From yukihiro at jca.ax.apc.org  Thu Feb 11 16:37:19 1999
From: yukihiro at jca.ax.apc.org (YASUDA Yukihiro)
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 16:37:19 +0900 (JST)
Subject: [asia-apec 1006] mailing list trouble was fixed
Message-ID: <19990211163719Z.yukihiro@klact.co.jp>


All,

I'm system administrator of JCA-NET, the host of this mailing list.
The mail posted here had been bounced because of some administrative
trouble.
The trouble was fixed and the mailing list server is now running
correctly.
Sorry for inconvinience.

yukihiro // JCA-NET


From cjayanta at hotmail.com  Thu Feb 11 18:23:47 1999
From: cjayanta at hotmail.com (Jayanta Chowdhury)
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 01:23:47 PST
Subject: [asia-apec 1007] Re: mailing list trouble was fixed/Thanks
Message-ID: <19990211092348.24826.qmail@hotmail.com>


Dear Mr. Yukihiro,

Thank you very much for fixing up the list server. I am gld that we can 
all communicate again.

Cheers,

Jayanta Chowdhury
Thailand




______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


From tpl at cheerful.com  Thu Feb 11 20:43:14 1999
From: tpl at cheerful.com (tpl@cheerful.com)
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 19:43:14 +0800
Subject: [asia-apec 1008] Twelve years after Mendiola massacre
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19990211194314.006a3c08@pop.skyinet.net>


>From KMP (Peasant Movement of the Philippines) 
>22 January 1999
>
>Mendiola massacre widows hit Estrada's bogus land reform
>
>MANILA (Jan. 22) -- HUNDREDS of protesters today retraced the tragic
peasant march of twelve years ago from the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR) to the Mendiola Bridge that saw the massacre of thirteen peasants who
were among thousands in a rally demanding genuine land reform from the
Aquino government.
>
>The militant Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP: Peasant Movement of
the Philippines) joined Kilusang Enero Beinte Dos (KE22: January 22
Movement), an organization formed by the widows and orphans of the martyred
peasants. Together they asked anew that justice be given the Mendiola
massacre victims. They also demanded implementation of genuine land reform
and the scrapping of new schemes by the Estrada government that worsen
landlessness among the peasantry.
>
>Last night, KE22 veterans broke in tears while watching a documentary film
of the massacre during a ceremony honoring the martyrs and sponsored by
students and church people encamped in front of the DAR national office.
>
>Teresita Arjona, KE22 council member, lamented that twelve years after the
incident, justice still eludes their families and that the government still
refuses to implement a genuine land distribution program.
>
>KMP chair Rafael Mariano denounced the US-Estrada regime for its deceptive
schemes that would intensify land monopoly enjoyed by comprador-landlords.
He scored DAR secretary Horacio Morales for issuing Administrative Order
No. 9 last December, which would implement on a nationwide scale the
"corporative agrarian reform" model concocted by Danding Cojuanco, a well
known crony of the late dictator Marcos, for his Negros sugarlands.
>
>In the immediate term, AO No. 9 virtually excludes 218,000 hectares of
commercial farms from the scope of compulsory acquisition and
redistribution to landless tenants by offering instead stock shares,
contract growing arrangements and leaseholds. It would render into wage
slaves the future generations of peasants who will continue to be deprived
of their own land.
>
>Farmers from Central Luzon and Southern Tagalog likewise joined the
January 22 march-rally to protest the rising tide of militarization and
human rights violations in the rural areas. According to the Katipunan ng
mga Samahang Magbubukid sa Timog Katagalugan (KASAMA-TK), the US-Estrada
regime flagrantly violates international human rights instruments and the
recently signed Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and
International Humanitarian Law (CAHRIHL) between the government and the
National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP).
>
>The human rights group KARAPATAN documented 70 cases of illegal arrests,
torture, imprisonment, strafing, arson and looting committed against the
peasants in 1998. Culpability is shared by both the Ramos and Estrada
administrations.
>
>KMP chapters in the capitals of Kotabato, Cebu, Davao, Negros, Albay and
Leyte conducted their own mass actions to demand genuine land reform and
the scrapping of A.O. No. 9. 
>
>Meanwhile, led by PESANTE (Philippine Peasant Support Network), about a
hundred Filipinos and their friends trooped to the Philippine Consulate in
Los Angeles, California to protest the Estrada government's complicity in
abetting illegal land-use conversion in Batangas.
>
>PESANTE said the the Philippine National Bank is supporting the Fil-Estate
and Manila South Coast Development Corp. with funds to guarantee purchases
by US-based investors who are sweet-talked into buying retirement havens in
Hacienda Looc. Two thousand peasant families in Looc are fighting the real
estate giants from destroying their farms planted to rice and sugarcane.
>
>*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
>
>MENDIOLA MASSACRE 
>
>Perpetrators: Members of the Philippine National Marines
>		Western Police District (WPD) of the Philippine National Police
>
>Date of incident: January 22, 1987
>
>Place of incident: Mendiola Bridge, Manila, Philippines
>
>Number of victims: 13 dead, 62 wounded
>
>Names of dead victims:
>1. Danilo Arjona		8. Leopoldo Alonzo
>2. Adelfa Aribe		9. Dionisio Bautista
>3. Roberto Caylao		10. Vicente Campomanes
>4. Ronilo Dumanico		11. Dante Evangelio
>5. Angelito Gutierrez	12. Rodrigo Grampan
>6. Bernabe Laquindanum	13. Sonny Boy Perez
>7. Roberto Yumul
>
>Background of the case:
>
>During the campaign for the 1986 presidential elections, candidate Corazon
Aquino promised to implementat a genuine land reform program.
>
>Nearly a year  after Aquino came to power after the Edsa uprising, she
initiated peace negotiations with the National Democratic Front (NDF),
tackling among many other strategic issues the persistent problem of
landlessness and social inequalities that trigger social unrest and armed
revolution in the countryside.
>
>On January 15, 1987, peasants belonging to the Kilusang Magbubukid ng
Pilipinas (KMP) pitched tents in front of the national office of the
Department of Agrarian Reform in Quezon City to demand implementation of
genuine agrarian reform.
>
>After fruitless talks with secretary Heherson Alvarez, 11,000 peasants,
supported by some 10,000 allies from the church, trade unions, students and
the middle class, decided to proceed to Malaca?ang (presidential palace). A
phalanx of anti-riot police and Philippine Marines blocked their way.
>
>As KMP leaders negotiated to be allowed to proceed to the palace gates,
policemen and soldiers opened fire on the marchers. Thirteen peasants and
fishermen were instantly killed, while 62 others were wounded. The fascist
troops unleashed a maniacal pursuit of the fleeing rallyists with guns
a-blazing down surrounding shopping centers.
>
>The incident drew  massive condemnation from various sectors. The NDF
denounced the massacre and withdrew from the negotiations. Aquino was
forced to create the Citizens' Mendiola Commission to investigate the
violent dispersal. The Commission recommended that "deceased and wounded
victims be amply compensated by the government," and that soldiers and
police involved in the crime be prosecuted.
>
>The commission was abolished even before the perpetrators were identified.
Meawhile, the Commission on Human Rights offered P10,000 for each of the
dead victims. The victims' families rejected the offer. They wanted justice
for their dead and wounded kin.
>
>On January 22, 1998, two years after the incident, the victims' relatives
filed a lawsuit against the government and several police and military
officers for damages amounting to P6.5 million. Named defendants were:
National Defense Secretary Gen. Fidel Ramos who later became the Philippine
president; AFP Chief of Staff Gen. Renato de Villa; WPD Superintendent
B/Gen. Alfredo Lim; Gen. Rodolfo Biazon, chief of the Phil. Marines, who is
now a senator; B/Gen. Brigido Paredes, Marines commandant; Col. Edgar dula
Torre and Col. Romeo Monfort of the CAPCOM; and WPD deputy superintendent
Cesar Nazareno who later became PNP chief.
>
>The government invoked immunity from the suit ("the State cannot be sued
without its consent"), and the case was dismissed by the Manila Regional
Trial Court. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court which also
dismissed the case.
>
>Today, twelve years after the carnage in Mendiola, the victims' relatives
are still demanding justice. Furthermore, the problem of landlessness for
which their surviving families have fought for has even intensified in the
past ten years.
>
>The agony of the massacre victims' relatives is compounded by the burden
of rearing their families all by themselves. 
>
>Several months after Danilo Arjona's murder at Mendiola, his widow
Teresita was forced to give return to the landlord the half-hectare of rice
farm leased to her family. Plowing is too much for her frail health. For
some time, she worked as a household help for a Japanese businessman in San
Pablo City. Nowadays, after working in the fields, she rushes to the town
market where she peddles vegetables in order to make ends meet and try to
send her five children to school.
>
>Life is equally hard for Nelia Perez and her children. After the death of
her husband, Sonny Boy, a farmer and fisherman, Nelia had to take on
farming chores to support her children. Her youngest, Anna Karisma, now in
fifth grade, never saw her father. Sonny Boy was not even aware that Nelia
was then pregnant with Anna Karisma.
>
>Randy Bautista, 16, of Orion, Bataan, is supposed to be in high school.
But he stopped schooling two years ago after finishing fifth grade. Randy's
mother was forced to leave him in the care of his grandparents.
>
>Rolando Campomanes, son of Vicente, has also stopped going to school and
is now a construction worker.#
>


From tpl at cheerful.com  Thu Feb 11 20:44:24 1999
From: tpl at cheerful.com (tpl@cheerful.com)
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 19:44:24 +0800
Subject: [asia-apec 1009] Global Falsehoods
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19990211194424.006ac128@pop.skyinet.net>


>Forwarded by BAYAN (New Patriotic Alliance)
>
>GLOBAL FALSEHOODS: HOW THE WORLD BANK AND 
>THE UNDP DISTORT THE FIGURES ON GLOBAL POVERTY
>		
>		by 
>
>	Michel Chossudovsky
>
>Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa, author of The Globalisation
>of Poverty, Impacts of IMF and World Bank Reforms, Zed Books, London, 1997. 
>
>Copyright by Michel Chossudovsky, Ottawa, 1999. To publish this text
>contact the author at chossudovsky@sprint.ca
>	
>
>Until the 1998 financial meltdown ("black September" 1998), the World
>economy was said to be booming under the impetus of the "free market"
reforms.
>
>Without debate or discussion, so-called "sound macro-economic policies"
>(meaning the gamut of budgetary austerity, deregulation, downsizing and
>privatisation) continue to be heralded as the key to economic success and
>poverty alleviation.  In turn, both the World Bank and the United Nations
>Development Programme (UNDP) have asserted authoritatively that economic
>growth in the late 20th Century has contributed to a reduction in the
>levels of World poverty. According to the UNDP, "the progress in reducing
poverty over the 20th century is remarkable and unprecedented... The key
indicators of human development have advanced strongly. "1 
>
>The Devastating Impacts of Macro-economic Reform 
>are casually denied
>
>The increasing levels of global poverty resulting from macro-economic
>reform are casually denied by G7 governments and international institutions
>(including the World Bank and the IMF); social realities are concealed,
>official statistics are manipulated, economic concepts are turned upside
down.
>
>The World Bank Methodology: Defining Poverty at a "Dollar a Day"
>
>The World Bank framework deliberately departs from all established concepts
>and procedures (eg. by the US Bureau of Census or the United Nations) for
>measuring poverty.2 It consists in arbitrarily setting a "poverty
>threshold" at one dollar a day per capita. It then proceeds (without even
>measuring) to deciding that population groups with a per capita income
>"above one dollar a day" are "non-poor". 
>
>The World Bank "methodology" conveniently reduces recorded poverty without
>the need for collecting country-level data. This "subjective" and biased
>assessment is carried out irrespective of actual conditions at the country
>level.3 The one dollar a day procedure is absurd: the evidence amply
>confirms that population groups with per capita incomes of 2, 3 or even 5
>dollars a day remain poverty stricken (ie. unable to meet basic
>expenditures of food, clothing, shelter, health and education). 
>
>Arithmetic Manipulation
>
>Once the one dollar a day poverty threshold has been set (and "plugged into
>the computer"), the estimation of national and global poverty levels
>becomes an arithmetical exercise. Poverty indicators are computed in a
>mechanical fashion from the initial one dollar a day assumption.
>
>"Authoritative" World Bank Numbers 
>
>These authoritative World Bank numbers are those which everybody quotes,
>--ie. 1.3 billion people below the poverty line. But nobody seems to have
>bothered to examine how the World Bank arrives at these figures. 
>
>The data is then tabulated in glossy tables with "forecasts" of declining
>levels of global poverty into the 21st Century. These World Bank
>"forecasts" of poverty are based on an assumed rate of growth of per capita
>income, --ie. growth of the latter implies pari passu a corresponding
>lowering of the levels of poverty. Its a numerical game! 
>
>World Bank "Forecasts": Poverty in China will decline 
>to 2.9 percent by the Year 2000
>
>According to the World Bank's "simulations", the incidence of poverty in
>China is to decline from 20 percent in 1985 to 2.9 percent by the year
>2000.4  Similarly, poverty levels in India (where according to official
>data more than 80 percent of the population (1996) have per capita incomes
>below one dollar a day), the World Bank's "simulation" (which contradicts
>its own "one dollar a day" methodology) indicates a lowering of poverty
>levels from 55 percent in 1985 to 25 percent in the year 2000.5    
>
>The whole framework (stemming from the one dollar a day assumption) is
>tautological; it is totally removed from an examination of real life
>situations. No need to analyse household expenditures on food, shelter and
>social services; no need to observe concrete conditions in impoverished
>villages or urban slums. In the World Bank framework, the "estimation" of
>poverty indicators has become numerical exercise. 
>
>The UNDP Framework
>
>While the UNDP Human Development Group has in previous years provided the
>international community with a critical assessment of key issues of global
>development, the 1997 Human Development Report devoted to the eradication
>of poverty broadly conveys a similar viewpoint to that heralded by the
>Bretton Woods institutions.  The UNDP's "human poverty index" (HPI) is
>based on "the most basic dimensions of deprivation: a short life span, lack
>of basic education and lack of access to public and private resources".6 
>
>Based on the above criteria, the UNDP Human Development Group comes up with
> estimates of human poverty which are totally inconsistent with
>country-level realties. The HPI for Colombia, Mexico or Thailand, for
>instance, is of order of 10-11 percent (see Table 1). The UNDP measurements
>point to "achievements" in poverty reduction in Sub-Saharan Africa, the
>Middle East and India which are totally at odds with country-level data. 
>
>The human poverty estimates put forth by the UNDP portray an even more
>distorted and misleading pattern than those of the World Bank). For
>instance, only 10.9 percent of Mexico's population are categorised by the
>UNDP as "poor". Yet this estimate contradicts the situation observed in
>Mexico since the mid-1980s: collapse in social services, impoverishment of
>small farmers and the massive decline in real earnings triggered by
>successive currency devaluations. A recent OECD study confirms
>unequivocally the mounting tide of poverty in Mexico since the signing of
>the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).7 
>
>Double Standards in the "Scientific" Measurement of Poverty
>
>"Double standards" prevail in the measurement of poverty: the World Bank's
>one dollar a day criterion applies only to the "developing countries". Both
>the Bank and the UNDP fail to acknowledge the existence of poverty in
>Western Europe and North America. Moreover, the one dollar a day criterion
>is in overt contradiction with established methodologies used by Western
>governments and intergovernmental organisations to define and measure
>poverty in the "developed countries". 
>
>In the West, the methods for measuring poverty have been based on minimum
>levels of household spending required to meet essential expenditures on
>food, clothing, shelter, health and education. In the United States, for
>instance, the Social Security Administration (SSA) in the 1960s had set a
>"poverty threshold"which consisted of "the cost of a minimum adequate diet
>multiplied by three to allow for other expenses". This measurement was
>based on a broad consensus within the US Administration.8 
>
>The US Poverty Threshold
>
>The US "poverty threshold" for a family of four (two adults and two
>children) in 1996 was of the order of $16,036. This figure translates into
>a per capita income of eleven dollars a day (compared to the one dollar a
>day criterion of the World Bank used for developing countries). In 1996,
>13.1 percent of the US population and 19.6 percent of the population in
>central cities of metropolitan areas were below the poverty threshold.9 
>
>
>According to the UNDP Poverty in Mexico 
>is lower than in the United States
>
>Neither the UNDP nor the World Bank undertake comparisons in poverty levels
>between "developed" and "developing" countries. Comparisons of this nature
>would no doubt be the source of "scientific embarrassment" --ie. the
>poverty indicators presented by both organisations for Third World
>countries are in some cases of the same order of magnitude as (or even
>below) the official poverty levels in the US, Canada and the European
>Union. In Canada, heralded by the World community as "a promised land",
>occupying the first rank among all nations according to the same 1997 Human
>Development Report, 17.4 percent of the population are below the (official)
>poverty threshold compared to 10.9 percent for Mexico and 4.1 percent for
>Trinidad and Tobago.10 
>
>Conversely, if the US Bureau of Census methodology (based on the cost of
>meeting a minimum diet) were applied to the developing countries, the
>overwhelming majority of the population would be categorised as "poor".
>While this exercise of using "Western standards" and definitions has not
>been applied in a systematic fashion, it should be noted that with the
>deregulation of commodity markets, retail prices of essential consumer
>goods are not appreciably lower than in the US or Western Europe. The cost
>of living in many Third World cities is higher than in the United States. 
>
>Moreover, household budget surveys for several Latin American countries
>suggest that at least sixty percent of the population the region does not
>meet minimum calorie and protein requirements. In Peru, for instance,
>following the 1990 IMF sponsored "Fujishock", 83 percent of the Peruvian
>population according to household census data were unable to meet minimum
>daily calorie and protein requirements.11 The prevailing situation in
>Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia is more serious where a majority of the
>population suffer from chronic undernourishment. 
>
>The investigation on poverty by both organisations take official statistics
>at face value. It is largely an "office based exercise" conducted in
>Washington and New York with few insights or awareness of "what is
>happening in the field". The 1997 UNDP Report points to a decline of one
>third to a half in child mortality in selected countries of Sub-Saharan
>despite the slide in State expenditures and income levels. What it fails to
>mention, however, is that the closing down of health clinics and the
>massive lay-offs of health professionals (often replaced by semi-illiterate
>health volunteers) responsible for compiling mortality data has resulted in
>a de facto decline in recordedmortality. The IMF-World Bank sponsored
>macro-economic reforms have also led to a collapse in the process of data
>collection. 
>
>Vindicating the "Free" Market System
>
>These are the realities which are concealed by the World Bank and UNDP
>poverty studies. The poverty indicators blatantly misrepresent country
>level situations as well as the seriousness of global poverty. They serve
>the purpose of portraying the poor as a minority group representing some 20
>percent of World population (1.3 billion people). 
>
>Declining levels of poverty including forecasts of future trends are
>derived with a view to vindicating the "free market" policies and upholding
>the "Washington Consensus" on macro-economic reform. The "free market"
>system is presented as the "solution", namely as an instrument of poverty
>alleviation. The impacts of macro-economic reform are denied. Both
>institutions point to the benefits of the technological revolution and the
>contribution of foreign investment and trade liberalisation to the
>eradication of poverty. 
>
>TABLE 1 
>
>THE UNDP'S HUMAN POVERTY INDEX 
>
>SELECTED DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
>
>
>Country 				Poverty Level	
>
>					(percent of the
>					population below the
>					poverty line) 
>
>
>Trinidad and Tobago		4.1
>Mexico				10.9
>Thailand				11.7
>Colombia				10.7
>Philippines				17.7
>Jordan				10.9
>Nicaragua 				27.2
>Jamaica				12.1
>Iraq					30.7
>Rwanda				37.9
>Papua New Guinea			32.0
>Nigeria				41.6
>Zimbabwe				17.3
>
>
>Source: Human Development Report 1997, table 1.1, p. 21
>
>TABLE 2
>
>POVERTY IN SELECTED G7 COUNTRIES,  BY NATIONAL 
>STANDARDS
>
>
>Country			Poverty Level
>				
>				(percent of the
>				population below the
>				poverty line) 
>
>United States (1996)*		13.7
>Canada (1995)**			17.8
>United Kingdom (1993)***	20.0
>Italy (1993)***			17.0
>Germany (1993)***		13.0
>France (1993)***			17.0
>
>
>Source: 	*US Bureau of Census,
>     		** Centre for International Statistics, Canadian Council on
>Social Development
>     		***European Information Service.
>
>
>FOOTNOTES
>
>1. United Nations Development Programme, Human Development
>Report, 1997, New York, 1997, p. 2.)
>
>2. For a methodological review on the measurement of poverty see
>Jan Drewnowski, The Level of living Index, United Nations
>Institute for Social Research and Development (UNRISD), Geneva,
>1965. See also the extensive research on poverty thresholds 
>conducted by the US Bureau of the Census. 
>
>3.  See World Bank, World Development Report, 1990, Washington 
>DC, 1990.
>
>4. See World Development Report, 1997, table 9.2, chapter 9.
>
>5. Ibid., chapter 9, table 9.2.
>
>6. Ibid., p. 5.
>
>7. See Clement Trudel, Le Mexique subit le choc de
>l'internationalisation, Le Devoir, Montreal, 28 March 1998, p.
>A4.
> 
>8. See US Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports,
>Series P60-198, Poverty in the United States: 1996, Washington,
>1997.
>
>9. US Bureau of the Census, Poverty in the United States: 1996,
>Washington, 1997, p. 7.
>
>10. According to the official definition of Statistics Canada
>(1995). For country ranks based on the UNDP's Human Development
>index, see Table 6, Human Development Report, 1997, p. 161
>
>11. See Michel Chossudovsky, El Ajuste Economico: El Peru Bajo el
>Dominio del FMI, Mosca Azul Editores, Lima, 1992, p. 83.
>
>
>    Michel Chossudovsky
>    
>    Department of Economics,
>    University of Ottawa, 
>    Ottawa, K1N6N5
>
>    Voice box: 1-613-562-5800, ext. 1415
>    Fax: 1-514-425-6224
>    E-Mail: chossudovsky@sprint.ca
>
>
>Recent articles by Chossudovsky on the global economic crisis at:
>
>http://www.transnational.org/features/g7solution.html
>http://www.interlog.com/~cjazz/chossd.htm  
>http://www.heise.de/tp/english/special/eco/  
>http://heise.xlink.de/tp/english/special/eco/6099/1.html#anchor1
>http://www.newwork.com/Guest_commentary.html
>


From alarm at HK.Super.NET  Sat Feb 13 04:51:24 1999
From: alarm at HK.Super.NET (ALARM (APEC Labour Rights Monitor))
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 11:51:24 -0800
Subject: [asia-apec 1010] Open Statement to Disney
Message-ID: <199902120350.LAA10300@tsingyi.hk.super.net>


February 10, 1999

To: All Concerned People
From: CHAN Ka Wai
	Associate Director of Hong Kong Christian Industrial Committee

An open statement

Recently we have found out that a letter (copy below) addressed to the
Management of the Walt Disney Company has been circulated in the name of
the Hong Kong Christian Industrial Committee (HKCIC). We would like to make
it clear that the HKCIC, nor any of our staff, did not draft, make and send
this letter. We, therefore, repudiate any responsibility borne by the
statement. 

In principle, however, we agree to what is being proposed in the letter.
Based on our recent field study of Disney's suppliers in South China, the
code of conduct of Disney is just a piece of paper. The code is not
seriously respected in many factories which produce Disney's products. Most
of Disney's suppliers that were covered in the study are brutally violating
workers' basic rights and the Chinese Labour Law. Some workers are even
forced to work for more than 14 hours a day and 7 days a week. Some workers
do not even enjoy the minimum wage. Their wages are deducted by different
kinds of charges  or fines. They can only get part of wages eventually.
Worse still, their wages are always in arrears. They are not protected by
any insurance. Regarding the Code of Conduct, seldom of them know about it.
 

We strongly demand that

1. 	the Walt Disney Company should take immediate action to make sure that
its suppliers will fully respect its code of conduct;
2. 	an independent monitoring team should be set up which must involve
trade unions and NGOs;
3. 	Regular reports on the progress about implementation of the code of
conduct by Disney's partners should be prepared to shareholders of the Walt
Disney Company and the reports should also be open to the public.

