This article is a reprint of a recently-issued statement by Abdul Khaliq Shah and Farooq Tariq of the Labour Party Pakistan’s Labour Relief Campaign.

Farooq Tariq

Pakistan must refuse to pay the foreign debts and divert the amount into the relief and rehabilitation of the flood affectees. It is high time to change the priorities of the national budget and all those suggesting to cut the development budget and spend on flood affectees be stopped. There is an easy way out. Stop paying the debts owed to International Finance Institutions, donor countries and club.Pakistan is facing the worst disaster of its history. About 20 million of its population is badly affected by the recent huge devastation caused by angry floods. Major infrastructure is totally destroyed in major parts of the country.  The country has suffered a loss of about Rs250 billion only in the agricultural and livestock sectors and the flood recovery costs may run into billions of dollars. Pakistan is in real and worst human and economic crisis. Though international donors are announcing commitments for relief and rehabilitation, but these are peanuts vis-à-vis the degree of catastrophe.

We think this is the time, instead of begging for much-needed aid for relief and rehabilitation, Pakistan must stand up and announce unilateral suspension of repayment of foreign debts, owed to IFIs, donor countries and clubs. Currently Pakistan is paying about $ 3 billion on debt servicing every year. As Pakistan present foreign debt of $ 54 billion is increasing, the debt servicing will be up by the same ratio. Under the prevailing critical circumstances, we have to think about coping with this severe debt domination. Various laws and international protocols favor if Pakistan refuse to pay its debts right now, especially under the prevailing horrible circumstances, Pakistan is passing through.  To refuse payment of debts is not a new thing; many poor countries used this just and lawful right in the past.

There are spaces in international law that can be invoked as legal justification to refuse the external debt. One of these justifications is called “State of Necessity”. This rule is characterized by a situation that jeopardizes the economic or its political survival- such as the situations which creates the factor of impossibility of fulfilling the very basic needs of the populations (health, education, food, water, housing etc).  The “State of Necessity” justifies the repudiating of debt, since it implies the establishing priorities among different obligations of the state. Therefore, a natural calamity-like the one hitting Pakistan now creates the very factor of “State of Necessity”. The UN Human Rights Commission has adopted numerous resolutions on the issue of debt and structural adjustment. One such resolution was adopted in 1999, asserts that “The exercise of the basic rights of the people of the debtor countries to food, housing, clothing, employment, education, health services and a healthy environment cannot be subordinated to the implementation of the structural adjustment policies, growth programs and economic reforms”

Right now, state of Pakistan is no longer able to fulfill fundamental human needs of its flood-hit 20 million population. Pakistan is simply unable to repay or service its debt responsibilities. We cannot put our people at the mercy of this natural calamity, that is enormous than Tsunami. The first and foremost thing in such circumstances is the fulfillments of the all fundamental human needs of the populations, hit

by natural calamities and disasters. So this is high time for Pakistan to stand up to its creditors and say a big NO. Pakistan had already lost one such just opportunity in 2005 when devastating quake hit Kashmir, leaving millions of people in misery. This time it is more lethal calamity, and we should no more be silent.  Latin American countries including Argentine, Burkina Faso, Peru, Mexico, Paraguay, and Ecuador took such positions in the past.  Very recent IMF had to cancel all its debt, US $ 268 million owed by Haiti, after devastating earthquake hit Haiti in 2009.

The cancellation is given via the newly established Post-Catastrophe Debt Relief Trust Fund, which was set up for this purpose and which can now be accessed by other indebted, low income countries hit by disasters.  Another example is Argentine. The country went into serious crisis after 2001 economic crisis. Though Argentine leaders had always implemented unpopular policies dictated by IMF, it was the people of Argentine who come on the roads in 2001 to protest the debt domination. This popular action succeeded in altering the history. As a result country’s president announced the biggest unilateral suspension of foreign debt in history, a total of more than $ 80 billion, owed to private creditors, countries and Paris Club. Thus Argentine demonstrated that a country could stop debt repayments for a lengthy period of time. Pakistan’s total debt-to-GDP ratio has crossed 61 percent this fiscal year, breaching the 60 percent limit set under the Fiscal Responsibility and Debt Limitation Act. According to World Bank if Debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds the limit of 80%, the default is sure.

The major portion of budget is consumed by two Ds; Debt-servicing and Defense. We have to review allocations against these two Ds. Under the circumstances, there is no denying the fact that Pakistan’s single source of economy vulnerability is debt crisis. We do not have any other option to come out of this economic but to refuse repayment of debts.

