From yukihiro at klact.co.jp Fri Nov 1 01:05:06 1996 From: yukihiro at klact.co.jp (YASUDA Yukihiro) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 01:05:06 +0900 Subject: [asia-apec 214] Re: JCA FTP service unavailable In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 31 Oct 1996 02:12:18 +0900" References: <199610301712.CAA02566@buzzy.klact.co.jp> Message-ID: <199610311605.BAA05254@buzzy.klact.co.jp> Our FTP server (ftp.jca.or.jp) has recovered and running normally. Thank you. Yukihiro From yukihiro at klact.co.jp Fri Nov 1 04:31:11 1996 From: yukihiro at klact.co.jp (YASUDA Yukihiro) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 04:31:11 +0900 Subject: [asia-apec 215] Re: notes from the e-conference facilitator In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 26 Oct 1996 11:30:34 +0800 (HKT)" References: <2.2.16.19961026112447.116f9292@is1.hk.super.net> Message-ID: <199610311931.EAA05775@buzzy.klact.co.jp> Dear Friends, Because of the reason Mario mentioned in [asia-apec 192], asia-apec mailing list server has been set to accept mails less than 18K bytes. Mails larger than 18K in size, including header, will be rejected. If you hope to share large document, please split it into small parts under 18K each before posting. Sincerely, Yukihiro From parc at jca.or.jp Fri Nov 1 11:18:42 1996 From: parc at jca.or.jp (Pacific-Asia Resource Center PARC) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 11:18:42 +0900 Subject: [asia-apec 217] Letter to President Pamos Message-ID: <199611010225.LAA06206@SV1.jca.or.jp> Dear Friends; We, a group of Japanese NGOs and citizens groups, send this letter to President Ramos, in which 39 NGOs and 39 individuals join signed. We will visit the Philippine embassy in Tokyo to hand this letter and have a dialogue with them regarding Ramos-Horta's case. President Fidel Ramos Malacanan Palace Compound JP Laurel Street, San Miguel, Metro Manila 1005, The Philippines November 1, 1996 Dear Mr. President, We, a group of Japanese NGOs and citizen groups, are writing to you in regard to the refusal of the Philippine government to grant a visa to Mr. Jose Ramos-Horta, member of the East Timorese resistance movement and recent recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. We were extremely disappointed at your decision. We believe that the Philippines, as a democratic nation and member of the Asian Pacific community of nations, should be taking a leading role in promoting the defense of human rights and self-determination in the region, and it is simply incomprehensible that your government would turn a blind eye to the desire of the East Timorese people for self-determination. As you know, Mr. Ramos-Horta was invited to the Manila People's Forum on APEC, which will be held in conjunction with the APEC, and which will be an important gathering of people's organizations in the region. The participants will certainly be concerned with the issue of East Timor, and it will undoubtedly be a great embarrassment to the Philippines government if it is perceived that it is not supportive of this important human rights issue. Mr. Ramos-Horta was a participant in the 1995 NGO Forum on APEC which was held in Japan at the time of the Osaka APEC meeting, and he played an important role in the success of that meeting. NGOs and citizen groups in the region are very much looking forward to his participation in the 1996 meeting. We would like to remind you also that East Timor has been recognized by the United Nations and International Court of Justice as a non-self governing territory without self determination, and that as such the people of East Timor have applied to have observer status within the APEC process, indicating that this is an issue for APEC as a whole. You must also be aware that there has been considerable debate within the region concerning the so-called "Timor Gap Treaty," and we feel that Mr. Ramos-Horta's presence will be vital in promoting continued discussion on this issue. In closing, we sincerely urge you to reconsider your decision and allow Mr. Ramos-Horta to enter the Philippines for the conference. We also hope that the stories which appeared in Philippine newspapers concerning the existence of a so-called "List E" of "potential troublemakers" are untrue, and that no such list exists. Many people in the region are deeply concerned about this issue, and are carefully watching your government's actions. Sincerely yours, All Japan Prefectural and Municipal Workers' Union Federation Asia Health Institute Asia to Nihon de Watashitachi no Kakawari wo Mitsumeru Kai Asia to Rentaisuru Kai, Nagano Asia to Rentaisuru Kai, Ina Ayus Ayus Kansai Consumers Union of Japan Friends of the Earth Japan Group Kiki Higashi Timor no Dokuritsu wo Nozomu Kai (Sapporo) Higashi Timor Shien, Shinsyu Higashi Timor to Rentaisuru Nagasaki no Kai Higashi Timor Jin no Koe wo Kiku Kai Institute for Alternative Community Development Japan Tropical Forest Action Network Japan Committee for Negros Campaign Japan International Center for the Rights of the Child Japan Women's association Japanese Catholic Council for Justice and Peace Japanese Catholic Council for Justice and Peace, Nagano Korean Rights Group Japan Kure YWCA Higashi Timor Mondai wo Kangaeru Kai Laligurans-Japan Nagoya YWCA Higashi Timor wo Kangaeru Kai Osaka East Timor Association Osaka YWCA Pacific Asia Resource Center People's Forum 2001, Japan Plutonium Action Hiroshima Sapporo Institute for International Solidarity Shimonoseki Higashi Timor no Kai Society for the Protection of Rights of Foreigners, Hokkaido The Foundation for Human Rights in Asia Tokyo East Timor Association Sendai Higashi Timor no Kai Women's Democratic Club Women's Space On Zentsuji East Timor Solidarity Committee Amenomori Takayoshi Fujitani Naoko Hashimoto Kimie Hirata Tetsu (Japan Christian Academy) Inoue Dan Ishinaka Eiji (APEC Monitor NGO Network) Ito Michio James Minney Kaga Hideto Kayano Yuri Kawakami Sonoko Kawakami Toyoyuki (APEC Monitor NGO Network) Kitazawa Yoko Kobayashi Fujio (Eco-League) Kono Machiko (Osaka Jiyu Gakko) Kurokochi Shigemi (Osaka Jiyu Gakko) Lesley Pettigrew Miyake Karin Matsumoto Ikuko (A Seed Kansai) Matsumoto Kyoko Mizuno Asyura (Osaka Jiyu Gakko) Miyamoto Shiro Murata Kaoru Nakamura Hisashi Nakatani Ayami Okauchi Sawako Okouchi Hideto Oi Taeko Safia Minney Sano Masaya (APEC Monitor NGO Network) Saito Tomoyo Shwoda Taku Tsuru Akiko Ueno Sumiko Yamaguchi Hiroko (Osaka Jiyu Gakko) Yamazaki Shunji Yokoo Kimiko (APEC Monitor NGO Network) Yoshida Masami (Eco-League) Yoshiike Toshiko (Asia Forum Yokohama) From Ross4242 at aol.com Sun Nov 3 18:34:10 1996 From: Ross4242 at aol.com (by way of daga ) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 17:34:10 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 218] Indonesia: Gov't Investigating 32 NGOs Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961103172830.1a47c142@is1.hk.super.net> JAKARTA, Nov 1 (Reuter) - Indonesia plans to take action against 32 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that it regards as posing problems, the official Antara news agency reported on Friday. Susilo Sudarman, coordinating minister for politics and security, declined to name the NGOs but said they were among some 8,000 such bodies in Indonesia. ``The criteria for those posing a problem are those that do not use the state ideology Pancasila as the basis for their organisation and conduct illegal activities,'' Sudarman was quoted as saying after a monthly ministerial security meeting. The five principles of Pancasila include belief in one God, humanitarianism, national unity, democracy through consensus, and social justice. The Media Indonesia newspaper quoted Sudarman as saying leaders of NGOs that ``have problems'' will soon be called by authorities for questioning. ``If proof is found they have broken the law, they will be taken to court,'' he said. Sudarman told Antara he did not name the NGOs because their members would then hide, but he said the government would eventually publicly identify them. He said groups that received foreign aid but did not inform the government of this or ask for permission were one example of those that broke the law. ``There are NGOs that receive assistance from overseas which reaches billions of rupiah (thousands of dollars). Just what is that for,'' he asked. In the wake of a government crackdown on activists after the July 27 riots in Jakarta, NGOs have complained to the official National Human Rights Commission that they have been harassed and intimidated by security agencies. Many outspoken groups have curtailed their activities or gone underground since the crackdown fearing official reprisals. After the riots, regarded as the worst in more than 20 years, the government said it would re-register all NGOs. On Monday, a member of the unrecognised Alliance of Independent Journalists and a printer were detained after being caught in south Jakarta with 5,000 copies of an unlicensed magazine, Suara Independen (Independent Voice), which is published in Indonesia by an Australian-based group. Lawyers said they were facing charges of spreading hatred against the president. From wbello at phil.gn.apc.org Sun Nov 3 18:34:23 1996 From: wbello at phil.gn.apc.org (wbello by way of daga ) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 17:34:23 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 219] ABF: The Business Event of the Year Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961103172842.0abf2100@is1.hk.super.net> ABF: The Business Event of the Year The APEC Business Forum, conceived only for the coming APEC Summit in Subic, proceeds fron the general interest of Philippine President Ramos to boost business involvement in APEC. ABF will be a major two-day business gathering prior to the Leaders' Meeting in Subic. The idea is to broaden the participation of the private sector already achieved through the creation of ABAC. The target for ABF is to widen the participation to 25 Chief Executive Officers (heads of corporations) per economy. President Ramos designated Romulo to organize the ABF. An organizing committee composed mainly of Philippine business people supports Romulo in his tasks. In order to avoid any possible complication in the composition of the invitation list, ABF will rely on the "contact person" selected for each economy. Only those included in the list drawn up by the ABF shall be accepted as official business representatives. The APEC Foundation of the Philippines: Bankrolling the ABF The APEC Foundation of the Philippines is the main organizer of ABF, and is also headed by Romulo. It is the organization that actually brings together the major business players and business organizations of the Philippines. No less than President Ramos spearheaded the collection of funds for ABF, principally through personal interaction with business leaders. A similar process was followed before by the US authorities prior to the Seattle Summit. They were able at that time to generate surplus revenue that they put into a foundation called the National Center for APEC. That Center exists to this day to promote APEC among the business sector and right now functions as secretariat for ABAC/USA. The same is envisioned to happen in the Philippines with the APEC Foundation. The Philippine business sector has shown keen interest in supporting APEC related activities, the ABF included. Its financial pledges have reached quite a remarkable amount of P179 million, equivalent to almost half of the original government budget of P387 million for the hosting activities of the summit. However, it is not yet clear how private finance actually intertwines with the government budget. For instance, President Ramos recently stated that the government was not getting a single centavo from the contributions. The contributions, he said, go to the private sector and the foundation. But APEC Foundation vice president for research Dr. Emmanuel Lallana has a different version. In an informal interview, Lallana affirmed that "the APEC Foundation not only does not receive any financial assistance from the government, but is itself contributing to the expenses made by the government for organizing its APEC activities." This version is shared by Julius Parrenas, executive secretary of ABAC. According to him, the total amount of funds contributed "will be used for ABF, for other APEC related activities and also for the government expenses for the hosting activities" such as those that will be incurred by the National Organizing Committee for APEC headed by General Lisandro Abadia. The uncertainty is confounded by the absolute lack of transparency about the companies actively involved in sustaining the APEC Foundation. Such information is considered strictly confidential. There is also hardly any sure information about participation in the funding activities by foreign firms. However, according to Lallana, about "95% of the funds that have been raised by the APEC Foundation come from domestic firms." One example of a supporting foreign company is IBM Philippines. Among domestic contributors, on the other hand, are PLDT, San Miguel Corp., PHINMA, Far East Bank, Ayala Corp., the Tan Yu Group, and Jose Alvarez. Tax Free Contributions for the APEC Foundation of the Philippines Firms Pledged Funds _____________________________________________________________ Filipino-Chinese Taipans P 50 million Makati Business Club + Management Association of the Phils + Financial Executives P 40 million Bankers Association of the Philippines + Philippine Stock Exchange P 30 million Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry P 15 million PCCI + Federation of the Philippine Industries + Employers Confederation of the Philippines + Philexport P 10 million San Miguel Corporation P 10 million PLDT P 10 million Lopez P 6 million William Gatchalian P 5 million ----------------------- Total P 176 million From wbello at phil.gn.apc.org Sun Nov 3 18:34:16 1996 From: wbello at phil.gn.apc.org (wbello by way of daga ) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 17:34:16 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 220] Government and Business: the APEC Interface Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961103172836.0abf2740@is1.hk.super.net> Government And Business: the APEC Interface by: Marco Mezzera and Jenina Joy Chavez-Malaluan APEC's effort to involve business in formulating its agenda has taken centerstage in the APEC process. The Philippine government's moves are instructive in this regard. Its interface with the business sector overshadows whatever promise it made to involve other relevant segments in society in the process. Indeed, business enjoys special treatment. Different bodies have been created within APEC both at the national and international levels to represent the business sector. These bodies ensure comprehensive and systematic interaction between the government and big business. The principal bodies for business in APEC are the APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC) and the APEC Business Forum (ABF). ABAC is a formal APEC body, while ABF is an event that brings together international business to frame their general agenda for APEC. For this year, both of them are closely related with a third body, the APEC Foundation of the Philippines, which provides the conduit for interested parties to contribute to the expenses of APEC activities. ABAC: The Preferred Players ABAC started as an initiative of the ministers participating in the APEC Summit of 1995 in Osaka, Japan. It held its first organizational meeting in June 1996. At present, ABAC remains a provisional body whose main task is to come out with a report outlining seven or eight major recommendations for APEC. This November, APEC will decide what form ABAC will finally take. ABAC can be considered the successor of the Pacific Business Forum (PBF) and the Eminent Persons' Group (EPG), the original bodies appointed temporarily to give advice to APEC. It was PBF itself that recommended that a permanent advisory body composed of business representatives be established to advise APEC on a long term basis. According to Dr. Emmanuel de Dios of the University of the Philippines School of Economics, ABAC replaced the EPG "to give a more concrete course to its, until then, too visionary way of handling" the APEC agenda. The inclusion of "real business people" was expected to provide the council the facility to come up with more practical devices for APEC. This year, the Philippines, through former Foreign Affairs Secretary Roberto Romulo, chairs ABAC. His main task is to coordinate the five committees that were established this year to focus on the five key areas of (i) Finance and Investment, (ii) Infrastructure, (iii) Cross Border Flows, (iv) small and medium enterprises (SMEs), and (v) Deepening the Spirit of Community. Acting as co-chairs of ABAC are Murofuji of Itochu Corp. and Dr. Dorothy Riddle. ABAC Committees ___________________________________________________________________ | Committee | Chair/s | |------------------------|----------------------------------------| | | a) Robert Denham | | | Salomon Inc. (USA) | | Finance and Investment | b) Victor Fung | | | Hong Kong Trade Development Council | |------------------------|----------------------------------------| | Infrastructure | Gordon Wu | | | Hong Kong's Hopewell Holdings,Ltd. | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| ___________________________________________________________________ | | a) Mario Andrade | | | Chile | | Cross Border Flows | b) Jose Luis Yulo Jr. | | | Philippine Int'l Trading Corp. | |------------------------|----------------------------------------| | SMEs | Benigno Ricafort | | | Philippine Chamber of Commerce and | | | Industry - Small and Medium Enterprises| | | Development Council (PCCI-SMED) | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | Deepening the Spirit | Timothy Hong | | of Community | Brunei | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| Each member economy appoints three business representatives to the ABAC. These representatives shall have the approving power in all of the decisions drawn up by the different ABAC committees. ABAC members can also be asked by APEC, as individuals and/or as a group, to provide advice on specific issues. For example, the Senior Officials' Meeting (SOM) may ask ABAC to comment on the current development cooperation programs that are coming out of those meetings. This is now a very important issue because APEC has reached the point where it is shifting from mere vision/goals formulation to the formulation of concrete policies. Quid Pro Quo? According to official sources, the positive response of the business sector and its generosity in supporting the APEC process find their main reasons in what Lallana describes as the business sector's "firm belief in the positive aspects of an open market economy." Lallana also notes the "advertising value" of the meeting considering that "world attention will be focused, during those three to four days, on what will happen in Manila." The seeming innocence of the contributions can lead one to thinking that no particular government "favors" for the business sector are at stake. For instance, Lallana asserts that "it is not realistic to expect that the Philippine government can actually do anything specific to foster some private vested interests." He adds that the chances that something like that will happen are too small to justify any interested commitment on the side of the private sector. For his part, Parren~as prefers to emphasize the relevance of factors like the "tax free nature of thr donations," or "the opportunity that the national business sector can get by networking with national and international governmental and private bodies and institutions." But Parren~as himself recognizes the possibility that President Ramos could look very favorably on these "dedicated" business people. This special attention can easily translate into special treatment and government accommodation of special interests. He adds that there are a lot of Chinese businessmen who are giving money to the APEC Foundation, consistent with their practice in national elections. This is sometimes seen as a way of warding off harassment by governmental institutions. Undoubtly, the agenda of foreign business also find its way into the official position of their respective governments. Philippine business is definitely not the only one to put pressure on the Philippines, this year's host of the APEC, whose main responsibility will be to come out with the Manila Action Plan for APEC or MAPA. The US position is an example. During the Senior Officials' Meeting in Davao in August, Parren~as noted the pressure exerted by the US delegation. While press releases proclaimed the general satisfaction of the US delegation over the outcome of the negotiations on information technology (IT), many participants were critical of the American proposal of a zero-tariff level on IT products. The US was clearly pushing for the liberalization only of a narrow range of products that it has, certainly in consultation with its business sector, identified as beneficial to itself. All this points to the emerging landscape where there is close interface between government and business. At this point, APEC is still a government show. Business is, however, expected to move centerstage as regional liberalization advances. To quote US Undersecretary of State Joan Spero: "APEC is not for governments; it is for business. Through APEC, we aim to get governments out of the way, opening the way for business to do business." *Marco Mezzera and Jenina Joy Chavez-Malaluan are contributors to the forthcoming book Four Adjectives in Search of a Noun: The APEC Primer. From apcet at gv.net.my Mon Nov 4 10:56:58 1996 From: apcet at gv.net.my (by way of daga ) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 09:56:58 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 221] Asia-Pacific Conference on East Timor (APCET II) Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961104095122.18c7dd5c@is1.hk.super.net> Dear Friends, The second Asia-Pacific Conference on East Timor (APCET II) has just launched its website. Please visit: http://www.gv.net.my/apcet for the latest developments. Please alert other journalists and supporters about the webpage. Also included is the first press release which follows. Please pass it on to all interested media and groups. A REPEAT OF MANILA 1994? Human rights organisations and East Timor solidarity groups in the Asia-Pacific are set to meet in Kuala Lumpur this coming week. Their last meeting, at the inaugural Asia-Pacific Conference on East Timor (APCET) in Manila 1994, created world-wide news as the Indonesian government threatened to cut ties with the Filipino government unless the meeting was stopped. The meeting, which persisted despite an attempted court injuction and minus barred foreign dignitaries, challenged Indonesia's annexation of East Timor and condemned the brutal acts of human rights violations committed against the Maubere people. The coming APCET II, promises to be just as controversial and will throw the spotlight not just on East Timor but also on the ASEAN policy of "non-interference" and the Indonesian-Malaysian "special relationship". While the Malaysian government has yet to make any official statement on the conference, the conference organisers suspect that the former will be watching and reacting very carefully. On the one hand, they have to appear to be doing something in order to appease Indonesian anxieties. On the other, they have to resist appearing subservient to Indonesia and the Suharto regime. The fact that APCET II comes in the wake of the Nobel Peace prize being awarded to two outstanding leaders of the East Timorese struggle - its special representative to the United Nations Jose Ramos Horta and East Timor Bishop Carlos Belo - further binds the Malaysian government's response. No longer is the East Timor issue just another independence struggle to be sidelined at the convenience of the world media. The current centrality of the East Timor issue will force the Malaysian government to walk the tightrope between Indonesia's demand for silence and the international media's hunger to show Malaysia and Prime Minister Mahathir as cohorts in the East Timor scandal. Malaysia is also bound to come under pressure at the United Nations where its chief diplomat Razali Ismail is currently serving as the General Assembly President. In his inaugural speech, Razali promised to deal with "all out-standing resolutions ... before my term is up" - presumably this would include the various resolutions which call for Indonesia to withdraw and respect the right of self-determination of the East Timorese. Any harsh actions at the domestic level will severely affect the credibility of one of Asia's top UN personalities. The conference itself, carrying the theme "The Search for Peace", will focus on the role of NGOs and people's organisations in the Asia-Pacific region in supporting the peace process outlined by the East Timorese resistance movement. Additionally, the conference will host a core group of Parliamentarians for East Timor (PET-Asia). The conference will also declare November 12 as the International Day of Solidarity with East Timor to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the Dili Massacre where over 200 East Timorese and a 20-year old Malaysian student, Kamal Bamadhaj were gunned down by the Indonesian military. END To keep abreast with developments, interested parties are invited to visit the APCET web page at: The webpage will be launched on Sunday, November 3 and will be updated daily to bring you the latest developments surrounding the conference. Prior to the start of the conference, daily briefs will highlight the Malaysian governments response to the conference. During the conference, stories on the conference participants, speeches and resolutions will be posted regularly. The conference organisers will also try to respond to queries sent to us at our email address above within 24 hours. From mario_m at HK.Super.NET Mon Nov 4 13:43:13 1996 From: mario_m at HK.Super.NET (mario mapanao) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 12:43:13 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 222] protest e-mail to Phil. president on APEC Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961104123732.09778ca8@is1.hk.super.net> protest e-mail/ letters of concern on APEC to the Philippine president may be addressed to: From daga at HK.Super.NET Mon Nov 4 18:48:17 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 17:48:17 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 223] ASEAN and APEC: The making of a geo-economic rivalry Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961104174239.1d378d5e@is1.hk.super.net> ASEAN and APEC: The making of a geo-economic rivalry Walden Bello The Sunday Chronicle 13 October 1996 In late February this year, an economic conclave of major significance took place in Bangkok: the Asia-Europe Leaders' Summit, or ASEM, which brought together 10 heads of state of East and Southeast Asia with 15 of their counterparts from the European Union. This meeting was notable for several things, including the fact that it was one of the very key global economic summits to exclude the chief executive of the United States, the world's largest economy. To many observers, ASEM would not have come about without APEC. ASEM is, in their view, geo-economic diplomacy par excellence, with the goal of the Asian countries being to use the "European opening" to counter pressure from the United STates to create a trans-Pacific free trade area. And the Europeans have been only all too willing to oblige, since ASEM not only promises to become a useful tool against Washington's aggressive anti-EU trade diplomacy but also provides an ongoing framework and process to tie their economies more integrally to the "East Asian Economic Miracle." The EAEG Challenge to APEC The ASEM summit was significant in another way: the Asian governments that attended were precisely those that Prime Minister Mohamad Mahathir of Malaysia had targetted for membership in his proposed "East Asia Economic Group" (EAEG), which the US considers the greatest threat to APEC. Indeed, many observers say that because it provides an ongoing forum in which the 10 Asian countries must coordinate their policies vis-a-vis Europe, ASEM brings the formal establishment of the EAEG a step closer. THE EAEG would include only Asian and Western Pacific nations in a loosely structured consultative group. While the other ASEAN countries have not been on the forefront espousing it, they have nevertheless been broadly supportive of the idea. In Mahathir's view, after all, ASEAN would be the nucleus or core of the EAEG. In fact, it has been at the advice of this ASEAN neighbors that Mahathir has downgraded his proposed formation from the status of an independent regional "group" to being a "caucus" (EAEC) within APEC in order to lessen Washington and Canberra's apprehensions. It has not had this effect, however, and the Clinton administration has brought against the "caucus" proposal the same criticism that the Bush administration launched at the original "group" idea: that it would create an "artificial dividing line down the middle of the Pacific." Washington knows, however, that the so-called line is far from artificial, and its strident opposition to Mahathir's project stems from the fact that it would reinforce trends that are already at work. Already, intra-Asian trade makes up some 53 percent of East Asia's trade and it is growing much faster than its trade with other parts of the world. The size of Japan's trade with Asia now outstrips its trade with the US, and Southeast Asia has overtaken the US to become Korea's biggest market. With East Asia becoming both integrated production base and its own biggest market, the formation of EAEC would accelerate the lessening market dependence on the US and promote greater political independence. So threatened is Washington that in 1995, in a talk in Tokyo, then US Undersecretary of Defense Joseph Nye, according to a report that appeared in Singapore's Business Times, made the strong suggestion that the US "would probably withdraw our security presence" from the Asia-Pacific if the countries in the area were to proceed to form the EAEC on the grounds that the latter would "exclude the US from the region economically. " It was another one of those Super-301 like threats that was not likely to raise Washington's stock in Southeast Asia. Endorsment of the EACC does not mean, however, that ASEAN as a whole is opposed to the APEC free-trade area concept. It is more accurate to say that ASEAN is not of one mind about APEC liberalization. Postures range from Singapore and the Philippines' support, to Indonesia's formal endorsement amidst strong doubts, Thailand's apprehensiveness, Malaysia's confrontational stance, and Vietnam's still largely spetator role. It is fair to say, however, that the center of gravity of ASEAN opinion tends toward the cautious, critical, and suspicious. This is not mainly because of Washington and Canberra's opposition to EAEC, which remains, after all, a proposal. The reason is much more concrete and, for ASEAN, more vital: APEC is increasingly perceived as a rival, in geoeconomic terms, to ASEAN and its pet project, AFTA, the ASEAN Free Trade Area. The ASEAN Vision: Regional Industrialization via AFTA ASEAN is the grandfather of multilateral regional arrangements in the Asia-Pacific, and the ASEAN governments are very jealous of their creation when confronted with newcomers like APEC. Indeed, even among sectors of some of ASEAN citizenries, with the notable exception of the Philippines, there is a fellow feeling -- a sense of "ASEAN brotherhood and sisterhood"-- that is unique in the East Asian region. In its first quarter century, ASEAN achieved success mainly as a political alliance against communism. However, the original impulse for its founding in the late sixties was for it to serve as a vehicle for regional economic cooperation. The spirit that animated plans for an economic bloc was not the neoclassical concern for "efficient allocation of productive resources through free market mechanisms" that underlies, in theory at least, the APEC free trade area. Rather, trade integration was seen as a base for integrated regional industrialization. As originally envisioned by the influential Robinson report undertaken by UN-ESCAP, ASEAN members were to carry out limited trade liberalization to create a wider marker that would encourage coordinated industrial import substitution at a regional level. In the 1970s and 1980s, the ASEAN countries launched several initiatives, including the Preferential Trading Agreements (PTA), which aimed at a limited liberalization; the ASEAN Industrial Projects (AIP), which sought to assign large-scale capital-intensive projects to different countries to develop; the ASEAN Industrial Complementation Scheme (AIC), which aimed to divide different production phases of the automobile and other industries among member countries; and the ASEAN Industrial Venture (AJIV), aimed at increasing industrial production through resource pooling and market sharing by ASEAN firms. Running through these schemes was the protectionist perspective of using trade policy--that is, reducing trade barriers among members while keeping them up against non-members-- as an instrument to build regional industrial capacity. Grand in vision, these initiatives were scarcely implemented in the 1970s and 1980s, as ASEAN focused on regional politicaly issues like the continuing instability in Cambodia. But with the end of the Cold War and the return of relatively political stability to Cambodia, ASEAN members returned to the common-market agenda that had been ASEAN's original impulse by launching AFTA in 1992. There was another reason as well: the founding of APEC in Canberra in 1989 and Australia's energetic diplomacy to make it the regional economic bloc for the Asia- Pacific. The core of AFTA is the so-called CEPT or "Common Effective Preferential Tariff Agreement" which applies to all manufactured goods and processed agricultural products. The central provision of CEPT was that all tariffs would be lowered to a substantially free trade level within 15 years, in 2008. In the view of its planners, AFTA was, like the previous ASEAN tariff reduction attempts, no simple free trade scheme. It was to simultaneously use internal trade liberalization and external trade discriminations in an effort to create a wider market that would provide the economies of scale for the profitable operation of capital-intensive and technology- intensive industries, be they ASEAN-based or foreign. As an Australian government study pointed out, unlike the APEC free trade scheme, AFTA employs trade policy for regional industrialization ends: "By creating an integrated ASEAN market and production base, AFTA seeks to encourage multinationals (and ASEAN-based firms) to develop region-wide production, distribution, and marketing strategies; and in the process boost the overall competitiveness of ASEAN production." The idea is to boost regionally based industries by providing them with a unified market of some 320 million people while using foreign multinationals to upgrade regional industrial capacity, principally through the transfer of technology. Whether the foreign transnationals, especially the dominant Japanese conglomerates, would derive more benefits from ASEAN than ASEAN would derive from them was, of course, an interesting question that demands a separate discussion. The vision was certainly grand, but when it came to implementation, the agreement was initially bogged down in different time frames for tariff reductions and long list of products that the different countries wanted to exempt from CEPT provisions, casting doubt on countries' commitment to the regional liberalization process. It seemed AFTA would go the way of past ASEAN initiatives, until ASEAN governments "relaunched" the program during the ASEAN Economic Ministers' Meeting in Chiang Mai, Thailand, in 1994 with the ambitious agreement to advance the target date for the elimination of trade barriers from 15 to 10 years, making ASEAN a substantially free trade area by the year 2003. The Chiang Mai meeting also extended the coverage of CEPT to unproceesed agricultural goods, including rice. AFTA and APEC as Strategic Rivals This time it was Bill Clinton's big push for the APEC area during the November 1993 Seattle Summit that served as the spur to ASEAN's quickening pace of trade integration, just as it would be APEC's 2020 free trade vision articulated at the Bogor Summit in November 1994 that would spark the Sultan of Brunei's controversial proposal a year later, in 1995, to advance the achievement to the year 2000, three years ahead of the already revised schedule-- a recommendation on which there is, however, no consensus as yet. ASEAN's competitive pace is not surprising, for the grouping would lose its raison d'etre-- to become a unified market and production base via internal trade liberalization and external trade discrimination-- if the APEC free trade area were to become a reality. ASEAN would be happy with APEC if the latter were to remain a group for consultation and cooperation that would not threaten the ASEAN goal of regional industrial upgrading through regional trade liberalization. At the same time, Canberra and Washington have come to realize that the more AFTA becomes a reality, the more difficult it would be for an APEC free trade area to come into existence. This race for effective liberalization between AFTA and APEC has been largely carried out without references to the essential contradiction between the two enterprises. This may be about to change. One Australian government unit has already warned that AFTA could become a "substitute for more comprehesive liberalization," and urged Canberra to "press for liberalization of a range of ASEAN tariff and non-tariff barriers and remaining impediments to investment, for all of ASEAN's trading partners." But probably more alarming, and more offensive, to ASEAN was a remark by Dr. Fred Bergsten, the former head of the now disbanded Eminent Persons' Group, to the effect that permission must be secured from APEC and the World Trade Organization before any subregional economic grouping in East Asia is allowed to pursue further integration. The ASEAN reaction to Bergsten's proposal and similar suggestions to "bring AFTA under control" is probably not different from that of a commentator in Singapore's Business Times: "This is extraordinary. APEC is a voluntary and non-binding agreement among Asia-Pacific states and why it should have to right to veto any proposal from formally constituted bodies such as ASEAN is hard to see... APEC needs to more carefully avoid giving the impression of patronizing any of its members, especially as it is viewed as an instrument of US policy in this region. A few lessons in diplomacy would not come amiss among visitors from Washington." Creating an ASEAN united front vis-a-vis APEC, however, has not been smooth. Some governments have thrown up obstacles, and one of the most threatening to AFTA in the long run is the Philippines' decision, as stated in a recent government document, "to go one step further by making available all tariff changes on an MFN (most favored nation) basis," that is, to all the country's other trading partners, including the US and other advanced countries. The rationale of this position which is precisely what the Australians have demanded-- is supposedly to "minimize the potential trade diverting effects of the regional trading agreements." Thus the Philippine position would, objectively, undermine AFTA, since AFTA's strategic goal is precisely to "divert trade" in order to upgrade regional industrial capacity via import substitution. ASEAN's Guerilla Tactics But while most of the other ASEAN governments would see MFN as subversive of AFTA, they have not hesitated to invoke the principle in an APEC context. And they have done so, not out of doctrinal considerations but as a tactic to slow down the US push for trade liberalization. Washingtron says that APEC trade concessions should be extended only to non-APEC members that agree to make reciprocal concessions. Applying MFN in an APEC context, say the Americans, would encourage "free riders," like the European Union, which would benefit from a free trade area while keeping up their own barriers. This would eventually dilute the benefits of belonging to an APEC free trade area. Teaming up with the Japanese, ASEAN has replied that MFN is the only position that is really consistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) global trading framework administered by the WTO. This stand is largely a tactical ploy, in the hope that disagreement on this very basic principle would have the effect of pushing discussion of concrete liberalization plans without APEC further into the future, giving AFTA the space to put its liberalization program securely in place and effectively heading off an APEC free trade area. What we see here are guerilla tactics in geo-economic conflict, and in conjunction with the ASEM initiative and Malaysia's continuing push to formalize the EAEG, such Fabian moves may bring about the effective demise of the ersatz vision of a regional free trade area that American and Australian pressure produced at Bogor, and bring APEC back to the role that ASEAN, Japan, and practically all the other Asian countries are comfortable with: serving as a consultative forum for economic cooperation, with no other ambitions. (Dr. Walden Bello is co-director of Focus on the Global South, a program of Chulalongkorn University and professor of sociology and public administration at the University of the Philippines. He is the author of Dragons in Distress: Asia's Miracle Economies in Crisis [London: Penguin, 1991] and other books on Asia-Pacific economic realities. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Documentation for Action Groups in Asia (DAGA) 96, 2nd District, Pak Tin Village Mei Tin Road, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong Tel : (852) 2691 6391/ 2691 1068 ext 54 Fax: (852) 2697 1912 E-mail: daga@hk.super.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org Tue Nov 5 02:02:32 1996 From: RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org (RVerzola) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 09:02:32 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 224] FORM LETTER TO 17 HEADS OF STATE ATTENDING APEC SUMMIT Message-ID: <366_9611042117@phil.gn.apc.org> Below is a letter of the Manila-based Urban Poor Associates (UPA) to the 17 heads of states coming to Manila for the APEC meeting, on the issue of urban poor relocations due to APEC preparations. Obet Verzola ********************************************************************** November 4, 1996 PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON White House Washington, D.C. USA PRIME MINISTER JOHN HOWARD, M.P. MG8 Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 AUSTRALIA HIS MAJESTY SULTAN HADJI HASSANAL BOLKIAH BRUNEI, DARRUSALAM PRIME MINISTER JEAN CHRETIEN Langevin Block, 80 Wellington St. Ottawa, Ontario K1A0A2 CANADA PRESIDENT PATRICIO AYLWIN AZOCAR Palacio Dela Moneda Santiago CHILE PRESIDENT JIANG ZE-MIN Beijing Shi 100032 PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA GOV. CHRISTOPHER PATTEN Governor's Office HONGKONG PRESIDENT SUHARTO Merdeka Palace Jl. Medan, Merdeka Usara INDONESIA PRIME MINISTER RYUTARO HASHIMOTO Prime Minister's Office 6-1 Nagata Cho, 1 Chome Chiyodo-Ku 100 Tokyo, JAPAN PRESIDENT KIM YOUNG-SAM The Blue House 1 Sejong-No, Chongno-Gu Seoul, KOREA PRIME MINISTER DATO SERI DR. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMMAD Jalo Dato Onn, Kuala Lumpur MALAYSIA PRESIDENT ERNESTO ZEDILLO PONCE DE LEON Palacio Nacional C.P. 06065, Mexico D.F. MEXICO PRIME MINISTER JIM BOLGER Parliament House Office of the Prime Minister Wellington, NEW ZEALAND PRIME MINISTER JULIUS CHAN Office of the Prime Minister PAPUA NEW GUINEA PRIME MINISTER GOH CHOK TONG 250 North Bridge Road 07-00 Raffles City Tower SINGAPORE 0617 PRESIDENT LEE TENG-HUI Office of the President 122 Chungking South Road Section 1, Taipei TAIWAN PRIME MINISTER BARHARN SILPA-ARCHA Government House Bangkok, THAILAND DATO AJIT SINGH Secretary General ASEAN 70-A J. Sisingamangaraja P.O. Box 2072 Jakarta, INDONESIA Your Execellencies, We write on behalf of Urban Poor Associates a church related non-government organization working in Metro Manila to respectfully call Your Excellency's attention to the massive and unceasing demolitions and forced evictions of the urban poor in Metropolitan Manila, by the Philippine government, as it prepares for Your Excellency's visit, and the forthcoming Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit. As early as June 1996, Philippine President Fidel V. Ramos himself ordered the mayors of Metropolitan Manila to "reduce the eyesores" in the metropolis, including urban poor communities, in time for the APEC summit. Shortly thereafter, the Metro Manila Development Authority was granted Philippine Peso 25 milion (or US $1 million) to beautify the metropolis, also in preparation for the said summit, and particularly to clear shanty towns in areas where APEC delegates are likely to pass. Former military general Lisandro Abadia, currently director-general of APEC's national organization commission, recently directed the mayor of a city in Metro Manila, as follows: "In connection with the directive of President Ramos to clear the reclamation area along Roxas Boulevard of squatters due to the APEC Summit, please exert all efforts and initiative to remove said squatters as soon as possible." In September, 1996, Abadia publicly announced that Metropolitan Manila would be "cleared of squatters in time for APEC." The Philippine President, however, publicly and repeatedly denies that the ongoing demolitions are connected with the country's hosting of the APEC summit. Since June of this year, demolitions of homes and forced evictions of the urban poor have been occuring with alarming frequency. As the date of the APEC summit nears, demolitions and forced evictions occur almost daily. Close to 437,450 families of the urban poor in Metro Manila (some 2.6 million Filipino men, women and children, almost one-third of the entire population of the metropolis) are in danger of eviction by government. Already, some 33,500 urban poor families--201,000 Filipino women, men and children--residing along Roxas Boulevard and Manila Bay Reclamation Area, Freedom Island, Makati, Pasay, Muntinlupa, Paco, Malate and along the tracks of the Philippine National Railways that span Caloocan City to Laguna, have been forcibly evicted, their homes demolished, dispossessed of their belongings, rendered homeless. The most recent demolition occured only on 23 October 1996, when about one hundred blue-shirted men sent by Manila's City Hall began tearing down homes straddling a drainage canal called Estero de Paco. At least twenty persons, mostly women and children, who joined other residents in a human barricade, were hurt in scuffles with the demolition team. Among those injured were a four-year old child, and another boy, of unknown age, whose both arms were broken. The large scale and frequent incidence of demolitions and forced evictions, in preparation for the APEC summit, displays the failure of the Philippine Government to comply with its avowed obligations under both the Philippine Constitution and law, and international law on human rights. The continuing onslaught of demolitions and forced evictions is undertaken in disregard not only of Republic Act 7279, specifically Section 28 [on the conduct of demolition and eviction in a just and humane manner] but also international law and the mandate of the Constitution concerning the right to adequate housing. In July 1996, Philippine President Ramos called on the APEC environment ministers to ensure that economic growth is spread evenly and benefits the poor. Yet, it is indeed ironic that, despite the President's call, his government is responsible for the blatant violation of the rights of the urban poor in Metropolitan Manila, as his government continues to embark on demolitions and forced evictions as it ardently prepares for the APEC summit. Urban Poor Associates therefore most respectfully and strongly urges Your Excellency to: * Express grave concern over the ongoing demolitions and forced evictions of the urban poor in Metropolitan Manila, in preparation for the APEC summit, and to call on the Philippine President to take immediate action to end the conduct of demolitions and forced evictions; and * Urge the Philippine Government to give due consideration to the United Nation's EUN ESC's Committees Concluding Observations and Recommendations of the United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Committee, particularly those related to the question of the right to adequate standard of living, which includes the right to housing; and to call on the Philippine Government to exert every effort to provide the highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic and political inequalities, and equitably diffuse wealth for the common good. Such acts on Your Excellency's part would be most welcome to both Philippine and international public opinion, as it would exhibit Your Excellency's genguine commitment to the protection and promotion of all human rights, particularly of the poor, who are most vulnerable to abuse. Thank you. Respectfully, MA. FIDES F. BAGASAO Chairperson DENIS MURPHY Coordinator P.S. Please consider this to be valid even if, for technical reasons, it does not bear any signature. From rob at essential.org Mon Nov 4 23:37:29 1996 From: rob at essential.org (Robert Weissman) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 09:37:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: [asia-apec 225] Multinational Monitor editoral on APEC blacklist Message-ID: Attached is an editorial from the forthcoming issue of Multinational Monitor. For those on this list, it covers familiar ground, but the discussion toward the end, relating to comments made by Philippine Embassy staff during last week's protest in Washington, D.C. may be of interest. Robert Weissman Essential Information | Internet: rob@essential.org Banned: Nobel Peace Laureate Jose Ramos-Horta, Nobel Peace Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Japanese Bishop Aloisus Nobuo Soma, Danielle Mitterand, wife of the former French president. So decreed the government of the Philippines in October in refusing entry to at least 100 peace and human rights activists. The government concluded that the activists, expected to seek entry to attend a non-governmental organization (NGO) meeting to be held parallel to a Manila summit of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), were "potential troublemakers." APEC is an economic grouping of 18 countries, including the United States, Japan, China, the Philippines and Indonesia. Heads of state will be attending the APEC summit in late November. Philippine President Fidel V. Ramos acknowledged in a teleconference at the U.S. National Press Club that the banned activists did not pose any genuine security threat to the Philippines or the APEC gathering. Ramos and the Philippine government deem the activists "potential troublemakers" not because of the threat they pose to physical security, but because of the threat they pose with their ideas -- including especially the idea that the people of East Timor should be free from repression by the Indonesian military and afforded the right to self determination. Indonesia invaded the small nation of East Timor in 1975. In the two subsequent decades, one-third of all East Timorese -- more than 200,000 people -- are estimated to have lost their lives in massacres carried out by the Indonesian military and due to forced starvation. Jose Ramos-Horta, special representative of the National Council of Maubere Resistance, the underground umbrella organization representing East Timorese groups opposing Indonesian occupation, received this year's Nobel Peace Prize (along with Timorese Bishop Carlos Ximenes Belo) for his work on behalf of East Timor. Ramos-Horta has called for a 10-year phase out of the Indonesian occupation, to be followed by a UN-sponsored referendum on self-determination for East Timor. The other activists on the APEC blacklist have also been prominent opponents of Indonesia's brutal and illegal occupation of East Timor. The Philippines' proximate motivation for imposing the ban was clearly a desire to please Indonesia. Indonesia recently helped broker a peace settlement on the southern Philippine island of Mindanao between the Philippine government and Muslim rebels. Broader concerns also underlay the Philippine decision, however. The APEC meeting is supposed to focus on trade and economics, says Jose Ebro, a spokesperson with the Philippine Embassy in Washington, D.C. Discussions of political and security issues, even if planned to take place at a citizen forum like the Manila People's Forum on APEC, should be held at a different time, he says. Holding them simultaneously might introduce a "disruptive influence," Ebro claims. Ebro's vague expressed concern about "disruptive influences" is vague is subject to two interpretations. One is an actual terrorist threat, but since President Ramos himself has clarified that there is no security problem posed by the banned activists, that is hard to take seriously. The second sense in which Ebro uses the term "disruptive influence" is to suggest that the citizen meeting might divert the official APEC discussions, and the media gathered to cover the summit, from a narrow focus on trade and economic issues divorced from other considerations. One particular fear he expresses is that private sector meetings scheduled during the summit might be "disrupted" by citizen discussions and street protests -- and that these disruptions might interfere with the Philippines' effort to showcase itself to foreign investors during the APEC meeting. The mass banning is not just some quirky move by an insecure government. The Philippines is the current chair of APEC, and its actions reflect on the entire APEC grouping. The APEC agenda is still inchoate and contested, but is vectored toward free trade and dismantling of strong governments [see "INTERVIEW"]. If the APEC is to be anything more than a secretive cabal of bureaucrats gathering to redesign national laws and fashion a free trade area as demanded by big business, it must be open to participation from the public. At minimum, that must mean allowing critics of APEC or APEC government policies to speak freely on issues of concern -- and without regard to an artificial, neat and tidy distinction between economics and trade on the one hand, and politics, human rights and social concerns on the other. This must be a foundational principle of APEC, respected even by those hoping to turn APEC into the world's largest free trade area. If the Philippines refuses to reconsider and revise its decision to impose the APEC blacklist, the leaders of the other APEC countries -- with U.S. President Bill Clinton leading the way -- should refuse to attend the Manila summit. From LIQHA at phil.gn.apc.org Tue Nov 5 20:19:42 1996 From: LIQHA at phil.gn.apc.org (LIQHA) Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 03:19:42 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 226] Re: notes from the e-conference facilitator Message-ID: <495_9611050405@phil.gn.apc.org> Dear Mr Yukihiro: >From: YASUDA Yukihiro . . >Because of the reason Mario mentioned in [asia-apec 192], asia-apec >mailing list server has been set to accept mails less than 18K >bytes. Mails larger than 18K in size, including header, will be >rejected. If you hope to share large document, please split it into >small parts under 18K each before posting. May I offer you our services? We are a computer hardware & software company in the Philippines. We can build you a server whose hardisk is changeable within 5 minutes. We can write you an internal email processor program that can automatically split messeges into blocks of 18K . Salamat for your attention. Truly yours, Nteng Yu From daga at HK.Super.NET Tue Nov 5 15:13:59 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 14:13:59 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 227] APEC and intellectual property rights Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961105140819.19e74e36@is1.hk.super.net> APEC and intellectual property rights Walden Bello Manila Chronicle October 27, 1996 During the APEC Senior Officials' Meeting (SOM) in Davao in the third week of August, the United States delegation lobbied hard to get the forum to agree to fully liberalize trade in information technology and products. The proposal encountered opposition from many of the other countries, with one key official telling the Financial Times that "Some lesser developed APEC members thought the proposal as it stands would be of more benefit to the US than its trading partners." He added: "A lot of countries felt they were at an embryonic stage of IT development and it might be premature to cut tariffs to zero." APEC's Place in Washington's IPR Agenda APEC has become a forum in which the United States has not hesitated to advance measures that would mainly benefit its corporations' position in information technology. Perhaps even more important than the proposal for zero tariffs on information technology has been Washington's effort to make APEC a mechanism for enforcing so-called "intellectual property rights" (IPRs) of US firms. Here APEC is seen as a vital addition to unilateral trade diplomacy, which has lately focused on enforcing TRIPs on the key East Asian trading partners, all of whom are high up on on the "Special 301 watch list" of the US Trade Representative. APEC is also seen as an extension of the landmark Trade Related Intellectual Rights accord (TRIPs) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which is seen in Asia as a major victory for Bill Gates and the US high-tech industry, which is said to supply and own copyright to 70 percent of the world's software. The TRIPS agreeement provides for a generalized minimum patent protection of 20 years, increases the duration of the protection to semi-conductors or computer chips; institutes draconian border measures against producers judged to be violating intellectual property rights; and places the burden of the proof on the presumed violator of process patents. Yet despite such provisions, American business groups think it is not strong enough. Recently, President Clinton's Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations (ACTPN) complained that the transitional periods for developing countries to adopt the GATT TRIPs regime are "overly long". The ACTPN warned that unless the US pushes countries to hurry and adopt measurers to make their intellectual property regimes GATT-compatible, the "end result could be a de facto expansion of transition periods." Speeding up the legislation and enforcement of IPR commitments is also a key objective of Microsoft Corporation, America's leading software giant, which is carrying out a massive campaign in Asia to compliment Washington's IPR diplomacy. Microsoft has especially targetted China, Thailand, Hong Kong, and the Philippines. APEC as TRIPs Enforcement Mechanism APEC is seen by Washington, the ACTPN, Microsoft and the US-dominated Intellectual Property Rights Alliance as lending valuable reinforcement for the enforcement of the GATT TRIPs accord. Not surprisingly, last year, the Eminent Persons' Group, reflecting similar concerns as the ACTPN and Microsoft, strongly recommended that APEC members cut in half the transition period to full TRIPs enforcement that countries agreed to in the Uruguay Round, which would mean a deadline of 1998 instead of 2000 for APEC's developing countries. The combined US government and corporate offensive has successfully pushed for IPRs to be one of the prime "action areas" for liberalization commitments under the Individual Action Plans (IAPs) submitted for the Subic Summt. A close look at the recently released IAPs for Thailand and the Philippines shows that American pressure in this area has born fruit. While Thailand's commitments in most areas are very general, they are fairly specific when it comes to IPRs in the period 1997-2000. The Thais promise to amend their patent and trademark legislation to conform to WTO standards and to "enact legislation on the protection of plant varieties, trade secrets, geographical indication, and integrated circuits." The Philippines, for its part, promises to complete aligning its legislation with the TRIPs accord ahead of the 2000 deadline as well as to increase criminal penalties for infringement." The tough Philippine position is due, according to insiders, to the strong influence of Microsoft Philippines' chief Michael Hard, who is said to have helped draft the information technology section of the Philippine government blueprint APEC and the Philippines: Catching the Next Wave. Profits Versus Rent Washington's moves on IPR in APEC are not surprising, according to the noted information technology specialist Roberto Verzola: "Protection for intellectual property rights has become the number one US demand in all bilateral and multilateral negotiations." For Verzola and many other information experts, Special 301 of the US Trade Act and the GATT TRIPs accord are vital to US interests. But they are not about protecting legitimate profits derived from market competition. They are about the most feudal of exactions -- rent. As Verzola puts in in a recent article: "To preserve the potential for big profit, information economies [like the United States} must prevent information sharing. They have therefore developed elaborate legal structures based on the concept of intellectual property rights, which gives them the power, backed by the State, to prevent the copying and sharing of information, to maintain their artificial scarcity, and preserve their monopoly superprofits." The GATT TRIPs agreement, however, goes against the very nature of knowledge, which tends to be universalized quickly after pioneering inventions are made. The history of technological advance has largely been one of collective advance. When the first societies invented settled agriculture, they had not proprietary obsession that drove them to control their neighbors' ability to better their lot. When Gutenberg invented the printing press, he was not interested in controlling its diffusion in order to make money. Even Henry Ford was not interested in patenting the assembly line. But in the person of Bill Gates, who is now seen as the paragon of the US hi-tech industry, we encounter a different animal. This acknowledged technological genius is less interested in the social benefits of his technological innovations than in using them to amass money and power for himself and his corporation, Microsoft. Foreclosing Industrialization by Imitation The relatively loose diffusion of technology has been a major factor in the waves of industrial development that have swept the globe in recent times. The US industrialized in the 19th century by using but paying very little for British manufacturing innovations, as did the Germans. Japan industrialized by borrowing liberally from US firms, but barely compensating the Americans for them. And the Koreans industrialized by copying quite liberally but with little payments to US and Japanese designs and process technologies. Since the British industrial revolution, early industrialization in the countries that have since become leading powers was industrialization-by-imitation. The GATT TRIPs accord threatens to make industrialization-by-imitation a thing of the past. As the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development has warned, the TRIPs regime represents "a premature strengthening of the intellectual property system ... that favors monopolistically controlled innovation over broad-based diffusion." A few decades ago, the US government and US firms were less uptight about others' unauthorized use of US technology. There were several reasons for this. IBM, for instance, tolerated the massive cloning of IBM PCs by East Asian producers in order to make the PC the computer industry's global standard, thus outmaneuvering its rival Apple strategically. Another reason was quite simply, simple superiority complex. As David Halberstam points out in his book The Reckoning, General Motors and Ford were quite loose in sharing technology with the Japanese in the 1950s because they never believed that the Japanese would succeed in making cars that would even remotely rival an American-designed car. A third reason was the priority Washington placed on the Cold War alliance against communism, which made the Americans cast a bening glance at Japan, Korea, and Taiwan's deviations from protectionism and deviations from free-market policies as well as their unauthorized use and adaptation of the technologies of American firms. The change in the US attitude stemmped from a variety of factors, including the end of the Cold War and the growing strength of the East Asian economies, which increasingly became perceived as economic rivals as they built up trade surpluses with the United States. But most important was the realization that with the speeding up of the microelectronic revolution, possession of high tech and the capacity to innovate based on sophisticated complex knowledge became the key determinant of both the long-term profitability of American firms and the strategic dominance of the US in the global economy. And to maintain the US strategic edge, it was important not only to lead in innovation but also to control the rate at which others could innovate. To achieve the latter, it was essential to develop an international legal regime, backed by punitive measures, that would allow US firms monopoly over the most advanced innovations. Thus the GATT TRIPs Accord, which has been a devastating setback for the natural process of the universalization of knowledge and a giant step towards its privatization and monopolization. The Rise of Rentier Capitalism One of the likely consequences of this trend is the emergence of rentier capitalism in the high-tech industry. Already, an increasing part of the income of some US firms, like Texas Instruments, derives from royalty from past innovations rather than profits based on current market performance. Another consequence might be the dampening of high-tech innovation in the industrializing countries. For when any company wishes to innovate, say in chips design, it necessarily has to integrate several patented designs and processes, most of them from US hardware and software specialists like Intel, Microsoft, Texas Instruments and IBM. As Korean firms like Samsung and Hyundai have bitterly learned from their experience of being targetted for "intellectual property violations" by US government agencies, exorbitant royalty payments to what one analyst has described as the "US high-tech mafia" keeps one's profit margins down while also reducing incentives for indigenous innovation based on the creative integration of updating patented technologies. "Pirates" Versus Feudal Overlords It is true that the people that US Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor derisively describes as 'pirates' are out to turn a profit for themselves and can hardly be said to be acting consciously in the service of humanity. But, in spite of their private motivations, "pirates" are, objectively, acting as the great democratizers of high-tech, making it available to millions of people who would not otherwise have access to it as an exorbitantly priced product. The real obstance to the democratization of high technology are today's grand seigneurs, the American high-tech transnationals that, in classic Orwellian doublespeak, are advancing their high-stakes game of defending techno-monopoly in the name of defending "intellectual property rights." Make no mistake about it: They will make the protection of those rights, alongside trade and investment liberalization, the centerpiece of APEC. From amc at HK.Super.NET Tue Nov 5 23:16:22 1996 From: amc at HK.Super.NET (AMC) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 22:16:22 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 228] Declaration: women migrants In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19961104123732.09778ca8@is1.hk.super.net> Message-ID: 5 November 1996 DECLARATION We, the members of the Asian Network on Women and International Migration (ANWIM), coming from nine countries in the Asian and Pacific region, on the occasion of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women on the 25th November, express our concern for the plight of women migrant workers and call for particular attention to their increasing vulnerability to violence, leading in some cases to death. This physical, verbal, psychological and sexual violence caused by the nature of their work - in homes, factories and entertainment centres - is a gross denial of their human rights, and a victimisation based on their gender and ethnicity. We re-affirm our position that women migrant workers, regardless of immigration and labour status, have rights as workers and as human beings as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of Migrants and their Families, the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women and other conventions. We call upon all governments to recognise foreign domestic workers in labour legislation, to ensure the enforcement of protective mechanisms in both sending and receiving countries, and in the case of undocumented workers, to recognise their status as contract workers. We demand accountability from States for the violence perpetrated and for the full use of their laws in ensuring justice for victims and their rights to obtain legal redress. We call upon other women's organisations, trade unions and human rights groups to condemn all forms of violence against women migrant workers as a gross violation of basic human rights, We urge them to continue to provide support and services to women migrant workers. We commit ourselves to continue to work and advocate just and humane treatment of women migrant workers. Declaration of the Consultative Meeting of the Asian Network on Women and International Migration (ANWIM) held from 9 - 12 October 1996, Batam Island, Indonesia. ANWIM is a network which arose from a research project of the Gender and Development (GAD) Programme of the Asian and Pacific Development Centre (APDC), Malaysia, on Trade in Domestic Workers: Causes, Mechanisms and Consequences, (1987-1992). ANWIM is a network which arose from a research project of the Gender and Development (GAD) Programme of the Asian and Pacific Development Centre (APDC), Malaysia, on Trade in Domestic Workers: Causes, Mechanisms and Consequences, (1987-1992). From kctuint at chollian.dacom.co.kr Thu Nov 7 12:45:57 1996 From: kctuint at chollian.dacom.co.kr (KCTU-International) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 11:45:57 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 229] 1996 KCTU National Workers Rally Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961107114014.27ef5c9a@is1.hk.super.net> KOREAN CONFEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS ---------------------------------------------------------------- --------- Invitation 1996 National Workers Rally for Labour Law Reform November 10, 1996 * * * * * Dear Brothers and Sisters, Warm greetings from Seoul. I have great pleasure in inviting you to our "1996 National Workers Rally for Labour Law Reform". I am keenly aware that our invitation comes at too short a notice. This was brought about by the continuing uncertainty over the prospects of labour law reforms in Korea. We hope that you can take part or send a delegation to take part in and witness the historic moment in our decade-long struggle for labour law reform despite the shortness of the notice. The "1996 National Workers Rally" comes at a crucial time. Currently the Presidential Commission on Industrial Relations Reform is engaged in preparatory work for the amendment of the various labour laws. As you are well aware the Commission's work and the entire process for the reform have arrived at the most critical moment. We believe that by the November 10, the day of the Rally, we will be able to know whether the legislative reforms will be realised this year or postponed indefinitely. The Rally will be a moment for demonstrating the will of the trade union movement. We expect some 200,000 people, including 100,000 workers from the KCTU-affiliated unions, to take part in the Rally. The KCTU has decided to organise the participation of 20% of total membership which currently stands at 500,000. Some of the affiliated unions have made individual commitments to mobilise more that the "allocated" 20% level. The Rally is expected to be one of the largest gathering since the historic events of 1987. We know well the efforts you and your organisation have undertaken in support of our struggle for labour law reforms. Your solidarity and support have been instrumental in forcing the Korean government to be more sincere in its commitment for labour law reforms. Your efforts have given added momentum to our struggle. This is why we hope that you can be with us in the Rally as we launch ourselves into the final stage of the struggle for labour law reform. If it is not possible to make arrangements for participation in the Rally, we hope you can send a "solidarity message" which we could read at the Rally. The 500,000 members, whose bodies, eyes and ears will tune in on the Rally on November 10, 1996, I am certain, are eager to welcome you with thunderous applause for the strength of the solidarity you have extended to our struggle. Looking forward to your presence in the Rally Sincerely yours, KWON, Young-kil President From kctuint at chollian.dacom.co.kr Thu Nov 7 12:45:51 1996 From: kctuint at chollian.dacom.co.kr (KCTU-International) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 11:45:51 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 230] KCTU President Begins a Hunger Strike Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961107114010.09ffcfc8@is1.hk.super.net> KOREAN CONFEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS -------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Struggle for Labour Law Reforms Campaign News X November 4, 1996 KCTU President Begins a Hunger Strike The Most Critical Moment President KWON, Young-kil of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, on November 4, 1996, began an indefinite hunger strike to protest the increasing attempt by the government and employers to worsen