From henry_leveson-gower at mgdestmx01.erin.gov.au Wed Oct 2 00:06:37 1996 From: henry_leveson-gower at mgdestmx01.erin.gov.au (henry_leveson-gower@mgdestmx01.erin.gov.au) Date: Tue, 01 Oct 1996 10:06:37 EST Subject: [asia-apec 130] The Alternative Anti-APEC Summit Message-ID: <9609018441.AA844190046@MGDESTMX01.ERIN.GOV.AU> Does anyone know contact details for organisers of the Alternative Anti-APEC Summit. I believe that the Kilusang Mayo Uno and the Philippine Peasant Movement are involved. I would be interested in getting any information, anyone has, about its aims, organisation and policy positions and those of the NGOs involved. Thanks in advance. Henry Leveson-Gower _________________________________________________ National Centre for Development Studies Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies The Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200 AUSTRALIA Tel: 61 (0)6 274 1449 Fax: 61 (0)6 274 1878 Email: Hleveson-gower@dest.gov.au From daga at HK.Super.NET Tue Oct 1 17:26:11 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 16:26:11 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 131] Alternative trade: symbol and reality Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961001162045.284f19e6@is1.hk.super.net> Alternative trade: symbol and reality (excerpts) John Madeley in One World, issue no. 177 Conventional international trade between the countries of North and South has brought few benefits for most people in the South. During the last decade prices of raw commodities, on which millions depend, have dropped steeply while Northern markers remained closed to many manufactured goods the South would like to export. This has helped a few countries, especially in Southeast Asia, but it diverts resources that might be used more profitably in other sectors of developing-country economies. As conventional North-South trade has yielded few benefits, interest has grown in "alternative trade". In its most common form, this involves alternative trading organizations (ATOs), some of them church-based, in the North who buy goods from producer groups in the South and sell them through shops, mail order, churches, and so on. The prices are sometimes, though not always, slightly higher than would normally apply; and some alternative trade products are also now finding their way onto supermarket shelves. Since the Northern ATO deals directly with producer groups or cooperatives, the "middle-man" is eliminated, giving producers a better chance for a decent return. Alternative trade thus offers a different and potentially more profitable route for both manufactured and primary products. Interest in alternative trade began in the mid-1960s and there are now several hundred ATOs in the countries of the North - 130 in the US alone - most working along broadly similar lines. The combined annual turnover of these organizations is around Pounds sterling 250 million. While this represents only a small fraction of current Third World merchandise exports of around US$ 740,000 million, it is bringing benefits to low-income producers and is also a powerful symbol of a fairer, less exploitative way of trading. Although some Northern ATOs have developed from churches and aid agencies, all normally operate as independent businesses. The products, they buy and sell typically include crafts, both decorative and utlilitarian, furnishings, textiles, clothing, household goods and foodstuffs, particularly coffee and tea. Some ATOs extend their ranges by selling non-Third World goods such as recycled paper. The Dutch-based International Federation for Alternative Trade (IFAT) helps ATOs to coordinate their activities. Comprising some forty organizations, it helps to establish aims and their trading practices. Most IFAT members are Northern-based, but the federation includes a few ATOs from the developing world - among them from the prophetically named "Last Hope International" of Nigeria. Third World ATOs are usually exporters of products that are seeking alternative trade routes. IFAT identified several differences between ATOs and commercial trade channels: * They give priority to small producers who find it difficult to undertake export trade without a sympathetic marketing partner. * They are especially interested in how producer groups are organized, preferring groups in which members have a say in running the organization and which provide such benefits as education and welfare schemes. * They pay prices which allow the producer a reasonable return and often pay for orders in advance. * They build their range around the products made by the producers they want to support. * They promote their suppliers among their customers, giving information about the project, the locality and the difficulties faced by small producers. * They aim to provide assistance with information on overseas marketing requirements and help with matters such as design, technology, packaging, labelling and sales promotion. Changing fashions A major problem for Third World people who produce for alternative trade is the instability caused by changes in customer tastes in the North. Products much in demand this year may be completely out of fashion next year. The tastes of people in Northern countries are fickle, and a sudden change in consumer tastes can mean considerable problems for producers. During the 1980s, for example, there was a buoyant demand in British shops for ducks of all shapes, sizes and materials. By the early 1990s, however, ducks were little in demand. "The market for handicrafts is perpertually changing," says a development worker closely involved with alternative trade, "but handicraft producers cannot change quickly enough." Sahara Khatoon fared well from making sikas in the 1980s, but by this year the declining demand for hanging baskets has caused uncertainty for her group. The future of alternative trade may lie more in getting products into larger stores, rather than selling only through mail-order and specialist shops. In 1991 Traidcraft joined with three other British ATOs to market an arabica coffee, "Cafedirect". The ATOs will use their normal channels for this, but they are also hoping to get it onto supermarker shelves. "Ethical issues are very much on the agenda for all the larget supermarket chains," says the ATOs. They believe the momentum of the ecological movement is growing, along with an awareness among consumers that Third world producers deserve a better deal. Cafedirect is grown by over twenty thousand coffee producers in Mexico and Costa Rica. Working on small family farms, they have combined in associations and cooperatives to improve their own conditions and to make direct export possible. Like other coffee growers, they have been affected by the recent steep decline in world coffee prices. Selling at a higher price to the Cafedirect project provides them with direct income, with no agents or other intermediaries to pay. The higher incomes from coffee enable producers to improve transport, provide scholarship funds, purchase agricultural equipment and make other community and social improvements. Pressure for an extension of alternative trading is also coming from other coffee producers. In March of 1992 - 250,000 small-scale coffee-growers from fifteen countries in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean launched a Small Farmers' Cooperative Society to held widen the market for their crops. In October [1992] British ATOs hope to launch a Fairtrade Mark, to be attached to shop products that have been traded on fair terms. Already in the Netherlands, the Max Havelaar Quality Mark, attached to coffee that has been traded fairly, has been a considerable success, with more than 300,000 coffee farmers thought to be selling through this scheme. Alternative trade has led to better returns for producers and has shown that international trade can be conducted on a fair basis and help people out of poverty. Inevitably there are problems. For some producer groups, notably women's groups, the prevailing norms of society still hinder the progress they ought to be making. And some ATOs could be criticized for placing too much emphasis on handicrafts. It is not necessarily a good thing for people in developing countries to be too dependent on handicrafts; there are other products that can be made. But Richards Evans says that although Traidcraft is now putting more emphasis on functional products, such as clothing, handicrafts often provide the first opportunity for people in developing countries to earn a cash income. Graham Young of Traidcraft stresses the importance of ATOs "sticking with producers during hard times, social unrest, adverse weather conditions and even dishonesty... trying to operate fair business practice in your home operation and doing justice, but more than that - going further than might be justly expected." ATOs have become an important if as yet small part of international trade, But especially if the mainstream system continues to fail the world's poor, alternative trading channels are likely to be sought. John Madeley is the author of "Trade and the Poor: The Impact of International Trade on Developing Countries", published by the Intermediate Technology Publications. Traidcraft can be contacted at Kingsway, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, NE11 ONE, United Kingdom. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 foewase at igc.apc.org Thu Oct 3 03:25:50 1996 From: foewase at igc.apc.org (Northwest FOE Office) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 11:25:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [asia-apec 132] WTO -trade op-ed 2 Oct. 1996, Seattle (WA) Post-Intelligencer Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961002112906.1dfff4aa@pop.igc.org> Seattle (WA) Post-Intelligencer Wednesday, 2 October 1996 p. A-14 Scrutiny Uncovers the Hidden Costs of Free Trade by David E. Ortman Director, NW Office Friends of the Earth Seattle, WA Kathy Fletcher Board Member Sierra Club Seattle, WA Fred Felleman Northwest Representative Ocean Advocates Seattle, WA -------------------- Is international trade destroying Planet Earth? New trade agreements have given giant corporations new rights to trade and invest globally. But they have not defined responsibilities to the communities where those corporations operate. The result is predictable: lowering of environmental protections and wage levels as Americans lose out to Indonesians, Mexicans and Malaysians. Little wonder a 1993 report Arthur D. Little (a world-wide consulting firm) warns, "The Pacific Basin has seen unprecedented economic transformations by many of its nations. . .This aggressive economic and industrial development by densely populated countries, however, has been accompanied by severe environmental stress and degradation problems. Intolerable levels of air pollution and widespread contamination of rivers, coastal waters, and soil have resulted." This was not President Clinton's message during his recent Northwest trip. Or the one heard at the closed-door meetings of the World Trade Organization or over cocktails at corporate- sponsored receptions, in Seattle last week. According to Charlene Barshefsky, acting U.S. trade representative, the WTO must address such issues "as the relationship between trade and labor standards and effect of trade on the environment" (Op-ed, Sept. 24 Post-Intelligencer). So why does Barshefsky advocate expanding the power of the WTO to curtail environmental protections? For instance, without prior consultations with the environmental community or interested members of Congress, the trade representative recently advocated in closed-door international negotiations that the WTO be given veto power when the United States and other countries want to ban imports of hazardous materials under a new international environmental agreement. She advocated similar WTO powers over a new convention to protect the world's forests. Barshefsky thinks we should be proud that 30 percent of Washington's manufacturing jobs are export based. Due to our maritime location, trade will always be an element of our economy. However, our economic future then lies in the hands of those outside our region: If China declines to buy Boeing airplanes, Boeing jobs take a wobble. This type of trade-dependent economy is not sustainable. Washington apple production is far greater than this region's demand. Exporting surplus apples merely props up an agricultural system that relies too heavily on below-cost government handouts for water and power, including proposed deepening of the Columbia River. Every exported Washington apple means less water in our rivers, less wild salmon for our region. Increased trade means more ship traffic, more risks of collisions and threats to our coasts and inland waters. Despite repeated claims that Alaskan oil would be used domestically and not exported, the oil companies were successful in getting the Clinton Administration to lift Alaskan oil export ban. This will add to the foreign oil tanker fleet heading for Puget Sound oil refineries, a fleet with a record of safety and oil spill problems. Instead of beefing up protection for Washington's waters, by requiring tug escorts or a rescue tug at Neah Bay, the Clinton Administration's Coast Guard appears content to adopt a voluntary industry-devised tug-boat of opportunity system after holding a "public meeting" in Seattle on 17 October. It is a lottery whereby if a tug is near a disabled ship it can assist, and if it isn't it won't. When oil hits the beaches, think of "free trade". When elected officials talk about Washington exports they are silent and refuse to mention our state's fourth biggest export (1994):. At $767.9 million, cigarettes represent a bigger "pass-through" export than seafood. Which is healthier, seafood or cigarettes? The obvious answer does not appear in trade statistics. As tobacco companies are taking a beating with their nicotine delivery products in the United States, they are working to increase their market overseas, particularly in Asia. And Washington's ports are just as happy to count up containers of cigarettes as they are to count up containers of seafood. Private timber companies such as Weyerhaeuser still export Washington trees and our own state's Department of Natural Resources is clamoring to make more money by log exports without regard to keeping local sawmills open. Trade burns on both ends. Local politicians are big fans of NikeTown without explaining that Nike makes a killing off of cheap foreign labor. Weyerhaeuser and other giant multi-national timber companies are eyeing Russian far-east trees for export back to Northwest sawmills, with the potential of introducing non-native pests. Neither the WTO, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) nor the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation is leading us to a sustainable future. Since the U.S, trade rrepresentative's environmental staff reportedly did not attend and the U.S., Canada, Japan and European environmental ministers also appear to have stayed home, there is little likelihood that any environmental agenda was discussed at closed door meetings of the WTO in Seattle. Without transparency, the WTO remains a black box of finance ministers determined to knock environmental laws aside as trade barriers. Global "free" trade is the greatest experiment ever conducted on our communities, our health and our natural heritage. Conservatives used to rail against the unintended harmful side effects of government "social experiments." It's time mainstream politicians woke up to the enormous unintended harm wrecked by "free" trade. At his 50th birthday this summer, President Clinton said "I'll begin to think about the long-term implications as well as the consequences of what I do." We hope he applies this thinking to trade policy. If Clinton is reelected, we urge him to quickly forge a new mainstream consensus to move from free trade to "responsible trade" -- a policy that keeps markets open for Washington exporters, but avoids trade's harmful effects by requiring our trading partners to implement strong, internationally recognized labor, human rights and environmental standards. Responsible trade policies would empower communities worldwide to protect jobs and resources when giant corporations come calling. It would open up decision-making at the office of the U.S. trade representative to public scrutiny. And it would allow Washington to protect wages and the environment -- for our future. ##### From alarm at HK.Super.NET Sat Oct 5 16:11:36 1996 From: alarm at HK.Super.NET (Rex Varona) Date: Sat, 05 Oct 1996 00:11:36 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 133] iap References: <2.2.16.19960820204631.1e07acfe@is1.hk.super.net> Message-ID: <32560A28.2087@hk.super.net> Mario R R Mapanao wrote: > > 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, -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AUSTRA~1.DOC Type: application/octet-stream Size: 31744 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/asia-apec/attachments/19961005/f7c3680b/AUSTRA1.bin From alarm at HK.Super.NET Sat Oct 5 16:12:39 1996 From: alarm at HK.Super.NET (Rex Varona) Date: Sat, 05 Oct 1996 00:12:39 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 134] iap References: <2.2.16.19960820204631.1e07acfe@is1.hk.super.net> Message-ID: <32560A67.2C5F@hk.super.