France: The CGT Union Backs Brussel’s War Agenda

By Jean-Pierre PAGE, former Head of the CGT’s international department

The CGT (General Confederation of Labour) is one of the largest, oldest, and most influential trade unions in France. Sophie Binet is its Secretary General since 2023.

Source: Le Grand Soir, March 28, 2025

Translation: Alain Marshal

We are living through one of those moments in history when everything accelerates, and one must be able to anticipate in order to rise to the demands of the moment. The proxy war in Ukraine has upended the established order. The tragedy in Gaza has laid bare the West’s double standards and double speak. Despite brutal repression, the Palestinian cause has sparked unprecedented global solidarity. Israel is now a pariah state: isolated, condemned, and facing an uncertain future.

What remains of the new world order promised and desired by Washington? The scale of political shifts within the United States reflects the depth of the crisis of imperialist domination and the breakdown of an outdated system. The open war between two visions of how to save capitalism is a striking illustration of this.

A Necessary Clarification

Paradoxically, this unexpectedly wide-reaching development was, in fact, predictable, given how sharply contradictions have intensified. The downgrading of European vassals — despite their agitation — is another case in point: France’s standing has faded. Rising powers are asserting themselves while others are declining, seemingly at a loss. And this is just the beginning. We are witnessing a process of clarification and the emergence of a new global architecture. What remains to be done is the construction of real alternatives — which shows the magnitude of the task ahead.

In Chinese, the word for crisis is written with two ideograms meaning both “danger” and “opportunity,” underscoring that in unpredictable times, bad news or troubling circumstances are opportunities to rethink the future.

This context — unimaginable just a few months ago — is a powerful revelation of the contradictions within the hegemonic system, its failures, the state of resistance to it, and the new balance of power. Between war and peace, this unprecedented development allows us to evaluate the real positions of the various social, trade union, and political organizations in France, in Europe, and internationally. It is a period of reckoning, where everyone is backed against the wall and must choose where they stand. Such is the case for the CGT.

Recently, for example, the Confederation made an unequivocal declaration:

“In the face of the far-right international, the urgent need is to strengthen our democracies to defend a just and lasting peace.” (1)

This peremptory judgment — both in form and substance — reads like a copy-paste of a statement by Emmanuel Macron, the European Union’s new Captain Matamore. But no, this is a press release from the Confédération Générale du Travail (CGT). The CGT, which celebrates its 130th anniversary this year, has traversed French history with honor: resisting two world wars, contributing to the International Brigades, anti-colonial struggles, anti-fascist patriotic battles, peace movements, landmark social progress, and above all, a vision of democracy rooted in popular sovereignty and workers’ democracy. That is to say, something entirely different from the democracy trampled underfoot by capitalism and reduced to a caricature. Yet this is precisely the version of democracy to which the CGT now seems to have rallied.

The press release goes on to state that the CGT intends to help “France and Europe draw the necessary conclusions in order to build a common European strategy for diplomacy and defense.” (2) In other words, it is calling for a “sacred union” in service of a European foreign policy, army, and defense posture — one that turns its back on the very foundations of independent national sovereignty. In other words, precisely what the CGT has always opposed. In other words, Sophie Binet’s CGT is taking a stand in favor of a federal Europe.

If anti-imperialist struggle remains a CGT priority, what then becomes of its stance against the imperial ambitions of Emmanuel Macron and the interests he represents — particularly at a time when we are witnessing a social collapse that a rising military budget will be forced to ignore? Over 300,000 jobs have been lost; public services are in tatters and continue to be dismantled; social protections are increasingly sacrificed; civil liberties are trampled, accompanied by a clear drift toward fascism. Every reason exists to justify a broad social movement — yet what’s on the agenda, according to the unions, is the future of social dialogue! It’s as if we’re dreaming.

It is often said that “History repeats itself — first as tragedy, then as farce.” (3) In fact, isn’t Sophie Binet retracing the steps of one of her predecessors, the staunch reformist Léon Jouhaux? (4) This historic CGT leader, on the eve of World War I in 1914, called for support of French President Raymond Poincaré, for increased military spending, for chauvinism, and for war. Jouhaux chose to align with the “sacred union,” and thus with the alliance of capital and labor.

With such positions, we can now state — without fear of contradiction — that we are a long way from Anatole France’s “One believes they are dying for their country, but in fact they die for industrialists”, or from Henri Barbusse’s “War against war” (6). Or, let us not forget the historic “Neither Pershing nor SS20,” the famous Appeal by Georges Séguy, CGT General Secretary, Resistance hero, pacifist, and co-signed by 100 French public figures from across the spectrum. (7)

Sacred Union and the CGT

In other words, by embracing the belligerent vision of Emmanuel Macron, Britain’s Keir Starmer, Ursula von der Leyen, and Germany’s new Chancellor Friedrich Merz — who have practically declared war on Russia — the CGT leadership is implicitly endorsing their reckless statements. The question is a valid one, all the more so as this position is confirmed by a CGT International Department document stating:
“The return to peace depends on the fall of Putin. His victory would be catastrophic. If it is formalized by a peace agreement involving a partition of Ukraine, the aggressor would be confirmed in his imperialist and militaristic policies. The next step could indeed be a world war, if his appetite turns toward ‘defending Russian minorities’ in the Baltic states. And what message would that send to other major powers, particularly China, whose claims over Taiwan are well known?” (8)

It’s hard to believe — we rub our eyes, but yes, we’ve read correctly. This isn’t [mainstream journalist] Bruno Rochebin on LCI [French News TV Channel] — it’s the CGT. And it amounts to a renunciation of its historic role as a force for peace, choosing instead the path of confrontation. For who is threatening whom?

