From kevin.li at graduate.hku.hk Fri Dec 1 23:35:03 2000 From: kevin.li at graduate.hku.hk (Kevin Yuk-shing Li) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 22:35:03 +0800 Subject: [asia-apec 1680] Statement to OUST Erap Rally in Korea Message-ID: <3A27B716.2158948E@graduate.hku.hk> From: KASAMMAKO KOREA Dear Friends, Warm greetings! The People have already rendered the verdict to Estrada: GUILTY of crimes to the People. As a continuing efforts to intensify and hasten his immediate ouster, the KASAMMAKO will took part in the rally in Korea on Decemebr 3, 2000 at Hyewa Catholic Cathedral, 3PM. We seek your solidaity and support by circulating this statement and participating in the rally. For in quiries you can call: 0198041294 Respectfully yours, J Mark Ryan KASAMMAKO ================== STATEMENT December 1,2000 THE PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY RENDERED THE VERDICT ESTRADA: UNDOUBTEDLY GUILTY OF CRIMES TO THE PEOPLE KASAMMAKO or the Unity of Filipino Migrants' Organizations in Korea is calling for the ouster of the Philippine president not just to be replaced by the a new one who will continue the anti-migrant and anti-people policy. We are removing a puppet, fascist, gambler, and godfather of criminal syndicate president in order to pursue the national democratic interest of the Filipino People. Let it be known to all, to the broad anti-Estrada opposition and most of all to the Filipino masses who are truly the makers of history. With or without the confirmation of Mr. Estrada's corruption and cronyism through the impeachment process, the people have already decided. Mr. Estrada, even before the "Juetengate" scandal, has lost all moral and legal right to be president. The people, especially the poor, have already passed judgement unto him: Erap must go! Mr. Estrada has allowed immeasurable misery and pain to descend upon our nation. In just two years, he has tormented the Filipino people's lives with poverty, economic disaster, human rights violation and war. His policies have delivered untold hardships at our very doorsteps. Overseas Filipinos also experience first hand how this parody of a president has trampled upon the dignity of labor by intensifying the very crisis which force us to work abroad, by heightening the export of people, and raising the magnitude of his bureaucracy's spoils through government extortion. We cannot stomach a government run by a syndicate of gamblers, cronies, philanderers and drunkards who treat overseas Filipinos as milking cows for remittances and profit exemplified by the president himself. The Estrada administration has relied on its oft-declared "new heroes" migrants to send in dollar remittances for the floundering economy, with US$12 Billion infused to the country's banks & other channels last year. KASAMMAKO believe that while the Estrada clique heavily depends on these remittances for the cash-strapped government, overseas Filipinos cannot count on his administration to defend our rights and welfare when they are raped, murdered and unjustly treated or imprisoned in foreign lands. Aside from being the patron of jueteng( number game) and recepient of grease money,we do not accept Estrada's policy of issuing orders to raise OFW'sUS$25 contributions to the Overseas Welfare Administration (OWWA) and the recent Executive Order 197 that raises all government service fees by at least 2o%. this is in pursuit of its Labor Export Policy that is shameless commodification of Filipino Migrants It is no wonder why many of us who are outside the Philippines continue to advance our resolve: Erap must resign or be ousted! We are one with the Filipino people to demand justice and restitution for the crimes that the Estrada government has committed and continues to commit while he stubbornly clings to power. The overseas movement to oust Mr. Estrada, just like that in the Philippines, has swelled and has engaged in greater, more creative, militant and powerful protest actions. While we maintain that the impeachment process and the people's protests brace each other - that the latter becomes effective and potent only if complemented by the people's movement in the streets, by the mass show of force in factories and fields, schools, parishes, communities, and yes, even in foreign lands, it is undoubtedly the mass movement which shall deliver the decisive blow against Mr. Estrada. The people, in their relentless pursuit for justice, will prevail and cause the fall of Mr. Estrada. We remain united on the conviction that while Estrada remains president, we shall continue to experience the gravest of crises. That is why we remain steadfast. Let this momentous event come where Mr. Estrada steps down or is forced out of office. We add our strength to the overwhelming and persevering forces in the Philippines now staging week-long protest actions to drive away this tyrant and criminal for good. Filipinos in Korea and elsewhere in the world are determined to see this struggle through to the end. We are committed to make this outcome victorious so that we may add this as a positive and significant step to the Filipino people's continuing struggle for genuine freedom, democracy and a just and lasting peace in our homeland. The Filipino people along with overseas compatriots, give Estrada two choices: RESIGN IMMEDIATELY OR BE MERCILESSLY OUSTED BY THE PEOPLE!!!! From aaronj at interchange.ubc.ca Wed Dec 6 03:08:57 2000 From: aaronj at interchange.ubc.ca (Aaron James) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 10:08:57 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 1681] FTA Talks Between Singapore and The United States Message-ID: <4.3.1.0.20001205100813.00a91f00@pop.interchange.ubc.ca> FTA Talks Between Singapore and The United States WorldNews.com, Sat 2 Dec 2000 correspondent Christos Gabrielides. Although the presidential election in the United States has not yet delivered a president, it is understood that planned discussions over a free trade agreement (FTA) between Singapore and the US will proceed next week in Washington. Singapore Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and US President Bill Clinton agreed at last month's Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) summit in Brunei to negotiate an FTA, which it was hoped would be finalised by the end of this year. However, the political paralysis currently afflicting America makes it unlikely that the suggested deadline will be met. Commenting on the proposed FTA, the first between an Asian country and the US, US Congressman Tom Lantos said Singapore will have to be 'patient before this idea comes before the appropriate