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: BRUNEI.DOC Type: application/octet-stream Size: 33792 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/asia-apec/attachments/19961005/d4daa794/BRUNEI.bin From alarm at HK.Super.NET Sat Oct 5 16:13:34 1996 From: alarm at HK.Super.NET (Rex Varona) Date: Sat, 05 Oct 1996 00:13:34 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 135] iap References: <2.2.16.19960820204631.1e07acfe@is1.hk.super.net> Message-ID: <32560A9E.20AD@hk.super.net> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CANADA.DOC Type: application/octet-stream Size: 44544 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/asia-apec/attachments/19961005/b1a24177/CANADA.bin From foewase at igc.apc.org Sat Oct 5 08:43:51 1996 From: foewase at igc.apc.org (Northwest FOE Office) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 16:43:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [asia-apec 136] APEC Business Recommendations Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961004164708.0fff8358@pop.igc.org> 4 October Please post. Thought you might want to know what the Business community's APEC agenda is: David E. Ortman NW Office, Friends of the Earth Seattle, WA ----- Seattle Post-Intelligencer BUSINESS Wednesday, October 2, 1996 Shrontz gives a peek at business proposals for APEC gathering By KAREN WEST P-I Reporter Boeing Chairman Frank Shrontz yesterday gave a sneak preview of several key recommendations to leaders of the Pacific Rim to improve economic development and investment in the region. The proposals will be presented later this month to leaders of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum and will help set stage for the November conference in the Philippines. Shrontz, one of three Americans to serve on the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Advisory Council, recently returned from Hong Kong, where the panel came up with ways to enhance finance and investment in the Pacific Rim region and proposals for long- term visas for frequent business travelers. The group, which serves as the business voice to APEC, also developed proposals to improve trade between countries and ways to ease international border restrictions. Shrontz outlined the group's recommendations to about 200 Asian and U.S. business leaders during yesterdays Pacific Leaders Forum at the Bell Harbor International Conference Center. The international business council includes three representatives from each of the APEC economies: the United States, Canada, Mexico, Chile, China, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, Brunei, Hong Kong, Papua New Guinea, and Singapore. APEC is an international organization aimed at promoting prosperity in the Pacific Rim. Shrontz, speaking to a forum organized by the Committee for Economic Development, said the advisory council's report would be presented to Philippine President Fidel Ramos Oct.25. Among the recommendations: *Frequent business travelers should be offered five-to ten- year business visas that would have specific long-term, multiple- entry terms for all 18 APEC countries. Shrontz said international border restrictions, such as visa requirements, create "people movement problems" and limit the flow of goods, services, information and capital in the Asia- Pacific region. Visas are often good for only one entry to a country and can take several weeks to obtain. *APEC nations should adopt a list of priority infrastructure projects what would qualify for a uniform set of liberalized investment principles to encourage private foreign investment. While APEC has proposed adopting such investment principles across the board, applying them on a project-specific basis might speed the development of some $1.5 trillion in infrastructure in East Asia over the next seven years, Shrontz said. "We believe that the financial markets will reward this increased security for investors by delivering lower project finance costs," Shrontz said. *Private businesses should contribute in construction and operation of public projects, including upgrading roads, airports, rail and telecommunications. In 1995, the World Bank estimated that the demand for new infrastructure spending just in East Asia between 1997 and 2004 could reach as much as $1.5 trillion, Sholtz said. *APEC countries could create a free-trade environment without excess tariffs. *A central registry for trademarks and patents should be created in the APEC economies. That, Sholtz said, is one way to ensure the protection of intellectual property rights. *Customs procedures should be made simpler and improved systems encouraged, such as electronic processing of goods. Shrontz said simpler customs procedures is especially important in light of the rapid growth of cross-border trade in the Pacific Rim region. *Promote ways to improve the well being of the 18 economies. "We need to reach out to the broader business community and the public at large," Sholtz said. From daga at HK.Super.NET Sat Oct 5 12:16:46 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 11:16:46 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 137] asia-apec 133-135 Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961005111120.095751c6@is1.hk.super.net> apologies for the gibberish that is msgs 133-135. These were attached transmissions meant for our office of the Individual Action Programs (IAPs) of the APEC member economies, which were mistakenly posted on the mailing list. These will in due time be available on the homepage for the Manila People's Forum on APEC. You can check this out at: http://www.hk.super.net/~daga/apec.htm Mario Mapanao From jagdish at igc.apc.org Sat Oct 5 15:36:51 1996 From: jagdish at igc.apc.org (Jagdish Parikh) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 14:36:51 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 138] A Forum about APEC in Washington DC Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961005143123.253f9002@is1.hk.super.net> /* Written 1:18 PM Oct 1, 1996 by apcjp in igc:apec.general */ /* ---------- "A Forum about APEC in Washington DC" ---------- */ You are cordially invited to attend an afternoon symposium on Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) The purpose of this instructive forum is to present various perspectives of APEC, from the Government, Business, and NGO community. The symposium will enable the audience to examine APEC in the holistic context of political, economic, and social regionalization in the Asia Pacific. We hope that participants walk away with informed opinions and valid questions about the APEC process. ***************************************************************** APEC And Its Implications For Asia and the Pacific A Forum With NGO, Government and Business Leaders Tuesday, October 8, 1996 2:00 - 6:00 PM Kenney Auditorium, Johns Hopkins/SAIS ***************************************************************** Panel I (2:00-4:00) What are the implications for APEC for genuine economic cooperation? Moderator: Karl Jackson, Director, SAIS SE Asian Studies Program Panelists: John Wolf, United States Ambassador to APEC Mohammed Sidek Hassan, Embassy of Malaysia Karen Goddin, Director, US-ASEAN Business Council Walden Bello, Focus on the Global South Panel II (4:15-6:00) What are the social and environmental effects of APEC on the peoples of the Pacific Rim? Moderator: Lori Wallach, Public Citizen Panelists: Lyuba Zarsky, Director, Nautilus Institute Mike Jendrzejczyk, Human Rights Watch/Asia Pharis Harvey, International Labor Rights Fund Rodrigo Prudencio, National Wildlife Federation The forum is sponsored jointly by the SAIS Progressive Student Union, the Department of Southeast Asian Studies, and the Asia Pacific Center for Justice and Peace A wine and cheese reception will follow ******************************************************************* From daga at HK.Super.NET Sat Oct 5 16:35:47 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1996 15:35:47 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 139] Individual Action Programs (IAPs) of the APEC 18 member economies Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961005153020.1f776f98@is1.hk.super.net> Friends, the leaked Individual Action Programs (IAPs) of the APEC 18 member economies is now available, but as file attach! Each member economy action program is about 35k, and is in Microsoft Word. Those who are interested will have to send a note in , indicating the specific countries' action programs you would want to receive. If there is anyone out there with an ftp server and is willing to host the 18 files, please indicate so, so that these can be made available to the more general public. It would be technically difficult to post it on the web page in its present format. In solidarity, Mario Mapanao conference facilitator, asia-apec E-mail: daga@hk.super.net ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Oct 7 21:43:26 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 20:43:26 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 140] Please announce: IAPs on the Internet Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961007203755.0b970f54@is1.hk.super.net> The Japan Computer Access (JCA), host to the asia-apec listserv runs a public- access files transfer protocol (ftp) site. They have volunteered to host the leaked Individual Action Programs (IAPs) of the 18 member economies of APEC [see asia-apec 112]. The IAPs of the following countries are presently vailable: Aotearoa (New Zealand), Australia, Brunei, Canada, China, Chile, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, south Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, and USA. For those with ftp access, please directly go to . Kindly announce also to the more general public. mario mapanao conference facilitator, asia-apec e-mail: From amrc at HK.Super.NET Tue Oct 8 15:07:01 1996 From: amrc at HK.Super.NET (AMRC) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 14:07:01 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 141] KCTU-Labour Law Reform Campaign Update, Oct. 4. Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961008140131.1aaff796@is1.hk.super.net> From: Korean Confederation of Trade Unions Organization: Korean Confederation of Trade Unions KOREAN CONFEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Struggle for Labour Law Reforms Campaign News VII Labour Law Reform At A Dead End A Show-Down At Hand The 9th plenary session of the Presidential Commission on Industrial Relations Reform, held on October 1, 1996, came to an end without any concrete progress. The Commission is set to meet again on October 7, 1996 for what is expected to be the last session in the current series of Commission meetings. In the October 7th meeting, the Commission will finalise its recommendations for amendment of the labour laws to report to the President. In this meeting, the Commission will decide the method for finalising its recommendations. There are three kinds of decision available to the Commission. One possible decision that can be taken by the Commission is to continue with the discussion until there is agreement on all pertinent issues regardless of the length of time required. The second avenue open for the Commission is to report all the items as they currently stand, classifying the issues on which agreement has been reached and those which remain without agreement. The third path involves putting all the issues discussed to a ballot among the members to determine the Commission's position by a majority. The Drawn-Out Debate With No Results The 9th plenary session of the Commission on October 1, dealt with 5 major issues on which the drafting committee was not able to reach agreement. However, the Commission failed make any progress on the issues of the "prohibition on third party intervention", "labour lease system", "union membership eligibility for dismissed workers", the scope of "compulsory arbitration", and the freedom of association for government employees and teachers. Third Party Intervention. Employer representatives and some of the so-called "public interest representatives" continued to insist on the need to maintain the prohibition on third party intervention in some form. The proposal made by the so-called "public interest representatives" at the drafting committee calls for amending the current clause which states that "No person, except for the workers who have a direct employment relationship with the employer, the trade union concerned, the employer or other persons duly authorized by other laws or regulations, shall manipulate, instigate, or obstruct the parties concerned regarding acts of dispute, nor intervene with the intent to influence them" (Labor Dispute Adjustment Act, Article 13-2) The so-called "public interest representatives" in the drafting committee proposed an amendment which in effect would stipulate that: "No person, except for those who have a direct employment relationship, shall manipulate, instigate, agitate illegal acts of dispute or intervene or participate in them with the intent to influence them." KCTU has repeatedly pointed out that the proposed "amendment" -- which singles out "illegal acts of dispute" -- in effect, is no different from the current clause. Furthermore, the existing laws, even without the "prohibition on third party intervention" can be called on to "punish" all persons -- even those who have a "direct employment relationship" -- for engaging in "illegal" actions of dispute. The proposed amendment, on the surface, appears "harmless" as no one would deliberately encourage or condone "illegal acts of dispute". However, this ignores the existing "industrial relations" where the majority of collective action by a trade union are "deemed" to be "illegal". For example, a form of collective action -- an act of dispute -- such as "work to rule" measures by a union, can be claimed by the employer to be "an interference with business" under the Criminal Code, making the whole industrial dispute "illegal" once a criminal charge is filed with the authorities. KCTU asserts that the insistence on a clause prohibiting third party intervention in whatever form is a reflection of an intent to restrict labour and trade union rights, a deliberate effort to incorporate hostile attitude to and distrust of trade union activities into the legislation. Labour Lease System. The debate in the drafting committee and the Commission highlighted a need for a more systematic study of the need -- if there is one -- for such an employment system, and how such a system may operate, and to what extent it could by allowed. While there is no specific agreement, the Commission, therefore, seems poised to recommend further study on the issue. Union Membership Eligibility for Dismissed Workers. The current law allows dismissed workers to maintain their union membership until the highest court of the land -- brings down a decision on their litigation challenging the validity of the dismissal. The proposal of the so-called "public interest representatives", however, recommends to restrict the eligibility to the time of a decision by the Appeals Hearing at the Central Labour Relations Commission. The "eligibility" has become a key issue for the trade unions -- which are all enterprise-level unions -- because employers have frequently used dismissal to attack unions and union leaders. The employer representatives are determined to uphold this recommendation proposed by the "so-called" public interest representatives. Their demands stems from their "fear" that "dismissed" workers may exploit the system. KCTU, however, points out that it would require a very special circumstances on the part of the "dismissed" workers to engage in a drawn out legal battle that usually lasts two to three years. KCTU asserts, therefore, the employers' "fear" is unfounded and that it rather reflects employers' wish to maintain and strengthen their "weapon" against trade unions. Compulsory Arbitration. One of the achievements of the drafting committee is the scaling down of the scope of "public utility services" which are subject to 'compulsory arbitration'. 