We demand that this is high time for the State of Pakistan to announce unilateral suspension of the all external debts and divert that amount for the relief and rehabilitation of 20 million flood-hit people. The government should approach the newly created Post-Catastrophe Debt Relief trust Fund to get its foreign debt liabilities cancelled. The Government can also invoke the international protocol of “State of Necessity”, introduced by UN Human Rights Commission in 1999, to refuse payment of debts.As government is planning to review economic priorities and budget allocations, it must take steps to reduce military budget, cut non-development expenditures and other unnecessary heads. The amount, thus saved be shifted to social sector. We also demand that International Financial institutions and donor countries must repudiate the debt of Pakistan.

For more information on the Labour Relief Campaign visit:

http://www.laborpakistan.org/news58.htm

The Spark September 2010

In June this year Socialist Worker announced that Kia Ora Gaza would be heading to Palestine. Kia Ora Gaza is a New Zealand contribution to British ex-Labour MP George Galloway’s Viva Palestina charity and it will be departing these shores in September to bring aid to the people of Gaza. Kia Ora Gaza’s aim is to raise NZ$100,000 to be used to buy items to deliver to Gaza.

Galloway’s notion of breaking the siege with a massive aid convoy, travelling in full public view and defying the Israeli state was an inspired one. The mere existence of that first convoy brought international attention to the plight of the imprisoned population of Gaza and to the barbarity of the Zionist regime’s mediaeval treatment of Gaza’s 1.4 million inhabitants. As an act of humanitarian solidarity it was brilliant. But socialist solidarity is more than just humanitarianism. It is humanitarian certainly, but it is also revolutionary internationalist solidarity.

When the first Viva Palestina convoys went, they made a point. When this convoy of trucks bypasses Israel and enters Gaza through the open crossing point at Rafah, the impact is lost. It becomes primarily an act of humanitarianism; internationalist solidarity comes a poor second. It becomes little different to any other aid and relief effort. I wish them well but only in the way I would if they were any other aid agency. There are good agencies, both secular and religious, involved in good projects in Gaza.

Revolutionary socialists are few and far between. We need to continually reflect on the effectiveness of our work in advancing the cause of socialism. There is little point in members of the revolutionary left taking such a lead role in a humanitarian event that aid agencies could do. Their time would be better spent doing the important work that the liberal left won’t do, like specific solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for a secular socialist society. The revolutionary left’s role should be to support the struggle that will eliminate poverty and inequality and ultimately put the aid agencies out of work.

The Workers Party has initiated a campaign to raise money for the PFLP. The money is sent unconditionally so the PFLP can use it in whatever way they see fit. The PFLP solidarity campaign is a long term one, intended to establish revolutionary solidarity with comrades fighting for that secular socialist society. It won’t make a big splash by raising $100,000 dollars, but neither will it simply fade away. Already it has raised and transferred over NZ$1000 dollars and it will continue to do so into the future. When comrades go to Palestine under the auspices of the Solidarity Campaign, they will be going in revolutionary solidarity with the PFLP and offering their support to the PFLP while they are there. This will result in real material solidarity, whether it be escorting children to school to protect them from settler attacks, working in an office, or any other task the PFLP might find useful. It will also be a learning and fact-finding visit for the people going. We see this as a much better use of a revolutionary socialist’s time and energy than organizing Kia Ora Gaza. So worthy and supportable though the Kia Ora Gaza project is, my support, material, political and organisational, will continue to go to the PFLP.

Since the August issue of The Spark a second wave of activity has crossed the country’s major centres in opposition to the employment law changes. Ian Anderson, a Workers Party member in Wellington reports below on activities in the capital.

Over August, two major events were organised in Wellington against the government’s attacks on workers. There was a public meeting against anti-worker laws, and the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) Fairness at Work rally.

Organised by a group including Workers Party activists, unionists and others, Thursday’s “Anti-Worker Laws” public meeting was a success. Due to heavy promotion including posters, leaflets, a Facebook event and a press release, turnout was good with around 60 people showing up. The CTU refused to promote the event, although they did take the opportunity to put up posters promoting their rally on Sunday.

Wellington protest August 2010

The event was held in St John’s on Willis. Starting at 7:30, Bill Logan of the International Bolshevik Tendency introduced the event with an overview of the new laws, introduced by Kate Wilkinson that very day, and their implications for the working class. Logan emphasised that this was not simply a “workplace” issue, but a class issue that affected families and children’s welfare.

Don Franks then launched into a rousing rendition of his new song Class War, which details the daily war waged on the working class as a whole, whether at work or in the WINZ queue.

The first speaker, Lisa Stoneham, gave moving account of being sacked last year from her telecommunications position at HRV, under the 90- Day Act, which at that time extended only to small work-sites. Lisa was not given an explanation, and to this day has not received one.
However, she did contact Unite Union, who held a rally outside her former workplace. Lisa noted that as employers did not have to give a reason, and there was no chance of redress, employers could use this policy for seasonal hiring purposes, or to discriminate against workers. Finally, she stated her intention never to be sacked again with no reason given, opposing the introduction of this 90 Day “hire and fire” policy to all workplaces.

