WHOSE SOCIAL CLAUSE IS IT ANYWAY?


K. Ashok Rao
President,
National Confederation of Officers Associations
of Central Public Sector Undertakings.
 theraos@vsnl.com

The Globalisation Paradigm
When I applied for a visa, the British High Commission suggested take a British Passport instead. I refused that offer and got a “Certificate of entitlement and the right to abode” stamped on my passport. The reason I was entitled to a British Passport was that I was born in Britain, off British parents. My parents, born in the Krishna District in the then Madras Presidency in British colonial India, were “British” because before independence all natives were British subjects. That too was globalisation! I was born a global citizen! courtesy colonisation.

Fifty-five years later, the neo colonial forces intrude upon the sovereign space of the free Indian State. The Indian Parliament is compelled to amend India's patent laws because the WTO, based on a US complaint, has ruled that India must amend its laws.

In his book `The crisis of global capitalism’ George Soros states,
“We are all part of the global capitalist system, which is characterised not only by free trade but more specifically by the free movement of capital.…..The capitalist system can be compared to an empire that is more global in its coverage than any previous empire. It is not a territorial empire because it lacks sovereignty and the trappings of sovereignty, indeed the sovereignty of the states that belong to it is the main limitation on its power and influence. It is almost invisible because it does not have any formal structure. Most of its subjects do not even know that they are subjected to it or, more correct, they recognise that they are subjected to impersonal and sometimes disruptive forces but they do not understand what those forces are. It has a center and a periphery just like an empire and the center benefits at the expense of the periphery.”

During an informal discussion (with the author), Mr. Samir Amin, the eminent Egyptian economist, said,

“The world was moving towards the establishment of two sets of countries, the haves and the have-nots. The haves are seeking to establish five monopolies.  Monopoly over


Globalisation needs to be understood within this framework. Therefore, except to the most perverted or an obviously stupid person it should be more than evident that the World known to us consists of nation states that are at various levels of economic development. However, the WTO consisting of 132 nations wants us to believe that it is possible for a world consisting of unequal nations to be made into a world of equals and that too within the capitalist paradigm. Therefore when the collective of Government representatives ignore this reality there is need for deeper introspection.

The WTO unlike its predecessor GATT not only makes incursions into the space of national sovereignty, dictating legislative changes but with its appellant authority and rules for cross retaliation, it has acquired lethal dimensions.

The Co-ordinates
The Cartesian co-ordinates are


The ILO is the only tripartite body in the UN system where the Trade Unions actually participate in decision-making. Why then should Trade Unions seek the forum of capital for enforcement of labour standards is a question that is quite intriguing? Equally intriguing is that none of the concerns of the labour of developed countries are reflected in the selected core standards - Issues of jobless growth; reduction is levels of social security; flexible/reduced working hours; increasing number of professionals working out of their homes due to improved electronic communications and etc. Yet it is the Trade Unions of the developed countries, led by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), which are crusading for the social clause.

Anybody who has had any experience with Trade Unions would realize that ILO standards could only be enforced through national struggles. External support can be effective only in the form of expression and/or actions related to international solidarity and most certainly not through trade sanctions imposed at the behest of international finance capital. At best social clause in the WTO can


Whose social clause is it anyway?
The reality of the Third World is that they are nations under siege. The World Bank, IMF and the WTO have laid the siege. The only weapons the people have to fight back are the people themselves and the Trade Unions have necessarily to be the vanguard of the people’s struggle. To suggest that the WTO would be the arbitrator of the workers rights is conceptually contradictory, if not ludicrous.

From October 14-17, 1999 thirty progressive activists and researchers assembled in Cordoba, Spain for a European strategy session and concluded that,
"Corporations have organized themselves in a web of lobby groups on the national, regional and global level, such as European Roundtable of industrialists and the International Chamber of Commerce. They have benefited from the on going transfer of political power to anti-democratic international structures such as the European Union and the World Trade Organization (WTO)…. campaigns on climate change and international trade and investment treaties such as MAI and WTO and movements against privatization and deregulation in the South provide inspiring examples of how diverse social movements are challenging corporate power."