committees of Congress, let alone action by the body itself'. Meanwhile, interested parties within the US, including the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the Business Roundtable, suggested that the significance of the agreement was such that time constraints should be laid aside. They stated: "We urge the administration to focus on the content of this important agreement rather than be distracted by an artificial time restraint of one month." Singapore has already signed a Free Trade Agreement with New Zealand, and there has been some criticism that such agreements could weaken the Association of South-east Asian Nations (Asean). However, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong recently dismissed such suggestions. FTAs are also planned with Japan and Australia, as well as the US, and earlier this week Mr Goh observed: "Very importantly, these countries are signalling their interest in Asean. Asean at the moment is not quite ready to do an FTA with other countries but Singapore is. So I told the leaders in other countries that Asean requires some attention." Mr Goh also pointed out that Singapore's FTAs are in accordance with the World Trade Organization (WTO). He explained: "The FTA for Singapore will be WTO-consistent..(and)...will be open to anybody who wants to sign on the terms which we have negotiated with the others. It is not a closed FTA. It is meant to be an arrangement which supports negotiations for freer trade in the fast track so that the others can just follow later on." The proposed FTA with the US has received strong backing, not least from the American Chamber of Commerce in Singapore, whose chairman, Ed Gilbert, commented: "We hope that agreement can be reached in a short period of time." Singapore Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and US President Bill Clinton agreed at last month's Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) summit in Brunei to negotiate an FTA, which it was hoped would be finalised by the end of this year. However, the political paralysis currently afflicting America makes it unlikely that the suggested deadline will be met. Commenting on the proposed FTA, the first between an Asian country and the US, US Congressman Tom Lantos said Singapore will have to be 'patient before this idea comes before the appropriate committees of Congress, let alone action by the body itself'.(AFP Photo) (Photo: AFP) From notoapec at clear.net.nz Sat Dec 9 08:05:13 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 12:05:13 +1300 Subject: [asia-apec 1682] Fw: Preparations for 2001 WTO Ministerial - Qatar Rejected, Chile Proposes Santiago Message-ID: <003a01c0616b$53b8f880$33cda7cb@notoapec> Subject: Preparations for 2001 WTO Ministerial - Qatar Rejected, Chile Proposes Santiago Preparations for 2001 WTO Ministerial - Qatar Rejected, Chile Proposes Santiago Strenghthened Role for WTO Staff The WTO Secretariat has rejected the desert kingdom of Qatar for the 2001 Ministerial (see http://www.wto.org/ddf/ep/E4/E4290e.doc) noting that it would be about 2200 hotel rooms short of the 5000 needed. Chile has put forward a tentative proposal to substitute Santiago, subject to an evaluation of the costs involved. (see http://www.wto.org/ddf/ep/E5/E5255e.doc for Chile's submission in English. The Spanish version is included below, or can be obtained at http://www.wto.org/ddf/sp/E5/E5255s.doc) WTO staff have already visited Chile and concluded Santiago could accommodate the 2001 Ministerial. According to a December 7 Secretariat report: "At the invitation of the Chilean authorities, a member of the Secretariat visited Santiago from 26 to 30 November 2000 and reviewed the facilities and infrastructure available in the light of WTO requirements for a Ministerial Conference....Santiago de Chile has the necessary facilities to host a WTO Ministerial Conference." An unreleased WTO document on the "Preparation and Organisation of Ministerial Conferences" (latest revision, December 6, 2000) seems to indicate members want the Ministerial held in Geneva: "Members reiterated that Ministerial Conferences should be held at the WTO Headquarters unless the Ministerial Conference or the General Council decides to accept an offer by a Member to host a Ministerial Conference." The same document calls for a strengthened role for WTO staff and for solutions to be worked out at the WTO in advance of the Ministerial, essentially to be rubber stamped by ministers who attend. Key recommendations along these lines stated: "(c) There was broad recognition of the need to establish an efficient, Geneva-based preparatory process which would allow for solutions to be worked out in advance for most issues, particularly when decisions by Ministers are required. The setting up of any negotiating structure and working groups as well as chairmanships should also be agreed during the preparatory process. (d) There seems to be broad agreement among Members that the Chairman of the General Council with the support of the Director-General and the Secretariat shall assume a central role in the preparatory process as well as during the Ministerial Conference, especially in the negotiation of any agreed outcome." ORGANIZACI?N MUNDIAL DEL COMERCIO WT/GC/39 5 de diciembre de 2000(00-5255) Original: espa?ol CUARTO PER?ODO DE SESIONES DE LA CONFERENCIA MINISTERIAL Comunicaci?n de Chile Se ha recibido de la Misi?n Permanente de Chile la siguiente comunicaci?n, de fecha 4 de diciembre de 2000, con el ruego de que se distribuya a los Miembros. _____________ Tengo el honor de dirigirme a V.E. para poner en su conocimiento, y por su intermedio, al resto de los Miembros de la OMC, que el Gobierno de Chile est? evaluando seriamente el presentar la postulaci?n de la ciudad de Santiago como sede de la Cuarta Conferencia Ministerial de la Organizaci?n Mundial del Comercio. Al respecto, informo a V.E. que se ha invitado a la Secretar?a a realizar una visita t?cnica a Santiago, la que se realiz? a comienzos de esta semana. Se espera que en los pr?ximos d?as se emita el respectivo informe. El Gobierno de Chile consciente de que el tema ser? discutido en la pr?xima reuni?n del Consejo General, ha querido informar lo anterior con fines de transparencia. Sin embargo, s?lo durante la segunda semana de diciembre y antes del 14 de diciembre, estaremos en condiciones de confirmar esta postulaci?n, una vez que se hayan examinado los aspectos del financiamiento de un evento de esta magnitud. From ircalb at swcp.com Wed Dec 13 02:06:20 2000 From: ircalb at swcp.com (Interhemispheric Resource Center) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 10:06:20 