The second speaker, Toby Boraman, spoke on his experiences fighting a public-sector wage freeze, as a delegate for the PSA. Boraman spoke on the tough situation of many white-collar workers citing the insecurity and low wages of many public-sector staff. As the recession set in the government aimed to make thousands of public sector workers redundant, and freeze wages all across the public sector.

This would constitute a drop in real wages, when inflation and raising prices are considered. Workers in the Ministry of Justice were the first to take illegal strike action against this policy. Boraman highlighted the blitzkrieg tactics utilised by the PSA, including 2-hour strikes organised by text. He also highlighted tensions within the campaign, with many workers seeing the PSA as having traditionally undemocratic practices and not doing enough for their members. Additionally, many could not afford even a two-hour strike. Despite these shortcomings, the campaign ended in a partial victory, ending the wage freeze on the Ministry of Justice, but also accepting 70 redundancies. Boraman emphasised that the right to strike is essential in opposing attacks on workers.

Health-care assistant and Workers Party activist Heleyni Pratley spoke third. Pratley put the new law changes changes in context as part of an assault on the working class first launched under the Fourth Labour Government, with the balance of forces favouring the ruling class ever since. She also emphasised the need to understand these changes as a part of the capitalist system, and serving capitalist interests: while Lisa’s sacking might seem random, capitalists need to control the labour market and be able to hire and fire at will. Pratley underlined the importance of strike action in political campaigns, and the need to fight for the unrestricted right to strike.

Finally, Kay Brereton spoke from the People’s Centre, formerly the Unemployed Workers’ Union. Brereton moved on to explain the implications of these changes for unemployed workers: as these laws make it easier to sack workers without explanation, this makes it harder to qualify for the benefit or find further work. Brereton finally called for a revival of collectivism, stating that the decline of unionism has had a deeply negative impact on the working class.

With the speeches concluded, the floor was opened for discussion. Pat Bolster spoke for the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) outlining their intention to educate workers on these changes. Discussion focussed largely on whether the CTU strategy was sufficient, with many favouring more militant action. Don Franks heavily criticised the Fairness at Work slogan, pointing out that workers will not receive fairness at work under capitalism, and do not expect to either.

There was also discussion of legal restrictions, and whether workers or unions should comply with them. A speaker for the PSA stated that any industrial action against these changes would take place during contract negotiations, as stated by law. A Workers Party activist pointed out that the right to strike was only won historically through illegal strike action. In general, there was agreement that workers and unions must take militant action against these changes.

A couple of specific ideas were put forward. Firstly, that Saturday’s Fairness at Work rally conclude with a march on Burger Fuel to oppose their abuse of the 90-Day Bill. Secondly, Warwick Taylor of the Wellington Residents Coalition put forward a motion that this meeting condemn these changes as an attack on the welfare of the majority, and convene an organising meeting at Trades Hall. Another comrade put forward an amendment, that “welfare” be changed to “welfare and well-being” to reflect people’s mental health needs. This amendment was accepted, and the motion was passed unanimously.

“FAIRNESS” AND FIGHTBACK
Saturday’s 2-hour Fairness at Work rally, held in Civic Square, initiated by the CTU, saw a turnout of around 1,500. With officials and rank-and-file from the Maritime Union, Service and Food Workers Union, Unite Union, and various others, the sea of flags and banners was a reminder that the working-class movement is not dead, only sleeping. Various left activists marched into the square with musical accompaniment by the Brass Razoo Solidarity Band, and a Workers Party banner stating: “This is Class War: Smash the Anti-Worker Laws.”

However, the event itself was a fairly limited and top-down affair. The choice to hold a rally, in the closed confines of Civic square, rather than a march, meant that the action could not have much impact beyond those already organised into unions.

Advertised on Facebook as a “party,” the event featured pop songs and a dance routine. Additionally, the political content was typically compromised, and for a two-hour event there was very little participation from the crowd. The CTU seems unlikely to provide the leadership necessary for this fight-back.

At the end of the event, an assortment of workers and activists from Unite Union, Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement and the Workers Party initiated a march. This gathered supporters as it left the square, and around 40 activists marched up Cuba Mall and Courtenay Place, finally settling on Burger Fuel.

Burger Fuel recently used the 90-Day Act to dismiss a worker who asked for a 15-minute break, although they gave no explanation for the dismissal. Activists occupied Burger Fuel for a short period, using the megaphone to explain the situation to customers.

The picket lasted about half-an-hour, chanting slogans such as “boycott Burger Fuel,” before concluding that we would return to picket any business that unfairly dismissed its workers.

