France: Thousands rally in support of Mélenchon and Front de Gauche

Lisbeth Latham

On March 18 more than 120,000 people joined in the rally for a Sixth republic called by the Front de Gauche (FdG) in support of its presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon. The rally was held in the Place de la Bastille and marked the 141st anniversary of the Paris Commune.



The FdG is an electoral alliance that draws together the majority of the parties to the left of the Parti Socialiste (PS), whose candidate Francois Hallande is expected to win the presidence.

Leading into the March 18 protest, Mélenchon had been polling at 11%, however in the immediate wake he polled as high as 13%. Both massive election rally and high polls demonstrates that the FdG has established significant momentum that it may be able to carry into the National Assembly elections in June and increase the Front's representation.



The Nouveau Parti Anticapaliste (NPA), which is standing it's own presidential candidate Philippe Poutou, has argued that the growing success of Mélenchon will increasingly open up contradictions both within Mélenchon position and between the organisations that make up the FdG.

Mélenchon has repeatedly called for "citizen's revolutions" which he sees as being achieved through the elections. While such a call could be seen as an aspirational hope of winning government outright, it is important to note that Mélenchon has endorsed the course pursued by Die Linke in Germany, which has entered government with the social democrats at the local level. There is also strong expectation that Parti Communiste Francais, which is by far the largest component of the FdG, and hold more than 90% of the FdG's current seats in the National Assembly, will push to enter government with the PS should it win government. When the PCF entered PS governments in the early 1980s and between 1997 and 2002, the PCF ministers participated in significant liberalisation of the French economy.

Read more...

France: NPA Confirm Presidential Candidate

Lisbeth Latham

The Neaveau Parti Anticatiliste (NPA) announced March 13 that they had completed the final administrative step in nominating Philippe Poutou for the April 22 Presidential election. Poutou is a Confédération générale du travail (CGT) militant at Ford’s Bordeaux plant.

Under France’s undemocratic electoral system presidential candidates require the endorsement of 500 of a list of 45, 000 elected officials, the majority of which are municipal mayors. Presidential nomination is a simple process for larger parties as they can rely on the endorsement from their own members. For smaller parties the process requires that they convince officials from the larger parties to endorse their candidate, which means it is possible for the larger parties to actively exclude smaller parties from the elections and rob people of the opportunity to vote for their preferred candidate.

This is precisely what has occurred to the NPA and other parties to the left of the Parti Socialiste (PS), with the PS leadership sending a letter to its elected officials directing them to not endorse the presidential candidates of other parties. Despite this obstacle, after more than eight months work of talking to elected officials across France, NPA activists were able to obtain endorsement from 520 officials.

The official nomination will help to secure a greater public profile for Poutou’s candidacy. It remains to this increased exposure enable Poutou to lift his current support of 0.5-1% in opinion polls.

Read more...

The NPA and French Politics

Below is the contribution I have submitted as part of thediscussion of Dick Nichol's presentation to the 2012 Socialist Alliance Conference that has been published by Links. I should have a longer piece finished in a few days.

Lisbeth Latham

I’ve been meaning to comment on this thread for a while, but have not had a chance as I have been busy writing an article that deals with issues but over a longer time frame than either Dick’s report or Jason Stanley’s articles go into. While the most significant point of discussion is the question of the NPA’s orientation to the Left Front (FG), I also want to touch on the question of the “Veil” and it’s impact on the NPA as I think the question of the “veil” has been a factor that has undermined the ability of the NPA’s membership to be united in action.

Inside or outside the left front
I agree with Nathan that Dick’s contributions over simplify the question of what attitude the NPA should have taken towards the FG. While on one level the question of the NPA’s participation in the FG has been posed several times and the balances of forces and other social factors such as the state of the class struggle in France has changed over this time period. Which factors that needed to be considered over this time period.

I agree with Nathan regarding the NPA also being concerned regarding the participation of the PCF in the 1997-2002 PS government, and at the municipal level. It is also important to note that PS municipal government’s invoked the new essential services laws to end strikes by municipal workers during the 2010 campaign in defence of pensions. By May 2011 the PS had already dropped some of its promises to repeal the changes to the pension laws pushed through by the Fillon government.

The dispute over relationship to the FG at the NPA’s founding congress was on the question of whether to link up with the FG prior to any discussion with the Front regarding relationship with the PS (which was the position of approximately 15% of the delegates – with some 3.5% of the membership departing to form Gauche Unitaire). Or alternatively to enter into a discussion with the Front make a decision as to whether to join based on this. While I agree with Nathan’s is correct to point out that in the European elections the question of government was not posed, I think there were some other factors at play in the NPA majority’s thinking. First the LCR and subsequently had cohered a base of support over the period between the 2002 elections and 2009 based on independence of social liberal left – at the time of the decision the NPA was polling around 10%. Secondly there was probably a concern that once they entered the Front without agreement on independence it would be difficult to exit later on when government was posed – a point I will return to later.

In assessing the European Election results I think there are a number of things to take into account. The NPA substantially improved on the performance of the LCR/LO ticket in 2004– almost doubling the vote - and was higher than Olivier Besancenot’s percentage in the 2007 presidential elections. This compared favourably with the FG only improved on the PCF’s vote by around 0.5%. However the NPA’s result was not as high as they had hoped for and the NPA unlike the FG fell short of the threshold to elect MEPs. At the time Francois Sabato argued that the lower than expected result reflected the down swing in the mass movement against the austerity between the NPA’s founding and the European elections, linked to this would have been the high rate of abstentionism amongst young voters where the NPA had a much higher level of support.

In the 2010 regional elections the NPA was able to negotiate electoral coalitions with the Left Party (PG). These were generally in areas where the PCF ran joint tickets with the PS rather than with the FG. These joint NPA/PG tickets performed as well or better than the FG tickets did.

The 2011 Congress debate occurred within the context of the NPA’s electoral fortunes not being as strong as had been hoped, but also following a significant defeat of the anti-pensions movement. By the tail end of that movement, the more conservative union confederations, the PCF and the PS made it clear that the only way to save people’s pensions was through parliament. The more radical unions were unable to get agreement in the Intersyndicale to continue mobilisations once the laws were passed – which isolated and ended the defiance of more militant sectors of the movement such as the oil workers. In this situation the debate was essentially between three positions regarding the best way forward to build the party – whether it lay with entry in the FG (a little over a quarter of the delegates); an attempt to continue to build a consistent anti-capitalist electoral pole (the largest minority with a little over 40% of delegates) and third position (again around a quarter of delegates) that argued for a greater orientation to the social movements. There was also a fourth tiny platform that argued to embed the party in the proletariat.

By the time the July conference occurred the situation had changed – the attempt to construct broader support around the NPA’s candidate had been unsuccessful. The new balance of forces within the NPA a round three positions. A new narrow majority (50.4%) position that made it clear that their would be an NPA presidential campaign rather than continue at that point to regroup anti-capitalist forces around that position. A large minority (40% of delegates) advocating a greater attempt to engage with the FG that also argued that the majority was retreating from the NPA’s original project and was articulating a sectarian position. Finally there was a small platform (5.8% of delegates) which argued that the NPA majority perspective was not revolutionary enough.

The larger minority grouping has now constituted itself as an organisation, Gauche anticapitaliste, that is functioning both inside and outside the NPA. GA is attempting to rally anticapitalist activists to save the NPA project and is pushing for the NPA to participate in the FG to engage with both PG and PCF members who oppose entering into a PS government.

The GA has called on the NPA to abandon their presidential campaign based on its low poll results and arguing the NPA is simply contesting with LO for 1-2% support in the elections. The GA argue that the NPA’s campaign is becoming indistinguishable from that of LO. The GA has called for the NPA’s March national leadership meeting to discuss and adopt the GA’s perspective.

In response to the emergence of the GA, the NPA majority is attempting to accommodate the GA. IT is looking to both pursuing its own election campaign in both Presidential and National Assembly elections, and at the same time saying that the GA can pursue the possibility of alliances with the FG for the National Assembly elections where agreement can be reached. As part of this the majority is exploring what resources can be made available to support any joint campaigns.

Its unclear where this discussion will go. It’s also difficult to know exactly what the prospects are like inside the FG compared to an electoral campaign outside. It is however possible to make a couple of observations about the character of the positions. I think that there is a real danger that the NPA majority is developing a position that not only is a sell out by the FG leadership, and particularly the PCF, inevitable, but that the crisis experienced by the USFI sections inside both the PRC in Italy and the PT in Brazil is also inevitable. As a consequence they seem to be avoiding question of the possible gains that could be made by leading fight inside the FG for a principled position in the wake of the National Assembly elections. It’s also difficult to get a read on exactly how the GA is relating FG and the extent they are turning engagement with the FG into a principle and thus making the NPA majority’s concerns justified.

