Communist Party of Austria (KPÖ):

Platform für the elections to the European Parliament

1. Introduction

Internationalism has always been a characteristic of communism. Understandingbetween peoples, open borders for the free movement of people and ideas are part andparcel of communist ideals.

That is why, in principle, the KPÖ welcomes the idea of all-Europeancooperation. Nevertheless, this cannot obcure the fact that the EU incarnates the Europeof corporations and big business. Moreover, Europe does not end at today's borders whichare meant to shut out the rest of our continent; so that even if the EU enlargement takesplace as planned, a considerable number of European peoples would remain excluded and keptapart.

Today’s evolution of the EU is a far cry from leading to European socialintegration. On the contrary, it increases the danger of social dumping. Capitalistintegration exacerbates existing different levels of development between rich and poorregions, reinforces and augments the differences between the rich and the poor within thevarious societies and also between EU-Europe and the countries of the "thirdworld".

The KPÖ rejected entry into this EU prior to the referendum of 1994. Itsobjections and warnings are valid to this day. Unemployment did not diminish, as promised,but rose still further. In order to forge ahead with the Euro, the coalition governmentresorted to "austerity packages" with the result that the tax burden grewinstead of diminishing. Under the banner of the Euro, neo-liberal capitalism grew strongerin Austria, too. We reject this neo-liberal brand of EU-integration.

In thirteen out of fifteen EU member states social-democratic parties exertconsiderable influence on the respective governments. They must be pressed today to carryout the promised change in the EU in the direction of social and job-promoting policiesnot only in words, but in deeds. This requires broadly-based social movements andpolitical pressure from the Left. For the aim is not to "prettify" theneo-liberal orientation, as Schröder and Blair are doing under the emblem of a "newmiddle of the road" policy, but rather to carry through an altogether new social andjob-oriented policy.

We stand for a peaceful, social, demilitarized Europe of mutual give and take.The European Left objects to any manifestation of Euro-chauvinism, racism and xenophobia.Together with left-wing parties in other EU countries, for example the CPF, the UnitedSpanish Left, Rifondazione comunista, the Swedish Left Party, the German PDS, or thePortuguese CP and others, we participate in the elaboration of left-wing alternatives forall-European integration, the realization of which would lead to a completely neworientation of the European project.

The Austrians - basing themselves, last not least, on many false promises, ashas been proved since - voted Yes in the referendum on entry into the EU. Thus, coming togrips with the harmful effects of joining the EU and battling against these effects is ofthe greatest urgency. The entire process of EU integration continues to be controversialand fraught with crises. Notwithstanding the resistance of large parts of the population,negative developments in the social and military-political areas show no signs of reversalbut, on the contrary, are becoming even more ominous. This is why the KPÖ adheres to thealternative of leaving the EU.

The KPÖ is participating in the elections to the EU parliament as part of theEuropean Left. Many of the ideas and proposals set out below for a reorientation of theEuropean project were born in the course of international discussions.

2. For a Change in Social and Economic Policy

For the KPÖ the right to meaningful work at a living wage is a human right.

It is unacceptable that a growing number of people have no access - againsttheir will - to remunerative work, that young people are deprived of prospects for theirfuture and that women, if employed at all, find nothing but insignificant employment.

The "National Action Plan for Employment", drawn up by the government,is completely inadequate to reduce the continuously escalating unemployment significantlyand bring about promised full employment.

We do not accept the government's excuse that EU regulations prevent neededmeasures in the field of employment policy. We stand for a change of priorities in Austriaand the EU in favour of employment and a guaranteed basic minimum.

This would mean: together with France and Italy, the 35 hour working week, withfull pay, should be generally introduced - as a first step of a radical work-timereduction, made possible - and indispensable - thanks to the enormous rise in productivityin the last years.

Instead of the Amsterdam Stability Pact for the realization of the Euro, whichforces the states to apply the sole yardstick of monetary stability, and the Maastricht"convergency criteria", we demand a pact for a new social and employment policy.Such a pact must incorporate binding targets for the reduction of unemployment and forjob-creating investments, concrete projects for overcoming the differences between men'sand women's salaries and wages as well as joint efforts to combat speculation. TheAustrian government and the Austrian EU-parliamentarians must exert themselves in thisdirection.

