From notoapec at clear.net.nz Wed Aug 2 05:20:42 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (notoapec@clear.net.nz) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 08:20:42 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [asia-apec 1495] NZ Herald - Message-ID: <200008012020.IAA10739@waklwh3.wilsonandhorton.co.nz> 02/08/00 - Coalition split in lead-up to Singapore deal By VERNON SMALL deputy political editor A proposed free trade agreement with Singapore is shaping as the first official split between Labour and the Alliance under a "safety valve" clause in the Coalition agreement. But Deputy Prime Minister Jim Anderton's conciliatory stance on the free trade deal - known officially as a "closer economic partnership" to downplay its free trade aspects - is raising eyebrows in his own party's rank and file. Talks over the deal, based on the closer economic relations arrangement with Australia, are some weeks away from completion, although the cabinet has approved New Zealand's negotiating position. Labour sources said they believed Mr Anderton had accepted arguments in favour of it. But he denies that any decision has been reached, saying the Alliance is waiting to see its final shape before it takes a position. He said the Alliance had reserved its position on some aspects of the deal, although he would not be specific. National and Act would almost certainly back a free trade deal, meaning Alliance and Green opposition is unlikely to scupper Labour's plans. Meanwhile, Mr Anderton faces opposition from within his own party, with a recent round of Alliance regional conferences seeing some members pointedly reassert the party's opposition to free trade. It is a policy Mr Anderton pushed strongly before the election. "It is bizarre for a country like New Zealand with a $7 billion balance of payments deficit to sign a free trade agreement with a country like Singapore, which normally has a balance of payments surplus," he said in a speech after the free trade deal was announced. "Just because Singapore and Chile have only a passing acquaintance with democracy, [then Prime Minister] Mrs Shipley seems to think she can bypass New Zealand democracy when she's selling out our country to them," he said. Singapore and Chile, with whom New Zealand is also exploring a free trade arrangement, "probably don't have a minimum wage and virtually outlaw democratic trade unions." But yesterday Mr Anderton said the public would be "pleasantly surprised" by the level of disclosure and the Government's approach to ratification, which in the case of significant treaties would involve Parliament. Treaties are normally ratified by the Government without taking them to the House. "I am confident that the ability of the Alliance to differentiate will be part of the more open and democratic and inclusive approach this Government will take to treaty ratifications per se, not just this one," he said. The party would judge the Singapore deal on whether it was good for the country. Its touchstones would be its impact on jobs, incomes, the regions and sovereignty issues. "It would be ridiculous of me to say: 'I don't care what's in it. I am opposed to it.' That is ludicrous." But he drew a clear distinction between bilateral agreements, such as that with Singapore, and worldwide treaties such as the failed multilateral agreement on investment (MAI), which the Alliance campaigned against. He rejected claims by anti-free trade activist Professor Jane Kelsey that the Singapore deal was a "Trojan Horse" for free trade arrangements with other countries, a tag senior officials have given to it. He said other bilateral deals would be independently negotiated and scrutinised. ---------------------------------- storyID: 146440 fromname: GATT Watchdog frommessage: NZ Herald on NZ-Singapore FTA submit.x: 21 submit.y: 7 From kevin.li at graduate.hku.hk Wed Aug 2 19:11:46 2000 From: kevin.li at graduate.hku.hk (Kevin Yuk-shing Li) Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 18:11:46 +0800 Subject: [asia-apec 1496] Thailand: Peace Message from the Assembly of the Poor Message-ID: <3987F3E2.6895ECC3@graduate.hku.hk> A peace message to the public from the Assembly of the Poor, Thailand Formerly, we were not poor. We had farmlands and self-reliant livelihoods based on nature, land and the rivers. We were not rich but had never been hungry. When the governments built dams on the land where we had lived and farmed for generation after generation, we protested. The governments used legal measures to evict us and gave us chickenfeed and futile land as compensation for uprooting our lives. So we became poor, or to be more exact, the governments and their rural resources-exploiting urban development approach impoverished us. We were admonished by the governments not to be selfish but to sacrifice for national development. If development doesn't make rural communities as important as urban ones. If it doesn't entitle local communities to manage their resources, nor does it provide sustainable self-sufficiency to each and every indigenous community. But does mean, instead, that thousands of households and abundant natural resources must be ruined in exchange for a few megawatts of electricity, then we're not willing to sacrifice our sustainable resources and the future of our descendants for such worthless development . The Assembly of the Poor came to camp out in front of Government House, time and again. We didn't come to ask for what's not ours. We came to urge the government to mediate to return what we deserve to get. Is it wrong to demand for what has been robbed from us? Is the assembly wrong to ask the government to follow, in good faith if there's any, the recommendations of the neutral committee that was set up by the government itself? Instead of being sympathetic, the government accused the assembly of being greedy, demanding for what's illegal. We have been alleged as mercenary mobsters, trouble-making Lao migrants and funded by overseas groups to decommission dams. We beg you to believe that our rural way of life is simply based on self-sufficient culture. If it has not been for the encroachment of dams on our farmland and rivers, hardly anybody here would know we exist, in front of Government House or wherever. It's ludicrous for the government to argue about illegal demands. Didn't this government revoke several laws and pass the new ones in favour of finance institutions and a handful of minority people who brought on economic crises to the nation so as the whole population have to shoulder the debt burden? The assembly is just a marginalised group of poor people in Thai society. Apart from being greedy, we have always been portrayed as lazy. No matter how loud have we been protesting against such unfair criticism, we have already been judged as all-time social defendants. But what about the actual culprits who have brought on social, economic and political crises and still got away with it? Over the past several days, the assembly has thought it over and asked ourselves "What's most important in our lives?" Houses and farmland; we've already lost them all. The most important thing for us now is our "dignity". Physical assets such as houses, farmland and resources can be taken away from us. But we'll never let ourselves be looked down upon. Though deprived of wealth, we'll not let our human dignity being wrenched from us. We'll stand by dhamma, truth and righteousness. We've realised that to preserve our dignity is to fight for justice and righteousness; not to fight for personal gains. We have to fight to keep our cherished local culture, our rivers, mountains, forests as well as wildlife and riverine animals for the future sake of our descendants. We hold, on our own accord, hunger strike not to torture ourselves but to control our minds. We don't do it in protest of the government or the public at large. We refrain from taking food to maintain dhamma, to communicate the truth about poverty problems. To point out that our poverty doesn't come from personal laziness of any individuals. It is caused and has spread nationwide because of structural system of misdirected development and economic policies. There are at present a great number of hungry people. Our plight is just a mirror of structural hunger of millions of people in this country. While we're fasting, we'll send our loving kindness and well wishes to the government and the policemen who have to be on duty. They are not our enemies. Our actual enemies are unjust economic and social structures, which we, the government and every member of Thai society have to join hands to get rid of. For the government, if it still considers itself as the people's government, it should treat the poor's problems as equally as they did with the economic ones. If the government had guts enough to amend and change legislations, regulations and structural policies to solve problems for the business sector, it must do the same for the sake of the poor. Nevertheless, only the government and the assembly cannot solve all poverty problems. The Thai society's wisdom must be mobilised to find acceptable and fair solutions to all concerned. To find a way out of this plundering of natural resources---symbolised by dams construction---means not only seeking solutions to a few thousand members of the Assembly of the Poor, but will also be an example for other similar structural problems in Thai society. Don't forget that Thai society forms itself in a pyramid shape. If the base of the pyramid that consists of a huge amount of poor people is not strengthened, soon the top of the pyramid will topple no matter how majestic the government tries to make the structure to appear. This should not happen if the government and every member in Thai society still let their social conscience control their action. (Excerpted and translated from the Thai-language message sent to TDSC via the Internet by the Friends of the People, on 28 July 2000) ********************************************************************** Prasittiporn Kan-Onsri [NOI] Friends of the People [FOP.] 99 , 3rd Floor Nakorn Sawan Road Pomprab Bangkok 10100. THAILAND. Tel, Fax: (662) 2811916 , 2812595 email: fopthai@asiaaccess.net.th; fopthai@hotmail.com From amittal at foodfirst.org Fri Aug 4 07:14:14 2000 From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal) Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 15:14:14 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1497] URGENT - PHILLY PHONE #'s AND DEMANDS Message-ID: <0.700000824.73846794-951758591-965340854@topica.com> URGENT CALLS TO PHILADELPHIA CITY OFFICIALS NEEDED TO DEMAND RELEASE OF ALL IMPRISONED AT RNC PROTESTS This is a quick update on the situation in Philadelphia and on the conditions inside the Roundhouse Prison where most arrested have been jailed. There are now up to 100 demonstrating outside of the prison. 150 inside it are on a hunger strike. For people giving their names, bail is being set. For those giving John and Jane Does as names, they're being sent to the Prison Industrial Corrections Complex across the street from Holmsberg Prison. It is estimated that 70 have been released. On conditions inside the Roundhouse Prison, we have read and heard of reports that : 1) For at least 10 hours yesterday, there was no food. 2) Bathroom "privileges" were suspended for awhile. 3) lawyers were being restricted access to clients and individuals jailed were told their lawyers had not come to see them. 4) Lawyers weren't being told by authorities who was incarcerated at the Roundhouse. 5) Reports of police and guard violence against some prisoners. 6) Reports of 8 held in isolation, those identified as organizers and facing more serious charges. 7) Medical needs of some are not being met. 8) A very slow arraignment process, with judges not allowing some lawyers to be present. 9) Some bails are being set at up to $100,000 or higher. A call has gone out for people from around the country to contact the following people: Mayor John Street 215-686-2181 Deputy Commission Mitchell (in charge of Demonstrations) 215-686- 3364 Captain Fisher (head of Civil AFfairs) 215-685-3684 Chief Maxwell (Head of Criminal Investigations) 215-686-3362 Police Commissioner John Timoney 215-686-3149 or 215-686-3388 City Council President Ann Verna 215-686-3442 or 215-686-3412 and 3413. Mayor's Chief of Staff Stuber 215-686-7508 Roundhouse Jail 215-686-1776 or 215-685-8574 Demand or encourage the following: 1) Immediate access to lawyers 2) Speedier arraignments and release 3) Drop the charges 4) Not separate any individuals or put into isolation 5) Equal treatment for all imprisoned 6) Full access to healthcare--medicines--food and bathroom use 7) End harassment of legal observers. Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst@foodfirst.org. ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics From notoapec at clear.net.nz Sat Aug 5 03:39:19 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 11:39:19 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1498] Open Letter to Director of NZ Security Intelligence Service Re Mike Moore/WTO Message-ID: <000401bffe43$8b5dafa0$2ecda7cb@notoapec> GATT WATCHDOG PO BOX 1905 CHRISTCHURCH AOTEAROA/NEW ZEALAND OPEN LETTER TO DIRECTOR OF THE NZ SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE RE NEW ZEALAND VISIT OF WTO DIRECTOR-GENERAL MIKE MOORE Mr Richard Woods Director of Security New Zealand Security Intelligence Service PO Box 600 WELLINGTON 3 August 2000 Dear Mr Woods, We write to draw the attention of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service to the upcoming New Zealand visit of Mr Mike Moore, Director-General of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and to urge your Service to act swiftly to protect New Zealand?s international and economic wellbeing from the impact of the foreign-influenced capabilities, intentions or activities generated by Mr Moore and the WTO. We believe that Mr Moore and the WTO constitute "a range of new and emerging external threats to New Zealand?s security" (Security In New Zealand Today; NZSIS;1998; p13). We understand that New Zealand?s small intelligence and security community aims to "protect and promote New Zealand?s defence, foreign policy and national economic interests". Being an intelligence organisation, the NZSIS must know all about the devastating impacts that trade and investment liberalisation is having on communities throughout New Zealand. Beginning with the job losses caused by tariff cuts, the frighteningly high level of transnational corporate ownership of vital infrastructure, the land sold to infamous criminals like the Suharto family, increasing income disparities between rich and poor, and so on. These kinds of things are often justified in the name of New Zealand?s commitments to the global free market economy which the WTO maintains and promotes. In Parliament, Mr Moore was a strong supporter of the NZSIS. But he has now gone on to ther things. He is the figurehead for a powerful international organisation which operates in a clandestine, unaccountable manner, which makes enforceable decisions that can undermine existing national laws and which could well constrain future governments from charting their own course of economic, political and social development. The WTO claims to operate by consensus. Yet really it is dominated by a "quad" of powerful governments (USA, Japan, the EU, and Canada) who then try to impose their decisions on other WTO members. Negotiating positions and the contents of agreements at the WTO are closely guarded secrets until they have been signed when it is far too late for any of us to do anything about them. Indeed even former Director-General of the GATT Secretariat, Arthur Dunkel, at a seminar of prominent WTO supporters last year, raised the question regarding the WTO "who is driving the process in trade policy ? governments or the business community?" The NZSIS takes an active interest in "the threat to New Zealand?s security from extremist groups dedicated to overthrowing or undermining parliamentary democracy" (p13 Security In New Zealand Today). The WTO, along with other vehicles which promote the global free market economy clearly threatens "parliamentary democracy". It is hardly surprising that the Clerk of the House, David McGee, said that "international agreements are driving domestic law to a far greater extent than they were before". The WTO is clearly a subversive organisation. This has been corroborated internationally. We note that last week in Islamabad, Pakistani organisations concerned about the impact of WTO agreements on Pakistan described Mr Moore as a "terrorist", and the WTO as a "terrorist organisation". The WTO acknowledges that it undermines Parliamentary democracy. For example, last year it published "The 10 benefits of the WTO Trading System" (available on its Website) which conclude: "Quite often, governments use the WTO as a welcome external constraint on their policies: "we can?t do this because it would violate the WTO agreements."" Given that the WTO operates in "clandestine ways to achieve their objectives" (p17, Security In New Zealand Today) we presume you will seek a warrant to intercept Mr Moore?s communications now and in the future. We would however suggest some prior training in the art of breaking and entering as we are a little concerned at the level of skill level displayed by some of your officers in the past. Besides his involvement in a very shadowy organisation, in his role as Director-General of the WTO, Mr Moore?s appearance incites trouble. We are sure that the Service will have noted the mass mobilisations of many thousands of people in Seattle at last year?s WTO Ministerial Meeting and perhaps similar events surrounding his various international fixtures since becoming WTO Director-General. We realise we have not always seen eye to eye with your Service. But as your predecessor Don McIver states, the NZSIS relies "on the support and assistance of other ordinary New Zealanders to do our work effectively" (Security In New Zealand Today, p6), and we are just trying to do our bit. We attach a copy of GATT Watchdog?s factsheet on the WTO to help you and your organisation plan your operations against Mr Moore and the WTO. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you need further information about Mr Moore and his dangerous organisation. Sincerely Aziz Choudry GATT Watchdog From jaggi at vcn.bc.ca Sat Aug 5 21:32:38 2000 From: jaggi at vcn.bc.ca (Jaggi Singh) Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 05:32:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [asia-apec 1499] subscribe to ftaa-l (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 07:36:32 -0400 (EDT) From: la C.L.A.C. [Please post and forward] ftaa-l is a new international e-mail list about the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and the upcoming Summit of the Americas meeting in Quebec City (April 2001). The FTAA is the proposed extension of NAFTA to the entire hemisphere (except Cuba) by 2005. ftaa-l is intended to share information, analysis, announcements, news, opinion articles, organizing and protest info, direct action reports, and hard-to-find corporate or government insider information, related to the FTAA negotiations and the Summit of the Americas process. ftaa-l is for activists, researchers, organizers, writers, independent journalists, and individuals, anywhere in the world, who approach the FTAA and globalization issues with a critical perspective -- ranging from reformist alternatives to more radical analyses. It is also intended as a resource for grassroots mobilization efforts against the FTAA, and capitalism more generally. Keep in mind that ftaa-l is NOT a discussion list, but rather an information resource; as such, it is moderated. ftaa-l is an English language list. zlea-l is the corresponding French language list, while alca-l is both the Spanish and Portuguese list. To subscribe to ftaa-l, send an e-mail message, with a blank subject line, to with the following text: subscribe You can similarly subscribe to zlea-l and alca-l. To talk to the list moderators directly, or for more information, e-mail: or . ---------------------------- ftaa-l ----------------------------- resisting the FTAA and capitalist globalization mobilizing for Quebec City, April 2001 creating alternatives ----- to subscribe to ftaa-l, send a message to: with the following text only: subscribe ---------------------------- ftaa-l ----------------------------- From notoapec at clear.net.nz Mon Aug 7 14:36:50 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 22:36:50 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1500] Australian Trade Policy - Ashton Calvert Message-ID: <000601c00031$7dfe7700$e784a7cb@notoapec> Excerpt from: >Speech: Australia's Foreign and Trade Policy Agenda >3 August 2000 >SPEECH by Dr Ashton Calvert, Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs >and Trade, to the National Press Club > >> OUR TRADE POLICY AGENDA > >Australia's key multilateral trade objective is to launch a new round of >trade negotiations in the WTO at the earliest opportunity. > >Australia, like all WTO members, has a vital interest in the global trading >system, and the potential benefits of a new round for both developed and >developing countries are enormous. > >The OECD estimates that a new round would boost world economic output by 3 >per cent, and DFAT's own analysis finds that global welfare gains from >halving current trade barriers would be about US$400 billion annually. > >Last year, we worked hard to build support for a new multilateral trade >round, but not all differences could be bridged, particularly in new and >contentious areas. > >Significant differences remain over anti-dumping, investment and competition >policies, labour standards and the inter-relationship between trade and the >environment. > >Achieving convergence on these matters will require leadership from the >United States and the EU, more effective dialogue with developing countries >about their particular concerns, and flexibility on all sides. > >There has been some recent momentum favouring an early round - in APEC, the >OECD and the G8. > >Trade Minister Vaile has been in close contact with Commissioner Lamy, USTR >Barshefsky and his ministerial counterparts in Asia and the Cairns Group in >an effort to forge a consensus. > >However, with the approaching US presidential elections, a launch of a new >round is now unlikely until next year. > >In the interim, Australia will press ahead vigorously with mandated >negotiations which have resumed in Geneva on agriculture and services, and >will encourage further preparatory work on industrial tariffs and non-tariff >measures. > >Mr Vaile will chair a meeting of the Cairns Group in October in Canada to >develop new proposals for negotiations on agriculture. > >The successful settlement of the Howe leather and Canadian salmon disputes >has served to focus attention on the WTO dispute -settlement process and how >it can be used to protect and pursue Australia's trade interests. > >Our record in initiating dispute action - on US lamb, prawns and music >copyright protection, on Canadian dairy assistance, Indian quantitative >restrictions, Hungarian export subsidies and Korean beef - highlights the >active role Mr Vaile intends to pursue in this area. > >The Department has established a dispute investigation and enforcement >mechanism to help exporters identify where WTO challenges can advance their >interests. > >Domestically, issues such as Australia's relationship with the WTO, >prospects for a new round, trade liberalisation and globalisation more >generally have continued to feature in public debate. > >At Mr Vaile's initiative, the Department has been active in analysing and >explaining the benefits improved market access will deliver to regional >communities in Australia. > >DFAT has a key role in broadening domestic understanding and support for >trade liberalisation, and I place importance on continuing industry and >public consultation in the formation of Australia's multilateral trading >policies. > >APEC continues to mature in a way that reflects well on its Australian >parentage, and is now the major forum for AsiaPacific leaders, ministers and >officials to pursue strengthened regional linkages. > >APEC played a particularly successful role in maintaining commitment to >trade liberalisation during the East Asian financial crisis and remains a >strong coalition in support of the multilateral trading system. > >Ministers at the recent Trade Ministers' meeting in Darwin reinforced their >commitment to the launch of a new round of negotiations in the WTO, >including through a strategic plan to develop the capacity of developing >APEC economies to implement VVTO agreements. > >Behind the headlines, the 'nuts and bolts' work of APEC is facilitating >business in a very concrete and direct way. > >Looking to the future, APEC will, of course, maintain its focus on >liberalisation and facilitation of trade and investment and provide economic >and technical cooperation in pursuit of these goals. > >But issues like economic and corporate governance, competition policy and >legal infrastructure are also being pursued. > >Finally on the trade front, I want to comment on the growth in interest in >Free Trade Agreements in the Asia-Pacific region. > >Australia takes a pragmatic and flexible approach to FTAs. > >Although we continue to believe that the multilateral system offers the most >benefits for a medium-sized economy with diverse exports to a wide range of >markets, we will not be hidebound by an ideological attachment to >multilateralism. > >We will pursue bilateral or regional agreements where they deliver >substantial gains across the Australian economy which could not be achieved >in a similar timeframe elsewhere. > >As part of Australia's commitment to deepening its regional engagement, we >are currently involved in a feasibility study of an FTA between Australia, >New Zealand and the ASEAN Free Trade Area. > >This is an important priority for the Department. > >A report by a Task Force on which the former Trade Minister, Mr Fischer, is >participating, is expected to be considered by governments in October. > >We are also in active discussion with Japan and the Republic of Korea on >ways of enhancing and broadening our economic and commercial relationships. > >We are looking, in particular, at initiatives in the area of e-commerce, >services, competition policy and trade facilitation. > >A proposal has been made for a regional FTA spanning the Pacific involving >the United States, Chile, New Zealand, Singapore and Australia. > >Australia is ready to look constructively at any initiative which can >benefit our exporters. >The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website is located at - >www.dfat.gov.au > >See also www.australia.org.nz > > > From notoapec at clear.net.nz Mon Aug 7 05:08:41 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (notoapec@clear.net.nz) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 08:08:41 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [asia-apec 1501] NZ Herald - Message-ID: <200008062008.IAA20084@waklwh3.wilsonandhorton.co.nz> 07/08/00 - Moore calls in on Samuels in WTO break By AUDREY YOUNG Mike Moore, on leave from his job as Director-General of the World Trade Organisation, is staying in the Far North with sacked Maori Affairs Minister Dover Samuels, an old friend. The former Labour Prime Minister said it was inappropriate for him to comment on Mr Samuels' situation but he was willing to talk about his first year in the WTO and the protests he had encountered in most countries. "It's a walk in the park compared to internal Labour politics." It is believed that Mr Moore has kept in close touch with developments through his friends in Labour's right faction. It includes Justice Minister Phil Goff, Police Minister George Hawkins, Trade Negotiations Minister Jim Sutton and Mr Samuels, and is based as much on a sense of kinship with Mr Moore as on politics. When Mr Moore was back in New Zealand in January, he also holidayed with Mr Samuels, whose family runs a motel at Matauri Bay. Mr Samuels was a strong supporter of Mr Moore in 1993, when Helen Clark deposed Mr Moore as Labour leader. It was not a popular move among Maori, and Mr Samuels, as Maori vice-president of Labour, later played a prominent role in getting Maori to accept her leadership. He was elected to Parliament in 1996 on the list. Now Prime Minister, she sacked Mr Samuels on June 28 amid allegations of an unlawful relationship with a teenager 14 years ago and suggestions of further allegations to come. The findings of the police report which investigated rape complaints by the woman has not yet been released. Mr Samuels revealed to Parliament last week that he had five convictions. Helen Clark says he disclosed only one to the Labour Party. Mr Moore will head to Wellington on Wednesday for talks with the Government, and