Finally on the question of the NPA’s tactical orientation, I want to address what I see as fundamentally problematic with Dick’s analysis, that is attempting to judge what is the question of what os correct orientation for the NPA to adopt based solely on the prospects on the electoral front. Particularly the extent to which the NPA or the left in general will hold up following 2007 elections. It may be the case that due to the shifting state of the social movements unlike 2007 the NPA is not going to the elections having had its presidential candidate play a key role in a successful national campaign (i.e. Olivier Besancenot’s role in the “no” campaign on the European constitution). It may be possible that the NPA’s capacity to effectively build support in the social movements may be better in the long term outside of the FG, but that’s something you can’t get a clear view of outside of direct intimate experience of the French situation. I think it is significant that NPA has been able to successfully build joint mobilisations with both the Solidaires and the FSU education union around solidarity with the Greek movement against austerity.

On the “veil”
While I agree with Nathan in pointing out that the PG has taken a pretty hardline stance on around the “veil”, most of the French left have pretty awful positions based both on supposed advocacy of women’s rights and defence of laïcité. I mean this so as not to excuse the problems with the NPA but to give context to those who are not aware. In response to Ilham Moussaid candidacy for the NPA, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, “You can’t call yourself a feminist while showing off a sign of submission to the patriarchy.” Others examples include:

• In the vote the National Assembly around the law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools, only 36 deputies voted against the law; 
• In 2004, Arlette Laguiller the long term spokesperson of LO, marched alongside Nicole Guedj, a secretary of state in the justice ministry, in a march against the Hijab;
• In the vote to ban the Burqa, the PG’s two senators voted in favour of the ban, with Agnes Marie La Barre, explaining in an article on the Party’s website on September 16 that “nobody is fooled by the xenophobic context in which the law is passed. However our senators felt that the struggle for women’s rights requires the passing of the law”.

I think that the NPA have been affected by this issue more than other forces on the French. This effect was due to a number of reasons. I was the NPA that had the mass media controversy in response to having a “veiled candidate”. It is also important to remember that the LCR had a history of attempting to engage with marginalised émigré communities many of whom come from Muslim backgrounds. This is reflected in the work of LCR/NPA militants such as Catherine Samary in fighting against the law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols and working for the inclusion of women who wear the hijab into feminist mobilisations and the LCR’s public defence and solidarity with youth who rioted across France following the deaths of two boys fleeing police on October 27.

This work meant that that the LCR and subsequently the NPA were able recruit and build networks in these communities. The debate in the NPA, which was sparked by Ilham’s candidacy, undoubtedly damaged this work – I can’t see how having a public debate about whether believers are welcome in the party could not damage this work irrespective that the outcome was that yes they can be members. In my opinion this component of the debate meant that it was not possible for the NPA to put having at least of the debate the 2011 Congress. Another major impact was that it divided the party, and while it’s true that the divisions did not correspond to the divisions around the NPA’s electoral and movement perspectives, this division impacted the ability to intervene around other issues. An example of this was the Law banning women from wearing the Burqa and Niqab in public, where the NPA only endorsed a mobilisation against the ban the night prior to the protest. Another important element of divisive character of the debate is that it raised questions of individuals’ feminist credentials based on how they choose to express their religion, and implications this has for the rights of women to control their own bodies.

While only a small number of individuals who obviously left the NPA over the issue of Ilham’s candidacy. This included Ilham and a group of militants around her, and a group angered by Ilham’s candidacy, some of which like Fabien Engelmann joined National Front over the issue. It undoubtedly had a negative impact on the NPA’s internal unity.

Finally I think that the situation that has confronted the NPA has been extremely complex, and has occurred within a political situation that has become more difficult for political action outside the electoral sphere – which is a major factor that differentiates the NPA from both the PCF and the PG. While I think we should be attempting to learn from the NPA experience I think it is problematic for us to suggest that there are simple answers to the challenges faced by the NPA.

Read more...

Perth Queer Community Organises to Achieve Safer Venues

Lisbeth Latham

There have been growing concerns within Perth's LGBTI community over the state of the city's two main queer venues. These concerns, which initially emerged as informal grumblings have, during the part of this year, increasingly taken on more concrete forms. First with the creation of a Facebook group “Perth needs a new gay pub ", which had 300 members in its first two days of existence and now has more than 700 members. The establishment of group sparked an article in Out in Perth that
aired some of the issues and gave the owners of both the Court Hotel and Connections a right of reply to the concerns, the Cross Campus Queer Network then initiated a community forum under the title of “Reclaiming Queer Venues” held on March 26.

CCQN in its call and media statements in the lead up to the forum identified four issues regarding venues which had motivated it to call the meeting. These were:

• hostile and sometimes violent security;
• discrimination against trans people;
• indiscriminate and arbitrary bannings and the enabling of sexual assault through the continued admittance of sexual predators

The aim of the meeting would be to generate action that could make Perth’s Queer Venues safer and more inclusive of both the Queer community and the broader Perth community.

The forum, which was chaired by Shamini Joseph, UWA co-Queer Officer, and prominent community member and former co-president of Pride WA, Daniel Smith, attracted more than 80 people. Significantly the meeting attracted three members of the Legislative Council, Greens’ MLCs Giz Watson and Lyn McLaren and ALP MLC Lisa Baker; as well as Connections Nightclub owner Tim Brown, and Grahame Watson, Out in Perth editor.

While the forum provided an important opportunity to allow members of the community to express their concerns and frustrations regarding the character of the Court and Connections, the meeting’s primary focus was on achieving practical action to resolve concerns. The possible actions identified were:

• to identify existing venues that could be colonised as Queer friendly venues and to investigate the possibility of establishing a new venue with a range of services and facilities for the queer community
• taking direct action to highlight the problems at both the Court and Connections and acting to create safer spaces in the venues through this action formal documentation and lodging of complaints regarding problems
• seeking to work with Pride WA to establish a queer accreditation process for venue endorsement

In the wake of the meeting there have been a number of important developments which have strengthened the campaign. This has included the establishment of Reclaiming Queer Venues (RQV) as an independent campaign coalition and a number of WA queer and queer supporting organisations adopting statements around the Court Hotel.

Since being established as coalition RQV has created its own campaign website and Facebook presence as well as a Facebook page QueerCritique Perth. QueerCritique Perth initiative exists to allow members of the queer to rate Perth's bars, clubs and other venues based how queer-friendly they are.

Pride WA, the WA Gender Project and Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) have all made statement raising concerns regarding the Court Hotel. The Pride WA statement, passed at its AGM on March 28, criticised the Court Hotel for not contributing financially to Pride while it holds a Pride After Party that directly competes with Pride WA’s major annual fund raising event. The WA Gender Project has concerns regarding the number of complaints from Perth’s Transgender and Transexual community regarding “a sudden rise in alleged discrimination by Court Hotel Staff”. These
complaints relate to allegations that staff have prevented trans patrons from using the toilet they identify with, and have suggested that they use the disabled toilet if they are unwilling to use the toilet associated with their legal sex. Both the male and female toilets at the Court feature signs stating that patrons of the opposite sex found the toilet will be evicted. In an open letter to the Court PFLAG states that it is “concerned at alleged increases in violence and discrimination towards members of Perth’s lesbian and gay community” and that “as the only gay and lesbian pub in Perth, it is important
that our children and their friends are affirmed and feel safe [there]”.

Under these growing criticisms the ownership of the Court Hotel has been forced to respond, however their responce has thus far failed to satisfy it critics. In response to concerns over safety, Bree Day, the Court’s owner told the March 29 West Australian “Our venue is safer than it has ever been. We welcome all people regardless of their sexual preferences and our patrons enjoy themselves regardless of which way they identify. Thousands of people enjoy the Court every weekend and that’s enough for us to believe they feel accepted”. RQV spokesperson Shamini Joseph rejects this
argument, “More people accessing a space or a pub doesn't make it safer. You need a management
who take drink spiking and claims of violence seriously – which the Court’s management doesn’t appear to be doing. If the Court was serious they would be looking at better training for their security staff, so people feel like are protected”.

On its Facebook page, the Court Hotel has made reference to community concerns about the need to reclaim venues, by implying that the campaign is motivated by hostility to “straight” people and arguing “we think you should reclaim your venue! The more the gay and lesbian and extended community come to the venue the more gay and lesbian the venue will be! It’s that simple!”

Joseph rejects the claim that the campaign is heterophobic, “Wanting to reclaim queer venues isn't anti-hetero. Straight people are welcome in any queer space, as it is queer culture which makes a venue queer. We're not asking for less straight people to come to the Court, we're asking for less homophobia, transphobia and general objectification of gay culture in our own pubs. We're asking for management to understand and promote this culture rather than actively exploiting and
knowingly profiting from its demise.”

The development of Reclaiming Queer Venues is an important development in queer political activity in Perth. Action that has the ability to not only achieve safe and genuinely inclusive venues in Perth, but also to empower the community to act in its own interests.
To get involved in the campaign email info@reclaimingqueervenues.com or visit reclaimingqueervenues.com, if you would like to help rate Perth’s venues go to http://www.facebook.com/pages/QueerCritique-Perth/189801837724177?sk=wall.

Read more...

Can we beat racism by suppressing it?

Lisbeth Latham

In January, Fabien Engelmann, secretary of the Confédération générale du travail's (General Confederation of Labour - CGT) union representing workers in the Nilvange town hall, announced that he would be standing as a candidate of the far-right Front National (National Front-FN). The announcement has rocked not only the CGT but also the far-left parties Lutte Oevriere (Workers Struggle – LO) and the Nouveau parti anticapitaliste (New Anticapitalist Party – NPA), as Engelmann was a former candidate for both parties in the 2007 and 2010 elections.


