[asia-apec 39] Reflections for the Manila People's Forum on APEC

[Mario R R Mapanao]

am sharing the following reflections of a colleague and friend for the
Manila People's Forum on APEC process. Because this was addressed to me, I
have decided that this friend will be nameless.

Dear Mario,

My thoughts concern the Main Forum and the internal dynamic of 
preparations so far.

It was suggested that a key item on the agenda for the Main Forum is to
discuss whether we should engage or disengage from APEC. There are
basically three problems at the outset:

1. So far there has been no engagement (unless we are referring to the
role of groups like TUCP <Trade Union Congress of the Philippines> who are
also part of the official Philippines delegation) so you cannot dis-engage.
The issue is whether to accept or reject the very existence of APEC as a set
of institutional arrangements and an agenda. It's very clear. 

"Engagement" has become an obscure term for accepting the status quo, just
as "market economy" is used as a euphemism for "capitalism". It may make
us feel better when we say it, but it certainly doesn't change anything.
So if there is any truth to the claims about transparency in the NGO
community, then we must use terms that people understand. Accept or
reject, that's the issue.

So what does it mean to "critically" accept? And more importantly, how
does critical acceptance on the part of "the people" have any effect on
challenging the interests and agenda of power-holders? I suspect that it
doesn't. Will those that wield power in our societies rethink their
material interests, status and demands for sacrifice from the masses
because we are banging on the door saying, "We accept, but critically!"

More importantly, in this "critical engagement" (acceptance) what parts
are we going to accept, sort-of-accept, possibly-accept and
not-really-accept? And who will decide? Will we partially accept the
demand to abolish employment protection, social protection, subsidies,
rural support programmes, public utilities, social welfare and services,
public ownership, health and education programmes, labour laws, and so on?
I really don't think so. Are we going to give a conditional-but-critical-yes
to privatisation, deregulation of financial markets, free labour markets,
wage competition, and exposure of small producers and farmers to free
competition with multinationals? And if so how does this differ from "yes"
to all of these things. If you agree to these processes in measured doses it
will still happen in the long run.
So our critical yes merely means that it happens more slowly - less visibly
- over time. And in the end there is still going to be more poverty, more
joblessness, more landlessness, more rural households destroyed by the free
market, more migrant workers leaping into the abyss of the global labour
market.....

2. This leads to the second problem: who are "we"? One of the reasons I've
never understood PP21 <People's Plan for the 21st Century> is that it's not
clear
who the "people" are or what the "plan" is. The only part I'm sure of is
the 21st Century. Now PFA '96 is a far more concrete, substantial and
positive initiative. Yet I'm beginning to hear similar noises about "the
people". That's okay. There will be many POs (people's organizations) there 
which genuinely represent a mass base and NGOs which - through a set of
principles - pursue an agenda which they believe is for the benefit of the
people. 

So the people will be there in November. I have no doubt about that. But
suddenly we make a quantum leap into deciding whether or not to accept or
reject APEC. So here you have it: APEC is non-democratic, largely composed
on authoritarian political regimes and ineffective parliamentary
democracies. APEC was formed out of the will of neoliberal economic
policy makers and capitalists seeking greater flexibility and
mega-profits. APEC has set an agenda for coercive economic liberalisation
in its member countries. The only "NGO" is the APEC Business Advisory
Council (ABAC). No one was elected. No one is accountable. No mass based
organisations were actively involved in its formation. No workers,
peasants, small-scale farmers, small producers, petty traders,
persecuted ethnic groups or colonised peoples had a say in its formation.
Yet all these people WILL suffer under the agenda that has been set.

Now I gaze before me and I see a castle made of iron and stone. There are
no windows, no doors, no light. In the commands that come from the castle
I hear that people will suffer, people will lose hope and many will
probably die. So why should I then go and ask to be let inside?

It may be a dramatic way of talking about it, but my point is this: let us
act upon what we know of the consequences of the agenda set by APEC.
Our friends who have suffered under NAFTA have shown us the scars. 

So let's not throw short-term solutions at long-term problems, and
let's stay outside the castle.

3. Back to the preparations for PFA '96 and the Main Forum. So the issue of
engagement (acceptance) and disengagement (rejection) will be debated. By
whom? Which peasants, farmers, workers, small producers, petty traders,
persecuted ethnic minorities and colonised peoples will debate this? They
can and will debate privatisation, competing freely with big agribusiness,
whether they should have social security, whether there should be subsidies,
whether there should be job security and job protection.... They will
genuinely debate these issues and many more. But only those who claim to
have seen the castle; only those who claim to KNOW it, will be able to
debate the question of whether to accept of reject it.

So there we have it. The experts will speak. The people will actually be
present in November. But the topic chosen will not be one they can speak
on. The "big names" can give them suggestions, options, and ask, "What do
you think?" But ultimately the experts will achieve only this: they will
remain the experts, they will maintain their hegemony over ideas and
concepts. And the people will be no more in a position to speak than when 
they came - quite simply because it is the WRONG thing to be talking about.

What about this scenario: In the Main Forum a woman worker gets up and
speaks. The organiser from the labour NGO who came with her translates.
She talks about the ideas she has had since she arrived and attended
different forums. She talks about how she feels about it. She tells us
what things need to be done so that her fellow workers can prepare
themselves for the onslaught of APEC. She suggests what training and
community education is needed. 

Next a household farmer or peasant gets up and says she's had a good time.
She's met a lot of people. She enjoyed the discussions. She tells us about
her concerns, the immediate challenges in her life, and the challenges
ahead. She relates some of this to APEC, based on the discussions which
she participated in. She says what her association or cooperative might do
to follow up this issues. She sits down.

The experts smile and nod, and shake their heads when she uses the wrong
term for tariff protection. They get uncomfortable when it seems that she
will finish speaking without saying the US is imposing this neoliberal
agenda. The media get bored. They take photos of her that will appear in
the newspaper the next day - without an article on what she said. The
media get bored and start looking around for the "big names". The
experts get bored and look around for reporters to speak to. 

All a bit simple? Not at all: because the people are speaking. 

And I know that everything I have said is wrong. Just as I am wrong about 
PP21 and NGOs collaborating with the World Bank. I'm just waiting for 
someone to tell me why....

In solidarity,

    xxx
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Documentation for Action Groups in Asia, Hong Kong
E-mail: mario_m at hk.super.net
Phone: (852) 2691 6391, 2691 1068 ext 54
Fax: (852) 2697 1912
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------