|
February 26, 2010 - No. 42 Vale Inco It's Time for Vale Inco to Give Up Its
|
|
Three years ago, Vale -- a giant multinational corporation, based in Brazil but operating worldwide -- was allowed to swallow up Inco. Now it has forced 4,000 miners and smelter workers in Sudbury, Port Colborne and Voisey's Bay out on strike. It's demanding huge rollbacks in pensions, nickel bonus and seniority rights. Our members have walked the line for 8 months already, no end in sight, with the company refusing to talk.
Having poisoned the social climate in these communities for years to come, this arrogant outfit is now sponsoring a conference at Toronto's Conference Centre, to boast about its allegedly 'wonderful' efforts to curb pollution.
They've even dared to hold it on International Women's Day.
How green is our Vale? Not very. How greedy is it? Beyond words. We'll send a message to the conference from sister and brother Steelworkers in Toronto. Stop this vicious attack on working families! Get back to the bargaining table! Canadians workers want and deserve a fair contract!
Quebec
Common Front Negotiations
No Concessions on Wages and Working Conditions
Imposed Through Decree!
Common Front of Quebec public sector workers holds demonstration in front of the
National Assembly, February 22, 2010. (Photo: CSN)
On Monday, February 22, nearly 5,000 Quebec public sector workers of the Common Front demonstrated in front of the National Assembly to protest the slow pace of negotiations. They also called for the full realization of their demands regarding wages and working conditions.
The Common Front represents 475,000 unionized public sector workers in Quebec, 48 percent of which are full-time, 16 percent part-time and 36 percent whose employment is considered precarious. The Common Front is calling for an 11 percent wage increase over three years, or 3.75 percent per year. Last November, the government proposed a 7 percent increase over five years.
In recent weeks, the various unions that constitute the Common Front consulted their members on the wage offers. The offers were rejected and denounced by workers from all sectors, because they will only lead to their impoverishment.
 "No to Decrees": demonstration against Charest government's impositino of concessions and working conditions by decree, National Assembly, December 2005. |
According to Michel Arsenault, president of the Quebec Federation of Labour (FTQ), "It is totally unacceptable. It is out of the question that we make concessions on working conditions and wages that have been imposed on us with a special law," referring to the decree imposed by the Quebec government in December 2005.
He pointed out that public sector workers have seen their purchasing power dwindle by 8.5 percent during those years.
Moreover, he says, the government must stop making such a fuss over Quebec's budget deficit. "This year the deficit represents 1.3 percent of Quebec's GDP, a percentage much lower than anywhere else in the Western world."
"The wage increases demanded by the Common Front, the net cost of which would be $3.1 billion after [the government] recovers taxes, would contribute significantly to reviving a fragile economy," he concluded.
In a February 16 statement, the Common Front points out that the inflation rate predicted by Caisses Desjardins over the next five years far exceeds the wage increases proposed: "Ultimately, the loss of workers' purchasing power is estimated to be between 3.5 percent and 5 percent."
Representatives of the Common Front are calling for the pace of negotiations to be stepped up. "We are very pleased that the minister says he wants to move faster, but it takes two to tango. The government must also demonstrate its good intentions at the bargaining table," concluded the spokespersons.
Education Is a Right!
Students Demonstrate Against Tuition Fee Hikes
On February 17, Quebec students responded to a call from the Association for Student Union Solidarity (ASSÉ) and demonstrated against a tuition fee increase announced by the Minister of Education, Recreation and Sports Michelle Courchesne on February 11. On this occasion the minister self-servingly told reporters that a consensus was being reached in favour of such an increase in Quebec, despite the fact that such a "consensus" excludes the students.
Students mobilized quickly for joint actions across Quebec. Actions were held in St-Jérôme and Sainte-Thérèse. Actions were also held at the Drummondville, St-Laurent and François-Xavier Garneau cégeps, as well as at Laval University.
In Montreal a demonstration of 250 people united contingents from the Maisonneuve, Vieux-Montréal, and Bois-de-Boulogne cégeps and the University of Quebec in Montréal (UQAM). The demonstrators made their way to the offices of the minister of Education, Recreation and Sports in the Centre-Sud neighbourhood to declare loud and strong that education is a right!
