From amittal at foodfirst.org  Sat Nov  3 10:58:09 2001
From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal)
Date: Sat,  3 Nov 2001 01:58:09 +0000
Subject: [asia-apec 1820] Food Rights Watch
Message-ID: <0.700000824.2089324650-212058698-1004752690@topica.com>



Welcome to Food Rights Watch. Food Rights Watch provides information 
about economic and social human rights in the belief that education 
leads to 
action. Please read on, forward to friends, send story ideas, 
and most importantly- take action!!!

>From Food First - For Land and Liberty, Jobs and Justice!

Stephanie Yan

Editor
*****************************************************************

United States

(1) In Yukon, Fears U.S. Drilling Could Upset Delicate Balance
(2) Small Businesses, Limping, Feel Neglected by Aid Efforts
(3) A University of Pennsylvania Study Uncovers 400,00 American Children 

Using Survival Sex for Food and Shelter 



INTERNATIONAL

(4) Diamond Miners still work for just 12p a day
(5) Britain blocks protection for indigenous people
(6) Anti-GM smallholders in the Amazon demand justice over series
    of killings
(7) Poverty, Health Problems Worse in Developing Countries
    Dependent on Oil And Mining
(8) Plenty of Pain to Share in Zimbabwe Land Reform



United States

(1) In Yukon, Fears U.S. Drilling Could Upset Delicate Balance

To the Vuntut Gwitchin people where the caribou migrated to have their 
young 
was sacred ground. Even hunger would not allow the people to enter it to 
hunt 
for food.  Now, the Gwitchin fear, the caribou are threatened by a U.S. 
energy 
bill that would open the way for oil and gas drilling in Alaska's Arctic 
National 
Wildlife Refuge. The Gwitchin say drilling would disrupt the annual 
migration 
of the caribou and kill a human lifestyle that has survived thousands of 
years. 
 The calving grounds, which cover millions of acres, straddle the 
U.S.-Canada 
border. The most sensitive part lies on 1.5 million acres on a coastal 
plain in the 
Alaskan preserve. "We are not doing this because we don't like oil 
companies," 
said Newman, as she sat in the Gwitchin office in Old Crow. " We are 
doing this 
to preserve the land for our children. . . . When our children are 
hungry, we cannot 
give them oil."  The Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) 
has 
said "I truly believe that the vast majority of the American people want 
us to find 
our oil elsewhere. They don't want the trade-off that ANWR presents. 
It's six 
months of energy destroying in perpetuity a very pristine, very special 
part of our 
country.  "In the North, when you see the prices we pay for food, you 
will see how 
expensive it is to live up here. We could definitely use the money," 
Newman said. 
"However, there are other ways to make money. We don't need that oil 
money. 
We can't sacrifice our children's lives for that."  

Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1754-2001Sep9?language=printer
By DeNeen L. Brown
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, September 10, 2001; Page A13

The fossil fuel industry spends $156 billion annually to find more oil 
and gas, yet 
the fossil fuels we already have will cause irreversible damage to our 
planet. 
Demand an alternative: 

Please sign the petition urging President Bush and your senators to vote 

to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 

When the issue comes to the floor of the Senate, your senators votes are 

critical in deciding the outcome. Its important that they hear directly 
from 
concerned constituents like you today. Action on this issue could now 
come 
at any time so please contact  your senator today. 

Thanks for urging bipartisanship in these difficult times
 for our nation.
http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm

Get a  sample letter that you can fax to your senator.
http://www.defenders.org/wildlife/arctic/actnow/sampleletter.html

Learn more about the Arctic Refuge and why oil from this pristine area 
will not 
lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
http://www.defenders.org/wildlife/arctic/actnow/about01.html

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

(2) Small Businesses, Limping, Feel Neglected by Aid Efforts

Many small businesses near the fallen World Trade Center are barely 
clinging to 
life, but unlike big business concerns from Midtown to Wall Street, the 
mom-and-pop 
shops, owners say, are dying fast below the radar of public knowledge or 
official
 concern.  But many businesses have not yet decided whether to close up 
shop 
for good. They are waiting to hear how much relief they can expect from 
the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, insurance companies and other 
sources 
of grants and low-interest loans before making that decision.  The 
federal 
Small Business Administration has issued more than 15,000 applications 
for 
low-interest loans, but has received back only 1,300 requests, "a very 
small 
rate of return," said Cynthia Speed, a spokeswoman for the agency. She 
said it probably reflected the fact that many small-business owners were 

already worried about their debt burdens. "They're thinking, `If I'm 
about to 
lose my business, what do I need a loan for?' " Ms. Speed said that 
since 
Sept. 11, 260 loans have been approved for $26 million. Nonetheless, 
many 
owners seem to want the cash flow that comes from grant money, and are 
showing signs of pessimism about getting large chunks of it.  "As of 
today, 
no one has said anything to us about assistance," said Vivia Amalfitano, 

whose family owns three restaurants in the red zone that have been shut 
down since the attacks. "Why hasn't someone from the city or the state 
said, `Look, we'll help you'?"


Source:
By SUSAN SAULNY
New York Times
October 12, 2001
***********************************************************************

(3) A University of Pennsylvania Study Uncovers 400,00 American Children 

Using Survival Sex for Food and Shelter 

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania unveiled the grim results 
of a 
three-year study of children under 18 living in the U.S. They found that 
roughly 
400,000 children, or 1 in 100, are victims of commercial sexual 
exploitation.  
Commercial sexual exploitation is defined in the study as a one-on-one, 
interpersonal interaction in exchange for goods and services. And while 
researchers found that most of these kids engage in sex to stay alive, 
or 
for "survival sex," using their bodies to secure food, shelter, or 
clothing, some 
children were also having sex for drugs or products they might not 
otherwise 
be able to afford.  Most "customers" are men, often married with 
children of 
their own, and men who are away from home for stretches at a time, at 
conventions for example, or at truck stops during long road trips. Dr. 
Neil 
Weiner, a senior research associate at the Center for the Study of Youth 

Policy at Penn, and one of the studys co-authors said,  "There was no 
prior work we felt was credible. So we started out not knowing, hoping 
the numbers would be insignificant. Unfortunately," he adds, "we were 
wrong." 

Source:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,174482,00.html
Monday, Sep. 10, 2001


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

INTERNATIONAL


(4) Diamond Miners Still Work for Just 12p a Day

Sierra Leone  this is where "conflict diamonds" come from. A middleman 
sent from Freetown pays men working in the gold mines 500 leones (12p)
 a day plus a cup of rice. "This is the only job around here because the 
war 
has ended our agriculture," Rahman says. Some people say peace has come 
to Sierra Leone after 10 years in which tens of thousands of people died 

so that the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) could enrich itself by 
winning control of the country's lucrative alluvial diamond deposits. 
Even 
though some measure of disarmament is going on, elections are planned 
and a sponsor of the war, the Liberian President, Charles Taylor, is 
subjected to United Nations sanctions, little has been done by the 
United Nations and Britain to regulate the diamond trade the root 
cause of the war. 

 Mr Sessay's rebels have been responsible for hundreds of child 
abductions, 
rapes and amputations. "Everyone is mining for diamonds here," 
Brigadier Issa Sessay, leader of the RUF, says. "There are people 
mining for the government, for the civil defense forces and for private 
individuals  not just the RUF." And he is speaking the truth: the 
Freetown 
government is also deeply involved. There is nothing illegal in that the 
diamonds 
are here, and they are among the finest and cheapest to exploit in the 
world. 
Morlai Kamara, from the Canadian-backed Campaign For Just Mining, says: 
"You could say there are no longer blood diamonds coming out of Sierra 
Leone. 
But children are still being put to work by middlemen and the conditions 

endured by the miners continue to be appalling."

Source:


For related stories:
ASIA-PACIFIC ACTIVISTS PLAN TO FIGHT MULTINATIONAL MINING, 

Follow the Mining Money: An Activist Toolkit for Direct Corporate 
Campaigning

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

(5)  Britain Blocks Protection for Indigenous People
At the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, the Government is 
backing a clause in the final declaration stating that "the use of the 
term 
'indigenous peoples'... cannot be construed as having any implications 
to 
rights under international law".  The 300 million indigenous people 
includes 
Maoris, Aboriginals and Native Americans.  Britain does not have 
indigenous 
minorities. But political sources said the Government, represented by 
the Home 
Office minister Angela Eagle, was acting on behalf of Canada and 
Australia 
because those countries would be in a "politically difficult" position 
if they
 tried openly to curtail the rights of their own minorities.  Joe 
Hedger, an 
Aboriginal representing the Human Rights Council of Australia, said: 
"The 
move totally undermines the pursuit of self-determination and thus 
fundamental rights like land ownership, culture, language, fishing and 
hunting 
rights. It is a slap in the face to human rights."  

Source:
http://www.eniar.org/news/independent3.html
World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and 
Related Intolerance


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

(6) Anti-GM Amallholders in the Amazon Demand Justice over Series of 
Killings

Ranchers allegedly arranged the murders of eight Brazilian peasant 
leaders this 
summer to silence them or to grab their smallholdings in Amazonia, and 
45 
farmers are said to be on a new hitlist in a long-running dispute over 
their 
right to grow GM-free crops. About 800 organic soya-bean farmers 
gathered 
in the city of Belem last week with members of the Landless Workers' 
Movement 
and aid workers to demand the killers be brought to justice. They say 
the ranchers' 
political clout and military backing has led to 19 deaths in their 
ranks, eight this year. 
The ranchers, with outside investors, are putting pressure on the 
cash-strapped
 federal government to drop a longstanding ban on GM crops. The farmers 
also 
complained that large-scale cattle farming and timber felling was 
ruining the 
drainage in the state of Para, where they farm. 

At a citizens' court in the city, a jury voted unanimously before the 
planting 
season to uphold a ban on genetically modified crops. Martin Dickler, 
from 
the British agency ActionAid, who attended the trial, said:"[The 
farmers] are 
insisting on sufficient laboratory research before doing field tests, 
much less
 patenting and commercialization of genetically modified organisms."

The bulk of the farmers' harvests goes to the suppliers of British
supermarkets Asda and Tesco, which have policies not to sell the 
meat or milk of animals fed with GM soya. The farmers fear that lifting
 the ban would threaten their farming methods and increase dependence 
on multinational GM seed firms such as Monsanto. 