Hong Kong Christian Industrial Committee
Address: 704-5, 57 Peking Road, 
	    Kowloon, Hong Kong
Tel:	    (852) 2366 5860
Fax:	    (852) 2724 5098
E-mail:     hkcic@hknet.com				  			


Copy of letter sent bearing the name of HKCIC --

> > ?e????: hkcic@hknet.com
> > ??????: chuck_champlin@studio.disney.com
> > ?D??: Stop sweatshop labor!
> > ????: 1999?~2??5?? PM 12:01
> > 
> > To:  The Management of the Walt Disney Company:
> > 
> > I am disturbed by the recent reports about poor working conditions and
low
> > wages in some of the thousands of factories making Disney products.
> > 
> > While I commend the Walt Disney Company for its Code of Conduct and its
> decision to not do business in Burma, I would like to see the company
uphold
> its positive image by taking much stronger action to ensure that it does
not
> and will not make contracts with manufacturers who cannot guarantee fair
> wages and safe working conditions.  Specifically, I would like to see:
> > 
> > 1. Periodic wage adjustments, based on local cost-of-living studies,
for 
> > employees making Disney-licensed products to ensure an adequate wage
that
> > provides sufficent food, clothing and shelter.
> > 
> > 2. Independent monitoring of suppliers by local religious, human rights
or
> labor groups.  Private auditors are viewed by workers as outsiders who
cannot
> necessarily be trusted.  Workers cannot be expected to talk candidly with
> company-paid auditors on factory property when they don't know if the
> information may be later used against them by contractor management.
> > 
> > 3. A means of verifying that problems identified in audits have been
> addressed, such as public disclosure of supplier audits or disclosure to
an
acceptable third party.
> > 
> > 4. An annual report to shareholders and/or customers on the progress
Disney has made toward complying with the Code of Conduct and ensuring a
sustainable
> wage.
> > 
> > 5. Incentives to encourage suppliers to comply with company standards
> rather than terminating suppliers.
> > 
> > Please let me know what actions you are taking.  My future purchases of
> Disney products depend on evidence of a proactive response by the
company.
> > 
> > Thank you.
> > 
> > Hong Kong Christian Industrial Committee
> > hkcic@hknet.com





From tpl at cheerful.com  Fri Feb 12 13:24:31 1999
From: tpl at cheerful.com (tpl@cheerful.com)
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:24:31 +0800
Subject: [asia-apec 1011] PHILIPPINES: Japan Exim Bank visits Itogon for dam project
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19990212122431.006ab064@pop.skyinet.net>


From: CORDILLERA PEOPLES' ALLIANCE (CPA) <cpa@is.phil.gn.apc.org>

                        JEXIM EXPERTS TO VISIT ITOGON

Itogon---Environmental experts from the Japan Export-Import (JEXIM)
Bank are expected to visit Itogon on Monday, January 18 for an ocular
inspection.  Their findings, according to Hon. Ronald M. Cosalan,
shall have a strong bearing on the San Roque Dam Project which the
JEXIM Bank is financing.

In response, affected communities in Itogon are holding their ground.
The Shalupirip Santahnay Indigenous Peoples' Movement (SSIPM) said
they are now coordinating with the Tongtongan ti Umili, Metro-Baguio
chapter of the Cordillera Peoples' Alliance, in preparation for a
picket to be conducted at the Itogon Municipal Building on January 18.
It is very important, organizers of the picket claim, that the local
community's position not only be registered, but "be strongly
registered".

Residents of Brgy. Dalupirip have consistently opposed the project
since its inception.  They also came out with a position paper last
year demanding the immediate cancellation of the San Roque Dam Project
and an appeal to JEXIM and other Japanese banks to withdraw their
funding for the project.  JEXIM claimed it shall look into the social
and environmental impact of the project before approving any funding.

Meanwhile, recent attempts by the San Roque Power Corporation (SRPC)
to convince the people to accept the project have, so far, proved
futile.  In a consultation held last January 10 in Dalupirip, SSIPM
Chairperson Pascual Pocding made their position clear to Raymond
Cunningham, Senior Vice President and Director of the SRPC whose
shareholders are affiliates of Sithe Energies, Inc., the Marubeni
Corporation and the Kansai Electric Power Company, Inc. of Osaka,
Japan.  

Cunningham visited the area Sunday last week and discussed several
points contained in the Itogon Municipal Council's Resolution 109.
The Vice President of the SRPC reportedly said he came here "for the
good of the people in third world countries", and added he "would like
to help uplift their standard of living".  But residents of the area
reportedly armed themselves with placards in a peaceful assembly and
asked Cunningham to pack up and leave.

"We cannot be blind to what happened in the past,"  Pascual Pocding
reportedly said, referring to the experience of the Ibalois from the
Binga and Ambuklao areas who were forced out of their communities.
"This dam project will mean the end of our continued survival as
indigenous communities."

According to reports, Cunningham assured the people the San Roque Dam
will  not negatively affect them adding the experience of Binga and
Ambuklao will be different from the experience of Dalupirip.  But the
Ibaloi elders refused to believe the SRPC Vice President. 

The youth and students of the Fianza Memorial High School in Itogon
also spoke up, saying they have witnessed the suffering of their
people as youngsters.  The youth spokesperson also claimed that some
of the victims of Binga and Ambuklao are still suffering.  "We
believe," the youngster continued, "that Dalupirip is our future."
"Foreigners have conquered us in the past and we shall not allow them
to conquer us again."

Further, Council Leader of SSIPM Arnold Gapuz reportedly asked
Cunningham if he were sincere in his desire to help the people.  When
the latter said yes, Gapuz allegedly said, "If you are sincere, then
you should pack your things and go home."  Other residents echoed this
sentiment.  The people also said they requested Cunningham to tell
others of what he had seen and heard in Dalupirip.  But the SRPC Vice
President, who prior this assignment had served the US power industry
as an independent consultant for five years, reportedly claimed "that
would not be easy" because the SRPC had signed a contract with the
Philippine government.

The National Power Corporation had signed last year a contract with
Marubeni and Sithe Energies for the San Roque Dam Project under a
build-operate-transfer scheme.  This includes a 25-year power purchase
agreement under which NPC shall buy hydropower from the consortium at
P2.98 per kilowatt-hour when the project becomes operational in 2004.  

Around 49% of the SRDP's project cost will go to the power component
which is expected to generate 345 megawatts; 40% shall go to
irrigation; 9.7% to water quality and maintenance system; and 1.06% to
flood control. In October last year, the JEXIM bank already granted
the San Roque Power Corporation a $302 million loan to finance the
power components of the project.  The power component of the project
is the profit-generating  aspect of the SRDP.

Funding for the non-power components of the project shall come from a
$400 million loan the government is still negotiating with the same
bank. This is the reason behind the scheduled visit of JEXIM experts
to Itogon.

Cause-oriented groups in Japan who are supportive of the struggle of
the Ibaloi people of Itogon have mounted a strong lobby against
Japanese funding for this project.  The Friends of the Earth-Japan,
the Buraku Liberation League and 50 other environmental and indigenous
peoples' rights advocates, together with the International Rivers
Network have already started campaigning against Marubeni and Japanese
funding to the project.

***Public Information Commission-Cordillera
Peoples Alliance***



From gattwd at corso.ch.planet.gen.nz  Sun Feb 14 07:32:16 1999
From: gattwd at corso.ch.planet.gen.nz (Gatt Watchdog)
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 10:32:16 +1200
Subject: [asia-apec 1012] Trouble In Paradise...
Message-ID: <HsXN4e2w165w@corso.ch.planet.gen.nz>


>From ALARM Update

Trouble In Paradise - Pacific Peoples Under Free Market Assault
by Aziz Choudry

Three lawsuits lodged this January seek over US $1 billion in damages, seizure
of profits and unpaid wages from 18 top US companies on behalf of thousands of
Asian workers lured to Saipan, in the US-administered Northern Marianas
Islands in the South Pacific.  Over 50,000 people, mostly young women from
China, Bangladesh, the Philippines and Thailand have ended up working in
appalling conditions, subject to constant surveillance and harassment, for
some 32 Saipan factories mostly owned by Chinese, Japanese and Korean
subcontractors, making popular clothing tagged with a "Made in the USA" label,
and which enjoys duty-free access to the US market.

Meanwhile, this year's APEC host, the New Zealand government, says it will
"ensure that the Asia-Pacific community being constructed through APEC
reaches out to those nations that sit in the Pacific as well as around its
edges." It claims that "our "Pacificness"" will be a "feature of our hosting
of APEC leaders".

And while there is little acknowledgement of the existence of Pacific lands
and peoples within the official APEC process - and even among many of the
alternative activities and campaigns on APEC in the region - increasing
pressure is being brought to bear on them to reorient and restructure their
economies in line with the neoliberal agenda.

New Zealand, Australia, Papua New Guinea, Fiji and the Solomon Islands already
belong to the World Trade Organization (WTO).  Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu are in
the process of joining.  New Zealand, Australia and Papua New Guinea are APEC
member economies. Both APEC/WTO members and non-members in the region are
being encouraged to view APEC and the trade and investment liberalisation
agenda as a model for economic development.

The South Pacific Forum Secretariat, which represents the governments of 16
countries in the region has observer status at APEC Ministerial meetings.
Forum Leaders and Ministers have increasingly focussed on an economic agenda
already promoted throughout the region by World Bank/IMF structural adjustment
programmes, Asian Development Bank loan conditionalities, free trade
arrangements like the WTO and APEC, as well as pressure from donor countries
like New Zealand and Australia which explicitly links future aid commitments
to undertakings by governments of recipient countries to pursue further
economic reforms to open up their economies and decrease government size and
expenditure.

In Madang, Papua New Guinea in 1995, South Pacific Forum Leaders endorsed the
APEC non-binding investment principles.  The 1997 Forum Economic Ministers
Meeting (FEMM) stated that "private sector development is central to ensuring
sustained economic growth, and that governments should provide a policy
environment to encourage this".  The July 1998 FEMM in Nadi, Fiji exhorted
Forum members to implement "domestic measures consistent with WTO and APEC
principles and obligations".  The Forum Secretariat has asked that Forum
countries report on progress in implementing WTO and APEC principles and
obligations at the 1999 FEMM. The theme of the August 1998 South Pacific Forum
meeting spoke volumes about its narrow agenda:  "From Reform to Growth: The
Private Sector and Investment as the Keys to Prosperity". Plans are also afoot for the creation
of a "Forum Business Advisory Council" modelled on the APEC Business Advisory
Council (ABAC) and to be formally linked to the Forum to strengthen business
input into regional policy-making.

Not surprisingly, the export-oriented, exploitative model of development which
characterises the situation in the Northern Marianas is far from unique in the
Pacific.  Take Fiji.  A recent ICFTU report on Fiji states that "the violation
of fundamental workers' rights in the area of freedom of association is
clearly an important factor in the cost of Fiji's exports and so has a
significant effect on Fiji's position in international trade.  By 1993, the
tax free export sector contributed US$75 million out of Fiji's total GDP of US
$885 million....[T]he government has argued to the [Fiji Trade Union Congress]
that it cannot improve labour law as Fiji needs a cheap labour force to
attract foreign direct investment and so increase exports."

Samoa's biggest private sector employer, Yazaki, the Japanese electrical
parts manufacturer, was lured to the country by its low labour costs,
non-unionised labour, and political stability, as well as incentives from the
Samoan government estimated to cost around US$8 million.  The plant produces
wire harnesses for Toyota, Mitsubishi, and General Motors.  Cuts on overtime
mean that most workers earn US $22 for a 40-hour week, just above the minimum
wage but not enough to keep up with inflation.  Samoa retains the wages paid
out to local workers, but the export earnings go to the parent company, a
Yazaki subsidiary in Australia. Samoa, with the support of the New Zealand
government and other donors, has been pursuing policies of privatisation and
deregulation since the early 1980s.  At the same time as the poverty gap
continues to widen, Prime Minister Eti Alesana asserted that there is no
poverty in Samoa - because of the jobs provided by Yazaki!

With much of the fishing, timber, mining, tourism and other
sectors now dominated by a handful of transnationals throughout the
Pacific, "development" and "reform" have wrought havoc on local
communities.

Meanwhile "rightsizing" continues throughout the Pacific.  In the Solomon
Islands, the New Zealand government aid programme has part-funded a programme
to reduce the public sector's size by 7-10%, while New Zealand consultants
have provided advice.  In Vanuatu, the Asian Development Bank-imposed and New
Zealand government-supported Comprehensive Reform Program (CRP) includes
significant cuts to the size of the public sector, the introduction of a
value-added tax and tariff cuts.

After former PNG Minister for Public Services, Bart Philemon announced in 1995
that he would use New Zealand as a model for privatisation and sweeping civil
service reforms, columnist for the Times of PNG, Kumulau Tawali wrote:
'Changing systems and adapting is not as simple as taking a video tape and
slotting it into another video machine.  Politics involves people and
cherished values of generations."  But the market ideologues arrogantly claim
that anytime, any place, anywhere, market-based solutions are the best - and
only - answers.

Moves to push small Pacific nations further and faster in this direction
ignore the structural causes of their economic, social, and environmental
problems, and the strengths of traditional lifestyles, values, resource use
and social support systems.  They take no account of the realities of
countries like Papua New Guinea where as much as 85% of the population is
engaged in the subsistence economy. 

They ignore the diversity of the distinct peoples, cultures and societies
which make up the Pacific.  They obscure the political and economic agendas
behind the aid programmes which have resulted in well-founded accusations of
"boomerang aid".  In many cases, 70-90% of official aid returns to donor
countries like Japan, Australia and New Zealand in the form of education
services, consultants, and technical services, creating lucrative investment
opportunities and new markets for goods and services.

Forced dependency on imports has had dire consequences for small Pacific
island farmers, unable to compete with lower priced products from overseas.
While Pacific nations are being told to export more to earn more foreign
exchange and repay loans, commodity prices on world markets continue to
plummet, and the floods of imports of overseas goods and services continue
unabated.  And as the economic crisis continues, the region's
three largest economies, Fiji, the Solomon Islands, and Papua New
Guinea have been the worst affected, according to the World Bank.

The South Pacific Forum's narrow economic focus flies in the face of demands
from Indigenous Peoples from Bougainville to East Timor, from West Papua to
"French" Polynesia for the right to self-determination.  And it ignores the
vulnerability of small, exposed nations to the vagaries of unregulated
markets.

Pressure to open up small island economies to the global market smacks of the
same callous disregard with which the Pacific has long been treated by Pacific
Rim powers.  It has been used as an unwilling guinea pig for nuclear tests,
toxic waste dumping, and as a source for cheap raw materials. The latest
economic blueprint for the region sees the Pacific Islands having little
input into the development of macroeconomic policies which they are supposed
to accept. 

A key "practical impediment" to rendering Forum Island Countries attractive
to investors is the enduring strength of traditional land tenure systems.  In
1995, in Papua New Guinea, where 93% of the land is in community hands, and
seen as "our bank, our fridge, our supermarket" by the people, massive popular
opposition to a World Bank-driven program to register customary title forced
the defeat of the government's proposed Land Mobilisation Bill designed to
attract foreign investment.  Throughout the region, the strong connections
between peoples and the land and ocean are under renewed threat from a vision
of development that sees only dollar signs and commodities to be bought and
sold on a mythical level playing field of the free market.

As a Fiji Council of Churches/NGO submission to the 1999 National Budget puts
it: "In recent years we were told to follow the tigers of South East Asia.
Now their economies have collapsed.  What confidence can we place in those who
advise us on economic policy?  This leads us to ask: are we trying to make
Fiji into something it was never meant to be - a poor copy of large nations,
reliant on an economic model in which we will always be dependent or losers?
In our current system some may profit but most are excluded or exploited.  We
believe that this system is not made for us."

Pacific peoples have proud histories of struggles against colonialism.  Free
trade and investment regimes are resulting in a new relationship of servitude
to the economic powers - countries and companies - which have their eyes on
the region.  After centuries of colonial domination, the Pacific deserves
far better than to be locked into a permanent race to the bottom to provide
cheap labour and natural resources and new frontiers for profit at the
expense of its peoples and fragile environment.

January 1999


From gattwd at corso.ch.planet.gen.nz  Sun Feb 14 07:30:37 1999
From: gattwd at corso.ch.planet.gen.nz (Gatt Watchdog)
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 10:30:37 +1200
Subject: [asia-apec 1013] Another Year, Another Summit (Part II)
Message-ID: <qPXN4e1w165w@corso.ch.planet.gen.nz>


>From ALARM Update

Another Year Another Summit? (Part Two) by Aziz Choudry

A year ago, after the Vancouver Peoples Summit on APEC, I wrote an article for
ALARM Update called, "Another Year, Another Summit?"  It suggested that it was
time to take stock of the rationale behind, and the progress made in holding
annual parallel meetings around the time of the official APEC Summits since
the November 1995 NGO Forum on APEC in Kyoto. It argued that we should
rethink what feels alarmingly like a yearly reflex reaction to the official
APEC made-for media Leaders Summits in favour of something far more
action-oriented, strategy-focused and sustainable.

In November, over 600 people from 30 countries from the Asia-Pacific region
and beyond participated in the Asia Pacific Peoples Assembly (APPA) in Kuala
Lumpur just prior to the APEC Leaders Summit in November. APPA comprised a
number of forums, mostly held in different hotels across the city which shared
the theme "Confronting Globalization: Reasserting Peoples' Rights".  Issues
and sectors covered included women, labour, Indigenous Peoples, youth and
students, migrant workers, human rights and democracy, urban poor, food
security, privatisation and financial deregulation, environment and forestry,
and the US-Japan militarist agenda. A two-day plenary session followed.

It is the model and rationale of APPA and the "Peoples Summit"-type meetings
that I take issue with, not the capabilities or commitment of the Malaysian
organisers, many of whom are key organisers and activists in a range of
grassroots struggles in a difficult and critical time in Malaysia's recent
history. Their warmth, hospitality and sense of humour while
dealing with what must have been a logistical nightmare was
greatly appreciated!

Yet it seems that there is a real problem with ritually passing on the
"anti-APEC" torch from country to country without critically examining the
nature and strength of the flame, and what seems to be an automatic
assumption that a big NGO gathering every time an APEC Summit takes place is
the best use of our energy, time and resources, and an effective way to
counter APEC and the free trade, free market agenda.  But is it?

If APPA was helpful in consolidating genuine peoples' movements in Malaysia,
in educating, empowering and further advancing their struggles for justice and
against the neoliberal agenda then that is good.  That is something for the
organisations on the ground in Malaysia to assess and evaluate. But the
responsibility for evaluating APPA, and the effectiveness of such meetings in
terms of the struggle against APEC lies with all of us. 

At a time when the neoliberal economic model is undergoing its most serious
crisis of legitimacy since APEC's inception, the need for forward-thinking
analysis and action has probably never been greater. 

We need new strategies that go beyond uncovering the nature and impacts of
APEC, and the various other vehicles for globalisation, which focus on
strengthening local and national organisations and struggles, and initiating
the process of finding alternatives that emerge from peoples' experiences and
struggles. This is not to undermine the worth of regional meetings or
exchanges. But my strong sense is that the annual regional meetings on APEC,
while they have grown in scale (to the extent that some now nickname them
"the NGO Olympics"!), will not be the source of those alternatives.

Reflecting on the parallel meetings held in Kyoto around APEC in 1995, Radha
D'Souza of Asia-Pacific Workers Solidarity Links wrote: "The composition of
NGO meetings is becoming increasingly important.  All kinds of organisations
now call themselves NGOs. It has become imperative that the term is redefined,
and organisers pay attention to the claims and actual work of organisations if
they wish to bring together people with common concerns for exchange of ideas
and common programme of action."  This is a vital consideration in attempts to
build and strengthen dynamic peoples' networks around the Asia-Pacific region.

We remain in danger of mimicking the very models and structures and systems
which we are opposed to. At APPA, our differences, like the tensions among
APEC member economies, often got thinly papered over in the interests of
presenting a united front, rather than addressed directly, discussed, brought
out into the open. Our space to discuss vital issues was squeezed into the
gaps among a battery of presentations and speeches. Many others I spoke with
shared similar questions and concerns.  But in the meeting itself it was hard
to find space for these concerns to be aired or discussed.  As with other such
meetings, much of our discussion was also driven by an expectation that a
declaration must come out of the meeting, and that debate should to be aimed
towards that end. Debate about whether or not we could afford to spend two
days essentially poring over words in yet another NGO statement on
globalisation was not on the agenda at APPA!

There is also frustration that (rather like APEC itself!), many of the
commitments made each year at such gatherings don't get implemented, that good
ideas are rarely accompanied by the setting up of mechanisms to put them into
action, and that in any case the sheer size of such large gatherings of people
are perhaps not the best places to be discussing strategies and debating
alternatives.

We rarely acknowledged, let alone discussed the fact that participants adhere
to different ideologies and worldviews or the fact that there are government-
and corporate-funded organisations in these meetings with their own, often
submerged agendas.  Different people came with different mandates.  Some as
individuals, some representing organisations. Some to strengthen and broaden
networks, share experiences and struggles, and hoping to develop concrete
ideas, strategies and alternatives.  Others see in a "peoples meeting" like
APPA a launch pad for trying to reform APEC and influence those in power.
Some are committed to working at the grassroots, sharing analysis, educating,
empowering and mobilising communities.  Others want to channel the meeting's
energy and focus up to APEC, claiming that the main problem with APEC is that
it is closed to NGO participation, not that it promotes a fundamentally flawed
model of development with devastating consequences for peoples and the
environment which should be rejected.

It seems that for the most part, debates on issues like the social clause, the
green clause, to engage or not to engage with APEC are now being glossed over
in a desire to forge some sense of common ground and common purpose among the
diverse groups present in a meeting such as APPA.  These debates are vital -
if we cannot all be clear about the positions that we take in respect of the
issue that we have all come together to discuss, then how can we work together
to build alternatives? The different understandings and positions of different
sector forums about the nature of APEC and the purpose and direction of such
a meeting as APPA also contributed to a sense that our unity statement, built
as it was primarily from the inputs of the sector forum statements, was a
compromise among widely different perceptions of globalisation and what to do
about it. NGO meetings on globalisation have been putting out statements which
effectively say "we told you so" since July 1997 when the Thai economy went
into freefall and sparked the latest visible manifestation of what is by now a
truly global crisis.  We have to move on from here. But how?

If we are serious about transnationalising struggles and building strong
movements, we cannot afford to ignore our differences.  If we do not come to
terms with them then they will be used against us.

British writer/activist Andrew Rowell highlights these dangers "Dialogue is
the most important tactic that companies are using to overcome objections to
their operations.  It is a typical divide and rule tactic.  One PR guru has
outlined a three step divide and conquer strategy on how corporations can
defeat public interest activists who apparently fall into four distinct
categories: "radicals", "opportunists", "idealists" and "realists".  The goal
is to isolate the radicals, "cultivate" the idealists and "educate" them into
becoming realists, then co-opt the realists into agreeing with industry."

That is not to say that we cannot form broad alliances - but we have to know
the nature and the terms on which these alliances are based if they are to
work.  This is as true in the domestic context as it is internationally.
Building alliances and networks takes time and effort, not to mention
the building of mutual trust, respect and mechanisms of accountability to each
other. It seems very ambitious to hope to come up with concrete action plans,
with mechanisms for their implementation given the range of unanswered
questions that need to be addressed.

To advocate for an annual institutionalised "people's summit" on APEC runs
the risk of defining peoples' struggles against the neoliberal agenda in
the region solely in terms of fitting into the existing structures of power
to represent the interests of "civil society" or "the people".

For example, the Canadian Government official delegation to the APEC Summit
this year tabled a proposal that the APEC process be broadened to include
social, human rights and environmental issues, and to provide a role for
non-governmental organisations.  At the same time the Canadian
government-funded International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic
Development (ICHRDD) was one of the major voices in APPA calling for the
institutionalisation of the annual "peoples summit".  And the Canadian
Government made a substantial contribution to the costs of APPA.

Some might argue that the ICHRDD and the Canadian Government have the right
to hold their view and contribute financially to peoples' summits when
requested.  But this example highlights the problem of an APEC state and
quasi-state institution trying to influence the peoples' movements of the
Asia Pacific for the foreign policy agenda of that state rather than the
democratic outcomes of the APEC peoples' fora that have been held to date.

No APEC peoples' forum or assembly has asked to be included as a voice of
"civil society" in the APEC process.  In fact this option of engagement has
been rejected by each forum to date.  The key message from all the peoples'
fora has been one of rejection of the neo-liberal free market agenda
that is the cornerstone of APEC.

But my questions about what transpired to be yet another large alternative
meeting on globalisation remained largely unchanged from last year.  In all
of our critiques of APEC and globalisation, and in our talk of looking for
alternatives we rarely seem to review our rationale for continuing to hold
such largescale peoples' meetings. We urgently need to assess the model of
these meetings and ask how they contribute to our ongoing struggles.  It is
for this reason that we in Aotearoa/New Zealand will be spending our energy
opposing the APEC agenda and process right through 1999.  Although we will
not be organising a large scale international "peoples' summit" as such at
the time of the APEC Leaders' Summit next September, we are absolutely
committed to building large scale peoples' opposition to APEC and its agenda
in Aotearoa/New Zealand and across the APEC region in 1999.

November 1998






From gattwd at corso.ch.planet.gen.nz  Sun Feb 14 08:05:44 1999
From: gattwd at corso.ch.planet.gen.nz (Gatt Watchdog)
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 11:05:44 +1200
Subject: [asia-apec 1014] APEC 1999
Message-ID: <0BZN4e1w165w@corso.ch.planet.gen.nz>


APEC 1999 To Be Exposed And Opposed
By Aziz Choudry

The New Zealand government is the chair of APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation) for 1999.   We in Aotearoa/New Zealand are now entering a period
of hard-sell for the government and business leaders who support APEC's goal
of a "free" trade and
investment regime for "developed" countries like Aotearoa/New Zealand and
Australia by 2010 and in the "developing" countries of the Asia Pacific
region by 2020.  Despite the ongoing economic crisis, and growing calls to
rethink the economic fundamentalism which underpins much of global economic
policy-making through entities like APEC, the World Trade Organisation, the
World Bank and the IMF, the APEC Ministers in Kuala Lumpur continue to
advocate further trade and investment liberalisation as the best way forward.

The Aotearoa/New Zealand APEC Monitoring Group, along with GATT Watchdog,
Corso, CAFCA, Christian World Service and the NZ Trade Union Federation, is
committed to telling the real story about APEC.  We have already begun an
education campaign which will continue throughout 1999.  Our primary goal is
to help people understand the link between APEC's goals and the destructive
economic policies which have devastated this country and the lives of its
peoples over the past 14 years and to promote discussion on alternative
strategies and policies to achieve economic, social, environmental and Treaty
justice.