on Friday will receive the Order of New Zealand, the highest honour in the country. In anticipation of Mr Moore's return, the anti-WTO group Gatt Watchdog (Gatt was the predecessor of the WTO) wrote to the Security Intelligence Service (SIS) last week suggesting it keep him under watch in its role of safeguarding New Zealand's economic interests. The letter was under the name of Aziz Choudry, who successfully challenged in the courts a pre-Apec summit search of his home by SIS officers. "Being an intelligence organisation, the NZSIS must know all about the devastating impacts that trade and investment liberalisation is having on communities throughout New Zealand, beginning with job losses caused by tariff cuts, the frighteningly high level of transnational corporate ownership of vital infrastructure, the land sold to infamous criminals like the Suharto family, increasing income disparities between rich and poor, and so on. "Given that the WTO operates in clandestine ways to achieve their objective we presume you will seek a warrant to intercept Mr Moore's communications now and in the future," Mr Choudry wrote to Richard Woods, the director of security. "We would however suggest some prior training in the art of breaking and entering as we are a little concerned at the level of skill displayed by some of your officers in the past." ---------------------------------- storyID: 146942 fromname: GATT Watchdog frommessage: NZ Herald, 7 August 2000 submit.x: 41 submit.y: 19 From notoapec at clear.net.nz Mon Aug 7 05:21:11 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (notoapec@clear.net.nz) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 08:21:11 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [asia-apec 1502] NZ Herald - Message-ID: <200008062021.IAA20823@waklwh3.wilsonandhorton.co.nz> New Zealand Herald 07/08/00 Dialogue: Proposed free-trade agreement with Singapore defies Govt's commitment to nation-building By JANE KELSEY* If the Government proposed a domestic law along the lines of the free-trade agreement it has been negotiating with Singapore since last December, all hell would have broken loose by now. Yet it is only in the past fortnight that media commentators and others have started to appreciate the agreement's significance. Secrecy has quarantined the negotiations from effective public or parliamentary scrutiny. Despite this, a number of clues have emerged. These suggest that the Government is about to sign an agreement that locks in many of the free-market policies of the past 16 years. These commitments will make it difficult, and in some cases impossible, to deliver on the Government's core commitments to regional economic development, nation-building in services like education and broadcasting, settlement of Treaty of Waitangi claims, and "closing the gaps." For Labour, this reflects the intrinsic contradiction of its policies that seek to embrace both globalisation and nation-building. Support from the Alliance would mean abandoning that party's fundamental principles and a major point of demarcation with Labour, leaving the Greens to carry the banner of economic nationalism. The agreement will basically require New Zealand's central and local government to treat Singaporean products, service providers and investors as well as, or better than, our own. In theory, Singapore will promise to do the same. That seems doubtful, however, given Singapore's strong state oversight of economic and social life. The playing field will be far from level, especially given the huge disparities of economic power between investors and producers in the two countries. Ministers and officials discount such concerns because both countries are virtually tariff-free and operate liberal economic regimes. Why, then, put so much effort into securing an agreement? First, to lock in the levels of zero tariffs, market-driven service regimes, and the largely unregulated foreign investment regime. Secondly, to establish a model agreement to cover a broader band of countries, notably Australia and Asean. The promise not to discriminate in favour of New Zealand interests is hard to reconcile with the Government's much-heralded commitment to regional economic development, which seeks to reintegrate business, investment, jobs and local communities. Indeed, even though the options for regional development will be fettered by this agreement, local government has not been "consulted" until last week, and at its request. That inconsistency is highlighted by the proposal to exempt Singapore from the tariff freeze on textiles, clothing and footwear, which the Government legislated several months ago to support the struggling domestic industry. Negotiators say only a small quantity of such goods is imported from Singapore, so it will make no difference. But they have also agreed to lower local-content requirements than apply to Australia under CER. That and slack enforcement mean that Singapore will be used as the back door for products made elsewhere, just as it was for stolen second-hand Japanese imported cars. Even a small increase in tariff-free clothing imports could tip the balance for the domestic industry. Given that most of its workers are Maori and Pacific Islands women, located in the regions, it is hardly a contribution to economic development and closing the gaps. Many positive initiatives for closing the gaps, such as the recent privileges for Maori in the auction of radio frequencies, are also likely to breach the commitment not to discriminate. The Government has proposed a clause that would reserve its ability to implement its Treaty of Waitangi obligations, but recent reports suggest even that is in jeopardy because Singapore wants to exempt its investors from the impact of any treaty settlements. Singapore has also played hardball on labour standards. Despite the Government's stance at the World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting in Seattle last November that core labour and environmental standards should be written into international trade agreements, Singapore has rejected such demands. That's not surprising, given that many of its exports are produced under conditions that breach core International Labour Organisation labour codes, especially goods produced within offshore free-trade zones. The real gains for Singapore lie in the areas of services and investment, raising further contradictions with the Government's domestic policies. Without the text, it is impossible to identify the range of public services that will be affected. We do know that it will extend present WTO commitments not to discriminate against foreign tertiary education providers, thereby limiting the prospects for rebuilding a strong public education system. Officials say that simply reflects the present education regime. But the Government asked a tertiary education advisory commission to advise it on how to replace the market model of education with one committed to nation-building. Another potential casualty is the much-heralded, but yet to be delivered, introduction of local-content broadcasting quotas. Both the WTO services agreement and CER already prohibit the introduction of such quotas, without compensation. That problem will be compounded if similar promises are reiterated in this agreement. The Multilateral Agreement on Investments-style investment commitments are also expected to lock the present regime into an enforceable international agreement for the first time. That means a threshold value of $50 million before foreign investors need to apply for approval and the absence of any national interest criteria. Hence, the unique restriction on foreign ownership of fisheries quotas that allowed the Government to reject recent foreign bids for Sealord could not be extended to other natural resources, public utilities or strategic industries. A further influx of Singaporean investments in property and existing businesses will also fuel the account deficit of 104 per cent of gross domestic product and a foreign debt of 106 per cent. Agreements like these make a mockery of democracy and sovereignty. It is not enough to consult people without telling them the content, or say that they can make submissions to the select committee after the agreement is signed. By then, the Government has committed itself irrevocably, and the cabinet retains the final say. Labour has to recognise that it can't have global free markets and nation-building. The Alliance has to remember what it stands for. * Jane Kelsey lectures in law at the University of Auckland. ---------------------------------- storyID: 146841 fromname: GATT Watchdog frommessage: submit.x: 28 submit.y: 4 From notoapec at clear.net.nz Tue Aug 8 07:02:10 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 15:02:10 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1503] Re NZ Herald article (correction) Message-ID: <001001c000bb$23bac160$6a84a7cb@notoapec> Re Jane Kelsey's op-ed piece that was circulated on the Singapore-NZ "closer economic partnership" earlier today. There is an error in it. The last sentence in the third to final paragraph should have read: "A further influx of Singaporean investments in property and existing businesses will also fuel the current account deficit of 8.2% of GDP and a foreign debt of 105% of GDP." Aziz Choudry GATT Watchdog From notoapec at clear.net.nz Tue Aug 8 09:05:27 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (notoapec@clear.net.nz) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 12:05:27 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [asia-apec 1504] NZ Herald - Message-ID: <200008080005.MAA21001@waklwh3.wilsonandhorton.co.nz> New Zealand Herald 08/08/00 - Mike Moore, global salesman By AUDREY YOUNG Mike Moore encountered a bit of grief from protesters in Pakistan on his way back to New Zealand for a break. As Director-General of the World Trade Organisation, he is used to that sort of trouble. He does not feel terribly threatened by it, he told the Herald. "We get demonstrators in most places we go to. There's no big deal - 'Food for people, not for export,' whatever that means. "I feel rather humble that I'm the first New Zealander to be burned in effigy in more than one continent. "And it's a walk in the park compared to internal Labour politics." Mr Moore, wit intact after a year in the job, has been resting in Matauri Bay, Northland, for a few days with his old friend Dover Samuels, sacked as Minister of Maori Affairs before the completion of a police investigation into a relationship 14 years ago with a teenager. The two share an even stronger bond now because both can claim to have been knifed by Prime Minister Helen Clark - she deposed Mr Moore as Labour leader in 1993. However, Mr Moore is far too tactful to say so, nor does he feel it is appropriate to comment on the Samuels matter. On the world stage, he straddles the extremes of the powerful and the poor, so it should be no surprise that he chooses to spend time with an outcast and downcast old friend before the Governor-General pins the insignia of the nation's highest award, the Order of New Zealand, to his chest at Government House on Friday. It has been an exciting year for the irrepressible Mr Moore, but he welcomes a holiday from running the Geneva-based organisation that can argue for two hours on the word "possible" and three hours about how to consult on how it will consult. "It's like having 136 members of a Parliament with no Speaker, no whips, just a general debate that goes on and on." He has made visiting Parliaments and their influential committees part of his routine. "We've got to make Parliament believe, in truth not just in PR, that they own this place." He mentions with pride international political agencies that he is building up relations with, such as the Socialist International, Liberal International, Democratic Union - "relationships that we've never had before." There is also his public relations war against the anti-free-trade left, which he counters with simple arguments. "The contradiction of the left," he told a socialist youth meeting in Sweden last month, "is that on church on Sunday we give generously to flood victims in Bangladesh. Then on Monday we petition the Government to stop the Bangladeshis selling their garments in our country." The left is no fan of Mr Moore. Auckland University law lecturer and WTO monitor Jane Kelsey believes he is too dismissive of critics and accuses him of not entering into intellectual dialogue with them. She says he is doing a good job on behalf of his critics because he is adding to the "unsustainability" of the WTO with messages the world does not want to hear. "He would think he is doing a good job because he is out there unwaveringly remaining as an evangelist for free trade and its virtues and the WTO. "People aren't buying that line any more." The verdict of the pro-liberalisation lobby would differ. As one Washington trade specialist put it, Mr Moore has played an exceptionally good hand after inheriting "a God-awful mess." President Bill Clinton and his Administration, not the newly appointed Mr Moore, took most of the blame for the fiasco of the ministerial meeting in Seattle last December. Seattle saw not only uncontrolled battles on the streets but intransigence and, effectively, sabotage in pursuit of domestic political agendas, making the summit a crash landing instead of the launch-pad for a new millennium round. As Mr Moore said in a recent interview: "A lot of people here are saying Seattle was a blessing in disguise. Well I think it was bloody well disguised." Protesters may have claimed credit for the failure of Seattle, he says, but "alas, we didn't need their help." But he points out that ministerial meetings have flopped before. And sector negotiations in agriculture and services have got under way since then. "The problem created for Mike going into Seattle," explains Washington trade lawyer Peter Watson "was the fact that it is a little like building an aeroplane." "Which is to say when you try to develop a critical mass of agreement of people driving towards an agreement like you sought ... in Seattle, once that aeroplane falls out of the sky, you've got to rebuild the whole thing again - you cannot just pick up where you left off." New Zealand-born Mr Watson is well qualified to assess Mr Moore's performance since Seattle from the pro-trade viewpoint. He is a former chairman of the United States International Trade Commission and spent two years in the White House as trade lawyer acting for Governments and businesses involved daily with WTO issues. He rates Mr Moore very highly in applying his talents to the new dynamics of the WTO, in which there is greater emphasis on rebuilding a consensus among the small and the poor, not just the powerful so-called quad of Japan, Canada, the United States and the European Union. "I think he has served not only the WTO and international interests well, he has distinguished himself as a great New Zealand diplomat. "I know there are people in New Zealand who will find that very hard to believe. There's a love-to-hate Mike Moore cadre in New Zealand, and it's pretty deep and it's pretty wide. "But the fact of the matter is he has distinguished himself in being able to balance these many different competing qualities and equities and different country groups and weightings." Mr Watson says Mr Moore's drive to make progress in trade liberalisation in developing countries is likely to be the legacy of his three-year term, before Thailand's Deputy Prime Minister, Supachai Panitchpakdi, assumes the helm. "It is critical that you be able to wrap your arms around this disparate group of countries and bring them into an emerging consensus towards a commencement of a new round." Mr Moore himself says he is "in danger" of enjoying the job, despite an exhausting travel schedule. Ask him how he likes Geneva, and he says: "Look, I discovered it the other day. Seriously, I don't know the name of the street I'm in." The visits he places greatest store by are the ones associated with the developing countries in Africa and the Caribbean and groupings such as the Organisation of African Unity and the developing G77. He relates his strategy to his experience as an MP. "You start off with the most neglected part of your electorate and build your strength up from that new centre you're creating." Many poorer countries do not have the developed technical infrastructure at their borders or within their Governments to handle complex trade deals. Some within the WTO have had problems coming to grips with the complexities of the seven-year Uruguay round, let alone embarking on a new one. Mr Moore talks a lot about the Integrated Framework for helping poor countries joining the global economy. It is his aim to deliver trade-related technical help to the United Nations' 48 least-developed countries. He played a key role in a New York meeting last month of the six international agencies involved in the Integrated Framework, including the WTO, International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. But the task is huge, and Mr Moore acknowledges that it is a slow and difficult process. "The problems of Africa are just chilling. If you've got any tears left to shed, shed them. You go to countries where 25 per cent of the people are HIV." For now, it is feet-up and chill-out time for Mr Moore. Not even the rugby in Wellington on Saturday could drag him away from his beloved North, where he was born. "I just want to sleep. I'm stuffed." * This article was based on interviews last week and eight weeks ago. ---------------------------------- storyID: 147057 fromname: GATT Watchdog frommessage: submit.x: 21 submit.y: 7 From bayan at iname.com Wed Aug 9 09:14:58 2000 From: bayan at iname.com (BAYAN) Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 17:14:58 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1505] PCIJ Article on Estrada's Wealth Message-ID: Dear comrades and friends, This is a two-part series on the Estrada wealth. Unfortunately, the bigger papers in Manila didn't run the story, so we are circulating it on the Net. For more details of the story, visit the PCIJ Website at http://www.pcij.org or http://www.pcij.org.ph. Public Information Department Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN, New Patriotic Alliance) The State of the President's Finances CAN ESTRADA EXPLAIN HIS WEALTH? by Yvonne T. Chua, Sheila S. Coronel and Vinia M. Datinguinoo Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism ? (First of Two Parts) PRESIDENT ESTRADA says his life is an open book. He does not deny the complications of his private life that he has several mistresses, and that he has sired children by them. The President, however, has not exactly been forthright about the financial aspects of his private life and the complex ethical issues such as conflicts of interest posed by the many and varied business involvements of his various families. In his statements of assets, for example, Estrada does not declare his participation in about a dozen companies in which he and his wife are major investors and board members. Neither do his asset declarations give an idea of the magnitude of the business interests that he and his families are engaged in. In the course of several months, we obtained and examined 66 corporate records in which Estrada, his wives and his children are listed as incorporators or board members. Altogether, these companies 31 of which were set up during Estrada s vice-presidential term and 11 since he assumed the presidency had an authorized capital of P893.4 million when they were registered. The President and his family members had shares of P121.5 million and paid up P58.6 million of these when the companies were formed. ?It is difficult to estimate how much these businesses are now worth because of incomplete data at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). But based on available 1998 and 1999 financial statements, 14 of the 66 companies alone have assets of over P600 million. ?It is not clear from the President s official asset declarations over the last 12 years where the funds to invest in so many corporations come from. Moreover, neither the President nor his immediate family members acknowledge that many of their businesses involve the government, either in the acquisition of permits and clearances or in the award of contracts. Today, as the President gives an accounting of the state of the nation, he should also be making an accounting of the state, and the source, of his and his families finances. This becomes an urgent issue because of the lavish lifestyles of the President s various households. Two of Estrada s women companions Laarni Enriquez and Joy Melendrez live in posh quarters in Wack-Wack, Mandaluyong City and Green Meadows, Quezon City. According to land records, none of these residences are registered in their names or the President s. Estrada's wives and children have also been seen riding a fleet of imported expensive vehicles, including a Jaguar, a Range Rover and several Mercedes Benzes each of which costs millions of pesos. But neither the President s statement of assets nor his most recent income tax declaration can explain where he got the wherewithal to support the extravagance of his loved ones. In 1999, Estrada declared in his statement of assets a net worth of P35.8 million and in his income tax return, a net income of P2.3 million. In Wack-Wack, for example, land values are currently at P40,000 per square meter. Enriquez s residence since the mid-1990s is at 771 Harvard Street; it is on property that covers more than 1,000 square meters and is listed under the name of Jacinto Ng Sr., one of the President s closest friends. The land alone is worth over P40 million.? Rentals for a typical Wack-Wack house would easily run to more than P100,000 a month or P1.2 million a year, about half of Estrada s declared net income in 1999. A recent visit to Wack-Wack revealed that the Enriquez house was being renovated. Earlier this year, Enriquez was reported to be building another Wack-Wack mansion at 796 Harvard Street, on a 5,000-square meter property registered, according to land records, under KB Space Holdings, a company owned by Ng. It is obvious from this example that official declarations as contained in Estrada s statement of assets and income tax return do not provide an accurate picture of the magnitude of the President s and his families wealth. At the same time, what Estrada declares are in themselves problematic. R.A. 6713 mandates that all public officials file every year the acquisition cost and the assessed and fair market values of their real property. In addition, they should also list other personal property as well as their investments, the cash they have on hand or in banks, their financial liabilities, and their business interests and financial connections. Since his election to the Senate in 1987, Estrada has consistently declared interests in only four corporations: JELP Real Estate Development Corp., J. E. Inc., Feluisa Development Corp. and Felt Food Inc. The first three are real estate companies, with JELP appearing to be the biggest.? In a 1998 financial statement submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), JELP declared assets worth P194.2 million, mostly buildings and real estate valued at P147.2 million, or more than double its 1997 real estate assets of P58.8 million. None of these assets, however, are listed in Estrada s declaration, even if he and his wife jointly own 70 percent of JELP s shares. Moreover, none of JELP s liabilities of P188 million are declared in Estrada s statements. Presumably, some of this money went to the acquisition of nearly P90 million worth of real property in 1998 alone. It would interest Filipinos which banks, institutions or individuals lent Estrada so much money in the year of his election. Incorporated on November 18, 1992, a few months after he was elected vice president, JELP began operating with a paid-up capital of P14.4 million, only P3 million of which was in cash. It is difficult to determine how the company built up its asset base and how it funded its real estate purchases from 1993 to 1996 because it has not complied with SEC requirements to file annual financial statements.? It was only in 1997, a year before Estrada was to run for the presidency, that JELP suddenly filed its financial statements.? By then, it reported assets of P116.3 million, of which P58.8 million was real property. In 1998, the year Estrada became president, JELP reported assets of P194.2 million, an increase of nearly P78 million despite the Asian crisis and the slump in real estate prices.? Of these assets, P147.2 million was real property. Estrada also did not include in any of his statements of assets since 1987 his and his wife s shareholdings in 11 companies. A check with the SEC shows Estrada or his wife Luisa Pimentel were incorporators or shareholders of, among others, Millennium Cinema Inc., JE Films and Video One Corp., and JOI s Food Corp., none of which were listed in the President s asset declarations in the last 12 years. Yet, when we queried Malaca?ang about these issues in late April this year, Press Secretary Ricardo Puno told us to wait until the President s accountants and lawyers were available to provide answers. Subsequent follow-ups since then did not yield any answers. Puno also declined to say who these lawyers and accountants were. The problem with R.A. 6713, which requires government officials to declare their assets every year, is that it asks these officials to make public the assets only of their spouses and children under 18. Framers of the law apparently never foresaw a president like Estrada who would openly acknowledge relationships with other women and children out of wedlock. The problem becomes even bigger when several of these extramarital liaisons yield mistresses and children who are actively involved in business. Yet, other laws like the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act recognize the potential of people with family or otherwise close personal relation with any public official to take advantage of such a relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any present, gift or material or pecuniary advantage from any other person having some business, transaction, application, request or contract with the government, in which such public official has to intervene. The law includes such relationships as close personal, social and fraternal connections, and professional employment all giving rise to intimacy which assures free access to a public official. Presumably, mistresses and illegitimate children fall under this category. The law on unlawfully acquired property, on the other hand, raises the possibility that ownership of property can be concealed by recording it in the name of, or held by, a public official s spouse, crony or relatives. These laws become pertinent particularly in the light of the multi-faceted business involvements particularly of Guia Gomez, with whom President Estrada has acknowledged having a long-term relationship, and her 31-year old son Jose Victor JV Ejercito. Gomez, who admits to her entrepreneurial inclinations in newspaper interviews, appears to be the most business-minded among the President s women companions. A check with the SEC shows that Gomez is listed as having shareholdings in 33 companies involved in real estate, food, office machinery, trading and semiconductors. Her son is a shareholder in 11 of these companies, although on his own, he is an incorporator and stockholder of eight other firms. Also listed as shareholder in two of the Gomez companies is Joel O. Ejercito; his sister, Ma. Theresa O. Ejercito, is stockholder in five. Both are the President s children with Peachy Osorio, a movie director s daughter with whom he had a relationship before his marriage to the First Lady. >From the records, it appears that Gomez s core businesses are real estate and trading. She owns at least seven real estate companies, with a combined authorized capitalization of over P200 million. It is, however, difficult to determine from SEC figures the real assets, including land and other property, of these corporations. For example, EG Properties alone, formed on November 23, 1998, shortly after Estrada was elected president, has an authorized capital of P100 million, P25 million of which has been paid up, half by Gomez and the rest by JV, Joel and Ma. Theresa Ejercito, and one Joey G. Estrada. Another real estate company, Meiji Inc., is developing a housing estate in Cavite. It? has an authorized capital of P100 million, P7 million of which was paid up when it was established on June 24, 1992, the year Estrada became vice president. Gomez holds the biggest number of shares and had paid up P4 million of her P16-million subscribed capital when the firm was registered.? Son JV is the next biggest shareholder after his mother. Other real estate companies listed in Gomez s name are Grandmeadows Properties Inc., El Pueblo Builders Inc., Apex Land Inc., All Time Realty Consultants and Managers Inc., and JV&G Inc. There is, of course, no law that prevents presidential mistresses from engaging in business. What is worrisome is when these businesses engage in transactions that involve the government. For example, housing projects have to comply with zoning and environmental regulations. Real estate firms can also avail themselves of loans from government financial institutions. In defense of his and his mother s business practices, JV Ejercito has said, We are businesspeople and we have been in the past 10 years. We never dealt with any government projects since my father is a public official, and we will continue avoiding deals with the government. This becomes a tricky statement considering that JV is the biggest shareholder in the now-inactive Best World Construction Corp., an affiliate of the controversial BW Resources Corp., which is currently involved in an insider trading scandal. JV s core business is real estate development. His Buildworth Development Corp. constructs houses and condominiums. As anyone who has done even minor construction work knows, construction involves obtaining a slew of government clearances and permits. JV also has a lending company, Foremost Credit Resources, in which he, too, is the biggest shareholder. Gomez is also into trading of various products, including food, biological products, office equipment, semiconductor materials, machinery and chemicals.? Her dozen trading companies include Xytox Corp., Bioconcepts International Inc., Personal Shopper Inc., Poongsan Precision Phils. Inc., Gazelle Distribution System Inc., Stallion Intertrades Center Inc., Paisa International Inc., Micro-Biomass International Inc., Rainbowman International (Manila) Inc., and Trumpet Marketing International. Gomez is active in the labor recruitment business as well, having formed four job placement companies Monde Quality Services Inc., Job Employment Staffing Assistance and Allied Services Inc., Powerhouse Staffbuilders International Inc., and Gomez-Orozco Recruitment Agency Co. Like the First Lady, Gomez has her share of restaurants that operate under GTWJ Food Corp., Paisa Champagne Bar Inc. and Gomez-Antonio Enterprises Inc. Meanwhile, the President s other woman companion, Laarni Enriquez, has six companies to her name, some of which include her brothers as incorporators. Star J Management Corp., which she formed in 1996 with the President s brother Jesus, sister Pilarica and presidential buddy Jaime Dichaves, operates the Star J Plaza, a mall in Malabon whose ownership, according to a document displayed in the lobby of the mall, is under the name of Jacinto Ng.? Enriquez also owns Star J Bingo and Star J Games, which operate the bingo parlor and bowling alley at the Malabon mall. ?On the other hand, the First Lady and her children are mainly into real estate, restaurants and entertainment. Apart from JELP, Estrada, the First Lady and their children formed the Feluisa Development Corp. They have restaurants listed under five food companies: Felt Food Services, JOI s Food Corp., 24K International Food Inc., ADE Food Inc. and All Hot Soup Inc. ?In the entertainment business, the Estradas invested in Millennium Cinema Inc., formed in 1999, and which is reported to be the fastest-rising film production company these days, and JE Films and Video One Inc. ?