"We demand that the minister listen to the main stakeholders to find a solution to financing the education system, that is to say the students and not economic 'think tanks' which have a foot in the door of the ministry," declared Marie-Élaine Laroche, vice president of sociopolitical affairs of the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières student union.
"It's the workers and middle class who are far from rich to whom the political elite constantly passes the buck for their irresponsible electoral decisions," added Christian Pépin, secretary of ASSÉ.
"It's all well and good, this wishful thinking that only the rich will pay and those in need will receive assistance. But in practice this is impossible because, as we would like to remind the government, there aren't tons of rich people in Quebec. It is therefore the hundreds of thousands of students who will find themselves without assistance when they need it," stressed Alexandre Leduc of the Conseil québécois du secteur universitaire de l'Alliance de la fonction publique (Quebec Council of the Public Service Alliance University Sector).
"We have been told that low tuition is an injustice, but to not permit students to meet their needs during their studies is worse. The debate over tuition fee increases will not take place as changes have not been made to the financial aid system," emphasized Olivier Jégou, secretary of the Quebec Student Roundtable.
According to Alexa Conradi, president of the Quebec Women's Federation, "It is false to say that there is a consensus on the question of tuition fee increases. This applies as much to education as for all public service fees."
"The constant rise in tuition fees is a violation of the right to education. As Quebec has ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, should we not lean in the opposite direction, that is to say towards free education?" asked Nicole Filion, coordinator for the League of Rights and Freedoms.
What the minister failed to mention is that the "consensus" over increasing tuition fees, on new cuts and fee hikes is found amid the financial oligarchy, which is emboldened by a government that is laying the groundwork for an intensification of the anti-social offensive. But like all reactionary forces in this society, the Charest government underestimates the forces of the new. The struggle of the students for full recognition of the right to education has the support of the workers and their allies because they are all participating in the same struggle for a modern Quebec that recognizes the rights of all by virtue of their being human.
The students' actions and other organizing that is
underway leave no doubt about their
determination to defeat this new threat to their right to education.
Education Is a Right!
Support the Just
Struggle of the Students!
In March 2005, more than 230,000 Quebec students went on strike to oppose the virulent propaganda of the government and media to justify their Charest government's announcement that it would lift the freeze on tuition. The students' determination forced the government to withdraw its proposal. Students also demanded that the $103 million cut from the system of loans and grants be restored and the the government stop its attacks on education.
International
Massive Strike Action Shuts Down Greece
Athens, Greece, February 24, 2010 (Photo: Indymedia Greece)
Hundreds of thousands of Greeks are on strike to protest the imposition of austerity measures to save the economy. Greece's airspace was closed to all flights on Wednesday, while trains and ferries stood idle.
This is the second general strike in two weeks, showing growing anger at the EU's response to the financial crisis. Greece currently has a spiralling public deficit of 12.7%, more than four times higher than Euro zone rules allow.
Commuters were left without most forms of public transport, while public schools, ministries and municipal offices were closed. Many hospitals operated only with emergency staffing.
The country's two largest trade union groups, the private sector GSEE and the public sector ADEDY, fiercely oppose the government's austerity measures and have membership roles of more than two million.
The head of the GSEE, Yiannis Panagopoulos, told reporters that the Greek people are well aware that the fiscal situation of the country is in terrible shape, but that the austerity measures are not fair. He said: "We demand a fair distribution of the burden so that wage-earners and pensioners do not pay the price for a crisis they did not create."
Obama Health Plan Leaves Millions Uninsured,
Boosts Private
Insurers
President Obama's health care proposal, preserving as it does a central role for the for-profit, private health insurance industry, is incapable of achieving the kind of universal, comprehensive and affordable reform the country needs, a spokesman for a national doctors' group said Wednesday.
"Regrettably, the president's proposal is built on some of the worst aspects of the Senate bill," said Dr. Quentin Young, national coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program, an organization of 17,000 doctors who support single-payer, Medicare-for-All approach to reform. Young's statement comes on the eve of the president's bipartisan summit in Washington.
