Regards
ATIK 20. General Council
To the ICC board and all ILPS member organizations
Foreword
On November 21st, 2009 in the ICC meeting,since some problems were not corrected with correct methods and just as it wasn�tsolved in the ICG meeting, reached a much more serious stage. With the communiqu�of the ILPS ICC, On November 23rd, 2010 announcing its decisions tointernational public, problems that could have been overcome within ILPS byusing appropriate methods have unnecessarily been magnified and unmasked to theinternational public.
It is our natural right to defend ourselves against thesestatements whose contents are not concordant to reality. We have not used thisright until this today. The only reason for this was our belief that theproblem can still be solved. But in the present stage, in order to address theimproper information sent to the ILPS organizations (information) to forward ageneral evaluation of the existing problems to all ILPS member organizationshas become a necessity. Without a doubt in our opinion, the justification ofthe new elected �ICG� should be discussed. But for the believe of the unity ofthe organization, the need of the understanding of common struggle for thecause to solve this matter within a frame of revolutionary principle, we demandthat the evaluation below be forwarded by the �new elected ICG� to all memberorganizations.
To theILPS member organizations
Dearfriends
During the ILPS International Coordination Committeemeeting on 21st November 2009 the ICG has been changed with an understandingthat is not in accordance with the democracy functioning in the organisation.
Under the pretext of the problems during the IAMR2 inAthens on 1-4 November 2009, the will of the democratically elected ICG duringthe first ICC meeting following the Third ILPS Assembly, has suffered a serious blow. With this negative example theILPS organisational internal democracy and its sound tradition has beenviolated.
Withthis explanation, ATIK declares that it does not recognize the legitimacy of the�new International Coordination Group ICG� as is announced to the internationalpublic through the ILPS Communiqu� of 23rd November 2009 and demands this to be corrected as soon aspossible.
The�new ICG that was elected based on an anti-democratic understanding is not �legitimate�because; the ICG has beenunjustly changed without allowing discussion on these issues in the ICC,without an mutual assessment, criticism, and exchange ideas of both sides in ademocratic discussion. Even in bourgeois courts the �accused can use theirright to defend themselves�, the violation of this right in ILPS is not in linewith the principle of consensus.
The�new ICG that was elected is based on an anti-democratic justice understandingis not �legitimate� because; on the meeting agenda that wasdistributed before the meeting a new ICG election was definitely not on theagenda.
The�new ICG that was elected based on an anti-democratic understanding is notlegitimate, because; as theILPS chairperson Mr. Sison�s task is to protect the right of all the ILPSmembers, organisations and individuals that are represented in the ICC fairly. Theone sided assessment in the content and the method of forwarding the message ofthe ILPS Chairperson Mr. Sison to the IAMR2 in Athens, has unnecessarily puttension on the friendly relations of the ILPS member organisations. This waythe chairperson has himself given cause to the mutual trust crisis within ILPS.
Mr. Sison has sent a text through email shortly beforethe start of the IAMR2 with an instruction to be forwarded to Filipinoorganisations stating, that the mass organization Class March �has willfullynot performed their task and is sabotaging the Assembly in this way and ClassMarch should be removed from the list of organisations that are praised for organizingthe IAMR2�. This email reached ATIK and Class March on 31st October, basicallyhalf a day from the start of the Assembly, and was cause for an open crisis of trust.When ATIK questioned a Migrante Europe representative �why there was the needfor this mail and what was its meaning?� the reply given was that this �is aninternal mail and that it only binds Sison�
Upon this, ATIK and Class March representatives haveinformed Migrante Europe representative Danilo Borjal that �the message of Mr.Sison to the Assembly could not be accepted by us in the format as it is and haverequested if possible to have only the introduction part to be changed�. And wehave made 3 solution suggestions to be forwarded to Mr. Sison. Our suggestions were not accepted in any wayand the formal reply that was given to us in an obstinate approach was � Sison will not make any changes to hismessage, if you have critisism you can put it on the agenda of the ILPS meetingonly after the Assembly�.
