Debate on Central America jolts AFL-CIO convention

Scan page 7

SOCIALIST ACTIO • DECEMBER 1985 On Oct. 28-31, the AFL-CIO held its biennial national convention in Anaheim, Calif. One of the most publicized events at this convention was the heated debate over U.S. policy in Central America between the supporters of Lane Kirkland, the federation's president, and members and supporters of the National Labor Committee in Support of Democracy and Human Rights in El Salvador.

One day before the opening of the convention, one of Kirkland's representatives met with top officials of the UAW and AFSCME, two of the 25 national unions in the National Labor Committee, to draft a "compromise resolution" on Central America.

This resolution opposes a military solution to the conflicts in the region. At the same, however, it calls on the Sandinistas to negotiate a "political solution" with the contras, thereby granting these ex-Somocistas their longsought political legitimacy.

The resolution also continues to support U.S. military aid to the brutal government of Jose Napoleon Duarte in El Salvador. It stipulates that such aid is contingent on "demonstrable progress in curbing human rights violations," but leaves such a deter -mination to none other than Lane Kirkland and the U.S. State Department.

The drafters of this resolution, which gave up considerable ground to the Kirkland line, undoubtedly hoped that little or no discussion would be necessary on the convention floor, given that an agreement had been worked out.

But to the surprise of most observers and participants, an unexpected, unprecedented debate broke out over Central America. While the "big guns" in the National Labor Committee (the UAW, AFSCME, and ACTWU presidents) remained silent on the compromise resolution, a sharp debate was opened up by other Committee members who were obviously disappointed with the worked-out agreement.

Soon, secondary-level union officials joined in the floor fight and a three-hour debate was underway; a debate that reflects the intense opposition among the ranks of the labor movement to U.S. intervention in Central America.

Socialist Action is publishing below an on-the-spot report from labor correspon -dent Mark Carlson.

ANAHEIM, Calif-There were the usual stale speeches, but this year a breath of fresh air blew into the AFL-CIO's biennial convention, which met here Oct. 28-31. It came in the form of a wideranging, often heated debate on the convention floor over the federation's policy toward Central Ame -rica.

The debate was prompted by a growing roster of union officials who oppose the AFL-CIO's cheerleading for Reagan's mili -tary game plan in Central America. They are organized in the National Labor Com -mittee for Democracy and Human Rights in El Salvador, which is led by 25 union presidents.

The debate began with a bang when Ken Blaylock, president of the American Fede -ration of Government Employees, took the floor as the first speaker. The resolution dealing with Central America (No. 34), Blaylock argued, ignored the contras' "war of terror" in Nicaragua, not against military targets, but "against the people of that country."

With Reagan and Coors The resolution failed again, he said, to confront the right-wing terror against unions and the civilian population in El Salvador. He told of a conversation with a military authority in El Salvador, who boasted of their policy of "sanitization. Blaylock knew what he meant. He said he saw "miles and miles and miles of homes destroyed" by the military.

Blaylock said he was not speaking I'VE WRUNG CONCESSIONS OUT OF YOUR WORKERS, BUSTED YOUR UNIONS, AN MOVED YOUR PLANTS TO CENTRAL AMERICA!

MANGEMENT CONSULANTS I'M GOING TO WAR IN CENTRAL AMERICA TO PROTECT YOUR VITAL INTERESTS! against the resolution, but against its serious shortcomings. He said he did not support the restrictions recently imposed on unions in Nicaragua, but insisted that we should be talking about why our gov -ernment is always "on the side of rich dictators living behind high walls?" His conclusion: "If Reagan and Coors [the Coors family is one of the largest private financiers of the contras] are for it, then we'd better be against it."

Ed Asner, outgoing president of the Screen Actors Guild, said he also supported "this weak resolution." But he didn't mince words in his well-received remarks, brand -ing support for the contras as "unfor -giveable." "Where were our voices when the United States destroyed an oil depot and mined the harbor in Nicaragua?" Asner asked those who condemn the Sandinistas as "left-wing dictators."

Asner spoke sharply against the Kirkland leadership's failure to protest the deathsquad terror in El Salvador. He said, in response to those who rationalize support for President Duarte in El Salvador, that repression and censorship have gotten worse since 1984.

Asner said it did not make him proud to read in Business Week [Nov. 4, 1985] that the AFL-CIO spends almost as much on foreign policy as it does on domestic FENASTRAS head Hector Recinos (left) arrives in San Salvador airport escorted by U.S. labor delegation. See in photo above Carl Finamore, OCAW Local 3-126, and Al Lannon, president ILWU Local 6.

SEÑOR, I'VE DESTROYED MY UNIONS AND GUARANTEED SLAVE WAGES FOR YOUR RUN-AWAY SHOPS!

WELL? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO MAKE THE WORLD SAFE FOR BIG BUSINESS! programs. Much of the funding for the federation's international programs, which in Latin America work through AIFLD, comes from the National Endowment for Democracy, a congressionally funded foun -dation started by conservative Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). "I don't want Hatch's mo -ney for the union," Asner said. "I don't want to see the high ideals of the labor movement sullied by these policies."

