This is not the place to go into a comprehensive analysis of ICFTU policy with respect to China, which has been in the main consistent with the principles declared in its own constitution. Infringements by the Chinese government of human rights and of trade union rights were regularly denounced by the ICFTU. In April last year the ICFTU issued a report entitled “Search and Destroy – Hunting Down Trade Unions in China” which documents the persecution of independent trade unions. Several complaints were submitted to the ILO in this connection.

The ACFTU has acknowledged this policy by denouncing the “ICFTU leadership clique” and its “plot to isolate Chinese unions”. (in “Seventy Years of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions”, China Workers’ Press, July 1995).
Against this background, the important new development is the effort of a “China lobby” to reverse this policy and engage the ICFTU into a policy of recognising and legitimising the ACFTU.
The official reflection of this effort can be found in the report on the ICFTU-APRO (Asian and Pacific Regional Organisation) Preparatory Delegation to China (September 19-25, 1997), submitted to the 69th Regional Executive Board Meeting held in Singapore from October 27-28, 1997 and re-submitted, with a number of significant amendments, to the ICFTU Executive Board held in Brussels from December 17 to 19, 1997, together with a covering note from the ICFTU secretariat in Brussels.
The spirit in which the mission was conducted is perhaps best reflected in the news item referring to it in the ICFTU-APRO Labour Flash, on September 26, 1997: “On return after leading an eight-member delegation to China, Ken G. Douglas, President of the ICFTU Asia Pacific Regional Organisation said that the scope and scale of development, and the huge improvement in the quality of life of people generally, which is now reflected in the very unique system of legal protections for workers and trade unions were the two major impressions carried by the delegation. The delegation was particularly impressed with the protections for workers and trade union rights in the Special Economic Zones.”
That is an extraordinary statement. It represents a sharp break with everything the ICFTU had said about China previously in carefully documented statements. It bears no relationship to the realities of workers’ condition in China.
The HKCTU commented: “Such unrealistic impressions could only be attributed to the fact that the mission was arranged, if not dictated, by top authorities in the country, whose sole objective for the mission was to present a rosy picture of the situation in China. Not to mention that the report actually contradicts previous reports by the ICFTU, the impressions are blatant diversions from the reality seen in the eyes of ordinary workers from China and people who are knowledgeable about China.”
The actual mission report is no less extraordinary. The draft report is more revealing than the final version which was submitted to the ICFTU Executive Board inasmuch as it enthusiastically endorses fraternisation with the ACFTU and, probably intentionally, pre-empts any future missions. Even the final version states:
“Isolating the ACFTU is no longer a sensible and realistic strategy for the ICFTU. Frank and cordial dialogue and more contacts for exchange of views and opinions are suggested and preferred. Such forums would allow the ICFTU to persuade the Chinese with its principles and policy more strongly and convincingly. The Chinese’s push for nation-wide adoption of collective contract (sic) is a signal of their willingness to learn from others. While a critical attitude should be maintained whenever and wherever necessary positive developments must be recognised.”
In the draft report the last sentences go further and become specific: “They need only to be convinced of the benefits. Credit needs to be given where credit is due. Some of the ACFTU’s points are not without foundation. For instance, international organisations will have greater authority as an international body with China’s participation. Hence, their stand is that the ILO Governing Body has lesser authority as an international body without their inclusion.”
The idea that the ICFTU could “persuade” the ACFTU of its principles and policies is ludicrous on the face of it. The true position is what is reported elsewhere when the ACFTU representatives state: “The ACFTU was created based on Chinese law and therefore should not be forced to adapt and change into something they cannot be” and the bottom line is: “They would maintain stability at any cost.
So far as the proposed collective contract law is concerned, all it would do if adopted is to give the ACFTU the right to sign collective contracts with employers on behalf of employees. There is no suggestion of any collective bargaining process followed by an agreement, as it is commonly understood where free trade unions operate. It would give the ACFTU another administrative function, which is not the same thing as a move towards collective bargaining based on democratic representation of the workers on the shop floor or, for that matter, at national level. In any event, the present draft law, even in its non-union version, has run into obstacles and is now not likely to be enacted until well in the next century.
The reference to representation on the ILO Governing Body is important. That is where the ACFTU can render a tangible service to the Chinese political leadership and at the same time regain some prestige in the party-state machinery. There the ICFTU has been an obstacle, and it is clear that the ACFTU will undertake every effort to remove this obstacle. It is also mentioned that “the Chinese Labour Ministry is interested in the reform of the ILO” which “should give greater attention to the voices of the majority of developing nations”. Knowing that the Chinese government regards any criticism of its human rights record as “interference in the internal affairs of China” (the stock phrase about “trade union unity based on mutual respect and understanding” is intended to preclude precisely such “interference”), it is not difficult to understand that any “reform” of the ILO the Chinese government would be interested in would be weakening the ILO’s role in setting and monitoring international labour standards and strengthening the camp of those who are working to undermine the universality of standards on the grounds of cultural relativism.
The use of the term “the Chinese” is curious. The ACFTU does not represent the Chinese workers and much less the Chinese people but the Chinese state. Does the mission want to suggest otherwise, or does it believe that the Chinese state represents the Chinese people, or is it particularly struck by the “Chinese” character of the ACFTU, whatever that may be? Perhaps trade unionism with special Chinese characteristics?