On this basis, from 31st October 19:30 till 9:00 in themorning of November 1st, several meetings were held with Filipino organisationsin order to overcome this crisis of trust with a reasonable method. Howeverafter they did not take a step back, no other option was left for ATIK than towithdraw from the IAMR2.
Internalissues that could very well have been overcome with appropriate methods have unnecessarilybeen magnified, and have gained more dimension during the ILPS-ICC meeting on21st November: during the ILPS ICC meeting on 21st November, a�complaint letter� that had been distributed to many other members prior to themeeting- and hidden from us- was only given to us when the meeting started. This �complaint letter� with4 signatories has unjust claims about Class March representative ManolisArkolakis and ATIK representative Ufuk Berdan.
We wantto assess the complaints made about ATIK and its representatives:
Firstly;Our collective efforts and initiatives for therealization of the Assembly, the start of the proceedings, the effort toovercome problems in a friendly way and to finalize the Assembly based oncorrect relations is no less than the 4 signatories, even more than some ofthem.
Secondly;during the IMA-ICBmeeting on 31st October, as ATIK delegates, we made an explanation that we haveexperienced serious discontent regarding the issues during the preparatoryperiod and that we would express these during the assessment after theAssembly. This explanation has become the subject of critisism by stating that�they have spoiled the positive atmosphere of the IMA-ICBmeeting�. That is to say, that for the signatories of the �complaint letter�even expressing our critisism, our worries is considered a fault.
But there is a matter they do not know. The ATIKdelegates were not aware of the mail Mr. Sison had sent till the end of the IMA ICB meeting. During the IMAICB meeting we have worked to have the Assembly realized regardless of all theproblems that were very disturbing for us which we did not express during themeeting. However representatives of several Filipino organisations were awareof the content of this mail but this was hidden from us. If we had not putforward this issue before the commencing of the IAMR2 with the hope ofresolving it, what kind of situation would have occurred if others had put thison the agenda during the Assembly? Would this not have created an even larger �crisisof� trust? Although we were in the IAMR2 convenors group, during the prepatoryperiod of the IAMR2 the necessity to inform us on tens of issues was not even feltand during the last week many changes were made by the Filipino representativeson several issues.
On 31st October afterthe IMA-ICB meting we were onour way to a previously made appointment with the Filipino representatives todiscuss the organisational problems and to express our worries. Around 19:00 we have learned of the �internalmail� issue and its content on our way to this meeting.
However, next to the previous issues, the fact that Sisonhad sent such an email has extended the problems that had not yet been resolved.The meeting with the Filipino friends on 31st October naturally evolved aroundthis mail and the message. We have informed them that we had this unfortunatemail and have requested a formal explanation after they had discussed this withtheir own organizations. Briefly we have taken the sensitivity of this intoconsideration.
Fourthly; Afterthe IMA meeting and in a timeframe of 13-15 hours before the start of the IAMR2 and up till the morningseveral meetings were held in order to overcome the �crisis�. Amidst thisconfusion there were 3 options before us after the common evaluations of theATIK delegates.
Firstoption; Attending the assembly despite all, pretending as ifnothing had happened. However none of the delegates present accepted thisoption!
Secondoption; Withdrawal from the convenors group and solelyparticipate in the IAMR. This was a risky option because any mistakes by bothsides could disrupt the proceedings and could cause unwanted even worseresults. A limited number of our delegates thought this as correct!
ThirdOption; To withdraw from the convenors group and the assembly inorder to proceed in a sound way and not to have deeper problems!
This option was implemented as the method that wasapproved as a collective decision by all the ATIK delegates. Before the startof the Assembly around 9:00 we informed the general content of the crisis tothe IMA Chairperson and the IMA General Secretary and have requested them tointervene. However when they also showed an approach of �lets discuss thisafter the assembly� and showed no will to resolve the crisis, no other option thanwithdrawal was left for us.