The APEC process will involve a steady stream of meetings throughout the year
with the first preparatory meeting of senior officials in Wellington in
February and the final ministerial and leaders' meetings in Auckland from 9 to
13 September.  The main official activities are the senior officials' meetings
(SOM) and the meeting of trade ministers at which the outcomes in September
are pre-scripted and basically agreed. The Monitoring Group is coordinating
education activities during each of these meetings.

The first SOM is in Wellington from 1-9 February.  We have already convened a
group to organise a series of workshops, seminars, and public meetings around
the issues of the Treaty of Waitangi, labour issues and education.  Activities
during the second SOM in Christchurch from 29 April to 7 May, organised by
GATT Watchdog, Corso and CAFCA, will focus on foreign investment and big
business, development, and the Treaty of Waitangi.  The third SOM is in
Rotorua from 5-15 August, where the main issues for local action will be
forestry, fisheries and indigenous rights.

The trade ministers will meet briefly in Auckland in late June, and again
with the leaders in mid-September.  The September meeting will be a focus of
attention for the world's media.  For us, it is also the opportunity to bring
together those groups from throughout the country who have been involved in
APEC-related discussions during the year to share their understandings,
strategies and alternatives to the failed free market approach.

The APEC Monitoring Group will be organising a public meeting in Auckland
on Friday 10 September, followed by a forum on alternatives to the APEC
agenda on Saturday and Sunday, 11 and 12 September.  The Auckland conference
will have a strong focus on the connections between our own experience of the
"New Zealand experiment" and the regional and global drive towards economic
liberalisation being promoted by APEC and other vehicles of free trade and
investment.

There will be many sideshows for those who want to hitch onto the APEC wagon.
All of these are intended to legitimise the APEC agenda. In addition to the
meeting of the APEC Business Advisory Council, made up mainly of
representatives of big business, an APEC Women Leaders' meeting will seek to
show the support of women for APEC's liberalisation agenda.  A meeting on
Small and Medium Enterprises will try to convince small businesses that APEC
is not really the vehicle for big business, and is good for them.  There is
bound to be something for Maori entrepeneurs.

Some NGOs may well be invited, and perhaps even funded, to participate on the
fringes of APEC.  The government has already hired someone whose job is to
co-opt NGOs into the APEC programme.  There is even a possibility that the
government might partly fund a "People's Summit" to show how "tolerant" it is
of dissent.  The more people the government can get to participate in its
activities, the more support it will claim for APEC's free market goals.
Those who oppose what radical free market policies have done here and around
the world will find this offensive and unacceptable.  However we realise that
the opportunity to rub shoulders with participants in the APEC process will
be tempting for people and organisations who believe they can bring about
some kind of change in the way APEC operates.  That misunderstands the nature
of APEC, which can be summed up in two of its own catch-cries: "APEC Means
Business", and "APEC is a community of economies".

The only consultation that the government proposes for NGOs and Maori is
purely for cosmetic purposes.  It is a desperate measure to try to build, as
Jenny Shipley put it in her recent speech to the APEC Business Leaders' Summit
in Kuala Lumpur, "broader support for APEC among the wider communities of
which we are part". A desperate measure to control debate and opposition to
APEC and minimise the risk of political embarrassment during the year that
Shipley's government (if it is still in power) wants to showcase the New
Zealand free market economy to the rest of the world.

"Our experience of free trade and investment and free market policies here in
Aotearoa/New Zealand tells us that APEC is wrong. We plan to expose and oppose
APEC and the aggressive free trade and investment agenda which it promotes.
Its underlying model of development denies communities the right to determine
our own futures, and advances the government of big business, by big business,
for big business," says Leigh Cookson, a spokeperson for the group.

Since the 1994 APEC Summit in Indonesia, the Aotearoa/New Zealand APEC
Monitoring Group has been involved in ongoing research, education,
campaign and media work on APEC.  Members of the group have participated in
alternative meetings on APEC held parallel to APEC Summits in Jakarta (1994),
Osaka/Kyoto (1995), Manila (1996), Vancouver, (1997), and this year in Kuala
Lumpur.

For more details, please contact the Aotearoa/New Zealand APEC Monitoring
Group at <gattwd@corso.ch.planet.gen.nz> Fax 64 3 3668035 Ph 64 3 3662803






From gattwd at corso.ch.planet.gen.nz  Sun Feb 14 10:43:44 1999
From: gattwd at corso.ch.planet.gen.nz (Gatt Watchdog)
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 13:43:44 +1200
Subject: [asia-apec 1015] APEC 99 - Protest backdrop to hearing on spy plan
Message-ID: <LN7N4e1w165w@corso.ch.planet.gen.nz>


Protest backdrop to hearing on spy plan
by Eugene Bingham
New Zealand Herald, Auckland, 8/2/99

WELLINGTON - Placards and protesters will be outside Parliament
this week as a high-powered committee of MPs considers proposals
to boost the legal powers of spies.

The committee, including the Prime Minister and the Leader of the
Opposition, is due to study 130 submissions on an amendment to the
law which would give the Security Intelligence Service the right
to break into people's homes.

About half of those who sent in submissions have asked to appear
before the committee during its deliberations tomorrow and on
Wednesday.

Prime Minister Jenny Shipley, who is also the Minister in Charge
of the SIS, said submissions would be held in public unless there
were extraordinary circumstances.

But the man who indirectly caused the proposal to change the
legislation will not be one of those sitting in the committee
room.

Aziz Choudry, whose Christchurch house was broken into by the SIS
in July 1996 in a breakin the Court of Appeal later declared
illegal, said he had not "dignified" the committee by making a
submission.

Although he is in Wellington - to attend protests over a meeting
of senior officials from Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation member
nations, Mr Choudry said he would not go to the hearings.

Instead, there will be protests outside Parliament against the
amendment.

"They can tap our phones, listen to our conversations, read our
mail, e-mail, faxes, even the words on our computer screens," said
Mr Choudry.

"So why does the Government now want the right to break into any
place in New Zealand - even though we know they've been doing it
for many years?"

Mr Choudry noted the irony that the amendment was being heard
while the Apec meeting was on.

"Apec meetings have become synonymous with human rights abuses,"
he said.

Intelligence agencies, police and military intelligence units had
targetted activists to suppress dissent, avoid potential political
embarrassment to visiting VIPs, and create a false sense of
stability, security and consent to outside observers and the
domestic audience.


From agr726 at hyd.zoooom.net.pk  Sun Feb 14 14:53:48 1999
From: agr726 at hyd.zoooom.net.pk (Aslam Parwaiz)
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 05:53:48 -0000
Subject: [asia-apec 1016] no new grain without first burning the stubble
Message-ID: <01be57de$643677c0$0d123ad1@oemcomputer>


*****************************************
                                       SLAP 
(Sustainable Livestock & Agriculture Production)
         Newsletter   March & April  1999 
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/3770/
*****************************************
Articles:
1. Corruption a major obstacle in agricultural development: A case study of Pakistan.
2. New Century To Be Marked By ..........
3. Sustainable goat farming
4. Poor rural women, and the role of livestock in their life
5. Book Review:
6 New Conferences
7. Finer things of life!
8. Address & SLAP's Team
***********************************************************************
Corruption a major obstacle in agricultural development of Developing countries : A case study of Pakistan
 
By Dr Aslam Pervez Umrani, Ghulam Hussain Mallah and Rashid Ahmed Nizamani 
 
Corruption occurs in many forms, including grand corruption in which large payments made in procurement process or for favourable import and export policies to high-ranking bureaucrats and in certain cases to ruling parliamentarians. In petty corruption, small payments are made for approval of projects and release of funds. Plainly, corruption damages economy and efforts for any reforms. It makes hindrance in sustainable growth and working of government and non-government (Banks, Businesses and NGOs) sectors. Corruption impedes the ability of Pakistan to attract scarce foreign investment and its distribution in needy sectors of our society. Although concerns about corruption have been on rise in recent years in many segments of our society, there has been little attempts made on government level to address this issue seriously. The main problem is that, now we see the corruption, but do not feel it, and our society does not show any strong response against this evil. This current article is only limited to grand corruption or mismanagement in agricultural sector.
Recently, Food and Commerce Ministries claimed that in 1998, Pakistan earned Rs395 millions by exporting onions, potatoes, dry chillies, chilly powder and gram split. However, in the same year, Rs340 million were paid on the same items at same time to import them. The import of chillies were done at the time when chillies bumper crop was ready in Sindh, which suppressed the price of locally produced chillies; on other hand, some of exported chillies were damaged in stores thus never sold in open market. It happened to onions as well. They were imported when the crop was reaped in southern Pakistan, resulting in down turn of prices even below the break-even level. These abrupt down ward trends of prices of agricultural commodities resulted in fluctuations in cropping pattern. Now the market is not regularised by local demand and supply. Farmers, consumers and government all are loosing money, that surprises many people, but not to those who earned lot of commissions from this business. 
    Despite enormous natural resources and more than 50 per cent population is involved in agriculture sector, the country is precariously dependent on food imports and is third largest US wheat customer. The food imports are likely to grow due to lack of incentives to our farmers. The trend is already clear and country imported more than four million tones of wheat in 1997-98.
   Continuous import of dry milk, soybean meal, edible oils and wheat is suppressing the prices of locally produced items, thus farmers are less interested in increasing the production of these items. If we had given incentives to our farmers to achieve higher production, they would have mad our country self-sufficient in wheat and edible oils. However, that will reduce the amount of kickbacks for policy makers of our society. 
Wheat: For example, Pakistan will have to pay the premium price for import of wheat with each passing year. So far, Pakistan had paid 175, 357, 440, 451 and 713 million US Dollars in 193-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 respectively. This rising trend does indicate the cost of future payments to be made to settle down wheat export bills only.
Sugarcane: At present 20 sugar mills are working in Sindh Province. But this year, due to compromise between decision-makers and sugar mill-owners the sugar cane farmers have suffered enormous financial losses. This year, farmers are crying due to low prices and delayed payments compared to last two years. One of the reasons that sugarcane growers have come under pressure was delayed start of sugar mills, which increased the competition among growers to get indents. Although there is legal protection to farmers under Sugarcane Act, for timely start of factories and payments for their commodities. Therefore separate sugarcane commissioner offices were established in each province, but so far no efforts have been taken to rescue sugarcane farmers and take necessary action against sugarcane industry's kings. 
Edible Oils: The cost paid last year for import of edible oil was 760 million US Dollars, which is likely to touch the level of 800 million Dollars at the end of current fiscal year. Pakistan could save much-needed dollars by using home resources, such as, cottonseed, soybeans, canola, maize and sunflower. According to cotton experts, the country is capable of producing at least 1.4 million tonnes of edible oil through available cottonseeds.
Cotton: Cotton is key crop of Pakistan, and our country is fourth largest cotton growing country in the world. Cotton crop not only earns foreign exchange as a raw material, but it also supports other industries, such as ginning, oil expellers, textile and ready-made garment factories. Thus directly or indirectly millions of people are involved in this crop. Nevertheless, production figures for 1998 indicates that cotton production have declined in Punjab province due to out breaks of Cotton Leaf Curl Virus (CLCV). Now CLCV is spreading in Sindh, because of sowing of NIAB 78 variety, which is vulnerable to attack of white fly vector. There are central and provincial cotton research and extension institutes in Punjab and Sindh, but no serious efforts are put to inform about this incurable virus disease.
Fertiliser: It is surprising that the agriculture extension services had never emphasised the importance of organic manure, just because chemical fertiliser companies are offering some benefits to extension workers. Thus organic matter is declining in our soils and soils are becoming more alkaline due to use of Urea and other alkaline fertilisers. Recently, at the time of wheat sowing, shortage of DAP was created by not importing phosphorus based fertilisers in time, which increased the black marketing of DAP and those who had the stock, made large profits. This shortage not only increased the price of DAP, but it also first time encouraged the adulteration. The end result is farmers either used little DAP at right time or they used adulterated DAP, and due to both reasons, we will be getting lower wheat yield, thus more money will be spend on wheat imports. Who is mastermind behind this fertiliser game, no one knows that, but we can say that some one is going to make lot of money from this game. 
Livestock Sector: Pakistan is the seventh largest milk producing country in the world and yet it imports a substantial quantity of powder milk to meet the demand of our urban centres particularly Karachi City. At present Pakistan produces about 20 billion litres of raw milk every year, but it still imports about 17000 tonnes of powder milk. Only last year, we paid 27 million US Dollars for importing the dry milk powder. Milk production figure shows that Pakistan produces enough milk to meet the demand of entire country, but the lack of milk processing facilities and commercial dairy operations are causing huge wastage. Asian development Bank did issue loans for milk processing plants and large dairy farms and under that scheme loans were obtained by private sector, but only 30 per cent were actually utilised in dairy industry and rest of money either flown abroad or used in other more profitable sectors. 
Corruption in procurement: The main reason that our policy makers are not providing enough incentives to our agricultural farmers is that high level corruption occurs in procurement process. The reason is simple, the overall amount an individual can get as kickback is some time greater than his legitimate lifetime salary. Thus temptation is enormous and the risk of punishment is too little. In procurement process, bribes are paid at much earlier stage; to get a firm included on a restricted list of bidders and some times bidder or contractor writes the specifications in such a way that no one else can compete with him. Some times bidders are given second chance to resubmit their bids and get contracts at much lower prices. What are the real costs of corruption in procurement? One way to judge this is to compare actual prices of similar goods or services with open market prices. Some times price differentials on the order is 20 to 30 per cent higher than open market prices. Thus less goods or services are bought for development.
Not only our farmers and research worker are not happy with the existing level of corruption in agricultural sector, but our donor agencies are also worried about it. For example, UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and World Bank have criticised the role of Federal Agriculture Ministry and Provincial once in Agricultural Research Project II (ARPII). In this project 57.3 million US Dollars were made available to government of Pakistan in response to its request. In one case, in NWFP Province a contractor was paid for 8 vehicles, but he only supplied one vehicle and then disappeared. Similarly ARPII Sindh Component also made same mistakes and most development and procurement were done on papers, rather improving the existing research facilities of province. Now World Bank has been suggested that it should terminate projects or its components, when there is persistent unsatisfactory performance.
Suggestions:
1. Pakistan may face serious problems if present level of corruption is not curbed. In agriculture sector it will take many years of hard work to bring the economy back on track to set it on the course towards a high level of sustainable growth.  
2. Agricultural research and extension organisations need co-ordination with NGOs and farmers and they have to put forward farmer's point of view to policy makers, so that they can get right policies for higher production.  3. Improved, free from corruption, loaning system may be introduced for small farmers to increase their current production level. 
4. Enhanced use of organic manure and reduced but timely use of appropriate chemical fertilisers 
5. Paying higher wages to decision-makers and officials is one way to reduce the level of corruption. But to stop the corruption we need effective monitoring and audit systems and agencies that have desire and ability to take action against corrupt people. Perhaps it requires separate judicial system that is not corruptible and willing to enforce convictions. Higher the ranking of corrupt person, greater the punishment should be given, that will definitely discourage other policy makers to get involved in corruption. 
6. This is time for concerned citizens and intellectuals to make serious efforts against the corruption, such as to think, write and take necessary actions. There will be no development, if this cancer is not eradicated from our society. 
**************************************************************
New Century To Be Marked By Growing Threats, Opportunities
Special Report by Worldwatch
The bright promise of a new century is clouded by unprecedented threats to the stability of the natural world, according to a special millennial edition of the State of the World report, released by the Worldwatch Institute recently. "In a globally interconnected economy, rapid deforestation, falling water tables, and accelerating climate change could undermine economies around the world in the decades ahead," said Lester Brown and Christopher Flavin, lead authors of the new report. 
During the past century, world population grew by more than 4 billion-three times the number of people when the century began. At the same time, the use of energy and raw materials grew more than ten times. "These trends cannot continue for many more years," said the authors. "As the 21st century approaches, the big question is whether we can muster the ingenuity to change-and do so rapidly enough to stave off environmentally-based economic decline. The one thing we can say for sure is that the 21st century will be as different from the 20th as that one was from the 19th." 
The 20th century began with extraordinary optimism. Major advances such as widespread electric lighting and the emancipation of women were widely predicted, but many other developments, such as air travel and the birth-control pill, were not. The darkest developments of the 20th century, including two world wars and more than a billion people living in poverty, were completely unexpected.
Today, at the dawn of a new century, faith in technology and human progress are as common as they were a century ago. In their fascination with information technologies, many of today's economic thinkers seem to have forgotten that our modern civilization, like its forerunners, is entirely dependent on its ecological foundations-foundations that the economy is now eroding. 
Since our emergence as a species, human societies have continually run up against local environmental limits that have caused them to collapse, as local forests and cropland were over-stressed. But the advances in technology that have allowed us to surmount these local limits have transferred the problem of environmental limits to the global level, where human activities now threaten planetary systems. Among the problems we now face: 
1.. World energy needs are projected to double in the next several decades, but no credible geologist foresees a doubling of world oil production, which is projected to peak within the next few decades. 
    2.. While protein demands are projected to also double in the century ahead, no respected marine biologist expects the oceanic fish catch, which has plateaued over the last decade, to double. The world's oceans are being pushed beyond the breaking point, due to a lethal combination of pollution and over-exploitation. Eleven of the 15 most important oceanic fisheries and 70 percent of the major fish species are now fully or over-exploited, according to experts. And more than half the world's coral reefs are now sick or dying. 
    3.. Growing stress can also be seen in the world's woodlands, where the clearing of tropical forests has contributed recently to unprecedented fires across large areas of Southeast Asia, the Amazon, and Central America. In Indonesia alone, 1,100 airline flights were canceled, and billions of dollars of income were lost. 
    4.. Environmental deterioration is taking a growing toll on a wide range of living organisms. Of the 242,000 plant species surveyed by the World Conservation Union in 1997, some 33,000, or 14 percent, are threatened with extinction-mainly as a result of massive land clearing for housing, roads, and industries. This mass extinction is projected to disrupt nature's ability to provide essential ecosystem services, ranging from pollination to flood control. 
    5.. The atmosphere is also under assault. The billions of tons of carbon that have been released since the Industrial Revolution have pushed atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to their highest level in 160,000 years-a level that continues to rise each year. As scientists predicted, temperatures are rising along with the concentration of carbon dioxide. The latest jump in 1998 left the global temperature at its highest level since record-keeping began in the mid-19th century. Higher temperatures are projected to threaten food supplies in the next century, while more severe storms cause economic damage, and rising seas inundate coastal cities. 
    6.. The early costs of climate change may already be evident: weather-related economic damages of $89 billion in 1998 exceeded losses for the decade of the 1980s. In Central America, 11,000 people were killed by Hurricane Mitch, and Honduras suffered losses equivalent to one-third of its annual GDP. 
    7.. Human societies may also face growing stress in the new century. In Africa, for example, where populations have doubled in the last three decades, economic growth is already failing to keep up with human needs. Several African countries, including Botswana, Zambia, and Zimbabwe, where 20-25 percent of the adult population is now HIV-positive, are expected to lose one-fifth or more of their people within the next few decades. This could undermine their societies in the same way the plague did those of Europe in the Middle Ages. 
    "Our analysis shows that we are entering a new century with an economy that cannot take us where we want to go," said Worldwatch President Lester Brown. "Satisfying the projected needs of 8 billion or more people with the economy we now have is simply not possible. The western industrial model-the fossil-fuel-based, automobile-centered, throwaway economy that so dramatically raised living standards in this century-is in trouble." 
The shift to an environmentally sustainable economy may be as profound a transition as the Industrial Revolution. But just as our great-grandparents were able to change a century ago, so must we be ready to change again. In fact, the broad outlines of a sustainable economic system that can meet the human needs of the next century are beginning to emerge. 
The foundation of such a system is a new design principle-one that shifts from the one-time depletion of natural resources to an economy that is based on renewable energy and that continually reuses and recycles materials. A sustainable economy will be a solar-powered, bicycle/rail-based, reuse/recycle economy, one that uses energy, water, land, and materials much more efficiently and wisely than we do today. 
Defenders of today's industries point to the costs of environmental protection. But reversing the environmental deterioration that has marked the 20th century is hardly a luxury. Archaeologists study the remains of civilisations that undermined their ecological support systems. The Fertile Crescent, where agriculture emerged over ten millennia ago, was turned into a virtual desert by ancient farmers and herders-and even today, supports only a small population. 
These societies found themselves on a growth path that was environmentally unsustainable-and were not able to make the economic adjustments needed to avoid a collapse. Unfortunately, the records do not tell us whether these civilisations did not understand the need for change, or whether they saw the problem but could not agree on the steps needed to stave off economic decline. Today, the adjustments we must make are clear. The question is whether we can make them in time. 
Building an environmentally sustainable world economy depends on a co-operative global effort. No country acting alone can protect the diversity of life on Earth or the health of oceanic fisheries. So far, national governments have largely failed to effectively implement the last decade's landmark environmental treaties-on climate change and biodiversity. One of the big challenges of the early 21st century will be to fulfil their ambitious promises to stabilise the climate and slow the destruction of species. 
In the absence of a concerted effort by the wealthy to address the problems of poverty and deprivation, building a sustainable future may not be possible. Growing poverty, and the political and economic chaos that can be provoked by it, reverberate around the world, as was seen in 1998 with the Asian economic meltdown, which pushed tens of millions of people below the poverty line in just a few months. Meeting the needs of the more than 1 billion people now in poverty is essential to making the transition to an environmentally sustainable world economy. "One question facing humanity as the new century approaches is whether we can find a new understanding and values that will support a restructuring of the global economy," said author Christopher Flavin. "Although such a transformation may seem farfetched, the end-of-the-century perspective offers hope. Just as the 19th century was marked by the abolition of slavery and the 20th century by a new international principle of human rights (adopted by the United Nations in 1948), the 21st century will require a new ethic of sustainability that includes the need to live within our ecological means. We will need a new set of human responsibilities-to the natural world and to future generations-to go with our new found human rights." 
One key to reversing environmental degradation is to tax the activities that cause it, according to the report. By putting a price on these activities, the market can be harnessed to spur progress. If coal burning is taxed, solar energy becomes more economically competitive. If auto emissions are taxed, cleaner forms of transportation become more affordable. The new German government, elected in October 1998, has embarked on the world's most ambitious environmental tax reform-reducing taxes on wages by 2.4 percent, while raising energy taxes by an identical amount. This is a landmark step that will push Europe's largest economy in an environmentally sustainable direction. In the last decade of the 20th century, Europe is also leading the way in some of the industries that are the foundations of a solar economy. Europe has added 5,000 megawatts of wind power in the last 5 years, for example, half of it in Germany, where the northernmost state of Schleswig-Holstein gets 15 percent of its electricity from the wind. Wind power, now one of Europe's fastest growing manufacturing industries, employs thousands of workers. Sales of other new energy technologies are emerging.
The production of solar photovoltaic cells has doubled in the last five years, propelled in part by the Japanese government's efforts to promote solar rooftops as a standard option for new suburban homes. Fuel cells, which turn hydrogen into electricity with water the only by-product, are meanwhile being spurred by billions of dollars of investment capital, as companies pursue them as a replacement for everything from the coal-fired power plant to the internal combustion engine. The effort to replace today's unsustainable economy with one that is suited to the demands of the 21st century will create some of the new century's largest investment opportunities. Bill Ford, the incoming Chairman of the Ford Motor Company, has plans to increase his company's profits by replacing the internal combustion engine that was at the centre of his great-grandfather's success. "Smart companies will get ahead of the wave," says Ford. "Those that don't will be wiped out." 
The challenge now is to mobilise public support for a fundamental economic transformation a shift to a 21st century economy that is far less resource intensive and polluting, yet even more productive than today's. "No challenge is greater, or more satisfying, than building an environmentally sustainable global economy, one where economic and social progress can continue, not only in the 21st century, but for many centuries.
******************************************************* 
                     Sustainable of goat farming
By Dr Aslam Pervez Umrani., Ghulam Hussain Dawach1 and Nasrullah Panhwer
 
In Pakistan she goat is known as poor man?s cow and it is considered an important animal in all rural areas. Pakistan has more than 20 recognised breeds of goat. Goat meat is preferred on other meats, thus it commands higher prices than cattle, buffalo and sheep meat in Punjab and Sindh provinces. Goats mostly breed twice a year, and kidding rate per year ranges between 100 to 150 per cent. According to 1976, 1986 and 1996 National Livestock Census, goat?s population was 21.1, 29.9 and 41.2 million heads respectively. The breeds of goats in Pakistan are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1 Prominent goat breeds of Pakistan
The adaptability of goats to harsh environment makes them ideal as food producing animal in marginal areas. However, increasing goat population has often been blamed for accelerating the destruction of forests and grazing lands by environmentalists. But they forget the multiple role that goat plays in our rural economy. In deed, in exploring future option for environmentally sound and sustainable livestock and agriculture production systems, it may be important to consider innovative mixes of animal and plant species, which can conserve or rebuild the village ecosystem.
In rangeland?s ecosystem the concept of increasing contribution of palatable trees and shrubs enhances the overall yield of the land and makes best use of resources, while protecting against environmental degradation.
Goats are different from cattle and sheep in their grazing behaviour. Selectivity, browsing, long distance travelling and adaptability are amongst the most important differences between grazer and browser species. Browsing horizon up to 2 metres of height by goats commonly occur during the dry period. Diet selection by goats by goats is primarily determined by the variety of plant species and their relative abundance. It has been observed that goats spent approximately one-third of feeding time on grazing grasses and forbes during summer and rainy season. During that period Cenchrus ciliaris was dominant component in goat?s diet. In same research goats exhibited a high degree of flexibility in diet selection when confronted with seasonal changes. In winter period they spent most of their time browsing on trees, particularly on Acacia nilotica. Goats readily switch from browse to grazing, if there is any grass growth during winter. Even within same species, goats
vary their choices. At spring time it selects buds, leaves and tender branches, whereas at dry period it prefers high protein components, such as twigs and fruits of leguminous trees and shrubs. The well developed lips and tongue give them greater flexibility to harvest forages from short grasses and forbs to thorniest shrub, which exist in rangeland?s ecosystem.
It has been observed that tree/shrub and grass systems support very high growth rates compared to natural pastures during growing age of goats. There appears be a sufficient opportunity to exploit full potential of kids growth under extensive grazing system with little supplementation, provided rangelands have reconstituted multi-layer nutritious plant-biomass. In some cases, trees/shrubs and grass based rangelands can support five time higher grazing pressure than only grass bases rangelands, provided trees and shrubs are palatable and leguminous species.
Some management practices for goats farming:
1. Stocking levels should be low enough to allow sufficient plant growth after each grazing period. 
2. Encourage rotational grazing by wires or herding to give plants a chance to regenerate. 
3. Avoid exposure of the soil surface by over grazing  
4. Periodic introduction of multi purpose trees and shrubs in rangelands, that grow well in local environment, have forage with high nutritive value, resist pest attack and acceptable to local communities. 
5. Some breeding practices for goats farming (1): 
6. Males and females should be kept separately before on set of puberty 
7. Females can be mated at 9 months 
8. The best for mating is 12-18 hours after appearance of first sign of the heat ((genitals wet, red and warm) 
9. Do not mate those animals, which are closely related 
10. Use young and strong males, with good body confirmations, and having higher body weight than same age males 
11. Rotate the male breeding stock or borrow or exchange with other farmers to avoid inbreeding depression  
12. Cull females after two unsuccessful mating with different males. 
13. Do not rebreed twin bearing goats until their kids are weaned 
 
Conclusion:
Improved rangelands with having palatable trees and shrubs offers great potential for improvement in goats production. However, good stockmanship is also an important factor higher production of animals and ecological stability of rangelands.
(1) Source: Merkel and Subandriyo. 1997. Sheep and Goat Production Handbook for Small Ruminant. 
Published by: GL-CRSP (Global-Livestock Collaborative Research Support Programme).
*******************************************************
Poor rural women, and the role of livestock in their life
Dr Noor-un-Nisa Mari and Dr Rukhsana Vighio1 (1 = Treasurer PVMA Sindh)
 
In rural communities of Sindh, woman starts collecting wealth by keeping chickens; then few goats for milk or fattening and to slaughter for a day of sacrifice; next a milch cow or buffalo. Because small animals traditionally are in the care of the women in the household, Which means when they are sold, even if a male actually takes them to the market, the proceeds come back into her hand and she decides on the use of that cash. 
 