The combined NATO forces are overwhelmingly superior to Russia’s — just look at the numbers. NATO, including the United States, represents a population of roughly 900 million, with 3.3 million active military personnel. Russia’s population is 144 million, with just over 1 million soldiers. NATO’s GDP stands at approximately $40 trillion — twenty times that of Russia. It is American and European banks that seize Russia’s export revenues — not the reverse. So to claim that Russia poses an invasion threat to Europe is not only unserious — it is downright absurd. What would Russia gain? Territorial expansion? Its landmass is already the largest in the world.

As sociologist Emmanuel Todd points out (9), Russia’s military doctrine has undergone a fundamental shift: it is now purely defensive — precisely because it recognizes the overwhelming imbalance of forces and military resources, which favor NATO. Let us also recall that, until the collapse of the German Democratic Republic in 1989, the Soviet Army was stationed practically on our doorstep — without triggering the kind of widespread panic we are seeing today.

This observation is difficult to dispute, even if, on the ground, Russia occupies around 20% of the Donbas, previously held by Ukraine — a predominantly Russian-speaking region subjected to a horrific war since 2014, which, even before the Russian intervention, had already claimed 14,000 lives and left 45,000 wounded. Under Western military and financial tutelage, Ukraine is not only a corrupt country but has become a lawless state, where numerous political and trade union organizations have been banned, and where horrific repression, kidnappings, and torture — such as that suffered by the Kononowych brothers, members of the Ukrainian Communist Party — have become commonplace. How can this be ignored? The incestuous ties between V. Zelensky’s government and neo-Nazi groups with public visibility are a damning indictment of the Kiev regime. These are the admirers of Adolf Hitler for whom V. Zelensky has erected monuments across the country in honor of Ukrainian SS officer Stepan Bandera — war criminal, fascist, and butcher of Jews, Poles, and Soviet prisoners during World War II. Should we turn a blind eye? Yes, answer Von der Leyen, E. Macron, and Keir Starmer in unison.

Why should we prepare for war — especially given the European Union’s exclusion from the initial negotiations held in Saudi Arabia and the first signs of progress between Russians, Americans, and Ukrainians, which now serve to justify the deployment of thousands of soldiers to the front lines to salvage the honor of the Marian blue banner. For Macron, it’s the last stand or nothing at all.

Hostility toward China

The CGT leadership’s blindness toward V. Putin’s Russia is matched by a pathological hostility toward China — calling into question the long-standing relationship between the CGT and the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (10). This is not new: we remember the CGT’s particularly negative role during the attempted color revolution in Hong Kong, via the so-called Umbrella Movement, financed by the NED (National Endowment for Democracy) and USAID (11).

Not content with wanting to do away with V. Putin, the CGT goes so far as to dispute the fact that Taiwan is a Chinese province. Aside from a handful of die-hard nostalgists for a bygone order, Taiwan is an integral part of the People’s Republic of China — a fact recognized by the United Nations and by nearly every country in the world, including the United States (12). Seemingly not anymore, however, by the CGT — why, and since when?

It is true that Sophie Binet has adopted the anti-Chinese fables about Uyghur persecution in Xinjiang — claims refuted by numerous delegations and official observers, including former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet, in 2022. We recommend reading Maxime Vivas’s recent book Ouïghours, l’horreur était dans nos médias (13), in which the author convincingly highlights the province’s religious tolerance and remarkable dynamism — starting point of the “New Silk Roads” (14).

Consequently, if the CGT unions were to confirm, in the lead-up to their 54th Congress in 2026, the confederation leadership’s partisan orientation, it would mark a reversal of the values and principles of independence upon which the CGT built its identity as a class-based union — its internationalist commitment and its uniqueness within the European and global labor movement. The CGTU (15), heir to the Paris Commune, was born in response to the murderous barbarism of World War I, in solidarity between workers, and in the demand for universal peace. This would amount to a renunciation — shifting the CGT from mere alignment with to outright rallying behind the dominant ideology. Yet as we know, “in every era, the ideas of the ruling class are the ruling ideas” (16).

According to Sophie Binet, what justifies this radical shift in the CGT’s positions is its concern over what she calls the existence of “a far-right international” (17). But beyond the rhetoric, what emerges is her full adherence to the narrative unilaterally imposed by the oligarchy, echoed in chorus by politicians of both the right and the “left,” and endlessly repeated by the horde of journalist-activists following orders — the untalented little mercenaries who populate newsrooms, the so-called experts of the moment, peddling venom in service of the powerful and the trending opinions.

A Trade Union Strategy Against Trump?

This astonishing CGT statement is largely drawn from a report titled “Trade Union Strategy Against Trump” (sic), authored by Sophie Binet herself. (18) Since when has the CGT devised a strategy to counter the political program and personality of a head of state? None exists for Macron, that’s for sure! And yet, CGT activists are now called upon to mobilize against what is portrayed as a new embodiment of evil — an axis of evil reminiscent of darker times — now personified by Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Jinping. This nightmarish vision seems to result from an excessive reading of Fantomas, Dr. No, and the equally chilling Dr. Fu Manchu. (19)

But Sophie Binet doesn’t stop there. She openly takes sides in the war in Ukraine, aligning with one of the two belligerents — namely, the Ukrainian government, backed by NATO, the United States, Von der Leyen, Macron, and a number of European Union leaders. She does so without the slightest nuance. It is hardly surprising, then, that in such company she also declares, “NATO is dead.” But if NATO is indeed dead, there would be no need to call for its dissolution, as the CGT still officially does. Her statement uncannily echoes E. Macron’s infamous claim that “NATO is brain-dead.” (20) As nature abhors a vacuum, Sophie Binet’s provocation poorly conceals her support — unless she denies it — for the Brussels Commission’s strategic pivot toward a European army and common defense, something Macron has long advocated.