"For example, the president's proposal would ship hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to the private health insurance industry in the form of subsidies," Young said. "And to help finance this, it would impose a new tax on health benefits of workers, especially those in high-cost states.
"Its individual mandate would force millions of middle-income uninsured Americans to buy insurers' skimpy products -- insurance policies full of gaps like ever-rising co-pays, deductibles and premiums. Such policies already leave middle-class American families vulnerable to economic hardship and medical bankruptcy in the event of a serious illness like cancer," continued Young, citing a recent study.
"Even so, at least 23 million people would remain uninsured," he said. "We know that being uninsured raises your chance of dying by about 40 percent," he continued, citing another recent study. "That translates into about 23,000 unnecessary deaths each year. As physicians, we find this completely unacceptable."
"In short," Young said, "this proposal is an insurance company bonanza, not good, evidence-based health reform. The president would do better by abandoning the insurance and drug companies and instead taking up the single-payer approach." His group has estimated that such an approach could save hundreds of billions of dollars annually by simplifying health administration.
"By building on and improving the already popular Medicare program, we could put our patients' interests first," he said. "Were President Obama to do so, he would meet with strong public support, including from the medical community."
Although the physicians' group requested an invitation to Thursday's summit at Blair House, no reply from the White House has been forthcoming, Young said. Similarly, requests from Reps. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, Anthony Weiner of New York and Peter Welch of Vermont president that single-payer advocates be included in the meeting have apparently gone unanswered.
Outside the Blair House on Thursday, a grassroots "Sidewalk Summit for Medicare for All" will underscore popular support for the measure.
Unexplored Oil Reserves in the South Atlantic
Towards
a New Falklands Conflict?
Little England Struts Again
Exactly 28 years later, the spectre of the Falklands War makes a comeback. This was one of Britain's last colonial wars -- a sordid episode in the annals of the British Empire. In 1982, UK Prime Minister Margaret sent a task force to "defend" the Falklands from long-held territorial claims by Argentina of Las Malvinas, which Britain had seized in 1833. The islands are approximately 300 kilometres off the coast of the South American mainland and 12,000km from Britain.
Some 900 servicemen -- more than two-thirds of them Argentine -- died in the 74-day Falklands War. The most notorious incident was the sinking of the Argentine navy cruiser, the General Belgrano, by a British submarine, HMS Conqueror, on 2 May, 1982. Two torpedoes dispatched 323 Argentinians to their watery graves. The attack was sanctioned by Thatcher and caused an international storm because it occurred outside British-declared territorial waters and the Belgrano was reported at the time to be sailing west, away from the disputed islands.
Infamously, the British tabloid Sun gloated over the Argentinian deaths with the front-page headline: 'Gotcha'. The resulting jingoistic war mood that swept Britain was much to the benefit of Thatcher and her Tory government. After two years in office, the wage-cutting, public-service axing rightwing Iron Maiden was sagging in the polls and deeply resented. A war to defend doughty Britain's national interests was just the ticket for her political revival and a crucial factor in her re-election in 1983.
Twenty-eight years later, the stakes are high again. Incumbent prime minister Gordon Brown is being assailed in the polls and media and his Labour government is staring at defeat in elections only months away. Britain is also languishing in economic depression, with a crippling trade deficit and national debt. But lying off its South Atlantic possession is an oilfield with a prize that is a jewel in the crown compared with Britain's (now depleted) North Sea hydrocarbon reservoirs -- even when the latter were at their peak production back in the 1980s.
Reports put the oil reserves off the Falklands at 60 billion barrels of crude. To put this in perspective, Saudi Arabia -- the world's top producer -- has an estimated total reserve of 267 billion barrels.
Put another way, the oil find in the South Atlantic -- if fully exploited -- would put Britain in the world ranking of the top 17 oil-holding nations between Russia (8th) and Libya (9th).