Large animals need large spaces, shelter in the form of cowsheds, security from theft and large amounts of fodder. A poor woman, particularly a landless one, cannot provide these things. The demands of small livestock are more manageable for her. Returns on small animals may be smaller, but they are more frequent, which fits in with the needs of the poor for small amounts of cash to handle an emergency, feed a visiting relative, travel to her father?s house or make her repayment when no other income is available. We have seen that a woman can manage a flock of small animals in such a way that they give her small bursts of income for emergencies, repayment, meeting her social obligations or smoothening out shortages during a lean season. It is like money on fixed deposit rather than a regular salary. 
 
Can a woman bring her family out of poverty through investment in livestock alone? We do not see this happening in Sindh at present. But in long-term, it may become possible.
 
It also seems desirable to bring credit, savings organisations and NGOs into closer touch with poor women of the rural society, which will help them to improve the living standard of their family.
*****************************************************************
Book Review: "Sheep & Goat Production Handbook for Southeast Asia" edited by R.C. Merkal & Subandriyo.
  
[If you want to get your book reviewed in SLAP (books about livestock, agriculture, rangeland & grassland's production, management, health and marketing only), then please send one copy of your book to EDITOR OF SLAP. Address is given in the end of this newsletter.]
 
Small Ruminant Research Support Program and other organisations have published this handbook. This book is deigned for farmers and extensionist, it also outlines basic information for research workers in livestock industry. However, those who are raising sheep and goats first time, will be more benefited from this handbook. Few Abstracts from this book is given below:
 
"1. Sheep and goats are one of the most appropriate commodities in a farming system based on small piece of land. The risk of investment loss in the death of an animal is smaller for sheep and goats than for larger animals.
2. Sheep and goat can adapt to various environments and easy to raise, can be sold at anytime. They are faster in reproducing, can utilise almost any forage and agricultural residues and the cost for maintenance is usually lower.
3. Try to find alternatives for combinations of feed resources for various ages of animals so that the feed costs can be minimised. 
.
4. Try to keep records on simple methods of animal care with maximum output. The most important records are 
.(date of mating, birth date and production record of each animal) records remove any doubt in making decisions.
5. Careful planning for regular sales is one way of increasing income from raising sheep and goats. Planning the production cycle can help plan the buying and selling animals. 
6. Production can be arranged by taking into account the gestation period, weight at weaning, age at marketing, age for replacing dams and bucks
.
7. Planning the production and marketing may increase family income because the selling rate depends on production level, age at selling and market demand.
8. Animals can be sold when body weight does not increase any more, which is about 1-1 1/2 years of age. Selling animals can be postponed if a festival is approaching (Haj Season). Postponing the sale of animal to long will result in a loss, because there is no more increase in body weight to cover the extra cost."
********************************************************
EMPOWERING FARMERS THROUGH ANIMAL TRACTION
INTO THE 21st CENTURY
ATNESA (the Animal Traction Network of Eastern and Southern
Africa) invites all those interested in the use of animal
traction in sustainable agriculture to its 3rd International
Workshop, to be held in South Africa 18 - 25 September 1999.
The theme "Empowering Farmers Through Animal Traction" has been
chosen in order to encourage and enable the exchange of
information and ideas by animal traction promoters and
practitioners from all over the world, and to facilitate the
development of strategies which will ensure the full and proper
employment of animal traction in agriculture in the 21st century.
Further information from 
Richard Fowler
East Coast Co-ordinator
Farming Systems Research & Technology Transfer
Grain Crops Institute : Agricultural Research Council
P/bag X 9059 PIETERMARITZBURG 3200 SOUTH AFRICA
E-mail: rfowler@cedara1.agric.za
**********************************************************
Burning the Stubble
By Jon Stallworhty
 
Another harvest gathered in
worst than the last, only a bin
of rotten grain for all our trouble.
But there is a time for the plough
a time for harvesting, and now
a time for burning the stubble.
 
Flames snap at the wind, and it
etches the eye with a bitter
mirage of summer. Returning
I looked for the dip in the ground,
the nest, the unfurled poppy; found
nothing but stubble burning
 
And charred ground hardening towards frost.
Fire before ice; and the ground must
be ploughed after burning the stubble,
the ground must be broken again.
There can be no new grain 
without, first, burning the stubble.
--------------------------------------------------
RELICS
By Zulfiqar Ali Umrani
 
They serve as symbol for courage hope and dream,
While explaining mans love for hero?s.
A breathing droplet of life still is present it seam,
In those old, decayed withering stones.
Surely for Macbeth, Othelo, its not prescribed;
Pride is inscribed in writer?s art.
>From writer?s hands living creation is derived,
Bring gratitude to him to bring them alive!
Although after the deed these bodies decease
But their achievement shine wide and far.
 
Could a man lured in ubiquitous thoughts share?
A place elevated to their extent.
Might not I serve a noble deed to come near?
With ranks of idols I humbly observe,
They forcefully transfix my eyes to their galore
Making my heart feel giddy with desire
It conjures force unknown to physics before.
I beg; fulfil my craving motive
.
So as to work my way to eternity!
**************************************************
PAPA (Progressive Agriculturist & Pastoralist Association).
                  WE BELIEVE
Information technology (IT) is going to play an important role in development of global society In developing countries, IT has particular value as a powerful tool to help them getting information about recent advancement in science, as well as distributing the information at much faster rates then mankind ever though about.
We are publishing a SLAP Newsletter regularly, which published in three formats:
1. Printed
2. Email newsletter
3. As a web page
The aim of this newsletter is to collect information about recent advancement in agricultural science from all around the world and distribute it among policy makers, extension workers, NGOs and progressive farmers. Recently we have increased the size of the newsletter. However, due to financial constraints, we are not able to send printed copies to our those friends, who live abroad.  
 
Address: Editor SLAP, 
60/ Al Abass housing society, New Wehdat colony, 
Hyderabad, Pakistan.
Phone: 00-92-221-653348
Email: agr726@hyd.zoooom.net.pk
SLAP?s Team
Honorary Editor:
Dr Aslam P. Umrani
PhD in "Sustainable Agriculture"
Assistant Editors:
Ghulam Hussain Mallah
Rashid Ahmed Nizamani
Printing and Distribution:
Syed Munawar Ali Shah
Tariq Ali Baloch
Arts and Design: 
Zulfiqar Ali
Publisher: Shahnaz.Palijo 
****************************************
Dr Aslam Pervez Umrani,
PhD in Sustainable Agriculture,
Address: House No. 60, Al-Abbas Housing Society,
New Wehdat Colony, Hyderabad, Pakistan.
Email: agr726@hotmail.com
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/3770/


From gattwd at corso.ch.planet.gen.nz  Mon Feb 15 14:38:31 1999
From: gattwd at corso.ch.planet.gen.nz (Gatt Watchdog)
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:38:31 +1200
Subject: [asia-apec 1017] Toronto Star APEC Article
Message-ID: <w7Bq4e2w165w@corso.ch.planet.gen.nz>



from the Toronto Star
February 12, 1999


Staying focused on the pepper-spray cover up 
by Naomi Klein

 
Do you suffer from APEC fatigue?

Do your limbs get heavy when you hear the words ``pepper spray?''

Do your eyelids droop when talk turns to legal fees?

If so, you are not alone. Thousands of Canadians suffer from APEC Fatigue,
among them many federal opposition politicians and members of the media.
And I admit it: Sometimes I, obsessed as I am with what happened at the
1997 Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation Summit, suffer from APEC Fatigue,
too.

The time has come, however, to shake off that political narcolepsy and
take a cue from the Americans. Much as I despise the motives behind the
Bill Clinton witch hunt, it's tough not to admire the Republicans'
determination.

What these people lack in evidence and genuine scandal, they make up for
in steely-eyed focus. They won't let anything distract them from their
resolve to hold Clinton to account: not a Congressional election upset,
not blown-up American embassies, not even air strikes against Iraq.

But here in Canada, say ``Social Union,'' ``Bill C-54'' or ``King
Hussein's funeral'' and Prime Minister Jean Chrtien's foes are darting
around like 10-year-old boys on a sugar high.

Now I'm not saying that APEC should be the only item on the political
agenda. But one thing is clear: If the truth about APEC is ever to come
out, it will only be as a result of sustained - and extremely
uncomfortable - public pressure. The Chrtien government has already
demonstrated how far it will go to ward off scrutiny.

It has targeted the CBC, it still refuses to pay the students' legal fees,
and it won't hold an independent inquiry or even an internal review. The
Prime Minister's Office has yet to hand over relevant documents to the
RCMP's Public Complaints Commission, and Chrtien has not agreed to
testify.

Busting Fortress Liberal is going to take a kind of doggedness that seems
to have dissipated from only a few months ago. And the fatigue is not for
lack of incriminating material. If anything, the case that Chrtien was
involved in a politically motivated campaign to strip protesters of their
civil liberties is only gaining more heft.

In the past couple of weeks, new information has emerged on several of the
case's most contentious issues. A quick rundown:


Chrtien was involved. In the original round of documents, there was no
direct evidence that the Prime Minister offered his personal assurances
that Indonesia's concerns about embarrassment would be addressed. But
documents released this week show that Chrtien did offer those assurances
in a meeting with Indonesian ambassador Benjamin Parwoto.  When Chrtien
said he was aware of President Suharto's concerns about ``comfort,'' there
is little doubt that both men took that as a reference to Suharto's demand
- made repeatedly in the previous months - that he should see no visible
signs of protest. It was this desire for a protest-free summit that led to
the security crackdown.


Chrtien may have called Suharto. At the same meeting, Chrtien said he
would be calling the Indonesian president soon. The statement directly
contradicts the position of the Prime Minister's Office, which is that no
such phone call took place.  The discrepancy makes a persuasive argument
for why the Prime Minister must be subpoenaed and why phone records must
be produced by the PMO. Did the phone call take place or not? If so, what
assurances were offered?


Jaggi Singh's charges were trumped up. That's the way it looks, anyway.
The outspoken activist was arrested on assault charges the day before the
now infamous anti-APEC protest - a protest he helped to organize. The RCMP
claimed that two weeks earlier, Singh had shouted too loudly into a
megaphone, injuring a police officer's eardrum.  But last week, Singh's
charges were quietly dropped. Though the RCMP denies it, this development
bolsters Singh's allegation that the assault charge was fabricated to keep
him - and his embarrassing megaphone - away from the summit site.

As the incriminating evidence piles up, however, it seems as if the more
we know, the less interested we become. News stories that would have made
the front page only months ago are now buried in the back. Opposition
parties fire in all directions. It becomes easier not to care.

But this scandal has become about much more than APEC: It is now a test of
whether it is possible to make this government accountable for anything.
Can we do it, or will we sleep through it?










From alarm at HK.Super.NET  Tue Feb 16 10:21:18 1999
From: alarm at HK.Super.NET (ALARM (APEC Labour Rights Monitor))
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:21:18 -0800
Subject: [asia-apec 1018] Farmer Leaders in Bangladesh Illegally Dismissed!
Message-ID: <199902150925.RAA14872@kwaifong.hk.super.net>


Farmer Leaders in Bangladesh Illegally Dismissed!

Mr. Abdul Latif and several leaders of the Bangladesh Agriculture Research
Institute (BARI) Farm Labour Association, were dismissed from their service
on 25 January 1999. Mr Abdul Latif is the Organizing Secretary of the
Bangladesh Agricultural Farm Labour Federation (BAFLF) and the General
Secretary of Bangladesh Agriculture Research Institute (BARI) Farm Labour
Association.

Mr. Mamunur Rashid, Director General of the Bangladesh Agricultural
Research Institute (BARI), initiated the illegal dismissal of the union
leaders which is in violation of the Agricultural Farm Labour Appointment
Control Policy 90 of the government. This act is viewed to weaken and
abolish the revolutionary labour association of the Bangladesh farmers.

Background:

First Quarter, 1998: The fact is that the BARI authority in Joydebpur
Agriculture Farm has illegally hired some seasonal labour last May 1998.
The association leaders, on behalf of the BARI Farm Labour Association
raised objection and vehemently protest against this illegal appointment.
The existing convention regarding the appointment of seasonal labour
indicates that should there be newly appointed labourers, this appointment
should be done from the enlisted seasonal labour working in the farm.
However, the convention is being violated and not being respected since
newly-appointed labour(ers) are their own relatives and own circles of
recruits.

14 May 1998: The union leaders approached the BARI authority to insist
compliance with the convention relating to the appointment of seasonal
labourers. Since the authority rejected their demand, the union and
labourers have resorted to meeting, protest rally, etc. On May 14, the
union leaders, members and labourers blockaded the office of the BARI
authority. This incident lead to police intervention wherein 13 leaders and
workers who were at the Workers Club Room were arrested. 

17 May 1998: Mr. Akkas Ali - President, Abdul Latif ? General Secretary,
Jynal Abdine - Joint
Secretary, Allauddine - Publicity Secretary together with 9 members of the
Executive
Committees were suspended without any reason given. In protest against the
illegal dismissal and violation of labour law, the farm labourers went on
an spontaneous strike for 45 days. 

25 January 1999: After a year of violations ? from rules, procedures,
conventions and the Farm Labour Appointment to Government Control Policy 90
- the BARI authority have never been accounted for their unlawful acts. And
as if not yet satisfied, BARI authority goes further by illegally
dismissing the assocation leaders.

Protest letter should be sent to -

1.	Mr. Mamunur Rashid
Director General
Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI)
Po- Joydebpur, Gazipur
Bangladesh
Fax No: +880-2 8410678

2.	Secretary
Ministry of Agriculture
People's  Republic of Bangladesh
Bangladesh Secretariat
Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh
Phone: +880-2 869-277 / Fax: +880-2 863-080

3.	Agriculture Minister
Ministry of Agriculture
People's  Republic of Bangladesh
Bangladesh Secretariat
Dhaka1000, Bangladesh
Phone: +880-2 867-474 / Fax: +880-2 862-475

Solidarity letters and copies of protest letter should be sent to ?

1.	APEC Labour Rights Monitor
C/o AMRC
444 Nathan Road, 8-B, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Fax: +852 2385-5319 / E-mail: alarm@hk.super.net

2.	Nurul Anowar
General Secretary   
Bangladesh Agricultural Farm Labour Federation (BAFLF)
2/11, Block-F, Lalmatia, Dhaka-1207, BANGLADESH
Fax- 880-2-819112 / E-mail- baflf@bdcom.com


Sample of Protest Letter: 

Mr. Mamunur Rashid
Director General
Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI)
Fax No: +880-2 8410678

Mr Rashid:

We would like to express our grave concern over the repressive acts made
against the leaders, members and workers/labourers of the Bangladesh
Agriculture Research Institute (BARI) Farm Labour Association. 

In particular, we strongly protest the suspension, arrest and dismissal of
Mr. Akkas Ali - President, Abdul Latif ? General Secretary, Jynal Abdine ?
Joint Secretary, Allauddine - Publicity Secretary and the 9 members of the
Executive Committees. 

We demand for ?

the reinstatement of Mr. Akkas Ali - President, Abdul Latif ? General
Secretary, Jynal Abdine ? Joint Secretary, Allauddine - Publicity Secretary
and the 9 members of the Executive Committees. 
The BARI to respect and comply with the rules, procedures, conventions and
the Farm Labour Appointment to Government Control Policy 90;
The BARI to acknowledge, respect and meet with the BARI Farm Labour
Association in order to come to a fair and democratic resolution of labour
appointment issue.

We urge you to swiftly take the necessary action on all the above mentioned
points and for the Bangladesh Government to respect workers' and unions'
rights very seriously.

 Yours sincerely,



From markb at gn.apc.org  Mon Feb 15 19:09:00 1999
From: markb at gn.apc.org (Mark Brown)
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:09:00 GMT
Subject: [asia-apec 1019] June 18th 1999 day of action
Message-ID: <199902151009.KAA18642@mail.gn.apc.org>


Dear all,

Firstly apologies to all those who have received this information already.

Secondly, if anyone would like a few leaflets sent to them on this event,
please email me back.

I think the day will only really be judged a success if there is
participation from every area currently feeling the ceaseless pressure of
economic globalisation...

Yours in solidarity,

Mark Brown (London Reclaim the Streets)

############################################################################
An invitation to join the day of protest, action and carnival in financial
centres across the globe on 18th June 1999.

        ...Wherever there is oppression there is resistance...

On June 18th 1999 there will be an international day of action aimed at the
heart of the global economy: the financial centres, banking districts and
trans-national corporation power bases. These actions will coincide with the
meeting of the G8 leaders in Koln, Germany. Many groups and movements are
already planning for the day, including groups in South Korea, Nigeria,
South Africa, the USA and Indonesia.  Groups within the UK have helped
network the idea, including Reclaim the Streets (RTS, a popular movement
seeking the liberation of city streets and public spaces using direct
action, and now Western European convenors of Peoples' Global Action), and
London Greenpeace (a group independent of Greenpeace International, recently
involved in a large successful battle with McDonald's.

This day of action will take place in the spirit of strengthening our
international networks. It  follows from the success of co-ordinated global
action during May 16-20th 1998, which saw actions, protests and
demonstrations on all continents, for example over 30 Reclaim the Streets
parties in over 20 countries - a combination of illegal carnival, protest
and direct action.  In Brasilia 50,000 landless peasants were on the
streets, while in Hyderabad, India, 200,000 were protesting. These events
coincided with the 'G8' meeting in Birmingham, Great Britain, and the third
ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation in Geneva, Switzerland.
The 'G8' consists of the leaders of the eight most industrialised countries
and exists solely to promote economic globalisation, 'free' trade and
corporate dominance.

This year between the 18th-20th June the G8 will meet in Koln, Germany. The
idea is to take action around the globe to coincide with this meeting. This
also links with the Inter-Continental Caravan, the proposed tour of Indian
farmers/activists in Europe to campaign against the World Trade Organisation
and multinational corporations. The proposal is to encourage as many
movements and groups as possible to organise their own autonomous protests
or actions, on the same day (June 18th), in the same geographical locations
(financial/corporate/banking/business districts) around the world. Events
could take place at relevant sites, e.g. multinational company offices,
local banks, stock exchanges.  Each event would be organised independently
and co-ordinated in each city or financial district by a variety of
movements and groups. It is hoped that a whole range of different groups
will take part, including workers, peasants, indigenous peoples, women,
students, the landless, environmentalists, unwaged/unemployed and
others....everyone who recognises that the global capitalist system, based
on the exploitation of people and the planet for the profit of a few, is at
the root of our social and ecological troubles.

As a proposal, J18 has been discussed by movements and groups on all
continents, for example the Karnataka State Farmers Association (KRRS,
India), the Rainbow Keepers (ecologists from ex-USSR states), Campaign
Against the Arms Trade (UK), Processo de Communidades Negras (Colombian
Black communities movement), Friends of the Earth, Uruguay
(Environmentalists), CTERA (Argentinean Teacher's Union), Reclaim the
Streets (New York, USA; Prague, Czech Republic; Sydney, Australia), COMUTRAS
(textile workers union, El Salvador), peasant movements in Mozambique and
many more.
Plans are already well underway in New York, Prague, Seoul, London and
Frankfurt. Ideas are flowing and enthusiasm is growing. We'd very much like
to hear what you think.  
Please subscribe to the j18 discussion list by sending mail to 
<listproc@gn.apc.org> with the following request as text:

                subscribe J18DISCUSSION Your email address

then you can email j18discussion@gn.apc.org and your message will
automatically go to other interested groups around the world to facilitate
wider discussion of this proposal.  
Or write to 'June 18th', PO Box 9656, London N4 4JY, Great Britain.

OUR RESISTANCE WILL BE AS TRANSNATIONAL AS CAPITAL!

J18 website: http://www.gn.apc.org/june18
For more information on Peoples' Global Action visit http://www.agp.org
for more information on Reclaim the Streets visit http://www.gn.apc.org/rts/
for more information on London Greenpeace / McLibel visit
http://www.mcspotlight.org

PLEASE PASS THIS PROPOSAL ON TO OTHERS.