Yet the ICFTU argues that the immediate beneficiary of a social clause, which gives the WTO the right to regulate labour standards and take punitive action, would be the developing countries since it would improve the workers living standards, whereas the industrial countries would benefit in a longer term and more intangible way!

If the aim of international finance capital, the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO is to create a global economy a boundary less global village then why should the social clause be restricted to national boundaries? Since multinational corporations work in many nations, the social clause should enforce international labour standards internationally. For example, the Conventions on Equal Remuneration should imply equal pay for equal work internationally. That means if a MNC makes a car in Japan, USA and India, equivalent workers should be paid equivalent pay on the same principle as international civil servants posted in various countries. So if a machinist working in the car factory in USA is paid an amount which enables him to afford a certain standard of living, the Indian machinist should also be paid enough to enable him have the same life style. Similarly, the Convention on Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) should imply an end to racism anywhere in the world, (and if practiced anywhere there should be trade sanctions). Forced Labour Convention should imply that any use of illegal immigrants should invite trade sanctions. But these are not on the menu of the social clause.

What is on the menu

If these were advocated as stated above, there would be a universal uproar. Therefore it is much more acceptable to claim that the capitalists of the United States and the former colonial rulers have suddenly developed deep concern for the condition of the Indian labour and more so for the children whose parents are, in their esteem, cruel and inhuman. In all these centuries of colonial rule these were not the concerns of the British capitalists  (Indians used to say the word RICH stands for Rob India and Come Home). The other ploy is to cry horse on the lack of democratic intervention in WTO and therefore the need for civil society to be present.  And this  implies foreign funded NGOs and Trade Unions willing to work for the interest of international finance capital.

Case study of India.
For the sake of an argument, let us say that the WTO is empowered to have a social clause. Which means that any nations that feels threatened by exports from another can raise labour standards as a dispute in the WTO.

In such a situation we shall work out a scenario for India. The ICFTU’s report `Internationally- Recognized core labour standards in India - for the WTO General Council review of the Trade Policies of India’ states,
“While India has a reasonable record of trade union rights in the formal sector and trade unions can generally operate in a non-hostile environment, it is clear that in a number of areas there is much room for improvement, particularly regarding trade union rights for civil servants and in the informal sector and in export process zones.”
The report gives the following data:

It is obvious that, it is not due to a hostile anti trade union atmosphere that the millions of workers in the informal sector are not organized.

Now, suppose India is exporting products that come from agriculture, forestry, fishing, plantation the chances are that labour standards would be cited as reason for trade dispute and sanctions or cross retaliation invoked. The Indian economy would be hurt and the direct producers would be hurt immediately. That is obvious. But as a consequence would the labour standards become applicable and the lots of the workers in these sectors become any better? If the answer is yes, then perhaps there is a case for a social clause. The reality is that social forces are far too complex. If by such simple devises the lot of the working class could be improved there would have been revolutions in these countries and the working class would not have waited for the WTO and its social clause.

Let us take another example, India has a billion people and there are large parts of the world that are grossly under-populated. In fact the resources of these countries cannot be exploited due to a lack of a work force. Under globalisation would a few million Indian workers be able to migrate and work? If the answer is yes, there is a need for a social clause under the WTO, so that there are enforceable labour standards. Mobility is sought only for capital, for labour its immigration rules and very humiliating consular services.

As stated earlier, would the principle of equal work for equal pay be applicable universally? If an MNC does not adhere to that principle, would it amount to a violation of the, now fashionable, human rights? If the answer is yes, there is a need for a social clause under the WTO.

Conclusion
It is impossible for the Indian Trade Unions or for that matter any independent Trade Union in any developing country not to agree with the statement of the Delhi consultation which stated, "the social clause as part of the WTO is motivated by protectionist intentions" and that "its provisions are designed to act as non-tariff barriers in trade, in favour of developed countries."

Labour Standards and the struggle to enforce are the agenda of the people of each nation within their national boundaries. International institutions in general and finance capital in particular cannot protect the interests of the working people of the Third World anymore than the US sanctions can get rid of the Presidents of Iraq or Libya. These self-appointed guardians can only bring misery to the people. They must be fought with equal vigour as must the local agents of oppression.