Source:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=98230
By Jan McGirk, Latin America Correspondent
08 October 2001

For more on GM debate: 
A CALL TO ACTION:NATIONAL DAY OF LABELING ACTION AGAINST 
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD.
October 30th 2001 - First national day of GE food labeling -
The Citizens Voluntary Labeling Brigade needs you!
Action ideas:
* take peaceful direct action to label products
* Frankenstein could visit the local supermarket
* table at a supermarket 
* Write to your local newspaper
* Talk to local farmers about GE
* lobby your representative..
Institute for Social Ecology, Biotechnology Project
Northeast Resistance Against Genetic Engineering 
1118 Maple Hill Road                               
Plainfield, VT 05667                                
(802) 454-9957                                      
info@nerage.org  |  www.nerage.org 
***********************************************************************

(7) Poverty, Health Problems Worse in Developing Countries Dependent
 on Oil and Mining

Developing countries that rely heavily on oil or mineral exports suffer 
higher 
rates of poverty and child mortality, and spend more on their militaries 
than 
similar countries with more diverse economies, according to a study 
released 
by Oxfam America.  The report contests the conventional economic wisdom 
that developing nations prosper by extracting and exporting their oil 
and 
mineral wealth. 

According to the Oxfam report, that when countries are dependent on oil 
and mineral exports, "they have difficulty diversifying their economy 
and 
promoting sectors like agriculture and manufacturing... [this 
dependence] 
becomes an obstacle to pro-poor types of economic activity." There are 
some measures it proposes should be applied: help poor countries 
diversify 
their economies to make them less dependent on oil and mining, removal 
by 
OECD states of tariff barriers that block export of processed minerals 
and 
petroleum products, transparency of loans to governments, aid only to 
states 
committed to democracy and fighting poverty, and careful monitoring of 
revenues. 

Recent protests against the World Bank have focused on the 
bank's support for large-scale oil and mining projects, which critics 
see as environmentally and socially destructive. As a result, the Bank 
will 
begin a review of its involvement in these sectors, consulting with 
industry 
representatives, governments, and nongovernmental organizations. The 
Bank launches the review in Brussels on Oct. 29. Keith Slack, a policy 
advisor for Oxfam America, says "the Bank should begin its review by 
questioning whether these sectors really do contribute to sustainable 
poverty reduction." 

Source:
http://www.business-humanrights.org/Children.htm

For more information see , or the World Bank's extractive industries 
review website at . 
Contact: 
Keith Slack or Andy Izquierdo, Oxfam America 202/496-1197
Prof. Michael Ross, UCLA 310/710-7115 
Deborah Rephan, Fenton Communications 202/822-5200  
***********************************************************************


(8) Plenty of Pain to Share in Zimbabwe Land Reform

Mr. Mugabe, 77, first came to power in 1980 in elections that ended all 
white rule. He vowed then to return land that was stolen by British 
settlers 
from blacks in this country. It is a promise that few people have 
forgotten, 
and with his standing waning after 21 years in power, the president 
has spent the past year reviving an issue that has great resonance 
among black voters. On hundreds of farms across the country, government
 officials and black squatters say they are reviving their young 
country's
 liberation struggle and redrawing the colonial map that left a tiny 
white 
minority with more than half this nation's fertile land. 

After 18 months of attacks against white farmers, black farm workers and 

opposition party supporters that have left more than 30 people dead, 
both 
whites and blacks here at Uitkyk farm and elsewhere are feeling 
increasingly betrayed. Zimbabwe promised last month to remove illegal 
squatters, to crack down on violence and intimidation and to carry out 
its 
land program lawfully. In return, Britain agreed to help finance the 
purchase of land for black settlers. But conflicts have continued. In 
recent 
weeks, government officials, who often say they have successfully 
resettled 130,000 households, have acknowledged that many black 
families have actually been stranded on arid stretches without adequate 
water or sanitation. The government, which publicly claims to have 
acquired 
as many as 4,000 farms over the past 18 months, has acquired only about 
91, court records and government reports show. But few deny that 
Zimbabwe is paying a devastating price for a land program that has 
yet to bear much fruit. 

The invasions of white-owned farms and the recent waves of political
 violence have left an already struggling economy in tatters. Between 
1999 and 2000, foreign investment plunged by 89 percent, government 
statistics show. The economy is expected to shrink by 8 percent this 
year. Unemployment stands at about 60 percent, and for the first time 
in a decade, severe hunger is settling over parts of the country. In an 
interview, a senior official acknowledged for the first time that a 
small 
number of people have already died from hunger in the southern district
 of Mberengwa, a community of about 170,000. Experts say the food 
shortages have been caused primarily by two seasons of unusually bad 
weather, with alternating periods of severe flooding and drought 
destroying
 the crops of black farmers with small holdings. But they say the farm
 invasions have also played a role. "The problem is not with them, 
really,"
 Mrs. Campbell, a white farm owner said. "We can see that the problem of
 land has to be addressed. We know there is a need for change. We
 just want government to follow the law. And then, we will all just try 
to pick up the pieces and try to start again."

Source:
http://profileafrica.com/Inthenews9.htm
By RACHEL L. SWARNS
October 7, 2001


 

For more information, to order Food First Books,or to join our member-supported organization, go to:
http://www.foodfirst.org.  
Or send your tax-deductible check to:
Food First, 398 60th St. Oakland, CA 94618

==^================================================================
This email was sent to: asia-apec@jca.ax.apc.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxil2.aVxCnz
Or send an email to: fianusa-news-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com
<A HREF=" http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxil2.aVxCnz ">
AOL users click here.</A>

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================


From notoapec at clear.net.nz  Sun Nov  4 13:52:25 2001
From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (GATT Watchdog)
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 17:52:25 +1300
Subject: [asia-apec 1821] USTR Zoellick on WTO Doha meet and war
Message-ID: <002e01c164ec$80e5fc60$0ecda7cb@apecgrou>



Robert B. Zoellick
U.S. Trade Representative
Council on Foreign Relations
Washington, DC
October 30, 2001

"The WTO and New Global Trade Negotiations: What's at Stake"


In ten days, the United States will meet with 141 nations in Doha to
launch new global trade negotiations. Our aim is to lower barriers to
trade and raise hopes for economic recovery, development, growth, and
openness.

This will be the first global meeting since the tragedy of September
11. If we are successful, this mandate for trade negotiations would be
the first such agreement since the creation of the World Trade
Organization in 1994.

Today, I will try to answer four questions about what is at stake with
this endeavor.

First, what can we learn from the past that might influence our
perspective about this meeting on global trade?

Second, why is this WTO meeting important for America and the world
right now?

Third, what are the potential economic benefits for the United States
of these global negotiations?

Finally, but very importantly, what are the potential benefits for
developing nations?

What are the Lessons from the Past?

Fifty-four years ago this very day, representatives of 23 nations
assembled in the Palais des Nations in Geneva to sign what would
become an historic agreement: the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade.

The autumn of 1947 was a time of both anxiety and nascent opportunity.
Amidst the devastation after World War II, the United States was
beginning to frame a political, security, and economic strategy for
what became known as the Cold War. Earlier in the year, President
Truman had announced a doctrine about using economic and financial aid
to support free peoples resisting armed minorities operating through
networks of subversion. In June, Secretary of State Marshall had
launched a comprehensive program for the "revival of a working economy
in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social
conditions in which free institutions can exist."

It was clear to those individuals meeting in Geneva 54 years ago - and
to the American statesmen who backed them - that trade was
inextricably linked to recovery, development, and security. Within the
course of their lives, they had seen the optimistic modernization of
1900 transformed into the modernist nightmare of World War I. Then the
Great Depression, fed by virulent protectionism and parochial
isolationism, led to an age of dictators, another devastating war, and
even a Holocaust. Indeed, if they required a further reminder of what
was at stake in 1947, they need only consider their meeting place: It
was the once hopeful home of the failed League of Nations proposed by
President Wilson.

Yet Woodrow Wilson's forlorn causes had planted the seeds of other
ideas that were of great use to the diplomats meetings in Geneva. When
one of Wilson's internationalist disciples, Cordell Hull, became
Franklin D. Roosevelt's Secretary of State, he placed trade at the
heart of America's foreign policy. During the depths of the Great
Depression, and only four years after the passage of the protectionist
and destructive Smoot-Hawley tariff act of 1930, Hull had persuaded
the New Deal Congress to authorize the President to reduce U.S.
tariffs by up to 50 percent through reciprocal trade agreements. Hull'
s handiwork, the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934, was the
forerunner of later grants of "fast track" trade negotiating
authority; indeed, the trade negotiating bills of today still include
some of the original authorizing language that Hull drafted in 1934.

Secretary Hull, who was - in the words of one biographer - a cautious
visionary, used this trade promotion authority to negotiate 32
bilateral trade pacts with 27 countries. His labors reduced tariffs
with these countries by an average of 44 percent.

Hull did something even more important than cut tariffs: each of his
agreements advanced a principle of "most favored nation" that created
a dynamic to reduce trade barriers among all countries subscribing to
this principle. If country A treats country B as "most favored," and
then country A grants country C a tariff reduction, country B gets the
same reduction. The more countries that accept this "most favored
nation" principle, the greater the multiplier effect of any
negotiations to lower barriers. The diplomats meeting in Geneva
enshrined this "most favored nation" principle into the new GATT. And
over the next 50 years the rule of MFN became so commonplace that in
1999 the U.S. Congress declared MFN to be "Normal Trade Relations" -
or NTR.

The Geneva meeting of 1947 was originally envisioned as a first step
toward a grander plan to institutionalize trade liberalization in the
world economy. The generation of "Wise Men" wanted to create an
International Trade Organization that would work with the new
International Monetary Fund and International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development to remedy the mistakes of the 1920s and '30s.
President Truman submitted the ITO charter to the Senate in 1949, but
the Senate never scheduled a hearing on ratification. Lacking the
support of the United States, the ITO expired.

The fragile GATT network sought to fill the gap, sponsoring eight
rounds of negotiations to lower barriers to international commerce
over the next half century. In doing so, the GATT contributed to the
greatest era of growth, development, and democratization in world
history. As the UNDP reported, the world has achieved a greater
reduction in poverty over the past 50 years than occurred over the
previous 500 years - in large part because trade increased
seventeen-fold and world output grew six-fold.

In effect, it took the past 50 years to reverse the mistakes of the
first half of the Twentieth Century. Despite this expansion, trade as
a percentage of the global economy is not much greater than it was 100
years ago.

Now we have to decide whether to keep advancing the international
trading system or to let it slip backward.

The last of the GATT negotiations, the Uruguay Round, finally reversed
the defeat of the ITO by creating a World Trade Organization. Yet no
sooner than was the WTO launched than it, too, came under attack.

Given the complaints about the WTO, it is important to clarify what
the WTO is and what it is not. The WTO is simply a set of rules,
agreed by sovereign states, to limit the discrimination against the
trade of one another; these rules are backed by a forum that
adjudicates disputes but cannot compel any action. The WTO is not an
international regulatory body; it has no independent power to develop
regulations; it cannot force any government to change its laws.

The WTO's role is to provide a means for countries to monitor
compliance with the rules and principles to which all have agreed. If
there is a dispute, the WTO offers the mechanisms to render opinions
and resolve differences - whether through changes in policies,
compensation through trade benefits, withdrawal of trade benefits, or
other negotiated results. By enabling countries to agree on rules for
global commerce, the WTO smooths economic interaction and integration
while respecting national sovereignty.