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1683] Measuring Progress with North Korea Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.20001212100620.006fcc2c@swcp.com> Dear Colleagues, The following links to a new Foreign Policy In Focus policy brief discussing the current political climate on the Korean peninsula, and the role of the United States can play in promoting stronger diplomatic ties between the North and South. Please feel free to submit comments to: infocus@irc-online.org Comments, with permission, may be published in the Progressive Response, the projects e-journal on U.S. foreign policy and global affairs. -------------------------------------------------------------- FOREIGN POLICY IN FOCUS http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------- Measuring Progress on the Korean Peninsula by John Feffer http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/briefs/vol5/v5n41korea.html U.S. policy toward North Korea continues to chart a hesitant course. President Clinton plans a trip to Pyongyang, then cancels it. The U.S. promises to lift economic sanctions, then insists that North Korea jump through more hoops to get off the "terrorism list." The U.S. clears the way for North Korean diplomats to participate in the UN's Millennium Forum, but doesn't make the extra effort to prevent an embarrassing body search of at Frankfurt airport. And the U.S.-negotiated project to build two light-water nuclear reactors in North Korea is hamstrung by delays and, more recently, the announced withdrawal of a key supplier, General Electric. The on-again, off-again approach of the Clinton administration is partly a result of opposition to U.S. rapprochement with North Korea from key congressional leaders and defense industry lobbyists. For its part, a cautious North Korea has also conducted its own hard bargaining. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe to the Progressive Response, go to: http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org and follow the instructions. To subscribe directly, send a blank message to: newusfp-subscribe@lists.zianet.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- best regards, Tim McGivern ****************************** Tim McGivern tim@irc-online.org Foreign Policy in Focus http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org From notoapec at clear.net.nz Thu Dec 14 02:48:16 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 06:48:16 +1300 Subject: [asia-apec 1684] Mike Moore op-ed, NZ Herald 14 Dec 2000 Message-ID: <000a01c0652c$e25d36e0$97cda7cb@notoapec> NZ Herald, Auckland Dialogue: Healthy WTO a powerful force for global wellbeing 14.12.2000 MIKE MOORE* says that in the year since the Seattle summit, the World Trade Organisation has made progress on several fronts. A year ago, the streets of Seattle were full of hope, protest, anger and tear gas. The World Trade Organisation's Seattle summit was certainly not dull. Unfortunately, it was not a success, either. The assembled ministers failed to launch a new round of world trade talks. This was not the first time that ministers had failed to reach agreement. Even so, pundits were quick to sound the death-knell for the WTO. Had their premature obituary proved right, it would have been a disaster for the world. The WTO is a powerful force for good. It is a place where 140 Governments get together to negotiate rules, ratified by national Parliaments, that promote freer trade and provide a transparent and predictable framework for business. Freer trade means faster economic growth, cheaper imports, and more choice for consumers. The WTO also helps countries to settle their trade disputes without coming to blows. By holding Governments to rules to which they had previously agreed, it promotes the rule of law in international trade. The alternative is the law of the jungle, where might makes right. One year on from Seattle, the WTO is alive and well. It has been a good year. We have purged the bad blood that poisoned relations among member Governments. We have demonstrated that the WTO can function effectively and fairly. And we are witnessing a new boom in world trade. In the first half of this year, world goods trade rose by 14 per cent, four times faster than in 1999. Asia's exports rose by about A quarter. Imports of the five Asian developing countries most affected by the financial storm in 1997-98 rose rose above their pre-crisis levels. Latin America's exports rose by about 20 per cent, the United States' by 14 per cent. The WTO estimates that world trade will rise by 10 per cent in 2000 as a whole, as fast as in the best years of the 1990s. At the WTO itself, we have made progress on at least five fronts. First, we began negotiations on agriculture and services, which together account for more than two-thirds of the world economy. The US, and the rest of the world, has a lot to gain from further liberalisation in these areas. Cheaper food. Cheaper telephone calls. Better financial services. A faster spread of the internet. Liberalising agriculture and manufacturing alone would add more than $250 billion a year to the world economy, according to the Centre for Economic Policy Research in London. The gains from services liberalisation, though hard to quantify, could be even bigger. Second, we have welcomed five new members: Jordan, Georgia, Albania, Croatia and Oman. Lithuania will become our 141st member soon. This is a dramatic vote of confidence in the WTO. So when you see a few thousand protesters in the streets of Seattle, Washington, London or Prague, remember that more than 20 million people have joined the WTO this year. And each new member brings us closer to being a truly world trade organisation. Many more countries are about to join. By far the biggest is China. Its decision to join the WTO suggests that it has opted for reform rather than reaction, openness instead of isolation. China has concluded bilateral agreements with all WTO members that requested one, except Mexico. The US Senate and House of Representatives have both voted convincingly for permanent normal trade relations with China. True, China's long march towards WTO membership is not yet over. There is still work to do to reach agreement on China's accession protocol, which sets out the rights and obligations of WTO membership. But China will join soon. Third, we are doing more to help developing countries get a better deal from the world trading system. We have set up a mechanism for dealing with their difficulties in implementing their WTO commitments. We have worked through an important package to help the world's poorest countries. Twenty-seven