Unionists protesting the law changes

Permanent militancy and class struggle is required

Resistance to these changes can be built-up, but the working class and its organisations have clearly not been in shape to respond automatically. They are not in fighting shape and the reasons for this aren’t mystical.

One of the main lessons from this round of attacks is that working class organisations, such as unions and political organisations, must maintain a permanent class struggle position and constantly take initiatives against the employers and government. That has not been the case and we are presented with the objective impossibility of switching from the partnership model (accepting mass redundancies with only a few exceptions where fight-backs were attempted, entering into productivity initiatives with the bosses, entering job summits with the government) to a fighting model.

At another level, our unions cannot switch from the level of economistic day-to-day industrial servicing to broad political organising. It’s like going to sleep and then waking up on a battlefield with no troops. Unions have to constantly champion workers, poor, and the oppressed so that we have forces ready for when the attacks come. Positively, we are not without some pockets of class struggle and worker activism already existing in the field.

Attacks on workers rights are better able to be resisted and also are less likely to occur if workers organisations are taking aggressive initiatives. For example, if the campaign to hold a referendum on raising the minimum wage to $15 had been successful then the public political discourse would have shifted so that there would have been less room for theemployers/government to go on the offensive. They would have been back footed. But the majority of trade union leaders, and many activists at all levels, could not grasp the necessity of making aggressive initiatives, seemingly waiting for the next round of defence. Fundamentally, this is because they don’t understand that underlying contradictions between classes will always break through the fleeting phenomena of social peace and partnership.

This is about class relations, not about individual workers or companies

In order to really understand the nature of these attacks, we need to understand that siding with good employers against bad employers is not a sufficient as a strategy or public line. As stated, our position is that this is about class power. It isn’t about the National Party helping the scumbag employers. This legislation is connected to movements in the economy; again the employing class needs to restore and shore-up profits by imposing laws to further disempower the working class and limit its ability to organise.

The extension of 90-day probationary periods, for example, will deepen the the current labour market flexibility, making jobs more transient and making the organising of whole sectors less feasible, or at least much more difficult, and this will typically be within sectors which comprise a growing portion of the total labour market. The extension will allow increased victimisation and intimidation of workers who do want to organise.

While it is tactically useful to make examples of companies that have used the laws, and to publicise the stories of individual employees who have been
mistreated, the strategic level is about class relations; where people are situated – as classes – in relation to production. Wage levels and employment
rights are determined by the ability of workers to organise.

Labour and other capitalist parties cannot be part of the solution

Despite overseeing the largest transfer of wealth from working people to the ruling class in the 1980s, and despite increasing penalties against workers for
unlawful strike action through the Employment Relations Act (2000), and other such actions, the Labour Party is often referred to by unions as being pro-worker. The concepts of pro-worker government and anti-worker government are frequently referred to within the political perspectives of the trade union movement. However, no government which seeks to uphold the capitalist system of production is pro-worker. Capitalism is based on the exploitation of the working class for the profit of the capitalist class. Therefore, logically, any pro-capitalist government is anti-worker.

Under Key s leadership the National Party has again shown itself to be more aggressive within the sphere of industrial relations, against workers and
unions, than is Labour. In fact, since the election of the Key government, Labour has sought to posture to the left even to the extent that Labour’s leader has openly backed publicly unpopular positions (i.e. opposition to 90-day law) in order to satisfy elements within trade unions.

From the understanding that Labour governments have actually been less openly pro-employer in regard to employment law, it does not follow that we should support Labour or see it as an entity that has any plan, programme, or desire to get workers outside of capitalism. There is more than one way to restrict workers’ liberty and activity. Supposedly pro-worker concessions from Labour, such as good faith principles, improved mediation services, reliance on personal grievances and so forth, added to tighter restrictions on strike action, have had the overall effect of restricting collective action  and therefore solidarity.

Fundamentally, Labour and other capitalist parties operate for the maintenance and service of capitalist production and class relations. This means that any slight gain or benefit secured by workers and unions is immediately retractable by any party including the Labour Party itself should the demand grow from the capitalist class which fundamentally holds state power.

Further, for a truly militant approach, we cannot assess political organisations by viewing their employment relations agenda as the full criteria for judgement; this would mean abandoning solidarity with oppressed sections of our society and also with the international working class, whom these bourgeois parties attack with bullets, the Afghan people being a current example.

In our resistance to this legislation, we argue for anti-capitalism; the long-term building of permanently militant unions and of anti-capitalist organisations.

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) Solidarity Campaign is happy to announce the release of the first part of an interview with Leila Khaled. PFLP Solidarity Campaign co-ordinator Mike Walker conducted the interview via Skype with Leila at her home in Amman, Jordan on the 6^th April this year.

