General Strike in Tahiti
On 15th June workers in ‘French’ Polynesia ended a general strike, which was sustained for over a week. The strike was organised by a coalition of 11 unions using the name ‘Collective for Peace’. With deteriorating social and economic conditions in the already poor territory affecting a wide range of workers, the strike gained support and achieved some degree of success but fell short of its potential.
The strike was built around bread-and-butter calls for an end to job losses, better wages, secure pensions, unemployment insurance and health cost repayments for locals suffering from the effects of past nuclear weapons tests. When negotiations broke down, the strike was declared and workers moved swiftly to picket the main domestic and international transport links. This included the disruption of international air flights and the harbour operations in Papeete especially key ferry links between Tahiti and Moorea. Workers at Mamao Hospital also joined, with essential emergency services being maintained throughout. The public sector teachers’ union STIP added its support to the strike despite impending examinations. STIP argued that in current circumstances it would be pointless for students to have exams and then no jobs to go to when they graduate.
The strike was finally called off during its second week, after President Gaston Tong Sang agreed to ask the United Nations’ International Labour Organisation to investigate the possibility of establishing an unemployment fund. While this could be considered a partial victory for what was a defensive strike to maintain and extend basic living conditions, there were clearly flaws in the strike. On a positive note, by workers in strategic sectors taking the initiative, they showed where real power lies, since nothing can operate for long without transportation and socially significant facilities such as hospitals and schools. On the other hand, major trade unions in the private sector failed to support the strike and groups such as the Union for Youth tried to discourage student involvement. Without universal recognition that an injury to one is an injury to all, no strike can succeed for long let alone provide a springboard for greater action.
Likewise, though it is possible to make small gains here and there, putting faith in union leaders, governments and the UN to solve the deeper problems of the economy in Tahiti or anywhere is misguided. Professional union leaders often use their positions as a means of personal advancement and take direct control out of the hands of those they claim to represent. Governments whether elected or not are comprised of a minority of parasites that rely on the labour of the vast majority for their positions. As for the UN, it has always worked in the interests of the elite within the rich countries, with nothing being done unless it suits them and often with terrible results as in Iraq. The requirements of the poor on a remote neo-colony don’t feature highly on their list of places to bother with. The only people with a genuine interest and ability to deal with the fundamental cause of economic decay are those suffering its effects at the bottom internationally, not those who perpetuate the system that creates that decay.
The workers of Tahiti have shown what is possible when the working class organise to defend the limited benefits we possess. That’s a start. The task ahead in ‘French’ Polynesia, in Aotearoa and globally is to extend such struggles with the aim of overturning the whole system of capitalism.
This article is from the July 2010 issue of Solidarity, free monthly newsheet of the Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement. Read the rest of the issue online or download a .pdf at the AWSM website.
Comments
As much as I support the strike ...
There is a worrying element in this. The fact is that French Polynesia is essentially still a "colonial territory" of France and lives off tourism income and hand-outs from France.
Without that it would be very tough survival in a capitalist and ruthless world. I sincerely doubt whether Tahiti and its outlying islands would be better off without France and its support.
It would have to fend for itself. With all injustices on mind, the French Polynesians are getting a subsidised standard of living that is not quite European, but it is paid for by France and the EU and a lot better than many countries in the region get.
So if they strike - good on to them to get a better deal, but bear in mind that what alternative there may be, that may be even worse.
I hate to spoil your enthusiasm, but that is sadly the economic reality for the territories.
Any colony, former or current
Any colony, former or current is a state which is or was a sight of subjugation.
Colonial empires have profited enormously from gross and inhuman exploitation of people in their colonies. The subjugated indigenous people lose not only their land but their economy, and autonomy by coercion. In an egalitarian society the French state would not drop Tahiti to the bottom of the capitalist-economic shit heap. It would instead give Tahitians full autonomy and full support in developing a strong economy of any kind that Tahitians desire. This, France owes to Tahiti for the wealth it as given France and as reparation for the injustices the French have perpetuated against Tahitians (like poisoning people with nuclear radiation). It is the French state that is receiving subsidiarity from Tahiti not the other way round. Some argue that 'the third world' would be screwed without the 'first world' What would the 'first world' look like without all the cheap, sweatshop and slave labour from 'the third world?' Or for that matter the minerals food (think banana republic) or other resources that the 'first world benefits from. Oh yeah and without poor or non-Anglo countries rich white ones would have to test their bombs in the west.
But society in large is not fair or just. So some people take whatever freedoms and whatever foods they can get. In some cases this may look like a bad move, but who is to judge the actions of those struggling for liberation? Only those engaged in that specific struggle.
The resistance to neo-colonialism in Bougainvillea must have looked crazy to some people, an Island surrounded by a floating blockade very nearly completely cut off from the rest of the world and with no economic relations with anywhere at all. Bougainvillea returned to complete subsistence, reformed its own social structure and is either (not sure which) now a sovereign state or very nearly there. The indigenous people there where dying due to poisoning from mining, displacement from essential resources and from murder when they resisted. They gained autonomy through armed resistance and faith. I don't entirely like the methods they used and I would not like to be in the position they are in now. But what does it matter what I think of their method of liberation? Nothing.
What the people of Bougainvillea did worked to reclaim their land freedom and save lives, even if it hadn't why should they only follow a course of action that fits with someone else's idea of what is good for them?
Indeed, good on Tahitians for striking and who knows if it will result in better or worse conditions for the strikers? In fact bloody good on them! They ran the risk of making things worse for themselves while doing us all favor by taking a step toward freedom equality and justice.
