|
Executive Committee - Brussels (Belgium)
Annexe | 05 - 06 February 2005 |
MEETING WITH NON-AFFILIATES ON UNIFICATION PROCESS
| Present: | CGT, France; CGT, Portugal; CUT, Colombia; PIT-CNT, Uruguay; CTA, Argentina; OPZZ, Poland;
Guy Ryder, ICFTU; Willy Thys, WCL, Emilio Gabaglio |
| Absent: | CGT, Peru; CITU, India; GEFONT, Nepal |
| 1. | | | The meeting began with an update from the ICFTU and the WCL on the development of decision-making in each on unification since June when initial contacts had been established. Both organisations had taken decisions to proceed with the establishment of a new international by 2006 and had called upon non-affiliated independent and democratic national centres to participate in its creation. |
| 2. | | | The non-affiliated organisations were asked to report on the state of their thinking and decision-making. |
| 3. | | | After the initial contact in June the Confederal Executive Committee discussed the proposal for unification and agreed to engage in the process of reflection, without however prejudging any final decision. That position was published and distributed throughout CGT structures and the reaction to it was generally positive, although with some (sometimes strong) objections too. They included questions about the values and objectives of the new international, its work methods, the extent of opening up to non-affiliates (China?). The CGT had participated in the ICFTU Congress and taken a very positive impression from it (spirit of auto-critique, need for change, substantive debate, frank and open debate of difficult questions, good process of consensus-building and decision-making). The CGT had published its report on the Congress, and its General Secretary had subsequently made public statements giving a clearly positive spin to the CGT's attitude. The debate was not closed in the CGT, but it was ready to participate in the process of unification in a way that was not imaginable even two years before. The CGT understood and respected the consensus reached at the Congress on the involvement of non-affiliates in the unification, but did want to be an actor in the process rather than being presented with a final product to accept or not. There were still a lot of issues to be resolved. Information on timetables of decision-making would be helpful. The CGT would have to take a decision on affiliation at its Congress - but did have certain powers in advance of that. |
| 4. | | | The CGT had publicly declared its "interest" in participating in discussion of the future of the international movement, in the terms proposed. Its decision-making bodies had decided: to participate in the debate; not to accept second class status in it; and that there should be no "exclusions" from it (even if there were limits). The question of timing was likely to cause difficulties - 2006 was ambitious but not impossible - but might not fit easily with the decision-making calendars of the CGT, or others. There was need for understanding of this and solidarity too. Some of the questions already raised in discussion were: would the new international simply be an enlarged ICFTU? Would it be an effective instrument for combating neo-liberalism? |
| 5. | | | The CUT was already engaged in the process of merger with the ICFTU-affiliated CTC which could be finalized at a Congress at the end of this year, or the beginning of next. The CUT had already taken a position in favor of international affiliation, and there was a positive attitude towards membership of the ICFTU. The decisions taken internationally on unification had been very well received by the CUT's national leadership, and communicated to the regions. The CUT's involvement in the process would be discussed in its decision-making bodies. |
| 6. | | | The question on unification was being discussed at leadership level. The contacts in Geneva in June had been unexpected, but well received in the PIT-CNT. The relevant documents were on the table, but debate had been on hold pending the outcome of the ICFTU Congress (and national elections had got in the way too). The PIT-CNT was a pluralist organisation and notwithstanding its initial positive reaction, it was clear that its internal discussion would be tough, and ideological. The question of inclusion would be important, although the principle of democratic trade unionism was a clear criterion. The process needed to be open, and the PIT-CNT would want to be a "brick-layer" in the construction of a new international. The situation would be discussed inside the PIT-CNT with a view to promoting positive involvement. Timings would be an issue but it was good to set ambitious targets. A decision on international affiliation would need an amendment to the PIT-CNT constitution which currently prohibited it. |
| 7. | | | The CTA had appreciated the approaches made to it and the readiness to include it in the unification process. The fact that it had no international affiliation was a result of circumstances and not a vocation. Indeed it was a limitation on the action of the CTA, not an advantage. The process underway showed that these were "new times" and the CTA was generally positive towards it. There were specific circumstances - the national situation in Argentina, as well as the question of timing - that would have to be addressed. The CTA would not wish to see any "exclusions" (reference to Cuba) and would want to be a real protagonist. This was not an issue, which should be shied away from, and it would be put forward at the CTA Congress at the end of the year. |
| 8. | | | Capital had globalised so weak international structures would inevitably mean weak trade unions at all levels. It was time to act to create a new international without undue delay on questions of detail. The OPZZ did not want to repeat mistakes made in the past in respect of its affiliation to the ETUC. The OPZZ was ready to participate in the process and urged that the process be advanced as expeditiously as possible to concrete issues. In the end it was a simple choice between doing something, or failing to act. |
| 9. | | |
| - | While the process needed to be as inclusive as possible it was essential that it be guided by the principles of democratic, independent trade unionism. They needed to be taken seriously and imposed real limits on involvement in the new international which could not be a United Nations - "all in" organisation; |
| |
| - | While timeframes in different organisations would vary, and it was necessary to be attentive to them, there was equally need to set a target (May 2006) for the creation of the new international or run the risk of losing momentum and opportunity; |
| |
| - | In the light of the decisions taken by the Miyazaki Congress and by the WCL, it was time to move from the informal contacts which had so far taken place with the non-affiliates to a more formal process of participation. |
|
| 10. | | | In this light it was agreed that each of the organisations concerned should write to the ICFTU and to the WCL indicating their interest (or not) in participating in the creation of the new international. They should do so by the end of February, without prejudice to the decisions, which they might eventually make about international affiliation, and conveying whatever views they felt appropriate about the process. The ICFTU and the WCL would subsequently respond to all organisations expressing an interest in the new international with proposal concerning the modalities of their involvement in its establishment.
Efforts would also be made to contact those organisations, which had not been able to attend the meeting (CGT, Peru; GEFONT, Nepal, CITU, India). |
|