#########@@@@@@@@@@@{{{{{{{{{{+++++++++++++++++*******************
"We want justice. We want peace not war. We are tired of oil inspired
environmental pollution. Oil is conflict, it is war. Let us have justice." 
Niger Delta Women for Justice (NDWJ)
For info on resistance to Big Oil in the Niger Delta, see www.kemptown.org/shell
                      ++++++++++++++++++++
Get on board JUNE 18th 1999: 
INTERNATIONAL DAY OF ACTION AIMED AT THE HEART OF THE GLOBAL ECONOMY
*Subscribe to J18discussion@gn.apc.org for dialogue and info-share*
Email <listproc@gn.apc.org> with 
SUBSCRIBE JUNE 18 YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS as text.
Website: www.gn.apc.org/june18
              *************************************************** 
Next London J18 meeting March 6th, The Palms Room (4th Floor), Uni. of
London Union, Malet Street. Nearest station, Euston. Nearest tube, Goodge
Street. 12pm onwards.
              ***************************************************
Then of course there's the Peoples' Global Action Tour, a.k.a the 
INTER-CONTINENTAL CARAVAN (22.5.- 20.6.1999), a month of action with Indian
and other '3rd world' activists directed at Europe's corporate & financial
centres!
## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
Oh, and Go here today: www.gn.apc.org/rts/
888888888888@888$$$$$$8888888888#88888888888888#8888@@@@88????888888


From sbdean at sfu.ca  Tue Feb 16 01:04:59 1999
From: sbdean at sfu.ca (Elsie Dean)
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:04:59 -0800
Subject: [asia-apec 1020] Re: June 18th 1999 day of action
Message-ID: <023801be58fc$f15a9180$257b3a8e@sbdean>


Reply from Council of Canadians Vancouver Chapter Canada We will be
participating. Please E-mail a copy of leaflet and any other material that
can come via e-mail.  <sbdean@sfu.ca>
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Brown <markb@gn.apc.org>
To: asia-apec@jca.ax.apc.org <asia-apec@jca.ax.apc.org>;
asia-apec@jca.ax.apc.org <asia-apec@jca.ax.apc.org>
Date: Monday, February 15, 1999 2:13 AM
Subject: [asia-apec 1019] June 18th 1999 day of action


>
>Dear all,
>
>Firstly apologies to all those who have received this information already.
>
>Secondly, if anyone would like a few leaflets sent to them on this event,
>please email me back.
>
>I think the day will only really be judged a success if there is
>participation from every area currently feeling the ceaseless pressure of
>economic globalisation...
>
>Yours in solidarity,
>
>Mark Brown (London Reclaim the Streets)
>
>###########################################################################
#
>An invitation to join the day of protest, action and carnival in financial
>centres across the globe on 18th June 1999.
>
>        ...Wherever there is oppression there is resistance...
>
>On June 18th 1999 there will be an international day of action aimed at the
>heart of the global economy: the financial centres, banking districts and
>trans-national corporation power bases. These actions will coincide with
the
>meeting of the G8 leaders in Koln, Germany. Many groups and movements are
>already planning for the day, including groups in South Korea, Nigeria,
>South Africa, the USA and Indonesia.  Groups within the UK have helped
>network the idea, including Reclaim the Streets (RTS, a popular movement
>seeking the liberation of city streets and public spaces using direct
>action, and now Western European convenors of Peoples' Global Action), and
>London Greenpeace (a group independent of Greenpeace International,
recently
>involved in a large successful battle with McDonald's.
>
>This day of action will take place in the spirit of strengthening our
>international networks. It  follows from the success of co-ordinated global
>action during May 16-20th 1998, which saw actions, protests and
>demonstrations on all continents, for example over 30 Reclaim the Streets
>parties in over 20 countries - a combination of illegal carnival, protest
>and direct action.  In Brasilia 50,000 landless peasants were on the
>streets, while in Hyderabad, India, 200,000 were protesting. These events
>coincided with the 'G8' meeting in Birmingham, Great Britain, and the third
>ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation in Geneva, Switzerland.
>The 'G8' consists of the leaders of the eight most industrialised countries
>and exists solely to promote economic globalisation, 'free' trade and
>corporate dominance.
>
>This year between the 18th-20th June the G8 will meet in Koln, Germany. The
>idea is to take action around the globe to coincide with this meeting. This
>also links with the Inter-Continental Caravan, the proposed tour of Indian
>farmers/activists in Europe to campaign against the World Trade
Organisation
>and multinational corporations. The proposal is to encourage as many
>movements and groups as possible to organise their own autonomous protests
>or actions, on the same day (June 18th), in the same geographical locations
>(financial/corporate/banking/business districts) around the world. Events
>could take place at relevant sites, e.g. multinational company offices,
>local banks, stock exchanges.  Each event would be organised independently
>and co-ordinated in each city or financial district by a variety of
>movements and groups. It is hoped that a whole range of different groups
>will take part, including workers, peasants, indigenous peoples, women,
>students, the landless, environmentalists, unwaged/unemployed and
>others....everyone who recognises that the global capitalist system, based
>on the exploitation of people and the planet for the profit of a few, is at
>the root of our social and ecological troubles.
>
>As a proposal, J18 has been discussed by movements and groups on all
>continents, for example the Karnataka State Farmers Association (KRRS,
>India), the Rainbow Keepers (ecologists from ex-USSR states), Campaign
>Against the Arms Trade (UK), Processo de Communidades Negras (Colombian
>Black communities movement), Friends of the Earth, Uruguay
>(Environmentalists), CTERA (Argentinean Teacher's Union), Reclaim the
>Streets (New York, USA; Prague, Czech Republic; Sydney, Australia),
COMUTRAS
>(textile workers union, El Salvador), peasant movements in Mozambique and
>many more.
>Plans are already well underway in New York, Prague, Seoul, London and
>Frankfurt. Ideas are flowing and enthusiasm is growing. We'd very much like
>to hear what you think.
>Please subscribe to the j18 discussion list by sending mail to
><listproc@gn.apc.org> with the following request as text:
>
>                subscribe J18DISCUSSION Your email address
>
>then you can email j18discussion@gn.apc.org and your message will
>automatically go to other interested groups around the world to facilitate
>wider discussion of this proposal.
>Or write to 'June 18th', PO Box 9656, London N4 4JY, Great Britain.
>
>OUR RESISTANCE WILL BE AS TRANSNATIONAL AS CAPITAL!
>
>J18 website: http://www.gn.apc.org/june18
>For more information on Peoples' Global Action visit http://www.agp.org
>for more information on Reclaim the Streets visit
http://www.gn.apc.org/rts/
>for more information on London Greenpeace / McLibel visit
>http://www.mcspotlight.org
>
>PLEASE PASS THIS PROPOSAL ON TO OTHERS.
>
>
>#########@@@@@@@@@@@{{{{{{{{{{+++++++++++++++++*******************
>"We want justice. We want peace not war. We are tired of oil inspired
>environmental pollution. Oil is conflict, it is war. Let us have justice."
>Niger Delta Women for Justice (NDWJ)
>For info on resistance to Big Oil in the Niger Delta, see
www.kemptown.org/shell
>                      ++++++++++++++++++++
>Get on board JUNE 18th 1999:
>INTERNATIONAL DAY OF ACTION AIMED AT THE HEART OF THE GLOBAL ECONOMY
>*Subscribe to J18discussion@gn.apc.org for dialogue and info-share*
>Email <listproc@gn.apc.org> with
>SUBSCRIBE JUNE 18 YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS as text.
>Website: www.gn.apc.org/june18
>              ***************************************************
>Next London J18 meeting March 6th, The Palms Room (4th Floor), Uni. of
>London Union, Malet Street. Nearest station, Euston. Nearest tube, Goodge
>Street. 12pm onwards.
>              ***************************************************
>Then of course there's the Peoples' Global Action Tour, a.k.a the
>INTER-CONTINENTAL CARAVAN (22.5.- 20.6.1999), a month of action with Indian
>and other '3rd world' activists directed at Europe's corporate & financial
>centres!
>## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ## ##
>Oh, and Go here today: www.gn.apc.org/rts/
>888888888888@888$$$$$$8888888888#88888888888888#8888@@@@88????888888
>
>


From gattwd at corso.ch.planet.gen.nz  Thu Feb 18 13:25:24 1999
From: gattwd at corso.ch.planet.gen.nz (Gatt Watchdog)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:25:24 +1200
Subject: [asia-apec 1021] State Surveillance of Maori - APEC Link - GATT Watchdog
Message-ID: <2ssV4e1w165w@corso.ch.planet.gen.nz>


GATT Watchdog
PO Box 1905
Christchurch

MEDIA RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE USE

18/02/99

State Security Surveillance of Maori Outrageous - APEC Link - GATT Watchdog

GATT Watchdog organiser and SIS home invasion victim Aziz Choudry says he is
outraged but unsurprised at the apparent SIS interest in people working for
Maori sovereignty. This follows revelations that both Ngati Pikiao lawyer
Annette Sykes and the office of the Maori Legal Service have been under
surveillance by persons as yet unidentified - but suspected to be the SIS.

"State surveillance and harassment will be stepped up in the lead-up to the
APEC Leaders Summit in September," he said.   

"Regardless of reassurances to the contrary, the expanded powers sought for
the SIS will have a "chilling" effect on the rights of tangata whenua and
non-Maori to lawful advocacy, dissent and protest, and to discuss important
issues like decolonisation, globalisation, and alternative economic and
political models and systems.  It seems that those of us who promote such
debates are seen to threaten "New Zealand's economic well-being and
international well-being" as set out in the 1996 NZ Security Intelligence
Service Amendment Act's definition of "security".  Or maybe it's just plain
subversive to debate alternatives, to educate and inform the public and work
for justice in Aotearoa. Or both."

GATT Watchdog today released a Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)
presentation: "The Terrorist Threat To APEC" showing that CSIS, the SIS's
counterpart in Canada, considered "native issues" to be of great concern prior
to APEC 1997.  

The document, classified "secret", was released during an ongoing inquiry into
complaints of police brutality and political interference by the Canadian
Prime Minister's Office in the security clampdown around the November 1997
APEC Leaders Summit.

An excerpt reads:
"From a Canadian domestic extremism perspective, the potential for violence
associated with environmental and native issues, along with groups opposed to
APEC itself, pose a potential threat of confrontations with security
authorities.

"[Deletion], long standing native issues in British Columbia such as gaming,
self-government, land claims, fishing rights and resource control over claimed
lands, along with a collection of ad-hoc groups opposed to APEC pose a
potential security challenge." (Abstract - CSIS Presentation To ICSI -
1997 10 29 - The Terrorist Threat To APEC")

"In reality, the violence and threats came from the Canadian security forces
themselves, who peppersprayed and arrested dozens of non-violent protesters,
as well as investigating and surveilling a wide range of organisations, native
and non-native," said Mr Choudry, who participated in meetings opposed to APEC
during the Vancouver Summit.  

"But according to a Royal Canadian Mounted Police "After Action Debriefing
Report" on APEC 97, New Zealand security observers present in Vancouver at the
time were "literally awestruck" and "impressed" by the security operations." 

"And National and Labour cheerleaders for increasing SIS powers keep referring
to Canada and its national security procedures in an attempt to back up their
arguments. New Zealand governments have a longstanding love affair with
Canadian statute and procedure in relation to "national security" issues", he
said.
 
"In 1989 CSIS conducted the so-called "Native Extremism Investigation" which
involved the surveillance and harassment of many people involved in indigenous
rights struggles across Canada."  

"This operation was particularly controversial and embarrassing because of its
focus, its incompetence, the methods used, and the ridiculous assumptions made
that "foreign influences" were behind Indigenous Peoples' struggles for
justice."
 
"Whether or not the SIS is behind the surveillance of Annette Sykes and the
Maori Legal Service, I am sure that a similarly imaginatively-named SIS
operation is being conducted here on advocates of Maori sovereignty and
decolonisation.  After all, especially now the Cold War's over, the SIS needs
to devise supposed threats to justify its budget and its very existence"

For further comment, contact Aziz Choudry, GATT Watchdog, ph (03) 3662803


From gattwd at corso.ch.planet.gen.nz  Thu Feb 18 14:46:57 1999
From: gattwd at corso.ch.planet.gen.nz (Gatt Watchdog)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:46:57 +1200
Subject: [asia-apec 1022] NEW ZEALAND -URGENT ACTION ALERT
Message-ID: <ykwV4e3w165w@corso.ch.planet.gen.nz>


URGENT ACTION ALERT!
URGENT ACTION ALERT!
URGENT ACTION ALERT!

AOTEAROA/NEW ZEALAND

NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT MOVES TO ENACT REPRESSIVE INTELLIGENCE LEGISLATION

(Please repost widely on other human rights, labour rights and social justice
newsgroups and lists.)

The New Zealand Government is proposing an imminent law change which would
extend the powers of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) to
break and enter into "any place" in New Zealand.

The New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Bill 1998 is being rushed
through Parliament after the December 1998 NZ Court of Appeal ruling which
found that NZSIS interception warrants do not confer the right to enter
private property.  This arose from a civil court action (Choudry v
Attorney-General) taken against the NZSIS after two NZSIS agents were caught
breaking into the home of GATT Watchdog organiser and anti-APEC activist Aziz
Choudry.  The break-in took place during an alternative conference on APEC and
free trade which Aziz was involved with organising, just prior to the 1996
APEC Trade Ministers Meeting in Christchurch.   Neither the NZSIS nor its
political masters have explained this bungled SIS operation, hiding instead
behind a shroud of "national security".   Although a number of NGOs, community
groups, and unions have repeatedly called for an independent inquiry into the
Choudry break-in, this has been ignored by the government.

Like many other state intelligence agencies, the NZSIS has a highly
questionable past.  It has targetted a range of movements, organisations and
individuals for their political beliefs and affiliations, ranging from the
infiltration and surveillance of anti-apartheid activists in the 1970s and
1980s, to anti-Vietnam war organisers and members of numerous left-wing
organisations.  Since the Cold War has ended, it appears that their new
targets include opponents of globalisation and advocates of Maori (indigenous
peoples of Aotearoa/New Zealand) sovereignty.

Critics of the bill describe the proposed law change as a "declaration of war
against lawful dissent". It would allow the NZSIS to break into homes,
buildings or vehicles and its agents to then lawfully install, maintain or
remove "things" if they wished. The Association of University Staff
(university lecturers' union) has described the authorisation of government
spies to break into homes as "legalised theft"  Allowing the NZSIS to seize
material or plant devices in homes or offices is a threat to academic freedom,
it argued.

Dr Rodney Harrison, QC, of the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties, argues
that "the proposed power of entry has no proper safeguards surrounding its
exercise and will be open to abuse by the SIS with virtual impunity."

Since 1996, the definition of "security" has been extended to include "the
making of a contribution to New Zealand's international well-being or economic
wellbeing".  This is one of the broadest definitions of security in any
comparable legislation.  It is a charter for abuse, and further opened the way
for the NZSIS to surveill, monitor and harass opponents of government policy
even if they are only engaged in lawful advocacy, protest or dissent. In
particular, opponents of APEC and the neoliberal agenda believe that they will
be targetted by the NZSIS for their activities.

The New Zealand government hopes to push through this law change as soon as
possible as it is hosting APEC in 1999. From Jakarta to Vancouver, from
Manila to Kuala Lumpur, APEC Leaders Summits have become synonymous with
repression and a state crackdown on opposition to APEC's agenda.  All the
signs are that APEC in New Zealand will be no different this year.

It is particularly ironic that the New Zealand government is promoting this
legislation even as it plans to use its hosting of APEC to "demonstrate to the
international community New Zealand's ability, as a participatory democracy,
to accommodate debate and dissent" (Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
strategy paper, 24 August 1998)

Public submissions to a Prime Ministerial Committee of Parliamentarians
comprised of the Prime Minister and 4 other senior National and Labour
Ministers and MPs (all of whom support the law change) have been
overwhelmingly opposed to any extension of the powers of the SIS.  Both the
ruling National Party, and the main Opposition party, Labour, support the law
change. Only 13 out of the 120 MPs in New Zealand's Parliament opposed the
bill.

The vast majority of 130 public submissions on the bill are opposed to the law
change.  Yet the government is determined to enact the law.  It is expected
that the Prime Ministerial committee of senior National and Labour MPs
considering the law change will report back to Parliament very shortly.  The
Prime Minister hopes to pass the bill into law in early March.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

Fax or email New Zealand Prime Minister Jenny Shipley AND the Leader of the
Opposition the Rt Hon Helen Clark and urge them to scrap this repressive piece
of legislation and call for a full, independent inquiry into the role and
activities of the NZSIS.

Please also send a copy of your letter to your nearest New Zealand Embassy,
High Commission or diplomatic representative, and to GATT Watchdog at:
gattwd@corso.ch.planet.gen.nz or fax (64) 3 3668035

______________________________________________________________________

SAMPLE LETTER
(Feel free to adapt this - and perhaps to speak of experience of
similar repressive intelligence legislation in your country)


Dear Mrs Shipley/Ms Clark

We write to express our opposition to the proposal to expand the powers of the
New Zealand Security Intelligence Service to break and enter private property.

We are dismayed to see New Zealand politicians opening the way further for the
NZ Security Intelligence Service to surveill, harass, and intimidate
dissenters in New Zealand society.  The NZSIS Amendment Bill 1998 constitutes
a major breach of the rights of freedom of expression and political dissent.
There is no justification for an increase in the powers of the NZSIS.

We support a full and independent inquiry into the role and operations of the
NZ Security Intelligence Service.

We urge you to reconsider this matter and immediately withdraw this draconian,
anti-democratic piece of legislation.  New Zealand citizens should be free to
express their views without fear of state surveillance, harassment and
intimidation.

Yours sincerely, etc


Send to:

Prime Minister Jenny Shipley 
Prime.minister@ministers.govt.nz
or
Jenny.Shipley@parliament.govt.nz
Fax: 64 4 473 7045

Leader of the Opposition Helen Clark
Helen.Clark@parliament.govt.nz
Fax: (64) 4 472 9309






From bayan at iname.com  Thu Feb 18 19:06:35 1999
From: bayan at iname.com (BAYAN)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 18:06:35 +0800
Subject: [asia-apec 1023] Junk Visiting Forces Agreement between US and Philippine governments
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19990218180635.0069b5b0@pop.skyinet.net>



NEWS RELEASE
11 February 1999

Junk VFA groups slam agreement in Senate hearing

The ratification of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) is sure to encounter
rough sailing in the Senate in the face of the political, security and
legal arguments presented by the Junk VFA Movement's member groups during
today's Senate hearing.

At the Senate hearing this morning, Bayan Deputy Secretary General Teodoro A.
Casi?o presented Senators with a long list of prominent persons,
politicians, church and community leaders who had all signed the anti-VFA
petition of the broad Junk VFA Movement. He announced that the Junk VFA has
at present 16 regional chapters and 11 provincial chapters. 

"This is proof that the people, at least a significant number of their
leaders and organizations from a broad array of sectors, are opposed to the
VFA and are ready to go out and make their voices heard," said Casi?o.

Also during the hearing, Junk VFA convenor Capt. Danilo Vizmanos (ret.)
said there was nothing in the VFA which binds the U.S. to support the
modernization of the military. "It is misleading and illusory for
government to claim so," he said.

Vizmanos also said that the Philippines cannot rely on the U.S. to defend
the country from external attacks or acts of aggression. "The U.S. acts
based on its own economic and political interests and not on our behalf,"
he said. "Besides, we have no enemies today and in the foreseeable future,"
he added.

Belying government reports of threats from China, Vizmanos said the entire
DND-AFP psy-war machinery has been working "... to create a well orchestrated 
scenario of  'aggression' by Chinese jingoists supposedly operating  from
Mischief Reef."

"Any staff officer of the Chinese People's Liberation Army who entertains
the idea of developing Mischief Reef for military aggression against the
Philippines ought to have his head examined," said Vizmanos. The area, he
said, is not suitable as a military launching pad since it is a flat,
barren, fully exposed and shoal-infested reef with no natural barriers
against the elements.  

National security, he argued, means much more than a modernized armed
forces and upgrading of combat readiness through joint military exercises.
He put forward the concept of a "people-oriented" defense strategy which
emphasizes the involvement of the entire nation.  

Lawyer Marichu Lambino of the Public Interest Law Center said that the VFA
gives U.S. visiting troops infinite access to any part of the country. "The
Agreement practically allows anywhere from one soldier to a million to
enter the Philippines and gain access to any part of the country," she said.

More fundamentally, she said, the VFA was constitutionally infirm on
several grounds:

? Art. II,  Sections 2 and 7 renouncing war as an instrument of national
policy and the pursuance of an independent foreign policy, and; Sec. 8
banning the entry of nuclear weapons in the country.
 
? Art. XVIII, Sec. 25 which expressly lays down four requirements for
foreign military troops, facilities, or bases to be allowed in the
Philippines --  (1) only under a treaty, (2) duly ratified by the Senate
and, ( 3) should Congress require, ratified in a national referendum, and
(4) recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state.
 
? Art. VI, Sec. 28 prohibiting tax exemptions without the concurrence of a
majority of all members of Congress.

"Since the U.S. government does not consider the VFA a treaty but a mere
executive agreement, as far as the Philippines is concerned, the VFA is
constitutionally infirm," said Lambino.

She criticized Article 8 of the VFA which exempts U.S. armed forces from
paying Philippine duties, taxes and other similar charges when importing or
acquiring property, equipment, supplies and others. "The power to tax or
make exemptions is inherently legislative and non-delegable unless the
Constitution allows it," said Lambino. "The VFA's tax-exempt  provision,
therefore, cannot be valid unless all members of both houses of Congress
voting jointly approves it."

She also drew attention to Article VI of the VFA where both governments
"waive any and all claims... for damage, loss and destruction of each
other's property or for death and injury."

"This is obviously in the nature of a quitclaim," said Lambino. "It is not
clear whether this quitclaim is only for the government or whether the
government is quitting-claim for and on behalf of any and all Philippine
personnel who may be injured or killed. In other words, is this a waiver on
behalf of  Filipinos who may be injured or killed?" she added.#


From bayan at iname.com  Thu Feb 18 19:14:19 1999
From: bayan at iname.com (BAYAN)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 18:14:19 +0800
Subject: [asia-apec 1024] Mining Opposed in the Cordillera
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19990218181419.0069b5b0@pop.skyinet.net>



Respect Peoples' Rights in Mining Affected Communities

Lepanto  does not  have a heart!  The people of Tabbac, barangay
Bulalacao, in  Mankayan learned this lesson last February 5 - 6, 1999
when they staged a picket to protest the mining company's drilling
operations in their area.  At least a hundred community people
picketed the premises to show  the mining company  their  united stand
to defend  their community and to assert their basic rights.

                          Deceiving the people

The people of Tabbac never consented to the drilling operations  of
Lepanto mines in their area. No genuine consultation occurred between
the company and the affected residents . The  existence of a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that supposedly  "consented" to Lepanto
Mines' activities in Mankayan was a product of Lepanto's machinations.
The attendance sheet of a regular barangay meeting was attached to
Lepanto's drilling application as proof of the people's consent.  But
Lepanto's application was not even discussed during the said barangay
meeting.

This has become a trick employed by mining companies to shortcut the
process of getting the community's "prior and informed consent" for
their operations.  They work to outmanuever the people's opposition.
Mining companies first used this trick in 1990 when then DENR-CAR
Regional Executive Director Horacio Ramos intervened in a dispute
between the Itogon people and Benguet Corporation's Grand Antamok Open
Pit Mining Project. 

          The Ruthlessness of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995

Deception as a tool by mining companies is complemented with
ruthlessness under the Philippine Mining Act of 1995. The people's
experiences attest to this.

On August 23, 1995, about 300 military men swooped down and arrested
about 300 community people who barricaded the Camote Vein. The vein is
a part of the open pit mining project of Benguet Corporation in
Itogon. Bulldozers freely entered and left the site. The mass arrest
successfully removed all obstruction in the continuation of the big
corporation's project. To effectively hold the area, it was fenced-off
and regularly guarded by military men on a 3-shift basis.

History repeated itself in Tabbac, Bulalacao, Mankayan when 8 people
were charged with civil and criminal cases and ordered arrested. On
November 16, while people were negotiating and having a dialogue with
the mining company, a Senior mining company official Rambo-style led
security guards in securing the area against the community people.
They then set-up the company's drilling equipment. 

Since then, the rig was guarded by 2-shifts of security guards in well
entrenched and fortified positions.  Moreover, a team of Army Special
Forces assisted by 78 para-military men of the CAFGU patrol the area
to maintain "peace and order".

If it not for the Easement Right provision of the Philippine Mining
Act of 1995, these  human rights violations would not happen. Such
provision of the law gave mining companies a powerful  tool  to harass
and intimidate people.

                  The people's resolve to stand united

The people are undaunted. The experiences of the people in mining
communities of Itogon and Mankayan only serve to unite the people
against an anti-people, pro-capitalist mining policy.    

As a result of the liberalization of the mining industry, facilitated
by the passage of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995, mining
applications by mining companies will comprise 76% of the total land
area of the Cordillera. 

What the people of Itogon and Mankayan are experiencing now will be
duplicated all over the Cordillera region in every stage of their
operation - from exploration work, to drilling and to actual ore
extraction.  Companies will always use deception, intimidation, 
and harassment in order to exploit the mineral resources
of the region. At stake here are the  basic rights of the people to
the land as Filipinos and as indigenous peoples.  Their land is their
life. 

The opposition of the people will not only be directed against the
owners of Lepanto, Philex and Benguet Corporation but also against
Newmont Gold Mining of the US and Newcrest of Australia,  whose
combined  mineral applications comprise about 50% of the region's land
area,  and all other mining applications that would adversely affect
the people... their land... their life... their livelihood.  

We also hold answerable the reactionary state that continues to be
subservient to foreign monopoly capitalist interests. It continues to
tow the globalization scheme of imperialist countries to the detriment
of the Filipino people and in particular the Cordillera indigenous
peoples. 

What the people of Mankayan are doing is a fine example of resistance. 
At the very start of the mining company's plan in the area
- that is during the exploration stage - people should  already 
resist and defend their right to live, their right to the nation's 
resources and their right as a people.

The Cordillera people should stop the exploitation of their mineral
resources that will mainly  benefit foreign capitalists. The mineral
resources should be preserved and used wisely for the benefit the
Cordillera people and the Filipino people.

             Stop the drilling operation of Lepanto Mines!
    Stop the impending approval of FTAA's of Newmont and Newcrest!
     Uphold the Rights of Indigenous Peoples over their Resources!
                                    

                       Cordillera Peoples Alliance
                             February 11, 1999



From rverzola at phil.gn.apc.org  Tue Feb  9 19:41:30 1999
From: rverzola at phil.gn.apc.org (Roberto Verzola)
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 19:41:30
Subject: [asia-apec 1025] responding to the y2k problem
Message-ID: <199902181226.UAA09103@phil.gn.apc.org>


[Please distribute as widely as possible.]

Millennium Bomb (I):
Responding to the Crisis of 1999-2000
by Roberto Verzola


     The Millennium Bomb is the software time bomb slowly ticking away
in millions of computers and automated machines as the year 2000 (Y2K)
approaches.

     That software time bomb lies planted within thousands of
mainframe computers and millions pieces of automated equipment that
store the year as two digits instead of four, to save two bytes of
data space. At the turn of the millennium, these machines' year 99
(i.e., 1999) will become year 00, making time appear to have moved
back by a full century.

     The time between 23:59:59 of 12/31/99 and 00:00:00 of 01/01/00
will be not one second but more than minus three billion seconds, or
minus 100 years. All computations of the time elapsed between an event
taking place before midnight of December 31, 1999, and one taking
place on or after January 1, 2000, will be wrong by the same amount.

     That error can lead to unpredictable consequences.

     Some computers and other machines will stop working; others will
generate astronomically high -- and perhaps negative -- figures; still
others will provide reasonable but nevertheless wrong figures.
Wherever computers and other machines automatically control industrial
production or financial transactions 24 hours a day, with no human
intervention, the implications are enormous. In the industrial and
financial centers of the world, such machines are the technological
nerve center that keeps the economy going, and even minor disruptions,
especially if they occur simultaneously, can trigger a cascade of
failures that could lead to economic collapse.