Leila Khaled is often referred to as a terrorist by her enemies, the United States and the State of Israel. But in the Occupied Territories, the Gaza Strip and the countless refugee camps scattered throughout the Arab world she is a revolutionary hero, a freedom fighter and the embodiment of the Palestinian militant struggle against Zionism and Imperialism in the Middle East and for freedom and self-determination.

Leila Khaled and the PFLP shot to international attention when Leila became the first woman to hi-jack a commercial airliner on August 29^th 1969. Leila made the pilot divert the plane over Haifa, where she was born but has never been allowed to visit, eventually allowing the plane to land in Damascus, Syria. The passengers were disembarked and the plane was blown up in front of the international media. Golda Meir had stated that June that “There was no such thing as Palestinians”, but Leila Khaled and the PFLP had put the Palestinian struggle firmly onto the world stage, where it could no longer be ignored.

Today Leila is a core member of the PFLP and serves on its Politburo, dealing primarily with the ‘right of return’ for Palestinian refugees. Walker stated that “Leila is a true revolutionary woman that has dedicated her life to the struggle of Palestinians for their right to self-determination, and to return home.” “Leila is an inspiration to us all,” he continued.

Leila Khaled finished the interview by stating that she had “a message for the New Zealanders.” She then warned that we should all “beware Zionism. Nazism caused humanity twenty two million casualties and the destruction of Europe. What do you think that Zionism will do, do we need a third world war? We have to stop the expansion of the Zionist ideology and policy.”

The interview is available at http://wpnz-pflp-solidarity.blogspot.com/p/leila-khaled-interview.html

A full transcript or audio is available on request.

Lisa Stoneham, sacked under 90-Day Bill, speaks on her experiences.

Heleyni Pratley, Workers Party activist, speaks on the need to smash all anti-worker laws.

Comrade Maher al-Taher, member of the Political Bureau of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and leader of its branch outside Palestine, said on August 20, 2010 that the goal of direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is to liquidate the Palestinian cause, not to reach a political solution, noting that it is clear from the events and actions of Israel that it is impossible to reach a political solution with an entity that demands total control of all aspects of Palestinian existence.

Said Comrade Taher, “After 40 years of slogans demanding an independent Palestinian decision, today the Palestinian Authority is a subject of the U.S. and Israel and we are a nation of prisoners. This is a great risk to the Palestinian cause.” It was clear, Comrade Taher said, that the Authority would enter these direct negotiations when the Higher Arab Follow-up Commission approved of them, saying that the statement issued by the Quartet in favor of these negotiations is farcical nonsense; it is clear that nothing will come of these negotiations except for harm to the Palestinian cause and such statements exist only to provide a fig leaf to cover the return to negotiations and an excuse for a shameful betrayal.

He emphasized that by returning to these negotiations, the Authority is entering a dark tunnel through which only it will provide concessions. Comrade Taher said, “What will come of these negotiations – the occupation will withdraw from Jerusalem?? It will recognize the right of return?? Unless there is to be any real gain, these negotiations are absurd!”

Comrade Taher said further that the action of the Executive Committee of the PLO in approving these negotiations makes it clear that independent Palestinian decision-making and democracy is a farce in these institutions, as the Palestinian people have clearly expressed their rejection of negotiations. He said that our people are determined to stand fast on our own land and that the PFLP will demand an end to this farce and take action, not only issue statements. Palestinian factions at home and abroad are committed to joint action against these negotiations, he said, noting that there is widespread refusal to return to negotiations while Israel builds settlements and Judaizes Jerusalem under the presence and authority of a U.S. agenda aimed at the entire region based on liquidation of national rights.

He concluded by saying that it is clear that our national priority must be to end the division and continue the resistance, saying that the Palestinian people will resist any attempts to give up their national rights through widespread popular refusal and rejection of the return to negotiations.

Comrade Abu Ahmad Fuad, member of the Political Bureau of the PFLP, also said on August 21, 2010 that the PA’s entering into direct negotiations with Israel is a stab in the back of the institutions of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the resolutions of the Central Council and the will of the Palestinian people. Comrade Fuad emphasized that PLO officials are refusing to abide by any sense of democratic regulation or the decisions of the Central Council or the National Council. Comrade Fuad emphasized that the majority of factions in the PLO have opposed direct negotiations, and that any approval of negotiations in an Executive Committee meetings where more than half of the members are absent is illegal in form and content.

The PFLP condemned the Quartet’s statement in support of direct negotiations, saying that it represents a tacit acceptance of settlements and siege, and full of nothing more than empty slogans about “peace” while the rights of the Palestinian people to return, independence and self-determination are being violated daily. Furthermore, the Front said in its statement, the Quartet is attempting to waive international law and UN resolutions and replace international legitimacy with its own dubious authority, saying that the Quartet has no legitimate or legal authority over the Palestinian people and cause.

