL-CIO have opposed both Bush and Clinton foreign policy around trade, from the PNTR with China to the Free Trade Association of the Americas. Now, you happen to side with Clinton and Bush on issues like PNTR, but Sweeney opposed US foreign policy on China.
So you can disagree with Sweeney's support for Israel (as I do) but trying to pump it up as some lapdog support for the administration is just wrong-headed. Probably like a lot of folks, he actually believes it.
The AFL-CIO has a pretty wide-ranging foreign policy network, mostly centered on trade and labor issues, but their economic resources end up in a lot of leftwing places as well, from student sweatshop movements to left-leaning think tanks. Much to the complaint of rightwingers, who mounted recent publicity campaigns against it, the AFL-CIO is a direct funder and supporter of the Institute for Policy Studies and Interhemispheric Resource Center, both of whom have opposed the war on terrorism. And the Solidarity Center is opposing a host of Bush-backed anti-labor government policies in the third world
And of course, if the issue was something progressive unionists cared about and Sweeney failed to speak out on it, they'd be denouncing him for his silence.
So it makes more sense to attack Sweeney for the substance of his position on this issue of Israel, which unfortunately probably represents the majority position of his members, not make some roundhouse attack when it's clear that Sweeney is opposing large parts of Bush's global policy, from his trade policy to his failure to support global justice in response to terrorism.
This was the official AFL-CIO response to Sept 11, which while the unions supported the war in Afghanistan, made it clear that the Bush focus was wrong not to focus on global economic justice as a clear response:
"In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, our country, our labor movement and global unions around the world have come together with a united purpose. ..Far-reaching economic initiatives are needed in response. But just as domestic initiatives must not focus on "trickle-down" measures that would deliver benefits mostly for the wealthy, our international economic response must not consist of an attempt to accelerate a push for corporate-led globalization that already is hurting workers in this country and globally.
The tragic and still-unfolding effects of Sept. 11 underscore the fact of what globalization means: threats to the national security of our country also represent threats to the economic security of workers both here in the United States and around the world. Working families need a global economic recovery package that addresses the needs of the poor, not just the wealthy. Debt relief, market access, democracy and human rights are essential to the fight against poverty...
The AFL-CIO and its affiliated unions marched to support... Around the world: . A coordinated global response to international terrorism and criminality that includes support for the rule of law, financial regulation, global solidarity, rights and democracy. . A WTO process that is dramatically reformed to foster a fair and just global economy and that recognizes labor, gender, environment, social and development concerns in the WTO's trade policy review mechanism and in its enforceable trade rules; . A World Bank and International Monetary Fund that cancels the debt of impoverished countries, regulates speculative financial and currency flows, promotes and respects workers' rights, protects the environment, fights poverty and improves the lives of working people by providing assistance to poor countries to upgrade access to education, public health and water systems; . A strengthened International Labor Organization that holds governments and corporations accountable to their commitments to protect core labor rights; . Action from wealthy countries to fully fund the Global AIDS and Health Trust Fund and to increase development aid to the United Nations target of at least 0.7 percent of gross domestic product."
In December, the AFL-CIO came out strongly against Bush's anti-civil liberties legislation at its Las Vegas convention:
""The AFL-CIO is firmly committed to bringing the perpetrators of these crimes and their patrons to justice, and supports the government's military campaign to defend our nation . But, our love of liberty and of country compels us also to speak forcefully in opposition to a range of measures the administration has taken, or reportedly is contemplating, that threaten civil liberties, breach constitutional rights and, with tragic irony, hand our adversaries a partial victory by degrading the essential guarantees upon which our nation is founded."
-- Nathan Newman
-- Nathan Newman