'Compulsory arbitration' system serves to prevent strikes by subjecting the deadlocked negotiation to mandatory arbitration which the parties involved in the dispute must respect. The drafting committee made an agreement to reduce the scope of "public utility services" to the "essential services". However, there is a continuing disagreement over the inclusion of banks and communication companies in the list of essential services. Freedom of Association for Government Employees and Teachers. The right and freedom of government employees and teachers is one of the central issues of the labour law reforms. The Commission or the government-appointed "public interest representatives" as a whole cannot be said to represent the interest or will of the government. KCTU, however, believes that this is one issue on which the government's intentions are most deeply reflected. This issue, KCTU believes, is the most critical test of government commitment to reform. The current position of the Commission on this issue reflects a categorical denial of freedom of association for government employees and teachers. The Commission -- led by "public interest representatives" -- is prepared to grant government employees and teachers a right to organise non-union association which does not come under the labour laws but special laws to be enacted for this specific purpose. Such an association, according to this proposal, cannot use the term "union" or "trade union" in its name. Furthermore, it would not be able to affiliate with a national trade union centre such as KCTU. The Commission -- and the government -- asserts that such a proposal does grant "freedom of association". It may also point to National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers in the U.S. and the teachers association in Japan to justify its proposal. However AFT and the Japanese teachers association are affiliated to the national trade union centres, and the NEA's non-affiliation with AFL-CIO is a result of its own decision rather than any regulation or law. KCTU and the Korea Teachers and Education Workers Union assert that the restrictions the Commission proposes are denial of the freedom of association. Freedom of association signifies a freedom and right on the part of the constituent members to decide by themselves the form, character, and type of organisation and the name it may decide to use. But what the Commission -- and government -- is doing is specifying and dictating what is allowed and is not allowed, contrary to the spirit and principle of the freedom of association. The On-Going Deadlock -- The Non-Existent Deadlock The prospect of labour law reform is under a cloud. Under the current circumstances, the "dead-lock" between the various "interested" parties in the Commission is presented as the root cause of this pessimistic prospect. The Korean government, in its numerous reports to the various international bodies which have been calling for labour reforms, have repeatedly pointed to the entrenched clash of interests for the lack of progress in the labour law reforms. The Commission presents yet another opportunity for the Korean government to escape the responsibility of undertaking genuine reforms. KCTU decided to take part in the Commission process knowing fully that the Commission may, in the last instance, become the excuse and justification for the government for not undertaking a comprehensive labour law reforms. This decision stems from KCTU's commitment to develop a pattern and practice of dialogue as responsible partners in the building of a new industrial relationship. However, KCTU cannot allow the government to point to a "deadlock" of interests as the justification for failing to fulfill its responsibility. The Commission has for the last two to three weeks remained stagnant without any progress. And it may in October 7th plenary session decide in what ever form to finalise its position. KCTU is beginning to realise the futility of engaging in further debates when there is no clear signal of commitment from the government. Furthermore, KCTU cannot in any way be a party to the Commission's final position which fails to bring about a fundamental reform of the labour law. While KCTU has concentrated, so far, on working through the Commission, the moment of decision is close at hand for KCTU to declare the Commission defunct and prepare and undertake a more concerted campaign directed at the government itself. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * KOREAN CONFEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Struggle for Labour Law Reforms Campaign News VIII Korean Government Misleads OECD The Problem: The Government's Report to the OECD On October 1, 1996, the Environment and Labour Committee of the National Assembly began an auditing of the work of the Ministry of Labour. In the process the Committee questioned the Ministry of Labour for its recent report to the OECD prior to its September 26th Council meeting. The Assemblymen discovered that the Government report, in the section concerning the "Public Officials and Teachers' Rights of Organization", stated that "the public members [of the Presidential Commission on Industrial Relations Reform] suggest permitting teachers the right to establish teachers' trade union and to bargain collectively as well as establishing Mediation Service for Teachers Labor Disputes. (At present, "Korean Teachers Federation" as the only teachers' representative is in action). However, the labor has its standpoint to request full guarantee of three labor rights or to accept restrictions on collective activity as applied to public services." The Assemblymen pointed out that what the report says is entirely different from what the Commission or its drafting committee has presented or what remains as the status of the issue in the Commission's discussions. The Assemblymen questioned the Labour Minister if the intention of the report was to mislead the OECD members who had reservations about the Korean government's commitment to labour law reforms. The Assemblymen pointed out that the report was made following the decision of the OECD Council on September 12, 1996 to request the Employment, Labour, and Social Affairs (ELSA) Committee to present a report on the progress in the labour law reforms. Some in KCTU humourously aired a view that the Ministry of Labour may have more forward looking view on the issue of teachers union than what the Commission was prepared to allow. They suggested the Assemblymen should have asked the Labour Minister if the Ministry was prepared, indeed, to "permitting teachers the right to establish teachers' trade union". Mr. Jin Nyeum, the Labour Minister, who returned around 11 p.m. to answer the Assemblymen's questions after checking with the Ministry staff, asserted that the "trade union" was a translation error, and that the government had in no way attempted to mislead the OECD members. And the vice-minister for Labour stated that the term should have been "teachers corporation". He also stated that the Ministry of Labour "officials would not have realised that the terms involved, whether teachers union or teachers corporation, were such a delicate and important matter." Assemblymen refused to accept the explanation that it was a "translation error", as only the elite university graduates who pass a very difficult state examination can join high level Ministry staff. Assemblymen asserted that the report was "a product of the intention on the part of the government to remove the stumbling block to Korea's accession to OECD due to the reservations of OECD Council." The Fiasco: Adds Fuel to Frustration and Suspicion The "translation error" might indeed have been an "error". But the incident has added fuel to the doubts about the prospects of the Commission's work and the suspicion about the government's intentions in establishing the Commission, entrusting it -- and members who inevitably have divergent "interests" -- to set the direction for government's legislative amendment. The incident has severely eroded general confidence in the government's commitment for labour law reforms. It has, as the Assemblymen have suggested, raised suspicion that the Commission was a delaying tactic on the part of the government to ameliorate the reservations held by some member states in OECD. The incident also raised tension in the meeting of the Presidential Commission on Industrial Relations Reform. The chairman of the Commission was asked whether the Commission and its secretariat had any involvement in producing and/or presenting the report in question to the OECD. Former Prime Minister Hyun, Soong Jong chairing the Commission explained that the Commission in noway was involved in the presentation of the report. KCTU believes the incident was very unfortunate and that it had done great damage in building confidence in the government's commitment to labour law reforms and in its relationship with the OECD. KCTU believes that the damage can only be repaired by government's categorical and unconditional acknowledgement -- before the Korean working people and the international community -- of its commitment to fulfill its responsibility to bring about a genuine reform of the labour laws. From daga at HK.Super.NET Tue Oct 8 17:50:17 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 16:50:17 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 142] The Hidden Reality of Japan's Overseas Business Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961008164449.200f9b16@is1.hk.super.net> The Hidden Reality of Japan's Overseas Business: Recollection, Remorse and Repentance of an Ex-Businessman by MIYAMOTO Kenjiro (Mr. MIYAMOTO Kenjiro, is now an ordained Anglican Episcopal priest serving the congregation of Sasebo Fukkatsu Church in Sasebo City, Nagasaki Prefecture.) The phrase "fifty years since the defeat in the war" was the catch phrase in numerous Japanese television and newspaper articles last year. Citizens in Japan heard it read over and over again. What follows is my personal reflection which examines these crucial decades of economic growth in our history with a main focus on the realities brought about as a consequence of overseas development by Japanese enterprises. Several years ago, I myself used to work overseas as a frontline business soldier assigned to a branch office of a certain Japanese manufacturing company. My experience involves two countries known generally as developing nations or those of the Third World. The romanticized prospect of foreign investment, technological exchange, and technical assistance from so-called "first class" enterprises opening branch offices in their countries motivates developing nations to welcome Japanese businesses with open arms. However, this popularly-held view is too naive if not totally out of touch with reality. On the surface the business arrangements of foreign overseas expansion seem mutually beneficial: accelerating the economic growth of host countries and contributing towards developing aid, while at the same time promoting the prosperity of the Japanese economy. Yet is there any supporting evidence that these nations have gained significantly through this process? In other words, has the overseas expansion of Japanese businesses ever brought any genuine profit to the host countries and the business world of those countries involved? Bottom-line terms for business expansion overseas Upon considering overseas expanision, any business would confirm certain favorable conditions exist for a thriving business environment to be maintained there. It is only common sense for the profit-oriented business mind to at least take the following points into consideration regarding the particular host countries' state of affairs. 1) Political stability 2) Low labor cost 3) Abundant natural resources 4) An obedient, mild-mannnered national character 5) Medium level of intelligence 6) No influential ties with former colonial interests 7) Lenient government regulations in regard to environment and labor 8) Good general sanitary conditions 9) No public unrest 10) Availability of nearby recreational facilities As separate items, each of these requirements may appear valid and legitimate, but the true reality is that upon collective examination certain questionable meanings surface which range from ridiculing to indignifying a host-country and its people. Items #1 through #7 relate directly with the management affairs of the business concerning its establishment and continued prosperity, whereas #8 to #10 concern the Japanese expatriate community. I would like to call special attention to the item #1, political stability. Item #1 weighs the political environment in the host country not in terms of its form of government. The regime is not questioned as long as it has firm control over its people, even when those persons' basic human rights are suppressed by the military or police. The oppression of the people quite often proves to be desirable for the business. Growing awareness in human rights, liberation movements, voices for democracy and the like therefore are elements that businesses find threatening to their productivity. The low labor cost, item#2, plays the most effective role in cutting down production costs. The availability of natural resources in abundance, item #3, is an absolute requirement. These resources can be one domestically available, or those imported from a third country. Whichever the case, the more the better. Therefore, no business moves into a country poor in resources. To produce goods with a cheaper labor force, sell the products in the world market, and ultimately take the maximum profits back home represent the central concepts and motives of overseas expansion. What is expected of the local people to support the success of the business is to be obedient and mild-mannered in character. Similar expectations exist in terms of their intellectual level, item #5. If it is too high, frictions may arise in the workplace between the labor force and those dispatched from Japan over certain disagreements. The question of colonial influence, item #6, comes in the picture in reference to in-house training. For traits of the old colonial power could jeopardize the efforts of educating locally hired employees to the Japanese way of management and thinking. Item #7 concerns the fact that the stricter the regulations and ordinances, the more financial burdens the business has to bear. Although items #8 and #9 are beneficial to everyone in the society, the business requires a guarantee for the safety of its Japanese staff. Item #10 seems quite innocent at first glance and if this referred only to such recreational activities as golf, tennis, swimming, and other leisure activities, there is no problem. Even spending time at casinos is regarded and accepted as a kind of amusement to some. What I am implying is totally different in nature from these. The word "recreation" has been understood by some to be a coded message for sex and local establishments that provide it. For many men away from home, this is considered a popular recreation. I am now of the opinion that such practice should never be tolerated. Exploitation and corrupt giver-receiver relations of Japanese businesses in Asia today During one of my overseas assignments in Asia, the reigning president was at his peak in every political sphere of his country. Most of the leading manufacturers and trading firms of Japan had already established themselves there by that time. Some of the names of those early companies were scarcely know in Japan. Those apparently small trading companies possessed certain privileges overseas. Their business dealings were just as unclear to me as their titles. Nevertheless, they must have been running a successful business, for most of them had offices located in impressive condominiums, and their visitors many and frequent. The company where I was dispatched belonged to a group of one of the new conglomerates in that country. Though new, the company was quite well-know among the local people. During this time, the president helped this new financial group to grow, making an intentional shift from a political power base with the old groups that had been in existence since the colonial times. For Japanese businesses, a cheap labor force was the most attractive feature of this country. The second most important factor was the president's backing and willingness to exercise enormous political power at will. In fact, he had complete control at that time over politics, economy, national defense, and domestic law and order. The corporate leader of the conglomerate to which my company belonged was a member of the presidential advisory staff at that time. Knowing what that would mean in terms of his political influence, we the Japanese personnel had no doubts whatsoever as to a prosperous business future before us. Our confidence was not unfounded as the political power and the business management in that country was so intimately related. Their relationship was not just "intimate" as I now look back. It was an outright giver/ receiver bond. To maintain smooth business, the management was expected to help the president keep his political power. We helped the president by contributing to his political fund and praising him at our workplace. In fact, when he paid a visit to our company, all the employees- including ones from Japan- gave him a heartfelt welcome. While endorsing his decisions regarding the power of the state, we of the Japanese business community believed that any efforts concerning human rights or political and administrative reforms were useless. By using our political connections, we had no difficiluty manipulating officers and bureaucrats in the administration