After the opening of the IAMR2 and after the speakers atthe plenary session had finished their talks we requested to speak andinitially have expressed our thoughts on the political agenda of the panel. Inthe last three minutes of our talk we have explained that serious issues had occurredin the convenors group and that we have not been able to resolve these issues. Wehave announced that we would be withdrawing from the Assembly resulting fromthese issues not being resolved and to prevent any hindrance to the successfulcompletion of the Assembly. We have joined the common demonstration that wasorganised several days later. We have closed the issues that were the subjectof discussion after our withdrawal and have not in any way discussed these withother organisations.
We have not made any explanation on these issues andwaited until the ICC meeting because we believe that these would be discussedand resolved during the ILPS-ICC meeting. Till that time our efforts were toensure that the IAMR2 activity would be successful, we had no intentions to doother things. Why would we have otherwise taken on so many tasks till the IAMR2and put in so much effort? And why would we have travelled to Athens withalmost 20 delegates and activists? Regardless of our withdrawal our intentionswas to have this international activity to be concluded successfully. Whereas,on the next day after our withdrawal, when we went to the Assembly venue forthe appointments that had been arranged previously for interviews for our paperM�cadele, a Filipino representative hadput a meaningless ban stating �you cannot have any meeting with Filipinoorganisations�. Although we had made our appointments with a majority of nonFilipino IMA members, this threateningexplanation has accelerated the tension on the fraternal relations more.
The evening before the ILPS-ICC meeting, after insistingon another meeting request, stating a name, the reply was �we will only meetwith one of your people�. That is to say that they thought themselves to havethe right to determine who would attend the meeting on behalf of us.
Despite this, after discussing some other subjects, onthe question of our representative who attended the meeting whether the issuesof Athens would be proposed to the ICC meeting agenda, the Filipino organisationrepresentatives reply, whereas Sison�s report was fully dedicated to thisissue. Sison has forgotten the political-organisational situation of ILPS, theassessment of a year of activities and all the attacks from the imperialistruling front, and only focuses on the issue of Athens.
The ILPS Chairperson accuses ATIK in his report of being sectarian and preventing the IAMR2activity. After such an accusation from the Chairperson, we had expectedhim to prove this with evidence. This was not done. What surprised us was thefact that the Chairperson committed an �extrajudicialact� against ATIK and its representatives based on a �complaint letter� ofsome organizations.
The Chairperson of an international anti-imperialist organisationshould not base his report on a unilateral �complaint letter�. At least heshould have listened to the organization that was declared guilty in the �complaintletter. Additionally, three out of the fourorganisation representative are not even witnesses to the issues that have occurred.The other signatories have acted upon the wrong-biast information provided onlyby Filipino representatives. Shortly, the �complaint letter� was prepared as asupport of the previously prepared plan before the ICC meeting.
We would like to invite those (individuals) that trustthemselves enough to face an independent judge and prove the indictments thatwere filed against us in the �famous� complaint letter in order to claim usguilty. We will accept any judgement givenby an independent-democratic judge. Are you ready to accept this? This�complaint letter� is an example document �to defend the �internal organizationalinjustices. History will prove who is right sooner or later. It should beexplained which of ATIK�s practices were intended to prevent the IAMR2!
Regarding our withdrawal from the IAMR2 as stated above,we have made the necessary explanation from our front, if our withdrawal hadbeen malicious, if we had any intention to prevent the Assembly, our practicewould have been very different. In principle the attitude for self-centrism ofsome Filipino organisation representative�s was the preventing approach. Allthe issues have resulted from the violation of the principal of organising allthe activities based on consensus and of imposing the self-centricunderstanding. Neither IMA nor theIAMR2 are controlled by an organisation and it is not a formation that takes directivesand instructions from one sole organisation.
IMA is amigrant organisation with an anti-imperialist political line, that isdemocratic and that embraces the broad masses.