In cases where EU regulations curtail the possibilities of job-creating measureson national, provincial or municipal levels, controversies with the Brussels authoritiesmust not be shirked.

The KPÖ advocates the expansion of public social, health and education serviceswith secure, long-term work places. We are part of the protest movement againstindiscriminate ferocious cost-cutting programmes, against the privatization of publicservices, against "purchasing" work performed elsewhere. This kind of cosmeticbudget adjustment by shifting from personnel to material costs leads to a further growthof insecure.project and temporary labour situations. The KPÖ calls on the Council ofEurope and on the federal government to launch an employment offensive in the publicsector to replace publicly subsidized programmes for insecure Mcjobs in the privatesector.

The elimination of national controls over capital movements as a result of thecreation of the EU common market has proved to be detrimental to the great majority of thepeople of Europe. The re-establishment of control over financial markets as well asEU-wide taxation of capital transfers across frontiers need to be placed on the agenda.Minimum levels of capital taxation, (corporate return tax, yield on share gains,corporation and wealth taxes) should be introduced, covering the entire EU. The supremeauthority of the European Central Bank has to be tempered by political control.

Austria needs the opening up of a publicly financed employment sector fornon-marketable professional skills, similar to what is at present being attempted inFrance and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. This would engender new work places, in particular foryoung people.

We demand a regional employment automatism: if the regional unemployment rateexceeds a certain level, additional publicly financed measures have to be set in motion toinvigorate the labour market and create additional employment.

The KPÖ stands for an immediate stop to privatization and for the formation ofa public, democratically controlled economic sector which should group existing and newstate-owned, communal, municipal and other publicly owned enterprises.

3. Revalorization and New Division of Labour

Of the total increases in unemployment, four fifths are borne by women. Womenare pressed into unprotected employment situations, which means that poverty in old age ispreordained. Priority needs to be given to the expansion and durable financing ofchildcare institutions, which would also provide additional jobs.

The KPÖ demands that all types of employment situations must be subject tosocial insurance contributions. In cases of insignificant employment the minimum insurancecontribution by the employer must be calculated on the basis of ATS 8.000,-

There is enough work around, and women are best placed to know this. Only it isoften unpaid or paid increasingly poorly. Long term aspirations of the KPÖ go in thedirection of a revalorization and redistribution of all socially necessary work.

The KPÖ demands a guaranteed basic minimum. That means an increase ofadditional transfer payments in cases of maternity pay, social security, unemployment pay,minimum pensions and minimum wages to a viable level as well as the introduction of anationally organized social security system. This basic minimum can be financed bycalculating employers' social insurance contributions on an added value basis.

The KPÖ demands the realization of the principle that all people living inAustria, regardless of their nationality, must be employed under the same conditions andwith the same social rights and be entitled to equal access to publicly funded housing.

Austria's representatives in the EU must espouse a new foreign trade anddevelopment policy of solidarity with the countries of the third world. The so-called MAIwhich would have given corporations a free hand in all countries must not be resuscitatedin any shape or form.

4. For a Democratic Education Offensive

The KPÖ demands democratic and future-oriented schools and vocational schoolsfor all children and young people living in Austria - schools that would help them to beunprejudiced citizens. Therefore, we stand for the expansion of the public educationsystem and for an increase of the education budget, for comprehensive schools instead ofsocial segregation in senior elementary and secondary schools, for lowering the maximumnumber of pupils to 25 in one class, for teaching methods which further independence andsolidarity, for social integration and extra help offered in schools rather than thesystem of private tutoring. Children and young people need time for their education andtheir development and should not be unilaterally oriented towards the labour market andprofitability.

A democratic education offensive as is being demanded by a growing number ofparents, pupils and teachers also means more jobs for young teachers, social workers,school psychologists and also - in line with the general demand for the reduction ofworking hours - a lowering of teaching obligations, for the work of teachers has longceased to be purely classwork according to the school time table.

A democratic education offensive also signifies a higher school budget forequipment, teaching implements, school events, and teacher training courses instead ofconsigning public schools to financially potent parents' lobbies or to sponsoring businessfirms in the private capitalist sector. It also means, last not least, a living schooldemocracy for pupils, parents and teachers. For the KPÖ, school education and vocationaltraining are neither a private matter nor an elitist privilege but a public concern. Theright to education and vocational training is a human right.