and the judicial communities. We could also utlilize these connections and the system to threaten workers. Under the national slogan of industrialization, the country was in full gear constructing a special processing zone. Industrialization sounded sweet to everyone's ears. But it had little substance- existing in name only- because most Japanese businesses there were in fact importing major parts from home anyway. The "industrialization" carried out in the local plant was the simple processing, assembling, inspecting , and packaging. Furthermore, the products manufactured were older models compared to Japanese counterparts. This automatically meant their lesser value in the world market and resulted in little business earnings. Worse yet, when manufacturing plants expanded, the host country spent more of its hard-earned foreign currency because major facilities for manufacturing had to be dependent on imports from Japan in the first place. And then suddenly time runs out. With rumors of an external debt crisis running rampant, the Japanese prepare to withdraw from the country. There are no feelings of guilt whatsoever lingering in the minds of the Japanese in abandoning the plants and offices overseas since these establishments have contributed greatly to the profits of the mother company back home. The business people have no pain in retreating. While taking advantage of the political influence of the president and his power, it is not considered disloyal to change allegiance overnight. It is simply a matter of survival. So one by one, company by company, they withdraw from the delapidated, devastated market. Once again degrading Asian women's dignity The beauty of an overseas assignment for some businessmen lies in the many opportunities for pleasure. The charm of women there is simply superb, especially to those of the opposite sex. As I hinted earlier, everyday life for most businessmen from Japan or anywhere, includes paying visits to those nicely dressed women day and night. Numerous beauties await them among whom are many minors and young teenagers receiving passionate attention not intended for girls of their age. To my knowledge, there were many businessmen who "kept" women individually by providing for their housing and living expenses in exchange for a steady relationship. These men would visit their steadies' homes even in the daytime, anxious about what their women might be doing. When business-related people visited from abroad, the local businessman made arrangements of women for these guests. This was considered an important duty and among the local Japanese, buying sex was understood on the same level as planning an important golf outing. As a matter of fact, I recall a Japanese businessman trying his best to persuade me that this trend was nothing but a sport. In terms of entertaining business acquaintances, providing sex for guests cost less for the host than a dinner party. On top of that, it was cost-effective in satisying the hosted. Of course, this can only happen when we refuse to respect women. Any such practices mentioned should never be allowed. Seemingly, all these men are ordinary, hardworking company employees who while back home are good husbands and fathers. Yet these same men- once they leave Japan- get utterly obsessed with women from morning until night. Their change is dreadful. During World War II in this country, Japan violated the dignity of the people and took their lives with rifles and bayonets. The environment was destroyed through the destruction of war. Today, Japan is determined to put that country under its control again- this time with Yen and technology. Truth behind deserting businesses There is no doubt that the labor force of that country is of good quality and yet cheap at the same time. Recent statistics show that the wages of ordinary factory workers are still less than one tenth of the national average of the Japanese workers in the same category. The labor scene could even be worse in the countryside. We must look seriously at the injustice of delegating the simple manual work to the host country while the major jobs are done in Japan. In recent years from certain Asian regions, voices are being raised in protest against such exploitative practice by Japanese businesses. It must be our humble duty to listen to these voices and be accountable for what they have to say. I have also worked in another country, again as ain in-house dispatcher from Japan. When I arrived, the host country had been doing quite well in terms of its national revenue, owing to oil exports. By then a number of American and European businesses had already established themselves well in that oil land, which also promoted industrialization as a national policy. As time elapsed, an external debt crisis surfaced which was faithfully followed by gradual yet steady waves of desertion on the part of Japanese firms. When I was on that wave myself, I came to discover the racial discrimination and biases I had within me toward some people. This personal experience, or the pains of it to be exact, still haunts me to this day. Truly regrettable is the usual strategy of Japanese businesses to retreat from a country once the region faills into the pits of foreign debts. The actual goal of developing countries is not to rely on imports, but to domestically supply a finished product to the best of their ability. This becomes a national policy and mandate. In reality, however, no Asian countries, with only a few exceptions, have yet to succeed in such an endeavor. Possible reasons for the failure to achieve complete independence in industrialization projects could be as follows: 1) Initial royalities must be paid at the time of entering into a contract of technical assistance. Since royalty payments are to be made on a product-to-product basis, the total means a great deal of money. 2) Continuing royalties must be paid with every individual product that is manufactured locally. 3) Facilities and equipment must be those of the designated makers and be imported through designated channels as well. In the costs of the manufactured products, the profit for the provider of the technology is included. 4) Major parts must be imported from the technology-providing country and the parts contribute toward the provider's profits. 5) Supplemental parts and spare parts are required in stock and are very costly. 6) As to major parts, no technology transfer information is shared. The cost of the major parts cuts into the final products rather heavily proportion-wise. As to local procurement of parts and materials, there are cases where in the end only packaging materials were needed from the host country after all. 7) Due to possible risk factors calculated into production, the selling price for the developing countries is sometimes set slightly higher than that for European and American market. 8) All of the expenses for the Japanese overseas workers are expected to be provided by the receiver of the technological assistance (i.e. travel expense, salary, exclusive housing, luxury car with chauffeur, housemaid, cook and security guard to mention the minimum requirements). People's resolution to be made now in Japan Given the aforementioned situation, there is no possibility that any industrialization efforts will be successful or profitable for the host countries. As external debt crises arise, the International Monetary Fund and/or the World Bank begin to draw up measures for their own action. These international financial organizations usually tell local governments to fulfill the following requirements: 1) cut back on the national budget 2) devaluation of currency 3) reduction of imports These requirements place an immediate strain on the life of the people at large. A budget cutback would directly affect various social welfare programs, a devaluation would trigger expansive disturbances with the local currency needed for foreign payments, and restrictions on imports would cause a sharp increase in the price of all commodities. This is the best scenario to further worsen the people's well-being. What is at work here may be described as a frame-up to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Prosperity for the west and Japan through business expansion in developing countries is eloquent evidence of the fact that they, the very member states to the IMF and the World Bank, have already gained more than enough profits, clearly more than their share. One magazine recently reported that the external debt of the developing countries has increased more than 9% above last year's level (1995-1996), and that the increase was particularly noticeable among Asian countries. Of the creditors, according to the report, Japan stands first by claiming 13.8% of the total, out of which 72% falls under the category of loans to Asian neighbors. I have already stated that Japan inflicted tremendous sufferings upon present Asian business partners up until its World War II surrender. If Japan ever wishes to be recognized by these countries as a peaceful comrade and friend in the true sense of the word, it needs to resolve to cancel this debt entirely. Until and unless this resolution is carried through. God will never pardon Japan's sin of that war of invasion. Source: Asia Tsushin (English edition) No. 3, August 1996 Centre for Christian Response to Asian Issues National Christian Council in Japan 2-3-18 Nishi-Waseda, Room 25 Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169, Japan From daga at HK.Super.NET Wed Oct 9 00:28:14 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 23:28:14 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 143] The APEC Villas: Magnificence By the Bay for 18 Heads Of State Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961008232243.0a6faf22@is1.hk.super.net> by Jojo A. Robles 29 September 1996 (Sunday Times Magazine sneaks a peek at the Triboa Bay Estates, home-for-a-day to APEC's 18 heads of state. Builders are pulling out all the stops to make it the toniest address ever in the whole archipelago.) In a secluded cove tucked into one corner of Subic Bay, in the heretofore uninhabited side where the crystal-clear, fish-laden sea washes the roots of the Elysian virgin forests of the former US naval base, thousands of workmen labor day and night to put the finishing touches on 21 ultra-luxurious homes. The workers come from all over the Philippines, proud masters of their crafts of masonry, carpentry, plumbing, and landscaping, a virtual army of skilled labor, the best to be found hereabouts. Earth-moving machinery rumble along over a nearly-finished pathway which leads from the highway above to the houses, competing for attention with the incessant hammering, sanding, and other workmanlike noises in the otherwise idyllic setting of forest and sea. To one side of the compound, on a natural incline below the highway, landscapers are laying down what appears to be a ground-level trellis, where ornamental plants will be individually planted. As for the houses themselves, no two are exactly alike, even if they are obviously thematically united. The tile roofs, ornamental metalwork, French windows, and concrete filigreed arches they have in common all proclaim "Mediterranean." Strangely, one villa has a semi-circular, glass-enclosed facade in the middle of two wings extending outward. Just like a scaled-down White House, if the US President's residence had been designed in southern France or Spain. Sitting behind the wheel of his Pajero, William Cu Unjieng, the man who dreamed up what is sure to become the country's most exclusive residential enclave, is content. "To think that a lot of people thought it just couldn't be done, under the circumstances," he muses. Cu Unjieng still goes to the site everyday, even if, as head of one half of the contracting company which is building the villas, he can afford to merely delegate. "I have to be here because I don't want to take any chances," he says in his soft-spoken manner. "You can't take any chances when you're going to play host for 18 heads of state." But one senses that part of the reason Cu Unjieng visits the villas each day is because he just loves to look at his handiwork. In conversation, his pride in his houses definitely shows. "You will probably find houses as nice as these in Forbes Park," he says. "But 21 of them side by side? I don't think so. And look at that view on the other side of the water. It's just so beautiful." The view directly behind the villas is indeed magnificent. The placid water is broken only by the slightest of ripples, which end at the feet of some of the densest (and rarest) stands of trees anywhere, rising gently on a slope. Somehow, "beautiful" doesn't do justice to the sight. If you've never heard of Triboa Bay Estates, don't worry. You will soon. Right now, what promises to be the toniest address, bar none, in the entire archipelago is collectively known as the APEC Villas, the home-for-a-day of the 18 heads of state who will descend on Subic Bay for the leaders' summit of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation in late November. The clubhouse of 21 houses and a clubhouse on the shores of the cove known as Triboa Bay in the former Subic Naval Base in Zambales is by far the most ambitious luxury housing project in the country. And that's saying a lot, in a country experiencing its biggest building boom since the days of Imelda Marcos' "edifice complex," when the First Lady seemed to be putting up one gigantic structure a month. So the villas are exclusive and definitely expensive. But while they may look no different on the outside from the showcase homes of the rich, in say, Acropolis or Dasmarinas, the Triboa houses are in a class of their own. "A house is a house is a house," says Cu Unjieng. "But these are unlike anything ever built here. For one thing, they are absolutely fireproof." Cu Unjieng explains that as a security measure, everything in the villas- even the wooden doors and panels, the deep pile carpets, the heavy cloth table napkins, and even the pillow cases and bedsheets- have been chemically treated to resist burning. "Having a fire in the house is the last thing a visiting head of state- or the eventual house-buyer- should be worried about," the builder says. For another thing, everything in the house, except for the concrete, the steel, and the aggregates, are imported from the most prestigious suppliers around the world. The marble and the tiles are Italian, the high-tech appliances and furniture American, the wood Australian, the crystal and china French, and the plumbing solid-copper ("they last forever") German. First class, all the way, became the villa builder's mantra. What makes the Triboa project even more amazing is the timetable for its completion, which Cu Unjieng has stuck to religiously. We first talked about this project with my partner, Edwin Roceles, in December," he says. "We broke ground in January amd we have to deliver the houses by the end of October. Now we are down to the final 10 percent, which are the interiors and the landscaping. It was a project no other builder would touch. At first, President Fidel Ramos and Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority chairman Richard Gordon wanted to bid out the contract, but there were no takers, Cu Unjieng recalls. It was Gordon who enlisted Roceles, whose Invest Builders Corp. joined forces with Cu Unjieng's Financial Building Corp. to build the villas. The first thing the partners did, naturally, was to assemble the architects to design the homes, They eventually settled on four- Danny Bunag, Roger Villarosa (last year's Architect of the Year winner), Manuel Minano, and Jeffrey Long- all acknowledged names in their field. "The timetable was so strict and the requirements were so daunting," says Cu Unjieng, whose FBC built the PCI Bank Towers in Makati, among many landmarks. "But we took it on because it was such a challenge. And also, the idea that we were doing something for the country, to showcase it before 18 heads of state." If it was the challenge that attracted Roceles and Cu Unjieng, the project did not disappoint them. By the time the ground was prepared for construction, it was already the end of February. "One whole month was consumed just to remove the seven magazines on the 11 hectares beachfront land set aside for the houses," the builder recalls. "And then, that took a lot of ingenuity." The magazines in question are not the published variety, but the armored, ground-level bunkers which dot the naval reservation and serve as camouflaged storehouses for US Navy ammunition. Designed like small, concrete-and-steel hangars, the magazines were built to withstand 1,000-pound bombs launched from the air by enemy aircraft. Tearing them apart required a lot of homegrown Filipino resourcefulness. And Cu Unjieng figures he can make a tidy sum out of the experience in the bargain. "it's a good thing we have a genuis engineer who figured out how to do it," he says. "Now we have developed the technology and the others will come to ask how we did it. As you know, there