The CGT responded on January 16, by initiating a vote for a new secretary in the local union, which Engelmann won overwhelming, 20 votes to 3. The CGT then gave the members an ultimatum, remove Engelmann and elect a new Secretary, or they would suspend the local union. In a joint statement, the CGT’s Public Service Federation and the Moselle Department explaining the suspension of Engelmann, these were:
Firstly, that Engelmann as a CGT militant was being a propagandist for ideas that run against the fundamental values and directions of the CGT
Secondly that Engelmann sort to use the CGT political purposes.
In its statement explaining the suspension of the local unions the Departmental Union and Public Sector Federation explained that it would remain suspended until it could be re-established on a basis consistent with the values of the CGT.

Engelmann in his public statements has explained his transition from a militant of the far-left, to a militant of the far right in terms of immigration and defence of secularism. In an interview with the website Reposte Laique (Secular Response) that he left the NPA along with other members in his branch, after the regional elections, as a consequence of the NPA standing a veiled candidate (Former NPA candidate Ilham Moussaid, wore the Hijab). Engelmann has explained his decision to join the FN on the basis that Presidential candidate Marine Le Pen is the only one “defending secularism” in France, and that he could not support the lefts support for immigration to France and support for legalisation of workers without papers in a time of high unemployment.

In response to Engelmann’s announcement both LO and the NPA have issued statements. The NPA organisation in Mosselle statement condemned the racism not only of FN, but of President Sarkozy, which legitimises FN’s policies, that “wrongly blames immigration for the majority of society’s ills. The statement also rejected the notion that FN is a defender of secularism, instead stating that the FN only targets the supposed “Islamisation of France”, which “serious studies prove is only a phantasm”, while ignoring the real privileges of other religions, while the FN allows in its organisation self acknowledged Catholic activists who have threatened doctors who provide abortions. Finally the NPA statement explains that the FN economic policies such lower corporate taxes, limiting the right to strike, increasing the defence budget while lowering the education budget, are in contradiction to the demands of the labour movement”. The LO statement described both Le Pens (Marine, and Jean-Marie, Marine’s Father and the founder of the FN) as middle class and their orientation to the working class is to shift workers anger towards immigrants, the poor and the most oppressed and away from the middle class and capitalists who are for the disaster of the crisis and the drama of unemployment”.

FN have indicated that they will launch a case in the European Court of Human Rights to seek his readmission. In 2007, Bredin Prat who was expelled from the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen for being a member of the British National Party , launched a similar case in the ECHR. In that case the ECHR found under clause 11 of the European Convention to Protect Human Rights, which protects the right of freedom of assembly, that unions have the right to determine who can be a member. Engelmann’s lawyer has indicated that their argument will be focused on clause 9 and 10 which protect freedom of expression.

Irrespective of any court ruling on the legality of Engelmann’s suspension, the FN will attempt to paint Engelmann as a victim, who has had his democratic rights impinged. Their efforts are helped by CGT regional official Denis Pesce’s acknowledgement to Free Actualité, that members of the union had wanted to keep Engelmann as secretary as they felt that he was “doing a good job”. Engelmann has said that in the coming week’s more CGT members will come out as FN members. Given the social crisis in France it is likely that there are a number of members who will at least be FN sympathisers, particularly as Pesce has acknowledged that union has not done in enough to combat racist ideas. While more members coming out will add to the FN publicity, it will create environment in which the ideas can be combated head on through an ideological struggle. Further attempts to win the battle against racism in the CGT via suppression can only drive the ideas underground and risk giving them the ring of truth by making martyrs of its advocates, making it all the more difficult to combat the ideas.

Read more...

Remembering My Detention In Indonesia

Lisbeth Latham

Eleven years ago today I was arrested in Jakarta, by members of the POLDA Metro Jaya intelligence unit. At the time I was arrested I had been with some members of the Front Nasional Perjuangan Buruh Indonesia (Indonesian National Front for Labour Struggle – FNPBI) who were conducting a sit-in at the national parliament building.

This was the third protest involving the group of workers which I had attended. The first was outside the International Labour Organisation’s office in Jakarta, to call on the ILO to place pressure on the Indonesian government to enact legislation, consistent with ILO conventions, which would allow unions organised primarily on a geographical basis to registered, rather requiring unions to be based on an industry basis. The second protest was outside the clothing factory which the workers were employed to demand reinstatement after the owner sacked the workers for attending the protest. Final protest sought the reinstatement of the workers and a change in the national parliament.


Following my arrest, I was taken to the Metro Jaya headquarters along with Doming who had insisted he be able to accompany me. I was interrogated over the next 24-hours before being taken to an immigration detention centre. On December 5, I had two visits, the first was by staff from the Australian Embassy. They informed me that they had noticed the article which I’ve included below regarding my arrest and decided they should investigate my situation, the Embassy had been informed of my arrest two days earlier by FNPBI chairperson Dita Sari. The Embassy people told me they didn’t know exactly what was happening, but that there was a possibility that I would be charged with violating my visa – a charge which carried a five year prison sentence. I was informed that if that occurred it could be up to six months before the trial would run its course – they told me that I would have to arrange and pay for my own defence, but they had forgotten to bring the list of lawyers. I was informed that they hoped I would simply be deported on my ticket in two days time, but if not they would come and see me on the Monday morning. with the list of lawyers.

Later that day Mugianto from the Partai Rakyat Demokratik’s (Peoples Democratic Party – PRD) International Department came to visit with a lawyer, they had managed to get access to me for a short period of time. Mugi said that they hoped that I would be deported using my ticket on Sunday December 7, as if I did not fly on that date, there were no more seats on flights and I could be waiting for a month for a flight. Mugi also told me about the protests against the WTO in Seattle which had happened earlier in the week (because of my detention I never saw any of the footage from Seattle and would see footage in 2000 in the lead up to the S11 protests in Melbourne).

The next day I was visited by Roma, the FNPBI’s international officer who had just returned from the Seattle protests. Prior to going to Seattle, Roma had made me promise not to do anything stupid ... Roma had managed to get into the detention centre by convincing one the guards to let her in, largely on the basis that were both from North Sumatra.

On the Sunday I was eventually taken to the airport, about an hour before my flight. Prior to be taken I was convinced I would not be getting on the flight. I was deported from Indonesia and banned from returning for one year, however one of the officials indicated that I could expect to be detained if I returned within five years. I got back the day the final Green Left Weekly was printed, which contained the article below – It was a rather surreal experience to sell a paper with an article about me in prison.

Overall while the experience in Indonesia was extremely frightening, I knew I was in far less danger than my Indonesian comrades, many of whom had been kidnapped and tortured during the struggle. I have always attempted to use the bravery of the Indonesian student and worker movement to inspire my continued participation in continuing struggle for democracy and socialism.


Australian held for violating visa.
3 December 1999
Jakarta Post

JAKARTA (JP): Police intelligence officers are questioning an Australian national over his participation in a number of street protests here, city police spokesman Lt. Col. Zainuri Lubis said on Tuesday.
By participating in the rallies on labor and political issues, the suspect, identified as Christopher, violated existing immigration regulations, he said.
"Christopher came here on a tourist visa, but he was here to take part in street protests. He'll be charged under Article 50 of Law No. 9/1992 on immigration regulations," Zainuri said.
If found guilty of violating the article, the suspect could be deported and banned from the country for a year.
The latest rally Christopher took part in was last Tuesday's labor protest at the House of Representatives in Central Jakarta, the officer said.
The protest was organized by the Federation of All-Indonesian Workers Union of Reform.
"This is his second trip to Indonesia. His first was on April 6 this year," Zainuri said.
The suspect also was seen playing an active role in a number of other protests, including one organized by the Democratic People's Party (PRD) outside Cipinang Penitentiary in East Jakarta, an International Labor Organization protest at the United Nations building on Jl. Thamrin in Central Jakarta and a protest in front of the Presidential Palace on Jl. Medan Merdeka in Central Jakarta.
"His passport also states that his status is that of a student and that he belongs to a non-governmental organization in Australia called ASIET.
"He is currently under the supervision of the police's Foreigner Control unit. He will soon be transferred to the immigration office in Kalideres, West Jakarta, to be held in quarantine," Zainuri said.
The officer also said that any Indonesians who gave shelter to the suspect should immediately report to the police.


Australian solidarity activist jailed in Jakarta
By Max Lane
Green Left Weekly #388 December 8, 1999

Action in Solidarity with Indonesia and East Timor member Chris Latham was arrested in Jakarta on November 29. Latham, who is a student in Sydney, was participating in a demonstration of workers and students organised by the Indonesian National Front for Labour Struggles.
Latham was held and interrogated at Jakarta Central Police Station until December 2, when he was moved to the Immigration Detention Centre on the outskirts of Jakarta. He is imprisoned in a three-by-three-metre cell with two other people, one from Nigeria and one from South Africa.
Latham has not yet been told whether he is to be deported or brought to court in Indonesia. He has been visited by Australian embassy representatives and the People's Democratic Party (PRD) international department spokesperson, Mugianto.
According to Mugianto, Jakarta police are accusing Latham of repeatedly attending demonstrations in Indonesia, an activity which the police say contravenes the conditions of tourist visas. It appears that Latham has been under close surveillance during his stay — the police had detailed knowledge of his attendance at demonstrations.
Latham's arrest follows a raid by Indonesian intelligence officials on the Lampung office of the PRD the previous week. The officials said they were looking for Australian Democratic Socialist Party activist Roberto Jorquera, who was visiting Indonesia and meeting with student activists. Jorquera was not in Lampung at the time, but was later detained briefly at Denpasar airport in Bali as he left Indonesia.
The PRD protested against the raid and pointed out that Jorquera's visit to Indonesia was conducted openly and that the PRD activities he had attended in Lampung had been public events.