After all, hasn’t Ursula von der Leyen just mobilized €800 billion to rearm Europe? “Europe is too weak. Europe is disarmed,” she insists. “We can no longer count on the Americans. We must move forward, focus on our own national interests and our own security. The transition will be difficult.” (21) Shouldn’t this then lead to a pragmatic rethinking of Europe’s relationship with China? Yet that’s not what’s happening. Instead, a destructive blindness prevails, when foresight is precisely what’s needed. As the staunchly Russophobic Kaja Kallas, the new European Commissioner for International Relations, bluntly put it: “If we can’t defeat Russia, how can we possibly defeat China?” (22)

No wonder China is now being blacklisted by numerous European foreign ministries — though many are beginning to envision a different path, one that promotes a calmer, more rational China–EU relationship. This alone could help stabilize Europe’s economy, while bolstering its independence and global credibility. In the face of this rapidly shifting international landscape, the CGT, as a trade union organization, should adopt a constructive posture toward China — one that allows it to harness Chinese growth to support employment, modernization, and industrial development. Yet it lacks both the vision and the political will. And that’s precisely the problem. So — why?

What Do Sophie Binet’s Positions Really Mean?

Some will see in the CGT General Secretary’s stances a continuation of a long-standing drift. This is nothing new. It corresponds to the shift that began in the late 1990s and was chaotically implemented by Bernard Thibault [former CGT Secretary General]. As demonstrated at the CGT’s 53rd Congress in 2023, the results are damning: the abandonment of class-based foundations, the erosion of unity, and the loss of internal cohesion. More recently, the political overreach of this orientation became evident in the partisan positions taken by the CGT — first during the appointment of a “left-wing” Prime Minister after Macron’s defeat in the 2024 legislative elections; then during the no-confidence vote against the Michel Barnier government; and finally with the installation of François Bayrou’s government. That last episode was marked by the tragicomedy of the so-called “conclave,” in which the inter-union coalition, including the CGT, played a role both active and lamentable.

Others will point to shortcomings, ignorance, and simplistic reasoning — symptomatic of the ossified thinking that defines European trade unionism today, embodied and directed by the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), whose deep political and financial dependence on European institutions the CGT has now chosen to embrace. This is also a hallmark of Sophie Binet, who all too often chases ready-made formulas, ideas that align with the trending opinions, attention-seeking approximations, and even outright falsehoods that discredit her statements — such as attributing “anti-Semitic graffiti in France” to the hand of Moscow. (23)

What most defines this new orientation of the CGT, however, is a fundamental confusion between the causes and consequences of today’s unprecedented global situation — a situation marked by a declining West, panicked in the face of its own unraveling, and forced to confront the rise of global forces heralding a new emancipatory movement. In this context, the CGT leadership — particularly its international department — has proven incapable of producing a coherent analysis of the systemic crisis afflicting the imperialist order, or of proposing mobilizing goals and a genuine international trade union strategy; one capable of influencing decisions and policies in France, rather than merely accompanying them.

As one might expect, Sophie Binet’s vision for the CGT is not only strikingly superficial, it represents a deliberate break with what the CGT must remain: an uncompromising defender of workers’ social needs, and an active participant in the ongoing struggle for the radical transformation of society — through the reappropriation, by the exploited, of the wealth they produce, which must be returned to them without compromise. According to Binet’s logic, if the main adversaries of workers are now Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Jinping, then there is no longer any question of confronting predatory capitalism, imperialism — the driver of wars — NATO, or, for that matter, the European Union, Macron, and his allies, who serve as their lifelines.

What, then, is the purpose of this deception aimed at muddying the waters? Trump and Putin are certainly not anti-imperialist activists — there’s no need to take their side. They are committed to liberalism, but they are also lucid about the contradictions within their own societies and the depth of this unprecedented crisis that is upending the world order. How could we ignore it? But imagining that they are plotting some secret, coordinated plan to weaponize the war in Ukraine to impose fascism on us is to confuse fantasy with reality. In truth, the fevered Russophobia on display is often nothing more than repressed anti-Communism, trying to convince us that the “muzhiks” are at the gates of Paris. Let’s be serious: we need not search for fascism on the banks of the Volga when we’ve already seen the creeping fascization along the banks of the Seine, through Macron’s political choices and actions — this agitated and feverish errand boy of financial capitalism.

In reality, Sophie Binet has lost sight of the true causes behind the rise of the far right, because her analysis of the capitalist crisis is flawed — or, more accurately, nonexistent. In order to suppress resistance, the ruling class in France — just like in most other European countries — has relied, both in its rhetoric and in its actions, on far-right and neo-fascist actors. It is the bourgeoisie, and no one else, that is deliberately cultivating this obscurantist, reactionary political climate in which far-right and fascist movements can take root. All the more so since, in practice, their programs and policies are indistinguishable. In fact, they carry them out together and in close coordination. There is no shortage of examples.

What does it all come to?

Nowhere is this clearer than in the brutal repression of social movements — as was the case with the Yellow Vests — and the dismissal and harsh sentencing of numerous CGT activists. It’s also evident in the rejection and dismantling of any policy aimed at social progress, in the erosion of hard-won social gains, in the instrumentalization of public insecurity, the misuse of the justice system, the persecution of refugees, and the crackdowns on protests against the genocide in Gaza.

