From Kenneth_Fernandes at sala.icn.net Fri Aug 2 14:53:01 1996 From: Kenneth_Fernandes at sala.icn.net (Kenneth Fernandes) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 1996 05:53:01 GMT Subject: [asia-apec 18] Manila Evictions due to APEC Message-ID: <3979800574.1145956@sala.icn.net> Dear friends, In a meeting last week with urban poor leaders, Mr. Trinidad of the government's Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council said the government's permanent relocation site outside Metro Manila will be ready only in two years time. However, government will push through with its scheduled demolitions and will provide three temporary relocation sites, all outside Metro Manila. This runs counter to the position of the Anti-Demolition Working Group which is composed of big urban poor federations and coalitions and their partner NGOs. The position of the group is development should be on-site and where relocation cannot be avoided, the relocation site should be in-city whether temporary or permanent. We will know by July 31 if they will go ahead with the demolitions, even if the temporary relocation sites are not yet ready for occupation. In the meantime, the 350 families who were demolished last June 26 are now suffering from hunger and disease. It is only NGOs and church grops who are helping the people. The food,medicines, tents and portable toilets that Dionisio de la Serna, head of the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Committee promised to the people last June 29, have not materialized. Scores of children, including adults, are down because of diarrhea, colds, typhoid, cholera, and dengue. Two infants have died already. Last week a typhoon just hit the country, with Manila experiencing strong winds and generous rainfall which prompted authorities to declare classes suspended for two days. As it moved out of the Philippines another storm has replaced it. We will e-mail you again on developments here and thank you for your support. Urban Poor Associates 18 July 1996 Dear Friends, Here is some action taken by friends from the network. please send appeals urgently. 17 July 1996 Dear Friends, At a meeting with urban poor people July 11 President Ramos gave a two week moratorium on all imminent evictions, but said the demolitions would continue then, especially along R-10, a road that leads to Smokey Mountain. The president it is thought will bring the APEC delegates there to see how he has turned the pre-existing garbage dump into an urban renewal project. He also said there would be evictions on land near the main meeting center in downtown Manila. He denies these are connected with APEC, but there is no other rationale for rushing the evictions as the government is doing. A judge handling the case of the first squatters evicted in the present campaign (the people of Del Pan at the month of the Pasig River) said at one hearing the eviction were justified by the need to impress APEC visitors. Everyone believes the reason is APEC. The government talks of evicting 10,000-16,000 families in the near future, or 60,000-96,000 people. Some of them in Metro Manila are along roads or near places where APEC delegates will travel or hold meetings. There are also evictions near Subic Bay, Olongapo where the actual heads of state meeting will be held. There is no relocation ready. The Del Pan people, some 300 families, will get temporary relocation 40 km. out of Manila, but the other thousands of families will get nothing. It will take, by government's own admission, 4 months - 2 years to prepare new adequate relocation sites. The present sites are full. Government thinks only in terms of distant out of city relocation. Please urge President Ramos to consider in-city relocation and slum upgrading as more workable solutions. Attached is a sheet with excerpts from a Press Statement issued by Dionisio de la Serna, head of the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council. "...It gives me great pleasure to be here today and share with you what transpired during the recently concluded second International Conference on Shelter and Human Settlements held in Istanbul, Turkey last June 3-14, 1996. "The Philippine delegation actively participated inthe conference through the various working committees and the plenary sessions. Two main documents were discussed, negotiated and adopted - the Habitat agenda and the Istanbul Declaration. The Habitat Agenda is a Global Call to Action. It offers within a framework of goals and principles and commitments, a positive vision of sustainable human settlements - where allhave adequate shelter, healthy and safe environments, basic services and productive and freely chosen employment. An integral component of the agenda is the global plan of action which lays downthe strategies for implementation and measures to achieve the two principal goals of the conference, which are 'adequate shelter for all' and 'sustainable human settlements development in an urbanizing world.' "Central to the Global Action Plan is the strategy of enablement and participation. Government efforts in addressing the problems of human settlements must enable the private sector, non-government organizations and communities to fully contribute to national and global development. In the Philippines, we have adopted this strategy in our development undertakings, particularly inthe national shelter program which the Philippine delegation highlighted during the general exchangeof views on the state of human settlements. "The Istanbul declaration on the other hand, outlines the commitments of heads of state, government and official delegations to ensure adequate shelter for all and sustainable human settlements. "...In the discussions on the Habitat Agenda, the Philippine delegation raised four major concerns: the protection of the rights of migrant workers in host countries, the recognition of the right to adequate housing, international cooperation inthe implementation of the Habitat Agenda and the strengthening of the role of the United Nations Center for Human Settlements or UNCHS. "...The recognition of the right to adequate housing as a fundamental right within the context of relevant international conventions is one of the principal achievements of the conference. In Istanbul, governments committed themselves to the promotion and protection of this right and to its progressive realization. The Philippines strongly and actively participated inthe negotiationsof the right to adequate housing within the purview of our constitution. "...The Istanbul conference is not an end in itself. The challenge for all countries is to make the Habitat II agenda work. For us in the Philippines, we will have to operationalize our National Action Plan on Shelter and Human Settlements. The Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council asthe focal point for Habitat II will spearhead follow-through activities in the following months. We will be conducting a national workshop to operationalize the National Action Plan and firm up commitments on its implementation. Likewise, we will institutionalize a monitoring system on the Plan's implementation in collaboration with the local governments, NGO-PO community and the private sector. In addition, we will continue to strengthen the partnerships and cooperative arrangements we have forged, consistent with our policyof people empowerment and popular participation. Finally, let me state that the Philippines is ready to take on the challenge of making our cities and towns truly livable places." Press clippings on related issue will be faxed to you. Please use dela Serna remarks and the clippings. Very sincerely, DENIS MURPHY >From Sheela Patel, SPARC, Bombay Dear President Ramos, It is extremely shocking to hear that demolitions of poor people's dwellings have begun within a day of signing the Istanbul declaration for Habitat II. We always quote the Phillipines constitution and provisions made within it as also the policies of the post dictatorship governments of the Phillipines as examplpes of modern governance seeking to accomodate the crisis of poverty cities have to address along with the quest for economic growth. In a range of meetings conducted within the Asian Region by ESCAP, and other UN forums, we have been impressed by the collaborative spirit of the NGOs and the City governments of a range of cities in Phillipines, and we often quote them as examples to our governments. On several occassions we have even advised our officials to meet with these collaborative ventures when they are vsisiting your country. When we hear that the demolitions have occurred to clean the city, we cannot believe that it is possible for your government to do this. We hope that you will make sure this is reversed, and a more proactive solution which works for the poor and for the city is developed instead. I think in that kind of solution lies the direction of future growth and properity for all. We are urging our NGO friends in the Phillipines to also try this path, and if all of us who are members fo networks involved in housing are of any use, we shall be happy to help. BUT PLEASE STOP DEMOLITIONS. LOOK FOR A MORE SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION. Your truly, Sheela Patel 19 July 1996 >From Denis, UPA, Manu Dear Friends, Thank you Wardah for your immediate reply and for reminding us about the President's address and fax number we forgot to include in our email. Here it is for your reference and so you can send it directly from where you are. President Fidel V. Ramos Republic of the Philippines Office of the President Malacanang Palace, Manila Philippines Fax No. 7421641 Will keep in touch. Denis, UPA Dear Denis thanks for the info . I managed to get a copy of the Phillipines statement to the High level segment from the Habitat II web site . In process of using excerpts in my letter. Have distributed your message to The Australin Council for Oversea Aid -the peak aid NGO in Australia and quite progressive have asked them to ciculate your message to their member organisations. I may be able to get a number of key church people to send aletters to Ramos as well. I'll keep you posted John Nicolades ______________________________________________________________________________ | SalaThai Net * Bangkok, Thailand * Tel: (662) 679-8382 | | Check out the WWW site at http://www.icn.net | | Please address any problems and questions to postmaster@sala.icn.net | ______________________________________________________________________________ From daga at HK.Super.NET Sun Aug 4 17:23:53 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 16:23:53 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 19] Women's Forum Statement for the APEC Manila Process Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960804161851.0b2f7958@is1.hk.super.net> Women's Forum Statement for the APEC Manila Process Philippine PO-NGO Summit on APEC July 3, 1996 WE, WOMEN belonging to various NGOs, movements, and other organizations, oppose the current Philippine development model that the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) likewise espouses. The government's push for a market-led, growth-oriented development has translated into greater women's impoverishment, marginalization and exploitation. Paradoxically, while foreign investors, especially from the region, have made their way to our shores in the hope of making big profits, Filipino women are leaving their homes and the country en masse to survive. APEC seeks to fortify the neoliberal economic order. It aims to hasten the breakdown of national boundaries to facilitate the flow of goods, human resources, and capital. In the Philippines, this objective is expressed in the government's policy of trade liberalization, privatization, and deregulation. Underpinning such policies is the thinking that less government and more market will not only benefit capital but also labor, purportedly to create more jobs. Identifying itself with economies rather than nation-states, APEC would have governments abdicate their role in ensuring the peoples' well-being. Instead, it would hand over this responsibility to the market because as the Osaka Declaration claims--market-oriented economic reforms will serve to unleash the region's citizens' creativity and energy while enhancing their prosperity and living standards. Filipino women's experiences, however, belie the market's touted democratizing potentials. The current priority given to investments and, with this, the development of industrial enclaves have led to the massive conversion of primary agricultural lands.(1) As is, agrarian reform is losing out to land speculation that has already displaced many rural farnilies. Consequently, rural women have had to cope with land and food insecurity. On the other hand, the demolition of urban poor homes to make way for commercial centers and residential subdivisions has recently taken a deadly turn with the deployment of the gun-toting police and military in such "clean-up" operations. The market-driven land use policy that has led to the break up of communities and environmental degradation will have dire consequences on those women who are their families' primary caregivers and breadwinners. The Philippine government's economic solution leaves out the women, already largely invisible in the country's productive and political life. Because government continues to use the gross national product as the sole standard for development, women--whose labor contributions remain either unpaid or unaccounted for in the equation--are put in a more vulnerable position. Growth fails miserably to reflect the conditions of women twice over: not only does it ignore how development impacts on the poor and the environment, it is completely blind to women's specific realities. Thus, even as government continues to harp on the economy's relatively strong showing, it has also diminished its budget for government services. (2) Among those hardest hit by this ironic situation are the urban poor. Government is passing on its responsibility for housing, a basic human right, to the private sector so that it can meet other obligations. To date, there are 77,000 homeless people when government's budget for debt service in 1996 alone can house 200,000 families in Metro Manila!(3) In this light, government's promise of financing a social welfare agenda to soften globalization's adverse effects (4) rings hollow, and, without even the latter, growth cannot but widen the social divide. Women largely carry the burden of government's default on its responsibility to provide adequate and quality basic social services. Traditionally responsible for their families' nurturance, women have had to stretch the household income to meet the latter's most basic needs (e.g., food, primary health care, education, and sanitation). To support their families, many poor women leave the home to the care oftheir oldest, married daughters. Often younger children, many as young as eight years old, are forced to work to contribute to the family income. During a budget crunch, women usually sacrifice their personal needs, such as proper nutrition, to feed their spouses and children. That five to six women die of pregnancy-related causes every day (5) illustrates how widespread the problem of poor health is among women, and how critical the absence of medical care and women's lack of control over their own fertility are to their well-being. No doubt, neoliberalism and the current development paradigm benefit from a labor market structured along gender lines. Since men are generally regarded as the breadwinners, women's participation in the labor force is given less importance and thus more exploitable. On the average, Filipino women, for instance, earn only 37 centavos for every peso (100 centavos) their male counterparts make. (6) But women are not only a source of dirt-cheap labor, by tradition and force of circumstance, they are also seen as a more pliant workforce. Similarly, the country's development strategy thrives on women's marginalization. More and more businesses have resorted to subcontracting women, mostly home-based, to avoid paying higher taxes as well as workers' compensation and benefits. Women are most vulnerable to the casualization and "flexibilization" of labor. Due to their poverty and their socially prescribed dominant role in reproduction, they tend to agree to work on a piece-rate basis, without labor rights. Many more are involved in the inforrnal sector and the flesh trade. It has been estimated that there are six million womn engaged in the underground economy while 300,000 women and 75,000 children are in prostitution. (7) On the other hand, government' s commitment to the so-called free flow of labor translates into a virtual hands-off policy regarding the plight of our overseas contract workers, especially women. The feminization of migration may be gleaned from the fact that at least 60% of total overseas deployment is composed of women and the jobs they assume are those that have traditionally been associated with women e.g. domestic work, and entertainment. These are jobs that are low in status and pay, subject to restrictive immigration policies and excluded from the receiving country's labor code. These render the women migrants vulnerable to various forms of violence. From January to March 1996, at least 95 women migrant workers were reported to have been victims of violence, the most common of which was maltreatment. Government's snail-paced response to the call of NGOs and migrant workers' groups for bilateral labor agreements with host countries ignores this vulnerability of our women migrant workers. Despite their substantial contribution to the economy through OCW remittances--the country's main source of dollars--women's lives remain at risk. APEC's classification of peoples as mainly "human resources" glosses over the grave social costs of neoliberal economic growth. The growing feminization of poverty is the latter's hidden cost. At its worst, the unregulated flow of "human resources" has abetted the rise of sex trafficking, second only to the drug trade as the region's booming industries, and sex tourism to service men. In fact, prostitution has become more intensive with the establishrnent of international ports and industrial estates. Such appropriation of women' s sexuality and commodification of their bodies are an affront to women's dignity and violate their personhood. For women, therefore, the country's growth path begets untold sufferings. Development that gives precedence to economic growth above human needs and does not consider women's contribution to the country's productive life as well as specific needs, only reinforces gender inequality and worsens women's plight. In fact, it can be said that the dominant development strategy, advanced by APEC and implemented in this country, is made possible mainly through the subordination, exploitation, and oppression of women. In this light, we call for changing the current market-led, growth-oriented development strategy to one that is equitable, sustainable, and empowering. For development to truly serve women's strategic interests, women must be given a significant role in shaping public policy and implementing development programs and projects. Gender equity and equality must be made integral to the country's and global developmem processes-only then will peoples' interests be truly served. Steps toward promoting women's empowerment in the public sphere must ensure their equal and quality participation in economic and political decision-making. Both in the public and private spheres, empowerment means that women have control over their bodies, lives, and destinies. In working out an alternative strategy of and new ethics for development, we put forward the following: 1. We aspire for nothing less than total human and ecological development. Development must not simply focus on economic gains, but also on its social, political, ecological, and cultural dimensions. 2. Development must promote women's and peoples' human rights and be attuned to its different impact on women and men, factoring in sex, class, ethnicity, race, sector, civil status, age, beliefs, sexual orientation, and mental and physical abilities. 3. With women as active participants in the process, development must work toward social integration, food security, ecological balance, and advance community control and management over their resources. 4. To arrest the feminization of poverty, there must be equitable access, distribution, and control of resources, economic benefits, agricultural inputs, credit, and education. Similarly, the women's multiple burden must be eliminated. 5. Women's existing sources of livelihood must be recognized and protected while preventing new forms of inequality that may arise from economic restructuring. WE CALL on government to carry out the following: 1. Ensure that national policies, prograrns, and practices comply with international labor and human rights standards. Particularly, implement all international hurnan rights instrurnents, including the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), UN Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and their Families, and related ILO Conventions. Government should actively work for the adoption of an Optional Protocol to the Women's Convention that will provide for an effective mechanism for complaints and investigation of violations by the state. 2. Increase government budget for social services (e.g., health care, education, sanitation, daycare centers, and housing). 3. Eliminate discriminatory laws on ownership and control over productive assets. 4. Stop indiscriminate land conversion. Implement a genuine agrarian reform prograrn which ensures community rights, including women's rights and access to land, and environmental standards in rural land use policies. 5. Stop demolition. Implement the repeal of P.D. 772 (the Anti-Squatting Law), as adopted in the National Anti-Poverty Summit (March 1996). Implement the IJrban and Housing Development Act or R.A. 7279. 6. Stop all forms of gender discrimination in the workplace. Respect and promote the rights of workers to self-organization and collective bargaining. 7. Stop the trafficking in persons, of which women and children are most affected. 8. Review existing labor laws to adequately address trends of flexibilization, casualization, and informalization of women's labor. Extend and expand social protection, security, and services to domestic and other home-based workers. and to child labor. 9. Safeguard the rights of the child. Eliminate child labor. 10. Eliminate socioeconomic conditions that necessitate the institutionalization of labor export. Stop the commodification of migrant labor. In the interim, forge bilateral labor agreements, with receiving countries, that protect our migrant overseas workers. Create sustainable livelihoods for women and men. 11. Ensure, at all times, government's accountability and transparency especially in the areas of human rights and foreign relations. Resist blanket liberalization of trade and investments. 12. Stop all forrns of violence against women. Toward working for the above agenda, we call on others in the peoples' and citizens' movements, both here and in other parts of the region to forge cooperation based on the promotion of peoples' democratic and human rights. We can begin by documenting and monitoring the impact of globalization. More important, let us share our experiences and launch common actions in counteracting detrimental economic policies, highlighting our collective aspiration for a sustainable, egalitarian, and socially just development. NOTES AND REFERENCES 1. According to the Department of Agrarian Reform, a total of 41,6454 hectares had been approved for conversion as of early last year. (LUCC Secretariat, 25 January 1995) This is, however, a conservative figure, especially in light of many cases of land grabbing nationwide. 2. As noted by Leonor Magtolis Briones, former Freedom from Debt Coalition chair, in the first quarter of 1994, government services constituted 5.20% of GNP at constant prices. During the sarne period in 1995 and 1996, this went down to 5.08% and 4.91 %, respectively. (Briones, "Promises in the Time of Cholera," 19 June 1996, p. 3) 3. Ibon Facts & Figures, vol. 19, no. 8, 30 April 1996. 4. Briones. 5. National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women and the Asia Development Bank, Filipino Women: Issues and Trends, October 1995, Metro Manila. 6. Isis International, "Comrnon Problems," Media Information Pack, September 1995. 7. Coalition Against Trafficking in Women - Asia Pacific, "Trafficking in Women and Prostitution in the Asia Pacific," (no date), p.26. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Documentation for Action Groups in Asia (DAGA) 96, 2nd District, Pak Tin 'Village Mei Tin Road, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong Tel : (852) 2691 6391/ 2691 1068 ext 54 Fax: (852) 2697 1912 E-mail: daga@hk.super.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From alarm at HK.Super.NET Sun Aug 4 17:47:53 1996 From: alarm at HK.Super.NET (ALARM) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 16:47:53 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 20] Free-trade Activist Message-ID: ABOUT ALARM ALARM (APEC Labour Rights Monitor) is a joint project of different labour groups, trade unions, migrant and women workers organisations and other support groups in countries covered by APEC. It was first agreed in principle during the Trade and Workers' Human Rights meeting(Kyoto, November 1995) and subsequently endorsed by the participating groups of the NGO Forum on APEC which met shortly after. The PP21 meeting (2-7 March 1996, Kathmandu) and the EPZ Women Workers' Conference(25-30 March 1996, Hong Kong) also expressed support to this project. ALARM is based in Hong Kong. ANTI-FREE TRADE ACTIVISTS OUTRAGED BY POLICE SEARCH Police and suspected Security Intelligence Service (SIS) agents intruded into the homes of two anti-free trade activists on the pretext of searching for bomb-making equipment. On July 18, police searched the home of Aziz Choudry, a spokesman of the group "Trading Our Lives." On 21 July, they searched the home of a University of Canterbury lecturer, Dr. David Small, who was a speaker at an alternative forum held on 14 July parallel to an APEC conference in Christchurch. A spokesman of GATT Watchdog, Murray Horton, said the justification for the searches was that a device bearing an anti-APEC slogan had been found outside the City Council office. "We express the greatest outrage that the police and their political masters could think that this had anything to do with GATT Watchdog. We are very upset at the assumption that people organising public activities would be sitting at home making bombs." Police found nothing to justify their searches, he said. (Source: newspaper reports, 23 July 1996) From alarm at HK.Super.NET Sun Aug 4 17:52:20 1996 From: alarm at HK.Super.NET (ALARM) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 16:52:20 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 21] LABOUR LEADER ARRESTED Message-ID: ABOUT ALARM ALARM (APEC Labour Rights Monitor) is a joint project of different labour groups, trade unions, migrant and women workers organisations and other support groups in countries covered by APEC. It was first agreed in principle during the Trade and Workers' Human Rights meeting(Kyoto, November 1995) and subsequently endorsed by the participating groups of the NGO Forum on APEC which met shortly after. The PP21 meeting (2-7 March 1996, Kathmandu) and the EPZ Women Workers' Conference(25-30 March 1996, Hong Kong) also expressed support to this project. ALARM is based in Hong Kong. Muchtar Pakpahan, labour leader and ex-political prisoner is the chairman of ALARM's Advisory Group. INDONESIAN LABOUR LEADER ARRESTED FOR THE SECOND TIME Ex-political prisoner and labour leader Muchtar Pakpahan was arrested and detained for the secondtime by the Indonesian authorities following the spate of demonstrations in Jakarta these past coupleof weeks. Muchtar is the leader of Serikat Buruh Sejahtera Indonesia (Indonesian Prosperity Trade Union), the independent trade union which the government is refusing to recognise. Only one official trade union,SPSI, is recognised and sanctioned by the government. The arbitrary arrest was made on the night of July 29, after political unrest broke out in Jakarta on the 27th which led to street demonstrations and riots. Reports said this recent political unrest is theworst to hit the country in 20 years. It was precipitated by the fight between factions of the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI), where the military engineered the ouster of supporters of opposition leader Megawati Sukarnoputri. No charges have been filed against Pakpahan. He was detained simply on suspicion of helping incite unrest, and of being linked with the newly outlawed People's Democratic Party (PDP), whose leader,Budiman Sukjatmiko, is on the run. SBSI claims a membership of almost half a million workers, with 97 branches across the country. In April 1994, some 30,000 workers staged a protest rally in Medan following the death of a Deli Factory worker-organiser, Ruslli, and the dismissal of 399 workers from the same factory. SBSI helped organise these actions. It turned into one of the worst street protests in Medan, and Muchtar was arrested and convicted in November for inciting unrest. His conviction was announced a few days before the 1994 APEC Summit in Indonesia. He served 9 months in jail and was released in August 1995 due to some technicalities. After his release, all activities of the union have been closely monitored by the military. They have been routinely charged of being communists because "their organisational structure and style of work is the same" as that of the banned Indonesian Communist Party (PKI). Any trade union activity that is done without the military's presence can be branded as an act of subverssion. Muchtar is only one among many SBSI and independent labour organisers and activists who have been harassed, made jobless, detained, imprisoned or killed by the Indonesian military and government. SBSI and other human rights and labour support groups in Indonesia and Asia have protested against the government's use of the recent unrest as an excuse for another communist witchhunt and crackdown on dissent. Please send solidarity letters to Indonesian workers and help demand for the release of Muchtar and other political prisoners. Send copies of your letters to the ALARM Secretariat. Please send protest letters against the government repression and violation of basic human and workers' rights to the Indonesian consulate in your country. Send copies of your protest letters to Pres. Suharto, and the Presidents of the 18 APEC countries. In Solidarity Bien Molina Jnr. ALARM Researcher Rex Varona Project Coordinator From daga at HK.Super.NET Sun Aug 4 20:15:16 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 19:15:16 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 22] Statement from 1995 NGO Forum on APEC Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960804191014.33877c60@is1.hk.super.net> KYOTO DECLARATION Statement from the 1995 NGO Forum on APEC As representatives of more than 100 non-government organizations and trade unions, advocating the interests of millions throughout the region covered by APEC, we fully support cooperation among countries and their peoples. However, we unanimously reject the basic philosophy, framework and assumptions of the model of free market and trade liberalization embraced by the APECagenda. This model does not lead to freedom; it negates the developmental and democratic aspirations of the people. Economic growth and promotion of trade are not ends in themselves. Genuine development must be centered on the needs of people and nature, and deliver real social and economic justice. The form of indiscriminate, unregulated economic growth and trade which APEC advocates delivers the opposite of this-- its consequences are socially unjust and ecologically unsustainable; it imposes irreversible social and environmental costs; and it enables governments to abdicate their responsibilities to their citizens and leave them at the mercy of transnational corporations and international financial institutions who are accountable to no one. Genuine development must also affirm the fundamental, civic, political, economic, social and cultural rights of individuals and peoples, and the obligations of states to promote and protect such rights. Governments who are members of APEC, must, through cooperation, ensure that people are guaranteed basic rights to food, human dignity, integrity of communities, environmental security and self-determination. The APEC liberalization agenda is irreconcilable with these goals. Violations of political freedom, rights of association, labour rights and freedom of speech accompany economic liberalization in many parts of the region. We note with particular concern that member governments of APEC have participated in inter-governmental conferences on the rights of the child (New York), the environment (Rio de Janeiro), human rights (Vienna), population and development (Cairo), social development (Copenhagen) and women (Beijing). Despite their participation, none of the commitments made in those conferences is visible in the APEC process. Rather, the consequence of this form of economic and trade liberalization violate the fundamental rights to which they agreed. The arguments employed within APEC reflect the self-interest of its most powerful members. They deny the value of traditional agrarian production and consumption patterns and their proven ability to provide food security for people. They further fail to acknowledge the hidden resource and financial subsidies which underpin so-called free trade. Such trade is neither fair nor free. While the United States and Japanese governments argue about the liberalization of agricultural trade, they ignore the plight of farmers, fishers and forest people throughout the region whose food security, fisheries, water and land rights, communities, culture and environment are already being destroyed by liberalization. This kind of liberalization also creates the conditions which force people from their native lands and become migrant labourers. While the APEC agenda claims to promote the interests of small and medium-sized enterprises, liberalization of investment in fact promotes the rapid expansion of transnational enterprises, destroys small and medium business, and deepens unemployment. The creation of free trade zones enables host governments to avoid their basic obligations to workers and local communities under domestic and international law. The rights of women and children have been the most systematically violated in this process. Economic issues cannot be divorced from the complex realities of people's daily lives. Yet APEC is described as a community of economies which bears no responsibility for the social, political or cultural consequences of the decisions its members make. This artificial distinction allows the APEC process to operate in a totally anti-democratic, unaccountable and untransparent way. We insist that all governments must be held responsible for all aspects of all decisions which their officials, ministers and leaders make. We therefore call on governments who are members of APEC to: > engage in regional cooperation which genuinely promotes socially and ecologically sustainable development; > ensure effective people's participatory decision-making, transparency and effective monitoring of all aspects of trade investments: > reject unrestricted and unregulated liberalization of trade and investment; > raise environmental standards and ensure effective implementation throughout the region; > take steps to eliminate the arms trade, alongside other measures to promote peace and disarmament in the region; > adopt a safe and ecologically sound approach to energy and infrastructure, including the rejection of all measures which facilitate nuclear power and mega- hydroelectric projects; > ratify and effectively implement all major labour and human rights instruments, including the basic ILO conventions, and guarantee the freedom of movement for all people within the region, especially refugees and indigenous peoples; > impose effective constraints, including a code of conduct, on the operations of transnational corporations to ensure their accountability and responsibility to the people of the region; > recognize food security as a basic human right and accept responsibility to ensure food security for all their citizens; > take steps to protect farmers and the land rights and tenure of women and indigenous peoples; > protect biodiversity, ban the plunder by transnational corporations of indigenous resources and knowledge systems and all attempts to patent life forms, and reject intellectual property rights regimes which facilitates such exploitation; and > protect the rights of women and migrant labour, and defend children from exploitation of all kinds. We call on people's organizations within the region to: > take our own initiatives to facilitate economic co-operation among the people; > document the consequences of economic and trade liberalization on the people; and > strengthen solidarity networks for resisting injustice and promoting positive economic and social change. 14 November 1995 Kansai Seminar House Kyoto, Japan ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Documentation for Action Groups in Asia (DAGA) 96, 2nd District, Pak Tin 'Village Mei Tin Road, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong Tel : (852) 2691 6391/ 2691 1068 ext 54 Fax: (852) 2697 1912 E-mail: daga@hk.super.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From daga at HK.Super.NET Sun Aug 4 20:15:21 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 19:15:21 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 23] Introduction to the 1996 Manila People's Forum on APEC Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960804191018.33876398@is1.hk.super.net> Introduction Some 300 delegates from non-government organizations, people's organizations and social movements across the Asia-Pacific will be converging in Manila in November. This gathering will be an effort to focus the attention of the international community-- particularly the member-economies of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)-- on the need to reflect the people's concerns for human rights, social equity and environmental sustainability in the APEC agenda. Dubbed the Manila People's Forum on APEC 1996, the conference will serve as the parallel process of peoples, communities and sectors affected by the free trade and economic integration agenda embraced by the APEC to the scheduled APEC Leaders' Summit in the Philippines this year. APEC in Context The APEC forum is fast emerging as the overarching institution for economic liberalization in the Asia-Pacific region. Among its avowed objectives is to sustain the exports-and-investment-fuelled growth and development in the region by strengthening multilateral trading systems and reducing barriers to trade in goods, services and investments. The APEC agenda is thus no different from that of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade-Uruguay Round (GATT-UR); in fact, it is the stated objective of the APEC to "deepen and broaden" the liberalization policies spawned by GATT-UR's various agreements, as well as to accelerate policies' implementation within the Asia-Pacific region. APEC's 18 members (Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Aotearoa-New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Thailand and the USA) span East Asia, Australasia and the Western hemisphere, and include the world's fastest growing economies. APEC members account for about 56% of the world's gross domestic product and 46% of the world's exports. The heart of APEC's diplomatic and economic agenda is the creation of a region- wide, liberalized trade and investment regime. In November 1994 in Bogor, Indonesia, although not all APEC members were equally enthusiastic, heads of state agreed to reduce existing trade and investment barriers by 2010 for the developed and 2020 for the developing countries. They also affirmed their countries' full participation in the WTO and in advancing the processes and agreements within the GATT-UR. In Osaka in 1995, APEC foreign ministers discussed an action agenda on ways to implement the sweeping vision of the Bogor Agreement. This agenda specifically spurs the APEC's liberalization track. It not only calls on its member-countries to accelerate the implementation of GATT-UR commitments and to broaden and deepen the liberalization outcomes of the UR processes; it also admonished members to "strongly oppose the inward-looking bloc" within the AsiaPacific region (represented by Malaysia's Mahathir) and urged non-APEC economies to advance global trade and investment liberalization. APEC members are expected to present their specific action plans to enflesh this agenda in the Manila summit in 1996; overall implementation is to begin in 1997. Why Engage the APEC? Although member-governments wish to project the APEC as a means for "enhancing prosperity and living standards of citizens in the region", many citizens' groups and NGOs throughout the region worry that APEC's "sweeping vision" portends massive environmental and social costs rather than an efficient economic paradise. Economic openness generates new pressures on the causes of environmental sustainability, labor and migrant rights, and the struggle for equitable development. With economic interdependence, the policies and norms of one country become deeply entangled with those of its trading partners. The scope for unilateral action--especially with regard to social issues impinged on by economic liberalization--is reduced, even if economic growth increases. Much unrest and controversy had already been unleashed during the height of the GATT debates, particularly among people's movements not only in the Philippines but also in Korea, Japan and Canada. The basis for the wide-ranging concem and opposition to the GATT was the projected ill-effects that its trade liberalization agenda-- the most ambitious and comprehensive in the world's history-- would bring to the rights and status of already vulnerable sectors, especially in the developing world. With the APEC aiming to accelerate, broaden and deepen this liberalization track, the regional forum has become just as urgent an initiative for progressive groups to monitor and look into. It is because of the negative implications that the APEC agenda carries that some reservations have been raised over making it a target for popular advocacy or participation. Some groups have held that to address the APEC forum or to seek to participate in its deliberations is to legitimize an essentially anti-people initiative. Its furtherance of an economic liberalization track-- proven to have wrought inestimable social, economic and ecological displacement-- immediately renders it suspect, and limits the chances for people's groups to inject any meaningful aspects into APEC's vision for the region. Other NGOs and citizens' groups, however, hold a slightly different view. To their mind, the APEC's lack of transparency and popular participation in its trade and economic policy deliberations-- discussions that stand to impact on the lives of millions of workers, consumers, farmers and small entrepreneurs in the region-- makes it even more urgent for popular movements to assert their right to intervene in the forum's various processes. While they harbor no illusions that their efforts can significantly or immediately transform the APEC into a forum responsive to the people's needs, they still view it to be an important venue where the people's concerns can be raised and where specific policy reforms can be advocated. They identify certain spaces within the APEC and in parallel international agreements-- few and far between though they may be-- that NGOs and people's organizations can tap: the Bogor Declaration's identification of sustainable growth, equitable development and national stability as the "three pillars of APEC" is one. The international agreements forged in such fora as Copenhagen (Summit on Social Development, 1995), Vienna (Human Rights, 1993), Rio de Janeiro (Environment, 1992), and Beijing (Women, 1995) are another. The popular movements can attempt to use these spaces in their efforts to forward the rights and status of their communities and constituencies within the APEC. Hopefully, their efforts in addressing these issues within the APEC will also impact on related concerns -- GATT, WTO, the IMF-World Bank, and the operations of transnational corporations across the globe included. As Lyuba Zarsky of the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainable Development said, "APEC is still a relatively young and flexible institution. Over the next five years, an opportunity exists to build people's concerns into APEC's very foundation. In one way or another, people's issues-the environmental impact of trade liberalization, migrant and labor rights, etc.-will be on the agenda. The crucial and as yet unfolding issue is how deep and broad will be the integration of specific people's advocacies into the APEC agenda." The role of NGOs, analysts and active people's movements has been-- and will continue to be-- central in articulating and pressing for these advocacies within APEC. To be effective, people's movements will have to work across borders to define their common interests within the region. This is the rationale for the parallel NGO fora that have been convened on APEC over the past several years. Past NGO and People's Initiatives on APEC The 1996 Manila People's Forum on APEC is the fourth in a series of parallel processes undertaken by the international NGO community in response to the challenges posed by the successive APEC summits. The Northwest office of Friends of the Earth organized a labor, human rights and environmental coalition to focus on "The Hidden Costs of Free Trade" in time for the November 1993 APEC meeting in Seattle, Washington. Friends of the Earth helped publish four issues of ECO-"APEC Watch" for the press and APEC attendees and issued a letter for the APEC leaders signed by 22 international, national and local NGO groups. During the day of the APEC Heads of State meeting, a people's APEC rally for Human Rights, Environment and Labor Fairness took place in downtown Seattle. During the 1994 APEC Summit of World Leaders held in Bogor, Indonesia, regional NGOs met to monitor the APEC process as well as to raise such issues of common concern as social justice, the environment and human rights. Due to the stringent security measures employed by Suharto during the APEC summit, the NGOs were severely limited in the range of advocacy activities they could undertake. Nevertheless, these NGOs were able to issue policy statements through the media in their effort to focus regional concern on the liberalization agenda being hammered out at the Bogor summit. A broader parallel non-government initiative was held in Kyoto, Japan by over a hundred NGOs from Japan, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Hongkong, Australia, Canada, Mexico, and the United States, in time for the APEC Leaders' Summit held in Osaka in November, 1995. This Kyoto NGO Forum on APEC yielded specific resolutions and action points advocating for the incorporation of people's concerns into the APEC and arguing against the heedless adoption by APEC member-governments of trade and investment liberalization regimes that would lead to the displacement of people, the destruction of the environment, and the transgression of people's basic rights to food, freedom, and justice. It was as a result of the 1995 Kyoto NGO Forum on APEC that the Manila People's Forum on APEC '96 came to light. During the Kyoto conference, participants agreed to meet again in 1996 for a parallel forum to the APEC Leaders' Summit that will take place in the Philippines. This time, however, the Manila Forum would stress the participation of more people's organizations and citizen's movements alongside the delegation from NGOs and regional institutions. Moreover, delegations from non-APEC countries with strong concerns for people's issues in the Asia-Pacific will also be encouraged to participate. What to Expect The Manila People's Forum on APEC '96 is expected to be the broadest gathering ever of citizen's groups, people's organizations, human rights advocates and NGOs on the specific issues impinged on by APEC and the global trend toward ever- increasing trade and investment liberalization. Around 250 to 300 grassroots leaders, people's issue advocates, and NGOs from the local and international front are expected to attend. This early, some 120 Philippine NGOs and people's organizations have already expressed their willingness to participate in both the preparations for and the actual conduct of the people's forum. The Manila People's Forum on APEC '96 will also attempt to be different from past fora on the APEC by going beyond the mere discussion of issues related to trade liberalization. The Forum will seek to forward concrete proposals, alternatives, paradigms and perspectives drawn from people's experiences related to the trade and socioeconomic development issues that the APEC and its underpinning framework touches on. Broadening the focus of the Forum from mere issue discussion to actually existing people's engagements and initiatives is expected to further strengthen the spirit of international solidarity and cooperation throughout the Asia-Pacific region. A host of issues are expected to surface over the APEC agenda. Initially, however, five major issue clusters have been identified, which could also serve as pre-summit regional forum themes for participants to choose from. These are: > People's Rights, to include the concerns of indigenous peoples, women, and other rights abuse victims; > Labor and Migrant Rights, to center on the concerns of labor and migrant workers; > Economic and Social Development, to include the issues of food security, small and medium entrepreneurs, small farmers and fisherfolk, fair trade, economic sovereignty in trade and investment, and cooperatives development; > Ecology and Environment, to focus on the implications of trade and investment liberalization on the prospects for sustainable, ecologically sound development; > Democratization and Governance, to raise the issue of increasing government transparency and accountability, as well as to push for increased participation for grassroots groups, NGOs and civil society in general in the realm of governance and empowerment. A women's caucus meeting will also be held to ensure that specific concems regarding gender issues will be substantially addressed. Efforts are also underway for pre-summit field visits or fact-finding missions to various regions of the Philippines so that delegates can have a clearer picture of how regional trade integration impacts on the lives of people and communities at the ground level. Thus, participants concerned with labor and migrant rights can visit the CALABARZON region in Southem Luzon, the Philippine government's model for NIChood and rapid industrialization. Those interested in trade liberalization's impact on the environment and food security can meet affected communities and visit areas in the Visayas, while those concerned with the implications of investment liberalization on land and labor rights can visit provinces in Mindanao. After two days of discussion in Manila, the People's Forum will culminate in an Intemational People's Caravan to the APEC Leaders' Summit in Subic to present the resolutions of the People's Forum. Preparatory Activities Although the Manila People's Forum will be the central activity of people's organizations and NGOs in response to the APEC Leaders' Summit, other initiatives will also be held leading up to the forum. For the NG0 and P0 community in the Philippines tasked with hosting the 1996 parallel APEC forum, just as vital to the entire process of preparing and hosting the People's Forum is their definition of their own country position on and agenda for the APEC, and the unification and consolidation of these positions. Such a process is important not only to ensure a coherent Philippine P0-NG0 position on the APEC and the liberalization agenda that it carries; it will also lead to more grounded, energized and motivated preparations for the forum proper. The formulation of the Philippine Agenda on the APEC will be undertaken through various phases. Initially, task forces or clusters have been convened around the four major themes identified in line with the People's Forum; these clusters on people's rights, labor and migrant rights, economic and social development, environment and ecology, and democratization and governance are meeting regularly to hammer out initial documents and agenda points that can be used as take-off for discussions on the people's agenda for the APEC. Local and regional processes discussing and fleshing out these initial agenda points will then be held in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. The results of these local processes will then be synthesized and consolidated during the Philippine P0-NG0 Summit on APEC currently scheduled on July 4-5, 1996. The present 120 member organizations that make up the Philippine Hosting Committee (PHC) meets at least once a month. A Steering Committee, composed of heads and selected members of each Technical Working Group was formed to oversee the preparations and conduct of the Manila People's Forum. A Secretariat was also formed. Mr. Horacio Morales of the Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM) was tasked to chair the PHC, while Ms. June Rodriguez of the Rural Enlightenment & Accretion in Philippine Society (REAPS) and Mr. Romeo Royandoyan of the Philippine Peasant Institute (PPI) were selected to serve as coordinators. Several committees or task forces, including the Intemational Convenors Committee (ICC) have also been formed to zero in on the various technical preparations (e.g., venue, invitations and confirmation of delegates, pre-summit field visits, forum programme flow, resource mobilization, etc,) needed for this forum. International and Regional Participation To ensure maximum participation from among the international delegates, the Philippine Hosting Committee encourages groups from the various participating countries to undertake their own preparatory processes prior to the November Forum. Organizations in each of the countries intending to participate in the Manila forum are encouraged to form their own country committees on the APEC 1996 summit. These committees will not only coordinate in-country preparations for the Manila People's Forum, but are also expected to consensually draft a country paper on the implications of APEC and/or economic liberalization on people's rights, labor and migrant rights, socio-economic development, the environment and ecology, and democratization and governance. Country papers should also strive to forward concrete alternatives or define altemative policies that could be recommended to the APEC Leaders' Summit. These recommendations could be framed and directed toward the various committees, working groups and task forces around which the APEC is organized. These include the Committee on Trade and Investment, Economic Committee, and Budget and Administrative Committee, all of which are under the direction of APEC Senior Officials and Ministers; and the working groups on Human Resources Development (labor sector), Trade and Investment Data, Energy, Transportation, Telecommunications, Tourism, Fisheries, Marine Resource Conservation, Trade Promotion, Agricultural Technology, Small and Medium-scale Enterprises, and, Industrial Science and Technology. Country committees, however, are free to frame their recommendations in the manner which they feel will most sufficiently cover the issues they wish to address. Delegates to the Manila People's Forum are also asked to participate not only in the forum proper to be held in Manila in November, but also in the pre-summit regional forum and the field visits and fact-finding missions that will be held in conjunction with these preliminary fora. Further details on these pre-summit fora and field visits will be provided as soon as these are finalized. The hosting committee is also open to suggestions from international delegates as to specific areas of interest that they may want to visit or look into more deeply while in the Philippines Hosting the Manila People's Forum on APEC '96 will necessitate a large amount of resources that the hosting committee will have to mobilize; the hosting committee will likely be unable to generate enough funds to shoulder the travel and preparatory expenses of all participants to the forum. International delegates and country committees are thus asked to undertake their own resource mobilization initiatives, not only to allow them to send delegates to Manila, but also to cover the preparatory processes that they may decide to go through to finalize their own papers or positions on APEC. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Documentation for Action Groups in Asia (DAGA) 96, 2nd District, Pak Tin 'Village Mei Tin Road, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong Tel : (852) 2691 6391/ 2691 1068 ext 54 Fax: (852) 2697 1912 E-mail: daga@hk.super.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From daga at HK.Super.NET Sun Aug 4 20:15:30 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 19:15:30 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 24] MPFA contact persons Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960804191027.0c977914@is1.hk.super.net> For further information about the Manila People's Forum on APEC 1996, please contact the following: Mr. Romeo Royandoyan Coordinator, Philippine Hosting Committee c/o Philippine Peasant Institute (PPI) Rm. 319 PSSC Bldg. Commonwealth Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines Telephones: (632) 929 6211; 922 9621 locals 314 & 339 Telefax: (632) 924 3767 E-mail: omi.apec@gaia.psdn.iphil.net Ms. JuneRodriguez Coordinator, Philippine Hosting Committee c/o Rural Enlightenment & Accretion in Philippine Society (REAPS) Rm. 305 UCCP Bldg., 877 EDSA, Quezon City, Philippines Telephone: (632) 924 02 19 local 20; 411 6060 Fax: (632) 924 02 07 Ms. Violeta Corral Convenor, International Convenor's Group on APEC c/o Asian NGO Coalition on Agrarian Reform & Rural Development (ANGOC) #14-A Eleventh Jamboree Street, Kamuning Quezon City, Philippines Telephones: (062) 99 33 15; 97 30 19 Telefax: (632) 921 5122 Mr. Ed Tadem Convenor, International Convenor's Group on APEC c/o Asian Regional Exchange for New Altematives (ARENA) Flat B1, 2/F Great George Bldg. 27 Paterson Street, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong Telephone: (852) 2805 6193 Fax: (852) 2504 2986 E-mail: arena@hk.net Dr. Walden Bello c/o Focus on the Global South (FOCUS) c/o CUSRI, Wisit Prachuabmoh Bldg., Chulalongkorn University, Phyathai Rd., Bangkok 10330 Thailand Telephone: (66 2) 218 7363, 64 & 65 Fax: (66 2) 255 9976 E-mail: focus@ksc9.th.com Website:http:/ /www.nautilus.org./focusweb/focus.html Manila People's Forum on APEC '96 From daga at HK.Super.NET Sun Aug 4 20:15:26 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 19:15:26 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 25] MPFA calendar of activities Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960804191024.0c977cb0@is1.hk.super.net> Manila People's Forum on APEC 1996 Summary of Activities I. Philippine preparatory work: unification and consolidation process 1. Installation and operationalization of the Philippine Secretariat 2. Philippine agenda formulation a. Regular cluster meetings, symposiums/workshops and public hearings (on people's rights, labor and migrant rights, economic and social development, environment and ecology, democratization and governance) b. Regional and local processes on the APEC agenda (Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao) c. Pre-summit document preparations 3. Philippine PO-NGO Summit on APEC, July 4-5, 1996 4. Resource mobilization and technical preparations a. Fund raising b. Formation and operationalization of preparatory task forces c. Invitation and confirmation of delegates (local and international) 5. International Women's Conference on APEC November 14-16, 1996 II. International Pre-Summit Fora and Field Visits 1. Regional Forum on People's Rights, to include the concerns of indigenous peoples, women, and other rights abuse victims. Also to include originally planned cluster forum on politics and governance-- to raise the issue of increasing government transparency and accountability, as well as to push for increased participation for grassroots groups, NGOs and civil society in general in the realm of govemance and empowerment. Venue: Tagaytay City 2. Regional Forum on Labor and Migrant Rights, to center on the concerns of labor and migrant workers. Venue: Tagaytay City 3. Regional Forum on Economic and Social Development, to include the issues of food security, small and medium entrepreneurs, small farmers and fisherfolk, fair trade, economic sovereignty in trade and investment, and cooperatives development. Venue: Davao City 4. Regional Forum on Ecology and Environment, to focus on the implications of trade and investment liberalization on the prospects for sustainable, ecologically sound development. Venue: Cebu City III. Manila People's Forum on APEC '96 Two-day summit to be held in Manila on 22-23 November 1996. To be attended by some 300 local and international delegates from people's organizations, NGOs and citizens' groups from across the Asia-Pacific region. IV. International People's Caravan A multi-sectoral, multi-cultural caravan from Manila to Subic to formally present the resolutions of the Manila People's Forum to the official APEC Leader's Summit delegates, as well as to the general public. The International People's Caravan will also include cyclists who advocate for peace and sustainable mode of transportation. Calendar of Activities 17-26 November 1996 Day 1 (17 November, Sunday) > Arrival of participants > Briefing and Orientation Day 2-4 (18-20 November) > Asia Pacific Pre-Summit Fora 1. Asia-Pacific Forum on People's Rights (to include Politics and Governance) (Tagaytay City) 2. Asia-Pacific Forum on Labor and Migrant Rights (Tagaytay City) 3. Asia-Pacific Forum on Economic and Social Development (Davao City) 4. Asia-Pacific Forum on Ecology and Environment (Cebu City) > Exposure to urban and rural communities > Dialogue with farmers, workers, fisherfolks, indigenous peoples, human rights and other grassroots organizations Day 5 (21 November, Thursday) > Back to Manila > People's Concert Day 6-7 (22-23 November) > Manila People's Forum on APEC '96 Day 8-9 (24-25 November) >International People's Caravan Day 10 (26 November, Tuesday) Departure of participants From ECUMENE at chollian.dacom.co.kr Fri Aug 9 09:50:18 1996 From: ECUMENE at chollian.dacom.co.kr (YoungCheol Cheonn) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 09:50:18 +0900 Subject: [asia-apec 26] address change request.t. Message-ID: <199608090050.JAA06484@chollian.dacom.co.kr> Greetings from Korea. I want my E-Mail address change in your mailing list. My new address is ccas@nownuri.nowcom.co.kr Thank you. ----------------------------------------- Cheon Young-Cheol Christian Center for Asian Studies Korea ----------------------------------------- From daga at HK.Super.NET Tue Aug 13 11:17:46 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 10:17:46 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 27] from the e-conference facilitator Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960813101239.27bf9e6e@is1.hk.super.net> Friends, for those especially with direct Internet access, kindly do not just press the forward key or the reply icon when responding, as in the example of the 3 postings which we all received again! I will be out of the office starting today and will return by Tuesday, Aug 12. I have asked Tattsan of Japan Computer Access to serve as facilitator in the meantime. If you need to contact him, he can be reached at . Thank you so much. Mario Mapanao ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Documentation for Action Groups in Asia (DAGA) 96, 2nd District, Pak Tin 'Village Mei Tin Road, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong Tel : (852) 2691 6391/ 2691 1068 ext 54 Fax: (852) 2697 1912 E-mail: daga@hk.super.