The Front stressed that Palestinian factions, national consensus and the decisions of the Central Council all uphold a refusal to return to negotiations, saying that such negotiations only serve the plans of the Netanyahu regime to violate Palestinian rights further under a false excuse of “economic peace and security.”

The Front’s statement emphasized that such negotiations are a dangerous trick and an attempt to force new concessions from the Palestinian people while providing cover for occupation crimes. Furthermore, the PFLP said, these negotiations are an attempt to serve the interests and plans of the U.S. for control and hegemony in the region, including consolidating and deepening internal Palestinian divisions, and betraying the sacrifices of the martyred, wounded and prisoners of our people.

The Front’s statement concluded by calling on the Palestinian people everywhere, inside Palestine and in exile and diaspora, and all national and Islamic forces and institutions to raise their vigilance and take urgent actions to reject any indirect or direct negotiations. It said that a clear, serious, responsible and bold rejection of the entire path of Oslo and all of the results built upon its foundations is necessary, including its replacement with a national strategy that prioritizes the rights of our Palestinian people and reorganizes the Palestinian house in one united, democratic Palestine Liberation Organization including all Palestinian national and Islamic forces, preserving the rights of our people to resist, end the occupation and settlements, free our prisoners, achieve the right of return and establish our independent, sovereign Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital.

On the 20th of September 2001, during a joint session of congress, George Bush uttered the now famous phrase “every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” The resulting ‘War on Terror’ is not only being fought on the battle field but also in the minds of people worldwide through a complex web of legislation and International Law. New Zealand is an active participant in the global war against terror being led by the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq. But this should be understood within the context of New Zealand’s long history of repressing its own population.

Maori Resistance

On February 22 1860 the New Zealand government declared martial law stating “active military operations are about to be undertaken by the Queen’s forces against Natives in the Province of Taranaki”. The crime that prompted this declaration was nothing more than unarmed Maori confronting agents of the Crown as they attempted to survey the Pekapeka block at Waitara in Northern Taranaki. The declaration of martial law allowed the Crown to adopt a policy of attrition or “scorched earth” involving the destruction of villages and cultivations. The aim was to reduce the ability of those considered by the Crown to be rebels to make war and hinder European settlement. This was quickly followed up with the New Zealand Settlements Act in 1863. The Preamble stated the North Island has been subject to “insurrections amongst the evil-disposed persons of the Native race”, and was used to further confiscate Maori land. The Act’s stated purpose was “the prevention of future insurrection or rebellion” by Maori and “for the establishment and maintenance of Her Majesty’s authority and of Law and Order throughout the Colony”. This was to be achieved by the “introduction of a sufficient number of settlers able to prote

ct themselves and to preserve the peace of the Country”.

It mattered not to the New Zealand government whether the rebellion was violent or passive, as was shown in Parihaka. Passive resistance campaigns

Volutneer riflemen at the invasion of the Taranaki settlement Parihaka, 1881

led to more than 420 ‘ploughmen’ and 216 ‘fencers’ from throughout Taranaki being arrested and imprisoned. Only 40 ‘ploughmen’ received a trial. Special legislation was passed, first to defer the remainder of the trials, and then to dispense with them altogether. On November 5 1881 more than 1,500 Crown troops, led by the Native Minister, invaded and occupied the settlement of Parihaka. No resistance was offered and 1600 residents were expelled. Houses and cultivations in the vicinity were systematically destroyed, and stock was driven away or killed. Maori of Taranaki reported that women were raped and otherwise molested by their attackers. Special legislation was subsequently passed to restrict Maori gatherings and movement and entry into Parihaka was regulated by a pass system. Parihaka leaders Te Whiti and Tohu were charged for sedition and held until 1883. Their trials were postponed and ultimately special legislation was passed to provide for their imprisonment without trial. This legislation also indemnified those who, in the action taken to “preserve the peace”, might have exceeded their legal powers.

