[asia-apec 46] Workers' Primer on APEC, Part II

[ALARM]

ALARM Update (online version)
Monthly newsletter of the APEC Labour Rights Monitor (ALARM) project
Issue Nos. 4 & 5, July & August 1996


7. How is APEC related to WTO and neoliberalism?

APEC and regional trade blocs serve as WTO's implementing mechanisms. Just
as the IMF and the WB need governments and instruments to implement policies
and actualise structural adjustment programmes (SAPs), the WTO needs
governments and regional trade blocs to push forward global free trade.

Considering its 130+ member countries, WTO can be too cumbersome. "The
interests and concerns are so different that achieving agreement by the GATT
consensus rule is becoming extremely complicated." [Chuan, as cited in
Bello, Challenging the mainstream, 1995].

The idea therefore is to use regional liberalization as a means of making
global liberalization easier to negotiate in a step-by-step manner.
Therefore, APEC liberalization is described as "going beyond GATT". What was
not achieved in the Uruguay Round should be attempted in APEC.

Regional trade blocs however, can obstruct global integration, especially if
they become "inward-looking" or "exclusionary". Therefore, the WTO and its
prime mover, the US, are making sure that such regional blocs follow "open
regionalism" and implement policies consistent with GATT-UR and WTO's global
neoliberal agenda. 

APEC, as discussed above, is a champion of this open regionalism. Indeed,
APEC has declared its "full and active support for and participation in
WTO", and arrogated onto itself the task of implementing the WTO free market
agenda in the Asia-Pacific region.

 Towards this end, APEC has set up the Committee on Trade and Investment
(CTI) "to identify barriers to trade, and work to harmonize GATT-Uruguay
Round implementation among APEC members." [Spero, Challenging the
mainstream, 1995] 

The 1994 report of APEC's EPG also "recommends that APEC member economies
proceed with their domestic ratification for the UR as quickly as possible
... We recommend that APEC members that are not currently GATT members
become Contracting Parties as soon as possible."

8. Why is APEC of particular concern?

We have seen that APEC plays a central role in realising global free trade
by ensuring the creation of a free trade area in the Asia- Pacific region by
2020. In terms of population, trade, investments and economic wealth, APEC
will be the biggest free trade initiative in the world. APEC spans the whole
Pacific rim, and "collectively represents one-half the world's people and
one-half its annual economic output." [Spero, Challenging the mainstream, 1995].

The combined gross national product of the APEC economies (as of 1993) is
more than US$13 trillion. The region has total population of more than 2.15
billion.  In 1993, APEC accounted for half of the world's wealth and trade
(46% of total world exports, 53% of gross world product). About 80% of
APEC's combined GNP comes from its two biggest economies -- Japan and the US. 

When formalised, APEC will become the world's biggest free trade bloc. More
important, APEC will serve as the biggest implementing mechanism of WTO for
its global free market agenda. 

9. What is the status of APEC now?

APEC is still developing and evolving, although it has locked-on to its
basic focus and orientation.  It remains an annual meeting of ministers.
Unlike EU, NAFTA and ANCEPTA, there is no clear-cut agreement or treaty
governing APEC.

Given the consensus about its vision, APEC is now trying to develop its
principles (open regionalism, etc.); its role in realising global free trade
and free market; and its target and general timetable (2020 plan). More and
more policies, groups, mechanisms and sub- meetings have been
operationalised to give form and flesh to APEC's agenda.

On the other hand, more consolidation has also resulted in increased
tensions among the competing interests in APEC. APEC  is highly vulnerable
to the maneuvering and power-politics of  the dominant members, especially
US, Japan, Australia, and Malaysia.

APEC now urgently wants to firm up, consolidate and formalise the consensus
and agenda that have emerged after six years. The forthcoming 1996 APEC
ministers' summit in Subic, Philippines will therefore be very critical for
APEC -- it can either further consolidate APEC, or increase the tensions
towards APEC's eventual fragmentation or disintegration.

10. Where will the 1996 APEC ministers' summit be?

APEC has an unwritten policy of alternating the venue of the summit between
ASEAN and non- ASEAN countries. The 8th annual ministers' meeting will be
held on 25th November 1996 in Subic, Philippines, an ASEAN member.

The choice of Subic is very symbolic. Subic is now being developed by the
government of Philippine President Ramos as a free trade, free port area to
rival Hong Kong in the near future. For the Ramos government, the 1996 APEC
summit in Subic will be a "debut" to showcase to the world -- especially
businessmen and world economic powers -- that the Philippines has emerged as
a fast-developing area, thanks to free trade and neoliberal policies. 

But Subic has a more historical symbolism. Until recently, it was the site
of the Subic Naval Base, the largest US military installation outside of the
US mainland. An unprecedented popular movement against the US military bases
pressured the Philippine Senate to abrogate the military bases treaty ,
forcing the US to leave. The government took over and developed the area as
a free port.