This is also evident in the atmosphere of hysterical Russophobia to which Sophie Binet has aligned herself — an atmosphere used to manipulate information and suppress freedom of speech. This troubling and irrational political drift is further reflected in votes cast in both the French National Assembly and the European Parliament. It was, for instance, the severity of the government’s anti-immigration measures that prompted Marine Le Pen to declare that the government had drawn inspiration from the Rassemblement National’s platform — what she hailed as an ideological victory. François Bayrou, alongside his Minister of the Interior, Bruno Retailleau, has called into question family reunification, proposed cutting development aid to the countries from which undocumented workers originate, and seeks to implement an authoritarian framework to dismantle social benefits. They are also pursuing neo-colonial policies towards the populations of France’s overseas departments and territories, while provoking Algeria on multiple fronts. (24) To this must be added the European-level authoritarianism, revealed in their contemptuous dismissal of electoral outcomes, the annulment of elections when candidates unacceptable to Brussels win, and now, even a proposal to strip the Hungarian Prime Minister of voting rights simply because he refuses to align with Ukraine. Nor does it stop there: we also see this in the rewriting of modern history around the causes of the Second World War, and the erection of monuments glorifying Nazi leaders — while those honoring the sacrifices of the USSR and its Red Army are being demolished. (25)

It is for these reasons that Emmanuel Macron aims to create the conditions for establishing a police state and a judiciary under political command — both targeted at the working class and the broader population, whom he intends to silence and confuse. What do Sophie Binet and the CGT leadership have to say? In truth, the rise of the far right in France and across Europe is the direct result of the policies carried out by Europe’s main political leaders in their respective countries, regardless of party affiliation or the networks of complicity from which they benefit. To attribute this situation to the hand of Moscow, Beijing — or now even Washington — or to the interventions of Elon Musk or U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance is patently absurd.

Under these conditions, full responsibility for the far right’s advance lies with the political and economic forces currently shaping policy in France and at the European level. The fight against the far right is not a matter of electoral arithmetic — it is a matter of class struggle dynamics. The earliest acts of resistance to Hitler’s occupation of France and Vichy’s collaboration emerged from the mining regions, in workers’ demonstrations demanding soap and bread.

The most effective way to combat the fascization of society and the far right — now spread by the alliance of Emmanuel Macron, Marine Le Pen, and the employers’ lobby — is to fight for concrete demands and to break decisively with capitalism and its deadly ideology. On this front, the trade union confederations are entirely absent. What is the CGT’s strategy to “block the economy,” to build a real union struggle, to shift the balance of power against the root causes of this dangerous turn in French society? France witnessed a powerful social movement against the pension reform — but what follow-up has there been? Isn’t the image of impotence conveyed by the inter-union movement confirmed by Bayrou and Macron’s decision to admit that the so-called “conclave” on pensions was nothing but a cynical sham? The looming war in Europe and the military and financial aid to Ukraine — now used to justify asking workers to tighten their belts — are the pretext for abandoning any remaining social policies. (26)

And what will those say who speak of a “fascist threat” while serving as useful idiots of a capitalist system that, throughout history, has always shown its capacity to resort to the most extreme policies — including war — to maintain its grip on power? This is precisely what we are witnessing today: a cacophonous climate driven by the feverish warmongering of European leaders and their political and union allies of convenience, whether from the right or the so-called “left.”

And so it goes with the sacrifices that will have to be made. “The war economy makes the pension debate irrelevant.” (27) That’s the opinion of Gilbert Cette, a close associate of Macron and chairman of the Conseil d’Orientation des Retraites. While decrying this reactionary discourse, none of the trade union organizations has questioned the use or scale of military spending — in fact, some have even welcomed it in the name of defending European industry. For Denis Gravouil of the CGT, we must make “the wealthiest contribute to the war effort,” thereby preserving the consultation process instituted by Bayrou (28). As for the CGC Union, “investing in the defense industry will drive both the French and European economies, and will boost the financial resources of the social security system” (29). We’ve seen and heard it all: over-armament now offered as the answer to the lack of social progress.

As for Sophie Binet, she wants to persuade Macron and European leaders to defend “European industry” by erecting more customs barriers against the U.S. and China — opting not for national but for European protectionism, and choosing confrontation over cooperation. In her words: “It starts with defending our European industry. It is not acceptable to increase military budgets just to fund the American defense sector.” (30) Pushed to its logical end, this approach amounts to supporting rearmament under the European flag — regardless of the harsh social realities imposed by European integration. It means turning a blind eye to the so-called free and undistorted competition within the EU, and therefore accepting a race to the bottom in terms of social protections. In these conditions, why not, as Denmark proposes, raise the retirement age to 70? And in France, end all medical screening after age 65? Employers wouldn’t dare ask for more.

Finally, should we abandon the CGT’s pacifist tradition and its long-standing fight for the conversion of the arms industry — an objective that is part of its historical demands, carried forward through generations of industrial federations and company unions in their struggles for peace? That would be a grave mistake. Given the enormous needs, it is entirely possible to envision civilian production programs and cooperation in health, education, the environment, and beyond. (31) France needs an industrial policy that serves peace, solidarity, cooperation, and the right to development — not one that fuels war, liberalization, and worker competition.

Rearming Europe.

On top of this tacit support for Emmanuel Macron’s runaway military spending — at the expense of already ravaged public services and unmet social demands — should we also turn a blind eye, as the CGT does, to the role of debt? Debt is used to justify austerity policies and has become the main tool exploited by Western economies to further enrich the parasitic global financial system. Austerity is the command of capital — and it opens the door to fascism. (32) Does the CGT not see how this fascist drift seeks to distract workers and ordinary people from the real issues and from the true defense of their rights?

In truth, the policies of Emmanuel Macron — like those of Brussels and the far right — are decisions made in service of global financial capital, whose function is to continue plundering labor and natural resources in all forms, both in Europe and in the Global South. For example, much is being made of America’s push to reclaim Ukraine’s mineral wealth or take control of its nuclear plants — even though its agricultural resources were long ago carved up by V. Zelensky and handed over to BlackRock, the largest U.S. financial multinational, with the encouragement of Donald Trump’s predecessors — namely Joe “Sleepy” Biden. (33) And what has the CGT said about it? Meanwhile, the major U.S. investment banks — J.P. Morgan, Chase, and McKinsey — are advising the government in Kiev. Their motives are anything but philanthropic. (34)

It was in this context that the deeply corrupt Ursula von der Leyen announced her plan to “rearm Europe” and provide substantial military aid to Ukraine. (35) These funds are to be directed primarily toward the most urgent needs: air defense, missiles, drones and anti-drone systems, and artillery. To finance this, it has been decided to hijack the role of the European Investment Bank, redirect cohesion funds earmarked for the most disadvantaged states, and abandon the strict budgetary rule prohibiting deficits exceeding 3%.