(To be continued) ? The State of the President s Finances Estrada s Entrepreneurial Families ? ? by Yvonne T. Chua, Sheila S. Coronel and Vinia M. Datinguinoo Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism ?Conclusion IN 1998, Jose Victor JV Ejercito, then 29 years old, became the biggest shareholder of the newly formed Best World Construction Corp., an affiliate of BW Resources Corp., the gaming company now in the dock for stock manipulation and insider trading. Apart from Ejercito, the other incorporators of the construction firm were businessman Dante Tan, a key figure in the BW scandal; Tan s lawyer Jose Salvador M. Rivera Jr.; Francis Ablan, who was named BW chairman early this year;? and Malaysian businessman Kenneth Eswaran, Tan s business associate who is a major shareholder of another BW affiliate, Best World Gaming & Entertainment Corp. Corporate records show that the other shareholders of Best World Gaming include Tan, and lawyer Rivera both of them JV Ejercito s business partners in Best World Construction. In December 1998, the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. (Pagcor), the government s casino company, gave Best World Gaming the sole authority to conduct nationwide computerized online bingo gaming for 10 years. In a congressional hearing in March 1999, Pagcor chairperson Alice Reyes admitted that Best World Gaming got the bingo license because it had the endorsement of the Office of the President. In addition, Best World Gaming s affiliate, BW Resources, signed a memorandum with Pagcor on June 30, 1999, in which Pagcor agreed to be the anchor tenant at the Sheraton Marina, a casino, shopping and tourism complex BW is building in Malate, Manila. In 1999, BW and Best World Gaming became co-borrowers of a P600-million loan obtained from the Philippine National Bank, in which the government was then the major shareholder. These interlocking relationships illustrate the ethical problems posed by the involvement of presidential relatives in business. In an interview, Ejercito explained that he was drawn into Best World Construction by Tan and his partners. Since they were family friends, they told me they were going to put up a development corporation and since I was in real estate and construction, I thought okay, that s in line with my business. But Ejercito said that he pulled out of the partnership when BW shifted from real estate development to gaming in late 1998. I told them I can t help you, I wouldn t be an asset to you, it wouldn t be good for me and for my father. It s not nice manipulating stock prices, I even told them that. In the end, nothing ever came out of Best World Construction, Ejercito said. Even if that were so, the incident illustrates the apparently close business and personal relationships between members of the Estrada family and individuals who have obtained government loans, contracts and franchises. Such relationships are bound to raise thorny issues of conflicts of interest. There was nothing illegal about Ejercito s short-lived partnership with BW. But the fact that the President s favorite son was once involved with businessmen alleged to have received preferential treatment from government entities and now currently undergoing government investigation reveals the fuzziness of the line that separates business from politics. ??? Earlier this year, former Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) chairman Perfecto Yasay Jr. had already accused the President of undue interference in the SEC s investigation of BW and Dante Tan who, apart from having been JV Ejercito s business partner, is also widely known to be Estrada s friend. ?Ejercito, however, insisted that his family has not taken advantage of Estrada s presidency to further their business interests. I don t want shortcuts, he said. I see to it that everything is done legally. Even my bank loans are obtained not because of who I am, I want them to lend me because of the projects I am doing. I don t want them to see me as a political client. It s actually hard to be the president s son you can t go into this, you can t go into that because you re partly a political figure. I just can t wait for the President s term to finish. ?Despite these supposed difficulties, the businesses of Estrada s various families appear to be doing well. In fact, our search of corporate records showed that the President s wives and children have engaged in a rash of company formation, establishing at least 11 new corporations since June 1998, a month after Estrada s election. Most of these firms are in real estate and entertainment. ?In a country where the fortunes of businesses are often determined by political connections, the entrepreneurial activities of Estrada s various families, while not illegal, tread on fragile ethical ground. ?JV s mother, Guia Gomez, for example, has a long list of business partnerships with individuals who are now in government. Her business activities are those of a politically well-connected entrepreneur whose interests have expanded with Estrada s rise to power. ?All but one of the 33 companies in which Gomez is listed as an incorporator were formed since 1987, when Estrada was first elected to the Senate. Of these, 13 were set up while he was senator, 15 during his vice presidency, and four in the first two years of his presidential term. ?Gomez operates a range of businesses involved in real estate, trading, and even environmental impact assessments. All of these businesses would require government clearances and permits and some of them involve transactions with government entities. ?Gomez finds herself in sticky situations as several of her business partners have been appointed to government posts since Estrada became President. ?For example, SEC records show that Gomez and Julius Topacio, assistant secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government, are partners in five companies. Topacio is the president s chief accountant and is listed as such in Estrada s 1987 statement of assets. In 1998, Topacio was appointed the government representative to the board of Legaspi Oil Co., a sequestered company. ?He and Gomez are partners in Meiji Inc., a company formed in 1992 and currently developing a subdivision and housing project in Cavite, which presumably needed to obtain local government permits and clearances. In addition, Topacio and Gomez are shareholders in Paisa Champagne Bar Inc., operating restaurants that again need all sorts of local government permits. ?They are also partners in Paisa International Inc., a trading company; two project management firms, WT Partnership Philippines Inc and., Wegtec International Corp.; JV& G Inc., a real estate company; and Powerhouse Staffbuilders International Inc., a labor recruitment firm. ?Another shareholder of that recruitment firm is Rosario G. Yu, formerly tobacco tycoon Lucio Tan s secretary. Yu was named presidential assistant in 1998, and is frequently seen in Malaca?ang. ?An even more controversial business associate of Gomez s is Cecilia Ejercito de Castro, who is known as the President s cousin. De Castro was appointed presidential assistant in 1998. In 1999, she figured in a P200-million textbook scandal in which Education Secretary Andrew Gonzalez said she approached him for the speedy release of textbook funds. ?De Castro is Gomez s business partner in the real estate firm, Meiji Inc., and Xytox Corp., a trading firm. ?Another Gomez partner is Talreja Mangharam Shivandas, the Indian businessman who runs the restaurants and VIP lounges at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport and who was responsible for the ill-fated construction of a restaurant on the Malaca?ang grounds. Gomez and Shivandas are partners in Paisa International Inc., a trading company. ?Gomez s network of business associations include presidential brother in-law, academic Raul P. de Guzman, who was appointed to the San Miguel Board and named presidential adviser on development administration in the first few months of Estrada s term. In 1989, De Guzman and Gomez were both incorporators of Environmental Primemovers of Asia, Inc., a company that conducts environmental impact studies for firms seeking environmental clearances from the government. ?In 1996, Environmental Primemovers was bought by Woodward-Clyde Philippines, although the original incorporators retained their investments in the new company. ?These included De Guzman s son, Raul Roberto, who was appointed presidential assistant for environment and water in 1998, even while he was still involved with the environmental firm. ?Raul Roberto is also in partnership with Gomez in three other companies, including Poongsan Precision Phil., Paisa International, and Risktrack Inc. as well as Environmental Primemovers. ?The involvement of Gomez and Raul Roberto de Guzman? with Poongsan Philippines, a? wholly owned subsidiary of the Korean firm Poongsan Precision Corp., is nominal but still raises questions. Poongsan manufactures semiconductors and is located in the Clark Special Economic Zone, and therefore leases government property and receives government incentives. ?Yet another business associate is Jose Fernando B. Camus, Gomez s partner in WT Partnership Philippines Inc., a management and engineering company, and in Meiji Inc. He was named to the board of the Bases Conversion Development Authority also in 1998. ?Meanwhile, Rolando Macasaet, who currently heads the Philippine National Construction Corp., the government corporation that operates the country s toll roads, is JV Ejercito s business partner in Foremost Credit Resources Inc., a lending company formed in 1995. ?The first two years of the Estrada presidency was a period that saw a burst of entrepreneurial energies among Estrada s wives and children. The busiest appear to be? Gomez and her son JV. Gomez formed four real estate firms in 1998 and 1999: El Pueblo Builders, Grandmeadows, Inc., EG Properties and Apex Land Inc. Her son is a partner in three of these firms while Estrada s other illegitimate children Joel Eduardo and Ma. Theresa Ejercito hold shares in EG Properties. ?JV, on his own, formed three new companies since his father s election: Aeromax Aircraft Services, Inc., a carrier of mail and merchandise; Vegas Food Inc., a restaurant and catering firm; and International Maximum Entertainment, Inc., which is involved in movie, TV and musical productions. ?In addition, the assets of JV s construction firm, Buildworth, grew from P14 million in 1997 to P83.3 million in 1998, according to financial statements submitted to the SEC. Meanwhile, his Ang Bayang Makulay Production Inc., a foundation formed last January 3, is producing the Philippine version of the Broadway hit, Miss Saigon. ?Often referred to as the family s black sheep, Jude Estrada, the President s second son with the First Lady, did not show much entrepreneurial inclinations before his father s election. But in 1999 alone, Jude and his associates formed three new companies: Primeval Commodities, Inc., which is engaged in the trading of petroleum and food products; Paragon Security Management and Investigation Services, Inc., which provides security services; and Reach Management Corp., which is into personnel and management consultancy. ?In addition, Jude with his two other siblings, Jinggoy and Jacqueline, his mother Luisa and uncle Jesus Ejercito, formed Millennium Cinema in 1999. Barely two years old, Millennium hopes to rival the big film companies, Regal and Viva, in the movie production business.? For more details of Estrada's and his families' financial interests, including statements of assets and corporate holdings, visit PCIJ's web site: http://www.pcij.org or http://www.pcij.org.ph ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- 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: Webpage: http://www.bigfoot.com/~bayan-phils Webpage: http://www.bigfoot.com/~bayan-phils ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From notoapec at clear.net.nz Thu Aug 10 04:13:47 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 12:13:47 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1506] NZ Business Roundtable on NZ and Free Trade Message-ID: <000c01c00235$f30fe000$c584a7cb@notoapec> The Dominion, Wellington WEDNESDAY, 09 AUGUST 2000 B U S I N E S S S T O R Y Free trade is best policy for New Zealand - Kerr 09 AUGUST 2000 Free trade is the best policy for New Zealand irrespective of what other countries may do, Business Roundtable executive director Roger Kerr said on Tuesday night. Speaking to a public seminar at the Waikato University Management School, Mr Kerr said: "We should not allow ourselves to become diverted from free trade by the red herring of reciprocity". There was no basis for the argument that a unilateral move to free trade would weaken this country's negotiating position in future international trade negotiations, he said. Mr Kerr noted that "until recently few people have seriously questioned the benefits that small countries like New Zealand obtain from efforts to foster growth of world trade through the WTO (World Trade Organisation)". This situation had now changed with a number of submissions to the Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministry's public consultations opposing further New Zealand involvement in the WTO or in any further negotiating round. Mr Kerr said it was equally disturbing that one group of submissions argued that this country should only agree to further trade liberalisation on the basis of strict reciprocity. "Unfortunately, the recent conduct of the New Zealand Government has not been beyond reproach. In moving to put an end to unilateral tariff reductions, the Government is obviously pandering to the critics of free trade." - NZPA From notoapec at clear.net.nz Fri Aug 11 03:26:18 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 11:26:18 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1507] GATT Watchdog media release: Mike Moore/WTO: 10 August Message-ID: <000401c002f9$23f2c980$5c84a7cb@notoapec> GATT Watchdog, PO Box 1905, Christchurch MEDIA RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE USE 10 August 2000 Fair Trade Group Targets WTO with "Secret Weapon": Mike Moore GATT Watchdog will stage a "reception" for World Trade Organisation (WTO) Director-General Mike Moore, from 11.30am-2pm on Monday (14 August) outside the Centra Hotel, Cashel St, Christchurch where he will address a luncheon hosted by the Canterbury Employers' Chamber of Commerce. "Mr Moore will receive the Order of New Zealand in Wellington tomorrow. But GATT Watchdog will give him an award of our own on Monday for his work as our secret weapon destroying the WTO from inside" said a spokesman for the group which has campaigned against the GATT/WTO since 1990. "Mike Moore sits at the extreme end of the ideological spectrum about free trade and investment. Moore's first few months as figurehead of the WTO have been very helpful in advancing our own goal of delegitimising and dismantling the WTO and other forums which promote market models of economic development as the only alternative. Moore's adherence to discredited failed economic theories regardless of their consequences, and his patronising attitude towards any who question the supposed virtues of free trade are precisely the kind of qualities that will ensure that divisions within the WTO grow wider. "There is growing opposition to the global free market economy from peoples' movements, as protests in Seattle showed. But equally significant is the fact that many poorer countries which comprise the majority of the WTO's 136 members have become more and more frustrated and marginalised by unfair trade agreements which have proved impossible to implement and which richer countries have manipulated to their advantage. The WTO is dominated by the "Quad" of powerful governments - the USA, Japan, the EU, and Canada which then try to impose their decisions on other WTO members. Calls by Third World governments for a thorough assessment of the outcomes of existing trade and investment agreements, and their opposition to any new agreements have been ignored. "Mike Moore masquerades as champion of the little people and an advocate for small nations at the WTO. The stark reality is that the multilateral trade framework under the WTO stands for protection for the powerful - companies and countries - and market discipline, regardless of the costs, for the rest. "In June, the ILO World Labour Report 2000 showed that increasing trade liberalisation and the effects of globalisation have resulted in job losses and less secure work arrangements in both industrialised and Third World nations. Successive New Zealand governments have consigned tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs to the dustbin in the name of free trade, including many in Canterbury. "Last month, in Geneva, a group of 11 developing countries told the WTO's Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture that the trade liberalisation triggered by the Uruguay Round of the GATT (which established the WTO) had broken the agricultural backbone in many developing-country economies, undermining food security, peoples' health, and sovereignty. "Because of the breakdown of multilateral trade negotiations since the failure of the Seattle WTO Ministerial to kick off a new round of global trade talks, the Government is forced to secretively try to stitch up regional free trade agreements piece-by-piece through bilateral deals like the controversial "closer economic partnership" with Singapore. "Big business - especially the transnational corporations which dominate the global economy - continues to try to shape global economic policy-making via privileged access to trade negotiators. In the lead up to Seattle, New Zealand's chief trade negotiator said: "We very much want to ensure that New Zealand's approach to the [WTO] negotiations is dictated by the business sector's trading needs and priorities". The WTO system also helps governments to reinforce domestic economic reforms. The human havoc caused by 15 years of market reforms and the reckless throwing open of the New Zealand economy makes claims that what is good for big business is good for all of us look naive and illogical. "Mike Moore's views about trade and economics and the mythical free market belong on the Lord of the Rings set with the hobbits - not in the real world." For further comment contact: Murray Horton (03) 3663988 From notoapec at clear.net.nz Fri Aug 11 09:00:41 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 17:00:41 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1508] NZ Trade Union Federation on Mike Moore visit Message-ID: <000e01c00327$318b6240$295561cb@notoapec> MEDIA STATEMENT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 10 August 2000 NZ Trade Union Federation PO Box 11891 Wellington Moore visit a symbol of "democracy deficit" "The visit to New Zealand of WTO head Mike Moore and his investiture with the Order of New Zealand co-incides with growing anger amongst workers, students and a wide range of civil society organisations over the growing "democracy deficit" in New Zealand," Trade Union Federation Secretary, Michael Gilchrist, said today. "The wall of secrecy surrounding the Singapore Free Trade Agreement is only the latest example. "The leader of the house, Michael Cullen, has refused to allow the Singapore Free Trade agreement to be debated in Parliament. MFAT have refused to disclose the matters under negotiation, including such crucial questions as local content. "The two major political parties in New Zealand are running an identical policy of trade and investment liberalisation as per the WTO approach. Foreign Affairs Minister, Jim Sutton, has actually referred to it as a bi-partisan approach. The Alliance have also fallen into line. "So New Zealanders have no knowledge, no participation and no choice in our country's trade and investment policies. That's a huge democracy deficit to go with our equally outsized balance of payments deficit. Both are rapidly reducing our domestic choices. "A free trade and investment agreement with the powerful Singaporean economy has many dangers. From what we can learn, for example, between 20 and 40% local content will be required for so called Singaporean goods to achieve duty free status. This will effectively create an open door for goods to be trans-shipped through Singapore free of duty to New Zealand. By contrast, the CER agreement with Australia requires 50% local content. "There are also huge dangers in likely national treatment clauses requiring New Zealand's central and local government to treat Singaporean products, service providers and investors as well as, or better than, our own - particularly in areas such as education and broadcasting or areas covered by the Treaty of Waitangi. "There is a growing understanding internationally that trade and investment liberalisation has a fundamentally imperialist structure. It means protection for the rich and powerful nations and a growing concentration of capital. But it means increasing foreign penetration and the destruction of national economies for the rest of us. "Mike Moore has, from the outset, been identified with the rich and powerful nations, particularly the United States. His posturing as a representative of the poorer nations is only a part of the overall strategy for increasing liberalisation. This makes him a prime target for oppposition worldwide", Mr Gilchrist concluded. A range of groups will protest against Mr Moore and the WTO from 10.00 am tomorrow, Friday 11 August, at Government House on the Basin Reserve, Wellington. For further information: Michael Gilchrist (04) 384 8963 or (04) 237 7566 From notoapec at clear.net.nz Fri Aug 11 09:55:32 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 17:55:32 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1509] Newsroom.co.nz - Mike Moore on Ag Trade Lib Message-ID: <000201c0032f$20d12ea0$6384a7cb@notoapec> Ag Still Trade Agreement Bugbear: Moore Staff Reporter Patric Lane 10/08/00 13:24:00 Mike Moore hopes to see a new round of multilateral trade agreements launched during his time at the helm of the World Trade Organisation, but admits agriculture remains a sticking point. Mr Moore, director-general of the WTO and a former New Zealand Prime Minister, is in New Zealand on an official visit to update the Government and other political leaders on progress in Geneva. He said negotiations were underway in a whole series of areas, including agriculture and services. ?We now have a vehicle, we are underway now, seeing what we can do to redress what some claim are the imbalances without renegotiating the whole of the Uruguay round,? he said. But he acknowledged that old differences still remained, and that agriculture was still one of the most difficult subjects. ?No matter what you talk about in the New World, in the knowledge economy, you come back so frequently to the basic problems of agriculture and textiles,? he said. Despite previous failures to launch trade rounds, Mr Moore said he hoped the new round would be launched within his three-year term, though it would depend on flexibility from individual countries. ? NewsRoom 2000 From notoapec at clear.net.nz Fri Aug 11 10:00:13 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 18:00:13 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1510] More on Moore from newsroom.co.nz Message-ID: <001501c0032f$8289f780$9ecea7cb@notoapec> Wake Up To Trade Reality: Moore Staff Reporter Patric Lane 10/08/00 17:55:00 Opponents of free trade need to wake up and take a reality check, according to World Trade Organisation boss Mike Moore. Mr Moore, a former New Zealand Prime Minister, is in New Zealand on an official visit to update the Government and other political leaders on progress in Geneva. Anti-free trade group GATT Watchdog has announced Mr Moore will face protests when he speaks to a Christchurch business luncheon next Monday. They said Mr Moore masquerades as champion of the little people and an advocate for small nations, whereas the WTO represents the interests of powerful nations and big business. But Mr Moore said the WTO had been able to enhance market access for the least developed countries, and that the logic of free trade was overwhelming, especially in New Zealand?s situation. ?How can a New Zealander be opposed to exporting - what are you going to do here? Wake up! Eat all your own meat? Wear all your own wool?? Mr Moore said in the end a country like ours needs exports, while imports were useful to a society as well. Asked about the widespread appearance of groups opposed to free trade, he said polling showed people do believe that trade and the WTO is useful to them. He likened the situation to the Europe, saying the European Parliament came in for criticism from many people, but there where not very many who thought things would be better if the EU was abolished. ?What they?re really saying is do things better, do things differently or do them in terms of what I want.? ? NewsRoom 2000 From bayan at iname.com Sat Aug 12 14:25:34 2000 From: bayan at iname.com (BAYAN) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 22:25:34 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1511] Kalinaw Mindanao: Estrada all-out war spawns massive HR violations Message-ID: KALINAW MINDANAO Movement for Genuine Peace and Justice in Mindanao MEDIA RELEASE Aug. 9, 2000 ESTRADA ALL-OUT WAR SPAWNS MASSIVE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS -- KALINAW MINDANAO On the heels of public outcry against the fielding of 10,000 additional CAFGUs and the most recent massacre