are so many of these magazines all over the base." The demolition of the ammunition magazines was such a time-consuming task that actual construction began only in March, according to Cu Unjieng. Then there was the manpower required by such a deadline-conscious project. "We had to get craftsmen from all over the country because there were not enough of the skilled workers that we required in Olongapo and nearby areas," Cu Unjieng says. "That made us, at one time, the biggest employer in all of Subic. Once we had 4,000 workers in two shifts, most of whom we had to house and feed. Our food budget alone for the project reached Pesos 20 million." But Cu Unjieng, who has spent most of the last 10 years of his 30-year career as a builder putting up houses and structures in Florida in the US and in the Middle East, says no better workmen can be found anywhere else. "I've never seen better workers, as far as skill is concerned," he says. "The project is truly a showcase of the best in Filipino talent and ability." God, Goethe once said, is in the details. Inside the Triboa villas, the details are nothing short of heavenly. The basic villa is a two-level affair, with three upstairs bedrooms and a downstairs study, plus a big living room and a kitchen, maids' and drivers' quarters, and a garage. The six-by-eight meter master's bedroom takes up one corner upstairs, with two sides given over to large windows looking out into Triboa Bay. It features a large walk-in dressing room which leads out to an ensuite bathroom with an upraised metal tub. A cleverly designed service passageway allows maids to go upstairs from the kitchen to the bedrooms, eliminating the spectacle of househelp crossing the living room to attend to guests above. Downstairs, the study opens out into the beach below through large doorways. Each house is surrounded by a completely landscaped 550-to-600 square-meter property, which is connected by walkways to the other yards and houses. Italian marble (at Pesos 7,000 per square meter "more expensive than land in Paranaque," says Cu Unjieng) is liberally used in the foyers and downstairs living areas. All houses will be wired to a fiber-optic communications facility and centralized air-conditioning comes standard. "You have to have basically the same amenities and features, even if no two houses are the same," Cu Unjieng says. "That way, no head of state can say that he has been given less luxurious quarters, even if they are only going to stay for a short time. They can be touchy about such things." The houses, he adds, have been designed not as vacation homes but for year-round living. "We want people to live here," Cu Unjieng explains. "And when they arrive, they only have to bring a toothbrush." That's because the houses are fully furnished, down to the last dessert spoon and spare down pillow with matching pillow cases. The interiors and furnishings were all supplied by Beacon Hill, "the top supplier of luxury furnishings in the United States," the builder says. Another innovation in the project, Cu Unjieng says, is a "housebreaking" period which he has devised to ensure that everything in the houses work before they are used by the heads of state. "I intend to invite groups of people- complete with their own household staff- to live in the houses after they are completed before the APEC meeting starts," he explains. "They will give me reports on each house, so that we will know if every switch and faucet works. We can't have President Clinton opening a hot-water faucet and getting cold water instead." Outside, a floating crane will soon start clearing the rocks from the beach, making it safe for swimming and watersports. Near one side of the compound, pay loaders are digging up a diversion to a creek which cuts through part of the property before pouring into the sea. On the side of the enclave nearest to the highway, a metal-supported glass dome is about to be placed on top of a circular clubhouse, to be used eventually for functions and parties by members, who will include less-privileged mortals who are unable to buy any of the 21 houses but who will be fortunate enough (and wealthy enough) to be sold shares to the Triboa Bay Estates country club. Apart from getting to see the villas up close, club members can use the equestrian and watersports facilities, the number-eight-shaped pool, the gym, spa, ballroom, function rooms, competition-grade air-conditioned badminton stadium, and the country's first international-standard grass-surface tennis court. Of course, only a very lucky few can get to live in the villas themselves. There is no mystery to building 21 villas when only 18 heads of state of the APEC member-countries are arriving. "We have been told that some head-of-state delegations will require more than one house," Cu Unjieng says. "We built 21 to be on the safe side." The Sultan of Brunei, for instance, always travels to state affairs with his brother, who requires accomodations equally luxurious as those provided his head-of-state sibling. Cu Unjieng laughs when asked if Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary (who have promised to arrive regardless of the results of the November US presidential elections) will stay in the White House-lookalike villa. "That's what everybody says, but, frankly, I don't know which head of state gets what house," he says. "I assume that they have already been assigned, but the APEC people are not telling anyone." The villas will be sold after the APEC summit, of course. "That's how I will make money out of the project," Cu Unjieng says. House-buyers get 50-year leases on the property, which is owned by the government and is not for sale. No prices have been set yet, the builder says. "Anyway, prices will be different from house to house," he explains. "That's because even if they are similar, the work and materials that went into them vary." In one design, he notes, "the trusses alone cost us Pesos 1.6 million already." As for buyers, Cu Unjieng happily reports that there is no shortage of people interested in buying the villas after the APEC meet ends. "We'll probably have to hold a lottery, there are so many reservations," he says. "But everyone is welcome to make a reservation- with no guarantees, of course." But there was one reservation that Cu Unjieng turned down flat. "One big company wanted to buy five villas," he says. "I said no because I don't want them turned into staff houses." Many of the country's richest persons are offering to buy the villas, Cu Unjieng says. Of course, he will not disclose their names. "They love their privacy," he notes. One particular villa, however, is not for sale at any price, says the proud builder. "I have already picked that one out, and it is the one for me," he says, as he leans on a concrete frame where a sliding door will soon be installed. "I feel I owe it to myself and my family to live here. More than everything I've done, this project will be my personal monument. And soon it will also be a part of our nation's history." The satisfied smile returns to William Cu Unjieng's face as he looks beyond the houses he built into the placid sea and the forest further off. "Isn't that view worth it?" he asks again. From aditjond at psychology.newcastle.edu.au Wed Oct 9 01:15:24 1996 From: aditjond at psychology.newcastle.edu.au (George J. Aditjondro by way of daga ) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 00:15:24 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 144] apcet, apec, sticks & carrots Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961009000952.1d57b832@is1.hk.super.net> Pre script: There are some minor changes in the article, compared to the one I sent earlier, namely that the Jakarta regime has tried to bribe its supporters and/or opponents in all the five continents. I made this change, after reading the complete William Safire Op-Ed essay in the NYT, copied by Charles Scheiner on KDP-net, today, Oct 8, 1996. Please be alerted. Thank you, GJA I am sending you a copy of my revised 'stick-and-carrot' article, which has not yet been published in the Nation (they have already published two articles of mine in a month's time). If it is not going to be published in the Nation, can you find a newspaper, magazine or journal which can publish it, hopefully in Malaysia and/or the Philippines, so that this piece of research can serve its purpose to attack Jakarta's barbarous international diplomacy -- and add some ammo to the ET solidarity movement as well? Getting it published in Malaysia and/or the Philippines, prior to Apcet2 and the APEC meeting seems to be important, since I suspect, that Jakarta is currently, behind the scenes, already working to put pressure on KL and Manila, to ban Apec2 as well as the parallel NGO-Apec conference. Or, to set up a black-list of individuals who would not be allowed to enter Kuala Lumpur and Manila, as has been the case in the first Apcet and the consequent Bangkok NGO conference, where Jose was kicked out from the country. So, this article can alert our friends in KL and Manila on what to expect -- or, deter the Indonesian government from doing the things they did in Manila and Bangkok two years ago. While waiting for your reply, I remain your companhero de luta! George ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Article for the Nation, Bangkok, Jakarta's sticks and carrots in dealing with its international East Timor diplomacy George J. Aditjondro THE crackdown on the pro-democracy movement in Indonesia has triggered numerous demonstrations all over the world by local human rights activists as well as Indonesian, West Papuan and East Timorese refugees. These public protests have now also been joined by Burmese pro-democracy activists, who are unhappy with Jakarta's support for to the Slorc's acceptance into ASEAN. These protests seem to attract increasingly more 'impolite' responses from the Indonesian diplomatic corps. It seems that the brutal 'in-house' behaviour of the Indonesian insecurity apparatus has "rubbed off" to Indonesian diplomats overseas. Or, it may also indicate the depth of military involvement in Indonesia's diplomatic corps, a major source of headache to Indonesia's Foreign Minister, Ali Alatas, a seasoned civilian diplomat, whose dreams to become the next UN Secretary General was shattered by the Nov 12, 1991 Dili massacre. In the last six months, harrassments of demonstrators by Indonesian diplomats -- in and outside Indonesian diplomatic compounds -- have been reported three times from Australia (Darwin, August 17, 1996; Canberra, April and September 14, 1996), and once from Hong Kong (August 29, 1996). In Darwin, two young Australian women, Sally-An and Jess, were harrassed at the Indonesian consulate, when they tried to deliver the petition from the AFFET (Australian Friends for a Free East Timor) to the Indonesian consul. As they tried to leave the consulate, two Indonesian man rushed out to the two small women and began to hit, kick, and punch them. Adding insult to injury, after this unfriendly diplomatic encounter, the two female human rights activists were still treated as criminals by the Australian police. They had to spend four hours of questioning, accompanied by the usual treatment of criminals (such as finger printing, their photos taken). Before they were released, to the chagrin of the police officers present, they insisted on laying complaints against the Indonesian consulate staff who had assaulted them. Both women suffered trauma as result of the assault, and both had bruises on their legs as a result of the kicks they received, plus some bruising on their arms. The Indonesian consulate, obviously, denied that they had mistreated the two activists, and accused them instead of trying to lower the Indonesian red-and-white flag in the diplomatic compound. This accusation has already been denied by the AFFET activists earlier, in their press release on the internet, two days earlier. Likewise, in Hong Kong, Lina P. Cabaero, an activist from the Asian Students' Association (ASA) was harrassed by a male staff of the Indonesian consulate general, when she tried to deliver the demonstrators' statement to the Consul General. Apart from that, several staffpersons from the Indonesian consulate tried to obstruct the demonstration, by repeatedly taking close-up pictures of the protestors. A surveillance tactic, which the Indonesian consulate in Perth, West Australia, has also been carried out during demonstrations of the Friends of East Timor (FOET), until FOET's complaints to the Australian Special Branch prompted a visit by the police to the consulate, asking them to quit their undemocratic practices on Australian territory. In a rather more 'milder' way yet still politically intimidating, the Indonesian Embassy in Canberra has twice this year refused to take part in public events, where East Timorese supporters also took part. In both cases, the Australian organisers of those events yielded to the pressure from the Indonesian diplomats, at the cost of the East Timor supporters -- and their cause, of course. In April 1976, the East Timor Relief Association (ETRA) was prevented from exhibiting at the National Folk Festifal in Canberra, because the organisers wished to protect "Indonesian sensitivies." This happened again at the ACT (Australian Capital Territory) Social Education Association Expo, only last month (Sept 14, 1996). Although ETRA had permission to exhibit at the expo, but because the Indonesian Embassy objected and threatened to pull out, consequently the East Timor supporters were asked to withdraw "graciously," which they refused to do. The Embassy staff, true to their threat, removed their exhibit (Letter to the Editor by Gareth W.R. Smith inCanberra Times , Sept 17, 1996). Refusing to co-exist with East Timorese and their supporters, even in international business, cultural and sport events, also seems to become a more popular tactic of the Indonesian diplomatic corps. In Maputo, Mozambique, Indonesia's ambassador to Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Swaziland, recently issued another unsophisticated attack on human rights activists in that African country, which has provided refuge for many East Timorese activists. In a statement released by the Indonesian official newsagency, Ambassador Sutedja Kartawidjaja said that "Ramos Horta and Mar'ie Alkatiri followers" had tried to disturb an Indonesian trade exhibition in Maputo. According to him, that attempt was not successful, and will not occur again, "because the local security apparatus have promised that they will take tough actions against them, including threatening them to shoot them on sight and kick them out of Mozambique." So said the ambassador on the phone to Antara from Harare, on Sept 3, 1996. It is hard to believe that the Mozambiquean authorities, who have provided sanctuary for the East Timorese refugees for more than two decadess, and have constantly opposed Indonesia's occupation of East Timor in the UN, did indeed made such blatant promise to the Indonesian ambassador. Nevertheless, the very fact that the Indonesian diplomat could make such a statement through the official news agency is in itself a major diplomatic scandal. That public statement indicates an increasingly higher degree of desparation of the Indonesian diplomatic corps, an increasingly higher level of penetration of Indonesia's military into the civilian diplomatic corps. Or, simply an inspiration from the "tough actions" taken against the PDI activists in Jakarta on that bloody Saturday of July 27, 1996. A similar desperation was shown, again by the Indonesian consulate general in Hong Kong, when a Hong Kong-based Portuguese soccer player, Pedro Xavier, was denied an entry visa to take part in an international soccer match in Indonesia. Xavier's South China team was going to play an Indonesian team in Bandung on Sept 19, 1996, in the Asian Cup competition. The manager of South China soccer team, Lee Yun-Wah, who was born in Macau and holds a Portuguese passport, was also prohibited to travel with his team to Indonesia because of the visa problem (Lusa , Sept 19, 1996). Ironically, in another international sports event, Indonesian athletes could not avoid playing Portuguese athletes, who openly expressed their support for East Timor. This happened in Yerevan, Armenia, during the 13-th Chess Olympiade on Sept 30, when two Portuguese athletes, Tania Saraiva and Aida Ferreira, faced their Indonesian counterparts, Upi Tamin and Lisa Lumongdong, on the chess boards, wearing black arm bands with "East Timor" in big letters on their upper arms. According to the Indonesian news agency, Antara , the two Indonesian athletes won the game, although they were strongly annoyed by the pro-East Timor symbols worn by their Portuguese competitors. That, in itself, was a double irony, considering the fact that both teams were playing in the territory of a nation, Armenia, whose independence has been denied by its two powerful neighbours, Russia and Turkey, who have both been guilty of horrendous massacres of the Armenian people. (end part 