Indeed, as Professors John McGinnis and Mark Movsesian pointed out in
the Harvard Law Review last December, the WTO's procedural approach to
counter protectionism and discrimination against commerce reflects
many of the insights that underpin our own Madisonian Constitution.
The WTO respects decentralized authority - and state sovereignty -
while sponsoring transparency and rules that discourage discrimination
in trade, restrain protectionist groups, and encourage the
mobilization of groups that promote the general welfare and democracy.
As the authors conclude, "the task facing the [WTO] resembles that
facing all constitutions: to encourage the protection of public
goods - in this case, free trade and improved democracy - while
resisting the attempts of politicians, bureaucrats, and interest
groups to hijack government for their own purposes."

Since its establishment in 1994, the WTO has been a magnet for
countries that see the benefits of accepting the liberalizing rules of
trade - 14 additional nations have joined. At the meeting in Doha, the
WTO will accept both China and Taiwan as new members. In past months,
Moscow has intensified efforts to negotiate Russia's accession to the
WTO.

Yet the WTO stumbled badly in its first effort, in Seattle in 1999, to
launch a round of global trade liberalization. It has not been keeping
up with the challenges of a changing world economy.

The meeting in Doha needs to get the WTO back on track.

Why is this WTO Meeting Important Right Now?

So let me move to the next question: Why is this WTO meeting important
for America and the world right now?

The events of September 11 have set the stage for our work, just as
officials meeting in Geneva 54 years ago needed to consider the
imperatives of their time. America and the world have been attacked by
a network of terrorists who are masters of destruction, but failures
at construction. They stand for intolerance and abhor openness. They
fear foreign ideas, religions, and cultures. They see the modern world
as a threat, not an opportunity. They leave people in poverty and half
of humankind, women, in subjugation. Their strategy is to terrorize
and paralyze, not to debate and create.

The international market economy - of which trade and the WTO are
vital parts - offers an antidote to this violent rejectionism. Trade
is about more than economic efficiency; it reflects a system of
values: openness, peaceful exchange, opportunity, inclusiveness and
integration, mutual gains through interchange, freedom of choice,
appreciation of differences, governance through agreed rules, and a
hope for betterment for all peoples and lands.

Therefore, just as the Cold War reflected a contest of values, so will
this campaign against terrorism. Just as our Cold War strategy
recognized the interconnection of security and economics, so must
America's strategy against terrorism. By promoting the WTO's agenda,
especially a new negotiation to liberalize global trade, these 142
nations can counter the revulsive destructionism of terrorism.

Second, the WTO is falling behind developments in the world economy.
It needs a new mandate for negotiations to keep up.

Since the completion of the Uruguay Round in 1994, international
commerce has been transformed by new technologies, networks, business
models, and investment patterns. It has also been buffeted by
financial crises and other economic shocks. Governments are under
increasing pressure to protect local producers. The bicycle theory of
trade is again in force: If the trade liberalization process does not
move forward, it will, like a bicycle, be pulled down by the political
gravity of special interests.

To counter the slippage, nations are turning to regional and bilateral
agreements. The United States is committed to pursuing trade
liberalization globally, regionally, and with individual countries. We
are seeking to create a competition in liberalization with the United
States at the center of a network of initiatives. Yet the
international economic system will prosper most if the regional and
bilateral agreements fit within a global framework of rules.

Third, the launch of new global trade negotiations is important for
economic recovery in the short run and for economic growth over time.
As the Financial Times has written, "Starting a trade round would calm
jitters about the global economy by checking protectionist impulses
and laying the basis for the resumption of sustained growth." A signal
that the world's trading nations are committed to open markets - and
that they will resist protectionism - would inject additional
confidence and energy into financial markets. Businesses will focus
more on opportunities to be created and less on competition to be
thwarted.

Additional trade liberalization through the WTO will also enhance
productivity and efficiency, while helping to keep inflation in check.
As Fred Bergsten of the Institute for International Economics has
pointed out, trade liberalization and globalization can be credited
with about half of American productivity growth from 1996-2000.
Moreover, import prices account for virtually all the decline in U.S.
inflation during that period. Together, these effects reduced the
unemployment rate in the late 1990s by at least 1.2 percentage points,
permitted the creation of at least 1.5 million jobs, and pulled many
people thought to be unemployable into the workforce.

Fourth, America's ability to sustain coalitions against terrorism will
depend in part on our attention to the problems faced by our partners.
Many democratic governments in developing nations, already struggling
with economic challenges before September 11, now face staggering
difficulties. Countries throughout Latin America and Asia, and
increasingly nations in Africa, depend on trade with G-7 nations for
growth. Through August, the dollar value of trade by the United
States, Japan, and Canada had declined 3.6 percent compared to a year
earlier. During the same period last year, the trade of these nations
was up more than 19 percent. If the pace of this decline continues,
the volume of trade for these three countries will be $121 billion
less this year than last. Put differently, the size of this projected
decline is greater than the entire GDP of Ireland. And if this
slowdown continues for the United States, as I expect it will, 2001
will be the first year since 1982 that our trade numbers will actually
fall.


What are the Potential Economic Benefits for the United States?

A successful trade policy initiative requires, however, more than
strategic and macroeconomic benefits. We also need to answer another
question: What are the potential economic benefits for the United
States of these global negotiations?

America's farmers, workers, businesses, and families stand to gain
much from new negotiations. Already, exports support an estimated one
in five U.S. manufacturing jobs. Jobs in export industries, 90 percent
of which are in manufacturing, pay an average of 13-18 percent more
than other jobs. And multilateral negotiations help us set the
standards - in areas such as manufacturing, services, agriculture, and
e-commerce - that will define the future.

Furthermore, given that U.S. tariffs are already very low, new
negotiations are likely to bring other countries' tariffs closer to
ours. U.S. tariffs on industrial products average only about 3
percent - or even less given our various trade preference programs.
America will have almost no non-tariff barriers outside agriculture
once we have followed through on our obligation to end textile quotas
in 2005. The world's most rapidly growing markets - especially in Asia
and Latin America - have barriers three or four times higher than U.S.
levels. Therefore, the United States stands to gain much more access
abroad if others cut tariffs and liberalize, while America will
continue to benefit from lower priced imports.

America's farmers and ranchers are among those who have the most to
gain from a new trade round. For too long, agriculture was left
outside the disciplines applied to industrial goods. Over the past 50
years, tariffs on manufactured goods decreased some 90 percent;
agricultural tariffs barely budged. It took the Uruguay Round even to
compel countries to move from quotas to tariffs for agriculture. The
average permissible agriculture tariff is 60 percent; for
non-agriculture goods, 4 percent.

Therefore, we need new negotiations to continue the process of
fundamental reform of the agricultural trade just begun through the
WTO rules. Already, U.S. agricultural exports account for about 25
percent of farmers' gross cash sales; one in three acres is planted
for export. But we can do even better.

Agriculture also faces a host of non-tariff barriers, particularly
through the misapplication of sanitary and phytosanitary standards. We
need fair rules, based on reason and science, for the development of
biotechnology that can help feed the developing world, improve
nutrition, safely prevent losses from pests and disease, and reduce
the use of inputs that can harm the environment.

America's service sector now constitutes 62 percent of our economy.
Yet in this area, too, the rules to ensure fair competition were only
first established in the Uruguay Round. A new negotiation needs both
to advance liberalization and prod governments to keep up with rapidly
evolving business networks and opportunities for growth. As Fred
Bergsten and Catherine Mann have pointed out, rapid growth in the
services trade could also narrow the U.S. current account deficit
because, unlike in manufacturing, U.S. service exports appear to grow
more quickly than our imports when world and domestic growth rates are
equivalent.

The WTO rules also need to be updated to tap the potential of
high-tech innovations and e-commerce. Transactions over networks are
providing enormous growth opportunities for any service that can reach
customers electronically - be it retailing, financial, information, or
entertainment services. The opportunity for developing countries is
vast - providing them with new, more efficient means to reach global
markets for products and services in which they have a competitive
advantage.

A new negotiation would also provide an opportunity to promote
transparency in governance. There is support among many WTO members to
promote greater openness in the operation of government procurement
practices and to make customs rules and other trade-related measures
more efficient. Trade facilitation efforts are increasingly important
to ensure that bureaucracies and institutional rigidities do not block
trade that would otherwise flow freely. Such reforms will help to
combat corruption. We hope a new negotiation can also promote greater
transparency in the proceedings of the WTO.

Given America's relative openness, we can only maintain domestic
support for trade if we retain strong, effective laws against unfair
practices. Although some nations are critical of the U.S. application
of these rules, other countries are using them to an increasing
degree - and without the transparency and standards applied by the
United States. So we will continue to insist that any consideration of
WTO rules focus first on getting the practices of others up to U.S.
standards so that American businesses and workers can compete on a
level playing field.

We also recognize that some businesses - and the communities that
depend on them - cannot move as quickly as global financial and
information markets. So we will need to have effective safeguard
provisions that help industries if they are willing to take serious
steps to regain competitiveness within defined and limited periods of
adjustment.

We believe that the meeting in Doha can take further steps to
emphasize that trade and economic growth can and should support a
cleaner environment. A number of trade-distorting subsidies and
barriers - for example in fisheries and agriculture - are harmful to
the environment. Moreover, the WTO jurisprudence has been very
respectful of non-discriminatory national environmental policies.
Rather than have the WTO slip into environmental regulation, we
believe sovereign nations must have the right to choose their own
levels of protection for the environment, health, and safety
standards, even when higher than international standards. Furthermore,
the United States would welcome increased interaction between the WTO
and the secretariats of Multilateral Environmental Agreements, because
we believe international trade and environmental regimes should
operate cooperatively.

The United States will promote increased adherence to internationally
recognized core labor standards. With our support, the International
Labor Organization has undertaken work on the social dimensions of
globalization. Over time, we will seek to persuade other nations to
permit the WTO to contribute to this work while reassuring them that
we understand their concerns about protectionist agendas.

An essential benefit of further trade liberalization is for America's
families, who supply the backbone, muscle, and genius of the country.
It is common to talk about export gains from trade liberalization, but
lower prices and more choices from imports are important, too.
Together, the benefits from NAFTA and the Uruguay Round, through lower
tariffs and higher incomes, are estimated to amount to between $1,300
and $2,000 for the average American family of four each year.

There is even more to be gained. A University of Michigan study
forecasts that another global round of trade liberalization focused
simply on tariff reductions on industrial and agricultural products
would deliver an annual benefit of nearly $2,500 for American
families.

These are hefty tax cuts for families watching their budgets. And the
biggest beneficiaries of increased trade and competition through a new
round are lower-income Americans, who are least able to afford the
higher prices for food, clothing, and appliances.