This week, Britain started drilling 62 miles (100km) north of the Falklands, much to the chagrin of Buenos Aires, which continues to lay claim to the islands despite its humiliating defeat. Argentina has in response imposed naval restrictions around the islands and has received unanimous diplomatic backing from its South American neighbours. And Argentina is due to bring its claims to the United Nations.
British foreign secretary David Miliband claims that his county's oil exploration in the South Atlantic is "completely in accordance with international law (sic)."
But the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) states that the outer maritime limit for territorial claim by any country is 22 nautical miles (22km) from its coast. This is well short of the location where Britain has started drilling for oil off its colony -- 62 miles (100km) -- never mind the absurd remove of 8,000 miles (12,000km) from dear old Blighty. The self-declared British territorial claim around the South Atlantic islands of 200 miles (370km) is simply that: a self-declared claim that has no basis in international law.
A Second Falklands War may seem far-fetched. But the danger of conflict can never be discounted when an imperialist power -- especially one with pretensions of greatness -- feels under duress. History shows that Britain's lacklustre economy and discredited political establishment did not stop it from embarking on the Suez fiasco or the First and Second World Wars.
The latest diplomatic spat at the very least illustrates the friction when countries flaunt double standards. Argentina's President, Cristina Kirchner, speaking at a summit of South American states this week in Cancun, Mexico, put it well when she said: "Britain can systematically violate UN resolutions because it sits on the security council -- while other nations have to obey UN resolutions otherwise they are labelled enemies or worse."
What Is at Stake in the Falklands
TML is posting below an excerpt from an item by Rick Rozoff entitled "South Atlantic: Britain May Provoke New Conflict with Argentina" explaining what is at stake in the Falklands/Malvinas. The complete article can be viewed here.
***
[...]
In late December Britain conducted a two-day military operation off the coast of the Falklands/Las Malvinas which included the use of Typhoon multi-role fighters and warships. The exercises, code-named Cape Bayonet, "took place during a tour of the Falklands by British forces ahead of the start of drilling in the basin in February 2010" and "simulated an enemy invasion...."[13]
A news report at the time added, "Britain has strengthened its military presence in the Falklands since the [1982] war and has a major operational base at Mount Pleasant, 35 miles from the capital Stanley.
"The prospect of the islands transforming into a major source of oil revenue for Britain has raised the military's argument for more funding to beef up the forces in South Atlantic."[14]
Four days before British drilling began off the islands, Prime Minister Gordon Brown stated "We have made all the preparations that are necessary to make sure that the Falkland Islanders are properly protected,"[15] although Argentine officials have repeatedly denied the possibility of a military response to British encroachments and provocations in the South Atlantic Ocean.
On the same day, February 18, Argentina's Vice Minister of Foreign Relations Victorio Taccetti accused Britain of "a unilateral act of aggression and subjugation"[16] in moving to seize oil and gas in the disputed region. Buenos Aires has prohibited ships from going to and coming from the Falklands/Las Malvinas through Argentine waters.
What is at stake are, according to British Geological Survey estimates, as many as 60 billion barrels of oil under the waters off the Falklands/Las Malvinas.
In late January a Russian military analyst explained that even that colossal energy bonanza is not all that Britain covets near the Falklands/Las Malvinas and further south.
Ilya Kramnik wrote that "along with the neighboring islands controlled by the UK, the Falklands are the de facto gateway to the Antarctic, which explains London's tenacity in maintaining sovereignty over them and the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, as well as territorial claims regarding the South Shetland and South Orkney Islands under the Antarctic Treaty."
Regarding Antarctica itself, "Under the ice, under the continental shelf, there are enormous mineral resources and the surrounding seas are full of bio-resources. In addition, the glaciers of Antarctica contain 90% of the world's fresh water, the shortage of which becomes all the more acute with the growth in the world's population."[17]
A Chinese analysis of over two years earlier described what Britain in part went to war for in 1982 and why it may do so again: Control of broad tracts of Antarctica.
"The vastness of seemingly barren, ice-covered land is uncovered and exposed to the outside world, revealing a 'treasure basin' with incredibly abundant mineral deposits and energy reserves....A layer of Permian Period coal exists on the mainland, and holds 500 billion tons in known reserves.