1) *** From aditjond at psychology.newcastle.edu.au Wed Oct 9 01:16:01 1996 From: aditjond at psychology.newcastle.edu.au (George J. Aditjondro by way of daga ) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 00:16:01 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 145] apcet, apec, sticks & carrots, part 2 Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961009001029.2ec7ad36@is1.hk.super.net> *** SO much for the sticks in Jakarta's East Timor diplomacy. What about the carrots it has used to deal with its international critics? As far as I have been able to discover from my library research, Indonesian diplomats and other members of the Jakarta ruling elite have repeatedly used financial and other material means to seduce their critics and reward their supporters, in all the five continents -- in America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia. Indonesia's former ambassador to the Netherlands, Ret. General Alamsyah, once bragged in an Indonesian newspaper, how he seduced the president of an unnamed state, to cease his support for the outlawed South Moluccan Republic (RMS). When this RMS-supporter was visiting the Netherlands, Alamsyah presented him with pieces of silver wrapped in fine batik from Java, with the request to detain the RMS leader who was residing in his country. According to Alamsyah, that bribe had done the trick, and he suggested that Indonesia should also not hesitate to bribe the US Senators, who had put pressure on Indonesia after the November 12, 1991 Dili massacre. This report in the Indonesian daily, Pikiran Rakyat, of Dec 7, 1991, did not specify which head of state was bribed, for an insulting cheap price, by Alamsyah. However, from researching South Moluccan politics one can know that only Benin (formerly Dahomey) had at one stage officially recognized three Indo-Melanesian independence movements -- the South Moluccas, West Papua, and East Timor. Another West African country, Senegal, had only supported the West Papuans with an embassy in Dakar, while the Lusophone countries, Angola, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau, Cabo Verde, and Sao Tome e Principe, have only supported -- and are still supporting -- East Timor. In mid 1987, the then Indonesian defense minister General Benny Murdani "contributed" US$ 139,000 to Ret. General Ted Diro, former PNG defense minister and forestry minister in Paias Wingti's cabinet, to assist Diro's People's Action Party's election campaign. The exposure of this bribe -- and many others in the forestry sector -- ended Diro's political career (The Bulletin , June 23, 1992, pages 28-30). Earlier this year, the Australian media publicised the close business partnership of Victorian Labour Left politician Gerry Hand, with the Indonesian Christmas Island casino baron, Robby Sumampouw. This Indonesian businessman has profitted tremendously from his more than long association with General Benny Murdani and President Suharto's youngest son, Tommy Suharto (Tony Wright, "How Labor's Gerry Hand hit the jackpot in Jakarta," Sydney Morning Herald, Dec 30, 1995; George Aditjondro, "Man with the right mates," West Australian, Jan 3, 1996; David Jenkins, "Mr. Robby's biggest bet," Sydney Morning Herald, March 30, 1996; Lindsay Murdoch, "Mr Robby's world, " The Melbourne Age, Feb 22, 1996). Then, the third diplomatic carrot in the South Pacific region was a shady business deal between a company owned by the Suharto family, PT Harapan Insani, with a Vanuatu-registered company, Dragon Bank, owned by a Malaysian Chinese. Harapan Insani itself is directed by Ibnu Widoyo, a brother-in-law of President Suharto. With funds channelled through this mysterious bank, Harapan Insani was supposed to build a 101-storey telecommunication tower, an "Eiffel Tower of the East" in Jakarta, worth US$ 8 billion, plus a US$ 80 billion tourist resort on Langkawi Island in Malaysia. The Vanuatu connection enjoyed the full blessing of Vanuatu's Reserve Bank Governor and finance department secretary, Barak Sope, while the Langkawi mega-project had the blessing of Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir as well. Both schemes collapsed when the Dragon Bank branch in Jakarta could not honour its committments with the Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) and the Hongkong Bank branch in Jakarta. Eventually, after this scandal broke out in the media, the Indonesian government cancelled the operating permit of this mysterious bank, while Ibnu Widoyo had to face police interrogations in Jakarta. This case, which smells of money laundering, might not just stop in Jakarta, where Ibnu Widoyo's powerful brother-in-law still rules the country. The Australian government is currently investigating a possible fraud of US$ 100 million in Vanuatu Government bonds, involving an Australian citizen and the mysterious Dragon Bank (Sydney Morning Herald, June 18 and July 30, 1996; Economic and Business Review Indonesia, June 26, 1996; Neraca, July 18, 1996). What have all those three South Pacific scandals in common? They all involved local politicians, -- Ted Diro, Gerry Hand, and Barak Sope --, who were once known to support the West Papuan and East Timorese independence struggles. Another important businessperson-cum-diplomat who has worked hard to counter the international East Timor solidarity movement is Siti Hardiyanti Rukmana, also known as Tutut, the eldest daughter of President Suharto. Apart from controlling a large business empire, Citra Lamtoro Persada (CLP) Group, she is also a chairperson of Indonesia's ruling party, Golkar, and heads a number of charities as well as an Indonesian-Portuguese friendship association. She only befriends, however, Portuguese and East Timorese who support Indonesia's occupation of East Timor. These friends can thereby enjoy preferential business deals with Indonesia. Three East Timorese 'friends', who have enjoyed her patronage are Abilio Araujo, who lives in Portugal, the late Jose Martins, who also lived in Portugal, and Manuel Tilman, who lives in Macao. Interestingly, they were all at some stage East Timorese freedom fighters, or had at least attacked Indonesia's policy publicly. Abilio Araujo was even a Marxist who was one of the ideologues of Fretilin, the radical pro-independence party in East Timor. And the late Jose Martins, although he once joined the Indonesian side by signing the pro-integration declaration in Bali, two days after Fretilin's unilateral declaration of independence (UDI), later exposed the role of the military's intelligence apparatus in orchestrating that Bali declaration, at the UN headquarters in New York. Recently, representatives of the East Timor diplomatic front have met South African president Nelson Mandela in Johannesburg, presenting the anti-apartheid veteran with a letter from the jailed East Timor leader, Xanana Gusmao. They asked Mandela to use his charisma as a statesman of global fame to support the East Timor independence struggle, in return for the support with the two largest Lusophone countries in Africa, Mozambique and Angola, had rendered to Mandela's African National Congress (ANC) during his anti-apartheid struggle. Unfortunately, Mandela might not be the right person to ask that favour, since an ANC-affiliated fund raising agency, the Foundation for Peace and Justice, had suffered huge losses in a sanction-busting US$ 40 million bungled bank loan that also leads to the doorstep of President Suharto. That loan, which had been invested in two lucrative business projects in London and the Cape Peninsula, were provided by an Indonesian bank, Bank Putera Sukapura (Weekly Mail and Guardian, May 8, 1995, on Apakabar internet service, May 9, 1995). As the 1991 report of Indonesia's top 300 business groups published by the consultancy firm, PT CISI Raya Utama, shows on pages 198-199, this bank was owned, among others, by two important Indonesian ladies. One was President Suharto's second daughter, Siti Hediati Heriadi Prabowo, wife of Mayor General Prabowo Subianto, commander of the Army special force, Kopassus, and the other one was Elsye Anneke Ratnawati Harjoyudanto, the wife of Suharto's eldest son, Sigit Harjoyudanto. Only early last year, on Feb 22, 1995, the Suharto family decided to sell the bank to the top Indian-Indonesian textile baron, Marimutu Sinivasan, head of the Texmaco Group. Under its new owners, the bank was officially renamed, Bank Putera Multikarsa, or BPM (Swasembada, Oct 1995, page 135; Warta Ekonomi, May 27, 1996, pages 96-97). Hence, Mandela's visit to Jakarta, two years ago, could also be seen as a business meeting between a client and his banker, not merely as a political meeting between the African leader and the head of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Finally, we also have to take the diplomatic effect of Indonesian conglomerates investing overseas into consideration. Since conglomerates owned by Suharto's family and cronies as well as state companies headed by Suharto's cronies have aggressively expanded their overseas markets, some governments which initially supported East Timor's right to self-determination have now changed their votes in the UN. China and Vietnam, for instance, were among the countries which recognized the aborted "Democratic Republic of East Timor", declared on November 28, 1975, and also voted against Indonesia in various UN forums. However, since Indonesian conglomerates owned by the Suharto family and their cronies began to invest in China and Vietnam, these two socialist countries have began to tow the Indonesian line in the UN. This 'diplomatic effect' of Indonesian conglomerates may also explain the official US government's line to render de facto recognition of Indonesia's occupation of East Timor. For instance, the Ryadi family who own the majority shares in the Lippo Group, have a long standing friendship with the Clinton family, and had contributed to Clinton's governorial campaign as well as his 1992 and current presidential campaigns. During the hearings of the Senate Special Committee on Whitewater, it emerged that Webster Hubbel, a former law partner in Hillary Clinton's law firm in Arkansas and former associate attorney-general in the Clinton Administration, had received a retainer from the Lippo Group during the 18 months between resigning as associate general and going to jail to serve a two-years sentence for fraud. On top of that, a Lippo employee, John Huang, who had handled the US$ 200,000 'donation' from the Riyadis for Clinton's presidential campaign fund, had even been appointed as a staff for the deceased Secretary of Trade, Ron, Brown. The Riyadi family were indeed no strangers in Little Rock, Arkansas. Together with the family of Jackson Stephens, a large Arkansas businessman and Clinton backer, they are part-owners of the Worthen Bank. The Riyadis also have joint business ventures with the Stephens in Hong Kong (Wall Street Journal, March 1, 1996; Australian Financial Review, Sept 17, 1996; William Safire, "The Asian connection, " The New York Times, Oct 7, 1996). Therefore, it is understandable that President Clinton refused to meet the 29 youngEast Timorese who camped in the US Embassy in Jakarta during the 1994 APEC. Likewise, the choice of Indonesia's aircraft industry, IPTN, to locate its branch company in Alabama is closely connected with the seat of the head of the appropriation committee in the US Senate. This aircraft industry is one of the ten state companies headed by President Suharto's most trusted minister, Dr Rudy Habibie. The minister's younger brother, Fanny Habibie, has also supported Tutut's East Timor diplomacy from his post as Indonesia's ambassador for the UK and Ireland. Two meetings between the pro-independence and pro-Indonesian Timorese took place in London, brokered by Fanny Habibie and Mbak Tutut. *** WITH all these developments in mind, one has to realize that the international East Timor solidarity movement is facing an increasingly tougher battlefield. This is all the more a reason to combine economic pressure with political pressure, just like the Jakarta regime has done, by targeting Indonesian businesses overseas as well as Indonesian diplomatic units. In response to the stick and carrot diplomacy of the Suharto regime, East Timor activists and their supporters should more actively picket the branch offices of Indonesian state and private business offices, factories, and showrooms, and organize massive consumer boycotts of Indonesian products, marketed overseas by companies owned by the Suharto clan and their cronies. Therefore, it is a big bonus to the East Timor solidarity movement and their Indonesian comrades to learn about the Sept 18, decision of the Maritime Union of Australia to ban Indonesian ships transporting Australian wheat to the Suharto-family owned Bogasari flour mills in Java. This is a replay of a similar ban which lasted for three years from the end of 1975 until the end of 1977, in protest against the illegal occupation of East Timor by the Indonesian military. Hopefully, more similar actions will be declared by other labour, environment, and human rights movements, world wide. Newcastle, October 8, 1996 From alarm at HK.Super.NET Wed Oct 9 02:04:24 1996 From: alarm at HK.Super.NET (Rex Varona) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 01:04:24 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 146] APEC Labour Rights Monitor (ALARM) Update issue no. 6 Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961009005853.2f877fce@is1.hk.super.net> ALARM UPDATE (APEC Labour Rights Monitor) Issue No. 6 - online version Confidential APEC "Action Plans" Exposed In an unprecedented move in the campaign against the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), organisers of the 1996 Manila People's Forum on APEC (MPFA 96) released this month the full text of the confidential "individual action plans" (IAPs) of the 18 APEC member countries. Dr. Walden Bello, chair of the International Convenors' Committee of MPFA, revealed in a press conference in Manila on 11 September, and again in Hong Kong on the 14th, that the 1,500+ pages of the IAPs are critical documents which outline the 18 governments' trade and investment liberalisation plan until the year 2020. The APEC governments declared after their 7th summit in Osaka in 1995 that liberalisation must be carried out "voluntarily, flexibly, and in a non-binding fashion". However, the US and Australia, which are "dead serious" in implementing their own agenda of making APEC a free trade area (ala NAFTA), have, according to Bello, consistently pressured the other governments to commit to trade and investment liberalization which is "collective, comparable, and most of all, binding". "In subverting Osaka, [the US] has: demanded the submission of 'solid, comprehensive and detailed liberalization plans'; and pressured the Philippine government, as host, to take the lead in making these 'solid and comparable' action plans," said Bello. The plan of the US government is to use these IAPs: as yardsticks in pressuring and implementation of their liberalisation commitments; and as the basis of a future free trade treaty like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Philippine Hosting Committee of MPFA 96 said that APEC governments drafted these documents without democratic consultation -- no public hearings, no referenda or consultations. Even the legislative bodies of the 18 APEC countries have not seen these IAPs. Yet, they have been submitted to APEC as the draft of each government's position on trade and investment liberalisation. They are not supposed to be released until after the November 1996 APEC Summit in Subic, Philippines. Migrant Workers Challenging Global Structures Conference Statement We are 105 delegates coming from 16 countries in Asia, America and Europe, representing various migrant workers' organisations, migrant support groups, trade unions, women's groups, human rights organisations and religious bodies. We have come together on 28 August to 1 September 1996 in Seoul, Korea for the international migrants workshop on "Migrant Workers Challenging Global Structures". We recognise that in Asia alone, there are an estimated 15 million migrant workers (documented and undocumented). Women migrant workers constitute an increasing percentage of this. Economic, political, socio-cultural and religious marginalisation characterise the plight of migrant workers. World domination and control by advanced capitalist interests through structural adjustment, liberalisation and deregulation programmes of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and World Trade Organisation, abetted by the collusion of governments, have resulted in poverty, unemployment and underemployment, unequal distribution of wealth within and among nations, collapse of agriculture, and the absence of peace and security in countries within the region. Advocates of globalisation argue that it hastens the transfer of skills and technology and enhances productivity and efficiency. The reality is, globalisation of economies reinforces the control of