the labour laws. The hunger strike by President KWON, Young-kil comes in response to the continuing failure of the government to make a commitment for the reform of the labour laws towards a comprehensive guarantee of freedom of association. The decision for hunger strike was announced on November 1, 1996, in the 9th session of the Central Committee. The Central Committee also decided to resume KCTU attendance in the meetings of the Presidential Commission on Industrial Relations Reform. The Central Committee explained that KCTU needs to resume an active intervention in the Commission in order to prevent the unilateral adoption of a reform package that lacks any progress on the vital freedom of association issues. Backward Progess The Presidential Commission on Industrial Relations Reform, on October 7, 1996, in the first meeting since the decision of non-attendance by the KCTU on October 2, 1996, undertook a number of decisions which called for a worsening of the labour laws. The FKTU, employer, and public interest representatives in the PCIR, in the absence of the KCTU representatives, agreed to prohibit the use of the term "trade union" by non-registered trade unions; an insertion of a new clause specifying the power of a union president to adopt a collective bargaining agreement; and inclusion of the communication industry in the category of "essential services" which are subject to "compulsory arbitration" banning all forms of industrial dispute. The decision to prohibit the use of the term "trade union" by non-registered trade unions and their federations would have, in the absence of an amendment of the current law banning union pluralism, the effect of making such organisations as the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, the Korean Federation of Metalworkers Unions, the Korean Teachers and Education Workers Union, etc. illegal as long as they use the term "trade union" or "union" in their names. The new clause giving the union president a power to adopt a collective bargaining agreement would have effect of banning the procedure of putting the tentative agreement to the vote of the union general meeting for ratification. This would jeopardise the internal democracy in the unions, and open up the possibility of management manipulation of the union decision making process. The inclusion of the communication industry in the category of "essential services" came just prior to the decision by the Delegates Conference of the Korea Telecom Trade Union, which has a membership of 50,000, to seek affiliation with the KCTU. The communication industry was originally -- when the KCTU representatives participated in the PCIR meetings -- excluded from the list of "essential service". The discussions on "essential services" focused on the need to limit the abuse of arbitrary state and government intervention and the excessive restrictions on the right to strike provided for by the current labour laws (cf. Chapter 4, the Labour Dispute Adjustment Act). PCIR Stalled - Grim Prospects for Reform On October 25, 1996, the Presidential Commission on Industrial Relations Reform, held the 12th plenary session in the absence of the KCTU representatives and finalised a total of 107 items of recommendations for legislative amendment. PCIR, however, has failed to reach any conclusion on some 30 issues, including the major freedom of association issues, such as, union pluralism, third party intervention, the right of teachers and government employees to form unions, and the key labour market deregulation issues. The failure of the PCIR to reach any conclusion on the substantial and core issues of labour law reform have led to a wide spread call from the employers and the economic offices of the government to either undertake a unilateral measures for labour market deregulation or to postpone the whole reform discussion indefinitely. At the same time, a considerable section of the PCIR, including the FKTU representatives, strengthened their demand to adopt only the currently agreed items as the PCIR's recommendations for legislative amendment to be presented to President Kim, Young-sam. This would have the effect of excluding the core freedom of association issues from the agenda of the labour law reform. As a result, the dominant view in the run up to the 12th plenary session of the PCIR on October 25, 1996, was that the PCIR would bring an end to the current discussions and prepare its report to the President. This would have put the government in a position to make a critical decision. Three options would have been available to the Kim Young-sam government. One, the government could adopt the recommendation tabled by the Commission which lacks any proposal on the core freedom of association issues. Two, it could prepare a unilateral package which may include the some reform measures lacking in the recommendation of the Commission, that is, amendments for the freedom of association issues. Three, the government could dismiss the whole reform agenda and decide to postpone the entire effort on the basis of a lack of agreement in the PCIR on the fundamental issues. In view of such a choice set before the government, the powerful economic ministries and business lobby groups (representing the 30 largest chaebol groups) launched a concerted campaign calling for the a total postponement. Presidential deus ex machina - a possible turning point The final conclusion of the whole reform discussion, however, was put off for few more days, as a result of the deus ex machina intervention by president Kim, Young-sam. On October 25, 1996, expected to be the last day of the Commission's work on legislative amendment, president Kim, Young-sam sent a letter to all of the Commission members congratulating them for their work so far and urging them to redouble their efforts towards an agreement on the key issues and to present the recommendations for legislative amendment by November 9, 1996. The unprecedented "presidential letter", raising various interpretations, had the effect of cooling down the wide-spread calls for postponement. On the surface, the "presidential letter" could be seen as a call on the PCIR to adopt some form of recommendation for the key freedom of association issues. The "presidential letter" does not suggest any plan of action on the part of the government in case the PCIR is unable to reach an agreement -- due to the continuing differences of position between the employers and labour participating in the Commission. However, the powerful economic ministries continue to insist that, as reported on November 28, 1996, government should push ahead with a unilateral amendment -- focusing on the labour market deregulation issues -- if there is no agreement in the PCIR. Despite the "presidential letter", the pessimistic view that there would not be any progress on the labour legislation amendment for the guarantee of the freedom of association and that there would be a worsening of the employment related laws -- the labour market deregulation measures -- remain dominant. KCTU's Commitment and Determination The decision of the Central Committee, on November 1, 1996, to resume attendance at the PCIR meetings reflects the urgency of the "changed situation" -- the possibility of a regressive amendment of the employment related labour laws and a changed configuration of forces surrounding the amendment of the freedom of association issues. The Central Committee decided to take part in the PCIR plenary session scheduled for November 4, 1996, and the drafting sub-committee meeting prior to the plenary session. The Central Committee also decided to organise sit-in strike action by all the KCTU-affiliated federation in support of President Kwon, Young-kil's hunger strike. President Kwon's hunger strike is aimed at preventing any further worsening of the employment related labour laws (the labour market deregulation measures) and in realising a full legislative guarantee of freedom of association. The hunger strike by President Kwon, Young-kil and the sit-in strike by KCTU-affiliated federations and regional councils will lead to the National Workers Rally on November 10, 1996, and the possible call for a national general strike for a genuine labour law reform. From tapol at gn.apc.org Thu Nov 7 12:45:46 1996 From: tapol at gn.apc.org (by way of daga ) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 11:45:46 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 231] APCET II Urges Malaysian Media Not To Be Cowed Into Silence Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961107114005.09ffcfc8@is1.hk.super.net> From: tapol (Tapol) Subject: APCET II Urges Malaysian Media Not To Be Cowed Into Silence APCET II URGES MALAYSIAN MEDIA NOT TO BE COWED INTO SILENCE APCET II Press Release November 6th 1996 Kula Lumpar, Wed - The organisers of the Second Asia Pacific Conference on East Timor (APCET II) tonight urged the local media not to be intimidated by a government directive to cease coverage of the Conference. Deputy Home Minister Datuk Junid Megat Ayob today summoned senior local media officals to a closed door meeting at his office. It has been learnt by the APCET II organisers that the Deputy Minister discouraged local media organisations from covering the international Conference. It is the latest step taken by the Malaysian government to hinder the international Conference, which seeks to promote initiatives and dialogue to hasten the peace process in East Timor. On Monday, the Deputy Minister summoned representatives of the APCET II organisers and appealed to them to cancel the Conference. The following day, the APCET II organisers announced that they would proceed. Dr. Sansui Osman, spokesperson for APCET II urged the Malaysian media to maintain their integrity in the face of government pressure. Dr Sanusi asked; "How can friendly ties be based on media gags? "Our media has a special responsibility to inform the public of the truth. For to long our fellow Malaysians have been kept in the dark about the terrible tragedy happening in our front yard. It is our right, as Malaysians, to know what has been happening, and to support work towards a satisfactory resolution. "I also apepeal to the national union of journalists to support this peaceful and legitimate initative and ensure that their members are not prevented from carrying out thier work," Dr Sanusi added. The conference is being hosted by a coaliton of Malaysian non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and is a joint effort with international organisations which form the Asia Pacific Coalition on East Timor. About 200 people representing 75 organisations in 24 countries are expected to attend. Enquires: Dr Sansui Osman Tel 60 18 826 6625 Note: Malaysian media are subject to the Printing Presses and Publications Act which require annual renewable licensing of all newspapers and printing presses. Similarly all broadcasting media also require licences under the Broadcasting Act. The licences are granted by the Ministry of Home Affairs. From daga at HK.Super.NET Thu Nov 7 12:46:15 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 11:46:15 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 232] from Bayan: Ramos Gov't. Suppresses Opposition to APEC Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961107114034.27ef85c0@is1.hk.super.net> URGENT ACTION APPEAL 5 November 1996 Re: Ramos Government Suppresses Opposition to APEC From: Satur C. Ocampo, Spokesperson People's Conference Against Imperialist Globalization Telephone: c/o Bayan (63-2) 721-1021 loc. 229/252 Fax (63-2) 924-6901 Attn: Bayan IRC (Urgent) email: < bayan@mnl.sequel.net> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- REPRESSION ESCALATES AS APEC SUMMIT NEARS A virtual martial rule is in effect in Central Luzon, the region just north of Metro-Manila where the Fourth Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Leaders' Summit will be held on Nov. 24-25. On the pretext of "security preparations"against "terroristic activities" targetting chiefs of state who are attending the APEC summit, this state of martial rule has actually become a convenient excuse for suppressing anti-APEC opposition, dismantling legitimate people's organizations and economically displacing populations to pave the way for so-called development projects intended for foreign investors. In Metro-Manila, a state of war has been declared by the government of President Fidel V. Ramos against five million urban poor residents while signs of a violent clampdown against anti-APEC mass organizations are fast developing. Again while the eviction campaign may be designed to hide the squalor and poverty and project a Philippines in progress, it actually uproots millions of homeless Filipinos struggling to survive and fighting for their economic rights while allowing giant real estate developers, road-building conglomerates and MNCs to march in. Central Luzon . The state of martial rule in Central Luzon -- overshooting the scale of Marcos dictatorial rule 10 years ago -- is characterized by the following: 1) The deployment of nine battalions of Philippine Army troops in addition to Philippine National Police (PNP) forces, totalling about 50,000, in at least three of the region's six provinces, namely, Bataan, Zambales and Pampanga. Seven special Task Forces composed of other security forces are in place: five in Zambales and one at Clark (the former US airbase in Angeles City, Pampanga). Reinforcing them are PNP Special Action Forces (mostly in Bataan) and composite contingents which include Marines. In addition to these, notorious paramilitary groups particularly the Citizens Armed Force Geographical Units (Cafgus) and the Community Volunteer Organizations (CVOs) are reactivated in almost all provinces. Other paramilitary units (such as Anak-Bayan and Kamagong) are operating region-wide, including Bulacan and Nueva Ecija. Other civilians have also been armed as part of the Community-Based Special Action Forces (COBSAF) which are deployed in at least four provinces. Barangay (village) officials and students are also recruited as informers to monitor the activities of anti-APEC organizations, individuals and their offices. 2) Curfew, checkpoints, ID System. Curfew is now imposed in four towns of Zambales, including Olongapo which hosts Subic (the former US naval base, site of the APEC Leaders Summit). The controversial national ID system (which has been opposed as a curtailment of individual liberties) is in effect also in Zambales and in neighboring Pangasinan province. Checkpoints manned by PNP and town officials are also in place along highways and other strategic routes, on the pretext of protecting commuters from holdups and robberies. 3) Curtailment of freedom of speech and assembly. In Bataan and Zambales schools, police are conducting room-to-room meetings, warning students of "salvaging" (euphemism for summary execution) those who opposed APEC. Critics and opponents of APEC are thus called "communist terrorists." Anti-APEC meetings are banned especially in Olongapo, and so is critical political graffiti. The massive deployment of troops and subsequent restrictions and semi-hamletting of communities however are turning out to be directed against those opposed to APEC -- particularly the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, allied groups such as the League of Filipino Students (LFS) as well as justice and peace and human rights organizations, which are members of the Philippine Organizing Committee (POC) of the People's Conference Against Imperialist Globalization and the People's Caravan Against APEC.. Surveillance, harassment and threats of "salvaging" of members of these cause-oriented organizations have been taking place in Bataan, Zambales, Pampanga and Nueva Ecija particularly since June and have notably been intensified today. A "hit list" or order of battle is reportedly being circulated in Bataan and Zambales, implicating and linking leaders of people's organizations to "terrorists." Having been lumped with and fingered publicly as "terrorists," anti-APEC oppositionists especially militant groups are now a fair play for arrest or assassination by state and anti-left fanatic forces. Reports by Bayan-Central Luzon reveal the following, as of Oct. 26, 1996: 25 cases of harassment/intimidation, zoning operations (Bataan and Pampanga), raid of a house (also in Bataan), illegal searches and looting. In Samal, Bataan last Sept. 14, peasant leader Nicanor Herrera, 44, was found hanging dead from a tree with a nylon rope around his neck. His body bore bruises and torture marks. (Witnesses told a fact-finding mission that Army troopers from the 24th IB were the only ones near the scene when the incident could have happened. The soldiers appeared drunk.) Allegedly as part of the APEC preparations, peasant communities along with urban poor families are being displaced. At least 1,000 families are set to be evicted from their decades-old farmlands inside Clark for reasons of security and to pave the way for an expansion project that would attract foreign investments. Another 31,000 Mt. Pinatubo evacuees will likewise face eviction from their resettlement areas -- likewise for security reasons. Hundreds of families have also been evicted and a number of small business establishments torn down in Tarlac (where APEC delegates will visit former President Corazon Aquino's Hacienda Luisita) and in Zambales particularly Olongapo. Meanwhile, close to 42,000 workers inside Subic will be forced to take leaves without pay weeks before the summit. Metro-Manila. A wave of demolitions affecting thousands of urban poor families is underway in this metropolis since Ramos ordered last June the fast-track demolition of so-called "squatter colonies" in order to clear eyesores and beautify the metropolis for the APEC dignitaries. Since June, the houses of about 5,000 urban poor families (or 30,000 residents) have been demolished violently by city authorities, police elements and goons armed with bulldozers, high-powered rifles, truncheons, teargas, water cannons and German shepherds. Demolitions were also marked by the destruction and burning of kitchen utensils and personal effects as well as shooting and beatings. Three persons (including two urban poor organizers) have been killed with at least 100 others including children injured. BAYAN estimates that Ramos' demolition orders affect close to five million urban poor residents in the metropolis. (Half of the metropolis' 9 million population is urban poor.) Urban poor leaders and organizers, meanwhile, have been threatened with arrest and possible "salvaging." People's Conference and Caravan. The Ramos government is paranoid about the People's Conference and Caravan strongly opposed to "globalization" in general and WTO-APEC in particular. Its blanket policy of banning some conference speakers and delegates from entry to Manila is a clear violation of one's right to freedom of expression and of movement. Militarization in Central Luzon has the immediate goal of preventing the villagefolks from joining the People's Caravan, which will pass through the towns and provinces of the region. Olongapo City officials ban anti-APEC rallies and other mass actions. As the Ramos government is unable to stem opposition to APEC by those who are most adversely affected by imperialist globalization, it chooses to silence them and deprive them of any forum. These reports underscore the fact that authoritarian rule, said to have been written off 10 years ago with the fall of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos, remains a reality in the Philippines. Some observers say this is just a prelude to the Ramos agenda for a prolonged political rule beyond 1998 when his term ends. The harsh realities show that coercive means are at the disposal of government to ram down its policies on the Filipino people particularly its pro-APEC agenda and to stifle opposition. To ensure that his military orders are followed, Ramos packed the National Organizing Committee for the APEC Summit with retired generals including former Armed Forces Chief Gen. Lisandro Abadia. US intervention is likewise evident insofar as security preparations and training of government troops assigned to APEC are concerned: all preparations are closely monitored by US military officers. Military officials have in fact been reported as saying, "We are ready to sacrifice a handful of rabble-rousers and obstructionists to make the APEC Summit a success." Yet they, along with Ramos himself, have consistently denied that militarization is in the works in Central Luzon saying that "saboteurs and terrorist trouble-makers" are just "inventing fiction." Ramos meanwhile has said, "demolitions must go on." Against those criticizing militarization in Central Luzon, the chair of the Senate Defense Committee (Sen. Orlando Mercado) himself declared that an "overkill" is in fact necessary. Interior and Local Government Secretary Robert Barbers has ironically admitted ordering PNP forces to conduct surveillance on activist groups especially those opposed to APEC. The militarization and repression of human rights in Central Luzon -- as what is also obtaining in other regions of the country -- go beyond APEC. The state's wrath against the poor masses of men, women and children -- peasants, workers, urban poor, national minorities, fisherfolk -- goes beyond APEC for as long as the globalization-advocate Philippine government is subservient to foreign investors and domestic elite. The track record of the government -- from the time of Marcos, Aquino and now Ramos -- remains anti-poor, anti-democratic and pro-elite, pro-foreign big business. At the core of this orientation is an iron fist made infamous by the Philippines' current president -- himself an architect of Marcos' martial rule and of Aquino's "total war policy" against militant groups and revolutionary guerillas and which also left a litany of human rights violations. Meantime, with the surge of militant mass protests against APEC and imperialist globalization and as the APEC Leaders' Summit nears, counter-opposition activities and other restrictions, as well as mass displacements and demolitions, are expected to escalate with impunity. In view of the foregoing and what is yet to come, we call on you and your friends, who are concerned with the current state of siege in our country, to immediately do the following: 1) Demand the immediate pull-out of all troops in Central Luzon, including the dismantling of paramilitary units and other armed civilian components; 2) Demand an immediate stop to all forms of harassment and intimidation against the people of Central Luzon particularly cause-oriented organizations, their leaders and members, and the prosecution and punishment of perpetrators of human rights violations; 3) Demand a stop to the eviction of urban poor and peasant communities, adequate compensation for and the resettlement of those already displaced to their former residences and places of work; also a stop to anti-labor policies and orders; and 4) Demand the rescinding of the government policy which arbitrarily bans the entry of speakers and delegates to anti-APEC conferences and other fora, and illegalizes holding of any anti-APEC people's action in Olongapo City. Please conduct signature campaigns and write letters of concern, statements, petitions and resolutions. They can be addressed to any of the following: President Fidel V. Ramos Malacanang, Manila, Philippines Gen. Lisandro Abadia Chair, APEC National Organizing Committee Malacanang, Manila, Philippines Your Government, Head of your official APEC delegation Applicable UN Agency Please furnish us a copy for our information and files, and for information of Philippine Media thru the: POC, People's Conference Fax (63-2) 924 6901 Attn: Bayan IRC (Urgent) e-mail: cc: From daga at HK.Super.NET Thu Nov 7 16:14:10 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 15:14:10 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 233] Interdoc/DAGA open public session on the information economy, November 17, 1996 in Manila, Philippines Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961107150830.19c72518@is1.hk.super.net> Dear Friends, This is to invite those of you who will be attending the various initiatives on APEC in Manila to a one-day public session on the information economy this November 17, 1996 (Sunday) at the Horeb House of the Philippine Episcopal Church, Quezon City, Philippines. Please confirm your attendance with Roberto "Obet" Verzola not later than 15 November at . Registration to the one-day open session is free, but those who can contribute USD 10. towards lunch/snacks and materials will be greatly appreciated. Yours sincerely, Mario Mapanao ARE WE READY FOR THE GLOBAL INFORMATION ECONOMY? (The Emerging Global Information Economy And The Responses Of Social Movements) A workshop sponsored by Interdoc and DAGA in Manila, Philippines - November 16-20, 1996 Background: Within the span of a few short years, the global information economy has become a reality for most countries. With the Internet reaching into practically every country in the world, and growing at a rate of up to 10% per month, the basic infrastructure for this economy is rapidly taking shape. Soon, as media, entertainment, communications, and data converge on the Internet, it will become THE infrastructure for producing, marketing, distributing, and even paying for information goods and services. Social movements have so far shown different responses towards this development. On the one hand, many welcome the Internet as an inexpensive, empowering medium of communication and information exchange. On the other hand, many consider its intrusion an integral part of the whole process of globalization, which is wreaking havoc on the life, livelihood and culture of millions of underprivileged and the voiceless, not to mention the impact of this process on the environment. Very little systematic analysis on the implications of the global information economy on southern countries, peoples, and social movements has been done and many are unprepared to respond properly to its entry into local economies. This workshop intends to tackle this issue head-on. What are the threats as well as the opportunities presented by the emerging information economy? Which aspect predominates? Who will benefit from the global information economy? Who will lose? How should social movements respond to its impact? These are among the questions we will try to answer in the course of our four days of deliberation. 1996 also commemorates 10 years of Interdoc activity in Asia. The workshop will be an opportune occasion to critically look back, evaluate the state of our documentation and electronic networking activities, and together move forward. You are most welcome to join us in this effort. Objectives: 1. To discuss the implications of the emerging information economy, including the internet, on developing countries, peoples of the south and social movements. 2. To identify factors within this emerging economy and its infrastructures and institutions that are favorable as well as those which are unfavorable to social movements and popular concerns. 3. To discuss how social movements may respond to the favorable as well as unfavorable factors, to further advance the interests of countries and peoples of the south, particularly the poor. 4. To strengthen networking among groups involved in this field, particularly information and network providers who are working amongst social movements. 5. To consolidate Interdoc as an organization that can help social movements respond to the challenges of the emerging global information economy. Target participants: 1. NGO information providers such as databanks, documentation centers, alternative news agencies. 2. NGO network providers such as email operators, internet service providers, etc. 3. Leaders of social movements and non-government organizations. Workshop dates: We will hold the Interdoc/DAGA workshop from Nov. 16-20, 1996 at about the same time as various initiatives on APEC, which will be held in Manila around these dates. This will enable us to interact with people's organizations and NGO leaders who will be attending the alternative APEC meetings. Nov. 17, Sunday - Open Public Session Horeb House, Philippine Episcopal Church National Office, Quezon City (Note: This is the latest draft programme for the open public session, subject to some changes.) am 8:00- 9:00 Registration 9:00- 9:30 Introductions 9:30-10:00 Introductory Remarks Roberto Verzola, Interdoc *** Break *** The Global Information Economy: Sectoral Views (Issues, concerns and sectors identified are tentative and names indicated are either contact persons or prospective speakers. Alotted time includes open forum.) 10:30-11:00 Women Karen Banks, APC Women's Program 11:00-11:30 Workers Rex Varona, APEC Labour Rights Monitor (incl. Migrant Workers) (ALARM) 11:30-12:00 Farmers 12:00-12:30 Indigenous Peoples *** Lunch Break *** 14:00-14:30 Urban Poor 14:30-15:00 Human Rights Sanjeewa, Asian Human Rights Council *** Break *** 15:30-16:00 Environment 16:00-16:30 Alternative Media Kunda Dixit, Inter Press Service (IPS) 16:30-17:00 Information Providers Mario Mapanao, Documentation for Action Groups in Asia (DAGA) 17:00-17:30 Network Providers Leo Fernandez, AsiaLink/Indian Social Institute (ISI) 17:30-18:30 Impact of the Global Information Economy: Summing Up of Sectoral Views Jagdish Parikh, Interdoc Technical Sharing *** Dinner *** 20:00-21:00 Multi-cultural presentation, Asian Council for People's Culture (ACPC) 21:00 Departure for Silang, Cavite (2-hour trip) Public session venue, 17 Nov: Horeb House Philippine Episcopal Church 275 E. Rodriguez Sr. Avenue Quezon City Phone: (63 2) 722 8492, 722 9469 Fax: (63 2) 721 1923 E-mail: ecp@phil.gn.apc.org From jagdish at igc.apc.org Thu Nov 7 16:29:18 1996 From: jagdish at igc.apc.org (Jagdish Parikh) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 15:29:18 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 234] Sustainable Food Security Convention Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961107152337.1c0fa552@is1.hk.super.net> ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 14:28:40 -0800 (PST) From: klehman@iatp.org (Karen Lehman) Subject: Sustainable Food Security Convention Dear Friends, For the past several months, a group of NGOs from Latin America, Asia, North America, Europe and Africa has been evolving a proposal for a Sustainable Food Security Convention to present at the NGO Forum at the World Food Summit. The idea for a Convention emerged from our disappointment with the limited options that have resulted from the FAO's effort to draft a Plan of Action to end world hunger. Our goal is to create the policy framework at the international level that will foster sustainable food security at the local, national, regional and international levels. We believe that food security is not possible without a sustainable agriculture that both protects the environment into the distant future, and provides peasant and family farmers with the means to continue to earn their livelihoods from the land by receiving fair prices for their labor. We urge that the global agriculture system be restructured to reduce volatility in agriculture markets and to correct the imbalance that currently exists between food surplus and food deficit countries and regions. To achieve these aims, we see that a number of reforms are necessary. We need to implement a Code of Conduct on the Right to Food which calls on national governmentsto implement policies that ensure access by their citizens to safe, adequate, nutritious food supplies. We need to reform the agriculture provisions of the World Trade Organization that undermine food security. And we need to create a new legally binding global framework through a Convention that formally establishes food security in the structure of international law. These approaches are complementary, not contradictory, and groups are working to integrate them into a comprehensive strategy at the Summit and beyond. We invite your organization to endorse the attached call for a Sustainable Food Security Convention. (The English text appears below, as well as in the attachment. We will send a Spanish version under separate cover.) Please send your name and your identification as you would like it to appear to klehman@iatp.org or fax it to (1) 612-379-5982. Also, please distribute the text to your networks. We will be distributing this text (perhaps with a few revisions) at the NGO Forum and at the World Food Summit. We look forward to hearing from you and to working with you in the future. Regards, Convention Drafting Group Rudi Buntzel - Germany Entwicklungspolitische Bildungsarbeit auf dem Lande in der EKD Tel: (49) 7942--107-78 Fax: (49) 7942--107-77 email: EBW@LINK-CR.cl.sub.de Mikako Iba - Japan NESSFE Tel. & Fax: (81) 333-25-57-72 email: eric@gol.com Karen Lehman and Mark Ritchie - USA Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) Tel: (1) 612-379-5980 Fax: (1) 612-379-5982 email: klehman@iatp.org, mritchie@iatp.org Chico Menezes - Brazil IBASE Tel: (55) 21-286-6161 Fax: (55) 21-286-0348 email: chico@ax.apc.org Jeanot Minla Mfou'ou - Cameroon APM-Africa Tel: (237) 21-83-89 Fax: (237) 20--55-20 email: minla@reseau.apm.cm Antonio Onorati - Italy Centro Internazionale Crocevia and Italian Committee for the NGO Forum Tel: (39) 6-5747613 Fax: (39) 6-5758383 email: ngoforum@rmnet.it Joseph Rocher and Meredyth Bowler - France RONGEAD Tel: (33) 78-61-32.23 Fax: (33) 78-69-86-96 email: rongead@lyonnet.dtr.fr Victor Suarez Carrera - Mexico Associacion Nacional de Empresas Comercializadoras (ANEC) Tel: (525) 661-5914 Fax: (525) 661-5909 email: anec@laneta.apc.org Pierre Vuarin - France Fondation Charles Leopold Mayer pour le Progres de l'Homme (FPH) Tel: (33) 1-43- 57-44-22 Fax: (33) 11-43-57-26-83 email: pvuarin@fph.fr -------- Note: This Plan to achieve a Sustainable Food Security Convention will require a comprehensive decentralized global strategy for its implementation. We welcome everyone to use the concept and this document in any way that may help. It is being continually revised. Please send comments to Karen Lehman, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. Fax: (612) 379-5980 or Email: Thank you. Plan of Action to Achieve Universal Food Security Revised 10/29/96 Background: Events of the past two years have underscored significant problems in the global food system. Shortages and skyrocketing prices have distressed food importing nations that dismantled domestic food security policies to conform to demands for structural adjustment demands by global financial institutions and by the new global trade regime. Multilateral agencies such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) are narrowly focussed on promoting the idea that food security can be bought and sold on the world market. Many governments in developing countries, especially those who need to import much of their food, are emphasizing the need to base food security first on local and national production and equitable distribution. The primary goal of an internationally coordinated approach to food security is to increase stability in the food supply by reducing volatility in agricultural markets, and by making food production and distribution sytems sustainable over the long term. Such an approach requires that food security be planned and implemented primarily at the local and national levels with support for diversified peasant and family farm systems. Trade can complement domestic food security strategies, but it cannot be allowed to replace them. Why a convention? Multilateral collaboration on the development of a viable global food security system is more important than ever with the passage of the Uruguay Round trade agreement. With significant power over agriculture policy shifting to the World Trade Organization, farmer, consumer, and environmental organizations, as well as national governments, have lost many of the policy tools they once could employ to defend food security. There is a great need for a global debate on forms of multilateral collaboration that place food security, not trade, as the highest priority. Key to this debate is the role that civil society can play, not only in collaboration with national governments, but in a process of negotiation under UN auspices to bring food security strategies into equilibrium among civil, government and private interests.1 Conventions are treaties. They are instruments for building accountability within the structure of international law. There are conventions to protect the atmosphere from ozone depleting chemicals and to protect the Earth's biodiversity, as well as to reduce the risk of nuclear war. The time is ripe for a convention to protect the Earth's people from hunger. With a convention in place, nations create the framework to define specific conditions under which food security, not trade alone, must be the highest priority in the development and implementation of local, national, and international agriculture and trade policy.2 Toward a Sustainable Food Security Convention It is time to begin negotiations for a Sustainable Food Security Convention to assist governments and civil society in their responsibility to achieve food security and to establish a global network of local, national and regional reserves. Basis for Action: 1. Food security policy must help reduce the volatility of agricultural production cycles, markets, and prices. Farmers3 and consumers suffer at both ends of boom and bust cycles. Surpluses drive down agricultural prices and bankrupt farmers, while shortages raise prices beyond the ability of consumers to buy basic staples. 