Congress debates globalisation

The nature and form of globalisation was the subject of vigorous debate as congress delegates grappled with developing a response to it. At issue was whether globalisation was an inevitable and desirable process which in its current form had a range of negative consequences for workers, or whether it was an extension of neo-liberalism, the latest form of imperialism.

SACTWU noted that the current form of globalisation was characterised by accelerated tariff reduction, liberalisation of exchange controls, major privatisation drives, and increased control over developing economies by multinational and transnational corporations and multilateral institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

The negative consequences ensuing from these policies are increased job insecurity, deregulation of labour markets, reduced and less affordable access to basic services, worsening basic conditions of employment, and reductions in social and welfare spending.

Referring to the resolution adopted at COSATU's fifth national congress in 1994, FAWU said their understanding of COSATU's position is that the federation is against the current form of globalisation. "We are against the disastrous effects of globalisation. It is not the whole of globalisation that is disastrous."

This was a view shared by COSATU general secretary Mbhazima Shilowa. "I’ve never understood COSATU to be saying that we are opposed to globalisation per se. If that is the case, then it means we had a false consensus in the 1994 congress. What we need to do is ensure that workers’ rights are also globalised," he argued.

NUM assistant general secretary Gwede Mantashe contended that globalisation is the thrust of neo-liberal economic policy. "We can’t say we are going to co-exist. We must develop a response to resist it. To look for alternatives is correct, but not enough."

SACTWU's Ebrahim Patel said his union agreed with the NUM that globalisation was a site of struggle and must become an area of engagement. Patel said, however, that it was not possible to go back to an insular economy "where we only produce for ourselves. We accept that we want to export our minerals to other countries, that we need to import machinery into South Africa We cannot say that we don’t want anything to do with globalisation. We must change the character of globalisation. We can’t simply resolve to reject it."

Patel said that, where globalisation created the opportunity for workers to have international shop stewards’ councils and to have solidarity across national frontiers, the labour movement had to seize these.

Supporting the NUM, TGWU argued that opposing globalisation was not a realistic response for workers. "We are in a global village. Globalisation has to do with international trade and investment, and worker rights. That’s why we went to the WTO, precisely to attack this form of globalisation. We want Southern Africa to have a more equitable share of international markets."

"MNCs and TNCs will be there," he said. "What is at issue is the extent to which they invest, whether workers can prevent the creation of export processing zone-type development, and whether they invest in job creation, respect worker rights and labour legislation. That’s what we are concerned with. We don’t want the kind of globalisation which underpins neo-liberalism."

SAMWU disagreed on the basis that TGWU and FAWU’s interpretation of globalisation did not attack capitalism, but sought to reform it. "If we tinker with it we are not going to get rid of it. We must fight against it if we are to realise our goal of socialism," said SAMWU general secretary Roger Ronnie.

Honing in on concrete demands the international trade union movement should put forward, Shilowa said that, in addition to the social clause, reforms were required to the ILO, World Bank, IMF and WTO to reflect the reality of the impact of their operations on workers’ lives. "The work undertaken by these institutions and the TNCs/MNCs in the name of globalisation has a negative impact on the lives of workers. Our limited participation in some instances, and total exclusion in others, is a situation we should no longer tolerate." He added that, similarly, international trade union work can no longer be study tours and meetings only.

CWIU felt that too much of COSATU's international activity thus far had been ‘ceremonial’ or symbolic. Countering this, Shilowa contended that COSATU had been able to have a real impact at international level. "Look at Swaziland" he said, echoing the praise heaped on COSATU by International Confederation of Free Trade Unions’ (ICFTU) general secretary Bill Jordan. "For the first time in history, the borders of a country were completely sealed off as a result of workers’ actions."

NEHAWU said that workers’ efforts at countering the consequences of globalisation would be compromised if the federation did not take forward into the international arena its policies on the transformation of the international trade union movement

TGWU urged congress to develop an international minimum programme of action. "Such a programme must be sufficiently broad to unite all international trade union movements in a campaign. In this context the ICFTU would be critical" said TGWU general secretary Randall Howard.

Congress agreed on a two-phased approach to tackling this. In the first phase, COSATU would participate in an international week of focus on globalisation culminating in May Day celebrations focusing on a specific international theme.

In the second phase, an international day of action on a normal working day, consisting of strikes, demonstrations, pickets, stoppages and a global strike by workers. The CEC will engage with the international worker federations to which COSATU is affiliated with a view to agreeing on a date and the forms of action. The purpose of the proposed action will be to highlight workers’ opposition to the negative effects of globalisation, and to put forward its alternatives. FAWU said affiliates who already have relations with ICFTU trade secretariats should begin mobilising now.

Congress also endorsed SACTWU and SAMWU's proposal to establish a global solidarity fund. Motivating this, SACTWU argued that, as globalisation became more fundamental to the context in which workers fought, their own resources ought be used to fight their battles. Workers could no longer only rely on governments to fund their international activities. However, congress did not agree that five per cent of COSATU's income be placed at the disposal of the fund. They opted instead to defer a decision on an amount to COSATU's CEC.

A suggestion to increase the staffing of COSATU's international department was also deferred to the CEC, with the proviso that such a decision had to be taken in the context of improving COSATU's capacity to do international work.