"Resolution should be spat out" we Two of the sharpest attacks on the resolution came from Jerry Brown, secre -tary-treasurer of the Hospital and Health Care Employees Union, and Ed Clark, of the New Bedford and Cape Cod Labor Councils in Massachusetts. Brown and Clark were the only delegates to vote against the resolution.

Brown blasted the "unconscionable and vicious war" the United States is sup -porting in Central America. He said that regardless of what the Sandinistas do, we must oppose any U.S. military invol -vement in Central America. He criticized the resolution for its failure to learn the lessons of the last 20 years. "Why should labor be the shock troops of the Cold War?" Brown asked. "This resolution is lukewarm, we should spit it out."

Clark tore apart the myth of "progress"

(continued from page 20: “The FENASTRAS platform”)

FMLN. The two young men are, in fact, Boy Scout leaders who were involved in a food drive.

We were told that it was urgent that immediate action be taken before confessions could be extracted through torture. Forced confessions are used to keep people in prison indefinitely without the right to due process.

These repressive circumstances often lead to spontaneous responses from the unions to win early release of captured unionists. Seven hours after the Centeno incident, 6000 communication workers answered the call of their executive committee for a The workers reported to work but they did not perform their duties. This is often the strike tactic in El Salvador because picket lines are vulnerable to police attack. Phone, telex, and telegraph services were all affected.

[On Nov. 16, about 4C,000 government employees joined the telecommunication workers in the largest national strike against the Duarte government. They de -manded higher wages and greater in El Salvador. The land reform program was "a joke" and the human rights situation "extremely depressing.

Clark said he deplores the restrictions on union rights in Nicaragua, but pointed out that Nicaragua is not the "totalitarian nightmare" Reagan says it is. Clark said those eager to repeat stories of deprivation and hardship in Nicaragua should not forget that 40 percent to 60 percent of Nicaragua's budget goes to fight the contras.

"Which side are we on?" Clark asked the delegates. For his part, the answer was clear—"No aid to El Salvador, No aid to the fascist contras."

In defense of Kirkland Unmoved by all this was Albert Shanker, president of the American Federation of Teachers, who led the way for the defenders of the federation's Central America policy.

He shamelessly claimed that "our policy has helped human rights" in El Salvador. Shanker tried to paint a rosy picture of land reform, democratic elections, and curbing the death squads as the reality in El Salvador. Nicaragua, by contrast, was on its way to a "full dictatorship," Shanker claimed.

Some of the other speakers who lined up in defense of Kirkland's policy were Dan Gustaffson, head of the Minnesota AFL-CIO, who ranted about the "100-percent Marxist state" in Nicaragua. Gustaffson's excited speech seemed designed to reassure Kirkland of his loyalty, after he recently and confusedly raised his hand in favor of an opposition resolution put forward at the state convention of the Minnesota AFL-CIO.

Lane Kirkland spoke at the debate's conclusion, saying that he greatly resented the "mischaracterizations" of the resolution as being in league with Reagan and Coors.

He claimed that this was a "liberal" resolution. "We are not in league with Reagan, Coors, Hatch," Kirkland protested. Further, Kirkland demanded, where would this guilt-by-association place the defenders of the Sandinistas? He then took an apparent swipe at Asner, saying that eloquence should not necessarily be con -fused with accuracy. It was clear that Kirkland was more than a little annoyed.

Running through the course of the debate was a connection that many unionists cannot help but make these days. And that is that those who are financing the contra war against Nicaragua, the death squads in El Salvador, and union busting in the United States are one and the same.

For the first time in decades, a real debate erupted at a national convention of the AFL-CIO. A debate that vigorously chal -lenged the U.S.-sponsored war in Central America. Unlike in the past, the war -mongers can no longer presume that the labor movement will be on their side in future military adventures.

One thing is for sure. U.S. foreign policy in Central America makes it a safe bet this debate won't be the last.

benefits—The Editors.] The North American delegates informed the U.S. Embassy of the capture of the two Boy Scouts, but the public affairs office just repeated the unfounded charges made by the police. The U.S. delegation then told the local papers that it was going directly to the prison to determine the physical condition of the two young men.

We arrived at a fortress guarded by a tank and dozens of nervous teen-aged troops armed to the teeth. We spoke with their superiors, who refused to allow us to see the Centeno sons but gave the father a written certificate indicating they were in good health.

Not reassured, we went to the press and obtained widespread attention. As a result, the archbishop of San Salvador stated he was beginning an investigation. But, the next day, the father and mother saw their two sons and reported that they had ob -viously been drugged because they did not recognize their parents.

As we left San Salvador, the strike was still in progress and the Centeno youths still in prison. We promised to tell their story far and wide, hoping to help mobilize public opinion to stop U.S. funding for the crimes of the government in El Salvador. •

----- pull-quotes -----

El Salvador labor Llegadas Arrivals