According to SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute), European rearmament is already the main driver of the global arms trade. (36) A report from the Stockholm-based institute states that Europe’s share of arms imports rose from 11% to 28% between 2020 and 2024. (37) Western countries account for 73% of arms exports, with Europe alone representing 30%. After the announcement of the “RearArm Europe” program, shares in the military-industrial sector skyrocketed. The number of employees in this industry has also steadily increased. In 2023 alone, around 581,000 people were employed across the EU — approximately 15% more than in 2021. (38)

Yet neither the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), nor any of its affiliates, have denounced this pro-war orientation and the price that workers in Europe and beyond will pay in the form of new social restrictions, justified by the looming prospect of war with Russia — and tomorrow, with China. It is worth noting that Ursula von der Leyen, alongside German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, received a standing ovation and unconditional support from all delegates at the 15th Congress of the ETUC in Berlin in 2023 — including the CGT delegation led by Sophie Binet.

Von der Leyen wants Europe armed to the teeth against Putin, Trump, and Xi Jinping. Alongside Macron, she dreams of wars fought in the service of the oligarchy and the military-industrial complex, with utter disregard for the hundreds of thousands of victims in Ukraine and Russia and the massive destruction caused by a war that, above all, must be brought to an end. To remain silent on this matter is to support fighting and dying “down to the last Ukrainian,” as former U.S. ambassador Charles Freeman put it. (39) As if burying the dead were some kind of moral victory! For the CGT, yielding to such an approach would mean endorsing a geopolitical narrative of good versus evil. And yet, wasn’t it Philippe Martinez (former CGT Secretary General) who once said he refused “a posture of trade unionism locked into a binary view of the world”? (40)

In truth, at the expense of its identity, independence, and history, the CGT leadership continues to exorcise its past. Through its official statements and Sophie Binet’s report to the Confederal Executive Committee, (41) we are struck by the caricatures that now define it — but above all, by the complete absence of any reflection on a rapidly changing world, where the balance of power is undergoing seismic shifts. And yet, global structures are cracking. The West’s dream of unipolar hegemony is collapsing. The vain effort to preserve outdated structures of archaic domination only worsens the situation, just as a new world order begins to emerge. The CGT leadership, obsessed with aligning its positions to the lowest common denominator of European and international trade unionism, has effectively given up being itself.

The series of international events in recent weeks — particularly since the election of Donald Trump and the legitimacy he now holds — have triggered a wave of political upheavals that have caught analysts completely off guard. These analysts, clinging to their pro-Democrat convictions and an outdated view of global affairs, failed to anticipate the scale of the shift, or even the scope of Kamala Harris’s defeat — despite having supported her, as did most European leaders.

What systemic crisis in the United States.

The systemic crisis in the United States has reached a climax, threatening the system itself. The country has never been so polarized, violent, and divided. Inequality and mass poverty have never been more glaring; racism, exclusion, and violence are omnipresent, with 300 million firearms in circulation — half of them weapons of war. With his election, Trump opted for a conservative revolution by refocusing on the national challenges facing Washington. The United States must regain cohesion and development rooted in an industrial and manufacturing base — one that has been decimated by decades of policy choices favoring finance. At the same time, the country must accelerate its modernization and mastery of artificial intelligence, a field where China is several steps ahead. These are major challenges and stakes for the United States. This is the price to be paid if it hopes to rebuild global leadership — especially since, in the final analysis and as always, it is the economy that will make the difference.

This uncertain outlook largely explains the vote for Trump among working-class communities and many Latinos. In recent years, they have turned away from the Democrats, despite pressure from corrupt union bureaucracies, notably those of the AFL-CIO — particularly the UAW (42). In fact, a number of labor conflicts — including the strike by 100,000 railway workers, strikes at Boeing, in the automotive sector, in healthcare, and in universities — led the Biden administration to do everything in its power to support the employers. The same holds true for the mass deportations of undocumented migrants, which in fact exceeded those carried out by Trump. These facts underscore the significant shift in labor’s vote, as many observers have noted. The close cooperation of so-called “left-wing” politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez with Joe Biden revealed a de facto complicity with the “deep state” (43), which is now widely rejected.

On this point, Sophie Binet’s report drastically oversimplifies matters by starting from a false premise — that Trump is the candidate of the billionaires. Of course, he is also that, but in reality, more billionaires supported K. Harris: 81 backed her, compared to 50 for Trump. In fact, that’s not even the issue. In the United States, the rich and the bosses have two parties — and the workers have none. That is what we should be discussing and assessing. The CGT leadership’s deep ignorance of U.S. realities is another example of the superficiality of its worldview, which prevents it from reaching accurate conclusions or offering relevant analysis. This has not always been the case — one need only recall the years of CGT collaboration with progressive sectors of U.S. trade unionism, such as Labor Notes, certain AFL-CIO federations (44) and local organizations (45), or with major U.S. universities like Harvard, NYU, Columbia, Berkeley, St. Paul, and Cornell. These were exemplified by the delegations led by G. Séguy, and later by L. Viannet (both were CGT Secretary Generals), over thirty years ago.

As for the measures announced by Trump and Elon Musk regarding civil servants, they are, in fact, based on a radical challenge to the outdated and impotent sprawling federal administration on which the bipartisan “deep state” relies. Contrary to what Sophie Binet claims, there has been no mobilization against these decisions so far — on the contrary, we are witnessing the conversion of several major union federations in favor of Trump.