2. National governments, in conjunction with civil society, have the responsibility to guarantee adequate production and equitable access to safe, adequate, nutritious food supplies for their citizens. To do so, they must design and implement policies that protect the long-term capacity of farmers to produce food domestically in diverse agro- ecosystems. These include policies to protect domestic staple food production from export dumping; strategies to control, utilize, develop and protect land, water and genetic resources; and programs to ensure access to these resources for all farmers, including women and ethnic and racial minorities. 3. Global food stocks are poorly distributed between a few large exporting countries that produce more than their regional needs, and regions of the world that have become dependent upon imports from exporting countries. Food security strategies must take into account the differences between food surplus and food deficit countries and be structured accordingly.4 True food security depends on the capacity of peasant and family farmers to produce and store food locally for times of shortage, on decreased volatility in supplies and prices, and on reduced transport costs. Cereals, pulses and vegetables traditionally grown in a given region are generally better adapted to local climate and soil conditions, and require less purchased chemical inputs. From jagdish at igc.apc.org Thu Nov 7 16:29:23 1996 From: jagdish at igc.apc.org (Jagdish Parikh) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 15:29:23 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 235] Sustainable Food Security Convention, Part 2 Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961107152344.1c0fe81c@is1.hk.super.net> Actions: 1. The Food and Agriculture Organization should convene a process involving the General Assembly of the United Nations in negotiations for a Sustainable Food Security Convention. The intent of the Sustainable Food Security Convention is to elevate food security to the highest level of priority within international policy. Such a Convention would have five primary purposes: a.) To help national governments develop and implement national food security plans. These would include the identification of staple foods (primarily grains and legumes) and foods that provide micronutrients essential to domestic food security. These staple foods could be exempted from WTO rules and disciplines when said rules undermine national food security plans.5 Plans would also include policies to enhance farmers' capacity to provide nutritious and safe foods through diversity-based sustainable systems. b.) To develop an obligatory structure for consultation and negotiation that ensures that all actors (governments, nongovernmental organizations, and constituency-based organizations) have the right to participate in the formulation and implementation of proposals to advance food security at the local, national, and international levels. c.) To coordinate the creation and management of an international network of local, national and regional food reserves. The Convention would also provide for an independent grain auditing system. d.) To facilitate the development of international commodity agreements among importing and exporting countries. Such agreements could be structured both for concessional food transfers and to supplement domestic production to meet national demand for staple foods. In both cases, the goal is to ensure that demand is met without export dumping.6 e.) To create financial and technical mechanisms incorporated in and financed by the Convention to aid governments in disputes with other entities such as the WTO that might arise over food and agriculture policy.7 2. The Food and Agriculture Organization should initiate a process to create a Secretariat to implement this Convention.] Representatives from food surplus and food deficit countries including farmers, NGOs, other members of civil society, and representatives from other major food-related agencies such as the UN Conference on Trade and Development and the United Nations Development Program should also play a major role in defining and implementing policy. 3. The Convention's implementation will be financed by member contributions and/or alternative financing mechanisms such as a .01 percent tax on agricultural commodity trade or the proposed Tobin tax on international financial transactions. National Food Security Plans: With the support of the Secretariat, local and national governments, with the full participation of civil society, will develop national food security plans. These could include: - Definition and identification of domestic staple foods essential to food security. - Annual domestic staple food consumption projections with accompanying national production goals and commitments. These projections should also include volumes to be set aside in local and national reserves. - Implementation of domestic agriculture policies to support staple production for domestic consumption. These could include price supports for staple crops and exemption from mandatory import requirements. Countries could also implement import restrictions to ensure that staple food production not be threatened by export dumping. - Implementation of polices which support diverse sustainable agriculture and livelihood systems of production. These include land tenure systems that would ensure adequate land and water resources for farmers; the guaranteed access, use, development and free exchange of genetic resources; and the protection of Farmers' Rights.8 - Intellectual property laws that would exclude plant varieties, seeds and other genetic materials from patenting. Privatization of plants or animals or parts thereof, through patents and intellectual property rights regimes and other forms of exclusion like trade only in registered varieties, should be prohibited. - Support and incentives for on-farm conservation and development of biodiversity, and for research and extension programs designed by farmers to reflect their priorities. - Risk management policies to minimize the risk to health and the environment that may occur in the production, processing, distribution, preparation, consumption and disposal of foods and food products, including those that are genetically engineered. International Network of Local, National and Regional Reserves: 1. The Secretariat will work with governments, NGOs, farmers, and other members of civil society to develop plans to have a global network of local, national and regional reserves in place by the end of the next decade. 2. Food reserves will be built from the local level up. National food security plans could include plans for farmer- or community- managed reserves and should set targets for their development out of local production.9 3. Cooperation within regions (such as West Africa, the Caribbean, North America) is fundamental to food security. The network of reserves would be structured such that regional networks of reserves would be the first sources of food aid in times of emergency. 4. Costs for food reserves will be shared. The first priority is to reassign food aid funds from exporting countries for use by food deficit countries in the creation of local and national reserves. These funds would be replaced by funds earned from the alternative tax financing mechanisms as these become available. 5. The Secretariat will develop mechanisms to ensure that reserves are not managed to the detriment of producers and consumers. 1Such a process of negotiation could be conducted through a system of "open negotiating tables" at the local, regional, and international levels in which all significant actors have the right to intervene. 2Many existing multilateral agreements and Conventions, as well as the Draft Plan of Action, provide the underpinnings for the Sustainable Food Security Convention. A short list includes: - The Draft Plan of Action Objective 7.4, "To better define and further develop the Right to Food and propose ways to implement this right as an instrument to achieve food security." - The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - The United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - ILO Convention 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries - The Convention on Biological Diversity 3Throughout the text, the word "farmers" refers to peasant and family farmers, as well as other food producers such as fisherfolk. Corporate agriculture and agribusiness are not included in this term. 4Policies structured for food deficit countries could include the use of anti-dumping tariffs and prior informed consent for concessional food trade. For food surplus countries, they could center on access to food by the poor, support for local and regional food systems, and prohibitions against food dumping, export manipulation or harmful food aid policies. 5This question of staple foods requires more discussion. Many countries have consistently treated staple foods differently in domestic agriculture policy and have attempted to protect them from cheaper imports on the world market. Examples include the Canadian supply management system for dairy, poultry and eggs, and Mexico's former system of import licensing requirements, price supports for farmers, and subsidies to consumers for staples like corn and beans. Until the Uruguay Round was passed, countries with domestic supply management programs in place were able to restrict imports under Article 11. Under the logic of the Uruguay Round, all foodstuffs are commodities and should not be treated differently because of their importance to domestic food security. There are several basic perspectives on the question of staple foods and their treatment under international trade regimes. Some believe that a proposal to permit exemptions from WTO regimes for staple foods is a viable one that can garner support from a broad range of allies, not only in low income food deficit countries, but in countries like Korea and Japan that worked hard to protect its staple food, rice, during the Uruguay Round. Some fear that singling out any crop for different treatment could lead to overproduction and surpluses in that crop. Others question the viability of defining staple foods. Still others think it is too provocative to the global trade regime to suggest treatment for staple foods outside the confines of the WTO, preferring instead to insert safeguards for food security in the WTO. This proposal for a Convention suggests that staple foods, when they are part of domestic food security plans, should be exempt from WTO rules if these undermine said domestic food security initiatives. Conditions under which nations could exercise this exemption to WTO rules would be similar to those formerly required by GATT Article 11 (import controls when linked to domestic supply management programs) with the added requirement that the crop supplies under management be essential for food security. 6Drawing on the experience from international commodity agreements on such products as cacao and coffee, the Secretariat could work with staple food importing and exporting countries to develop reliable, stable supplies of staple foods for countries that are unable to fill domestic demand. Domestic demand also includes supplies for local and national reserves. 7Disputes involving any of the functions defined by the Convention, including conflicts with other international conventions and agreements, must be resolved in internationally recognized fora with equivalent authority to the WTO and not be restricted to the dispute settlement procedures of the WTO. The Secretariat would assist governments in challenges related to local, regional, or national food security planning and policy. 8See The International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources, W/V623.United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization 9The question of reserves requires more research and dialogue. While it is a broadly shared objective, mechanisms must be developed and refined. Farmers' organizations and consumer groups play a key role in the development and management of reserves. The Sustainable Food Security Convention, for example, could include programs to support agricultural and consumer cooperatives in the creation and management of reserves at the local level that could form part of the global reserve network. From arena at hk.net Thu Nov 7 17:32:55 1996 From: arena at hk.net (Asian Regional Exchange for New Alternatives (ARENA)) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 16:32:55 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 236] HK groups on Horta affair Message-ID: What follows is the letter sent to President Ramos by NGOs based in HK on the Jose Ramos Horta affair. ************************************************************************** 6 November 1996 President Fidel Ramos Malacanang Palace Manila, Philippines Dear President Ramos: The undersigned non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with headquarters in Hong Kong urge you to rescind your order refusing a Philippine visa to Professor Jose Ramos Horta (this year's Nobel Peace co-laureate) and other human rights campaigners who wish to participate in the Manila People's Forum on APEC (MPFA) or any other APEC-related NGO parallel activity. We view with serious apprehension the fact that your decision was influenced more by concern for Indonesian President Suharto's psychological and political well-being rather than the interests of the peoples in the Asia Pacific region. As a sovereign nation, the Philippines should be guided in its actions by the higher principle of democratic participation in all matters that affect the lives of its people. It goes without saying that the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) is a matter that concerns all citizens of its member economies, not just governments and big business. The various NGO initiatives on APEC such as the MPFA are attempts of civil movements to highlight the issues that they feel will not be given attention during the official meetings such as labour and migrant rights, gender and women's rights, democratic governance, and environment and social concerns. In order to achieve the best possible atmosphere for a frank and open discussion to take place, we must have the widest possible participation from all affected sectors, groups, and communities in the Asia Pacific. By depriving these forums of the presence of Mr. Ramos Horta your government is attempting to stifle the voices of the East Timorese people whose rights to self determination have been consciously violated all these years. In effect, your government becomes party to the violation of the civil, political, and human rights of the East Timorese people. Your government's action is rendered more incongruous by the fact that (like almost all members of the United Nations), the Philippines does not recognise Indonesia's claim to sovereignty over East Timor. Unless there has been a private agreement between you and Mr. Suharto on this matter, we urge you to stand by the official Philippine government position on the status of East Timor. We have seen how in the case of the SLORC regime in Burma and its application for ASEAN membership, you have taken the lead in drawing attention to the rights of the Burmese people to a democratic government. We are encouraged by this position and we ask that, at the very least, you likewise extend the same courtesy to the East Timorese people and Asia Pacific peoples in general and allow their representatives to come to Manila for the NGO parallel meetings on APEC. Yours truly, Bart Shaha, Secretary General, Asia Alliance of YMCAs Basil Fernando, Executive Director, Asian Human Rights Commission Rex Varona, Research Coordinator, Asian Migrant Centre Leong Pou Lam, Executive Director, Asia Monitor Resource Centre Ed Tadem, Coordinator, Asian Regional Exchange for New Alternatives Shum Yun Shan, Secretariat, Committee for Asian Women Lakshmi Daniel, Research Director, Documentation for Action Groups in Asia Keshav Pandey, Secretary, Asian Students Association Anthony Raj, Regional Coordinator, International Young Christian Workers (Asia Pacific) S. Samydorai - Asian Centre for the the Progress of Peoples - Hotline Desk Tarsi Fernando - People's Plan 21 - Secretariat Lau Kin Chi, Executive Committee, China Social Services and Development Research Centre From foewase at igc.apc.org Sat Nov 9 15:03:23 1996 From: foewase at igc.apc.org (Northwest FOE Office) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 22:03:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [asia-apec 237] ECO - APEC WATCH 1993 SEATTLE #1 Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961108220658.18df0a64@pop.igc.org> PLEASE POST GREETINGS APEC '96! I am posting the contents of ECO - APEC WATCH, four issues, that were published during APEC '93 in Seattle, WA. This should help provide some continuity for the NGO community in addressing APEC concerns. Anyone interested in attending APEC '97 in Vancouver, Canada, contact the Northwest Office, Friends of the Earth - Seattle, WA [foewase@igc.org]. The following is issue #1: David E. Ortman Northwest Friends of the Earth Seattle, WA ============================ Seattle, WA Early Edition No. 1 APEC WATCH ECO --------------------- ECO has been published by non-governmental groups at major international conferences since the Stockholm Environmental Conference in 1972. This issue is produced cooperatively by groups attending the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Meeting in Seattle, Washington, USA, in November, 1993. _________________ Welcome Delegates and News Media As part of the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), non- governmental organizations (NGO's) concerned with labor, human rights and environmental issues have gathered in Seattle to address impacts of trade on citizens and environment of the Pacific Rim. Tropical and temporal forests in Asia and North America are declining. Contributions to global warming from burning fossil fuels in nonsustainable Pacific Rim economies are increasing. The Pacific Ocean remains regionally polluted from oil spills and radioactive dumping. This vast body of water is losing its biological diversity as fishing species decline. Nautilus Pacific Research recently released a report entitled "Regional Cooperation and Environmental Issues in Northeast Asia", Study for the Northwest Asian Cooperation Dialogue of the Institute for Global Conflict and Cooperation, 1 October 1993. This report states: "Ecological degradation results both from the increased pace of growth and changes in the industry mix toward more toxic and polluting industries. Besides social and environmental costs, the 'grow now, pay later' strategy of unsustainable development is likely to generate large environmental financing needs in the future. In a feedback effect, these costs could undermine economic future growth. "The 'pollution/resource extraction haven' strategy in Northeast Asia is risky on three accounts. First, if pursued by all the developing countries of Northeast Asia, a 'vicious circle' of standards-lowering competition could result in a onslaught of environmental degradation. Beyond high long-term social and health costs, rapid resource depletion and ecological decline are likely to carry high opportunity costs. The income and employment stream generated by rapid and unregulated exploitation of Siberian timber resources, for example, may be less--perhaps far less--than the development of the Russian Far East as an international tourism asset. "Second, companies and industries attracted by 'pollution havens' are likely to be low growth 'sunset' industries which face a limited future. A development strategy based on non-dynamic companies is unlikely to bring technology transfer and knowledge spillovers which are crucial to sustainable, self-generating economic growth. "Third, products manufactured or extracted from 'pollution/resource extraction havens' may face important barriers in the increasingly environment and health conscious markets of the OECD. Northeast Asian timber resources may be especially vulnerable: global campaigns by environmentalists groups such as Greenpeace have already targeted unsustainable logging practices by South Korean, North korean and other foreign companies in the Siberian forests" This is the type of analysis which should be an integral part of APEC discussions. Instead we are concerned that the acronym APEC will stand for A Permanent Environmental Crisis. It is our hope that President Clinton will come to Seattle in the spirit of the Earth Summit at Rio where promises of integrating trade and environmental issues were made. _______________________ BEYOND APEC ENVIRONMENTAL PRESS STORIES IN THE ASIA/PACIFIC "NORTHEAST" Washington, Oregon, Idaho, British Colombia. Tired of Port presentations, Chamber of Commerce lectures and Boeing Plant tours? Here are some suggestions: *Project Nighthawk Project Nighthawk has enlisted the help of local airplane pilots willing to fly press/delegates over Puget Sound and the cascades --at no cost--to show the loss of Ancient Forests in the Region. Weather permitting. PL Project Nighthawk XXX-XXXX TRADE ISSUES/NAFTA *Why did grass-roots environmental groups oppose this version of the North American Trade Agreement? FOE, SC *Why was a lawsuit brought against NAFTA for failing to have an environmental impact statement? FOE *Why are cigarettes the eighth (1992) biggest export from the state of Washington? FOE FOE - Friends of the Earth 633-1661 David E. Ortman SC - Sierra Club 621-1696 Bill Arthur ENERGY ISSUES *How did the region take energy forecasting away from the electric industry? NCAC *What is the NW Power Planning Council? How did energy conservation become the number one priority for the Region? NWPPC, NCAC, NRDC *How did the attempt by the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) to build five nuclear power plants lead to the biggest bond default in US history? NCAC, SC *How has the decimation of the Region's salmon resources head to the lowest electric rates in the United States? *What economic factors led to the recent closure of the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant in Oregon? NCAC, FOB *What renewable energy resources are available in the Region? NCAC *Why is the United States oil industry wasting the equivalent of three Exxon Valdez oil spills a day? FOE FOB - Forelaws on Board (503) 637-3549 Lloyd Marbet FOE - Friends of the Earth 633-1661 David E. Ortman NCAC - NW Conservation Act Coalition 621-0094 K.C. Golden NWPPC - NW Power Planning Council (800) 222-3355 NRDC - Natural Resources Defense Council (415) 495-5996 Ralph Cavanugh SC - Sierra Club 621-1696 Bill Arthur SOS - Save Our Wild Salmon 622-2904 Michael Rossotto/Tim Sterns FORESTRY *Why have Washington state-owned forestry lands been clearcut for exports? WEC *Are Federal and state of exports non-tariff trade barriers? FOE *What is a spotted owl? Why is it important? NAS, SCLDF *What is landscape management? SC *What is the record of US Forest Service management of our public lands? SC, IEPLC, WAFC, ONRC, WWC *How did citizens use the court system to show the Federal Government was breaking its own forestry laws? SCLDF WEC - Washington Environmental Council 622-8103 Marcy Golde FOE - Friends of the Earth 633-1661 David E. Ortman ONRC - Oregon Natural Resource Council (503) 223-9001 Andy Kerr NAS - National Audubon Society (206) 786-8020 Jim Pissot SCLDF - Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund 343-7340 Todd True\Vic Sher SC - Sierra Club 621-1696 Bill Arthur IEPLC - Island Empire Public Lands Council (509) 327-1699 Dave Crandall WAFC - Western Ancient Forest Campaign 632-6041 Josh Marks WWC - Washington Wilderness Coalition 633-1992 Chris Carrel RIVERS/ANADROMOUS FISH *Why has Congress authorized the largest watershed/salmon restoration project in the country by the removal of two dams on the Elwha River on the Olympic Peninsula? FOE *Why has salmon production in the Columbia River system plummeted from a historical amount of 20 million to less than 2 million today? Why are approximately 500,000 of these wild fish? SC, SOS, AR *Why are fish hatcheries bad for fish? OT *What environmental impacts are caused by hydroelectric dams? AR, SOS, OT *How are forestry practices related to the decline of fish population? PSGN, OT, SC, SOS FOE - Friends of the Earth 633-1661 David E. Ortman SC - Sierra Club 621-1696 Bill Arthur SOS - Save our Wild Salmon 622-2904 Michael Rossotto/Tim Sterns AR - American Rivers 545-7133 Lorri Bodi/Katherine Ranzel OT - Oregon Trout (503) 246-7870 Bill Blake PSGN - Puget Sound Gillnetters 937-1048 Pete Knutsen WATER POLLUTION *What are citizens doing to stop water pollution into the Puget Sound? PSA, PPS *Why are bottom fish in Puget Sound afflicted with cancer and salmon showing signs of stress from pollution? PPS *Why did the Washington State Department of Ecology say that their Federal programs for controlling pollution discharged from industries and cities was a failure? FOE *Why does the State of Washington have such bad record of water pollution violations? WASHPIRG *Why did citizens sue the Federal Environmental Protection Agency to correct or take back the State of Washington's NPDES (point source of pollution permitting system) program? SCLDF, PPS, FOE *Why is Victoria B.C. (Canada) still dumping raw sewage into the Straight of Juan de Fuca? PPS *Why has Washington State lost half its wetlands? WETNET *Why isn't the Clinton Administration protecting existing wetlands in the United States? FOE PPS - People for Puget Sound 382-7007 Kathy Fletcher PSA - Puget Sound Alliance 286-1309 Ken Moser FOE - Friends of the Earth 633-1661 David E. Ortman SCLDF - Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund 343-7340 Todd True WASHPIRG - Washington Public Interest Group 322-9064 WETNET - Wetland Network of Seattle Audubon 783-9093 Dee Arntz AIR POLLUTION *What is being done to control air pollution from home heating with wood stoves? WLA *Why did it take so long to shut down the State of Washington's major air pollution source, the Tacoma ASARCO smelter? WLA WLA - Washington Lung Association 441-5100 Astrid Borg ENDANGERED SPECIES *What wildlife and plant species are endangered in this region? NWF, WNPS, NAS *What is being done to save the grizzly bears? GEA, GBF *How is the decimation of habitat related to the increase in endangered species? GEA, GBF, NAS, NWF, WNPS GEA - Greater Ecosystem Alliance (206) 671-9950 Mitch Friedman GBF - Greater Bear Foundation (406) 721-3009 NAS - National Audubon Society (206) 786-8020 Jim Pissot NWF - National Wildlife Federation (503) 222-1429 Jacquelyn Bonomo WNPS - Washington Native Plant Society 524-7928 TRANSPORTATION *How has the region dealt with transportation policy? IT&E *Why do merchants give out parking tokens--but not bus tickets-- for shopping at their stores? IT&E *What is Seattle doing about bicycle planning? IT&E, SED, NOWBIKE IT&E - Institute for Transportation and the Environment 322-5463 Preston Schiller NOWBIKE - 654-0276 Don Bullard SED - Seattle Engineering Department 223-3074 Peter Lagerway MILITARY BASES *How many U.S. Military Bases in the Region have toxic waste problems? FOE *How did citizens stop the U.S.Navy from dumping contaminated sediments into Puget Sound from a proposed Navy base at Everett, Washington? FOE, SCLDF *Why is Hanford, Washington, considered one of the most toxic radioactive cleanup sites in the U.S.? HOA *What health impacts to the Region's citizens have resulted from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation? HOA FOE - Friends of the Earth 633-1661 David E. Ortman HOA - Heart of America 382-1014 Jerry Pollet SCLDF - Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund 343-7340 Todd True RECYCLING *How has Seattle achieved such a high level of residual recycling? WCFR *Why does Oregon have a returnable beverage container bill and Washington does not? WCFR *What is being done to reduce overpackaging? WCFR *What happened to Seattle's past landfills? WCFR *Where is Seattle's garbage going now? WCFR *Why have Seattle and King County citizens opposed the construction of garbage incinerators? WCFR, WTC *Why have communities across Washington State opposed the construction of hazardous waste incinerators? WTC WCFR - Washington Citizens for Recycling 343-5171 Jan Glick WTC - Washington Toxics Coalition 632-1545 Cha Smith PESTICIDES/TOXICS *What progress is being made on alternatives to pesticides? WTC *How are Seattle and King County dealing with home hazardous waste? WTC WTC - Washington Toxics Coalition 632-1545 Cha Smith MARINE ISSUES *How did citizens successfully oppose offshore oil drilling off the Washington/Oregon coast? FOE, WEC *Why did Congress establish a National Marine Sanctuary off the Washington coast? WEC *What is the Region's history with oil spills and what is being done to prevent their occurrence? WEC, PPS *Why is the State of Washington's Coastal Zone Management Program so weak? FOE *What is the status of this region's marine mammals, including whales? GP FOE - Friends of the Earth 633-1661 David E. Ortman GP - Greenpeace 632-4326 Cynthia Rust PPS - People for Puget Sound 382-7007 Kathy Fletcher WEC - Washington Environmental Council 622-8103 Fred Felleman NATIONAL PARKS/WILDERNESS *What is a National Park? OPA, NPCA *How is a National Park different from a National Forest? TWS, WWC, NPCA *What is a National Wilderness Area? TWS OPA - Olympic Park Associates 543-1812 Polly Dyer NPCA - National Parks and Conservation Association 824-8808 Dave Crane TWS - The Wilderness Society 624-6430 Steve Whitney WWC - Washington Wilderness Coalition 633-1992 Chris Carrel ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT/SUSTAINABLE SEATTLE *What is being done to protect the U.S./Canadian Cascade ecosystem? GEA *What is happening to move Seattle in the direction of sustainable development? SS GEA - Greater Ecosystem Alliance 671-9950 Mitch Friedman SS - Sustainable Seattle 382-5013 Richard Conlin POLITICS *How do some environmental groups work on elections and endorse candidates for office? SC, WENPAC *How did environmental groups lobby the Washington State government? WEC, PPS FOE - Friends of the Earth 633-1661 David E. Ortman SC - Sierra Club 621-1696 Bill Arthur PPS - People for Puget Sound 382-7007 Kathy Fletcher WEC - Washington Environmental Council 622-8103 Darlene Madenwald WENPAC - Washington Environmental Political Action Committee 632- 7440 Beth Doglio ENVIRONMENTAL FUNDRAISING *What is an environmental foundation? BF *How do environmental organizations raise money in the work place? ESW BF - Bullitt Foundation 343-0807 Dennis Hayes ESW - Earth Share of Washington 622-9840 Maria Denny/Chuck Perov ----------------------------------------------------------------- ECO is a publication of the Non-Governmental Organizations present at the APEC Meeting to present alternative trade models that incorporate sustainable development, poverty alleviation measures and the protection of the environment. Staff: David E. Ortman Karen Fant John Reese Emily Kaplan The editorial office can be reached at 206-XXX-XXXX, FAX XXX-XXXX e-mail: foewase@igc.apc.org MARCH AND RALLY FLYER - Last page Let's tell the APEC leaders: WE NEED FAIR TRADE...WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL! We, the people, call on the leaders of the APEC nations to respect three basic rights in and trade pact: *WORKERS' RIGHTS - The right job and job security. The right to organize unions, bargain and strike. The right to health care and a decent standard of living. Corporate responsibility in the community. *HUMAN RIGHTS - Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. Release all political prisoners. Respect for international law. Recognize human dignity. Due process for all. *ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS - Sustainable Development. Energy conservation. Preservation of sensitive areas and wildlife habitats. Clean air and water. SATURDAY, NOV. 20 MARCH AND RALLY BEGINNING AT 11:30 a.m. IBEW Local 46 Hall - 2700 First Ave., Seattle SPEAKERS: Dolores Huerta, co-founder and first vice president, United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO The Rev. Dr. Robert L. Jeffery, Sr., executive director, Black Dollar Days Task Force Ron Judd, executive secretary, King County Labor Council, AFL-CIO Mark Dubois, executive director, WorldWise Organized by Seattle Citizens' Host Committee, a coalition or labor, church, environmental and human rights organizations. For more information call Washington State Jobs With Justice, 206- 448-7348, or Friends of the Earth, 206-633-1661. From foewase at igc.apc.org Sat Nov 9 15:03:51 1996 From: foewase at igc.apc.org (Northwest FOE Office) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 22:03:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [asia-apec 238] ECO APEC '93 WATCH ISSUE #2, Seattle, WA Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961108220723.18e7de82@pop.igc.org> Seattle, WA November 16, 1993 Number 2 APEC WATCH ECO __________________ ECO has been published by non-governmental groups at major international conferences since the Stockholm Environmental Conference in 1972. This issue is produced cooperatively by groups attending the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Meeting in Seattle, Washington, USA, in November, 1993. __________________ NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS ASK ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP OF APEC CHIEFS (Today non-governmental organizations issued the following letter to the APEC leaders) 13 November 1993 NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS' OPEN LETTER TO APEC Dear Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation Leaders: Your meeting in Seattle, Washington provides an opportunity to demonstrate your continuing dedication to the commitments and objectives you endorsed at the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro. APEC, with members in both industrialized and developing nations of the Pacific Rim, provides an ideal forum to address international trade and its effects on the environment. International trade can and must be constructed to promote sustainable development. Liberalized trade can reward efficiency and promote investment in environmentally sound goods and services, or it can cause competition based on ever-lower standards of environmental protection and worker health and safety. To capture the benefits and avoid the pitfalls of trade, APEC leaders should highlight the need for environmental reform of international trade, both as part of the Pacific Rim and as part of the Uruguay Round, which will then lay the groundwork for future reform of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) as a whole. Below are some of our main recommendations: 1. The Multilateral Trade Organization (MTO) APEC countries should use this forum to declare that they will not support negotiations leading to the creation of Multilateral Trade Organizations (MTO) unless a clear, comprehensive environmental protection and sustainable development mandate has been established for the body. Such a mandate must include mechanisms for meaningful public participation. 2. Environmental Disputes within the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) APEC leaders should push for the necessary changes to the Uruguay Round text to ensure that it does not jeopardize a country's right to enact justifiable measures to protect the environment, including laws protecting animals, public health and worker safety, provided the measures are implemented in a non- discriminatory manner. Similarly, the APEC leaders should support, in the negotiating text, provisions to ensure that there is public participation and representation from all interested parties in the settlement of trade and environment disputes. 3. International Environmental Agreements Some international conventions dealing with environmental protection include trade sanctions as an important enforcement mechanism. A good example is the Montreal Protocol of 1987, amended by the London Protocol of 1990. Other international conventions, such as protocols to the Global Climate Convention, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) may include trade measures as mechanisms to bring economic pressure to encourage countries to comply with the terms of the agreement. APEC leaders should support efforts to ensure that the Uruguay Round text explicitly provides that the implementation of trade sanction provisions of international environmental conventions, treaties and protocols are not prohibited by GATT. GATT should not be the final arbiter in disputes between signatories and non-signatories to their international agreements. 4. Process Standards Furthermore, APEC governments should agree to an agenda and timetable for environmental reform of the GATT, which would be contained in a Ministerial Declaration accompanying the closure of the Uruguay Round negotiations. The APEC Declaration should call for negotiations, beginning immediately, to provide for environmental reform of GATT articles and operations, and guidelines for the justifiable use of process standards (i.e. standards relating to how a product is manufactured, rather than relating to qualities of the product itself) and other national measures aimed at protecting natural resources and the environment, including laws protecting animals. Until these environmental negotiations are complete, the APEC countries should agree among themselves and seek agreement from GATT Contracting Parties to a moratorium on challenges to existing environmental laws under the GATT, as has been called for in the European Parliament. 