advanced capitalist interests on the less developed countries, leading to the continued marginalisation, if not disintegration, of economic and socio-cultural systems in many countries in the South. Globalisation requires the removal of trade and investment barriers to facilitate the movement of capital, investments, goods and labour across national borders. At the same time, advanced capitalist countries like the US and Japan adopt protectionist policies. We are gravely concerned that globalisation is leading to profit-driven economies that thrive on cheap and docile labour, especially of women, and societies that stress consumerism and competition. In turn, these have resulted in the erosion of human values, commodification of people (especially migrant workers), disintegration of societies, families and communities, racism, xenophobia, unsustainable lifestyles, and the degradation of the environment. Demand for cheap labour has led to subcontracting mechanisms, adoption of "trainee" schemes and increasing feminisation of migrant labour. This translates into absence of accountability of companies especially transnational corporations (TNCs), unjust wage structures, absence of economic and social security, and violence against women and migrants. The migrant workers, uprooted from their families and communities, have to work under hostile, abusive and exploitative situations, and are generally denied their right to organise and unionise. We recognise the fact that migrant workers boost and contribute to the economic growth of receiving countries, and through their remittances, help prevent the collapse of some debt-ridden countries. We reaffirm our position that migrant workers, whether documented or undocumented, have rights as workers and as human beings as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, and other international conventions. Initiatives have been taken by migrants and support groups in both sending and receiving countries in the areas of assistance to migrants, advocacy, lobbying, campaigning, networking, documentation/information and research. The challenge to migrant workers, support groups and the people is great. Globalisation gives rise to increasingly complex processes and situations. The relentless drive of the capitalists to pursue globalisation, and the governments' abdication of their responsibility to the people, make our tasks even greater. We boldly face this challenge. Therefore: We advocate cooperation among peoples and social systems which are empowering, people-oriented, and which promote sustainable life and holistic, integral human values. We reject the existing model of development promoted by IMF, WB, GATT/WTO and TNCs. We reject APEC and similar free trade and investment mechanisms or agreements. We hold governments accountable in providing decent employment for the people, and responsible for abetting the forces of globalisation. We commit ourselves to: 1. Intensify the migrants' campaign against globalisation and APEC 2. Strengthen and support the current lobbying and campaign initiatives for the ratification of the UN Convention for the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families 3. Continue and strengthen the migrant action alert mechanism to expose blatant violations of migrants' human rights (e.g. through the Migrant Forum in Asia) 4. Undertake gender-sensitisation especially among migrants' advocates 5. Conduct a regional campaign on the issue of violence against women migrant workers 6. Declare a "Migrant Workers' Day" every year through joint actions and education programmes across the region 7. Encourage trade unions and labour movements in each country to develop a migrant workers' agenda 8. Encourage trade unions in sending and receiving countries to build linkages on migrants' concerns 9. Develop, disseminate and share education materials (manuals, etc.) on globalisation and migrants' issues 10. Work towards a common migrants' documentation system (basic data, migrants' rights violations, migrants' directory, etc.) 11. Pressure governments to provide decent employment to the people, and encourage and monitor its efforts to undertake re-integration initiatives 12. Organise migrants' savings/investment groups and alternative livelihood 13. Integrate the recommendations of this conference in our respective organisational programmes. Unanimously approved on 1 September 1996 in Seoul, Korea. Signatories 1. Asian Migrant Centre 2. Migrant Forum in Asia 3. Asian Center for Women's Human Rights 4. Christian Conference of Asia - Urban Rural Mission 5. Migration Desk, World Council of Churches 6. Catholic Institute for International Relations 7. Joint Committee of Migrant Workers in Korea, Korea 8. Citizens' Coalition for Economic Justice, Korea 9. International Organisation for Migration, Korea 10. Christian Centre for Foreign Labour, Korea 11. Foreign Workers Labour Counselling Office - Seoul Archdiocese, Korea 12. Foreign Workers Counselling Office - Inchon Diocese, Korea 13. Pusan Workers Counselling Office, Korea 14. Forum on Asia Immigrant Workers, Japan 15. Solidarity Center for Migrants, Japan 16. Asian Domestic Workers Union, Hong Kong 17. Ms. Joy de Guzman, Hong Kong 18. Hope Workers Centre, Taiwan 19. Information Centre for Labour Education, Taiwan 20. Fishermen's Service Center, Presbyterian Church in Taiwan, Taiwan 21. Migrant Workers' Concern Desk, Taiwan 22. Rev. John Van Deerlin, Apostolic Vicariate of Arabia, Qatar 23. Tenaganita, Malaysia 24. Friends of Women Foundation, Thailand 25. Women's Desk, Catholic Migration Commission, Thailand 26. Unlad Kabayan Migrant Services Foundation, Philippines 27. Network Opposed to Violence Against Women Migrants, Philippines 28. Friends of Filipino Migrant Workers (Kaibigan), Philippines 29. Center for Indonesian Migrant Workers - PMK, Indonesia 30. Yayasan Pengembangan Pedesaan, Indonesia 31. Solidaritas Perempuan, Indonesia 32. Persekutuan Gereja-gereja di Indonesia, Indonesia 33. Bombay Houseworkers Solidarity, India 34. Domestic Workers' Movement, India 35. Association for Community Development, Bangladesh 36. Agriculture Bangladesh Labour Union, Bangladesh 37. General Federation of Nepalese Trade Unions, Nepal 38. International Catholic Migration Commission, Pakistan 39. Asian Immigrant Women Advocates, USA Labour and Migrant Forum PROPOSED PROGRAMME Venue: International Institute for Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) Silang, Cavite, Philippines Date: 17 - 21 November 1996 Objectives: For workers and labour groups (especially trade unions, women, migrants) in Asia-Pacific: 1. To follow-up on initiatives/activities since the 1995 NGO Forum on APEC (Kyoto, Japan); 2.To continue to discuss and consolidate views/positions on APEC, globalisation and related freetrade initiatives; 3.To attempt to come up with a common regional position, agenda and proposals on APEC and globalisation; 4.To strengthen gender consciousness among the labour groups and integrate gender perspective in dealing with APEC and globalisation; 5. To build and strenghten labour networking in the region. Friday & Saturday, 15-16 November 1996 (Shalom Center, Manila) International Women's Conference on APEC Sunday, 17 November (International Institute for Rural Reconstruction, Cavite) Arrival and registration; expectations Introductions, general briefing, forming of committees Monday, 18 November (CALABARZON area, Cavite) Exposure to CALABARZON communities and export processing zones Dialogue with farmers and workers Tuesday, 19 November (IIRR, Cavite) 7:00- 8:00 AM Breakfast 8:30- 9:00 Opening Activities: * Invocation * Welcome and opening message * About MPFA & LMF * Summary of expectations 9:00- 9:15 Report-back: International Women's Conference on APEC 9:15- 9:45 Open forum 9:45-10:00 Coffee/tea break 10:00-12:00 Workshop I:Country reports and follow-up on Kyoto (6 workshop groups; sign-up) 12:00- 1:00 PM Lunch 1:00- 1:15 Energizer 1:15- 1:30 Solidarity appeal: Arrested toy campaigners (Hong Kong) 1:30- 2:30 Workshop I Reports 2:30- 3:30 Panel I: "Workers' Views: APEC, WTO, WB, IMF and Globalisation" Panelists: trade unionist; factory (woman), plantation, migrant workers 3:30- 4:00 Open Forum 4:00- 4:15 Coffee/tea break 4:15- 4:30 Solidarity appeal: Hong Kong Bank workers (Philippines) 4:30- 5:30 PM Panel II: "Can Social Clauses & Multilateral Instruments Protect Workers against APEC & Globalization?" Panelists: ICTFU, Korea, Philippines, India 5:30- 6:30 Open Forum 6:30- 6:45 Solidarity Appeal: Tenaganita Case (Malaysia) 6:45- 7:00 Synthesis of Day 1 (key issues) 7:00- 8:00 Dinner Socials/Solidarity Sessions Wedensday, 20 November (IIRR, Cavite) 7:00- 8:00 AM Breakfast 8:00- 8:45 Energizer 8:45- 9:00 Recap of Day 1 9:00-12:00 Workshop II: Towards a Regional Workers' Position and Strategies on APEC (6 groups; sign-up) 12:00- 1:00 PM Lunch 1:00- 1:15 Energizer 1:15- 3:15 Plenary I: Workers' Declaration on APEC (common position) *Based on Workshop II output *Drafting Committee to draft statement based on plenary discussion 3:15- 3:30 Coffee/Tea Break 3:30- 5:00 Plenary II: Workers' Declaration on APEC (strategies and action agenda) *Based on Workshop II output *Drafting Committee to make statement based on plenary discussion 5:00- 7:00 Plenary III: Workers' Declaration on APEC (final approval) *Based on statement drafted by Drafting Committee *Other Resolutions *Evaluation of the forum 7:00 Dinner Cultural & Solidarity Night Thursday, 21 November (Midtown Hotel,Manila) AM: Back to Manila PM: Exposure to picket line, workers' area or demolition site (being arranged) PM: Demonstration, embassy-hopping, hotel-hopping or press conference (being arranged) Friday & Saturday, 22-23 November (Midtown Hotel, Ermita, Manila) Manila People's Forum on APEC 1996 "Free Trade and Sustainable Development: Agenda for Regional Cooperation" Dialogue with APEC/government officials (being arranged) Sunday to Tuesday, 24-26 November (Central Luzon area; Subic) People's Caravan (Manila to Subic) Back to Manila; departure Workers' Actions and Alerts July Canada -- Around 900 members of the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) walked off their jobs and staged a strike at the Murray Park, Winnipeg facility of Boeing of Canada Ltd. Thirteen workers were arrested while others suffocated and suffered bruises after policemen sprayed them with pepper chemicals. The CAW members are battling Boeing over the Continental Work Week which means more weekend work, split days off, 12-hour days, sub-contracting, and lower pay and pension benefits. Korea -- A government-financed research institute enforced a lockout saying it could not carry out its business because of a strike. Management of the Korea Institute of Energy Research took the step after its unionized workers declared an indefinite strike. Wages and other working conditions at the institute were the major issues. August US -- About 160 unionized truck drivers of GRUMA, Southern California's largest tortilla manufacturer and the U.S. arm of the controversial Grupo Industrial Maseca, which holds a virtual monopoly of the corn flour and tortilla business in Mexico. At issue were pay, benefits, and working conditions. US -- San Francisco teetered close to a city-wide janitors' strike as hundreds of janitors walked off their jobs even as union and management negotiators tried to reach a last-minute agreement. Issues about health and safety, wages and benefits caused the dispute. US -- The Missouri Department of Labor has ruled that according to state law, the Machinists at McDonnell Douglas are eligible for unemployment compensation. Missouri law states that if during a labor dispute the amount of work stoppage is not significant -- as McDonnell's propaganda machine claimed there hasn't been -- the affected employees are eligible for unemployment compensation. September Canada -- Auto workers at Chrysler Canada averted their strike after coming up with a tentative agreement with the management. The tentative agreement gives Chrysler's workers a 2% wage increase annually over the next three years, with strong job security and an extra 10 days off each year. The agreement also restricts the prerogative of the automaker to outsource, or contract work to non-union suppliers, or to reduce the number of unionized workers at its plants. Canada -- Inco Ltd., a nickel producing firm, has shut down its operation as contract talks with its 1,327 unionised workers remain unresolved. The workers voted 71% against Inco's final offer, putting the union in a strike position. The main issues in the labor dispute are wages and shift scheduling. US -- MCI Communications has laid off several hundred employees at almost three dozen locations. The layoffs occurred in the mass markets group serving the consumer and small business markets. According to the MCI spokesperson, the layoffs were part of a "minor restructuring" intended to "serve customers as efficiently as possible". Indonesia -- The TUC is calling on British trade unions to put money towards the legal costs of two leading Indonesian trade unionists Muchtar Pakpahan and Dita Indah Sari, both from SBSI, who face possible death sentences on what are widely believed to be trumped up charges of subversion. The trial begins on Saturday, September 28, 1996. Bangladesh -- The Bangladesh garment workers agreed on an action plan to campaign for one day off per week. The National Garment Workers Federation of Bangladesh reports that garment workers work 14-16 hours/day, seven days a week. They say that if the day off is not implemented by October 1, workers will take the day off themselves from the first day in November. Aotearoa -- Japanese workers touring Aotearoa (New Zealand) joined a picket of locked out meat workers at a partly Japanese-owned meatworks. From daga at HK.Super.NET Wed Oct 9 02:10:37 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 01:10:37 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 147] from the e-conference facilitator: additional IAPs Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961009010506.2f87104e@is1.hk.super.net> IAPs for Papua New Guinea and Singapore are also now available by sending a message to . For those who cannot access the ftp server at jca.or.jp, requests for particular country IAPs can only be sent by Monday, 14 October (as I will be out of town :) mario mapanao From ejo at wcc-coe.org Wed Oct 9 22:44:54 1996 From: ejo at wcc-coe.org (Edna Orteza) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1996 14:44:54 +0100 Subject: [asia-apec 148] Personal: Mario Mapanao Message-ID: Dear Mario, a hurried request. Sometime back, in August, I received information about a communications workshop in Manila in November. Can I have full information on this and the programme? Thanks. Edna From yukihiro at klact.co.jp Thu Oct 10 00:01:34 1996 From: yukihiro at klact.co.jp (YASUDA Yukihiro) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 00:01:34 +0900 Subject: [asia-apec 149] Re: Individual Action Programs (IAPs) of the APEC 18 membereconomies In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 5 Oct 1996 15:35:47 +0800 (HKT)" References: <2.2.16.19961005153020.1f776f98@is1.hk.super.net> Message-ID: <199610091501.AAA05814@buzzy.klact.co.jp> All, I moved Individual Action Programs to JCA anonymous FTP server. You can get IAPs from: Server ftp.jca.or.jp Username anonymous Password please your e-mail address Directory /pub/doc/IAP1996 Documents *.doc (all documents are saved in Word format) We have following 18 documents in the directory now. australia.doc china.doc malaysia.doc rp.doc thaiiap.doc brunei.doc hongkong.doc mexico.doc singapore.doc us.doc canada.doc indonesia.doc newsealand.doc slidesrp.doc chile.doc japan.doc papua.doc taipeiap.doc If you have difficulty with it, feel free to contact; yukihiro@jca.or.jp. Regards, yukihiro From RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org Fri Oct 11 01:17:41 1996 From: RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org (RVerzola) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 08:17:41 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 150] urban poor relocation site in Sapang Palay Message-ID: press release October 9, 1996 BBC STAFFER BANNED FROM ENTERING SAPANG PALAY RELOCATION SITE A British Broadcasting Company (BBC) staffer was banned October 6 from the premises of the temporary relocation site in Barrio Minuyan, Sapang Palay, Bulacan. Enver Solomon, the BBC man, arrived in the country last October 3 to gather news on the APEC preparations and the government-MNLF peace negotiations for the BBC worldwide radio program. A security guard told Solomon that he was instructed not to allow media people, foreign and local, from entering the temporary relocation site in Minuyan, Sapang Palay. The National Housing Authority (NHA) personnel had told Jo Castillo, an officer of the Damayan ng Maralitang pilipinong Api (DAMPA), that they were not allowing media people to enter the temporary relocation site because they have been getting negative reports about the place. Solomon, however, was able to interview