What happens in this summit will determine which symbol Subic will
ultimately carry -- the free market neoliberal agenda if APEC emerges
stronger after the summit, or people's victory if Subic becomes the
Waterloo, again, of US and global economic powers.

11. What is the cost of the APEC summit to the Filipino people?

The Philippines is a poor country, with about 49% of its 68.6 million people
living below poverty (1994). The country is now the poorest among the ASEAN
countries in terms of per capita GNP. The US$ 4 billion annual remittance of
overseas Filipino workers shore up the economy. In the past 3 years, the
country has shown increasing positive GNP growth (5.2% in 1995). The
government wants to showcase this as proof that the country is catching up
with the rest of the region. That is why it wanted to much to host the 1996
APEC meeting.

At what cost? The government has allotted at least 9.56 billion pesos
(US$368 million) for the summit and related infrastructure. Around 7 billion
pesos (US$269 million) is being spent for infrastructure projects, including
the instant construction of the new Tipo- Binictican expressway linking
Subic to Manila. This highway is expected to be completed before November
for the exclusive use of APEC. Also, luxury villas are being constructed in
Subic for each of the 18 heads of state. [APEC Watch #6, June 1996]

The government, in recent weeks, has demolished communities of shanty homes
along the route, to give way to the highway, as well as "clean-up" the
squatters' unsightly presence. This is reminiscent of former First Lady
Imelda Marcos' "clean-up and beautification drives" whenever foreign
dignitaries visited the country. She had kilometer-long walls constructed
along the route to screen off the squatter communities. (See ALARM Update
#3, June 1996)

The remaining 2.56 billion (US$98 million) will be spent for the summit
itself. This budget alone is  equal to 60% of the government's housing and
community development budget for 1996. The government is also paying huge
sums for public relation and media propaganda blitz to project how positive
and desirable APEC is.

12. What is the position of people's groups on APEC?

There are different views about APEC, even among labour groups, NGOs and
people's organisations in the Asia-Pacific region. This differences in
position is reflective of the debates and differences that accompanied the
GATT/WTO issue.

However, it is safe to say that business groups in the region support APEC.
APEC in fact is aggressively coopting the business sector. They have been
incorporated in the APEC process. They have formed the Asia-Pacific Business
Network (APBnet) which gives recommendations to APEC.

Among civil society groups in Asia-Pacific, there is a broad network of NGOs
and people's groups (labour, women, migrants, food security, environment,
human rights, indigenous peoples, development, churches, etc.) that have
come together since 1994. This group has a minimum level of unity in
opposing APEC, although in varying degrees (e.g. reform, transform, reject).

They also have varying positions on how to deal with APEC: 

 	Lobby and reform from within,
 	Outside intervention in order to delegitimise or destroy,
  	Do not engage at all.

In November 1995, representatives of more than 100 of these NGO's and
people's groups in Asia-Pacific gathered in a forum on APEC in Kyoto, Japan. 

Notwithstanding the differences, the forum arrived at a strong consensus in
rejecting APEC and its neoliberal agenda. The forum also stressed that since
APEC is still evolving, we should intervene so that we de-legitimise and
prevent it from consolidating.

However, the forum did not prescribe a single approach; instead, it
encouraged all people's groups to take their own initiatives in building
economic cooperation among the peoples in the region and in resisting APEC.

This first Asia-Pacific regional consensus on APEC is embodied in the now
historic "Kyoto Declaration".

13. What is the Kyoto Declaration?

The Kyoto Declaration embodies the broad, Asia-Pacific regional consensus of
people's groups on APEC. This declaration states in clear, unequivocal terms
that "we fully support cooperation among Asia-Pacific countries and peoples.
However, we unanimously reject the basic philosophy, framework and
assumptions of the model of free market and trade liberalization embraced by
APEC...[Kyoto Declaration, 1995]

It asserts that "genuine development must be centered on the needs of people
and nature, and deliver real social and economic justice. Genuine
development must also affirm the fundamental civil, political, economic,
social and cultural rights of individuals and peoples, and the obligations
of states to promote and protect such rights."

The people's groups particularly note that member governments of APEC have
participated in world summits on the rights of the child (New York),
environment (Rio), human rights (Vienna), population and development
(Cairo), social development (Copenhagen), and women (Beijing). "Despite
their participation, none of the commitments made in those conferences is
visible in the APEC process. Rather, the consequences of this form of
economic liberalization violate the fundamental rights to which they agreed."

The declaration also opposes APEC's lack of transparency and accountability,
and absences of democratic participation.  The Kyoto Declaration serves as
the minimum basis of unity of NGOs and people's groups on APEC, free trade
and globalisation. 

14. What  are the main reasons for rejecting APEC?

a) We reject free trade, the global neoliberal agenda, structural adjustment
programmes, and their instruments (APEC, WTO/GATT, IMF, WB)

APEC is not just about trade and economic issues. It is about the global
agenda of the US, Japan, transnational and global capital. It is as much an
economic as a social and political issue.  Economic deregulation directly
affects the lives of everyone: workers, women, indigenous people, farmers,
consumers among others. With the unrestricted movement of goods, capital,
investments and labour in APEC, the already scant, if not absent, social
safety nets and legal protection of workers, women, migrants and other
vulnerable groups will be eroded.

b) Above anything else, APEC represents the interest and agenda of capital
and businesses.