We also definitely reject all forms of privatization,(starting with universitiesand schools and going as far as "school autonomy"). We are against freeingenterprises from the costs of professional training facilities and against there-introduction of new forms of exclusion (from various kinds of school fees, gradualwhittling down of free access to universities through limitation of admissions or theintroduction of university fees to the enforcement of a "numerus clausus").

An education policy that regards education and vocational training as mere costfactors in the competition for being able to offer the best "local setting" orthe most tempting capital investment returns offers no perspectives to the majority ofAustrian youth. In view of this situation, we demand the abrogation of all cuts in thefield of education effective since 1995 and the cancellation of measures taken in theframework of the National Action Plan which led to a deterioration of teacher trainingprogrammes. Apart from this, the KPÖ stands for the complete integration, on the basis ofequality, of vocational training into the public education system.

5. For a New Transit and Traffic Policy

Contrary to all promises made before Austria's entry into the EU, transittraffic across Austria grew instead of diminishing. Even the Transit Agreement of 2 April,1992 could not prevent this. During the last years, for example, the number of truckscrossing the Brenner pass increased by more than 50%. The envisioned reduction of noxiousemissions was not realized - by a margin of 70%. At the same time, new transit routes cameinto being in Eastern Austria. In their servility - in the face of law suits and threatsof law suits by the EU Commissions - Austrian federal and provincial politicians renouncedon the levying of toll charges for transit traffic and on obliging it to use the railvariant instead.

The KPÖ demands the greatest possible blocking of trips by empty trucks and thecompulsory use of the rail variant for the transportation of non-perishable goods (scrapiron, wood ... ) and " dangerous goods . The financial means for this have to befound, and Austrian sovereignty over transit routes (road, water and rail) is absolutelyirrevocable.

To protect the health of truck drivers and of the population living alongtransit routes, the KPÖ demands strict checks of the goods transported and theiridentification as well as checks of tonnage limits, ecological vouchers and timeschedules.

The KPÖ supports the justified demands and measures taken by the population forthe protection of man and nature, notably the blocking of main traffic routes.

Given that the Transit Agreement will expire in 2004, the KPÖ demands thatnegotiations be opened immediately about a new European traffic policy and a new TransitAgreement which has to safeguard the original objectives and present-day demands.

6. To Achieve Democracy

The leading forces in the EU and its member states want to turn the EU into anew economic, political and military superpower. The Maastricht and Amsterdam treatiesprove that they envisage a federal state à la US - with a constitution, police force,common currency, common foreign and military policy, etc. So far there has been no opendemocratic debate regarding these intentions which are increasingly determining thecharacter of EU integration.

In order to carry through the social decline which results from the creation ofthe common market and the Euro, the democratic rights of citizens are being curtailed andwatered down.

For us, strengthening and enlarging democratic rights occupies first place, alsounder circumstances of EU membership. We oppose any further restrictions of democraticrights within national states and the depreciation of national parliaments.

An obligatory 50% women's quota should be established for positions at alllevels in the EU.

The rights of workforces in transnational corporations and of theirrepresentatives ("Euro-shopstewards") have to be expanded to includeco-determination.

Social, political and other rights protecting minorities have to be implemented.

Democracy-deficiency is doubly effective in the EU. On the one hand, EUinstitutions are dominated by non-elected bureaucracies and bodies which meet behindclosed doors, such as the EU Commission which is composed of civil servants and theCouncil of Europe whose members are nominated by the governments. These two bodies disposeof the greatest prerogatives. The European Parliament has still only limited rights ofco-decision.

That means that within the power structure of the European Union the competencesof the European Parliament have to be upgraded.

And this touches upon the main complexity of democracy within the EU: therelationship between the "European institutions" and the national parliaments.

We are of the opinion that civic rights, the rights of citizens, have to beexpanded on the levels of the national states. And, therefore, we think that thesovereignty of national parliaments vis-à-vis their respective governments and vis-à-visthe various EU bodies remains the main question.

We are against European states ceding any-more sovereign rights to the EU. Andin areas where EU competence exists, this should be exercised through the EuropeanParliament.