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From daga at HK.Super.NET Tue Aug 13 20:01:26 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 19:01:26 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 28] APEC Watch #7 Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960813185619.0a47332a@is1.hk.super.net> APEC WATCH #7 July 1996 A publication of the ad hoc International Convenors Committee of the November MANILA PEOPLE'S FORUM ON APEC '96 SUMMARY REPORT Philippine PO-NGO Summit on APEC 04-05 July 1996 ISO, Ateneo de Manila University Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Philippines The Philippine Hosting Committee of the Manila People's Forum on APEC 1996 sponsored the Philippine PO-NGO Summit on APEC on 04-05 July. The Conference was held at the Institute of Social Order, Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights, Quezon City. More than 300 representatives of non-government and people's organizations, the academic community and even part of the business sector representing small and medium entrepreneurs attended the forum. Despite the emergence of several contentious issues and concerns, the Conference was a success. The biggest and clearest indication of this success was the drafting of the Summit Statement that captures the complexity of peoples' sentiments on the APEC. (See Box.) The opening session of the Conference featured three speeches. Hon. Wigberto Tanada, member of the Lower House of the Philippine Congress, cited the inadequacy in the Philippine government's handling of the APEC process, not least of which is the lack of transparency and absence of consultation with the people. Dr. Walden Bello, chair of the International Convenors Committee, decried APEC's vision of fast-tracking liberalization because it does not really serve the interest of the Philippines and the Filipino people. Ms. Eva dela Merced of the Broad Initiative for Negros Development (BIND) criticized the insensitivity of the liberalization agenda to women's, especially peasant women's, concerns and its inability to address the question of sustainable agriculture. The Conference held five separate workshops on the different issue clusters of (1) ecology and environment, (2) labor and migrant rights, (3) people's rights, (4) democratization and governance, and (5) social and economic development. The workshops served as the basis for the formulation of the Philippine PO-NGO critique and agenda on the APEC. The Philippine PO-NGO stand on the APEC was discussed in plenary. A number of ideas were raised, and although the Conference was not able to resolve every one of these, there was great promise that the process of discussion will continue. Following are some of the major issues discussed: (A) General Stance on the APEC How do Philippine POs and NGOs view APEC? What should be the approach to APEC? The consensus was to oppose but at the same time engage APEC towards the pursuit of alternative regional cooperation and development. Specifically, the Conference registered its opposition to the economic philosophy espoused by, and the overall model of development embodied in the APEC. However, the Conference recognized the need to engage the APEC as well as the government if POs and NGOs are to effectively forward their criticisms, analyses, and concrete alternatives to APEC. The different sentiments can be summarized as follows: 1. There is need to pursue genuine people to people cooperation even outside the APEC processes. 2. Peoples should develop alternatives to the APEC. 3. The US' role in fast-tracking the liberalization agenda within the APEC must be exposed. 4. The government should be held accountable for the untransparent processes of the APEC. 5. Stress should be given on the negative effects of APEC on peoples. 6. There is need for information campaign on the evils of mindless liberalization. 7. POs and NGOs should link with business and civil society in the pursuit of genuine development. (B) Elements and Principles of Alternative Development Model The Conference agreed that for development to be meaningful, the following elements must be present: 1. sustainability, equity and gender equity Development should respond to human needs and should promote prople's rights. Genuine development implies that people have effective control over resources, and that people are able to actively and effectively participate in the development process. Development should also ensure that priorities are determined by the people, and that various sectors get their fair share of its fruits. Development should be reflective of and responsive to existing conditions. It should be sustainable not only for the present generation but for future generations as well. Development should be gender fair - responsive to the needs of, and must recognize the contributions of women. 2. respect for and protection of people's and human rights Indigenous people's rights and the ancestral domain issues should be addressed. NGOs should be included at all levels of the process, and consultations with affected sectors is a must before any project can proceed. The right to self-determination is not limited to political but spans social and economic rights as well. 3. There should be a recognition of interdependence of countries, communities and peoples. Moves for regional cooperation should not only be for trade, but should include other points of concern and cooperation including labor laws and environmental issues. (C) The Role of the State What should be the role of the state in the development process? The state has many roles that include the following: 1. formulation of development plans and policies 2. promotion and safeguard of people's welfare including delivery of basic services 3. responsibility to promote genuine people's participation 4. defense of people against the ravages of market forces 5. protection of the national patrimony and sovereignty 6. recognition and implementation of pro-people international covenants (D) Principles to Guide Regional Cooperation 1. Cooperation, not competition, should constitute the principal aspect of economic relation between countries. 2. Fair trade, not free trade. 3. Subsidiarity, localization and decentralization 4. Local self-sufficiency/encouraging communities to produce 5. Principal reliant on local rather than foreign resources 6. Moves towards regional cooperation should be based on common concerns e.g., common Labor Code, common Environmental Code. 7. Peoples' and communities' (and not corporation's) control over trade/ 8. Mutually beneficial interdependence of and solidarity among peoples In sum, the Conference position hinges on three elements: (1) the opposition to the transformation of APEC into a free trade bloc; (2) the opposition to the undemocratic and untransparent processes of the APEC; and (3) the opposition to the Ramos government's emerging role in the transformation of APEC as a free trade bloc. A day after the Conference, a press briefing was held at the Philippine Social Science Center Building in Diliman, Quezon City. The compiled documentation of the July 04-05 Philippine PO-NGO Summit and the Philippine agenda will be out by the second week of September. This will then be subject to another round of consultation with Philippine groups and experts. HIDDEN COSTS OF FREE TRADE STATEMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE PO-NGO SUMMIT ON THE APEC If the Ramos government is to be believed, APEC is nothing less than the Philippines' ticket to economic salvation. With an all-too familiar combination of bullish rhetoric and doomsday scenarios reminiscent of the GATT-UR debates, government is plying the public with promises of APEC-induced growth, jobs, and all-around prosperity. This, even as it warns of economic isolation and stagnation should we fail to live up to APEC's sweeping liberalization vision, a vision that has been defined and controlled by the US and Australia from its inception. We, the people's organizations and development NGOs represented at this summit--we who have felt and witnessed the grave human and ecological costs brought on by the neoliberal framework that the APEC represents--beg to differ. We know only too well what the freeing up of markets and investment regimes implies. In its SAP and GATT guises, liberalization has meant the marginalization of small farmers unable to compete with heavily-subsidized produce and unable to defend their farmland from arbitrary land conversions and agrarian reversals; the undermining of fisherfolk's rights over coastal and marine resources; the trampling of indigenous and Moro peoples' rights to self-determination and to their ancestral domain; the violent demolition of urban poor communities and their dislocation from their homes and jobs; the pawning of labor's rights to self-organization, decent wages and job security in favor of the steady infusion of investments; the exodus of Filipino men and women to jobs abroad peddled by the government itself. The list goes on. All these costs are borne to a harsher degree by the country's women, who not only bear the multiple burdens of poverty, but are also unrecognized and discriminated upon in their efforts to assure their and their families' survival. Its toll will also be felt to a deeper degree by future generations, as its growth-at-all-costs framework heedlessly extracts resources and plunders our ecosystems without regard for the future. Stung by past experiences and continued marginalization of peoples whom we seek to represent, we look with deep suspicion upon APEC's concept of cooperation that is hinged on the establishment of an Asia Pacific free trade regime by the year 2020. We reject APEC and its anti-democratic, unaccountable and untransparent processes. We are committed to engage APEC and the Philippine government in our pursuit of genuine people to people cooperation in the Asia Pacific region, and in our desire to put forward concrete development alternatives that place highest value on the right to self-determination, sustainability, equality, and economic, political, social and gender equity and justice. We shall continue to resist the onslaught of economic liberalization against peoples and communities even as we continue to build these alternatives. In this light, we call for changing the current US-driven, market-led, growth-oriented development strategy to one that is centered on people and nature, and ensures equity and participation across genders, classes, sectors, cultures, and generations. We aspire for nothing less than total human and ecological development, one that does not divorce economic gains from its social, political, ecological and cultural dimensions. We call for a new development path where women and men are empowered participants and equal beneficiaries, through a framework that works for equity, food security and ecological balance. We also call for fair trade, socially-responsible investments, and genuine regional cooperation that places communities and peoples at the core, and that upholds and respects subsidiarity, local self-sufficiency and self-determination. We urge the use of alternative growth indicators such as the community net-worth in lieu of the traditional measures of growth in redefining development. We demand from the Asia-Pacific leaders full adherence to the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights; the immediate ratification of the International Convention on Labor and Migrant Rights; and to advance genuine people's rights and welfare in the region in the pursuit of regional cooperation. We demand government to promote and safeguard the people's welfare, and to assume the responsibility for the efficient, effective and equitable delivery of basic social services. We demand government to protect and uphold the national patrimony and sovereignty, to desist from being an instrument of the US in its narrow interests in the region, and to protect and defend the people from the ravages of market forces. We demand government to promote genuine and effective people's participation in the formulation of national development plans and policies that are gender-specific, sustainable, just and equitable. We strongly condemn and hold the Ramos government accountable for the massive APEC-driven, anti-people campaign that has displaced peoples, communities and livelihood. We call upon people's movements, in the Philippines, Asia-Pacific, and across the world, to join in unmasking the hidden costs of the neoliberal agenda being peddled by APEC and other instruments of the global market. We also urge peoples and communities to deepen their understanding of the globalization process and its consequences, and to continue forging, advocating and practicing alternative development paradigms that promote and ensure equitable and sustainable development. We commit ourselves to pursuing mutually beneficial interdependence of and solidarity among peoples--be it with or without APEC, in engagements with government, through Congress or the courts, or in caravans and mobilizations on the streets, and in movements within and across borders, in all forms of just struggles. We believe that the daunting challenges of globalization and the inexorable pace of development aggression demand no less. INSIGHTS RP's Blueprint for APEC: Roadmap to Prosperity? by Dr. Walden Bello* The Philippine Government's blueprint for its role in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) is finally out, and the only one looking good is the Asia Foundation. Blueprint Funded by Asia Foundation The Asia Foundation funded the research and writing that went into APEC and Philippines: Catching the Next Wave to the tune of P350,000. The Foundation undoubtedly meant well, but why is a foreign funding agency underwriting the production of the Philippine government's basic strategy towards APEC? This is a question that is bugging even some participants in the policy-making process. The reason does not have to do with the Asia Foundation seeking to influence Philippine policy, says one of those intimately involved in the enterprise, who refuses to be identified. "The government should have paid for the research," he says. "But its priorities are wrong. Government money is going to the palabas and to the security of the APEC bigwigs rather than to substantive stuff." Launched at a Department of Foreign Affairs event featuring President Fidel Ramos on Friday, June 21, the report is about five months late--to the frustration of many people involved in the APEC process. Even more frustrating to them, the report is said to omit or distort many views expressed during the National Preparatory Summit for APEC held on December 10, 1995, the resolutions of which were supposed to be the basis of the policy paper. But was the policy paper worth waiting for? First, the positive side. Perhaps the most solid essay is the one on "APEC and Sustainable Development," which might be described as one long word of caution about the threat to the environment posed by the sort of blanket trade liberalization that is the core of APEC. "With wrong incentives and absence of the proper safeguards," it warns, "a liberal trade and investment regime is equally likely to exert pressure to exploit or deplete resources more rapidly than otherwise." Unfortunately, the sustainable development chapter is a minority voice in a book that otherwise celebrates the trade and investment liberalization that APEC represents. Where is Agriculture? But before the rest of the APEC blueprint is analyzed, it must be noted that there is something very important missing, and that is the government's policy on APEC and agriculture. This is, of course, a serious omission since agricultural liberalization has been one of the main bones of contention in APEC. Last year, the Osaka Summit nearly foundered on the insistence by Japan, China, South Korea, and Taiwan--with the informal backing of Indonesia and Malaysia--that agriculture be excluded from the APEC liberalization agenda. Does the Philippine government back its neighbors? Or does it back the US position that APEC is a "GATT-plus arrangement"--that is, one that will initiate a faster and more thoroughgoing liberalization of agriculture than what APEC countries have committed themselves to under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)? It might be noted in this connection that the US is fairly transparent about the reasons for its insistence that agricultural liberalization be central to the APEC agenda: the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that two-thirds of the global increase anticipated for farm exports to the year 2000 will take place in the Asia-Pacific region, and it wants to make sure that by that time this market, including the Philippines, will absorb some 60 per cent of US agricultural exports, up from the already large 40 per cent it accounts for currently. IT: RP's Agenda or Microsoft's? The section on Information Technology is great on data but simply misleading in its conclusions and downright irresponsible in its key recommendation to "strictly enforce intellectual property rights." To say that strict adherence to and enforcement of "Intellectual Property Rights" will result in the more rapid adoption of information technology (IT) and in a more competitive IT industry in the Philippines is simply false. Strict IPR enforcement will raise the price of software and computer hardware, much of which is now affordable in the current looser IPR enforcement regime. For one thing, tight enforcement will radically raise the costs of the government's data and information operations since, as pointed out by, among others, the United States Trade Representative's Office report on trade and intellectual property for 1996, the Philippine government is currently one of the country's biggest users of unlicensed software. Strict IPR enforcement will also act to dampen local innovation owing to the royalty payments that innovators will have to pay US and Japanese information giants like Microsoft or IBM for patented technologies that are the building blocks of advances in software and hardware. This is not speculation: Korean firms like Samsung and Hyundai have had their efforts to innovate in integrated circuits blocked by the US firms Texas Instruments and Intel's charges of intellectual piracy and demands for excessive royalty payments. IPR enforcement is a US agenda, not a Philippine one, and perhaps one reason it has been smuggled into the Philippine government position is that Bill Gates' Viceroy to this country, Michael Hart, general manager of Microsoft Philippines, made an aggressive input into the document. Another reason is also unstated: the Philippines is coming up for review by the United States Trade Representative's Office in October, and the government desperately wants to leave Washington's "watch list" of IPR violators before the APEC Summit. Foreign Affairs Undersecretary Federico Macaranas and the other brains behind the volume should just have been more honest and stated baldly that the reason the government wants tighter IPR enforcement is that it faces US trade sanctions otherwise, instead of trying to prove the impossible: that the higher IT costs this would entail would be a boost to the spread of IT in this country. Arming SMEs with Slingshots Championing SMEs (small and medium enterprises) is a popular stance these days. The report adopts this posture, but it does a great disservice to the SME sector by prescribing a cure that is likely to worsen its current status. Opening up to the winds of international competition via trade and investment liberalization, it says, will work to the benefit of the SMEs. This is hard to believe, since by the paper's own description, "Except for a few SMEs at the international best practice frontier, the overwhelming majority are characterized by low levels of productivity, stemming primarily from the inadequate supply of complementary inputs of capital and skilled human resources." Moreover, entrepreneurial and managerial skills are in short supply, "causing high death rates among SMEs." >From the experience of other economies, the key to survival of SMEs is strong state support in the form of judicious protection against unfair foreign competition and anti-monopoly action against unfair trading practices by large local firms. But this is precisely the sort of effective "state intervention" that the proponents of trade and investment liberalization in APEC would like to outlaw. The report's recommendations--providing SMEs training in business, access to information technology, access to information about markets, and access to credit--are tantamount to equipping them with slingshots in the rough and tumble world of liberalized regional trade and investment dominated by aggressive American, Japanese, and NIC conglomerates. Mistaken Focus on Investment Code Liberalization The key recommendation of the paper on investment is despite the liberalization of the foreign investment code over the last ten years, it still is not liberal enough to attract foreign investors. Thus, retail trade must be opened up to foreign investors, and negative lists, or lists of industries in which foreign investors are banned or restricted, must be scrapped. And further measures must be taken to enhance the security of "foreign land tenure." The idea is to become the most friendly foreign investment code in the Asia-Pacific, to come up with a code that would basically give foreign investors "national treatment," or providing them with equal rights as domestic investors. The problem with this approach is that it simply is not true that the best way to attract foreign investors is by giving them royal treatment. Indeed, a comparative look at our Asian neighbors shows that despite the fact that they have had more restrictive foreign investment codes than the Philippines over the last decade, they have nevertheless attracted far greater amounts of investment than this country. An examination of Japanese investment patterns, for instance, reveals that between 1988 and 1993, $6.0 billion went to Indonesia, $5.3 billion into Thailand, $4.2 billion into Malaysia, and $2.2 billion into Taiwan. Even South Korea, which US government sources regularly denounce as having one the world's most restrictive investment codes, if not the most illiberal one, got $2.1 billion, compared to the Philippines' $1.1 billion over the same period. The reason foreign investors favor an economy does not lie in the relative liberality of its foreign investment code relative to others but elsewhere. The report tries to prove its case by citing the complaints of foreign investors, but foreign investors will always find cause to complain, even if you have already given them the store--lock, stock, and barrel. One difference between Philippine and, say, Malaysian technocrats is that the former take the foreign investors' bitching seriously while the latter take them with a grain of salt. The Go-It Alone Trade Lib Strategy: Stroke of Genius or Madness? The core of the blueprint is the section of trade liberalization, and here the government's stance is that whether or not our neighbors move toward trade liberalization, the Philippines must continue inexorably on the path of the trade reforms, to complete its program of unilateral liberalization that will bring about a uniform tariff for all goods of five per cent by 2004. To use the words of Dr. Jesus Estanislao, the Filipino representative to the (now disbanded) Eminent Persons' Group, the Philippines must "bear the burden of APEC leadership by example." Or as President Ramos puts it, "We must blaze the trail that others must follow." Brave words but pure bravado. If our neighbors like Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, and China have been, in contrast to our government, so resistant to the American-prescription of blanket liberalization, there is a reason for this, and the reason is that state intervention in the area of trade--which included both judicious protectionism when it came to the domestic market and mercantilism (aggressively subsidizing their exporters) when it came to international markets--has been a central reason for their success. It is this factor--the creative role of state intervention in trade to correct the imperfections of the international market and give one's exporters a leg up in international competition--that the introduction to the blueprint deliberately overlooks when it ascribes the East Asian industrialization experience solely to two sources: markets and technology. Visionaries are said to be either geniuses or madmen, and given the realities of international economic realpolitik and the indispensability of interventionist trade policy management in the experience of late industrializers like our neighbors, the RP vision of "leading by example," of "going it alone" even if our Asian neighbors do not dance to Washington's siren song of liberalization is unlikely to be a stroke of genius. This is the problem with technocrats who have not experienced what it takes to develop and keep one's economy afloat in a harsh world where established powers, like the United States, advance their corporations' interests by any means possible, be it GATT, APEC or unilateral measures like Super 301, who have no understanding of the role of power in international economic transactions. As an Asian economist once remarked to me, the difference between Filipino economists and technocrats is that the Filipinos imbibe Chicago School free trade theory as academics and try to implement it when they get into government, whereas other Asian economists might praise free trade when in the company of the Americans and Australians but, in practice, they protect their economies like hell. There is, however, one important APEC actor that will applaud the sentiments and policy proposals of "APEC: Catching the Next Wave," and that is Washington. For the proposals fall right into its game plan of having the Ramos government, as host of the 1996 Summit, put back on track the US' free trade agenda that was derailed by the Asian countries during the Osaka APEC Summit last year. [] *Dr. Walden Bello is co-director of Focus on the Global South, and Chair of the International Convenors Committee of the Manila People's Forum on APEC 1996. ORGANIZING FOR NOVEMBER International Convenors Committee s in HongKong The following were taken from the official minutes of the June 27 ICC meeting. Groups represented: Asian Regional Exchange for New Alternatives (ARENA), Asian Migrant Center (AMC), Asia Monitor Resource Center (AMRC), APEC Labor Rights Monitor (ALARM), Asian Center for the Progress of Peoples (ACPP), Asian Students Association (ASA), Christian Conference for Asia (CCA) - Urban Rural Mission, CCA - Indochina Concerns, CCA-International Affarirs, Committee for Asian Women (CAW), Documentation for Action Groups in Asia (DAGA), Red Mexicana Accion Frente Al Libre Comercio (RMALC), Asia Pacific Workers Solidarity Links (APWSL), Peoples' Plan for Twenty-First Century (PP21), World Student Christian Federation (WSCF) - Asia Pacific, Philippine Hosting Committee (PHC) Major decisions taken: 1. It was decided unanimously that Dr. Walden Bello be the chair of the ICC. The body also expressed confidence in the Secretariat in Manila composed of ANGOC and FOCUS. 2. It was decided that though the responsibility of selecting delegates was the task of the ICC, a committee will have to take the responsibility. Following the recommendations of the ICC Secretariat in Manila, the following committees were constituted. Other ICC groups are invited to join any committee/s. Selection Committee: AMRC, PARC, RMALC, FOCUS, ANGOC, DAGA, US Working Group, PHC Programme Committee: ARENA, APWSL, PHC Documentation Committee: DAGA/Interdoc-Asia, FOCUS, ALARM, ANGOC, PHC 3. It was agreed that the list of overseas participants finalised by the Selection Committee will be forwarded to the PHC. The PHC will go over the list and if there are disagreements, these will be sorted out mutually. Before the list is sent to PHC, it will be circulated to the ICC convenors. 4. The following selection criteria were adopted. The task is to maintain a proper balance between the criteria. a. Gender - fifty percent of participants must be women. b. Regional, sub-regional, country, international and regional organizations c. Programmatic - groups dealing with APEC issues, concerns and related programmes and those involved in the five issue clusters d. PO-NGO balance - trade unions, indigenous peoples, fisherfolk It was also decided that if there would be tough choices to be made, the priority would be letter c (programmatic criteria). This would be the bottom line. 5. It was observed that treating some participants as delegates and others as observers goes against the spirit of the Kyoto Declaration. The parameters laid down by APEC should be resisted. The meeting therefore strongly suggests that all NGO and PO participants from other countries outside the APEC region, especially South Asia, would also be delegates. The exception to this would be representative of funding agencies and media who would be observers. 6. To parallel APEC's "Eminent Persons' Group," it was decided to create a similar group within the PFA. Some persons suggested include Dr. Walden Bello, Dr. John Cavanagh, Jane Kelsey, Vandana Shiva, and others. This group would be asked to come up with the people's alternative model of regional cooperation. 7. It was also decided that HongKong groups take the initiative in promoting the PFA through the media in HongKong and strategise with them. Rex Varona of AMC was nominated to take the lead. 8. It was decided that HongKong groups as members of the ICC will make submissions for funding using the proposal that the PHC has prepared. June Rodriguez of the PHC will make the proposal available to HongKong groups. OPEN INVITATION Manila People's Forum on APEC 1996 "Fair Trade and Sustainable Development: Agenda for Regional Cooperation" This November, representatives from non-government organizations, people's organizations and social movements across the Asia Pacific will converge in Manila. This gathering is an effort to focus the attention of the international community-particularly the member-countries of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)-on the need to reflect the people's concerns for human rights, gender, social equity and environmental sustainability in the APEC agenda. Dubbed the 1996 People's Forum on the APEC, the Manila conference is the continuation of the initiative started in Kyoto in 1995 to provide a parallel process of peoples, communities and sectors affected by the free trade and economic integration agenda represented by the APEC. We expect 500 participants and (international and local) observers to the Manila People's Forum on APEC '96 (MPFA '96). Selection of the international participants to MPFA '96 are based on the following guidelines: ? Participants shall be determined according to the major issue clusters: people's rights, labor and migrant rights, economic and social development, ecology and environment, democratization and governance, gender and women in development. In the selection of participants, country-, issue-, and gender-balance will be observed. ? Country Convenors or Advisory Commitee will process nominations. The International Convenors Committee (ICC) will process nominations for groups/individuals from countries where no Convenors/Advisory committee exists, and for regional and international organizations. The Philippine Hosting Committee (PHC), and the Country Committees will finalize the list of delegates. ? The PHC will issue formal invitations to the participants starting August. Invitations are signed by PHC Chair Mr. Horacio Morales, Coordinator Mr. Romeo Royandoyan and Ms. June Rodriguez, and ICC Chair Dr. Walden Bello. ? A special subsidy scheme is being arranged to cover part of (if not fully) the travel expenses of delegates coming from developing economies. Participants coming from developed economies like the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea will be requested to shoulder travel expenses to the Philippines. ? A registration fee of US$200 each will be charged for foreign participants. This will cover accommodation, internal travel, and conference materials. ? MPFA '96 will allot seats for local and international observers, to include the media and individuals in the academe and other professions. International observers will shoulder their own travel and internal expenses in the Philippines. Calendar of Activities 15-24 November 1996 I. ASIA PACIFIC PRE-FORUM CONFERENCES (15-20 November) A. Pre-forum Conference on Women and Development (15-16 November) B. Exposure Trips and Community Integration (18 November) C. Four simultaneous Pre-forum Conferences on the major issue clusters prior to the Forum Proper will be held on 19-20 November. These are: 1. Pre-forum Conference on People's Rights and Democratization, to include the concerns of indigenous peoples, women, and other rights abuse victims; the conference will raise the issue of government transparency and accountability, and will push for increased participation for grassroots groups, NGOs and civil society movements in general in the realm of governance and empowerment. Venue: Development Academy of the Philippines, Tagaytay City (Note: The Cluster on Democratization and Governance was merged with the Cluster on People's Rights) 2. Pre-forum Conference on Labor and Migrant Rights, to center on the concerns of labor and migrant workers. Venue: Development Academy of the Philippines, Tagaytay City 3. Pre-forum Conference on Economic and Social Development, to include the issues of food security, small and medium entrepreneurs, small farmers and fisherfolk, fair trade, economic sovereignty, and cooperatives development. Venue: Davao City 4. Pre-forum Conference on Ecology and Environment, to focus on the implications of trade and investment liberalization on the prospects for sustainable, ecologically sound development. Venue: Cebu City II. MANILA PEOPLE'S FORUM ON APEC 1996 (FORUM PROPER): "Free Trade and Sustainable Development: Agenda for Regional Cooperation" (22-23 November) The Forum will serve as a venue for various organizations in the Asia Pacific region to develop a common understanding of the implications of unhampered trade on genuine economic, social and sustainable development. This common understanding will be the basis for coming up with appropriate responses to build and integrate social concerns on economic policy in view of APEC. One major output of the forum will be an alternative Peoples Agenda on APEC. To ensure maximum participation of international delegates, paticipating groups are requested to undertake their own preparatory processes prior to the November forum. They are encouraged to form their own country committees for the MPFA '96. These committees will coordinate in-country preparations for the Manila forum, and are expected to develop country critiques/papers on the implications of APEC on people's rights, labor and migrant rights, socio-economic development, the environment and ecology, and democratization and governance. Country papers should aim for concrete alternatives or define alternative policies. III. PEOPLE'S CARAVAN TO SUBIC (24 November) The People's Forum will culminate in an international People's Caravan that will feature a march of forum delegates, people's organizations, and representatives from the peasantry, labor, indigenous peoples, women, the Church and other sectors in a bid to present the resolutions of the Manila forum to the APEC Leaders' Summit in Subic. Cultural presentations, solidarity messages and various forms of people's actions will punctuate the caravan during its trek from Manila to Subic. * Programmes for the pre-forum conferences and the Forum Proper are being finalized. These will be published in subsequent issues of APEC Watch, and will be sent to the participants together with the invitation and registration form. APEC Watch Editorial Team Violeta Perez-Corral, ANGOC Pamela Asprer-Grafilo, PHC Jenina Joy Chavez-Malaluan, FOCUS Lay-out: Allen M. Mariano, PPI BE COUNTED! If you want to participate in the PFA '96 activities, please write and tell us so. We will be glad to send you information, and will be more than happy to receive inputs from you. Please address all inquiries re: PFA '96 to: The Secretariat Philippine Hosting Committee Manila People's Forum on APEC 1996 Room 209, PSSC Building, Commonwealth Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City, PHILIPPINES Tels.: (63-2) 929-6211/(63-2) 922-9621 loc. 315 Fax: (63-2) 924-3767 E-mail: omi.apec@gaia.psdn.iphil.net From ipk at pactok.peg.apc.org Tue Aug 13 20:01:55 1996 From: ipk at pactok.peg.apc.org (IPK by way of daga ) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 19:01:55 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 29] solidarity request from Sarawak Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960813185649.192f3812@is1.hk.super.net> Longhouse Communities Along Mile 27 to 38 Bintulu-Miri Road, Bintulu, Sarawak solicit your support On 17 July 1996, after the Miri High Court hearing on the case, Austral Enterprise Bhd - Rajawali warned the over 188 longhouse families who refused to be resettled that it would apply for an order to evict them from the disputed land. The lawyer for the company said that although an agreement was reached by the former lawyer of the settlers and company's, these families still disagreed with the proposed scheme of resettlement. The company lawyer further said that if these families refused to accept the resettlement scheme, ie. strictly three acres of land for each household, the company would file a suit against them for contempt of Court. However, the affected families, in a press conference before hearing, urged the authorities and the company concerned to respect the ADAT ASAL and Native Customary Rights of the people. These Iban families have been living and farming on the land for almost two decades. They are determine to defend their lands within the longhouse boundary. Meanwhile, High Court Judge, Mr.Tee Ah Sing has advised the defendants to engage a lawyer to further defend them for next hearing on 19 Sept, 96. This land dispute has started since 4 years ago. Since August 1993, 471 farmer families along 27-38 miles Bintulu-Miri Road received an eviction letter issued by Rajawali and Austral Enterprise. This letter informed the residents there to move to the opposite side of the road, where they will be allowed to stay as temporary squatters on company land upon signing of an agreement drafted by the two companies. Out of these 471 families, two hundred thirty-four (234) families (and now 188 over families) refused to be moved from their Lands that were created according to Native Customary Rights practice of the Dayak community with permission from the area Penghulu (District headman appointed by the government). They responded to the eviction letter by sending protest letters (twice) and also sent representatives to meet with the companies in the presence of local authority, the Resident. On 6th, october 1993, the residents again received another letter of eviction issued by Rajawali Estate and Austral Enterprises, who threatened to use Section 447 of the Penal Code against these families who refused to be moved from their Native Customary Rights (NCR) land. Sect. 447 of the Penal Code reads: "Punishment for criminal trespass - whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand ringgit, or with both." The families were given three months to move out from their own land to make way for the oil palm companies. They responded to the 6 January 1994 deadline with a three-day gawai (celebration) in Rh.Tungkus at Mile 28. On 12 Jan, the 14 headmen met with the Bintulu resident and officers of the Bintulu Land and Survey Department. Subsequently, a group of headmen and leaders went to Kuching on 31 Jan and 1 Feb, 1994 to meet with the authorities to resolve the dispute over the rightful ownership of land now under concession to AEB. When the group arrived at the Ministers' office (Chief Minister Taib Mahmud, and Minister of Environment James Wong, Minister of Land Development Celestine Ujang) they were told that these ministers were not around. In fact, letters of appointment were sent a week earlier before the actual visit. On 3 August, 1994 Austral filed a suit against these farmers in Miri High Court. The first hearing was held on 18 August, 1994. Below is the sequence of events which led to the situation faced by the longhouse communities in Bintulu. Date Chronology of events 1979 Construction of an LNG (liquified nitrogen gas) Plant in Bintulu was given to Dailam CO, who recruited thousands of native people from Kapit, Sarikei, Julau, Kanowit, Miri as construction labourers. 1981 LNG planted was completed and the native labourers stayed on to "berimba" (the felling of virgin jungle and the cultivation of the land thereby cleared, according to native customary rights in accordance with the native customary law, or Adat Asal). 1982 More people moved here from Pakan, Saratok, Kanowit, Kapit, Miri and Mukah. At this time, Anib Plantation, with a provisional lease of Crown Land, entered the area and opened a cocoa plantation at 46.6 to 62.7 km Bintulu-Miri Road (Lots 2080 and 2082 Kemena Land District). 1984 More than 100 families who have stayed for over 10 years wrote to the Land Survey Department, the Sarawak Chief Minister and Land Minister asking them to recognize the land they have stayed and farmed, according to Native Customary Rights (Adat), but there was no reply to their application. 30 Aug 85 Letter of application for recognition of Native Customary Rights to the land was sent again to the Chief Minister, attached with a letter from Tuai Rumah Bunsu ak Muyang from 25th Mile and Penghulu Entuba ak Bakol who was in-charge of the area. The attached letter stated that they had given permission for these Iban families to create NCR land according to the Native Adat along 27th to 30th mile, Bintulu- Miri Road. 13 Jan 86 Mr.Robert Segie, Pegawai Pentadbir Sarawak, Bintulu acknowledged the application of Tuai Rumah Minggu Ak Chagat for land between 27th to 30th mile, Bintulu-Miri Road. 9 Aug 86 A letter from Anib Plantation stating that Anib Plantation had only agreed to boundary from mile 27th to 29th, Bintulu-Miri to be allocated to the people and not to mile 30th as stated in Tuai Rumah Bunsu and Penghuluu Entuba's letter as well as in Mr. Robert Segie's letter. 23 Mar 87 Another application letter to the Chief Minister to grant native rights over land to mile 30th, in view of the expanding population. Mar 88 The expanded population had farmed up to area at mile 38, along this road. All the longhouses had applied in writing to either the Bintulu Resident or the Chief Minister for native rights over the land they settled and worked on. 11 Feb 93 Austral Enterprises Berhad (AEB) of West Malaysia and Anib Plantation called to meet longhouse representatives in the Resident's conference room to discuss land rights matter. No resolution from the meeting. Aug 1993 AEB and Rajawali Estate sent a letter to the people asking them to sign an Agreement (to move out of the land). Out of the total 471 families along the affected area, 234 families disagreed with the conditions of this agreement and did not sign. Sept 93 AEB in joint venture with Rajawali Estate started to clear the land. 6 Oct 93 AEB issued eviction letter to the 234 families (14 longhouses) along Mile 27 to 38th, giving them three months to move out. The families were determined to stay put on their land, despite the eviction letter. 5-7 Jan 94 About 800 people from the 14 longhouses along Mile 27 to Mile 38 along the Bintulu-Miri Road and friends from other areas, gathered for a Gawai Tuah Bansa Dayak (Celebration for Good Fortune) and Mengap (ritual poem) ceremony at Rumah Tungkus, Mile 28. The gawai, part and parcel of the Dayak communities' tradition, was held to unite the people from the 14 longhouses (234 families) who were being forced off their homes and lands by the use of power by AEB and its connections. 12 Jan 94 The heads of the 14 longhouses met with the Bintulu Resident and officers of the Bintulu Land and Survey Department. 24 Jan 94 Anib plantation transferred the two said lots along Bintulu-Miri Road to Austral Enterprise Bhd. 31/1-1/2/94 Representatives went to Kuching to meet various state Ministers, but they were told that the ministers were all not around. 12 Apr 94 Austral Bhd, together with Bintulu Resident and official of Land Survey, called the representatives of affected households to a dialogue meeting at Austral's plantation office. 3 Aug 94 Austral filed a suit against the settled families in Miri High Court. 18 Oct 94 First High Court hearing at Bintulu. 16 Feb 95 Second hearing at Bintulu. Plaintiff lawyer requested for postponement to answer questions raised by defendants' counsel. The Court agreed with cost to be paid by the plaintiff. 28 Feb 95 About 9.00am, Iban folks Headman Kutau, Batut, Rampai, Kadir, Edwin, and Ajang's NCR farm land were being encroached by Austral Enterprise Sdn Bhd. The said company planted oil palm trees on their "temuda" without permission. The 6 persons lodged a police report at Bintulu Central Police Station on the matter on 12/5/1995 seeking the police to investigate and take action on the said company. The land dispute between the said company and over 200 Iban families in the area is pending in the High Court and the next hearing was fixed on 26 July 1995. 26 July 95 The High Court agreed to counsels of both parties to work out settlement outside the court. Next hearing fixed on September, 1995. 27 Sep 95 The High Court Justice Richard Malanjun approved the 15 longhouses involved in the dispute to stay put at their existing localities. Each of the 209 households will get less than three acres or more for practical purposes. The areas and boundaries between longhouses and the company were to be determined and surveyed by Austral together with the defendants. The sketch map of the defendants is to be used as a guide. This formulated agreed between the lawyers of both parties should be implemented, if possible, within the next six month. The case was adjourned to 27 Mar. 1996 27 Mar 96 The case was further adjourned to 17 July 1996 as the survey works are still yet to be completed. The affected longhouses are: Rh.Minggu (Batu 28) Rh.Tungkus (Batu 28) Rh.Kujah (Batu 28) Rh.Mesa (Batu 28) Rh.Chawong (Batu 28) Rh.Radin (Batu 28) Rh.Jemat (Batu 29) Rh.Sampang (Batu 30) Rh.Kutau (Batu 31) Rh.Paing (Batu 31) Rh.Mujah (Batu 31) Rh.Kemey (Batu 34) Rh.Kakong (Batu 36) Rh.Nyumbu (Batu 31 1/2) DEMANDS OF THE PEOPLE: 1. That the lands which they are living and farming on, according to the sketch maps of each longhouse, to be alienated fully to them. " Strictly three acres per household" as insisted by Austral is impossible for a household of eight to earn a living in Bintulu. 2. That their Native Customary Rights over their lands to be legally and fully recognized by the authorities and the company concerned. To the AEB 1. That AEB recognizes and respects the Sarawak indigenous peoples' rights to their land created according to Adat; and 2. That AEB stops disturbing the people's temuda ( Adat land). Compensation for damages of the farms should be paid to those families affected in February 1995. What is Austral Enterprises Berhad (AEB)? Austral Enterprises Berhad is a subsidiary of the Island and Peninsular Group (I&P) under the Permodalan Nasional Berhad (PNB). The PNB was set up under the Federal Government's New Economic Policy (NEP) to increase bumiputera participation in corporate equity. Some of the AEB directors are also said to be 'big shots' in I&P and PNB. I&P was incorporated in November 1963, largely dealing with housing/property development. In brief, PNB acquired substantial stake in I&P when the holder Pernas sold it to PNB in 1981. In 1984 I&P became an investment holding company. Today, I&P has also diversified into the plantation sector. According to the Managing Director of I&P, Md.Yusof Hussin, "I&P needs to diversity its source of income and plantation gives us a good base; 30 per cent of our income is derived from the plantation sector." (Business Trends, TV3, 4/2/94). AEB bought over the portions of land along Bintulu-Miri Road from Anib Plantations . However, Anib who owned the land since 1982, had not worked on the whole area all through the years until the eventual sale to AEB. Who's Who in AUSTRAL ENTERPRISES BERHAD (AEB) Company Director:- Tunku Tan Sri Imran Ibni Tuanku Jaafar, a member of the royal family from Negeri Sembilan, West Malaysia. He is also the director of Island and Peninsular Berhad (Group), the Chartered Bank Trustee (M) Berhad, Aluminium Company of Malaysia Berhad and the Arab-Malaysian Merchant Bank Berhad. Company Director:- Bustari bin Haji Yusuf, a Sarawakian Malay. Advocate and Solicitor:- Shahrizhat @ Shahrizat bt. Abdul Jalil. Also director of the Island and Peninsular (Group). West Malaysian. The remaining seven directors are all from West Malaysia; six are Malays and one is a Chinese. Two are also directors of I&P (Group). WHAT YOU CAN DO? Please write polite letters, as a single person or as an organisation, to the Chief Minister of Sarawak, Minister of Land and Development and the Directors and shareholders of Austral Enterprises Berhad (AEB). ADDRESSES: Sarawak Government YAB Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri Haji Abdul Taib Mahmud Chief Minister of Sarawak Tingkat 22, Wisma Bapa Malaysia Petra Jaya, 93502 Kuching Sarawak, Malaysia YB Datuk Celestine Ujang anak Jilan Sarawak Land Development Minister Kementerian Kemajuan Tanah Tingkat 5, Wisma Bapa Malaysia Petra Jaya, 93502 Kuching Sarawak, Malaysia Austral Enterprises Berhad (AEB) Tunku Tan Sri Imran Company Director 115-A, Antah Tower Off Jalan Kuching 51200 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia (residential address) Bustari bin Haji Yusuf Company Director Lot 251, Jalan Bunga Tongkeng Kg.Gita, Kuching Sarawak (residential address) Shahrizhat @ Shahrizat bt. Abdul Jalil Advocate and Solicitor No.10 Jalan Setiakasih Satu Bukit Damansara Kuala Lumpur Malaysia (residential address) Austral Enterprise Berhad 24-31 Jalan 8/55A Taman Titiwangsa 54200 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia or P.O. Box 12378 50776 Kuala Lumpur Malaysia Tel: (6) 03 - 4567100 Fax: (6) 03 - 4572786 From daga at HK.Super.NET Tue Aug 13 20:22:26 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 19:22:26 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 30] APEC Watch #6 Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960813191719.1e771b18@is1.hk.super.net> APEC WATCH #6 June 1996 A publication of the ad hoc International Convenors Committee of the November MANILA PEOPLE'S FORUM ON APEC '96 NEWS ON THE OFFICIAL APEC The APEC Business Forum: A Business Sector Parallel The Philippine Government is taking the initiative in the holding of the APEC Business Forum (ABF) on 22-24 November 1996 to parallel the APEC Ministerial Meeting in Subic. Taking the lead role in the ABF are the APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC) and the other business leaders from the 18 member economies of the APEC. The ABAC is the formal group for private business within the APEC structure that replaced the Eminent Persons Group (EPG). It consists of five committees that are in charge of drafting proposals for policy advocacy and private sector direction within APEC. ABAC counts among its committee chairs Gordon Wu, CEO of Hopewell Holdings, and Robert Denham, chair of Salomon Inc. The ABF is envisoned as the business sector's own forum/venue that will draw up and design projects for private sector participation within the APEC community. It is expected to discuss and propose APEC-wide projects in four areas: (1) small and medium enterprises (SMEs); (2) information technology and telecommunications; (3) capital markets, and, (4) infrastructure. These projects will constitute APEC's agenda at the firm level. Philippine President Fidel V. Ramos appointed former Philippine foreign affairs secretary Roberto Romulo convenor and chairperson of the November ABF. Henry Esteban, chairperson of the ABAC, was appointed co-convenor. The other business sector personalities who will attend the ABF will be determined by respective leaders of the 18 APEC member economies after they have made their appointments for their representatives to the ABAC. The local (Philippine) business community will organize the November ABF Conference through the newly created ABF Foundation. Comprising the Foundation are the different heads of local business groups which include the Makati Business Club, the Management Association of the Philippines, Financial Executives Institute of the Philippines, Bankers Association of the Philippines, and the Federation of Filipino Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry. Box: More Assurance for Business? At APEC, an Asia-Pacific Investment Code (APIC) is being proposed, although APEC member economies have not arrived at any consensus on the issue. APIC is aimed at protecting investors from policy reversals, reducing their need for "policy shopping", and creating a mechanism for resolving disputes between investor firms and governments. In a related development, the Pacific Economic Cooperation Committee (PECC), a private think tank which enjoys observer status in APEC, urged the APEC leadership to take consideration of the private sector's concern over obstacles that hamper international trade and investment. According to the group, differences in, or lack of transparency in domestic regulatory and administrative systems or product standards push up the costs of international commerce. APEC Members Submit Individual Action Plans The APEC Senior Officials' (SOM) and Ministerial Meetings (MM) held in Cebu, Philippines in May 1996 were highlighted by contentious concerns and touchy issues. Particularly problematic were the discussions on membership, customs procedures and regulations, and the harmonization of the valuation system. The failure of the meetings to resolve much of these issues concretely and speedily pose a question on APEC's ability to consolidate its members' agenda towards its grand vision of free trade by the year 2020. Despite various disagreements on the floor, however, all of the 18 members submitted their individual action plans (IAPs) last May. The Philippine delegation, host of the 1996 APEC Summit, was pleasantly surprised with the submissions. As host to the 1996 APEC, the Philippines is responsible for integrating the IAPs into the Manila Action Plan for APEC that will be presented during the Economic Leaders' Summit in November in Subic. The Manila People's Forum on APEC tried to secure copies of the IAPs from the ofiicial hosting committee. As of this writing, however, the MPFA has yet to get these, as the IAPs are up for compilation yet. INSIGHTS China on APEC and Open Regionalism "China stands for open regionalism in APEC and it does not believe that APEC should be institutionalized and made into a EU-type community. However, APEC can play a useful role in strengthening economic cooperation between Asia, in particular East Asia and the Western hemisphere, especially NAFTA countries...The regionalization and grouping of the world economy should not be considered as an end by itself but as a transitional phase of world economic integration, which whatever forms it may take, should be an open regionalism favorable to world economic integration. The rules governing regional cooperation should be WTO-consistent." _ Long Yongtu, Assistant Minister of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation, PROC at the "Regional Cooperation and Integration in Asia" Conference, July 1995, Paris, France Philippines on the Private Sector "Private sector participation is crucial to the APEC process." _ Fidel Ramos, President of the Philippines, upon offering to host a permanent APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC) Private Business on APEC "Our leaders are much more likely to take advice and listen to the voice of the market and the voice of individual business... ABAC can really have a role. We will have an opportunity to dialogue directly with the leaders." _ Victor Fung of Hongkong's Trade Development Council, quoted by Reuter OECD on Asian Regionalism "Some people call the changes in Asia `open regionalism'. Formal institutional arrangements have not yet played a significant role; rather, the main engine driving the process appears to be market forces unleashed by economic liberalization." _ Jean Bonvin, President, OECD Development Centre (See Box 1) ASEAN Business on Country Policies "Competition policies or laws of developed countries should not be linked to trade and must not be imposed on the ASEAN." _ ASEAN Chamber of Commerce and Industry, quoted by the Philippine Daily Inquirer. ASEAN-CCI is chaired by Filipino industrialist Jose Concepcion. The statement was issued in opposition to the inclusion of competition and foreign investment policies in the WTO fora. Box: Regional vs Multilateral Is there a place for regionalization in a globalized economic system? Prominent world economic leaders think so, as long as regionalization remain compatible with the multilateral system. According to Renato Ruggiero, World Trade Organization (WTO) chief, there is a risk of splitting global trade into several blocs with the "open regionalism" concept espoused by regional blocs. At the two-day WTO Congress in April (preparatory to the WTO Ministerial Meeting in December), Ruggiero said that the main challenge is to ensure that national barriers are not replaced by regional ones. In a separate occasion, Asian Development Bank (ADB) President Sato warned that the rise of regional trading blocs may threaten global free trade. Speaking before the Emerging Global Trading Environment and Developing Asia Conference in Manila, Sato said that "it is not a foregone conclusion that these [regional] arrangements will necessarily complement the multilateral process. Being discriminatory between members and non-members, these arrangements liberalize trade among member countries but also make them less open to outsiders." (quoted from thePhilippine Daily Inquirer) The following questions raised by OECD Development Centre President Jean Bonvin during the first conference of the International Forum on Asian Perspectives entitled "Regional Cooperation and Integration in Asia" best sum up the concerns over the growing trend towards regionalism in the face of a global setup. What would be the relationship between regional liberalization and multilateral liberalization of trade under the auspices of the WTO? Should individual countries be expected to make binding commitments or only voluntary undertakings to liberalize their trade? What sort of timetable for trade liberalization is appropriate for countries at very different levels of development? The International Forum on Asian Perspectives is a joint activity of the ADB and the OECD. The first conference was held on 03-04 July 1995 in Paris, France. A second conference will be held in July this year. AT THE PHILIPPINE FRONT Getting Rid of "Eyesores": Shades of Old? Philippine President Fidel V. Ramos instructed all Metro Manila mayors to rid the metropolis of so called "eyesores." Aside from strewn uncollected garbage and graffiti, these "eyesores" incidentally count warm bodies including street children, vagrants and slum-dwelling communities. The clean-up operation is in preparation for the country's hosting of the APEC Summit in November this year. On the one hand, the instruction should be a welcome development. Metro Manila residents can expect an intensified and regular garbage collection, speedy repairs of broken and defective pipes that cause flooding in the streets, and a generalized "clean and green" atmosphere. Urban poor communities can expect to be resettled to more friendly environs where they will have access to basic services. Street children meanwhile will be taken into the care of the Department of Social Welfare and Development. On the other hand, Filipinos should be bothered by the telling statement of former Armed Forces chief Lisandro Abadia, Chair of the APEC Organizing Committee. Abadia was quoted by a local newspaper saying that the "challenge to our local leaders is the delicate handling and removal of the squatters from major routes to be used by the (APEC) leaders, including the squatters within the CCP complex... To have a festive atmosphere, street lighting should all be operating, and Christmas lighting should already be on by the first week of November..." It is a big question whether President Ramos' instruction really intends the protection of the welfare of Metro Manila residents. It is clear, however, that the Philippine Government will do everything at its disposal to ensure the pageantry entailed by the hosting of the APEC Summit. This is a grim reminder of the pomp that accompanied every major event hosted by the country during the time of Marcos. Wide walls were erected to screen the slums from sight; vagrants and beggars were unceremoniously rounded up only to be released to the streets again after the affair; and millions of pesos spent to render cosmetic beauty to the city. Sixteen thousand urban poor families, and thousands more of beggars and street urchins, are expected to be affected by the presidential instruction. What About the Children? Philippine-based children's rights activivt, Fr. Shay Cullen, protested a power transmission project in Olongapo City, claiming that the project can only harm the children whom he seeks to protect. The project, a 69-kilovolt transmission line from Olongapo City to Subic Bay, will service the electricity needs of the city and the free port. It was put up as part of preparations for the APEC Summit in November. Fr. Shay Cullen said that the electromagnetic currents coming from the transmission lines would harm the children of the PREDA orphanage which he manages. Still, the project was given a clearance by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Fr. Shay also protested the police's brutal behaviour toward him and his supporters. He said that the police beat him up after his arrest. Nevertheless, he vowed to continue his protest for the sake of the children. Fr. Shay Cullen can be contacted at: Preda Foundation, Inc. Human Development Center Upper Kalaklan, Olongapo City 2200 Tel (63) (47) 222 4994 Tel/Fax (63) (47) 222 5573 Careful Now... The Philippine Government has plans to engage the MPFA, or at least its Philippine component. It is exploring the possibility of creating a special panel that will facilitate this engagement, especially in the area of agenda formulation. The Philippine Government is in the process of selecting and organizing the members of the panel. ORGANIZING FOR NOVEMBER International Convenors' Committee Meeting Thursday, 27 June 1996, HongKong sponsored by regional groups/ICC members based in HongKong AGENDA: 1. Drawing up the regional agenda for MPFA 2. Developing a gender agenda for MPFA 3. Indentifying country delegations and representation to MPFA 4. Relations between the ICC and the PHC 5. Other organizational and administrative matters Twelve NGOs based in HongKong and the following overseas groups are expected to attend the meeting: ? Philippine Hosting Committee (PHC) ? Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ANGOC, Manila) ? Focus on the Global South (FOCUS, Bangkok) ? Pacific Asia Resource Center (PARC, Tokyo) ? Asia Pacific Solidarity Workers' Links (APSWL, New Zealand) ? World Council of Churches Unit III J.P.C. (WCC, Geneva) ? International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development (ICHRDD, Canada) Due to financial constraints, however, the ICC is unable to extend financial support for air travel and local expenses for overseas participants. Further information can be obtained from: Mr. Ed Tadem ARENA/ICC Secretariat-HongKong P.O. Box 31407, Causeway Bay P.O. HONGKONG Telefax: (852) 2504 2986. Philippine NGO-PO Summit on APEC Institute of Social Order Ateneo de Manila University Quezon City, Philippines 04-05 July 1996 sponsored by the Philippine Hosting Committee of the MPFA THEME: "The Hidden Costs of Free Trade" OBJECTIVES: 1. To study the implications of trade liberalization on the Philippine economy; 2. To identify options and alternatives necessary for policy reform agenda focusing on the impact on the environment, people's lives and communities; and, 3. For the Philippine groups to put forward substantial input in the formulation of the parallel NGO APEC agenda. Invited to speak during the Philippine Summit are Representative Wigberto Tanada (APEC: Implications to the Philippine Economy), Dr. Walden Bello (FOCUS, to speak on APEC and Economic Globalization), and Mr. Ed Tadem (ARENA, on The Hidden Costs of Free Trade). Another expert will speak on Gender and Globalization. The Summit will feature six concurrent workshops on (1) growth and equity under a liberalized economy, (2) trade and people's rights, (3) trade and environmental protection, (4) free trade, employment, labor rights and security, (5) democratization and governance in a global economy, and (6) women's and gender issues. Philippine groups hope to be able to consolidate their positions and analyses on APEC as it affects Philippine social, political and economic life. The Philippine Hosting Committee (PHC), on the other hand, considers the July Summit a crucial activity that will facilitate the integration of the Philippine agenda into the international NGO-PO agenda on Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation and the APEC process. Local Hosting Committees (LHCs) Organized Local hosting committees were formed in the country's major island groupings_Luzon (Central Luzon and Southern Tagalog), Visayas and Mindanao_to ensure effective participation of Philippine grassroots organizations in the MPFA processes. The LHCs are in the process of drawing up their respective agenda in preparation for the 04-05 July National Summit. Prior to the National Summit, the committees will hold regional conferences/consultations with local groups/peoples on the following dates: 14-16 June, Davao City (Mindanao); 19-20 June, Central Luzon (Luzon); and, 28-29 June, Cebu City (Visayas). The local committees will also help the PHC in the hosting of the five international pre-forum conferences and APEC-related activities scheduled for 18-20 November. The Southern Tagalog Hosting Committee, home to the CALABARZON Industrial Estate (a "model" of enclave industrialization), will receive the participants of the pre-forum conferences on Ecology and Environment, Labor and Migrant Rights and, Democratization and Governance. The Visayas and Mindanao Hosting Committees will be hosting the pre-forum conferences on People's Rights, and on Economic and Social Development, respectively. The Hosting Committee in Central Luzon will help coordinate the People's Caravan during the Leaders Summit in Subic on 24-25 November. SUMMARY REPORT Experts Meeting on Innovative Approaches to Environmentally Sustainable Development In preparation for the APEC Senior Officials' Meeting (SOM, 09-10 July) and the Ministerial Meeting (MM, 11-12 July) on Sustainable Development, an experts meeting was held on 06-07 June 1996. The highlight of the meeting, which was attended by environment experts from the Asia Pacific region, was the recommendation that APEC economies introduce environment and natural resources accounting (ENRA) into their national income accounts. Aside from the adoption of the ENRA, the experts meeting also recommended that the July SOM and MM take up the following: ? utilization of market-based instruments in addressing market failures; ? sharing of information and expertise in promoting, adapting, and adopting innovative approaches to sustainable development; ? application of participatory approaches in planning, determining, and implementing innovative approaches to environment and natural resources management; ? building the capacities of environment and natural resources users and managers in planning, determining, and implementing innovative approaches for sustainable development; and, ? complementing market-based instruments with regulatory measures to ensure optimal resource utilization. Many creditor governments (from APEC) were silently hoping that the green aid plan which includes debt relief instruments as the debt-for-nature swaps would be among the main items on the experts' meeting's recommendations. However, since Japan is against the green aid plan, and any form of debt forgiveness for that matter, this hope was dashed from the very start. Nevertheless, the recommendation to adopt ENRA in the APEC economies' national income accounting is a bit of good news for many. But, as APEC is trying zealously to avoid the linking of trade with environment issues, it remains a big question how far this recommendation can go. APEC Watch Editorial Team Violeta Perez-Corral, ANGOC Pamela Asprer-Grafilo, PHC Jenina Joy Chavez-Malaluan, FOCUS Lay-out: Allen M. Mariano, PPI ANNOUNCEMENTS!!! * Regular mail and shortened faxed versions of FOCUS-on-APEC are available upon request. Due to our budget constraints, however, we are unable to airmail the bulletin to many people/ groups, so we kindly ask you to print the e-mail version and regular mail it to interested groups in your country who do not have access to e-mail. Thank you. * Focus on the Global South has offices at: c/o CUSRI, Wisit Prachuabmoh Bldg., Chulalongkorn University, Phyathai Road, Bangkok 10330, THAILAND Tels.: (662) 218-7363, 64 & 65 Fax : (662) 255-9976 E-mail: focus@ksc9.th.com URL: http://www.nautilus.org/focusweb/focus.html. We have limited copies of the APEC Watch. Please share your copy with others who might be interested. This APEC Watch is produced by the Manila-based Secretariat of the International Convenors Committee (ICC) which holds offices at the Manila PFA'96 Philippine Hosting Committee Secretariat Office (please see address below). Information on the PFA and the ICC can also be obtained from: Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ANGOC) No. 14-A 11th Jamboree St., Brgy. Sacred Heart, Kamuning, Quezon City 1103, PHILIPPINES Tel. Nos. (632) 9283315/9293019 r Fax No. (632) 9215122 r E-mail: angoc@philonline.com.ph or angoc@igc.apc.org BE COUNTED! If you want to participate in the PFA '96 activities, please write and tell us so. We will be glad to send you information, and will be more than happy to receive inputs from you. Please address all inquiries re: PFA '96 to: The Secretariat Philippine Hosting Committee Manila People's Forum on APEC 1996 Room 209, PSSC Building, Commonwealth Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City, PHILIPPINES Tels.: (63-2) 929-6211/(63-2) 922-9621 loc. 315 Fax: (63-2) 924-3767 E-mail: omi.apec@gaia.psdn.phil.net From RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org Fri Aug 16 20:22:12 1996 From: RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org (RVerzola) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 03:22:12 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 31] globalisation Message-ID: REVOLT AGAINST GLOBALIZATION by Roberto Verzola In the same way that colonization was the "trend" one hundred years ago, globalization is, today. Government authorities, the media, and businesses say that globalization is inevitable, and that we must adjust to it, because we have no other choice. Had Bonifacio, Rizal, the Silangs, and the rest of our national heroes accepted colonization as inevitable, there would have been no Philippine Revolution. Had they accepted that they had no choice but to adjust, we would have remained a colony of Spain. They became heroes precisely because they saw the evils of colonization, and made that momentous decision to revolt against a colonial power. Today, the colonial powers have been replaced by global corporations. Global corporations feast on our natural resources, human resources, and national wealth. They displace farmers from their land, workers from their jobs, and communities from their roots. Even the peoples of developed countries suffer from their profit-hungry rule. Global corporations today virtually rule the world. Globalization means the rule of global corporations. It means decisions about our lives being made in corporate boardrooms in the U.S., Europe and Japan, instead of our local community councils. It means powerlessness and suffering for the small and the weak. It means the break up of our communities and the rape of our environment to serve the human and raw material requirements of global production for the global market. Its consequences, such as the collapse of our food security and the emergence of global environmental crises like pollution and global warming, may turn out to be even worse than colonization. Like colonization before it, globalization is neither desirable, nor inevitable, nor so powerful that it cannot be stopped. Like our great grandparents who revolted against colonization, we need today to make that momentous leap of judgment which our revered heroes managed to do in their own time, one hundred years ago. We need a revolt against globalization. From daga at HK.Super.NET Sat Aug 17 00:18:44 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 23:18:44 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 32] from the conference facilitator: who are on asia-apec? Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960816231335.0a5f7720@is1.hk.super.net> It may interest one and all to know that to date, there are some 112 organizations and individuals on this asia-apec listserve. By country, topnotcher is Hong Kong with 20 subscribers, USA-18, Japan-12, Switzerland-7, Australia and south Korea-6, Philippines, Malaysia and Thailand-5, Aotearoa/New Zealand, Indonesia and Netherlands-4, UK-3, Mexico and South Africa-2, and 1 each for Singapore, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, India, Nepal, Hawai'i, Canada, Brazil and Ecuador. By category, broadly defined as coming from NGOs and (non-government) individuals would be some 75 subscribers with a range of concerns from labour, rural economy, youth and students, women, human rights, environment, housing rights, research, church, church-related, and donor agency. 19 subscribers are from academe and 18 are network and service providers. What the multiplier effect of all this is, especially for service providers who may make this conference available on their networks is yet to be determined. With the asia-apec electronic conference infrastructure in place, we can likely get the discussion forum going! Yours sincerely, Mario Mapanao ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Documentation for Action Groups in Asia (DAGA) 96, 2nd District, Pak Tin Village Mei Tin Road, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong Tel : (852) 2691 6391/ 2691 1068 ext 54 Fax: (852) 2697 1912 E-mail: daga@hk.super.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From apcjp at igc.apc.org Sat Aug 17 04:25:07 1996 From: apcjp at igc.apc.org (Asia Pacific Center for Justice and Peace) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 12:25:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [asia-apec 33] Re: from the conference facilitator: who are on asia-apec? Message-ID: <199608161925.MAA12120@igc2.igc.apc.org> Daga (mario?), We at the Asia Pacific Centerfor Justice and Peace have been in touch with you ealier this month. as you know, we are trying to coordinate the US NGO Working Group on APEC. I would be interested to know what sort of organizations you have in the United States, so as to maximize participation over here. I could also share with you the e-mails of our working group members (though you may already have them). This may help get out messages out wider and provide a multiplier effect for APEC issues. We have been enjoying the mailings thus far. thanks for the diligent work. sincerely, Ehito Kimura (Asia Pacific Center, program staff) From daga at HK.Super.NET Sun Aug 18 15:25:34 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 14:25:34 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 34] statement of solidarity with the Indonesian people Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960818142026.19cf5d64@is1.hk.super.net> PHILIPPINE SOLIDARITY FOR EAST TIMOR AND INDONESIA (PHILSETI) c/o PCISP, 17 F. Calderon St., Brgy. Marilag, Project 4, Quezon City, Phils. Tel: (+632) 9438 5228 Fax: (+632) 438 5227 E-mail: STATEMENT OF SOLIDARITY WITH THE INDONESIAN PEOPLE ON THE OCCASION OF THE 51ST YEAR OF INDONESIAN INDEPENDENCE* For the past 31 years, the Indonesian people have been suffering one of the most repressive regimes in the world under the iron-fisted army general Soeharto and his cohorts. No freedom of expression: the citizens cannot get together and discuss their future; the mass media is strictly censored; vocal journalists are jailed. No right of free association: workers can join only the government-sponsored union; students must belong only to the government-favored association; lawyers must join the association recognized by the government. Nor can citizens mobilize fellow citizens to action. Political parties need government approval for their candidates. There are no laws and practices respecting and protecting human rights. Instead, the state has, since 1965, been enforcing a system designed to deprive citizens of these rights, with the Indonesian military casting its huge shadow over politics and society in its entirety. The Soeharto regime is one of the most brutal in the world - having murdered three quarters of a million people, alleged to be communists or communist supporters, and imprisoning another quarter soon after his coup attempt in 1965. However, citizens have started to protest. NGOs are proliferating. Workers are now organizing into independent unions. Academics are becoming more vocal. Peasants now dare to demonstrate to protect their land and livelihood. There have been mass rallies in support of opposition leader Megawati in most cities throughout Indonesia. The government has been forced to step back. But with these too, more coercion. The world can not also forget that Indonesia continues to occupy East Timor since December 1975, brutally repressing the nationalist aspirations of the Maubere people. It is in this light that we in Phil-SETI, the Philippine Solidarity for East Timor and Indonesia, congratulate the Indonesian people on the 51st year of their independence. We recall with you the glorious birth of the Indonesian nation. We are also one with you in recouping thirty one years of suffering under the Soeharto's regime. We are in solidarity with you in your struggle for democracy as we are with the Maubere people's struggle for independence from Indonesia. The time has come to bury an anachronistic system. The time for freedom is NOW! Restore democratic rights to the Indonesian people! Indonesia, out of East Timor! 16 August 1996. *read during a picket-rally in front of the indonesian embassy. flags of east timor and indonesia were raised. activity culminated with the burning of the ABRI flag. participating organizations included philseti, apcet, pcisp, iid, task force detainees-national capital region. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Documentation for Action Groups in Asia (DAGA) 96, 2nd District, Pak Tin Village Mei Tin Road, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong Tel : (852) 2691 6391/ 2691 1068 ext 54 Fax: (852) 2697 1912 E-mail: daga@hk.super.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From daga at HK.Super.NET Mon Aug 19 12:22:07 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 11:22:07 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 35] APEC: The Unauthorized History, by Walden Bello Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960819111657.081f04d2@is1.hk.super.net> Special to BUSINESS WORLD APEC: The Unauthorized History (This is the first of a series of articles on the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation [APEC].) by Walden Bello* The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) is an economic forum composed of 18 countries that border on the Pacific which account for 46 per cent of the world's merchandise trade and over half of the world's gross national product. "Four Adjectives in Search of a Noun" Beyond this description, there is no consensus among APEC members on what APEC is or should be. To borrow the classic definition of the forum by former Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans, APEC is still "four adjectives in search of a noun." To the Malaysians, backed covertly by the Japanese, APEC is and should remain a consultative group where technical cooperation on economic matters among governments could be facilitated. To the US and Australians, in particular, APEC is a formation that is consolidating into a formal free trade area, where tariffs will eventually be brought down to zero or thereabouts and all other barriers to trade eliminated. To Washington and Canberra, the essence of APEC is contained in the Bogor Declaration of November 1994, which in their interpretation committed the member governments to establishing borderless trade by the year 2020. But even as they signed the Bogor Declaration, the Malaysian and Thai governments were quick to append their understanding that the declaration was aspirational in nature and "non-binding." Beijing also issued a formal statement supporting the Malaysian and Thai interpretation. There is, in fact, an ongoing, though for the most part, silent battle to define the direction of APEC, and the Summit in Subic in November 1996 will be critical in determining whether APEC will remain a consultative group or solidify into a formal free trade area. From Canberra to Blake Island APEC started as a suggestion in the late 1980's from the Japanese, specifically from then Ministry of Trade and Industry (MITI) chief Hajime Tamura. MITI's idea was a forum for technical cooperation on economic issues, along the lines of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Japan's objective in making the proposal was to draw the attention of Washington back to Asia, at a time that the US was preoccupied with global developments focused on Europe--mainly the winding down of the Cold War, the renegotiation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and Europe's becoming a single unified market by 1992. Washington did not evince much interest at first. But Canberra did. Having come to the conclusion that the survival and future of Australia lay in integrating it economically into Asia, the Labor government of Prime Minister Bob Hawke took up the idea of an economic forum enthusiastically. In the process, however, Canberra gave it a new twist: that the grouping would serve as the basis for a future free-trade area. In the first three years since APEC's founding in Canberra in 1989, Washington's energies were focused on successfully concluding the Uruguay Round of GATT and on creating the North America Free Trade Area (NAFTA) as a response to the European Union. In 1993, however, the Clinton administration replaced Australia as the leader of the free trade lobby in APEC. There was a reason for the Americans' sudden interest: GATT was experiencing rough sailing at that point, and the US wanted a fallback in the form of an Asia-Pacific regional free trade area that would supplement NAFTA in the event GATT fell through. In the months leading up to the first APEC Summit in November 1993, an "Eminent Persons' Group" (EPG) of free trade enthusiasts from throughout the region was formed, headed by economist C. Fred Bergsten, an influential Washington insider and head of the Institute of International Economics. At the Summit in Blake Island, Seattle, the EPG unveiled a vision of a "community of free-trading nations"--a euphemism for a free trade bloc--to enthusiastic cheers from President Clinton and then Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating. But, drawn together by great uncertainty and urged to caution by Malaysia's Prime Minister Mohamad Mahathir's boycotting of the meeting to protest what he regarded as Canberra and Washington's effort to railroad the event, the Asian governments were able to prevent the formal declaration of a free trade area as APEC's end goal. Bogor: The Triumph of the Free Trade Vision? Washington, Canberra, and the EPG were, however, unfazed. Intense lobbying on their part to get President Suharto on board the free trade bandwagon resulted in the Indonesian strongman's endorsing the EPG's now famous 2020 Plan during the second APEC summit in Bogor, Indonesia, in November 1994--inspite of strong opposition from some sectors of the Indonesian economic bureaucracy. With APEC moving along a trajectory quite different from their original vision for it, the Japanese quietly lobbied to delete from the official summit statement the clause committing the APEC leaders to the goal of establishing a free-trade area. Japan banked on its being Indonesia's biggest foreign investor, trading partner, and donor of aid. But the American-Australian pressure on Suharto proved stronger, and his position as host served to increase the pressure on his guests, including Mahathir, to sign on to the Bogor Declaration. The scene of the next act in the APEC drama was Osaka in November 1995--enemy territory in the view of Washington. While Mahathir kept up the fire on the free trade area idea in the open, the Japanese tried, in their usual indirect and subtle way, to sabotage the 2020 vision. First, then Foreign Minister Yohei Kono argued that APEC had three equally important "pillars"--trade liberalization, trade facilitation, and economic cooperation. There was too much emphasis on trade liberalization, he said, and it was time to place the stress on trade facilitation measures, like harmonizing customs procedures throughout the region, and on economic cooperation in the form of aid to the less developed APEC member countries. Accelerated aid to the less developed APEC countries was necessary, Kono asserted, because trade liberalization in an uneven playing field would merely accentuate inequalities within the region. The Americans were not pleased, and they accused the Japanese of trying to convert APEC into an economic aid agency. Next, the Japanese tried to exempt agriculture from any liberalization plan, and here they were backed openly by South Korea, China, Taiwan, and informally by Malaysia and Indonesia. Washington, which has targetted the Asia-Pacific countries as a dumping ground for its huge grain surpluses, was enraged. Sandra Kristoff, coordinator for APEC affairs at the US State Department warned Tokyo: "The Bogor commitment to free trade was unambiguous and unqualified. It did not speak about 'some trade in some some products some of the time,' with some free trade by 2010 and 2020 and other products being delayed until 2050." But it was not only the Japanese who were subverting the Bogor vision. Washington itself was eroding the spiriit of Pacific cooperation by launching punitiive unilateral trade actions against some of its key APEC trade partners even as it mouthed noble sentiments about resolving trade disputes via multilateral fora like GATT and APEC. In the months leading up to the Osaka Summit, the US threatened action against China on intellectual piracy grounds and against Korea and Japan on grounds of restrictive practices in autos and auto parts under the 301 provisions of the US Trade Act of 1988, which mandate the US executive to take retaliatory action against those countries deemed as unfair traders or abetters of violations of the intellectual property rights of US corporations. Free Trade Derailed at Osaka At the actual summit itself, the Japanese and Asian view prevailed. A close reading of the "Osaka Action Agenda" reveals that while it broadly reaffirmed the Bogor goal of regional trade liberalization and declared that all economic sectors would be included in liberalization plans, it nevertheless: o explicitly supported the Japanese position that economic cooperation (aid) and trade facilitation were equally important "pillars" of APEC as trade liberalization; o affirmed the Asian position that liberalization would be carried out voluntarily, flexibly, and in a non-binding fashion--precisely what Malaysia and Thailand had argued for in their respective appendices to the Bogor Declaration; o disbanded the Eminent Persons' Group, which Asian governments had increasingly attacked as a tool of the American-Australian free trade axis. Not surprisingly, the pro-free trade magazine The Economist ridiculed the Osaka Action Agenda as a "No action, no agenda" document that "committed nobody to anything." In the view of the US and the free trade lobby, then, Osaka was a retreat from Bogor. But Osaka, they also knew, was not the last word in APEC's evolution. At Osaka, the 18 member countries agreed to submit their individual liberalization plans for collective review and adoption in 1996. Washington hoped to get the free trade agenda back on track by insisting on the submission of detailed liberalization plans at the meetings of APEC's senior ministers and trade ministers in Cebu in May, Christchurch, New Zealand in July, and finally in Manila in November. The individual country programs could then be subjected to assessment along the Osaka guidelines of "comprehensiveness," "comparability," and "transparency," so that they could be "harmonized" in accordance with the principle of "concerted collective liberalization" referred to in the Osaka document. In short, Osaka may well have enshrined the principle of non-binding, voluntary, and flexible liberalization, but the US and the free trade lobby was determined to keep the liberalization agenda on track via sustained pressure, using other Osaka "principles" as well as non-APEC mechanisms, like the implicit threat of continuing to employ unilateral trade action to open up Asian markets if multilateral means failed.. In this enterprise, Washington, Australia, and New Zealand--the main free traders-- set great store on Manila being the host of the event. Seattle, Bogor, and Osaka had underlined the decisive role of the host government, and in the administration of President Fidel Ramos, Washington saw a believer in trade and investment liberalization. Subic: A Return to Bogor? However, the individual country submissions during the senior officials' meeting in Cebu in May underlined how difficult a task faced anybody confronted with harmonizing 18 plans submitted by governments with differing commitments to the Bogor ideal. According to a report of the Japan Economic Institute in Washington, the proposals submitted in Cebu "vary considerably in their scope and specificity...Although the plans remain confidential, some generalized assessments became available. Australia and Japan, for example, reportedly submitted lengthy documents with fairly detailed proposals in each of 15 economic areas. Some APEC officials have hinted, though, that even these proposals leave room for improvement. The American proposal, too, is considered among the most complete of those submitted in Cebu, although it reportedly contains only sketchy coverage of certain areas--such as competition policy and trade in services. Plans submitted by Indonesia and the Philippines also received high marks." The report, however, went on to descibe China'a action plan as "not every detailed, providing only a general outline of Beijing's strategy for meeting the forum's goals. Thailand's proposal, too, addressed only a handful of 15 areas...Some APEC officials also described Malaysia's initail offers as disappointing." The situation had apparently not improved by the time APEC's trade ministers met in Christchurch two months later, in mid-July. Putting the best face to what was obviously a disappointing process, Department of Trade and Industry Secretary Rizalino Navarro of the Philippines, the APEC ministerial chairman, said that the action plans were of "uneven quality." A key Thai trade official predicted that, in fact, there would be little chance to discuss, much less harmonize, action plans before the Subic summit because "each APEC member would likely wait until the last meeting of senior officials, immediately before the November summit, before submitting its full action plan." Which means that the process of consultation on the plans wll have to be deferred to 1997, with the burden of harmonizing the plans falling on Ottawa, next year's host, rather than Manila. The stalling strategy adopted by some of Asia's APEC members has been paralleled by other developments subversive of the regional free trade ideal--which indicates that the "Bogor spirit" might be difficult to resurrect this year. For instance, in a virtual rerun of its behavior in 1995, the US has shown that it continues to prefer unilateral action to multilateral resolution of trade disputes, threatening to again club China with Special 301 on "intellectual piracy" and pressing Japan to give US and other foreign firms a guaranteed 20 per cent share of its semiconductor market. South Korea and Japan have served firm notice that they will not open their agricultural markets any more than they have already committed themselves to under GATT. Ironically, even the Suharto government, whose pro-free trade instance was instrumental in the adoption of the Bogor Declaration, has decreed a series of protectionist measures designed to create a local car industry (connected to members of the Suharto family, of course!) that the US has denounced as violations of both GATT and the spirit of Bogor. In a speech delivered in Sydney in June, Malaysian International Trade Minister Rafidah Aziz said that the idea that APEC will eventually become a free trade area is turning more and more into a "dream," and predicted that the body will remain what it is now, that is, a "loose consultative forum of economies of different levels of development." As host of the coming summit, the Philippines would do well to listen to what its neighbors are saying--and doing--and distance itself from the US-led effort to convert APEC into a free trade area. The APEC free trade design may well be an idea whose time has come...and gone, and the only thing that can result from leading a charge towards a goal that few Asian countries share is a diplomatic disaster. *Dr. Walden Bello is co-director of Focus on the Global South, a program of Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, and a professor of sociology and public administration at the University of the Philippines. He is a co-author of Challenging the Mainstream: The Asia-Pacific Development Debate (Hong Kong: ARENA, AAYMCA, CCA-IA and DAGA, 1995) and several other books on the political economy of East and Southeast Asia. From daga at HK.Super.NET Mon Aug 19 12:22:02 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 11:22:02 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 36] APEC Comes to Aotearoa, by Aziz Choudry Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960819111652.081f1baa@is1.hk.super.net> APEC TRADE MINISTERS MEETING AT CHRISTCHURCH APEC Comes To Aotearoa by: Aziz Choudry It was fitting that bleak midwinter rain greeted the APEC Trade Ministers Meeting in Christchurch from July 12 t0 14. In true APEC - and New Zealand free market - fashion, the build up to the meeting was big on semantics and rhetoric. Those seeking something of substance could be forgiven for feeling that official statements from the meeting washed over them like the rain that fell on the two hundred or so protesters who marched to a spirited and fiery rally opposing APEC at the start of the conference. One journalist wrote: "For all the fine words in the chairman's statement, the APEC meeting was not a milestone in the journey towards liberalisation, but largely a stepping stone in the build-up of preparation to the leaders' meeting in Manila in November and the World Trade Organisation Ministerial Meeting in Singapore in December." ("APEC decided to push hard for free trade," Dominion, 7/18/96) Billed as probably the most significant economic event that New Zealand had held, and chaired by Trade Negotiations Minister (and New Zealand ABAC representative) Philip Burdon, the meeting marked yet another opportunity for the government to sell its neoliberal model of economic development internationally. It was another chance to plea for more foreign investment after the hard sell at the 1995 ADB and Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings. Local opponents of unbridled free trade and investment, such as GATT Watchdog, which organised a very successful international forum "Trading with Our Lives: The Human Cost of Free Trade," a citizens meeting and protest action just prior to the Ministers Meeting have long drawn the parallels between the extremist domestic market reforms of the past 12 years and regional and global pushes for free trade. These reforms - structural adjustment policies - have left 1 in 5 New Zealanders living in poverty and given us the dubious distinction of "enjoying" the fastest growing gap between rich and poor in any OECD country over the past 15 years. We are left with one of the most open economies in the world - a deregulated labour market, a slash-and-burn approach to social spending, and a lemming-like rush to privatise and sell off state-owned assets to transnational buyers, as the country has been transformed into a bargain basement investment playground for transnational corporations. So it was no surprise to read that the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade's current view is that: "[t]hrough APEC we are able to encourage regional colleagues to follow the type of reforms undertaken in New Zealand." Such sentiments were echoed by Prime Minister Jim Bolger in his opening address. "There is no downside to opening up world trade. All you have to do is to overcome political barriers, in other words, attitudinal barriers." The hype and talking up of the supposed benefits of liberalisation have taken on an air of desperation in New Zealand, as many other economies still resist pressures to axe subsidies, tariffs and other forms of protection which New Zealand's government proudly boasts of having removed. Normally the Trade Ministers Meeting would have met just prior to the November Leaders Summit. The date was advanced to canvass ways of adding further impetus to liberalise global trade and investment leading up to the WTO ministerial meeting in Singapore. WTO director-general Renato Ruggiero was in town for "informal" talks with APEC delegates and a lunchtime address on the opening day of the meeting. His message was much the same as on his March visit to this country. Part of his role involves panic-mongering and instilling a sense of urgency in the proceedings. The gospel according to Ruggiero is that globalisation is "unstoppable," but cannot be taken for granted. The fires of hell await any who oppose this process or support trading blocs. "At the end of the process we should have one big free trade area. I think this is what was in the mind and the vision of the builders of the multilateral system, which was based on non-discrimination," he opined. Ruggiero hopes for an activist APEC caucus within the WTO to propel it forward and prepare it for the next round of negotiations, taking it beyond a mere review of implementation of the Uruguay Round. Whether, when, and how the semantics translate into action in Manila or Singapore remains to be seen. So do Burdon's claims that at Christchurch, a "very positive and ambitious achievement" was reached, with APEC members agreeing to settle their differences and form a united APEC push for further global trade liberalisation to the Singapore WTO meeting. Cracks appeared in the facade of collective unity. The last public session was delayed for an hour as Malaysian, Korean and Indonesian delegates objected to the speed of proposals to open up markets and others put forward on trade and the environment, and trade and labour issues. One US delegate dryly observed that "APEC is all about conflict diminishment rather than conflict resolution." It was also hard to escape the impression that the actual APEC meeting was overshadowed by bilateral meetings. All the other members sought meetings with the USA. Japanese and US delegates discussed the issue of access to the Japanese market for semiconductors. Japan asserts that foreign companies already have 30% of the market, while the USA seeks more access. The issue was left until the end of July to be resolved. US and Indonesian delegates met over Indonesian plans to build a "national" car, the "Timor." The name has supposedly nothing to do with the territory invaded and occupied by Indonesia for over 20 years, but an acronym for Teknologi Industri Mobil Rakyat. The USA, Japan and others have been outraged at the plan to grant special tax concessions from the government enabling Tommy Suharto (the President's son) to produce a car for sale at half the price of similar cars. This issue is earmarked for supposed resolution by November. Australia and New Zealand signed a food inspection pact that would allow most food passing between the two countries to be subject to only to the same checking as applied to local food. At the APEC meeting itself, US trade representative Charlene Barshefsky claimed that "widespread consensus among members" was reached that information technology products was an area which deserved APEC action, and that there would be active discussion on it prior to Singapore. It was claimed that this consensus could enable work towards a global decrease in tariffs on IT equipment and software. The USA tabled a plan to push for zero tariffs, covering mainframes down to cellular phones. Barshefsky claimed "extraordinary progress" on this "tariff-cutting exercise on the information superhighway." Ironically, a few days after both Barshefsky and Burdon had firmly called for further commitments to trade liberalisation the USA announced a round of dairy export subsidies into Asia! New Zealand officials see this move as unfair and at odds with the American commitment to trade liberalisation and the spirit of the Uruguay Round. On July 18, US Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman demanded "the elimination, not just the reduction, of all trade distorting subsidies in agriculture" in the next round of global trade talks scheduled to start in 1999. Once again, US actions showed a huge gap between the free trade rhetoric which it so zealously expounds, and reality. The move put Burdon's comments during the meeting about New Zealand's disadvantages in the area of its natural benefit, agriculture, with dairy and red meat products still facing huge tariffs in some nations, into sharp relief. A major step towards progress in agriculture had been claimed in Christchurch in approving a "substantive and balanced" work programme to prepare for new negotiations, overcoming objections from Korea, which wanted no further work to be done on this till after its 1997 presidential elections. Commitment was made to further work on the Uruguay Round "built-in" agenda. Beyond this, areas like improving access for industrial products and discussion within the WTO on "transparency, openness and due process in government procurement" were also signalled for attention. All 18 APEC members had presented individual draft action plans on trade and investment liberalisation in Cebu in May. At Christchurch, Philippines' Trade Secretary Rizalino Navarro stated that he was pleasantly surprised by this, but that some were "a little uneven." He did not single out any country but added that some had been very forthright, while others lacked details and timeframe. These plans, to be implemented in January 1997, have not been released publicly. Washington, however, is known to have been reluctant to move far and fast on free trade in election year when claims that free trade hurts US jobs and interests are being raised in Congress. Since May, eight members have produced revised plans. Most are believed to include commitments to free up trade which outstrip WTO requirements. It will be another four months before we learn what is in the action plans. APEC members agreed to consult each other to improve the draft plans which they have tabled privately. These will be discussed at another officials meeting in August. The Chairman's statement emphasised "transparency, comparability and dynamism" in revised plans. "We consider that it is now especially important that regional and multilateral approaches to trade and investment liberalisation support and reinforce each other," it said. Disappointment was expressed that only one of the four areas in which the Uruguay Round negotiations on services were extended - Movement of Natural Persons - had been completed. The statement urged for progress in the areas of financial services, and the need to maintain momentum in the work programme on the WTO commitment on Trade and Environment. It also called on the WTO to define its objectives more clearly, and to act with greater urgency. Rizalino's aggressive boxing analogy to describe the path to further trade liberalisation was in keeping with the flow of verbiage emanating from the meeting. The first punch would happen in Manila, the second in Singapore, and "hopefully, the knockout will happen to the opponents after that." The Christchurch meeting broadly reaffirmed the APEC 2010/2020 timetable but did not call for acceleration of these deadlines, nor did it seek to push the WTO to adopt this timeframe. APEC support for China's entry to the WTO was signalled, though US criticism over China's denial of market access to US goods and other protectionist measures had characterised the lead-up to the meeting. Barshefsky called for greater commitment in opening up China's economy, while for her part Chinese foreign trade minister Madame Wu Yi said that China had participated in the Uruguay Round negotiations and was willing to implement the agreements as a developing country. The lack of substance which characterised the 18-point statement from the chair predictably flowed over into the free traders' attacks on critics of APEC. For once, invectives from Philip Burdon were not so evident as he enjoyed what was supposed to be the crowning point in his political career and tried awkwardly to transform the meeting into an event of far greater significance than its contents justified. Former Prime Minister and Labour Labour Minister Mike Moore railed maniacally at the "grumpy, geriatric communists," the "mutant strain of the left" who marched to oppose APEC. "[T]he delegation should be made welcome, not abused by primitives who, if they had their way, would throw New Zealand and our region into chaos and depression," he said. Many New Zealanders know of Moore's shaky grip on reality from his bizarre behaviour on election night in 1993, making victory speeches even as Labour were defeated at the polls. And many are unimpressed with the repetitious market mantras and lyrical waxings from politicians, business representatives and much of the media which have long since displaced any semblance of open debate about the desirability of trade and investment liberalisation and market-driven models of development. But it is clear that the government did not limit itself to mere abuse of dissenting voices. A week after the APEC meeting, a story of a sinister bungled break-in at the house of GATT Watchdog spokesperson Aziz Choudry on 13 July by two state intelligence agents, and subsequent police raids on his house, and that of a speaker at the Trading With Our Lives forum, Dr. David Small, supposedly for bomb-making equipment grabbed national media attention - and continues to do so 10 days later as more and more evidence mounts to support initial suspicions. The market myths that enshroud APEC are very fragile. Obviously, abuse and ridicule are not the only weapons employed by the New Zealand government to try to suppress debate and demonise and discredit those who threaten to expose the APEC agenda. Dissent is met with anti-democratic, covert state repression. Such is the "stability" demanded by the free traders. * More information may be obtained from GATT Watchdog at telefax number (643) 3484763 or e-mail . From daga at HK.Super.NET Tue Aug 20 20:08:00 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 19:08:00 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 37] from the conference facilitator Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960820190250.116fd714@is1.hk.super.net> Dear All, for those of you who have recently subscribed to the asia-apec conference, and even for those from earlier on, here are a few reminders. 1. To get others to subscribe to this conference, send a message with a brief description of organization/or individual's interest to the conference facilitator: 2. To unsubscribe to this conference, you can automatically do so by sending a message to , and in the body text write: unsubscribe 3. Index command will return subject index of mail archive. Send a message to , and in body text write: index asia-apec 4. To retrieve past mail, send a message to , and in the body text write: get asia-apec (msg no.) For example, the line "get asia-apec 10" in the body of your mail to majordomo will resend the 10th mail of "asia-apec" to you. 5. For those who respond to a message by pressing the reply mode, please ensure that the original message is deleted as this will mean unnecessary costly connect time charges in some countries. 6. If you have any questions, do write: conference facilitator asia-apec ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Documentation for Action Groups in Asia (DAGA) 96, 2nd District, Pak Tin Village Mei Tin Road, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong Tel : (852) 2691 6391/ 2691 1068 ext 54 Fax: (852) 2697 1912 E-mail: daga@hk.super.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From daga at HK.Super.NET Tue Aug 20 21:08:03 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 20:08:03 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 38] are we ready for the global information economy? Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960820200253.116fb014@is1.hk.super.net> Friends, for those of you who will be in Manila for APEC and all and are free on November 17, you are invited to the one-day open public session. Registration for this and inquiries for the workshop proper can be made with . ARE WE READY FOR THE GLOBAL INFORMATION ECONOMY? (The Emerging Global Information Economy And The Responses Of Social Movements) A workshop sponsored by Interdoc and DAGA in Manila, Philippines - November 16-20, 1996 Background: Within the span of a few short years, the global information economy has become a reality for most countries. With the Internet reaching into practically every country in the world, and growing at a rate of up to 10% per month, the basic infrastructure for this economy is rapidly taking shape. Soon, as media, entertainment, communications, and data converge on the Internet, it will become THE infrastructure for producing, marketing, distributing, and even paying for information goods and services. Social movements have so far shown different responses towards this development. On the one hand, many welcome the Internet as an inexpensive, empowering medium of communication and information exchange. On the other hand, many consider its intrusion an integral part of the whole process of globalization, which is wreaking havoc on the life, livelihood and culture of millions of underprivileged and the voiceless, not to mention the impact of this process on the environment. Very little systematic analysis on the implications of the global information economy on southern countries, peoples, and social movements has been done and many are unprepared to respond properly to its entry into local economies. This workshop intends to tackle this issue head-on. What are the threats as well as the opportunities presented by the emerging information economy? Which aspect predominates? Who will benefit from the global information economy? Who will lose? How should social movements respond to its impact? These are among the questions we will try to answer in the course of our four days of deliberation. 1996 also commemorates 10 years of Interdoc activity in Asia. The workshop will be an opportune occasion to critically look back, evaluate the state of our documentation and electronic networking activities, and together move forward. You are most welcome to join us in this effort. Objectives: 1. To discuss the implications of the emerging information economy, including the internet, on developing countries, peoples of the south and social movements. 2. To identify factors within this emerging economy and its infrastructures and institutions that are favorable as well as those which are unfavorable to social movements and popular concerns. 3. To discuss how social movements may respond to the favorable as well as unfavorable factors, to further advance the interests of countries and peoples of the south, particularly the poor. 4. To strengthen networking among groups involved in this field, particularly information and network providers who are working amongst social movements. 5. To consolidate Interdoc as an organization that can help social movements respond to the challenges of the emerging global information economy. Target participants: 1. NGO information providers such as databanks, documentation centers, alternative news agencies. 2. NGO network providers such as email operators, internet service providers, etc. 3. Leaders of social movements and non-government organizations. Workshop dates: We will hold the Interdoc/DAGA workshop from Nov. 16-20, 1996 at about the same time as various initiatives on APEC, which will be held in Manila around these dates. This will enable us to interact with people's organizations and NGO leaders who will be attending the alternative APEC meetings. Workshop schedule: Day 0 (Nov. 16 - Shalom Center, Manila) Arrivals Please make sure you get to the venue by 6pm 19:00 *** Dinner *** 20:00 Introduction of Participants Presentation of Schedule Expectations check Orientation Mario Mapanao, DAGA Day 1 (Nov. 17 - Open Public Session) am 8:00- 9:00 Registration 9:00- 9:30 Introductions 9:30-10:00 Introductory Remarks Roberto Verzola, Interdoc *** Break *** The Global Information Economy: Sectoral Views (The aim of the open session is to share sectoral experiences, lessons and issues. Sectors identified are tentative and names indicated are either contact persons or prospective speakers. Alotted time includes open forum.) 10:30-11:00 Women Rhona Bautista, ISIS International 11:00-11:30 Workers Rex Varona, APEC Labour Rights Monitor (incl. Migrant Workers) (ALARM) 11:30-12:00 Farmers 12:00-12:30 Indigenous Peoples Jenny Lasimbang, Asian Indigenous People's Pact (AIPP) *** Lunch Break *** 14:00-14:30 Urban Poor Kenneth Fernandes, Asian Coalition for Housing Rights (ACHR) 14:30-15:00 Human Rights Boonthan, Asian Cultural Forum on Development (ACFOD) *** Break *** 15:30-16:00 Environment E. Deenayalan, The Other Media 16:00-16:30 Alternative Media Kunda Dixit, Inter Press Service (IPS) 16:30-17:00 Information Providers Mario Mapanao, Documentation for Action Groups in Asia (DAGA) 17:00-17:30 Network Providers Leo Fernandez, AsiaLink/Indian Social Institute (ISI) 17:30-18:30 Impact of the Global Information Economy: Summing Up of Sectoral Views Jagdish Parikh, Interdoc *** Dinner *** Technical Sharing 21:00 Departure for Tagaytay City (2-hour trip) Day 2 (Nov. 18 - DAP Conference Center, Tagaytay City) am 9:00- 9:30 Summary of Previous Day 9:30-10:00 Interdoc,10 Years in Asia: An Evaluative Report (From Hong Kong To Bangkok And Manila) Roberto Verzola, Interdoc 10:30-12:30 Small Group Discussions Topic: Impact of the Global Information Economy and the Responses of Social Movements *** Lunch Break *** pm 14:00-15:30 Small Group Reports/Plenary *** Break *** 16:00-17:30 Small Group Discussions Track 1: Information Providers Track 2: Network Providers 17:30-18:30 Small Group Reports/Plenary Day 3 (Nov. 19) am 9:00- 9:30 Summary of Previous Day 9:30-10:30 Paper Presentation Roberto Verzola, Interdoc "Responding to the Challenges of the Global Information Economy" *** Break *** 11:30-12:30 Plenary Session *** Lunch Break *** pm 14:00-16:00 Small Group Discussions "Proposals For A Concrete Programme of Action" *** Break *** 16:30-18:30 Presentation of Results/Plenary (Results to be consolidated by a Drafting Committee) Day 4 (Nov. 20) am 9:00- 9:20 Presentation: Draft Programme of Action 9:20-10:30 Plenary on Programme of Action *** Break *** 11:00-12:00 Interdoc Organizational Meeting 12:00- 1:00 Evaluation Closing Ceremonies Workshop venues: Nov 16-17: UCCP Shalom Center 1660 Luis Ma. Guerrero St. Malate, Manila Philippines Phone: (63 2) 521 4904, 523 677, 524 8422, 524 8430 Fax: (63 2) 524 8432 Nov 17-20: Development Academy of the Philippines Conference Center, Tagaytay City Philippines Phone: (63 96) 4131 290, 4131 291, 4131 292 Fax: (63 2) 712 7890 Funding: Because of limited resources available, we ask all prospective participants to raise funds for their participation. Workshop fee: USD 200, including meals (dinner, Nov. 16 to breakfast, Nov. 21), lodging for five days (Nov. 16-20), local transport to and from Tagaytay City conference site, and workshop materials. Participants to the various alternative to APEC and other international conferences in Manila around that time who intend to attend the first day open public session only should pre-register. The one-day workshop fee is USD 10 (inclusive of lunch, snacks and workshop materials). Contacts: For registration and other details, please contact: 1. Mario Mapanao, DAGA Documentation for Action Groups in Asia 96, 2nd District, Pak Tin Village Mei Tin Road, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong Email: daga@hk.super.net Phone: (852) 2691 6391, 2697 1917 Fax: (852) 2697 1912 2. Roberto Verzola, Interdoc 108 V.Luna Road Extension Sikatuna Village 1101 Quezon City, Philippines Email: rverzola@phil.gn.apc.org Phone: (63 2) 921 5165 Fax: (63 2) 433 1133 (Those requiring official invitation letter for visa purposes to the Philippines should communicate with Roberto Verzola at the soonest possible time.) 3. Jagdish Parikh, Interdoc 1802 Fairview Avenue Easton, PA 18042 USA Email: jagdish@igc.apc.org Phone: (1 215) 252 3422 Notes: 1. This is NOT a training workshop. While familiarity with computer communications or the Internet would be useful, the main objective of the workshop is to discuss political, economic, social and cultural issues, not technical issues. 2. It is suggested that participants coming from the same country meet before coming to the workshop, so that they can exchange notes and prepare a collectively written country situation report.There will also be time, during the evenings, for issue-based caucuses and country/sub-regional meetings for sharing and joint planning which can be inputted into the plenary sessions. 3. Evenings are generally free for technical sharing/exchange/demonstration, informal discussion, multi-cultural presentations, etc. 4. A workshop registration form and guide questions towards creating a directory/profile of participating organizations will be sent prospective participants. 5. Participants are requested to bring 50 copies of organizational brochures, reports and/or newsletters. Participants are also requested to volunteer to moderate plenary and small group sessions, act as recorders, lead socials and other tasks that will help ensure the success of the workshop. 