At the start of this school year, Maryland and the District of
Columbia offered a week of sales tax relief so parents could save 5 to
6 percent when they bought clothes or supplies for kids going back to
school. So why not support lower prices of 6 or 8 or 10 or 12 percent
for food and clothes and school supplies not just for one week, but
every week of the year?


What are the Potential Benefits for Developing Nations?

Developing nations will have much to say about whether we succeed with
the launch; they represent 80 percent of the membership of the WTO.

So what are the potential benefits of a new WTO trade round for
developing nations?

Trade is a critical element - perhaps the most important element - in
economic development, offering the biggest, and most lasting,
dividends. A recent World Bank study examined developing countries
that opened themselves to global competition, and those that did not.
It concluded that the income per person in globalizing developing
countries grew more than three-and-a-half times faster than it did in
non-globalizing developing countries. The absolute poverty rates for
globalizing developing countries fell sharply over the past 20 years,
and the income levels of the lowest income households grew in line
with the overall economy.

Recent history illustrates the transforming power of trade and open
economies, and the perils of protectionism and economic mismanagement.
Consider the experiences of South Korea and Ghana. In 1967, South
Korea's per-capita income was an inflation-adjusted $550, and Ghana's
was $800. Over the next 30 years, South Korea implemented a series of
domestic economic reforms, became progressively more integrated with
the global economy, and reduced its tariffs. Ghana, by contrast,
maintained a closed economy and was wracked by political instability.
Thirty years later, South Korea's per-capita income had surged to
$10,360 - a figure that will grow even more rapidly once South Korea
opens up some of the closed sectors of its economy. And Ghana? Its
per-capita income had fallen to just $370. Fortunately, the new
democratically-elected leaders of Ghana - whom I have had the pleasure
to meet - are also now committed to trade liberalization.
These are not isolated examples. A number of other countries -
Singapore, China, and Malaysia - have achieved growth rates
approximating South Korea's as they have opened up their economies.
And dozens of countries, too many of them in Africa, have had their
economies stagnate - if not contract - as a result of economic
mismanagement spanning decades.

As President Bush has said, "Trade creates jobs for the unemployed.
When we negotiate for open markets, we are providing new hope for the
world's poor. And when we promote open trade, we are promoting
political freedom. Societies that open to commerce across their
borders will open to democracy within their borders."

Special preferential trade liberalization measures - such as the
Generalized System of Preferences, the African Growth and Opportunity
Act, and the Caribbean Basin Initiative - have helped developing
nations to help themselves. Yet more needs to be done. Most developing
nations have yet to experience the benefits of trade and open markets.
The world's 49 least developed countries, where more than 10 percent
of the world's people reside, account for fewer than 1 percent of the
world's exports. The data are only marginally better for many of the
world's other developing nations.

One of our primary objectives in launching a new global negotiation is
to use trade and openness to bring new opportunities and new hope to
the poorest among us. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has
succinctly spoken to the need for developing nations to become more
active participants in the global economy: "The poor are poor not
because of too much globalization, but because of too little."
Similarly, Jim Wolfensohn and Horst Kohler, leaders of the World Bank
and IMF, respectively, have pointed out that while debt relief will
help poor countries conserve their existing resources, increased
exports are critical if they are going to generate new resources.

The flagging fortunes of so many developing nations, coupled with the
difficult economic times, underscores the importance of launching new
global trade negotiations. The trade liberalization ushered in by the
Uruguay Round highlights the potential of more trade for developing
nations. In the six years following the round's completion, exports
from developing nations grew by nearly $1 trillion, to a level of $2.4
trillion. Last year, developing countries exported $73 billion worth
of information technology to the United States - a 43 percent increase
since 1996, the year before the multilateral Information Technology
Agreement had been implemented. Similarly, the dramatic reduction of
tariffs in the chemical sector helped developing countries increase
exports to the United States by 87 percent between 1994 and 2000. The
total value of these exports now exceeds $10 billion.

A study by Joseph Francois, of Erasmus University in Rotterdam,
forecasts that new global trade negotiations could generate
approximately $90-$190 billion a year in the form of higher incomes
for developing nations. In particular, liberalization of the global
agriculture market - a top priority for the United States - is
arguably the single greatest contribution that new negotiations can
make to poverty alleviation in the developing world. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture has estimated that complete elimination of
distortions in the agriculture trade would produce a 27 percent
increase in the annual agriculture exports of developing nations.

These benefits from more trade are not denominated in dollars alone.
Open trade advances political reform. Open trade swells the ranks of
independent businesses, and reduces the level of government
intervention in national economies throughout the world.

Some in the developing world have complained that the difficulty of
implementing the obligations of the Uruguay Round has caused them to
miss out on benefits. The United States is working with other
developed nations to address legitimate implementation concerns at
Doha. We will be willing to consider other concerns as part of a new
negotiation. We also recognize the need to provide aid and other
financial support, including through the multilateral development
banks, to help developing countries build the capacity to take part in
trade negotiations and to follow through on agreements. Over the past
year, the United States has provided more than $555 million in trade
capacity assistance - more than any other single country.

But developing nations must also do more to open their markets to the
world's goods, particularly each others' goods. While tariffs on
manufactured goods average 8 percent in developed nations, they are 21
percent in developing nations. If these countries want to experience
the benefits of the global economy, they need to do more to open
themselves to it.

As the United States and our trading partners pursue free trade, we
need to do so in a way that is consistent with our values and draws on
our compassion. For example, the Bush Administration is implementing a
flexible policy on intellectual property as it relates to medicines to
treat HIV/AIDS and other pandemics. This flexibility, afforded by the
major international trade agreement on intellectual property, enables
countries and companies to help deal with this tragic pandemic by
encouraging low-cost access to critical medicines. At the same time,
the preservation of intellectual property rules ensures incentives to
develop medicines and biotechnology that can help us cure and treat
diseases that have plagued humankind since our origin.

I recognize that some of the least-developed countries in the WTO find
it difficult to fully comply with the pharmaceutical patent rules
governing world trade. In response to these difficulties, the United
States has proposed granting the least developed countries a 10-year
extension, to 2016, to come into full compliance with all
pharmaceutical-related patent obligations under the TRIPs agreement.
We have also proposed a moratorium of at least five years on WTO
challenges to the actions of other sub-Saharan African developing
nations as they respond to HIV/AIDS, infections related to AIDS, and
other health crises, such as malaria and tuberculosis. I hope that
other members of the WTO will join the United States in supporting
these measures.

In sum, when we open markets we are opening new opportunities. As much
as developing nations may need debt relief and development aid, a
prerequisite for their long-term economic growth is full participation
with the global economy and trading system. Doha is the best
opportunity we will have in the next 10-15 years to expedite this
integration. It an opportunity neither we, nor the developing world,
can afford to miss.


Conclusion

Since early this year, the United States has been encouraging the
development of a coalition to launch a new global trade negotiation in
the WTO. This task has been complicated by the WTO's governance
procedures, which require consensus decisions on complex topics by
over 140 countries - big and small, developed and developing, islands
and land-locked.

The United States started by forging a close partnership with the
European Union. Although the United States and the EU have different
priorities, we have a shared strategic interest in fostering the
health of the global economy, strengthening of the world trading
system, and encouraging the economic vitality of developing economies.
In a small way, perhaps we can demonstrate how in this new era the
Euro-Atlantic democracies can work through differences reasonably in
order to advance important interests globally.

The United States and the EU have also reached out to an informal
network of countries on all continents, nations that reflect a variety
of concerns, yet which are drawn together by a shared interest in
promoting further trade liberalization. We have tried to listen and
learn from one another.

Some of these countries have met in informal meetings of ministers in
Mexico and Singapore. Other sessions have reflected regional
interests, such as those of Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America.
Other groups are based on stages of development, such as the developed
nations of the "Quad" and the Least Developed Countries. And some
assemblies focus on particular topics, such as the Cairns Group of
agricultural exporting economies. All these sessions and groups help
inform the WTO's work in Geneva, where our representatives work in one
forum.

Together, we have concluded that a key to a successful launch at the
Doha Ministerial is an agreed agenda that will accommodate the
essential interests of the various members and that will also gain
public support. Our goal is to achieve a mandate to launch
negotiations, not to complete them. The draft texts prepared by Stuart
Harbinson, the Chairman of the WTO General Council, have provided a
good basis for moving forward.

The last stages of our work will prove most difficult. I do not know
whether we will succeed. The United States must, of course, pursue our
national interests as well as promote a global interest. If other
countries refuse to cooperate and compromise, we cannot compel a
result.

If the WTO falters, the United States will continue to pursue trade
liberalization, turning to regional and country-by-country
alternatives. We are already engaged in regional negotiations, with
the Free Trade Area of the Americas, and in bilateral negotiations
with Chile and Singapore. Given the size and innovation of the U.S.
economy, we can be an attractive partner for others seeking to
liberalize trade.

It is our strong preference, however, to launch these global
negotiations in order to achieve a common good. Like those individuals
who met in Geneva 54 years ago today, we hope the representatives who
meet in Doha will perceive the larger stakes.

We hope to contribute to a result that will be the starting point for
another half century of development, growth, opportunity, and
openness. That is a goal for Americans that keeps faith with our past
and pursues the promise of the future.



From fbp at igc.org  Tue Nov  6 19:24:35 2001
From: fbp at igc.org (John M. Miller)
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 05:24:35 -0500
Subject: [asia-apec 1822] ETAN/IHRN: Rights Must Factor Into Economic Assistance to Indonesia
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20011106052306.03e39ad0@pop.igc.org>


For Immediate Release

Contact:
Kurt Biddle (IHRN) 202-393-4554e
Karen Orenstein (ETAN) 202-544-6911

Rights Must Factor Into Economic Assistance to Indonesia
Groups Call for Concrete Improvements in Justice and Human Rights Conditions

November 6--The East Timor Action Network/U.S. (ETAN) and the Indonesia 
Human Rights Network (IHRN) today called on the United States and other 
members of the Consultative Group on Indonesia (CGI) to make 
non-humanitarian financial assistance to Indonesia contingent on concrete, 
substantial improvements in justice and human rights conditions in East 
Timor and Indonesia. The CGI, comprised of the major bilateral and 
multilateral providers of economic assistance to Indonesia, meets in 
Jakarta on November 7 and 8.

?The ability to promote human rights, democracy, and justice in Indonesia 
and East Timor will be short-changed if the U.S. delegation does not 
publicly address and act upon the shortcomings of the Indonesian government 
at the CGI meeting,? said Karen Orenstein, Washington Coordinator for ETAN.

?At last year?s CGI meeting, the U.S. delegation stated their pledge was 
based on Indonesia?s compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1319. 
Progress in this direction has been far from adequate, and this must be 
taken into account by donor countries and agencies this year. The most 
effective way to ensure the Indonesian government takes these issues 
seriously is to put conditions on disbursement of donor funds,? added Karen 
Orenstein.