of civilians in North Cotobato, the Kalinaw Mindanao today bared the results of its fact-finding missions which found the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) responsible for gross violations of human rights and international humanitarian law (HR and IHL) during its all-out war against the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). It likewise criticized the AFP for “baseless and therefore, irresponsible, as well as malicious public pronouncements” regarding recent events there. “Today we issue our final report so the public may see the inhumanity of the Estrada government’s militarist policy in dealing with the Mindanao crisis and the urgent need to save civilians and civilian populations from the barbarity of all-out war,” said Kalinaw Mindanao convenor Dr. Carolina Pagaduan-Araullo. Kalinaw Mindanao launched fact-finding missions to Central and Western Mindanao last June 23-26 in order to get a first-hand view of the situation gripping over 500,000 internal refugees and to probe earlier reports of inhuman treatment suffered by the civilian population at the hands of the AFP. Another fact-finding mission was undertaken by Kalinaw Mindanao on July 31 - August 2 to find out the truth behind the July 22 massacre of a truckload of civilians in Balabagan, Lanao del Sur. According to Araullo, the June fact-finding mission documented numerous incidents of indiscriminate aerial bombardment, artillery fire and strafing of civilian communities inside or in the vicinity of the MILF camps as well as, in certain cases, far from the battle lines. “These are a testimony to how non-combatants and civilian infrastructures such as houses, schools and marketplaces and fields planted to crops ready for harvest, became illegitimate targets of military attack. Not even places of worship were spared, as evidenced by the bombed-out mosques and the AFP's reprehensible tactic of timing the bombardments precisely at the Muslims' hour of worship.,” Araullo decried. The Kalinaw Mindanao report further stated that “entire families were forced to hastily evacuate their baranggays with their wounded and dead, leaving their homes and crops, without clear direction as to where they could go or how they would survive.” Hundreds of thousands eventually ended up in makeshift evacuation centers with hardly adequate provisions for the massive influx of these internal refugees. To date, government records over 900,000 “evacuees” as a result of the escalation of military offensives in the last three months. The Kalinaw Mindanao gathered cases of massacre, summary execution and harassment by military and paramilitary forces of ordinary people, whose only misfortune was to be suspected as MILF members/sympathizers, or whose biggest mistake was to believe the government when it called on them to return to their homes and harvest their crops. According to the report, “War victims bewailed the senseless razing of their dwellings to the ground, the looting of their meager belongings, the slaughter of their farm animals, and the dismantling of houses that had escaped destruction from the bombings for use in building temporary military encampments.” One of the urgent recommendations of the group was to put a stop to the deployment of additional CAFGU and other paramilitary units, specially in Mindanao’s war-ravaged areas, as they fear this will only provide the conditions for further massive violations of human rights. Another fact-finding mission sent to look into the July 22 Balabagan massacre concluded that neither the military nor the police conducted any serious investigation into the incident. The mission found out from survivors that it was only the Kalinaw Mindanao mission which had approached them to ask about the massacre. >From interviews and sworn statements of survivors, relatives of victims, members of the Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Units (CAFGU)/Special CAFGU Auxilliary Army (SCAA), local government officials and police officers, the mission was able to draw an accurate account of what really happened when armed men fired at a truck loaded with farm workers and their families killing 13 and wounding 16 others including children. Victims pointed to several suspects, members of the CAFGU/SCAA and former security guards of the Maranao Plantation Inc. (MPI) and Ipil Plantation Inc. (IPI), companies owned by landlord and former Congressman Ali Dimaporo. Cases of multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder have been filed at the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Malabang against Panginsaran Cadayon, Edres Cadayon, Pangalian Cadayon, Koko Cadayon, Ibra Cadayon, Ibrahim Cadayon, Ibrahim Omar, Arimao Omama and one John Doe. On July 31, 2000, Judge Saidali M. Dimangadap issued a warrant of arrest against the suspects. In the light of its findings, Kalinaw Mindanao called on the highest officials of the AFP to acknowledge that they “erred in hastily accusing the MILF as the masterminds of the massacre.” The group also demanded that defense, military and police officials stop the practice of immediately accusing the MILF as perpetrators of every dastardly crime that occurs, “ in an apparent bid to draw a negative picture of the MILF as simply a criminal band preying on hapless civilians”. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- 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: Webpage: http://www.bigfoot.com/~bayan-phils ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From bayan at iname.com Sat Aug 12 15:17:04 2000 From: bayan at iname.com (BAYAN) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 23:17:04 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1512] Dissing A Fool -- Erap at SF Message-ID: Dissing A Fool -- Erap at SF (San Francisco) By Marivi Soliven Blanco 8/4/2000 The other day we learned there are two ways to run a protest when an idiot president drops by. There's the in-your-face Austin Powers method featuring parade permits, drums, chants, picket signs, and higante puppets. Then there's the sneaky James Bond insider strategy involving well-dressed protesters skulking around the FBI, Secret Service and San Francisco police guarding the fool on the hill. Having attended my fair share of rallies, I decided on trying the second type. I sashayed into the Fairmont Hotel lobby with three other finely dressed people, discreetly clutching a large Dolce & Gabbana shopping bag. The bag contained not clothes but 500 gold be-ribboned 'Thank You' cards stamped with the Presidential Seal of the Philippines. Instead of the usual 'thanks-for-your-money' platitudes, the card thanked dinner guests for sponsoring cronyism (specifying Lucio Tan and Danding Cojuangco); the self-enrichment of President Estrada and his family; continued armed conflict in Mindanao; and a neutered Philippine press. The Fairmont's marble-columned, gilded lobby had turned into Sequin Central for the evening with over a thousand matrons and their barong-ed partners "swanning" about in ternos and long gowns. Biding our time while waiting for Erap to arrive, we sat down at the bar and nursed the first round of cocktails. The 950 too-too-coutured, uber-bejeweled, hyper-coiffed Filipino-Americans around us had each paid a hundred dollars of their own money to cram into a ballroom for dinner with a drunk. Estrada was coming to collect their donation as well as to seek more military aid from President Clinton. His $10M wish list included 200 M-35 trucks, one coast guard cutter, A-I aircraft, amphibious landing craft and naval vessels. All to perpetuate his genocidal war in Mindanao. While we mingled with the Perlas ng silanganan, two hundred or so protesters outside shouted anti-Erap chants, and pounded on drums. An outsized puppet dressed as Uncle Sam waved at us from behind the metal barricades across the street set up by the police. Compared to our comfy posts indoors, the protesters had to struggle with incoming fog, chilly winds, and hunger. Food Not Bombs, an activist organization, had pledged food for the group, but this turned out to be just a few loaves of bread and fruit. Nevertheless, the demonstrators stayed for a good three hours, huddling together for warmth, and raising a huge ruckus. This was fine with the authorities, as long as the rally participants remained behind the barricades. Besides the San Francisco police and riot squad, the Feds were swarming all over the place. One could easily figure out who they were: beefy men in suits and a tell-tale white telephone cord curling around their left ear. There were several American TV news crews filming the protest, which had begun down the hill at the Powell BART station, but the few Filipino TV newsmen present refused to go outside. "Gusto ko sanang mag-interbyu ng protesters, kaya lang hindi ko kaya ang ginaw!" whined a Pinay reporter for GMA 7 News, bare knees a-knocking under her mini. Clearly, this particular story was not going to play on TV sets back home. On my first martini I met a group of Filipino-American dot com businessmen sitting next to us. Some of them didn't even have tickets to the dinner, but were hoping to get in anyway. They introduced me to the American with them, explaining that he worked with Carnival Cruises and had just established a cruise line in the Philippines. "Oh, how wonderful," I replied, "You know, cruise ships in the Philippines tend to sink all the time." His companions rushed to stress the difference between cruise ships and passenger ships, while I smilingly handed out the counterfeit 'Thank You' cards to our first victims. I joined D. and M. in the main lobby just as Press Secretary Dong Puno walked past. "Hey Dong!" cried D., with a hearty slap on the shoulder. "Long time no see!" Secretary Puno looked momentarily terrified before smiling weakly and strolling quickly away. "Do you know him?" we asked D. "Not at all!" he chuckled. On his second Manhattan, D. chanced upon Corinna Sanchez. Feeling very Tom Cruise, he wrapped an arm around her waist, murmuring: "Corinna, remember the good old days?" He claimed to have been referring to those days when she was still a star investigative reporter, before joining Presidential PR (pandering reporter). Instead, D. said that Corinna looked utterly baffled, as though trying to remember when and where she had had the affair with this stranger. By then Mission Implausible was at hand. Upon hearing the president had arrived, we hustled downstairs to the ballroom with our cards. Grabbing about 50, I walked right up to the glittering crowd and passed them out. "Thank you! Thank you! Thank you so very much for coming!" I chortled, as startled matrons asked for more of the pretty little souvenirs. Perennial Politician Joey Cuisia walked up and he got one, too. D. spotted alpha tai-pan Lucio Tan (in a mediocre suit, he scoffed) and handed him a card as well. The only ones we avoided were the thugs with telephone cord attachments. Some women looked sourly at me and declared that they had already received and read the cards. "Well then, have a good dinner. Eat very well!" I hissed, before moving on to the next group. Meanwhile, Howie Severino was all over the place, dragging around not just his camcorder, but a folding step-stool from which to get a higher angle. He was the only media person stopped and searched by the Secret Service while attempting to enter the ballroom. "Paano naman kasi si Howie, may dala pang hagdan," sighed Boying Pimentel, a San Francisco Examiner reporter. At some point a two-man Filipino-American TV crew from Seattle interviewed me for their news show. The interviewer (who wore an orange armband with 'Erap' on it), tried to play devil's advocate by asking a number of questions along the 'why-should-we-care' theme. But we'd rehearsed our talking points for media days earlier and I managed to keep him in line. Finally, they asked me to sum up in one minute what I wanted to say about Erap. "He's a drunk. He's an idiot. And he's killing Filipinos with American guns. Doesn't that bother you?" I asked. There was still the problem of entering the ballroom without a ticket, but Tita A., the mama san of our covert band had somehow managed to walk in with a large group when the ticket checker wasn't looking. Now she opened the middle door a crack and beckoned me over. "Pasok ka na," she whispered, and I slipped in. The ballroom was fast filling up, but there was no sign of Erap and I needed to pee. Approaching a secret service agent, I asked if I could use the ladies' room. "Sure," he grinned. "Just make sure I see you so you can get back in again." While attempting to return to the ballroom however, I was accosted by a heavyset Filipino in a dark suit. "Excuse me, I have some questions to ask you about those cards you've been giving out," he said. Forgetting that I was under no legal obligation to answer any questions unless a judge said so, I followed him to the corner of the lobby. In minutes, an American lady in a green trenchcoat and two very large men joined us. All four asked me how I'd gotten the cards, if I knew what was in them, if I had any more left. Some guests had been offended, they said, by the unflattering information within the cards, and had pointed me out as the person distributing them. They threatened to search my purse. "Oh I don't know who gave this to me - some lady on the escalator asked me to pass them around. I saw the presidential seal, so I thought it was fine. How was I to know?" I snapped, feigning indignation. Luckily I'd given out the last one, so even if they had gone ahead with their (illegal) search of my purse, they'd have found nothing. "You've offended many people. You may get jumped if you go back in there," the woman warned. "But I paid $100. Can't you protect me? I want a refund if you can't protect me!" I declared. "Who are you anyway?" The Pinoy flashed me a San Francisco Police badge from under his jacket. The lady and her goons said they were with the Secret Service. Seeing I was going to be of no help, they let me go, but the Pinoy cop pulled me aside. "Dito ka muna. Palagay ko nagsisinungaling ka, ano? Wala ka talagang ticket, no?" "Ex-cyooose me!" I glared. "I happen to have paid a hundred dollars and I am going back in!" I flounced off before he could stop me, and my Secret Service doorman let me back in with a smile. Shortly after, Ronnie Henares and his wife Ina Ramos walked in. "Mr. Henares, I did so, love your show. I loved the way you danced.you should be dancing still!" I gushed. Caressing my knee more times than necessary, Ronnie beamed down at me and introduced his wife, whose younger sister I'd been friends with at UP. The couple was with the Philippine Consulate table, located in deep Siberia by the farthest corner of the ballroom. It didn't matter, they said, since they didn't plan on staying for dinner. It wasn't long before the crowd began to murmur. Erap's entrance was heralded by a gaggle of presidential kulasisi weighed down with enough jewelry to start their own pawnshop. Erap himself waddled by not ten feet from where I was standing. Mrs. Ejercito trotted along at his elbow, wearing a terno in a shade of tangerine that made my teeth ache. Bringing up the rear were a flock of lackeys in barong. The real surprise was Nora Aunor. Dressed most discreetly in a plain dark pantsuit, La Aunor walked in with only one attendant and quickly disappeared in the crowd. Boots Anson Roa presided over the program and El Shaddai Shaman Mike Velarde recited the invocation. At that point I decided to return to the front lobby. Each time I passed a bejeweled guest, I hissed "Se-e-e-ell-out." M. and D. were waiting for me. Soon after, Nora Aunor herself came up the stairs. No longer able to contain myself, I came forward saying, "Ms. Aunor, how wonderful to see you, I loved all your movies!" Gazing down at the diva, I suddenly realized how tiny she was. She was clearly delighted and the man with her asked if we wanted to take pictures. Not that I would ordinarily care, but when La Aunor slipped her arm around my waist, I could well have died happy. This was the closest I'd ever been to a real Pinay celebrity. Later, we regrouped at a posh restaurant in another hotel. We explained that we'd all had a really hard day, and that I needed a drink to deal with it. The waiter brought me a stiff martini and a half-dozen fat olives. Last we'd seen, San Francisco Consul General Amado Cortez (a has-been showbiz buddy of Erap) was having a drunken tantrum in the lobby after Secret Servicemen had ordered him to take his hysterics out of the ballroom. It would be safe to say that our gilded Thank You cards had tarnished his gala dinner and dissent had soured his scotch. # About the Author Marivi Soliven Blanco has written numerous books for children, some of which won the Palanca. She is currently based in the U.S. Marivi and hubby John D. Blanco are members of the Institute of Filipino Studies (IFS), a community group pushing for Filipino Studies in universities and colleges throughout the US. The IFS is one of the progressive community groups which form the newly organized Mindanao Crisis Coalition. The MCC took an active part in mobilizing for the march and rally led by BAYAN-affiliated groups (LFS, CHRP, Karapatan, FWC, PINS) in front of the Fairmont, and also managed to field an inside team. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- 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: Webpage: http://www.bigfoot.com/~bayan-phils ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From notoapec at clear.net.nz Sat Aug 12 23:38:22 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 07:38:22 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1513] The Press (12/08/00) on Moore Protest Message-ID: <000901c0046a$f9101880$bacea7cb@notoapec> The Press, Christchurch SATURDAY, 12 AUGUST 2000 N E W S S T O R Y Protest over Moore's visit 12 AUGUST 2000 By KELLY ANDREW World Trade Organisation director-general Mike Moore's return to his home town will be met with pickets and protesters. Anti-free trade group Gatt Watchdog will stage a protest "reception" outside the Centra Hotel where Mr Moore will address the Canterbury Employers' Chamber of Commerce on Monday. Gatt Watchdog spokesman Murray Horton said the group planned a noisy protest that would disrupt the lunch-time meeting. "He's not welcome back in his home town," Mr Horton said. "He and the message he brings represent a bankrupt ideology, both economically and politically," he said. Mr Horton said Mr Moore was seen as a kind of "jovial clown, but we want to show the reality behind that." Mr Moore was presented with the Order of New Zealand by the Governor-General Sir Michael Hardie Boys in Wellington yesterday. On Monday Christchurch protesters will present Mr Moore with an award for being the "most effective secret weapon" against the WTO. "He's done more damage from within than we could ever do from outside," Mr Horton said. Mr Moore's extreme views on free trade and investment had deepened divisions within the WTO, he said. Mass protests derailed the start of world trade talks in Seattle in November last year, and forced the cancellation of the opening ceremony of the World Trade Organisation Ministerial Conference. Sergeant John Baines of Christchurch police said protection for Mr Moore would be "nothing out of the ordinary" compared to that accorded to a foreign dignitary. Uniformed police would be on duty outside the Centra Hotel and the protest would be monitored. From notoapec at clear.net.nz Tue Aug 15 20:52:09 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 04:52:09 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1514] The Press 15/08/00 on Moore Message-ID: <000101c006af$3fc6a3c0$6a84a7cb@notoapec> The Press Christchurch TUESDAY, 15 AUGUST 2000 N E W S S T O R Y Globalisation 'poverty solution' 15 AUGUST 2000 By PETER LUKE More globalisation, not less, is the solution to world poverty, says World Trade Organisation director-general Mike Moore. He used a speech to Canterbury employers yesterday to answer critics of the institution he heads, and the ideal of free trade ? even as the chants of protesters could be heard outside. About 60 free-trade opponents gathered outside the Centra hotel as Mr Moore arrived. Senior Sergeant John Doherty, of the Christchurch police, said the protesters were well behaved and good natured. Criticism of free trade was rampant this year at the Seattle world trade summit which failed to kick-start the next trade round. Mr Moore said he could understand how economic upheaval could be upsetting, especially when it appeared unpredictable and uncontrollable. "Too many people assume the worst: that what they value most will be lost and that what replaces it can only be bad. "We need to reassure people that globalisation is generally a force for good. The last 20 years have seen a dramatic rise in living standards for many countries across the world. More has been done to address poverty in the past 50 years than the previous 500 years," he said. Living standards in poor countries were not catching up with those in richer nations and it was a tragedy that a quarter of the world's population survived on less than one dollar a day. "But let us be clear. Trade and openness is not the problem for those countries. Rather it is too little trade and not enough openness, not enough good governance and not enough democratic structures," Mr Moore said. "The bottom line is this: the developing countries that are catching up with rich ones are those that are open to trade; and the more open they are, the faster they are converging." From notoapec at clear.net.nz Tue Aug 15 21:00:03 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 05:00:03 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1515] Anti-WTO demo in Mike Moore's hometown Message-ID: <000501c006b0$59a6faa0$6a84a7cb@notoapec> Mainstream media report of yesterday's GATT Watchdog demo against WTO The Press, Christchurch TUESDAY, 15 AUGUST 2000 N A T I O N A L N E W S S T O R Y Moore takes a hammering from protesters 15 AUGUST 2000 World Trade Organisation director-general Mike Moore was called a traitor by free trade opponents during a small but raucous protest in Christchurch on Monday. Mr Moore, escorted by a member of the Diplomatic Protection Service, arrived at the Centra Hotel just before midday to address the Canterbury Employers' Chamber of Commerce. He was met by about 60 protesters, some wearing Mike Moore masks, who chanted "Mad Mike on your bike" and held signs saying "Free trade is costing the Earth". They shouted "traitor" as he quickly entered the building. Christchurch mayor Garry Moore, Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove and former National finance minister Ruth Richardson also attended the lunch-time meeting. Opening his speech inside the hotel Mr Moore thanked the protesters for being his "guard of honour." "I don't know why all these people come to protest against Ruth (Richardson) and the mayor," he joked. At a press conference following his speech he said it was one of the great honours of his life to be the first New Zealander "burnt in effigy in four continents". Gatt Watchdog, which organised the protest, had an "Unguided Missile Award" to present to Mr Moore. The award recognised his services as "undermining the credibility and functions of the WTO" and fuelling division within the organisation. Gatt-watchdog spokesman and protest organiser Murray Horton said he was impressed by the number of young people who took part in the demonstration. "They've recognised the issue of globalisation as one that they're concerned about and that's a big change." He said the protest was not a personal attack on Mr Moore but against the philosophies of his organisation. "Mike Moore presents himself as a man of the people and champion of small countries but in reality he's acting on behalf of some of the biggest transnational companies and the most powerful countries." Anti-free trade activist Aziz Choudry said it was becoming "more and more untenable for governments to say there is no alternative to free trade." He said opposing free trade was not the same as opposing all trade and investment. "The issue is who has the right to determine what the rules are." The demonstration lasted two hours and was closely monitored by four uniformed police. Senior Sergeant John Doherty of Christchurch police said the protesters were "well behaved and good natured". - NZPA From amittal at foodfirst.org Tue Aug 15 02:37:39 2000 From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 10:37:39 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1516] IMC NEWS BLAST Message-ID: <0.700000824.952502762-212058698-966274659@topica.com> IMC NEWS BLAST | Monday, August 14, 2000 A compilation of breaking stories, photos, video, and audio from the Independent Media Center on Monday, August 14, 2000. http://www.indymedia.org "We are building an international movement. We are building a movement where there are no leaders, everyone who participates in the streets of Philadelphia or in the streets of Los Angeles is a leader who is taking charge of his or her destiny and the destiny of this country and the world." --Anuradha Mittal Contents 1. Seizing the Historical Moment Anuradha Mittal Interview IMC FEATURES SEIZING THE HISTORICAL MOMENT: ANURADHA MITTAL by Sheri Herndon In this IMC feature interview, Sheri Herndon brings out the powerful, movement-oriented vision of Indian activist and Food First co-director, Anuradha Mittal. The interview  touches on Seattle, structural adjustment, moral outrage, the media, Chiapas, the role of Youth, tactics for challenging the system, and much more. An example of the best kind of written material being published through the IMC. http://la.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=420 -- Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst@foodfirst.org. ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics From notoapec at clear.net.nz Wed Aug 16 07:53:23 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 15:53:23 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1517] TV3 (NZ) on anti-WTO demo Message-ID: <000801c0070b$a2245a60$5b85a7cb@notoapec> TV3 coverage > MOORE AGGRO > UPDATED: 09:05PM MONDAY 14 AUGUST > Visiting World Trade Organisation director Mike > Moore gave his only public speaking engagement > in New Zealand today. > The former Labour MP spoke at a business lunch > in Christchurch, extolling the virtues of > globalisation. > Outside, a vocal anti-trade group staged their > own reception for him. > World trade organisation head Mike Moore back > in Christchurch, but to a less than enthusiastic > welcome. > "Moore is less, less is more," they chanted. > "He calls this his hometown, we're here to give > him a message that we don't want him back > here, he can stay in Geneva," said Murray Horton > of the GATT watchdog group. > But the group were happy to take advantage of > his appearance to get their anti-free trade > message across. > We would be here if the WTO was heading by the > Queen Mother or Todd Blackadder. That it's Mike > Moore is a bonus, because he's such an > unreconstructed 19th century man, an > evangelist, a zealot, in favour of globalisation." > One they today honoured - presenting a Moore > lookalike with their own "unguided missile > award," calling him their secret agent. > "For services rendered for undermining the > credibility and function of the WTO." > But Mike Moore, who has run the gauntlet of > much more violent protests like those in Seattle > during December's WTO meetings, was unfazed > by today's demonstration. > "It's one of the great honours of my life that I'm > the first New Zealander to be burned in effigy in > four continents." > Mike Moore returns to Geneva in ten days. > From notoapec at clear.net.nz Fri Aug 18 11:48:14 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 19:48:14 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1518] GATT Watchdog on Singapore FTA Message-ID: <000301c008be$dd71b900$3d85a7cb@notoapec> Singapore High Commissioner to meet with GATT Watchdog Press Release GATT Watchdog 17/08/00 Singapore High Commissioner to meet with GATT Watchdog regarding controversial free trade agreement GATT Watchdog will tomorrow meet with Singapore?s High Commissioner to New Zealand, Mr Tan King Jin, about the controversial ?closer economic partnership? free trade agreement being negotiated between the two governments. ?We wrote to the Director of the Trade Division in Singapore?s Ministry of Trade and Industry and the High Commissioner in July, seeking a copy of the text of the agreement which the New Zealand Government has refused to release. The High Commission contacted us and set up this meeting. Given the anti-democratic way in which the New Zealand government continues to handle trade negotiations, we congratulate the Singapore High Commissioner for taking the initiative to meet with us while he is in Christchurch on Friday,? says Aziz Choudry of GATT Watchdog. ?The text must be made available now ? before negotiations are complete. The New Zealand government cannot attack critics of trade and investment liberalisation for speculating about the implications of this agreement based on what is known of the contents and yet at the same time refuse to release the text. Under pressure, even the National Government released the draft text of the MAI and a range of official documents relating to the failed agreement during 1997 and 1998 while negotiations were still taking place. What is the current government scared of?? ?The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade clearly sees this as a first step towards a much larger CER/ASEAN Free Trade Area agreement. That is all the more reason why it should be subject to genuine analysis and rigorous scrutiny about its implications for New Zealand.? ?New Zealand claims to be a democracy. We find it unacceptable that decisions which will impact on New Zealand policy choices are not open to debate until negotiations have concluded when it will be far too late to really change anything. The Treaty of Waitangi also requires Maori to be co-participants in decisions affecting this country and yet they have been effectively excluded. It is simply not good enough that the New Zealand Government will not release the text until Cabinet has signed off on it.? ENDS From notoapec at clear.net.nz Sat Aug 19 03:51:48 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 11:51:48 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1519] Maori Independence Supporters re proposed Singapore-NZ trade deal Message-ID: <001101c00945$7fc53d40$325561cb@notoapec> Press Release POTENTIAL THREAT TO SINGAPOREAN INVESTMENT BY MAORI Singaporean investment may be violently targeted say Maori Independence supporters if the Singaporean and New Zealand governments fail to include Maori formally in the current negotiations of a Free Trade Agreement. Under the Treaty of Waitangi the New Zealand government must share the negotiation of international agreements with Maori. To date the Government has failed to fulfill this provision and is therefore in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. International agreements such as the Multilateral Agreement on Investment that impact on the land, resources and the Treaty of Waitangi have continually resulted in mass protest and the direct destabilisation of investment after the New Zealand government's failure to hold meaningful discussions with Maori. "The NO to the MAI agreement was a NO to all these types of free dealing agreements, We have nothing left to lose. If meaningful dialogue does not take place action will be imminent" says one Maori Independence supporter. The Closer Economic Partnership Agreement between New Zealand and Singapore is experiencing delays following Singapore's concerns over Treaty of Waitangi issues; concerns that Maori Independence supporters say are justified. For further comment contact: Matire Ropiha: Matire.Ropiha@vuw.ac.nz Ph 021 1177978 C/ Ngai Tauira, Maori Students Association of Victoria University, Student Union Building, Po Box 600, Wellington. Aotearoa - New Zealand ENDS 4 August 2000 Prof S Jayakumar Minister for Foreign Affairs of Singapore. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs 250 North Bridge Road #07-00 Raffles City Tower Singapore 179101 CC: Permanent Secretary Ministry of Foreign Affairs Singapore, Minister of Trade and Industry Singapore, Permanent Secretary Ministry of Trade and Industry Singapore, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade New Zealand, The Straits Times Singapore. Attention: Minister of Foreign Affairs We the undersigned refer to the negotiations between Aotearoa/New Zealand and Singapore. We are deeply concerned about current negotiations between the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Singaporean government, with specific reference to the exclusion of Maori, and the provisions which should be accorded to us under the Treaty of Waitangi in these negotiations. We greet with enthusiasm recent recognition of the rights of Maori in New Zealand by the Singaporean government. Recent comments made by the Hon. Simon Upton have indicated to us that the Singaporean Government is concerned about Maori rights in New Zealand and the urgency with which these must be accorded priority status. We understand the Singaporean government reservations in undertaking a Free Trade Agreement with the New Zealand Government without formal integration of Maori in this process. Under the Treaty of Waitangi the New Zealand government is obligated to share the negotiation of international agreements with Maori in a dual capacity. To date the Government has failed to fullfil this provision and is therefore in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi. Maori have a history of tense interaction with the Government and particularly the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. In 1998 there were mass demonstrations against the secrecy of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment negotiations with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade was forced to consult with Maori around the country, where upon Maori rejected the Agreement and full negotiations stalled. As you are well aware Maori are deeply concerned about investment in New Zealand particularly with regard to land, the ownership of which continues to be disputed by Maori. We understand your concern that your investment in New Zealand may well be jeopardised in the future. Your insistence for the inclusion of Maori in all negotiations regarding a Free Trade Area could well secure against such complications. We urge you to pursue this course of action. We look forward to your response. Yours Sincerely Aotearoa Educators Foundation for Independent Aotearoa C/- Annette Sykes PO Box 1693 Rotorua Eamon Nathan Te Mana Akonga (Inc.) Mahina Melbourne Teanau Tuiono Te Kawau Maro Annemarie Gillies Management Systems College of Business Massey University Te Kunenga ki Purehuroa Te Warihi Fraser Taiapa Co-Director/Tutor Design and Art Studies Te Wananga o Raukawa Graeme Everton Te Wananga o Raukawa Caleb Royal Director of Heke Matauranga Putaiao Te Wananga o Raukawa Nga Tangata Tiaki Mo te Whenua Trust Tracie Pile Year 3 Student Bachelor of Matauranga Maori Te Wananga o Raukawa Maria Bargh Maaori Marketing Management Consultancy Laures Park Kiingi Frank Thorne Ngaati Hikairo, Ngaati Puhiawe, Ngaati Horotakere, Ngaati Apakura (Far Eastern Economic Review) Dear Editor [Re: August 17 2000, Trade Tariff Terminator] Your article brushes over the growing dissatisfaction amongst the indigenous people of New Zealand, Maori, regarding the free trade agreement negotiations. Recent reports from New Zealand indicate that Maori are in fact threatening to disrupt Singaporean investment if the agreement goes ahead. Your article suggests that most benefits of the agreement will accrue to New Zealand. However Maori have consistently stated that 'free' trade is detrimental to their aspirations, particularly for the return of land, the ownership of which continues to be contested with the New Zealand government and courts. The process of settling these claims will continue for at least another decade. Additionally, your article claims that "some technicalities and the legal language remain to be finalized". These technicalities are in fact disputes over the inclusion of a clause regarding the Treaty of Waitangi (1840) which requires that the Government recognize the economic and political independence of Maori as equals in New Zealand. Failure by the government to adhere to these requirements has increased tension between the parties. Maori have not been formally included in negotiations between the two countries as required under the Treaty of Waitangi and many plan to prevent the finalizing and implementation of this agreement. Yours sincerely Maria Bargh Politics and International Relations School of Social Sciences Faculty of Arts Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200 AUSTRALIA Ph: +61 2 6249 0522 Fax: +61 2 6249 5054 Email: Maria.Bargh@anu.edu.au (and this was just a little something else we emailed cc of many Singaporean officials from Tino-rangatiratanga@egroups.com to stir) #Attention Minister of Foreign Affairs Singapore Tena Koe Prof S Jayakumar I am writing with regard to the Free Trade Agreement currently being negotiated by your Ministry and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Many Maori are extremely concerned that the government is breaking its international obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi (1840) which requires that the Government recognise the economic and political independence of Maori as equals in this country. This Agreement will have serious consequences for Maori. These consequences have not been fully explored and Maori groups are anxious that they are taken formally into account in this regard. Being the indigenous people of Aotearoa, Maori obviously have a strong connection with the land. We also continue to have hundreds of claims on land before the Waitangi Tribunal. You must be aware that any investment in land in Aotearoa will not be stable as long as Maori have unsettled claims. >From all accounts Maori land claims will continue for many years ahead. As you may also be aware Maori have often occupied land in the past when disputes over ownership have arisen. If Maori continue to be formally excluded from negotiations of an international nature, and if the New Zealand government continues its present Treaty settlement process this style of confrontation will also continue. We urge you to reconsider your present negotiations with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade New Zealand. Noho ora mai From notoapec at clear.net.nz Sat Aug 19 07:51:14 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 15:51:14 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1520] Moore in The Press (Christchurch) Message-ID: <000e01c00966$d1fce560$3184a7cb@notoapec> FRIDAY, 18 AUGUST 2000 F E A T U R E S S T O R Y MIKE MOORE: ``I know I can do more for lifting human standards than in just about any other job on this planet." JOHN KIRK-ANDERSON/The Press Moore: I come to praise the future 18 AUGUST 2000 A year after his appointment as director-general of the world's most powerful trade organisation, former Waimakariri MP Mike Moore is becoming a major player on the world stage. An evangelist for free trade, he is regarded by many as the devil incarnate. But with God and justice on his side why should he care? CATE BRETT reports. Effigies of him are burned in capitals around the world; the plight of every oppressed creature on the planet ? human, animal, or plant ? is laid at his feet by jeering protesters wherever he goes, and yet Mike Moore sleeps straight in his bed each night, secure in the knowledge he is "doing the Lord's work". He kids you not. "I know I can do more for lifting human standards, more for my country, more for this region, more for the people I believe in than in just about any other job on this planet." Mr Moore describes a magnificent mural painted on the walls of the building in Geneva where he works, depicting Jesus addressing a stop-work meeting of the carpenters' union: "It was donated to the ILO by the Christian Trade Union movement in the 1920s and I find it quite inspiring." As he approaches the first anniversary of his appointment as director-general of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) ? the world's most powerful trade organisation with 137 member countries ? Mike Moore is gaining a reputation as a fiery evangelist for the good news of globalisation and free trade. Back briefly in his home town this week to spread the word at a meeting of the Canterbury Employers' Chamber of Commerce, Mr Moore opened his address with the old bravura characteristic of his days as a Labour politician: "Ladies and gentlemen: I come to praise the future. "There has never been a time in the history of our species when we have had such an opportunity to build better living standards and a safer and more secure world for all. Globalisation is a part of this opportunity." While Mr Moore outlined the scope of this opportunity and the benefits free trade was bringing to Mexican farm hands picking fruit in California and Bangladeshi seamstresses making clothes for Europeans, outside the Centra a group of about 60 protesters, some wearing Mike Moore masks, and holding signs saying "Free trade is costing the Earth", chanted "traitor" and "Mad Mike on your bike". It was a pretty low-rent affair compared with the estimated 50,000 who rioted in Seattle last December during Mr Moore's inauspicious debut as the WTO's top dog. But to what remains of Christchurch's activist Left, Mike Moore's sell-out to the apostles of capitalism and their Washington allies is especially galling given his past lives as a printer, union activist, social worker, and old school Labour man. Raised in poverty in Northland by parents who ran a second-hand shop, tales of Mr Moore's childhood deprivations and lack of formal education ? he left school at 16 to become a bricklayer's labourer after failing University Entrance ? have acquired an apocryphal quality. But now the Labour politician who marketed himself as "a man of the ordinary people", a man "intimidated and embarrassed by the arts and by poncy waiters, and by my lack of social grace", wakes each day in Geneva, one of the world's most sophisticated cities and regularly dines with the world's most powerful political and industrial leaders. Labour's man from Kawakawa is increasingly being described by the international press as one of the most impressive exports to have emerged from this small corner of the earth. **** Which perhaps goes some way to explain his ill-disguised irritation at finding himself back in his home town, facing the same old line up of "Kiwi knockers" and "ill-informed critics". While his chosen disciple and parliamentary successor Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove keeps silent vigil in the corner, a trimmed down and spruced up Mr Moore makes a perfunctory attempt at giving an interview to his home town newspaper. His heart isn't really in it. The line of questioning, he suggests, is predictable of New Zealand journalists, re-hashing the same "old-fashioned Marxist line" that sets the WTO up as the tool of imperialist capitalism crushing the world's workers underfoot. (Marx actually hadn't come into the picture at this point, although as the well-read Mike Moore knows, the old boy had a few perspicacious things to say about globalism.) A mild suggestion that the WTO's failure to launch a new round of negotiations at Seattle last year may indicate that many countries are looking for some respite from the social costs associated with unfettered free trade, draws a derisive response reminiscent of Robert Muldoon: "Unfettered trade? What's that? The simple thing is if you have trade, you have to have rules, that's what the WTO is there for. And the rules are determined by sovereign States. Our critics talk about `Fair vs Free' trade, what the hell does that mean? These are buzz words; these are slogans that allow you not to think." This seems a little rich coming from a man whose political rhetoric was always liberally peppered with specious one-liners, but Mr Moore has a point. The Left has tended to portray the WTO and its agents as part of the machinery of this monstrous process known as globalisation. The reality, though, is infinitely more complex and contradictory ? as evidenced by the fact that the WTO counts among its allies the likes of agri-giant Monsanto, Cuba's Fidel Castro, and Bangladesh's Hasina Wajed. The Cuban President has this to say about the WTO: "No nation, big or small, can be left out of this important institution ? nor should it." As he travels around the globe addressing groups as disparate as the US Senate and Sweden's Socialist Youth, Mr Moore's message is the same: globalisation is a process as inexorable and profound as the industrial revolution and the best hope we have of ameliorating its negative effects and maximising its benefits is through global, government-to-government negotiation and multilateral trade agreements. International trade rules, negotiated and ratified by the WTO's 137 sovereign governments, provide the key to equalising the enormous power imbalances between rich and poor nations, says Mike Moore. "The rule of law allows the little guy to win against the big guy; the law is the equaliser ? that is why it advances the sovereignty of small nations. "It allows a little country like Costa Rica to win against the United States on underwear exports, of all things. Is it perfect? No. But the absence of the WTO would not make the system any cleaner. On the contrary." However, Mr Moore's portrayal of the WTO as an agent of sovereign States pursuing their national interests is in itself grossly simplistic, glossing over the dominant role played by the world's multinationals whose allegiance is to global stockholders rather than nation States. (Some economists estimate more than 40 per cent of US exports and nearly 50 per cent of its imports are goods that travel not in the open market place but between multinationals themselves as they trade among their own foreign-based subsidiaries.) Now I'm dealing with a whole lot of intelligent people.- Mike Moore, comparing the Labour Party with the WTO Mr Moore concedes the WTO has some way to go to prove itself a friend of the world's developing countries. Despite decades of trade liberalisation, a quarter of the world's population (1.2 billion people) survive on less than a dollar a day, while the 200 biggest companies in the world now control between them one quarter of the world's wealth. In the eyes of the developing world the West ? and the United States in particular ? has adopted the rhetoric of free trade while preserving barriers to its own markets for the most vital third world commodities ? textiles and agriculture. A complaint echoed by New Zealand farmers challenging US lamb tariffs. In numerous speeches Mike Moore has accused "middle-class" Leftists of hypocrisy and arrogance in opposing the very trade liberalisation which he believes holds the key to the developing nations' growth. "If international solidarity means anything, surely it means helping people around the world who are less fortunate than us. "And surely that means buying coffee from a Ugandan grower and T-shirts made in Bangladesh as well as demonstrating against apartheid." In Seattle, however, this challenge to the West was countered by calls from America and Europe for the WTO to tack environmental and labour issues on to the agenda, something Mr Moore says has been interpreted by the developing nations as protectionism under a new guise. Commenting on the collapse of the Seattle talks last November, Andrew Marr of the Observer pointed out the subversive potential of "real globalisation" as distinct from globalisation as a "euphemism for US and European control of the the world economy". Marr suggested that as billions of people come into the world markets from other cultures ? most notably China ? they will inevitably take a bigger share of the action and challenge the hegemony of North America and Europe. "The WTO, in aiding this process, is going to emerge as a organisation which challenges the US and European heartlands more brutally than it challenges developing countries. "It offers rules, not force. The hardest part of these failed negotiations (Seattle) were, underneath it all, a bareknuckle fight between Western workers who want to protect their living standards against Asians, and governments which want to use environmental and human rights issues as an excuse to keep out foreign goods and keep down foreign workers." Marr argued that as the truth dawns the real opposition to the WTO was likely to come not from Friends of the Earth or militant NGOs but from "articulate, well-off interests trying to defend their own positions ? protectionist Republicans, nationalist Europeans, and Japanese conservatives". **** For a man who now strides the world stage it is understandable Mr Moore may be irritated by our inability to put aside provincial and national interests and think in these global terms: "It is a big world out there and we represent . 06 per cent of the world's population. People are entitled to their views and not all the criticisms (of the WTO) are wrong. Of course we should improve our play. "But the paucity of thinking about what is happening globally does dismay me, particularly in my own country. "We did not invent the sheep, cattle, or pinus radiata ? we didn't even create rugby, we just improved on it. What hope has our country got to lift its play without these ideas?" Vintage Moore, but delivered without any of the warmth and passion of old. "If I sound ratty it's because I'm extremely tired and I don't want to be here, I want to go. I get the same questions over and over from New Zealanders and no, I don't get them elsewhere." Which is patently untrue as reports of Mike Moore's speeches delivered all over the world address precisely the same fears and criticisms that were expressed so vociferously in Seattle. Perhaps what has changed though is that Mr Moore no longer feels compelled to explain himself to a city of 324,300 people at the bottom of the South Pacific. His accountability is now to the 137 governments of the world he serves. To wrestle in this snake pit of conflicting national, global, and corporate interests 24 hours a day seven days a week must, you would think, be stretching even his legendary skills as information sponge and street fighter. "No I'm not stretched. It's like herding cats, it's difficult but you know the limits. " Compared with leading the New Zealand Labour party, running the WTO is a piece of cake: "Now I'm dealing with a whole lot of intelligent people." But while Mike Moore may not miss our provincialism or ignorance, or the infighting of the Labour party, surely he misses home? "Yvonne and I both get homesick. I miss seafood and I miss friends and my constituents, but I know they are being well looked after by Clayton, which makes it a lot easier." And in Geneva he and Yvonne have surrounded themselves with things from home: tapa cloths, wood, old furniture from Dormer Street, books ? and their cat, Gus. His aversion to fine dining ? and poncy waiters ? is being tested by the constant round of entertaining but Mike Moore says that he and Yvonne are placing their own cultural stamp on these functions, introducing the worlds' ambassadors to the simple pleasures of the barbecue. And on the barbecue Mike Moore cooks fabulous loins of New Zealand lamb: "In Geneva you get New Zealand lamb like you'll never get it here." The marvels of free trade. From notoapec at clear.net.nz Sat Aug 19 08:44:08 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 16:44:08 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1521] CAFCA on Singapore-NZ FTA Message-ID: <000201c0096e$8aafbf40$7c85a7cb@notoapec> Press release from Campaign of Foreign Control of Aotearoa (CAFCA) Media release posted for CAFCA 17 August 2000 Chief Reporter SINGAPORE TREATY HAS FOREIGN INVESTMENT IMPLICATIONS The Government is currently negotiating a "closer economic partnership" with Singapore. It is shrouded in secrecy. Even National released the text of the infamous Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), in the late 1990s. Labour/Alliance is showing the undemocratic traits of all its predecessors on the subject of "free" trade. Because it is secret, the treaty's implications are neither known nor understood by the public (or MPs). It provides a very big foot in the door for similar pacts with the whole SE Asian region, with South America, and the US. It has already been described as a "Trojan horse" by the current head of the Asia 2000 Foundation, who was NZ's chief negotiator at the GATT Uruguay Round (Tim Groser, address to NZ Institute for Policy Studies, 15/3/00; "Beyond CER: new trade options for NZ"). The Alliance is critical to whether this precedent setting treaty passes or fails. Its silence on the subject has been deafening. Yet the Alliance was active in the successful campaign which defeated the MAI. Jim Anderton is a keen cricketer, so he should understand that it was an attempt to win the game with a six; they're now trying singles. The Singapore treaty is not just about trade. It has major implications for foreign investment. Building on the model of the MAI and the aborted Millennium Round of the WTO, it will doubtless offer features such as no rollback and national treatment for Singaporean investors here. Meaning that it will be impossible to do anything substantive to repair the damage done by 15 years of unrestricted foreign takeover of NZ, and illegal to give any preference to NZ companies over Singaporean ones. Singapore is already a major player among NZ's new transnational owners - Singaporeans partly or fully own assets including Brierley's (which has moved to Singapore), Air New Zealand, Auckland Airport, DB, Corbans, Union Shipping, Sealord, CDL (the largest hotel owner in NZ), Computerland, large numbers of commercial buildings, rural land and resorts. And some of that "investment" has been controversial - the Singaporean partner of Tommy Suharto bought the multimillion dollar Lilybank resort from him for $1. So this treaty, if passed, will contribute to: the crippling balance of payments deficit (as profits haemorrhage out of the country), to the unemployment that follows foreign "investors" as they rationalise, restructure and relocate their bargain buys, and to the creation of more menial, lowpaid jobs. These are some of the reasons why this treaty must be made public, with its implications clearly spelled out to Parliamentarians and public alike, and why it must be defeated. To discourage the others. Murray Horton Secretary/Organiser Ph (03) 3663988 day/night From amittal at foodfirst.org Sat Aug 19 07:33:41 2000 From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal) Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 15:33:41 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1522] Victory in FOX BGH Suit Message-ID: <0.700000824.1436619347-951758591-966638021@topica.com> This just in... A Tampa jury late this afternoon returned a verdict in favor of investigative reporter Jane Akre. The six-member panel has awarded her $450,000 in damages, concluding she was fired from her job at WTVT in Tampa for threatening to report to the Federal Communications Commission that the station wanted her to broadcast a false and misleading news report about Monsanto's synthethic bovine growth hormone (rBGH). The same jury decided Steve Wilson's resistence to distorting the news and his threat to report Fox's misconduct to the FCC was not "the" reason the station chose not to renew his contract. More details will be posted right after they finish the last of the champagne! Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst@foodfirst.org. ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics From notoapec at clear.net.nz Sat Aug 19 10:52:24 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (notoapec@clear.net.nz) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 13:52:24 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [asia-apec 1523] NZ Herald - Message-ID: <200008190152.NAA10453@waklwh3.wilsonandhorton.co.nz> NZ Herald 19/08/00 - Free trade deal may need MPs' okay By BRIAN FALLOW The Government will announce next week whether Parliament will decide if New Zealand signs the free trade deal with Singapore initialled by officials yesterday. Weekend Business understands the agreement will not only be sent to a select committee for public submissions, but be put to the vote in Parliament. Traditionally, ratification of treaties is a prerogative of the Executive, in effect a cabinet decision. Parliament, for example, did not vote on New Zealand's membership of the World Trade Organisation, although it did have to pass amendments to trade and copyright legislation to make New Zealand law compatible with membership. In addition to misgivings about that system, another factor inclining the Government to refer the matter to Parliament is that it is an issue on which the Coalition partners may agree to disagree. The text is not expected to be made public until the cabinet has seen it on Monday. It is understood to include a clause to reassure Maori that nothing in the agreement will impede the Government's ability to honour Treaty of Waitangi obligations or work on closing the gaps. Opposition parties have raised objections to any provision for special treatment for Maori, but a spokesman for Trade Minister Jim Sutton said a treaty reservation had been part of the negotiating brief since talks began last year. Singaporean concerns about the impact of the treaty on Singaporean investment in NZ have apparently been addressed, and may have arisen from a failure to understand that private assets are off-limits in addressing treaty grievances. Most trade between New Zealand and Singapore is already free, as both countries have been unilateral liberalisers. Textiles, clothing and footwear are the major exceptions. Mr Sutton said the agreement would improve New Zealand firms' access to the education, telecommunications, environmental, medical, architecture and engineering sectors. He said there would be a mechanism to address recognition of professional qualifications. Both countries would bind their existing investment regimes. For example, if a future New Zealand Government were to lower the threshold for approval for non-land investments from its current $50 million, that would not apply to Singapore. Doubts have been raised about the robustness of the agreement's rules of origin, which require that at last 40 per cent of the cost of the goods ex-factory has to have been incurred in Singapore or New Zealand. Mr Sutton said Customs would analyse imports from Singapore to identify potential areas of duty evasion. Where claims for preferential entry were challenged, the onus would be on the importer to show that duty-free entry was valid. Tim Groser executive director of the Asia 2000 Foundation, who in his previous job as a Foreign Affairs official led the initial negotiations with the Singaporeans, said the adjustments New Zealand would have to make as a result of the deal are "next to zero," given how open the two economies are already. The flipside of that is the commercial gains to be made are modest. But the agreement should be seen as strategic, as a step towards a wider link-up of CER and the Asean free trade area, now the subject of preliminary discussions. "Even if that does not come off, it is a huge step forward for our relations with Asia to have a CER-type agreement with an Asian country. "These sorts of agreement give rise to cooperation in other areas. Expect to see closer cooperation among research institutions, for example." ---------------------------------- storyID: 148296 fromname: GATT Watchdog frommessage: submit.x: 33 submit.y: 11 For more information on Wilson and Horton please visit our web site at http://www.wilsonandhorton.co.nz ********************************************************************** CAUTION - This message may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited. If you have received this message in error please notify Wilson and Horton Limited immediately via email at postmaster@wilsonandhorton.co.nz, or by phone (649) 379 5050. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Wilson and Horton Limited. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. This does not guarantee that this message is virus free. From notoapec at clear.net.nz Sun Aug 20 07:30:16 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 15:30:16 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1524] Sutton on Singapore-NZ FTA Message-ID: <000501c00a2d$3fe740e0$6d84a7cb@notoapec> Singapore treaty text agreed Press Release New Zealand Government 18/08/00 18:16:00 A text for the Closer Economic Partnership agreement with Singapore has been agreed, Trade Negotiations Minister Jim Sutton said today. Mr Sutton said he would now submit the text and a national interest analysis to Cabinet and ask for authority to for the Closer Economic Partnership agreement to be signed. After Cabinet has considered the agreement it will be tabled in the House and referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Trade select committee for consideration. He said that in the past there had been no debate once the select committee had reported back to the house on earlier trade agreements, but there could be a debate on the agreement with Singapore. "Personally, I would be happy if there was a debate." ENDS From notoapec at clear.net.nz Sun Aug 20 07:36:12 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 15:36:12 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1525] Jim Sutton on NZ and trade (speech of 8/8/00) Message-ID: <000a01c00a2d$e166f140$6d84a7cb@notoapec> New Zealand has abiding national interests in sustaining progress towards an open trading system and fair rules governing the conduct of international trade. It is clear that some of our key objectives - such as removing barriers to primary sector trade and trade-distorting export subsidies which depress our market returns - can best be achieved through multilateral negotiation. As the Prime Minister said recently, given that over 60 percent of New Zealand?s exports come from the farm, forests, fisheries and from horticulture, this is an issue of the highest national priority. We are working hard in government to get another comprehensive round of international trade talks off the ground ? and it is essential that these talks include agriculture. Meantime the WTO can benefit us - and is doing so - by encouraging adherence to the agreed rules of trade. This has been a sore point in the past for smaller, less powerful exporting countries. One example is the case New Zealand took against a dairy export subsidy programme in Canada which was affecting our markets on a daily basis ? the WTO ruled last year that that subsidy was inconsistent with the rules and Canada has since committed to remove the subsidy. Prior to the WTO there was no mechanism for enforcing such decisions. We have also been giving close attention to another important trade relationship in the Asia-pacific region. That with Singapore. We have had six rounds of negotiations with the Singaporeans on a Closer Economic Partnership. The negotiation is now close to conclusion. There are only a few remaining outstanding issues. The CEP Agreement with Singapore will deliver reciprocal benefits, encourage trade and investment and significantly enhance our economic partnership with a key Asian economy. All tariffs on bilateral goods trade will be eliminated on entry into force of the CEP. New Zealand exporters will benefit from this Agreement. The CEP aims to provide New Zealand with improved market access opportunities in the Singapore services market and reduce compliance costs to New Zealand goods exporters through the proposed disciplines on technical regulations and standards. Singapore has improved access for New Zealand suppliers in a number of key services sectors, including education, telecommunications, environmental services, medical services, architecture and engineering services. There will be a mechanism to address recognition of professional qualifications. We have negotiated a mutual recognition agreement on the electrical/electronic goods sector, and a commitment to look at a number of other sectors to reduce TBTs. This includes food - an important sector for New Zealand. For transparency and certainty, each side will bind its existing investment regimes. For New Zealand this means the OIC thresholds will be bound (to Singapore only) but not the Overseas Investment Regime?s procedures. Ministers will meet every two years to review the CEP agreement and to expand on commitments, such as those in services. A full review of the CEP will be undertaken after five years. I?ll comment on our more traditional markets for agricultural products in Europe following a visit I made there recently. While in Paris for the OECD Ministerial Council, I had the chance to meet with EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy and with my French trade and agriculture counterparts, Francois Huwart and Jean Glavany. The meetings with French Ministers were particularly timely given France's assumption of the EU Presidency in July. These meetings underscored the value of an open dialogue with the EU Commission and with Member States on trade issues. The future course of issues like reform of the Common Agricultural Policy - which is probably the biggest government influence on world agricultural trade and prices - eastward enlargement of the Union and WTO negotiations are crucial to New Zealand's interests. It was clear from my meetings that the EU faces some difficult issues in coming years. The CAP is already too expensive, and the accession of the countries to the east would make it doubly so. Reform is inevitable and the direction seems clear - greater reliance on market prices and fewer production and trade distorting subsidies. I think the policy argument has already been won on that score. The battle will be over the pace and the extent of these changes. I need not remind this audience of the interests opposing change. The French Minister of Agriculture reminded me, however. Despite the outcome of the Uruguay Round which legally binds our current access rights; despite the fact that the EU can no longer reduce our access, especially the growth of NZ chilled lamb exports; despite the fact that NZ has been supplying Europe for a very long time and that we, too, can justifiably regard it as our market ; despite this, local interests are still pressuring their leaders to do something about NZ exports. My message is: there's no room for complacency about our sheepmeat access (or dairy access for that matter). We need to be very watchful and very careful. We have to make sure that we remain the ones making the commercial choices - not letting these be made for us by EU officials. In closing, New Zealand has a remarkable export story and we have the potential for an even more remarkable export future. Our fortunes are dependent on export. But we are not Ireland, with the European market on our doorstep, the largesse of the EU at our disposal, or the US just across the sea. Nor do we have the critical mass, domestic market and mineral wealth of our neighbour, Australia. We are a small country in the southern Pacific ocean. Nevertheless, we have successfully charted our own course toward carving out a place in the international economy. The Government is committed to working with you to ensure we do even better in the future. Where we can help, and where it makes good sense to do so, we will. Thank you From amittal at foodfirst.org Tue Aug 22 03:50:01 2000 From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 11:50:01 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1526] 25th Anniversary of Food First Message-ID: <0.700000824.2079400076-951758591-966883801@topica.com> Help Celebrate the 25th Anniversary of Food First The Institute for Food and Development Policy 25th ANNIVERSARY/Invitation ______________________________________________ You are Cordially Invited to Join Us in Celebrating 25 Years of Food First's Fight Against Hunger Monday, September 18, 2000 California Ballroom (RSVP reply card below, tickets are limited) Special guest Vandana Shiva, Director of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology, and Ecology in New Delhi Music by Dana Lyons and by Kevin Welch of Vivendo de Pão 1736 Franklin Street Oakland, California 6:00 PM-10:00 PM wine & beer/full dinner (vegetarian & non-vegetarian)/dessert buffet) street parking available/wheelchair accessible Honorary Inviting Committee (Partial List) Nick Allen Dion S. Aroner Ed Asner Harry Belafonte Medea Benjamin & Kevin Danaher Virginia Blacklidge, MD Keith Carson Noam Chomsky Joseph Collins Danny Glover Claire B. Greensfelder Adam & Arlie Hochschild Dolores Huerta David R. Hunter John Jeavons Mollie Katzen Frances Moore Lappé Barbara Lee Eric Leenson Jerry Mander Peter Mann Carole Migden George Miller John Momper Monica Moore Nancy Nadel Nancy Pelosi Carl Pope Wilson C. Riles, Jr. Martha B. Russell Orville Schell Bill Sokol Mal Warwick Alice Waters Food First Board of Trustees Angus Wright, President Miguel Altieri, Vice-President John Vandermeer, Secretary Sharon Vosmek, Treasurer Walden Bello, boona cheema, Claire Cummings, Marianna Edmunds, Carolyn Mugar, Prexy Nesbitt RSVP REPLY CARD/tickets are limited ______________________________________________ 25th Anniversary Dinner Monday, September 18, 2000, 6:00 PM-10:00 PM California Ballroom, 1736 Franklin Street, Oakland, California wine & beer/full dinner/dessert buffet (Map with directions enclosed) [ ] Yes, I will attend. I have enclosed $100/person for _____ people. Please specify [ ] meat [ ] vegetarian. [ ] I would like to be a 25th Anniversary sponsor. [ ] $1,000 Friend [ ] $5,000 Advocate [ ] $10,000 Educator [ ] $25,000 Activist [ ] $50,000 Benefactor Sponsorship includes four dinners, listing in the program, and a placard on a table at the event. Name __________________________________________ Street ___________________________________________ City/State/Zip _____________________________________ [ ] I cannot attend, but here is my tax-deductible donation of $_____. [ ] charge my credit card [ ] visa [ ] mastercard Number__________________________________  exp________ Note: If you attend, all but $40 of your donation is tax deductible. Please make your check payable to Food First, 398 60th Street, Oakland, CA 94618. Phone: 510-654-4400. Or visit www.foodfirst.org to order online and for more information. Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst@foodfirst.org. ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics From amittal at foodfirst.org Thu Aug 24 03:54:05 2000 From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal) Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:54:05 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1527] United Nations Body warns of conflicts between TRIPS and Human Rights Message-ID: <0.700000824.636705942-951758591-967056845@topica.com> PLEASE POST Excellent work -- thanks to International NGO Committee on Human Rights in Trade and Investment (INCHRITI). warm regards, Anuradha August 23, 2000 PRESS RELEASE Contacts: Miloon Kothari, Habitat International Coalition and INCHRITI. Tel./Fax: 91.11.4628492; E-mail: hichrc@ndf.vsnl.net.in Peter Prove, Lutheran World Federation and INCHRITI. Tel: 41.22.7916364; Fax: 41.22.7988616; E-mail: pnp@lutheranworld.org UNITED NATIONS BODY WARNS OF CONFLICTS BETWEEN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS COULD INFLUENCE PATENTS FOR DRUGS, BIOTECH SEEDS Geneva - On August 17, 2000, an important UN human rights body unanimously adopted a resolution calling into question the impact of the World Trade Organization (WTO)'s Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights (known as TRIPS) on the human rights of peoples and communities, including farmers and indigenous peoples worldwide. The surprising resolution signals a growing concern about an industry-driven intellectual property agreement that protects corporate patents around the world, sometimes at the expense of national economic and health concerns. The TRIPs agreement sets international rules to protect patents in a whole host of sectors, but it is particularly important for pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. In the unprecedented resolution, the UN Sub-Commission for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights pointed out the dire consequences on the human rights to food, health and self-determination if the TRIPS Agreement is implemented in its current form. Reminding governments of the primacy of human rights obligations over economic policies and programs, the resolution states that there are "apparent conflicts between the intellectual property rights regime embodied in the TRIPS Agreement, on the one hand, and international human rights law, on the other." "This is a pathbreaking resolution in more ways than one," stated Miloon Kothari from the International NGO Committee on Human Rights in Trade and Investment (INCHRITI), an alliance of eight human rights coalitions that advocated action by the Sub-Commission on TRIPS. First and foremost this timely resolution signifies the resolve of the UN human rights programme to monitor the work of the WTO. Basing itself on the provisions of both the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, "this historic resolution has affirmed the primacy of human rights and environmental obligations over the commercial and profit driven motives upon which agreements such as TRIPS are based." added Kothari. According to Peter Prove of the Lutheran World Federation, a human rights analysis of the interpretation and implementation of the TRIPS Agreement reveals that TRIPS has skewed the balance inherent in intellectual property law systems away from the public interest and in favour of intellectual property rights holders. He said that, contrary to some analyses, intellectual property rights do not have the character of fundamental human rights, but rather of subordinate or instrumental rights. Simon Walker of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights noted that the TRIPS Agreement's requirement that pharmaceuticals be patented by all WTO Members "might be appropriate for countries with high levels of investment in medical research. But," he asked, "is it suitable for countries with a high level of HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis infection that have not yet developed a pharmaceutical research base? For these countries, access to drugs -- rather than innovation of drugs -- is the imperative. Given that there is a link between patent protection and higher prices for pharmaceuticals, the grant of private property rights could be detrimental to public health -- and development in general -- in these countries." The UN Sub-Commission's resolution marks the beginning of what promises to be an intense monitoring of WTO work by the UN human rights system. The resolution asks the WTO, in general, and the Council on TRIPS during its ongoing review of the TRIPS Agreement, in particular, "to take fully into account the existing State obligations under international human rights instruments." It also asks the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to prepare a report on the implications of the TRIPS Agreement and options for further action by the Sub-Commission. The resolution has also called upon the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and other relevant UN agencies to undertake an analysis of the human rights impacts of the TRIPS agreement. The resolution comes at a time of intense questioning by developing country governments of the TRIPS Agreement and its interpretation and implementation, and of calls by numerous national and international civil society alliances for the TRIPS Agreement to be brought in line with human rights and environmental imperatives. Stressing that intellectual property rights have to serve public benefit, and concerned by the true motives of the TRIPS agreement, the resolution calls upon governments to integrate into their national and local legislations and policies provisions that, in accordance with international human rights instruments and principles, protect the social function of intellectual property. For more information on the work of both the UN Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and INCHRITI, please contact: Miloon Kothari, Habitat International Coalition and INCHRITI. Tel./Fax: 91.11.4628492; E-mail: hichrc@ndf.vsnl.net.in Peter Prove, Lutheran World Federation and INCHRITI. Tel: 41.22.7916364; Fax: 41.22.7988616; E-mail: pnp@lutheranworld.org COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights Fifty-second session Agenda item 4 THE REALIZATION OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS Intellectual Property Rights and Human Rights The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Reaffirming that, as declared in article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in the Universal Declaration can be fully realized, Stressing the need to work towards the realization for all people and communities of the rights, including to food, housing, work, health and education, enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Recalling its resolutions 1998/8, 1998/12, 1999/8, 1999/29 and 1999/30, and resolution 1999/59 of the Commission on Human Rights, Noting the statement of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to the Third Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization (WTO) (26/11/99.E/C.12/1999/9), Welcoming the preliminary report submitted by J. Oloka-Onyango and D. Udagama on "Globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of human rights"; (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/13), Noting the provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which echoes the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on the right to self-determination and on the balance of rights and duties inherent in the protection of intellectual property rights, and its provisions relating to, inter alia, the safeguarding of biological diversity and indigenous knowledge relating to biological diversity, and the promotion of the transfer of environmentally sustainable technologies, Aware of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), and of its current review by the World Trade Organization Council on TRIPS, Aware also of the panel discussion organized by the World Intellectual Property Organization on 9 November 1998 on "Intellectual Property and Human Rights"; Noting the Human Development Reports 1999 and 2000, which identify circumstances attributable to the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement that constitute contraventions of international human rights law, Noting also that members of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations, participants at the World Intellectual Property Organization Roundtables on Intellectual Property and Indigenous Peoples (23-24 July 1998 and 1-2 November 1999), and representatives of indigenous peoples have called for adequate protection of the traditional knowledge and cultural values of indigenous peoples, Noting furthermore that actual or potential conflicts exist between the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement and the realization of economic, social and cultural rights in relation to, inter alia, impediments to the transfer of technology to developing countries, the consequences for the enjoyment of the right to food of plant variety rights and the patenting of genetically modified organisms, 'bio-piracy' and the reduction of communities' (especially indigenous communities') control over their own genetic and natural resources and cultural values, and restrictions on access to patented pharmaceuticals and the implications for the enjoyment of the right to health, 1. Affirms that the right to protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which one is the author is, in accordance with article 27, paragraph 2, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 15, paragraph 1 c), of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, a human right, subject to limitations in the public interest; 2. Declares, however, that since the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement does not adequately reflect the fundamental nature and indivisibility of all human rights, including the right of everyone to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications, the right to health, the right to food, and the right to self-determination, there are apparent conflicts between the intellectual property rights regime embodied in the TRIPS Agreement, on the one hand, and international human rights law, on the other; 3. Reminds all Governments of the primacy of human rights obligations over economic policies and agreements; 4. Requests all Governments and national, regional and international economic policy forums to take international human rights obligations and principles fully into account in international economic policy formulation; 5. Requests Governments to integrate into their national and local legislations and policies, provisions, in accordance with international human rights obligations and principles, that protect the social function of intellectual property; 6. Further requests inter-governmental organizations to integrate into their policies, practices and operations, provisions, in accordance with international human rights obligations and principles, that protect the social function of intellectual property; 7. Calls upon States Parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to fulfil the duty under articles 2, paragraph 1, 11, paragraph 2, and 15, paragraph 4, to cooperate internationally in order to realize the legal obligations under the Covenant, including in the context of international intellectual property regimes; 8. Requests the World Trade Organization, in general, and the Council on TRIPS during its ongoing review of the TRIPS Agreement, in particular, to take fully into account the existing State obligations under international human rights instruments; 9. Requests the Special Rapporteurs on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of human rights to include consideration of the human rights impact of the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement in their next report; 10. Requests the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to undertake an analysis of the human rights impacts of the TRIPS Agreement; 11. Encourages the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to clarify the relationship between intellectual property rights and human rights, including through the drafting of a general comment on this subject; 12. Recommends to the World Intellectual Property Organization, the World Health Organization, the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the United Nations Environment Programme and other relevant United Nations agencies that they continue and deepen their analysis of the impacts of the TRIPS Agreement, including a consideration of its human rights implications; 13. Commends the Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biodiversity for its decision to assess the relationship between biodiversity concerns and intellectual property rights, in general, and between the Convention on Biodiversity and TRIPS, in particular, and urges it also to consider human rights principles and instruments in undertaking this assessment; 14. Encourages the relevant civil society organizations to promote with their respective Governments the need for economic policy processes fully to integrate and respect existing human rights obligations, and to continue to monitor and publicize the effects of economic policies that fail to take such obligations into account; 15. Asks the Secretary-General to provide a report on this question at its next session. 17th August, 2000 [Adopted without a vote] <<<< Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst@foodfirst.org. ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics From notoapec at clear.net.nz Mon Aug 28 12:58:50 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (notoapec@clear.net.nz) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 15:58:50 +1200 (NZST) Subject: [asia-apec 1528] NZ Herald - Message-ID: <200008280358.PAA09965@waklwh3.wilsonandhorton.co.nz> 28/08/00 - Minister sketches big free-trade picture by DANIEL RIORDAN A series of free-trade agreements, starting with Hong Kong, is possible once the Singapore free-trade deal is in place. Trade Minister Jim Sutton says Hong Kong offers a superb gateway for New Zealand exporters to a Chinese market of enormous potential. Speaking after addressing the New Zealand/China Trade Association, Mr Sutton said that at this stage China was probably "a bit too big for us to digest." "If we're talking about a China connection, Hong Kong may be more suitable. We know they have sufficient autonomy to negotiate such matters independently, yet they're part of the Chinese nation. "Potentially we could negotiate with them in a similar way to how we've negotiated with Singapore, towards a free-trade agreement or some form of economic partnership." Mr Sutton stressed there had been no formal discussions with Hong Kong, but rather "exploratory approaches" between diplomats, about free trade with Hong Kong and with other countries. "Undoubtedly, when we've got the Singapore [agreement] nailed down and Parliament has hopefully expressed its overwhelming approval for it, we can start firming up some of these approaches." Mr Sutton also quoted figures from a new study of the benefits to New Zealand from China's commitment to reducing tariffs once it enters the World Trade Organisation. The cuts will save Kiwi exporters of non-wool products $33 million a year. The biggest winners, based on present trade levels, would be dairy ($21.8 million), timber (paper, wood products $2.5 million), fish ($2.1 million) and methanol ($2.1 million). The assessment does not include benefits to the wool industry, which depend in part on the outcome of ongoing market access negotiations. Nor does it include the effect of tariff reductions that encourage trade in new products. Mr Sutton said he expected China to be in a position to join the WTO by the end of the year. The Singapore closer economic partnership would remove tariffs on textiles, clothing and footwear and free up New Zealand and Singapore's access to each other's services and investment markets. The agreement is being finalised by officials and goes to cabinet next month, before being tabled in Parliament and sent to the foreign affairs and defence select committee. Cabinet has final say on international treaties and agreements on New Zealand's behalf, something which has not pleased the Alliance, the Greens and Act, who have been pressing for Parliament to have a say on such issues. The Alliance last week secured a parliamentary vote on the agreement and will almost certainly vote against the deal as its first formal point of difference in its coalition agreement with Labour. The Greens have already labelled the vote "a Clayton's vote" as its outcome will be non-binding on cabinet. The agreement is in danger only if National decides to object. a briefing on Treaty of Waitangi clauses. ---------------------------------- storyID: 149212 fromname: GATT Watchdog frommessage: submit.x: 37 submit.y: 9 For more information on Wilson and Horton please visit our web site at http://www.wilsonandhorton.co.nz ********************************************************************** CAUTION - This message may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited. If you have received this message in error please notify Wilson and Horton Limited immediately via email at postmaster@wilsonandhorton.co.nz, or by phone (649) 379 5050. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Wilson and Horton Limited. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. This does not guarantee that this message is virus free. From amittal at foodfirst.org Tue Aug 29 06:00:15 2000 From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 14:00:15 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1529] The case for Small Farms Message-ID: <0.700000824.251431839-951758591-967496415@topica.com> MULTINATIONAL MONITOR JULY/AUGUST 2000 VOLUME 21 NUMBER 7 & 8 The Case for Small Farms An Interview with Peter Rosset Peter M. Rosset, Ph.D. is co director of the Oakland, California-based Institute for Food and Development Policy -- better known as Food First -- a nonprofit "people's" think tank and education-for-action center whose work highlights root causes and value-based solutions to hunger and poverty around the world, with a commitment to establishing food as a fundamental human right. He is author of a number of briefing papers, including "The Multiple Functions and Benefits of Small Farm Agriculture in the Context of Global Trade Negotiations," and is co-author of the book "World Hunger: Twelve Myths." Multinational Monitor: Large farms are commonly viewed as more productive than small farms. What's the evidence that suggests that in fact small farms are more productive? Peter Rosset: Here at the Institute for Food and Development Policy, we've reviewed the data from every country for which it's available, comparing the productivity of smaller farms versus larger farms. By productivity, I mean the total output of agricultural products per unit area -- per acre or hectare. For every country for which data is available, smaller farms are anywhere from 200 to 1,000 percent more productive per unit area. The myth of the greater productivity of larger farms stems in part from the confusing use of the term "yield" to measure productivity. Yield is how much of a single crop you can get per unit area -- for example, bushels of soy beans per acre. That's a measure that's only relevant to monocultures. A monoculture is when a single crop is grown in a field, rather than the kind of mixtures of crops and animals that small farmers have. When you grow one crop all by itself, you may get a lot of that one crop, but you're not using the ecological space -- the land and water -- very efficiently. In monocultures, you have rows of one crop with bare dirt between them. In ecological terms, that bare dirt is empty niche space. It's going to be invaded and taken advantage of by some species in the ecosystem, and generally we call those species weeds. So if that bare dirt is invaded, the farmer has to invest labor or spray herbicides or pull a tractor through to deal with those weeds. Large farmers generally have monocultures because they are easier to fully mechanize. Smaller farmers tend to have crop mixtures. Between the rows of one crop there will be another crop, or several other crops, so that ecological niche space -- that potential -- is producing something of use to the farmer rather than requiring an investment of more labor, money or herbicides. What that means is that the smaller farm with the more complex farming system gets more total production per unit area, because they're using more of the available niche space. It might look like the large farm is more productive because you're getting more, say, soybeans per acre. But you're not getting the other five, six, ten or twelve products that the smaller farmer is getting. And when you add all of those together, they come to a much greater total agricultural output per unit area than the larger farms are getting. MM: Is that the essential difference -- that the small farms use a more complex cropping arrangement? Rosset: There are a lot of reasons why smaller farms produce more per unit area than larger farmers. One is because of the more complex systems, as I explained. Small farmers also benefit by integrating crops and livestock. By rotating pasture and planted fields, animal manure is used as fertilizer, and then the part of the crop that is not consumed by humans -- let's say the stalks of a corn plant -- is food for the animals. So there's recycling of nutrients and biomass within the system. That also makes it more efficient and productive. Small farmers tend to invest more labor in their land. That too makes it more productive. And the quality of the labor is much better. When it's a farm family whose future depends upon maintaining the productivity of that soil and that piece of land, they naturally take better care of it. When it's a huge corporate farm with relatively alienated wage labor doing the work, the employees do not have the kind of tie to the future of that piece of land that they would if they were family farmers. MM: It seems as if some of these benefits are not necessarily inherent in size but just in the different styles of farming. Could you have, for example, more complex kinds of farming on large farms? Rosset: You can, but what tends to be limiting is mechanization. As farms get very large, labor costs and logistics become prohibitive, so farmers switch to machinery, and machinery requires simpler systems. With machines, you can't achieve the same level of complexity and therefore the level of productivity that you can with a smaller size. So some of the factors do depend on size and others depend on styles of management and relationships between human beings and the land. MM: Do the general points you're making apply equally to farms in the United States and other rich countries as well as farms in the developing world? Rosset: Amazing as it may sound, we find the same general pattern. Some of the causes may be different, and what we consider a small farm versus a large farm may be different, but smaller farms in the U.S. produce more than 10 times more value of output per unit area than large farms. Part of that is because smaller farmers in the U.S. tend to produce higher value crops, but part of it also has to do with the same factors that explain greater productivity of smaller farms in the Third World. MM: If all this is so, then how come the conventional wisdom is just the opposite? Rosset: For one thing, there are vested interests behind the conventional wisdom. Obviously we have a huge corporate-owned agribusiness system in this country that has a vested interest in making the American public believe that what they're doing is productive and efficient and good for us. So there's a little bit of intentional myth creation going on. There's also the fact that smaller farms don't appear to be economically viable. Despite what I've said about productivity, they're being driven out of business in incredible numbers. At the end of World War II, we had more than six million farms in the United States; today we have less than two million, and it's mostly the smaller farms that have been driven out of business. We have to look at why that is. My belief is that it's because we have a system here that rewards inefficiency, low productivity and destruction of soil -- 90 percent of the topsoil in the United States is being lost faster than it can be replaced. This system is heavily based on direct payment subsidies tied to the amount of land that a farmer has. American taxpayers paid a record $22 billion in direct farm payments last year. Sixty-one percent of those payments went to the largest 10 percent of American farmers. Although those subsidies have been presented to us as helping keep family farmers on the land, they do just the opposite. Because large farms in the U.S. get such a large subsidy, they can stay in business even if they're selling what they produce below the cost of production. The subsidies are tied to area and allow prices to drop below the cost of production. That prevents small farmers from competing because: one, crop prices have dropped so low and two, they don't have enough land to get enough subsidies to live on. The system drives inefficiency and destruction of resources, because the large farms are the ones that strip rural America of trees, destroy the soil, dump so many pesticides, and compact the soil with machines. It's basically a transfer of money from the pockets of U.S. taxpayers to large corporate farmers, so that they can stay in business despite low prices, and to the ones who benefit the most -- the Cargills and ADMs of the world who have all this grain that they're buying at giveaway prices and using to capture markets around the world and drive small farmers out of business in Mexico, India, Africa, Asia and South America. MM: Is export dumping the primary cause of farmers in the Third World being driven off the land? Rosset: There are many ways that policies are biased against small farmers in the Third World. In any particular Third World country, you'll find that the local landed oligarchy tends to have captured the political system and distorted rural policies in their favor, whether it's agricultural credit, prices, marketing, input supply or trade policy. But all those biases together pale in comparison with the impact of this kind of export dumping and the taking over of local markets by multinational grain companies. Because of the perverse way that farm subsidies work in both the United States and European Economic Community, the U.S. and Europe are dumping agricultural commodities on Third World economies at prices often below the cost of production. Local farmers can't compete. MM: To what extent in developing countries does the Green Revolution change the equation? Don't Green Revolution efficiencies require big farms? Rosset: What's happened with the Green Revolution is sort of a microcosm of what's happened in the United States in this century, where agricultural production has gone up tremendously, but at the cost of driving people out of the countryside and into the cities, where the economy cannot absorb the excess labor. The Green Revolution promoted seeds that required chemicals, irrigation and other expensive investments that could only be adopted by larger, wealthier farmers, but not by smaller, poorer farmers. This allowed the larger, wealthier farmers to expand at the expense of the smaller farmers. During the boom years of the Green Revolution, from 1970 to 1990, world food production did go up dramatically. Unfortunately, hunger increased in most parts of the Third World as well. The Green Revolution creates what we call the paradox of plenty, or hunger amidst abundance. Production goes up, but that production is in the hands of larger farmers, who expand at the expense of smaller farmers. These smaller farmers eventually lose their land, move to the cities, don't find jobs, and can't afford to buy the additional food that's produced. So the Green Revolution gives you more food and more hunger. If we ever really want to get at hunger in the future, we have to find a different kind of agricultural model that can have additional production come from the hands of the poor themselves. The small farm model is really the only model that will allow us to have more food and less hunger, instead of repeating the mistakes of the Green Revolution era when we had more food and more hunger. MM: What happens when you add the World Trade Organization and proposals for agricultural liberalization into the story? Rosset: I think the proposed agreements on agriculture in the WTO are the gravest threat to rural communities, small farmers and rural ecologies around the world, perhaps the gravest threat in history. I've already described a system that's pretty bad, but despite all odds, small farmers and peasants have clung to the land in incredible numbers all around the world. But the WTO agreement on agriculture threatens to remove virtually any ability on the part of individual countries to protect their agricultural sectors, to stop the flooding of their local markets with cheap imports from Northern countries or other large grain-exporting companies. It would take away the ability of countries to have programs that promote or support small farmers or family farmers. Organizations representing small farmers, medium-sized farmers, farmworkers and the landless from all over the world were in Seattle last November protesting the WTO. We had the National Family Farm Coalition from the United States, the National Farmers Union from Canada, Mexican farmworker unions, the landless workers union (MST) from Brazil, farmworker unions from Africa, farmers' organizations from Africa, farmers' organizations from Thailand, the United Farm Workers union from the United States -- an incredible international coalition of rural organizations all saying that the proposed WTO rules for agriculture would be a death sentence for rural communities and rural areas around the world. The upside of the WTO proposals is that they have helped a new global food movement coalesce. It's got all of those rural actors -- farmers, farmworkers and the landless -- as well as environmentalists concerned about pesticides and genetically altered crops and consumers concerned about food safety, working together against the WTO. To me this is very exciting, because counting all the people negatively affected by the global food system as we know it, we are really the majority of the people in the world. MM: What would the WTO agricultural proposals do and how does that differ or go beyond the already-existing restrictions on Third World governments? Rosset: Many Third World countries have already been hurt by structural adjustment agreements. In exchange for renegotiating the debt, the IMF and World Bank forced them to open their borders to imports, among many other things. That meant opening their borders to the dumping of Northern food surpluses and cheap food and undercutting their local farmers. What the WTO rules would do is raise those agreements to the level of treaty law, making it a violation of international law for a country to impose any kind of protection on its agricultural sector. I believe that every country, in order to have national security, has to have the most important dietary elements for its population produced within its borders. But under the WTO rules you would not be able to maintain policies to guarantee that. It would also require that Third World countries reduce any remaining tariffs much more dramatically than northern countries would have to reduce theirs. Basically what happens with free trade or the integration of economies is that you go from a relatively small-sized national economy to a larger economy. If you have a small economy that's too small to support a Cargill or an ADM, and you have protection so that it's hard for those companies to get in, then you have a situation where smaller producers and smaller companies can flourish. When you open up into a larger economy, you create the conditions where the giant conglomerates now have large enough market conditions to support themselves, and then they can undercut everyone else and drive everyone else out of business. So as we go from smaller economies to larger economies, we create the conditions where the largest multinationals can use their power in the marketplace to drive everyone else out of business, with devastating social consequences. MM: What is multifunctionality? Rosset: Multifunctionality is a way of characterizing agriculture that would set it apart from other kinds of economic activity, like industry. The notion is that farming isn't just producing corn the way that, for instance, a shoe factory produces shoes, because agriculture also involves the management of natural resources. Agriculture has impacts on culture and ways of life, and farmers are the custodians of those cultures. The concept of multifunctionality was developed by the European Union as a way of arguing that agriculture should receive special treatment in the WTO and shouldn't be opened to free trade the way that industry has been. Unfortunately, that notion didn't have a lot of success in terms of trying to stop the U.S.-driven juggernaut towards free trade in agriculture. The United States was able to point out quite rightly that Western Europe was being hypocritical in saying that they wanted protection for agriculture in order to preserve its multiple functions, given the way European export subsidies are destroying farming in the Third World. Of course the United States was also being hypocritical, since U.S. export dumping is also destroying agriculture throughout the Third World. As a result of the U.S. maneuvering, this very interesting and I think potentially very useful concept fell by the wayside. MM: How would you like to see it incorporated into trade agreements? Rosset: It should be the basis for excluding agriculture from the WTO altogether. I think that agriculture does serve these multiple functions. It is very special and important, and it shouldn't be subjected to arbitrary and exaggerated free trade policies. If agriculture were excluded from the WTO, then countries would be able to develop policies towards their rural sectors that were tailored towards their own rural needs, their own realities and their own cultures, something that's not permitted under the WTO. Multifunctionality does give at least a theoretical argument for why you should exclude agriculture. MM: How does land reform work to promote the kinds of goals that you're talking about? In areas where there has been a heavy liberalization and destruction of the rural sector, does land reform help revitalize these areas? Rosset: First of all, I believe that a small farm model is the only way to achieve broad-based economic development, where poor people themselves are the source of production within an economy. I also believe that small farmers are better stewards of natural resources, and that a small farm system offers much more sustainability in the long run. Without land reform to create a small farm system in many countries of the world, truly sustainable development is not possible. However, redistributing land is not enough. If we redistribute land but allow trade liberalization to move ahead, then we're giving people land under economic circumstances under which it's impossible to survive on that land. Land reform is a key policy for rural development, but it must go hand-in-hand with stepping back from the free trade agenda in agriculture and also with reversing some of the anti-small farmer and anti-peasant biases in agriculture and agricultural policies around the world. MM: Given that kind framework, what makes for good land reform? Rosset: Good land reform redistributes good quality land to truly needy families and gives that land to them in a macroeconomic environment in which small farm agricultural production is viable. It gives them the support services like access to market, credits and good technical assistance about sustainable or organic kinds of production practices that provide them an opportunity to succeed. If land reform gives people very poor land in remote areas with no access to markets and a macroeconomic environment in which agricultural production itself is not viable, then we're setting people up for failure. When we look at the history of land reforms in the post-war period around the world, we find a range from very successful land reforms which led to very successful broad-based economic development -- in countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the People's Republic of China and Cuba -- to countries where land reform was an abysmal failure and people eventually moved deeper and deeper into poverty -- countries like Mexico, the Philippines, El Salvador, etc. So land reform has to be a real land reform in which people get good quality land and in which market conditions favor their production, and in which they have a supportive state for small-farm production. Otherwise, it's doomed to be a failure. But we do have these great success stories that show that under the right circumstances and with the right set of policies it really can be the key to turning the corner towards broad-based economic development with economic benefits for all. Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst@foodfirst.org. ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics From notoapec at clear.net.nz Tue Aug 29 06:34:52 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:34:52 +1200 Subject: [asia-apec 1530] Fw: Mi'kmaqs Make URGENT PLEA for SUPPORT Message-ID: <004c01c01137$cfd83360$86cca7cb@notoapec> > >August 22, 2000 > >Dear Friends and Allies across Canada, Turtle Island, internationally: > >This URGENT PLEA for support from Mi'kmaq Territory is for: > >>>> INTERNATIONAL MEDIA ATTENTION - please forward to ALL international >contacts and ALL media contacts > >>>> ON-THE-SPOT PERSONNEL as witnesses, and other direct aid - please see >the last, lengthy message for details on how to help > >The Coalition for a Public Inquiry into Ipperwash is very concerned about >the escalating backlash, tension and official repression against Peoples who >claim their land, treaty, cultural and other human rights. > >For five years, our members and supporters have been saying that impunity >for the decision-makers and perpetrators of the 1995 police assault at >Ipperwash Park against the Stoney Point People (who were involved in >non-violent asssertion of Aboriginal rights) would inevitably result in >greater violence and repression by authorities. This is why we formed our >Coalition and have continued to push for a Public Inquiry into the >"Ipperwash" events. > >We just hope and pray that no lives will be lost during the just struggle of >the Mi'kmaw People for human rights and dignity. > >Perhaps you can help in some way... > >In solidarity - for justice and peace, >Ann Pohl >Coalition for a Public Inquiry into Ipperwash >t: 416-537-3520 >f: 416-538-2559 >e: annpohl@interlog.com >- Visit the Coalition for a Public Inquiry on the web at >www.web.net/~inquiry - >- "We Remember" Vigil: Join us Sept. 6, 2000, Queen's Park, Toronto, 9 - 11 >pm - > > >********************************************* >********************************************* > >FROM MI'KMAQ TERRITORY: > >>Dear friend, >> >>We are asking for your support in getting this to the international Press. >Currently, our warriors are in the process of defending what few traps and >boats that we have left. >> >>All My Relations, >> >>James Ward >> >> >> >>For Immediate Release >>August 19. 2000 -Burnt Church, New Brunswick >> >>Canadian Government Backs Out of Agreement with Burnt Church Natives >> >>Department of Fisheries and Oceans New Brunswick and the Mi'kmaq of Burnt >Church had reached a tentative agreement that would allow the Natives to >fish in a certain perimeter. However, DFO had broken protocol by restricting >further the fishing grounds allocated to the Mi'kmaq as well the number of >traps has been reduced further. >> >>As the talks degenerated further, DFO stated that they would use "force" to >achieve their objective of shutting down the lobster fishery at Burnt >Church. Many of the Mi'kmaq depend on the lobster fishery as their only >means of support, as the unemployment rate is near 90%. Burnt Church First >Nation is not in a position to lose any more traps as over 3000 have already >been confiscated by DFO or destroyed by non- native fishermen. >> >>We are urgently requesting any assistance you can offer as this is a >desperate situation. We cannot give up this fight and must continue to >ensure that our Treaty Rights are honored by the Canadian Government. We >must protect our Inherent Right for the next 7 generations. We are obligated >by honor and duty to do so. >> >>It is critical for us at this time to plead for the presence of witnesses >to monitor the continued assault of the DFO, RCMP and Canadian military on >our fishermen. Unarmed members of our community members have suffered >repeated violent attacks by government officials. These have not been >reported by mainstream media, further compromising our safety and >well-being. We have tried our best to trust in the peaceful process of >discussion and negotiation, and are left to defend ourselves against the bad >faith of the government officials. We thank you for your consideration. >> >>-30- >> >>For More Information, please contact: >> >>James Ward: (506) 776-5629 >>Danny Ward: (506) 776-8589 >> >>ablib@nbnet.nb.ca > >********************************* > >CHRISTIAN PEACEMAKER TEAMS - Canada Office >1562 Danforth Ave, Box 72063, Toronto ON M4J 5C1 >ph. 416-421-7079, fax 416-467-1508, cptcan@web.ca > > >For Immediate Release > >August 18, 2000 > >POSTAL OFFICIALS INTERFERE WITH MI'KMAQ MAIL AT BURNT CHURCH > >Postal officials in the Miramichi region of New Brunswick have interfered >with mail directed to a resident of Esgeno?petitj First Nation (Burnt >Church) as part of the ongoing campaign of harassment of Mi'kmaq lobster >fishers. > >On August 15 Christian Peacemaker Teams in Toronto ON sent a letter by >Canada Post's 24-hour Priority Courier to the Esgeno?petitj resident at his >New Jersey NB address. The letter was misdirected to the post office in >N?guac NB. That post office sat on the Priority letter for 2 days. > >When Canada Post officials finally tracked the letter down on August 18, >the N?guac postal officials said they had not been able to deliver the >letter "because of the barricades on Hwy. 11". The checkpoints currently on >Hwy.11 at the borders of the Esgeno?petitj First Nation territory have not >impeded the delivery of any mail. > >This incident is further evidence of the ongoing harassment of Mi'kmaq >people by Canadian government officials in New Brunswick. Christian >Peacemaker Teams has maintained a violence-reduction team at Esgenoopetitj >since April. > - 30 - > >For more information contact: >Doug Pritchard, CPT Canada Coordinator 416-568-8299 >CPT New Brunswick 506-779-5886, 506-776-0065 > >************************************************** >************************************************** > >CHRISTIAN PEACEMAKER TEAMS >Esgeno?petitj team: Tel: (506) 779-5886 or (506) 776-0065 >email: cptcan@sympatico.ca > >FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >by Matthew Bailey-Dick >August 17, 2000 > >FISHERIES VESSEL RAMS BOAT IN FIRST NATIONS' WATERS, THEN GIVES CHASE > >ESGENO?PETITJ (Burnt Church, New Brunswick) - On August 16, in very choppy >ocean waters in Miramichi Bay NB, a Canadian Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans >(DFO) boat deliberately rammed a First Nations boat three times. The DFO >vessel cracked the hull of the First Nations boat before chasing it to >shore. In between the rammings, DFO officer Louis Breault yelled at the >First Nations boat, "You've gotta get out of here! You're all under arrest!" > >Matthew Bailey-Dick, member of Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT), was on the >boat when it was rammed, and had to grasp the edge of the boat to avoid >being thrown into the sea. When safely back on shore, Bailey-Dick reported, >"I think we were all pretty nervous out there. That DFO boat was a lot >bigger than we were, and then to have the DFO chase us back to shore! They >should be the ones under arrest!" Another man on the boat later went to >hospital for x-rays of leg and back injuries sustained during the rammings. > >The incident occurred during an early morning assault by 8 DFO vessels in >which two First Nations boats were rammed by DFO vessels. This is another >in a series of violent actions taken by the DFO in recent days. On August >13, the DFO conducted an all-night raid in which they seized 748 First >Nations lobster traps. In this incident, observers witnessed DFO officers >drawing guns on unarmed First Nations fishers. > >While members of the Esgeno?petitj First Nation