The spectre of public panic

     On December 10-11, 1998, the United Nations hosted an
international meeting in New York, held specifically for some 120
member-countries to discuss the Y2K problem. Finally, although too
late, governments were acknowledging the problem.

     In his statement, the U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Management
Joseph E. Connor warned: "The essence of the Year 2000 dilemma is that
it is impossible to accurately predict the effect on our world." While
Connor hedged and said that the problem could "either paralyze our
civilization, or just confound simple systems, or anything in
between," his warning made it clear that he saw a global emergency.
Here are some of Connor's warnings:

     * "Disruptions are unavoidable" and "many cross-border activities
will be affected, ranging from transportation to energy distribution,
from defense to telecommunications."

     * "No matter how much we prepare, there will be aspects that will
be overlooked and will only manifest themselves in the new
millennium."

     * "Failures may occur in many processes and many places at the
same time" (multiple simultaneous failures). "In an increasingly
networked world, non-compliant systems may create a 'domino' effect,
affecting even compliant systems." [Compliant systems use four-digit
years; non-compliant ones use two digits only.]

     * "The spectre of public panic has been raised by several
publications and many stories in the press indicate that a number of
countries may be developing plans to handle civil disorder or panic -
from massive cash withdrawals from banks to looting."

     So now it is official: even the U.N. is warning its
member-countries that bank runs and food riots are possible and the
U.N. is hinting that governments should develop contingency plans for
such emergencies.

     As Connor's warnings indicate, Y2K problems may spread through at
least four levels, with problems in one level triggering new problems
at the same or at another level. These levels are the computing
infrastructure level, the production and distribution level, the
financial level and the psychological level.


Failures in the automated backbone

     Given the lack of time for correcting the problem and testing
those corrections, it is almost certain that parts of the automated
backbone of all modern societies are going to fail at the turn of the
millennium. Some will fail immediately. Other failures will happen
intermittently. Still others will happen only under a combination of
conditions. The countries that depend on computers and other automated
machines for their most basic daily needs are going to be hit the
hardest.

     Software conversion involves identifying all two-digit-year data
fields and converting them to four digits, going through every program
to identify and modify every line which relies on two-digit years and
then testing every change. The requirements of Y2K conversion, like
many other software conversion projects, are very often grossly
underestimated. Once such projects are well underway, putting more
people to work on them can delay rather than speed up the project.
Even minor changes in software can introduce new errors (the industry
experience is one error for every 14 lines of code modified). The time
needed to test the software thoroughly may approach or even exceed the
time it took to write the software. Because of the immovable Y2K
deadline, the pressures are much greater.

     Even more difficult to convert are the embedded microprocessors
inside almost all types of modern automated equipment. There may be
billions of these deployed all over the world. Unlike mainframe
software, which can be conveniently edited on video terminals,
embedded software is generally burned-in, i.e., permanently etched on
microchips called ROMs (read-only memories) which are themselves often
soldered on printed circuit boards bolted inside all kinds of
equipment. Such programs are also invariably written in opaque
lower-level assembly languages. Thus, they are much more difficult to
debug, modify, reinstall and retest than their high-level
counterparts.

     Department-wide, company-wide or industry-wide networking
complicates the matter, because it couples many vulnerable systems
together. As part of a network, even Y2K-compliant software or
equipment can fail if it is connected to failed non-compliant software
or equipment. Non-compliant data can corrupt a compliant database.
Some of these problems can lie undetected, then spring a nasty
surprise at the worst moments.

     Because of the sheer volume of work needed to defuse the Y2K bomb
-- identifying all software and equipment that use two-digit years,
testing to see which are vulnerable to failure, upgrading or replacing
them, then retesting upgraded or replaced systems thoroughly to ensure
compliance -- there is not enough time to do what is required.
Software and equipment failures are definitely going to happen.


Disruptions in production and distribution

     All automated production is at risk, including oil drilling,
refining and distribution; electrical power; land, sea and air
transport; and communications systems. Failures in these vulnerable
strategic industries can bring down many other industries, including
those that are fully Y2K-compliant and even those that are not
automated.

     Today's global firms usually rely on parts from subsidiaries and
independent contractors in countries around the world. If any overseas
supplier fails to deliver, then the final product itself cannot be
assembled. Client don't get the product, the firm and its suppliers
don't get paid, the creditors don't get paid either, and workers get
laid off.


Financial crisis at the periphery as well as the center

     Finance has become a complicated web of transactions among global
and local players, with transactions averaging nearly $1.5 trillion
each day. Problems in one part of the system can quickly spill over to
other parts, with repercussions that can, in turn, cause new problems
that feed back into earlier ones.

     Failures in Thailand, Indonesia, South Korea and Russia - all on
the periphery of the financial system - triggered the present global
financial crisis and then threatened larger economies like those of
Brazil and Japan. Even without the Millennium Bomb, the crisis remains
unresolved and is requiring extraordinary measures by the IMF as well
as the U.S. Federal Reserve.

     With the Millennium Bomb, simultaneous multiple disruptions will
occur not only in the periphery but also in the very centers of
international finance, which are even more dependent on computer
equipment for their most basic operations. Financial shocks in the
center can create even more serious problems than the shocks that have
been radiating from the periphery since July 1997. The threat of a
sudden breakdown is more real than ever.


Early panic: the 1999 wild card

     The uncertainties are greatest at the psychological level. The
public can respond unpredictably to rumor. That is the 1999 wild card.
How that card turns out decides whether the Y2K crisis will, as U.N.
Under-Secretary-General Connor put it, "paralyze our civilization, or
just confound simple systems."

     Self-fulfulling Y2K fears can lead to panic even in 1999, before
any failure has happened.

     The U.S., U.K. and Canada, for example, have began advising their
citizens to stock up several weeks' food in anticipation of a possible
breakdown in distribution. Such advice can trigger a rush in other
countries, and by those who can afford, to stock up food. This can
lead to artificial shortages and panic-buying not only in food but
also in other essential items. Hoarding can further lead to a
socially-explosive situation where food may rot in the storerooms of
the well-to-do, while others go hungry because there is nothing left
to buy or the prices are sky-high.

     The financial system is even more sensitive to psychological
factors. By creating credit instruments, stock markets, currency
markets, futures markets, hedge funds, derivatives, etc., it has
bloated the total amount of financial instruments far beyond the
actual value of real goods and services: some $20 to $50 of "hot
money" circulates today for every dollar of real goods and services.
Critics have warned for some time that this bubble will eventually
burst.

     Widespread panic-buying in 1999 can easily burst the bubble. When
$20 to $50 of money and money-equivalents desperately bid for every
dollar of real goods, money's value can plunge very quickly.

     Should bank depositors decide to withdraw large amounts -- to
stock up food and other essentials, or to spare themselves of possible
disruptions in banking and credit card services -- their actions can
lead to panic. Most banks only keep five to 15% of their deposits in
reserve, the rest being invested or out on loan. If a bank suddenly
withdraws an investment or loan from a business, it can bankrupt a
business or force it to layoff employees. If the banking system
cannnot cope with simultaneous heavy withdrawals, bank runs can happen
-- whether the banks in question are Y2K-compliant or not,
computerized or not. If depositors can't withdraw their money, expect
the situation to be very explosive. Bank runs in one country can
trigger runs in other countries.

     By 1999, the Millennium Bug will be a major public concern. It
will increasingly get blamed -- justifiably or not -- for plane
crashes, ship collisions, hospital deaths, industrial accidents, and
bank mistakes. Television programs and movies will exploit the issue's
entertainment and box-office potential, bringing it even closer to the
popular psyche. As the world ticks towards the new millennium, the
sense of tension, hysteria and panic will build.

     Panic can also be triggered by the apocalyptic messages of
millennarian groups, as their doomsday scenarios in anticipation of
the new millennium reach a crescendo. Every comet, eclipse,
earthquake, volcanic eruption or flood will tend to acquire
millennarian significance, fueling apocalyptic expectations and fears.
This will aggravate the situation even more, as the millennarians'
doomsday warnings and the public's justified anxiety over the
Millennium Bomb reinforce each other.


More ecological crises on the horizon

     In addition to these Y2K-related problems, all peaking in the
year 2000, other long-term ecological crises are also coming to a
head, due to accelerating widespread ecological destruction from
industrial activities. Some of their early impacts will coincide with
the peak of the Y2K crisis.

     Global warming, for instance, is breaking temperature records
worldwide. It is also bringing with it extreme unpredictability in
climate and weather patterns that threatens our food production
systems. The destruction of watersheds and the pollution of fresh
water sources may lead to scarcity of clean water for drinking and
household use in the 21st century. The indiscriminate use of
antibiotics both in human medicine, in animal husbandry and in genetic
engineering has raised the spectre of supergerms which are beyond the
control of current medical technologies. The proliferation of toxic
substances in our food, water, home and the environment is resulting
in widespread cancers, mutations, fetal problems, and disruptions in
the human endocrine system.


Responses to the millennium crisis

     There have been at least six types of responses to the Y2K
problem. These are:

     * early warning,
     * denying the problem,
     * frantic problem-solving,
     * individual survivalism,
     * local sufficiency, and
     * systemic transformation.

     In a way, because the Y2K crisis is an ominous precursor of worse
economic and ecological crises in the future, these responses probably
represent similar typical responses to other global crises which are
looming on the horizon.


Early warning

     A few people had the foresight to anticipate the consequences of
a two-digit year and to do their best to initiate early corrective
measures. Often, however, their early warnings were ignored by
decision-makers who preferred to overlook the problem. Among the
earliest was IBM specialist Robert Bemer, whose frustrating experience
is related by Robert Sam Anson in his January 1999 article for Vanity
Fair entitled "Nightmare on Main Street: The Approaching Y2K
Disaster."

     As early as 1960, Bemer had campaigned hard to make four-digit
years a universal computer standard. Anson relates: "As a practical
matter, the only opinion that counted was that of the Department of
Defense, the largest computer operator on earth. For
bigger-bang-for-the-buck reasons, it was unshakable on the subject of
year dates: no 19s."

     Bemer lobbied succeeding U.S. administrations, to no avail. In
1970, Bemer changed tack, Anson writes, and "beseeched private
organizations to call for a voluntary four-digit-year option. But once
more, the Pentagon's position prevailed. Mindful of government
contracts, big business went along."

     When Bemer retired in 1982, nothing has changed, although he
assumed that "Y2K would be ironed out long before it did any damage."


Denying the problem

     Bemer was confronted by the policy-makers' typical response to a
future problem whose solution will cost a lot of money, with no
corresponding gain to show for it. They deny the problem, and thus
postpone the costs of solving it. In the context of a short planning
horizon, the postponed costs do not figure in current decision-making.

     As far as the Millennium Bomb is concerned, problem denial has
become increasingly untenable. However, the bureaucratic and corporate
mindset behind it still dominates today.

     Problem denial was the government's and industry's typical
response to obvious and serious global problems like tobacco-induced
health problems; the cancers and mutations caused by toxic chemicals
like DDT, PCBs, dioxins, etc.; the generation of greenhouse gases; the
mass extinctions of species, now comparable to the prehistoric mass
extinctions; the field release of genetically-engineered organisms;
the depletion of fossil fuels and other non-renewable resources; and
the increasing disparity between rich and poor. Because these have no
fixed deadlines and their impacts are diffused over time, they are
even easier to deny.

     Where governments and businesses have been forced by persistent
citizens' movements and concerned groups to grudgingly acknowledge a
serious problem, they have invariably delayed solving it to postpone
costs and to continue profit-making operations for as long as they
could.


Frantic problem-solving

     By the time the Y2K problem appeared within the planning horizon
of most governments and businesses, there wasn't enough time to solve
the problem.

     Many of those who had earlier denied the problem are today
switching quickly to frantic efforts to catch up and solve the
problem. Because these efforts are late, they can at best reduce the
severity of the problems.

     Some governments and businesses are actually denying the problem
publicly, but are frantically solving it privately. Businesses do so
to avoid loss of confidence by their customers, suppliers, creditors
or stockholders. Governments do so to avoid alarming the public and
causing mass panic.

     The late and frantic efforts to solve major problems is clearly
an unacceptable response. They are the result of denying problems and
postponing solutions until it is too late. Yet, governments and
corporations continue to deny many of our ecological and economic
problems, although the risks are much greater. Will we resort to
frantic problem-solving again when the terrible consequences of these
problems overwhelm us?


Individual survivalism

     Among those engaged in frantic problem-solving, an increasing
number are coming to the conclusion that a crisis of major proportions
is inevitable.

     They are now anticipating some of the worst-case scenarios that
pessimistic Y2K assessments draw. Working within the old paradigm of
getting the greatest gain for themselves from whatever situation, they
will react competitively, stock up food and other essential goods and
position themselves to take advantage of new opportunities for
profit-making. They see the looming crisis as a situation where the
"only the fittest will survive", and they want to make sure they
belong to those who will.


Local sufficiency

     Among those who are preparing themselves for the crisis, there is
a smaller but nevertheless growing number who are approaching it not
from the individual but from the community perspective. They realize
that to cope with the increased Y2K risks, it is better to cooperate
than to compete, to share resources than to monopolize them, and to
adopt local-sufficiency in basic needs among the highest priorities of
the community. Thus, they are organizing their community to confront
the crisis together, to support each other, and to help the most
vulnerable members of the community.

     The concept of community and national self-sufficiency has a long
history of debate with the opposite idea of interdependence and
globalization, with the latter emerging dominant in recent decades.
Threatened with the Y2K crisis, however, communities have been forced
to rediscover the importance of ensuring that the productive
facilities for meeting much of their basic needs are within local
reach and local control, and they are now preparing themselves
accordingly.

     Such highly self-sufficient communities will be the most prepared
to weather the looming millennium crisis.


Systemic transformation

     To allow a simple problem like a two-digit year to persist until
it was too late to correct reflects a deeply-flawed thinking process.
Such flawed thinking can cause us to miss other equally obvious and
serious global problems until it is too late to solve them. Ecological
problems immediately come to mind.

     If we managed to solve our Y2K problems, but left intact the
flawed thinking patterns -- or mindsets -- which are leading us to
technological, economic and ecological crises, we can expect more
serious problems to beset us in the future.

     The Y2K crisis provides us a perfect occasion for initiating a
thoughtfully-planned process of systemic transformation: identifying
these flawed patterns of thought and action, discrediting them, and
proposing better alternatives. (Exactly what these flawed patterns are
will be the subject of the second part of this article.) As a matter
of fact, many social critics have long raised fundamental questions
about today's dominant paradigms which include the philosophy of
mechanistic reductionism, the economics of neoliberalism and
globalization, and the culture of materialist consumerism. The Y2K
crisis, together with other looming ecological and economic crisis
ahead, are a strong argument take seriously these critics' messages.

     Many of these critics have been slow -- perhaps even slower than
governments -- in recognizing the implications of the Y2K problem.
Hopefully, they will quickly realize that this problem provides a very
good opportunity for discrediting old flawed paradigms and advancing
the alternative paradigms which they had been advocating for decades.


Towards an appropriate Y2K response

     We are past either early warnings or denying the Y2K problem.
Government and corporate responses today involve much frantic
problem-solving, while an increasing number are preparing for
individual survival. These responses generally assume -- after some
period of disruptions -- a future "business as usual" scenario.

     Unfortunately, such a future will mean that we have not learned
at all from the Y2K fiasco. We will have suppressed the symptom but
left the disease intact. Our society will be as sick as ever, and the
next attack will be more life-threatening.

     The first step towards a real cure is to move towards local
sufficiency among our communities and regions, to organize and build
resilient communities which can meet much of their basic needs with
resources and facilities within easy local reach and control. An
increasing number of communities are now taking this step.

     But the decisive step is to launch a supreme effort at universal
soul-searching and social catharsis, to identify the deeply embedded
flawed mindsets of industrialism, and to free post-2000 societies of
their pre-2000 flaws.

     Until this systemic transformation happens, we will remain mired
in 20th century problems.


From geoko at nus.edu.sg  Fri Feb 19 17:12:41 1999
From: geoko at nus.edu.sg (Olds,Kristopher)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 16:12:41 +0800
Subject: [asia-apec 1026] APEC 98 Query
Message-ID: <2C9E855D35B9D01198190020AFFBE8CB019E355A@exs04.ex.nus.edu.sg>



One of my honours undergraduate students is studying issues related to
strategies of resistance to globalisation and regionalism/regionalisation in
the Asia-Pacific.  She is examining academic and practical (ie. real world)
debates about "scaling up" strategies in which local actors work at a
variety of scales (local, regional, global) in the pursuit of their
endeavours.  She is planning to examine issues associated with the APEC 98
meetings in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia as a case study.  

If anyone was involved in activities associated with the APEC 98 Leaders
meeting in Kuala Lumpur, or has views (be they supportive or critical) on
such issues in general, and you are willing to be interviewed by my student
(via telephone or email), could you please contact her at:

	sallyna@mbox4.singnet.com.sg

Please do not reply to this listserver.

Many thanks for assisting a student.

Sincerely,

Kris Olds
--------------------------------------
Dr. Kris Olds
Department of Geography
National University of Singapore
10 Kent Ridge Crescent
Singapore 119260
Tel:  65-874-6811
Fax:  65-777-3091
Email:  geoko@nus.edu.sg
Department website: http://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/geog



From rverzola at phil.gn.apc.org  Sun Feb 21 17:28:46 1999
From: rverzola at phil.gn.apc.org (Roberto Verzola)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 17:28:46
Subject: [asia-apec 1027] y2k: transforming the system
Message-ID: <199902210949.RAA03239@phil.gn.apc.org>



[Please distribute as widely as possible.]

Millennium Bomb (II):
Transforming the System

by Roberto Verzola


     In the year 2000 (or Y2K), millions of computers and other
automated equipment are threatened by a time-related software problem.
The problem arose from early computer programmers' practice of
recording only the year's last two digits (e.g., 52) instead of all
four (i.e., 1952), to save space. When the year 2000 comes, machines
may assume that the last two digits (i.e., 00) mean 1900. This is the
Millennium Bug, which can confuse them and cause them to fail. Since
many machines are part of a bigger system, their failure can trigger a
cascade of other failures.

     Although some had warned of this problem as early the 1960s, most
programmers ignored it for many years and continued to use two-digit
years to save space or to maintain compatibility with older systems.
Today, despite frantic efforts to correct the problem, it is too late
to finish all remedial work on time.

     Y2K failures can disrupt electrical power, communications, land,
sea and air transport, financial services like banking, and other
strategic industries. Automated plants like oil refineries, nuclear,
chemical, and industrial plants are vulnerable. Panic-buying and heavy
withdrawals in anticipation of future disruptions can lead to early
food riots and bank runs. At worst, as Under-Secretary-General for
Management Joseph E. Connor of the United Nations said in his
presentation at a U.N meeting in December 1998, the crisis can
"paralyze our civilization."

     Part I of this article reviewed in the detail the nature of the
Y2K problem at four levels: the automated backbone of industrial
society, the production and distribution level, the financial level
and the psychological level. It also discussed six responses to the
problem: early warning, problem denial, frantic problem-solving,
individual survivalism, local sufficiency and systemic transformation.


Rediscovering community

     Early warnings and problem denial had marked earlier responses to
the problem. Today, typical government and corporate responses involve
frantic problem-solving, while an increasing number are preparing for
individual survival. These responses generally presume a post-Y2K
"business as usual" scenario.

     However, there are scenarios other than "business as usual."

     The Y2K crisis is also forcing people to rethink fundamental
patterns of thinking and behavior, and to reorganize themselves
accordingly in response to the crisis.

     Thus, some Y2K responses are now acquiring a community
perspective, which involves organizing and building resilient
communities, with local sufficiency among their top goals. Communities
are starting to realize that the best way to prepare for possible
disruptions is to go against the grain of globalization and to rely on
facilities and resources under local control and within easy local
reach. People are rediscovering community and the value of local
sufficiency.


Flaws of industrialism

     The Y2K crisis will shake industrialism to its very core,
exacerbate its weaknesses and reveal its deepest flaws to all. It will
lead people to ask fundamental questions: What if the Y2K problem was
simply a symptom of deeper flaws in modern industrial society? What if
certain deeply-embedded patterns of thought and behavior actually led
to the Y2K crisis, and are also leading us to more serious economic
and ecological problems? And what if these problems may pose, in the
future, even worse threats to our survival?

     To see the problem in this light is to appreciate the Y2K
response called "systemic transformation." This response sees the Y2K
crisis as a wake-up call for humanity, providing us a rare opportunity
to identify and correct these flawed patterns and to radically
transform the industrial system during its period of crisis, before
even more serious problems overwhelm us.

     It is a curious historical coincidence that the Roman Catholic
church has declared the year 2000 a "Jubilee Year", a time to release
all prisoners, forgive all debts and redistribute the land equitably,
so that all can start a new life. Millennarian movements are also
expected to become very active during the millennial transition, with
their apocalyptic messages that mix doom and deliverance. Thus, in
large parts of the world, even the spiritual calls will jive with
secular efforts towards systemic transformation.

     To succeed, systemic transformation requires concerted effort by
change advocates: to become part of emerging self-sufficient
communities or lead in forming them; to sharpen their critique of
today's flawed thinking; to present solid arguments for the sounder
approaches they are proposing; and to do all these within the window
of opportunity presented by the period 1999-2000.

     This article hopes to contribute to the broad effort to transform
the present system by analyzing some deeply-flawed mindsets of
industrial society as revealed by the Y2K crisis. These flawed
mindsets include:

     * techno-worship,
     * gain-maximization,
     * externalizing costs,
     * globalism, and
     * quantification fetish.


Techno-worship

     The Y2K problem exposes modern society's blind and nearly total
dependence on high technology and its high priests, a dependence that
borders on techno-worship. When technology fails, many people find
themselves completely lost, unable to meet even their most basic
needs. Production for meeting those needs has become more and more
hidden behind the veil of technology and detached from ordinary human
experience.

     Techno-worship alienates us from nature, from our fellow human
beings, and from the products and processes of human labor. We are led
to think, for example, that food comes from the supermarket, not from
the land; that water comes from the tap, not from springs and rivers;
and that clean air is created by air-conditioning systems, not by
nearby trees and forests.

     Even those who refuse to worship technology still find themselves
trapped by it. Technology is ubiquitous, intruding constantly between
us and nature, between us and our fellow human beings, and between the
worker and the production process. This forces us to relate directly
to technology, and we end up granting it more and more control over
our lives.

     But then, who in turn controls the technologies which control
most peoples' lives? The hand behind the control panel is corporate
research and development (R&D), and the bottom line is corporate
profits. Working hand-in-hand with government R&D, they decide the
technologies to be developed, how, by whom, and for what purpose. And
corporate R&D's chosen direction is for more powerful and
all-encompassing -- and therefore more destructive -- technologies,
which often require centralized, top-down, one-way decision-making to
work properly. Just look at how Monsanto Corporation today is trying
to centralize food production under its monopoly.

     Invariably, these technologies create their own anomalous
problems. When technological anomalies become impossible to ignore,
the technocracy then proposes another technological fix, trapping us
in a vicious never-ending cycle of techno-malies and techno-fixes,
each problem becoming more serious and each solution becoming more
expensive than before -- until catastrophe hits. A genetic version of
the Y2K problem, for example, will truly be a catastrophic one.

     Can we break this vicious cycle and reassert our control over
technology? We can, if we use human-scale tools -- ones that keep the
tool-user and the community in touch with nature, with each other, and
with production itself. Called appropriate technology, such tools are
usually simpler to operate, lower in cost, easier to fabricate
locally, smaller in scale and more benign. Behind such technology is
the human-scale principle.


Gain-maximization

     The preoccupation with efficiency -- the desire to maximize gains
at all cost -- is one of the greatest flaws of modern society.

     Gain maximization is behind the shortsightedness, cost
postponement, microefficiencies, and globalism that led straight to
the Y2K problem.

     It became the dominant way of thinking after Adam Smith convinced
economists that an economic agent maximizing its own gain is also
maximizing gain for society as a whole. This imbued the
gain-maximizing principle with moral force, so that businessmen would
even proudly proclaim that what is good for their corporation is also
good for the country.

     This thinking went a step further when governments legalized a
special economic agent: the for-profit corporation. Unlike a natural
person -- a bundle of mixed motivations and emotions -- this legal
person's one and only motivation is to maximize its own gain. It is a
pure gain-maximizer.

     Worse still, our law-makers enshrined in law these pure
gain-maximizers' economic and political rights, which the latter
shrewdly used to create an environment favoring their survival and
further growth. Having acquired foothold, corporations have gradually
expanded their rights ("liberalization"), have worked to remove social
and legal restrictions on their operations ("deregulation"), and have
taken over many functions originally the preserve of other social
structures and institutions ("privatization").

     Beyond Y2K, let us look at other global problems which threaten
us and our environment: global warming, the proliferation of toxic
substances, the loss of habitats leading to massive species
extinction, the concentration of wealth and more. Behind these
problems, we will usually find the not-so-invisible hand of these pure
greed-driven economic agents who recognize no constraints in their
pursuit of growth and gain.

     While other deeply-flawed mindsets beset contemporary society,
the idea of maximizing one's gain above all else is truly a major
flaw.