Workers’ Resistance

March in Auckland in support of the Wellington waterfront strike, 1913

In 1913 the government used force to quell a waterfront strike in Wellington and followed up its “victory in the streets” with legislation to restrict picketing and prevent striking. Richard Hill, in his History of Policing in New Zealand series stated that the government was “determined to destroy its class enemies”, showing more concern for “crushing the water siders” than for “getting the wharves going”. In 1932 spurred on by wage cuts, the government’s treatment of the unemployed and an economic depression, 20,000 workers exploded onto the streets, this time in Auckland. The government blamed a “lawless minority” and “communist agitators” for violent clashes and used the incident as an excuse for the introduction, under urgency, of the Public Safety Conservation Act 1932. The law was described as “potentially the most dangerous and repressive piece of legislation on the New Zealand statute books” at the time. The Act enabled the Governor General to declare a state of National Emergency whenever “the public safety or public order is or is likely to be imperilled.” Once an emergency was declared the executive could issue a declaration on any topic that it considered “essential to the maintenance of public safety and order and the life of the community.” Unlike the 1920 UK statute it was based on, the New Zealand version reserved no protection for the right of workers to strike. On September 20 1950, the National government invoked the Act in response to workers’ militant actions on the water front. Minister of Labour William Sullivan stated that the workers’ rebellion “just cannot go on. No self-respecting government could tolerate it.” The dispute continued and on February 21 1951 a state of emergency was again declared and used to enact sweeping “Waterfront Strike Emergency Regulations”. These prohibited processions, demonstrations, pickets and signs of support of the locked out workers and gave the police extremely wide powers of arrest and entry while essentially censoring the media by prohibiting publication of anything likely to encourage the industrial action. It was also made an offence to provide food or clothing to the locked out Watersiders. On two other occasions the National Government threatened to use the Act, in 1976 against electricity workers and in 1982 against workers at the Marsden Point refinery.

Good vs Evil?

Throughout the 1990s and into the new millennium, New Zealand increasingly participated in a variety of international sanctions programmes initiated by the United Nations against certain ‘rogue’ countries and governments. Post September 11 and the attack on the Twin Towers in New York, the New Zealand government passed a unanimous resolution outlining “New Zealand’s strong resolve to work with all other countries in the international community to stamp out terrorism and swiftly to bring terrorists to justice”, the practical application of which culminated in the Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002. Prime Minister John Key recently designated four organisations as ‘terrorist entities’ in New Zealand, justifying it by stating they engaged in “terrorist acts including the indiscriminate killing of civilians and assassination of political leaders.” This blatant hypocrisy promotes the idea of a dichotomy between good and evil. It discourages critical thought about the real causes of the material circumstances that breed liberation movements across the globe and attempts to delegitimise and suppress support for them. The very same Western regimes that write and enforce international law, and so-called terrorist legislation, are the same regimes hell bent on controlling the resources and wealth of the third world to the detriment of its people.

New Zealand’s ‘enemies’, as dictated to us, will have their violence condemned as terrorism, their legitimacy questioned, their motives vilified and their victims paraded in front of us daily on the news. Conversely our ‘friends’ and ‘allies’ use of violence will be portrayed as necessary, their motives pure, their legitimacy without question and their countless victims faceless.

The Fiji Mineworkers Union is currently seeking a resolution to one of the worlds longest running industrial disputes, over 340 workers have been on strike in the town of Vatukoula since 1991. In the 19 years since the strike began, the mine was closed (in 2006), sold, and re-opened under the ownership of another company, at which point none of the striking miners were re-hired. In recent times, gold production and sales have surged in Vatukoula while the former Emperor Gold employees continue to seek redress for their grievances. The miners continue to live in company housing and picket the mine regularly. The Spark examines the role the town of Vatukoula has played in Fiji’s labour history, and the exploitation of workers and the environment by multinational mining companies.
A Company Town

Vatukoula Mine

Gold was first discovered in the Vatukoula, in the north of Viti’ Levu by an Australian prospector in 1932, and the establishment of a mine by an Australian mining company, Emperor Gold Mining, followed soon after. Still a British colony, Emperor Gold practised what the Fiji Times has labelled “colonial-style mine management”. In a thesis submitted to the University of Vermont, Mary Ackley outlines what this means:

The mining company was initially able to secure an inexpensive migrant labor supply partially because of a British colonial protectionist policy that erroneously portrayed a comfortable rural Fijian subsistence economy, and thus allowed for the rationalization of low wages and temporary employment.

Ackley goes on to write that with the mining company owning all the land and housing, and monopolising employment in the area, “Vatukoula can truly be considered a company town.”
For decades Emperor Gold called the shots, but the workers began to get organised in 1960 when the company signed with the Fiji Mine Worker’s Union its first comprehensive agreement. In February 1977 the miners walked off the job, causing the board of directors to order the closure of the mine. That dispute was resolved with the intervention of the Ministry of Labour, but when miners again walked off the job in 1991 Emperor Gold followed through with its threat.

A History of Exploitation

In its decades of operation, Emperor Gold has given workers plenty of reasons to be aggrieved. When Fiji’s first Labour Party led government came to power in the 1980s, with the support of a militant organised labour movement, Emperor Gold chief executive Jeffrey Reid, a New Zealand stockbroker that The Age described as “ferociously anti-union” took a no holds barred approach to defending the company’s interests. Reid actively supported the 1987 coup that overthrew Fiji’s first multi-ethnic, working class aligned government. The coup stunted independent political development in a country with an electoral system divided on ethnic lines, a legacy of British colonial policy.