continue to assert their >treaty right to fish for lobster under their own conservation management >plan, the DFO insists that it alone has the right to control the Burnt >Church waters. In violation of international law, the Canadian government >has refused to dialogue with the people of Esgeno?petitj on a >nation-to-nation basis. Despite the aggressive behaviour of the DFO in >recent days, the fishers of Esgeno?petitj have continued to navigate the >Miramichi waters to set out their lobster traps. Members of other First >Nations communities have been arriving in Esgeno?petitj to show their >solidarity and to provide moral and logistical support. > >The CPT team in New Brunswick includes Nina Bailey-Dick (Waterloo, ON), >Matthew Bailey-Dick (Waterloo, ON), William Payne (Toronto, ON), Janet >Shoemaker (Goshen, IN), and Lena Siegers (Blyth, ON). CPT has come by >invitation of the people of Esgeno?petitj as they struggle for respect and >for the recognition of their inherent rights to fish without the threat of >violence. > >Christian Peacemaker Teams is an initiative among Mennonite and Church of >the Brethren congregations and Friends Meetings that supports violence >reduction efforts around the world. Contact CPT, PO Box 72063, 1562 >Danforth Ave., Toronto ON M4J 5C1, ph 416-421-7079, fax 416-467-1508, email >cptcan@web.ca; or CPT, POB 6508 Chicago, IL 60680, ph 312-455-1199, fax >312-432-1213, email cpt@igc.org. To join CPTNET send an e-mail to >admin@MennoLink.org and the message: Group: menno.org.cpt.news > >Visit us on the WEB: http://www.prairienet.org/cpt > >------------------------------------------------------- >Doug Pritchard >Canada Coordinator >Christian Peacemaker Teams > >****************************************************** >****************************************************** > >(The following message comes, by way of another friend named Zainab, from my >friend Willi Nolan. Willi is an environmental activist of African, European >and Mi'kmaq heritage and is presently living in New Brunswick near Burnt >Church. It actually includes some contact information and action suggestions >that I put together originally --- Isn't email amazing?? But, people are >still NEEDED in PERSON on the spot... - AP/CPI) > > >Draft - Discussion Paper - August 17, 2000 - 5 pages >Observations on the Situation of the Burnt Church Mi'kmaq > >After listening to news reports and engaging with the Mi'kmaq people of >Burnt Church (Esgenoopotitj, pron.: esk-an-oh-beh-dij), I am compelled to >share my observations in the hope of generating support and help during >these troubled times. These are my own observations, from which I hope that >those who review this will gain an understanding: > >- that mainstream media coverage has continued to fall short of reporting >the violence and coercion being directed against the Burnt Church Mi'kmaq by >the Canadian government; >- that there is a critical need at this time to support and protect the >people of Burnt Church so that no one else is harmed and that no one is >killed as a result of the actions of Canadian government officials; >- that the Esgenoopotitj First Nation, while exercising their right as a >sovereign nation to gather food and earn a living, are continually held up >by the Canadian government as criminals, when in fact they are acting in >accordance with the laws of their own nation; >- that it is important for all of those who recognize the moral and legal >responsibilities of the Canadian government to acknowledge Indigenous >sovereignty and rights, and to give all available support to Burnt Church at >this time. > > >Use Of Force And Violence By The Canadian Government > >I was present at Burnt Church on August 14, 2000, the day that 4 Burnt >Church men were arrested by DFO (federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans) >officials. What the media, police and DFO failed to report on that situation >to date is: > >- in addition to the reported arrest, seizure of and damage to the >Esgenoopotitj fishing boats, the 4 men were held at gun point by 7 DFO >officials. At one point, these 7 officials trained their gun on one man. I >will never forget the fear on the face and in the voice of the 10-year old >son of Curtis, one of the Burnt Church men, after he saw a gun being pointed >at his father on the news. No arms were used by the people of Esgenoopotitj. > > >A Burnt Church Fisheries officer, Brian, attempted to avoid arrest by >swimming in Miramichi Bay near the boats for about an hour. After being >assured by DFO that no harm would come to him, he boarded the DFO boat, >where he was severely beaten and arrested. Brian used his "one phone call" >to call 911, to be treated at hospital for the injuries that he sustained. > >Members of CPT (Christian Peacemakers Team) and ARC-Atlantic Observers >(Aboriginal Rights Coalition) went to the RCMP in nearby Neguac to ask about >the well-being of the men from Burnt Church. They reported to me that the >police had told them that none of the men were injured, had food and >blankets, and were being treated well. In fact, Brian had been beaten and >treated in hospital. CPT reported that they plan to lay charges against the >police because of these lies. I understand that since that time, some of the >members of CPT have been arrested while present with the Mi'kmaq as they >were fishing. > >- Canadian military (Coast Guard) were (and I believe still are) present at >Burnt Church, with both boats and airplanes, despite the fact that the >minister for DFO has publicly denied any use of force. Further, the >minister has stated that he is allowing local officials to deal with the >situation as they see fit. > >The people of Esgenoopotitj have reported many incidents of racial violence >being perpetrated against them. In one instance, a DFO official was reported >to be wearing a long dark wig and "dancing like an Indian" on one of the >government boats. In another, an employee of the Local Tim Horton donut >stores was fired after continued racial assaults against members of the >Burnt Church community. > >AT THIS TIME, I BELIEVE IT IS CRITICAL FOR ALL CONCERNED TO DO EVERYTHING >POSSIBLE TO PREVENT VIOLENT CONFRONTATION AND THE POSSIBLE LOSS OF LIVES AT >BURNT CHURCH. THE PRESENCE OF NON-VIOLENT WITNESSES AND WORLD EYES ON THE >SITUATION WILL GREATLY HELP TO LESSEN THIS CONCERN. > >COME IF YOU CAN AND STAND WITH THE PEOPLE OF BURNT CHURCH (PLEASE TRAVEL >WITH SUPPLIES AND MONEY FOR YOUR EXPENSES IF POSSIBLE). THE RESERVE IS >LOCATED ON HWY. 11, ABOUT 20 MINUTES N. OF MIRAMICHI, NEW BRUNSWICK (BURNT >CHURCH ROAD). > >If you cannot come and want to support the people of Esgenoopotitj and the >presence of non-violent witnesses, there are many ways to do so: > >1. United Nations (UN) observers have contributed greatly to the struggles >of oppressed peoples worldwide, and their presence would be more than >appropriate at Burnt Church; please use your contacts, resources and wits to >make this happen. I also believe it appropriate to order Canada to the >table for their flagrant, repeated violations of the rights of Indigenous >people under the UN. > >2. ARC-Atlantic will offer non-violent witnessing training Aug. 26-31 in >Nova Scotia, with another session to be held at Esgenoopotitj; you can also >check with the Christian Peacemakers Team regarding available training (see >email and web addresses below). > >3. Do what you can to get mainstream media to report ALL the facts. You or >your group can issue press releases and bulletins, ask questions, e.g.., why >the media has neglected to report on the violence and coercion against the >people of Burnt Church; why does media not report on Canada's refusal to >acknowledge Indigenous rights to natural resources and their management; why >does media continue to represent Native fishing as illegal; why doesn't >media report the DFO Minister's denial of the use of force when the military >is present at Burnt Church, and so on. > >4. Take part in the Vigil on September 6, 2000 at Queen's Park, Toronto, >sponsored by the Coalition for a Public Inquiry into Ipperwash (contact: >annpohl@interlog.com). > >5. Church organizations are in a particularly unique position, and have an >opportunity to do the right thing. Given their participation in the passive >conquering of Aboriginal people via the entrapment of Native children in >residential schools, their support could truly make a difference in the >restoration of sovereignty and peace. Ask for their support! > >6. Contribute to the Lobster Trap Restoration Fund (every time Native >fishermen are arrested and also periodically, all traps and equipment are >confiscated). Send cheques to ARC-Atlantic c/o Mrs. Betty Peterson, Apt. >416, 6969 Bayers Rd., Halifax, Nova Scotia B3L 4P3; > >7. Have your group work with the Burnt Church Mi'kmaq to set up a fund for >the defense of the people of Burnt Church. Food, communications, travel and >legal expenses are high, and money is tight - please be generous. > >8. Use your environment and conservation resources and contacts to undertake >a "Good Science" critique/comparison of the Fisheries Management Plans of >the DFO and Esgenoopotitj, and spread the word about the Burnt Church >Fishery's excellent management plan. > >9. Electronic protests and messages of support may be forwarded to the >Burnt Church Mi'kmaq at: miigkis@nbnet.nb.ca -- to both Karen Somerville and >gkisedtanamoogk. > >10. Your positive thoughts and prayers are important. > >Other observations... > >Fisheries Management > >As an environmentalist, I believe that Esgenoopotitj has a well thought out >plan for the management of their fishery (available through the Burnt Church >Mi'kmaq at: miigkis@nbnet.nb.ca), and that the Canadian government, if >sincere about its desire to practice conservation and protect the fishing >industry, would do well to ask for direction in policy development from >Esgenoopotitj. > >My view of the Esgenoopotitj fishing activities is that it is small, mainly >families earning extra money to be self-reliant and raise themselves from >extreme poverty. Most of the seized lobster traps were set by individuals >who are limited in their abilities to earn from the lobster business, both >those restricted by the Canadian government and because they have scarce >resources for increased economic development. > >Comments - Fishing Industry > >My exploration of Canadian government management of the fishing industry >informs that it is mainly directed toward export, with a large number of >companies exporting over 90% of their fish. > >The DFO appears to regard First Nations as some of the many companies that >they regulate. The strategic tactic that they have been using with >Aboriginal people to continue their dominance of the industry is divide and >conquer; cash buy-outs for interim fishing agreements serves to prolong >tension and indecision amongst band members, and between communities. > >Problems related to industry over-fishing have been raised in the UN Fishing >Agreement and by environmental groups such as Greenpeace over the years. The >Canadian government has responded to this issue with words, acknowledging >fish as a limited resource and the industry as needing to be regulated. >Federally, the DFO has implemented an Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review, but >to date, has not commented on the Fisheries Management Plan of the >Esgenoopotitj First Nation (or any other First Nations, to my knowledge). >And yet they maintain that Esgenoopotitj is acting illegally. > >It is my opinion that the Canadian government fisheries management is >serving to uphold and protect the interests of the non-native fishing >industry in its denial of the rights of Indigenous people to natural >resources. > >Boycott > >Regarding the suggestion of a boycott, I understand that High Liner Foods >Inc. (Ernst & Young top 75 Canadian food and beverage producers) is the >major player in the lobster business, the current focus of the Esgenoopotitj >dispute. I would recommend more research in this area (Fisheries Council of >Canada and Atlantic Lobster Promotions Association are two ledes that I >found while surfing) in preparation for a boycott in support of Native >fisheries. > > >Contact information: > >Burnt Church Mi'kmaq: miigkis@nbnet.nb.ca -- c/o Karen Somerville and >gkisedtanamoogk. >CPT (Christian Peacemakers Team): cptcan@web.net >ARC-Atlantic (Aboriginal Rights Coalition): watts@NSIS.com. Web address: >http://home.istar.ca/~arc/english/index.html. Regular Mail: c/o Mrs. Betty >Peterson, Apt. 416, 6969 Bayers Rd., Halifax, Nova Scotia B3L 4P3 > >Respectfully, > >Willi (willi@web.net). > > >David Bleakney >National Union Representative >Canadian Union of Postal Workers >377 Bank Street >Ottawa, Ontario K2P 1Y3 > >Phone: 613-236-7230 ext 7953 >Fax: 613-563-7861 > >http://www.wtoaction.org > >http://www.wtocaravan.org > >http://www.agp.org/agp/index.html > >http://www.canadianallianceparty.net > >the CUPW site is currently down-back soon! > > > From notoapec at clear.net.nz Tue Aug 29 10:01:38 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 13:01:38 +1200 Subject: [asia-apec 1531] NZ Wool trade to China Message-ID: <000101c01154$b762bb80$eecda7cb@notoapec> New Zealand Continues Pushing For Wool Access Press Release New Zealand Government 29/08/00 11:11:00 Chinese authorities have agreed to release the second half of the 2000 quota to provincial authorities for allocation to importers, Minister for Trade Negotiations Hon Jim Sutton said today. He said this increase in the annual allocation from 293 000 tonnes to 306 000 tonnes was a result of New Zealand in-principle bilateral agreement with China on WTO accession, where China committed to increase the quota allocation in annual steps from 1998 through to 2004. 'I welcome this evidence of China's commitment to implement our in-principle bilateral agreement. "I look forward to reaching agreement with China on detailed arrangements for tariff quota administration for wool, so that we can tidy away this unfinished business and complete our bilateral WTO accession agreement.' New Zealand has again pressed the case for improved market access for wool at the highest levels of the Chinese leadership, securing agreement to talks next month to seek a resolution of the issue. Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Hon Phil Goff raised New Zealand's concerns with Premier Zhu Rongji and with Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan in Beijing during his visit last week. The existing slow, cumbersome and bureaucratic quota allocation system was limiting export opportunities for New Zealand wool growers. New Zealand is pressing China to replace the existing arrangements, upon entry to the WTO, with a new system - one which would be WTO-consistent, and which would allow New Zealand exporters to establish long-term commercial relationships with their clients, to the mutual benefit of both countries. Following undertakings given to Mr Goff by Premier Zhu, China has agreed to officials' talks next month aimed at hammering out the details of a long-term solution. ENDS From notoapec at clear.net.nz Tue Aug 29 20:06:10 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 23:06:10 +1200 Subject: [asia-apec 1532] Jim Sutton (NZ Trade Minister) on Asia-Pacific Trade Deal Message-ID: <001c01c011a9$266b8620$a184a7cb@notoapec> Aussie Trade Stance Could Stump Free Trade Deal Staff Reporter Patric Lane 29/08/00 13:32:00 A perception that Australia is a hard country to do business with may be an obstacle to the formation of an Asia-Pacific free-trade area, says Trade Negotiations Minister Jim Sutton. A study group has been looking at the idea of linking the trans-Tasman Closer Economic Relations (CER) partnership with the 10-country South East Asian free trade area, AFTA. Ministers from the countries involved are due to meet in Thailand in October to consider the group's report and decide whether to launch negotiations. Mr Sutton said today one of the obstacles to a wider FTA agreement was the common perception among the Asian nations that Australia used biosecurity as a guise for technical barriers to trade, blocking exports into the Australian food product market. Canberra and the state governments have been at odds over some trade issues, such as a Tasmanian move to ban salmon imports. Mr Sutton said some of the feedback from the ASEAN nations was that this may be the biggest single obstacle. He said Tasmania seemed to have adopted an extreme position, but by and large he believed that the state ministers appreciated they had to reach a relationship with the commonwealth government that allowed Australia to speak with one voice and be a reliable country to deal with on such matters. The Minister believed the Australians were wholeheartedly in support of the FTA proposal, and that he was encouraging Australia to resolve the differences between the states and Canberra on quarantine and biosecurity issues. Mr Sutton also said there had been some indications of political opposition to the plan in the ASEAN countries, and he expected there would be in New Zealand as well. ? NewsRoom 2000 From notoapec at clear.net.nz Tue Aug 29 21:25:17 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:25:17 +1200 Subject: [asia-apec 1533] Free trade a myth, says NZ Meat Board Director Message-ID: <000201c011b4$954fe300$aecea7cb@notoapec> Posted by GATT Watchdog ________________________ The Dominion, Wellington, 25 August 2000 Agribusiness section Free trade a myth, says director By Andrea Fox A Meat Board director says international tolerance for New Zealand's "holier than thou" free-trade preaching is running out. John McCarthy said yesterday that the free trade concept promoted by political and farming leaders was a lemon. Free trade would never happen and if it did, could backfire badly on New Zealand red meat producers. Most New Zealand sheep and beef was exported to Europe and the United States under "preferred nation" status agreements. If this protection disappeared with free trade, New Zealand could not compete with overseas meat producers such as South America, whose costs could be more than 60 per cent less than New Zealand's. Mr McCarthy, who has recently returned from five weeks in Europe, the US and Asia, has made his views known to the Meat Board, which emphasised yesterday that they were not the board's views. "Free trade or globalisation is a myth. It has never happened, but now more than ever, it is never going to. We are witnessing the growth of regionalism as evidenced by the EU, Nafta, Apec," he said. "The EU with its enlargement over the next 10 years will produce more food than it can consume. Increasingly the policies of the EU and the US will focus on providing trade assistance to developing nations. "We have good historical relationships in both these markets and our farming enterprises are dependent upon the retention of that goodwill. It is up to us to develop strategies to that end." Mr McCarthy, a Meat Board director for 18 months, said New Zealand's "lambasting" style, which was once regarded with tolerance as part of an interesting experiment, was now irritating the Europeans, who were battling with the complexities of the European Union. He had been particularly dismayed at the style of special roving agricultural ambassador Malcolm Bailey who had been "lambasting everyone who disagreed with the principles of the now shaky World Trade Organisation in various publications" "I am not convinced this method of holier-than-thou diplomacy is in fact in our best interest. "There is growing concern worldwide about aspects of the free-trade philosophy and this was demonstrated clearly by the level of protest at Seattle." Mr McCarthy said New Zealand should increase its efforts to maintain and develop new communication channels with trading partners. He suggested joint efforts in nutritional and consumer research, a willingness to admit shared problems, and a drive to find common solutions. The WTO shakiness was exacerbated by the US and Europe circling each other "like a couple of pitbulls" over issues such as multifunctionality and genetic engineering. The multifunctionality argument, used by some countries in defence of their continued protectionist policies, says agriculture creates more than food, such as environmental protection, and rural employment. Mr Bailey said this week that New Zealand argued vigorously against the defence. But Mr McCarthy said it also could be argued that New Zealand had much to gain by adopting the principle. "Surely the multifunctional role of agriculture is equally important in rurally focused countries such as New Zealand, especially with the 'nature dimension' as it affects tourism potential, as it is in picture postcard Europe?" From notoapec at clear.net.nz Thu Aug 31 15:20:41 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 18:20:41 +1200 Subject: [asia-apec 1534] NZ-Australia Trade Ministers Joint Statement Message-ID: <001601c01313$98cf4240$5184a7cb@notoapec> Joint Statement: CER Trade Ministers' Meeting Press Release New Zealand Government 31/08/00 13:21:00 Joint Ministerial Statement The Hon Jim Sutton Minister for Trade Negotiations New Zealand The Hon Mark Vaile Minister for Trade Australia The annual Australia/New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Ministers? meeting took place in Auckland on 30-31 August 2000. The Hon Jim Sutton and the Hon Mark Vaile issued the following statement at the conclusion of their meeting: ?As Australian and New Zealand Trade Ministers do every year, we have over the last day had the opportunity to review progress of CER, and to discuss how we might wish to develop it in the future. We agreed in March that we would talk about how we might lift CER to a new level. We reaffirmed today the great value that our two Governments attach to the trans-Tasman partnership and to the strong tradition of consultation, cooperation and progress that sustains it. We had stimulating and fruitful discussions on how we might take a fresh look at the economic relationship between our two countries, in order to continue to reap the gains that have been made over the last 17 years, since the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Agreement was signed in 1983. On the first afternoon of the meeting we discussed regional and multilateral issues. We agreed that current discussions on freer trade between AFTA and CER were a priority for us both. We renewed our commitments to engage with ASEAN countries with the objective of securing agreement to commence negotiations on a free trade area of mutual benefit for all parties. We agreed to cooperate closely in the run-up to the Chiang Mai meeting and beyond, taking into account the recent and forthcoming visits to the region by us both. We also agreed to keep in close touch on any further opportunities for CER to discuss possible free trade agreements with third parties. We discussed the agreement between Singapore and New Zealand for a closer economic partnership initialled on 18 August, acknowledging the importance of keeping each other fully informed of such discussions with third parties in the context of the CER relationship. We looked forward to continuing to make progress in APEC this year under the leadership of Brunei. We noted the worthwhile outcomes from the APEC Trade Ministers? meeting in Darwin in June and our expectation that these could be built on further. On the WTO, we reaffirmed our desire to see a new Round launched at the earliest opportunity, and renewed our commitment to work towards this end. We also emphasised our joint commitment to the objective of the Cairns Group of countries working for the liberalisation of world trade in agricultural products, and expressed the hope that the forthcoming meeting in Banff would consolidate progress of Cairns Group work in the WTO negotiations on agriculture. We discussed two specific issues in the WTO context, and how we might make progress on them ? the administration of the access provisions for Australian and New Zealand wool to China, and continued close cooperation on our dispute with the United States on our lamb exports as the mid-term review of the US safeguard measure approaches. For the first time in several years our meeting included wide-ranging discussions with the trans-Tasman business community. We met with business people from both sides of the Tasman for an hour and a half at the beginning of this morning?s talks. We welcome this dialogue with business and found the direct interaction this morning was valuable to our subsequent discussions. We hope to continue the practice of business involvement at these meetings in future years. As we had earlier agreed, we had a good preliminary look at ways of deepening and enhancing our CER cooperation. We noted recent developments in global and regional trade and how these impacted on our economies. We had a stimulating exchange of views on taking forward our existing trans-Tasman cooperation, noted ways in which our cooperation might be strengthened and looked ahead at how we might build on our joint efforts to further integrate our two economies and their potential to enhance efforts to improve the regional and multilateral trading environment. We noted that such further integration could lead to increased cost efficiencies, to greater critical mass, to improved trans-Tasman trade facilitation and to stronger regulatory structures. These developments will contribute to strengthening our economies and maximising international competitiveness. There is some exciting work currently being undertaken by officials in the areas of therapeutic goods and the wider field of public health and safety which is building on the first ventures into regulatory integration embarked on a few years ago. We welcomed the announcement on 29 August by our respective Treasurers that Australia and New Zealand have agreed to examine the tax treatment of trans-Tasman investments. We noted that there will be an assessment of the costs and benefits of ?triangular taxation? which occurs where Australian shareholders in a New Zealand company operating in Australia are unable to access Australian sourced franking credits, with the same problem applying for New Zealand shareholders in Australian companies operating in New Zealand. As our Treasurers have indicated, the examination of triangular taxation is a worthwhile step in addressing possible barriers to trans-Tasman investment. Examination of this issue, a priority for business, has the potential to strengthen CER through improving the ease of capital flows. Officials have been tasked to report back on this issue by 30 June 2001. We also welcomed the finalisation of a revised Memorandum of Understanding on the Coordination of Business Law. Today we signed the MOU with the New Zealand Minister of Commerce, the Hon Paul Swain, whose counterpart, the Hon Joe Hockey, signed it in Canberra last week. This Arrangement will provide an excellent framework within which we hoped a number of outcomes can be achieved in the area of alignment of business law in order to increase ease of capital flows and trans-Tasman business integration. The possible merger of the Australian and New Zealand Stock Exchange is an instance of a trans-Tasman commercial development with the potential to add impetus to broadening and deepening the CER relationship. We had a good discussion on rules of origin, including the changing nature of the production and distribution system and the issue of valuing intellectual input into product in the new ?knowledge economies?. We noted the provisions in New Zealand?s Closer Economic Partnership Agreement with Singapore and the discussions currently under way in the AFTA/CER. We asked officials to study, and report to us around the end of the year, on the implications for CER rules of origin. We reaffirmed our Governments? intention to negotiate an open skies agreement between our two countries, and noted that negotiations are scheduled to be held shortly. We welcomed in the context of the wider development of CER the free trade in air services between us that such an agreement would make possible. We noted with interest our respective trade promotion agencies? plans to consider joint promotion of CER countries as an investment destination in the region. We agreed that such an initiative would be in tune with a new, more strategic approach to CER and asked officials to carry out further work on refining a proposal. We welcome the progress made in the high-level biosecurity dialogue since our last meeting. We reviewed several outstanding bilateral quarantine issues, expressed our expectation that these would be resolved within a reasonable timeframe, and reaffirmed our commitment to continuing to uphold our international commitments in this area. Lastly, we had a productive exchange on industry policy, noting the recent increased alignment of our Governments? perspectives. We noted that officials have in train plans to deepen the trans-Tasman dialogue on this issue. ENDS