richer countries, including the US and the 15 members of the European Union, have offered to open their markets more. Technical assistance has been increased. And we are cooperating more closely with other international organisations that promote development, such as the World Bank. Fourth, we are involving all our 140 members more in our work. The WTO has always been very democratic. It operates by consensus, so every country, however small, has a veto. But this year we have held more general council meetings, where all members can put their case, than ever before. We got the representatives of the 30 member countries that don't have missions at the WTO more involved by running a special week in Geneva for them. We organised a meeting of African trade ministers and officials to encourage them to play a fuller role at the WTO. Fifth, we are doing more to reconnect the WTO with ordinary people everywhere. The WTO is already one of the most open and accountable international organisations. Nearly all WTO documents are posted on our website immediately. I hold regular meetings with parliamentarians and make a point of testifying before parliamentary committees as often as possible. We host regular briefings for non-government organisations which also take part inWTO gatherings and symposiums. But we can, and must, do better. All this progress has done a lot to improve the atmosphere at the WTO. We are now ready to build on this year's achievements. Our task for the year ahead is to broaden support for further multilateral liberalisation. The freer-trade coalition is pathetic and fragmented. We need to mobilise it and unite it. We are ready to rise to that challenge. * Mike Moore is director-general of the World Trade Organisation. From aaronj at interchange.ubc.ca Sat Dec 16 06:55:44 2000 From: aaronj at interchange.ubc.ca (Aaron James) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:55:44 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 1685] New U.S. policy likely to focus on China Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20001215135544.007bab80@pop.interchange.ubc.ca> "In this context, Bush's first opportunity for an official visit to China will likely occur next October when the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum meets in Shanghai." http://www.asahi.com/english/asahi/1215/asahi121502.html New U.S. policy likely to focus on China Asahi Shimbun (Japan) By YOICHI NISHIMURA December 15, 2000 WASHINGTON-The new Bush administration will probably devote more time and energy to China affairs than any previous U.S. government, analysts say. Although Bush has defined China, India and Russia as the core regions of his administration's foreign policy, China almost certainly will take center stage. In this context, Bush's first opportunity for an official visit to China will likely occur next October when the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum meets in Shanghai. Prior to this, however, the Bush administration will have to deal with a number of pressing issues, such as plans for a Theater Missile Defense (TMD) system and Taiwan as well as coordinating policy with Japan and the Republic of Korea (South Korea). In an attempt to highlight his differences with the outgoing Clinton administration, Bush called China a ``strategic competitor'' as opposed to Clinton's notion of ``strategic partner.'' Still, in many areas, such as support of a one-China policy, strengthening economic ties and maintaining most-favored-nation status, there is general agreement between Republicans and Democrats. But TMD and the Taiwan issue could be the seeds for tension in dealing with China. If Bush decides to push development of a national missile defense system, China could counter by accelerating its development of strategic nuclear missiles. While Bush is expected to take a more pro-Taiwan stance than the Clinton administration, he likely will not go as far as Republican hard-liners who are calling for further military support for Taiwan. However, in a White House report to Congress that is set for release in April the issue of arms sales to Taiwan is likely to again stir controversy. Bush's foreign policy adviser, Stanford University professor Condoleezza Rice, has called China a ``power seeking to change the current power structure in Asia.'' Bush advisers are calling for a strengthening of the Japan-U.S. alliance, not only to maintain the U.S. military presence in Asia by reinforcing ties with its allies, but also to prevent China from attempting to upset the status quo. From kevin.li at graduate.hku.hk Wed Dec 20 13:48:13 2000 From: kevin.li at graduate.hku.hk (Kevin Yuk-shing Li) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:48:13 +0800 Subject: [asia-apec 1686] Global Call for Greater Transparency at the World Bank Message-ID: <3A403A0D.4C5695CF@graduate.hku.hk> http://www.bicusa.org/action/sign/index.htm The World Bank is in the process of reviewing its Policy on Information Disclosure and has begun consulting civil society on the proposed changes. The information policy is relevant to almost every aspect of every area in which the World Bank works. Whether your interest is a particular project that is affecting a given community or policy issues related to the environment, gender or macro-economics, you cannot participate without information. The Bank's information policy also has significance far beyond its own work. Greater openness at the Bank will influence the practices of other international agencies and governments. Even if you do not work directly on World Bank issues, greater transparency is in the general interest of all those who advocate for open and participatory decision-making and institutions. Unfortunately, the changes that the Bank is proposing to the information policy are very modest and do not go far enough in addressing the urgent need for greater transparency and participation. Significant pressure from organizations around the world will be needed in order to improve the policy. It is particularly important that people sign the "Global Call for Greater Transparency at the World Bank". While there are a number of organizations around the world that are working on this issue, if you would like to Endorse the Global Call, or would like further information from the Bank Information Center, please contact Graham Saul (gsaul@bicusa.org - fax: 202-737-1155 or by phone 202-624-0626). Graham will be happy to answer any questions that you have. You can also find more information on our website at: www.bicusa.org I look forward to hearing from you, Graham Saul ******************************************************** To