6. The workshop will be all the more significant in that it marks 10 years of Interdoc activity in Asia. In August 1986, a workshop on"Documentation in the Age of New Information Technologies", co-sponsored by the Asian Monitor Resource Centre (AMRC), Asian Regional Exchange for New Alternatives (ARENA) and the Documentation for Action Groups in Asia (DAGA) was convened in Hong Kong. From mario_m at HK.Super.NET Tue Aug 20 21:51:41 1996 From: mario_m at HK.Super.NET (Mario R R Mapanao) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 20:51:41 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 39] Reflections for the Manila People's Forum on APEC Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960820204631.1e07acfe@is1.hk.super.net> am sharing the following reflections of a colleague and friend for the Manila People's Forum on APEC process. Because this was addressed to me, I have decided that this friend will be nameless. Dear Mario, My thoughts concern the Main Forum and the internal dynamic of preparations so far. It was suggested that a key item on the agenda for the Main Forum is to discuss whether we should engage or disengage from APEC. There are basically three problems at the outset: 1. So far there has been no engagement (unless we are referring to the role of groups like TUCP who are also part of the official Philippines delegation) so you cannot dis-engage. The issue is whether to accept or reject the very existence of APEC as a set of institutional arrangements and an agenda. It's very clear. "Engagement" has become an obscure term for accepting the status quo, just as "market economy" is used as a euphemism for "capitalism". It may make us feel better when we say it, but it certainly doesn't change anything. So if there is any truth to the claims about transparency in the NGO community, then we must use terms that people understand. Accept or reject, that's the issue. So what does it mean to "critically" accept? And more importantly, how does critical acceptance on the part of "the people" have any effect on challenging the interests and agenda of power-holders? I suspect that it doesn't. Will those that wield power in our societies rethink their material interests, status and demands for sacrifice from the masses because we are banging on the door saying, "We accept, but critically!" More importantly, in this "critical engagement" (acceptance) what parts are we going to accept, sort-of-accept, possibly-accept and not-really-accept? And who will decide? Will we partially accept the demand to abolish employment protection, social protection, subsidies, rural support programmes, public utilities, social welfare and services, public ownership, health and education programmes, labour laws, and so on? I really don't think so. Are we going to give a conditional-but-critical-yes to privatisation, deregulation of financial markets, free labour markets, wage competition, and exposure of small producers and farmers to free competition with multinationals? And if so how does this differ from "yes" to all of these things. If you agree to these processes in measured doses it will still happen in the long run. So our critical yes merely means that it happens more slowly - less visibly - over time. And in the end there is still going to be more poverty, more joblessness, more landlessness, more rural households destroyed by the free market, more migrant workers leaping into the abyss of the global labour market..... 2. This leads to the second problem: who are "we"? One of the reasons I've never understood PP21 is that it's not clear who the "people" are or what the "plan" is. The only part I'm sure of is the 21st Century. Now PFA '96 is a far more concrete, substantial and positive initiative. Yet I'm beginning to hear similar noises about "the people". That's okay. There will be many POs (people's organizations) there which genuinely represent a mass base and NGOs which - through a set of principles - pursue an agenda which they believe is for the benefit of the people. So the people will be there in November. I have no doubt about that. But suddenly we make a quantum leap into deciding whether or not to accept or reject APEC. So here you have it: APEC is non-democratic, largely composed on authoritarian political regimes and ineffective parliamentary democracies. APEC was formed out of the will of neoliberal economic policy makers and capitalists seeking greater flexibility and mega-profits. APEC has set an agenda for coercive economic liberalisation in its member countries. The only "NGO" is the APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC). No one was elected. No one is accountable. No mass based organisations were actively involved in its formation. No workers, peasants, small-scale farmers, small producers, petty traders, persecuted ethnic groups or colonised peoples had a say in its formation. Yet all these people WILL suffer under the agenda that has been set. Now I gaze before me and I see a castle made of iron and stone. There are no windows, no doors, no light. In the commands that come from the castle I hear that people will suffer, people will lose hope and many will probably die. So why should I then go and ask to be let inside? It may be a dramatic way of talking about it, but my point is this: let us act upon what we know of the consequences of the agenda set by APEC. Our friends who have suffered under NAFTA have shown us the scars. So let's not throw short-term solutions at long-term problems, and let's stay outside the castle. 3. Back to the preparations for PFA '96 and the Main Forum. So the issue of engagement (acceptance) and disengagement (rejection) will be debated. By whom? Which peasants, farmers, workers, small producers, petty traders, persecuted ethnic minorities and colonised peoples will debate this? They can and will debate privatisation, competing freely with big agribusiness, whether they should have social security, whether there should be subsidies, whether there should be job security and job protection.... They will genuinely debate these issues and many more. But only those who claim to have seen the castle; only those who claim to KNOW it, will be able to debate the question of whether to accept of reject it. So there we have it. The experts will speak. The people will actually be present in November. But the topic chosen will not be one they can speak on. The "big names" can give them suggestions, options, and ask, "What do you think?" But ultimately the experts will achieve only this: they will remain the experts, they will maintain their hegemony over ideas and concepts. And the people will be no more in a position to speak than when they came - quite simply because it is the WRONG thing to be talking about. What about this scenario: In the Main Forum a woman worker gets up and speaks. The organiser from the labour NGO who came with her translates. She talks about the ideas she has had since she arrived and attended different forums. She talks about how she feels about it. She tells us what things need to be done so that her fellow workers can prepare themselves for the onslaught of APEC. She suggests what training and community education is needed. Next a household farmer or peasant gets up and says she's had a good time. She's met a lot of people. She enjoyed the discussions. She tells us about her concerns, the immediate challenges in her life, and the challenges ahead. She relates some of this to APEC, based on the discussions which she participated in. She says what her association or cooperative might do to follow up this issues. She sits down. The experts smile and nod, and shake their heads when she uses the wrong term for tariff protection. They get uncomfortable when it seems that she will finish speaking without saying the US is imposing this neoliberal agenda. The media get bored. They take photos of her that will appear in the newspaper the next day - without an article on what she said. The media get bored and start looking around for the "big names". The experts get bored and look around for reporters to speak to. All a bit simple? Not at all: because the people are speaking. And I know that everything I have said is wrong. Just as I am wrong about PP21 and NGOs collaborating with the World Bank. I'm just waiting for someone to tell me why.... In solidarity, xxx ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Documentation for Action Groups in Asia, Hong Kong E-mail: mario_m@hk.super.net Phone: (852) 2691 6391, 2691 1068 ext 54 Fax: (852) 2697 1912 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org Wed Aug 21 21:48:44 1996 From: RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org (RVerzola) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 04:48:44 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 40] Reflections for the Manila People's Forum on APEC Message-ID: <237_9608210455@phil.gn.apc.org> >So if there is any truth to the claims about transparency in the NGO >community, then we must use terms that people understand. Accept or Very well said, thank you. It's a pity that you remain nameless, as it prevents further networking. I also posted an article earlier referring to 'globalization' as the rule of global corporations and a new form of colonization. Recently, I have dropped my use of the terms TNC and MNC in favor of 'global corporations', as it makes it easier to relate this with 'globalization'. When the West first came to Asia, Africa and Latin America, they didn't tell the people, "Hello, we are going to colonize you.". They said, "We're here to share our civilization with you." "We're here to evangelize" "We're here to teach Christianity" "To bring democracy" etc. They didn't say "We want to take your gold, and your forests." "We want to take you as slaves.". Well, eventually they did say so, when they were entrenched, or had enough army to be open about their intentions. That whole era of colonization was followed by a period of national independence struggles. In the Philippines, we will observe on Aug. 23 this year the 100th anniversary of the open revolt against Spain, which eventually led to a Philippine declaration of independence (but which was aborted when we were recolonized by the U.S.). The whole first half of the 20th century (up to the 60s and 70s for a few) marked a whole historical period when Third World countries gained political as well as some semblance of economic independence. This period also saw a retreat of the colonial powers and global corporations, as their power, influence and reach were restricted or circumscribed by the newly independent nation-states of the Third World. In some places, they saw their businesses simply confiscated or nationalized. In other countries, they could continue to operate but under some restrictions imposed by local constitutions and laws meant to protect and develop an emerging national capitalist class. So they had to work around such restrictions as maximum capital ownership, hiring of local managers, local content requirements, limits to profit repatriations, higher taxes, limits to local borrowing, etc. However, the global corporations struck back beginning with the 70s 80's and this decade, taking advantage of several crises that weakened Third World governments and exposed them to manipulation, like the oil crisis, debt crisis, capital flight, and so on. Of course, they didn't say "Now, we are going to recolonize you." They came with a mask, as the colonizers of an earlier era did. They speak of a "global village", "interdependence", "division of labor", and other nice words. It helps that they have near total control of the media and other instruments of culture, which impose a universal vocabulary of double-speak that we find ourselves unconsciously adopting them. 'Globalization', for one. The first task, then, is to unmask this process of recolonization. Regards to all. Obet Verzola From RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org Wed Aug 21 21:50:55 1996 From: RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org (RVerzola) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 04:50:55 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 41] Globalization: Poor Design? Message-ID: <239_9608210455@phil.gn.apc.org> Globalization: Poor Design? by Roberto Verzola, Surian ng Reporma sa Lipunan Most successful designers of complex systems follow basic rules of design. Whether it is a worldwide network of ten million computers such as the Internet, or a huge computer program with fifty million lines of code, or a tiny computer chip with two million transistors on it, or a spaceship that will land men on the moon, the design rules are surprisingly similar. A basic rule in designing complex systems is modularization. The rule says one should break up a complex system into smaller parts. These smaller parts -- usually called modules -- should be more manageable and relatively independent from each other. The modules should interact only through a few well-defined interfaces. Each module should have high internal cohesion. The coupling between modules should be minimized. A good example is the Apollo lunar mission. One of the most complex systems ever designed, it used modules all through out, from the design of the spaceship itself, to the electronic circuitry that comprised much of its automatic intelligence. The mission's spectacular success is a tribute to the effectiveness of modular design. Another example is the Internet, a computer network designed to survive a nuclear attack. The Internet implements communications through modular network layers which interact with each other only through well-defined interfaces. Internet communications protocols have also been broken down into simpler protocols -- one for transferring mail, another for news, and still another for files. Modularization is such an important concept in software engineering that all computer languages facilitate writing software modules. There is even a computer language called Modula. In economics, modularization means that countries should try to become as self-sufficient and as independent from each other as possible. It means that interaction between economies should be minimized and should occur only through well-defined regulations. Modularization means that the coupling among economies should be minimized. Globalization, currently the dominant trend among economic planners, violates the design principle of modularization. By tearing down "well-defined interfaces" between economies, globalization increases the coupling among countries and makes countries more instead of less dependent on each other. System designers know that a complex system with high interaction among its parts becomes more prone to failures. It is difficult to modify and to improve. It becomes error-prone, yet the errors are more difficult to identify and to correct. In a poorly-designed system, attempts to correct errors often introduce more errors, making the system even more failure-prone. >From a systems view, a globalized economy is a badly designed economy. It will be prone to errors and failures, and difficult to maintain and to improve. Look at the problems of today's globalized economy. Because of the free movement of goods, diseases spread quickly from one corner of the globe to another. CFCs produced in one country damage the ozone layer and threaten the health of the citizens of other countries. Toxic wastes produced in the North find themselves being dumped in the South. Chernobyl's radioactive emissions threatened the dairy industry of the rest of Europe. A stock market crash in the U.S. would probably send stock prices worldwide tumbling. Because of the free movement of capital, job insecurity as well as speculation has become a global problem. These are all the consequences of the bad design inherent in a tightly coupled global economy. Despite this, economists often insist that globalization is inevitable, and the best we can do is to adjust to it. For a designer's viewpoint, no design is "inevitable." Every design is the result of a conscious or unconscious effort. Poor designs arise because the designer relaxes on his rules, and adopts an "anything goes" approach. To economists, relaxing the rules is a good thing. They call it "liberalization" and "deregulation". And "anything goes" is called "free-market competition". To system designers, relaxing the rules leads to violations of the basic principles of good design, and makes globalization inevitable. Who want the rules relaxed? These are mostly the global corporations, the main beneficiaries of globalization. They are the equivalent of global variables in software engineering. But while software engineers try to eliminate global variables or turn them into local variables, economists are awed by global corporations and seek employment from them. When global corporations use transfer pricing to maximize profits at the expense of the host country; or when they switch to highly automated equipment and minimize local employment; or when they compete with local entrepreneurs for skilled labor or for bank loans; or when they suddenly pull out liquid assets for some reason or another; we are witnessing what system designers call the "undesirable side-effects of global variables." Thus, a fundamental rule in software design is to avoid global variables. Faced with a badly-designed, non-modular system, designers frequently find it easier and more cost-effective to simply junk the design and to start from scratch. Perhaps, this is what we should do with globalization. From daga at HK.Super.NET Wed Aug 21 16:01:16 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 15:01:16 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 42] from the conference facilitator Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960821145605.08a77600@is1.hk.super.net> To retrieve past messages, the command in body text to is: "get asia-apec (msg. no)" Unfortunately, you will have to do this one by one, as in the following sample: get asia-apec 3 get asia-apec 4 . . get asia apec 34 For those who joined at different times, here is a guide to msg nos. and subject titles. (Missing msg nos. have to do with unnecessary test/re-forwarded, etc. messages to the conference). 5 - Bigger battles at the urban poor front Statement by 502 employees of Dusit Nikko Manila 7 - From the ML facilitator 9 - Hidden costs of free trade: statement of the Philippine PO-NGO Summit on the APEC 10- APEC websites and their URLs 11- From the e-conference facilitator 12- WEMPCO logging company 15- Phil. PO-NGO Summit on APEC, 4/5 July 17- No new issues at Singapore WTO meet, says developing world 18- Manila's evictions due to APEC 19- Women's Forum statement for the APEC Manila process 20- Free trade activist arrested 21- Labour leader arrested 22- Kyoto Declaration: Statement from 1995 NGO Forum on APEC 23- Introduction to the 1996 Manila People's Forum on APEC 24- MPFA contact persons 25- MPFA calendar of activities 28- APEC Watch #7 29 - Solidarity request from Sarawak 30- APEC Watch #6 31- Revolt against globalization, by Roberto Verzola 32- From the conference facilitator: who are on asia-apec? 34- Statement of solidarity with the Indonesian People 35- APEC: The Unauthorized History, by Walden Bello 36- APEC Comes to Aotearoa, by Azis Choudry 37- From the conference facilitator 38- Are we ready for the global information economy: ] a workshop invitation from Interdoc and DAGA 39- Reflections for the Manila People's Forum on APEC 40- Reflections for the Manila People's Forum on APEC 41- Globalization: poor design, by Roberto Verzola ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Documentation for Action Groups in Asia (DAGA) 96, 2nd District, Pak Tin Village Mei Tin Road, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong Tel : (852) 2691 6391/ 2691 1068 ext 54 Fax: (852) 2697 1912 E-mail: daga@hk.super.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org Thu Aug 22 13:46:24 1996 From: RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org (RVerzola) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 20:46:24 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 43] Re: Reflections for the Manila People's Forum on APE Message-ID: <488_9608212101@phil.gn.apc.org> Hi, Gerald. Thanks for the reply. I think you have started an interesting thread of discussion, which I'd like to pursue in the context of current issues such as GATT/WTO and APEC. >are not useful terms. I would go further, though, and call it global >capital. Because corporations can always be represented in solely Global capital is fine, but if I'm looking for a term that the masses can easily grasp -- as was your original suggestion -- I'd still choose global corporation (or global companies). They can see it right there on the signboards and neon lights. Here, we don't speak of global corporations alone. We link them to a pro-rich, corrupt and overcentralized government, as we have in the Philippines and elsewhere. The two are partners in crime, so to speak, and the people suffer because of this partnership. Global corporations and the government are two ubiquitous institutions that many people plainly see as causes of their displacement as well as loss of job and food security. For the APEC alone, scores maybe hundreds of families including children were ejected from their homes, which were demolished because they were eye-sores. The government wants to prettify the view along the roads the APEC participants will pass on their way from Manila to Subic. >In thinking about this linkage to political power I must say that I >disagree with the solutions you propose. I do not believe that national >political elites can in any way be better than global capital. There are Hmm, I don't remember proposing specific solutions yet, much less arguing for national political elites. I presume you are replying to somebody else's posting? Anyway, I was saying that the first task is to unmask this process of recolonization, which in the Philippines is happening at a tremendous pace. With the help of our corporate- and investor-friendly government, global corporations are feasting on our natural resources, privatizing public commons, and buying the national wealth at bargain prices. Our local producers are being exposed to deadly competition with global corporations. Yet, we are told that we should welcome and embrace this whole process, because it will supposedly provide employment, transfer technology, promote interdependence, development economy, etc. Some people believe it, too. In APEC, we can see the same double-speak, with the representatives of the Philippine government in effect acting as spokesdogs of U.S. interests. Regards, and back to you. Obet Verzola From mario_m at HK.Super.NET Thu Aug 22 13:53:34 1996 From: mario_m at HK.Super.NET (Mario R R Mapanao) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 12:53:34 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 44] Reflections for the Manila People's Forum on APEC Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960822124823.1c272a06@is1.hk.super.net> sharing with you all the piece Obet is responding to [asia-apec 43], as he gave the name away. Looking forward to an interesting discussion.... Mario M. Dear Obet Thanks for your comments. Mario was right in keeping my name out of it till now, but I can let you know that I wrote the ruthless critique of NGO politics of persuasion and APEC. Now, concerning your critique of globalisation. I agree that TNC and MNC are not useful terms. I would go further, though, and call it global capital. Because corporations can always be represented in solely institutional terms - as borderless private enterprises as it were. But these TNCs, MNCs, etc continue to share with the British East India Company and all the early capitalist vanguards of colonial empires a very important characteristic - the fusion of political power and capital. Global capital implies this link to political power, both to national governments and to globocop organisations like the UN and neoiberal globalisers like the World Bank. In thinking about this linkage to political power I must say that I disagree with the solutions you propose. I do not believe that national political elites can in any way be better than global capital. There are two reasons for this: firstly regardless of the occasional clashes with th "West" dictators like Mahatir have acquired personal wealth and political power through direct linkages to global capital. Japanese capital is no less destructive and exploitative than "Western" capital. Yet Mahatir's Look East Policy fostered the enmeshment of Malay political elites and a weak capitalist class with Japanese capital. At the same time he inflicted upon the ethnic Chinese policy a brutal policy of ethnic management: continued marginalisation of ethnic Chinese lower classes and - ironically - the further privileging of the ethnic Chinese capitalist class. You just have to look at the nationalist anti-Western political leader Suharto to see these links. All of these political leaders and their cicrle of elites have joint ventures with global capital and directly benefit. Second: much of the disagreement between political leaders like Mahatir and leaders of currupt, unworkable democratic regimes in the West stems from the relationship between the local capitalist class and the state, and the neoliberal agenda of exposing these capitalists with competition from global capital. It is not about social justice, or anything to do with the improvement in the lives of the mass of the people. In today's world so such leaders - in Asia or the West - exist. Nationalism has a progressive history in the context of decolonisation. But nationalism was also used to consolidate the power of the new ruling elite in post-colonial regimes. None of them came from the lower classes and many of them were at one time part of the colonial state apparatus. Furthermore, it was this nationalism which saw not the destruction of the colonial state but its takeover. So many of the technologies of state power exercised today are the same as the colonial state - military, police, local administration, etc. Even maps are based on the colonial state's enforcement of the colony, so what was the colony is now the nation-state. So there are more Armenians in Iran than in Armenia, and the people of East Timor are "free" to be Indonesian in the post-colonial order. Finally, nationalism has been used to enforce sacrifices on the mass of the people. The sacrifices are never even. The brunt of the sacrifice - in terms of collective social and political rights, economic and political participation, the right to strike, etc., the sacrifice of food for the sake of rising exports, of land to the local capitalist class, etc - is borne by the workers, peasants, farmers, fisherfolk, repressed ethnic groups, and still colonised peoples. Lee Kuan Yew's nationalism led to the repression and murder of dissidents and social activists, and so did Mahatir's in 1987 and Suharto - well, always! It is not enough to blame all of the social violence of markets, and domination and exploitation of capitalism on global corporations. Political elites have used nationalism and their links to global capital to consolidate their own power and to create indigenous capitalist classes which are no less exploitative of the local people than capitalists from the West. I've run of steam .... I'll wait for your response. In solidarity From daga at HK.Super.NET Thu Aug 22 22:01:46 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 21:01:46 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 45] An Appeal to the Senior Officials of the Asian Governments in APEC Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960822205635.40273050@is1.hk.super.net> From: Philippine Peasant Institute Subject: MPFA paid ad [Philippine Daily Inquirer, August 22, 1996] AN APPEAL TO THE SENIOR OFFICIALS OF THE ASIAN GOVERNMENTS IN APEC "Stop Washington and Manila from Undermining the Osaka Action Agenda!" We would like to call your attention to two disturbing developments: ? the continuing push by US to turn APEC from a consultative group into a free trade area; and, ? the host government's active collaboration with the US and APEC's free trade lobby in moving towards this goal. Washington's Continuing Goal: APEC as a Free Trade Area At the meetings of senior officials and trade ministers in Cebu and Christchurch earlier this year, and now in Davao, the US has insisted on the submission of ?solid,? comprehensive, and detailed liberalization plans that will be harmonized using the criteria of ?comparability? and ?transparency.? Washington?s strategy is to get a firm base of comparable country commitments against which future performance will be judged and which will later serve as the basis of a free trade agreement. This behavior is driven primarily by Washington?s twin goals of turning its current $120 billion deficit with the major economies of East and Southeast Asia into a surplus and reestablishing a significant trade and investment presence in a part of the world that has steadily slipped from the US economic orbit. Despite Malaysian Trade Minister Rafidah Aziz?s assessment that an APEC free trade area is a ?dream,? APEC?s largest economy continues to actively pursue the latter. Manila Departs from the Asian Agenda As the experience of Blake Island, Bogor, and Osaka underlined, the role of the host government is vital in determining the direction of APEC. It is disconcerting to note that the Philippine government is departing from the principles of Osaka. While the Osaka Action Agenda approved in November 1995 has many flaws, it nevertheless enshrines several principles that run counter to the Washington-Canberra campaign to turn APEC into a free trade area. The Osaka Declaration asserts that trade liberalization must be flexible, voluntary, and non-binding. It expressed the Asian governments? view that APEC move away from its focus on trade liberalization by affirming that economic cooperation, or aid, is just as central a pillar of APEC as liberalization. We are alarmed in particular by the following developments: ? First, contrary to the Asian government?s consensus that APEC should remain a consultative group, the Philippine government?s APEC team has said that it is working for the ?establishment of a free trade area by the year 2020.? ? Second, the Philippines? APEC team revealed that the host will ?lead by example,? by adopting a program of unilateral, blanket liberalization that will reduce all Philippine tariffs to no more than five per cent in the year 2004, and urging its Asian neighbors to adopt a similar strategy. As President Fidel Ramos himself has said, ?We must blaze the trail that others must follow.? ? Third, the government?s APEC team has stated that it will actively urge the Philippines? neighbors to submit ?detailed and comprehensive plans to open their markets,? which it will then take the lead in harmonizing, or making ?comparable and transparent.? This subverts the Osaka principle of voluntary and non-binding liberalization. ? Fourth, in its blueprint for Philippine participation in APEC entitled ?APEC and the Philippines: Catching the Next Wave,? the government has stated that one of the priority measures it will push for is ?strict enforcement of intellectual property rights.? This is not an agenda that serves the Philippine interest nor the Asian interest. This is the agenda of Microsoft Corporation and the US Trade Representative?s Office. In dealing with the Ramos administration, APEC?s Asian member countries must be warned that under the leadership of doctrinaire free traders, Philippine economic policy is in the process of radical transformation. Our foreign investment code is being overhauled drastically to open up the retail trade sector to Walmart, Sears, and other foreign distributors on terms far more liberal than those existing in Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, and other economies. It has already been changed to allow the entry and operation of foreign banks, also on terms far more liberal than in other Asian countries. Land ownership has been revised to allow foreigners to lease land for 50 years, renewable for 25 years, and is being further revised to give foreigners virtual ownership via the so-called ?Condominium Act.? Non-tariff barriers are being dismantled wholesale, and Executive Order 264 will reduce all tariffs to a uniform five per cent by 2004. This tariff reduction scheme is not?repeat, not?guided by AFTA?s plan for regional import substitution?that is, reducing tariffs among members but keeping them up against non-members as part of a concerted effort to upgrade ASEAN?s industry. An official Philippine document says that this ?goes one step further by minimizing the potential trade diverting effects of regional trading agreements by making available all tariff changes on an MFN basis.? We are not against liberalization. Like most Asian economic planners, we are for a pragmatic trade policy, where the national government retains the ability to liberalize or to protect the economy, depending on the circumstances. We are for a trade policy that recognizes other national priorities, like industrial deepening, equitable income distribution, and sustainable development. The Philippines? doctrinal, unilateral, blanket liberalization policy under APEC leads to three unacceptable consequences: ? It entails the surrender of a flexible trade and investment policy as a mechanism of industrial and economic development. ? It will lead to the sacrifice of important environmental, people's and human rights and social priorities for marginal gains in production and allocative efficiency. Blanket liberalization will, in fact, bring about a greater exploitation of labor and the environment?precisely, what Washington now cynically accuses the Asian countries of doing! ? It makes liberalization irreversible. By locking in unilateral liberalization program to multilateral agreements like APEC, the current administration will in fact make it irreversible. Any future administration will be able to undo it only on the pain of incurring sanctions and retaliation from trade partners like the United States. It is this model of radical liberalization made irreversible by the iron rules of multilateral agreements that the Philippines is proposing that its neighbors adopt. Manila?s program coincides in all essentials with the vision of APEC as a free trade area. It will do away with one of the key instruments of the so-called ?Asian miracle?: the flexible employment of trade policy to achieve industrial deepening and other broader national development objectives. Stop the Philippines from being a Trojan Horse for APEC?s Northern Lobby In light of the foregoing concerns, we ask the Asian senior and trade ministers to: ? forcefully remind the Philippine government that the Asian consensus is that APEC will remain a consultative group, not turned into a free trade area; ? demand that the Philippine government cease making its program of blanket, unilateral, and irreversible liberalization the model for other Asian countries in APEC; ? insist that the Philippine government synchronize its stands with other Asian countries around a cautious, non-doctrinal approach to liberalization that does not give up flexibility to use trade to achieve goals essential to national security and sustainable development; ? follow the spirit of Osaka by moving away from a focus on free trade toward more relevant and more important principles?such as sustainable development, fair trade, and economic cooperation?as the basis of regional cooperation. It is unfortunate that in APEC, the Philippine government is, objectively speaking, regressing to its old role of serving as spokesman for US interests in the region. We in the NGO, PO and trade union community demand that the current administration align itself with the Asian interest, rather than the Northern free trade lobby, in APEC. And we ask the governments and peoples of the other Asian member countries in APEC to warn and help us prevent the Philippine government from turning into the Trojan Horse of Northern interests in the Asia-Pacific region. Manila People's Forum on APEC 1996* 22 August 1996 * The Manila People's Forum on APEC 1996 is the continuation of the initiative started in Kyoto in 1995 to provide a parallel process of peoples, communities and sectors affected by the free trade and economic integration agenda represented by the APEC. In November, five hundred participants representing peoples, non-government organizations, civil society organizations, the academe and cause-oriented groups from across the Asia Pacific Region and other South Nations of the world will converge in Manila for a conference on "Fair Trade and Sustainable Development: Agenda for Regional Cooperation." This gathering is an effort to focus the attention of the international community on the need to reflect such concerns as human rights, gender, social equity and environmental sustainability in the APEC Agenda. From alarm at HK.Super.NET Fri Aug 23 00:12:08 1996 From: alarm at HK.Super.NET (ALARM) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 23:12:08 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 46] Workers' Primer on APEC, Part II Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960822230656.402787e6@is1.hk.super.net> ALARM Update (online version) Monthly newsletter of the APEC Labour Rights Monitor (ALARM) project Issue Nos. 4 & 5, July & August 1996 7. How is APEC related to WTO and neoliberalism? APEC and regional trade blocs serve as WTO's implementing mechanisms. Just as the IMF and the WB need governments and instruments to implement policies and actualise structural adjustment programmes (SAPs), the WTO needs governments and regional trade blocs to push forward global free trade. Considering its 130+ member countries, WTO can be too cumbersome. "The interests and concerns are so different that achieving agreement by the GATT consensus rule is becoming extremely complicated." [Chuan, as cited in Bello, Challenging the mainstream, 1995]. The idea therefore is to use regional liberalization as a means of making global liberalization easier to negotiate in a step-by-step manner. Therefore, APEC liberalization is described as "going beyond GATT". What was not achieved in the Uruguay Round should be attempted in APEC. Regional trade blocs however, can obstruct global integration, especially if they become "inward-looking" or "exclusionary". Therefore, the WTO and its prime mover, the US, are making sure that such regional blocs follow "open regionalism" and implement policies consistent with GATT-UR and WTO's global neoliberal agenda. APEC, as discussed above, is a champion of this open regionalism. Indeed, APEC has declared its "full and active support for and participation in WTO", and arrogated onto itself the task of implementing the WTO free market agenda in the Asia-Pacific region. Towards this end, APEC has set up the Committee on Trade and Investment (CTI) "to identify barriers to trade, and work to harmonize GATT-Uruguay Round implementation among APEC members." [Spero, Challenging the mainstream, 1995] The 1994 report of APEC's EPG also "recommends that APEC member economies proceed with their domestic ratification for the UR as quickly as possible ... We recommend that APEC members that are not currently GATT members become Contracting Parties as soon as possible." 8. Why is APEC of particular concern? We have seen that APEC plays a central role in realising global free trade by ensuring the creation of a free trade area in the Asia- Pacific region by 2020. In terms of population, trade, investments and economic wealth, APEC will be the biggest free trade initiative in the world. APEC spans the whole Pacific rim, and "collectively represents one-half the world's people and one-half its annual economic output." [Spero, Challenging the mainstream, 1995]. The combined gross national product of the APEC economies (as of 1993) is more than US$13 trillion. The region has total population of more than 2.15 billion. In 1993, APEC accounted for half of the world's wealth and trade (46% of total world exports, 53% of gross world product). About 80% of APEC's combined GNP comes from its two biggest economies -- Japan and the US. When formalised, APEC will become the world's biggest free trade bloc. More important, APEC will serve as the biggest implementing mechanism of WTO for its global free market agenda. 9. What is the status of APEC now? APEC is still developing and evolving, although it has locked-on to its basic focus and orientation. It remains an annual meeting of ministers. Unlike EU, NAFTA and ANCEPTA, there is no clear-cut agreement or treaty governing APEC. Given the consensus about its vision, APEC is now trying to develop its principles (open regionalism, etc.); its role in realising global free trade and free market; and its target and general timetable (2020 plan). More and more policies, groups, mechanisms and sub- meetings have been operationalised to give form and flesh to APEC's agenda. On the other hand, more consolidation has also resulted in increased tensions among the competing interests in APEC. APEC is highly vulnerable to the maneuvering and power-politics of the dominant members, especially US, Japan, Australia, and Malaysia. APEC now urgently wants to firm up, consolidate and formalise the consensus and agenda that have emerged after six years. The forthcoming 1996 APEC ministers' summit in Subic, Philippines will therefore be very critical for APEC -- it can either further consolidate APEC, or increase the tensions towards APEC's eventual fragmentation or disintegration. 10. Where will the 1996 APEC ministers' summit be? APEC has an unwritten policy of alternating the venue of the summit between ASEAN and non- ASEAN countries. The 8th annual ministers' meeting will be held on 25th November 1996 in Subic, Philippines, an ASEAN member. The choice of Subic is very symbolic. Subic is now being developed by the government of Philippine President Ramos as a free trade, free port area to rival Hong Kong in the near future. For the Ramos government, the 1996 APEC summit in Subic will be a "debut" to showcase to the world -- especially businessmen and world economic powers -- that the Philippines has emerged as a fast-developing area, thanks to free trade and neoliberal policies. But Subic has a more historical symbolism. Until recently, it was the site of the Subic Naval Base, the largest US military installation outside of the US mainland. An unprecedented popular movement against the US military bases pressured the Philippine Senate to abrogate the military bases treaty , forcing the US to leave. The government took over and developed the area as a free port. What happens in this summit will determine which symbol Subic will ultimately carry -- the free market neoliberal agenda if APEC emerges stronger after the summit, or people's victory if Subic becomes the Waterloo, again, of US and global economic powers. 11. What is the cost of the APEC summit to the Filipino people? The Philippines is a poor country, with about 49% of its 68.6 million people living below poverty (1994). The country is now the poorest among the ASEAN countries in terms of per capita GNP. The US$ 4 billion annual remittance of overseas Filipino workers shore up the economy. In the past 3 years, the country has shown increasing positive GNP growth (5.2% in 1995). The government wants to showcase this as proof that the country is catching up with the rest of the region. That is why it wanted to much to host the 1996 APEC meeting. At what cost? The government has allotted at least 9.56 billion pesos (US$368 million) for the summit and related infrastructure. Around 7 billion pesos (US$269 million) is being spent for infrastructure projects, including the instant construction of the new Tipo- Binictican expressway linking Subic to Manila. This highway is expected to be completed before November for the exclusive use of APEC. Also, luxury villas are being constructed in Subic for each of the 18 heads of state. [APEC Watch #6, June 1996] The government, in recent weeks, has demolished communities of shanty homes along the route, to give way to the highway, as well as "clean-up" the squatters' unsightly presence. This is reminiscent of former First Lady Imelda Marcos' "clean-up and beautification drives" whenever foreign dignitaries visited the country. She had kilometer-long walls constructed along the route to screen off the squatter communities. (See ALARM Update #3, June 1996) The remaining 2.56 billion (US$98 million) will be spent for the summit itself. This budget alone is equal to 60% of the government's housing and community development budget for 1996. The government is also paying huge sums for public relation and media propaganda blitz to project how positive and desirable APEC is. 12. What is the position of people's groups on APEC? There are different views about APEC, even among labour groups, NGOs and people's organisations in the Asia-Pacific region. This differences in position is reflective of the debates and differences that accompanied the GATT/WTO issue. However, it is safe to say that business groups in the region support APEC. APEC in fact is aggressively coopting the business sector. They have been incorporated in the APEC process. They have formed the Asia-Pacific Business Network (APBnet) which gives recommendations to APEC. Among civil society groups in Asia-Pacific, there is a broad network of NGOs and people's groups (labour, women, migrants, food security, environment, human rights, indigenous peoples, development, churches, etc.) that have come together since 1994. This group has a minimum level of unity in opposing APEC, although in varying degrees (e.g. reform, transform, reject). They also have varying positions on how to deal with APEC: Lobby and reform from within, Outside intervention in order to delegitimise or destroy, Do not engage at all. In November 1995, representatives of more than 100 of these NGO's and people's groups in Asia-Pacific gathered in a forum on APEC in Kyoto, Japan. Notwithstanding the differences, the forum arrived at a strong consensus in rejecting APEC and its neoliberal agenda. The forum also stressed that since APEC is still evolving, we should intervene so that we de-legitimise and prevent it from consolidating. However, the forum did not prescribe a single approach; instead, it encouraged all people's groups to take their own initiatives in building economic cooperation among the peoples in the region and in resisting APEC. This first Asia-Pacific regional consensus on APEC is embodied in the now historic "Kyoto Declaration". 13. What is the Kyoto Declaration? The Kyoto Declaration embodies the broad, Asia-Pacific regional consensus of people's groups on APEC. This declaration states in clear, unequivocal terms that "we fully support cooperation among Asia-Pacific countries and peoples. However, we unanimously reject the basic philosophy, framework and assumptions of the model of free market and trade liberalization embraced by APEC...[Kyoto Declaration, 1995] It asserts that "genuine development must be centered on the needs of people and nature, and deliver real social and economic justice. Genuine development must also affirm the fundamental civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of individuals and peoples, and the obligations of states to promote and protect such rights." The people's groups particularly note that member governments of APEC have participated in world summits on the rights of the child (New York), environment (Rio), human rights (Vienna), population and development (Cairo), social development (Copenhagen), and women (Beijing). "Despite their participation, none of the commitments made in those conferences is visible in the APEC process. Rather, the consequences of this form of economic liberalization violate the fundamental rights to which they agreed." The declaration also opposes APEC's lack of transparency and accountability, and absences of democratic participation. The Kyoto Declaration serves as the minimum basis of unity of NGOs and people's groups on APEC, free trade and globalisation. 14. What are the main reasons for rejecting APEC? a) We reject free trade, the global neoliberal agenda, structural adjustment programmes, and their instruments (APEC, WTO/GATT, IMF, WB) APEC is not just about trade and economic issues. It is about the global agenda of the US, Japan, transnational and global capital. It is as much an economic as a social and political issue. Economic deregulation directly affects the lives of everyone: workers, women, indigenous people, farmers, consumers among others. With the unrestricted movement of goods, capital, investments and labour in APEC, the already scant, if not absent, social safety nets and legal protection of workers, women, migrants and other vulnerable groups will be eroded. b) Above anything else, APEC represents the interest and agenda of capital and businesses. While people's groups have been kept out of the APEC process, the business sector has been involved since the beginning. APEC has now established a Business Forum to advise it. In turn, the business sector has launched the APEC Business Advisory Group (ABAC) to offer guidance to national leaders on business matters. ABAC wants to ensure that investments are safeguarded and that benefits are reaped from free trade and investment liberalization. As the US Under Secretary for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs puts it, "APEC is not for government. It is for business. Through APEC, we aim to put government away". c) APEC has no accountability. Government ministers sit and decide in APEC not as government representatives, but just as "economic leaders". Thus, they use their positions and popular mandate to be in APEC, but conveniently leave their accountability and responsibility to their constituency when in APEC. They unabashedly advance and implement the agenda of the business sector and multinationals, in utter disregard for the people's interests.Worse, APEC is simply a "forum", not a treaty or an agreement. Unlike NAFTA which is treaty-based, APEC has no clear law or agreement binding the APEC "economies" and specifying the responsibilities and accountability of the government ministers. Yet governments are obliged to implement APEC decisions, plans and policies. Therefore, when taken to task for their decisions, they can conveniently deny responsibility because their involvement in APEC "is not an official act of government". These APEC "economic leaders" have effectively abdicated their responsibilities to their constituencies, in favor of business and other interests. d) There is no democratic participation and transparency in decision-making in APEC. In its 6 years existence, APEC has always met secretly, with the people and civil groups having no access to information or to challenge and influence the discussions and decisions. There are no prior consultations with the people about the agenda and decisions that the government ministers make in APEC. Neither do these ministers go through the formal democratic institutions, e.g. the congress or parliament, to seek approval of their agendas or actions.But whatever they commit becomes the commitment of the whole country. Therefore, the 2.15 billion people in the region will all face the consequences of APEC's "2020 Plan" and the attendant liberalization, structural adjustments, etc. e) The people's groups want a genuine form of regional cooperation What we advocate is genuine cooperation and development among countries and peoples in the region that is "centered on the needs of the people and nature; delivers real social and economic justice; affirms fundamental civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of individuals and peoples; guarantees basic rights to food, human dignity, integrity of communities, environmental security and self-determination", etc. The Kyoto Declaration outlines the characteristics of the vision of regional cooperation that we want. 15. How will APEC affect the workers? (Including trade unions, women, migrants) We have seen over the past 2 decades, how IMF and WB policies and structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) have wrought economic, environmental and social havoc on the lives of ordinary people, especially in Latin America, South, Southeast Asia and Africa. We have seen how free trade zones, liberalization and free market policies have robbed workers of their rights and stripped them of their dignity, decent wages and benefits. Not even international instruments and conventions (ILO, UN) have afforded workers with adequate protection. Multinational companies, domestic companies and governments routinely flaunt and violate these instruments that they have signed. We have seen how liberalization policies have caused the withdrawal/collapse of industries, to take advantage of "cheaper" sites elsewhere (de-industrialisation); the casualisation of workers, prevention of organising activities, intense quotas, resulting in the attrition or collapse of organised unions (de-unionisation). The one-track training forever condemning a worker to one, highly specialised, highly limited skill (de-skilling); the detachment of free trade zones and multinational industries from local sources and domestic productive linkages, causing higher dependence on imports, bigger deficits, and decline of national productivity (de-linking/de-nationalisation). All these structural damages to national economies have directly affected the workers, most of all. All the UN world summits these past few years (human rights, environment, social development, women, etc.) have generated volumes upon volumes of reports and materials documenting the adverse impacts of liberalization and neoliberal policies. Governments in APEC are signatories to these, yet at the same breath, they eagerly adopt the "2020 plan" and APEC's free trade agenda, the underlying causes to all the poverty and violations they condemned in their UN statements. The worst affected have always been the workers, trade unions, women, migrants, children, farmers, and other marginalised sectors. It is intuitive to say that APEC, as a more comprehensive expression of the global neoliberal agenda, will bring about the same problems and disasters to the people, especially the workers. However, we want the trade unionists, women workers, migrants and workers in general to speak for themselves. Ongoing and forthcoming activities and events are trying to document and collate the workers' stories. We want to build our life stories and present this as living proof of the impact and damage that APEC, free trade and neoliberalism have caused workers and the people in general. Workers groups in Mexico, Philippines, Aotearoa, etc. have come up with common positions/perspectives against APEC. From alarm at HK.Super.NET Fri Aug 23 00:12:02 1996 From: alarm at HK.Super.NET (ALARM) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 23:12:02 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 47] Workers' Primer on APEC, Part I Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960822230651.1c8fa592@is1.hk.super.net> ALARM Update (online version) Monthly newsletter of the APEC Labour Rights Monitor (ALARM) project Issue Nos. 4 & 5, July & August 1996 1. What is APEC? APEC, or the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, is a ministerial forum involving 18 countries and territories bordering the Pacific Ocean. These countries/territories are officially referred to as "member economies". They stretch from Asia to Australia, across the Pacific to North and Latin America. The 18 member economies are: Aotearoa (New Zealand), Australia, Brunei, Canada, China, Chile, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and the United States of America. APEC wants to encourage closer regional cooperation among the member economies. It aims to reduce trade barriers, promote investments among members and achieve borderless trade within the Asia-Pacific region by the year 2020. The member countries have pledged, according to this "2020 Plan", to set in motion a process of "open regionalism" in which their governments would liberalise trade on a "complete non-discriminatory" basis, as well as to "continue reducing ... trade barriers to non-member countries".[Bello, Challenging the mainstream] The APEC leaders signed a declaration in 1994 stating: "We wish to emphasize our strong opposition to the creation of an inward- looking trading bloc that would divert from the pursuit of global free trade. We are determined to pursue free and open trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific in a manner that will encourage and strengthen trade and investment liberalization in the world as a whole." [Declaration of Common Resolve, 1994]. APEC is a diverse group of small, middle and major powers with conflicting domestic concerns and international alliances and interests. Member economies are also of varied levels of development (developed, newly industrialising, and developing countries). APEC meets at head-of-state (ministerial) level every year. It has hardly any bureaucratic infrastructure and is serviced by a small secretariat in Singapore. 2. How did APEC start? Early 1989 -- APEC began as a cautious Japanese initiative to form a consultative forum for technical cooperation. "It is interesting to note that APEC was formed in 1989. This year saw the fall of the Berlin Wall, which symbolically signified the end of the Cold War and the regaining of supremacy of neoliberal economic policies." (Suthy Prasartset, Prof. of Economics, Thailand). It the following months, Australia and the United States took over. By the latter part of the year, APEC has ended up as some kind of ministerial level cooperation on trade and economic issues. November 1989 -- The first ministers' meeting was held in Canberra (Australia). The ministers agreed to officially establish APEC as an "informal economic dialogue" to help coordinate views on trade and economic issues. The then 12 members (Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei, South Korea, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United States) agreed to establish a ministerial forum to discuss Asia-Pacific economic issues, to be coordinated through senior officials' consultations. "Beyond a general economic focus, the group had no stated mission or goal." [Spero, Challenging the mainstream, 8 July 1995] July 1990 -- The second ministers' meeting was held in Singapore, but little was achieved. In the next two years, APEC was preoccupied with sorting out its membership. Governments who feared being left in the cold queued up to join. But being an artificial construct, with no natural geographical boundaries, no common historical, cultural or social base, no coherent identity of its own, APEC found it hard to set parameters for membership. [Bello, Challenging the mainstream , 1995] November 1991 -- The third summit was held in Seoul, Korea. China, Taiwan and Hong Kong were accepted as new members. One of the most important developments in the history of APEC happened during this meeting. The ministers issued the "Seoul Declaration of APEC Ministers" which gave APEC its first sense of focus since it was founded in 1989. The Seoul Declaration argued that economic growth had fostered interdependence and strong common interests ...and produced a healthy and balanced development. It went on to say that this economic growth was "built on a spirit of partnership ... and commitment to the free flow of goods and capital. Closer cooperation would mean more effective use of human and natural resources and sustained economic growth ..." (italics ours). [Kelsey, Economic Fundamentalism, New Zealand, 1995] 1992 -- The 4th summit was held in Bangkok, Thailand. Mexico and Papua New Guinea were accepted as new members. A small APEC Secretariat, to be based in Singapore, was created. November 1993 -- The 5th summit was held in Blake Island, Seattle, USA. "In that meeting, APEC developed a guiding vision. APEC announced its commitment to more open trade and investment, application of free market principles, and the concept of 'open regionalism' ". The Committee on Trade and Investment (CTI) was created "to simplify and harmonise customs procedures and standards, identify barriers to trade, implement a set of non-binding investment principles, and work to harmonise GATT-Uruguay Round implementation among APEC members." [Spero, Challenging the mainstream,1995] Other support bodies are: Economic Committee, Budget and Administrative Committee, Eminent Persons Group (EPG), Asia-Pacific Business Forum, November 1994 -- 6th summit was held in Bogor, Indonesia. Chile was accepted as 18th member. APEC announced a moratorium on new members until 1996. The Bogor summit was held only 3 days after the Indonesian police arrested several trade unionists including independent trade union leader Muchtar Pakpahan for "inciting unrest" following workers' protests in Medan. The Indonesia summit gave life to the Blake Island free market vision when the 18 "APEC Economic Leaders" signed and issued the "Declaration of Common Resolve" on 15 November 1994. This declaration gave full and active support to WTO, and gave birth to the "2020 Plan" when the leaders announced their governments' "commitment to complete the achievement of free and open trade and investment no later than 2010 for industrialised economies, 2015 for NICs, and 2020 for developing economies". [Declaration of Common Resolve, 1994] November 1995 -- 7th ministerial summit was held in Osaka, Japan. 25 November 1996 -- The Philippines will host the 8th APEC summit in Subic. 1997 and 1998 -- Canada and Malaysia will host the 9th and 10th summits, respectively. 3. What is APEC's "open regionalism"? According to APEC's Eminent Persons Group (EPG), "open regionalism", is one of APEC's guiding principles. "It means a process of regional cooperation whose outcome is not only the actual reduction of internal (intra-regional) barriers ... but also the actual reduction of external barriers to economies not part of [APEC]. [O]ur commitment, above all, to the process of global liberalization is thus in no way compromised; indeed, it is emphasized and strengthened." The EPG recommended the following at the 1994 summit: "We believe the concept of 'open regionalism' can be fully achieved if the APEC members continue to work for global liberalization in GATT and in the WTO, ... and if they include 4 elements in their regional liberalization program: (1) the maximum possible extent of unilateral liberalization; (2) a commitment to further reduce their trade and investment barriers toward non-APEC countries; (3) an offer to extend the benefits of APEC liberalization to non-members on a mutually reciprocal basis; and, (4) a recognition that any individual APEC member can extend its APEC liberalization to non-members on a conditional basis (via free trade arrangements), or on an unconditional basis (to all non members, or to all developing countries, inconformity with the GATT rules)." The EPG proposed that the process of Asia-Pacific liberalization be started by 2000 and completed by 2020. Thus the "2020 plan" embodied in the 1994 Declaration of Common Resolve. 4. What are other free trade initiatives in the Asia-Pacific region? There are numerous sub-regional and multilateral economic integration initiatives in Asia-Pacific, all differing in structure, time frame and strategies. However, they all aim to liberalise trade and investments. APEC is a relative newcomer in this field. Other free trade initiatives in the Asia-Pacific region include: AFTA or the ASEAN Free Trade Area (agreed in 1992) - the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) aims to create a free-trade zone by the year 2008. In 1994, they announced that tariffs within AFTA will be lowered to 5% by 2003, moving the deadline up by 5 years. ASEAN includes Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei, Singapore and recently, Vietnam. EAEC or the East Asia Economic Cooperation (proposed in 1991) - advocated by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir as a response to the formation of regional blocs in Europe and North America and to APEC's evolution in this direction. ANCERTA or the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relationship Treaty Agreement. Asian "growth areas" - common free trade and investment areas among neighbouring Asian countries. Examples: South Pacific Forum (1971): involving Australia, Fiji, Aotearoa, Papua New Guinea and other Pacific islands; Southern China Growth Triangle (1980's): involving China, Hong Kong, Taiwan; South Asian Preferential Trade Area (SAPTA, 1985), involving Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, India, Bangladesh, Maldives; Singapore-Johor-Riau Growth Triangle (1989); Greater Mekong Subregion (1991), involving Cambodia, China, Burma, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam; Indonesia- Malaysia-Thailand Growth Triangle(1993); BIMP-EAGA(1994),Brunei-Indonesia-Malaysia- Philippines East ASEAN Growth Area etc. NAFTA or the North American Free Trade Agreement (1994) - A trade agreement between Mexico, US, Canada implemented on 1 January 1994. The US is the centre of NAFTA, accounting for 70% of all imports and exports in the region. [Keidanren, Challenging the mainstream, 1994] Trade blocs outside of Asia-Pacific include: the European Union (EU), Gulf Cooperation Council, Mediterranean Free Trade Area (proposed 1995), MERCOSUR, the Andean Pact, Caribbean Common Market (CARICOM), Central American Common Market (CACM), etc. 5. What is WTO? On 1st January 1995, the World Trade Organization (WTO) was created "to provide a solid foundation for the open, multilateral trading system -- a system that will allow regional arrangements like the EU, NAFTA, or APEC to flourish but keep the world economy from breaking into costly, exclusionary blocs." [Spero,Chanllenging the mainstream, 1995] The main task of WTO is to implement the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade - Uruguay Round (GATT-UR). According to Spero, "The Uruguay Round agreement is the most far-reaching trade agreement in history: it will modernize the international trading system; significantly reduce tariffs and non-tariff barriers; expand the trade regime to services,intellectual property, and investment; and cover agriculture in a meaningful way for the first time." The WTO is also the "centerpiece of the US policy of international economic engagement," said Spero. In relation to this, the US "has (also) taken the first steps toward a thorough overhaul of the world's monetary and development institutions" (i.e. IMF, WB). The WTO therefore represents and completes the "three pillars" of the global free market system (the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund being the first two). These three institutions will ensure the process of creating an integrated, global free trade, free market economy (i.e. economic globalisation). They symbolise the renewed global supremacy of neoliberal economic policies. 6. What is globalisation? What is neoliberalism? As discussed above, globalisation is the ongoing process of the integration of national economies into a global free trade, free market system. The IMF, WB, WTO and regional trade blocs, including APEC, are the instruments by which this process is being implemented. The basic agenda of global free market integration is the elimination of all trade barriers so that there is unrestricted mobilisation of goods, services, capital, investments, production and information systems, as well as labour. The ongoing economic globalisation follows the neoliberal economic model. According to Professor of Economics, Suthy Prasartset, "the key elements of neoliberalism are: * the liberalization of trade and capital flows; * the market pricing of both private and public goods, which are usually controlled by international oligopolies; * privatisation as a means of expanding business for the corporate sector; * eliminating state regulations; and * reductions in social programmes, especially social subsidies for the poor." [Prasartset, AMPO, 1995] Globalisation however, has not meant the elimination of rules and government intervention. In fact, it has necessitated the creation of more laws and regulations, including government intervention. These rules and interventions are ensuring, on one hand, that the movement of trade, investments and capital is unrestricted; on the other, they ensure that the basic freedoms and rights of the people (e.g. to organise, protest, job security, just wages, health and safety protection, food security, safe environment, etc.) are controlled so as not to hinder the free movement of capital and trade. "Governments around the world are adjusting their economic policies to face the new realities of integration into the new global market economy ... Globalisation also refers to the rapidly improved communication systems (information and transportation) which serve to reduce distances between countries and regions, bringing not only greater exchange of goods and services but more exchanges between people and information from different countries." [Bronson, & Rousseau, Working Paper on Globalisation..., 1995] From alarm at HK.Super.NET Fri Aug 23 00:12:13 1996 From: alarm at HK.Super.NET (ALARM) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 23:12:13 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 48] Workers' Primer on APEC, Part III Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960822230702.0a376478@is1.hk.super.net> ALARM Update (online version) Monthly newsletter of the APEC Labour Rights Monitor (ALARM) project Issue Nos. 4 & 5, July & August 1996 16. What is our experience with NAFTA? A number of studies have been conducted on the effects of NAFTA, particularly in Mexico. The Mexican Action Network on Free Trade (RMALC) published this March 1996 report (?Challenging Free Trade in the Americas: Building Common Responses?, by Prof. Alberto Arroyo of UAM, et.al.) According to the study, the effect on Mexico was felt barely two years after the NAFTA implementation. The structural problems of the Mexican economy did not begin with NAFTA; the neoliberal growth model has been operative since at least 1982. In 1995, one year after NAFTA, the Mexican economy was plunged into its deepest crisis in more than 60 years. During the time NAFTA has been in effect, GDP per capita has declined by 7.1% (some estimates put it at 8.62%). This is the second largest economic decline of the century, surpassed only by 1932 when Mexico touched bottom after the 1929 world recession. ?At a single stroke, the crisis wiped out all the growth of the six Salinas years.? Its currency is worth 50% of last year?s value, many state enterprises have been privatised and industries deregulated. Unemployment has skyrocketed. After NAFTA, more than 1.6 million Mexican workers lost their jobs. Businesses are functioning at a fraction of their real capacity and wages are lower in real terms. Productivity has been badly affected because of the structural damage that liberalisation and NAFTA has caused the Mexican economy. ?In summary, neoliberalism has not only been unjust and caused greater concentration of wealth, it has also failed in its most basic goal -- to make the economy grow at a faster rate than the population. It has not achieved real growth over its 13-year trial, not even in the 12 years before the 1995 crisis. Nor has it produced real growth during the two years of NAFTA.? (Full text of report available on request) 17. Should non-APEC countries be concerned about APEC? ?India has been trying desperately to get into APEC, but it has been excluded. At the time of the Seattle meeting (1993), India applied to be part of APEC, but, since it does not ?touch the Pacific?, it was denied membership. [D?Souza, AMPO, 1995] In fact, countries in the APEC waiting list include Vietnam, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Mongolia, Russia, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Israel. Many of these countries are concerned of being ?left out? if they can?t join APEC. Workers and people?s groups in these and other non-APEC countries have direct and general reasons to be concerned about APEC. As discussed earlier, APEC is only one expression of the free market neoliberal agenda. The WTO, the US in particular, will create other forms to implement their agenda of ?open regionalism? in other parts of the world. South Asia, because of India?s huge domestic market, is a high priority agenda. As an Indian worker has quipped, ?We are not in APEC, but we are very much within the politics of APEC.? APEC initiatives will directly affect the economies, workers and people in nearby countries, especially South Asia and the rest of Latin America. Shifting of capital from non-members is likely to happen, foreign investment will move out and transfer to APEC, and existing jobs will be lost. APEC countries will increase trade with each other, possibly at the expense of former non-APEC trading partners. APEC will surely influence the flow of trade, investments and capital, including labour migration. 18. What are ongoing people?s initiatives on APEC? It is impossible to identify and enumerate existing people?s initiatives against APEC, free trade and globalisation, especially at the country level. The main Asia-Pacific regional initiative on APEC is spearheaded by the network of NGOs and people?s groups. This same network was involved in the 1995 ?NGO Forum on APEC? in Kyoto. The forum has turned the responsibility over to the Philippine Hosting Committee (PHC), to organise and host the ?1996 People?s Forum on APEC? (PFA 96) to be held on 17 - 26 November 1996 in the Philippines. From the Philippines, the task will be transferred to the Canadian groups to organise and prepare for the 1997 meeting. In addition to this, special APEC/free trade monitoring groups and projects are ongoing, e.g. APEC Labour Rights Monitor (ALARM, Hong Kong), GATT Watchdog (Aotearoa), FOCUS-on-APEC (Thailand), APEC Watch (newsletter). Long-standing regional and international NGOs and development groups have also incorporated or given priority to APEC in their programmes and plans. These groups include Asian Migrant Centre (AMC, Hong Kong), Asia Monitor Resource Center (AMRC, Hong Kong), Asian Regional Exchange for New Alternatives (ARENA, Hong Kong), Committee for Asian Women (CAW, Hong Kong), Documentation for Action Groups in Asia (DAGA), International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development (ICHRDD, Canada), Mexican Action Network on Free Trade (RMALC, Mexico), Asia Pacific Worker Solidarity Links (APWSL, Bangkok), Focus on the Global South (Bangkok), ANGOC (Manila), etc. These groups have formed a supporting ?International Convenors Committee? (ICC) which helps the PHC organise the PFA 1996. In addition, friends in the media have formed supporting media teams in Hong Kong and the Philippines to help project the people?s position on APEC. 19. What is the position of women workers? groups on APEC? Women's groups in Kyoto made the following calls, as embodied in the declaration: "take steps to protect farmers and the land rights and tenure of women and indigenous peoples; protect the rights of women and migrant labour, and defend children from exploitation." Philippine women's groups statement: "We, women belonging to various NGOs, movements and organisations, oppose the current Philippine development model that APEC likewise espouses." "(T)he Osaka Declaration claims that market-oriented reforms will ... enhance prosperity and living standards. Filipino women's experiences, however, belie the market's touted democratizing potentials." Rural women have had to cope with land and food insecurity; more and more businesses have resorted to subcontracting women; women are most vulnerable to the casualization and "flexibilization" of labor; "free flow of labor" translates into a virtual hands-off policy on overseas workers, especially women. "In this light, we call for changing the current market-led, growth-oriented development strategy to one that is equitable, sustainable and empowering." (Women' Forum Statement, 3 July 1996, Manila) 20. What is PFA ?96? The 1996 People?s Forum on APEC (PFA ?96) is the continuation of the regional people?s response on APEC. It is a follow-through of the 1995 Kyoto forum, and it will move on to a parallel people?s forum in Canada in 1997. The 1995 Kyoto Declaration serves as the minimum basis of unity of groups in the PFA. The Kyoto Declaration is rejecting APEC and its model of free trade and economic liberalization. Preparations and hosting for PFA ?96 is being done by the PHC and the ICC. PFA ?96 will be held on 17 - 26 November 1996 in various parts of the Philippines. It is composed of 3 main events: (1) 4 pre-summit regional fora to be held from 17-20 November in various parts of the country; (2) PFA main forum to be held on 21-23 November in Manila; and (3) People?s Caravan, 2 two day walk from Manila to Subic, to be held from 24-26 November. To facilitate discussion of the people?s concerns, the PFA has organised topics into 4 major themes or clusters. These 4 clusters will hold simultaneous Asia-Pacific conferences on 17-20 November: a) people?s rights, democratisation and governance (venue: Tagaytay City); b) labour and migrants rights (venue: Tagaytay City); c) economic and social development (venue: Davao City); and d) ecology and environment (venue: Cebu City). Around 350 delegates (250 overseas, 100 local) coming from NGOs and people?s groups in Asia-Pacific are expected. The ICC has formed a Selection Committee which will draw up and finalise the invitation list for overseas participants. The ICC has drawn up the following main criteria for participation: gender balance (50% mix), PO/NGO balance, geographic balance, APEC/free trade programmes/activities. (See ALARM Update #1 for PFA schedule) 21. What is the ?Labour and Migrants? Rights Forum?? The Labour and Migrant Rights forum, one of the four fora under PFA ?96, aims to discuss workers situation (especially trade unions, women, migrants), the violation of workers? human rights, impact of APEC, workers alternatives and vision. The forum is also expected to come out with recommendations and action plans regarding APEC and labour. The Labour and Migrant Forum will be held in Tagaytay City. Primary participants are grassroots workers, trade unions, labour support groups, women workers, migrant workers organisations. Around 50 participants are expected. ALARM, together with labour support groups in Asia-Pacific (APWSL, AMRC, AMC, CAW, RMALC) are helping coordinate this forum. An initial list of labour groups (per country is being circulated for comments/modifications). The final draft will be submitted to the Selection Committee. ALARM is also coordinating the drafting of a ?State of Labour Report? which will be submitted to the PFA and the LMR forum in particular. 22. What do we want to achieve by these initiatives? Based on the 1995 Kyoto forum, some of the main objectives of the people?s initiative against APEC are: 1) broaden people?s networking in Asia-Pacific, and the world in general 2) continue to build and shape our common positions, vision, agenda; people?s alternative 3) intermediate intervention: lobby respective governments to withdraw or become answerable for their actions in APEC 4) wide publicity (national, regional), especially of the people?s position on APEC to counteract government and APEC propaganda 5) document and build our information base about the impact of APEC and neoliberalism on workers and the people in general. 6) education, campaign, organising, especially at the country and grassroots level; strive to involve community groups, local unions and grassroots workers, women and migrants groups in the APEC issue. 23. What can workers do? So far, much of the energy and initiative on the APEC campaign comes from the regional groups, especially NGOs. The most important task and role of workers in the region (especially thrid world countries) is to seize the initiative and spearhead the regional advocacy and response against APEC and globalisation. NGOs and regional groups have repeatedly emphasised their desire for workers and grassroots groups themselves to take the initiative; NGOs have committed to support, facilitate and strengthen such grassroots initiatives. Strategic tasks: * grassroots and community organising, education, training with clear-cut agenda on APEC, free trade, liberalisation, government development programme * local and national lobby and advocacy against APEC, free trade, etc. * national agenda- and consensus-building on APEC and neoliberalism; forming a broad national network to document and campaign against APEC * prepare and disseminate information and education materials (readings, visuals, photos, etc.) about APEC, workers and the people Specific activities: * Join the 1996 People?s Forum on APEC (PFA 96), especially the Labour and Migrants Rights (LMR) Forum: * suggest names/groups (especially grassroots workers, women and migrants) for the LMR; forward your suggestions c/o ALARM secretariat * gather all interested labour, women worker and migrants groups in your country and try to come up with common recommendees for country delegates to LMR * Hold solidarity actions in your own area in November (in time for the APEC summit) * workers, women and migrant workers groups are encouraged to hold local actions in time for the ministers summit in the Philippines * migrants can lobby at their respective embassies in countries where they work local workers can hold demonstrations or dialogues with their local officials pamphlet and reading materials can be reproduced and distributed to fellow workers to ensure everybody gets substantial information on APEC * On November 25, during the actual APEC meeting in Subic, you can hold picket and protest actions in front of governement offices; we can all do this as a simultaneous ?hour of protest? in the Asia-Pacific region. * Build consensus and programmes on APEC in you country * hold consultation meetings involving different labour groups in your country or area and try to build a common perspective and consensus on APEC, free trade, globalisation * try to plan a collective programme in response to APEC, especialy to organise, educate and reach out to grassroots workers * encourage your own organisation to pick up the APEC issue and make it an important part of your organisational plan/agenda * contribute materials, photos, information on APEC and workers; you can forward this c/o ALARM secretariat and your own network * if possible, publish simple, one-page bulletins/information sheets in your own area about APEC * help disseminate this workers? primer on APEC, ALARM Update, APEC Watch, and other APEC materials * begin or strengthen documentation and monitoring work on the impact of APEC on workers and communities. Share and exchange information with similar groups in the region. You can contact ALARM and we will help you link up with other groups. * Help make the ?State of Labour Report? by contributing information about workers and APEC in your own country or area of work. Please send contributions to ALARM. Copies of this report will be circulated publicly, especially to the contributors. * lobby them to withdraw from APEC and ask them to ratify international UN and ILO standards and conventions especially those protecting workers, women, migrants and trade unions. * hold protest actions like pickets, demonstrations, circulate petition letter and publications against APEC * hold community, factory and small group meetings, discussions and workshops on APEC * write protest letters to the media and your government about their involvement in APEC and APEC?s plans and agenda. Conclusion The actual and potential disaster of APEC?s global free trade agenda on half of the world?s population couldn?t be overemphasized. Peoples in the region couldn?t afford to be passive and simply watch as the ministers decide the people?s fate. It is important for peoples, especially the most vulnerable -- workers, migrants, women, children -- to speak out, intervene, influence, and fight APEC and the global neoliberal agenda. These past few years have clearly demonstrated to workers and civil society that isolated, country- centered responses to local workers? and people?s issues are increasingly becoming ineffective. As capital has become global, so too have production systems, information, labour. Shopfloor workers, migrants, women workers and civil society are now facing a fast-consolidating global capital power. There is no singular approach. Our response all at once need to be local and global, specific and multi-level. As we continue to try effective combinations of initiatives and responses, we also continue to explore and develop our own visions and agendas for the future. APEC is one issue which has given us the opportunity to build stronger and broader people?s unity, and forge links across the seas and national borders. Workers should seize this opportunity to galvanise regional opposition to APEC and spearhead such initiative.Let Subic symbolise the victory of regional people?s power. Once again, let it be the Waterloo of US and global capitalist domination. Sources: IBON Facts and Figures, 1995 The Big Picture, May 6, 1996 ALARM Update issues 1, 2, 3 AMPO, Vol. 26, No. 4, 1995 Arroyo, Alberto et. al. ?Challenging Free Trade in the Americas: Building Common Responses?, RMALC, March 1996. Asian Migrant Centre. Background Information on Korea Migrants Workshop, Hong Kong, July 1996. Bronson, Diana and St?phannie Rousseau. Working Paper on Globalisation and Worker?s Human Rights in the APEC Region, International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, 1995. Kelsey, Jane. Economic Fundamentalism: Structural Adjustment in New Zealand, 1995. Kyoto Declaration, Kyoto, November 1995 Manila People?s Forum on APEC 1996 (pamphlet), Manila, 1996 Tadem, Ed and Lakshmi Daniel (eds.). Challenging the Mainstream, Hong Kong, Jointly published by Asian Regional Exchange for New Alternatives (ARENA), Asia Alliance of YMCA's (AAYMCA), Christian Conference of Asia-International Affairs (CCA-IA) and Documentation for Action Groups in Asia (DAGA), Hong Kong, 1995 Women?s Forum Statement for the APEC Manila Process, July 1996 ALARM UPDATE APEC Labour Rights Monitor ALARM Secretariat c/o Asian Migrant Centre 4 Jordan Road Kowloon, Hong Kong Tel: (852) 2312 0031 Fax: (852) 2992 0111 E-mail: alarm@hk.super.net Rex Varona Project Coordinator Bien Molina, Jr. Researcher ADVISORY GROUP Muchtar Pakpahan Convenor Members: Apo Leong Asia Monitor Resource Centre Micheline Levesque International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development Robert Reid Asia-Pacific Workers' Solidarity Links ALARM aims to monitor and disseminate information on labour rights, issues and actions in Asia and Pacific rim countries, with emphasis on the APEC countries. ALARM is supported by the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development and Catholic Fund for Overseas Development From mario_m at HK.Super.NET Fri Aug 23 18:20:56 1996 From: mario_m at HK.Super.NET (Mario R R Mapanao) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 17:20:56 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 49] APEC catch line/phrase contest! Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960823171545.3e472656@is1.hk.super.net> Dear Friends, The Hong Kong media team for the People's Forum on APEC '96 is requesting for suggestions for catch line/phrase in relation to APEC, to use for publicity materials and the like. Samples include: Fair Trade, Not Free Trade towards an-- Alternative People's Economic Cooperation If you have a catch line or phrase, kindly post on this conference or send to private mail within a week's time please. Chosen entries will be given a prize (still to be determined!). Thank you. Mario M. From RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org Sat Aug 24 14:13:28 1996 From: RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org (RVerzola) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 21:13:28 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 50] APEC catch line/phrase contest! Message-ID: >If you have a catch line or phrase, kindly post on this conference or send Globalisation = Recolonization Globalization = Rule of Global Corporations Obet Verzola From dannyk at igc.apc.org Fri Aug 23 21:53:13 1996 From: dannyk at igc.apc.org (Danny Kennedy) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 12:53:13 +0000 Subject: [asia-apec 51] Re: APEC catch line/phrase contest! Message-ID: <199608231627.JAA18714@igc3.igc.apc.org> APEC of pickled PECCers... ? ****************************************** dannyk is Danny Kennedy PROJECT under GROUND 1847 Berkeley Way Berkeley CA 94703 USA P+1 510 705 8981 F+1 510 705 8983 PROJECT underGROUND is an environmental and human rights organization that supports communities facing mining, oil and gas activities. From mlgupta at umich.edu Sat Aug 24 03:01:32 1996 From: mlgupta at umich.edu (Monica Gupta) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 14:01:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [asia-apec 52] Re: APEC catch line/phrase contest! In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19960823171545.3e472656@is1.hk.super.net> Message-ID: How about "People not Profit" or "APEC-try flexing your muscles for the people" On Fri, 23 Aug 1996, Mario R R Mapanao wrote: > Dear Friends, > > The Hong Kong media team for the People's Forum on APEC '96 is requesting > for suggestions for catch line/phrase in relation to APEC, to use for > publicity materials and the like. > > Samples include: > > Fair Trade, Not Free Trade > > towards an-- Alternative People's Economic Cooperation > > If you have a catch line or phrase, kindly post on this conference or send > to private mail within a week's time please. > > Chosen entries will be given a prize (still to be determined!). > > Thank you. > > Mario M. > > From apcjp at igc.apc.org Sat Aug 24 06:14:10 1996 From: apcjp at igc.apc.org (Asia Pacific Center for Justice and Peace) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 14:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [asia-apec 53] press conference Message-ID: <199608232114.OAA22619@igc4.igc.apc.org> How about "APEC, What the Heck?" The following is a press conference with US Ambassador to APEC and others after the Cebu SOM in May. There is one bit about NGOs towards the end of the document. There is also a little bit on the International Action Plans (IAPs) which no one I know has been able to get a hold of (not for a lack of trying might I add). Ehito Kimura (Asia Pacific Center) coordinator: US-NGO Working Group on APEC WOLF: U.S. SEEKS 'FOCUSED OUTCOMES' FOR APEC (Press Conference following 5/25 APEC Senior Officials Meeting) Cebu, Philippines -- The Clinton administration wants the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum to achieve greater focus in its efforts to strengthen regional economic cooperation and development through a "management by objective" approach, according to Ambassador John Wolf, U.S. Coordinator for APEC Affairs. During a press conference following the second meeting of APEC senior officials (SOM) under the Philippines' chairmanship May 25, Wolf said the United States is looking for more focused outcomes in this process, setting objectives and the milestones to get to them. "We ought to bring the business sector in as a partner with the public sector," he said. "We ought together to identify those outcomes that would help us to strengthen economic cooperation and development. We ought to define some milestones to find some measurable criterion, some performance criteria, by which we can measure progress forward to the milestones and then we ought to work together to achieve our destination. And if we are able to do that, we believe that we can have the kinds of impact that really can help APEC to make a difference." Focused outcomes, he said, might involve specific projects that would lead to a particular destination. "It would be something like 21st century ports by a certain year, or a certain amount of power generation that's environmentally friendly. Or maybe it would be reduce on-shore sources of pollution by a given percent by date certain," Wolf said. Some of the milestones, he said, will be policy issues. "They will include trade and investment liberalization and facilitation. Some of the milestones will be putting in place the specific kinds of infrastructure that would be needed to carry on that activity. If it were cleaning up pollution, there would be a lot of equipment, a lot infrastructure that would be necessary to help do that -- retro-fitting and building new. If it were the ports, it would be building modern ports, cranes, intermodal communications links and the like. If it were a telecommunications initiative, it would have telecommunications infrastructure," Wolf said. "We were trying to introduce a concept -- call it management by objective," he said. "We need to consult with the other parts of APEC, the working groups. We need to consult with the private sectors. We've doing a lot of it, but this is a new idea for many of the rest of APEC and the Senior Officials need to consult at home. We do want to consult with ABAC. That was part of the decision that was reached at the SOM." Wolf said he thought APEC could get through some of the consultations by August. "I think some of it will stretch on into the fall and what we're hoping is that by November, we'll have a concept that we're ready to address to ministers and perhaps to leaders," he said. Following is the official transcript of the press conference: (begin official transcript) PRESS CONFERENCE FOLLOWING THE APEC SOM II MEETING IN CEBU, PHILIPPINES MAY 25, 1996 AMBASSADOR JOHN WOLF, U.S. COORDINATOR FOR APEC AFFAIRS ASSISTANT USTR FOR ASIA PACIFIC ROBERT CASSIDY ASSISTANT USTR FOR MULTILATERAL AFFAIRS AND WTO DOROTHY DWOSKIN MODERATOR: Good afternoon and thank you for coming. I'd like to introduce some members of the U.S. delegation. Ambassador John Wolf, who is our Senior Official and Coordinator for APEC affairs, Mr. Robert Cassidy, the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Asia-Pacific, and Dorothy Dwoskin, Assistant USTR for Multilateral Affairs and WTO. Ambassador Wolf will make a brief statement and then he'll be happy to take your questions. WOLF: Thanks very much for coming and we're sorry to keep you waiting but the meeting went over by a few minutes. I'm going to repeat a couple of things that I said to some of you at the last meeting in order to set a framework, and then we would be delighted to answer any questions that you have. At the last meeting, I mentioned that the United States has four goals for APEC this year. We want to have solid individual action plans from all 18 member economies as the first step to implementing the Bogor vision of free trade in the region by 2010 and 2020. This meeting was a first step this year in that process and we're very encouraged that all 18 economies have plans on the table. Second, we want APEC to spur global liberalization at the first WTO ministerial in Singapore in December. There was a discussion today about that and Dorothy will be invited to talk a little bit more about that if people are interested. Third, we seek a new partnership between APEC and business, and I'll talk a little bit more about that in just a second. And fourth, we want APEC to achieve greater focus in its efforts to strengthen economic cooperation and development in the APEC region. We had excellent discussions, with a number of contributions from around the room, including especially the delegation from the Philippines. We have a work in progress about which we are very enthusiastic -- a proposal that looks at what APEC's role should be in terms of strengthening economic cooperation and development and we'll be working on that at the next meeting. On the business point -- we want business to be engaged in the APEC process. President Clinton at Blake Island strongly supported partnership between business and government in APEC. That is why we supported the creation of the Pacific Business Forum and that is why in Osaka the U.S. supported the formation of the APEC Business Advisory Council. The President demonstrated again this week that commitment by his appointment of three distinguished U.S. business people as members of the U.S. delegation to ABAC. They are Susan Corrales-Diaz, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Systems Integrated; Robert Denham, the Chief Executive Officer of Salomon Brothers; and Frank Shronz, the Chairman of Boeing. In this connection, we also applaud President Ramos' initiative to foster a dialogue between ABAC and the APEC leaders on the eve of the leaders meeting at Subic Bay. We have also welcomed and fully support President Ramos' initiative to host an APEC Business Forum in conjunction with the November meetings. We were told at the meeting this week that the forum organizers will provide details on how the conference will be organized once they have completed their consultations with the private sectors around the APEC region. We are looking forward to hearing those results and to working with the organizers and the U.S. private sector to make the APEC Business Forum a successful event this fall. That's an overview of what we're doing. We'll have copies of this available for you at the end of the press conference. Q: Does the U.S. have a position on corruption as a barrier to trade? DWOSKIN: There have been some important developments outside of the APEC context, and outside of the WTO context, in terms of pursuing bribery and corruption, most recently at the OECD. There was an important step forward taken to pursue the issue in terms of denying the tax deductibility of bribes to foreign officials and work on criminalization. What we have said in the WTO context is that we think that the WTO can make some important contributions particularly in the area of government procurement where a lack of transparency and due process have led to some undesirable behavior in terms of corruption and bribery. What we have proposed for the WTO is that we pursue an interim agreement that would afford greater transparency in government purchasing practices. The idea is to bring some sunshine into the process that actually helps to mitigate the effects of bribery and corruption. The second area is just in the better operation of current WTO rules. For example, in customs valuation or in pre-shipment inspection. If you have better adherence to the rules, then you take away some of the possibilities for corrupt behavior. Thank you. Q: Some delegations seem to have misunderstood your position on corruption...and on development cooperation. What is your position? WOLF: Let me answer the parts of the question that I can. We discussed in the Senior Officials Meeting a possible new initiative that APEC will consider to strengthen economic cooperation and development. There are a number of elements to it which we are developing, and I can read some of the elements to you. We talked about how this would help build a new Pacific community, a term that comes out of the Blake Island communique. Parts of that relate to trade and investment liberalization and facilitation. It is designed to achieve sustainable growth and equitable development and it is designed to reduce economic disparity. We talked about some principles of cooperation. We talked about elements that would be part of the initiative. We talked about the approach of goal-oriented management by objective, and we talked about what the way ahead might be which is advancing something we called impact outcomes. Working on special outcomes -- special goals -- that will help us to make a real difference in what's going on terms of economic activity and the distributive effects of it. We want to remove infrastructure bottlenecks and we want to address issues of sustainability. Clearly, and an important part of all of this, is building a partnership between the public sector and private sector in order to accomplish those goals. That's what we talked about when we talked about strengthening economic cooperation and development in the Asia-Pacific region. CASSIDY: Could I just refer to the earlier question about government procurement and how it relates to APEC because within APEC there is a specific area of concentration in the work program of APEC on government procurement. And in relation to what Dorothy had said, a large component of that is a transparency process. APEC itself is looking at that not only in the collective actions that they are identifying but also in the individual actions of what are individual countries doing in the government procurement area to increase transparency. APEC has already established a work program in that area. Q: We understand that you have had bilateral talks China. Have you discussed the IPR conflict and did you come up with ways to mitigate the problem? WOLF: We came here to discuss APEC matters and that's what we discussed. Q: Do you think that the sort of process that goes on in APEC would help to facilitate the types of bilateral rows that you have had in the past over trade with both China and Japan? Can APEC help to smooth the path? WOLF: The goal is free and open trade in Asia Pacific by 2010 or 2020 so, hopefully by 2010 or 2020, we'll be past all of these possible issues. I suppose in the long term, APEC will deal with the kinds of issues that we are also discussing in our bilateral relationships until we reach that destination. Q: Could you tell us something about the focused outcomes that you reportedly proposed? WOLF: I'll be delighted. I think focused outcomes is in some ways a state of mind. What we have been concerned with, and what senior officials have talked about at the two meetings at which I have been this year, has been a lot of discussion about how we can deal with the enormous range of issues that are being handled in what's known as the economic technical cooperation side of APEC. There is all the work that goes on in trade and investment liberalization and facilitation, and then there's a lot of economic and technical cooperation work. A lot of those projects going on are good projects and they are going forward. There is some overlap and the economic committee has been asked to take a look at the range of activities that are going on to identify where work is complementary, but where there are also problems of overlap. But unlike in the trade and investment liberalization side, which has a vision, and has milestones to get us there, there are not a lot of organizing principles for the economic cooperation side. So, focused outcomes was really designed to say that we ought to have some outcomes, and stretch objectives and milestones to get us to them. We ought to bring the business sector in as a partner with the public sector. We ought together to identify those outcomes that would help us to strengthen economic cooperation and development. We ought to define some milestones to find some measurable criterion, some performance criteria, by which we can measure progress forward to the milestones and then we ought to work together to achieve our destination. And if we are able to do that, we believe that we can have the kinds of impact that really can help APEC to make a difference. It's a new idea for most organizations and it's a new idea within APEC. Since this is a dynamic region, if we are able to remove those road blocks, if we are able to address problems that are occurring in greater or lesser degree around the region, then we will be able to accelerate the activity that's going on in the region. But we're determined to do it on a sustainable basis. So, focused outcome has been folded in to part of a larger strategy that we're now going to explore to see if we can make APEC work to strengthen economic cooperation and development. Q: Just a clarification. Do focused outcomes also include concrete projects? Is the U.S. proposing concrete projects? WOLF: We are not really making proposals because we want to work within APEC. Maybe this is something that ABAC will want to consider. There would be specific projects within a focused outcome. An outcome would be a destination. It would be something like 21st century ports by a certain year, or a certain amount of power generation that's environmentally friendly. Or maybe it would be reduce on-shore sources of pollution by a given percent by date certain. That's the outcome and then there are milestones to get you there. Some of the milestones will be policy issues. They will include trade and investment liberalization and facilitation. Some of the milestones will be putting in place the specific kinds of infrastructure that would be needed to carry on that activity. If it were cleaning up pollution, there would be a lot of equipment, a lot infrastructure that would be necessary to help do that -- retro-fitting and building new. If it were the ports, it would be building modern ports, cranes, intermodal communications links and the like. If it were a telecommunications initiative, it would have telecommunications infrastructure. But the point is for this meeting, we were trying to introduce a concept -- call it management by objective. We need to consult with the other parts of APEC, the working groups. We need to consult with the private sectors. We've doing a lot of it, but this is a new idea for many of the rest of APEC and the Senior Officials need to consult at home. We do want to consult with ABAC. That was part of the decision that was reached at the SOM. So, there's work to be done. We'll do some of it by August. I think some of it will stretch on into the fall and what we're hoping is that by November, we'll have a concept that we're ready to address to ministers and perhaps to leaders. Q: Did you by any chance meet with the delegation from Indonesia, bilaterally? Did you take up the issue of Indonesia's car policy? CASSIDY: No, that did not come up. In general, we don't use these meetings in APEC for a lot of bilaterals on specifically bilateral issues. That issue did not come up at this meeting. No, it didn't. Q: There were reports that the U.S. would like to meet with Indonesia after the APEC meeting here in Cebu. Are you planning to do that? CASSIDY: That's right, but the appropriate officials who are responsible for those policies were not able to meet at this time so we'll have to set another date for that discussion. Q: Will that be here in the Philippines? CASSIDY: No, it won't. It won't be here in the Philippines. Q: And are you in favor a dispute mediation service here in APEC? CASSIDY: Dispute mediation is a very comprehensive issue in APEC. There are many aspects that the various economies are looking at. In principle, the focus right now is on dispute mediation between private parties, between governments and private parties, and I think that's the area that has been concentrated on by APEC economies. Whether it extends into other types of dispute settlement mechanisms, that is something to be discussed at a future date. It has been something that has been proposed but the discussions on those issues have not advanced as far as the discussions on private party-type dispute resolution and government to private party-dispute resolution. Q: What is the U.S. position on the anti-dumping issue, vis-a-vis the Chinese position? CASSIDY: The Chinese have proposed a discussion on anti-dumping. At the present time, the Committee on Trade and Industry is continuing to review the proposal. Like many other proposals that have been advanced in APEC, and I don't think this is any exception to that, the committee looks at some of these proposals and they come back frequently for consideration. There are many issues to be examined in part because there is so much on-going work that is taking place in the WTO. The question is to what extent can an APEC review of anti-dumping create some value added? These are some of the things that other countries are looking at as they examine this proposal. How does this fit in to the on going work that is going on in anti-dumping? As I said, this is not any different than any other issue that has come up in APEC. I know of many issues the Japanese and others have proposed where it has taken four or five meetings to work out a program that seems to be reasonable and reflects the value added that APEC hopes to add. Q: Just one further clarification on the concept of focused outcomes. How does this focused outcomes concept dovetail with Philippine philosophy on development cooperation? WOLF: As we discussed it in the meeting, we have tried to fuse together several ideas into a new idea that we call strengthening economic cooperation and development in the Asia-Pacific region. What we're looking at is something that will take the best elements of both proposals and put them together into a new way of operating, a new modus operandi for APEC. Where can APEC create value, where can APEC address specific outcomes where we can make an impact, where we can move things forward? Q: Would you give us some information of your individual action plan which has 15 areas. What did you prioritize? CASSIDY: As you know all of these individual action plans are draft proposals, they're preliminary proposals. There is a whole process of consultations that will be taking place throughout the year before they are finally presented to ministers in November. I think the main story that I think all delegates found surprising and were pleased with was that all 18 economies presented individual action plans. I think that for us was the main story and the one that we were very pleased with. I don't want to get into a detailed discussion of these plans. But let me give some of the high points that I think are issues that will be the subject of further discussions throughout the year. First of all, the United States, in its plan, has been showing the liberalization that will be taking place through the year 2000 and through the years 2004 and 2005. In addition, the United States has additional tariff-cutting authority that we are prepared to use in the context of APEC in achieving specific goals in liberalization in APEC. And also within the WTO, in preparation for the WTO ministerial. There are some areas of particular interest in the Asia region because of products that are of interest to APEC countries. I would cite for example wood products, non-ferrous metals, oil seeds and oil seed products, and in particular, I would emphasize the information technology agreement. This is an area that I think Dorothy is well-familiar with in her discussions. These are the information technology products of the future, and the products that are exported by APEC nations. It has so many of the components that APEC has been focusing on. It has a small business component to it. It is a business component because it is part of the infrastructure of business. It has an educational component to it. As I said, it's an export item of interest to the whole region going from Taiwan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia. And in addition, it has a high technology component to it. So, these are all the areas that APEC has been concentrating on. The U.S. individual action plan looks forward also in looking at future negotiations in the basic telecommunications area, financial services and how APEC can move forward in further liberalization. These are the areas that we have looked at in developing our individual action plan in discussions with other economies in APEC. Q: What is the U.S. position on the moratorium and the participation of international organizations and NGOs in the working groups? WOLF: The membership question did not come up in the SOM and so we will see where we are when it does. On participation of non-members and international organizations in the working groups -- - there are existing guidelines that were first set in Seattle and then expanded in Osaka. The SOM discussed them and that's the basis on which we operate. I'm sure you can get a copy of them which will explain how ministers have already agreed to operate. I will be glad to confirm that I support my minister's views. Q: Are you worried that with these new bodies coming in -- environmental and women's groups -- that you will...slow down the machinations of APEC? WOLF: The women's group event that was briefed to us I understand is a non-APEC event. Q: Please explain how the most-favored-nation status given by the U.S. to China will affect the open regionalism advocated by APEC and specifically the relations of the U.S. with the other member economies of APEC. DWOSKIN: I think the U.S. has always taken the position that we want to move forward in APEC on the basis of open regionalism. Our situation with respect to China is reflected in the discussions that took place in Osaka. There is a difference in terms of treatment. The U.S.-China relationship is not one that is based on unconditional MFN at this time. I think that was reflected in the Osaka Declaration. I don't think that, at least in our discussions here, it came up. I would note that China has been an active participant in the discussions that we had today on the preparations for the WTO discussion at the Christchurch meeting. China is in the process of acceding to the WTO and the U.S. is taking a very active role in those negotiations. I would say that there was really no difference in the discussions or the tenor of the discussion here or in Osaka where this was discussed in some detail. WOLF: Thank you very much. (end official transcript) Return to Latest U.S.-APEC Issues and Texts Return to U.S.-APEC Homepage From daga at HK.Super.NET Sat Aug 24 13:29:11 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 12:29:11 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 54] a word from our sponsor Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960824122401.19cfa91a@is1.hk.super.net> You may not have earlier received this announcement-- welcome once again to the asia-apec listserv! This mailing list on APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) is initiated by Interdoc (a network of information and electronic network providers in Asia) and DAGA (Documentation for Action Groups in Asia). The host computer facilities are kindly provided by JCA (Japan Computer Access). This is to provide a forum for APEC related postings, write-ups and discussion, in build up to the APEC summit to be held in Manila, Philippines in November this year. This is in conjunction with the Manila People's Forum on APEC (MPFA). Here follows some instructions: 1. If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, send mail to with the following command in the body of your email message: unsubscribe asia-apec 2. To retrieve past mail, send a message to , with the following command in the body of your email message: get asia-apec (message no.) For example, the line "get asia-apec 10" in the body of your mail to majordomo will resend the 10th mail of "asia-apec" to you. 3. For those who respond to a message by pressing the reply mode, please ensure that the original message is deleted as this will mean unnecessary high connect time charges in some countries. 4. To introduce others to this mailing list, a request to subscribe, with a brief organizational description, can be sent to: 4. If you have any questions and for help, write: conference facilitator asia-apec ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Documentation for Action Groups in Asia (DAGA) 96, 2nd District, Pak Tin Village Mei Tin Road, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong Tel : (852) 2691 6391/ 2691 1068 ext 54 Fax: (852) 2697 1912 E-mail: daga@hk.super.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From contours at ksc.net.th Sun Aug 25 16:02:17 1996 From: contours at ksc.net.th (Peter Holden) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 15:02:17 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 55] Boycott Suharto Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960825145706.0a27c22c@is1.hk.super.net> CALL FOR BOYCOTT OF ALL INDONESIAN BUSINESSES RELATED TO SUHARTO'S FAMILY AND CRONIES --------------------------------------------- GARUDA Indonesian Airline offices in Europe and Australia, are starting to become targets of protests against the Suharto regime, after the regime's brutal intervention in Megawati Sukarnoputri's Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI), which led to the bloody attack on PDI's headquarters, on Saturday, July 27, 1996. All pro-democracy activists in Indonesia do appreciate these campaigns. Unfortunately, it is not enough to bring this bloody regime down to its knees, and more pressure needs to be excerted, internationally now, after the domestic movement is facing a harsh crackdown from the regime. The attack on the PDI headquarters, is a blatant replay of the regime's invasion and consequent occupation of East Timor. Various similarities can be raised. Firstly, the deliberate efforts to create divisions within the group to be conquered, by openly favoring one group to be pitched against the other. In Indonesia we call this "taktik adu ayam jago", or the cock-fight tactic. Secondly, when it was time to physically invade and occupy East Timor as well as the PDI headquarters, the regime used a variety of actors, namely regular troops disguised as civilians, civilians from the favored side, and then regular military to finish it of. By appplying this two tactics, the regime could claim that it was an internal conflict, which "unfortunately" spilled over beyond the confines of the group to be subdued. This, again "unfortunately", forced the Indonesian armed forces to interfere, to prevent further blood shed. Talking about bloodshed, this is again another similarity between the invasion and occupation of the PDI headquarters, and the invasion and occupation of East Timor, since 1975. The regime's intervention did not prevent more bloodshed, but created even more bloodshed. The casualties in the so-called 'civil war' between UDT and Fretilin from August till September 1975, had led to about 2,000 casualties, as admitted by Fretilin spokepersons themselves on various occasions. The Indonesian invasion and occupation, on the other hand, has led to between 200,000 and 300,000 lives lost in East Timor. In the case of the PDI conflict between the pro-Megawati and the pro-Suryadi factions, there had been no casualties at all between the two groups, prior to the military intervention. Only after the military cracked down on the pro-Megawati demonstrators near the Gambir train station on June 20, 1996, victims began to fall. And eventually, on June 27, 1996, more than one hundred victims have died, according to the liberal Muslim democrat, Abdurrachman Wahid, or popularly known as "Gus Dur". Here we come then to the fourth similarity between the treatment of East Timor and PDI: in the most well-publicized cases, conflicting numbers of casualties have emerged. In the Dili massacre on November 12, 1991, the Suharto regime only admitted as high as fifty casualties, without providing the list of names of the deceased and their graves. On the other hand, the East Timorese resistance, under the leadership of Xanana Gusmao, whom at that time had not yet been caught, managed to obtain a list of 271 names from the parents of the missing youth, the parishes, and medical staff. In the attack on the PDI headquarters, which we can objectively label as "the second Jakarta massacre" during the New Order, after a previous massacre of Muslim demonstrators in the Tanjung Priok harbour in September 1984, the regime only admitted that two people had been killed. One of these casualties, has even been blamed to the demonstrators, because this person died when he jumped down from a building burned by the demonstrators. On the other hand, during the first day of the uprising, after the attack on the PDI headquarters, people were already talking about a number of 47 casualties. And a week later, Gus Dur's figure of more than one hundred dead became the most well-believed figure, based on the investigations of the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI) and the PDI officials themselves. In terms of the actual operation of the attacks, there are also some similarities. During the attack on the demonstrating youth in Santa Cruz, Dili, fire fighters with their water cannons were already present at the scene, minutes after the shots had been fired, to wash away the blood from the streets. Similarly, water cannons were very quick to flush the blood away from the PDI compound, after the specially trained troops had carried out their bloody job, in this case with clubs, knives, and stones. The treatment of journalists by the invading troops was somehow rather similar in East Timor as during the attacks on the PDI headquarters. Alan Nairn, one of the American journalists present at Santa Cruz had suffered severe concusions from the rifle buts of the Indonesian soldiers. While during the "Diponegoro massacre" (I call it so, since it happened on the Diponegoro boulevard in the heart of Jakarta), one Indonesian journalist, Sukma, had suffered severe injuries when he was repeatedly beaten by the Indonesian soldiers and police. Finally, one of the most important similarity between the two geographically and politically completely different cases is that there were similar scapegoats to be butchered in East Timor as in PDI, namely Communists. One of the rationales of invading and occupying East Timor, is to protect the Indonesian body from the virus of Communism, which was claimed to have entered East Timor through the radical nationalist party, Fretilin. Hence, it was a self-preserving operation, so to speak. Likewise, in only two days after the attack on the PDI headquarters, which triggered a selectively targeted attack by angry mobs on numerous buildings owned by the government, the military, and some private companies, the regime had found its scapegoat to blame for the riots. Who else, if not the most radical wing of the student movement, which had formed its own political party, the People's Democratic Party, or PRD according to its Indonesian abreviation (Partai Rakyat Demokratik). And since most of the PRD leaders had been able to escape the regime's nets by going underground, the regime had to please itself by arresting a trade unionist, Dr Muchtar Pakpahan, a labour and constitutional lawyer, who had just been released after a brief period of inculceration, when he was wrongly accused of master minding an ethnic riot in Medan, North Sumatra. He is currently charged with subversion, which under the draconian Indonesian Anti-Subversion Act, inherited by the regime from its colonial masters, can carry a life-long sentence. Currently, PRD activists all over the country are suffering from a McCarthyan witch-hunt, so anachronical in this post-Cold War era. Three PRD activists, Dita Indah Sari, Cun Husain Pontoh, and Sholeh, who were detained after leading a mass demonstration of workers in Surabaya, East Java, on July 8, 1996, are already languishing in police cells in Surabaya, were charges against them are being prepared for inciting public unrest, which carry a possible sentence of six years imprisonment. Meanwhile, their 27-years colleague, Budiman Sudjatmiko, who had recently been elected in the party's first congress as their leader, is also charged, in absentia, with the same sentence as Muchtar Pakpahan, namely subversion. Although the pro-democracy movement which has nominated Megawati Sukarnoputri as its candidate for Indonesia's next president is a quite wide alliance of different groups (see my posting on Apakabar, in early July 1996), activists who are actually leaders of the mass organizations under the PRD umbrella, or only suspected of being PRD activists, have been targeted by the military and police in Java. Not only the national and provincial headquarters of PRD has been occupied and seized by the authorities, but also the houses of the parents of these young activists have been raided by the military, police, and government-controlled neighbourhood leaders. In Surabaya, three activists of PRD's student organisation, SMID, have been detained. in Yogyakarta, apart from interrogating fourteen student activists, five of them have been tortured during the interrogation, to force them into admitting that they were PRD members. Meanwhile, in Jakarta, Megawati Sukarnoputri and three ofher members of the parliament from the PDI, are going to face a similar fate as the outspoken Muslim politician, Sri Bintang Pamungkas, namely to be interrogated and possibly charged of being complicit in a conspiracy to insult, if not also to overthrow, the government. In addition, several outspoken social activist, such as Ridwan Saidi, a former leader of the Indonesian Islamic Students Association (HMI), and Permadi SK, an outspoken Sukarnoist, as well as other persons who had been involved in the campaign to defend Megawati's legitimate right as PDI chairperson and presidential candidate, are also enduring tens of grilling interogation hours in the Jakarta police and Attorney General office. Taking all these repressive developments into consideration, I believe that the political pressure to bring the Suharto's regime to its senses, that it is time to enable a constitutional transfer of power, the only thing that Megawati and all her supporters were dreaming of, is not enough. The political pressure which the US and European nations are beginning to exert on Jakarta, should be combined with more economic pressure. Economic pressure on all the overseas Suharto-related businesses is crucial, since that, among other things, is what the Suharto oligarchy wants to accumulate, unendedly. This economic pressure could be exercised in various ways, which I will outline as follows: (1). Let us continue the pickets in front of the Indonesian airlines, both Garuda as well as Sempati, since the funds of the public company Garuda has now been used to finance Suharto's East Timor campaigns, such as building an unwanted US$ 6 million statue of Christ in Dili, and since Sempati Airlines is owned by the Indonesian Army and Tommy Suharto, who made his wealth from exploiting Indonesian clove farmers and now from robbing millions of dollars from the Indonesian national coffers by his duty-free imported Korean cars, rebaptized as the "Timor car" by his father, an insult to the suffering of the Maubere people; (2). Let us declare a consumer boycott of daily consumer products which are currently monopolized by the Suharto oligarchy, such as the instant noodles made by the Indofood Group, a member of the Salim Group, owned by the richest Indonesian businessman, Liem Soei Liong and his relatives, Sudwikatmono, Suharto's half brother, and two of Suharto's children, Sigit and Tutut; (3). Through another company group, namely the First Pacific Group, the Salim Group has also penetrated the Australian market, by forming a joint venture with the Australian real-estate group, FPD Raine & Horne; hence, specifically to the Australian supporters of the Indonesian pro-democracy movement, I appeal to campaign for a consumer boycott and picketing of Raine & Horne branches all over Australia; (4). To our friends of the Indonesian pro-democracy movement I also appeal to campaign for a consumer boycott and picketing of Chesterton International, the real estate marketing company which is silently continuing to market the luxury houses in the Bali Nirwana Resort project near the sacred Hindu temple in Tanah Lot, Bali, despite the public outrage against this religious desacration of the Hindu-Bali religion and culture; the Indonesian owners of this resort, the Bakrie Brothers, have thrived in their business from their close cooperation with Suharto's children and his half-brother, Sudwikatmono, and one of Suharto's minister, Tungky Ariwibowo, who is also a business partner in Tommy Suharto's Sentul racing circuit; (5). Apart from Chesterton International, which is a world-wide company, a Melbourne-based company, Meinhardt International, which has also grown into an international company, has been involved in numerous luxurious tourism projects, which has wasted Indonesian taxpayers money, scarce farming land, and evict poor farmers from their land. Apart from designing the Amanusa resort in Bali, which is owned by one of Suharto's sons, Sigit Harjojudanto, Meinhardt International has also designed the 22,000 hectare Bintan Beach international resort on the island of Bintan, near Singapore. While the local farmers have been very poorly paid and raised their concerns in the national parliament, the Indonesian owner of the resort, another son of Suharto, Bambang Trihatmojo and the Navy, will enjoy the benefits of this gigantic tourist project, together with their Singaporean partners. Hence, let us picket in front of Mr Bill Meinhardt's office in Melbourne, and urge him to stop further business deals with the Suharto kleptocracy; (6). Speaking about tourism, no other sector concentrated on one island is so dominated by the companies owned by the Suharto dynasty, as luxury tourism in Bali. And it is still expanding, drastically, with the construction of Tommy Suharto's new 650 Ha Bali Pecatu Graha project, with multiple star hotels and golf courses, after already owning two Four Seasons Regent hotels on that island. Hence, supporters of the Indonesian pro-democracy movement can help to exert some economic pressure on the Suharto regime, while helping to save Bali's delicate culture and environment, by boycotting luxury tourism projects in Bali; (7). Let us appeal to the public and to private companies to boycott three brands of car and industrial batteries -- Exide (formerly British), Century (formerly Australian) and Yuasa (still partly Japanese) --, since these battery manufacturing and distributing companies are owned by the Wanandi Brothers, with its main offices in Sydney and Brisbane, as well as in the UK and Ireland; (8). These Wanandi Brothers, whose Gemala Group of companies made their wealth through their close association with Suharto's private assistants and Suharto's former military unit, Kostrad, which was the main killing force during the invasion of East Timor in 1975. Their companies also obtained their capital by deferring the payments of nearly US$ 26 million from an Indonesian state bank, Bank Bumi Daya, depriving small Indonesian businesses from much needed capital. In addition, the Gemala Group has also exploited its own workers in its US subsidiary, Trailmobile, and has supported the PDI politician, Suryadi, who unconstitutionally disposed Megawati Sukarnoputri from her leadership of the party, and cooperated in the military attack on the PDI headquarters; hence, to the Australian public I specifally appeal to boycott products from the Australian pharmacy group, Amcal, which has began a joint-venture with the Gemala Group in Indonesia; (9). A 60% stake in Australia's largest video rental company, Video Ezy International, has recently been acquired by Berjaya Group from Malaysia. The shareholders of this group includes Mohkzani Mahathir, son of Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, and Indonesian businessman Johanes Kotjo, a member of Bambang Trihatmojo's Bimantara Group. Hence, I encourage all the friends of the Indonesian pro-democracy movement in Australia, New Zealand, and Malaysia, to tell the Video Ezy customers, that their money is helping to enrich the ASEAN clique, which has supported Indonesia's invasion of East Timor, as well as repress their own dissenters in Malaysia and Indonesia; (10). Finally, I appeal to all the friends of the Indonesian pro-democracy movement to hold picket lines in front of the branches of the private banks owned by the Suharto family and their cronies, such as the Lippo Bank, owned by the Riyadi family, a former banker of the Salim Group's Bank Central Asia (BCA), where two of the Suharto siblings own 32 % shares, Bank Central Asia itself, Bank Pacific, owned by the family of Retired General Ibnu Sutowo, Suharto's best-friend who never had to be accountable for the US$ 10 billion credit scandal of Indonesia's oil company, Pertamina. Other steps could be thought of and taken in due time, based on specific conditions in each country and in each city, all over the world, where the Suharto family and their cronies own or operate their businesses. As is shown by the worldwide Anti-Apartheid campaign, economic sanctions really make a difference. All these steps may hopefully help to create some political space for our friends in Indonesia and East Timor, who have just began to forge an alliance against the same repressive regime which have colonized both groups during the last twenty years. This alliance is what the Suharto regime is afraid of, and that it why the People's Democratic Party (PRD) and Muchtar Pakpahan, two important political actors, which have publically defended the East Timorese self-determination right, have been 'chosen' as the prime suspects of the July 27 riots. Riots, which were only the logical consequence of decades of repressed political disatisfaction, triggered by the brutal attack on the PDI headquarters, their short-lived "fortress of democracy", as short-lived as the Tienanmien student's "Goddess of Democracy". So, with that message in mind, I leave it up to you to decide, what to do to support the Indonesian democratic struggle to end the Suharto oligarchy. Thank you very much for your support. May God, and the Indonesian people, reward you for your support, one day. Your brother in the struggle, Dr George J. Aditjondro Indonesian dissident in self-imposed exile for responses, use fax: (61-49) 677 053 ============================================== | | IEcumenical Coalition on Third World Tourism | | ECTWT / Contours | | P O Box 35, Senanikhom | | Bangkok Thailand 10902 | | Tel: + 662 939 7111 Fax: + 662 939 7112 | | Internet: contours@ksc.net.th | | contours@pg.frlht.ernet.in | | ============================================== From RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org Tue Aug 27 01:33:13 1996 From: RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org (RVerzola) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 08:33:13 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 56] Re: Globalization: Poor Design? (fwd) Message-ID: <2f3_9608260817@phil.gn.apc.org> I'd like to share a story, my adaptation of a popular Filipino folk tale about the turtle and the monkey. To those who pay per kilobyte to receive this list, my apologies for this digression. Sometime ago, animals in the jungle decided to hold a get-together. There was a serious matter to be discussed: one of their fellow animals, Homo, had gotten quite wild, killing everybody else in sight. Some thought Homo had gotten mad. The lion called the animals to a get-together to discuss what to do with Homo. Animals went around to spread the word. Some of them prepared food for those who would come. Others worked hard to clean up the meeting place. Some animals travelled a long way to join. Many were glad to meet fellow animals they had not seen for a long time. Food was served for the hungry, water for the thirsty, and the meeting began. There were many complaints about Homo's behaviour. The ant, the eagle, the buffalo, and many others spoke up. Everyone had suggestions about dealing with Homo. While the turtle was speaking, Homo's cousin, the monkey, suddenly barged into the get-together. The monkey apparently wanted to defend Homo. However, the monkey was drunk, called the turtle names, and challenged the turtle to a fight. Many were shocked. The turtle was so angry that it wanted to fight back, but others intervened. The lion said: "You must forgive the monkey. It is drunk, so it has forgotten its manners for a while. Monkeys are usually polite creatures when they are sober." The owl said: "You turtles have such thick hides that you can only fight by racing to the water, and whoever reaches it first wins. When monkeys fight, they tear each other's hair and bite each other's tail. How can a turtle fight a monkey?" The giraffe said: "If you fight, the two of you will spoil our meeting. Our problem is Homo. We should not let Homo's drunken cousin break up our get-together." The turtle listened and left the monkey alone. The animals all went back to decide what to do with Homo. Before going back, the elephant fetched and poured cold water on the drunken monkey, admonishing it to apologize for its un-animal behaviour. ### From contours at ksc.net.th Mon Aug 26 11:50:05 1996 From: contours at ksc.net.th (Peter Holden) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 09:50:05 +0700 (TST) Subject: [asia-apec 57] Re: Boycott Suharto In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19960825145706.0a27c22c@is1.hk.super.net> Message-ID: Dear Mario, Thank you for posting this. Wil look forward to responses. Yours Peter Holden CONTOURS PO Box 35 Senanikhom Bangkok 10902 Thailand Phone: 66.2.939.7111 Fax: 66.2.939.7112 E-Mail: contours@ksc.net.th From laukc at u6000b.ln.edu.hk Mon Aug 26 15:10:19 1996 From: laukc at u6000b.ln.edu.hk (Lau Kin Chi by way of daga ) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 14:10:19 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 58] Shaping Our Future: PP 21 book publication Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960826140507.3f7704d0@is1.hk.super.net> SHAPING OUR FUTURE Asia Pacific People's Convergence People's Plan for the 21st Century Report of the Third Convergence since Minamata February-March 1996 in South Asia USD 10./copy special price for bulk orders Write to: PP21 Council Organizing Committee c/o China Social Services and Development Research Centre Wanchai P.O. Box 23467 Hong Kong Tel/Fax: (852) 2865 1096 Email : laukc@u6000b.ln.edu.hk TABLE OF CONTENTS: Sowing Seeds of Hope: PP21 as a People's Process, Nepalese Organizing Committee for the Kathmandu Convergence The Third PP21 Convergence: Continuation and Renewal, Muto Ichiyo People's and Social Movements in Asia: Insights of an Outsider, Israel Batista The Sagarmatha Declaration: Shaping Our Future SPEECHES FROM THE MAIN FORUM Raise Our Voices for a Better World, Sushil Pyakurel Make Meaningful the Entrance to the 21st Century, Ganesh Man Singh Free from Exploitation and Repression, Man Mohan Adhikari Making Connections and Alliances of Hope, Kamla Bhasin Let a Part of Your Heart be Zapatista, Cecilia Rodriguez Share in the Warmth and Comfort of the Spiritual Fire, Reeves Nahwooks THE SRI LANKA GATHERING PP21 Gathering in Sri Lanka Sri Lanka Declaration DISCUSSION PAPERS FOR TOWARDS A PEOPLE'S CHARTER WORKSHOP Gender and Asian Realities, Bose, Matsui, Menon and Ramesh Towards Sustainable Systems, Muto Ichiyo, Smithu Kothari Democracy in the Age of Globalization, Vandana Shiva The Free Market, NIC Capitalism, and Sustainable Development in East Asia, Walden Bello Thoughts on Network Building, Azis Choudry Reflections on Regional Networking and PP21, Rex Varona REPORTS AND DECLARATIONS OF PRE-FORA International Fora Prior to PP21 Main Forum Forum on Tolerance and Peace Forum on Natural Resources: Relationship and Management Asian Women Peasant Conference Forum on Civil Society, Human Rights and Good Governance International Writers' Convention Forum on Health Workers' Forum Asian Small Fisherfolk Consultation South Asian Child Workers' Freedom March The General Assembly Interim Guidelines for Alliance Building Process The Minamata Declaration (1989) The Rajchadamnoen Pledge (1992) From amc at HK.Super.NET Mon Aug 26 15:10:23 1996 From: amc at HK.Super.NET (AMC) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 14:10:23 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 59] Globalisation: its Impact and Challenges to Labor Migration, Part I Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960826140511.0a5fd52c@is1.hk.super.net> Embargoed for Publication (Final version and permission for use can be requested from the Asian Migrant Centre by 2 September 1996.) GLOBALISATION: ITS IMPACT AND CHALLENGES TO LABOR MIGRATION by May-an Villalba Unlad-Kabayan Migrant Services Foundation, Inc. Quezon City, Philippines Paper presented to the Consultation on "Migrant Workers Challenging Global Structures" sponsored by the Asian Migrant Centre (AMC), Migrant Forum in Asia (MFA) and the Joint Committee on Migrants in Korea (JCMK), 28 August to 1 September 1996, Seoul, Korea. This paper draws from earlier papers written and presented at the Ecumenical Consultation on Uprooted People, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, November 1995 and the Roundtable on Effective Respect for the Rights and Dignity of Migrants: 9-11 February 1996, Ferney, France. I. Globalisation from a historical perspective Globalisation has become the catchword of today. I would like to first tackle this topic from a socio-historical perspective. Gloabalisation from this perspective is a historical process in which world views, systems of production, technology and trade and systems of relationships between people are systematically propagated throughout the world sometimes successfully, sometimes not. With this definition we may venture that globalisation started in the ancient era. Probably the first globalizer of the "known world" was Alexander son of Philip of Macedon who went East and built the Greek empire. (Easton. 33) Globalisation was called "Hellenization" then. It was a process where Greek civilization, culture and power were propagated. The process was called "Christianization" under Spain, Portugal and the Holy Roman Empire and became formalized as "Colonization" during the British Empire. After the industrial revolution it became "Imperialism" under the auspices of Britain, Germany, the United States and Japan. And now it is "Globalisation" under TNCs, World Bank and the World Trade Organisation. The players change but the process continues. This early I would like to link globalisation to migration. The principal means for globalisation in ancient times and to some extent today was through population movements. The principal means of transporting economic, political and ideological models across the globe was through the movement of the global agents themselves and the forced migration of their workforce. Human history in some respect is therefore a history of population movements as much as a process towards homogenization in ideas and meanings, in economics and in power. Furthermore, globalisation is not a one-sided movement from the center to the periphery. The periphery enriches the center. Populations also migrate to the urban center to directly influence it. In many ways, a center that adapts to the positive contributions of the periphery is able to become the center for a longer period than it would otherwise if it denied the contributions as well as the needs of the periphery. Largescale migrations from Europe and Africa characterize the early history of what is now called the United States and Canada. Large population movements called "invasions" occurred in Europe such as by the Germanic tribes in the 13th century and by the Turks in the 15th century (Easton, 80). There was the expansion of Russians to Central and East Asia in the 17th-18th centuries. Migration in the Middle East has been going on from the period of the Babylonian, Egyptian and Persian empires. During the colonial period, modern states were carved out basically from tribal groups in the region and according to the convinience of the colonizing powers. Today the population of the Gulf states are so ethnically mixed it seems impossible to define citizenship of the states. (Papazian) North Africa was settled and colonized by France in the 19th century and subsequently by other European powers. Africa was subdivided again according to colonial convinience in the 20th century. The arbitrary divisions exacerbated tribal conflicts which to this day remain basically unresolved. South America saw Latinization by Spain and Portugal. The Indian subcontinent was settled by Indo-Arian invaders probably as early as 4,000 B.C. (Latourette, 43) They introduced Brahmanism, converted the aboriginal Dravidians and pushed the non-converts to the margins of society. Indonesia fought for the independence of the territory claimed by the Dutch and went on to annex East Timor and West Papua. The transmigration policy is being carried out to diffuse the popula tion of Java and to populate frontier states. A tacit objective of transmigration is also to propagate Pancasila, the ideology of the state. Malaysia incorporated Sarawak and Sabah in Borneo by virtue of English rule there and despite very little historical ties and interaction between the Peninsular states and the eastern states. (Latourette, 671) Korea became a suzerainty of China as early as the Chou dynasty. Chinese migrants to Korea increased during the Chin dynasty. Korea began to be independent about the end of the Later Han (1st century B.C.) Japan subjugated Korea in July 1894 as a first step in its advance towards China. The Chinese were defeated by Japan and forced to sign the Treaty of Shimonoseki which among others ceded Taiwan (Formosa) and Korea to Japan. (Latourette, 428) Japan carried out a forced migration policy among its Chinese, Taiwanese (Formosan) and Korean subjects in order to provide cheap labor to burgeoning industries in Japan in the earlier part of this century. The point being made is that the history of the world is a history where people move and propagate their world views and their systems of production compelling other peoples to take stock of their identities and their own systems towards a process of acculturation, adaptation and resistance. Globalisation therefore is a continuing process of interaction of populations and cultures. As such it can not be a smooth process but rather a conflict in which ideas and systems are constantly being introduced, challenged, revised and perfected towards convergence. 2. Post modern globalisation In the post-modern era, globalisation involves most obviously the expansion of the "market economy", a model of economic production and relations that reflects the philosophy of the market which is seen as the ultimate regulating mechanism. It involves liberalization of trade and investment rules; privatisation of government corporations and of basic social services and public utilities; deregulation of sectors of the economy so that the market decides how much to produce and at what price as well as deregulation of foreign exchange; accelerated industrialization, among others. On the macro level it is the propagation of a set of relations between nations mediated by a multilaterial agency like the World Trade Organisation. Other agencies like the United Nations and the World Bank which have become centers also play corresponding roles in homogenizing the periphery. Today, the world is said to be "globalising" in the sense that world trade and investments are expanding to include all if not most of the countries in the world. Up to the 1970's, the main instrument for economic integration and globalisation was foreign investments carried out by transnational corporations (TNCs) or multinational enterprises (MNEs). In recent years it has come to be acknowledged that world trade has outstripped the growth of world investments by 3% per annum since 1950 so that trade has replaced investments as the main instrument for global integration. (p.5 #2, WE, ILO 1995) Of course, a major player in world trade are the TNCs themselves. By reckoning of the global agents, trade and investments are redefining the world economy. They are redefining the structure of output which consequently also change the structure of employ ment. (p5, #3 WE 1995) Qouting from World Bank and other sources, the ILO contends that significant industrialization is being achieved in developing countries (#3,p5,WE). This is measured in terms of phenomenal growth rates and through the rise of the share of manufacturing to 20% of the output of developing countries principally the NICs which percentage share is similar to that in the North. Global output also indicates a shift towards services representing 65% of total output. (#3,p5,WE) Industrialization in the developing countries seems to be indicated also by the fact that of the total value of world trade, 71% are manufactures rather than primary products -- agricultural, mining, fishing and forest products. Measuring benefits and costs Praises are being sung to TNCs for being harbingers of Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs), new technologies and new jobs. They are reported to directly account for 73 million new jobs created, 12 million of these jobs are in the South. In some developing countries, TNCs account for 20% of non-agricultural employment. The International Labor Organisation (ILO) also argues that the benefits of the Uruguay Round of GATT could mean a 20% increase in world trade and a 5% increase in world output. A GATT provision that the binding of 99% of tariffs in the North and 59% of tariffs in the South could only lead to more trade and growth, they say. (#8 WE p 5) The ILO however recognizes that there is massive differences in the position and performance of different countries in regard to trade and investment. The NICs in East and Southeast Asia have outstripped countries in Latin America and Africa where stagnation seems to be the rule. (#4, WE p5) Hidden behind the gloss performance reports is a slightly disturbing detail that 76% of total stock of FDIs to the South is concentrated in 10 countries only. This indicates that there is severe competition of countries for FDI and therefore access to trade as well. Furthermore, while the investment and trade performances of some South countries benefited by trade may be called phenomenal, the actual benefits do not necessarily accrue to the whole population. The existence of wealth gaps among the social groups in these countries raise serious adjustment and distributional issues according to ILO. (#4,WE) The social costs of major economic reforms necessary for countries to be internationaly competitive in the light of distorted economic structures furthermore raises serious questions about the process of globalisation itself. (#6,WE) Exclusion and disintegration We cannot overlook the fact that when we speak of globalisation we are also thinking about whole regions that are shut out of this process simply because they are not players in trade and investments. Furthermore, even if most NICs are posting record growth rates we must ask many questions such as: who are the prime beneficiaries: Whose rights are being sacrificed? What role do low paid workers and migrant workers play in the productivity and competitiveness of the NICs? How much do women pay for development? How are traditional values and social solidarity affected? What costs are incurred in the environment for such high growth rates? After the initial optimism in the 1990s about the apparent invincibility of globalisation and its sterling effects in Asia, there is now more sober realism about its real significance. In the North industrial countries, a critical attitude is growing largely focused around the twin issues of disinvestment and migration of jobs to the South. There is growing concern that job prospects for unskilled workers in the North is getting seriously low. Unemployment is being blamed on growing populations of labor migrants. The cry is against "unfair competition" for jobs posed by migrants and developing countries. The loss of demand for local labor is also perceived to cause the decline of wages. (#6,WE) Moreover, the migration of factories southward is causing Northern countries to upgrade technologies toward automation which further reduces job openings. Protectionism towards local capital and jobs is growing in the North. ILO argues that this protectionism only delays free trade and investment flows. (#6,WE) The ILO suggests that the North must pay more attention to employment performance instead of looking for scapegoats. Globalization is also criticized in the South. The most severe criticism comes from the most marginallized states. If African countries see the collapse of employment in the modern sector and if trade and investment have actually declined in their contexts, then what is happening is not globalisation but disintegration of the globe. Structural adjustment programs have virtually wiped out decades of social security investments such as farm and labor subsidies, thus causing massive unemployment and poverty. In Latin America there has been a deterioration of employment with only marginal improvements being reported in recent years. The relocation of investments and trade across countries merely on the basis of profitability overlooks the moral dimension, that jobs and lives are being sacrificed in the most needy countries at the altar of globalisation. Criticism is also increasingly coming from the so-called Transition Economies. After the initial euphoria of the collapse of communism there is sober realization that the Transition Economies are not all that exciting as investment venues. Consequently its share in world trade has declined. Massive unemployment is growing. The World Bank has pronounced that the outlook for Russia is bleak. (#33 WE) Here again there is no globalisation only disintegration. In developing countries, the operations of TNCs have not been all salutary. Unrestricted operations allow TNCs to be "footloose" moving from country to country where advantages are seen to be greatest. The means for competitiveness in FDI in the south involves the enforcement of economic and political stability which is nothing less than the muzzling of the rights of workers to form trade unions and for unions to strike on issues of wages and working conditions. It also means that developing country governments must spend more public money away from social services in favor of better infrastructure for FDI and trade. All possible benefits are given to TNCs to allow them effective management of their enterprises. States are encouraged to provide transparent policies towards investors whereas native enterprises are often deprived of access to their own capital. (#22 WE) The World Bank and WTO recognize that economic reforms are going to cost states a great deal of social displacements. For this reason they advise developing countries to establish safety nets to "catch" the "fall outs". (#23 WE) For example liberalization of trade in agriculture which is being called for in globalisation is openly being acknowledged to lead to the displacement of rice farmers, livestock breeders and native industries. The government must catch them with "safety nets". In view of these, the ILO calls governments to prioritize the solutions for underemployment and poverty alleviation. (#25 WE) It is calling for governments to support the small farm sector. (#28 WE) In other words while globalisation goes on unhampered, the state must solve its own problems. Asian Migrant Centre (AMC) 4 Jordan Road Kowloon, Hong Kong Tel: (852) 2312 0031 Fax: (852) 2992 0111 Email: amc@hk.super.net From daga at HK.Super.NET Mon Aug 26 15:10:29 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 14:10:29 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 60] Globalisation: its Impact and Challenges to Labor Migration, Part II Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960826140516.3f5f3de8@is1.hk.super.net> Embargoed for Publication (Final version and permission for use can be requested from the Asian Migrant Centre by 2 September 1996.) GLOBALISATION: ITS IMPACT AND CHALLENGES TO LABOR MIGRATION, PART II by May-an Villalba Unlad-Kabayan Migrant Services Foundation, Inc. Quezon City, Philippines States are told to adopt policies to smoothly transfer resources from declining industries to new activities in line with the country's comparative advantage. (#9 WE) Underdeveloped states are called to face the chalenge of the wholesale transformation of uncompetitive industrial structures and against the idea of "inward-development". They are called to "retrain their workers" provide "geographical mobility grants" (is that another word for migration?) and do other measures to assure "smooth transition". (#9WE) On the other hand export oriented development is encour aged. (#24 WE) Export orientation and liberalization of trade has led to traditional industries initiated by the people such as handicrafts and food production to collapse. The time and skill gap between this loss and creation of new jobs can take a lifetime. Meanwhile, unemployment grows. The ILO concedes that while export oriented policies is desirable, laissez faire trade is not. And yet it advises against import substitution. This self-contradictoriness is evident in the globalisation process. While there may be a need for government intervention to protect infant industries with genuine comparative advantage, the ILO resolutely advises that export oriented development is the key to progress. (#21 WE) In effect ILO is saying that developing countries must play the game of globalisation for better or worse. Once acquired however globalisation sets limits to the effectivity of traditional instruments for influencing a state's level of employment. The state must allow foreign competition to take place and to challenge protected industries. No longer would it be possible for example for a state to maintain industries or enterprises that are "corrupt" and "inefficient". The best policy according to ILO is for open trade and the attraction of foreign investments. (#19WE) The foreign variety of enterprise may be less corrupt and more efficient but are they more humane? Many industries under TNCs now provide better production but at the cost of the security of workers. For example, many workers in foreign enterprises and subsidiaries have become "contractual workers" without job security. Is that a fair exchange -- more efficient enterprises for job insecurity? Fair for whom? While the multilateral proponents of globalisation suggest all these contradictory proposals, it is unable to do its part in the essential building up of an infrastructure for true globalisation to take place. Some major areas that have overtime been identifed that require international attention are the following: the control of transnational corporations "footloose operations" and against disinvestment; the establishment of guarantees for the reform of the international monetary system to dampen the destabilizing effects of speculative financial flows on exchange and interest rates; fairer terms of trade for the poorer countries; and safeguards against environmental destruction, etc. (#68 WE) What can we say except that all these problems are bogged down in the United Nation's, in the World Bank's, the WTO's own "corruption" and "inefficiency". For example, the United Nations program for a Code of Ethics among Transnational Corporations in 1980s was silently abandoned. The reason given was budgetary limitations. Is that sufficient justification? Or are the TNCs so powerful they can also influence the budgets of the United Nations? The agents of globalisation continue to do propaganda arguing that "benefits far outweigh" the costs of globalisation. This propaganda is carried out through new information communication technologies and huge media organisations that are also multinational enterprises. (#16 WE) But the question remains, is globalisation a bubble that will soon burst? Who is in control? The ILO suggests that the optimal strategy for developing states is to reap the gains of higher output and efficiency from globalisation. As for the negative effects, they are called to deal with them through policy interventions on national and global level. Globalisation is better than protectionism, they say. (#7 WE) But for how long will expansion last given the nature of economic boom and bust cycle? 3. Summary of impact of globalisation Before going to the phenomena of labor migration let me summarize the social effects of globalisation. There are two large effects -- segregation of the North (including NICs) as centers and source of trade, technology and investments; and the marginallization if not disintegration of economic and social systems in many countries in the South. Market economics and Structural Adjustment Programs have been the cause of the deterioration of many economies in the South. Trade liberalization is destroying native industries and causing widespread unemployment and poverty. Structural adjustment programs are depriving the poor of the traditional protection they received in the form of state subsidies, job security and access to the local market. Now they must privatize, make unions scarce and compete with foreign products in the local market. Workers rights are being curtailed to promote an ideal climate for investment and trade. South economies are becoming vulnerable to outside competition resulting in a larger dependence on trade for basic commodities. Whereas states used to have Food Security, now they are made to rely on foreign sources for basic goods. Currencies are made to float in the currency market ostensibly to make Southern goods more competitive in the world market. In effect it is robbing economies of their means to be self-reliant and independent. The so-called dispersion of growth to the South is nothing more than the favoring of a handful of Southern states who have been allowed to benefit from trade and investment flows from the North. While FDI outflows have increased yearly by 29% since 1983, expansion has primarily occurred in the North. Inflows to the South also expanded but their share of FDI declined from 25% in 1980 to 17% in 1989. (Villalba, 82) The share of the South is still minimal -- a total of US$30 billion in 1989. But 75% of these flows went to only 10 developing countries which are mainly located in Asia. And yet some stratification between the countries of the South is becoming evident. In Asia, there has been phenomenal growth in the NICs and near NICs in East and Southeast Asia -- south Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia. These have created Asia's new urban centers as against Asia's rural countryside. One of the features of globalisation is the information revolution that allows the flow of much more information about the world to more countries. Television and other communication media are creating a "global village" enabling the world to see the same news, programs, perspectives, world views and meanings. At the same time global media are also showing more people about the disparaties in the income and opportunity between countries. According to the ILO, "the richest 20% of the world population produced 84% of the global GNP while the countries with the poorest 20% account for only 1.4%." (p.4 ILO 96) The promotion of consumer values through the global media is changing consumer patterns, tastes for food and diet, for modes of dressing, transport and other ways of behavior. Globalisation is profoundly changing the cultures of societies not always with positive consequences. Homogenization translates into the disintegration of the diverse cultural identities of peoples of the world. 4. Impact on labor migration Labor migration is often one of the unwanted results of globalisation. However, unlike in the past, today this phenomenon is much more difficult to control through protectionist immigration rules. The stress on "liberalization" of the movements of capital and goods, makes it ethically difficult to set discriminatory barriers against the movement of people. Globalisation would be a farce if this was so. More importantly there is an explicit connection between globalisation and migration in that the factors that create migration are generated by the effects of globalisation. The number of international migrants today of about 125 million (World Bank 1995:65) compared to some 50 million (IOM figures) in the late 1980s seems to indicate the growth of population movements. These include refugees, displaced persons, settlers, professionals as well as contract workers. Of course, factors such as the famines and wars in Africa, the war in the Middle East and Yugoslavia as well as the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe have swelled the numbers of migrants. Though these specific movements may not be immediately and directly attributable to globalisation they have been exacerbated by it. Discounting refugees, settlers and other displaced persons, IOM figures for migrant workers could reach 25 million. The greatest destination of migrants are the Gulf and Asia with 10 million; followed by about 4 million each in Europe and North America; 3 million each in Africa and in Central/South America. The IOM estimates that 30 million migrants are in irregular situations -- without legal permission to stay or as illegal workers. (Taran) Migration in Asia In sociology we refer to two factors -- the "push" and the "pull factors -- that cause migration. The "push" factors are those which make people move out from their communities, countries. The collapse of many economies in the South is a push factor because economic collapse means people are not able to find jobs, good wages and social security in their own countries. The "pull" factors are those which attract people to move to another place. These are job vacancies, higher wages and more social security. In very poor countries jobs and wages derived from overseas already create for the migrants and their families long term social security at home. "Pull" factors are primary. There can be no movement of labor across borders especially ones separated by oceans and great distances if there is no demand for them in the host countries in the first place. In Asia an estimated 10.375 million migrants worked overseas in 1992. The main destinations were the Gulf states with about 5,075,851; Malaysia with 1.5 million; Japan 1 million; Singapore .3 million; Taiwan and Hong Kong, .15 million each; south Korea .1 million; Macau and Brunei .05 million each. (Living, p.3) Trade and investment patterns The changes in the Asian labor market during the last three decades result from national economies in Asia becoming integral parts of the regional/global economy. The integration is different in many respects from the effects of the bilateral relations which existed in the colonial and post colonial period between colonizer and colonized. Whereas in the colonial period the national economies of Asian countries were integrated with the economies of their colonial masters, mostly, the more contemporary national economies are integrated in three or more ways: they are integrated by the growing influence of Chinese overseas capital; by the development of Japanese technological leadership; and by the development of inter-Asian investment and trade within the framework of globalising market regions. In the 1990s there is the phenomenal and simultaneous development of the regional trade and investment block concept as exemplified by the creation of the Europeran Economic Community (EEC), the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) and the ASEEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA). The impetus of AFTA still needs to be thoroughly studied. However, there are some distinct factors which can be mentioned about this development. The first is the need for Asia to become more competitive vis a vis Europe and North America. The second is the growth of overseas Chinese capital moving towards China or towards Asian countries where ethnic Chinese relations exist or can be developed. The third is the growing need of Japan to establish a rationalized Asian technological production base which can maximize locational advantage in relation to access to resources and markets. However, also in the 1990s the world is seeing the development of Asia as a center of "developing country" investment and trade. The NICs are beginning to play not only an important role as models of development but also a role as investing countries within Asia and outside. As Asian countries develop to the point of becoming foreign investing countries, they need to rationalize production organisation by making use of cheaper resource and labor which are available within the region. With the acceptance of structural adjustment programs by most governments, there has risen a desire by many countries to liberalize the movement of capital, commodities, services and technology across borders. There is also a desire, nay intention to reduce the role of the state in economic affairs and to enable the market to run its course. The role of the APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) is precisely to hasten this process. What we see as APEC is a mechanism to liberalize trade and investment without the encumbrances that government-led trade blocks are heir to. It is ironic, to say the least, that through the APEC process, we are witnessing the voluntary abdication of responsibilities by governments in favor of the market. Labor patterns Industrial development in Asia has brought about many changes in the structures and patterns of employment and labor. There has been a movement from an agricultural pattern of employment to an industrial pattern and more recently to services. The skills level of the labor force has changed as well from an agri-based skills level to an industry-based skill level and increasingly towards a services-based skill for developed and the newly industrializing economies. The demand pattern for labor has also changed. Technological advances have enabled companies to relocate certain branches or sectors of production to cheap labor countries. Thus, labor intensive sectors of garment manufacturing are moving from Japan and the NICs to cheap labor countries. Asian investments integrate Asian labor by bringing together from different countries under the command of capital from the sending countries, e.g. workers employed by say Toyota, come under one enterprises whether the workers are from the Philippines or India or Thailand. Labor migration on the one hand is integrating labor of sending and receiving countries by putting foreign and local workers together under the same wage and working conditions in the host country and exposing indefensible discriminatory wage and work standards. Small and medium enterprises in the NICs prefer contract labor over local labor because contract labor demands less long-term social and economic benefits. They demand no provident funds, social security and medical benefits. Changes in the labor structure have also been forthcoming since the NICs began to post high growth rates. The changes in population composition and in the labor force have meant that the age structure of the population has been changing. Japan and the NICs are getting to have an older population, with people achieving a longer life span and marriages occurring at a later age. Births are being controlled and nuclear families are shinking. There are far more women going through tertiary education and willing to do economic work than in the past. The knowledge and skills level of the population have also improved relative to the demands of the national economies. The negative effect of these population changes are several. First, the retirement age of the population is becoming shorter. There is higher expectation for social mobility. There is more discrimination about the work that local populations want to enter into. Fewer local workers are willing to accept 3D jobs. Asian Migrant Centre (AMC) 4 Jordan Road Kowloon, Hong Kong Tel: (852) 2312 0031 Fax: (852) 2992 0111 Email: amc@hk.super.net From daga at HK.Super.NET Mon Aug 26 15:10:35 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 14:10:35 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 61] Globalisation: its Impact and Challenges to Labor Migration, Part III Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960826140523.3f5f841c@is1.hk.super.net> Embargoed for Publication (Final version and permission for use can be requested from the Asian Migrant Centre by 2 September 1996.) GLOBALISATION: ITS IMPACT AND CHALLENGES TO LABOR MIGRATION, PART III by May-an Villalba Unlad-Kabayan Migrant Services Foundation, Inc. Quezon City, Philippines The combined high growth rates and high per capita income as well changes in the labor structure in Japan and the NICs and lately Thailand and Malaysia, have resulted in labor shortages in the industrial sectors of Asia. The growing affluence of significant sectors of the population in developed countries and NICs gave rise to a continued demand for women in entertainment industry. These are the pull factors of migration in Asia. Issues and problems The integration of labor in Asia is bringing to the surface the gross inequalities and contradictions between the workers of each country. The gap in wage differentials, for example, is growing with manufacturing workers in Japan earning an average of US$3,000 a month while those in Indonesia earn US$60 per month and in the Philippines US$160. Unemployment While unemployment is growing in the Philippines, Indonesia and in south Asia, labor shortages are growing in certain sectors in Japan and the NICs. The world's labor force is placed at 2.7 billion and an estimated 30% or 820 million of these mostly Asians were unemployed or underemployed in 1994. (WE 1995) Technological advances in parts of Asia is also putting pressures on the job market. More jobs are becoming redundant as technological changes enable employers and industrialists to use automaton instead of human labor. (shipping and transport) Labor standards Unequal labor standards are being exposed more readily as a result of labor integration. Wage differentials between the industrial and agricultural countries for the same kind of work is growing. While working conditions have improved in Japan and the NICs as a result of trade union activity, those in the south are still largely backward. Migrant workers are hired in Japan and the NICs because they accept lower wages and poor working conditions. And since they are often not unionized, migrant workers often suffer the consequences of dangerous working conditions. Contract labor In the highly competitive atmosphere of world trade, Japan and the NICs are resorting to hiring of migrant workers to lower production costs. Contract labor is becoming a lucrative business in itself apart from enabling small and medium enterprises to survive in tough conditions. In South countries, the trend of casualization and contractualization is beginning to unsettle many trade unions. Financial and moral support to local trade union organizing is diminishing and workers are encouraged to form instead trade/workers associations as a defense to abusive labor contracting practices. Legal protection In Japan and Korea migrant workers are systematically deprived of their labor rights through the denial of work status to migrants. Migrant workers are not allowed to legally enter Japan and Korea even though there is an obvious need for cheap labor in some industries. The lack of legal rights opens the way for massive exploitation and brutalization of migrant workers. It provides excellent conditions for trafficking in women for the entertainment sector (sex industry). In other states, migrant workers are deprived of political and social rights. In Singapore and Taiwan, migrant workers are forbidden to marry and in Singapore women migrants are required to undergo pregnancy tests every six months and are immediately deported if found positive. In other NICs, the rights of migrant workers are severely curtailed. Trade unions By and large, trade unions in Japan and the NICs have considered migrant workers as a threat to their hard earned union victories. They are seen to take jobs away from the local population. They are believed to cause depreciating wages. They are seen to consume precious little social and welfare resources which local workers have difficulty availing of by themselves. But the fact is migrant workers mostly take unwanted jobs. It is often the case that local trade unions oppose the importation of labor and are not sympathetic to the migrants who often are victims of abuse. They often refuse to take up the membership of foreign workers in the trade unions. 5. What can we do At this juncture we must ask ourselves a few disconcerting questions: How do we view globalisation? Are we trying to adapt to it to "survive", revise it to suit our needs (whose needs?); put up a challenge; or resist the compelling forces and processes of co-optation. For our response to be meaningful and useful, we must seriously address the disintegration process that globalisation creates. If "benefits" outweigh the costs", there is no justification that costs should be borne entirely by who those who do not benefit. Having said that, I must confess, this does not begin to give us a handle to address globalisation as it impinges on the day to day life of those who do not benefit from it, but are constantly victimised at every turn. Because globalisation is constantly impinging on lives of people everyday including our own life, we need to confront it collectively and as individuals. As it impinges on migrant workers, we need to take stock of ourselves, our work and where we stand. It would do well to remind ourselves and all sectors and forces who challenge the globalising process of a few points to consider: With respect to governments a- We must continue to remind governments of their responsibilities and accountabilities; to provide full employment, job security and decent wages to all its citizens. It is the inability of governments to do so that have forced people to become migrant workers. b- We must continue push governments and international agencies for the full protection to migrant workers in sending countries, in transit and in countries of destination. Policy on foreign labor among labor importing countries is generally unfriendly. The theoretical faux pas of labor imports, the existence of number of undocumented and irregular workers in many receiving countries already condemns the anachronistic "nationalist" bias of many governments. The truth is, large numbers of workers have been allowed to work and respond to real labor needs but without official recognition. As a first step, governments should legalize migrant workers who are already gainfully employed. Where laws and employment contracts on migrant labor exist, they are either inadequate or they work against the migrants, the weaker party in a contract. Governments must immediately enact laws specifically relevant to migrant workers. Where laws are absent, we must insist that a labor ordinance be codified that define the status and rights of migrant workers from the perspective of the migrant workers themselves. Labor unions and migrant workers organisations can help put pressure on the government to see to it that laws are being carried out. c- Bilateral agreements between labor sending and labor receiving countries must be forged. Migrant workers welfare and protection must be central to these agreements. Sending countries appear to evade the issue because of fear of subsequent "costs" that both parties will be vulnerable to, and the issue is not faced. Such agreements must not reflect the uneqwual power balance that exists between employer and migrant worker. All countries who claim to be civilised should recognise the legitimate rights of migrant workers and their families by ratifying the 1990 UN International Convention for the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families signed in 1990. Immediately, the task is to convince 14 more states to sign the Convention to enable its ratification and its coming into force. It is ironic that no country in Europe and North America who claim to be civilized has ever signed nor ratified the Convention. To migrant workers and support groups Migrant workers must take stock of their own identities, be constantly reminded of the causes of out-migration and resist becoming the bearers and promoters of consumerism. We must inform and encourage them to turn their "temporary" economic gains into long-term source of livelihood and job generation in their own home countries. To other oppressed sectors of society We must forge strong solidarity relations with every sector and significant forces in society for a common front of resistance against forces that compel us to become cogs and victims of the globalisation process. We in the migrant front must continue to affirm that migration is essentially a labor issue, therefore, labor unions and local workers are possibly the most strategic ally of migrant workers. a-To trade unions and workers associations: trade unions have to recognize that labor is a central factor in production anywhere. Labor is a constant factor in production which is employed irrespective of nationality, creed, or gender. Labor is always at the receiving end of exploitation and as such must be defended. Because the exploitation of one worker is the exploitation of all workers. It is the duty of every worker to struggle against the power of capital ranged against the workers of every nationality. It is always the concern of capital to produce profit often to the detriment of workers' conditions. It behooves on workers to make capital accountable for its actions. Workers must have a global perspective. It is suicidal for workers to believe that their particular nation-state is sufficient to protect workers rights. In fact, capital operates multinationally making use of weaknesses between states to gain profit from cheap labor and resources everywhere. There is no reason therefore for workers to stop struggling against capital when the abuses are committed outside their countries. Because workers are connected to each other by the bond of capital. Labor unions should recognize the fact of the equality of labor. Whatever nationality, workers will always have a commonality with other workers. They should therefore treat all workers as sisters and brothers. Trade unions must strive to strengthen the capability of nation-states to protect the rights of workers. The attack of capital on nation-states through liberalization, privatization, and structural adjustment programs is an attack on the workers' capability to defend themselves. The workers must push for states to continue to determine safe working conditions and fair wages against the relentless demand of the free market to dictate prices and labor rates. Workers must push for more participation in the decision-making processes of the workplace since these processes directly affect the well-being of the workers. Labor participation must also be pushed for the workers in society. They must participate in political affairs since it is through political action that workers' benefits are broadly defended. Finally workers must develop international solidarity and international action to defend each other. They should work with a perspective of uniting the workers and enabling the collective bargaining capability of workers within enterprises across borders so that gaps in wages and working conditions are ultimately evened out. When capital has operated internationally since the colonial period, labor cannot limit itself only to national affairs. b-To women movements Women migration draws from a huge supply of labor in several rural countries reflecting and reinforcing the traditional Asian values which regard women as sex objects and home keepers. This sustains the male dominated cultures of our societies. (Villalba) Women's organizations and movements must continue to expose and criticize the feminization of poverty, labor and labor migration as a manifestation of the historical economic exploitation and oppression of South countries and of women and of the unfair and unjust division of labor by gender and between have and have not countries. It should condemn the sex trade involving women and children who are trafficked and are illegally employed or are employed under various guises. The sex services dehumanizes both men and the women who are forced by poverty to become prostitutes. The condition of women domestic workers is also intolerable because it promotes modern day slavery. It forces women to work where they cannot have human dignity. Salaries that women receive are not equivalent to the dehumanization that they receive in return. (Villalba) 6. Generate jobs in poor countries As already pointed out by various international agencies, the main issue in so-called "develeoping countries" is poverty and it can be addressed only if there is a definitive answer to the Third World debt problem, the problem of unequal and unfair terms of trade and the more just distribution of environmental resources. The long term solution to the problem is not in blind globalisation but in the establishment of fair trade and investment rules that enable poor countries to maximize their resources and enable the development of their local market first. By developing on their own and providing jobs to their own people, the push factors are minimized and the problem of labor migration is solved at the root source. Globalisation can be a long term viable reality if development is promoted with the participation of and with benefits accruing to the working masses in the South. References: ___________________. World Employment 1995, An ILO Report. ILO. Geneva. 1995 ___________________. Going Out to Work: Trade Unions and Migrant Workers. ILO. Geneva. March 1996 Easton, Stewart. Ancient, Medieval and Modern History. Barnes and Noble. New York. 1967. Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A Short History of the Far East. Macmillan. New York. 1967. Papazian, Aline. Situation of Migrants in the Middle East. Paper read at the IMRWC Meeting. Cairo Sept. 1994. Taran, Patrick. Global Migration: Challenges to NGOs. Asian Migrant Forum. Asian Migrant Centre. Hong Kong. 1994. Villalba, May-an. Understanding Asian Women in Migration: Towards a Theoretical Framework. Women in Action. Issues 2 & 3, 1993. ISIS International. Quezon City. Philippines. Villalba, May-an, ed. Living and Working with Migrant Workers: Report of the Conference on Migrant Labor Issues. Asian Migrant Centre. Hong Kong. 1995. Villalba, May-an. The Economics of Labour Migration in Asia. Paper presented to the Ecumenical Consultation on Uprooted People. Addis Ababa, November 1995. Villalba, Noel. Ed. Building Workers Unity in the New Super States. Documentation for Action Groups in Asia (DAGA). Hong Kong, 1992. Quotes from World Investment Report. United Nations 1991. NewYork. Asian Migrant Centre (AMC) 4 Jordan Road Kowloon, Hong Kong Tel: (852) 2312 0031 Fax: (852) 2992 0111 Email: amc@hk.super.net From dannyk at igc.apc.org Mon Aug 26 22:35:45 1996 From: dannyk at igc.apc.org (Danny Kennedy) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 13:35:45 +0000 Subject: [asia-apec 62] Please reply to Carolyn Deere Message-ID: <199608261648.JAA05421@igc3.igc.apc.org> Dear Friend, A SEED Australia has devoted this year to raising public and media awareness in Australia about the problems with APEC. On Wednesday the 28th August we will be staging an action at the Gala Dinner of the APEC Energy Ministers' here in Sydney. This will be followed in two weeks by an APEC `Teach-In' for community and non-government groups to encourage them to incorporate attention to APEC in their work and to work together with us in preparation for the Alternative Peoples' Forum in Manila in November. We are having a small celebration here today as the concerns about the APEC Energy Ministers' Meeting and the APEC process itself were the top news story on our national radio station ! The word is getting out. We hope other people are having similar successes and that you can help us by getting in contact and forwarding on any analysis you have about APEC related issues. Following is the background briefing we have written for community organisations. ---------------------------------------- Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) or Social and Environmental Devastation ? An A SEED Australia Campaign: Briefing Kit >From the 26-30th August, 1996 the APEC Energy Minister will meet in Sydney for an International Energy and Environment Conference entitled - Meeting the Energy Challenge. A SEED Australia will be using the occasion to publicly launch its campaign against the current neoliberal agenda of APEC and to encourage the Australian government to urgently embark on a series of public consultations around this agreement. BACKGROUND APEC is being publicised by politicians, prominent business people and the mainstream media as a significant step forward for economic development of the already `fastest growing region in the world'. Already controllers of 56% of the world's GNP and 46% of its trade, the 18 APEC nations signed the 1994 Bogor Declaration of their resolve to promote regional cooperation amongst `partner countries'. In November 1995, the Osaka Action Agenda established a blueprint and commitment to three areas: trade facilitation, trade liberalisation and economic cooperation. THE ISSUES The question we pose to the Australian government is `Cooperation in whose interest ?' Like the World Trade Organisation and North American Free Trade Agreement before it, APEC aims to abolish international barriers to trade without taking into consideration political, social and environmental impacts. Our major concerns are the following: 1) Agriculture and the Rural Poor wLiberalisation measures ignore the failure of market mechanisms in terms of effective environmental resource management. The commercialisation of agriculture, including the commercial patenting of seed varieties, undermines food security, biodiversity and indigenous agricultural traditions. Furthermore, the further opening of domestic markets in some developing countries in the face of still depressed world market prices will reduce the income of many small farmers, and even their chance of staying in production. 2) Workers' Rights w The liberalisation of investment will further facilitate the mobility of capital, by removing existing restrictions on foreign investors, and further reduce the bargaining power of labour. Increased competition tends to create a `race to the bottom', in terms of wages, conditions and job security. 3) Effects on the Environment w Many trade restrictions have been designed to restrict the importation of goods considered dangerous to the environment or to human, animal or plant life, for example, dangerous pesticides or industrial or nuclear waste. Such restrictions run against the spirit of free trade and are subverted by agreements such as the GATT/WTO, NAFTA and now by APEC. w APEC will discourage government environmental regulation while facilitating the international movement of corporations and competition. In reality, increased competition often leads to `pollution havens' as corporations flock to areas with lax environmental regulation (meaning lower production costs) such as the experience of the US-Mexico border. Mining is another excellent example of the impacts of reduced government regulation similar to those proposed by APEC. It will promote the influx of western mining companies into countries where indigenous peoples, small farmers and the rural poor suffer disproportionately. 4) Undemocratic Processes w Many NGOs and community groups have complained about a lack of democratic participation in decision making in the APEC process. There has been minimal consultation with the community and NGOs, though the private sector has been incorporated into APEC through the Pacific Business Forum. APEC processes are intangible and unaccountable: APEC operates through an invisible series of leaders and ministerial meetings, scripted by officials, and coordinated by a small secretariat in Singapore. APEC provides no mechanism for popular sovereignty over the outcomes of the international decision making process. A SEED's POSITION As the APEC Energy Ministers meet together to discuss Energy, the Environment and the economic prospects of Asia Pacific Countries, we raise your attention to the fact that APEC perpetuates the kind of `economic rationalist' logic that already has Australia's progressive community outraged. A SEED Australia condemns APEC as a corporate-driven manifesto of a `neo-liberal' ideology long since discredited. The threat it poses to the populations and the environment of the Asia-Pacific is real and enormous. We call on community groups, non-government organisations and the general public to: . Write to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade demanding their support for a representative Social Forum within APEC's structure so that the social, economic and political concerns of citizens groups and non government organisations about free trade can be heard. . Demand an Australian APEC Advisory Council, bringing together Australia's environmental, social justice, development, student and human rights organisations. . Support the attached Sign-on Letter of the Climate Action Network of Australia which appeals to the APEC Ministers Meeting to build a more ecologically sustainable energy framework for the Asia Pacific. WHAT THE WORLD IS DOING ! In response to the fourth Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit to be hosted by the Philippine Government some 450 representatives from non-government organisations, people's organisations and social movements across the Asia Pacific will converge in Manila in November 1996. This gathering is an effort to focus the attention of the international community-particularly the member-countries of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)-on the need to reflect the people's concerns for human rights, gender, social equity and environmental sustainability in the APEC agenda. Dubbed the 1996 People's Forum on the APEC, the Manila conference is the continuation of the initiative started in Kyoto in 1995 to provide a parallel process of peoples, communities and sectors affected by the free trade and economic integration agenda. In Australia, you can support the following: . Energy and Environment Action and Alternative Press Conference to be held at APEC Energy Ministers Meeting. Watch your fax for action updates. . Our second Globalisation Teach- In, this time focussed on APEC with seminars, workshops and videos as well as a plenary session to start building a coalition working towards the APEC Annual Meeting in November. Sunday September 15th, UNSW, 9.30 am A more detailed position paper is available from A SEED. If you want more information or can offer your involvement or support in our upcoming media activities please call A SEED on (02) 9261-3181. A SEED (Action for Solidarity, Equality, Environment and Development) AUSTRALIA is part of an international network of youth-led non-government organisations committed to offering an alternative analysis to global environment and development problems. From cdeere at extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU Tue Aug 27 09:27:09 1996 From: cdeere at extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Carolyn Deere) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 10:27:09 +1000 Subject: [asia-apec 63] subscibre Message-ID: <199608270027.KAA05086@extra.ucc.su.OZ.AU> Could you please subsribe me to your list server on asia-apec ? Thankyou ! Carolyn Deere From foewase at igc.apc.org Tue Aug 27 10:16:37 1996 From: foewase at igc.apc.org (Northwest FOE Office) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 18:16:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [asia-apec 64] Re: APEC catch line/phrase contest! Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960826171904.2d4fc73a@pop.igc.org> 28 August 1996 Try: * The Hidden Costs of Free Trade * APEC - A Potential Environmental Catastrophe Cheers, David E. Ortman APEC'93 Coordinator NW Friends of the Earth Seattle, WA ------ At 05:20 PM 8/23/96 +0800, Mario R R Mapanao wrote: >Dear Friends, > >The Hong Kong media team for the People's Forum on APEC '96 is requesting >for suggestions for catch line/phrase in relation to APEC, to use for >publicity materials and the like. > >Samples include: > > Fair Trade, Not Free Trade > > towards an-- Alternative People's Economic Cooperation > >If you have a catch line or phrase, kindly post on this conference or send >to private mail within a week's time please. > >Chosen entries will be given a prize (still to be determined!). > >Thank you. > >Mario M. > > From daga at HK.Super.NET Tue Aug 27 12:21:31 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 11:21:31 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 65] '95 Korean Situation Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960827111619.0a47e850@is1.hk.super.net> '95 Korean Situation Christian Institute for the Study of Justice and Development (CISJD) 35, Choongjeung-no 2Ga, Seudaemun-Gu, Seoul 120-012, Korea Tel (82 2) 312 3317/9 Fax (82 2) 313 0261 Email cisjd@chollian.dacom.co.kr Table of Contents Part One Political Situation 1 The "Globalization" of the Democratic Liberal Party and the Suturing of the Democratic Party 2 The Meaning of the June 27 Local Elections and Strategies of Ruling and Opposition Parties 3 The Results of the June 27 Local Elections and Political Reshuffling 4 May 18 Special Legislation and Political Prospect Part Two Economic Situation 5 The Government Policy on Conglomerates changed to "Ownership Diversification" 6 Bright and Dark Sides of Economic Prosperity 7 Authoritarian Labor Policy and Instability of Economic Reform 8 Slush Fund Scandal and Politics-Business Collusion in Korea Part Three Peace and Reunification in Korean Peninsula 9 The U.S. Lifting of Sanctions on North Korea and North-South Talks 10 Negotiation on the Reactor Issue and Dilemma of the United States 11 South-North Relations Improved by 'Supply of Rice' 12 Settlement of an Agreement to Supply Two Light Water Reactors and South-North Korea Relations Part Four Ecumenical Movement 13 Stir Created over Proposal for Dismantling of the KNCC 14 The 4th International Christian Consultation on Peace and Reunification in Korea 15 Ecumenical Movement and Difficiculty in Religious Exchange between South and North Korea 16 Ecumenical Movement for Righting the Wrongs of History Conclusion From cdeere at extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU Tue Aug 27 14:23:31 1996 From: cdeere at extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Carolyn Deere) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 15:23:31 +1000 Subject: [asia-apec 66] Re: APEC catch line/phrase contest! Message-ID: <199608270523.PAA27305@extra.ucc.su.OZ.AU> Hi there, we are just having some actions this week in Australia for the APEC Energy Ministers' Meeting: Our slogans are as follows Another Peoples' Environmental Catastrophe Free Trade= Corporate Aid [or raid !] Free Trade=Corporate Raid The Free Trade Rampage Stop the Free Trade Mantra Cooperation in whose Interest ? APEC= GLuttony for some Poverty for others > >Carolyn Deere A SEED Australia > > >At 05:20 PM 8/23/96 +0800, Mario R R Mapanao wrote: >>Dear Friends, >> >>The Hong Kong media team for the People's Forum on APEC '96 is requesting >>for suggestions for catch line/phrase in relation to APEC, to use for >>publicity materials and the like. >> >>Samples include: >> >> Fair Trade, Not Free Trade >> >> towards an-- Alternative People's Economic Cooperation >> >>If you have a catch line or phrase, kindly post on this conference or send >>to private mail within a week's time please. >> >>Chosen entries will be given a prize (still to be determined!). >> >>Thank you. >> >>Mario M. >> >> > > > From hrwatchnyc at igc.org Tue Aug 27 15:52:32 1996 From: hrwatchnyc at igc.org (by way of daga ) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 14:52:32 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 67] US-Mexico: Abuse of Women in Maquiladora factories Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960827144722.20bf08c8@is1.hk.super.net> MEXICO'S MAQUILADORAS: ABUSES AGAINST WOMEN WORKERS 17 Aug 96--The Mexican government fails to protect women from pregnancy testing and other discriminatory treatment in export- processing factories (maquiladoras) along the U.S.-Mexico border. In No Guarantees: Sex Discrimination in Mexico's Maquiladora Sector, released today, the Human Rights Watch Women's Rights Project finds that major U.S.-based and other corporations routinely subject prospective female employees to mandatory urine testing, invasive questions about their contraceptive use, menses schedule or sexual habits in order to screen out pregnant women and deny them jobs. Human Rights Watch also finds that some maquiladoras mistreat or force to resign women who became pregnant shortly after being hired. Mexico's maquiladora sector is dominated by U.S. corporations, which own at least 90 percent of the factories. Maquiladoras are a source of billions of dollars a year in export earnings for Mexico and employ over 500,000 workers, at least 50 percent of whom are women. Maquiladoras owned by major corporations, including General Motors, General Electric, Zenith, Panasonic, W.R. Grace, Sunbeam-Oster, Carlisle Plastics, Sanyo, and AT&T, were all found to require pregnancy exams as a condition of employment, thereby subjecting women applicants to a different hiring criteria than men. In response to a letter from Human Rights Watch, the Zenith Corporation noted, "[I]t is common practice among Mexican and maquiladora employers in Matamoros and Reynosa to inquire about pregnancy status as a pre-existing medical condition," and admitted to screening out pregnant women from its applicant pools in order to avoid the costs of company-funded maternity benefits. Based on interviews with women from more than forty maquiladoras in the states of Baja California, Chihuahua, and Tamaulipas, the report concludes that the majority of the companies investigated in the report conduct pregnancy testing using their own medical personnel or those in nearby private clinics. Maquiladora personnel told women applicants that if they were pregnant they would not be hired and if they became pregnant they would be fired. Although the outright firing of pregnant women is uncommon, Human Rights Watch documented cases of maquiladora personnel forcing pregnant workers to work unpaid overtime; reassigning pregnant employees to more physically difficult work; and refusing to give pregnant women workers seated or lighter work assignments-all in an effort to force them to resign. "The Mexican government should not tolerate maquiladora development at the expense of women's human rights," according to Dorothy Q. Thomas, director of the Human Rights Watch Women's Rights Project. "Sex discrimination is prohibited by Mexican and international human rights law. We are troubled that U.S. and other corporations openly practice sex discrimination, and that the Mexican government allows this discrimination to flourish unchecked." Pregnancy testing violates Mexican federal labor law, which explicitly prohibits distinctions among workers for such reasons as sex and ensures equality between women and men in the workplace. It also violates Mexico's constitution and international labor and human rights obligations. Under Convention No. 111 of the International Labor Office (ilo), Mexico is required to prohibit discrimination based on gender in employment, including pregnancy-based discrimination. Both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (iccpr) and the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination against Women (cedaw) obligate Mexico to prohibit sex discrimination. cedaw explicitly prohibits pregnancy-based employment discrimination and obligates governments to take positive measures not only to remedy discrimination against women, but to ensure that women lead lives free from discrimination. Each of these international agreements is binding on Mexico. No Guarantees: Sex Discrimination in Mexico's Maquiladora Sector documents that the Mexican government's labor mechanisms responsible for monitoring compliance with the federal labor code, advising workers on their rights, and adjudicating labor disputes fail to provide remedies to women who have yet to be hired, since they only take on cases of people who already have a labor relationship with the employer. However, labor officials also fail to condemn consistently discrimination in those instances where women were already employed. Some labor officials saw themselves as being unable to monitor vigorously maquiladoras for compliance with the federal labor code for fear of reprimand from higher officials in Mexico City, because the maquiladoras were seen as an untouchable source of employment and foreign-income earnings. As a direct consequence of Mexico's failure to remedy discrimination, women workers are subjected to routine invasions of privacy and to violations of their internationally guaranteed right to control freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children without discrimination. Human Rights Watch urges the Government of Mexico to: Uphold international human rights obligations to guarantee the right to nondiscrimination, the right to privacy, and the right to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of children without discrimination. Acknowledge and publicly condemn pregnancy discrimination as discrimination based on sex. Enact federal legislation that explicitly prohibits any company, public or private, from requiring that women give proof of pregnancy status, contraceptive use (or any other information related to reproductive choice and health) in order to be considered for, gain, or retain employment. Amend the rules governing the work of the Office of the Inspector of Labor, the Office of the Labor Rights Ombudsman, and the Conciliation and Arbitration Board so that these offices can investigate and adjudicate cases of discriminatory non-hiring as well as disputes involving an established labor relationship. Investigate vigorously all allegations of sex-based discriminatory employment practices and punish those responsible. Uphold obligations under the North American Free Trade Agreement's North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation to promote elimination of employment discrimination; ensure that its labor laws are enforced; initiate, in a timely manner, proceedings to seek appropriate sanctions or remedies for violations of its labor law; and publicize the content of its labor law regarding nondiscrimination. Human Rights Watch urges the United States Government to: Take up the case of pregnancy-based sex discrimination and encourage the Mexican government to take immediate steps to combat it, and Encourage the Government of Mexico to meet its obligations under the North American Free Trade Agreement's North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation, including the enforcement of its own labor law and the elimination of employment discrimination. Human Rights Watch urges private corporations that own maquiladoras to: End the practice of requiring women applicants to provide proof of pregnancy status or contraceptive use or information about sexual habits in order to be considered for or to obtain employment in the maquiladoras; End the practice of denying pregnant women applicants work by screening them out of the applicant pool; Explicitly prohibit pregnancy exams for women applicants or any other such method that would invade a woman's privacy regarding her pregnancy status and right to nondiscrimination; End harassment, intimidation, and forced resignation of female employees who become pregnant; Human Rights Watch urges corporations that use maquiladoras as subcontractors to: Require proof that subcontracting factories are being operated without discrimination, as a condition for a continuing contractual relationship; and Monitor subcontractor plants on an ongoing basis, by, at a minimum, requiring periodic, timely certification that plants are being operated without discrimination; establishing an independent, impartial group wholly unconnected to the factory to monitor compliance; and periodically visiting the subcontractor plants to review the hiring process and solicit information from worker on the absence of discrimination. Copies of this report are available from the Publications Department, Human Rights Watch, 485 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10017-6104 $8.40 (domestic shipping) and $10.50 (international shipping). Visa and MasterCard accepted. Human Rights Watch Women's Rights Project Human Rights Watch is a nongovernmental organization established in 1978 to monitor and promote the observance of internationally recognized human rights in Africa, the Americas, Asia, the Middle East and among the signatories of the Helsinki accords. It is supported by contributions from private individuals and foundations worldwide. It accepts no government funds, directly or indirectly. The staff includes Kenneth Roth, executive director; Cynthia Brown, program director; Holly J. Burkhalter, advocacy director; Barbara Guglielmo, finance and administration director; Robert Kimzey, publications director; Jeri Laber, special advisor; Lotte Leicht, Brussels office director; Juan Mndez, general counsel; Susan Osnos, communications director; Jemera Rone, counsel; and Joanna Weschler, United Nations representative. Robert L. Bernstein is the chair of the board and Adrian W. DeWind is vice chair. Its Women's Rights Project was established in 1990 to monitor violence against women and gender discrimination throughout the world. Dorothy Q. Thomas is the director; Regan Ralph is the Washington director; LaShawn Jefferson is the research associate; Robin Levi is the Orville Schell fellow; Sinsi Hernandez-Cancio is the Women's Law and Public Policy Fellow; Binaifer Nowrojee is the consultant; and Evelyn Miah and Kerry McArthur are the associates. Kathleen Peratis is chair of the advisory committee. Gopher Address://gopher.humanrights.org:5000 Listserv address: To subscribe to the list, send an e-mail message to majordomo@igc.apc.org with "subscribe hrw-news" in the body of the message (leave the subject line blank). Human Rights Watch 485 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10017-6104 TEL: 212/972-8400 FAX: 212/972-0905 E-mail: hrwnyc@hrw.org 1522 K Street, N.W. Washington D.C. 20005 TEL: 202/371-6592 FAX: 202/371-0124 E-mail: hrwdc@hrw.org From RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org Wed Aug 28 16:49:39 1996 From: RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org (RVerzola) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 23:49:39 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 68] IPR in APEC Message-ID: APEC to insure IPR protection DAVAO CITY Aug. 16 (UPI)- Member economies of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation that have had records of intellectual property right (IPR) violations will have to shape up or face reprieve from the emerging formidable trade grouping, officials said Friday. Foreign Affairs Undersecretary Federico Macaranas said APEC will ensure that the region respects and protects IPR by way legislation, administration and enforcement. The world economy is changing and we must also change our ways," Macaranas said. The 7-year-old APEC hopes to completely open trade and investments in the region by the year 2010 for industrialized economies and 2020 for developing economies. It groups Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and the United States. Business Software Alliance, a Washington-based international lobby group for software companies, had said software piracy alone deprives manufacturers of billions of dollars in revenues annually. China, the Philippines, Taiwan and Hong Kong have been identified as countries where IPR violations run in the 90 percent level. "Copying licensed software is illegal (and) a form of stealing," BSA vice president Ron Eckstrom had said. "If you cannot afford to buy a BMW, you have no right to go into anybody's garage and steal one." "Losses to due to software piracy in 14 Asian countries exceeded $4.3 billion in 1994, with an average piracy rate of 68 percent," BSA said. Asia accounts for 29 percent of the $15.2 billion lost to software piracy worldwide, the group added. Lack of technological and financial resources should no longer be used to justify piracy, Macaranas said, as countries should learn to develop and market their own products. Let's never use poverty as an instrument to steal," he said. Macaranas is in Davao City, 600 miles (960 km) southeast of Manila, together with some 500 other APEC officials and experts holding committee discussion prior to a three-day Senior Officials Meeting starting Aug. 21. The committee meetings are expected to include pledges made by trade ministers of APEC-member economies who met in July in Christchurch, New Zealand, where they reiterated their commitment to develop open, rules-based and nondiscriminatory multilateral trading. The trade ministers also promised to improve their individual action plans or IAPs to put greater emphasis on transparency, comparability and dynamism. APEC's IPR Group submitted a collective action plan that would lead to the elimination of piracy in the region. The group's report to the Committee on Trade and Investment identified various commitments APEC countries were willing to make to ensure the IPR protection of all members. Among the areas of action included in the IPR Group report were the holding of a dialogue on IPR policies among APEC economies, conducting a survey of the current status of IPR protection and the exchange of information systems on trademarks and IPR administrative systems. IPR was one of the areas of liberalization introduced in the 3rd APEC Summit in Osaka, Japan. The next session of the IPR Group is expected to be held in Japan in August. APEC hopes to implement fully the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights or TRIPS Agreement not later than January 1 in the year 2000. The group expects the agreement to facilitate technical cooperation and assistance between and among members. From RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org Wed Aug 28 16:49:48 1996 From: RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org (RVerzola) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 23:49:48 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 69] Piracy Message-ID: FINETUNING THE DEFINITION OF PIRACY by Roberto Verzola Piracy used to mean the highjacking of ships on the high seas. Now, the U.S. uses the word to refer to what everybody -- including most governments -- in Asia is doing: copying software for use with their computers. Mr. Ron Eckstrom of the U.S. lobby group Business Software Alliance explains why they are lobbying Asian governments to clamp down on software copying. "Copying licensed software is a form of stealing," he says. "If you cannot afford to buy a BMW, you have no right to go into anybody's garage and steal one." In the 18th and 19th centuries, however, the U.S. itself was a center of piracy of British books and publications. U.S. publishers justified their piracy by saying that the American public should not be denied access to British knowledge and literature just because they couldn't afford British prices. Thus the U.S. publishers pirated British materials at will. When the U.S. couldn't afford BMWs, they went into British garages to steal some. Now that Mr. Eckstrom has a BMW, he doesn't want anybody to steal it. Foreign Affairs Undersecretary Federico Macaranas, who must imagine himself to be under the employ of the U.S. foreign affairs office, hastens to add, "Let's never use poverty as an instrument to steal." It nicely complements Eckstrom's admonition not to steal a BMW if you're too poor to afford it. If is it a sin for the poor to steal from the rich, it must be a much bigger sin for the rich to steal from the poor. Don't rich countries pirate our best scientists, engineers, doctors, nurses, and programmers? When global corporations come to operate in the Philippines, don't they pirate the best people from local firms? If it is bad for poor countries like us to pirate the intellectual property of rich countries, isn't it a lot worse for rich countries like the U.S. to pirate our intellectuals? In fact, we are benign enough to take only a copy, leaving the original behind; they are so greedy they take away the originals and leave nothing for us. Undersecretary Macaranas, who seems to take seriously his role as U.S. spokesman, says, "lack of technological and financial resources should no longer be used to justify piracy." His comment reminds us that much of the world's technological and financial resources are held by rich countries, and poor countries want affordable access to these resources. It also reminds us that others had earlier used their lack of resources to justify piracy. The U.S., for instance, enjoys a huge lead in satellite and communications technologies. When the U.S. launched spy satellites into space, a number of poorer countries protested. One could imagine them complaining: "Why are you taking aerial photos of our territory? You are taking national proprietary information; that's piracy!" The U.S. response, in effect, said, "We have the sovereign rights to take photos of every country, including yours. You are even welcome to buy them, if you can afford them." And because they couldn't afford BMW and satellite technologies, poor countries had no choice but to pay through the nose for Landsat photos of their own territories. The U.S. then went on from military to commercial satellites, transmitting video programs into other countries. Again, one could imagine more conservative countries complaining: "Why send us these programs full of violence, crime, illicit sex and other social ills? Please stop, they violate our standards of morality." The U.S. response, in effect, said, "Haven't you heard of the free flow of information? It means we have the right to transmit video programs to you, even if you consider them objectionable." In the course of time, some local people actually developed a taste for these U.S. programs. They taped the U.S. video transmissions and sold the tapes locally or showed them on local TV. Now, it was the U.S.'s turn to complain: "Why are you copying our licensed materials without authorization? You are pirating our intellectual property rights!" Piracy is also an emerging issue in biotechnology, another field that is very much a monopoly of advanced countries like the U.S. U.S. researchers roam the globe looking for plants, animals, or microorganisms which show commercial promise. Many of these are indigenous herbal plants and concoctions, whose pharmacological properties are now the subject of intense interest by U.S. biotech companies. Researchers take the samples out -- often without the consent of the host country -- isolate the active ingredients, synthesize them in the laboratory, and patent the resulting formulations. This is known as biopiracy, a widespread practice by rich countries. Yet, when our government licenses local firms to copy pharmaceutical formulations of global corporations, to reduce the cost of medicine for our people, the giant drug companies cry "piracy." In short, the U.S. has finely tuned the definition of piracy, allowing it when it is good for rich countries like them, but banning it when it is good for poor countries like us. This is the definition that Mr. Eckstrom and Mr. Undersecretary Macaranas, two spokesmen for U.S. interests, now want us and the APEC to embrace. From mtachiba at jca.or.jp Wed Aug 28 11:22:59 1996 From: mtachiba at jca.or.jp (TACHIBANA Masahiko) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 11:22:59 +0900 Subject: [asia-apec 70] trd-str APEC Websites and their URL Message-ID: <9608280219.AA29094@brahman.phy.saitama-u.ac.jp> Dear All, Here is a list of APEC related Web sites. Original article has been appeared in trade.strategy, one of the electronic conferences in APC Networks. Tachibana Masahiko >Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 19:06:51 -0300 >From: Tomo Inyaku >To: mtachiba@jca.or.jp >Subject: trd-str APEC Websites and their URL > >Written_ 3:31 PM Aug 22, 1996_by_dwiehoff@iatp.org_in_ax_trade.strategy/* >---------- "trd-str APEC Websites and their URL" ---------- */ >From: Dale Wiehoff >Subject: trd-str APEC Websites and their URLs > >APEC Websites and their URLs > (uniform resource locators) > >Focus-on-APEC (Focus on the Global South) - http://www.nautilus.org/focusweb >Interdoc/DAGA/JCA (under construction) - http://www.jca.or.jp/apec/ > > >APEC 1996 Home Page - http://www.pinternet.ph.net/apec/ >APEC Secretariat - http://www.apec.sec.org.sg >APEC's Home Page (also prepared by APEC Secretariat) - > http://www.apec~wg.com >US-APEC Home Page - http://www.usia.gov/topics/apec/apec.html >US Department of Commerce - >http://www.ita.doc.gov/region/asia/pacific/apec.html >Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade - > http://www.dfat.gov.au/events/apec/apec.html >Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs - >http://www.nttls.co.jp/infomofa/refer/index.html >Japanese Economic Foundation - http://www.jef.or.jp/apec_e/index.html >Japanese External Trade Organization - http://www.jetro.go.jp/apec >APEC Osaka '95 Host Council Home Page - http://www.apec.or.jp >Taiwan Government Information Office - >http://gio.gov.tw/info/fcj/fcj45/1124p1.html >Seoul's APEC Home Page - http://www.mic.go.kr/apec/apec.html >New Zealand - > http://www.govt.nz/govt/politics/bio/Williamson.Maurice/apec130695.html >Hong Kong Government Centre - http://www.info.gov.hk/isd/news/nov95/21apec.html >Chile presidency - > http://www.presidencia.cl/presidencia/webingles/apecenglish.html >APEC EduNet - http://www.washington.edu:1180/apec >2nd APEC financiers group meeting - >http://fujibank.co.jp/eng/fb/topics/apec.html >Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada - http://www.apfnet.org/apf/web >Enercana Capital Ltd. - http://www.worldtel.com/enercana/apec.html >Kyoto Shimbun - http://kyoto~np.co.jp/kp/plaza/over_e.html >Center for Strategic and International Studies - > http://www.csis.org/html/7wtch144.html >Hawaii State Department of Education - > http://intlrel.soc.hawaii.edu/pacc/apec/apec.html >APEC Human Resource Development (HRD) Working Group - > http://www.efs.mq.edu.au/aprim/hrd.html >University of Hawaii and East-West Center - http://www.cba.hawaii.edu/apec/ >APEC-NGO - http://www1.meshnet.or.jp/~apec-ngo/members/contact.html >Asia Pacific Business Network (APB-Net) - > http://www.webaustralia.com.au/apec/apbnet.htm > >Source: "i" >The Investigative Reporting Magazine >Vol. II No. 2 April-June 1996 >E-mail: pcij@phil.gn.apc.org > > > >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >Trade-Strategy is moderated by IATP. >To unsubscribe send email to: majordomo@igc.apc.org >Leave the subject line blank. >In the body of the message say: unsubscribe trade-strategy. >Send messages to dwiehoff@iatp.org with any problems. >Visit the IATP homepage: http://www.iatp.org/iatp >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > From daga at HK.Super.NET Wed Aug 28 18:55:35 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 17:55:35 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 71] Re: APEC Websites and their URLs Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960828175021.088fcafe@is1.hk.super.net> In late July, a non-government individual (NGI) friend started checking on the websites listed in [asia-apec 10]. Status of hit is indicated in parenthesis. The test runs got as far as those addresses indicated below. APEC Websites and their URLs (uniform resource locators) Focus-on-APEC (Focus on the Global South) - http://www.nautilus.org/focusweb (A-okay) APEC 1996 Home Page - http://www.pinternet.ph.net/apec (X - couldn't access, or no longer URL) APEC Secretariat - http://www.apec.sec.org.sg (X - couldn't access, or no longer URL) APEC's Home Page (also prepared by APEC Secretariat) - http://www.apec~wg.com (X - couldn't access, or no longer URL) US-APEC Home Page - http://www.usia.gov/topics/apec/apec.html (renamed to http://www.usia.gov/regional/ea/apec/apec.htm) US Department of Commerce - http://www.ita.doc.gov/region/asia/pacific/apec.html (okay) Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade - http://www.dfat.gov.au/events/apec/apec.html (delete: events/apec/apec.html) Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs - http://www.nttls.co.jp/infomofa/refer/index.html (okay) Japanese Economic Foundation - http://www.jef.or.jp/apec_e/index.html (okay) Japanese External Trade Organization - http://www.jetro.go.jp/apec (X - couldn't access, or no longer URL address) APEC Osaka '95 Host Council Home Page - http://www.apec.or.jp (? - crashed when accessed) Taiwan Government Information Office - http://gio.gov.tw/info/fcj/fcj45/1124p1.html (okay) Seoul's APEC Home Page - http://www.mic.go.kr/apec/apec.html (very slow) New Zealand - http://www.govt.nz/govt/politics/bio/Williamson.Maurice/apec130695.html (okay) Hong Kong Government Centre - http://www.info.gov.hk/isd/news/nov95/21apec.html (X - couldn't access, or no longer URL address) Using Alta Vista search engine then, there were 6,000 hits for the keyword APEC. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Documentation for Action Groups in Asia (DAGA) 96, 2nd District, Pak Tin Village Mei Tin Road, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong Tel : (852) 2691 6391/ 2691 1068 ext 54 Fax: (852) 2697 1912 E-mail: daga@hk.super.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From aditjond at psychology.newcastle.edu.au Wed Aug 28 20:31:13 1996 From: aditjond at psychology.newcastle.edu.au (George J. Aditjondro by way of daga ) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 19:31:13 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 72] boycott Kia Motors Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960828192559.197fd28c@is1.hk.super.net> OPEN LETTER TO THE SUPPORTERS OF THE INDONESIAN PRO-DEMOCRACY MOVEMENT IN THE ASIA AND PACIFIC: BOYCOTT THE NEPOTISTIC SPECIAL DEAL BETWEEN KIA MOTORS (SOUTH KOREA) AND TOMMY SUHARTO (INDONESIA)! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEAR SISTERS AND BROTHERS, FRIENDS OF THE PRO-DEMOCRACY MOVEMENT IN INDONESIA Through our internet channels I have heard that tomorrow, Thursday, 29 August 1996, the Asian Students Association (ASA) and other Hong Kong-based non-governmental organisations are going to mount protests at the Indonesian and South Korean consulates in Hong Kong, in solidarity with the pro-democracy movement in Indonesia. As one of the victims of the democratization struggle in Indonesia, having to live in self-imposed exile in Australia, I salute you for your solidarity statements. I also salute the South Korean pro-democracy activists, whom through their own struggle have been able to take two of their former presidents -- Chun Doo Hwan and Roh Dae Woo -- to court, for their involvement in the 1980 Kwangju massacre and in accepting more than US$ 1 billion 'slash funds' from large Korean trading companies (chaebol). On this precious occasion I like to point out the irony, that while in South Korea, two former presidents-cum-retired generals can be taken to court, and even sentenced to death and 22 years sentences for corruption and collusion with chaebols. In Indonesia, South Korea's second largest car company, Kia Motors, has been allowed to export 45,000 units of Kia sedans to Indonesia , without having to pay import duties and other taxes. This means a US$ 1 billion tax break for Kia Motors' joint venture with President Suharto's youngest son, Hutomo Mandala Putra, aka Tommy Suharto. With this special deal, Kia Motors hopes that it may be able to reach 60 percent local content in its still-to-be-built assembly plant in Indonesia, which may become a foothold to export their Mentor sedans to other countries in this region, including Australia. Ironically, while two former presidents and several chaebol have to go to jail for exchanging one billion US dollars of "slash funds", pro-democracy activists have recently been detained in Indonesia and are now facing the threat of death sentences under the Indonesian anti-subversion law, simply for criticising similar type of human rights violations as the 1980 Kwangju massacre, and similar type of corruption and collusion between bureaucrats and capitalists, including the one billion US dollars tax break to dump those South Korean cars in Indonesia and thereby seizing a strategic foothold into the lucrative Australian market. It is ironically, too, that the way that the Suharto regime has justified this special deal between Kia Motors and Tommy Suharto by labeling these Kia Mentor cars "Mobil Nasional", or "national cars". Since when have Koreans and Indonesians signed this " double nationality arrangement ", that Korean cars which are completly made in Korea are called "national cars" in Indonesia? Another more bitter irony is that those Korean cars which are going to be imported by Tommy Suharto, are given the name "Timor" by his father, President Suharto. TIMOR is also the name of the "made in Indonesia" Kia Mentor sedans, which may be exported to Australia. Since when has Korea, which has fought heroically from 1910 to 1945 to liberate itself from Japanese colonialism, joined the rank of new colonial countries, by supporting Indonesia's colonization of East Timor? Because, the implicit message of naming this "national car", TIMOR, is to assume that the entire island is part of Indonesia, isn't it? In conclusion I have to say that the special deal between Kia Motors and Tommy Suharto, is an insult to the Indonesian, East Timorese, and South Korean peoples. It is an insult to the Indonesian people, because this special deal deprives the Indonesian national coffers from the much needed import duty for this luxurious car, without the approval of the Indonesian parliament, which violates Article 13 of the Indonesian 1945 constitution. It is also an insult to the Indonesian people, who are Indonesian and not South Korean citizens, since these completely built up (CBU) imported Korean cars are called "national cars" (mobil nasional). Whose "national car", South Korean, or Indonesian? This special deal between Kia Motors and Tommy Suharto is an insult to the East Timorese people, since by their more than 20 years independence struggle have proven that they do not want to become Indonesians, a struggle recognized and justified by international law as well as Indonesia's own 1945 constitition, betrayed by Suharto and his generals since the invasion of East Timor 21 years ago. It is also an insult to the East Timorese people, that the suffering of a third of their people who have died since the Indonesian invasion, is used to benefit the Suharto family, as the business partners of Kia Motors, whose cars can now drive into the Indonesian market as the cheapest luxury car available. This special deal is also an insult to the South Korean people, who have successfully fought against high level corruption and business-politics collusion by taking two former presidents/generals to court, where they received the death and 22 years sentences. Ironically, while this happens, the second largest South Korean car manufacturer has successsfully negotiated a lucrative deal with the son of the head of state of a friendly country, similar to the special relationship between the former South Korean presidents and the chaebols 'back home' -- for which they were taken to court. Finally, it is a disgrace to all the three peoples, that for pure profit motives, the First Family of Indonesia is turned into an economic satelite of South Korean car manufacturers (Tommy's brother Bambang Trihatmojo is already the sole distributor of Hyundai, and his eldest sister, Tutut, is allegedly going to become Daewoo's sole distributor), by manipulating the name of an island which is not "wholely owned" by Indonesia, and thereby betraying the heroic independence struggles of the Indonesian, Korean, and East Timorese peoples. Therefore, I sincerely support your protest rallies at the Indonesian and South Korean consulates in Hong Kong and in all other Asian and Pacific countries and territories. I also urge you to express your feelings about this deal directly to Kia Motors representatives in their sales offices and show rooms all over this region. Thank you, may God bless all the independence and pro-democratic struggles in the Asia-Pacific region. George J. Aditjondro Indonesian dissident in exile Home phone/fax: (61-49) 677 053 From LEO at isid.unv.ernet.in Wed Aug 28 17:57:09 1996 From: LEO at isid.unv.ernet.in (LEO@isid.unv.ernet.in) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 17:57:09 Subject: [asia-apec 73] APEC catch line/phrase contest! Message-ID: <9608281319.AA19046@doe.ernet.in> > >At 05:20 PM 8/23/96 +0800, Mario R R Mapanao wrote: > >>Dear Friends, > >> > >>The Hong Kong media team for the People's Forum on APEC '96 is requesting > >>for suggestions for catch line/phrase in relation to APEC, to use for > >>publicity materials and the like. Hi there, How about.... Free Trade? How much does it Cost? or Free Trade? What does it Cost? or Free Trade... you mean it Costs nothing?? Leo =================================================================== Leo Fernandez Tel: 91-11-461 0674 Coordinator IndiaLink 463 5096 Indian Social Institute 462 5015 10 Institutional Area 462 2379 Lodi Road FAX: 91-11-469 0660 New Delhi - 110 003 Email: leo@unv.ernet.in =================================================================== From asa at asiaonline.net Wed Aug 28 22:31:55 1996 From: asa at asiaonline.net (Asian Students Association) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 21:31:55 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 74] Collective Statement: Repression Can Never Be Justified (Final Draft) Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960828212642.191ff6ba@is1.hk.super.net> REPRESSION CAN NEVER BE JUSTIFIED "The rights of the people have been destroyed," says one young man. "When the people talk about their rights, we are always answered by generals." The glaring events surrounding the widening crackdown of dissent in Indonesia and South Korea have proven the veracity of this simple statement. We are appalled by the horrific and inhumane display of brutalities by both the Suharto and Kim Young Sam governments towards legitimate expression of opinion by their respective peoples. We migrant workers, regional and local NGO advocates, human rights organizations, members of the press and citizens in Hongkong express shock over the gross violations on civil liberties and basic human rights committed by the military and police in these respective countries. We denounce and protest : the violent reaction of the military towards pro-democracy Indonesians which left at least four people dead, more than 20 injured, 226 arrested and nearly 160 opposition supporters missing. To date, the toll is continuously rising as the Suharto government accelerates its crackdown. the so-called "anti-subversion" laws and guidelines which permit the military and police to deny the whereabouts of arrested individuals, subject them to illegal interrogation, trump up false charges in Indonesian courts and even arrest a university professor for allegedly using the Internet for "subversion". the surprise and violent attack of the South Korean police in the early morning hours of August 20 which led to a record-breaking total of 5,715 students taken into police custody. Helicopters and police continued to fire tear gas even when students already waved a white flag at approximately 6:15 am. Countless students were injured by the use of police force. They were hit by police batons and kicked even when they already surrendered. the prohibition of the South Korean police to allow the entry of food and medicine for 3 days, against all humanitarian grounds, to starved and injured students who were in the first place, forcibly prevented from leaving the university grounds. Police have dismissed the students' demand that they safely return home. Instead, the police sealed the entrances, water and electricity supply had been cut-off while tear gas were continuously fired. Because of these, students unnecessarily and inhumanely suffered exhaustion, dehydration, diarrhea and infections due to inability to treat grave injuries. the indiscriminate arrests and interrogation even towards students who did not join the rally. These illegal arrests done through checkpoints, zoning operations and even in train stations lead to illegal detention of up to 2 days without counsel. Families looking for their children were not allowed to confirm their sons/daughters whereabouts. the unprecedented display of military force. Aside from the record-breaking arrests, this is the third time since 1986 that the military had mobilized helicopters, 12 for that matter, in suppressing an assembly. The number of armed police officers averages from 18,000 - 20,000 per day, four or five times the number of students. The number of tear gas bombs, average of 1,000 a day, was staggering. These exhibitions of power and might have trampled on the rights of the Indonesian and South Korean students and people. Together with the "old communist bogey", these governments gain license to attack legitimate peoples' actions and try to divert the attention of the people from the real and concrete issues that fueled the protests. It is ironic that after Indonesia and South Korea have celebrated their "independence" that they unleash this grand show of repression towards their freedom-loving people. The military have indeed proven themselves instruments of the Suharto's self-styled "New Order" and Kim Young Sam's design of "national security". The growing disenchantment of the Indonesian and South Korean people over the serious internal economic problems - unemployment, the widening gap of the rich and poor, contractualization, rising costs of living, etc. - and the overwhelming political and human rights abuse brought by increasing militarization, iron-hand rule of civilian and military cliques, and hypocrisy of democracy is translated everyday into greater outpouring of demand for relevant social changes. The events of the past weeks in these two countries shall be remembered as occasions of abuse and repression. However, the Indonesian and South Korean people can neither be cowed nor silenced by the most vicious attacks on their rights and freedom. The undemocratic actions of the Indonesian and South Korean government and military cannot be justified under any means. We call on everyone to rally behind these protests against the blatant violations of the rights of the Indonesian and South Korean students and people. Let us join hands with our Asian brothers and sisters in demanding an end to the violent and systematic crackdown of pro-democracy advocates in these countries. STOP THE REPRESSION IN INDONESIA AND SOUTH KOREA! FREE ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS! UPHOLD STUDENT'S AND PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS! GENUINE FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA AND SOUTH KOREA, NOW! Signatories: Asia Alliance of YMCAs (AAYMCA) Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) Asian Migrant Centre (AMC) Asia Monitor Resource Centre (AMRC) Asia-Pacific Mission for Migrant Filipinos (APMMF) Asian Regional Exchange for New Alternatives (ARENA) Asian Students Association (ASA) Christian Industrial Committee (CIC) Committee for Asian Women (CAW) Documentation for Action Group in Asia (DAGA) Far East Overseas Nepalese Organisation (FEONA) Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions (HKCTU) Hotline Asia - ACPP Philippine Solidarity for Asian Migrants (PSAM) Society for Community Organisation (SOCO) United Filipinos (UNIFIL)-Migrante, Hong Kong World Student Christian Federation (WSCF) - Asia Pacific region From jhunter at nautilus.org Wed Aug 28 23:48:33 1996 From: jhunter at nautilus.org (Jason Hunter) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 07:48:33 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 75] Re: APEC Websites and their URLs Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960828144833.006ad718@nautilus.org> May I also suggest the Nautilus Institute web site at http://www.nautilus.org , and specifically our new project, The APEC Environment Monitor at http://www.nautilus.org/aprenet/apecmonitor/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jason Hunter ph: +1.510.206.9296 Program Officer fax: +1.510.206.9298 Nautilus Institute email: jhunter@nautilus.org http://www.nautilus.org From amrc at HK.Super.NET Wed Aug 28 23:49:52 1996 From: amrc at HK.Super.NET (AMRC) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 22:49:52 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 76] Conviction of toy campaign labour activists Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960828224438.1edf8840@is1.hk.super.net> Asia Monitor Resource Center 444-446 Nathan Road, 8/F B, Kowloon, Hong Kong Tel: (852) 2332-1346 Fax: (852) 2385-5319 E-mail: amrc@hksuper.net WE ARE NOT GUILTY - a statement by 5 convicted toy campaign activists Why we have to demonstrate outside the HK Convention and Exhibition Center? Driven by higher profits, numerous HK toy manufacturers disregarded industrial safety and health when they established plants in China and SE Asia. Accidents repeated after one another, injuring thousands of workers while tens of thousands are working in hazardous conditions. The following are just a few examples - 1. Thai Kader fire in May 10, 1993 killing 188 workers and more than 1,000 injured; 2. Shenzhen Zhilli factory fire in Nov. 11, 1993 killing 87 workers; 3. Two workers died from inhaling toxic gas in a Boan toy factory; 4. In 1995, several workers died from over work in a Shenzhen toy factory. In 1994, a "HK Coalition for the Safe Production of Toys" was formed by several labour organisations, having the purpose of improving industrial safety and defending workers' lives and dignity. A Charter on the Safe Production of Toys was formulated, and was endorsed by several dozens of overseas labour organisations and NGOs. Since then, the Coalition has been demanding the HK Toys Council to adopt the said Charter by making pledges to improve industrial safety and be monitored by an independent body. So far, some US, European manufacturers and buyers are preparing a code of business practices which is ignored by the HK business people. For the past two years, the Coalition organised peaceful demonstrations outside the HK Convention and Exhibition Center where the annual HK Toys Fair was taking place, demanding the HK Toy business people to endorse the said Charter. Peaceful demonstrators cordoned off by HK Police and security guards On 10 Jan. 1996, members of the Coalition accompanied industrial accident victims and overseas labour activists proceed to the HK Convention and Exhibition Center for a demonstration. However, we were led to a designated distant corner, far away from the main entrance of the building. We were cordoned off by barricades guarded jointly by the several dozen police and security guards. Our demonstration was not able to carry out as scheduled. We protested and demanded the police to release us from the restricted area. We queried why we were not allowed to distribute leaflets at the entrance which we had done exactly the same thing last year. Our appeal turned to deaf ears. After nearly one hour being cornered, we argued and tried to leave but the police and security pushed us back. Several demonstrators felt sick or hurt and were sent to the hospital. Finally we were able to leave the corner under the watchful eyes of the police and security guards. On our way to the other entrance of the Center we were abruptly stopped by the police and the security so we stayed at the driveway near the exit. We proposed to the security chief that we would leave after performing a street drama. The chief promised but his subordinate served us warnings. Since we considered the chief as the officer-in-charge we continued our peaceful demonstration as promised. Confusion created by the security, suppression by the police Before we were able to end the street drama, the security guards suddenly pushed their way into the crowd with fists and kicks, knocking down several demonstrators (including handicapped accident victims), tearing and destroying banners and placards. The police not only tried to stop the violence conducted by the security but to arrest six demonstrators under the fabrication of "maintaining law and order". Two months later, they were all charged "disorderly conduct". One of them was charged "assaulting security guards". Our claim of being assaulted and properties damaged was rejected. Peaceful demonstration becomes a crime, civic rights not upheld The magistrate found five of us guilty by accepting the evidence from the management of the Center and the police. The reason given is in a private premise our demonstration should follow the instruction of the owner. Thus, he put the blame on the demonstrators for the confrontation caused by the use of violence by the security to clear us. This is a logic which sides with the those in power and who are rich while denying the facts. Our demonstration against the Toys Fair outside the Center is different from a demonstration outside a private home; which is identical to a sit-in/ strike by the workers in factory buildings or commercial complex for improving working conditions or demanding to recover wages in arrears. Furthermore, the HKTDC and the Center is supported by public money directly or indirectly which act as a quasi governmental body. Its activities are seen as promoting HK business image, and if peaceful demonstration is prohibited, it will be unjustifiable. This judgement will nevertheless further limit the space of labour movement. The HK government in 1991 adopted the Bill of Rights Ordinance which on the surface looks as if our basic rights are protected. But this case clearly demonstrates the hypocracy of the government by enforcing the outdated Public Order Ordinance continuously for the benefits of the rich and those who are in power to suppress our freedom to express our opinion. We strongly demand - The Public Order Ordinance being too powerful a tool used by the government to suppress those exercising civic rights. Thus, we demand an overall review of the law and delete the clauses that are contradictory to human rights standards such as the rights to procession, assembly, association, publishing and freedom of expression. We appeal - Try to think about this: if we are barred from collective action to recover our wages, redundancy payments from our employers; if public housing tenants are not allowed to demonstrate outside the Housing Authority when the government decides to increase the rents; then the grassroots people will become easy targets of the rich and those in power. Peaceful demonstration and the right to assembly are basic human rights. Without these our rights will be much more circumscribed and reduced. In this case the outdated law was used to suppress social movement, manipulated by the judiciary to condemn us which is a clear cut action of violating human rights. We have to stand up to change this situation to add pressure against those who are in power. We appeal all workers should be concerned and to participate to fight for our own rights! Please come to charing meeting with the convicted activists: Date: 13 September 1996 (Friday) Time: 2:00 P.M. Venue: CTU -- 2/F, 101 Portland Street, Yaumati From cdeere at extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU Wed Aug 28 23:58:41 1996 From: cdeere at extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Carolyn Deere) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 00:58:41 +1000 Subject: [asia-apec 77] Re: APEC catch line/phrase contest! Message-ID: <199608281458.AAA25451@extra.ucc.su.OZ.AU> Hi again, What about ASIA PACIFIC ECO-CIDE ! Carolyn Deere >=================================================================== > > From foewase at igc.apc.org Thu Aug 29 03:24:35 1996 From: foewase at igc.apc.org (Northwest FOE Office) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 11:24:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [asia-apec 78] 1989 PACIFIC RIM PAPER FOR POSTING - PART I Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960828102830.26a7bf98@pop.igc.org> [NOTE: This 1989 paper contains useful information on Pacific Rim issues/trade. The file is in two parts. This is Part I. DEO] PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE PACIFIC BASIN [Delivered at an Institute for Global Security Studies' Seattle, WA Conference on "The Pacific Community: A Common Security Agenda for the Nineties", 6-9 September 1989. David E. Ortman Northwest Representative, Friends of the Earth 4512 University Way N.E. Seattle, WA 98105 (206) 633-1661 e-mail: foewase@igc.org I. SUMMARY The Pacific Rim links not just the North and South American continents, the Soviet Union, Asia, the South Pacific Islands, New Zealand, Australia and for the purposes of this paper, Antarctica, but contains 46% of the world's oceans. In fact, a globe turned upside down and viewed from the South Pacific reveals mostly ocean. Resources of minerals and fisheries are sought beneath its surface. Pacific Rim Trade criss-crosses the ocean in a spiderweb pattern. Leviathans, both whales and nuclear submarines ply its depths. Cities, industries and indigenous peoples inhabit its coastal zone. This vast water body we call the Pacific Ocean is now readily crossed by air in a day. Beneath such transpacific flights, however, lies a restless and, in places, polluted sea. One key to protecting our Pacific Ocean from local, regional and global pollution is educating each Pacific Rim government about the causes of marine pollution and resource exploitation and the responsibility to prevent activities which cause such pollution and exploitation. Less-developed countries need technical training and assistance to conduct research and monitoring. Over-developed countries need to reexamine their industrial and trade/lending practices which foster degradation of the marine environment and devote increased funding to source reduction of pollution as well as pollution cleanup efforts. The arms control community can no longer ignore natural resource issues. International environmental treaties can serve as confidence-building measures (CBM's). The need for environmental security on the Pacific Rim cannot be assured by any one country. Resource depletion, pollution and waste disposal know no boundaries. Only by international cooperation and agreements can a functioning and productive Pacific Ocean be maintained. The following discussion examines the linkages between environmental, economic and military policies, a number of Pacific Rim environmental threats, and a review of international environmental agreements affecting the Pacific Rim. II. US NATIONAL SECURITY VS. THE PACIFIC RIM ENVIRONMENT There are over 20 security studies institutes in ten North Pacific countries. In August 1987, for example, the Peace Research Centre at the Australian National University, in cooperation with the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, held a major international conference on "Security and Arms Control in the North Pacific" at the Australian National University. Of fourteen papers which subsequently saw print, the underlying ecological and economic development framework of the Pacific Rim was for the most part ignored. Some threads can be plucked out, however, such as the view of Klaus Knorr ("Power and Wealth", 1973), "Economic wealth is the basis of national power, the foundation of national prestige, and it is fundamental to the military power of the state." However, Paul Dibb of the Australian Defence Department points out that states are now reluctant to embark upon war for economic gain except to protect vital national security objectives. And, according to Evan Luard ("War in International Society", 1986), rising standards of living bring about greater domestic stability and that this is the single most important reason for the peaceful state of Europe over the past 40 years. Ironically, unless protections for the environment are put into place, efforts at arms control and reductions in regional tensions lead toward greater economic development and exploitation of the environment. It is doubtful whether even the exhaustive industrial production of military arms, plus the physical impacts of the conduct of war itself, have had a greater impact on the world's environment than the daily output of "peaceful" commerce. In building upon a common Pacific security agenda for the nineties, a brief review of the past is necessary. The original conception of the US hegemonic system, according to Prof. Bruce Cumings, Prof. of History at the U. of Chicago ("Power and Plenty in North-East Asia", 1988), was a product of Dean Acheson and George Kennan. In their view, post-World War II Japan was to be the engine of growth in the region, drawing on a "hinterland", including Japan's former colonies and encompassing Southeast Asia and Indochina, that could provide raw materials, labor and markets. Kennan outlined the following position in 1949: Japan should be allowed to reestablish influence over China and Korea, ". . .to achieve opening up of trade possibilities, commercial possibilities for Japan on a scale very far greater than anything Japan knew before. . .If we really in the Western world could work out controls, I suppose, adept enough and foolproof enough and cleverly enough exercised really to have power over what Japan imports in the way of oil and such other things as she has got to get from overseas, we would have 'veto power'on what she does need in the military and industrial field" (emphasis added). The US strategy in allowing Japan to achieve economic domination was clearly to counter and moderate Soviet influence in the area. According to Franz Schurmann, economic development was viewed, particularly by the Nixon Administration, as a weapon directed at the heart of both China and Russia: "Peaceful coexistence could be meaningful only if Russia and China agreed to join the world market system. If they did, the conservatives foresaw that conservatizing forces would set in in both countries. The more the militantly revolutionary countries were involved in world trade, the more their barbaric regimes would be civilized under the weight of international responsibility" (Schurmann, "The Logic of World Power", 1974). Whether the environment could bear the weight of this international world trade was not addressed. The Soviet threat is still the key to understanding the US/Japan relationship between resource exploitation, economic development and trade, and military planning. According to Paul Keal of the Australian Defence Force Academy, ("Japan's Security Policy and Arms Control, 1988), in January 1987, Japan Foreign Minister Kuranari pledged that Japan would use its economic resources for a 'post-war new deal' for Pacific Island states. This type of Overseas Development Aid (ODA) is consistent with Japan's position that giving aid enhances security. By and large, however, it does not enhance the environment. ODA is not only a means of promoting security, it is a form of defence burden-sharing in the Pacific that is subject to the will of the US Government. For example, in January 1983, Japan agreed to transfer $4 billion dollars of loans and credits to South Korea, which the Reagan Administration desired as a contribution to Korean security. The bottom line in the US/JAPAN relationship militarily and economically remains intact forty years later: to contain the spread of Soviet influence in the South Pacific. What lesson can be drawn from this? So long as Japan relies on US security, in order to illicit proper environmental behavior from Japan, you must look to Washington, not Tokyo. Unfortunately, the peace and arms control community have, for the most part, ignored economic development issues and Pacific Rim trade policies, even when specifically designed by the US as part of a military strategy to contain the Soviet Union. They have likewise ignored the planet's carrying capacity and failed to analyze the contributions that international environmental agreements can make to confidence building measures (CBMs). III. PACIFIC RIM TRADE AND THE ENVIRONMENT According to a recent World Resources Institute Report: "NOT FAR AFIELD: US Interests and the Global Environment" (Norman Myers, June 1987), the US " . . . is now the world's largest exporter and importer of both raw materials and manufactured goods, the largest overseas investor, and the largest international debtor as well as the largest creditor; and the dollar remains the primary reserve currency." It is no wonder that trade issues, particularly Pacific Rim Trade issues, have increasingly captured the attention of decision makers at the national and state level. Economic linkages are now recognized as either opportunities or threats to our nation's security. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (2 May 1986) carried an article which began "Exports from West Coast ports are booming. . ." Further in the article it reports, ". . .the biggest share of the exports coming out of Seattle and other West Coast cities is raw materials. . ." What makes up the Pacific Rim trade? Such things as crude oil, fish, logs, wood chips and pulp, coal, and minerals, to name a few. The basics for international trade have been viewed by the US and our international trading partners as exploitable natural resources. Example: In the heart of New Zealand's North Island is the world's largest plantation forest. "Our whole logging technique in the post-war period is based on the Pacific Northwest," said A.W. Grayburn, manager of N.Z. Forest Product's forestry division. (Seattle Times, 11 May 1986). Example: Australia sells sand to Saudi Arabia. . .The sand in Saudi Arabia isn't suitable for making concrete, and Australia's is perfect. Natural resources, including such things as iron, timber, gold and land (not to mention sand), are Australia's secret of economic survival. The nation lives off its land, exporting resources to the world. (Seattle Times, 11 May 1986). Example: In the deep interior of Sarawak (Malaysia) tropical forests, thousands of indigenous people have formed human barricades across logging tracks in a bid to stop the destruction of their lands by timber companies. (The Sunday Star, Malaysia, 14 June 1987). Example: As a report by the National Academy of Sciences notes, "More than 10 percent of the land area of the earth is now under cultivation. More than 30 percent is under active management for purposes of mankind." (Christian Science Monitor, 31 March 1987). Trade policy today is focused on trade deficits, not environmental degradation; on trade protectionism, not environmental protection; and on national security, not on ecological security for the Pacific Rim. Isn't it time we step back and ask about the relationship of international trade and our global environment? The World Resources Institute report expands on the notion of what is the US National Interest in the global economy. The traditional values have been a) the integrity of the sovereign state; b) democratic traditions: c) economic freedoms; and d) institutional latitude. "To these long-established goals," this study argues, "we now need to add a further one that compliments and reinforces the others. It is safeguarding the global environment, thereby promoting sustainable development throughout the world, especially in the Third World, to foster those economic and political processes that will assure a secure natural-resource base for all. This additional goal will help maintain stability in international relations, at a time when environmental degradation and resource depletion increasingly threaten the orderly conduct of international affairs." Within the Pacific Rim, some voices are being raised. The Catholic Bishops of the Philippines approved in January of 1988 a pastoral letter titled "What is Happening to Our Beautiful Land?". The bishops, asserting that ecology is "the ultimate prolife issue" point out that the ecological crisis "lies at the root of many of our economic and political problems. To put it simply our country is in peril. All living systems on land and in the seas around us are being ruthlessly exploited. The damage to date is extensive and, sad to say, it is often irreversible." The frenzy of Pacific Rim Trade is dependent on "resources" which are extracted, causing local environmental impacts which contribute to cumulative regional problems. Often, these raw commodities are then shipped across the Pacific at an ever increasing energy cost. The manufacturing and labor conversion into finished products produces environmental pollution at a new source, again contributing to cumulative problems in a different spoke on the rim. One obvious resource directly linked with national security is oil, a non-renewable resource which makes a major contribution to the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Japan, for example, imports over 99 percent of its oil requirements, 70 percent of which come from the Middle East. The US military presence in the Persian Gulf continues to be a direct result of the need to preserve and protect Japan's dependency on US security. In the early 1980's, China awarded a number of major contracts to oil firms for the exploration and development of offshore oil. According to Cumings, in 1982, a Department of Commerce official argued that offshore oil "is the cutting edge of Sino-US relations for the rest of the century. . . Any time oilmen put iron in the water, they're talking about a long-term operation." Another example is tropical timber. According to a June 1989 Issues Paper for the World Resources Institute, by J. Gus Speth, nine of the top fourteen countries with deforestation problems are located on the Pacific Rim. As Speth points out: "Why should the industrial countries be concerned? The hunger and ecological refugees that result from resource deterioration raise stark humanitarian issues that demand an international response. But that is not all. The political and economic interests of industrial countries are jeopardized when resource and population challenges go unmet and this failure leads first to economic and social stresses and then to political instability. "Equally pertinent for the industrial countries is the role they unintentionally play in contributing to these problems. Too often, foreign investment and development aid have financed large-scale projects that have ignored the environmental setting and local needs." Sustainable development is the World Bank's newest buzzword. In 1983, the Secretary-General of the United Nations asked Prime Minister (Mrs.) Gro Harlem Brundtland of Norway to put together an independent commission to examine the destruction of Earth's natural resources. This World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) was made up of 22 members, seven of which were from Pacific Rim Countries (China, Colombia, Japan, US, Indonesia, USSR, and Canada). Its three objectives were: to re- examine the critical environment and development issues and to formulate realistic proposals for dealing with them; to propose new forms of international co-operation on these issues that will influence policies and events in the direction of needed changes; and to raise the levels of understanding and commitment to action of individuals, voluntary organizations, businesses, institutes, and governments. The final 400 page report was published as "Our Common Future" and submitted to the UN General Assembly in autumn of 1987. More than any other document, "Our Common Future" focused on the need to make "sustainable development" central to all planning and activities. The WCED defined "sustainable development" as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Unfortunately, this view would approve of a region switching from firewood, to coal, to oil, to nuclear energy as each future generation attempts to "meet their own needs". As Michael McCloskey, Sierra Club Chairman, has warned, " . .not a lot has yet been demonstrated about sustainability in a modern, industrial context. 'Sustainability' is still more a slogan - a bit of 'pasting new labels on old bottles' - than a proven body of theory and practice ready to be applied, and most of the development impulse now abroad is not working for anything that can be called sustainable." In addition, the term "sustainable development" implies human control, regulation, management, and manipulation. These are all concepts which lie outside the framework of natural ecosystem dynamics. A better concept to be used might be "carrying capacity". It at least implies the need for a greater understanding of the underlying environment than is found in most World Bank reports. What is needed is the application of the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to trade/lending policies. The purpose of NEPA is to declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between people and their environment. In June of 1989, US Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) introduced H.R. 2777, a bill to establish a national environmental policy on the participation of the US in the multilateral development banks. The bill, however, does not require that environmental impact assessments be prepared for trade agreements. On a global basis, the NEPA requirements for a detailed statement on trade/lending policies and (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved are desperately needed. (For more information contact: Northwest Office, Friends of the Earth (206) 633-1661) IV. INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS AS CONFIDENCE BUILDING MEASURES [NOTE: The following sections have not been updated since 1989.] According to Barry M. Blechman, President of Defense Forecasts Inc. in Washington, D.C., ("Confidence-building in the North Pacific: A pragmatic approach to naval arms control", 1988), confidence-building measures (CBMs) are chiefly political actions which develop mutual confidence and help alleviate tensions and reduce the potential for military crises. CBMs have usually been defined only within the arms control arena. It is the purpose of the remainder of this paper to suggest that CBMs, in the form of international environmental treaties or agreements, can also serve, as Blechman says, "to reduce the sources of military tensions, and by demonstrating the willingness of states to adopt a cooperative rather than aggressive stance". V. LONDON DUMPING CONVENTION The only global agreement concerned solely with the dumping of wastes into the marine environment is the London Dumping Convention (LDC). Since 1975, when it received the necessary ratifications to go into effect (61 nations, including the US have ratified the convention), the LDC has addressed a diverse number of topics and concerns. Eleven formal consultative meetings have been held since 1976. The LDC preamble focuses on protection of the marine environment. Article IV establishes standards to be used when dumping wastes, while Annex I lists those substances, including high-level radioactive wastes for which dumping is prohibited. International protection of the marine environment was triggered by the dumping of low-level radioactive wastes (LLW) at sea by the US and several European countries. From 1946-1970, the US disposed of nearly 100,000 curies at sites in the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico. In 1983, a moratorium on radioactive waste dumping was put into place by the LDC until a set of scientific risk-related studies was carried out. However, rather than adding LLW to the Annex I list, an indefinite moratorium (opposed by the US and five other nations) was adopted. The international environmental community is requesting that the US support efforts to place LLW on the LDC's Annex I "blacklist" of substances that cannot be dumped at sea. Despite the LDC, former US Senator Dan Evans (R-WA), was successful in passing a bill through the 100th Congress authorizing a $150 million dollar study of seabed disposal of nuclear wastes. In addition to continued work by the US on subseabed disposal of nuclear waste, other nuclear waste dumping within the Pacific Rim is still being promoted. Japan, for example, has 36 nuclear power plants now in operation and an additional 21 plants under construction or in the planning stages. Like the US, Japan has no permanent nuclear waste repository. According to the Pacific Concerns Resource Centre, of New Zealand, opposition from Pacific peoples and governments have stopped Japan's attempts, first announced in 1979, to dump 10,000 drums (500 curies) of "low-level" nuclear waste at a site 600 miles north of the Mariana Islands. Currently, the London Dumping Convention allows for the dumping of low and intermediate level radioactive wastes in the ocean, "when weighed against land-based alternatives". In addition, the National Research Council of the US National Academy of Science and the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres support deep ocean dumping of wastes in some cases. Strategies for strengthening the London Dumping Convention to prohibit dumping of radioactive waste in the South Pacific, include adding new members to the Convention: Niue, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Tonga, Western Samoa, and the Cook Islands. While the LDC prohibits the dumping of high-level radioactive waste at sea, Republic of the Marshall Islands President, Amata Kabua, has for years proposed storing US nuclear wastes in either the Bikini or Enewetok lagoons, already contaminated from past US nuclear weapons testing. Currently, the US has designated Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the only location for site characterization for a high-level nuclear waste repository. The State of Nevada and many environmentalists are doubtful that Yucca Mountain will survive an indepth study. The result would be another scramble by Congress to pick a site for radioactive waste from the country's commercial nuclear power plant program. (For further information on this issue, contact the Oceanic Advocates (410-531-5237). VI. SOUTH PACIFIC REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (SPREP) CONVENTION Another convention protecting the marine environment more specific to the Pacific Rim is the South Pacific Regional Environmental Protection (SPREP) Convention. Adopted for ratification in November 1986, it will enter into force after ten nations have ratified it. To date, the Cook Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands have ratified the convention and New Zealand and Australia are expected to ratify it in the near future. Under the SPREP Convention, parties are obligated to control pollution from vessels, land-based sources, seabed activities, airborne sources, dumping, storage of toxic or hazardous wastes, nuclear testing, mining, and coastal erosion. In addition, there would be no dumping of radioactive wastes within the Convention area. The Convention would help set up specially protected areas, cooperation in pollution emergencies, preparation of environmental impact assessments, information and data sharing and pollution damage liability regulations. Because of the Convention, attention has been drawn to a number of problems affecting the region's marine environment including agricultural runoff contaminating fisheries resources, destruction of mangroves for development, illegal dynamiting of coral reefs, siltation of reefs from erosion and dredging, and overfishing. Other South Pacific countries (including the US) need to ratify the Convention. (For more information on this issue, contact the Council on Ocean Law (202) 347-3766). VII. LAW OF THE SEA TREATY The Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) is the most ambitious and significant agreement affecting the oceans ever adopted. To date, 35 nations have ratified the convention out of the 60 needed. However, the US has refused to ratify the Convention since it was signed in 1982. The LOSC is a complicated management scheme for addressing one of the most controversial marine environment problems, the control and development of off-shore resources. Under the LOSC, countries gained firm international recognition of resource claims out to 200 miles in exchange for unprecedented obligations to protect the marine environment and to conserve marine living species. The 1982 Convention also provides opportunities to develop marine law in such areas as pollution reporting requirements and preparation of contingency plans to respond to pollution incidents; control of land-based and atmospheric pollution of the oceans; the transfer of damage or hazards from one area to another; liability for damages from marine pollution by substances other than oil, such as ocean incineration, chemicals in bulk, and radioactive wastes; the use of polluting technologies and the introduction of alien species; assessment and monitoring of potential damages to the marine environment; and charting and removal (or non-removal) of offshore drilling rigs. It covers a broad range of topics such as marine scientific research, navigation and overflight rights, rights of land-locked countries, maritime boundary delimitation, piracy, semi-enclosed areas, illicit traffic in drugs, the right to lay submarine cables and pipelines, tunneling, artificial islands, installations, and structures, rules applicable to warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes, marine mammals, and dispute settlement.  From yukihiro at klact.co.jp Thu Aug 29 09:41:00 1996 From: yukihiro at klact.co.jp (YASUDA Yukihiro) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 09:41:00 +0900 Subject: [asia-apec 79] Re: APEC Websites and their URLs In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 28 Aug 1996 17:55:35 +0800 (HKT)" References: <2.2.16.19960828175021.088fcafe@is1.hk.super.net> Message-ID: <199608290041.JAA19735@koko.klact.co.jp> daga : Subject: [asia-apec 71] Re: APEC Websites and their URLs Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 17:55:35 +0800 (HKT) > In late July, a non-government individual (NGI) friend started checking on > the websites listed in [asia-apec 10]. Status of hit is indicated in > parenthesis. The test runs got as far as those addresses indicated below. I tried. Some pages marked "(X - couldn't access, or no longer URL)" is alive. > APEC's Home Page (also prepared by APEC Secretariat) - > http://www.apec~wg.com > (X - couldn't access, or no longer URL) It's typo. Try "http://www.apec-wg.com/" instead. > Japanese External Trade Organization - http://www.jetro.go.jp/apec > (X - couldn't access, or no longer URL address) "APEC" is upper case. "http://www.jetro.go.jp/APEC/" ~~~~ > APEC Osaka '95 Host Council Home Page - http://www.apec.or.jp > (? - crashed when accessed) This server sends confusing English message, "Our all systems are crashed". Not really "crashed", but the server is no more active. > Hong Kong Government Centre - http://www.info.gov.hk/isd/news/nov95/21apec.html ".htm" not ".html" (Does HK gov't is a customer of Micro$oft?) Correct URL is "http://www.info.gov.hk/isd/news/nov95/21apec.htm" ======================== YASUDA, Yukihiro / E-mail: yukihiro@klact.co.jp === KLACT, Inc. TOKYO, JAPAN (Phone:+81-3-3489-2091, FAX:+81-3-3489-2092) From foewase at igc.apc.org Thu Aug 29 03:25:30 1996 From: foewase at igc.apc.org (Northwest FOE Office) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 11:25:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [asia-apec 80] 1989 PACIFIC RIM PAPER PART II Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960828102924.10bf6912@pop.igc.org> [PART II. 1989 PACIFIC RIM PAPER - NW Friends of the Earth] VIII. COMMERCIAL FISHERIES CONCERNS - Tuna/Dolphins Within the US, 28 vessels, which comprise the United States tuna purse seine fleet, are allowed to kill 20,500 dolphins each year during their commercial fishing operations. The combined annual kill for the foreign tuna fleet is approximately 100,000 dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP), an area extending from Mexico to Peru and westward approximately 2,000 miles. Because dolphins and tuna swim together in this section of the Pacific, the purse seine fleet search out and encircle dolphin herds in order to catch tuna. In the process, many dolphins drown in the nets. The eastern spinner dolphin population has been reduced by 80% of its original size. The Marine Mammal Protection Act, passed by the US in 1972, initially reduced the number of dolphins killed by the domestic tuna fleet. But because of fierce lobbying by the tuna industry, the U.S. tuna fleet currently operates under an indefinite permit allowing the killing of up to 20,500 dolphins annually. Amendments to the Marine Mammal Act in 1984 required a regulatory program on the killing of dolphins on any foreign nation that wishes to export tuna to the US. This provision has not been enforced by the Reagan or Bush Administration. [1996 UPDATE: The Tuna-Dolphin Issue has been extensively debated as part of both NAFTA and GATT. For more information contact: NW Office, Friends of the Earth, (206) 633-1661)]. IX. COMMERCIAL FISHERIES CONCERNS - North Pacific High Seas Driftnets In the North Pacific, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea operate over 1,500 ships that use monofilament nonbiodegradable plastic gillnets that are deployed in the open ocean. These drift nets range from 7 miles to 30 miles in length. The long, nearly invisible driftnets catch non-target species. Of particular concern are charges that the Taiwan squid-fishing fleet is actually taken in large numbers of small salmon on the high seas. On 19 April 1989 the US Coast Guard was ordered to board a Taiwanese squid boat in international waters about 1,250 miles south of Attu Island in the North Pacific and inspect it for illegal catches of salmon. (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 20 April 1989) Long driftnets are often cut by other marine shipping, or if illegally set, are abandoned if discovery is anticipated. These "ghost" nets are suspected of drifting in the oceans for months, if not years, creating a hazard to navigation and possibly continuing to catch fish and other marine mammals. Recent studies on small segments of driftnets 2000 meters and smaller show that such nets collapse into a ball shape within a number of weeks. However, no studies have been done on longer lengths of driftnets. The International North Pacific Fisheries Commission (INPFC) provides a regulatory regime for the salmon driftnet fisheries. However, no international regulation for squid fisheries exist. Without onboard observers, it is difficult to catch and verify driftnet pirates. However, it is known that large quantities of salmon have been offered for sale by suppliers in Taiwan, Singapore, and Thailand. These countries have no salmon runs and are not sanctioned to harvest salmon under the INPFC. A Driftnet Impact Monitoring, Assessment and Control Act was passed by the US in 1987. The Secretary of Commerce was required to submit a report to Congress identifying the nature, extent, and effects of driftnet fishing in the North Pacific Ocean on marine resources of the US. This report, and other sections of the act requiring monitoring of the unregulated squid driftnet fisheries, could result in the US taking the initiative among the Pacific Rim countries to solve this problem. [1996 UPDATE: Significant progress has been made through the United Nations in banning driftnet fishing.] X. COMMERCIAL WHALING It is said that two Germans saved more whales than all the commissions and conservation organizations in the world combined. The two Germans were Kaiser Wilhelm and Adolf Hitler. Their actions helped lead to World War I and World War II. During these two world wars, commercial whaling became too dangerous as man turned to killing his own species. Between the two World Wars, some halfhearted efforts to regulate whaling were attempted under the League of Nations. However it was not until 1946 that fourteen whaling nations (including the US) met and signed the International Convention of the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) and created the International Whaling Commission (IWC). The IWC, however, has no enforcement provisions, observation procedures, or penalties. In addition, it allows IWC members to issue themselves permits to conduct whaling for "scientific" purposes. However, the US Congress has passed amendments to two existing laws. The first, the Pelly Amendment to the Fisherman's Protective Act allows the US to ban imports of fisheries products from countries which "diminish the effectiveness of an international fisheries conservation program." The second, the Packwood-Magnuson Amendment to the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act subjects such countries to an automatic reduction of their permitted allocation of fish harvested inside US territorial waters. Despite these efforts, between 1970 and 1979, the IWC voted on quotas which resulted in the harpooning of nearly a quarter of a million whales. By 1982, however, a moratorium on all commercial whaling was approved. However, Japan, Norway and the Soviet Union, among others, filed objections stating that they would not abide by the moratorium. In addition, both Japan and Iceland are also engaged in "scientific" whaling. The next meeting of the IWC is in 1990 and the commercial whaling ban will be reviewed. However, commercial whaling under the IWC could only resume if 75% of the member nations agree. (For more Information contact: The American Cetacean Society (703) 920-0076) XI. OIL SPILL LIABILITY AND COMPENSATION The recent Exxon oil spill off of Valdez, Alaska was only the latest in a series of oil spill accidents stretching from Washington state, to the Hawaiian Islands, to Antarctica. The US has a fragmented hodge podge of national and state laws providing inadequate cleanup and damage remedies, taxpayer subsidies to cover cleanup costs, third party damages that go uncompensated, corporate structures designed to limit exposure, and substantial barriers to victim recoveries -- such as legal defenses, statutes of limitation, and burdens of proof that favor those responsible for the spill. Under existing US law, at least five statutes deal with the issue of oil spill liability and compensation. Each is different, and each is inadequate. The Clean Water Act has jurisdiction over most large tanker and inland barge incidents. It sets liability limits for federal oil spill removal costs and natural damages which are too low and provide no coverage or compensation for other damages. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments, under which off-shore oil and gas drilling takes place, the Deep Water Ports Act, and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act, all provide varying and uneven liability standards and scope of cleanup costs and damages. However, the most serious restriction on oilspill liability is the Limitation of Liability Act which was passed in 1851. It offsets liability against the value of the vessel and cargo. In some situations, the owner pays nothing because the vessel and cargo are written off as a total loss. In April 1989, US Senator Brock Adams (D-WA) introduced an oil tanker/barge safety bill requiring that all tankers over 20,000 tons operating in US waters and constructed after the date of enactment would be required to have double hulls and bottoms. Other legislation on oil spill liability has also been introduced and hearings will continue throughout this session of Congress. On the international front, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) is responsible for establishing a framework for oil tanker shipping and safety. Two treaties were agreed to in 1969 and 1971 which sought to establish a uniform international oil spill liability and compensation system. Because of the weak nature and loopholes in the treaties, the environmental community did not support ratification and the US has not ratified the treaties. In 1984, the treaties were significantly improved. However, the US still has reservations because of preemption of national and state laws. [1996 Update: In 1990, the U.S. passed the Oil Pollution Act covering oil spill prevention, cleanup and liability issues. In addition, in 1994, Friends of the Earth published "Crude Awakening", a massive report on oil spills by the U.S. oil industry. For copies of this report contact: Friends of the Earth-D.C., (202) 783-7400).] XII. MARINE DEBRIS The problem of marine debris is common to all Pacific Rim Countries. While a large share of floating ocean pollution, particularly plastics, have land-based sources, plastic marine debris from ships poses significant environmental, health, safety, storage, and disposal problems. The world's merchant fleet alone is estimated to dump 450,000 plastic containers into the oceans every day. The commercial fishing fleet discard 100,000 tons of plastic fishing gear and 25,000 tons of plastic packaging annually. Over nine million recreational boaters discard an additional 37,000 tons of trash each year. The US Navy alone dumps about four tons of plastic trash per day. Currently, the US generates an estimated 1,100 pounds of plastic trash per person per year. An estimated 700,000 tons of this plastic trash are dumped at sea. Marine mammals can be killed through ingestion of plastic or through entanglement in nets, packing strips or plastic rings surrounding beverage containers. While the East Coast of the US was awash in medical and sewage waste during the summer of 1988, the Pacific beaches of Washington State were covered not just with oil from a December 1988 barge spill, but with tons of plastic debris, as well. The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships established a framework for dealing with pollution from international shipping. "MARPOL" Annex V, agreed to in 1978, has been ratified by the US. Together with its implementing legislation, the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987 and the Driftnet Impact Monitoring, Research and Control Act of 1987, plastic dumping is no longer legal anywhere in the world's oceans by any of the 35 nations signatory to the MARPOL Protocal, nor is it now legal to dump plastics in US 200- mile coastal and navigable freshwaters. However, as of 1989, other Pacific Rim countries, such as Canada, had not yet ratified Annex V. The US Coast Guard prepared regulations in 1989 which require US Ports to dispose of shipboard plastics and set out the restrictions on the disposal of other garbage discharges. Two related concerns continue to be use of incineration at sea as a disposal practice and an exemption for the US Navy until 1994. (For more information contact: Center for Marine Conservation (202) 429-5609.) XIII. HAZARDOUS/SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Solid and hazardous waste dumping is another idea which is being batted around the Pacific Rim. In 1988, according to accounts in Pacific Daily News, a US firm proposed to use an uninhabited atoll (Taongi) of the Marshall Islands as a dump for millions of tons of solid waste. The proposal involves shipping 3.5 million tons of waste the first year and up to 25 million tons and 30 ships after five years. Admiralty Pacific claims to have already signed numerous waste contracts with US West Coast firms and hoped to transport 10 percent of the garbage produced on the West Coast to Taongi. The Republic of the Marshalls has a total land area of 72 sq. miles spread over 33 atolls. Eniwetok, Bikini and Rongelap atolls are uninhabited due to contamination by US atmospheric atomic bomb tests in the 1950's. According to Greenpeace, other US firms have been at working trying to convince various Pacific Governments that importing toxic waste is a good idea. Western Samoa, American Samoa, Tonga, the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea have all been approached with proposals for land-based incinerators of chemical detoxification plants. In addition, Recycled Energy Inc. has lobbied the City of Los Angeles to send their sewage sludge to the Philippines. However, since the Philippines government has outlawed foreign waste imports, Los Angeles will have to deal with their sludge themselves. "Multinational Monitor" reports that in 1980, 12 companies notified the US Environmental Protection Agency that they intended to export hazardous waste. By 1987, the number had grown to 465, and officials predicted that up to 575 companies would be exporting waste in 1988. Bills, such as the Waste Export Control Act, H.R. 2525, have been introduced in the US House of Representatives in 1989 to require all US waste to be disposed of be in compliance with U.S. environmental standards, regardless of the location of disposal. Unfortunately, many members of Congress are under intense pressure to help stop various waste disposal schemes in their own districts, and perceive that overseas shipments can be made to locations that contain no voters. On 22 March 1989, delegates from 33 Countries (including six from the Pacific Rim: Canada, Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama and the Philippines) signed a treaty in Basel, Switzerland setting up global rules of procedure for the international waste trade. The Basel Convention disappointed many NGO's since it did not ban the export of hazardous waste. Rather, when ratified by 20 countries, it will merely require that waste exporters receive the written consent of importing nations before any waste shipment takes place. The lack of a ban was particularly dismaying since at least 45 countries have already banned the import of foreign wastes. (For more information contact: Greenpeace (202) 462-1177.) XIV. MILITARIZATION OF THE PACIFIC RIM The militarization of the Pacific Rim is increasing. According to a 1989 RAND Corporation study prepared for the Department of Defense, by the year 2010, Japan will become a formidable military power. China will increase its military budget to half that of the Soviet Union while potentially becoming the largest economic power in the world, next to the United States. A 1989 report by Greenpeace on nuclear weapon accidents at sea shows that the mere presence and transport of such weapons poses risks. The actual use of nuclear weapons would result in an environmental holocaust. In the minds of most people, the last nuclear detonations occured when the US dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. In reality, thousands of nuclear weapons have been exploded within the Pacific Rim or by Pacific Rim countries, including the United States, France and China, in atmospheric, underground and underwater nuclear testing. Today, France continues to test nuclear weapons beneath the sea floor in French Polynesia. (France exploded 44 atmospheric nuclear tests and an additional 108 underwater tests in the area since 1966). Coastal environmental impacts from military projects are also of concern. In the US, many military bases are several polluted by toxic wastes. Even new bases are not without environmental problems. In 1985, the US Navy proposed to dredge a new "Homeport" for the nuclear-powered carrier U.S.S. Nimitz and support ships in Port Gardner Bay, near Everett, Washington in Puget Sound. The Navy proposed to dredge contaminated sediments from the harbor. They would then barge and dump the sediments in 400 ft. of open water in Puget Sound. Later, they would attempt to "cap" the contaminated sediment with "clean material". The Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund brought suit on behalf of Friends of the Earth and other environmental organizations to stop this dumping project. After a lengthy court battle, the Navy agreed not to dispose of contaminated dredge spoils in Puget Sound. (For more information contact Greenpeace (202) 462-1177 or Northwest Office, Friends of the Earth (206) 633-1661) XV. ANTARCTICA Antarctica is the earth's most isolated and pristine continent. It is twice the size of Australia and contains the Transantarctic Mountains which rise to over 15,000 ft. Although Antarctica is ice-covered, it contains a variety of wildlife, including emperor penguins and seals. The surrounding waters contain krill and other marine life which were severely impacted from an oilspill from a polar supply ship that ran aground and capsized in February of this year. It has no government of its own. Rather, eighteen nations have decision making status under the Antarctic Treaty. Another 17 nations have observer status at the biennial Antarctic Treaty System. There were twelve original signers to the Treaty in 1959, Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and Britain who have land claims, plus the US, USSR, South Africa, Japan and Belgium. The Treaty, which expires in 1991, has demilitarized the area. In 1964, a conservation protocol to the Treaty, called "Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora" was adopted. Two other conservation agreements, the 1972 Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, and the 1980 Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, have also been adopted. However, because the Antarctic is a continent, it contains mineral deposits such as uranium, coal, oil and iron. As a result, 33 nations agreed, in 1988, to a convention to allow mining exploration and development in Antarctica. This Antarctic Minerals Convention is a badly flawed regime that will spell disaster if it is ratified. Major problems with the convention include the lack of any environmental protection agency to regulate activities, and no participation by NGO's. An international consenus on protecting Antarctica's vast resources and habitat is needed. Antarctica should become a symbol of peaceful international co-operation and environmental protection. XVI. SUMMARY While international law and international conventions regulating the environmental use of oceans are still in their infancy, they can still be examined for confidence-building measure benefits. In addition, Pacific Rim countries need to seriously change their trade/lending practices to address the problems associated with global warming, biodiversity loss, and the decline of productive natural renewable resources, such as soil, fisheries, and forests. The high seas can no longer continue to be viewed for resource exploitation opportunities or as disposal sites for the planet's growing waste problems. All Pacific Rim countries should take the following steps to protect the environment of the Pacific Rim: * Institute energy conservation plans and reduce usage of non- renewable fossile fuels. * Reduce emissions of green house gases to stop global warming and eliminate the useage of ozone destroying CFC's. * Support integrated pest management practices. * Set a goal of zero discharge of pollutants into the air and water. * Increase the acreage of sensitive areas, including endangered species habitat, within national preservation systems. * Begin restoration programs for wetlands, forests and agriculture. * Conduct research which will establish carrying capacities for watersheds. * Fund family planning programs to reduce population growth. * Review trade/lending policies to incorporate environmental impact assessments. As the preamble to the London Dumping Convention states, ". . .the marine environment and living organisms which it supports are of vital importance to humanity, and all people have an interest in assuring that it is so managed that its quality and resources are not impaired". We cannot maintain national security in the face of international pollution on and within the Pacific Rim. The freedom of the seas does not mean the freedom to pollute. Protection of the environment must become the goal of all Pacific Rim nations. The earth needs more friends. David E. Ortman NW Friends of the Earth 4512 University Way N.E. Seattle, WA 98105 (206) 633-1661 From RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org Fri Aug 30 13:35:31 1996 From: RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org (RVerzola) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 20:35:31 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 81] OPEN LETTER TO APEC MEMBER-HEADS OF STATES Message-ID: <0c8_9608292208@phil.gn.apc.org> Friends: I was requested by the Urban Poor Associates (upa@phil.gn.apc.org) to distribute the letter below, with a request that local groups in each APEC member economy try to get the attention of their head of state (perhaps through the media or some other means), to remind them that one consequence of their coming to the Philippines for the APEC meeting is that CHILDREN ARE BEING EJECTED FROM THEIR HOMES because the Philippine government wants to give APEC delegates a nicer view while they drive from Manila to Subic. The letter follows. Obet Verzola ---------------------------- August 28, 1996 HEADS OF STATES MEMBER COUNTRY APEC Dear Sirs, We are the children of urban poor squatter families living in Manila along the streets you will travel by when you come for the APEC Meeting in November. Our government is destroying our homes because it feels we urban poor people are "eyesores" and you will have a bad impression of our country if you see our poor houses. There are thousands of poor families threatened with eviction. Please tell our President you are not surprised there are still poor people in Manila and that you don't mind looking at our poor homes. Tell him you do mind removing families and suspending our schooling just because you are in the city for a day or two. Please do something. Thank you. Very sincerely, The schoolchildren of Urban Poor Communities located in: Fort Bonifacio North Triangle in Quezon City; R-10, Navotas Dagat-dagatan Freedom Island Domestic and International Airport Del Pan Bridge AWSOP and C-5 affected communities Malabon Makati-Magallanes Interchange going to Taguig Controlled Zone in NGC Antipolo Payatas 2000 Pasay Alabang stock Farm Home Along the Riles in Sta. Mesa and Caloocan From Ronsan2224 at aol.com Fri Aug 30 19:05:59 1996 From: Ronsan2224 at aol.com (by way of daga ) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 18:05:59 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 82] Letter to People of Okinawa Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960830180045.1eefa624@is1.hk.super.net> Dear Friends, Attached is a letter to be sent to newspapers in Okinawa and Japan to encourage, support and stand in solidarity with those who want to vote their heart in the referendum on Sept. 8th. On the referendum is a question asking them if they support the withdrawal of U.S. military bases by the year 2015. If you want your name attached, please e-mail me back, FAX me at 808-959-2793, or tel. me at 808-959-2731 or 808-959-9775. Tell us how to write your name and attach an organization which will be listed for identification purposes only. Deadline is Monday evening, Sept 2nd. If you want to draft your own letters, please do so. You can FAX letters to Ryukyu Shimpo at 81-98-865-5196 and the Okinawa Times at 81-98-867-6431. Aloha, Ron Fujiyoshi An Open Letter to the People of Okinawa We write to extend to you a spirit of peace, aloha, and solidarity as you approach your historic referendum scheduled for September 8, 1996, on reducing U.S. military bases in Okinawa. Twenty percent of Okinawa's main island is presently controlled by the U.S. military. Much of the world is watching in anticipation of the voting results. Our hope is that Okinawa will become a beacon of peaceful courage to the world. Your vote to move away from militarism opens up many new possibilities. First, it is a profound statement to the world of moral leadership against war and violence and for peace and good will by people who have suffered greatly from war and militarism. It opens up the possibility of Okinawa becoming a bridge of peace, rather than a stepping stone of war, between Asia and the Pacific. It also opens up other possibilities of what can be done constructively when people choose to redirect material and spiritual resources to affirm, rather than destroy, life. To move away from militarism can mean many good things for Okinawa. It means that Okinawa can become self-sufficient. It means that more of Okinawa's land can be used to feed its people and others. It means that Okinawa can become an agricultural, technological, and educational center of peace leading the world into the 21st century. Okinawa can become a model of self-sustaining technology-- environmentally sound, with zero emissions, clean energy. Doing this you will become a teacher of peace, affirming life to people throughout the world. The international community awaits the result of your vote. If you choose to reduce military bases in Okinawa, international support will be there to assist you in the transformation from militarism to peace and self-sufficiency. Many people will want to join hands in partnership with you in this valuable effort. Please let us know how to best help you. We salute you on the eve of this historic occasion. We encourage you to vote from your heart for Okinawa's good future and for the future good of the earth we share. With gratitude and aloha, (signers-organizations) date [Note: organizations are listed for identification purposes only.] From asa at asiaonline.net Fri Aug 30 19:36:24 1996 From: asa at asiaonline.net (Asian Students Association) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 18:36:24 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 83] (No Subject in original) Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960830183111.091f2e92@is1.hk.super.net> Indonesia Exercises Repressive Arm in Hong Kong (An Account of the Incident at the Indonesian Consulate in Hong Kong) On 29 August 1996, some 30 foreign migrants and representatives of local and regional non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Hong Kong marched to the Indonesian Consulate to express their indignation and protest against human rights violations and political repression in Indonesia. A collective statement of protest signed by 18 local and regional NGOs was read out, placards bearing the calls and demands of the protesters, streamers were displayed prominently for people and Consulate staff and officials to read and some slogans were chanted. In other words, it was a peaceful protest action. Yet, while the protesters were holding a program, the Indonesian Consulate sent out "photographers" who kept on taking pictures of the people involved in the action. There were 4 Indonesian consulate "photographers" who roamed around snapping pictures. When requested by the organisers to present their press credentials, they refused to give their names. The Indonesian photographers were deliberately sent to intimidate the protesters (who were not at all intimidated but took turns instead in blocking their shots). Earlier on, one of the organisers of the protest action went inside the consulate office to inform them that the protesters want to hand over a protest letter to Consul General Lili Sobari. She was told to get out of the consulate premises and to wait outside. From time to time, she would go near the consulate's glass door (which was locked from the inside) to ask when the Consul-General would come out to receive the statement. She was told to wait many times over. When she again went near the glass door, she was blocked by an Indonesian man (wearing a cap, white shirt and jeans) who said "give me the statement". Naturally, she asked who he was and what was his official capacity. He refused to answer and instead, ordered her to step-off the stairs - "this is Indonesian property, go down" - he roughly told her. She told him that unless he identifies himself, she will not give him the statement. Already "off the premises of Indonesia", she kept on telling him that the statement will only be given to the Consul-General or to his representative. He wouldn't budge and neither did she but thinking quickly, she grabbed her camera and took a shot of the unidentified man. And that's when he slapped/pushed her face. The protesters who witnessed the incident shouted in indignation, while Indonesians from inside the Consulate quickly grabbed the unidentified man and took him inside. The unidentified man never showed himself again. Meanwhile, members of the Hong Kong police force arrived at the scene. The angry protesters shouted more slogans and demanded an apology from the Indonesian Consulate officials. A complaint against the "assault" was lodged before the Hong Kong Police Force members who promised to investigate the incident. The protesters made it clear that they wouldl not leave the premises until and unless an apology is made. As expected, no apology was forthcoming. Instead, a vice-consul (who refused to identify himself - "I refuse to give my name, you can get it from the police") received the protest letter. The unidentified Vice-Consul said "I do not have anything to say to you, I refuse to comment on the incident" when confronted by the "assaulted" person who handed over the letter of protest. An Appeal for Action The Asian Students' Association (ASA) urges human rights and pro-democracy advocates and activists to send protest letters to the Indonesian Consulate in Hong Kong in protest of the incident and as a show of continuing solidarity with the struggling Indonesian people **************************************************************************** ************* 30 August 1996 Letter to the Editor What Have You to Fear from Peaceful Demonstrators? On 29 August 1996, migrant workers and representatives of local and regional non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Hong Kong marched to the Indonesian consulate to express indignation and protest against human rights violations and political repression in Indonesia. We also wanted to present a protest letter carrying three basic demands: (1) Stop political repression in Indonesia; (2) Free all political prisoners; and (3) Guarantee the freedom of assembly and association. I was assaulted by an unidentified Indonesian during a peaceful demonstration at the Indonesian Consulate in Hong Kong on August 29, 1996. Why? Probably because I refused to give him the protest letter which we wanted to submit to Consul General Lili Sobari himself or to his representative. Probably, it was also because I took a picture of him a few seconds before he slapped/pushed my face. Or maybe because he recognised the name Asian Students' Association (ASA) written on the cap I was wearing. But are these the real reasons behind his savage action? Perhaps Suharto will reward that unidentified man for following his orders en toto. Imagine, single handedly he tried to bring things under control! Typical Indonesian military tactic. But like the Suharto-led Indonesian regime, that unidentified man has committed a desperate act - a very cowardly act. How else can you call his action, or for that matter Suharto's action towards peaceful demonstrators and legitimate protests in Indonesia? Cowards and desperate people do not hesitate to use raw force on otherwise unarmed and peaceful people. Cowardly and desperate regimes do not hesitate to arrest, detain, maul, torture and even kill innocent and peace-loving people. Moreover, cowards and desperate regimes cannot tolerate resistance and militancy. With bare arms, truncheons and guns, they are prepared to silence those who dare act against them. And this is the way the Indonesian regime has responded to the legitimate demands and aspirations of the Indonesian people. Since the so-called "communist-instigated riots" took place in Indonesia, at least four people have already died, 226 arrested and nearly 160 opposition supporters are missing. The crackdown on pro-democracy activists and leaders continue to this day. The Indonesian people living under Suharto's New Order regime have increasingly become disenchanted by the serious economic problems that continues to breed unemployment, contractualisation, increasing the divide between the rich and poor, spiralling cost of living, etc. Rampant corruption, gross human rights violations and overwhelming abuse of political power, increasing militarisation, iron-gloved rule of a military regime and hypocrisy of democracy all the more strengthened the Indonesian people's resolve to struggle for meaningful and lasting social changes. Instead of addressing the social problems, the Suharto regime has resurrected the communist bogey to justify its brutal attack on the Indonesian people's movement. By employing red scare tactics, the Suharto regime is cleverly steering attention away from the real problems ailing Indonesian society today. It is trying to cover-up the roots of the Indonesian people's clamor for democracy and freedom. The Suharto regime has widened its circle of attack to include regional and international organisations associated with the so-called communists. It released a document in which a diagram of the organisations/individuals pro-democracy groups are related with is drawn. Our organisation - the Asian Students' Association (ASA) - "a radical and leftist students organisation", as described by the Indonesian government and military - is included in that diagram. The Students Solidarity for Democracy in Indonesia (SSDI), a member organisation of the People's Democratic Party (PRD) is one of the 49 member organisations of ASA. In the recent crackdown, many SSDI activists have been arrested and detained and many more are in hiding, constantly pursued by the military. The treatment I/we received at the Indonesian Consulate in Hong Kong is not far from the treatment Indonesians receive in their country. We were deliberately intimidated and harassed for while we were holding our peaceful protest, at least four (4) Indonesian photographers were sent out by the Indonesian Consulate to take pictures of people involved in the action. The photographers refused to give their names. The vice-consul who received our protest letter also refused to identify himself, saying "I refuse to give my name, you can get it from the police". Furthermore, when the unidentified vice-consul was informed of the assault incident, he said "I do not have anything to say to you. I refuse to comment on the incident". They smoothly employed the policy of "neither confirm nor deny", invoked diplomatic immunity and relied on the military (in this case, the Hong Kong Police Force) to sort out the scuffle (while they coddled my aggressor to safety). They were simply detached, cold, poker-faced and unresponsive to our legitimate action and demands. I have lodged a complaint to the Hong Kong Police Force who were present at the scene. A policeman has promised to call me "after my inspector discuss the matter with the Consulate officials". The Asian Students' Association (ASA) shall not let this matter pass without a fight. On the minimum, we demand a public apology from the unidentified Indonesian person and from the Indonesian Consulate officials. If this is not acceptable to them, we shall formally start procedures to have the unidentified man charged with physical assault. Lina P. Cabaero Secretariat Asian Students' Association (ASA) 353 Shanghai St. 4/F Kowloon, Hong Kong Phone # 23880515 (O)/ 27359037 (R) Fax # 27825535 E-mail address: asa@asiaonline.net (O)/ miko@wlink.net From bogus@does.not.exist.com Fri Aug 30 19:36:24 1996 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 18:36:24 +0800 (HKT) Subject: ***no article*** Message-ID: ***no article***