[asia-apec 601] response from PAN-AP to CI withdrawal letter

[appasec]

To:    All participants and members of the International Organizing
        Committee of the Asia Pacific People's Assembly and National
        Organizing Committee and PAN AP Steering Council Members 

28th August 1998


Dear friends,

This is in response to Josie F. of Consumers International letter of
14 August, 1998 addressed to Mr Yap of APPA and to all members of IOC
and NOC of APPA. 

I was upset by the letter of Ms Josie F. that provided the reasons
for their withdrawal and named PAN AP as one of the groups that
caused this to happen. 

First of all PAN AP, as a member of APPA, knows that the APPA
process is a very open one and seeks to encourage the participation
of groups in organizing Issue Forums and workshops as well as in
the discussions and in the organising of APPA.  APPA has brought
together various groups and has kept itself open to discussions and
suggestions. 

I would like to give my version of the events leading to the
organizing of the issue forum on sustainability. 

SUSDEN/MINSOC was involved in the first meeting of the NGOs and
people's organizations on APEC in February and in the first few
meetings of the National Organizing Committee.  In the early
meetings, MINSOC and SUSDEN had agreed to organize the issue forum
on sustainability 

On May 25, SUSDEN pulled out of the commitment due to lack of
resources.  At the next meeting of the NOC, CI put forward the idea
of organising an issue forum on sustainable consumption.  At the
same meeting, I said I will clarify what the problems were with
SUSDEN (in terms of lack of resources) and to see if it still
possible for SUSDEN to be involved. 

At the next meeting, after my discussions with SUSDEN and PAN AP's
commitment to help fundraise for the issue forum on Community
Livelihoods, SUSDEN put forward their AIDE MEMOIRE on the issue. 
Please note this issue forum would not replace the Consumers
International Issue Forum but would add to the diversity of issues
being discussed.  For SUSDEN it was to be an additional issue forum
that would not replace the issue forum of CI's.  It was placed
under the broader umbrella of the environment and sustainability. 
Michael Chai, representing Consumers International, at the meeting
did not bring up the issue for clarification at all. If there were
any doubts of whether SUSDEN was attempting to replace CI's issue
forum, it should have been clarified then or soon after. 

When it was brought up at the next meeting of the NOC on JULY 18
neither SUSDEN nor PAN AP was present.  If we had been asked to
explain before the July 18 meeting and the issue put forward for
discussion at the NOC either SUSDEN or PAN AP would have been
present at the NOC for any clarifications. 

Since we were not there, it was decided that CI would do the issue
forum on sustainability and SUSDEN would be asked to discuss
merging it.  Mr Yap wrote to Bishan of SUSDEN and Bishan responded
that really the two issues were different and as such urged for a
separate issue forum that would focus on community livelihoods,
empowerment and organizing. 

Based on that letter, the APPA secretariat put it under a separate
issue forum.  At the International Organizing Committee meeting Aug
1-2, 1998, this issue was discussed at length.  There was a general
agreement that CI and SUSDEN would try to resolve any overlaps.  To
help facilitate participation at both issue forums, I suggested
that SUSDEN would consider having the issue forum on community
livelihoods, empowerment and organizing preponed from 11-12
November to 9-10 November.  The issue forum on Sustainability to be
organized by CI was planned for 11-12 November. 

I appreciate the open and transparent way in which the APPA
Secretariat has been handling this issue allowing the space for
groups to clarify the issues and every opportunity for providing
inputs and feedback as well as to discuss them openly. 

In reference to the question of overlap of issues it is really not a
major problem, as can be seen from the issue forums that have been
organized.  The food security and sustainable agriculture issue forum
will discuss the issue of farmers resistance and alternatives and
there is an issue forum on peasants challenges, gains and struggles.
Similarly, the labour issue forum will discuss migrant workers issues
and there is an issue forum on migrant workers.  Are we saying that
there should be no overlaps at all or are we encouraging
participation and the openness to allow groups to come in and be part
of the peoples movement to resist globalization?

It would be wrong if SUSDEN were not allowed the space to bring out
issues that are relevant and will build further the alternatives to
globalization.  It is an effort to help further the sharing of
experiences, discussions and debate from community groups and people
involved in the struggle to create community alternatives.

Let us in the spirit of openness and in the spirit of struggling
against globalization allow an open process and not exclude groups
or issues.  In that spirit, I would like to urge that we organize
separately and distinct from each other the two Issue Forums:

1. Sustainability Issue Forum 
2. Sustainable Livelihoods and Community Empowerment Issue Forum 

Thank you and best wishes,

Sarojeni V. Rengam