Finally, the new economic and political choices made by the new U.S. administration are not unrelated to this radical revision of Euro-Atlantic alliances. This is true within NATO, through the imposition of tariffs between the European Union and the United States, as well as in the content of bilateral relations and Trump’s dramatic announcements regarding the Panama Canal, Greenland, and his future relations with Russia and China. In this context, the strategic nature and resilience of the partnership between Russia and China will persist — and even grow stronger. The political stability of both countries contributes to this. Furthermore, we must not underestimate the lessons that Putin is drawing — and will continue to draw — from this period of radical confrontation, through this proxy war in Ukraine.

The speed with which these decisions have been made, along with the negotiations opened to find a solution to the Ukrainian conflict, are part and parcel of this radically new situation — one that had already begun to take shape well before Trump’s election. Grasping the magnitude of these changes, which are only just beginning, raises the question of the CGT’s capacity to anticipate. Is it up to the task?

Yet it is worth noting that, in the face of the electoral tidal wave that brought Trump to power, Von der Leyen, Macron, and the European Union appear out of play — “junior partners” unable to grasp the new reality, sidelined and standing dazed, as if knocked out on their feet. Plunged into a deep economic, social, and political crisis, they now face existential challenges. In Europe, both “left” and right-wing political and trade union forces, tied to European institutions, have been deeply destabilized and present a pitiful spectacle. What future lies ahead for the European Union — and, by extension, for everything that depends on it? And how should trade unionism, particularly that of the CGT, position itself?

What alternative forces?

In this time of upheaval, the imperialist camp cannot conceal its inability to confront a wholly unprecedented situation. Day by day, the powerful emergence on the world stage of the most populous nations — and also the richest in raw materials and natural resources, particularly minerals — combined with advances in new technologies, modernization, and the growing role of AI, is completely reshaping the playing field. Anti-hegemonic alliances are being forged, notably around the BRICS+ bloc, led in particular by Russia, India, Iran, and China. What does the CGT have to say, given that it considers these nations to be part of an international far-right alliance?

The resistance of the peoples of the Middle East — first and foremost the heroic resistance of the Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, and Yemenis — has positively influenced this new phase. On this subject, Sophie Binet’s comparison between Palestinian resistance and that of Ukraine is outrageous. To date, the CGT has shown no support whatsoever for Palestinian resistance in any form, including armed resistance, despite its unity across all factions. Nor has it clarified its ongoing relations with Histadrut, the Zionist union that supports colonization, the bombing of Gaza, brutal repression in the West Bank, aggressions against Lebanon and Syria — and which, like the CGT, is a member of the ITUC. Why, hypocritically, does Sophie Binet turn a blind eye to the exclusion of a CGT activist who clearly and openly declared solidarity with the Palestinian nation and its struggle for self-determination (46), despite being backed by a petition of 15,000 signatures calling for his reinstatement?

In truth, the old world order is dying. How can one indulge in blindness and ignore this? How can one cling to outdated and anachronistic frameworks, such as those guiding the ETUC or the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC)? How can one see them as a “strike force,” as Sophie Binet suggests, when both these organizations are as inactive as they are silent? How can one fail to grasp the fact that today’s global developments are full of both potential and peril?

The strategic cooperation between China, Russia, India, and Iran is altering the balance of power, opening up new prospects for win-win cooperation — including a challenge to the dominance of the dollar through the creation of institutions parallel to those of Bretton Woods. The world is changing — and fast. “There are endless days, months, and years when almost nothing happens. There are minutes and seconds that contain a whole world.” (47)

And yet, rather than turning toward the social, trade union, and political forces internationally that are driving these emancipatory changes, the CGT has chosen to retreat inward, toward European and Western institutions that are utterly discredited — but which it continues to defend, without the slightest critical spirit. For Sophie Binet, in the face of what she calls “the international far right,” “Europe is therefore the only major democratic player able to assert itself on the international stage (sic).” (48) CGT militants will no doubt appreciate just how fortunate they are to be able to count on this democracy — “the only one,” no less — so famously committed, as we all know, to upholding trade union and political freedoms.

“Russia must not win the war”

The message is clear: we must support Von der Leyen — that is, Macron and the European leaders — in their war-driven delusions. One recalls Emmanuel Macron’s “Russia must not win this war.” (49) Macron now knows he can count on the goodwill of the CGT leadership. Proof of this lies in the document from the CGT’s international department, titled “12 Questions on the War in Ukraine”, referenced earlier, which goes on to assert:

“A Russian draw or even defeat without Putin’s departure would leave the threat of renewed war looming. A lasting peace can only be achieved by his removal, and this will only come about through a combination of three factors: strong and genuinely effective international sanctions, a hopefully victorious Ukrainian resistance, and support for the Russian democratic and progressive opposition — the only force capable of finally extricating the country from the nationalist and imperialist totalitarian darkness into which it has been plunged for over 20 years.” (50)

The known authors of this damning document for the CGT openly call for increased military aid to the Ukrainian regime through more arms deliveries. And as if that weren’t enough, they also advocate political interference in Russia, with no concern for the illegality of such sanctions under international law — just like the theft of Russian assets approved by the French National Assembly. They favor “the intensification of economic sanctions, believing this to be a real issue. Several voices in Russia suggest that this is a path worth exploring.” (51) The CGT thus intends to serve as a relay for political opposition in Russia. Is this not a logical continuation of the financial support given to Memorial, the Russian NGO also backed by the NED, Freedom House, and the George Soros Foundation — all known CIA fronts? (52) But it doesn’t stop there.