     Instead of efficiency, we should prize reliability more. Instead
of maximizing gain, we can and should move towards minimizing risk,
until the balance is restored in favor of the latter. Minimizing risk
and emphasizing reliability encourages us to cooperate instead of
competing with each other, to share resources instead of monopolizing
them, and to hold assets and facilities in common instead of in
private. Risk minimization is also called the precautionary principle.


Externalizing costs

     Efficiency calls for minimizing inputs or costs. Over the years,
minimizing costs has become an art and a science, practiced to
near-perfection by those who seek to maximize gains. While they can
reduce costs legitimately, gain-maximizers often simply exclude costs
from the cost-accounting system by "externalizing" them. This is done
in different ways:

     * Costs are passed on to people who have little or no say in
making decisions and are in no position to protest or refuse. This is
a social justice problem.

     * Costs are passed on to the environment, which may seem to
absorb them for a while but whose capacity to do so soon becomes
exhausted. This is an ecological problem. It is also a social justice
problem, for it affects people who depend on the environment for
their livelihood and survival.

     * The costs are postponed and passed on to the future, to our
children and grandchildren. Given a short planning horizon, the costs
do not figure into current decisions. This is a problem of
generational justice. The desire to postpone costs played a big part
in sapping the institutional will to fix the Millennium bug until it
was too late. The same desire leads to a wanton disregard of the
exhaustion of non-renewable resources like fossil-fuels and minerals.
It also leads us to miss obvious threats like greenhouse gases, toxic
chemicals, or genetically-engineered organisms. In contrast, some
indigenous tribes decide which course of action to take only after
analyzing the effects that each action will have on the next seven
generations.

     * Costs are counted as gains. That sounds ridiculous, but that is
exactly how economists and national planners do it, adding goods as
well as "bads" to the gross national product (GNP) to measure
"improvements" in a country's economy. Note, for instance, how the
costs of fixing the Y2K problem and the costs of the lawsuits arising
from that problem will "raise" the GNP.

     Externalizing costs blinds the decision-makers to unacceptable
costs and risks. It creates the impression of viability in projects
which society would normally reject. It also victimizes the weak and
the voiceless who end up bearing much of the costs.

     A better approach to externalizing costs is full-cost accounting.
Under this approach, the costs to different sectors of society, to the
environment, and to future generations are fully accounted for and
borne by those who caused them. It does not lump together goods and
bads into meaningless figures like the GNP or the GDP. This is the
fairness principle.


Globalism

     In their relentless pursuit of higher efficiency, more raw
material sources, larger markets, and greater gains, corporations have
argued for "economies of scale" and extended their operations
throughout the globe. Toward that end, they are bent on breaking down
all barriers standing in their path: economic barriers, cultural and
linguistic barriers, territorial barriers, geographic barriers and
even biological barriers between species.

     Systems theory abounds with explanations of why turning a network
of relatively independent modular subsystems into a single
tightly-coupled humongous system increases dramatically the number of
potential interactions and undesirable side-effects within that
system. The side-effects, in turn, make the system problem-ridden,
unreliable and failure-prone.

     The Millennium Bug is a perfect example. Globalization has
dramatically increased the number of possible interactions within the
world economy and at its different levels: computing infrastructure
(global networks and the Internet), production and distribution
(globalized production systems and global free trade), finance
(liberalization and global mobility of capital), and mass psychology
(international media and the Internet). This sets the stage for the
global nature of the Y2K crisis: a problem in one level can easily
lead to many side-effects at that level and at other levels. The
simultaneous multiple Y2K failures will make the global economy
problem-ridden, unreliable and crash-prone.

     Even biology eschews globalism: life exists not as one humongous
community, but as separate species. If barriers between species break
down -- which is what cocky and incredibly naive genetic engineers are
doing -- the unrestricted exchange of DNA can dramatically increase
the number of potential biochemical interactions, including
side-effects that can spread throughout the system. The consequences
of a genetic equivalent of the Millennium Bomb are too horrible to
even contemplate.

     The preference for large-scale approaches to problems --
megadams, huge mechanized equipment, monoculture, large-scale
manufacturing, and so on, reflects the globalist mindset. This
preference is based on the argument that "economies of scale" lead to
greater efficiencies. Behind globalism, therefore, is the now-familiar
gain-maximization mindset. Globalism may lead to greater efficiencies,
but often at the expense of reliability.

     Aside from resulting in a failure-prone system, globalism also
leads to a totalitarian approach: a "there-is-no-alternative" syndrome
that forces autonomous or independent units to be subsumed within its
sphere. Globalization, for example, is associated with terms like
"inevitable", "you have no choice", "we can't do anything about it",
etc. No country or community is left alone and spared from intrusion.

     In planning highly-reliable systems, successful designers almost
always use the modular approach -- they break up a complex system into
smaller, relatively autonomous subsystems (or modules), which interact
only through well-defined links. Then, they create barriers --
firewalls, even -- to prevent unnecessary interactions and to ensure
that the interactions take place at the designated links.

     A sound approach will give priority to community, bioregional,
and national sufficiency, and build a robust network among them.
Self-sufficient communities, bioregions and nations would relate to
each other through well-defined rules that do not undermine but
instead strengthen local sufficiency. This successful approach comes
from systems theory and is based on the modular principle.


Quantification fetish

     The Y2K crisis will be triggered by potential and actual failures
in the measurement of elapsed time. That such failures of measurement
can threaten the global economy reflects how the measurement of
quantity has come to rule our economic life.

     The urge to measure and count has become a fetish at the expense
of quality. Because we can measure income and GNP and count
populations, we have forgotten how to sense the quality of life and
the happiness of peoples. Because we can measure cholesterol levels,
we have forgotten how to feel our own state of health. Because we can
count calories, we have forgotten how to pick the nourishing from the
toxic-laden foods. And by passing on to machines the tasks of counting
and measurement, we miss the essence of things completely. Eventually,
this fetish leads to techno-worship.

     By masking qualitative issues like value-judgments and human
suffering, quantification allows the technocracy to claim "scientific"
and "rational" judgments supposedly made by "neutral" and "value-free"
machines and computers. By reducing human values to pure quantities,
this mindset, in partnership with gain-maximization, has also created
a runaway financial system which has simply become a mad race to make
money beget more money, in ways totally unrelated to the real
production system and its underlying ecological base.

     The quality principle should replace the contemporary fetish for
quantification. As some say, "better, not bigger." By restoring the
dynamic balance between quality and quantity, with quality in a more
dominant role, we can also restore the importance of human capacities
that no one can measure, that no machine can detect: the capacity to
feel, to love, to enjoy, to intuit, to be healthy, and to be happy.

     What is an appropriate scale for human activities? For politics
and governance? For the economy? For manufacturing? For planning? The
quality principle suggests an answer: it is that scale in which
quantitative methods are not anymore necessary to make the activity
work, allowing us to concentrate more on the quality rather than the
quantity of the result. In short, it is that scale which still allows
us to sense and feel -- even intuit -- quality without requiring us to
count or measure it.

     At this scale, techno-worship loses its basis for existence and
quantification can remain useful and interesting but not anymore
necessary; social relationships retain their personal and face-to-face
character, so that the reaction of people we know and personally see
can easily blunt mindsets like maximizing gains or externalizing
costs.


The Millennium's greatest challenge

     These flawed mindsets are behind the Y2K crisis. They will also
lead us in the future to even worse ecological crises, whose early
consequences we are already starting to feel.

     The Y2K crisis is but a warning shot. While it is scaring many
people, its impact will not be as bad as the ecological disasters we
can already see coming. Knowing this, we can take the Y2K crisis as a
timely warning to stop denying ecological problems, to switch to early
concern, and to stop pinning our hopes on frantic -- and futile --
last-minute attempts to fix problems. The Millennium Bomb is probably
our last chance for a relatively painless systemic transformation.

     Some feel overwhelmed by what faces us and by modern industry's
seemingly inexhaustible capacity to regenerate itself and remain
dominant. They fear it will be "business as usual" after the Y2K
crisis passes and that the maximizers of gain and all they represent
will be in more control than ever. They should take heart, and not
lose sight of the increasing numbers who are demanding that we reject
socially-unjust and ecologically-disastrous thinking and who are
forming themselves into self-sufficient communities. The crisis is
going to weaken industrialism's hold and strengthen these new
communities. Those who advocate transformation can help these
communities flourish well beyond the crisis years, to pose a direct
challenge to the flawed mindsets at the core of industrialism.

     Others think we should confront the immediate problems of
surviving first and worry about transforming the system later. They
say they can do something about the immediate problems but very little
about the systemic problems. Certainly, we should prepare for the
immediate problems. But we should also realize that the best time to
initiate systemic changes is during the actual crisis, not afterwards.
When a complex system enters a chaotic period, it becomes much more
responsive to efforts to change it. Determined efforts which seem puny
during a stable, non-chaotic period may become decisive during a
critical, chaotic period. The chances of transforming the system are
much better during -- not after -- the crisis.

     If enough communities transform themselves, a "phase-change"
occurs -- just like the final exertion to push a car over the top of a
hill. After that, the people's direction and the new social terrain
become mutually-reinforcing, making it very difficult to return to the
old mindsets.

     The greatest challenge then is to transform the crisis itself
into a vast movement, one that engages us in profound soul-searching,
one that rejects the flawed mindsets that are steering us towards
disaster, one that frees us, our institutions and our communities to
take up socially-just and ecologically-friendly patterns of thought
and action.

     If, through our supreme efforts, we manage to form enough of
these transformed communities, absolutely unwilling to return to the
old ways and perfectly capable of replicating and multiplying
themselves, then we will have created a way out of self-destruction.
It is then up to the rest of humanity to take this escape route from
the looming ecological disasters created by today's flawed paradigms.

     Then, and only then, can we welcome the new millennium with great
joy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Verzola is the secretary-general of the Philippine Greens, a
political movement in the Philippines that advocates principles of
ecology, social justice and self-determination. He also runs an e-mail
network for Philippine NGOs and moderates the mailing list
Interdoc-Y2K (to subscribe, email the one-line message "subscribe
interdoc-y2k" to majordomo@jca.ax.apc.org). He is an electrical
engineer by training. He may be reached at rverzola@phil.gn.apc.org.
----------------------------------------------------------------------




From kevin.li at graduate.hku.hk  Sun Feb 21 21:46:59 1999
From: kevin.li at graduate.hku.hk (Kevin Li)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 20:46:59 +0800
Subject: [asia-apec 1028] International Conference: Economic Sovereignty in a Globalising World
Message-ID: <36D00043.ADEB3401@graduate.hku.hk>



************  Urgent Announcement  **************

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

Economic Sovereignty in a Globalising World: 
Creating People Centred Economics for the 21st Century

23-26 March 1999
Bangkok, Thailand

*********************************************

REGISTRATION
For more information and registration, please go to our website 
http://focusweb.org and click to 'Upcoming Focus Conference'

If you have difficulties sending the registration form from the website, 
please print the completed form and fax to us at 66 2 255 9976. 

You will also find the registration form at the end of this message. 
You can fill it in and send it to Jim at jim@focusweb.org

All registrations will be acknowledged within three days, so if you do 
not hear from us please contact Jim at jim@focusweb.org

Registrations close on 7 March 1999

PLEASE NOTE: ALL SPEAKERS, PANELISTS AND 
PARTICIPANTS MUST REGISTER USING THE FORM ON 
THE WEBSITE OR AT THE END OF THIS MESSAGE


****************************************

ABOUT THE CONFERENCE

Economic Sovereignty in a Globalising World
Creating People-Centred Economics for the 21st Century
Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University
Bangkok, March 24-26, 1999


WHY ARE WE HAVING THIS CONFERENCE?
While financial analysts assess the global financial crisis in terms of 
stock market indexes and currency values, the real impact is being 
borne by the millions of people who are being pushed further into 
poverty as we approach the new millennium. Generations will inherit a 
debt not of their making, and as the human costs of the crisis continue 
to mount, speculators and currency traders escape virtually unscathed.

Uncontrolled speculative investment and currency trading have a 
devastating effect on economic stability and long-term development. 
The crisis has shown that national economies no longer have control 
over vital aspects of economic policy, and that they too are subject to 
the whims of the market.

The inability of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to 
respond to the crisis with appropriate policies has called into question 
their capacity to understand and react to the needs of people in a 
rapidly changing global economy. A growing number of critics are 
now calling for a thorough review of these institutions' policies and 
decision making processes.

The dire human consequences of this demand our attention. It is 
imperative that international economic relations be reviewed and 
reshaped to control speculation, regulate financial markets and reduce 
inequalities between nations, while promoting economic democracy 
and fostering sustainable development.

All these measures and reforms should aim to give local communities, 
national governments and regional groupings the chance to pursue 
economic policies which meet the needs of people, instead of the 
markets.


WHAT ARE WE AIMING TO DO?
Develop a deeper understanding of the nature and role of financial 
capital and its impact on local, national and regional economic 
development; closely examine existing and proposed regulatory 
mechanisms, with the aim of regulating financial capital, fostering 
productive investment and promoting sustainable 'people-centred' 
development. 

Review national, regional and international financial institutions and 
their programs; propose new mechanisms and institutions, or reforms 
to those already in existence, in order to increase their accountability 
and democracy. 

Create a platform of joint action that articulates agreed principles, 
defines common objectives and demands, and produces concrete 
proposals for economic reform. 


WHY IS THIS CONFERENCE DIFFERENT?
The unique feature of this conference is that it brings together 
individuals and networks from all regions of the globe at a time when 
the issues of financial regulation and financial architecture are high
on 
the international political agenda.

During the conference, there will be four working groups, focusing on 
the areas of: Institutional Reform & New Institutions; Market Reform 
& Regulatory Mechanisms; National Political & Policy Reform; and 
People-Centred Alternatives. Each working group will identify 
priorities, articulate demands and proposals, and develop education 
and campaign strategies. Each participant will select a working group 
for the whole conference.

Plenaries have been scheduled each day, which explore a broad range 
of topics related to the conference. There will also be in-depth panels 
providing information on pertinent issues, such as local responses to 
the crisis, speculation taxes and capital controls.

WHO IS SPONSORING THE CONFERENCE?
The conference is being hosted by Focus on the Global South, and is 
co-sponsored by Development Alternatives for Women in a New Era 
(DAWN), the Structural Adjustment Participatory Review Initiatives 
Network (SAPRIN) and Focus on the Global South. Focus, DAWN 
and SAPRIN have already initiated discussions with groups 
worldwide. 

We hope that national and regional working groups can informally 
prepare for the conference, contribute to the development of the 
agenda, identify key participants and follow-up after the conference.

Invited speakers will be asked to prepare a short discussion paper on 
a given topic. The deadline for papers is March 7, 1999. This will 
allow time for the papers to be processed and posted to the 
conference website: http://www.focusweb.org. Panelists will prepare 
a brief synopsis of key issues, problems and policy recommendations 
related to their topic, also due by March 7, 1999.

It will be assumed that all participants will have read the conference 
papers beforehand so that the conference itself can focus on the 
debate of substantive issues and preparing an agenda for action.
We are excited about this conference and its potential for developing 
an international network armed with strategies and committed to 
action. We look forward to seeing all of you in Bangkok in March. 

*********************************************

CONFERENCE PROGRAMME
(To Be Finalised)

Evening of 23 March 1999

Opening session
Welcome by representative of Thai peoples' organisation 
Welcome by Chair of the Board of Focus on the Global South, 
Gothom Arya, Election Commission of Thailand
Keynote speech: Rubens Ricupero, Secretary-General United 
Nations Conference on Trade and Development (invited)       

Plenary I

Why are we having this conference now?
A short history of neo-liberalism: twenty years of elite economics and 
emerging opportunities for structural change
Susan George, author, France
Strategies and alliances for effective action
Walden Bello, Focus on the Global South, Thailand

Plenary II

Global financial markets
How the financial casino works.     
Hazel Henderson, author        
Can finance be controlled? 
Manfred Bienefeld, Carleton University, Canada 
Governance of the global economy Kamal Malhotra, Focus on the 
Global South, Thailand


Plenary III

The management and prevention of financial crises (to be advised)
The link between national and international financial controls
Walden Bello and Marco Mezzera, Focus on the Global South, 
Thailand
Regulation or reform: Who benefits from establishment proposals?
Patrick Bond, Wits University, Republic of South Africa & Nicola 
Bullard, Focus on the Global South, Thailand


Plenary IV

Beyond the Keynesian consensus
What is Keynesian economics and what are its limitations?
Jayati Ghosh, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India
Women: a missing factor in traditional economics
(to be advised)
Production, scarcity and the environment
Dr Elmar Altvater, FU Berlin
The Keynesian State. Yash Tandon, International South Group 
Network, Zimbabwe


Plenary V

Political strategies and campaigns
Turning the international agenda into local action - lessons from the 
MAI and 'fast-track' campaigns: Lori Wallach, Public Citizen, USA
Obstacles to and opportunities for local action: Forum of the Poor, 
Thailand


Parallel panels scheduled over three days, four at a time

1. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank
The IMF in Russia: Boris Kagarlitsky, economist, Russia
What lies beyond the Washington consensus? Joseph Stiglitz, Chief 
Macroeconomist, World Bank (invited)
Is the Washington consensus really cracking? Robin Broad, American 
University, Washington DC
Is the IMF reformable? Richard Leaver, Flinders University, South 
Australia

2. Food, natural resources and finance
The financial crisis and food security in Indonesia: Oba'dullah Khan, 
former Asia regional director for FAO (invited)
Natural resources and the environment: silent victim of the financial 
crisis: Emmy Hafild, WAHLI, Indonesia
Food as a commodity - a case study of shrimps: Yadfon Association, 
Thailand and Peter Riggs, Rockerfeller Brothers Fund, USA
Alternative Farmers Network, Fisherfolks Network and Natural 
Resources Network, Thailand
La Via Campesina

3. Finance, foreign direct investment, foreign ownership and 
privatisation
Jayati Ghosh, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India
Charles Abugre, Third World Network, Ghana
Jessica Woodruff, World Development, UK
The Korean experience of FDI and foreign ownership: Joosung Jun, 
Ehwa University, Korea 
Breaking the dependence on foreign finance: Patrick Bond, Wits 
University South Africa
Privatisation: a case study of Malaysia: Subramanian Pillay, University 
of Science, Malaysia 
Privatisation with peoples' participation: Bangchak Petroleum 
Company, Ltd. Thailand

4. International measures: Bankruptcy and debt
Standstill and orderly workouts - prevention & cure? (top be advised)
An international Chapter 11: Zhi Cui, Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology 
When dictators pass debt to democrats: The Doctrine of Odious Debt 
and the legacy of apartheid-caused debt in Southern Africa, Dr 
Molefe Tsele, Jubilee 2000, South Africa

5. International measures: Speculation taxes
Filomeno Santa Ana, Action for Economic Reform, Philippines
Is the Tobin Tax do-able? Roger Schmidt, Fellow of the Canadian 
International Development Research Centre , Vietnam
Is the Tobin tax a red herring? Bruno Jetin, ATTAC, France

6. National measures: Capital controls
The debate about capital controls: Sumangala Damidara
Country studies: Policy objectives and effectiveness
Taiwan and India: Jayati Ghosh and CP Chandrasekar
Malaysia: Martin Khor, Third World Network, Malaysia
Chile: Andreas Uthoff B., CEPA (invited) 

7. National measures: Banks and financial institutions
Case studies of Thai and Mexican financial sector reform: who wins, 
who loses? Paiboon Wattanasiritham, Foundation for Thailand Rural 
Reconstruction Movement & Enrique Valencia, Observatorio Social, 
Mexico (invited)
The role of Central Banks and the Bank for International Settlements 

8. National measures: Budgets and taxes
Democratising the Budget: Leonor Briones, National Treasurer, 
Philippines (invited)
Peoples participation in budget analysis: Madhusudhan Mistry, 
DISHA, India (invited)

9. Local responses
Alternatives to big banks: community currencies and co-operatives: 
Thai Savings Group, Thailand and SEWA, India, Vijay Mahajan, 
BASIX, India (invited), Luis Lopezllera, Promocion del dessarroyo 
popular, Mexico
Microfinancing: market ideology dressed up as development? (to be 
advised)
Case study from Via Campesina

10. National alternatives
The myth of the weak state or Belarus: the country that can say no! 
Boris Kagarlitsky 
Indonesia: buying back the nation: Faisal Basri, University of 
Indonesia  (invited)
Mexico: developing an economic policy from the ground up: 
Alejandro Nadal, Mexico
South Korea: alternatives to the corporate state? KCTU (invited)

11. Regional alternatives
Americas Area Alternatives: Alejandro Villamar, RMALC, Mexico 
and Roberto Bissio, Instituto del Tercer Mindo, Uruguay (invited)
ASEAN: clinging together or sinking together?  Suthad  
Setboonsarng, ASEAN Secretariat (invited), Manuel Montes, East 
West Centre, University of Hawaii (invited)
Europe: Miren Etxezarreta, Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona, 
Spain 
Japan: The Asian Monetary Fund and the Miyazawa Initiative: 
Hirakawa Hitoshi, Japan (invited)
Pacific Island States: Claire Slatter, DAWN, Henry Wira, Pacific 
Islands Association of Non-government Organisations, Solomon 
Islands (invited),  Lopeti Senitulu, Pacific Resource Centre, Fiji 
(invited)
Africa: Yassine Fall, Association of African Women on Research and 
Development, Senegal & Dr Molefe Tesle, Jubilee 2000, South Africa

Four core working groups will have scheduled meetings over three 
days

Institutional reforms & new institutions 
Market reform & regulatory mechanisms 
National political & policy reform 
People-centred alternatives

***********************************************

ABOUT THE CO-SPONSORS
SAPRIN arose out of a major initiative with World Bank President 
Jim Wolfensohn to assess the impact of various adjustment measures 
on diverse population groups, economic and social sectors. The 
Structural Adjustment Participatory Review Initiative (SAPRI) makes 
proposals to the World Bank and governments for changes in 
economic adjustment programs and in economic policy making 
processes. Through this, the SAPRI Network (SAPRIN) seeks to 
legitimize local knowledge in the analysis of economic-reform 
programs, and institutionalize grassroots involvement in 
macroeconomic decision-making. It thereby attempts to help 
governments and international institutions understand how adjustment 
measures move through local economies and into peoples' lives.

DAWN is a network of women scholars and activists from the 
economic South who engage in feminist research and and are 
committed to working for equitable, just and sustainable development. 
DAWN's current program cycle is emphasizing work at the regional 
level to connect more closely with the priorities of women's and civil 
society organizations, and help strengthen their capacity to deal with 
issues arising from the impacts of globalization. DAWN's research 
themes provide the central focus for its work at both global and 
regional levels. These research themes are Political Economy of 
Globalization, Sexual and Reproductive Rights, Sustainable 
Livelihoods and Political Restructuring and Social Transformation.

Focus on the Global South is dedicated to regional and global policy 
analysis and advocacy work. Focus also concentrates on linking 
grassroots experiences to macro level issues such as trade 
liberalisation and the International Monetary Fund. Focus is working 
to strengthen the capacity of organisations of the poor and 
marginalised people of the South, to better analyse and understand the 
impacts of the globalisation process on their daily lives.

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Contact Geoffrey Keele on (T) 66 2 218-7363 (F) 66 2 255-9976 
or Email at g.keele@focusweb.org

************************************************

REGISTRATION FORM 
SPEAKERS & PANELISTS

Economic Sovereignty in a Globalising World :
Creating People-Centred Economics for the 21st  Century
March 23-26, 1999
Bangkok, Thailand

Name
Organisation
Position
Postal address
Country
Telephone
Facsimile
Email
Website

Flight schedules 
*participants should arrive by the evening of 23 March for the 
opening session

* Arrival : 		Date			Flight number
* Departure : 	Date			Flight number
Estimated airfare cost (US dollars)

Reimbursement method
* cash
* bank transfer
You will need to bring all receipts and your bank account details to 
the conference before we can process your reimbursement. You can 
claim visa fee, departures taxes and airport transfers. All 
accommodation and meals will be paid by the organisers in Bangkok.

Accommodation
You will be booked at the university hotel or a hotel nearby and 
accommodation and meals will be fully paid for the duration of the 
conference. If you have to stay longer due to flight schedule 
restrictions, the conference will cover costs. Any other costs, for 
example extra nights, telephone, 
laundry, etc.  are your own responsibility.

Working Groups Selection
Working groups will meet throughout the conference to draft the 
conference action plan. Please indicate which group you would like to 
join :

* I. Market reform & regulatory mechanisms
* II. Institutional reforms & new institutions
* III. National political & policy reform
* IV. People-Centred alternatives
(delete the groups you DO NOT select)

Dietary requirement (if any)

Please return your registration to jim@focusweb.org or fax number 
662-255-9976 attention to Jim by March 5, 1999.


************************************************

REGISTRATION FORM
PARTICIPANTS

Economic Sovereignty in a Globalising World :
Creating People-Centred Economics for the 21st  Century
March 23-26, 1999
Bangkok, Thailand

Name
Organisation
Position
Postal address
Country
Telephone
Facsimile
Email
Website

Note: participants should arrive by the evening of 23 March for the 
opening session *

Do you need any financial assistance ?		yes		no
If yes, how much is your airfare ? 			(US dollars)
Can you or your organisation offer financial 
assistance to other participants ?			yes		no
If so, how much ?

Reimbursement (if applicable)
* cash
* bank transfer
(delete the option you DO NOT select)

Please note that accommodation will be receive an accommodation 
allowance of US$25 per night (including breakfast) not the actual 
cost. 
You will need to bring all receipts and your bank account details to 
the conference before your claim can be processed.