We are by no means against a policy with European dimensions, if this leads togenuine expansion of civic rights. Upgrading civic rights means above all extending directdemocracy. Methods of direct democracy could also find their place inside the EU, such asplebiscites on questions of "European" importance. In particular, plebiscitesshould be held before new EU agreements binding for all member states come into force.

There must be no compulsion for member states to implement EU decisions. Whererights of national sovereignty are involved, it must be clearly stated that there is apossibility of opting out. In order to guarantee the possibility of secession from the EU,Primary EU Law should embody the provision that the citizens of each member state have atall times the right to decide freely about secession from the European Union.

7. Human Rights are Indivisible

Guaranteed human rights are milestones of a democratic Europe. Yet, the EU hasso far failed to incorporate the Human Rights Convention into its Primary Law.

The fundamental human rights of all inhabitants of each member country have tobe guaranteed and respected. The EU has to establish minimum standards, also for non-EUcitizens, notably the right to family reunion, accession to the labour market and tohousing and also voting rights.

	the drawing up of an EU charter englobing social, economic and ecological rights as an essential part of the Founding Treaty. Everyone who hals lived in Austria for a certain period of time must be entitled to the same political rights.
	The right to acquire citizenship for citizens from EU and third countries, if they have been domiciled in Austria for five years, with the option of retaining their original nationality (double nationality).
	The right to asylum as any individual's basic right should be respected in all EU countries. The Geneva Refugee Convention must become part of the EU Treaty.
	Accession to refugee status for all who are fleeing from a war, including civil war, racism, rape, and from natural or ecological disasters.

8. Against the Schengen Agreement

The Schengen Agreement and Europol took the EU one stage further towards arepressive and inhumane common security and frontier defence policy to protect the"European Fortress", a policy "justified" by inventing new threateningscenarios of "organised crime" (including drug traffice, terrorism and illegalimmigration).

Largely unnoticed by the general public, this provided Europol with policeprerogatives and powers which it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to carrythrough within the hitherto national framework. Moreover, Europol is not subject tocontrol by the European Parliament nor by the European Court of Justice and enjoyscomplete immunity with regard to national parliaments and national courts of justice. Wefirmly reject this police supremacy, modelled after the FBI, and also the restrictions ofcivil rights connected with it.

To make the European fortress impregnable, billions were spent to strengthen EUborders, restrictive visa and asylum regulations were adopted, special gendarmeriescouting units formed and soldiers stationed near the frontier for possible "specialassignments". Units of specially trained man hunters, equipped with the mostsophisticated devices, such as infrared cameras and supported by helicopters are day andnight on the prowl for men and women in flight, looking for work and wishing to enter thecountry. We reject emphatically this transformation of Austrian borders into highly armedEU outposts. And we also reject the ruling which prohibits asylum seekers to apply forasylum in a country of the EU after having been refused asylum in another EU member state.And we also reject the so-called "third country clause", according to which itis finally up to the minister of the interior to decide which of our neighbouringcountries are just about safe enough for refugees.

The center piece of this frontier impregnability and security protection is theSchengen information system (SIS), a data network system located in Strasburg, to beplaced at the disposal of all police and border-guard units to assist the search ordeportation of suspected and wanted criminals, people who are to be deported or otherwiseunwanted persons and to facilitate police surveillance" of such persons. This placesspecial units, such as EDU (European Drug Unit), TREVI (Terrorism, Radicalism, Extremism,Violence International) beyond any legal reservations or limitations.

Secret services (sic!) also fall into this category and are entitled to benefitfrom this information system. Furthermore, the SIS maintains a list of persons who are tobe refused entry into any country of the EU. There is also a provision that permitsunlimited checking and screening of individuals at any time as well as refusing them entry- although free and unhampered crossing of borders within the EU is supposed to bevouchsafed.

As a matter of fact, the Schengen Agreement takes Europe along the road to apolice state and to the dismantling of democracy.

If similar exertions were undertaken within the framework of the EU for socialprotection and welfare, there would be no unemployment problem. If the same zeal wereexpended for collective security in Europe, there would be no NATO, no arms industry andstructural non-capacity for aggression would already be a fact.

	the role of Europol has to be cut back to the competences of national police authorities.
	Democratic and judicial control of Europol through the European and national parliaments.
	Guaranteed discretion regarding personal data, no electronic eavesdropping nor pinpointing of suspects by means of computer analysis on many people..
	Replacement of the Schengen Agreement by agreements that would guarantee free movement of all people living in the EU.