5. Toxic Trade The APEC countries should announce their intention to halt the rapidity increasing movement of toxic wastes, products and industries throughout the region. Dangerous wastes and products, such as pesticides, are being dumped in APEC countries as a means of avoiding more costly waste handling and occupational safety and health laws in other countries. The practice of waste "recycling" often poisons workers and leaves behind dangerous residues. In consideration of the 102 countries which have declared themselves opposed to waste imports, APEC countries should take immediate steps to declare themselves off limits to imports of dangerous wastes, products and industries. 6. Environmental Impact Assessments In addition to reforming global and regional trade agreements to take into account environmental analysis, each APEC country should commit to preparing an environmental impact analysis on any binational trade or trade sector agreement. 7. Full Price Costing of Commodities APEC should call for discussions within the relevant commodity agreements of methodology and mechanisms for incorporating "full cost pricing" into the international trade of those commodities. This would mean incorporating the cost of sustainable natural resources management, energy, including the transportation sector, and environmental protection. 8. Timber Trade as a Commodity Example Among APEC nations are the world's leading suppliers and consumers of temperate and tropical timbers. Throughout the Pacific Rim, including the Pacific Coast of North America where this meeting is being held, unsustainable forest are widespread and frequently subsidized. In order to eliminate one of the most controversial north/south disagreements over double standards regarding forests at the international level, APEC countries should support the inclusion of timber from temperate and boreal forests in the renewed International Tropical Timber Agreement. The goal of all aspects of the timber trade should be to move toward sustainable production as rapidly as possible, and to lower the pressure on natural forests. 9. Debt Relief The external debt burden faces by many developing nations in the Pacific Rim, especially the poorest countries, presents a major obstacle to sustainable development. Meeting debt payments forces massive exports of natural resources such as timber and minerals and conversion of agricultural land from subsistence to export crops. Sharply reducing the debt burdens of these countries is an absolute condition for achieving both economic viability and environmental sustainability. In addition to debt relief, we urge APEC leaders to call for the IMF and Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) to reorient their structural adjustment programs away from their present rigid macroeconomical focus. Human resource development and environmental sustainability must become an integral part of balance-of-payment stabilization and adjustment programs. The IMF and MDBs must analyze the impact of their programs on social and environmental sectors, incorporate degradation of environmental resources into national income accounting, and make their programs more transparent to give affected communities and local experts a voice in the design of adjustment programs. APEC can play a leadership role in ensuring that these changes happen. 10. Market Access Trade barriers preventing access to developed country markets cost developing countries billions each year in lost revenue-- much more money, in fact, than they receive annually in international 'aid'. Developed countries must recognize that market access is crucial to the success of debt-driven development programs such as the World Bank and Asian Development Bank. The developed APEC countries therefore should seek to enhance market access for less developed members, while at the same time ensuring smooth transitions for people in the affected domestic sectors. Conclusion In conclusion, we urge that the APEC nations work together to achieve substantive progress in the areas listed above. In the regard, we believe it is vital for the APEC governments individually and collectively to establish a process for moving forward on sustainable development issues and the protection of the environment of the Pacific Rim. We would recommend that APEC outline environmental tasks for its various Working Groups and that it consider establishing a Working Group dedicated to the issues of the Pacific Rim Trade and the environment. Sincerely: Alliance for Responsible Trade American Humane Association Animal Welfare Institute Center for International Environmental Law Chinese Human Rights Alliance Community Nutrition Institute Defenders of Wildlife Environmental Defense Fund Friends of the Earth-US Greater Ecosystem Alliance Greenpeace Humane Society of the United States Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Institute for Policy Studies - World Economy Program Puget Sound Gillnetters Association Rainforest Action Network Society for Animal Protective Legislation Sierra Club U.S. Out. . . WALHI/Friends of the Earth-Indonesia WorldWise ----------------- EDITORIAL: NAFTA IN THE HOME STRETCH: For the APEC countries and their environments the outcome of tomorrow's vote in the House of Representatives will be ambiguous. If the NAFTA wins. . . To its credit NAFTA would mark the first appearance of the term 'sustainable development' in the text of a trade agreement. Beyond the rhetorical level, the NAFTA has language that, albeit still problematic, provides greater range for countries to set protective health and safety standards than would exist if the current GATT draft is accepted. This news is good since the U.S. Congress will almost certainly not pass a GATT unless it matches NAFTA in these areas. Despite these gains NAFTA's passage would also mark the success of a dangerous development philosophy: encouraging developing countries to get rich quickly and pay for clean-up later. This desperate gamble can now be expected to be applied to Latin America and the rest of the Pacific Rim. If the NAFTA loses: If NAFTA is defeated, it will be a tremendous victory for a broad coalition of environmental, labor, consumer, church, and human rights organizations. Their popular pressure on Congress will have outweighed the many millions spent by corporations and governments to pass the treaty., At heart, this coalition understands that trade agreements are no longer simply about tariffs, they are about the deepest levels of national social policy -- regulations, subsidies, incentives -- the very fabric society. Their reaction against NAFTA stems from the Agreements's willingness to hang the social fabric on behalf of corporate interests combined with its sudden deference to 'sovereignty' when it comes to promoting other goals such as democracy, worker's rights, or environmental responsibility. NAFTA is badly flawed and yet the current trade and environment situation in North America is unacceptable. This leaves NAFTA's supports and opponents with a common challenge regardless of tomorrow's vote: how to channel the inevitable and growing integration of the world economy in a fashion that promotes environmentally sound and sustainable development. APEC needs to take up this challenge. ----------------- ECO is a publication of the Non-Governmental Organizations present at the APEC Meeting to present alternative trade models that incorporate sustainable development, poverty alleviation measures and the protection of the environment. Staff: Karen Fant Alex Hittle Emily Kaplan David E. Ortman John Reese The editorial office can be reached at 206-XXX-XXXX, FAX XXX-XXXX e-mail: foewase@igc.apc.org From laborrights at igc.apc.org Mon Nov 11 00:22:12 1996 From: laborrights at igc.apc.org (Pharis Harvey) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 15:22:12 +0000 Subject: [asia-apec 239] Re: 1996 KCTU National Workers Rally Message-ID: <199611101947.LAA15414@igc3.igc.apc.org> Dear Brother Kwon and KCTU Sisters and Brothers, I regret not being able to be present with you today in your national rally, but send you strong greetings of solidarity and support. Korea is at a pivotal point in determining its future, whether it will move toward democracy in industrial relations, or whether it will slide back down the slippery path to repression. Your firm and unified insistence on a labor reform that moves Korea toward international standards rather than away from them is very important. Please let us know what we can do to be supportive of your efforts. In solidarity, Pharis Harvey International Labor Rights Fund -------------------------------------------- From LIQHA at phil.gn.apc.org Mon Nov 11 15:17:24 1996 From: LIQHA at phil.gn.apc.org (LIQHA) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 22:17:24 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 240] Urgent! I need help! (page 01) Message-ID: * Original is in : TALK.INTERNET * Date forwarded : 10 Nov 96 22:15:05 * Original is by : LIQHA * Original is to : anyone * Full text below: Dear mga PHarDs: I've just encountered a waterloo: UNIX! I cannot install my program. Can anyone help? Please? Pretty Please? Charge me a fee if you must. Okx lang. desperately yours, Nteng From daga at HK.Super.NET Mon Nov 11 13:07:37 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 12:07:37 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 241] Four on APEC Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961111120153.095f2f8c@is1.hk.super.net> Four on APEC Marites D. Vitug The Manila Times 10 November 1996 As the APEC summit nears, my supply of fax paper is turning perilously low as the fax machine churns out, day after day, various statements, announcements and press releases on this big event of the year, the coming out party of the former sick man of Asia. As it is, understanding APEC and its core issues, debates and the hundreds of nuances that accompany an important, top-level meeting like this is already taking up much of my brain energy. Added to this is the fact that economics and business were subjects I dutifully avoided in college. As it turns out, APEC is not at all a staid issue, even if bureaucrats lace it with difficult and unattractive jargon. Judging by the responses of "civil society" (I'm not comfortable with this phrase because it leaves open the immense possibility of an uncivil society), emotions are running high against APEC. In the entire spectrum, four groups stand out, with varying degrees of opposition. One common thread runs though all four of them: they believe that a blanket liberalization of the economy and completely free trade will not necessarily result in a better quality of life for Filipinos. Here's a brief primer on the different coalition of NGOs and NGIs (non-government individuals) surrounding the APEC. Two reject the APEC completely and whoever and whatever is associated with it. One is "studiously ambivalent," criticizing it heavily from the outside but intent on giving their own recommendations to the Philippine government and the summit. The last one, but definitely not the least, has been engaging government-- and continues to do so-- in a constructive dialogue, thereby influencing the decision-and policy-making process. The rejectionists are the People's Conference Against Imperialist Globalization and the Solidarity of Labor Against APEC or SLAM APEC!, definitely with an exclamation point! These are two different groups, divided by ideology and personalities as well. People's spokesperson is Satur Ocampo and they hold office at the BAYAN headquarters, a Left stronghold. SLAM APEC! is predominanty composed of labor unions led by Filemon "Popoy" Lagman, formerly linked with the underground Alex Boncayao Brigade, and RC Constantino of Sanlakas. Mr. APCET himself. Remembet the Asia-Pacific Conference on East Timor, the great controversy that sent Filipino diplomats scampering to Indonesia to appease top officials? This time, SLAM APEC! is not into the Jose Ramos-Horta brouhaha. Another group has stolen the thunder from SLAM APEC! which is the third coalition: the Manila People's Forum on APEC. The Forum was born in Bogor in 1994 and strengthened in Kyoto in 1995; they meet as a parallel group wherever the APEC leaders hold their summits. The Forum comes up with declarations containing their criticisms and proposals which are submitted to the summit. Walden Bello, a political sociologist and author of several books on economy and security issues. chairs the Forum. The most quiet of the four-- only because they were locked in intense negotiations with government officials on making the individual action plan or IAP more friendly to sustainable growth-- is Sustainable Development: The Asia-Pacific Initiative led by Nicanor Perlas of the Center for Alternative Development Initiatives or CADI. Only when they concluded the long back-breaking meetings with the bureaucrats did Nicky Perlas and his group of NGOs begin to announce their breakthroughs. It wasn't all that pleasant, though. At one point, they thought the talks were going to break down and they would end up in the ranks of the outsider-critics. What is significant with the Sustainable Development Initiative is that this is the first time NGOs have participated in the APEC process, at least in Southeast Asia. They have shown that "civil society" need not remain adversarial-- if there are avenues open to achieve change. They can influence government, work within the system and hold public officials accountable to their declared policies. At the same time, they can disembark when the points of view are irreconcilable. In my book, the Sustainable Development Initiative has done the most difficult job of the four groups, poring over technical and voluminous, mostly dull, documents, studying the nuances of language, discussing with narrow-minded bureaucrats and arriving at some kind of agreement. The process reminds me of the long journey the women's groups took when they participated in framing the resolutions on the status of women in Beijing, Cairo and New York. Without their contribution and yes, intervention, they would have given governments a much easy time. If they had defaulted, a much blunted document would have come out of these international meetings. Will this remain in the realm of language? Hopefully not. The next step is to translate these into reality, under the watchful eyes of the NGOs. From daga at HK.Super.NET Mon Nov 11 13:07:31 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 12:07:31 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 242] Cause and APEC Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961111120147.1a1fb3be@is1.hk.super.net> Cause and APEC by Luis V. Teodoro The Manila Times 10 November 1996 It's called the art of putting one's best food forward, and Filipino governments are among the most adept at it on the planet. For the sake of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit this November 22 to 26, classes are being suspended in Metro Manila and Subic schools; the ordinary filthy and dark streets of Manila are getting new street lights; the roads to and from the airports, not to mention the airports, are getting spruced up, including that road from the Ninoy Aquino airport which ordinarily is ankle-deep in raw sewage; urban poor communities are being demolished so the delicate sensibilities of foreign guests won't be offended; Dick and Kate Gordon's Subic is being repainted and whitewashed, and the former hub of its honky tonky past, Magsaysay Avenue, lined with stalls to testify to the hold of the enterpreneurial spirit on that town, thanks to the Gordons. These efforts are not original with the Ramos government, Ferdinand Marcos' rule having been partial as well to concealing slum colonies behind white-washed fences, to putting flowerpots at street corners, and even painting wilting grass green whenever visitors came, such as during the Miss Universe contest, the inauguration of the Heart Center, and the World Bank conference, which all occured in Manila in the '70s. Wherever the poor are legion, rulers who either can't or won't half halt poverty settle for the next best thing, and that's to hide it from foreign eyes. But the Ramos government is doing something else aside from putting make-up on the country's grimy face. For the sake of APEC it is also imposing curfews in Central Luzon, surveilling activists, labelling even such elite organizations as Sandigan terrorist, stopping foreigners criticial of APEC from entering the country, preventing media from reporting the elaborate security preparations in Central Luzon, cracking down on the leaders of anti-APEC groups, and lately, threatening to sue striking unions for economic sabotage. Two weeks before the APEC summit, the Ramos government is on the verge of panic, with Fidel Ramos momentarily reverting to the Ramos of old by ordering "preemptive measures" to prevent the disruption of APEC. Such disruptions are likely to be in the form of demonstrations, as well as a "people's caravan" anti-APEC groups are planning. Against these "disruptions" the government is preparing to launch its own rallies as well as setting up road blocks. A situation fraught with peril, primarily that of the government reverting to authoritarianism, is in other words developing, and APEC is the cause of it. In the next few weeks indeed, as the militant groups opposed to APEC continue with their preparations, and as the unreformed police and military whose anti-people, pro-foreign traditions have never been uprooted respond with increasing violence and arbitrariness, a garrison situation in Manila and Subic, with APEC venues being ringed by troops to keep protesting groups out, is likely to develop. After APEC the government is unlikely to draw in the authoritarian fangs it is currently baring. The renewed surveillance of leftist groups and the harassment of their leaders are likely to continue if for no other reason than the fact that the summit has demonstrated to the Ramos government the inherent contradiction between its democratic pretensions and its commitment to the new world order that APEC would help bring about through the opening of the Philippine market and trade liberalization. None of the country's Asean neighbors have the problems with aligning their countries with the new world order that Ramos now has to confront. The threat of strikes, people's protests, counter-conferences, and media critical of what government is doing as well as of APEC itself are absent in Indonesia and Malaysia, where authoritarian regimes reign, and where, as a consequence, any activity antithetical to government aims can be curtailed through the simple expedient of throwing people into prison. The fact is that the formal dismantling of authoritarianism after 1986 has made free expression possible in the Philippines despite government efforts, and this is being amply demonstrated today. The Bill of Rights has become an obstacle to the Ramos government intentions, which is to totally bring the country into alignment with the new world order. Bill of Rights or no Bill of Rights, however, any Philippine government, as was demonstrated by the Marcos government, and as the Ramos police and military are demonstrating, can create the conditions for authoritarian rule-- through. The danger in the current situation lies precisely in the escalation of the atmosphere of crisis that is building up as the APEC summit opening draws near. While publicly the functionaries of the Ramos government may appear to be panicking, the present situation may be just what the Ramos government needs to realize its dreams of a protest-free Philippines in which government can do what it pleases when it pleases. A crisis could develop in the coming weeks to justify the imposition of emergency measures that could, Bill of Rights or no Bill of Rights, lead to the undeclared martial rule civil libertarians have long feared is part of the Ramos government agenda. In the last four years one of the questions often asked is what is likely to be the excuse to justify precisely the kind of crackdown on militant groups that is now taking place, as well as the postponement of the 1998 elections, most other means having failed. The Mindanao excuse was once thought to be the most likely. APEC is beginning to look like an even likelier candidate for that distinction.-- Philippine News and Features From daga at HK.Super.NET Mon Nov 11 13:25:00 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 12:25:00 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 243] hunger strike in kuala lumpur Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961111121917.24ff615e@is1.hk.super.net> Date: 10 Nov 1996 22:55:33 +0000 (GMT) Reply-To: Conference "act.indonesia" From: tapol@gn.apc.org Subject: Hunger strike in Kuala Lumpur To: Recipients of indonesia-act X-Gateway: conf2mail@igc.apc.org Errors-To: owner-indonesia-act@igc.apc.org Lines: 20 From: tapol (Tapol) TAPOL Report A group of women who were arrested on Friday when government-backed thugs and police assaulted and dispersed the opening session of the Second Asia-Pacific Conference on East Timor (APCET II) in Kuala Lumpur are on hunger strike and are holding a vigil outside the prison in Kuala Lumpur where 31 men are still being held following the crackdown on the conference. The women were released the next day after spending a terrible night in a Malaysian lock-up. They say that they will continue with their hunger strike until all the men are released. They plan to hold a press conference in Kuala Lumpur at 10.30am on Monday. Contact numbers for the event are: 60-1 622 07648 (mobile) or 60-3 794 3525 or 793 5724. From daga at HK.Super.NET Mon Nov 11 16:50:08 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 15:50:08 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 244] Nov. 10 update on APCET Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961111154426.26af5024@is1.hk.super.net> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 14:40:19 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: Conference "act.indonesia" From: Foreign Bases Project Subject: Latest from APCET Web site To: Recipients of indonesia-act X-Gateway: conf2mail@igc.apc.org Errors-To: owner-indonesia-act@igc.apc.org Lines: 187 From: "John M. Miller" http://www.gv.net.my/apcet/10nove.html Press Release: November 10 MEDIA UPDATE #12: Urgent Appeal Kuala Lumpur,Sunday(11/10/96 4:53PM): APCET II's organisers have reliably learnt that the Indonesian Embassy is directly behind the deportation of eight Indonesians and one East Timorese to Jakarta today. The eight Indonesians are Coki Naipospos,Bambang Suryadi,Pias,Marlin Dinamikanto,Bapak HajiPrincen and his assistant Sukisno,Gustav Dupe and Adhi Ayoeyanthy.The East Timorese is Helder Da Costa,currently resident and student in Adelaide,Australia.Ayoeyanthy and Da Costa will be on board Garuda flight CGK833 bound for Jakarta at 4:30PM Malaysian time. All other Indonesians are to be boarded onto a Merpati Air MZ931 bound for Jakarta at 10:15pmlocal Malaysian time. The eight Indonesians lost their air tickets in the midst of a chaotic scuffle when 300 thugs broke into the conference venue of the second Asia-Pacific Conference on East Timor(APCET II) in Kuala Lumpur on Saturday. Malaysian immigration had given the eight the option of going to a friendly third country.The Kuala Lumpur Host Committee of the APCET II have raised enough funds to purchase air-tickets for the eight Indonesians. However,immigration officials received word from the Indonesian Embassy that the eight Indonesians will be given ticket's by the embassy for immediate deportation to Jakarta. A KL. Host Committee spokesperson says the sighting of Ali Alatas at the Sultan Abdul Aziz airport in Kuala Lumpur last night puts the Indonesian uncomfortably close to the disruption of the APCET II. Deportations normally involve sending aliens back to the last point of embarkation.In this case,Helder Da Costa's last point of embarkation.In this case,Helder Da Costa's last point of embarkation was in Australia. The Australian High Commissioner to Kuala Lumpur is believed to have confirmed to Malaysian immigration officers that Da Costa is welcomed to be sent to Australia as his visa is perfectly in oder. For more details, contact the KL Host Committee of APCET II on (03) 794 3525 Malaysia Authorities' Contacts: 1. Malaysian Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister Tel - (603)-2301957/2322444 Fax - 603- 291 3945 2.Home Affairs Department Tel - 603-2322444 Fax - 603-2383784 Foreign Affairs Minister Tel - 603- 2482410 Fax - 603- 2421352 Sunday November 10th 1996, 4.00pm Supporters of the second Asian-Pacific Conference on East Timor(APCET II) staged a demonstration in front of the Malaysian Consulate in Sydeny\, Australia this afternoon. About 60 demonstrators comprising Australian, Burmese, East Timorese, Filipino, Indonesian, Malaysian and Sri Lankan citizens chanted their support in solidarity with the 59 organisers and local participants of APCET II, currently under police arrest in Kuala Lumpur. Organizer Jeff Lee from the Australian East Timor Association (AETA) points out that the East Timor issue is by no means an internal affair for Indonesia's exclusive delectation. "the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to Bishop Belo and Jose Ramos Horta shows strongly that it is an international issue which the world is concerned about." "Instead of this knee-jerk reaction to suppress and control the situation, the government should recognize that the conference orgaisers are exemplary in their efforts to promote strong people-to-people relationship, peace and goodwill," he adds. Lee believes that ower-reaction by the Malaysia government may find the country further isolated in the international community." It is difficult to reconcile Malaysia's moral stance on the conflicts in Bosnia, Palestine, South Africa, with its deafening silence on east timor," he says. He further explains that the demonstration is organized to show the world the Malaysian government's hypocrisy while it pretends to champion the right of self determination for the developing countries. "The Malaysian government has been admirable in playing in very prominent roles to champion the rights of self determination and peace in Bosnia, Palestine, South Africa, and even mediate peaceful settlements between two Koreas. Yet the same government has been silently when its own citizen was shot dead by Indonesian military in 1991 in a bloody massacre that further entrenches its brutal annexation of East Timor,"he says, "We are puzzled and shocked by the clear contradiction in Malaysia's stace between these issues," he adds. Commenting on the Malaysian government's arrest of 59 organisers and local participants, Lee says the government is again confusing the issue and prosecuting the wrong people for the crime. The Malaysia Consulted officers are not available for comment. APCET II Participants being deported to Jakarta Kuala Lumpur: The Indonesian Foreign minister Ali Alatas was seen at the immigration office located in Sultan Abdul Aziz Airport last night. The result of the sighting is today's deportation of eight Indonesians and one East Timorese to Jakarta. The eight Indonesians are Bapak Haji Princen, his assistant Sukisno, Coki Napospos, Bambang Suryadi, Pius, Marlin Dinamikanto, Gustav Dupe and Adhi Ayoeyanthy. The East Timorese is Helder Da Costa, who resides and studies in Australia. Da Costa and Ayoeyanthy are supposed to leave for Jakarta on Garuda flight CGK833, departing Kuala Lumpur at 4:30pm Malaysian time. Both the Australian and New Zealand High commissioners were at the airport's immigration office to intercede the deportation. A senior officer at the Australian High Commission indicates that Helder Da Costa is "most welcome" to be sent back to Australia, as his visa is in "perfect oder". The Malaysian government has vehemently denied that Indonesian embassy has had any influence on their decision to deport the international participants at the APCET II. "We are not in contact with any embassy representatives." says Encik Rahim, assistant controller of the immigration department. However, the sighting of Ali Alatas at the airport is the clearest indication yet that the Indonesian government is linked to the recent disruption of the APECT II conference by thugs. For inquiries please contact: APCET II Secretariat: 11 Road 1A/71E, Jalan Carey 46000 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia. Tel: 603 794 3525 or 603 791 6215 Fax: 603 794 3526. e-mail apcet@gv.net.my From RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org Tue Nov 12 09:50:48 1996 From: RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org (RVerzola) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 16:50:48 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 245] Urgent Appeal re: deported APCET participants Message-ID: ASIA PACIFIC CONFERENCE ON EAST TIMOR November 9-11, 1996 U R G E N T A P P E A L - - - - - - - - - - - - KUALA LUMPUR, SUNDAY (11/10/96 4:53 PM) APCET II's organisers have reliably learnt that the Indonesian Embassy is directly behind the deportation of eight Indonesians and one East Timorese to Jakarta today. The eight Indonesians are Coki Naipospos, Bambang Suryadi, Pius, Marlin Dinamikanto, Bapak Haji Princen and his assistant Sukisno, Gustav Dupe and Adhi Ayoeyanthy. The East Timorese is Helder Da Costa, currently a resident and student in Adelaide, Australia. Ayoeynthy and Da Costa will be on board Garuda flight CGK833 bound for Jakarta at 4:30 pm Malaysian time. All other Indonesians are to be boarded onto a Merpati Air MZ931 bound for Jakarta at 10:15 pm local Malaysia time. The eight Indonesians lost their air tickets in the midst of chaotic scuffle when 300 thugs broke into the conference venue for the second Asia Pacific Conference on East Timor (APCET II) in Kuala Lumpur on Saturday. Malaysian immigration had given the eight the option of going to a friendly third country. The Kuala Lumpur Host Committee of the APCET II have raised enough funds to purchase air tickets for the eight Indonesians. However, immigration officials received word from the Indonesian Embassy that the eight Indonesians will be given tickets by the embassy for immediate deportation to Jakarta. A KL Host Committee spokesperson says that sighting of Ali Alatas at the Sultan Abdul Aziz airport in Kuala Lumpur last night puts the Indonesian uncomfortably close to the disruption of the APCET II. Deportations normally involve sending aliens back to the last point of embarkation. In this case, Helder Da Costa's last point of embarkation was in Australia. The Australian High Commissioner to Kuala Lumpur is believed to have confirmed to Malaysian immigration officers that Da Costa is welcome to be sent to Australia as his visa is perfecly in order. For more details, contact the KL Host Committee of APCET II on (603) 794 3525 OR at APCET Secretariat in Manila c/o Initiatives for International Dialogue (IID) on telfax- 921-6774 Malaysian Authorities Contacts: 1. Malaysian Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister Tel Nos .+ 603 - 230 1957/232 2444 Fax - + 603 - 291 3945 2. Home Affairs Department : Tel. - + 603 - 232 2444 Fax - + 603 - 238 3784 3. Foreign Affairs Minister : Tel. - + 603 - 248 2410 Fax - + 603 - 242 1352 _________________________________________________ PLease express your concern to our Indonesians and East Timorese friends by fax or by phone to the above tel and fax numbers. ------------------------------------------------------- From michaeld at wanews.com.au Tue Nov 12 10:54:23 1996 From: michaeld at wanews.com.au (michaeld@wanews.com.au) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 09:54:23 +0800 Subject: [asia-apec 246] media request Message-ID: <199611120154.JAA01555@wan.wanews.com.au> Dear Dr Walden Bello (or colleagues organising Manila's People's Forum on Apec), I am Asia Desk chief for The West Australian newspaper (Perth's only morning daily newspaper, circulation approx 300,000) and would like information on the People's Forum. I would appreciate it if you could e-mail information/media release you have and also a contact number and address in Manila. I will be covering APEC and would like to cover your event too. Regards, Michael Day Journalist. From amrc at HK.Super.NET Tue Nov 12 13:36:27 1996 From: amrc at HK.Super.NET (AMRC) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 12:36:27 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 247] AMRC position statement on APEC Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961112123043.1cb7e3ce@is1.hk.super.net> AMRC Position Statement on APEC Workers under APEC: Another Road to Barbarism As an organisation which has been committed to the struggle of genuine, grassroots workers' movements in Asia for the past 20 years, we absolutely reject APEC and its neoliberal agenda promoting globalisation. APEC, like GATT/ WTO and the World Bank, is concerned solely with increasing the power and reach of multinationals in the name of 'free' and 'fair' trade. To achieve this governments of the 'economies' that are members of APEC will use further political, economic and legal repression to deprive working people of their rights and freedom and enforce policies that will generate greater economic inequality and social injustice. The only freedom will be that of multinationals, freed from any form of social regulation and control. APEC promotes 'labour flexibility' among member economies by demanding complete deregulation of national labour markets and the removal of all forms of government interference in the operation of a regional free labour market. This 'interference' in the free market refers to government regulations, laws and programmes which protect the livelihood and rights of working people. All forms of employment protection, minimum wages and guarantees of job security will be abolished in the name of free and fair trade, and subcontracting, casualisation, declining full- time employment, and the destruction of the collective bargaining power of workers will be become even more widespread than it already is. In following the APEC agenda governments will claim that they must abolish the many of the labour laws and regulations that protect workers' rights, while introducing new regulations which prevent workers from organising against these changes. It is claimed that deregulation of the labour market will encourage greater efficiency and productivity through market competition, while giving workers the opportunity to cross national borders in search of jobs. A flexible and free labour market means that workers lucky enough to have jobs will be exposed to unrestrained exploitation by multinationals. Competition means that workers will be divided, competing for lower and lower wages, while multinationals relocate factories or import migrant workers in their search for mega-profits. The ultimate expression of this neoliberal capitalist agenda are Export Processing Zones and Free Trade Zones which are prevalent throughout Asia. These Zones were created as special areas within which multinationals can trade freely, pay little or no taxes, and exploit the people and the natural resources of these countries without the threat of sanctions. The incentives offered by governments to foreign investors include low wages, unrestricted working hours, bans on trade unions and collective bargaining, and exclusion from existing labour laws. From the perspective of industrial workers what APEC promises is to turn the Asia-Pacific region into a giant Export Processing Zone. The APEC agenda will also demand the privatisation of state and public enterprises, leading to massive lay-offs as state monopolies become private monopolies. Working class families throughout the region will also suffer from neoliberal policies on heath, education and social welfare. The privatisation of health, education and social welfare will create an 'efficient', competitive system that excludes the majority of working people, while the growing number of unemployed workers will be faced with the obligation of workfare rather than the right to welfare. Ultimately the obstructions which are hindering the APEC vision of 'labour flexibility' are those regulations, policies and programmes which organised labour movements have won through working class struggle. Regardless of whether APEC is able to achieve its aims in 5, 10 or 20 years, it will be a powerful force in closing off possibilities for alternatives forms of social and economic development. Working people will be told that the free market economy is the one and only path to prosperity, and will continue to be subjected to the violence of the 'free' market with little hope of sharing in the prosperity and wealth promised in the coming 'Pacific Century'. It is on this basis that we must demand the dissolution of all organisations committed to promoting globalisation of the neoliberal capitalist agenda such as APEC, WTO and the World Bank/IMF. From gab at mnl.sequel.net Wed Nov 13 21:15:41 1996 From: gab at mnl.sequel.net (GABRIELA-Philippines) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 20:15:41 +0800 Subject: [asia-apec 248] WOMEN, APEC, AND GLOBALIZATION Message-ID: <199611131319.VAA09911@mnl.sequel.net> Information Dispatch ------------------------------ WOMEN, APEC, AND GLOBALIZATION "APEC and this so-called `globalization' being flaunted about by the Ramos government can only mean an upswing in prostitution and the widescale displacement of women." This was the gist of a statement issued by the militant women's alliance in the Philippines, GABRIELA. The group was reacting to news reports that bars and night spots along Roxas Boulevard were being spruced up in time for the APEC summit. The statement was also issued in response to government plans of turning the former Clark Air Base into a world-class tourism and entertainment center. According to Liza Largoza-Maza, national secretary-general of GABRIELA, "What, in effect, we are seeing isthe `internationalization' of the flesh trade in the country as the Ramos government transforms the country into an international rest and recreation capital. Without first providing for sustainable and gainful employment for women who are being displaced en masse under this regime of globalization and free trade, the Ramos governmnt has turned Filipino women into a `global' commodity for the consumption of foreign men of various nationalities. This, plus the fact that some of our own government officials are themselves involved in the lucrative job of selling women, makes the Philippines a sure and excellent supplier for the global flesh trade. Maza cited the case of Olongapo City where US warships continue to dock five years after the Senate voted to oust the US Bases. These servicemen, together with male tourists of British, German, Australian, and Japanese nationalities, constitute the clientele for the sex industry in the city, particularly in Barangay Barreto where the "nightlife" has shifted to after bars on Magsaysay Drive closed when the US Bases pulled out. GABRIELA also cited the cases of Cebu and Davao cities which has seen a worsening of the sex industry. Since tourism became a second priority strategy in the "internationalization" of Cebu, there has been a rise in the number of commercial sex workers (CSWs). In 1995, there was a total of 2,988 registered CSWs. For the first two months of 1996 alone, 1,520 women have already had their check-ups with the City Health Office. In Davao City, there are already 1,525 CSWs, especially after karaoke (sing-along) bars became the newest fad in the night scene in Davao. The influx of US servicemen from foreign, especially US warships, docking in both Manila and Subic ports to provide security for the APEC summit will certainly invigorate the pockets of flesh traders in the country. "This is a downside of the APEC summit which the Ramos government will never tell us about," the statement concluded. From gab at mnl.sequel.net Wed Nov 13 21:36:57 1996 From: gab at mnl.sequel.net (GABRIELA-Philippines) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 20:36:57 +0800 Subject: [asia-apec 249] On the Manila Senior Women Leaders Meeting on APEC, 04 October 1996 Message-ID: <199611131319.VAA09922@mnl.sequel.net> Information Release ----------------------------- ON THE MANILA SENIOR WOMEN LEADERS MEETING ON APEC 04 October 1996 Members of the Kilusan ng Manggagawang Kababaihan or KMK (Women Workers' Movement), and organization of women worker affiliated with the Philippine women's alliance of GABRIELA, led a picket in front of the Manila Diamond Hotel in Manila on the last day of the Manila Senior Women Leaders Meeting on APEC. The rallyists criticized what it called the meeting's "cosmeticization" of APEC. Nanette Miranda, a former industrial worker and now Secretary-General of KMK, said that the so-called "globalization" process now happening under the "era of GATT-WTO and for which APEC was established, is inherently anti-poor, anti-women, and anti-worker." APEC was established to ensure the rather unified implementation of GATT-related policies in the Asia-Pacific region. "Globalization, for which the APEC exists, is depriving impoverished women of their land, homes, and jobs. The Philippines, being one of the rabid implementers of globalization in the region, is a classic case in point. Labor flexibilization schemes, sanctioned by the state through anti-labor laws, enable capitalists to hire and dismiss women workers as they please. This has not only phenomenally worsened job insecurity for women who are employed but has meant women's actual loss of jobs on an unprecedented scale. The costs in terms of emotional, mental, and physical stress on women certainly goes beyond their threshold. Those who manage to remain in their jobs are battered by violations of their most basic labor rights, " Miranda said. She cited as a recent example the case of seventeen (17) women workers of Precision Garments who were arrested in September while they were on strike over wages and management violations of collective bargaining agreement provisions. The management has since changed the name of the company to evade its responsibilities to the predominantly women work force of Precision. As more and more women are driven out of the formal wage economy and even those engaging in so-called self-employment or underground economies are driven out of business by the flooding of foreign goods in the domestic market, only two options virtually remain for women: prostitution or overseas employment, both of which put women in a high-risk situation. A speaker from GABRIELA, on the other hand, criticized the Meeting for using the issues of gender equality to "cosmeticize" APEC. Liza Largoza-Maza, Secretary-General of the women's alliance, said that representatives of the Ramos government "mouth critical analyses of the impact of APEC on women but stops short of proposing critical reforms both at the level of its national policies and international trade relations to substantially address the issue of women's poverty and gender equality and put forward instead palliative measures that only peddle the illusion that there is the possibility of softening the impact of the crisis imposed on impoverished and working women everywhere. "Likewise, by paying lip service to women's issues, they hide their own culpability and that of global institutions such as the IMF and WTO, in implementing policies inimical to women's interests," she concluded. From gab at mnl.sequel.net Wed Nov 13 22:02:18 1996 From: gab at mnl.sequel.net (GABRIELA-Philippines) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 21:02:18 +0800 Subject: [asia-apec 250] WOMEN, APEC, AND THE MILITARIZATION IN CENTRAL LUZON, PHILIPPINES Message-ID: <199611131319.VAA09945@mnl.sequel.net> GABRIELA Statement -------------------------------- 08 November 1996 WOMEN, APEC, AND THE MILITARIZATION OF CENTRAL LUZON, PHILIPPINES We condemn the Ramos government's moves of turning Central Luzon into a virtual military camp under the guise of security preparations for APEC. The people of Central Luzon today are robbed of their right to lead a peaceful existence and to pursue their livelihood by the deployment of nine (9) battalions of Philippine Army troops in addition to Philippine National Police forces, reaching a total of 50,000 in just three of the region's six provinces: Bataan, Zambales, and Pampanga. The figure does not even include paramilitary units reactivated in almost all provinces and local officials and individuals who are tasked to report any anti-APEC activities. Curfews, checkpoints, and the identification card system are likewise being implemented. Fear is being sown among the people by military elements who go about threatening to "salvage" (euphemism for summary execution) anyone reportedly involved in anti-APEC activities. Women and children are among those affected by this unparalleled level of militarization in the region. A report sent to GABRIELA by the Central Luzon chapter of BAYAN (New Patriotic Alliance) cited the case of a woman peasant, Liwayway Gramal of Hermosa, Bataan. Liwayway is the chairperson of the local chapter of the peasant organization ALMA-BA (Alliance of Peasants in Bataan). Last 18 October, twenty-four (24) members of the 70th Infantry Brigade (IB) under 1st Lieutenant Gaspar launched a military operation in Barangay Mabiga, Hermosa, Bataan. They came back on the 20th and turned Liwayway's house into a virtual operation base for three (3) days until Liwayway complained which compelled the military elements to transfer to the barangay hall. The soldiers further told Liwayway that they are also in control of San Nazareno, Barangay Maite, and Mabiga, and that they are part of the APEC security that will guard the summit delegates' arrival. Moreover, they stated that the 24th IB is also set to be deployed and act as twenty-four-hour patrol in the area. The harassments on ALMA-BA started way back last year when Gramal's house was frequently visited by a Captain Pecino of the 160th IB who accused their organization of being "leftist" whereupon she sought a dialogue with the military and the town council of Hermosa where she showed their constitution and registration papers to prove the legitimacy of their organization. The people of the barangay have grown afraid and cannot fully pursue their livelihood. They can no longer stay out late to work in their fields. Liwayway's own children have also grown fearful since the military stayed in their home. The children cannot concentrate on their school lessons due to the noise and gambling sessions of the soldiers. The people have reasons to believe that these preparations are nothing but the laying down of a foundation for the all-out militarization of the region beyond APEC. GABRIELA fully supports the demands for the immediate pull-out of all troops in Central Luzon, the dismantling of paramilitary units and armed civilian components, and a stop to all forms of harassment and intimidation against the people and legitimate organizations of Central Luzon. From RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org Thu Nov 14 20:59:31 1996 From: RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org (RVerzola) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 03:59:31 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 251] more on manila APEC-related demolitions Message-ID: <953_9611140510@phil.gn.apc.org> ************************************************************************ PRESS RELEASE November 11, 1996 MANILA URBAN POOR TO GOVERNMENT OF DENMARK: DO NOT TOLERATE HOUSING RIGHTS VIOLATIONS BY MAYOR LIM AND PRESIDENT RAMOS Manila poor people from the San Agustin community near Ayala Bridge, a designated APEC lane, rallied today at the Embassy of Denmark in Makati. Last week Manila City Hall officials gave them 7-day notices--which expires on Wednesday--informing them that their shanties which are visible when one crosses the Ayala Bridge to Malacanang will be demolished because of APEC. Manila City Hall is not offering them relocation, consistent with the position of Mayor Alfredo Lim that squatters living in danger areas do not have the human right to housing. However, the 200 families in San Agustin are covered by the Pasig River Rehabilitation Project (PRRP) which is jointly managed by the First Lady Amelita Ramos and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The PRRP is funded by the government of Denmark through its funding agency, DANIDA. Lito Aguilar of the Urban Poor Associates says that the government of Denmark is obliged to see to it that the Philippine government should observe the 1992 guidelines issued by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The guidelines mandates that demolitions should be conducted humanely and adequate rehousing be provided to people affected by projects funded by any OECD member country, which in this case is the Danish government. Linda Tolentino, a San Agustin community leader, said they were greatly disappointed by the turn of events. "Maayos naman ang aming pakikipag-ugnayan sa mga tanggapan ni Unang Ginang Ming Ramos, ng DENR at pati na ng DANIDA. Nagkaroon kami ng mga pag-uusap mula pa noong 1994 ukol sa demolisyon at relokasyon, kung ito ba ay on-site, in-city o off-city. Napag-usapan din ang ukol sa hanapbuhay at pag-aaral ng aming mga anak. Maliban pa sa mga NGOs tulad ng CO-TRAIN at UPA, nilapitan din namin ang mga arkitekto ng PANIRAHANAN. Ngayon mukhang mababalewala itong lahat dahil lang sa APEC." (We coordinated with the offices of the First Lady Ming Ramos, of DENR and DANIDA. We had discussions since 1994 about demolition and relocation, whether this be on-site, in-city and off-city. We also discussed ivelihood and the schooling of our children. Aside from the NGOs CO-TRAIN and UPA, we also asked the help of the architects of PANIRAHANAN. Now all this seems to be going for nothing just because of APEC.) URBAN POOR ASSOCIATES contact: Denis Murphy, Lito Aguilar or Ted Anana telefax: (632) 920-24-34 @Via IMP v0.94 6:751/401.0, 13 Nov 1996 at 10:50:30 @Via Squish 1.11 6:751/401, Wed Nov 13 1996 at 15:51 UTC From foewase at igc.apc.org Wed Nov 13 06:57:24 1996 From: foewase at igc.apc.org (Northwest FOE Office) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 13:57:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [asia-apec 252] APEC '93 WATCH / ECO PAPERS Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961112140048.21074040@pop.igc.org> 12 November 1996 I received a message from IGC that their system was down and e-mails containing the contents of the APEC'93 WATCH /ECO papers we produced in Seattle, WA were not sent out. I am trying this again, so if you somehow already received copies you can delete this set. Due to an Asian 18K limit, you will be receiving five e-mails: APEC '93 WATCH "ECO" Issue No. 1 (Seattle, WA) APEC '93 WATCH "ECO" Issue No. 2 (Seattle, WA) APEC '93 WATCH "ECO" Issue No. 3 Section One APEC '93 WATCH "ECO" Issue No. 3 Section two APEC '94 WATCH "ECO" Issue No. 4 (Seattle, WA David E. Ortman Director Northwest Office Friends of the Earth Seattle, WA From foewase at igc.apc.org Wed Nov 13 06:58:36 1996 From: foewase at igc.apc.org (Northwest FOE Office) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 13:58:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [asia-apec 253] APEC '93 WATCH / ECO Issue 3 Part 2, Seattle, WA Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961112140201.2b373366@pop.igc.org> APEC '93 WATCH No. 3 Second of Two Sections -------------------------------- THINK GLOBALLY - ACT LOCALLY If you have not heard about GLOBAL RESPONSE, a Boulder, CO USA organization, here is an unpaid ad: "As environmental awareness and activism help reverse destructive trends in industrialized nations, one result has been the export of severe ecological degradation to the developing world. GLOBAL RESPONSE is a letter-writing network of dedicated environmental activists focusing attention on specific environmental threats and mobilizing broad-based campaigns to hold those responsible accountable. GLOBAL RESPONSE issues GR Actions on rainforest destruction, ocean dumping and pollution, atmospheric contamination, nuclear disarmament, toxic exports, and threats to marine mammals. GLOBAL RESPONSE bases its GR Actions on information and research provided by the identified cooperating organizations that request GR to address these issues" Among recent GR Actions that cover issues along the Pacific Rim: GR 7/92 Siberian Forests/Clearcutting "Ninety percent of the trees harvested in Russia are already felled by clearcuts...The usual problems of increased erosion and watershed degradation associated with clearcuts are compounded in the delicate ecosystems of the (Siberian) taiga." (Pacific Resource and Resource Center) GR 10/92 Commercial Plutonium Products-Japan: "...the excess of plutonium from civilian nuclear programs poses a major political and security problem worldwide. From a security point of view, isolated plutonium is best kept in reactors--in the reactor fuel." (William Dircks, Deputy Director of International Atomic Energy Agency) GR 11/92 Temperate Rainforest Protection - Canada: "...the west coast of Vancouver Island remains an extraordinary showcase of environmental elegance and diversity. In many places, this is still virgin landscape governed by the unequivocal laws of nature -- a gift of nature to humanity." (Cameron Young, environmental writer, in his book "Clayoquot - On the Wilde Side") GR 2/93 Offshore Oil Drilling/Alaska USA : "...it's time that America has to face a solution and quit harming Native people...Show us that you care...There is a Arctic Ocean full of sea life. Don't add another Prince William Sound with a polar ice pack on it. Protect it. Care for it...You've already polluted too much." (Indigenous testimony on the proposed Outer Continental Shelf oil leases) GR 4/93 Toxic Waste/Malaysia:"...(the dump site) is an open area where people used to go. I was told that the waste could be used at fertilizer and I took a drag of it to fertilize my mango tree." (Court testimony from a Bukit Merah resident during the hearing on Asian Rare Earth's operations) "...severe health problems exist in Bukit Merah...most probably related to radiation exposure..." (Canadian public health expert) GR 7/93 Reprocessing Spent Nuclear Fuel/Siberia:"Any major accident on the shores of the Yenisei and in the Taiga could become global in scope and lead to the elimination of life and economic activity from enormous regions of Siberia for many years. Radioactive contents of just one RT-2's storage facilities will be 20 billion curies or about 2500 Chernobyls." (Krasnoyarsk Ecological movement) Copies of these GR Actions are available at the Seattle Citizen Hospitality Room, 911 Stewart St. (Gethsemane Lutheran Church - 4 blocks North of the Trade Center) or contact: GLOBAL RESPONSE, Environmental Action Network, P.O. Box 7490, Boulder, CO, USA 80306-7490 Phone/FAX (303) 444-0306 ______________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------- GREMLIN - (The ECO gremlin has been latteing around APEC looking into tunnels and corners. Here is the Gremlin Report) *Gremlin agrees that TV turns the mind to mush, but Ambassador Kantor's video show (due to a cancellation to remain in D.C. for NAFTA lobbying) at Tuesday's luncheon was particularly mushy especially around his concept of "growing economic growth". Maybe he was just trying to invent a new acronym - GEG. *Rumors have it, but then rumors always do, that limousines were flown in to seattle from the United Nations to cover a local shortage. The dignitaries could have taken the Seattle Metro bus system. Then the buses would not have had to carry signs saying, "Notice schedules may be delayed due to travel congestions caused by APEC motorcades." ______________________ DISASTROUS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES PREDICTED FOR CHINA'S THREE GORGES DAM Ground has been broken at the planned site of the biggest dam in the world. China's famous Three Gorges would be drowned behind the dam by a 350 mile long reservoir, which would back up the mighty Yangtze River nearly to Chonqging in west China. Environmentalists and engineers both within and outside of China fear serious consequences will result if the dam is built. *The dam would destroy commercial fish stocks and deprive the complex floodplain agricultural system of water and slit they need, threatening the livelihood of 75 million people who live by fishing or farming along the Yangtze's banks. *Flood inundation from catastrophic dam failure would engulf cities, towns, factories and farms, killing millions. The August 27, 1993 failure of Gouhou Dam has raised fears about a far worse disaster should Three Gorges fail. California dam safety official Don Babbitt acknowledged that Three Gorges' seismic design would not meet California criteria. *Over one million people, many of whom make their living in farming and fishing, would be forced to relocate. Nearly half a million of these people would be moved 1200 miles away to Kashgar, sparsely populated because of its harsh desert climate. Recent developments have encouraged dam opponents. The Canadian International Development Agency, which prepared the feasibility study on the dam, will not participate further in the Three Gorges project. Nor will the Bureau of Reclamation. Today at 12 Noon there will be a press conference on the Three Gorges Dam at the Gethsemane Lutheran Church. Call: 233-9678 ________________________ ECO is a publication of the Non-Governmental Organizations present at the APEC Meeting to present alternative trade models that incorporate sustainable development, poverty alleviation measures and the protection of the environment. Staff: Karen Fant Alex Hittle Emily Kaplan David E. Ortman John Reese Mason Young The editorial office can be reached at 206-XXX-XXXX, FAX XXX-XXXX e-mail: foewase@igc.apc.org From foewase at igc.apc.org Wed Nov 13 06:58:16 1996 From: foewase at igc.apc.org (Northwest FOE Office) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 13:58:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [asia-apec 254] APEC '93 WATCH / ECO ISSUE No. 3 Part 1, Seattle, WA Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961112140141.2b373676@pop.igc.org> Seattle, WA November 18, 1993 Number 3 XXXXXXX XXXXXXX APEC '93 WATCH "ECO" One of Two Sections ----------------- ECO has been published by non-governmental groups at major international conferences since the Stockholm Environmental Conference in 1972. This issue is produced cooperatively by groups attending the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Meeting in Seattle, Washington, USA, in November, 1993. ____________________ CONTENTS: Wildlife Trade page 1 NAFTA Editorial page 2 GLOBAL Response page 3 GREMLIN page 4 China Dam page 4 ----------- WILDLIFE TRADE SOARING IN ASIA-PACIFIC REGION The Asian Pacific Region's economic boom has enabled many to indulge in the consumption of wildlife. The demand for exotic wildlife drives a soaring trade, both legal and illegal, in species throughout the region. This big business already contributes to the crises of several endangered species and the degradation of ecosystems. For example, the Philippines is home to numerous endangered species including: crocodiles, pawikan, calamian deer, tamaraw, dugong, Philippine eagle, peregrine falcons and Mindoro imperial pigeon, (all listed in CITES Appendix I) as well as the pangolin, the monitor lizard, pythons, the Philippine tarsier, Palawan peacock pheasant, breeding heart pigeons, Philippine cockatoo, parrots, rufuous hornbill and several species of owls and eagles (all listed in CITES Appendix II). Yet row after row of pet shops in Manilla still openly sell some of these listed species. These wildlife also are smuggles to Taiwan and Hong Kong for distribution to the worldwide market. The Philippine's coral reefs also are victims of illegal harvesting and trading. In 1988 alone, according to the environmental group Haribon, some U.S. $500,000 worth of raw coral from Philippines was illegally sold, mostly to U.S. North America also is the world's largest importer of exotic birds. A global network feeds this demand. Smugglers wire money to Mexico City, where birds are shipped from Singapore, Tokyo, and Buenos Aires. Then birds are sent via border city of Tijuana to San Diego, where buyers in US and Canada had access to them. A sexed pair of rare black palm cockatoo plucked from the jungles of Australia, New Guinea or Indonesia easily fetches US$ 25,000. Across the Pacific Ocean, China, Japan and the so-called Asian 'Tiger' economies generate even more controversy in the subject of wildlife trade. The growing affluence of these economies creates incredible demand for wildlife for use in exotic dishes, traditional cures, arts, and tourist souvenirs, as well as for pets. Japan, the major consumer of wildlife in Asia, has been the center of global controversy over issues as elephant tusks, hawksbill turtle, bluefin tuna, whale, caiman and bengals. Asian traditional medicine also places high premium on certain animal parts, such as tiger parts, bile from bear gallbladders, internal organs from musk deer and the powdered horn from any of the five remaining species of rhinoceros. TRAFFIC, an organization monitoring the trade in endangered species, estimates that South Korea imported 1,700kg tiger bones between 1985 and 1990. It also estimates that Taiwan, in 1992, has stockpiled 10 tons of rhino horn, the take from an estimated 4,000 slaughtered rhinos. Several Asian cities have developed into centers for wildlife trade. Guangdong, the natural transit point for goods headed for Hong Kong and beyond, has become China's illegal wildlife trade center. Ranging from bald eagle, tiger meat, bones and penis, bear paw to panda, Chinese wildlife is being smuggled out in formidable amounts. In Thailand, Bangkok's Chatuchak Park is called a worldwide "laundering center" for wildlife. Thai dealers launder shipments of everything from rare orchids to South American caimans and Indonesian orangutan, and send them to zoos and traders in Japan, Europe, and North America. Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan serve as the major conduits for vast array of wildlife and parts. As Ginnette Hemley, the director of TRAFFIC (USA) put it: "Asia is the world's hotbed for illegal trade in endangered species." CURRENT EFFORT -- CITES in Action CITES -- the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora -- came into effect on July 1, 1975. The Convention is designed to protect internationally- recognized endangered species (Appendix I species) from any commercial exploitation and to subject other threatened or look- alike species (Appendix II and Appendix III species) to specific regulations and documentation controls before they can be legally traded internationally. It is a United Nations administrated international treaty. Today, about 120 nations are parties to the convention. Parties are obligated to confiscate wildlife contraband and set whatever fines or other penalties. Yet in many nations, fines and jail sentences are ridiculously low. Custom officials or wildlife inspectors are usually in charge of inspecting shipments and seizing contraband. Any shipment containing CITES- listed wildlife or related products must have a separate permit. The Convention recommends specific formats for these trade documents, but many nations usually produce their own. It is sometimes difficult to recognize authentic papers. Falsifying documents by dishonest traders and permit theft further complicates efforts to control the trade. Frequently, smugglers take a species from one country where it is protected and ship it to another country where trade controls are lax and obtain fraudulent export documents. Hence, international cooperation in investigation of illegal trade schemes is crucial. The majority of the APEC members are parties of CITES. Yet several members have not signed up. Full participation in and sincere devotion to CITES' efforts in protecting endangered species by all APEC members is essential for cracking down harmful wildlife trade soaring in the Asian-Pacific economies. APEC'S OBLIGATION -- Government Action and Citizen Action Individual governments have much to do to improve international compliance with CITES. Tough domestic legislation is crucial. Governments also need to give enforcement efforts greater attention -- strengthening port inspection capacities, educating customs officials to the peculiarities of wildlife trade restrictions, providing secure permitting systems and taking offenders to court. Better communication with CITES Secretariat and trade authorities in foreign countries would also help bolster the treaty. Major wildlife-consuming countries must bear the greatest responsibility for upholding CITES and policing international wildlife trade. They are much better equipped with the enforcement personnel, communication system, domestic legal systems and other tools needed to control wildlife trade than many wildlife-rich developing countries. Moreover, the consumer countries also have a significant base of popular support for species conservation, which can encourage governments to carry out their CITES mandate. Individual nations also can contribute to the protection of endangered species by governmental action and citizen action. The recent effort in saving the endangered rhinoceros, which is on CITES' Appendix I, shows how it can be done. In governmental action, US applies the Pelly amendment to exert pressure in the consumer countries, including China, Taiwan, South Korea and Yemen, to change their consumption pattern by possible trade sanctions. (Rhinoceros horn is highly prized in Korea, Taiwan, China as a fever reducing drug, and in Yemen for ceremonial dagger handles.) The Pelly amendment to US Fishermen's Protective Act if 1967 was originally enacted to reinforce whale conservation by authorizing the embargo of fish products from nations diminishing the effectiveness of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. In 1978, this provision was expanded to confer similar authority to embargo wildlife products from any country whose nationals are found by US Secretary of Commerce or Interior to be " engaging in trade or taking which diminishes the effectiveness of any international program for endangered species." On Nov. 12, 1992, the World Wildlife Fund and the US Interior Secretary to invoke the Pelly Amendment against the consumer nation mentioned above. US Interior Secretary Babbitt in the CITES' Standing Committee meeting on Sep. 6-8, 1993 announced the certification of China and Taiwan under the Pelly Amendment. In citizen action, a mass boycott campaign, organized by several environmental groups including Earth Island Institute and TRAFFIC Network, against Taiwan has been under way to press charges in consumption pattern. The bad publicity for Taiwan complements the Pelly amendment certification to force Taiwan moving in the direction consistent with the objective of CITES. IMPLICATION -- Sustainable Use of Wildlife If properly controlled, wildlife trade need not threaten plant and animal species. Instead, trade can be a strong force for conservation, providing countries with the economic incentive to protect habitats and managing wildlife in ways that ensure the species' long term health and survival. But to achieve this requires limitations on trade, undertaken by both producing and consuming countries. Uncontrolled exploitation and free trade, on the other hand, spells long-term disaster for both the species and the valuable resources of producer countries. ----------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- EDITORIAL: THE NAFTA VOTE The close vote (200-234) in the U.S. House of Representatives to approve the implementation of the North American Trade Agreement brings us one step closer to APEC's efforts this week to work toward the speedy closure of the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Planet Earth needs a health care program, but NAFTA is the wrong prescription. In the end, it came down to President Clinton buying votes, not an unusual feature of US politics, but particularly offensive when NAFTA is viewed as a symbol of international negotiating strength rather than on impacts to citizens and the environment. Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club and Public Citizens brought us a lawsuit asking for an environmental impact statement on NAFTA. Federal Court Judge Charles Richey agreed. The decision was overturned on procedural grounds and is being appealed. Arthur D. Little, Inc.,has hailed this decision as a landmark. In a just released analysis, whey write, "Long overshadowed by international trade, environmental 'genie' is in short,'out of the bottle." The question for APEC is how will they interpret the NAFTA vote. Will they continue to remain mute and deaf to sustainable development, polluter pays and environmental impact avoidance? Or will they understand that the global trading system must not be finalized in December without integrating these concepts as promised at the Rio Earth Summit? One test would be the rejection of the Proposed APEC Trade and Investment Framework which contains nary a drop of green. Apparently, those environmental groups which supported NAFTA have been wrong in thinking that expressions of environmental concern would be taken up by the Clinton Administration as part of this weeks APEC meetings. Thus, we see in the global arena not only the tragedy of the commons, but the tragedy of trade summits as well. End of First Section From foewase at igc.apc.org Wed Nov 13 06:57:32 1996 From: foewase at igc.apc.org (Northwest FOE Office) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 13:57:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [asia-apec 255] APEC '93 Seattle, WA No. 1 Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961112140056.21079804@pop.igc.org> Seattle, WA Early Edition 14 Nov. 1993 No. 1 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX APEC '93 WATCH "ECO" --------------------- ECO has been published by non-governmental groups at major international conferences since the Stockholm Environmental Conference in 1972. This issue is produced cooperatively by groups attending the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Meeting in Seattle, Washington, USA, in November, 1993. _________________ Welcome Delegates and News Media As part of the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), non- governmental organizations (NGO's) concerned with labor, human rights and environmental issues have gathered in Seattle to address impacts of trade on citizens and environment of the Pacific Rim. Tropical and temporal forests in Asia and North America are declining. Contributions to global warming from burning fossil fuels in nonsustainable Pacific Rim economies are increasing. The Pacific Ocean remains regionally polluted from oil spills and radioactive dumping. This vast body of water is losing its biological diversity as fishing species decline. Nautilus Pacific Research recently released a report entitled "Regional Cooperation and Environmental Issues in Northeast Asia", Study for the Northwest Asian Cooperation Dialogue of the Institute for Global Conflict and Cooperation, 1 October 1993. This report states: "Ecological degradation results both from the increased pace of growth and changes in the industry mix toward more toxic and polluting industries. Besides social and environmental costs, the 'grow now, pay later' strategy of unsustainable development is likely to generate large environmental financing needs in the future. In a feedback effect, these costs could undermine economic future growth. "The 'pollution/resource extraction haven' strategy in Northeast Asia is risky on three accounts. First, if pursued by all the developing countries of Northeast Asia, a 'vicious circle' of standards-lowering competition could result in a onslaught of environmental degradation. Beyond high long-term social and health costs, rapid resource depletion and ecological decline are likely to carry high opportunity costs. The income and employment stream generated by rapid and unregulated exploitation of Siberian timber resources, for example, may be less--perhaps far less--than the development of the Russian Far East as an international tourism asset. "Second, companies and industries attracted by 'pollution havens' are likely to be low growth 'sunset' industries which face a limited future. A development strategy based on non-dynamic companies is unlikely to bring technology transfer and knowledge spillovers which are crucial to sustainable, self-generating economic growth. "Third, products manufactured or extracted from 'pollution/resource extraction havens' may face important barriers in the increasingly environment and health conscious markets of the OECD. Northeast Asian timber resources may be especially vulnerable: global campaigns by environmentalists groups such as Greenpeace have already targeted unsustainable logging practices by South Korean, North korean and other foreign companies in the Siberian forests" This is the type of analysis which should be an integral part of APEC discussions. Instead we are concerned that the acronym APEC will stand for A Permanent Environmental Crisis. It is our hope that President Clinton will come to Seattle in the spirit of the Earth Summit at Rio where promises of integrating trade and environmental issues were made. _______________________ BEYOND APEC ENVIRONMENTAL PRESS STORIES IN THE ASIA/PACIFIC "NORTHEAST" Washington, Oregon, Idaho, British Colombia. Tired of Port presentations, Chamber of Commerce lectures and Boeing Plant tours? Here are some suggestions: *Project Nighthawk Project Nighthawk has enlisted the help of local airplane pilots willing to fly press/delegates over Puget Sound and the cascades --at no cost--to show the loss of Ancient Forests in the Region. Weather permitting. PL Project Nighthawk XXX-XXXX TRADE ISSUES/NAFTA *Why did grass-roots environmental groups oppose this version of the North American Trade Agreement? FOE, SC *Why was a lawsuit brought against NAFTA for failing to have an environmental impact statement? FOE *Why are cigarettes the eighth (1992) biggest export from the state of Washington? FOE FOE - Friends of the Earth 633-1661 David E. Ortman SC - Sierra Club 621-1696 Bill Arthur ENERGY ISSUES *How did the region take energy forecasting away from the electric industry? NCAC *What is the NW Power Planning Council? How did energy conservation become the number one priority for the Region? NWPPC, NCAC, NRDC *How did the attempt by the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) to build five nuclear power plants lead to the biggest bond default in US history? NCAC, SC *How has the decimation of the Region's salmon resources head to the lowest electric rates in the United States? *What economic factors led to the recent closure of the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant in Oregon? NCAC, FOB *What renewable energy resources are available in the Region? NCAC *Why is the United States oil industry wasting the equivalent of three Exxon Valdez oil spills a day? FOE FOB - Forelaws on Board (503) 637-3549 Lloyd Marbet FOE - Friends of the Earth 633-1661 David E. Ortman NCAC - NW Conservation Act Coalition 621-0094 K.C. Golden NWPPC - NW Power Planning Council (800) 222-3355 NRDC - Natural Resources Defense Council (415) 495-5996 Ralph Cavanugh SC - Sierra Club 621-1696 Bill Arthur SOS - Save Our Wild Salmon 622-2904 Michael Rossotto/Tim Sterns FORESTRY *Why have Washington state-owned forestry lands been clearcut for exports? WEC *Are Federal and state of exports non-tariff trade barriers? FOE *What is a spotted owl? Why is it important? NAS, SCLDF *What is landscape management? SC *What is the record of US Forest Service management of our public lands? SC, IEPLC, WAFC, ONRC, WWC *How did citizens use the court system to show the Federal Government was breaking its own forestry laws? SCLDF WEC - Washington Environmental Council 622-8103 Marcy Golde FOE - Friends of the Earth 633-1661 David E. Ortman ONRC - Oregon Natural Resource Council (503) 223-9001 Andy Kerr NAS - National Audubon Society (206) 786-8020 Jim Pissot SCLDF - Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund 343-7340 Todd True\Vic Sher SC - Sierra Club 621-1696 Bill Arthur IEPLC - Island Empire Public Lands Council (509) 327-1699 Dave Crandall WAFC - Western Ancient Forest Campaign 632-6041 Josh Marks WWC - Washington Wilderness Coalition 633-1992 Chris Carrel RIVERS/ANADROMOUS FISH *Why has Congress authorized the largest watershed/salmon restoration project in the country by the removal of two dams on the Elwha River on the Olympic Peninsula? FOE *Why has salmon production in the Columbia River system plummeted from a historical amount of 20 million to less than 2 million today? Why are approximately 500,000 of these wild fish? SC, SOS, AR *Why are fish hatcheries bad for fish? OT *What environmental impacts are caused by hydroelectric dams? AR, SOS, OT *How are forestry practices related to the decline of fish population? PSGN, OT, SC, SOS FOE - Friends of the Earth 633-1661 David E. Ortman SC - Sierra Club 621-1696 Bill Arthur SOS - Save our Wild Salmon 622-2904 Michael Rossotto/Tim Sterns AR - American Rivers 545-7133 Lorri Bodi/Katherine Ranzel OT - Oregon Trout (503) 246-7870 Bill Blake PSGN - Puget Sound Gillnetters 937-1048 Pete Knutsen WATER POLLUTION *What are citizens doing to stop water pollution into the Puget Sound? PSA, PPS *Why are bottom fish in Puget Sound afflicted with cancer and salmon showing signs of stress from pollution? PPS *Why did the Washington State Department of Ecology say that their Federal programs for controlling pollution discharged from industries and cities was a failure? FOE *Why does the State of Washington have such bad record of water pollution violations? WASHPIRG *Why did citizens sue the Federal Environmental Protection Agency to correct or take back the State of Washington's NPDES (point source of pollution permitting system) program? SCLDF, PPS, FOE *Why is Victoria B.C. (Canada) still dumping raw sewage into the Straight of Juan de Fuca? PPS *Why has Washington State lost half its wetlands? WETNET *Why isn't the Clinton Administration protecting existing wetlands in the United States? FOE PPS - People for Puget Sound 382-7007 Kathy Fletcher PSA - Puget Sound Alliance 286-1309 Ken Moser FOE - Friends of the Earth 633-1661 David E. Ortman SCLDF - Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund 343-7340 Todd True WASHPIRG - Washington Public Interest Group 322-9064 WETNET - Wetland Network of Seattle Audubon 783-9093 Dee Arntz AIR POLLUTION *What is being done to control air pollution from home heating with wood stoves? WLA *Why did it take so long to shut down the State of Washington's major air pollution source, the Tacoma ASARCO smelter? WLA WLA - Washington Lung Association 441-5100 Astrid Borg ENDANGERED SPECIES *What wildlife and plant species are endangered in this region? NWF, WNPS, NAS *What is being done to save the grizzly bears? GEA, GBF *How is the decimation of habitat related to the increase in endangered species? GEA, GBF, NAS, NWF, WNPS GEA - Greater Ecosystem Alliance (206) 671-9950 Mitch Friedman GBF - Greater Bear Foundation (406) 721-3009 NAS - National Audubon Society (206) 786-8020 Jim Pissot NWF - National Wildlife Federation (503) 222-1429 Jacquelyn Bonomo WNPS - Washington Native Plant Society 524-7928 TRANSPORTATION *How has the region dealt with transportation policy? IT&E *Why do merchants give out parking tokens--but not bus tickets-- for shopping at their stores? IT&E *What is Seattle doing about bicycle planning? IT&E, SED, NOWBIKE IT&E - Institute for Transportation and the Environment 322-5463 Preston Schiller NOWBIKE - 654-0276 Don Bullard SED - Seattle Engineering Department 223-3074 Peter Lagerway MILITARY BASES *How many U.S. Military Bases in the Region have toxic waste problems? FOE *How did citizens stop the U.S.Navy from dumping contaminated sediments into Puget Sound from a proposed Navy base at Everett, Washington? FOE, SCLDF *Why is Hanford, Washington, considered one of the most toxic radioactive cleanup sites in the U.S.? HOA *What health impacts to the Region's citizens have resulted from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation? HOA FOE - Friends of the Earth 633-1661 David E. Ortman HOA - Heart of America 382-1014 Jerry Pollet SCLDF - Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund 343-7340 Todd True RECYCLING *How has Seattle achieved such a high level of residual recycling? WCFR *Why does Oregon have a returnable beverage container bill and Washington does not? WCFR *What is being done to reduce overpackaging? WCFR *What happened to Seattle's past landfills? WCFR *Where is Seattle's garbage going now? WCFR *Why have Seattle and King County citizens opposed the construction of garbage incinerators? WCFR, WTC *Why have communities across Washington State opposed the construction of hazardous waste incinerators? WTC WCFR - Washington Citizens for Recycling 343-5171 Jan Glick WTC - Washington Toxics Coalition 632-1545 Cha Smith PESTICIDES/TOXICS *What progress is being made on alternatives to pesticides? WTC *How are Seattle and King County dealing with home hazardous waste? WTC WTC - Washington Toxics Coalition 632-1545 Cha Smith MARINE ISSUES *How did citizens successfully oppose offshore oil drilling off the Washington/Oregon coast? FOE, WEC *Why did Congress establish a National Marine Sanctuary off the Washington coast? WEC *What is the Region's history with oil spills and what is being done to prevent their occurrence? WEC, PPS *Why is the State of Washington's Coastal Zone Management Program so weak? FOE *What is the status of this region's marine mammals, including whales? GP FOE - Friends of the Earth 633-1661 David E. Ortman GP - Greenpeace 632-4326 Cynthia Rust PPS - People for Puget Sound 382-7007 Kathy Fletcher WEC - Washington Environmental Council 622-8103 Fred Felleman NATIONAL PARKS/WILDERNESS *What is a National Park? OPA, NPCA *How is a National Park different from a National Forest? TWS, WWC, NPCA *What is a National Wilderness Area? TWS OPA - Olympic Park Associates 543-1812 Polly Dyer NPCA - National Parks and Conservation Association 824-8808 Dave Crane TWS - The Wilderness Society 624-6430 Steve Whitney WWC - Washington Wilderness Coalition 633-1992 Chris Carrel ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT/SUSTAINABLE SEATTLE *What is being done to protect the U.S./Canadian Cascade ecosystem? GEA *What is happening to move Seattle in the direction of sustainable development? SS GEA - Greater Ecosystem Alliance 671-9950 Mitch Friedman SS - Sustainable Seattle 382-5013 Richard Conlin POLITICS *How do some environmental groups work on elections and endorse candidates for office? SC, WENPAC *How did environmental groups lobby the Washington State government? WEC, PPS FOE - Friends of the Earth 633-1661 David E. Ortman SC - Sierra Club 621-1696 Bill Arthur PPS - People for Puget Sound 382-7007 Kathy Fletcher WEC - Washington Environmental Council 622-8103 Darlene Madenwald WENPAC - Washington Environmental Political Action Committee 632- 7440 Beth Doglio ENVIRONMENTAL FUNDRAISING *What is an environmental foundation? BF *How do environmental organizations raise money in the work place? ESW BF - Bullitt Foundation 343-0807 Dennis Hayes ESW - Earth Share of Washington 622-9840 Maria Denny/Chuck Perov ----------------------------------------------------------------- ECO is a publication of the Non-Governmental Organizations present at the APEC Meeting to present alternative trade models that incorporate sustainable development, poverty alleviation measures and the protection of the environment. Staff: David E. Ortman Karen Fant John Reese Emily Kaplan The editorial office can be reached at 206-XXX-XXXX, FAX XXX-XXXX e-mail: foewase@igc.apc.org MARCH AND RALLY FLYER - Last page Let's tell the APEC leaders: WE NEED FAIR TRADE...WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL! We, the people, call on the leaders of the APEC nations to respect three basic rights in and trade pact: *WORKERS' RIGHTS - The right job and job security. The right to organize unions, bargain and strike. The right to health care and a decent standard of living. Corporate responsibility in the community. *HUMAN RIGHTS - Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. Release all political prisoners. Respect for international law. Recognize human dignity. Due process for all. *ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS - Sustainable Development. Energy conservation. Preservation of sensitive areas and wildlife habitats. Clean air and water. SATURDAY, NOV. 20 MARCH AND RALLY BEGINNING AT 11:30 a.m. IBEW Local 46 Hall - 2700 First Ave., Seattle SPEAKERS: Dolores Huerta, co-founder and first vice president, United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO The Rev. Dr. Robert L. Jeffery, Sr., executive director, Black Dollar Days Task Force Ron Judd, executive secretary, King County Labor Council, AFL-CIO Mark Dubois, executive director, WorldWise Organized by Seattle Citizens' Host Committee, a coalition or labor, church, environmental and human rights organizations. For more information call Washington State Jobs With Justice, 206- 448-7348, or Friends of the Earth, 206-633-1661. From foewase at igc.apc.org Wed Nov 13 06:57:56 1996 From: foewase at igc.apc.org (Northwest FOE Office) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 13:57:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [asia-apec 256] APEC '93 WATCH / ECO Issue No. 2 Seattle, WA Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961112140120.2107d8e2@pop.igc.org> Seattle, WA November 16, 1993 Number 2 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX APEC '93 WATCH "ECO" __________________ ECO has been published by non-governmental groups at major international conferences since the Stockholm Environmental Conference in 1972. This issue is produced cooperatively by groups attending the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Meeting in Seattle, Washington, USA, in November, 1993. __________________ NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS ASK ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP OF APEC CHIEFS (Today non-governmental organizations issued the following letter to the APEC leaders) 13 November 1993 NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS' OPEN LETTER TO APEC Dear Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation Leaders: Your meeting in Seattle, Washington provides an opportunity to demonstrate your continuing dedication to the commitments and objectives you endorsed at the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro. APEC, with members in both industrialized and developing nations of the Pacific Rim, provides an ideal forum to address international trade and its effects on the environment. International trade can and must be constructed to promote sustainable development. Liberalized trade can reward efficiency and promote investment in environmentally sound goods and services, or it can cause competition based on ever-lower standards of environmental protection and worker health and safety. To capture the benefits and avoid the pitfalls of trade, APEC leaders should highlight the need for environmental reform of international trade, both as part of the Pacific Rim and as part of the Uruguay Round, which will then lay the groundwork for future reform of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) as a whole. Below are some of our main recommendations: 1. The Multilateral Trade Organization (MTO) APEC countries should use this forum to declare that they will not support negotiations leading to the creation of Multilateral Trade Organizations (MTO) unless a clear, comprehensive environmental protection and sustainable development mandate has been established for the body. Such a mandate must include mechanisms for meaningful public participation. 2. Environmental Disputes within the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) APEC leaders should push for the necessary changes to the Uruguay Round text to ensure that it does not jeopardize a country's right to enact justifiable measures to protect the environment, including laws protecting animals, public health and worker safety, provided the measures are implemented in a non- discriminatory manner. Similarly, the APEC leaders should support, in the negotiating text, provisions to ensure that there is public participation and representation from all interested parties in the settlement of trade and environment disputes. 3. International Environmental Agreements Some international conventions dealing with environmental protection include trade sanctions as an important enforcement mechanism. A good example is the Montreal Protocol of 1987, amended by the London Protocol of 1990. Other international conventions, such as protocols to the Global Climate Convention, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) may include trade measures as mechanisms to bring economic pressure to encourage countries to comply with the terms of the agreement. APEC leaders should support efforts to ensure that the Uruguay Round text explicitly provides that the implementation of trade sanction provisions of international environmental conventions, treaties and protocols are not prohibited by GATT. GATT should not be the final arbiter in disputes between signatories and non-signatories to their international agreements. 4. Process Standards Furthermore, APEC governments should agree to an agenda and timetable for environmental reform of the GATT, which would be contained in a Ministerial Declaration accompanying the closure of the Uruguay Round negotiations. The APEC Declaration should call for negotiations, beginning immediately, to provide for environmental reform of GATT articles and operations, and guidelines for the justifiable use of process standards (i.e. standards relating to how a product is manufactured, rather than relating to qualities of the product itself) and other national measures aimed at protecting natural resources and the environment, including laws protecting animals. Until these environmental negotiations are complete, the APEC countries should agree among themselves and seek agreement from GATT Contracting Parties to a moratorium on challenges to existing environmental laws under the GATT, as has been called for in the European Parliament. 5. Toxic Trade The APEC countries should announce their intention to halt the rapidity increasing movement of toxic wastes, products and industries throughout the region. Dangerous wastes and products, such as pesticides, are being dumped in APEC countries as a means of avoiding more costly waste handling and occupational safety and health laws in other countries. The practice of waste "recycling" often poisons workers and leaves behind dangerous residues. In consideration of the 102 countries which have declared themselves opposed to waste imports, APEC countries should take immediate steps to declare themselves off limits to imports of dangerous wastes, products and industries. 6. Environmental Impact Assessments In addition to reforming global and regional trade agreements to take into account environmental analysis, each APEC country should commit to preparing an environmental impact analysis on any binational trade or trade sector agreement. 7. Full Price Costing of Commodities APEC should call for discussions within the relevant commodity agreements of methodology and mechanisms for incorporating "full cost pricing" into the international trade of those commodities. This would mean incorporating the cost of sustainable natural resources management, energy, including the transportation sector, and environmental protection. 8. Timber Trade as a Commodity Example Among APEC nations are the world's leading suppliers and consumers of temperate and tropical timbers. Throughout the Pacific Rim, including the Pacific Coast of North America where this meeting is being held, unsustainable forest are widespread and frequently subsidized. In order to eliminate one of the most controversial north/south disagreements over double standards regarding forests at the international level, APEC countries should support the inclusion of timber from temperate and boreal forests in the renewed International Tropical Timber Agreement. The goal of all aspects of the timber trade should be to move toward sustainable production as rapidly as possible, and to lower the pressure on natural forests. 9. Debt Relief The external debt burden faces by many developing nations in the Pacific Rim, especially the poorest countries, presents a major obstacle to sustainable development. Meeting debt payments forces massive exports of natural resources such as timber and minerals and conversion of agricultural land from subsistence to export crops. Sharply reducing the debt burdens of these countries is an absolute condition for achieving both economic viability and environmental sustainability. In addition to debt relief, we urge APEC leaders to call for the IMF and Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) to reorient their structural adjustment programs away from their present rigid macroeconomical focus. Human resource development and environmental sustainability must become an integral part of balance-of-payment stabilization and adjustment programs. The IMF and MDBs must analyze the impact of their programs on social and environmental sectors, incorporate degradation of environmental resources into national income accounting, and make their programs more transparent to give affected communities and local experts a voice in the design of adjustment programs. APEC can play a leadership role in ensuring that these changes happen. 10. Market Access Trade barriers preventing access to developed country markets cost developing countries billions each year in lost revenue-- much more money, in fact, than they receive annually in international 'aid'. Developed countries must recognize that market access is crucial to the success of debt-driven development programs such as the World Bank and Asian Development Bank. The developed APEC countries therefore should seek to enhance market access for less developed members, while at the same time ensuring smooth transitions for people in the affected domestic sectors. Conclusion In conclusion, we urge that the APEC nations work together to achieve substantive progress in the areas listed above. In the regard, we believe it is vital for the APEC governments individually and collectively to establish a process for moving forward on sustainable development issues and the protection of the environment of the Pacific Rim. We would recommend that APEC outline environmental tasks for its various Working Groups and that it consider establishing a Working Group dedicated to the issues of the Pacific Rim Trade and the environment. Sincerely: Alliance for Responsible Trade American Humane Association Animal Welfare Institute Center for International Environmental Law Chinese Human Rights Alliance Community Nutrition Institute Defenders of Wildlife Environmental Defense Fund Friends of the Earth-US Greater Ecosystem Alliance Greenpeace Humane Society of the United States Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Institute for Policy Studies - World Economy Program Puget Sound Gillnetters Association Rainforest Action Network Society for Animal Protective Legislation Sierra Club U.S. Out. . . WALHI/Friends of the Earth-Indonesia WorldWise ----------------- EDITORIAL: NAFTA IN THE HOME STRETCH: For the APEC countries and their environments the outcome of tomorrow's vote in the House of Representatives will be ambiguous. If the NAFTA wins. . . To its credit NAFTA would mark the first appearance of the term 'sustainable development' in the text of a trade agreement. Beyond the rhetorical level, the NAFTA has language that, albeit still problematic, provides greater range for countries to set protective health and safety standards than would exist if the current GATT draft is accepted. This news is good since the U.S. Congress will almost certainly not pass a GATT unless it matches NAFTA in these areas. Despite these gains NAFTA's passage would also mark the success of a dangerous development philosophy: encouraging developing countries to get rich quickly and pay for clean-up later. This desperate gamble can now be expected to be applied to Latin America and the rest of the Pacific Rim. If the NAFTA loses: If NAFTA is defeated, it will be a tremendous victory for a broad coalition of environmental, labor, consumer, church, and human rights organizations. Their popular pressure on Congress will have outweighed the many millions spent by corporations and governments to pass the treaty., At heart, this coalition understands that trade agreements are no longer simply about tariffs, they are about the deepest levels of national social policy -- regulations, subsidies, incentives -- the very fabric society. Their reaction against NAFTA stems from the Agreements's willingness to hang the social fabric on behalf of corporate interests combined with its sudden deference to 'sovereignty' when it comes to promoting other goals such as democracy, worker's rights, or environmental responsibility. NAFTA is badly flawed and yet the current trade and environment situation in North America is unacceptable. This leaves NAFTA's supports and opponents with a common challenge regardless of tomorrow's vote: how to channel the inevitable and growing integration of the world economy in a fashion that promotes environmentally sound and sustainable development. APEC needs to take up this challenge. ----------------- ECO is a publication of the Non-Governmental Organizations present at the APEC Meeting to present alternative trade models that incorporate sustainable development, poverty alleviation measures and the protection of the environment. Staff: Karen Fant Alex Hittle Emily Kaplan David E. Ortman John Reese The editorial office can be reached at 206-XXX-XXXX, FAX XXX-XXXX e-mail: foewase@igc.apc.org From foewase at igc.apc.org Fri Nov 15 04:43:17 1996 From: foewase at igc.apc.org (Northwest FOE Office) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 11:43:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [asia-apec 257] APEC '93 WATCH "ECO" ISSUE 4 Part 1, Seattle, WA Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961114114634.2c573b50@pop.igc.org> NOTE: Sorry, APEC '93 Issue 4 bounced back from asia-apec because it was just over 18k. I've split it into Part 1 and Part 2. Part 1 of 2 Seattle, WA November 20, 1993 XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX APEC WATCH ECO FINAL EDITION No. 4 --------------------------------------------------------- ECO has been published by non-governmental groups at major international conferences since the Stockholm Environmental Conference in 1972. This issue is produced cooperatively by groups attending the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Meeting in Seattle, Washington, USA, in November, 1993. ------- NEWSFLASH: APEC SECRETARIAT TO MEET NON-GOVERNMENTAL REPS Non-governmental organizations concerned with labor, environment, and human rights will meet today with the APEC Secretariat. We hope that this meeting will be a model for future annual ministerial meetings. CONTENTS: WASTE TRADE page 1 APEC EDITORIAL page 2 INDONESIA page 3 Taiga page 4 Gremlin page 5 Japan Reacts page 5 Invitation page 6 Greenpeace Reports. . . WASTE TRADE TARGET: ASIA Asia is currently being targeted by the world's waste traders as an open market for unwanted wastes from industrialized countries. Without strict national laws, decrees, and policies or a regional agreement prohibiting all imports of hazardous wastes, Asia is in danger of becoming a dumping ground for vast quantities and several dangerous types of wastes. For example, between January and June 1993, the United States exported more than 19,000 tons of wastes and toxic products to Asia, including plastic wastes, scrap metal waste, and spent lead-acid automotive batteries. These shipments included at least 2,000 tons of banned or unregistered pesticides to Asia. Toxic trades have offered Asian countries countless poisons; among the commonly offered toxic wastes and products: asbestos, incinerator ash, tire wastes, industrial chemical wastes, municipal wastes, slag from metallurgical processes, leaded gasoline, banned an never-registered pesticides, useless pharmaceutical, plastic wastes, polychorinated biphenyls, lead acid battery wastes, sewage sludges and used paints to name but a few. All of these materials contain or can produce upon incineration, extremely toxic and harmful substances such as heavy metals, dioxin and furans. Almost every country in Asia has been targeted as a waste dumpsite for wastes from industrialized countries. In the first six months of 1993 along, Greenpeace has documented more than 440 waste export schemes from the United States to Asian countries. However, this number is clearly just the tip of the iceberg of the number of schemes from all industrialized countries to the region. Additionally, the number of waste shipments to Asia as a whole, as well as to certain countries, is increasing. For example, for the first six months of 1992 and 1993, the actual number of waste shipments from the United States to Asian countries increased from 422 to 440 shipments. As Asian countries are alerted to the environmental, political, and social menace posed by waste imports, Asian countries are developing national legislation to halt the waste trade pirates. For example, in 1992, the Indonesian Government banned waste plastic imports. Greenpeace discovered that in 1992, 90% of all hazardous waste export schemes from industrialized to developing countries came under the guise of "recycling," recovery," "further use," or even as "humanitarian aid" Thoughout Asia, waste traders invariably present their proposals as "development plans" that will bering jobs, roads, energy, hospitals, housing and money. The proposals never mention the "development plan's" environmental and health implications. ------ EDITORIAL: After the last trade minister has made the last trade, and the last Head of State has motorcaded out to the airport, one thing is clear. APEC will never by the same. Ambassador Bodde refers to APEC as a baby. Two new babies, Mexico and Papua New Guinea have been added to the nursery. But APEC needs to be potty- trained. A good does of citizen activism, environmental journalism (the APEC WATCH ECO newsletter) and one-on-one lobbying ha proven that democracy is a good thing and future APEC meetings should accommodate it. Saturday, while Heads of State congregate on Blake Island State Park in the middle of Puget Sound, an estuary with sick fish and closed shellfish beds, we urge President Clinton to take a chapter from Section 101(c) of the Federal Clean Water Act. Passed in 1972, Congress mandated the President, working through the Secretary of State to use all possible means to achieve zero discharge of pollutants into waters of the countries, not just our own. A declaration that Pacific Rim trade will not be conducted at the expense of the Pacific Ocean and its bays and estuaries would be a powerful signal that the era of "Trade Uber Alles" has come to an end. Log, cigarette and waste exports are obvious examples of how 'trade balances' and 'economies' are built on the hidden impacts to the Pacific Rim's citizens and environment. Finally, above all else, APEC must not pursue a closure of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade round by next month in the absence of an integration of environmental, human rights and labor issues into the GATT. We can not afford to let APEC stand for "A PERMANENT ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS." ------ WASTE: A DEADLY BUSINESS (The following article was written by WALHI, Friends of the Earth Indonesia) A government decree issued in Indonesia in 1992 banned plastic waste imports. Since then more than 5,000 tonnes of waste have been illegally imported. Indonesia has not resolved its own domestic waste problem yet waste imports from America, Europe, Japan and Australia are arriving at Indonesian ports under the guise of western countries' recycling programmes. However, only 60% of the imported waste can be recycled: the remaining 40% is unrecyclable and at least 10% is contaminated by toxic or hazardous waste. WALHI/FoE Indonesia, the Jakarta Social Institute and scavenger groups are concerned by the impact of waste imports not only bon the environment and public health, but also on the incomes of 2000,000 local scavengers, which have decreased by 50 to 75 percent since Indonesia began to import waste in 1988. The irony is that scavengers provide Indonesian cities with free recycling services which keep the environment clean and save the cities millions of dollars annually in waste disposal costs. The recycling potential of the waste industry makes it an extremely lucrative business. Waste imports are paid substantial sums to receive materials for recycling in Indonesia which are considered waste by the exporting countries. US $40 and $60 per tonne for toxic and hazardous imports are not uncommon sums, whereas countries in Europe demand $160 to $100 pr tonne to receive such waste. From these figures it is easy to see where the waste ends up. Controversy surrounding the waste imports intensified after the Government scheduled an auction to disperse the 5,000 tonnes of waste imported illegally since the ban went into effect. However, just one week before the event, President Suharto ordered that the imported waste be destroyed. Government officials were not interested in pursing alternatives to the President's directives, and balked at WALHI's suggestion that the wastes be returned to their countries of origin. WALHI has not so far met with success with appeals to embassies requesting that governments take full responsibility for the waste imports originating int heir respective countries and cover the costs of shipping the waste back. Indonesian NGOs and scavenger communities continue their efforts to re-export waste to its country of origin, and are simultaneously working to put an end to the water trade to Indonesia. WALHI is launching a letter-writing campaign to Indonesian President Suharto urging the government to enforce the existing ban on plastic imports and to return the illegal imports. This should send a clear message that developing countries in the Southern hemisphere and eastern Europe are not dumping grounds. ----- End of Part 1, ISSUE #4. From foewase at igc.apc.org Fri Nov 15 04:43:33 1996 From: foewase at igc.apc.org (Northwest FOE Office) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 11:43:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [asia-apec 258] APEC '93 WATCH "ECO" Issue 4, Part 2, Seattle, WA Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961114114648.2bef30f6@pop.igc.org> NOTE: Issue #4 was to large and bounced back. I've split it into two parts. NW Friends of the Earth APEC '93 WATCH "ECO" ISSUE #4 Part 2 of 2 Seattle, WA ---------- APEC INVESTMENTS THREATEN RUSSIAN TAIGA Numerous developing countries in the Pacific Rim, who are members of the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), face the burden of servicing enormous foreign debts. In a struggle to gain hard currency to meet debt payments these countries have been forced to export natural resources such as timber and valuable minerals in an unsustainable manner. Although Russia is not a member of APEC it serves as an excellent example of unsustainable resource management in the Pacific Rim. Russia's current economic malaise and need to service its debt threats to accelerate destruction of the Taiga, Russia's boreal forest in Siberia. The Taiga The Taiga is situated in the sub-Arctic region of Siberian Russia. Its size is unparalleled measuring 1.6 billion acres and is about three times the size of Brazil's rainforest. There are about 30 million inhabitants, including 24 indigenous groups numbering one million people. The Taiga has 54% of the world's coniferous forests, 37% of the world's temperate forests and makes up 21% of the world's total forest area. The Taiga is also home to many rich mineral resources such as deep reserves of oil, natural gas, coal, diamonds and gold. Besides being endowed with valuable economic resources, the Taiga also serves an important global environmental function. Combined with the Tundra, the Taiga contains well over one-half of the total amount of carbon held in forests and soils globally, far grater than the amount stored in the Amazon. The Taiga is home to numerous rare animal species such as the Siberian tiger, the great grey owl and reindeer. Unfortunately the Taiga is undergoing unprecedented development. The Taiga is currently being cut at the rate of 5 million acres per year. This deforestation is a substantial contributor to global warming and a threat to its biodiversity. The rare animal species will continue to be displaced and are in danger of extinction if this destructive development pattern continues unabated. APEC Countries and the Taiga Deforestation of Southeast Asia and the depletion of forests in the United States have forced foreign countries to search elsewhere for a constant supply of timber. The Taiga with its expansive quantity of wood has been an attractive location for foreign timber companies, mainly from APEC member countries, to supply their timber and paper industries. In fact, after the fall of the Soviet Union, timber and paper companies from the United States, Japan and South Korea began offering Russia modern equipment, expertise and hard foreign currency in the Taiga region: * The Russian Supreme Court recently blocked operations by the Hyundai Corporation from South Korea. Hyundai had a contract to cut 6000,000 of Siberian timber over the next 30 years beginning in 1991. However, Russia's Regional Committee on Ecology and Natural Resources (RCENR) reported that South Korean loggers had been poaching wildlife, reneging on their obligation to reforest and overcutting in some areas of the region. Hyundai had also received numerous negative environmental impact assessments on their activities from the local Goskompiroda, the State Committee on Nature Protection. * Weyerhaeuser, from the United States, is discussing the possibility of a logging, processing and replanting operation in the region. In exchange for a nursery and restoration project, Weyerhaeuser wants a 20 year lease to cut on more than 40,000 acres in the region. * U.S. timber companies Louisiana Pacific and Georgia Pacific have also approached the Russians for timber contacts in the near future. Russian cannot afford to continue to rely on the fragile Taiga as a source of hard currency to relieve its debt burden of 80 billion U.S. dollars. The increased deforestation presents a special problem for the Taiga region. The clearcutting methods employed by timber companies make it more difficult for the Taiga region to reforest due to its severe conditions. Roughly half of all forests similar to the Taiga become swamps after enormous timber harvests. The resulting damage from such unchecked development is unfathomable and counters Russia's ability to achieve sustainable development. -------- YOU ARE INVITED: In the absence of a Pacific Rim town meeting hosted by President Clinton, the Seattle Citizens Host Committee invites people to the following rallies: FRIDAY NOVEMBER 19th - NOON - "CLEARCUT COSTS OF PACIFIC TRADE" Pike Place Market/Victor Steinbreuck Park with: MITCH FRIEDMAN - Director, Greater Ecosystem Alliance MICHAEL DONNELLY - Friends of Breiten Bush Cascades, Oregon PAUL CIENFUEGOS - Friends of Clayoquot Sound, B.C. PETE KNUTSEN- Puget Sound Gillnetters Association/ AND MORE. . . Contact: Josh Marks, Western Ancient Forest Campaign 632-6041 SATURDAY - 20th NOVEMBER - 7:00 am. PIER 62 off of Alaskan Way "FAIR TRADE FLOTILLA" APEC BLACK ISLAND SUNRISE SENDOFF RALLY Come and watch Greenpeace and the Puget Sound Gillnetters Association FLOTILLA. Depart 7:30 pm. FLOTILLA RETURNS at 10:30 am and will join the BIG RALLY AT WESTLAKE CENTER AT NOON. Contact: Cynthia Rust or Nick Morgan, Greenpeace 632-4326 SATURDAY - 20th NOVEMBER - 11:30 am March from IBEW Local 46 Hall - 2700 First Ave, Seattle, to a NOON Rally- WESTLAKE PLAZA - Down Town Seattle THE HIDDEN COSTS OF FREE TRADE- PEOPLE'S APEC RALLY HUMAN RIGHTS - ENVIRONMENT - LABOR FAIRNESS Speakers: Dolores Huerta, Co-founder and first vice president, United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO - Rev. Dr. Robert L. Jeffrey, Sr., Executive Director, Black Dollar Days Task Force - Run Judd, Executive Secretary, King County Labor Council, AFL- CIO, Mark Dubois, Ex. Director, WorldWise Contact: Washington State Jobs with Justice, 206-448-7348 ----- GREMLIN * The best technology war does not go to Boeing, but to the push button espresso/latte machine in the Press Lounge. A bit large for your kitchen, but it might fit on Air Force One. * Gremlin is no weather forecaster, but notes that Seattle and your home city have this in common: Mount Rainier can't be seen from either place. * Gremlin is no tour guide, either, but before you leave check out the famous Underground Seattle tour of Pioneer Square. Approximately 40 square blocks of Seattle that lie beneath your feet, a portion of which you can explore as a part of a guided tour. While your are down in the deep depths of this fir city, see if you can find some of these missing APEC terms: STAINABLE DEVELOPMENT - POLLUTER PAYS - GLOBAL WARMING - GREENING OF THE GATT - RIO EARTH SUMMIT. * Gremlin salutes this week's "Great American Smokeout" designed to help U.S. citizens quit smoking. How ironic that in 1992 Washington State's eighth biggest export was CIGARETTES, accounting for $451.6 million dollars. There is something wrong with a trade system that values products that kill the same way as medicine that heals. ----- JAPANESE REACTION TO NAFTA AND APEC "The Debate about the NAFTA included the environmental impact of the agreement as a high priority. But APEC is virtually ignoring the environment in its discussions. Let's see a bit more commitment to the long-term well-being of the Asia Pacific region, not just to trade growth. "We are disappointed that this meeting of APEC has committed no time to cover environmental concerns. It is only a year after the UNCED meeting in Rio de Janeiro, where governments expressed their commitment to solving environmental problems. The next meeting of APEC in Indonesia would ensure that environment is high on the agenda." Aya Saitoh, Friends of the Earth Japan ----------------------------------------------------------------- ECO is a publication of the Non-Governmental Organizations present at the APEC Meeting to present alternative trade models that incorporate sustainable development, poverty alleviation measures and the protection of the environment. Staff: Karen Fant Alex Hittle Emily Kaplan Hug Llamas Nick Morgan David E. Ortman Ita Rachmita John Reese The editorial office can be reached at 206-XXX-XXXX, FAX XXX-XXXX e-mail: foewase@igc.apc.org ECO wishes to thank the organizers of the Seattle Citizens' Host Committee, who seized the opportunity to work together as members of an umbrella coalition of environmental groups, human rights advocates and labor organizations under the theme - THE HIDDEN COSTS OF FREE TRADE. From sonny at nation.nationgroup.com Mon Nov 18 05:49:15 1996 From: sonny at nation.nationgroup.com (sonny@nation.nationgroup.com) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 14:49:15 -0600 (CST) Subject: [asia-apec 259] APCET II, Kuala Lumpur Message-ID: Melee over a meeting: Umno's leaders get more than they bargained for. Or did they? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Joseph Nagy and Roger Mitton, Kuala Lumpur, Asiaweek, November 22, 1996 An air of quiet civility reigned at the Asia Hotel in central Kuala Lumpur on the morning of Nov 9. Hotel guests, many of them delegates to the 2nd Asia-Pacific Conference on East Timor, chatted amiably over their breakfast. The planned three-day meeting brought together activists from a dozen nations, including Malaysia to discuss human rights and democracy in the former Portuguese colony, whose forcible annexation by Indonesia in 1975 is unrecognized by the UN. The first such meeting was held in Manila two years ago. At that time, President Fidel Ramos, in deference to Indonesian sensitivities, barred entry to about 40 prominent participants, including Nobel Peace Prize-winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu. The Malaysian government had made it plain last week that it did not want the conference to take place on its soil. But it took no steps to prevent it -- until the commotion began later that morning outside the 4th floor hotel hall where about 100 delegates had assembled. On the street below, men were haranguing a crowd to break up the meeting. Some 200 stormed into the lobby and headed up the stairs. Inside, the organisers locked the doors and stacked chairs against them. Some delegates, including elderly people, one in a wheelchair, huddled in front of the stage. The mob began battering the doors. Inevitably they gave way and the crowd rampaged in, overturning tables and chairs and ripping down banners. Former Malaysian MP Fan Yew Teng said: "It makes me think of the Red Guards of the Cultural Revolution and the invasion of the US embassy in Tehran. It's mob rule." Many of the protesters were pumped up for action. Some carried sticks, other bottles of water which they rained over the cowering delegates, others with bull horns carried out a verbal assault. Shrieked one: "We love Indonesia! We love Malaysia! We want harmonious neighbours! If you want to discuss this issue, go somewhere else! Don't come and jeopardise our country! Get out! Out! Out! Out!" Several women delegates were crying. Said opposition MP Lim Guan Eng, who was present: "It makes you ashamed to be Malaysian." Bar Council president Hendon Mohamad said: "It tarnished the image of the country overseas." It was not the ugly mood of the mob that stunned observers, but the people leading it: they were members of the parties that make up Malaysia's governing National Front coalition. Spearheading the attack was Saifuddin Nasution, political secretary to the Defense Minister and secretary of the Youth Wing of the dominant United Malays National Organisation (Umno). With him were Dr Rahim Ghouse, head of the wing's economic bureau, Nadzri Ismail, deputy head of its international affairs division, and other executive committee members including Ruslan Kasim, Jema Khan, Supardi Noor and Zein Isma Ismail. When the police arrived a half-hour later, they separated the two sides. Foreign delegates were bused to the airport for deportation. Meanwhile police arrested a handful of Umno Youth leaders, including Saifuddin, for refusing to disperse. They were released on bail within a few hours. The remaining delegates and several journalists (Including Asiaweek Senior Correspondent Roger Mitton) were detained several nights in over-crowded cells in a downtown lock-up. Over the next few days, most were released, but 10 remained in detention. >From the start, the affair was marked by mixed signals. Rather than issuing a blanket ban, the government at first appealed to the organisers to cancel the conference. It did not want an event that criticised Indonesia, a fellow member of ASEAN, and more to the point, a fellow Malaysian Muslim state. One concession came from the other side when East Timor activist Jose Ramos-Horta, this year's Nobel Peace Prize recipient, decided not to attend "as a gesture of goodwill towards Malaysia and to avoid putting it in a difficult position." But the organisers were not about to cancel. On Nov 7, with Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad on an African visit, Deputy Premier Anwar Ibrahim said bluntly that the Cabinet had decided the conference should not go ahead and that any foreign delegates would be deported. Still the organisers said they would proceed. Said Umno's Nadzri: "They showed disrespect to our government." The unanswered question: Was it the consensus of the leadership to order the party's Youth Wing? Or was it done independently by Mahathir or Anwar -- or someone else? Mahathir in a typically enigmatic fashion, did not let on. He merely said the organisers had been irresponsible in defying the Cabinet directive. Anwar denied that the government had arranged the disruption. Yet, many of those involved, especially Saifuddin and Dr Rahim, rarely make a major move without clearing it with Anwar. Umno Youth leader Zahid Hamidi, who was travelling with Mahathir, confirmed he had directed his people to break up the conference. Back in Kuala Lumpur, he explained to Asiaweek: "I told them to stop it peacefully. I did not expect them to go breaking down doors, overturing chairs and entering in such an unruly way." On Zahid's word, Saifuddin had assembled the attack force on Nov 8, a day before the meeting began. After storming the event, Saifuddin said: "We had no option. The leaders of the conference were told the government did not want them to go ahead. They were asked again yesterday to cancel. They refused. They are so stubborn." Indonesia appeared to appreciate Malaysia's action. State Secretary Murdiono, in Jordan with President Suharto on a stste visit, said the move against the conference "reflected the ASEAN members' commitment not to interfere in the affairs of other countries and their highest solidarity." President Ramos could hardly demur, having recently denied entry to Horta. Said he:"We must respect the Malaysian system of policies, rules and laws, beacuse that's their system." Some in Umno were critical of the raiders. While agreeing with the sentiment against the conference, deputy Youth leader Hishammuddin Tun Hussein distanced himself from the attack. Anyone who broke the law, he said, would not be protected. The Women's Wing deputy head, Napsiah Omar, called on authorities not to practice double standards and to apply the law equally to demonstrators as well as conference participants. Yet most accept that the senior Umno leadership had given enough signs to its Youth members for them to know what to do. The Youth Wing has a history of being used in frontline actions where discretion precluded overt government involvement: "Nobody was hurt," said Dr Rahim of the weekend ruckus. Some wondered whether the leadership was not completely unhappy that attention was focused on Indonesia's most troubled province. Many Malaysians, remembering Konfrontasi and more recent slights, feel their giant neighbour has sometimes treated them badly, and take satisfaction in its occassional discomfort. Then again, the entire affair could have been one big foul-up. Whatever the cause, it certainly succeeded in turning a minor meeting into an international brouhaha, and blemished Malaysia's reputation for adherence to the rule of law. From gjg at HK.Super.NET Wed Nov 20 23:03:54 1996 From: gjg at HK.Super.NET (Gerard Greenfield) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 22:03:54 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 260] not against APEC? Message-ID: I see that in entertaining the press MPFA organisers have announced that they are not against APEC and want to make it a better, people & environmentally friendly APEC. In saying this they have spoken on behalf of a number of organisations which have clearly rejected APEC. Rather than allowing for this diversity of opinion, they've given the impression of consensus. So much for participation! I look forward to seeing who gets to have access to power in the corridors of APEC among the so-called NGO community! Hopefully the Big Brothers will explain how neoliberalism is to be accepted then modified to include "people's concerns for human rights, gender, social equity and environmental sustainability"? Gerard From cnic at kiwi.co.jp Thu Nov 21 10:35:17 1996 From: cnic at kiwi.co.jp (Citizens' Nuclear Information Center) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 10:35:17 +0900 (JST) Subject: [asia-apec 261] THREE GORGES: ACTION ALERT Message-ID: <199611210135.KAA19293@kiwi.co.jp> >Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 01:52:48 -0800 (PST) >From: Friends of the Earth Japan >To: L.Mehta@sussex.ac.uk, merickson@alternatives.com, pwellner@igc.org >Subject: THREE GORGES: ACTION ALERT >Cc: bankreform@igc.org, cnic@kiwi.co.jp, foenz@kcbbs.gen.nz, mchan@FOE.org > >ACTION ALERT ACTION ALERT ACTION ALERT ACTION ALERT ACTION >ALERT > > >20 Nov 96 > >STOP THREE GORGES DAM!! > >PLEASE SEND A FAX TO HITACHI TODAY. ALSO, PLEASE PASS ON THIS >ACTION ALERT >TO YOUR CONTACTS; WE NEED AS MANY FAXES TO HITACHI, JEXIM, and >MITI AS >POSSIBLE TO HAVE AN IMPACT. > >Sincerely, > >Aya Saitoh Aid Impact Campaigner > >************************************************************************ > >To: Bruce Rich, EDF, 202 234 6049: bruce@edf.org > > Roberta Brook Cowan, IFI Campaign, FOE International, > fax 31 20 > 392181: ifi@foeint.antenna.nl > > Larry Boudreau, Maryknoll Education Center, Texas: > Mklsanton@igc. > apc.org > > Tom Keating, Rainforest Relief: relief@igc.apc.org > > Goran Eklof, Swedish Society for Nature: 011 46 8 702 > 0855; > Goran.Eklof@snf.se > > Mengchuo Wong, IDEAL, Eco-friendly and Appropriate > Lifestyle, > Malayasia: ipk@pactok.peg.apc.org > > Lisa Jordan, BIC 202 466 8189: bicusa@igc.apc.org > > Manuel Erickson,Green Party of British > Columbia:merickson@ > alternatives.com > > Lyla Mehta & Jason Ward, Institute of Development > Studies, > University of Sussex L.Mehta@sussex.ac.uk > > John W. Friede, Worldview: worldview@igc.apc.org > > Endorsement for James Hansen, Wetlands Rainforest Action > Group, > was received from Worldview. No direct email > or fax available at this time. > > Pamela Wellner, Free Burma: No Petro-dollars for SLORC, > pwellner@ > igc.apc.org > > Mika Obayashi, Asian Relations, Citizens' Nuclear > Information > Center, Japan, cnic@kiwi.co.jp > > Jack Henderson, FOE New Zealand, foenz@kcbbs.gen.nz > > Mark DuBois, WorldWise 916 739 6951: > bankreform@igc.apc.org > > Michelle Chan, FOE 202 783 0444: mchan@FOE.org > > Marie Jose Vervest, BOTH Ends, fax: +31 20 620 80 49: > bothends@ > gn.apc.org > > Peter Bosshard, Erklaerung von Bern, (41 1) 272 60 60: > evb@ > access.ch > > David Hunter, CIEL, 332 4865: cieldh@igc.apc.org > > Owen Lammers/Patrick McCully, IRN 510 848 1008 > > Barbara Bramble, NWF, 202 797 5486, bramble@nwf.org > > David C. Korten, PCD Forum, 212 242-1901: > pcdf@igc.apc.org > > Deike Peters Fax, Institute for Transportation and > Development > Polic, 212-260 7353: mobility@igc.apc.org > > Erik Hoeines, FIVAS, 011 47 22 36 22 80: > erik.hoines@ima.uio.no > > Wouter Veening, IUCN, Fax 011 31 20 6279349 > > Francesco Martone, Liliana Cori, Antonio Tricarico, > Reform the > World Bank Campaign, 39 6 242 4177: > fmartone@gn.apc.org (Francesco) and > tricar@elettrica.ing.uniroma1.it (Antonio) > > Marko Ulvila, CED, tel/fax 011 358 3 212 0097: > ulvila@katto. > kaapeli.fi > > Helene Ballande, Amis de la Terre -- France Fax: 33 > -01- 48 87 > 2823: amiterre@micronet.fr > > Laura Radiconcini, FOE Italy, fax: 39 68308610: > foeitaly@gn.apc.org > Aviva Imhoff, Aid/Watch, +612 9264 6092: > aidwatch@peg.apc.org > Saleem Samad, LMEAG +88-02-805874 > saleem@drik.bgd.toolnet.org > > Richard Forrest, NWF, Raforrest@aol.com > > Daniel Beard, dbeard@uadobon.org > > John Thibodeau, eprobe@web.apc.org > > Dai Qing, dgdg@public3.bta.net.cn > > Yuri Onodera, foejapan@igc.apc.org > > Kenneth Walsh, EDF, wild@edf.org > > >ACTION ALERT ACTION ALERT ACTION ALERT ACTION ALERT ACTION >ALERT > > >20 Nov 96 > >Stop Three Gorges Dam >PLEASE SEND A FAX TO HITACHI TODAY > >To NGOs campaigning on the Three Gorges Dam in China, > >Japan is about to make a critical decision that will affect the >future of the Dam which you are campaigning on. Please help by >sending a fax as explained below. > >BACKGROUND >The Export Import Bank of Japan is very eager to fund the Three >Gorges Dam, and will make a decision whether or not offer funds >for the project before 18 December. > >Hitachi Ltd. is the leader of a 7-company Japanese consortium >hoping to win bids for power turbines for the dam. Based on our >previous experience with that company's involvement in the Narmada >Dam in India, we know that they are quite concerned about their >international image. We understand that they have not yet formally >requested funding from JEXIM for Three Gorges. > >Your action now is critical. > >Please send the following letter to Hitachi directly. >International pressure is important. Please send a copy to JEXIM >and MITI, and a copy (or at least a notice) to FoE Japan. > >Sincerely, > >Aya Saitoh Aid Impact Campaigner FoE Japan (FAX 81-3-3951-1084) > >FAX NUMBERS >Hitachi Ltd. FAX 81-3-3258-5211~5216 Export Import Bank of Japan >FAX 81-3-3287-9574 >MITI FAX 81-3-3501-1479 > > >************************************************************* > >SAMPLE LETTER: > > >November, 1996 > >Mr. Tokiyuki Uchida Assistant Manager International Electric Power >Sales Department Hitachi Ltd. 4-6 Kanda-Surugadai Chiyoda-ku, >Tokyo 101 JAPAN > >Dear Mr. Uchida, > >I am writing to express my deep concern about potential >involvement of Hitachi Ltd. in the Three Gorges Dam project in >China, and to urge you not to make a loan request to the Export >Import Bank of Japan for this project. > >I understand that the deadline for bids to provide generator >turbines for the Three Gorges Dam project will be on 18 December, >that Hitachi Ltd. and another six companies are interesting in >bidding. > >Many environmental, human rights, technical, and economic problems >have been pointed out about the dam. The government of China has >claimed that these problems have been "solved or improved," but I >still hold grave doubts about whether or not the problems have >been properly addressed yet. The government of China says that >"resettlement is proceeding based on legal procedures," citing the >'Resettlement of Yangtse-Three Gorges Construction Project' >ordinance adopted 29 June 1993. However the ordinance only >provides general guidelines. Since it is clear that there are no >concrete implementation guidelines, I am very concerned about how >the Chinese government is actually proceeding with "resettlement >based on legal procedures". > >Furthermore, reports from individuals who recently tried see the >resettlement site indicate that at present foreigners have great >difficulty getting to the site, and it is impossible to hear or >confirm the views of local people. Under these conditions, it is >impossible for third parties to confirm directly with local people >whether resettlement is "proceeding carefully", or whether they >are "willingly being resettled", as authorities promoting the >project state. > >As the world has learned from observing the negative impacts of >other large scale dam projects such as the Narmada Dam in India, >it is not convincing to listen only to the statements of >authorities which are promoting the project. > >Furthermore, authorities have not given convincing explanations >about technical issues surrounding the Three Gorges Dam. Based on >reports released, the extent of siltification that will occur is >very clear. Authorities claim that the project will 'help >environmental protection since the dam will have less impact on >global warming and acid rain than thermal power plants.' But what >about the environmental problems that will occur in the high >likelihood that the dam ceases to function properly. > >As Hitachi Ltd. is well aware from the experience of problems >surrounding the Narmada Dam in India, the global trend is to stop >building large scale dams. The United States Department of the >Interior is stopping the construction of all large dams in the >country, and is extremely cautious about large dam construction >overseas. International opinion is already very critical of the >Three Gorges Dam, and any party which involves itself in the >project will clearly also be a target for international >criticism. > >I hope for the prosperity of the people of China, and would like >to believe that Hitachi Ltd. is trying to get involved in the >project with the benefit of the people of China in mind. I hope >that Hitachi Ltd. will seriously consider the issues raised above, >and cancel plans for potential involvement in the project. > >Sincerely, > >Name, Organization: Address: > >cc: Mr Kazuhisa Marukawa, Director, Loan Department 1, Export >Import Bank of Japan > Mr. Yasunobe Shin, Director, Export Division, Ministry of >International Trade and Industry, Japan > >END > > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Citizens' Nuclear Information Center 1-59-14-302 Higashi-nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164, Japan Phone:81-3-5330-9520 Facsimile:81-3-5330-9530 e-mail:cnic@kiwi.co.jp From RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org Sun Nov 24 09:26:26 1996 From: RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org (RVerzola) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 16:26:26 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 262] who owns mpfa anyway? Message-ID: This was posted on our local APEC forum, which I presume is a reply to gjg's posting. * Original is in : ASIA.APEC * Original date : 22 Nov 96 11:53:47 * Original is by : AIMNL * Original is to : all * Full text below: I am not one who can at this point make an informed decision for or against APEC. I think that the issues involved here are just too complex and the results can really prove either side correct in the end. (Certainly though I deplore the "palabas" and the demolitions done in the name of APEC). However, I am deeply concerned that, in fact, the MPFA has been projected as anti-APEC when the forum itself has not taken place yet. The Philippine position may well be "anti" but that does not mean that the international forum will necessarily take that position. Will the Filipinos decide the final result for the rest of the region? I truly hope not. And, I think that the MPFA organizers are simply safeguarding the process that yet has to unfold by taking a neither here nor there position. Peter Perfecto From aditjond at psychology.newcastle.edu.au Tue Nov 26 10:10:06 1996 From: aditjond at psychology.newcastle.edu.au (George J. Aditjondro) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 12:10:06 +1100 Subject: [asia-apec 263] Re: Suharto in the Philippines (I) Message-ID: >Dear George: Many thanks for the updated version of your paper on Suharto >family/crony interests in the Philippines, and permission to publish. I >will run extracts in the first 1997 issue of "Kapatiran", the PSNA >newsletter, and send you a copy. I am posting you the last spare copy of >the latest "Kapatiran", which focuses on APEC. Murray -------- Dear Murray: before you start editing it, here I'm sending you another update, since from my further library research, it is clear now that Bambang Trihatmojo, Suharto's second son, will benefit from two major decisions made in the pre-Apec meetings in Manila: he has shares in the Mabuhay satelite, which has received a loan committment from the US Exim Bank, and he also has shares in an infrastructure company, which will build Cebu's new water supply, which MOU has been signed by the Oz & Fil trade ministers. Isn't that something? GJA ----------------------------------------- FURTHER UPDATED version of paper prepared for the Manila People's Forum on APEC (MPFA), 22-25 Nov. 1996. The "ASEAN-ization" of Suharto's family businesss in the Philippines By Dr. George J. Aditjondro WHY did President Fidel Ramos of the Philippines prohibited the Nobel laureate Jose Manuel Ramos-Horta from visiting Manila to present a keynote address at the People's Forum on APEC, last week? Or, why did Manila stated that it would maintain the 100 persons immigration black list, which was hastely drafted before the first Asia Pacific Conference on East Timor (APCET) in Manila, in May 1994? As you already know, the most popular reason why all ASEAN member countries work hard to prohibit any frank debate about the plight of the East Timor people on their soil is "ASEAN solidarity". In the specific case of the Philippines, Manila has always been reminded by the Suharto regime of Jakarta's "diplomatic favour" in mediating between Manila and Nur Misuari's Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), to solve the "Moro problem" in a peaceful way. This "diplomatic favour" is supposedly based on Indonesia's sense of "Muslim brotherhood" towards the Bangsa Moro. However, as far as Suharto is concerned, this "Muslim brotherhood" rhetoric is simply a myth. The real reason for Jakarta's role in helping to settle the "Moro problem" is not necessarily Suharto's love for fellow Muslims in the South. The real reason is the "ASEAN-ization" of businesses owned by the Jakarta oligarchy, pioneered by Suharto's closest and oldest business partner, Liem Sioe Liong, through the Salim Group. Suharto's half-brother, Sudwikatmono, is also a major shareowner in this group, while two of Suharto's children, Siti Hardiyanti Rukmana and Sigit Harjojudanto, own 32% shares in the group's Bank Central Asia (BCA). Following the track of his older brother and sister, Bambang Trihatmojo, Suharto's second son, has also formed many joint ventures with the Salim Group, especially in the tourism and petro-chemical industries. Salim's patriarch Liem Sioe Liong himself is closely connected with other Chinese tycoons in South East Asia and Hong Kong (Soetriyono, n.d.; Swasembada [Swa ], August 1995: 12-55). After accumulating their capital from the Salim Group and from their father's patronage, the Suharto children have ventured into the "brave new world" of ASEAN with their own business conglomerates. These "ASEAN-ized" Indonesian businesses have now spread its wings to the Philippines, from Manila to Cebu, and also probably to Davao and General Santos. Of all these Suharto family businesses, the Citra Lamtorogung Group controlled by Suharto's eldest sibling, Siti Hardiyanti Rukmana, or "Tutut" as she is popularly called, is the most "ASEAN-ized". After her success as contractor of toll roads, airports, and harbours in Indonesia, she expanded her operations, with the blessings of her father and his Malaysian counterpart, to construct a 22-km portion of the 512-km North-South highway between Singapore, Johor, and the border of Thailand, through a joint venture with a company associated with the ruling Malay party, UMNO. She has also won a tender to construct Kuala Lumpur's second international airport at Sepang, claimed to be larger than Singapore's Changi Airport (Info-Bisnis, June 1994: 11-13; Forum Keadilan, Sept 1, 1994; Warta Ekonomi [WE ], Sept 12, 1994, Nov 20, 1995). For the last two years, she has been involved in building the 45-km Metro Manila Skyway Project through her Citra Consortium, with a total investment of US$ 475 million. This mega-project will involve a 12.5-km elevated skyway above the South Luzon Expressway (SLE) and a 14.5-km surface road portion of the SLE from Alabang to Nichols. Tutut's Citra Consortium has received exclusive authorization from the Philippine National Construction Company (PNCC) to undertake the construction, financing and management of the toll road projects, through a 30-year built-operate-and transfer (BOT) contract with the Philippine government. The share composition and construction schedule of this mega-project is as follows. PNCC will own 20% of the shares of the Skyway project, a private Filipino entrepreneur, Cezar Qulambao 10%, while the Citra consortium will own the majority share of 55%. The remaining 15% shares will be owned by a US finance company, American International Group (AIG), through its subsidiary, AIG Asian Infrastructure Fund, for providing 76% of the project's capital investment. The construction of this mega-project, which was finalised by President Fidel Ramos and his Indonesian counterpart during the APEC summit in Jakarta, two years ago, will be completed next year (Indonesia Business Weekly [IBW ], Nov. 25, 1994, Sept. 11, 1996; WE, Nov. 6, 1995: 9). This mega-project is only Tutut's first venture in the Philippines. Her second one is a US$ 2.2 billion oil refinery at Nonoc Island, south of Manila. This mega project, which will yield a maximum of 120,000 barrels of refined oil products per day, is a joint venture between PT Elnusa and the Philippine's Kaibigan Holdings. PT Elnusa itself is a joint venture between the Indonesian state oil company, Pertamina, and Tutut's Citra Lamtorogung Persada (IBW, Nov. 25, 1994). So, for the next 25 years, after the Metro Manila Skyway project is finished, all Filipino/a motorist who drive along these toll roads will contribute to the wealth of the Suharto family. During that time, the gasoline (petrol?) used by the cars which will drive along the Skyway project may come from the Nonoc Island refinery. Which means that regardless whether motorists choose to drive along the skyway or not, they will still contribute to the Suharto family's wealth. *** IN the mean time, a consortium of twenty Indonesian, Malaysian, Thai, and Filipino companies has forged the biggest property deal in Asia, so far. This Metro-Pacific Group won a US$ 2.4 billion contract to rebuild the former army base, Fort Bonifacio, into a 117-ha commercial and residential complex, adjacent to Manila's Makati business district. Many of the people within this group are no strangers to the ASEAN ruling elites. It includes a subsidiary of the First Pacific Group, a subsidiary of Robert Kuok, the well-known Malaysian property and sugar tycoon, Thailand's Land & Houses Public Co., Ltd, the Filipino tobacco magnate, Lucio Tan, and the Filipino food and beverage magnate, Raul Concepcion. After the new Fort Bonifacio is completed, they will control 55% of its shares, while the remaining shares will be owned by a Philippine state company assigned to privatize former military instalations, BCDA (Bases Conversion Development Authority) (WE, Jan. 23, 1995: 68-69; Asia Business Review, March 1995: 53; Jawa Pos, March 8, 1996;The Australian, September 23, 1996). Prior to the Fort Bonifacio deal, Metro-Pacific has also biten a big chunk out of the Philippines' telecommunication pie. Its subsidiary, Smart Communications, has become the second largest cellular telephone operator in the Philippines, in cooperation with NTT of Japan, with 113,000 subscribers (IBW, Dec. 9, 1994; International Business Asia, June 23, 1995: 29; Jawa Pos, March 8, 1996; Asiaweek, August 2, 1996: 50) The leader of Metro-Pacific, namely the First Pacific Group is no stranger to the Philippine business community. This Hong Kong-based conglomerate handles the overseas operations of the Salim Group, headed by a Filipino banker, Manuel Pangilinan. After some initial work at the Bancom Development Corporation in Manila and the American Express Bank in Hong Kong, in 1979 this graduate of the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School of Finance was asked by Liem Sioe Liong to prepare and head the First Pacific Group in Hong Kong. Within two years, the group was officially founded with Manuel Pangilinan as the managing director, two other Filipinos -- Ricardo Pascua and Vincente Tansay II -- and an American, Robert Meyer, as executive directors, in charge of 50 ethnic Chinese staffpersons from Indonesia and Hong Kong. In 15 years time, this management team was able to build First Pacific Group into a business empire with US$ 3.3 billion assets, employing more than 45,000 people in 40 countries in the world (Soetriyono, n.d.: 65-71; Schwarz and Friedland, 1991; The Australian , Sept. 23, 1996). With his Filipino background, Manuel was instrumental in the Salim Group's forrays into the Philippine economy. In 1986, four Philippine companies were acquired by the First Pacific: Berli Jucker Industries, a producer of cosmetic products; Berli Jucker Philippines, the marketing network of cosmetic products; Holland Pacific Paper, the producer and distributor of Scott Paper products; and Tanduy Distillery, one of the top Philippine beverage producers. In 1987, the First Pacific Group took Metro Drug over from its previous owner, and not long after that, began to distribute pharmaceutical drugs from Salim's pharmaceutical company, PT Darya Varia Laboratories. It also set up financial companies in the Philippines, namely First Pacific Capital Corporation, First Pacific Metro, an investment holding company, and the First Pacific Bank ( Soetriyono, n.d.: 80-811; Swa, Jan. 25-Febr. 7, 1996: 37-38; The Australian , Sept. 23, 1996). Recently, the First Pacific had found an Australian partner, David Davies, to branch out into a new group, First Pacific Davies, which specializes in real estate and property consultancy. This new group also has branch offices in the Philippines, apart from offices in seven other countries (WE, Sept. 13, 1983: 87-89; Australian Financial Review [AFR ], May 19, 1995). In 1991, Salim Group companies in Indonesia also began to expand directly into the Philippines. PT Bogasari Flour Mills (BFM) and its affiliate, PT Indofood Sukses Makmur established a US$ 3.5 million instant noodle factory in the Philippines, which is 40% owned by Salim, while the majority shares (60%) is owned by the Concepcion family's RFM Corporation. That was Salim's first step to ASEAN-ize its food division, which was soon followed by acquiring the shares of a flour mill in Kuantan, Malaysia, and by establishing a joint ventures with a state company in Vietnam and another instant food company in Singapore (WE, March 2, 1992: 29; Sinar, Dec. 3, 1994: 84; Economic & Business Review Indonesia [EBRI ], Sept. 4, 1996: 28). This expansion of the Salim Group's instant noodle empire, which had received an management award from the Manila-based Asia Institute of Management on September 24, this year, need to be put in a political economic perspecive. For 25 years, the Bogasari flour mills has been a major money maker for the Suharto family, the Indonesian army, and the family of another former general, Bustanil Arifin, legalized through Bogasari's share arrangements (Schwarz and Friedland, 1991; Shin Yoon Hwan, 1989: 354). Therefore, all Indofood instant noodle consumers have contibuted to the wealth of the families of Suharto and other generals as well as to overseas wheat farmers, at the expense of Indonesian rice farmers. While the food division of the Salim Group began to ASEAN-ize, PT Branta Mulia, another member company was doing a similar thing. This tire cord fabric manufacturing company has as much to do with Indonesia's invasion of East Timor, as with the growth of the Salim empire. Its largest shareholder (22.5%) is Robby Sumampouw, a Sino-Indonesian businessman who made his fortune from supplying the Indonesian troops in East Timor, and in 20 years time achieved a near monopoly over all Indonesian businesses in East Timor, making his family one of the sixty richest families in Indonesia (IEFR, 1994: 228-229; Info-Bisnis , Special Edition 1994: 68) After establishing its first plant in Indonesia in 1985, Branta Mulia has in ten years time set up a 49% joint venture in Thailand with a Thai textile tycoon, Boonnam Boonamsap, and the Bangkok Bank. After that it established a 40% joint venture in Malaysia. Currently, these three operating factories have a total production capacity of 38,000 tons, booking a net profit of US$ 18.5 million. Two years ago planned to set up another joint venture in the Philippines, which will be completed next year. It is estimated to have an annual production capacity of 12,000 tons with US$ 90 million investment (IBW, Oct. 8, 1993: 43, EBRI , Nov. 12, 1994, June 19, 1995). Branta Mulia's CEO is an indigenous Indonesian businessman, Ibrahim Risyad, who is slowly but surely building his own business empire, the Risyadson Group. So is Sudwikatmono, Suharto's foster brother who represents the Suharto family's interests in the Salim Group. Sudwikatmono's children, have also become some of the rising stars in Indonesia -- and in ASEAN. Miana Sudwikatmono, for instance, is the franchise holder for the US T-bone steak chain, Tony Roma's. She has outlets in Jakarta, Singapore, Bangkok, Hong Kong, Taipei, and certainly, also in Manila. Each outlet involves an investment of around US$ 1.5 million (Swa, Oct. 3-16, 1996: 14). Probably, since so many members, divisions, and overseas units of the Salim Group had invested in the Philippines, four years ago the Singapore-based Business Times already estimated that the Salim Group was the largest foreign investor in the Philippines. This trend is certainly not going to slow down, since the group has more "Philippine connections" than before. Since the early 1990s, they have recruited a seasoned accountant as their advisor, who has had twenty years of experience in working with one of the most well-known Philippine accountant offices, SGV. This person, Utomo Josodirdjo, formerly owner and director of SGV-Utomo, is also a commissioner of a Philippine company. A former staff executive of SGV-Utomo, Andi Sahiri, has also become a director of the Salim Group's financial flagship, Bank Central Asia (Swa, Oct. 1991: 60-63;WE , April 27, 1992: 24). ***