ILPS has come to being and has grown as an organisationon the culture of consensus for many years. An organisation that moves on the instructions of individuals will loseits international characteristic, its variety and unified will. We have beenthe subject of unprecedented attacks and discrediting even concerning the past.The ILPS-ICC third meeting Communiqu� that was declared to the internationalpublic is a negative document. All organisations that are members of ILPS knowthat; ATIK is a founding member of ILPS; it is one of the organisations thathave worked the most and have put in the most effort in to building it sincethe founding of ILPS. Consequently we are organisations that have propagatedILPS to the international public in order to bring it to life and haveundersigned many successful activities. It was an organisation that as a resultof these successful activities received compliments of attracting the sympathyof many anti-imperialist organisations to ILPS. How has it transformed suddenlyinto a sectarian organisation that is a hindrance to the development of ILPS? Howis it possible that those who were thanking ATIK because of its success in theactivities up to now are accusing us of being an obstacle to the extension ofILPS?
Ifwe indeed have a side that is restrictive and sectarian why have you not criticizedus and have you not purified us from this error? Have you not committed anoffence by not criticizing us up to now and have you not condoned our mistakes? In the nine years of activities� did youbring up any critisism on this subject in the ILPS-ICC or the ICG meetings? Please check the meeting minutes once more.
In the 5thparagraph of the ICC Communiqu� of the 3rd meeting it states; �The ICCapproved the ICC chairperson's report and recommendations to strengthen the ICCand the ILPS as a whole. Accordingly, the ICC subjected its officers to a voteof confidence and elected a new set of officers. ICC chairperson Prof. Sisonand others were re-elected. A few were not re-elected�. This announcementis not one that reflects the truth. This is not an election but acarefully planned and long planned scenario that was put on stage. In the ILPSleadership all issues are open for discussion and after this discussiondecisions are made based on common consensus. If there is a need for newleadership, the facts on the ill performance of the leadership will need to beproven and their ideas against these facts will be heared and if there is goingto be a new coordination chosen this will be a joint decision of theleadership. However during this meeting, an election was held in an anti-democraticand sectarian way without allowing anyone to speak despite of all theinsisting, without putting forward concrete reasons and evidence, withoutlistening to the individuals and organisations subject to these accusations.With an anti-democratic and sectarian method an election was held that was onlyfor show. Without the presence of the entire ICC members, by gathering amajority with proxies, an interesting election was held by raising hands up anddown.
With this anti-democratic method the ILPS charter hasbeen violated; those who have without any doubt voted for such ananti-democratic decision have violated this charter they have previously votedfor.
In the preamble and the 6th part it is stated that; �TheICC, cannot be governed by the members or by any member organization�. Anotherexample of violation of the Charter is the article in the preamble �shall afford equality to all member organizations�
Againin the sixth paragraph of the ICC 3rd meeting communiqu�; it isstated that �the sectarian current to confuse ideological building of partieswith the ILPS as a broad united front of mass organizations along theanti-imperialist and democratic line�. We actually still do not know to whatarguments it is based that we have been exposed to these accusations. Yes, ILPSis not an ideological party organisation; we know this as we are the foundingmember. As ATIK we have never sought an ideological unity in the ILPS components,if we had sought this, this organisation would not have been broad at thislevel.
ILPS is an anti-imperialist and international democraticmass formation. It is not a unity of ideological formation and thereforeseeking ideological unity is an approach that supersedes our responsibility.Anti-imperialist and democratic organisations are mass organisations; it willtry to organize the masses on the bases of their most advanced democraticdemands in a anti-imperialist line and do not aim power of control.
Will indirectly support social and national liberationstruggles. However ILPS is not independent from political thinking andpolitical mass movements and the struggle for democracy by the oppressedpeoples of the world. It has always been essential for us to be unifying on a popularpolitical line inspired by the liberation of the oppressed peoples of the world,this understanding is wanted to be turned inside out or is wanted to be indistinctby some.
Aswe are not defending the ideological unity of the ILPS components, we defendthe decisions to be made on consensus after discussion. This understanding hasbeen implemented in the ILPS Charter and the traditional implementationsequivalent to the authority of a law upto now. Consequently ideological unitythat is imposed by forcing �everything I say will be done� approach is nowdefended by those who want to dismember ILPS. The understanding of those who want to leadILPS with directives and instructions is that of wishing �a rose garden withoutthorns�. Those who have deprived our right to speak by playing games of raisinghands, have been acting exactly with this understanding. While the mostconcrete example of self-centralism has been exhibited at the last ILPS ICC meeting,the accusation of �sectarian� towards us is ridiculous.
