>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....
>...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
etc
Nathan, you are living in la-la land. The AFL works with both IPS and IHRC on certain issues, but they also differed quite sharply on China PNTR and a host of other issues. It would be easy to find out how much labor funding goes to these groups (which I've worked with closely over the years). Actually on China, Sweeney opposed the trade deal - but if you want to talk foreign policy, the AFL and the Naderites were and are adamant backers of US military aid to Taiwan to contain the Chinese 'military threat' and, as I said, joined with the VFW and the Buchanan people and others in denouncing China as some kind of rogue state. Read the statements - its all there. Yes, IPS, IHRC (and myself) were on opposite sides of the AFL on China trade, but we also disagreed with their cold war rhetoric and its implications for the US military posture in East Asia (ie US bases in Okinawa & Korea, US nuclear threats).
Elswhere, Sweeney & company recently lashed out quite angrily against COSATU in South Africa for their careful but forceful criticism of the US war in Afghanistan (something I'm writing about for publication). I agree that the AFL criticism of Ashcroft and the attack on civil liberties is important. But again, its focused on domestic issues. And you'll probably disagree, but trade, while touching on foreign policy, is primarily a domestic issue for unions and a very traditional area to disagree with a president about Kirkland put up a fight against Nafta; AFL criticism for US trade with China goes back to the days of Meany and Jay Lovestone, who attacked Kissinger for his trade opening to Beijing. As for the Solidarity Center, it is extremely careful about opposing any Bush policies or taking on US companies because it receives almost all its funding from the US government. Ask their people about that. The International Affairs Department, which is funded only through the AFL and its member unions, does take stands against certain Bush policies. But look at an example like Indonesia's rampage in East Timor a couple of years ago - after the Canadian and Australian labor federations stopped loading Indonesian ships to protest the military-backed killing, Sweeney put out a tepid statement that pleaded for peace in Timor and completely avoided the issue of Indonesian complicity and US (Clinton) backing for the Indonesian military.
I think the decision to speak at a rally with Bibi Netanyahu at best represents poor judgement and at worst a very conservative foreign policy agenda. We can appreciate the differences between the Sweeney team and the old guard, but I really don't think the AFL-CIOs approach to critical questions of foreign policy has changed very much. TS