During the CGI conference in 2000, the U.S. delegation stated that ?the 
U.S. decision to obligate these pledged funds will take into account not 
only Indonesia?s economic progress
but also that on UNSCR 1319.? UN 
Security Council Resolution 1319 ?stresses that those responsible for the 
attacks on international personnel in West and East Timor be brought to 
justice? and ?insists that the Government of Indonesia take immediate 
additional steps
to disarm and disband the militia immediately, restore law 
and order in the affected areas in West Timor, ensure safety and security 
in the refugee camps and for humanitarian workers, and prevent cross-border 
incursions into East Timor.?

?Human rights conditions have not improved in Indonesia over the past year, 
and in some areas have worsened remarkably. The Indonesian military 
continues its strategy of targeting human rights defenders, humanitarian 
workers, and other civilians. Arrest and detention of political prisoners 
have actually increased,? said Kurt Biddle, Washington Coordinator for IHRN.

?The U.S. administration must increase its pressure on Indonesia to comply 
with promises to bring perpetrators of crimes against humanity in East 
Timor and Indonesia to justice, rather than trust the latest assurances by 
senior Indonesian officials. Donors must back up their words with action,? 
said Biddle.

?The world rightfully condemned the extremely lenient sentences given to 
the six militia members who confessed to the September 6, 2000 killing of 
three UN refugee workers in West Timor. Fourteen months later, however, 
militia leaders still control refugee camps in West Timor and reside there 
with impunity. Further, those responsible for the murder of two UN 
peacekeepers in East Timor have not been brought to justice. What message 
will the U.S. send to the Indonesian government and security forces if 
non-humanitarian donations are pledged and obligated as usual?? questioned 
Orenstein.

Although refugee returns from West Timor have recently increased, the 
government of Indonesia has yet to effectively disarm militia. Sixty to 
eighty thousand East Timorese continue to languish in deplorable 
conditions. Furthermore, no Indonesian military or civilian personnel have 
been prosecuted for crimes against humanity committed in East Timor in 
1999. A UN International Commission of Inquiry on East Timor in January 
2000 called for an international tribunal to be established.

Aceh is a virtual military zone. More than 1200 people, most of them 
civilians, have been killed there since January of this year. In West 
Papua, murder, torture, and kidnappings by police are part of the "Sweeping 
and Clampdown Operation" that began in mid-June in the Wasior subdistrict 
of Manokwari. Hundreds of additional police and military troops have been 
deployed to the area. Some 5,000 civilians have fled their homes.

Members of the CGI include the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, 
Asian Development Bank and the Islamic Development Bank. Bilateral donors 
include the United States, Japan, Canada, South Korea, Germany, France, 
Spain, Italy, New Zealand, Denmark and Australia.

The East Timor Action Network/U.S. (ETAN) supports advocates democracy, 
sustainable development, social, legal, and economic justice and human 
rights, including women's rights for the people of East Timor. ETAN, which 
has 28 local chapters throughout the U.S., calls for an international 
tribunal to prosecute crimes against humanity that took place in East Timor 
since 1975. For additional information see ETAN's web site 
(http://www.etan.org).

The Indonesia Human Rights Network (IHRN) is a U.S.-based grassroots 
organization working to educate and activate the American public and 
influence U.S. foreign policy and international economic interests to 
support democracy, demilitarization, and justice through accountability and 
rule of law in Indonesia. IHRN seeks to end armed forces repression in 
Indonesia by exposing it to international scrutiny. IHRN works with and 
advocates on behalf of people throughout the Indonesian archipelago to 
strengthen civil society. See www.IndonesiaNetwork.org for more information.

- 30 -



etanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetan
John M. Miller         Internet: john@etan.org
Media & Outreach Coordinator, East Timor Action Network
48 Duffield St., Brooklyn, NY 11201 USA
Phone: (718)596-7668      Fax: (718)222-4097
Mobile phone: (917)690-4391
Web site: http://www.etan.org

Send a blank e-mail message to info@etan.org  to find out how to learn
more about East Timor on the Internet
etanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetan


From amittal at foodfirst.org  Wed Nov  7 07:50:02 2001
From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal)
Date: Tue,  6 Nov 2001 22:50:02 +0000
Subject: [asia-apec 1823] Food First Report on the Impact of Free Trade Policy on Family Farms
Message-ID: <0.700000824.1708336501-951758591-1005087005@topica.com>


Food First Report on the Impact of Free Trade Policy on Family Farms


(1)Food First Releases New Report:
Freedom to Trade?  Trading Away American Family Farms


(2)***TAKE ACTION: Oppose Fast Track!!***
November 7 is National All-Call Day Against Fast Track!
Information and Toll-Free Number to 
Contact Your Representatives Below! 

---------------------------------------

Contact: Nick Parker
November 6, 2001                                                         
                (510) 654-4400, ext. 229

Food Policy Think Tank Releases Report on the Impact of Free Trade 
Policies on the American Family Farm

Freedom to Trade?  Trading Away American Family Farms

(OAKLAND, CA) As the World Trade Organization (WTO) gets ready for its 
ministerial meeting to negotiate trade rules for agriculture, and while 
President Bush makes for a case for Trade Promotion Authority so he can 
find new market opportunities for American farmers, a report released by 
Food First/The Institute for Food and Development Policy, shows that 
so-called free trade policies are virtually starving the American family 
farmer.

The U.S. Department of Labor expects that the United States will lose 
13.2 percent of all family farm jobs between 1998 and 2008, the largest 
projected job loss among all occupations. Driven by trade rules devised 
in Washington for the WTO that strive to reduce or eliminate 
agricultural subsidies, a series of governmental policies are squeezing 
out the family farmer while benefiting corporate agribusiness.

"The disparity is a symptom of a support system that is out of kilter 
with the needs of the average cash-strapped farmer," says Anuradha 
Mittal, Food First Co-director and author of the report. "Most payments 
are tied to acreage: more land equals bigger checks."

This is part of the "get big or get out" policy that drives farming in 
the United States and has accelerated corporate concentration in 
agriculture. Today only two companies, Cargill and Continental, control 
two-thirds of all grain trade in the world. Meanwhile, between 1994 and 
1996 about 25 percent of all hog farmers, 10 percent of all grain 
farmers, and 10 percent of all dairy farmers went out of business.

"American family farmers have been the net losers because the prices 
they receive are below the cost of production. Family farmers produce 
too little to affect total supply and ultimately prices," says Mittal. 
"Reducing their output, rather than helping boost prices, means less 
revenue for them. So they have to keep boosting production to bring home 
even the smallest income."  The result is that family farmers work 
longer hours, produce more, and earn less?far less.

The loss of family farms is wiping out rural communities across America. 
Family farm dollars once circulated through these communities, buying 
equipment, supplies, and groceries from local merchants. Larger 
corporate farms bypass this community network in an effort to centralize 
their purchases. This has endangered the very existence of rural 
communities in America.

The report concludes that the excessive focus on exports is forcing 
overproduction and driving down farm prices. Low prices hurt American 
farmers, and make it impossible for farmers in other countries to 
compete.  Thus this model is driving both American family farmers, and 
their Third World counterparts from the land.  A healthier alternative 
is a model that focuses on the strength of the family farm, which is 
relatively efficient, generates jobs, and can conserve the environment 
and preserve rural communities better than corporate farms.

Full copy of the report can be found at:
http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/2001/f01v7n4.html

Additional information:
Food First Trade Principles:
http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/1999/f99v5n2.html

The Multiple Functions and Benefits of Small Farms:
http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/policybs/pb4.html

Why Reform of the WTO is the Wrong Agenda:
http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/2000/s00v6n3.html

Structural Adjustment Programs are Hitting the U.S. Too:
http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/trade/a16-mittal.html

To schedule interviews with the author, or to order a review copy of the 
report, please contact Nick Parker, Media Coordinator at (510)654-4400, 
ext. 229.


---------------------------------------

*** URGENT ACTION: Oppose the Fast Track! ***
**** YOU CAN HELP NOW - Act Today! ****

November 7 is National All-Call Day Against Fast Track
Contact your Representatives Toll-Free
1-800-393-1082*

Let your Representative hear you loud & clear: 
       NO FAST TRACK/NO H.R. 3005!

The corporate lobby (Business Round Table et al), the GOP 
leadership, the corporate media, editorial writers and now the White 
House have all agreed: Fast Track (H.R. 3005) is on their short list 
of votes they want to push through before Congress adjourns. The GOP 
Leaders have said this for a while, but now the White House is in 
gear and the pro-Fast Track lobby has intensified its efforts. They 
view the upcoming 4th Ministerial of the World Trade Organization 
(WTO) from November 9-13 as an excellent excuse for setting a 
specific vote date to ram Fast Track through. We could see a 
possible floor vote as early as the week of November 5!

The corporate lobby and House GOP leaders have been fighting a 
desperate game for months of trying to dig up, bully up, shore up 
votes which - thanks to your excellent work - do not exist. Now they 
are started to playing hardball - offering deals and twisting arms 
in exchange for votes. As we know, this stage of a any trade bill 
push is a very dangerous time for us - weaselly Members have traded 
their votes in the past for empty promises.

----------------------------------------

How do we keep our Fast Track victory?
Join the national call in day against Fast Track on November 7th. 
Call early and often to hold your member accountable to what matters 
most: her/his constituents!
The number to call is 1-800-393-1082* - all you have to do is enter 
your zip-code.
If you would like to call more than just your own Member, e-mail 
gtwfield@citizen.org and we will tell you of other undecided Members 
of the House to call.

----------------------------------------

Talking Points (for more information on Fast 
Track visit www.tradewatch.org):
* This is not the time to bring up such a controversial issue. Few 
issues are more divisive than Fast Track at a time when we need the 
unity and bipartisanship that was created after September 11th. 
There are many urgent things that MUST BE done for the millions who 
are suddenly without a job, to safeguard us from future attacks.
* The Thomas bill (H.R. 3005) is a slap in the face - it is the same 
old anti-labor, anti-environmental garbage that was in the 1997 and 
1998 Fast Track with some new rhetoric. It does not address the 
issues of labor and environment in any meaningful way, nor does it 
beef up Congress' role in trade to hold negotiators accountable and 
stop these NAFTA type deals.
* H.R. 3005 allows foreign corporations to challenge domestic 
environmental, zoning and other laws. Under NAFTA there have been 
lawsuits by foreign corporations challenging a whole array of 
democratically determined local policies, and Thomas' bill does 
nothing to address this (for more information go to 
http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7076).