In the draft report, the statements of the ACFTU are mixed into the body of the report so it is not clear where the views of the mission end and those of the ACFTU begin, whereas in the final version they are at least clearly separated out into an appendix. However, they are reproduced without any attempt at critical analysis as “information given by the ACFTU”, although much of it is not “information” but crude propaganda, for example when it is stated that “socialism with Chinese characteristics means (risking oversimplification), an equitable stake for all in the Chinese society” or, elsewhere, “a wage system that is as equitable as possible.” The ACFTU told the mission that wage differentials in China run in the vicinity of one to five; that figure, again, bears no relationship to reality.
In another statement that is reproduced without comment, the ACFTU tells the mission that “Han Dongfang is not a real unionist. He does not have a union set up nor represent any workers in mainland China.” It is clear that the ACFTU regards Han as a serious inconvenience; it is less clear from the report that the mission firmly rejected the ACFTU’s view, as should have been its spontaneous and immediate reaction and as it would have been duty-bound to do. What trade unionist compelled to go into exile from a police state ever had a “union” or “membership”? When the Spanish UGT was in exile in Toulouse between 1945 and 1977, who else but the Franco regime would have said it “did not have a union set up” and that it “did not represent any workers in Spain”? And who except the Nazi regime would have dared tell Hans Gottfurcht and Ludwig Rosenberg in exile in London that they did not represent any German workers? Did Bruno Buozzi in exile in Paris have a “union” in Italy? A further question is why Han Dongfang should be the subject of a discussion between the ICFTU and the ACFTU at all. What is there to discuss, as long as Han Dongfang is not interfered with by the authorities?
The general problem with the report is that it blurs the standards of what a union is and what it is not (as other mission reports have also done). It refers to ACFTU “unionists”, “unionised workers”, “trade union achievements”, etc. as though one was dealing here with just another ordinary union which regrettably as yet happens not to be an ICFTU affiliate and which therefore is an appropriate partner for joint conferences, which should be invited to seminars, international union meetings, etc. In some places a mention of the FSPSI is incidentally, but not accidentally, introduced.
This is highly manipulative. The report appears to confuse the difference between an organisation where workers organise themselves to act in their own interest, and some other type of organisation where management or the state organise workers in order to prevent them from acting in their own interest. When the FSPSI is thrown in as well, it is clear that the main movers of the “China lobby” do not believe this to be a significant distinction, as long as both are called “unions”.
It is important – not only in connection with this discussion – to understand where this confusion is coming from. One explanation is the influence of business, which contaminates all social and political life.
It was recently reported that an expert of the Rand Corporation, at an international business meeting, stated that if Clinton had pushed the human rights issue with China to the extent that economic relations would have been seriously disturbed, the “market state” would have taken power out of the hands of the political state, would have decided what needed to be done and would have seen to it that these decisions were carried out. As it happens, we were spared the fascinating spectacle of a business coup d’état since Clinton anticipated the wishes of the would-be corporate putschists in his “China lobby” and did what was expected of him.
It is remarkable that the push to recognise the ACFTU comes precisely at a time when the Chinese regime is facing its biggest crisis, when ACFTU credibility is at a historical low point in China itself and workers are trying to assert themselves in the biggest movement for workers’ rights since 1989. (Just as the push to recognise the FSPSI comes just as the Indonesian regime is beginning to fall apart). In a situation like this, one would think that all the international trade union movement would have to do is to do nothing and wait. Apart from any considerations of principle, it is certainly the worst time, even from a narrow tactical point of view, to be seen to be rushing to the rescue of the official structures of the regime.
In a letter of October 24, 1997 to Takashi Izumi, General Secretary of ICFTU-APRO, Han Dongfang writes:
“The recent summer of labour unrest in China has given impetus to the nascent independent union movement and the demonstrations have given workers a sense of collective strength. These developments should be placed against a background of decades of government repression that has had a profoundly negative effect on trade union consciousness in China. The recent demonstrations and strikes have, in the minds of many workers, revealed the urgent need for independent workers’ organisations.
“This situation has also had a beneficial effect on the thinking of those shop-floor level officials of the ACFTU who have at least tried to do something to improve the situation of local workers. Despite the risk of being sacked or worse, a minority of ACFTU grassroots officials have taken some limited initiatives to defend and support their members.
“Regrettably, the ICFTU-APRO delegation to China will slow these welcome advances, notwithstanding the fact that they have been born out of desperation. Firstly, Chinese workers will see in the trip a tacit recognition of the ACFTU by the international union movement. At a time when we have never been more in need of international support and assistance, many will feel isolated and deserted at what will be perceived as a compromise by ICFTU. The idea of independent trade unions will thus suffer a severe set-back. Secondly, those inside the ACFTU who recognise the need for change, will no longer dare to speak out. Many will see the increasing influence of the ACFTU on organisations such as ICFTU-APRO as justification of the policies of their leadership and its willingness to serve as a tool of both the Chinese Communist Party and the government.
“It is undoubtedly the case that to spread awareness of the ICFTU’s positions among non-affiliates is a worthwhile policy, which I wholeheartedly support. However, in the minds of many Chinese workers, especially those who understand the need for workers’ organisations, the methods through which APRO has so far chosen to implement this policy appear to be in stark contrast with some of the basic notions of independent trade unionism.”