The CGT supports a policy of trade and financial sanctions against Russia, fully aware that this will have “serious consequences” for workers around the world. The Confederation’s statement blindly ignores the fact that NATO’s embargo on Russian oil, gas, and wheat is sending prices for fuel, heating, and food soaring — wreaking havoc on working-class households in France and elsewhere. This violently anti-worker, anti-Russian policy from certain members of the CGT’s international department is irresponsible.
Besides, where is the consistency in denouncing the blockade on Cuba while calling for more sanctions against Russia, Belarus, China, and other countries? Is that not a contradiction?

Who is Mykhailo Volynets?

Another example! The CGT is right to raise concern about the threat posed by the far right, yet at the same time it chooses to engage in close cooperation with the Ukrainian trade union confederation led by Mykhailo Volynets, the KVPU. Once again, this hardly seems coherent.

Who are the KVPU and Mykhailo Volynets? CGT activists would no doubt be interested to know who this sinister figure is — a self-declared neo-Nazi — toward whom the CGT leadership shows unwavering solidarity.

The KVPU and Volynets are openly affiliated with the Ukrainian neo-fascist party SVOBODA and the Nazi battalion AZOV. Alongside other French trade union confederations, the CGT has organized several “trade union convoys for Ukraine,” which have ended up supplying Ukrainian nationalist soldiers and militias armed by NATO — in other words, the very same individuals who, together with the Nazi militia “Right Sector,” set fire to the House of Trade Unions in Odessa and massacred dozens of activists.

The KVPU is the Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Ukraine. It is a partner of the AFL-CIO’s Solidarity Center,(53) a key body within the AFL-CIO and the American Institute for Free Labor Development (AIFLD).
In 2004, Mykhailo Volynets received the AFL-CIO’s George Meany/Lane Kirkland Human Rights Award(54) for, among other things, his role in the “Orange Revolution” of November 2004 — backed by the U.S. government and several Ukrainian billionaires.

Mikhailo Volynets is also president of the independent miners’ union affiliated with the KVPU. He is closely linked to AZOV battalion commander Ihor Kniazhansky, alias “Dushman,” whom Volynets frequently relies on during negotiations with ministries to obtain concessions. Volynets is a deputy of the Batkivshchyna (All-Ukrainian Fatherland Union) party. In 2016, the miners’ union and the AZOV battalion joined forces during a demonstration. Representing the KVPU in negotiations with the Minister of Energy were Volynets and Kniazhansky — the two official delegates. This close collaboration has continued ever since. On April 16, 2024, a meeting was held at CGT headquarters in Montreuil, with Sophie Binet and Mikhailo Volynets in attendance, alongside the “intersyndicale” [inter-union alliance] and the ETUC.

CGT members and activists remain unaware of these facts. After eight years of authoritarian rule in Ukraine, left-wing parties are banned, and trade unions repressed. The presence of far-right paramilitary battalions, numbering in the thousands, is now common knowledge. How can the CGT leadership close its eyes to this while calling for the fight against the far right in France — yet supporting a government in Kiev riddled with neo-Nazi militias? Ukrainian nationalists are among the most antisemitic, racist, homophobic, and anti-Communist forces out there. Where is the consistency? How can we claim to want to revive debate and action within CGT organizations on peace and disarmament, including nuclear disarmament? If that is the intention, then why not speak out publicly and formally challenge Macron’s decision to share France’s nuclear arsenal with other European countries — at the cost of our national sovereignty?

CGT militants are not indifferent to an international context marked by massive shifts, where ongoing conflicts directly and significantly affect their living and working conditions, and those of their families. The tensions, crises, and risks of war — even on a global scale — cannot be underestimated. Every day brings new developments that could signal the worst to come. We must, therefore, support and encourage the forces of peace and those mobilizing against war.

To do this, we cannot remain passive. The best form of international solidarity is, first and foremost, rooted in action at the workplace — where the contradictions between capital and labor, and thus the class struggle, play out. That’s why, as Benoît Frachon said, “before going around the world, you have to go around the workshop.” (55)

CGT militants are internationalists because they cannot conceive of their struggle in isolation from that of workers around the world. This must be done in respect of each organization’s positions. In concrete terms, this means dialogue without discrimination — but also without concessions, starting within the CGT itself. No one can claim the strength to solve problems alone. In this struggle, no force can be excluded — all are necessary. That must be our ambition!

Jean-Pierre PAGE

ENDNOTES

1. CGT Declaration, March 10, 2025.

2. CGT Statement, idem.

3. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Karl Marx (1852).

4. Léon Jouhaux (1879–1954), General Secretary of the CGT from 1909 to 1947, then founder of the Union Force Ouvrière, and Vice-President of the ICFTU (now the ITUC).

5. Anatole France (1844–1924), writer and politician.

6. Henri Barbusse (1873–1935), writer and politician, founder of ARAC. Author of Le Feu (Fire), based on his experiences as a soldier in the trenches during the First World War.

7. L’Appel des cent: In 1982, Georges Séguy and 100 leading French public figures launched a pacifist movement that left a lasting mark on French political life through its broad representation and depth of commitment.

8. CGT International: 12 Questions on War. “Peace in Ukraine, Freedom in Russia.”

9. “Russia is going to invade the world.” — Emmanuel Todd, youtube.com

10. Zhou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping, Chen Yi, and other historic leaders of the Chinese Revolution were members and activists of the CGT-U in the early 1920s while living in France.

11. “China, Hong Kong, and the Unions,” Jean-Pierre Page, Le Grand Soir, 13.07.2020.

12. “China/USA: The Imminent War?” — Maxime Vivas, Aymeric Monville, Jean-Pierre Page, Delga, 2023.

13 .“Uyghurs: The Horror Was in Our Media” — Maxime Vivas, Delga, 2024. Also by the same author: “Uyghurs: Ending the Fake News”, Maxime Vivas, La Route de la Soie, 2020.