I wouldn't worry about strikes in Tahiti, I would worry if their were no international strikes in solidarity.
Wish there was a general strike in Aotearoa.
Yeah - and how many coconuts do you pay for a flat screen tv?
If it was all that easy man. The French pumped some money into the territory as long as they felt they needed it for strategic reasons and for having a place to blow up nuclear test devices.
Now since they stopped that there is not the same interest in French Polynesia, so less money flows from France.
See how Tahiti and outlying islands will be able to maintain their living standards without that artificial boost of Euros from France and the EU!
It will end up like Solomon Islands and worse. They can strike as much as they want, but it will not change much, unless they make deals with other countries and economies - replacing revenues they got so far.
Otherwise Tahiti was held up as the "pearl of the pacific" and has lived from tourist dollars and rich Hollywood stars buying villas there. It does not fit the ordinary stereotype of a poor, suppressed banana republic.
What kind of question is that
What kind of question is that anyway?
You don't make very much sense. I never said anything was easy. In fact I gave an example of how things can be very difficult. Just because something is difficult is no reason to not try it.
You are quite right, Tahiti is not a 'Banana Republic'.
I guess I didn't make sense to you either as you seem to have missed my point, which is that people have the right to self determination (including determining their own standards of living). Or the other point which is that it has been demonstrated that oppressed people can dramaticaly change their circumstances for the better without making deals with other countries and economies.
Tahiti and Bougainvillea are rather different places, so the Bougainvillea example is not the best. However back to the point, unless you are a Tahitian seeking freedom from oppression how do you know what will and wont work Tahitians engaged in that struggle.
You and Radical sound like you know it all and supply very little information or coherency.
If you have a flat screen T.V I'll give you 50 coconuts for it. Just give me your account details.
No matter about Cynic
Sorry the Flat Screen TV cannot be bought for 50 coconuts we have no use for!
I don't necessarily agree with 'Cynic', but really Tahiti and outer islands should most definitely get their independence. It will not be easy for them to survive though. That is dependent on what they have to offer in the way of products to the trading partners they may have. At present it is limited to some pearls, copra, tourism dollars, overseas estate buyers and the odd tv crew doing a documentary about supposed "paradise" in the South Pacific. Who can live off that to be honest.Maybe fisheries, but then who will control the foreign fleets fleecing the ocean around them?
We have some of that degree of bullshit happen here in Aotearoa! What about the "clean green", the "Switzerland of the South Pacific", the "economic miracle", the "class less society down under" and all that kind of nonsense they feed the tourists and new migrants?
So where does this get us? We have to beg the Chinese to buy our land and invest here to survive now. Is that what you want to support and propogate? They definitely are no longer socialist or communist anymore. It is pure radical state capitalism they follow. There is no special regard to people here and never will be. So show your colours and stand up for your unconvincing arguments, please.
You are simply dreaming and offer no substance to your illusionary dream of a better world at all.
Where is your position anyway?
Are you actually a "worker"? Have you ever worked in a factory? Have you ever got your hands dirty? Have you ever worked the land to get something in return? I doubt it by your arrogant and partly ignorant and naive comments you have simply stuck your nose in some pseudo academic books about social history and perhaps revolution and marxism. You do not really understand material marxism at all it seems. You need to get down to the basics too to get a true understanding what class and class struggle does or at least may mean. I have been there and beyond, dear comrade. So some smartasses here come across with all sorts of gullible and biased arguments, but you have never really learned what all this may be about. Instead of cheap talk perhaps take REAL action. Look at Che and others, that may be required, are you ready then???
Global Action
It should also be realised that if real change is to happen then unions of regions and states need to co-operate to take "global" action to really get social change on a larger and lasting scale.
If some territories, islands, small or even larger states take actions, that may change little, because ultimately the global economic environment will continue to operate according to what is the predominant set of rules around most countries. A change in a small territory may represent meaningful change for the local population. But if that territory is dependent on the rest of the world, such changes may ultimately be irrelevant and lose its significance because they cannot be enforceable.
Good to see!
Good to see some people who are willing to take some action against poor living standards. We hope they get a pay increase, better working conditions and compensation to pay for the medical expenses from the nuclear tests.
What is needed and what has been lost!
What Polynesia needs is a re-orientation on its roots. It used to be very self-sufficient. People were able to go and catch fish, harvest fruit and crops grown on fertile islands and make a simple but secure living. There was some equality, although village life and customs had some hierarchy. So since the islands have been colonised, commercially overtaken, there is a culture of rather buying cheap cans and other forms of imported foods, the reliability on subsidies and aid donations by countries that now have the say over them. That is nothing worthwhile to aspire for. Of course you will always have the wannabe upper class latter drinkers and red wine consumers in Papeete, in Apia, Tongatapu, Suva and so forth. That is not the future for Polynesia. The islands of French Polynesia and other groups need to develop their own agriculture and certain sound industries that can generate real income and secure the livelihood of their populations. Simply catering for wealthy and decandent tourists and dwellers from USA, Japan, France and other parts of the world is NOT the solution. The challenge is how to implement it and protect the islands from imperial and rising imperial countries like the existing ones, Mainland China, and whatever else may come. So whosoever likes to talk about "solidarity", revolution and so, give us a pracitical game plan, before you start quoting from your text books from political sciences. Thanks and have a good day!
Editor - please kill the "kill" here!
There is some nonsense going on here. So this should be stopped! Thanks!