endorse the following letter, send an email or fax to Graham Saul at the Bank Information Center - gsaul@bicusa.org , Fax: 202-737-1155. Please include your name, organization and country. http://www.bicusa.org/action/sign/index.htm Global Call for Greater Transparency at the World Bank Ms. Joanne Salop Vice President Operations Policy 1818 H Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20008 Dear Ms. Salop, We are writing to express our support for transparency in the largest development institution in the world and to express our concerns about the World Bank's proposed information disclosure policy. The World Bank? increasing emphasis on participation and ?wnership?in the past few years is a welcome acknowledgement of the central role that development must accord to the very people whose economic lives are to be developed. We believe that the Bank? information policy must reflect commitment to and trust in the principles and promises of full popular participation. A fundamental norm of participation, partnership and ownership is consent of the partners and those invited to participate. Consent is meaningless unless it is informed. At the World Bank, the information disclosure policy is the single most effective enabler toward development effectiveness and partnership goals. We believe there is a direct relationship between the implementation of the information disclosure policy and the ability and willingness of the public to be engaged in Bank activities. Furthermore, the information disclosure policy has allowed interested members of the public to monitor the outcomes of specific investments and has in part helped to assure that benefits reach the intended beneficiaries. In this new century, and with the accelerated pace of globalization the IDA Deputies and the G7 have recognized the need for more transparency at the international level. While it was not entirely voluntary, the Bank is to be commended for taking a first step toward transparency at the international level through this review of the 1993 information disclosure policy. With modern technology and an accelerated pace of change affecting even the most remote communities, information is one of the very few tools available to the poor and the public at large that allows civil society to both understand and prepare for change. Transparency is an empowerment tool for the poor. The draft information disclosure policy moves toward greater disclosure and as such is welcomed. There are, however, crippling limitations to the policy that must be addressed if the Bank is to foster an inclusive development model and achieve greater development effectiveness. In its current form, the policy falls far short of enabling partnership and participation. Whole categories of important information continue to be withheld from the public, including all information pertaining to structural adjustment and sectoral adjustment loans the lending that currently makes up the bulk of the Bank? portfolio. Disappointingly, within the policy it appears that the Board of Executive Directors is not prepared to embrace basic good governance practices that begin with information disclosure. With this letter we argue for the release of: ? all Country Assistance Strategies; ? the President? Report, Tranche Release Memorandum and project documentation relating to structural adjustment and sectoral adjustment; ? aide memoires, project status reports, policy papers and country policy and institutional assessments; ? Board Minutes or the summaries of Board discussions that relate to project and adjustment lending. Limitations in the New Policy The World Bank continues to withhold some Country Assistance Strategies from the public even though the public is increasingly asked both to participate in the development of this strategy and work with the Bank in its implementation. The inconsistency in this process should be rectified. Development is not an exclusive process, but requires multiple stakeholders to be engaged in order to be successful. The World Bank cannot expect support from donors, the poor, other development agencies or even broad borrowing country governmental support if its basic strategy for development success is not made known to the public. Currently there are two sets of standards: an open and transparent standard for poor countries and a closed and secret standard for middle income countries. We are aware of the concerns expressed by many countries regarding the availability of the CAS. The CAS, however, according to your own website, is a Bank owned document. As such, it is both the right and the responsibility of the World Bank to disclose this document. Failure to disclose the overall plan for the Bank's operations in any given country mocks the presumption in favor of disclosure that underpins the information disclosure policy. Macroeconomic Information We are deeply disappointed by the lack of progress on disclosing documents relating to structural adjustment lending. The current proposal will simply affirm existing practice of allowing a country to make information available at its own discretion. In Fiscal Year 1999, 63% of the World Bank? lending operations consisted of policy-based lending (such as structural or sectoral adjustment lending). No documentation has been made available to illuminate the goals, the implementation or the outcomes of these loans. Under the proposed information policy the public will continue to be effectively excluded from participation in the bulk of the World Bank? lending operations. Popular participation is increasingly seen as an effective way in which to foster ownership within a borrowing country. Without the basic documentation, citizens cannot be expected to participate in the development, implementation or monitoring of these lending operations. Structural adjustment is viewed as one of the key ways in which the World Bank is engaged in globalization a contested issue that has sparked massive protests around the world. The failure to release material related to structural adjustment will impede the public? understanding of the Bank and fosters suspicion around the Bank's role in globalization. While the Bank has attempted to rectify the lack of openness on SAPs with a consultative process for the creation of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), the two remain quite different instruments. One is a broad planning instrument and the other is an actual loan. Without access to the loan process it remains impossible for the public to track the implementation of the broad policy goals outlined in the PRSP. SAPs are often negotiated in a very narrow