9. For Neutrality and a Policy of Peace

The Amsterdam EU Treaty, already ratified by the Austrian parliament, gaveconsiderable impetus to the militarization of Europe which had already started in arudimentary form with the Maastricht Treaty. It was decided to elaborate a common defencepolicy of EU member states: the EU will establish closer links with the WEU, the militaryalliance of the European NATO countries. The EU is empowered to have recourse to the WEUto carry out military operations that are in fact war ventures.

Whereas it is true that the Social-Democratic Party of Austria (SPÖ) didprevent the realization of an "options report" of the federal government, whichthe Austrian People's Party (ÖVP) had intended to use as a lever to pave the way forAustria's entry into NATO, a consistent defence of neutrality and vigorous rejection of EUmilitarization cannot be expected from the,SPÖ. It has already weakened neutrality byagreeing to the Amsterdam Treaty. In its new party programme it espouses neutrality merely"for the present". ÖVP chairman Schüssel stated in February that the coalitiongovernment had already agreed to consent to the integration of the WEU military allianceinto the EU when this will be on the agenda in the respective EU bodies. If - during theelection campaign - the SPÖ leadership will endeavour to pass itself off as the guardianof neutrality, this will merely be an attempt to dupe its members and voters.

10. EU Expansion - Not like That!

In principle the KPÖ says Yes to European cooperation which must take shape onan all-European scale - including Russia and the other European CIS states. This aloneleads us to reject the present EU enlargement strategy.

If the expansion strategy as practised at present is continued unhampered, itwill render the EU's unsolved problems even more acute, especially unemployment, and addnew ones, as is already being felt in some parts of Austria. Already at this time thenumber of commuters from areas near our border is increasing, already at this time, wewitness considerable displacements of plants.

Thus the problem is not the impending "invasion of foreigners" fromEastern Europe, as right-wing and nationalistic demagogues would have us believe butrather the destruction of the social fabric of East European countries and theprofit-oriented transfer of capital and plants to low-wage areas. Under such conditionsthe "expansion strategy" of the corporations is turning into a lever to be usedagainst wage and social structures in Western Europe.

Growing xenophobia which diverts attention from the objective causes ofincreasing social pressure is as much part and parcel of the calculations of the rulingclass as the growing militarization of the EU.

The EU Eastern expansion is in no way an alternative to NATO Eastern expansion,but rather its economic complement.

	Demilitarization is the precondition for a peaceful, mutually advantageous evolution in Europe. We stand for the dissolution of NATO and WEU. We reject the Eastern expansion of NATO and, in general, the entry of new members into NATO and WEU. Our alternative is a neutral, non-aligned, nuclear weapon-free corridor right across Europe.
	Social and ecological progress in Eastern Europe is also in the security interest - more widely defined than in the purely military sense - of the populations of today's EU. Social stability which would benefit the working population in the EU requires an economic policy that would mobilize the productive forces and national resources in Eastern Europe, i.e. a policy of economic cooperation instead of capitalist penetration by EU corporations and banks.
	We regard East European development also as an all-European task. It could be financed without additional costs for the working population by renouncing on the planned NATO expansion and NATO rearmament. According to a study carried out by the US Congress, these costs are estimated to amount to ATS 1500 billion, 1000 to 1200 of which would have to be found in Europe. An East European development fund would need to differ from today's EU appropriation programmes, if it is not to lead to outside interference; it would realize social and ecological projects and be characterized by transparency and involvement of trade unions, local councils and other public bodies. Yields from taxation on transnational capital movements could also be drawn upon for financing it.
	We reject any expansion of the EU if that leads, really speaking, to a form of colonization. Instead, already existing fora of European cooperation, such as the OSCE (Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe) and the European Commission of the United Nations, should be activated. We stand for a broad democratic discussion about the future of Europe, with the participation of the elites - governments, politicians and corporations - but above all of citizens and their organizations, trade unions, democratic movements, and other non-governmental organizations.

(Adopted at the Party Conference of 20 March, 1999)