Re: [PEN-L] economics and class struggle behind legal victory
- Original Message - From: Chris Burford [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 9:25 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] economics and class struggle behind legal victory What's new in this debate, Patrick, despite the important factual information. Can you share Jubilee's experience of how to get round this set back rather than just counselling us not to get excited? I personally think I am lugubrious enough already, but as Michael discourages characterisations I will not invite corrections at this point. Ah, I think the Jubilee comrades will be using this as an ongoing point of propaganda against the neoliberal clique running South Africa, including President Mbeki (as M.P. Giyose's quote shows). This kind of thing, repeated many times, is important in the agit-prop used by exhausted nationalists, that we sum up as 'talk left, walk right'. As for their concrete battle plans, I assume they will consider an appeal and their quite good US lawyer (Michael Housefeld) will keep probing the Alien Tort Claims Act for openings. The battle field is also open in Switzerland, Germany and Britain, but the comrades doing solidarity work there don't have all the tools that the 1797 US law gives. That may compell more street action, against the likes of UBS, Deutsche Bank, Barclays and Standard Chartered, amongst others. Stay tuned, I'll try to provide updates. And if anyone wants a really brilliant 1/2 hour video (commissioned by Jubilee SA) about the struggle over apartheid debt and profits, let me know and I'll put you in touch with the filmmaker, Ben Cashdan.
Re: [PEN-L] economics and class struggle behind legal victory
some further comments on *economic* human rights (a) the recent fight led by Chavez/Venezuela can be understood as a fight for economic human rights (the right to a decent standard of living) (b) Canadians protesting against the killing of labour leaders by global corporations are fighting for economic human rights (the right to have labour unions) (c) leftist interpretation of existing legal language: in the article on property rights Article 17 states: (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Comment: (1) property is even protected in socialist states (they punish thieves); (2) the expression of arbitrary is wide open to interpretation; for example, in Allendes Chile, who was arbitrarily depriving whom of his (their) property? The global corporations the Chilean people or the Chilean people the global corporations? (3)everyone obviously refers to natural persons, but a corporation cannot claim to be a natural person (d) theory of class interest a self-employed worker in a poor country who makes a dollar a day and an American automotive worker who makes 70,000 dollars a year dont have the same material interest. According to (a petrified form of) Marxist theory, the American automotive worker is exploited because he has an employer, whereas the self-employed worker in the poor country is not exploited because he is his own employer. A fight for *economic* human rights gets around this theoretical problem to some extent. GK
Re: [PEN-L] economics and class struggle behind legal victory
- Original Message - From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 1:07 PM Subject: [PEN-L] economics and class struggle behind legal victory US has adopted much of UN law by treaty. By US Constitution, treaties have same legal status as federal statutes. Ergo, UN rights are U.S. law of the land. This is the basic legal theory. Interesting approach. It sounds like the web of international law is getting increasingly interwoven. The UK government wrote the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law through the Human Rights Act. This allows a higher court to rule that an existing law or procedure is incompatible, and requires the government to propose to Parliament a remedy. I have probably put that in lay language that is a bit too crude, but the legal approach has the advantage of some flexibility, but longer term some real impact. It was under these provisions that 8/9 UK law lords have just ruled that the continued detention of 9 foreigners suspected of terrorism is incompatible with the life of the nation! It does not immediately release the 9 but it means the government has little option but to respond, with legal and administrative concessions. It allows us to participate in a Gramscian struggle of global dimensions, although each individual contribution may appear petty. Thanks for sharing. Chris Burford
Re: [PEN-L] economics and class struggle behind legal victory
- Original Message - From: Chris Burford [EMAIL PROTECTED] It sounds like the web of international law is getting increasingly interwoven. One of SA's most active radical social movements, Jubilee, has had a bad experience you should all know about before getting too excited by juristic moves. A 'reactionary' government in league with transnational corporations can foil the Alien Tort Claims Act quite easily, it seems - at least in this first round... (Colin Powell told Pretoria to oppose the lawsuit - while on the other side people like Desmond Tutu and Joe Stiglitz were friends of the court in favour of reparations.) Apartheid struggle continues 6 December 2004 14:49 - (SA) Johannesburg - A group of apartheid victims vowed on Monday to step up their fight for reparation after a US court dismissed their claims against big companies. The Khulumani group, who filed their suit under the auspices of Jubilee South Africa, said they would appeal the court's decision while intensifying their international campaign for reparation. A spokesperson for the 82 plaintiffs, anti-apartheid activist Dennis Brutus said the group was deeply disappointed with the court's dismissal of their claim. Brutus accused New York Judge John Sprizzo of putting the importance of economic investment above human rights. In our judgment both the judge and the (former) minister of justice (Penuell Maduna) were valuing financial matters higher than humane values and we find this deeply troubling, Brutus said in Johannesburg. The lawsuit was filed in the Southern District Court of New York under the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789. This law allows foreign victims of serious human rights abuses to sue in US courts. The group claimed their human rights were violated by the apartheid government in that they, or family members, were the victims of indiscriminate shootings, unlawful killings, rape, torture and kidnapping. The defendants in the action included such multinational as Barclays National Bank, Ford Motor Company, Mobil, Daimler-Chrysler, Caltex Petroleum, Deutsche Bank and British Petroleum. Sprizzo dismissed the claims on the grounds that forcing these companies to pay reparations would have a negative impact on foreign investment in South Africa. Jubilee South Africa criticised both Sprizzo and the South African government for its role in the court's decision. Jubilee chairperson MP Giyose accused Sprizzo of putting economic considerations above human rights. Sprizzo was particularly pleased to rely for his economic doctrine in the judgment on the commercial motives invested in a letter deposited before his court by the weightless, light-minded Penuell Maduna on behalf of a South African government dominated by free marketeers. Giyose also lashed out at President Thabo Mbeki. ... for the people of South Africa, as for the Khulumani plaintiffs, it is critical to note the reactionary role played by the Mbeki government on this question. Originally the government did not interfere in the reparation lawsuits, but, said Giyose, pressure from the US government caused its South African counterpart to file papers with the New York court, asking for the case to be dismissed. It was not yet clear when the Khulumani group's appeal would be heard. /than Re: Contents of DEBATE digest...