* Toll-free number is provided courtesy of the AFL-CIO

TELL US WHAT YOU'RE HEARING FROM YOUR MEMBER!
gtwfield@citizen.org or 202-546-4996 (ask for any member of the GTW 
field team)


                           ###

For more information, to order Food First Books,or to join our member-supported organization, go to:
http://www.foodfirst.org.  
Or send your tax-deductible check to:
Food First, 398 60th St. Oakland, CA 94618

==^================================================================
This email was sent to: asia-apec@jca.ax.apc.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxil2.aVxCnz
Or send an email to: fianusa-news-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com
<A HREF=" http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxil2.aVxCnz ">
AOL users click here.</A>

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================


From amittal at foodfirst.org  Wed Nov  7 07:57:12 2001
From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal)
Date: Tue,  6 Nov 2001 22:57:12 +0000
Subject: [asia-apec 1824] WTO Updates on Food First WEBSITE
Message-ID: <0.700000824.432467083-951758591-1005087434@topica.com>


Food First will provide daily updates from Doha, voicing opposition 
of the small family farmers and working poor around the world to the 
economic policies of the WTO.

Daily Doha Updates from Anuradha Mittal,Co Director of Food First:
http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/trade/wto2001/updates.html

General Information on the WTO meeting in Doha:
http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/trade/wto2001

Calendar of Action Events in the US and Worldwide:
http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/trade/wto2001/events.html

----------------------------------------------
Food First Joins Citizen's Groups Around the World
to Challenge WTO Meeting in Qatar

(Oakland, CA): In the run up to the 4th WTO Ministerial conference to be 
held in the Gulf State of Qatar from 9-13 November 2001, Food First/The 
Institute for Food and Development Policy is joining citizens groups 
around the world in calling for a week of action (5-13 November) to show 
how widespread the opposition is to the launch of a new round of WTO 
negotiations.

Powerful Northern countries in the WTO are trying to impose a new round 
of negotiations against the will of the majority of the other member 
governments and most citizen organizations around the world. The 
non-transparent process leading up to the meeting has caused enormous 
rifts between Southern countries and the North, threatening the collapse 
of the ministerial meeting. Food First deplores the WTO's
non-recognition of Southern countries concerns, and the arbitrary power 
wielded by the U.S. and Europe to force countries to change their 
positions and break up developing country coalitions.

The divisive agenda put forth in the draft declaration ignores Third
World concerns, which stem from the exclusion of issues like basic
social rights and needs; a ban on patent's on life and on life-saving
medicines; recognizing food as a basic human right; ensuring special and 
differential treatment of poor countries; and democratizing
decision-making.

"The tattered legitimacy of the WTO requires that they hold their
meeting in Qatar, a venue that severely restricts civil society access
and public participation," said Anuradha Mittal, Co-director of Food
First who will be attending the meeting as an accredited participant.
"The WTO claims global trade brings people together but with the
resounding protests of member nations including India, Nigeria, and
Brazil the reality is the opposite."

Growth of global corporations, promoted through trade agreements, has
accelerated the accumulation of wealth for some while most working poor 
have been left behind, and inequalities, both within and among nations, 
have grown.

"Those engaged in the process of international economic policy
formulation seek to create a firewall between economic policy and social 
policy," said Mittal. "The international social movement which has come 
together to challenge this Round will tear down that artificial firewall 
in order to build a world based on principles of justice and fairness."

Citizen groups throughout the world are organizing hundreds of events
during the week of the ministerial to show their support for the
concerns of the South. Actions are planned in many countries, including 
Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, France,Germany, 
India, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway,the 
Philippines, Qatar, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden,Switzerland, 
Thailand, Tunisia, and Turkey.

                               ###

For more information, to order Food First Books,or to join our member-supported organization, go to:
http://www.foodfirst.org.  
Or send your tax-deductible check to:
Food First, 398 60th St. Oakland, CA 94618

==^================================================================
This email was sent to: asia-apec@jca.ax.apc.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxil2.aVxCnz
Or send an email to: fianusa-news-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com
<A HREF=" http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxil2.aVxCnz ">
AOL users click here.</A>

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================


From notoapec at clear.net.nz  Wed Nov  7 17:44:09 2001
From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (GATT Watchdog)
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 21:44:09 +1300
Subject: [asia-apec 1825] Anti-WTO demo in Mike Moore's hometown
Message-ID: <006e01c16768$6216b6c0$7ccca7cb@notoapec>


NO TO WTO COALITION - CHRISTCHURCH 

Media Release For Immediate Use
7 November 2001

Anti-WTO Coalition Marks Qatar Meeting with "Tour of Capitalist Greed" in Mike Moore's Hometown - November 9th

The Christchurch No To WTO Coalition, which includes GATT Watchdog, ARENA, Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa, the Anarchist Round Table, Socialist Workers Organization, the Young Greens and Staunch will hold a march and "Tour of Capitalist Greed" in WTO Director-General Mike Moore's hometown from 12 noon - 2pm on Friday November 9th.  

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) holds its 4th Ministerial meeting from 9-13 November, in Doha, Qatar.  Free trade and unrestricted foreign investment are destroying people's lives and the environment.  The Christchurch action is one of many being held throughout the world on Friday in opposition to the WTO.  Other anti-WTO protests will be held in Auckland and Wellington. 

The 142-member WTO oversees 28 agreements which set the rules of global trade.  The transnational corporations which dominate the local and global economy enjoy enormous influence in shaping these rules to advance their goals - more profits, not peoples' wellbeing. 

The action against the WTO starts with a rally in City Mall at the corner of Cashel and High Streets at 12pm.  The Christchurch premises of four representative transnational corporations will be the focus of a Tour of Capitalist Greed to highlight both the takeover of New Zealand by transnationals and their power and influence in the WTO.  The march will stop outside the Nike Shop in City Mall (Between Colombo St and Oxford Terrace); Telecom (Hereford St); Starbucks (Cathedral Square) before returning to the starting point outside the Westpac Trust head office.

Along with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund the WTO works to set a single economic policy for the whole world.  One which advances the needs of transnational capital - more profits, never mind the human and environmental costs.

This means more freedom to exploit for global big business, widening inequalities between and within countries, more privatization of public assets, utilities and services, and more unemployment and low-paid, low quality, insecure jobs.

WTO commitments help to lock in the crippling economic reforms which many countries have undergone as a condition of receiving IMF/World Bank loans, and which we have experienced here through Rogernomics. Barriers to "free" trade are dismantled and economies restructured to suit the whims of big business. Domestic environmental and social regulations, like export bans on rare native timbers, public health laws or food standards, if deemed by the WTO to be a barrier to free trade, must be scrapped or that country risk sanctions or other punitive trade measures.  

While they wage war against Afghanistan, George Bush, Helen Clark and other world leaders are brandishing free trade and investment as a weapon against terrorism.  They cynically see the September 11 attacks as a way to try to revive a free market ideology that has been badly discredited and challenged around the world.  We say no to the WTO! Oppose corporate globalisation!

For further comment contact Aziz Choudry or Leigh Cookson (GATT Watchdog):  Ph (03) 3662803: Email: notoapec@clear.net.nz



From amittal at foodfirst.org  Sat Nov 10 05:10:40 2001
From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal)
Date: Fri,  9 Nov 2001 20:10:40 +0000
Subject: [asia-apec 1826] Food First: The Doha Report -  November 9th, 2001
Message-ID: <0.700000824.970544707-212058698-1005336642@topica.com>


Anuradha Mittal , Co-Director of Food First, is in Doha, Qatar attending 
the WTO Ministerial Conference and representing 
the voices of people from developing nations. Anuradha also
plans on speaking to Bay Area demonstrators via cell phone
patch on Saturday, November 10, at the Richmond Chevron
Refinery WTO Protest. We look forward to seeing you there!

Daily Doha Reports can be found at:
http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/trade/wto2001/updates.html

----------------------------------------------------
THE DOHA REPORT
by Anuradha Mittal
November 9, 2001

I arrived in Doha yesterday at 10 pm and was taken directly to the
Ritz Carlton hotel. The skeleton U.S. delegation had reduced
from over 200 in number to some 45-50 delegates, as the delgates
took the option of not attending given the security concerns.
The Congressional delegation and even the Secretary of Commerce
and Agriculture had opted out. This resulted in the USTR inviting
US NGOs and the press to stay at the fancy Ritz Carlton to fill
the rooms.

This morning was the security briefing for the US delegates.
Once they realized that I am an Indian national, I was unceremoniusly
escorted out of the room. The USTR representative that had called the
Food First office to invite me to stay at the Ritz exclaimed,
"I had no idea that you are not a US citizen." The others were
given a security briefing including an emeregency cell phone
in case they had to be evacuated.

The security is heavy with Qatari security officials heavily
armed in blue camoflauge.The NGO center looks empty--very different
from Seattle, where voices of the working poor, family farmers,
unions, faith-based groups, women activists and other civil society
representatives from around the world had sent a loud and clear
message to the WTO--Your unaccountable and unparticipatory practices
that have unleashed economic warfare on the poor are unacceptable.

Few of us who are here, met yesterday and this morning, to challenge
this unparticipatory process and to strategize against muscle
flexing by the US and the Washington Consensus in action in Doha.
About 50 of us gathered outside the entrance of the hall at 4:30
pm where the inaugural session was to be held this evening. While
the delegates walked in and press gathered around us, we all
held the sign of "NO VOICE IN THE WTO," and had masking tape
covering our mouths. The delegates had found the most interesting
moment of the conference as they flashed their cameras at us.
Jose Bove, the French farmer, then decided to carry our message
inside, but was immediately stopped by the security who wrestled
with him.

Almost spontaneously, I started the chant, "What do we want?",
and our demand "DEMOCRACY!" boomed across the hallways of the Sheraton
Hotel, where the WTO is meeting in secrecy in  the state of Qatar,
known to be unknown, so the economic forces can push through
policies which hurt millions across the world.

Soon I was surrounded by cameras and media and the secretive,
undemocratic policies of the WTO were being carried across the
airwaves around the world. 

At the inaugural session, Mike Moore, the Director General of
the WTO proclaimed, "The transparency and inclusiveness, which
is to say the legitimacy, of the Geneva process has been universally
acknowledged." He credited Chairman Stuart Harbinson and ambassadors
and delegates in Geneva, who he said have worked in an open process,
marked by honor, integrity and good humor.

This contrasted sharply with what the delegate from Ghana based
in Geneva, Lawrence Yaw Sae-Brawusi said to me. As we talked during
our flight from Bahrain to Doha, he explained to me that since
Seattle there had been a change in process.  "It was more accountable,
open and democratic. But the way the final draft was presented
by Harbinson, it completed violated the spirit of the whole process.
All the praise that has been showered on him is now wasted. The
process needs guidelines of engagement by the Third World countries
and cannot depend on the benevolence of chairpersons like Harbinson."