discussion that excludes relevant ministries and parliamentarians. Nevertheless, parliaments are often asked to approve the loans without access to the basic documentation and ministries are expected to implement the loans. In 1999, in Brazil, the parliament could only obtain a leaked copy of important information around specific proposed investments. Public decisions undertaken in the absence of full information often fail in the implementation stage in large part because the goals are not fully agreed upon or well understood. The development effectiveness would be greatly enhanced by public debate and broad governmental participation. In order to increase development effectiveness the President? report, tranche release memorandum and project documentation relating to structural adjustment and sectoral adjustment loans should be released. The half-step outlined in the draft policy would only codify what is now existing practice. More importantly, the proposal blurs the line of responsibility between Bank and Borrower. It places the onus on the borrower to both take a decision about Bank generated documents and to undertake the responsibility for distribution. Again in the case of macroeconomic information, the Bank has made a proposal that is not in line with the presumption in favor of disclosure. Fostering Participation Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the proposed new policy is the argument that many documents cannot be released because disclosure would impede 'the deliberative process.' This argument is unsubstantiated within the policy and contradicts the Bank's espoused goals of participation and partnership. Neither goal can be achieved without timely information disclosure. Disclosure after a decision has been taken does not foster ownership and cannot be expected to satisfy public demands to participate in development decisions. Meaningful "participation" requires access to documents while they are still relevant to the "deliberative process," not AFTER final decisions are made. The Bank should release aide memoires, project status reports, policy papers and country policy and institutional assessments precisely because they inform the deliberative process. In its new policy the Bank argues that draft project appraisal documents (PADs) do not need to be released because relevant information is already available through the project information documents (PIDs). This argument does not stand up under close scrutiny. Draft PADs include detailed information that is normally not included in PIDs such as: the results of public consultation (in Category A projects), key performance indicators, project alternatives that have been considered, the value added of Bank support, the effectiveness conditions, technical information such as maps that actually lay out the proposed affected area, and a list of other technical documents produced for the project. Effective stakeholder participation in the project cycle requires that the Bank either release Draft PADs or radically improve and more regularly update the composition of PIDs. The policy also fails to address the issue of getting information especially project information into the hands of directly affected people. In particular, the policy does not address the issue of translating key documents, including the safeguard policies. The fact that the draft policy identifies ?xcessive cost or logistics?as a reason for non-disclosure is troubling because it appears to provide an excuse for not getting information into the hands of the most directly concerned. Governance and the Board Over the past two years in response to shareholder and public concerns about quality and compliance issues the Bank has created two instruments to help improve both the quality of loans and the compliance rates with safeguard policies. These are the Quality Assurance Group and the Quality and Compliance Unit. The new policy notes that the materials generated from these review units will not be made available to the Board or the public. The very idea that the findings of units that have been established in direct response to shareholder and stakeholder demands are not to be disclosed to the Board or other stakeholders is disturbing. In the new policy, no rationale is given for the non-disclosure of QAG's periodic synthesis reports. There is no excuse for the Bank not to disclose this information. The findings of these units could be very helpful to the Board in its oversight role as they pinpoint problems in specific investments and in broader areas like monitoring and supervision. Through the Inspection Panel process the Board increasingly is confronted with problems that are also identified through the QAG and QACU. Early Board awareness could lead to more timely solutions and an avoidance of Inspection claims. If these materials were to be released to the public it would also help to improve development effectiveness. The Operations Evaluations Department and your own team have on separate occasions noted that the public spotlight has already proven to be one of the best incentives to persuade Bank personnel to administer projects more effectively. Lastly, we are very concerned about the Board? lack of transparency. The World Bank has determined that good governance is an important component for development effectiveness. One of the defining criteria of good governance is transparency. It is ironic that the Board of Executive Directors would approve a condition for borrowing country governments that it is not willing to embrace in its own operations, i.e. that of transparency. Transparency in the Board would be enhanced by the disclosure of Board Minutes or the summaries of Board discussions that relate to project and adjustment lending, along with the proposed Chairman? Summaries. It is contradictory for the Board to require and encourage borrowing countries to govern in the sunshine when it continues to labor in the dark. We appreciate the opportunity to share our view with you. We look forward to a revised policy that fosters transparency and empowerment for the poor. To endorse this letter, send an email or fax to Graham Saul at the Bank Information Center - gsaul@bicusa.org , Fax: 202-737-1155. Please include your name, organization and country. Graham Saul Bank Information Center 733 15th Street NW Suite 1126 Washington, D.C. 20005 USA www.bicusa.org phone: (202) 624-0626 fax: (202) 737-1155 e-mail: gsaul@bicusa.org From kevin.li at graduate.hku.hk Fri Dec 22 00:27:14 2000 From: kevin.li at graduate.hku.hk (Kevin Yuk-shing Li) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 23:27:14 +0800 Subject: [asia-apec 1687] 2001 WEF Asia Pacific Economic Summit in HK Message-ID: <3A422152.C249A0CC@graduate.hku.hk> Dear folks, As you all know, this year's S11 action in Melbourne (http://www.s11.org) has caught the world's attention on WEF activities. In fact, WEF (http://www.weforum.org) has long tradition in in promoting the "benefits" of globalization. Their meetings gather the global corporations, and try to shape and influence the government policies so as to tailor-make their globalization strategies. In 2001, WEF will hold their annual Asia Pacific Economic Summit in Hong Kong between October 29-31. During this meeting, the representatives of governments from Asia Pacific region and the TNCs will meet with each other to discuss the economic and trade policies. We Globalization Monitor are planning some activities to respond to WEF's propaganda. If your group is also interested in WEF issues, please feel free to contact us. (Globalization Monitor is a Hong Kong-based Chinese periodical focussing on the impacts of globalization on the whole society, especially Chinese societies. The members of editorial board mainly come from trade unions, student unions, environmental groups and women workers's groups.) Regards, -- Kevin Li Globalization Monitor http://globalmon.uhome.net From kevinli at freeforum.org Fri Dec 22 00:20:21 2000 From: kevinli at freeforum.org (Kevin Yuk-shing Li) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 23:20:21 +0800 Subject: [asia-apec 1688] 2001 WEF Asia Pacific Economic Summit in HK Message-ID: <3A421FB5.222C4182@freeforum.org> Dear folks, As you all know, this year's S11 action in Melbourne (http://www.s11.org) has caught the world's attention on WEF activities. In fact, WEF (http://www.weforum.org) has long tradition in in promoting the "benefits" of globalization. Their meetings gather the global corporations, and try to shape and influence the government policies so as to tailor-make their globalization strategies. In 2001, WEF will hold their annual Asia Pacific Economic Summit in Hong Kong between October 29-31. During this meeting, the representatives of governments from Asia Pacific region and the TNCs will meet with each other to discuss the economic and trade policies. We Globalization Monitor are planning some activities to respond to WEF's propaganda. If your group is also interested in WEF issues, please feel free to contact us. (Globalization Monitor is a Hong Kong-based Chinese periodical focussing on the impacts of globalization on the whole society, especially Chinese societies. The members of editorial board mainly come from trade unions, student unions, environmental groups and women workers's groups.) Regards, -- Kevin Li Globalization Monitor http://globalmon.uhome.net From notoapec at clear.net.nz Sat Dec 23 04:49:55 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 08:49:55 +1300 Subject: [asia-apec 1689] NZ Police and Political Dissent Message-ID: <001001c06c50$5db37780$4af2a7cb@notoapec> Op-ed, Otago Daily Times, Dunedin, NZ 22-12-00 Freedom in New Zealand - the criminalisation of dissent Gatt Watchdog lobbyist AZIZ CHOUDRY discusses the issue of police and demonstrators. Are the police contributing towards the "criminalisation of dissent" in New Zealand? IT WOULD be nice to believe that the police are politically neutral. Then perhaps we could dismiss their heavy-handed operations during Jiang Zemin's visit as isolated, albeit unfortunate instances of overkill, which momentarily suspended some people's freedoms of expression and rights to dissent. But are they? Parallels can be drawn with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's excessive tactics towards non-violent anti-Apec protests in Vancouver in 1997. Official documents implicated the Canadian prime minister's office in assurances made to then Indonesian President Suharto that he would be shielded from politically embarrassing protests. At home, much has been made of whether or not Jenny Shipley or senior officials directed police to act to spare any political embarrassment to the Chinese Premier. In New Zealand, as in Canada, some commentators have sought to establish a connection between the crackdown on demonstrations and the demands and expectations of foreign officials involved with a state visit of a leader of an Asian nation with a dubious human rights record. But this tends to assume that New Zealand police take an otherwise balanced view of protest actions and generally respect people's rights to freedom of speech and non-violent protest. Rather, behind the vivid images of attempts to shut down the pro-Tibet protests lies a disturbing mindset and operational culture within parts of the police which frequently equates challenges to prevailing political and economic orthodoxies with criminal activity. While their operations relate partly to narcotics and vice, the police's Criminal Intelligence Service also monitors political activities which the police consider may involve a breach of the criminal law, though how such activities are assessed is anybody's guess. The service conducts similar surveillance operations to the Security Intelligence Service and there is strong liaison between them. It falls outside of the definition of an intelligence agency which applies to the SIS and the Government Communications Security Bureau. This was pointed out during the two recent amendments to the SIS legislation, but nothing was done. Yet for many years, the CIS has clearly granted itself a broad mandate to collect information on people on the basis of their political beliefs and sympathies, and views formed by police intelligence officers. Their work in this area seems to have much in common with political elements in police forces elsewhere in the world which routinely monitor, harass and criminalise legitimate political organisers and activities. By deeming many groups and individuals as having a sufficient propensity to commit criminal offences on the basis of their perceived political views and affiliations, the CIS is contributing towards the criminalisation of dissent in New Zealand. In turn, this encourages front line police to exercise contempt and a cavalier disregard towards people's rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly. In May, two dozen unions, academics, religious and political leaders called on the same justice and electoral select committee which examined police handling of the free Tibet protests to hold an inquiry in to the CIS's role in targeting political organisations and activists. This followed the High Court case brought by Canterbury academic David Small against the police, where CIS officers admitted photographing