Further in the communiqu� it is stated that ATIK,� had not contributed to the building of the ILPS and hadstifled the building of global region committees and national chapters of theILPS�. Wewould like to know which influential activity that created public opinion hasbeen organised without ATIK since the founding of ILPS upto now.Activities suchas Mumbai, Thessaloniki, Davos, Rostock Germany, and lastly the anti NATOevents in Strasbourg and similar ones? The above listed activities and manyunlisted ones we have organised by ourselves and others jointly. Under thebanner of ILPS, through these effective activities an example has been set formany democratic organisations and effective resistance has been displayed withleadership. Which activity has Migrante Europe organised in Europe without us,can you show this? We are being accused of stifling the chapter organizingwork.
Yes, the chapter organisation that was formed as per oursuggestion and efforts but it was not able to move forward as we wished. Howeverwe are not the only member of this chapter, Migrante Europe and other Filipinoorganisations are part of the organisation of this chapter as well. This means,that these organisations have responsibility too in the stifling of the chapterwork. Therefore if one is to act fairly, shouldn�t these organisations also beaccused of being destructive and sectarian?
In thesame communiqu� on the first page, the second paragraph from the bottom it isstated: �Since the Second International Assembly of the ILPS in2004, the same sectarian elements had also disrupted meetings and activities ofthe ILPS by unduly raising ideological issues and derailing the approved agendaand had sought to prevent the ICC chairperson from exercising his mandate aschief representative and spokes person of ILPS. Whichmandates have been prevented? What are the ideological issues that were raised? Or isthe fact that we are persistent in the anti-imperialist line? Or is it becausewe have opposed the fact that ILPS would be overshadowed by those who are notanti-imperialist but civil-society driven? The mandate of the chairperson isprevented? Why has the chairperson not raised these during meetings upto now?
ILPS is not controlled by one organisation on its own. Itwas founded to unite all the organisations that will move within the anti-imperialistfront. Of course we do not believe that we will think the same on every issue.İt is well possible that we think differently on many points. Important is thatthese differences are set forward openly, are discussed and acted according tothe common decisions. Our efforts up to now have been accordingly. We havenever prevented any organisation that acts in this way to become a member ofILPS, there are no example of this. These accusations towards us are nothingbut an attack to discredit us. Those attacking, and approving this shouldimmediately abandon this wrong approach.
We have explained that the accusations made towards usduring the ILPS-ICC 3rd meeting have no concrete reasons. What remains is ourpersistence on the anti-imperialist line. Yes, if our fault is to be persistenton the democratic, militant, and anti-imperialist line, it is not a fault. Afterthis, we will insist on this line, without abandoning democratic methods and continuingour struggle to change and to transform. We will act according the foundingaims of ILPS.
We do not have an issue of being on or not on the ILPSleadership or the coordination or to have anyone taken from the leadership. Somecircles could think that ATIK has been isolated, due to the games played at theICC 3rd meeting! It should not be forgotten, that these anti-democratic methods,will form the basis of the systematisation of wrong practices in the future. Drawing the correct lessons from historyis the guarantee of the correct building of the future.
In additionthe �complaint letter� signatories havenearly put in a forced effort into a very special matter. It seems that they are putting specialemphasis on sowing the seeds of enmity between the organisations ATIK and Unionof Working People (UWP). They are doing this because we are opposing theiranti-democratic practices. Let alone approving the addition of this fraternalorganisation to the IAMR2 convenors group, they have been added without ourknowledge of it. This has been done without been commonly approved or suggestedfor approval and it has not been consulted with anyone in any meeting. We couldhave added another organisation if anyone could just add another organisationhowever in this we have not chosen the self-centric approach.