Working Groups Selection
Working groups will meet throughout the conference to draft the 
conference action plan. Please indicate which group you would like to 
join :

* I. Market reform & regulatory mechanisms
* II. Institutional reforms & new institutions
* III. National political & policy reform
* IV. People-centred alternatives
(delete the groups you DO NOT select)

Dietary requirement (if any)

Accommodation
You need to arrange your own accommodation. 

Participants receiving financial assistance will receive an 
accommodation allowance (including breakfast) of US$25 per night, 
not the actual cost. Any additional cost will be the responsibility of
the 
participants. See Accommodation (on website) for hotel listings.

Please return your registration to jim@focusweb.org or by fax number 
662-255-9976 attention to Jim by March 5, 1999.

*************************************************


Focus on the Global South (FOCUS)
c/o CUSRI, Chulalongkorn University	
Bangkok 10330 THAILAND
Tel: 662 218 7363/7364/7365/7383	
Fax: 662 255 9976		
E-mail: admin@focusweb.org
Web Page   http://www.focusweb.org   

Staff email addresses:
----------------------
Walden Bello		W.Bello@focusweb.org
Kamal Malhotra		K.Malhotra@focusweb.org
Chanida  Bamford	C.Bamford@focusweb.org
Nicola Bullard          N.Bullard@focusweb.org
Ehito Kimura            E.Kimura@focusweb.org
Li Kheng Poh            Lk.Poh@focusweb.org
Marco Mezzera           M.Mezzera@focusweb.org
Regina Abesamis         R.Abesamis@focusweb.org
Soontaree Narkviroj     Soontaree@focusweb.org
Jim Charoonpatarapong   Jim@focusweb.org
Ranee Hassarungsee      Ranee@focusweb.org
Mayuree Ruechakieattikul	Nok@focusweb.org
____________________________________________________


From gattwd at corso.ch.planet.gen.nz  Mon Feb 22 12:37:06 1999
From: gattwd at corso.ch.planet.gen.nz (Gatt Watchdog)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 15:37:06 +1200
Subject: [asia-apec 1029] Mapuche Struggle/Chile - Urgent Fax
Message-ID: <J9534e1w165w@corso.ch.planet.gen.nz>


Public Announcement

Temuko, February 19, 1999

To our Mapuche communities, organisations, institutions, social and
political organisations, to the Chilean and international community,
This is to inform you that on Thursday February 18 construction works
at the hydroelectric dam at Ralko, in the Alto Bio-Bio, were brought 
to a halt. Construction work at Ralko had been resumed on January 28 
after it had been interrupted by direct action on August 7 last year. 
The work stoppage of February 18 was carried out by our brothers and 
sisters Mapuche Pewenche, with support from some social organisations 
which oppose the construction of this genocidal project. This action 
met with a violent repression from the special forces of the 
carabineros police, and as a consequence 28 people have been arrested 
and an additional nine are wounded. 

As we write, evacuation actions are bein gcarried out at Temulemu
(Traiguen, Malleco region), where 10 people have been arrested, both
men, women and children. The logko (elder) Pascual Pichun has suffered
injury, and they are confiscating the timber, work tools, and
machinery, amongothers. We expect also that our brohers and sisters of
the Choin Lafkenche community (Collipulli, Cautin region) will be
evacuated today as well. 

In the face of these actions, we call on all communities, both 
Mapuche and non-Mapuche organisations, to strengthen the fraternal and
solidarity  bonds with our brothers and sisters who are being strongly
repressed because of their defense of the historical rights of the
Mapuche. These are our inalienable rights, in spite of government
attempts to privatise the resources which belong to all the people who
live on this territory, and in spite of government protection of
national and transnational companies. We will defend Mapuche rights as
a point of honour, but also because our life and that of humanity,
depend on respect for these rights. 

Those who wish to show their solidarity should join us at the sites of
the conflicts, as well as speak out with respect to the violation of
the human rights of the Mapuche.

Coordinadora Mapuche, IX Region
[Mapuche Coordinating Body, 9th Region]


From stpr8028 at BUREAU.UCC.IE  Mon Feb 22 18:03:02 1999
From: stpr8028 at BUREAU.UCC.IE (Julian Oram)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:03:02 +0100
Subject: [asia-apec 1030] [Fwd: GNN]
Message-ID: <36D11D44.1DE02C74@bureau.ucc.ie>


--
International Famine Centre
University College, Cork
8 Grenville Terrace
Cork
Ireland
Tel. (+353) 21 904 325
Email: stpr8028@bureau.ucc.ie

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: katainger@gn.apc.org (Katharine Ainger)
Subject: GNN
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 15:16:45 +0000 (GMT)
Size: 9669
Url: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/asia-apec/attachments/19990222/36fdaab3/attachment.mht

From rverzola at phil.gn.apc.org  Mon Feb 22 23:13:44 1999
From: rverzola at phil.gn.apc.org (Roberto Verzola)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 23:13:44
Subject: [asia-apec 1031] NEW BATTLES BEGIN SOON IN THE WTO
Message-ID: <199902230230.KAA03981@phil.gn.apc.org>


* Original is in : WELCOME-REQUEST
* Original date  : 22 Feb 1999 06:54:4
* Original is by : jesover@attac.org                  (6:751/401)
* Original is to : rverzola                           (6:751/401)
* Full text below: 

NEW BATTLES BEGIN SOON IN THE WTO
By Martin Khor (Director, Third World Network)
twn@igc.apc.org

(Note:  The Third World Network is an international organisation based
in Penang, Malaysia, that deals with economic, environmental and
development issues from a Third World perspective).

BLURB:  Even as the financial crisis places a heavy burden on the
affected developing countries, a new challenge is emerging at the
World Trade Organisation.  The developed nations are piling on the
pressure to launch a new Round of trade negotiations during the WTO's
Ministerial Meeting this December.  They are now planning their
strategy to get developing countries to agree to putting more issues,
such as investment, competition, government procurement, environment
and labour standards, onto the WTO system. This will put developing
countries into deeper trouble.  It is thus time for these countries to
pay attention to the developments in WTO and resist the attempt to
start a new Round.

__________________________________

The Asian financial crisis, which has now spread to Russia and Brazil,
should have at least taught the world the lesson that there are great
risks for developing countries when they are asked to liberalise their
economies too fast, or to take part in "globalisation" in an
indiscriminate way.

Opening the economy when a country is not yet prepared to withstand
the shocks generated by the world economy, or when its local firms and
farms are not ready to compete with international giant corporations,
can cause disruption.

Yet before we can even digest the full lessons of how to manage the
interface between the domestic and external economies, pressures are
once again mounting to get developing countries to open up even more
to the big companies of the industrial countries.

The extra pressures are coming in the World Trade Organisation, which
will be holding its third Ministerial Meeting at the end of November
in the United States.

The European Union, backed by Japan, Canada and other developed
nations, have announced they want to launch a new "Round" of trade
negotiations at this meeting.

In such a Round, several issues will be made the subject of
negotiations for new multilateral Agreements that will be legally
binding on WTO members.

For example, the Uruguay Round (1984-90) concluded with many new
Agreements covering services, agriculture, intellectual property
rights, investment measures and other issues.  It also created the WTO
to replace the old GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade).

The developing countries were generally against these new issues
entering the trade system, as the Agreements legally oblige them to
change their national policies and laws so as to open up their
economies further to foreign goods, services and companies.

Since the farmers and local firms are generally small and lack the
technology or marketing skills, they are unable to fairly compete with
the big companies of the West or Japan.

There is a deep fear that when these Agreements are implemented (after
a grace period of five years or so), the developing countries will
face a lot of problems.

Cheaper goods or services may swamp the market, replacing what is
locally made. Bigger foreign firms with the latest technology or with
marketing outreach will increasingly take more market share away from
the local sector.

This may well cause retrenchment and dislocation, especially in the
less developed of the Third World countries.  The least developed
countries are understandably most worried.

Even before these problems arising from the Uruguay Round have been
understood (let alone dealt with), the big companies are once again
pushing their governments to open up yet more areas in the developing
countries for them to enter.

The European Union therefore proposed launching a new round of
negotiations, which it even conferred the glamorous term "the
Millennium Round."

Although the US originally seemed cool to the idea (preferring to push
issues it liked on a sector by sector basis), President Bill Clinton
endorsed having a new Round in the WTO when he made his State of the
Union address last month.

The developed countries thus seem united in pushing the WTO into this
"new Round."

Developing countries should be very wary of what this means because a
range of issues that will be to their disadvantage will be thrown into
the preparations of this new Round.

The EU has already made it clear that it wants to pursue "new issues"
such as international investment rules, competition policy and
government procurement through this Round.

These three issues were put on the agenda of the first WTO Ministerial
Conference in Singapore in 1996.  Most developing countries were
against having any negotiations for Agreements on these issues, but
the pressure from the developed countries was so strong that they
compromised and agreed to taking part in "working groups" to discuss
the issues.

The developing countries made it clear that the working groups had the
mandate only to discuss the topics in a sort of academic way, in what
was called an "educative process".  They had no mandate to start
negotiations for Agreements.

The three working groups have now gone through two years of
discussion, during which the developed countries made it clear they
intend to "upgrade" the talks into negotiations. Their plan now is to
use the device of the Millennium Round to make the three issues
(investment, competition, government procurement) the subject of talks
for new Agreements.

But this is not the end of the story.  Some of the rich nations also
want other issues like "trade and environment" and "labour standards"
to be part of the new proposed Round.

The governments of these countries want to placate the environmental
groups and labour unions who have been protesting about the negative
effects of free trade.

If the environment and labour standards are also thrown into the pot
of the New Round, the influential civic groups may then be won over,
or at least they may not campaign so hard against the proposed Round.
Or so the establishment thinking goes.

The US meanwhile is very keen that the Uruguay Round issues of
services, agriculture and intellectual property rights be revisited
and revised so that its corporations will have yet more market
openings or advantages.

New negotiations on these existing topics, which are already on the
agenda in any case, will also likely be put on the agenda of the New
Round.

However, it is far from certain that there will be a new Round. Many
developing countries are against it.  Their position is that the WTO
should allow developing countries (who after all are the majority) the
time and space to tackle the problems of implementation of the
existing Agreements.

That is cause for enough headaches and economic dislocation.  The
present financial crisis and its bad impact on trade and growth has
now magnified the problem.

How then can they cope with negotiations on yet more new issues, which
are certain to cause another round of new and potentially disastrous
problems or crises?

Whist this position obviously has merit, the developing countries are
unfortunately not united.  India, Malaysia, Egypt and many African and
least developed countries have spoken out against a new Round.

But most Latin American and a few Asian countries have indicated they
are for the European proposal.

Those countries that have thought through the problem and oppose
negotiations on new issues should now get together and strengthen
their position as the talks in the WTO hot up in the next few weeks.

The financial crisis should not deflect the attention of policy makers
or the public from what is happening in the WTO.  Otherwise, through
pressure or by default we will be landed with a new Round that is not
of our choosing and that will place more obstacles not only to the
recovery process but to our development in the long term.

A new Round of multilateral trade talks under the World Trade
Organisation (WTO), now being advocated by the rich countries, would
put developing countries very much on the defensive as they will have
much to lose.

The European Union (EU), Japan and the United States have already
signalled that they want to put many topics on the agenda of such a
new Round, which they hope can be launched in November at the WTO's
Ministerial Conference.

On each of these topics, developing countries will be pushed to give
up more and more of existing policies that protect their domestic
economies, and allow foreign firms the right to take over their
national markets.

The Japanese government has already marked out nine areas for the
proposed new Round, according to a Kyodo News report.  They are
agriculture, services, tariffs on industrial products, investment
rules, anti-dumping, competition policy, electronic commerce,
intellectual property and government procurement.

Japan found common ground with the EU on the new trade talks when its
Trade Minister Kaoru Yosana met with the European Commission Vice
President Leon Brittan last month.

The Japanese government is now planning to win over developing
countries to the idea of the new Round by sending officials to
dialogue with the developing countries.

President Bill Clinton of the United States meanwhile also called for
a new round of trade talks that would "expand export of services,
manufactured goods and most of all farm products" for the US.
Officials from Japan, the EU and the US have agreed that they should
conclude the next round of talks within three years, compared to the
eight years for the Uruguay Round, according to Kyodo News.

The above reports show that the major trade powers are confident they
can push through a decision to start a new Round, although many
developing countries (who form the majority of the WTO's 130 members)
are against it.

There are good grounds for such confidence.  Although they form only a
small minority, the rich countries (and in particular, the US, EU,
Japan and Canada, known as the "Quads") have usually succeeded in
calling the shots in the WTO, often riding roughshod over the
objections of many developing countries.

It may well happen again at the WTO Conference this year.

The three issues that should especially worry developing countries are
investment, competition policy and government procurement.  If there
is a new Round, it could lead to new WTO Agreements on these topics.

The following is a summary of how these issues will affect the
developing nations:

     **On the INVESTMENT ISSUE, the rich countries are pushing to
introduce new rules that make it mandatory for all WTO countries to
give foreign investors the right to enter and establish themselves,
with 100 percent ownership.

    Foreigners and foreign firms should also be treated as well (or
better) than locals, and restrictions on the free flow of capital into
and out of the country (and on the foreign firms' operations) would be
prohibited.

    In discussions so far at the WTO working group on investment, the
rich countries have sought to give a wide scope to the definition of
foreign investment.  It would include not only foreign direct
investment but also portfolio investment and purchase of property.

    Needless to say, if such an agreement were to be passed within the
WTO, developing countries would no longer be able to give preferences
or protection to local investors, firms or farmers.  They would face
the threat of having their products wiped out by competition from the
bigger foreign firms, or of being taken over  by them.

    Also, the kind of restrictions that some countries place on inflow
and outflow of portfolio or loan capital from abroad, and on foreign
ownership of land and houses, may come under question or be banned.

    ** On COMPETITION POLICY, the EU and US are advocating a new
agreement that would look unfavourably on domestic laws or practices
in developing countries that favour local firms.

    For example, if there are policies that give importing or
distribution rights to local firms (including government agencies or
enterprises), or if there are practices among local firms that give
them superior marketing channels, these are likely to be called into
question.

    The rich countries would argue that such policies or practices
create a barrier to foreign products or firms, which should be allowed
to compete on equal terms as locals.

    Developing countries may argue that only if local agencies or
firms are given certain advantages, or if they have built up
distribution systems over the years, then they should be allowed to
keep these advantages. Providing the giant international firms equal
rights would overwhelm the local enterprises which are small and
medium sized in global terms.

    However, such arguments will not be accepted by the rich
countries, which will insist that their giant firms be provided a
"level playing field" to compete "equally" with the smaller local
firms.

    ** On GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT, the rich countries are actually
casting their eyes on the lucrative business of providing supplies to
and winning contracts of the public sector in the developing
countries.

    At present, government expenditure is outside the scope of the
WTO, unless a member country voluntarily joins the "plurilateral"
agreement on government procurement.

   The aim of the rich countries is to bring government spending
policies, decisions and procedures of all member countries under the
umbrella of the WTO, where the principle of "national treatment" will
apply.

   Under this principle, governments in their procurement and
contracts for projects (and probably also for privatisation deals)
would no longer be able to give preferences or advantages to citizens
or local firms.

   The bids for supplies, contracts and projects would have to be
opened up to foreigners, who should be given the same (or better)
chances as locals. It is proposed that foreign firms that are unhappy
with the government's decisions can bring the matter to court in the
WTO.

   Since government expenditure in some countries is bigger in value
than imports, such an agreement to bring procurement under the WTO
rules would tremendously enlarge the scope of the WTO.

   As most developing countries would object to having their
public-sector spending policies changed so drastically, the rich
countries have a two-stage plan for this issue:  firstly, have an
agreement only to bring in greater "transparency" in government
procurement; secondly, to have a broader agreement that would cover
the national treatment principle.

   All the three issues have very serious implications for national
economic interests, and our policy makers must therefore pay great
attention to the plans and strategies of the rich countries that are
trying to introduce them in the WTO.

   It is certainly not inevitable that these and other new issues will
be brought into the WTO, since there is not yet any decision or
consensus that there will be a new Round.

   But the negotiations towards the November Ministerial Conference
have already started, and developing countries should make their views
known and heard as early as possible. In any case, the policy makers
and the public in each WTO member country should discuss and debate
these issues so that the developing countries can take a clear and
strong position.

   Otherwise we are in danger of once again being run over by the
mighty trade negotiating machine of the rich nations.



From gattwd at corso.ch.planet.gen.nz  Wed Feb 24 11:05:01 1999
From: gattwd at corso.ch.planet.gen.nz (Gatt Watchdog)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:05:01 +1200
Subject: [asia-apec 1032] GATT Watchdog Guns For "Arms For APEC" Bill
Message-ID: <3aq74e1w165w@corso.ch.planet.gen.nz>


GATT Watchdog
PO Box 1905
Christchurch
Aotearoa/New Zealand

MEDIA RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE USE

24 February 1999

"Arms For APEC" Bill Ill-considered and Abhorrent: Rerun of Vancouver APEC
Security Debacle Predicted For New Zealand

"Leave the Arms Act alone! The Arms Amendment Bill should be rejected and no
permission given to foreign security officers to carry arms in New Zealand
for APEC.  It is ill-considered and helps set us up for a rerun of the
outrageous security debacle which involved armed overseas security personnel
at APEC in Vancouver in 1997 and which continues to haunt the Chretien
government," says GATT Watchdog spokesman Aziz Choudry.  
 
"This bill will have a 'chilling effect' on the rights of New Zealand
citizens to lawful advocacy, protest and dissent. It panders to the dubious
security whims of other APEC "economies" - particularly the USA. It opens us
up to the spectre of intimidation and actual harm by armed overseas security
personnel, operating in an unfamiliar environment, with scant knowledge, or
regard of New Zealanders' rights," said Mr Choudry. 

Mr Choudry was in Vancouver at the time of the 1997 APEC Leaders Summit. Last
month he returned to meet with some of those most affected by the
controversial security operations, and had access to many files of official
documents relating to the matter.  An excerpt from these, and relevant
Canadian media items have been submitted to the Foreign Affairs Defence and
Trade Select Committee considering the law change.

"In 1997, Washington pressured Canada into allowing a small army of US
security officers to carry arms.  Documents show that one APEC economy -
thought to be the USA - even wanted to take part in a threat assessment group
to spy on Canadian organisations and individuals.  Armed security personnel
from eight countries were present in Canada for the APEC Summit." 

"And what happened? Indonesian security officers threatened to shoot Canadian
protesters, and repeatedly breached security protocols.  Canadian police
arrested five Indonesian security personnel, after a heavily-armed vehicle of
Mounties had tailed the Indonesians, and at one stage discussed the possible
scenario of having to shoot them. Canadian police have tried to blame their
own heavyhanded security operations at APEC '97 on the presence of the armed
Indonesian contingent."

A high-profile inquiry into over 50 complaints against Canadian police
reconvenes in March, with moves afoot to subpoena Jean Chretien after
evidence showing that the Prime Minister's Office was directly involved in the
APEC security operation, at which a crowd of non-violent protesters was
peppersprayed, and dozens violently arrested.

"It is naive to think that New Zealand will be able to independently set
security protocols or that overseas security personnel will be subject to the
authority of the Police Commissioner. US security personnel will greatly
influence - if not in large part determine the nature of security operations
for the Leaders Summit.  The government says it cannot even determine the
extent of traffic disruption to Auckland, whether postal and courier
deliveries, and waste collections will be carried out in Auckland unil "we
get a clearer picture of the security requirements of visiting delegations".
Who exactly is calling the shots here?  Obviously not Wellington".

"New Zealand security observers were present at Vancouver. If there is a
similar security crackdown around APEC 1999, and the government later becomes
embroiled in a similar scandal as that engulfing Ottawa, with armed overseas
security officers on the loose, they won't be able to say that they were not
warned."

"If New Zealand security forces cannot provide adequate security for APEC,
the government should never have offered to host it. The status quo was good
enough for CHOGM and Madeleine Albright's recent visit - why not the APEC
circus. New Zealand governments can stand up to Washington over nuclear ships
- but clearly not Clinton's armed Secret Service guys" .

"The security hype around APEC warrants the same caution as the over-inflated
claims about APEC's benefits. There is little or no acknowledgement of the
gulf that exists between preparedness to counter a genuine security threat to
VIPs and the desire to guarantee a "political embarrassment-free" APEC for all
involved.  It is the latter that has driven past APEC security
operations".

"The Weekend Australian dubbed APEC '98 in Kuala Lumpur "an event that swings
between the ominous and the ludicrous".  This proposed law change is both. But
all the armed security personnel in the world can't protect APEC from shooting
itself in the foot," he said.

GATT Watchdog spokesman Aziz Choudry will speak to the group's submission to
the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Select Committee on the proposed bill
at 10.30am tomorrow, Thursday 25 February.

For further comment contact Aziz Choudry (03) 3662803; or (021) 217 3039

For further information about the role of foreign security officers in the
APEC 1997 security operation in Canada, ph: Jonathan Oppenheim (+1) (604) 224
2482 or 822 1393 or Jaggi Singh (+1) (514) 526 8946



From mindcaram at hotmail.com  Wed Feb 24 13:45:21 1999
From: mindcaram at hotmail.com (vision mind)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:45:21 PST
Subject: [asia-apec 1033] CARAM-Asia WEBSITE
Message-ID: <19990224044521.11712.qmail@hotmail.com>


Dear Obit,

GREETINGS FROM MALAYSIA!

how are u?  long time never written to each other.  Been very busy with 
work...

YES, Believe it or not BUT it is true FINALLY CARAM-Asia is on the 
Information superhighway.

URL: www.gn.apc.org/caramasia

We will be having an official launch on our web-site on this saturday - 
27 February'99.

Would be please if you could give me comments and feedback to improve it 
better.

best regards
minder k.c.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


From bayan at iname.com  Sat Feb 27 11:18:36 1999
From: bayan at iname.com (BAYAN)
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 10:18:36 +0800
Subject: [asia-apec 1034] In support of Kurdistan and freedom for Ocalan!
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19990227101836.0098c8e0@pop.skyinet.net>




February 23, 1999

US-TURKISH REACTIONARIES ARE THE REAL TERRORISTS,   
NOT KURDISH LEADER ABDULLAH OCALAN

"Abdullah Ocalan, national liberation leader of the Kurds, should be given
a fair trial open to the world's media, human rights groups, solidarity
groups, personages, and other interested groups in the international
community. In fact, he should immediately be released," Rita Baua of Bayan
(New Patriotic Alliance), stressed in her short speech at a lightning
picket held on February 23, 9:30 a.m., by Bayan and Karapatan (Alliance for
the Advancement of People's Rights) in front of the Manila Hotel where
Turkey's President Suleymen Demirel and his delegation were billeted. Baua
reiterated that Ocalan is not a terrorist and that he should not be 'caged
like an animal.'

President Demirel is in the Philippines for a three-day state visit for
bilateral agreements on investments, eco-technology and issuance of visa.
He also asked the Estrada government to join Turkey in an anti-terrorism
campaign, which Bayan and Karapatan refer to as more of a militarist campaign
where human rights are violated with umpunity.

Abdullah Ocalan was abducted by US-Turkish commando troops in Kenya and
brought to Turkey to face trial on 'terrorism' charges.  His arrest and
detention in the island prison of Imrali has sparked massive outrage from
Kurds in different parts of the world, notably in Europe to where a few
millions of Kurds have escaped from political persecution by the Turkish
state.

Ocalan is the leader of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) that has waged a
14-year  life-and-death struggle  for self-rule in Turkey's mainly Kurdish
southeast.   

The Kurds number 25 million, the biggest nationality without a state of its
own.  Under Turkish rule, they are also  banned from using their own
language, music, and broadcasting their own activities.

The conflict between the Kurds' self-rule and the Turkish reactionaries has
killed 37,000 people.

"The real terrorists are the US-Turkish reactionaries who have conducted
genocidal military campaigns and continue to commit  human rights
violations  against the Kurds:  the burning and forced evacuation of about
3,000 Kurdish villages and towns, the forced evacuation of about 5 million
of Kurdish peasants and workers from their villages to other towns, the
bombing of
several areas of the Kurdish region. Its forests have also been burned
down. It is said that the Turkish state is emptying Kurdistan of any
human being.  Furthermore, hundreds of Kurdish mothers and wives are in
anguish over the disappearance of their sons and husbands.  Hundreds more
of Kurds have languished for years in military camps in Turkey," Baua added.

"Worse, the death penalty is imposed in Turkey.  With the Turkish state's
iron-fisted policy towards supposed terrorists like popular leader and
patriot
Ocalan, who has rallied peasants, workers, intellectuals, businessmen,
and other sectors of his people to fight for their self-identity, we fear
that he might be executed."

"Bayan  is therefore enjoining its member-organizations and chapters
nationwide and in other parts of the world, including groups supporting the
Filipino people's national democratic struggle, to campaign for immediate
release of Ocalan and humane treatment while he is still in detention; and
for the Kurds' struggle for self-rule, freedom, and democracy,"
Baua concluded her speech.#


	 ---------------------------------------------------------
	 B A Y A N
	 Bagong Alyansang Makabayan or New Patriotic Alliance
	 No. 23 Maamo Street, Sikatuna Village
	 Quezon City, PHILIPPINES							      	
	 Telephone: (63-2) 435-9151       Telefax: (63-2) 922-5211
	 Email:   <bayan@iname.com>
	 Bayan webpage URL:                                 
	 http://www.bigfoot.com/~bayan-phils 	      	
	 -----------------------------------------------------------