Re: [PEN-L] economics and class struggle behind legal victory
Of course The ideas of the ruling class are normally the prevailing ideas, and have all the force of the state, not just military but financial and ideological, to back them. The Gramscian struggle for hegemony is and always will be uphill. It is still not impossible. Nobody is suggesting getting excited. The suggestion is that it will need years, probably decades of perseverance to win some advances. Like bourgeois democratic rights to vote, independent of colour of skin. And that people like Ann Ginger toiling away in unexciting corners may nevertheless help to change the world. It takes years of struggle to stop people dying of AIDS just because they cannot afford the drugs. What's new in this debate, Patrick, despite the important factual information. Can you share Jubilee's experience of how to get round this set back rather than just counselling us not to get excited? I personally think I am lugubrious enough already, but as Michael discourages characterisations I will not invite corrections at this point. Seasons greetings! Chris Burford - Original Message - From: Patrick Bond [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 5:44 AM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] economics and class struggle behind legal victory - Original Message - From: Chris Burford [EMAIL PROTECTED] It sounds like the web of international law is getting increasingly interwoven. One of SA's most active radical social movements, Jubilee, has had a bad experience you should all know about before getting too excited by juristic moves. A 'reactionary' government in league with transnational corporations can foil the Alien Tort Claims Act quite easily, it seems - at least in this first round... (Colin Powell told Pretoria to oppose the lawsuit - while on the other side people like Desmond Tutu and Joe Stiglitz were friends of the court in favour of reparations.) Apartheid struggle continues 6 December 2004 14:49 - (SA) Johannesburg - A group of apartheid victims vowed on Monday to step up their fight for reparation after a US court dismissed their claims against big companies. The Khulumani group, who filed their suit under the auspices of Jubilee South Africa, said they would appeal the court's decision while intensifying their international campaign for reparation. A spokesperson for the 82 plaintiffs, anti-apartheid activist Dennis Brutus said the group was deeply disappointed with the court's dismissal of their claim. Brutus accused New York Judge John Sprizzo of putting the importance of economic investment above human rights. In our judgment both the judge and the (former) minister of justice (Penuell Maduna) were valuing financial matters higher than humane values and we find this deeply troubling, Brutus said in Johannesburg. The lawsuit was filed in the Southern District Court of New York under the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789. This law allows foreign victims of serious human rights abuses to sue in US courts. The group claimed their human rights were violated by the apartheid government in that they, or family members, were the victims of indiscriminate shootings, unlawful killings, rape, torture and kidnapping. The defendants in the action included such multinational as Barclays National Bank, Ford Motor Company, Mobil, Daimler-Chrysler, Caltex Petroleum, Deutsche Bank and British Petroleum. Sprizzo dismissed the claims on the grounds that forcing these companies to pay reparations would have a negative impact on foreign investment in South Africa. Jubilee South Africa criticised both Sprizzo and the South African government for its role in the court's decision. Jubilee chairperson MP Giyose accused Sprizzo of putting economic considerations above human rights. Sprizzo was particularly pleased to rely for his economic doctrine in the judgment on the commercial motives invested in a letter deposited before his court by the weightless, light-minded Penuell Maduna on behalf of a South African government dominated by free marketeers. Giyose also lashed out at President Thabo Mbeki. ... for the people of South Africa, as for the Khulumani plaintiffs, it is critical to note the reactionary role played by the Mbeki government on this question. Originally the government did not interfere in the reparation lawsuits, but, said Giyose, pressure from the US government caused its South African counterpart to file papers with the New York court, asking for the case to be dismissed. It was not yet clear when the Khulumani group's appeal would be heard. /than Re: Contents of DEBATE digest...
Re: [PEN-L] economics and class struggle behind legal victory
As I had it handy, I am attaching an excerpt from the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights, namely the articles dealing with economic rights. As an example, it could be argued that anything and everything the Zapatistas have been doing to date has been within the scope of the economic human rights catalogued in this declaration. Gernot xxx from the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights - Economic Rights (articles 17, 22 - 25) Article 17. (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. Article 23. (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. Article 24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection. in reply to: --- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: economics and class struggle behind legal victory. From: Chris Burford Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 --- snip
Re: [PEN-L] economics and class struggle behind legal victory.
From: Chris Burford Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 . . . snip As for working people - working class and self-employed workers on the land - a more radical agenda of human rights is to their advantage, but there is a downside in that it ultimately tends to emphasise atomised individualised rights, . . . Reply: Wouldnt it make sense to campaign for *economic* human rights in order to gain ground in the legal sphere? Many of the economic human rights have already been catalogued in the 1948 UN Declaration, including the right to a decent standard of living, full employment, no child labour, no discrimination against women, and the right to a social order that facilitates those other rights. One could add the right of not being exploited. Since economic human rights can only be realized in a collective manner, the argument of atomized, individualized does not apply to economic human rights. Workers and poor people of the world unite for what? Could be: unite for your economic human rights. That sits also well with the theme of a common humanity, as raised by Lebowitz in a recent posting. GK
