[asia-apec 241] Four on APEC

[daga]

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.