Read more...

France: Sarkozy Enacts Pensions Law as Mass Mobilisations Continue

Lisbeth Latham

President Nicolas Sarkozy, on November 10, enacted new legislation which increases the retirement age of French workers just days after more than a million workers and students mobilised across France against the law. The protests held on November 6, were the eighth, and smallest, national strike since September 7 against increases to the retirement age. The protest highlighted both the continuing depth of popular anger over the changes which were pushed through parliament on October 27. However the decline in the size of the mobilisations reflect growing divisions in the movement over how the movement should have responded to the counter reforms and the direction for the campaign now the legislation has been passed.


Sarkozy enacted the law just hours after it had been approved by the Constitutional Council. There had been hope by sections of the union leaderships and the plural left that the council would reject the legislation.

According to the inter-union coordinating committee the day attracted some 1.2 million people to protests in 243 cities and towns. This was down 40% on the size of the last day of action on October 28 and a decline of 65% on the largest protests of 3.5 million of October 12 and 19. While numbers were down across France the largest declines occurred in cities such as Paris (90, 000 compared with 170, 000 on October 28).

The government and its supporters have sort to convince people that the decline in size, the interior ministry estimated that 375, 000 participated compared to 560, 000 on October 12 a peak of 1.2 million, reflects that the movement in defence of pensions is effectively over. Sarkozy and government ministers have

For a number of reasons this appears to be wishful thinking on the part of the government. President Nicolas Sarkozy’s support in the polls has fallen below 30%, the lowest level ever for a president. Popular sentiment against the reform remains high with 70% of people opposed to the counter reform and 74% of young people. It is unclear whether government will be in a position to push through any further major attacks prior to the next elections in 2012, however it is likely that they will attempt smaller attacks against marginalised sections of the population, aimed at paving the way for broader attacks and to win support of more reactionary sections of society.

While there has undoubtedly been a sharp decline in the size of the movement, as Sandra Demarcq, of the Nouveau parti anticapitaliste (New Anticapitalist Party) argued in Tous est à nous! on November 3 the struggle has brought a large new layer of militants into the struggle – who she argues will not be easily discouraged by the ballot. This is reflected in the fact that the size of the November 6 mobilisation is larger than the three mobilisations that occurred against the reform in March and May.

Moreover there are additional explanations for the decline in the movement beyond public acceptance of the laws. A central factor was the decision by the inter-union to slow the pace of mobilisations and withdraw support from the indefinite strikes that had affected a wide range of industries prior to the Senate passing the legislation on October 22. These decisions clearly helped to sap confidence from the movement. Then in the lead-up to the November 6 strike, the inter-union when it met on November 4, failed to make a clear call for a new mobilisation to come out of November 6, instead stating that there would be more action in the week beginning November 22. While the lack of clear direction has undermined the movement in defence of pensions, it hasn’t undermined the combativeness of French workers, with localised struggles continuing around wages and conditions such as the four day strike, which began November 5, called by pilots and other airline staff over plans to tax allowances and benefits.

The indecisiveness of the inter-union has lead to growing public disagreements as to the direction of the campaign. Liberation on November 6, reported the views of a range of union leaders. François Chérèque, Secretary Geneeral of the Confédération Française Démocratique du Travail (French Democratic Confederation of Labour -CFDT), argued that it was a “dream” to believe that Sarkozy could be forced to back down, and that the movement would slowly away from a focus on pensions and onto other demands. The leadership of Union nationale des syndicats autonomes (National Union of Autonomous Unions) warned other unions against “forms of action that do not correspond to the situation” and might cause a collapse of investment. Jean-Claude Mailly, Force Ouvrière (Workers Force - FO) General Secretary, said that the decline in the movement was a sign that the conduct of the movement was a mess. Bernard Thibault, Confédération Générale du Travail (Genderal Confederation of Labour - CGT) General Secretary, told the November 6 l’Humanite, “that if it proved impossible to continue the battle over pensions with a unified effort of all unions, the CGT would continue the fight with those who want continue”, including being willing to continue alone. The primary focus for Thibault was positioning the movement to conduct negotiations over the implementation of pension changes when they come into effect on July 1 2011.

The inter-union met on November 8 and called a new day of multi-facetted actions for November 23. This call was not signed by either Confédération française des travailleurs chrétiens (French Confederation of Christian Workers - CFTC) or Confédération française de l'encadrement - Confédération générale des cadres (French Confederation of Management – General Confederation of Executives). FO released a statement on November 8, in which it criticised other unions of not supporting argument at the November 4 meeting, for a 24-hour strike in the public and private sectors aimed at expanding the movement and that it could not engage in a strategy of forgetfulness, distraction and exhaustion and so could not participate in the inter-union meeting, but that it reaffirmed its availability and commitment to build the balances of forces through a process of resistance and reconquest. The CFTC issued a statement on November 9 that with the law being close to being enacted the time for demonstrations is over. Instead the CFTC will look to engage with government over its concerns with the legislation specifically in 2013, which has been specified in the law as a new period for reviewing pensions.

In contrast to these positions the militant union Solidaires in a statement issued on November 10, in which it outlined its view of the dynamic of the movement. Solidaires argued that early days of action in March, May and June were too far apart, yet despite this they had a growing resonance. However it was only in the indefinite strikes, which Solidaires had argued for from the outset, which had the opportunity to knock the employers by blocking the economy. The workers in refineries, rail, road transport, officials from the state and the hospital, local authorities, waste, energy, and many other sectors initiated indefinite strikes, and held several weeks hoping for a generalisation of the movement. However only Solidaires and the Fédération syndicale unitaire (United Union Federation) supported extending these strikes to other sectors and it was necessary for the strikes to be suspended. The Solidaires statement expressed its support for continuing collective action at the local level and for workers to “seize November 23 as a day to make their voices heard again”.

With the moderate unions shifting the terrain of struggle to modifying the impact of the law and hoping that the laws will be repealed if there is a change of government following the 2012 elections, the far-left parties have attempted to warn the movement from a reliance on elections rather than the mobilisation of members. Demarcq argued on November 3, that the movement can rebound in other forms, other struggles”, but warned “Many of us know that the solution to our problems is not the perspective of a plural left government in 2012, headed by the Parti socialiste that votes in the National Assembly lengthening the contribution period or the requisitioning of the municipal employees strike in Marseille, with the "left" who, when they have a majority, implement de facto right-wing policies, such as in Greece or Spain. It is in our struggles to make those have caused the crisis to pay for it, that we can forge the power capable of challenging capitalism”.

While the debate that has emerged robs the movement of the appearance unity, it reveals the real disagreements that made it impossible for the movement to build the momentum \to a sufficient level to allow victory. The hope must be that through an ongoing open discussion real unity in action can be achieved.

Read more...

France: Big protests as movement debates way forward

Lisbeth Latham

French workers and students have mobilised in large numbers again to oppose changes in pension laws that will raise the age at which workers are able to retire.

The seventh national strike in as many weeks took place on October 28, as indefinite strikes in many industries against the changes entered their third week.

The protests took place despite the government’s pension bill passing through France’s parliament on October 27.

However, there are clear signs the movement against the changes has begun to weaken. The passing of the pension law, and signs the struggle against it is slowing, have heightened debate over the direction of the campaign.

More than 2 million people took part in 270 protests in cities and towns across France on October 28.


The turnout, while large, was down on preceding national strike days, during which between 2.7 million and 3.5 million people took to the streets.

Bernard Thibault, general secretary of the Genderal Congress of Labour (CGT), told l’Humanite on October 28 that the mobilisations that day were “inferior” to the previous ones, but still “large” and “impressive” given the passage of the law.

He added: “What is impressive is that was probably the first time that after the passage of a law, we have events equally large … with popular support.”

The size of the protests was undoubtedly affected by the parliamentary vote, but the decline was also a consequence of the decision of the inter-union coordinating committee at its October 21 meeting to slow the pace of protests and strikes.

The meeting also reduced support for the indefinite strikes occurring across France.

The statement was not signed by one of the participating national unions, the radical Solidaires union, which argued for an intensification of the strike movement.

The United Union Federation (FSU) supported Solidaires’ call for an indefinite general strike, but put its name to the statement.

The October 21 committee statement set two new national days of protests for October 28 and November 6. This meant there were nine days between national strikes.

In that time, the bill was passed by the Senate on October 22 and went through the final stages of adoption of a common text between the National Assembly and the Senate over October 25, 26 and 27.

Between October 12 and October 19, three national strikes had involved between 3 million and 3.5 million people. Given that the October 28 national strike was supposed to provide a final show of defiance before the bill becomes law, it was a significant loss of momentum.

This is especially the case considering opinion polls continued to show huge opposition to the changes of 65-70%.

The October 21 statement also failed to endorse the daily local actions by workers. This contrasted sharply with the previous repeated calls by inter-union committee statements for unions to hold discussions at the regional and workplace level to determine appropriate forms of action.

After the statement, there was a decline in the indefinite strikes. Participation in the strike by state rail workers, which management had said involved 40-50% of workers when the strike began on October 25, fell to 4% by October 29.

Most significantly, workers at two oil refineries voted to lift their strikes on October 25. The shutdown of France’s refineries had caused a severe fuel shortage.

By October 26, workers at four refineries had voted to lift their indefinite strike.

Despite this dynamic of retreat, other developments showed the movement still has considerable strength. At the six large Total refineries, workers voted to continue their strikes.

At those refineries where workers had voted to return to work, it was difficult for production to restart with strikes continuing at the ports in Le Havre and Fos-Lavera.

This meant the refineries were only able to refine previously stored crude product and allow the transport of oil refined before the start of the strike.

The determination of a significant section of workers to continue striking with no pay, especially in the oil industry where the action resulted in more than a third of petrol stations across France running out of supplies, reflects a willingness to continue the struggle.

However, without the leadership and support of most national union federations, those continuing the struggle risk isolation. This is especially the case as the government has begun issuing “requisitions orders” forcing workers to return to work or face prosecution.

By October 29, other refinery workers and port workers had voted to return to work. MidiLibre.com reported that CGT representatives in the refineries expressed regret their strikes had not been supported by workers in other sectors.

However, since the inter-union committee’s statement, university students have increased the size and extent of their mobilisations against the pension bill.

On October 25, Young New Anti-capitalist Party (JNPA) reported that 37 universities were on strike and a further 10 universities had been closed by their administrations.

A coordinating committee representing 40 universities has called a national strike for November 4.

The differences expressed at the October 21 meeting of the inter-union committee were not new. But the meeting reflected a clearer expression of the differences that had existed since the start of the campaign.

The more conservative union federations had previously expressed support for an increase in the age for receiving the pension. This wing includes the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT), National Union of Autonomous Unions (UNSA), the French Confederation of Christian Workers (CFTC) and the French Confederation of Management-General Confederation of Executives (CFE-CGC).

The CFDT leadership had publicly supported the pension changes attempted by the Jean-Paul Raffarin government in 2003.

These unions were drawn into the campaign and the inter-union committee largely due to the refusal of the government to negotiate seriously with unions.

The focus of the leadership of these unions, along with the leadership of the more militant CGT, has been on forcing the government to reenter talks with unions.

However, among CGT ranks and some regional leaderships, there has been a lot of support for an indefinite general strike aimed at the total defeat of the pension bill.

Popular support for the strikes has been high. In the aftermath of the 3.5 million-strong national strike on October 19, Sandra Demarcq wrote in International Viewpoint that 61% of those polled supported prolonged strikes.

This dynamic has allowed alliances to be formed between militants across unions for indefinite strikes in the face of opposition from the more conservative national leaderships.

Despite popular support for further strikes, CFDT secretary general Francois Cheroquem was reported by Bloomberg on October 29 as saying the CFDT would not support further strikes once the legislation becomes law.

The bill has now been referred to the Constitutional Council to determine whether it complies with France’s constitution. Given the pressure from right-wing parties, it is unlikely to be blocked by the council without an escalating mass movement.

At best, the council discussions will delay President Nicolas Sarkozy from enacting the law.

With the changes likely to become law, there will be an increased pressure within the social movements to support the opposition Socialist Party (PS), which has promised to repeal the law if it wins the 2012 elections.

The militant Solidaires federation and the far-left parties continue to focus on pushing for further mobilisations to defeat the changes.

In an October 28 statement, Solidaires noted the movement still had strong public support. It said the bill’s passing made no difference “as democracy cannot be reduced to the parliamentary vote”.

Solidaires called for “a continuation of the engagement process, through national and local actions determined on a daily basis within individual units: support for strikes, blockades, rallies, initiatives of solidarity … It is responsibility of organisations to give this process a new impetus.”

The passage of the pension bill has significance beyond the negative impact it will have in lengthening the working life of French workers.

Solidaires pointed out in its daily strike bulletin on October 11: “Defeat on this issue will open the door for further challenges.”

The huge French strike movement has given hope in the ability of the working class to hold back the wave of austerity programs being implemented by capitalist governments across Europe.

In the latest of these attempts to make working people pay for capitalism’s economic crisis, the British government announced severe cuts to public spending on October 19.

This austerity drive has been bitterly opposed, with and big protests in Greece, but such resistance has so far failed to stop any of the anti-worker measures.

The militancy of the French strike movement, and the depth of public support for it, has held the possibility of galvanising resistance across Europe.

This hope was reflected in the actions of Belgian workers on October 26. They organised blockades to stop oil being transported from Belgium to France to ease the shortage caused by the French oil workers’ strike.

The Sarkozy government recognises the importance of this struggle and is determined not to back down in its plans to raise the retirement age.

How the movement will play out remains unclear. The growth of the student movement could give the broader movement renewed energy.

However, its strength remains untested until high school students return from school holidays on November 4 — coinciding with the national student strike.

A strong turnout for the student strike will strengthen the hand of the militant unions when the inter-union committee meets again that day. Its decisions will have a big impact on the size of the national strike that has been called for November 6.

Whatever the outcome, the revolt of French workers has already reverberated across Europe. Even if defeated, it could prove a sign of deeper resistance still to come.

[This article was originally published in Green Left Weekly #859]

Read more...

French workers fight back against pension attack

Lisbeth Latham

Since October 12, France has been gripped by intensifying mass opposition by workers and students to proposed counter reforms to the country’s pensions system by the right-wing government of President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Public opposition to the attack has been highlighted by three national strikes each involving millions of people, two national student strikes and a growing wave of indefinite strikes in a range of industries — most notably the crippling shutdown of the oil industry.

Despite the size and intensity of the mobilisations, the Sarkozy government remains defiant, insisting the changes to the pension system are essential to France’s future. The government has threatened to repress attempts to disrupt France’s economic life.

The three national strikes occurred in the lead-up to the October 20 Senate debate on the pension scheme proposals. Unions estimated the October 12, 16 and 19 national strikes were attended by 3.5 million, 3 million and 3.5 million people respectively.

After the slightly smaller mobilisation on October 16, labour minister Eric Woerth told France 24: “The turnout is clearly down … I think the French people have understood that pension reform is essential.”

However, this proved wishful thinking.

In the space of 29 days, there were five national strikes, each mobilising between 2.7 and 3 million people. The General Confederation of Labour (CGT) estimated that more than 5 million people (8% of France’s metropolitan population) have taken part in the movement on the streets.

Since October 12, indefinite strikes have broken out in the state rail system, among local authority workers, in several education academies, industrial factories (such as in metallurgy and chemicals), the finance ministry, postal services, urban transport networks and hospitals.

An indefinite strike has hit France’s ports since September 27.

High school students have begun large protests that have closed down hundreds of schools across France.

Polls have indicated up to 70% of people support the strikes.

After October 16, the movement rapidly strengthened in response to union calls for its intensification.

The General Federation of Transport and Equipment-French Democratic Confederation of Labour (FGTE-CFDT), which is the strongest union in France’s road transport industry, called an indefinite strike starting on October 17. Lyceen Student Unions called a national mobilisation for October 18.

On October 17, Ardennes departmental unions from the CGT, CFDT, Workers Force (FO), National Union of Autonomous Unions (UNSA), United Union Federation (FSU) and Solidaires called for an indefinite strike in the private and public sectors to start the next day.

On October 19, the question was posed: was the slight decline in numbers on October 16 just a pause as the movement gathered its strength?

Or was it, as the government and its national and international supporters hoped, a sign of the movement’s demoralisation and reconciliation with the “inevitability of counter reforms”?

Government hopes were disappointed when 3.5 million people joined more than 277 protests organised in cities and towns. Not only did the numbers match the size of the October 12 protests, but in many cities, including Bourgoin, Marseilles and Rennes, the turnouts reached new highs.

The movement among high school and university students also peaked. The National Union of Students of France (UNEF) said 10 universities had been totally or partially blockaded and a further three administratively closed.

The Federation of Independent and Democratic High School Students (FIDL), France’s second largest high school union, said 1200 of France’s 4300 lycees (the second level of secondary education in France for students aged 15-18) were involved and 850 were blockaded.

In the face of the growing movement, the government has become increasingly shrill in its denunciations. In response to student protests, government ministers accused unions and left-wing parties of manipulating young people.

Responding to clashes between police and high school students, Sarkozy said: “Troublemakers will not have the last word in a democracy. It is not acceptable.

“They will be stopped, tracked down and punished, in Lyon and anywhere else, with no weakness.

“Because in our democracy, there are many ways to express yourself. But violence is the most cowardly, the most gratuitous and that is not acceptable.”

Woerth told France2 television on October 22 that, once the law is passed, “The law is the law, so the protests, the discontent, the concern ... should end the moment the law is voted up”.

The government has moved beyond harsh words to attempts to repress the movement. High levels of violence have been used by police, especially against high school protests. Tear gas and flash ball rounds (a form of rubber bullet) have been fired at students.

On October 20, police used tear gas against a student blockade of the bus depot in Rennes. The students had assembled at 4am to establish a blockade and ensure no buses could move.

About four hours later, riot police began firing tear gas at students. The CGT said students retreated into the depot, where they were treated by the depot’s nurse.

The bus drivers then escorted the students out to avoid their arrest. Drivers, many of whom were also affected by gas, held a meeting and voted to strike for 24 hours.

By October 20, the British Guardian reported that about 1400 people aged between 14 and 20 had been arrested across France and the repression was intensifying. On October 21, riot police hemmed in more than 1000 protesters at Place Bellecour in Lyon, repeatedly firing tear gas into a crowd that was unable to escape.

Strikes have gripped France’s oil industry since September 27, when workers in the oil port of Fos Lavera near Marseilles began indefinite strike action.

Since October 12, oil refining has been almost completely disrupted. Indefinite strikes in all 12 refineries have forced France to rely on strategic reserves of fuel. Blockades by workers and students of fuel depots have added to pressure on reserves.

More than a third of France’s service stations reported they were either low on petrol, or had run out since October 11. On October 20, Sarkozy ordered police to begin breaking blockades on fuel depots and refineries.

Refinery workers were “requisitioned” to return to work and those who fail to do so face prosecution.

On October 22, police successfully reopened some depots, as well as the Granduits refinery that supplies Paris. However, picket lines have been organised as small-scale “flying pickets” able to be redeployed quickly at the same or different locations.

It is also unclear how many oil workers will respond to the requisition orders.

International media coverage has tried to downplay this mass movement’s significance by attributing it to a French propensity to strike. The significance of the attack on pensions has been downplayed by insistence on the “economic necessity” of reducing access to pensions for the future of the French economy.

However, the reforms are extremely significant and the movement against them even more so — for workers in France and internationally.

Under the current system, French workers are entitled to retire from work at 60. However, they are not entitled to the full pension until 65. To qualify for the full pension, workers must first have worked for 40 years.

Under the proposed changes, the retirement age will be raised to 62 and the age at which the full pension can be accessed to 67. The period of work needed to qualify for the full pension will be raised to 41.5 years.

These increases have been justified on concerns that the pensions system, which operates on a pay as you go basis (i.e. the contribution of active workers pays for pension payments to retirees), will become increasingly underfunded as France’s population continues to age.

The ratio of active workers to retirees is expected to fall from 2:1 to 1.25:1 by 2040. As a result, the government predicts the level of underfunding will reach 100 billion euros by 2050.

The movement is opposing the changes on the basis of the impact they will have on workers’ lives. The movement also rejects the government’s economic justifications.

The government argues people need to work longer because they are living longer. However, this ignores the fact that the current minimum age of retirement is already higher than the average age at which French people can expect to live to in good health, which is 59.87 years.

On average, 60% of the years that French people live over 60 are affected by reduced physical or sensory functions.

Raising the minimum retirement age increases the number of those working despite poor health. This will be worsened by the increase in the qualifying period for the full pension, as those unable to work due to illness may risk not qualifying for a full pension.

This will also increase the proportion of workers whose retirement will be marred by poor health.

The changes are seen as particularly unfair to those who enter the work force early and thus already reach the qualifying period for a full pension before the minimum retirement age.

The government has exempted people who start full employment at 17 from the changes, allowing them to still retire at 60. However, those who start work at 18 will have to wait until they are 62 — an extra 2.5 years above the qualifying period.

Extending the period of qualification for a full pension is expected to adversely affect those with interrupted working lives, which will particularly affect women.

The government’s arguments regarding the financial need for the changes are also problematic. They assume the level of productivity in France will remain static, but it is estimated that labour productivity will double by 2040.

The problem is not that there won’t be enough productivity to support the ageing population, it is that capitalists want an ever-increasing share of what is produced.

The European Commission on Economic and Financial Affairs said the wages share of GDP in France has declined from 73.3% in 1985 to 65.4% in 2010. This decline has stripped billions of euros from both workers’ pockets and the pensions system.

Unions have also asked why workers should be made to pay for maintaining the pension system in the first place.

Ultimately, the struggle is about more than France’s pension system.

A defeat in this struggle would open the door for a wider scale attacks on the rights of French working people. However, a victory for the movement could potentially build the confidence of French workers and students to extend their fight to other anti-people policies of the Sarkozy government.

Similar austerity measures are being imposed by governments across Europe in a bid to make working people pay for capitalism’s economic crisis. The outcome of the struggle in France could affect workers’ confidence to resist in other countries.

Despite the protests, the pension bill was passed by the Senate on October 22. It will now be referred to a joint committee of the Senate and the National Assembly to draw up a unified text from the versions of the bill passed in the two bodies.

This text is expected to be presented to the National Assembly for a final vote. Jean-Francois Cope, the head of the Sarkozy’s UMP in the National Assembly, said this is likely to occur on October 26 or 27.

After it is passed by the National Assembly, the bill still needs to be enacted by the president to become law.

The ongoing process of passing the bill into law provides a target for more protests. But it is increasingly clear the government intends to defy the pressure and pass the law.

This makes the question of how to defeat the bill increasingly pressing.

Up until now, the unions and left parties have not had a united concept on the outcome being fought for. Most leaders of the union confederations have aimed to force the government and employers into negotiations.

The more conservative unions, such as the French Confederation of Christian Workers (CFTC), UNSA and the French Confederation of Management-General Confederation of Executives (CFE-CGC) had previously expressed some support for changes to the pension system. They have been pushed into hardening their opposition by the government’s refusal to compromise.

Among the left parties, the opposition Socialist Party (PS), as well as the Communist Party of France (PCF) and the Left Party (PG), have pushed for a national referendum on the reforms.

The United Left (GU), a split from the radical New Anti-Capitalist Party (NPA), has argued that the movement could force new elections.

The far-left NPA and Workers’ Struggle (LO), along with the militant trade union Solidaires, have consistently argued for the need to extend and intensify the strike movement to defeat the government.

NPA spokesperson Olivier Besancenot told l’Humanite on October 18 that the movement’s aim should not be to “rewrite or amend the reform. We need to bury it altogether. We must not give in on the content.”

Besancenot said there needed to be “more effective strike action” for the movement to win. “For my part, I see no other [way], and certainly not a referendum.”

LO’s Nathalie Arthaud said: “What the parliament does, the street can undo if the mobilisation is growing.

“I do not agree with the proposal advanced by the left for a referendum, because retirement at age 60 at full rate is an inalienable right.”

On October 21, the inter-union coordinating committee met to determine the course of the struggle. In the lead up to the meeting, Solidaires called for an expansion and intensification of the strike movement and for the next national mobilisation to occur quickly.

There were also predictions some of the more conservative unions would withdraw from the committee once the Senate passed the pensions bill.

In a joint statement, signed by CFDT, CFE / CGC, CFTC, CGT, FSU and UNSA, the committee called for new mobilisations on October 28 and November 6 to correspond with the vote in the National Assembly and when Sarkozy is expected to promulgate the law, respectively.

Solidaires issued its own statement supporting the days of action. But Solidaires raised concerns that no earlier mobilisation had been called and that the committee’s statement did not clearly endorse the actions initiated by workers at the local level.

Solidaires said the committee was not in step with the developments within the movement, and on this basis, did not sign the statement. Solidaires called for the movement’s intensification, with expanded strikes and walkouts.

The division within the movement is now more open. It is not just activists in Solidaires and the far left parties that have pushed for a more militant position. The movement has been pushed to its current heights in part by the ranks and local leaderships of the other union federations.

The question is now whether these forces are able to maintain the movement’s momentum. At stake is more than just changes to pensions, it is also the issue of just how much of the burden for the economic crisis working people in France and across Europe can be made to carry.

[originally published in Green Left Weekly Issue #858 http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/45821]

Read more...

France: Millions march on October 16 to Defend Pensions

Lisbeth Latham

Millions of people attended protests across France, on October 16, as part the fifth national day of protests against the government’s attacks on pension rights. The protests and strikes demonstrate the widespread opposition within French society to changes to the Pension System that extend people’s working lives. With a final vote on the Bill scheduled for October 20, the government looks set to test the determination workers and students.


Unions are claiming that between 2.5 and 3 million people participated in more than 250 actions on Saturday. While the numbers are down at least 500, 000 people on the estimate for the October 12 protests, it is close to the size of the protests on September 7 and 23 and October 2. The Interior Ministry is claiming that the protests attracted 825, 000 people down from the Ministry’s estimate of 1.2 million for October 12.

Beyond the national strike significant sections of the French economy continue to be disrupted by ongoing strike action which began on October 12, and in the case of French Ports, September 27. Ongoing strikes continue in the SNCF (state rail), in Local Authorities, several academies of Education, industrial factories (such as for metallurgy and chemicals), the Finance Ministry, Postal Services, networks of urban transport and hospitals. All twelve of France’s fuel refineries have been affected by strikes, with eight closed completely. The closure of the refineries, along with a 21 day strike at Fos-Lavara Oil Port and blockades of fuel depots are causing major disruption to France’s Fuel supplies.

Coming out of October 16, indefinite strikes are set to spread. The Fédération Générale des Transports et de l'Equipement - Confédération française démocratique du travail’s (General Federation of Transport and Equipment - French Democratic Confederation of Labour - FGTE-CFDT) announced on October 16 that it would begin an indefinite strike action in France’s trucking industry beginning in the evening on October 17. Maxime Dumont, head of the FGTE-CFDT, told AFP on October 16, “Truckers are happy to join the action. Next week is going to be decisive, everybody knows that”. The Trade Union Solidaire’s (Solidarity) strike bulletin from October 17 also announced that the Departmental Unions of the Confédération générale du travail (General Confederation of Labour – CGT), CFDT, Force Ouvrière (Workers Force – FO), Union nationale des syndicats autonomes (National Union of Autonomous Unions UNSA), Fédération syndicale unitaire (United Union Federation –FSU) and Solidaires (Solidarity), in the Ardennes Region, have called for an indefinite strike in both the private and public sectors beginning October 18.

Students, who have only began mobilising in large numbers since October 12, are set to play an important role in the movement. More than 300, of France’s 4500 Lycées (the second stage of secondary school in the French Education system involving students from the ages of 15-18) have been blockaded since October 12. Police have attacked a number of student protests across France with dozens of students arrested. In response to student mobilisations – the government has raised concerns that students were being manipulated by the unions. The Syndicat Général des Lycéens (General Union of High School Students -SGL) has rejected the government’s criticism arguing “if students are not manipulated when they are commit crimes at 16 years-of-age why would they be manipulated by parties or teachers? No offense to the government, young people who demonstrate are responsible!” The SGL has called on all Lycéen students to take action on October 18 against the pension bill.

Despite the size of the movement, it is clear that the government and its supporters are hoping that passing the Pension Bill will demoralise and demobilise the movement. Labour Minister Eric Woerth told France24, on October 17 that “The turnout is clearly down, but there are still a lot of people in the street. I think the French people have understood that pension reform is essential”. The movement is building towards national strike on October 19 as the last opportunity to place pressure on the government to withdraw the Bill. The leaderships of both the CFDT and CGT have called for the Senate to suspend its debate and for a new dialogue to be initiated between unions, the government and the Mouvement des Entreprises de France (Movement of the French Enterprises – MEDEF). It is however unclear how the inter-union will react if the Bill is passed.

The two largest unions in France are the CFDT and the CGT. The CFDT nationally has resisted the call for intensifying the movement by initiating an indefinite general strike and it is unclear what the leadership would support once the legislation is passed. Bernard Thibault, CGT Secretary General, told Reuters on October 16 "The action is not going to stop because senators have voted. Today we have an even bigger encouragement to continue".

The current policy of the inter-union, which is to call on unions in the enterprise to allow a discussion of the memberships to determine what actions they deem appropriate, does allow space for more militant sections of the movement to push for more militant action – which has already been successful with the indefinite strikes spreading as they have. It will be how these two forces, the national leaderships within the inter-union and the membership in the enterprises, respond to the vote in the Senate that will play an important role in determining the future of France’s pension system.

Read more...

French Unions Call New National Strike as the Movement to Defend Pensions Continues to Grow

Lisbeth Latham

The inter-union coordinating committee that has led the movement in defence of pensions has announced a new national strike for October 19, to follow the national strike already scheduled on October 16. The call for the next national strike comes as indefinite strikes continue in a large cross section of French industry.


In a statement issued on October 14, the inter-union argued that the mobilisation of 3.5 million workers and students on October 12, the largest of the movement thus far, demonstrated the opposition of workers and the broader public to “unfair and ineffective reforms that exacerbate inequality without ensuring the sustainability of the pension system”. The unions called on their local organisations in both the private and public sector to take united action to amplify the actions on October 16 and 19.

Since October 12, indefinite strikes have continued to operate in wide number of industries. According to the Trade Union Solidaires’ daily strike bulletin indefinite strikes are occurring in the following sectors:

• Oil refining, where the six TOTAL refineries are currently shutdown, 11 of 12 refineries in the country are affected by the strike. \
• The state rail system
• The Autonomous Operator of Parisian Transport as well as public transport in Dunkirk, Clermont -Ferrand, Poitiers, Dijon, Nancy and Marseilles
• Plants in the metallurgy, chemical and glass industries
• The Ministry of Finance
• A number of departments and museums in the Ministry of Culture.
• In a number of local government authorities across France.
• LNG terminals and ports
• Nuclear power plants
• Electricity and Gas distribution
• Education
• Postal Service

AFP reported on October 15, that 300 schools across France had been affected by student protests with clashes reported to have occurred between students and police in Paris and Caanes. In its October 15 strike Bulletin Solidaires condemned police violence directed towards high school students.

The October 19 strike will occur a day before the scheduled final vote on the Pension Bill in the Senate, the inter-union will meet on again on October 21 to plan the next initiatives in the campaign.

Read more...

France: Massive Protests Oppose French Pensions Bill

Lisbeth Latham

Workers and students mobilised in their millions on October 12 in the fourth and largest mobilisation in the last month against laws that will reduce the pension entitlements of French workers. The protests and strikes come as the French Senate has begun passing aspects of the pension bill that will see an increase in the retirement age from 60 to 62 years of age and increase the qualifying period that workers must work to receive a full pension. The mobilisation demonstrates an increasing polarisation over who should pay the price of the economic crisis in France as the country heads towards another national strike on October 16.



As with previous protests the size of the protests has been heavily contested, with the government attempting to downplay the level of public support and unions emphasising the extent they reflect broader public anger. Unions estimate that 3.5 million people participated in 244 protests in cities and towns across France, a significant increase on the 3 million people estimated to have joined each of the previous two mobilisations on October 2 and September 23. According to AFP France’s Interior Ministry announced that with the Paris protests yet to come, half a million people had participated, substantially down from its estimates of 883, 000 and 997, 000 for October 2 and September 23 respectively. However the Interior Ministry’s final estimate was 1.23 million people.

According to unions the growth in numbers primarily came from two sources: workers in the private sector and students.

According to the Confédération générale du travail (General Confederation of Workers – CGT) substantially larger numbers of private sector workers participated in the strike, including non-union members. In some companies the rate of participation was as high as 80% of staff. One of the most significant developments was in the oil industry with strikes occurring at 11 of the country’s 12 oil refineries.

There was a substantial increase in the number of university and high school students participating in the mobilisations, with tens of thousands joining protests, and at least 400 schools closed as a consequence of staff and student action. The government has attempted to paint students as the ones with the most gain from the reduction in pension rights, arguing that it will reduce the size of the pension system that they will have to support. However students, entering the workforce will face a longer working life than their parents, and the fear that the delay in the retirement of older workers will further exacerbate France’s youth unemployment rate of 24 percent.

The media has made much of the entry of students into movement, raising the spectre of the movement of May-June ’68, however of more concern will be the more recent movement against the First Employment Contract in 2005-2006. This legislation would have dramatically reduced the rights of young people entering the work force for the first time. During this campaign students shut down their campuses for months, with almost permanent street demonstrations that were punctuated by large union protests. These mobilisations were successful in defeating the legislation.

Adding to the threat of student mobilisation, has been the decision of union members in a number of industries including oil, rail, ports and a number of government services to begin indefinite strike action. The strike by oil workers poses a real possibility of substantial fuel shortages across in the coming days.

While unions such as the CGT and Solidaires are calling for the strike movement to be spread, other unions have raised concerns that an intensification of the movement risks alienating the broader public and providing President Sarkozy with an opportunity to rebuild his flagging electoral fortunes through a shattering defeat of the unions. Confédération française des travailleurs chrétiens (French Confederation of Christain Workers) has opposed indefinite strikes, and stated that the union's members in the rail system will not participate in the indefinite strikes. The BBC reported on October 12, that Francois Chereque, Secretary General of the Confédération française démocratique du travail (French Democratic Confederation of Labour - CFDT) as saying "The large majority of employees cannot afford to pay for repeated days of strikes.

However, as was been pointed out by the Trade Union Solidaires in the leadup to October 12"A few days of strikes to not lose years of free time, it's worth it, right? The strike will cost money, that's undeniable. But the implementation of this bill will cost more! Directly, through reduced pensions and indirectly through further significant reductions in the social system due to the door that would be opened by defeat on this issue".

With the government already pushing the legislation through the Senate and with the Senate approving the increase in minimum retirement age from 60 to 62 on October 8. Failure by the movement to lift the intensity of the movement is likely to find the government growing in confidence in its ability to ride out the movement. Faced with government intransigence and more than 67% public support for an intensified industrial campaign, and the momentum build up in the struggle since April, the unions are in a strong position to push the movement forward. As a statement issued by the Solidaires on October 12 says, “There is no time to lose: now is the time to harden and expand the movement to win”.

While the immediate focus of the media is on the outcome of the government’s attempt to wind back France’s welfare state, there is far more at stake. The determination of the government to cut pensions so soon after it provided massive bailouts to the banks and business to help them recover from the Global Financial Crisis, risks a far deeper radicalisation with the possibility of the unions and social movements going on the offensive if they are successful in defeating the Pension Bill.

The inter-union coordinating commitee, which has lead campaign, is scheduled to meet on October 14 to plan actions coming out of the next national strike on October 16. The response on October 16, in the wake of October 12 and the localised indefinite strike, and the actions initiated on October 14 will be important tests of the capacity of the movement to win.

Read more...

French Senate Votes to Raise Retirement Age as Unions Prepare for a Day of Strikes

Lisbeth Latham

France’s Senate passed, on October 8, the first part of the Pension Bill aimed at dramatically reducing workers retirement and pension rights. The vote came days before the fourth major mobilisation by unions, in just over a month, aimed at defeating the Bill and securing the French pension system. The Senate’s vote signals a decisive test both for the movement and France’s right wing government.

The government won the first Senate vote on the Pension Bill 186 to 153, increasing the minimum retirement age from 60 to 62. The Senate has yet to vote on the proposal to increase the age at which workers can access the full pension from 65 to 67, however amendments that will allow parents of children with disabilities, and parents of more than three children, to continue to retire at 65 have been passed. The bill had not been expected to fully passed by the until at least October 15, however as there have been some 1000 amendments made to the bill, it is expected to be held up in the Senate until later in October.

The passage of part of the Pension Bill through the Senate poses a significant test for the movement. It is possible that the vote spur the mobilisiations due to anger over the government’s continued refusal to heed public anger at attacks on pensions. However it demoralise the movement resulting in the movement dwindling. The vote could also see workers look to the June 2012 elections and the Socialist Party’s promise to overturn the Bill if it wins Government. However initial indications are that the movement will escalate in the immediate wake of the vote in the Senate. The Confédération générale du travail (General Confederation of Workers – CGT) reported on October 11, that a poll conducted over October 8 to 10 indicated that 66% of French people supported an intensification of the movement. Eighty-four percent of “left” voters supported an intensification compared to 33% of right supporters.

The inter-union coordinating committee of seven of France’s Union Confederations has called national strikes and mobilisations for October 12 and 16. The inter-union will meet again on October 14 to prepare further steps in the movement. In the statement announcing the October 16 mobilisation, the inter-union described the Government’s action in pushing through the legisalation as an attempt to diffuse the mobilisations. The statement called for the mobilisations to be broadened and expanded and for united meetings of workers in their workplaces to allow them to define the rhythm and forms of action to follow.

At the centre of the fight-back have been the workers at the Fos-Lavera Port near Marseille who have been on strike since September 27. According to the CGT the strike is focused on both defending the existing pension system and opposition to the transfer of port activities to private operators under the 2008 port reform laws. Fos-Lavera is the third largest oil port in Europe and accounts for 7% of the continent’s oil movements. As a consequence the refineries that are supplied by Fos-Lavera are operating at reduced capacity and are expected to shutdown in the next few days unless the strike ends. The CGT has called rolling strikes at all French ports starting October 12.

Other sectors are also looking to take rolling industrial action. Workers at the Donges refinery, France’s second largest oil refinery, voted on October 11 for a renewable strike starting October 12. The strike will be reviewed every two days. Once the strike is called off the plant will take two further days to become operational again.

On October 6, unions in both the state rail company SFNC and the Paris underground announced open-ended strikes beginning October 12. These will be rolling 24-hour stoppages, with the next strike being renotified prior to the expiry of the existing strike.

While the movement is expanding not all the members of the inter-inion are consistent in supporting the extension. Reuters, on October 8, reported that Jacques Voisin, President of the Confédération Française des Travailleurs Chrétiens (French Confederation of Christian Workers – CFTC) which is part of the inter-union coalition, has publicly distance the CFDT from calls for rolling strikes. This reflects that at least some of the union leaderships have been forced to make public statements of supporting more militant action based both on concerns of their members, but also the pressure of radical unions such as the Solidaires confederation, which as been advocating the preparation for an escalating general strike since the Government announced the current round of attacks on pensions.

Solidaires in a statement issued on October 11, noted that the current movement which has sustained mobilisations of more than 3 million people for a month is currently larger in size than the movement that defeated the 1995 attack on pensions. What is lacking at the moment is the intensity of action of the 1995 movement, which saw ongoing strike action for three weeks in November and December of that year. Whether the current movement is able to generate a similar level mobilisation to defeat the right’s attacks are yet to be seen but the signs are positive.

Read more...

French Protests Continue Against Attacks on Pensions

Lisbeth Latham

Millions of people joined protests across France on October 2 as part of the ongoing campaign to defeat attacks on France’s pension system. The day which had been called by a Inter-Union Coalition of seven of France’s Union Confederations, was the third national protests against the pension bill, currently before the France’s Senate, since September 7.


With the Senate vote approaching, and the French government determined shift reduce pension rights to increase the burden of economic reform being paid by working people, the size of the protests were an important test for the strength of the movement. As such the numbers mobilised have been hotly contested, just as with each of the previous days of mobilisation. France’s Interior Ministry claimed that the protests were substantially down on previous mobilisations, roughly 883, 000 compared with 997, 000 on September 23. The unions’ claimed the numbers were similar 2.9 million on October 2 compared with 3 million on September 23. While the government attempt to play down the size the protests, Capital is worried, this concern was reflected in the article published on October 4 at The Australian’s website, which raised concerns that the October 2 mobilisations had seen significant numbers of students mobilised and the possibility of a repeat of the large scale student lead mobilisations that defeated the First Employment Contract law in 2006.

Adding to the impact of the October 2 mobilisation was the ongoing strike action by port workers. On September 27, workers at Fos-Lavera port near Marseille, which is the world’s third largest oil port, began wildcat strike action blockading the port and reducing the supply of oil to the 8 refineries supplied by the port. The action at Los-Lavera was aimed at opposing both the attack on pensions and changes at the port. By October 1 the strike had spread to the majority of France’s commercial ports raising the spectre of escalating strike action similar to that which defeated attempts to reduce pension rights in 1995.

On October 4, the day before the debate in the Senate was due to begin, the inter-union coordinating committee issued a statement that identified the October 12 strikes as crucial and called on their organisations to broaden and expand their united mobilisations. The Inter-Union also announced that it would be meeting on October 8 to plan the next course of action.

Read more...

France: Millions protests to defend pensions

Lisbeth Latham

More than three million participated in the day of strikes and protests, in France on September 23, demanding the withdrawal of legislation that will dramatically reduce the right of workers to access pensions. The mobilisation, which had been called by the a coalition of seven of France’s union confederations demonstrated that passage of the Pension Bill through France’s lower house of parliament had done nothing to diminish opposition to the attack on pensions. With the President Nicolas Sarkozy and Prime Minister Francois Fillon determined to increase in minimum retirement age, the question is increasingly being posed regarding the nature of the movement necessary for workers to achieve victory.


The protests reflected an important rise in the level of support for the movement, with numbers up from the 2.7 million estimated to have participated in the last National Strike on September 7. This growth was also reflected in the number of protests being held across France, with 232 separate actions in cities and towns across France, compared to 200 on September 7. According to a statement issued b by the Confédération générale du travail (General Confederation of Workers – CGT) the growth in size reflected an increased number of workers from the private sector, particularly small and medium sized employers, as well as a larger participation by women and young people than on September 7.



The growth in the mobilization was important has the government and other conservative commentator had been hoping for a decline in the movement signally that people would accept the pension changes as inevitable following the vote in the National Assembly on September 15.. The interior ministry is claiming that mobilisations were smaller. Labour Minister Eric Woerth, told France 2 Television that "There is a clear deceleration in the protest movement. The reform will be voted and it will be applied”. Reuters reported on September 24 Fillon was reported "Government in France also means knowing how to say No". We will not withdraw this reform because it's necessary and reasonable".

Despite the claims of the government most media are reporting protest sizes consistent with the union estimates. The growing mobilizations signal a willingness of working people to continue the fight to defend the right to retire at 60, and to stop the increase from 40 to 41.5 years, the period of time workers must work to qualify for the full pension. Demand s that employers foot more of the bill are gaining traction, based on the reality that 84% the €30 billion to invested in the pension system by 2020 will paid by workers, while employers will provide 7%.

Despite the growing support the movement the question is posed how can the unions defeat the austerity measures being pushed by Sarkozy, Fillon and their supporters in the Movement of French Enterprises (MEDEF). The Union Coalition, which is dominated by the CGT and the Confédération française démocratique du travail (French Confederation of Democratic Workers) has called for further mobilisations on October 2 and October 12, some of the Confederations will also be using the Europe wide mobilisation against austerity called by the European Confederation of Trade Unions. The Union Coalition has indicated that it will meet again on October 4, the day before the Senate begins its debate over the Pension Bill, to determine additional action.
In addition to this action, the militant union confederation Solidaires, which is participating in the Union Coalition, along with the Nouveau parti anticapitaliste (New Anti-Capitalist Party) continues to urge workers to demand that an indefinite strike be called, similar to the strike movement in November and December 1995 that defeated conservative attacks on Pensions.

Read more...