"The thick ice dome over the land is home to the world's largest reservoir for fresh water; holds approximately 29.3 million cubic kilometers of ice; and makes up 75% of earth's fresh water supply.
"It is possible to say that the South Pole could feed the entire world with its abundant supplies of food [fish] and fresh water... [T]he value of the South Pole is not confined to the economic sphere; it also lies in its strategic position.
"The U.S. Coast Guard has long had garrisons in the region, and the U.S. Air Force is the number one air power in the region."[18]
The feature from which the preceding excerpts originated ended with a warning: "[T]he South Pole [Antarctic] Treaty points out that the South Pole can only be exploited and developed for the sake of peace; and can not be a battle ground. Otherwise, the ice-cold South Pole could prove a fiercely hot battlefield."[19]
Two days before the May 13, 2009 deadline for "states to stake their claims in what some experts [have described] as the last big carve-up of maritime territory in history,"[20] Britain submitted a claim to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf for one million square kilometers in the South Atlantic reaching into the Antarctic Ocean.
An article in this series written five days afterward detailed the new scramble for Antarctica initiated by Britain and Australia, the second being granted 2.5 million additional square kilometers in the Antarctic Ocean in April of 2008.[21]
A newspaper in the United Kingdom wrote about London's million-kilometer South Atlantic and Antarctic ambitions beforehand that "Not since the Golden Age of the Empire has Britain staked its claim to such a vast area of land on the world stage. And while the British Empire may be long gone, the Antarctic has emerged as the latest battleground for rival powers competing on several fronts to secure valuable oil-rich territory....The Falklands claim has the most potential for political fall-out, given that Britain and Argentina fought over the islands 25 years ago, and the value of the oil under the sea in the region is understood to be immense. Seismic tests suggest there could be about 60 billion barrels of oil under the ocean floor."[22]
Last autumn a Russian news source warned about the exact initiative of this February 22 in stating "Many believe that the 1982 war between Britain and Argentina with almost 1,000 servicemen killed in the hostilities was all about oil and gas fields in the South Atlantic. In this sense, Desire Petroleum should certainly think twice before starting to capitalize on what was a subject of the bloodbath in 1982..."
Regarding the territorial claims submitted by Britain last May (still in deliberations at the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf), the report pointed out London's "eagerness to expand its Falkland Islands' continental shelf from 200 to 350 nautical miles, which would enable Britain to develop new oil fields in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands," and ended with a somber warning:
"Given London's unwillingness to try to arrive at a political accommodation with Buenos Aires, a UN special commission will surely have tougher times ahead as far as its final decision on the continental shelf goes. And it is only to be hoped that Britain will be wise enough not to turn the Falkland Islands into another regional hot spot."[23]
Unlike the first South Atlantic war of 1982, when the regime of General Leopoldo Galtieri garnered no support from other Latin American nations, a future standoff or armed conflict between Argentina and Britain over the Falklands/Las Malvinas will see Latin American and Caribbean states acting in solidarity with Argentina.
If the United Kingdom succeeds in provoking a new war, it in turn will appeal to its NATO allies for logistical, surveillance and other forms of assistance, including direct military intervention if required. In addition to the U.S. and Canada, Britain's NATO allies in the Western Hemisphere include France and the Netherlands with their possessions and military bases in the Caribbean and South America.
Britain is playing with fire and if it ignites a new conflict it could rapidly spread far beyond the waters off the southern tip of South America.
Notes
13. United Press International,
December 28, 2009
14. Ibid
15. Reuters, February 18, 2010
16. Xinhua News Agency, February 19, 2010
17. Russian Information Agency Novosti,
January 28, 2010
18. People's Daily, December 4, 2007
19. Ibid
20. Reuters, October 7, 2007
21. Scramble For World Resources: Battle
For Antarctica Stop NATO,
May
16, 2009
22. The Scotsman, October 23,
2007
23. Voice of Russia, September 16, 2009
Read The Marxist-Leninist
Daily
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca