From kevin.li at graduate.hku.hk Mon Jun 4 22:39:21 2001 From: kevin.li at graduate.hku.hk (Kevin Li) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 21:39:21 +0800 Subject: [asia-apec 1774] Request for Support Against San Roque Dam in the Philippines Message-ID: <008901c0ecfb$c4a57ca0$79242dca@enduser> Dear Friends and Kabayan, We would like to seek your support. The United Filipinos in Hong Kong (UNIFIL-HK), United Pangasinan-HK, Cordillera Alliance and Abra Tinggian Ilocano Society (ATIS) together with cause oriented migrant institutions are spearheading a campaign in Hong Kong and would like to encourage migrant advocates, environmentalist, human rights defender, religious groups and sectors to support the campaign against the construction of San Roque Dam Project in Pangasinan, Philippines. The San Roque Dam project is on its way and more destruction of environment, peoples lives and livelihood are expected. Below is a statement initially signed by Filipino migrant organizations and institutions in Hong Kong. We encourage you/your organization to support this campaign by co-signing the petition below. If you wish to co-sign the statement, you may do so by sending us a reply through e-mail with your name on the subject and we will add your name as one of the signatories. You can also send this appeal/request to your respective e-mail networks and friends. The United Pangasinan-HK is also soliciting signatures for the petition letter among migrants in Hong Kong. All the petition letter will be delivered to the office of the Philippine President and the Japanese Consulate here in Hong Kong. A similar copy will be send to Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA) in the Philippines for their reference and coordination. You can also deliver the same petition to Philippine and Japanese Embassies and Consulates in your respective country. For more information about the campaign, you can e-mail the undersigned and Mr. Eman Villanueva, Secretary General of UNIFIL at secretariat@unifil.org.hk Looking forward for your support. Ramon Bultron Managing Director Asia Pacific Mission for Migrant Filipinos (APMMF) E-mail: apmmf@hknet.com =========================== Stop The San Roque Dam Project! Let the Agno River Flow! Fight for the Rights and Welfare of the Indigenous People and the Filipino People in General! "Land is life. If you take away the land, you take away our lives". We Filipino migrant organizations, Institutions and advocates are one with the thousands of affected families of Umbuclao, Itogon, San Nicolas and San Manuel in their demand for the immediate stop and end to the construction of San Roque Multi-Purpose Hydroelectric Dam Project! This project like other dam projects in the Philippines was taunted with deceptions, exploitations, destruction, loss of properties and most importantly - lives of the people. It is presently recorded that already 10 persons loss their lives in the construction of this huge dam expected to be one of the biggest in Asia. The fact-finding mission conducted by 50 different indigenous and peoples organizations and institutions late last year in an affidavit gathered from the Camangaan Resettlement site, Bubon and the documented statements of 183 households in san Miguel and San Nicolas revealed that the National Power Corporation (NPC) has failed to grant the project-affected persons (PAPS) the compensations for the damaged and lost properties. Many areas, especially San Manuel and San Nicholas in Pangasinan and Itogon and Tuba in Benguet will expect long-reaching and disastrous effects because of the construction of the dam. There will be inundation or serious flooding of homes and agricultural lands. In other higher-lying areas the communities will experience the effects of siltation from mining companies and erosion of lands. Many will be displaced and as taught by their previous experiences, compensation is just a dream and a wish that never comes true. As migrant workers, we also aim for the betterment and development of our country. But this development should not in any way sacrifice and endanger the lives of our families and loved ones. We were forced to work abroad by the condition of lack of decent job opportunities in our country and we made to sacrifice the precious moment in our lives to be with our children and loved ones in order to give them better future. And now, this future is not only being threatened by the continuing economic and political crisis that beset our country but more so by the threat of environmental and human destruction by this monstrous dam project. Like goods for export, migrant workers are treated the same. With this dam project, we are forced to accept development with blood of our families and loved ones flowing along the Agno river! We urge President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to immediately stop the construction of San Roque Dam project. The "win-win formula" of your administration will not benefit the people of the affected areas but rather put them in a more miserable condition and loss of people's lives and properties. We further demand the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIS) to stop funding the dam construction and instead channel its funding to compensate the victims of the San Roque Dam project. Signed: United Filipinos in Hong Kong (UNIFIL-HK) - Alliance of 24 Filipino Migrant Organizations United Pangasinan-HK (Federation of 11 Towns in Pangasinan) Cordillera Alliance and Abra Tinggian Ilocano Society (ATIS) - (Federation 24 Fil mig orgs.) Asia Pacific Mission for Migrant Filipinos (APMMF) Mission for Filipino Migrant Workers (MFMW) Bethune House Migrant Women's Refuge Association of Concerned Filipinos (ACFIL) Pinatud A Saleng Ti Umili (PSU) Friends of Bethune House (FBH) ******************************************* Asia Pacific Mission for Migrant Filipinos (APMMF) Address: No.4 Jordan Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR Tel. no.: (852) 2723-7536 Fax no.: (852) 2735-4559 E-mail: apmmf@hknet.com ********************************************** Support Statement on San Roque Dam Work Stoppage We the undersigned Filipino migrant organizations and institutions based in Hong Kong convey our warmest and militant support on the collective work stoppage of San Roque Dam Workers. We support your demand for the implementation of 30% wage hike, other labor related benefits and safe working condition. We also express our deepest condolences to the families of workers who died in the San Roque Dam construction. Their death marks the genuine demands of thousands of affected families of Umbuclao, Itogon, San Nicolas and San Manuel for the immediate stop and end to the construction of the mega-dam. Filipino Migrants in Hong Kong whose majority comes from the Northern part of the Philippines are concerned about the destructive effects of the construction of San Roque Dam in people's lives and properties. The United Pangasinan HK together with United Filipinos in Hong Kong (UNIFIL-HK), Cordillera Alliance and Abra Tinggian Ilocano Association (ATIS) and other migrant organizations and institutions launched a campaign to stop and end the San Roque Dam construction. A petition letter is being circulated among migrants in Hong Kong and other activities are being planned to encourage support and awareness among migrants and local Hong Kong organizations. A similar activity is also being planned in other countries in the Asia Pacific region. Let us not allow these profit hungry contractors to exploit the San Roque Dam Workers! A collective militant action will surely end in a collective victory! MABUHAY ANG MANGGAGAWA NG SAN ROQUE DAM! May 2001 Signed: United Filipinos in Hong Kong (UNIFIL-HK) ** United Pangasinan Hong Kong (UPHK) ** Abra Tinguian Ilocano Society (ATIS) ** Cordillera Alliance (CORALL) ** Association of Concerned Filipinos (ACFIL-HK) Friends of Bethune House (FBH) Filipino Friends in Hong Kong (FFHK) Pinatud a Saleng ti Umili (PSU) Asia Pacific Mission for Migrant Filipinos (APMMF) Mission for Filipinos Migrant Workers (MFMW) ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>< The Secretariat United Filipinos in Hong Kong (UNIFIL-HK) 2/F., New Hall, St. John's Cathedral, Garden Road, Central, Hong Kong SAR Tel : (852) 2810-4379 Fax : (852) 2526-2894 E-mail: secretariat@unifil.org.hk Website: http://www.unifil.org.hk ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>< From amittal at foodfirst.org Wed Jun 6 06:06:59 2001 From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal) Date: Tue, 5-Jun-2001 21:06:59 GMT Subject: [asia-apec 1775] Biojustice Call to Action - June 24-25th Message-ID: <0.700000824.2075197764-212058698-991775221@topica.com> ----------------------------------------------------------------- ** Call to Action! ** International Days of Action against the Biotechnology Industry June 24-25th, 2001, EVERYWHERE ------------------------------------------------------------ Join thousands of activists, farmers, scientists, and others from around the world in opposing the biotechnology industry! On June 24th and 25th, 2001 the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) convention in San Diego, will open its doors to thousands of executives, lawyers, venture capitalists, and corporate scientists working to further their agenda of a patented and commodified future. Outside the convention hall and all over San Diego, thousands of people will be gathering for Beyond Biodevastation 2001/BIOJUSTICE! This multi-day event will feature teach-ins, demonstrations, and direct actions to confront and shed light on the threats to our health, environment, farms and society posed by genetic engineering. We are calling for people to come to San Diego with ideas for affinity group-based actions, and for simultaneous solidarity actions in communities around the world to stop the commodification of life, the destruction of food systems, the theft of genetic information and the loss of community power. The possibilities are endless. From teach-ins to voluntary GE food labeling brigades, from demonstrations against the gene giants to organic potlucks, from direct actions to leafleting, we are calling for global grassroots organizing against the biotechnology industry. Since 1987, corporate gene giants have been contaminating the world's food supply with dangerous and largely untested products of genetic engineering. Many of these same companies are also major players in the global pharmaceutical industry, which has made health care unaffordable for growing numbers of people around the world, while channeling research funds toward expensive genetic approaches to health and disease at the expense of more fundamental medical and health needs. These companies have also told the world that genetic engineering will reduce pesticide use, as they engineer their crops to tolerate more herbicides. Despite wide spread opposition to genetically engineered food and demands for affordable health care, the biotechnology industry is continuing along a path of social and environmental destruction. Corporations and governments are leading the agenda to globalize patent laws that privatize life as intellectual property rights, encourage greed and sell out science to the profit motive. To stop the biotechnology industry, to bring power to our communities, to create sustainable food systems, to create universal health care, we call communities, individuals, and organizations to TAKE ACTION! For more information and updates on the days of action, see: http://www.biodev.org The Organizers of Biojustice 2001 The Institute for Social Ecology Biotechnology Project North East Resistance Against Genetic Engineering - neRAGE.org ------------------------------------------------------- Background on the Gene Giants: Monsanto: Today a much smaller company than before, as a result of a merger with Pharmacia, and the subsequent spin-off of only the agriculture, seed and pesticide divisions under the Monsanto name. Still, Monsanto controls 85% of all genetically engineered germplasm, and is using its ownership of many of the world's most important commercial seed companies to saturate the commercial seed supply with genetically engineered varieties. Aventis: Formed two years ago by the merger of the German chemical giant Hoechst and the French Rhone Poulenc, Aventis is best known for the "Starlink" variety of pesticidal GE corn. This variety is not approved for human consumption and is considered likely to cause severe allergic reactions in some people. Still, it has been found in hundreds of brand-name processed foods, and has thoroughly contaminated the US supply of corn seed. Aventis also specializes in crops resistant to glufosinate herbicides. Syngenta: Formed within the past year, when Novartis and Astra-Zeneca decided to spin off many of their agricultural divisions to protect themarket value of their pharmaceutical divisions, Syngenta describes itself as "the world's leading agribusiness company." Syngenta markets numerous varieties of herbicide-tolerant and pesticidal GE crops. DuPont: In 1999, DuPont Chemical completed its purchase of Pioneer Hi-Bred, the world's largest seed company. Pioneer aggressively markets numerous GE varieties from all of the largest biotechnology companies. Novartis: Since its founding in 1996, from the merger of Swiss chemicalgiants Sandoz and Ciba-Geigy, Novartis has been one of the world's most aggressive marketers of pesticidal Bt crops, featuring an activated toxin spliced from Bt bacteria (Bacillus thuringiensis). Novartis has also been heavily involved in xenotransplantation research, seeking to genetically engineer animals to provide organs for human transplants; this line of research is considered extremely abusive to animals and, if it ever succeeds, it could introduce lethal animal viruses into the human population. Astra-Zeneca: Parent company Zeneca in the UK was responsible for one of the first field trials of genetically engineered trees; Astra-Zeneca is reportedly continuing to develop Terminator seed technologies, despite a public pledge to discontinue this research. Dow Chemical: Dow's involvement in biotechnology includes its ownership of the San Diego-based Mycogen, which recently absorbed Cargill's seed division. Dow is collaborating with San Diego-based EPICyte to produce human antibodies in genetically engineered plants. Cargill: The world's largest and most vertically integrated wholesale grain trader. Its joint venture with Monsanto specializes in genetically engineered animal feeds. "Cargill has used its extreme market power to ensure that the market is GM, against consumer opinion," states the UK's Corporate Watch. Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst@foodfirst.org. ==^================================================================ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxil2.aVxCnz Or send an email To: fianusa-news-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com This email was sent to: asia-apec@jca.ax.apc.org T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================ From amittal at foodfirst.org Sat Jun 9 02:59:34 2001 From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 17:59:34 +0000 Subject: [asia-apec 1776] Economic Human Rights Bus Tour and Media Message-ID: <0.700000824.283767684-951758591-992023176@topica.com> Economic Human Rights Bus Tour from May 29-31,2001, organized by Food First, and endorsed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, generated a lot of media coverage. Please find attached 2 op-eds that appeared in newspapers across the country. This was distributed by Knight-Ridder/Tribune Media Services. ___________________________ United States Lagging in Economic Human Rights OAKLAND, CA -- When Americans think of human rights violations, they don't normally think of people like Freman Davis, a 71-year old retired African- American machinist living here in the Oakland Homeless Project. Mr. Davis' troubles began seven years ago when he was evicted from his apartment. With rising real estate prices here, he was never able to find another one that would fit within the means of his $570 monthly Social Security check. Mr. Davis, who is also a disabled veteran of the Korean War, is one of the witnesses testifying as part of the Economic Human Rights Bus Tour. They told their stories this week to network TV crews, and audiences that included US Representatives Barbara Lee of Oakland, Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, and John Conyers of Detroit. They were articulate, persuasive, and often eloquent. A sixteen-year-old homeless high school girl noted that while "other girls my age were worrying about who to date and what to wear, I was thinking about where I was going to sleep and where my next meal would come from." The Bus Tour, sponsored by the Oakland-based policy group Food First, visited homeless centers and single room occupancy hotels in downtown Oakland this week to shine a spotlight on homelessness and poverty in California. More ambitiously, the affiliated groups are demanding that such basic needs as food, shelter, and health care be recognized by the United States government as fundamental human rights. They are backed not only by hundreds of activist and advocacy groups throughout the country, but also by the 56- member Progressive Caucus in the US Congress. Are they ahead of their time? Or is America behind the times? The United States is alone among the wealthy nations of the world in its failure to provide universal health insurance. The resulting patchwork of public and private insurers is so wasteful and inefficient that we end up spending twice as much per person on health care as do countries like Sweden, and still leave 43 million people uninsured. With insurance premiums now rising again at double-digit rates, it is possible that the switch to a more efficient, universal, single insurer system would actually save money over the long run. But even if it cost more, it is well within our means to insure the millions of people whose first and only visits to the doctor are in the emergency room. Estimates of the homeless vary widely, but we could easily provide for them with a lot less than the $500 billion that the Bush Administration's tax cut is giving to the richest one percent of taxpayers (average income: $1.1 million). And we already have a food stamp program, which would need to be expanded as well as extended to the millions of families who are currently eligible, but do not participate. Although some may think these battles have been lost with the passage of President Bush's tax cut, this is not necessarily true. That tax cut represents only about a quarter of the projected budget surpluses over the next decade. Right now, both parties are committed to using more than half of these surpluses -- that is, twice the amount that went to the tax cut -- for paying down the national debt. This commitment -- which would provide very little, if any, benefit to the economy -- is a recently developed bit of ideological nonsense that will surely fade if the economy continues to slow. But we should not have to wait for a recession before we do something to provide for people's most basic needs. On the contrary, the recent economic expansion -- the longest in American history -- has provided opportunities far beyond those that existed in the 1960s, the last time this country officially committed itself to a "War on Poverty." Regardless of what happens to the economy in the next year or so, the government's future finances look better than they ever have in the past half-century. Less than five years ago we lost our most important federal entitlement for poor children -- Aid to Families with Dependent Children -- despite the fact that we have the highest child poverty rate in the developed world (currently one in six). And our largest and most successful anti-poverty program -- Social Security -- is being set up by the Bush Administration for partial privatization and cuts. All the more reason to establish the principle that basic needs such as food, shelter, and health care are fundamental economic human rights -- so they cannot be swept aside with shifts in the political winds. Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: the Phony Crisis (2000, University of Chicago Press). **************************************************** PERSPECTIVES Food Is a Human Right Why should the charitable whims of the rich decide who eats well and who doesn't? By Anuradha Mittal President Bush, in his recent commencement speech at the University of Notre Dame, renewed his call for a war on poverty. Once again, he linked this call to his tax cut initiative. The idea is that tax benefits for the rich will stimulate charitable giving and create a type of altruistic market dynamic that will eventually trickle down to the poor. Of course, the historical record flatly defeats this logic, and policies such as these have proven to be the fertile soil in which poverty and hunger flourish. Feeding each American must certainly be considered a necessity, one more pressing than enriching the top 10 percent of the population with nearly three-fifths of the tax cut benefits. For a nation endowed with the world's greatest acreage of arable land, the United States is plagued by hunger and poverty. According to USDA estimates, 10.5 million American households (1 out of 10) did not have adequate access to food in 1998. A survey of 25 cities conducted in December 2000 by the U.S. Conference of Mayors showed an increase of 17 percent in requests for emergency food assistance, the highest increase since 1992. To respond to this crisis, President Bush said in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, "In the next bold step of welfare reform, we will support the heroic work of homeless shelters and food pantries. Government cannot do this work.. My administration will give taxpayers new incentives to donate to charity." But relying on charity is simply not enough. The growth of private-sector food programs is a sign not of success, but of political failure -- the failure of American policy makers to join other nations that long ago adopted the human right to feed oneself.. Implicit in the idea of human rights is that these rights are guaranteed to all, not charitably bestowed on some by the patronage of others. Human rights belong to the realm of government, not the discretion of the wealthiest citizens. With the United States losing its seat on the United Nations Human Rights Commission, it's time to strengthen our human rights record at home and implement all Americans' right to feed themselves. Seeking solutions through charitable handouts fails to address the loss of human dignity associated with the inability to house, feed, and clothe oneself and one's family. Of the 36 million food-insecure individuals living in America in 1998 (40 percent of whom were children under the age of 18), half belong to households with at least one full-time worker. The leading cause of growing food insecurity is not simply joblessness; it is poverty, low-paying jobs, high housing costs, food stamp cuts, and welfare reform. Cutbacks in federal food programs have created a tremendous pressure for private food assistance programs to fill the void. The hunger gap left by the food stamp program cuts is four times the amount that Second Harvest, the national food bank network of emergency food providers, could provide every year. Most of the people requesting emergency food assistance are children and their parents. And almost half are employed. Yet this emergency is largely relegated to the domain of charity while discussions are underway for a budgetary reordering that siphons ever greater funds away from social programs. Leaving responsibility for human rights to the private sector is unacceptable. Private sector programs cannot displace the responsibility of government to the basic social and economic human rights for its people. In the age of "personal responsibility," does it not follow that we each have a responsibility to hold our elected government accountable to the universal standards it holds other nations to? Which of the following best stands for the values espoused by Americans -- a broad and sturdy safety net for all members of our society, or one of five children hungry and poor in the richest nation on earth?   Anuradha Mittal is the co-director of Oakland-based Food First, which wraps up its anti-poverty bus tour today. For more information, including how to get involved with Food First's local campaigns, go to www.foodfirst.org. Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst@foodfirst.org. ==^================================================================ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxil2.aVxCnz Or send an email To: fianusa-news-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com This email was sent to: asia-apec@jca.ax.apc.org T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================ From kevin.li at graduate.hku.hk Tue Jun 19 00:05:41 2001 From: kevin.li at graduate.hku.hk (Kevin Yuk-shing Li) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 23:05:41 +0800 Subject: [asia-apec 1777] HK: Drop the Charges against GE protestors Message-ID: <004201c0f808$28729a80$11242dca@enduser> From: Greenpeace China Dear all, As you may be aware, Greenpeace China conducted a peaceful, non-violent protest against Nestle in Hong Kong for releasing food that contains genetically modified ingredients on May 28, 2001. Two Greenpeace volunteers, Fung Ka Keung and Fung Kai Yuen, were arrested and charged with "willfully obstructing" police officers in the due execution of their duties. Greenpeace cannot, and will not, be deterred from protesting against irresponsible companies. We hope you will endorse our international appeal, urging the Hong Kong SAR government to drop charges against the two volunteers. Please fill in the online petition letter at the following URL: http://www.gpchina.org/ge/dropcharge_e.html Greenpeace China From notoapec at clear.net.nz Tue Jun 26 05:48:31 2001 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (Apec Monitoring Group) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 08:48:31 +1200 Subject: [asia-apec 1778] ZNet Commentary 21/6/01- Beware Bilateral Trade/Investment Deals Message-ID: <011201c0fdb8$347d2380$6584a7cb@notoapec> We Must Mobilise Against A Miasma of Mini-MAIs By Aziz Choudry You've got to wonder at the nerve of New Zealand trade officials. During the furtive Multilateral Agreement on Investment negotiations and the subsequent international waves of opposition they were quietly hatching binding bilateral investment deals containing provisions resembling some of the most controversial elements of the MAI. In 1996 Cabinet (Parliament's executive arm) approved a model bilateral investment promotion and protection agreement (IPPA). The government then went looking for countries to apply the model with. 1998 Cabinet papers obtained under the Official Information Act advise: "Careful media handling of the issue will be needed if the bilateral investment promotion and protection negotiations are not to worsen the current furore over the participation of New Zealand in MAI negotiations." Officials worried about "walking into a quicksand of negative public opinion", but pushed on regardless. University of Auckland law professor Jane Kelsey observes: "regional and bilateral agreements are seeking to stitch together from below what is no longer so easy to achieve on a global scale. They are providing a circuit-breaker for both APEC and the WTO. It is globalisation by stealth." Rattled by the crisis of credibility and legitimacy engulfing the multilateral trading system and growing popular opposition to the Bretton Woods toxic trio, many governments are turning to bilateral trade and investment agreements. Between 1987 and 1996, according to the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID - which operates under World Bank auspices), over 800 Bilateral Investment Treaties alone were signed. Meanwhile WTO negotiations - especially on GATS - continue in the hope that real 'progress' will move the beleaguered institution beyond bad memories of Seattle. WTO Director-General Mike Moore's December 2000 annual report to the WTO trade policy review body warned of "a growing danger that the huge rise in bilateral and plurilateral trade deals could come to be seen as a substitute for multilateral liberalisation rather than a complement to it". The WTO estimates those agreements now cover three-quarters of world trade. Even disputes are moving outside the WTO. There have been numerous campaigns on multilateral arrangements like the WTO, the MAI, and APEC. There has been relatively less recent international networking focussing on the use of bilateral agreements to advance trade and investment liberalisation, economic reforms and the neo-liberal agenda. Lower-key bilateral negotiations have the advantage of attracting less publicity and attention conducive to creating international mobilisations that have been conducted around multilateral deals. Officials and politicians often portray them as inherently benign arrangements with a "friendly" country. They can market them as local or regional initiatives rather than externally imposed models. They seek to distinguish them from more politically charged multilateral trade negotiations. Unless we keep tabs on these deals much of what we oppose about the WTO and the MAI will be delivered by the backdoor, bit by bit. As Kelsey warns, few people will even know these agreements exist until an investor decides to seek compensation for a government measure that reduces their profitability. South Korean activists quickly identified the bilateral investment treaties (BITs) being negotiated by their government with the USA and Japan as "MAI clones" and mobilised against them. The IMF bailout set the scene for the accelerated liberalisation and deregulation of the Korean economy, including making the economy more attractive to overseas investment. In 1998, a bilateral investment treaty with the USA was proposed. In 1999, Korean peoples' organisations launched Korean People's Action against Investment Treaties (KOPA). The Korean struggle against BITs is perhaps best-known for mobilising local film producers, actors and directors in defence of the screen quota which stipulates that cinemas must screen local movies for at least 146 days a year. In negotiations with the USA over the BIT, Korea's government announced it will reduce or remove this. Some governments say that bilateral agreements can achieve binding agreements on contentious issues like labour and the environment, or further protections or concessions in specific sectors, which they have failed to obtain in multilateral fora like the WTO. For example, former US Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky boasted that the US-Jordan deal was a model for how bilateral accords could help protect labour standards. This was merely "fair trade" rhetoric, the labour wording in the text little more than unenforceable window-dressing, recognising that it is inappropriate to encourage trade by relaxing domestic labour laws. Besides Jordan, the USA recently signed free trade accords with China and Vietnam, is negotiating with Chile and Singapore and exploring a possible free trade agreement with Australia. Last month, Democrat senator Max Baucus submitted bills to the US Senate to authorise the negotiation of trade agreements between the USA and New Zealand, Australia, and South Korea. The bills are comprehensive, and include market access for goods and services, rules of origin, customs, sanitary and phytosanitary safeguards, government procurement, investment, intellectual property, transparency, e-commerce, and environment and labour standards. Japan is considering trade agreements with Singapore and Korea. Australia is negotiating a free trade agreement with Singapore, while a High Level Task Force on the AFTA-CER (AFTA = ASEAN's emerging FTA; CER = Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relationship) Free Trade Area recently advised ASEAN and CER governments to work towards a free trade area linking AFTA and CER. While New Zealand had a change of government with the election of a Labour-led coalition in late 1999, the economic fundamentals remain essentially unchanged. Yet it is hard to sell "free trade and investment agreements" to a public grown sceptical of their supposed benefits, so new language has been adopted. As Hong Kong government documents state, 'Closer Economic Partnership' "is New Zealand's preferred terminology for Free Trade Agreements". New Zealand Trade Negotiations Minister Jim Sutton remarked in March: "I admit that I myself have some difficulties with the phrase 'free trade'. It conjures up images of the law of the jungle." Last year, New Zealand and Singapore concluded a "CEP" free trade and investment agreement which took effect this January. The rationale for this was largely strategic. Tim Groser, New Zealand's former chief trade negotiator said: "the Singapore/NZ FTA is a Trojan Horse for the real negotiating end-game: a possible new trade bloc encompassing all of South East Asia and Australia and NZ." Trade officials held that "an FTA with Singapore . might act as a catalyst for free trade areas with other ASEAN economies". Significantly, the Singapore agreement is open to accession by other states or separate customs territories. It is also a model for future bilateral free trade and investment deals. New Zealand has offered assistance and information to Thailand to undertake a feasibility study on a possible Thailand/New Zealand free trade agreement. A possible "CEP" with South Korea has been mooted. Reaction to the bilateral trade strategy has often been confused and confusing. Some trade union officials, NGOs and local government politicians are reluctant to openly criticise Labour Party policy. Some who opposed the MAI seem to view bilateral free trade and investment deals as unproblematic. However, among others, there is growing concern and awareness about the implications of the bilateral deals. Even David Binning, vice-president of the NZ Exporters Institute recently criticised "the unrestrained headlong dive we are taking with CEP agreements with any country wanting to be friendly". New Zealand is now negotiating a "CEP" with Hong Kong. Once again, we can't examine negotiating drafts before the deal's complete. Sutton says that "it would not be appropriate to make available draft texts before any negotiations are concluded, as this could be expected to prejudice the successful conclusion of negotiations". Last year, textile clothing and footwear unions, activist organisations like GATT Watchdog, and others opposed the Singapore agreement, highlighting contradictions between a government supposedly committed to "nation-building" and "open government", and its pursuit of yet another secretly-negotiated free trade agreement. They pointed out the contradiction between the Labour-led government's recently announced tariff freeze and the move to remove tariffs from all Singapore sourced goods almost immediately. But as with most other bilateral deals, investment was the greatest concern. Back in 1995, without any fanfare, let alone debate, New Zealand signed an Investment Promotion and Protection agreement with Hong Kong, which has a 15-year term. Its expropriation provision is almost identical in effect to the MAI's. It would prevent, or force compensation for, nationalisation or expropriation or measures having effect equivalent to nationalisation or expropriation. Bill Rosenberg notes that New Zealand could face similar actions to those in NAFTA from Hong Kong-based investors: "any change in environmental regulations by central or local government which reduced the profitability of an enterprise could result in awards of compensation and perhaps a reversal of a change in law or regulation". The "CEP" currently under negotiation with Hong Kong could well extend the 1995 agreement. The Singapore deal defines 'investment' and 'investor' as widely as in the MAI, although it does not give the same level of guarantees for investors against "expropriation" as NAFTA, nor does it define expropriation. But it is the first such agreement which New Zealand is signatory to which provides for investor enforcement of alleged breaches. In 1999, the previous government signed bilateral agreements for the protection and promotion of investment with both Chile and Argentina. These require only an exchange of letters between governments to take effect and have even stronger expropriation clauses than the Singapore agreement. Article 6 of both agreements forces compensation for any measures of nationalisation or expropriation or any other measure having equivalent effect against the investments of the other party. Once the Chile agreement takes effect, neither New Zealand nor Chile can withdraw for a minimum of 15 years, and the agreement would apply to any investments existing at the time of withdrawal for a further 15 years. The Argentina agreement specifies a minimum 10 year period but an identical 15 years term of protection for Argentinian investments at the time of withdrawal. Like the MAI, the model IPPA developed by New Zealand officials contains an Investor-State dispute mechanism in which private investors can take a signatory government to international arbitration. Under the Singapore, Chile, and Argentina agreements an investor from or based in one of these countries can submit a dispute against New Zealand to ICSID. Governments belonging to ICSID must pass domestic legislation enabling all ICSID awards to be directly enforced against them in their domestic courts. Under NAFTA governments have no choice about submitting to an investor-initiated dispute process. Under ICSID rules the government must agree to submit the dispute to ICSID jurisdiction. While it can theoretically decline ICSID arbitration, it is unlikely to do so for fear of provoking criticism that its policies or laws (or indeed local government measures or actions) threaten investor confidence. Four years ago I briefed then opposition MP Pete Hodgson, (now Minister for Energy, Forestry, and Fisheries) on the MAI. Overseas investors using international agreements could not override sovereign powers of governments to make policy, he insisted. The legal actions taken under NAFTA's notorious chapter on investment - itself the blueprint for much of the MAI - have proved him wrong. Now his government - and others, too - are hatching a new batch of mini-MAIs which are sneaking in underneath the radar. Internationally, we must work together to expose these backdoor deals and stop them before we are trapped in webs of mini-MAIs, facing Metalclad and Ethyl Corp-style disputes in all our backyards. From notoapec at clear.net.nz Thu Jun 28 15:08:53 2001 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (notoapec@clear.net.nz) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 06:08:53 +0000 Subject: [asia-apec 1779] NZ Herald Online Story - Curfew to dampen protest fever in Papua New Guinea Message-ID: <200106271809.GAA18125@waklwh3.wilsonandhorton.co.nz> The following story has been sent to you by notoapec@clear.net.nz who feels it may be of interest. Senders email: notoapec@clear.net.nz --------------------------- NZ Herald, Auckland 28/06/01 - Curfew to dampen protest fever in Papua New Guinea
PORT MORESBY - A nightly curfew has been imposed in the Papua New Guinea capital Port Moresby after at least three people were killed in a day of anti-reform protests. The dusk-to-dawn curfew ordered yesterday by Prime Minister Sir Mekere Morauta will remain in place until July 10 to help police restore order after protests against IMF-backed economic reforms degenerated into violence on Tuesday. Six days of peaceful student protests against IMF and World Bank-backed reforms, including the sell-off of state enterprises, erupted when police tried to disperse the crowd of hundreds of students. A show of force yesterday by police thwarted mob plans to steal and display the bodies of the three university students. A mob of at least 1000 gathered outside Port Moresby General Hospital amid calls to break into the morgue to recover the bodies of the two male and one female students from the University of PNG. The mob's apparent plan was to carry the bodies to PNG's Parliament House as part of the continuing protest. However, regular and riot police sealed key sections of the road leading from the hospital and past the Army's Murray Barracks to Parliament. The protesters were eventually contained in front of the hospital and scattered by a police charge. Members of the Defence Force were confined to barracks but were on alert for a possible callout. Elsewhere, the capital was quiet as schools remained closed and people and transport stayed off the streets of looted and burned shops and stoned vehicles. Police said they were "hoping and praying" that peace could be restored. "The situation has calmed down in a long way, but we will have to see how the day unfolds," police commander Tom Kulunga said. Reports from Australia yesterday that a fourth person had been shot dead could not be confirmed. Morauta has introduced major reforms to try to rebuild the economy of the resource-rich but impoverished nation, plagued by economic and political chaos since independence from Australia in 1975. But opposition to the reforms, based on nationalist fears of foreign investment and local job losses, has mounted since soldiers staged a 12-day mutiny in May over reports that the armed forces would be slashed. Opposition leader Bill Skate, who is in Australia for medical treatment, called on Morauta to set up an inquiry. "For the first time in the history of PNG's democracy, during a peaceful protest, we've lost lives and this is an extreme situation ... the Prime Minister needs to clear his name and his credibility," Skate told Australian radio. - REUTERS --------------------------- To view more stories please visit the NZ Herald Online at http://www.nzherald.co.nz