Message from Kofi Annan to the inaugural session claimed that
since Sept. 11, the world has two choices: First, a mutually
destructive clash of civilizations or second, a world united through
a global economy. As the economic heads meet to discuss international
economy, they do so without discussing international politics.
They are like ostriches with their heads in the sand who are
not acknowledging the ongoing war in Afghanistan. They do so
without acknowledging the Third Choice--not Tony Blair's Third
Way, but a choice based on viable alternatives that the international
civil society has offered that make the possibility of a better
world a reality.

>From Doha,
Anuradha

(Read Anuradha's Bio: http://www.foodfirst.org/who/amittal.html)

For more information, to order Food First Books,or to join our member-supported organization, go to:
http://www.foodfirst.org.  
Or send your tax-deductible check to:
Food First, 398 60th St. Oakland, CA 94618

==^================================================================
This email was sent to: asia-apec@jca.ax.apc.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxil2.aVxCnz
Or send an email to: fianusa-news-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com

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 Nov 10 09:51:02 2001
From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal)
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 00:51:02 +0000
Subject: [asia-apec 1827] Invite your friends to a WTO Teach in with Anuradha Mittal
Message-ID: <0.700000824.1463013167-951758591-1005353465@topica.com>


Please invite your friends to a teach in led by Anuradha Mittal, 
Co-Director of Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy to 
be held on Monday, November 19 at 7:30 P.M. at New College, 777 Valencia 
Street, San Francisco, CA.  Anuradha is one of just 50 non-profit 
representatives worldwide who are attending the WTO meetings in Doha, 
Qatar from November 8-13.  Anuradha is holding daily press conferences 
in Doha on the issues of agricultural trade and increasing poverty both 
in the U.S. and worldwide.  Come and hear her firsthand account on 
November 19.

Tomorrow's issue of thenation.com has a report by Food First board 
member Walden Bello on his first day impressions of the WTO meeting.

Please feel free to pass this e-mail on to friends who share your 
interest in building a more equitable world.  To obtain daily reports on 
Doha sign up for Food Rights Watch at www.foodfirst.org.

For WTO News, Criticism, and Activism visit our WTO Doha pages at:
http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/trade/wto2001

For more information, to order Food First Books,or to join our member-supported organization, go to:
http://www.foodfirst.org.  
Or send your tax-deductible check to:
Food First, 398 60th St. Oakland, CA 94618

==^================================================================
This email was sent to: asia-apec@jca.ax.apc.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxil2.aVxCnz
Or send an email to: fianusa-news-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================


From amittal at foodfirst.org  Sun Nov 11 06:22:29 2001
From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal)
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 21:22:29 +0000
Subject: [asia-apec 1828] Food First: November 10th Doha Report
Message-ID: <0.700000824.1673264443-951758591-1005427352@topica.com>


THE DOHA REPORT
by Anuradha Mittal
November 10, 2001

---------------------------------------
Anuradha Mittal , Co-Director of Food First, is in Doha, Qatar 
attending the WTO Ministerial Conference and representing 
the voices of people from developing nations. 

Daily Doha Reports can be found at:
http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/trade/wto2001/updates.html

Other WTO Info and News Coverage can be found at:
http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/trade/wto2001
---------------------------------------

As I headed out of my heavily guarded hotel this morning, which
is housing the U.S. delegation, a Qatari security official stopped
me. He said, "You were protesting yesterday. I saw you on the
television. Your protest was very important to let others know
that not everyone is happy with the WTO."

This sentiment has been echoed several times by Qatari officials and
cab drivers as well as the local and national media present here.
The proceedings of the second day at the Ministerial make the
cause of this sentiment obvious.

The US Trade Representative Office organized a briefing for the
US NGOs this morning. After yesterday's incident, where they
discovered much to their chagrin, that I, an Indian national,
was representing a U.S. NGO and housed at the same hotel, the
invitation to the briefing read: Please bring your NGO credential
and your U.S. passport for entry. I was ready for a conflict
if I was stopped given I am representing a U.S. group that represents
a larger constituency than the USTR's small corporate lobby.
I was not stopped this time.

Nao Matsukata, representative of the USTR, started the briefing
by praising Ambassador Zoellick's efforts to understand the concerns
of the Third World countries through bilateral meetings prior
to the Doha meetings. He claimed that the U.S. shared the same 
objectives of market access as the developing nations and therefore had 
much in common.

What Mr. Matsukata failed to mention was that while Mr. Zoellick
has been trying to negotiate deals with developing nations,
he is not empowered to make binding commitments on behalf of
the U.S.  Article I-8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress,
the Legislative Branch, exclusive authority over setting the
terms of trade agreements. The President and the Trade Representative
do not have any such authority unless Congress delegates
such power to them.

Several NGO representatives spent the day advising Third
World delegates that Congress has not only refused to delegate
trade authority to the Bush administration through Fast Track,
but also on November 6, Congress passed a resolution forbidding
USTR's Zoellick from agreeing to anti-dumping language in the Harbinson 
text. The message of this lobbying was clear: Please don't compromise 
your country's interests in exchange for empty promises.

The developing nations are beginning to see the hollowness
of promises of transparency and accountability at Doha. The Green
Room process of Seattle, which led to protests inside the meetings
to strengthen the protests outside, has taken a new form and
shape here. The parallel track process being followed is
a plenary where every country has 5 minutes to make a statement.
The other track focuses on six issues: Agriculture, Implementation,
Environment, Rules, Singapore Issues (Competition and Investment)
and Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The 
representatives have 3 minutes to intervene. Then a facilitator (also 
called Friend of the Chair, already appointed through the WTO 
Secretariat)will unilaterally follow up with countries most concerned 
with the text. These facilitators belong to the following countries:

Agriculture-facilitator-Singapore
Implementation-facilitator-Switzerland
Environment-facilitator-Canada
Rules- facilitator-South Africa
Singapore Issues-facilitator-Chile
TRIPS-facilitator-Mexico


These facilitators are not neutral. For example, much to the
disappointment of countries like India and Brazil, a delegate
from Mexico facilitates TRIPS while it also sides with the U.S.
and Switzerland's position on Intellectual Property Rights.
The Green Room has now shrunk into a Green Person and reflects
a process which clearly discriminates against developing
countries.

In the afternoon Geneva-based South Center, a permanent 
intergovernmental organization of the developing countries, organized a 
briefing on the lack of democratic process in the WTO. Speaking at the 
briefing, the Tanzanian Minister of Trade and Industry, Mr. Iddi
Simba, who is also representing the Least Developed Countries (LDCs)
said, "We have come to Doha to launch a development agenda. Our attitude 
to new issues such as investment and competition is that we do not have 
the capacity to negotiate. Even if our arms are twisted, we cannot. The 
opt in and opt out option is totally unacceptable. We will oppose it."

The pressure on Third World countries by the powerful trading
nations and threats related to aid, debt relief, and being branded
as deal breakers responsible for furthering global recession
is immense. This pressure is being countered by growing protests
around the world that support the Third World concerns regarding
the impact of trade rules on poverty and sustainable development.

It is obvious that the WTO can run, but can't hide. The global
civil society whether present in Doha or protesting in the streets
of Delhi, Manila, or San Francisco is determined that our
struggle today is the start of the process and not the end.

In peace and solidarity,
Anuradha

For more information, to order Food First Books,or to join our member-supported organization, go to:
http://www.foodfirst.org.  
Or send your tax-deductible check to:
Food First, 398 60th St. Oakland, CA 94618

==^================================================================
This email was sent to: asia-apec@jca.ax.apc.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxil2.aVxCnz
Or send an email to: fianusa-news-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================


From amittal at foodfirst.org  Mon Nov 12 07:07:51 2001
From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal)
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 22:07:51 +0000
Subject: [asia-apec 1829] Food First: November 11th Doha Report
Message-ID: <0.700000824.815403557-212058698-1005516473@topica.com>


THE DOHA REPORT
by Anuradha Mittal
November 11, 2001

---------------------------------------
Anuradha Mittal, Co-Director of Food First, is in 
Doha, Qatar attending the 4th WTO Ministerial Conference.

Daily Doha Reports can be found at:
http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/trade/wto2001/updates.html

Other WTO Info and News Coverage can be found at:
http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/trade/wto2001
---------------------------------------

As the WTO continues to meet in Doha, Qatar, it faces a severe
crisis of legitimacy. Every newspaper present here and the Qatari
News Agency, the daily bulletin on the WTO Fourth Ministerial, has
carried articles on growing protests against the economic forces
of the WTO that are ignoring the concerns of the Third World
countries in the process.

The Geneva draft is sprinkled with clauses that benefit the
powerful trading nations such as the United States and the European
Union. To ensure the success of the Ministerial, they are now
arm twisting poor member nations of the WTO to endorse the text.

The release of the draft declaration was deliberately delayed
by the WTO General Council so that the NGOs and others would
not have sufficient time to react and to demand its withdrawl.
In addition, issues such as agriculture, environment, investment,
competition policy, and TRIPS were added without assigning enough
time for member countries to explore the issues further. The
Indian Minister of State for Commerce and Industry, Rajiv Pratap
Rudy has demanded that issues such as investment and competition
which are currently under study should not be brought up for
discussion at the World Trade Forum.

To support the position of the Third World nations,  
representatives of international civil society, around 40-50 
of us, held a protest on November 10, to tell the U.S. delegation 
to stop its arm twisting tactics. This morning, we added good 
humor while exposing the lack of transparency and muscle 
flexing by the U.S. and the E.U.

Protest theater, "Why the Developing Countries Love the E.U.
and the U.S.," was staged in the tented breezeway outside the
media center, at the end of the corridor that press and NGOs
are forbidden from using, fondly called the Hall of Shame by
many of us.

While the NGOs portrayed how the business fat cats are pulling
the strings of E.U. Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy, Mike Moore, 
and Robert Zoellick, they also ridiculed the WTO's claims of 
having changed its way by getting rid of the Green Rooms by 
replacing them with the facilitator, a "Green Man." Walden Bello, 
Executive Director of Focus on the Global South and a Board 
member of Food First, played the role of the Third World delegate 
who is first threatened and then offered bribes to agree to 
investment and to show no opposition to Trade Related 
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

The theater generated massive media coverage including the BBC,
Arabic Press including Al Jazeera, and other international press.The
press jostled with each other to take pictures and video as
we chanted and held the following placards:

1. Our World is Not for Sale: No New Round
2. Don't Sell Our Public Services: Stop the GATS
3. Don't Destroy Our Environment: No Green Rooms, No Green Men:
   We Want Green Trade
4. Put Food and Public Health Above Private Wealth: People Before
   Patents
5. Food is a Human Right: Food Rights for the Poor
6. Worker's Rights are Human Rights: People Before Profits
7. Women's Rights are Human Rights: Put Life Before Trade
8. Democratize the WTO: No Arm Twisting

The WTO might have controlled the NGO participation, but it cannot
control our energy and our passion for truth and justice. This
evening, we will protest the press briefing organized by Pascal
Lamy to show how hollow his claims of
openness and democracy within the WTO are.