participants at a fund-raising quiz night and peaceful demonstrations, watching my home and work place, and monitoring attendance at meetings on social justice concerns. They had actively assisted in covering up a bungled and illegal SIS break-in of my house. One CIS officer claimed that Dr Small had first come to his attention in the 1980s, through writing articles about Pacific independence issues, hardly evidence of potential criminality. Canadian activist and writer Jaggi Singh warns: "Anti-Apec campaigners in New Zealand, Canada and beyond have argued for several years that police state tactics in response to dissent are predictable. They are a foreseeable outcome of unabashed free market policies which rely on uncritical, sanitised public relations spectacles such as Apec or fawning state visits by Jiang Zemin or Clinton. Even in countries like Canada and New Zealand, which have pretensions about the importance of free speech and expression, the bottom-line dynamics of corporate globalisation push aside trivialities like open and effective dissent." Select committee criticism of last September's police operations is welcome. Redrafting police policy on demonstrations may be a step in the right direction. But it is high time there was scrutiny of the broader, on-going role of the police's Criminal Intelligence Service in targeting political organisations and activists. The previous government, with Labour backing, greatly expanded SIS powers. The current Government proposes to further expand SIS and police powers to snoop on e-mails. In doing so, it is sidestepping some serious, uncomfortable questions about these agencies' roles in collecting information on and carrying out surveillance of domestic dissenters. If they cannot distinguish between lawful political activism and criminal activity in the real world, they cannot be trusted to do so in cyberspace. Friday, 22-December 2000 From amittal at foodfirst.org Wed Dec 27 13:02:05 2000 From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 20:02:05 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 1690] URGENT--TALK OF THE NATION, Wed. 27 Dec, 00 Message-ID: <0.700000824.1182175878-212058698-977889725@topica.com> Tomorrow's Talk of the Nation show is on genetically Engineered crops and will have Dr. Prakash of Tuskgee University and Anuradha Mittal, Co Director of Food First as guests on the show. It is airing at 12 noon Pacfic standard time. If you will like to join in with "provocative" questions and righteous statements, The number is (800) 989 8255. Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst@foodfirst.org. ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics From amittal at foodfirst.org Wed Dec 27 13:02:04 2000 From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 20:02:04 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 1691] URGENT--TALK OF THE NATION, Wed. 27 Dec, 00 Message-ID: <0.700000824.1018923438-951758591-977889724@topica.com> Tomorrow's Talk of the Nation show is on genetically Engineered crops and will have Dr. Prakash of Tuskgee University and Anuradha Mittal, Co Director of Food First as guests on the show. It is airing at 12 noon Pacfic standard time. If you will like to join in with "provocative" questions and righteous statements, The number is (800) 989 8255. Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst@foodfirst.org. ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics From notoapec at clear.net.nz Sat Dec 30 05:08:10 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 09:08:10 +1300 Subject: [asia-apec 1692] Barshefsky seeks to close deal by 2003 Message-ID: <000d01c071d3$19cedf40$4ef2a7cb@notoapec> > > (from the Toronto Star, December 12, 2000) > > > > Draft of trade pact for all Americas due soon > > > > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Negotiators could complete a > > draft free trade > > agreement covering from Canada to the southernmost > > tip of Latin America by > > the end of the year, setting the stage for a final > > package in 2003, the > > U.S. trade representative said Tuesday. > > > > Charlene Barshefsky also told a briefing it was > > critical that the United > > States and Brazil work together to make the Free > > Trade Area of the > > Americas (FTAA) pact a reality. > > > > The current goal for reaching an agreement among the > > 34 countries is 2005. > > But since a rough draft of the major chapters of the > > agreement was likely > > to ''be out by the end of this year or early next > > ... we can certainly > > conclude negotiations in 2003'' if countries are > > willing, Barshefsky said. > > > > The agreement would include virtually all countries > > in the Western > > Hemisphere with the exception of Cuba. > > > > Barshefsky has accused Brazil of dragging its feet > > in the trade talks to > > give its industries more time to prepare for foreign > > competition. > > > > U.S.-Brazil trade relations have also been strained > > by the announcement > > the United States would begin talks with Chile on a > > free trade agreement, > > similar to the pacts it has with Mexico and Canada > > under the North > > American Free Trade Agreement. > > > > Brazil responded by suspending negotiations on > > Chile's entry into > > Mercosur, a South American preferential trade bloc > > that also includes > > Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina. > > > > Barshefsky said Brazil had no reason to be surprised > > by the announcement, > > since the United States and Chile have talked about > > negotiating a > > bilateral free trade agreement for years. > > > > ''If the NAFTA countries and the Mercosur countries > > cannot work together, > > we will put into jeopardy the Free Trade Area of the > > Americas, which I > > believe all countries in the region want, including > > Brazil,'' she said. > > > > Western Hemisphere leaders will discuss speeding up > > the FTAA talks at a > > summit meeting in Quebec set for April 20-22. > > > > Regional trade ministers meet two weeks earlier in > > Buenos Aires to sign > > off on the proposed text to slash tariffs and other > > trade barriers. > > > > When countries set a goal in 1994 for completing a > > hemispheric agreement > > by 2005, many felt ''that was rather too long,'' > > Barshefsky said. > > > > Concluding the talks in 2003 is a ''realistic goal'' > > that countries should > > pursue, she said. > > > > The United States wants its talks with Chile to > > accelerate negotiations > > on the FTAA, just as it hopes ongoing free trade > > talks with Singapore will > > set the stage for other free trade agreements in > > Southeast Asia, > > Barshefsky said.