In a 2003 speech published in Pacific Ecologist, author of Labour and Gold in Fiji Dr ‘Atu Emberson-Bain stated that Reid’s support of the coup was “because for the first time the company faced the prospects of a government that was going to stand up for the indigenous mineworkers, and the Nasomo landowners.” According to Emberson-Bain “mining in Fiji is a low-wage industry. For much of our post-independence history in fact, average mine wages have lagged significantly behind those in other sectors like construction, transport and service sectors.” A miner in Fiji will earn only a quarter of what a miner in Australia will earn.

The strike

When on February 27 1991 miners walked off the job, Emperor sought and won a court injunction declaring the strike illegal. They went on to sack 436 workers in the following days. Riot police fed, housed and transported by the company, were brought to Vatukoula to secure company premises and evict sacked workers from their homes.

“The reasons for the strike were poor wages and the poor working conditions,” Usaia Seniu told aid organisation Oxfam, who investigated the situation in 2003 after a formal request from the Fiji Mine Workers Union. “I had no proper safety gear and sometimes loose rocks would fall and you needed to make sure that they did not fall on your head.”

The conditions miners were housed in were also appalling, company houses were made from corrugated iron and wood and had no bathroom or cooking facilities. Barracks built in the 1930s for single male workers, measuring six-by-four metres, housed entire families.

Since 1991, there have been near daily pickets of the mine’s main gate. In 1992, the striking miners marched demanding the immediate deportation of Jeffrey Reid.

Ecological impacts

Pollution of air and water supplies caused by the mine has impacted on the health and well being of miners and their families, linking concerns about the natural environment with those about wages and working conditions. A major environmental audit in 1994 confirmed higher than safe levels of mercury and cadmium in water samples taken from the Nasivi River in Vatukoula.

Sulphur emissions were a major hazard. “The sulphur affects us all,” one ex-mine worker told Oxfam. “Every week or so when the wind changes the sulphur clouds come down. We see the cassava leaves burn and start to die off from the sulphur. It gives the children headaches and one six-year-old collapsed a couple of times from the sulphur. The sulphur collects on the roof and goes into the water tanks when it rains.”

International Solidarity

Robert Reid, general secretary of the National Distribution Union (New Zealand) and an executive member of the Asia-Pacific Regional Committee of the International Chemical, Energy and Mining Union Federation (ICEM) pledged solidarity, telling the Fiji Times:

The miners and their families have suffered severely over the last 19 years as the Emperor Gold Mine Company chose to close down the mine rather than negotiate a resolution of the issues with the FMU. I am sure that as other unions around the world hear that the struggle of the mine workers in Fiji continues they will also lend their support.

Australia’s Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union has recently stated that Australian mining companies operating in the Pacific ought to obey Australian regulations on safety and conditions. Peter Colley, national research director for the union called Emperor Gold a “fly by night operation.” telling Radio Australia, “Those sort of operations always like to have lower standards”.

In June the Vatakoula miners met with Fiji’s interim government and presented a compensation claim of $US4000 per miner for every year of the strike. The outcome of this meeting could be a significant victory for some of the Pacific’s most militant workers.

RENDEZVOUS HOTEL LOCKOUT

Housekeepers at the Rendezvous Hotel in central Auckland had been faced with the same trick by management every time collective bargaining came around: the company invariably delayed the settlement, cheating the workers out of months worth of back pay.

This year the company’s offer was 1.5% to cover them until June 2012 (the workers had got nothing last year), and the bosses also wanted to take one day’s sick leave entitlement off them. The workers, members of the SFWU, responded with a one day strike on the day that a big conference was being held at the hotel. The company retaliated with a lockout of the workers that lasted 13 days.

The union challenged the legality of the lockout in court, but lost that battle. The dispute was finally settled at mediation with an increase of 25c per hour (the equivalent of just under 2% for most of the workers), the term of the agreement was reduced to one year and the workers retained their sick day. The expiry of the current Collective Agreement is well timed to coincide with the Rugby World Cup.

A particularly shocking aspect of the dispute was that WINZ did not pay a cent of benefits to any of the locked out workers who were on work permits. This blatant discrimination against workers on the basis of their immigration status is something the union movement has to challenge!

When the lockout ended, the workers resolved not to work through their rest breaks as many of them had done previously, and instead maintain the solidarity they had built up on the picket line by all taking their breaks together.

PAPER RECLAIM STRIKE

Workers at Paper Reclaim, Auckland’s largest paper recycling company went on strike for a $1 per hour pay increase. After 10 days on strike, the 32 NDU members won their extra dollar. The strikers had benefited from sympathetic coverage on the Campbell Live TV programme.