The Third World delegates are fighting back as well. This morning
while distributing the press release for our protest theater,
I met a delegate from an African country. His response to our
press release was, "We love the U.S. and the E.U. because they
are suffocating us with their love." The Indian government has
already declared in the General Council that the new round is
promised as a new check to India while the last check has already
bounced for India.

>From Doha,
Anuradha


(Read Anuradha's Bio: http://www.foodfirst.org/who/amittal.html)

For more information, to order Food First Books,or to join our member-supported organization, go to:
http://www.foodfirst.org.  
Or send your tax-deductible check to:
Food First, 398 60th St. Oakland, CA 94618

==^================================================================
This email was sent to: asia-apec@jca.ax.apc.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxil2.aVxCnz
Or send an email to: fianusa-news-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com

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 Nov 17 10:48:31 2001
From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal)
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 01:48:31 +0000
Subject: [asia-apec 1830] The Meaning of Doha
Message-ID: <0.700000824.1758958641-212058698-1005961713@topica.com>


The Meaning of Doha

By Walden Bello, Focus on the Global South, 
and Anuradha Mittal, Food First

------------------------------------

The results of the WTO Ministerial in Doha, Qatar, have 
elicited some confusion among many of those following the events.

A New Round?

Something was launched at Doha, but to call it a "round" of 
trade negotiations might be stretching the concept of a round.  A 
round means negotiations on a broad range of issues directed at trade 
liberalization.  What was agreed at Doha were: a) negotiations to 
clarify or revise some existing agreements, e.g., anti-dumping rules; 
and b) eventual negotiations for new agreements, e.g., transparency 
in government procurement, investment, and competition policy. 

Getting immediate negotiations going on investment, 
competition policy, government procurement and trade facilitation was 
at the top of the agenda of the trading powers in Doha.  They fell 
short of this objective, being able to secure a commitment for 
negotiations on these issues only after the fifth ministerial in 
2003, and only with a "written consensus" from member countries.

Doha and the Developing Countries

What is clear is that, contrary to the claims of European 
Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy, Doha did not launch a "development 
round."  The key points of the Doha Declaration, in fact, contradict 
the interests of the developing countries.  For example,

- There is only a perfunctory acknowledgement of the need to review 
implementation issues, which was the key agenda of the developing 
countries coming into Doha;
- The language on the phasing out of agricultural subsidies is 
watered down owing to the strong objections of the European Union;
- There is no commitment to an early phase-out of textile and garment 
quotas because of the strong resistance of the United States;
- The demand for a "development box" to promote food security and 
development which was being pushed by a number of developing 
countries was completely ignored;
- There is no commitment to change the wording of the TRIPs 
(Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights) agreement to accommodate 
developing countries' overriding of patents for public health 
purposes;
- There is no commitment to change the TRIPs agreement to outlaw 
biopiracy and patents on life, which was a key developing country 
concern coming into Doha;
- The declaration eliminates the reference in the draft to the 
International Labor Organization (ILO) being the appropriate forum 
for addressing labor and trade issues, which leaves the door open for 
the WTO to assert its jurisdiction in an area where it has no 
authority or competence.

The resolution of the TRIPs and public health issue is being 
trumpeted as a victory for developing countries.  This is 
exaggerated.  While an attachment to the declaration does recognize 
that there is nothing in TRIPs that would prevent countries from 
taking measures to promote public health, there is no commitment to 
change the wording of the TRIPs agreement.  This is a serious flaw 
since TRIPs as it is currently written can serve as the basis for 
future legal challenges to countries that override patents in the 
interest of public health.

A Defeat for Democracy and Development

In fact, Doha was a defeat for the developing countries, 
notwithstanding the resistance they--and in particular, India--put up 
against arm-twisting, blackmail, and intimidation from the big 
trading powers.  Those of us in Doha were witness, as the Equations 
team puts it, "to the highhanded unethical negotiating practices of 
the developed countries - linking aid budgets and trade preferences 
to the trade positions of developing countries and targeting 
individual developing country negotiators."

Doha was a victory for the forces with a strong interest in 
subverting the interests of the developing countries that form the 
majority of the membership of the World Trade Organization by keeping 
the decision-making process non-transparent and undemocratic.

Why Doha will Backfire

This is why this victory may well be a Pyrrhic one for the big 
trading powers. The combination of developing country resentments 
inflamed by the Doha process, a deep global recession brought about 
by the indiscriminate locking together of economies by accelerated 
trade and financial liberalization, and reinvigorated civil society 
resistance to corporate driven globalization, cannot but erode the 
credibility and legitimacy of the institutional pillars of free trade 
like the WTO.

And without credibility and legitimacy, institutions, no matter how 
seemingly solid they may seem, eventually unravel.

At the conclusion of the Fourth Ministerial, Director General Mike 
Moore thanked the delegates for "saving the WTO."  The end result may 
well be, instead, the accelerated decline of the WTO.   

View photos of Anuradha Mittal, Walden Bello 
and others challenging the arm-twisting of the WTO:
http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/trade/wto2001/photos.html

News, Information and Criticism of the WTO Meeting can be found at:
http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/trade/wto2001/index.html

For more information, to order Food First Books,or to join our member-supported organization, go to:
http://www.foodfirst.org.  
Or send your tax-deductible check to:
Food First, 398 60th St. Oakland, CA 94618

==^================================================================
This email was sent to: asia-apec@jca.ax.apc.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxil2.aVxCnz
Or send an email to: fianusa-news-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com

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 Nov 24 04:04:00 2001
From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal)
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 19:04:00 +0000
Subject: [asia-apec 1831] Action Alert: Say NO to Fast Track!
Message-ID: <0.700000824.1473411767-951758591-1006542242@topica.com>


Fast Track Vote Scheduled for December 6th!

Call your Representative at
1-800-393-1082 (courtesy of the AFL-CIO) or
1-888-832-4246 (courtesy of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce)

and say NO to Fast Track!

The House GOP leadership has decided that it is "now or never" for a 
vote on Fast Track.  DeLay, Armey and company have announced that 
they have set the date of a vote for Thursday the 6th of December. 
While they still do not have the votes lined up yet to pass Fast 
Track, they hope that by putting it on the calendar will force 
Members to take a position with nasty GOP leadership coercion for 
those who refuse. Meanwhile, having a set date will push the 
corporate lobby to intensify its efforts.  Plus, the White House has 
also said all along that they would become more involved once a date 
certain was set.

We have all been fighting incredibly hard over the last several 
months, and  victory is now within sight (but so is defeat...)! We 
know you're getting tired (so are we!), but we have to escalate the 
opposition in these next few weeks to a whole new level! The bottom 
line is:  They do not have the votes and can only win if we let our 
victory slip away! There will be enormous pressure put on the 
Representatives from the White House, the business lobby, the GOP 
leadership and all the other "free-traders" - and it will be hard 
for some Members we need to vote with us to stand up to these 
forces. We MUST help them stand firm by constantly reminding them 
that the people who put them in office are counting on them to 
oppose Fast Track.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

WE WIN IF WE ALL DO THE FOLLOWING:

CALL your Member of Congress and express your opposition to Fast 
Track..  Ask for the chief of staff, legislative director or the 
trade aide.  Demand to know the Representative's position on H.R. 
3005 (Fast Track) legislation coming for a vote on December 6th.  
		
THANK Members who commit against Fast Track and ask 
for their commitment in writing to be sent to you immediately.
		
SLAM Members who are in favor of Fast Track - we'll 
remember in November!
		
PROVIDE INFORMATION along with a dose of political 
persuasion to Members who are undecided.

VISIT any town hall meetings or other public events that your 
Representative is organizing and ask questions about Fast Track. 
Also try to arrange a meeting directly with your Member or just drop 
by the district office (they have office hours every weekend).

WRITE a letter-to-the-editor on why you oppose Fast Track in your 
local paper. We can provide you with sample letters: 
gtwfield@citizen.org (let us know what your particular interest is - 
labor, environment, food safety, state sovereignty, etc).

DO IT DAILY UNTIL DECEMBER 6 AND GET ALL YOUR FRIENDS TO DO THE SAME!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

PLEASE TELL US WHAT YOUR MEMBER SAYS! 
CONTACT gtwfield@citizen.org /  (202)-546-4996

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is 
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest 
in receiving the included information for research and educational 
purposes.

Margrete Strand Rangnes
Field Director
Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch
215 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Washington DC, 20003 USA
mstrand@citizen.org & www.tradewatch.org
Ph: + 202-454-5106, Fax: + 202-547 7392

For more information, to order Food First Books,or to join our member-supported organization, go to:
http://www.foodfirst.org.  
Or send your tax-deductible check to:
Food First, 398 60th St. Oakland, CA 94618

==^================================================================
This email was sent to: asia-apec@jca.ax.apc.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxil2.aVxCnz
Or send an email to: fianusa-news-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================


From aaronj at interchange.ubc.ca  Thu Nov 29 02:29:53 2001
From: aaronj at interchange.ubc.ca (Aaron James)
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:29:53 -0800
Subject: [asia-apec 1832] Free-trade zone mulled for Greater China minus Taiwan
Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20011128092953.008a7c30@pop.interchange.ubc.ca>


Free-trade zone mulled for Greater China minus Taiwan 
 
South China Morning Post Nov 28, 01
SANDY LI and STEPHEN SEAWRIGHT
   
The mainland government is seriously considering setting up a free-trade
zone between China, Hong Kong and Macau to enhance the economic
relationship between them, according to China's chief trade negotiator,
Long Yongtu. "We should take a positive attitude towards this kind of
proposal," he said. 
  
Mr Long expressed misgivings about including Taiwan in the proposed
free-trade zone, considering the political barriers. "It is quite difficult
to discuss this issue with Taiwan, as they are even unwilling to commit to
open direct links with the mainland." 

Beijing has demanded Taiwan reopen "three links" across the Taiwan Strait,
including postage, communication and commercial connections. Mr Long hoped
Taiwan would open more economic links with the mainland following both
sides' accession to the World Trade Organisation. 

"We hope that the Taiwanese authorities will seize this opportunity to
realise an even closer economic trade relationship between the two sides,"
he said. 

Mr Long emphasised the proposal was not in breach of its WTO agreement, as
other members had formed similar zones such as the European Union and the
North American Free Trade Agreement. 

China shared many of the concerns of other countries in trade negotiations,
he said, and agriculture was one sector where China could contribute much.
"China can play a very constructive role in those negotiations," he said. 

Mr Long admitted China would face difficulties implementing the WTO accord
across the whole country and drew an analogy with former leader Mao
Zedong's Long March during the Chinese civil war. 

"If China's WTO accession was a Long March then enforcement to some extent
is another Long March," he said. 

------------------
Aaron James
26 Bluebell Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba R2V 2M3
Phone: 204-339-4484
Email: aaronj@interchange.ubc.ca
------------------