While people's groups have been  kept out of the APEC process, the business
sector has been involved since the beginning. APEC has now established a
Business Forum to advise it. In turn, the business sector has launched the
APEC Business Advisory Group (ABAC) to offer guidance to national leaders on
business matters. ABAC wants to ensure that investments are safeguarded and
that benefits are reaped from free trade and investment liberalization. As
the US Under Secretary for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs puts
it, "APEC is not for government. It is for business. Through APEC, we aim to
put government away".

c) APEC has no accountability.

Government ministers sit and decide in APEC not as government
representatives, but just as "economic leaders". Thus, they use their
positions and popular mandate to be in APEC, but conveniently leave their
accountability and responsibility to their constituency when in APEC. They
unabashedly advance and implement the agenda of the business sector and
multinationals, in utter disregard for the people's interests.Worse, APEC is
simply a "forum", not a treaty or an agreement. Unlike NAFTA which is
treaty-based, APEC has no clear law or agreement binding the APEC
"economies" and specifying the responsibilities and accountability of the
government ministers. Yet governments are obliged to implement APEC
decisions, plans and policies. Therefore, when taken to task for their
decisions, they can conveniently deny responsibility because their
involvement in APEC "is not an official act of government". These APEC
"economic leaders" have effectively abdicated their responsibilities to
their constituencies, in favor of business and other interests.

d) There is no democratic participation and transparency in decision-making
in APEC.

In its 6 years existence, APEC has always met secretly, with the people and
civil groups having no access to information or to challenge and influence
the discussions and decisions. There are no prior consultations with the
people about the agenda and decisions that the government ministers make in
APEC. Neither do these ministers  go through the formal democratic
institutions, e.g. the congress or parliament, to seek approval of their
agendas or actions.But whatever they commit becomes the commitment of the
whole country. Therefore, the 2.15 billion people in the region will all
face the consequences of APEC's "2020 Plan" and the attendant
liberalization, structural adjustments, etc.

e) The people's groups want a genuine form of regional cooperation

What we advocate is genuine cooperation and development among countries and
peoples in the region that is  "centered on the needs of the people and
nature; delivers real social and economic justice; affirms fundamental
civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of individuals and
peoples; guarantees basic rights to food, human dignity, integrity of
communities, environmental security and self-determination", etc. The Kyoto
Declaration outlines the characteristics of the vision of regional
cooperation that we want.

15. How will APEC affect the workers? (Including trade unions, women,  migrants)

We have seen over the  past 2 decades, how IMF and WB policies and
structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) have wrought economic, environmental
and social havoc on the lives of ordinary people, especially in Latin
America, South, Southeast Asia and Africa. 

We have seen how free trade zones, liberalization and free market policies
have robbed workers of their rights and stripped them of their dignity,
decent wages and benefits. Not even international instruments and
conventions (ILO, UN) have afforded workers with adequate protection.
Multinational companies, domestic companies and governments routinely flaunt
and violate these instruments that they have signed.

We have seen how liberalization policies have caused the withdrawal/collapse
of industries, to take advantage of "cheaper" sites elsewhere
(de-industrialisation); the casualisation of workers, prevention of
organising activities, intense quotas, resulting in the attrition or
collapse of organised unions (de-unionisation).

The one-track training forever condemning a worker to one, highly
specialised, highly limited skill (de-skilling); the detachment of free
trade zones and multinational industries from local sources and domestic
productive linkages, causing higher dependence on imports, bigger deficits,
and decline of national productivity (de-linking/de-nationalisation).
All these structural damages to national economies have directly affected
the workers, most of all.

All the UN world summits these past few years (human rights, environment,
social development, women, etc.) have generated volumes upon volumes of
reports and materials documenting the adverse impacts of liberalization and
neoliberal policies. 

Governments in APEC are signatories to these, yet at the same breath, they
eagerly adopt the "2020 plan" and APEC's free trade agenda, the underlying
causes to all the poverty and violations they condemned in their UN statements.

The worst affected have always been the workers, trade unions, women,
migrants, children, farmers, and other marginalised sectors. It is intuitive
to say that APEC, as a more comprehensive expression of the global
neoliberal agenda,  will bring about the same problems and disasters to the
people, especially the workers.

However, we want the trade unionists, women workers, migrants and  workers
in general to speak for themselves. Ongoing and forthcoming activities and
events are trying to document and collate the workers' stories.

We want to build our life stories and present this as living proof of the
impact and damage that APEC, free trade and neoliberalism have caused
workers and the people in general. Workers groups in Mexico, Philippines,
Aotearoa, etc. have come up with common positions/perspectives against APEC.