[asia-apec 1013] Another Year, Another Summit (Part II)

[Gatt Watchdog]

>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