The convenors group participants have been determined atthe ILPS and IMA coordinators andboth consist of the following: IMA,IBON, Migrante International, Migrante Europe and ATİK. In principle there is adecision to broaden but this is a principle decision. This is not a decision onauthority of anyone to add any other at will. And this principle decision issuehas never been put on the agenda in the IAMR2 secretariat nor at the IMA ICB meetings
We, have serious objections to the subject of this self-centricunderstanding and its method of implementation that has become concreteespecially with this issue. Our objections are concretely not to the fact thatUWP is added to the convenors group or the organizing committee. Our objectionis to the facts that without having a common decision the addition of UWP tothe IAMR2 convenors as a result of the enforcement of this self-centric action byMigrante Europe. Informing organizations one sided, the approach to prove to beright by obtaining the approval of the three signatories of the complaintletter, will not achieve his goal that is based on injustice. We have never opposedand still are not opposing the support, contributions or addition to theconveners group of any ILPS fraternal organisation. We also do not oppose thepraise of their contributions. The signatories of the �complaint letter� stateeven in their writing that �ATIK has still not explained why it�s opposing�.What the signatories have not understood is that we are opposing their self-centricmethods. When we asked them �Why this ILPS member organisation was not addedfrom the start?� why did they remain unanswered? Therefore confronting ATIK andUWP in order to gain support for themselves is an approach of unfitting offriendship. Those who misinterpret our good intentions make unprecedentedaccusations and who ignore our values and common activities for years and turnour justice into injustice will be held accountable in the face of history. Those who ignore our work and ourcontribution, which ignore our values, are tremendously mistaken.
It should not be forgotten that those who are on theright path can recreate all that is of value. Those who are on the wrong pathwill squander and lose all the values that are created collectively. In a periodwherein the possibility of deepening political crisis is increasing and wherein the imperialist system is in astructural and cyclical crisis; are those who have created a �trust crisis�with their sectarian, self-centric and pragmatist methods and explanationswithin revolutionary-democratic organisations , aware of the price of what theyhave done? An anti-imperialist, democratic mass organisation that can provideconfidence to the militant mass movements developing around the world, willwin. Instead of creating an organisation that is open and self-critical to itsown errors; anticipating help from social-reformism and pragmatism in relationsbetween friends, is equal to disappointment. A correct understanding of criticism and self-criticism and a culture productiveintellectual struggle, is the most effective glue that holdrevolutionary-democratic unities together. An organisation created byunderstandings that have not internalised this approach and culture, that isimpatient, liberal in intellectual work cannot be democratic or unifying.
Acorrect culture of criticism and self-criticismcannot gain functionality if the involved parties cannot express themselvesfreely. At the ICC meeting, making a decision and depose the coordination,after a report of half an hour, without allowing the criticized and accusedparty the right to speak can never be reconciled with arevolutionary-democratic understanding of justice.
Onbehalf of ATIK, we also feel responsible for those who have wronged us.We will continue the struggle with their errors. This struggle will be persuasive,open to constructive change.
Onbehalf of ATIK, we invite the ILPS ICC to abandon these errors and tolead the organisation in a democratic way and to exhibit a self-criticalapproach. We demand a self-critical approach to be exhibited and these errorsto be corrected as soon as possible and for the anti-democratic practices thatwere put in place, to be renounced. We invite the ILPS ICC members who havevoted for this wrong tendency to lead the organisation in a democratic way. If none of these are possible, we demand thecommencing of a neutral-independent democratic judicial process to be initiatedin order to eliminate the disagreements.
We callupon all ILPS members, to question the anti-democratic proceedings during theICC meeting and to oppose this injustice.We call for support in order to strengthen the organisation that we havecreated together in a more democratic base.
We callupon all ILPS member organisations, tostrengthen the international unity of the workers and toilers and thesolidarity of the oppressed peoples of the world with a true anti-imperialistline.
We callupon all, to act with a sense of justice and common sense in orderto resolve the contradictions with a friendly and productive method.
Struggle with injustice will bring justice!
Long Live International Solidarity and UnitedStruggle!
ATIK- Confederationof Workers from Turkey in Europe
20th General Council