14. “The Silk Roads and the Community of Shared Destiny,” Jean-Pierre Page, Le Grand Soir, 06.11.2024.

15. The CGT-U was founded in 1921 by militants such as Pierre Monatte, A. Merrheim, Frachon, and G. Monmousseau — all opposed to the Sacred Union and united through the journal La Vie Ouvrière. Some of them took part in the Zimmerwald Conference (September 5–8, 1915), alongside Lenin, Trotsky, and other opponents of the First World War.

16. The German Ideology, Marx and Engels (1845/46), Éditions Sociales, 2012.

17. CGT Declaration, March 10, 2025 (previously cited).

18. “What Union Strategy Against Trump?” — Report by Sophie Binet to the CEC, February 4, 2025.

19. Fantômas by Pierre Soumettre and Marcel Allain (1911), Dr. No by Ian Fleming in the James Bond series, and Fu Manchu by Sax Rohmer (1912) are fictional characters from popular novels.

20. “For Emmanuel Macron, NATO is Brain-Dead,” Le Figaro, 07.09.2019.

21. “The Collapse of the Empire,” Kit Klarenberg, Arrêt sur info, 14.03.2025.

22. “Rearming an Already Over-Armed Monster Is Preparing for Peace,” T. Delforge via Alerte-OTAN, 23.03.2025.

23. In her report to the Confederal Executive Committee on February 4, 2025, S. Binet echoed the Russophobic media campaign regarding the antisemitic graffiti at the Shoah Memorial in Paris. More recently, in the same vein, Information Minister Sophie Primas launched a sordid provocation by suggesting Russian involvement in the beheading of Samuel Paty.

24. “Immigration Law: Measures Proposed by Bruno Retailleau,” France Info, 31.10.2024.

25. “How Europe Is Rewriting World War II History,” Jean-Pierre Page, Valdaï Club, 17.02.2025.

26. “Pensions: Bayrou Shuts the Door on 62,” Le Monde, 17.03.2025.

27. “The War Economy Makes the Pension Debate Seem Trivial,” France Info, 10.03.2025.

28. Idem.

29. Idem.

30. “Sophie Binet’s Four Truths,” Dailymotion video, March 7, 2025.

31. “The Conversion of the Arms Industry,” Cercle Gramsci, Jean-Paul Hébert, 08.02.2016.

32. The Capital Order: Austerity and Fascism, Clara E. Mattei, February 2025.

33. “BlackRock Colossus to Help Rebuild Ukraine,” Businessman, 29.12.2022.

34. “Ukraine: BlackRock, McKinsey, J.P. Morgan, and Chase at the Forefront of Reconstruction,” Consultor, 03.07.2023.

35. “Ursula von der Leyen Unveils €800 Billion Plan,” Le Monde, 04.03.2025.

36. SIPRI: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

37. “Rearming an Already Over-Armed Monster Is Preparing for Peace,” T. Delforge via NATO Alert, 23.03.2025.

38. “We rustet Europa auf?” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 08.03.2025.

39. “The Americans Plan to Fight the War to the Last Ukrainian,” LVSL, 05.05.2022.

40. Report by Philippe Martinez to the CGT Confederal Executive Commission, April 16–17, 2018.

41. “What union strategy in the face of Trump?”, report by S. Binet to the CEC, 04.02.2025.

42 . UAW: United Auto Workers, affiliated with the AFL-CIO, a major donor to the Democratic Party. The UAW became the majority shareholder in Chrysler and the largest shareholder in General Motors. Several of its leaders have been imprisoned for corruption. Since 2006, the UAW has lost over 30% of its members.

43. “Deep state” refers to the bipartisan network in the U.S. composed of political and business influence groups, intelligence agencies, lobbies, bureaucracies, and the shrinking role of the state.

44. AFL-CIO and Change to Win are the two U.S. labor federations following the most recent AFL-CIO split and the creation of Change to Win, notably joined by the Teamsters union in 2005. By 2020, union membership in the U.S. had fallen to barely 10% — half the rate of 20 years earlier.

45. Cooperation between the CGT’s international department and the AFL-CIO’s Teamsters Federation — then led by progressives — resulted in a major victory for UPS workers in 1995.

46. Salah Lamrani, a teacher and member of the CGT Educ Action board in Clermont-Ferrand, was expelled from the CGT for his support of the Palestinian resistance.

47. Jean d’Ormesson (1925–2017), writer, journalist, and member of the Académie Française.

48. “What union strategy in the face of Trump?”, a report by S. Binet, already cited.

49. “Russia must not win this war,” interview with E. Macron, La Dépêche, 15.03.2024.

50. CGT International Section: 12 Questions on War. “Peace in Ukraine, Freedom in Russia.”

51. “12 Questions on the War in Ukraine,” already cited.

52. On July 10, 2016, the CGT confederal office donated 2,000 euros to Memorial in support of LGBTQ+ gay rights struggles in Chechnya.

53. The AFL-CIO’s Solidarity Center is funded by the U.S. State Department and private donors. It plays a key role in the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), alongside the Democratic and Republican parties, in financing color revolutions and regime changes. Ronald Reagan created the NED so it could, in his words, do what the CIA could not.

54. The award is named after former AFL-CIO presidents Lane Kirkland and George Meany, both known as staunch anti-communists. Lane Kirkland played a major role in the creation of Solidarnosc. See B. Drweski’s A Costly Solidarity! A People’s History of Solidarnosc, Delga, 2019.

55. Benoît Frachon (1893–1975), General Secretary of the CGT from 1945 to 1967, then President of the CGT until 1975.

We remind our readers that publication of articles on our site does not mean that we agree with what is written. Our policy is to publish anything which we consider of interest, so as to assist our readers in forming their opinions. Sometimes we even publish articles with which we totally disagree, since we believe it is important for our readers to be informed on as wide a spectrum of views as possible.