outside the camp's premises Nestor Gonzales and Emmanuel Orque, leaders of the relocated families. They told him that the place had no water and electricity for the past three days. They had to buy water or fetch it from nearby wells. There were not enough toilets. Many children have been stricken down with cholera. There were instances also of dengue fever. Most of them were hungry since work could not be found nearby. Transportation expenses to and from the place run to thirty five pesos. They said the place is getting the monicker "death zone". All this pain and deprivation they had to undergo because government wants to please the APEC delegates in the November summit. URBAN POOR ASSOCIATES contact: Chito Aguilar, Ted Anana, Lanie Francia or Joy Soriano tel/fax: 632-9202434 e-mail : UPA@phil.gn.apc.org From RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org Fri Oct 11 01:16:38 1996 From: RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org (RVerzola) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 08:16:38 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 151] APEC-DEMOLITIONS IN MANILA UPDATE - 2 Message-ID: APEC RELATED DEMOLITIONS IN MANILA: AN UPDATE President Fidel V. Ramos (FVR) Campaign to rid Metro Manila of Eyesores for the APEC meeting June 16 President Ramos launches campaign to remove "eyesores" that will affect 16,000 squatter families (or 96,000 people at the average of 6:1) residing in communities along the routes the APEC delegates will use during the upcoming November APEC meeting. June 26-27 demolitions at Del Pan. Manila City Hall demolished three hundred families but would not relocate them, saying their interpretation of the Urban Development and Housing Act (R.A. 7279) reads that people living in danger areas are not covered by the law. The demoltions were stopped when former Senator Aquilino Pimentel and SALIGAN lawyers went to court to seek an injunction from RTC Judge Concepcion Alarcion-Vergara. The judge ruled in favor of City Hall but upheld the memorandum of agreement entered into by the people and the government regarding temporary housing in Barrio Minuyan, Sapang Palay. Executive Secretary Ruben Torres and Press Secretary Hector Villanueva issued clarifications, saying the demolitions were not because of APEC. The demolitions they said were due to on-going government projects. In July some 40 families living under the Tambo Bridge were demolished. Some received P2,000 financial assistance and were allowed to transfer to nearby places (the riverbank and on the road). July 11 FVR orders Demolition Moratorium President Fidel V. Ramos met some urban poor leaders and Bishop Teodoro Bacani auxiliary bishop of Metro Manila at Malacanang Palace. He calls for a moratorium on demolitions and tells the group that he wanted to meet a more representative group of urban poor leaders in two weeks time. The list below of demolitions shows that the president's instruction was not taken seriously by other government officials. Communities Demolished 1. Damayang Lagi, Quezon City Date: July 30 and August 2, 1996 Affected Families: 3,300 families Ordered the demolition: the courts and the owner, Titan Dragon Group Land: private land relocation: none but some, not all, were given financial assistance 2. Tanglaw, Mandaluyong Date: August 2, 1996 Affected families: 18 Ordered the demolition: land owner Land: private land Relocation: none 3. Barangay Pinyahan, Quezon City Date: August 5, 1996 Affected families: 334 Demolition conducted the the Economic Intelligence Bureau Status of the land: government land Relocation: temporary relocation to Minuyan, Sapang Palay 4. Sitio Militar, Bahay Toro, Quezon City Date: first week of August Affected families: 300 ordered the demolition: local government status of the land: private relocation: none 5. Upper and Lower Hawaii, Better Living Subdivision, Paranaque Date: August 8 & 9 Affected families: 114 ordered the demolition: Better Living Homeowners Association status of the land: private relocation: none 6. Tugatog, Malabon Date: August 13, 1996 affected families: 20 ordered the demolition: land owner status of the land: private People stopped the demolition and rebuilt their shanties. 7. Muralla River, C-3, Navotas Date: August 19-20 affected families: 200 ordered the demolition: local government status of the land: government (danger zone) relocation: none 8. Del Pan, Manila date: June 26-27 affected families; 268 ordered the demolition: local government of Manila status of the land: government relocation: temporary relocation to Minuyan, Sapang Palay 9. R-10, Barangay 123, Manila date: August 19, 1996 affected families: 19 status of the land: government owned relocation: Norzagaray, Bulacan situation: four families came back from the relocation because their children were not accepted in the local school and the place is too far from the job sites. 10. Minuyan, Sapang Palay, Bulacan date: first week of September affected families: 100 ordered the demolition: National Housing Authority status of the land: government owned relocation: none situation: the families are former residents of the place for 10-20 years but were removed because the place will be used as a temporary relocation site for Metro Manila relocatees. 11. Pasay Reclamation, Pasay City date: first week of August affected families: 10 ordered the demolition: national government relocation: none 12. Tambo Creek, Paranaque date: first week of July affected families: 40 ordered the demolition: local government & Department of Public Works and Highways status of the land: government owned situation: the forty families are part of the 87 families living under the Tambo Bridge. They were allowed to temporarily occupy a nearby sidewalk and a river bank. Some were given P2,000 as financial assistance. Note: TOTAL 4,723 families or 28,338 people (at 1 family : 6 members) List of Communities Scheduled for Demolitions 1. Tambo, Paranaque Some 585 families have received notices of demolition. APEC is mentioned as the reason for the demolitions. Relocation: temporary in Minuyan, Sapang Palay, Bulacan. 2. Electrical Road, Tambo, Pasay Another 300 families have received notices of demolition on the Pasay side of Tambo Creek. Relocation: temporary in Minuyan, Sapang Palay, Bulacan. 3. PNR, South Bangkal, Makati 94 families were given demolition notices by the local government. Relocation: temporary in Minuyan, Sapang Palay, Bulacan. 4. Olandes, Marikina Some 300 families were given demolition notices. 5. R-10, Manila and Navotas Isauro Pumarada of the DPWH has told NGOs and the people that the government will evict some 8,500 families. Around 6,000 of them are in the city of Manila. They will be removed before the APEC. Relocation will be somewhere in Norzagaray which government is still negotiating to buy. The land is undeveloped. Note: Total 9,779 families or 58,674 people. PO and NGO Response Individual NGOs, such as, the Urban Poor Associates which is involved in helping people to defend their housing rights, help individual communities resist forced evictions. They combine legal (going to court) and extra-legal (pressure tactics) to stop evictions. They go to the media. They also go to congressional committees. Area-wide mass actions. This happened in R-10 when two urban poor federations, Damayan ng mga Maralitang Pilipinong Api (DAMPA) and Anti-Demolition Coalition (ADC), formed an alliance. They conducted leaders meetings and workshops to find out the people's demands, which were: stop evictions while no acceptable relocation is ready, provide in-city relocation, and if no in-city relocation is as yet available, to put up high fances tohide the poor communities from the view of the APEC delegates. On September 20, some 300 of them conducted a protest march along the length of r-10 and blocked the road for forty five minutes, creating a monstrous traffic jam. Some five hundred young children, mostly grade schoolers, affixed their signatures to a letter sent to President Clinton, Japanese Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto and another letter given to Manila City Mayor Alfredo Lim. At the National Government Center, site of the biggest squatter population in Metro Manila (40,000 squatter families, the squatter families conducted protest marches within the area, and last October 3 some 3,000 of them lighted torches and candles on the length of Commonwealth Avenue. Last September 18, more than two hundred relocatees from the temporary relocaiton site in Minuyan, Sapang Palay, Bulacan held rellies in front of the offices of the National Housing Authority in Quezon City and the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council in Makati. They decried government's failure to fulfill its promise to give them a decent and humane relocation site. They said government removed them from a danger zone (sidewalk) but transferred them to a "death" zone. At the time of rally, the relocated people had been in Minuyan for a month but 86 families received bunk rooms, while the rest had to make lean-tos on the corridors of the abandoned warehouse. Their water supply is dirty and as a result many children suffered cholera. Many children also had dengue fever. There are no job and livelihood opportunities near the temporary relocation site. Transportation expense to and from Manila costs nearly forty pesos ( most earn the daily minimum wage of P150). There is no clinic or hospital near the place. More than 100 poor people rallied September 13 in front of the office of the Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund (OECF) of Japan which is funding the upgrading of the railroad tracks of the Philippine National Railways, a government corporation. They oppose their relocation to the temporary relocation site in Minuyan, Sapang Palay. Sector-wide mobilization. Last September 24, some 10,000 squatters held a rally at Mendiola Bridge in Malacanang. It was the biggest urban poor mass aciton to date under the Ramos administration. They protested the upsurge of demolitions, some of which were APEC-related. They also wanted to show their displeasure at the snub from President Ramos who has not responded to their repeated requests for a dialogue on demolitions and housing. @Via IMP v0.94 6:751/401.0, 10 Oct 1996 at 19:20:33 @Via Squish 1.11 6:751/401, Thu Oct 10 1996 at 23:21 UTC From manipon at hknet.com Fri Oct 11 11:08:47 1996 From: manipon at hknet.com (Tony Manipon) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 10:08:47 +0800 Subject: [asia-apec 152] Re: APEC-DEMOLITIONS IN MANILA UPDATE - 2 Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961011100523.2757ad5c@hknet.com> At 08:16 AM 10/10/96 -0800, you wrote: > The list below of demolitions shows that the president's >instruction was not taken seriously by other government officials. > >Communities Demolished > >1. Damayang Lagi, Quezon City > > Date: July 30 and August 2, 1996 > Affected Families: 3,300 families > Ordered the demolition: the courts and the owner, Titan Dragon > Group > Land: private land > relocation: none but some, not all, were given financial -------snipped------------ Just playing the devil's advocate here, Obet... I noticed that most of the lands are privately owned. As legal experts would say, all we have are circumstantial evidence so we can't just go about charging it is related to APEC, isn't it? It would be better in my view to have a map showing where these sites are (so we can post them in the web), in relation to where the APEC delegates are passing by or dropping by. I can visualize the way to Subic but not most of people from outside Philippines. (personal to Obet: kung meron mang road map, baka puwedeng maipadala kay Mario.) From aditjond at psychology.newcastle.edu.au Fri Oct 11 14:47:18 1996 From: aditjond at psychology.newcastle.edu.au (George J. Aditjondro) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 16:47:18 +1100 Subject: [asia-apec 153] GJA on Jakarta's ET diplomacy (I) Message-ID: This is the final form of the article, published in the Nation, Bangkok, October 10, 1996, in the Op-Ed section. The second part will follow, as soon as I have received it in fax from from Bangkok. Please distribute it in the wake of Apcet2 and the Apec conferences in KL and Manila, especially since the Indonesian Embassy in Bangkok might not be so happy about this article, and might try to put pressure on this English-language newspaper with its very critical Op-Ed section. If you have some additional information about Indonesian (un)diplomatic pressure, please send it to me, to be incorporated in a further article. Diplomacy/George J. Aditjondro Indonesia's sticks in dealing with East Timor # Jakarta is on a diplomatic offensive to thwart support for the territory and refuses to associate with East Timorese, even in international business, cultural and sport events THE crackdown on the pro-democracy movement in Indonesia has triggered numerous demonstrations all over the world by local human rights activists as well as Indonesian, West Papuan and East Timorese refugees. These public protests have now also been joined by Burmese pro-democracy activists, who are unhappy with Jakarta's support for to the Slorc's acceptance into Asean. These protests seem to attract increasingly more 'impolite' responses from the Indonesian diplomatic corps. It seems that the brutal 'in-house' behaviour of the Indonesian insecurity apparatus has "rubbed off" to Indonesian diplomats overseas. Or, it may also indicate the depth of military involvement in Indonesia's diplomatic corps, a major source of headache to Indonesia's Foreign Minister, Ali Alatas, a seasoned civilian diplomat, whose dreams to become the next UN Secretary General was shattered by the Nov 12, 1991 Dili massacre. In the last six months, harrassments of demonstrators by Indonesian diplomats -- in and outside Indonesian diplomatic compounds -- have been reported three times from Australia (Darwin, August 17, 1996; Canberra, April and September 14, 1996), and once from Hong Kong (August 29, 1996). In Darwin, two young Australian women, Sally-An and Jess, were harrassed at the Indonesian consulate, when they tried to deliver the petition from the Affet (Australian Friends for a Free East Timor) to the Indonesian consul. As they tried to leave the consulate, two Indonesian man rushed out to the two small women and began to hit, kick, and punch them. Adding insult to injury, after this unfriendly diplomatic encounter, the two female human rights activists were still treated as criminals by the Australian police. They had to spend four hours of questioning, accompanied by the usual treatment of criminals (such as finger printing, their photos taken). Before they were released, to the chagrin of the police officers present, they insisted on laying complaints against the Indonesian consulate staff who had assaulted them. Both women suffered trauma as result of the assault, and both had bruises on their legs as a result of the kicks they received, plus some bruising on their arms. The Indonesian consulate, obviously, denied that they had mistreated the two activists, and accused them instead of trying to lower the Indonesian red-and-white flag in the diplomatic compound. This accusation has already been denied by the Affet activists earlier, in their press release on the internet, two days earlier. Likewise, in Hong Kong, Lina P. Cabaero, an activist from the Asian Students' Association (ASA) was harrassed by a male staff of the Indonesian consulate general, when she tried to deliver the demonstrators' statement to the Consul General. Apart from that, several staffpersons from the Indonesian consulate tried to obstruct the demonstration, by repeatedly taking close-up pictures of the protestors. This was a surveillance tactic, which the Indonesian consulate in Perth, West Australia, has also been carried out during demonstrations of the Friends of East Timor (FOET), until a complaint from the organisation to the Australian Special Branch prompted a visit by the police to the consulate, asking them to quit their undemocratic practices on Australian territory. In a rather more 'milder' way yet still politically intimidating, the Indonesian Embassy in Canberra has twice this year refused to take part in public events, where East Timorese supporters also took part. In both cases, the Australian organisers of those events yielded to the pressure from the Indonesian diplomats, at the cost of the East Timor supporters -- and their cause, of course. In April 1976, the East Timor Relief Association (ETRA) was prevented from exhibiting at the National Folk Festifal in Canberra, because the organisers wished to protect "Indonesian sensitivies." This happened again at the ACT (Australian Capital Territory) Social Education Association Expo, only last month (Sept 14, 1996). Although ETRA had permission to exhibit at the expo, but because the Indonesian Embassy objected and threatened to pull out, consequently the East Timor supporters were asked to withdraw "graciously," which they refused to do. The Embassy staff, true to their threat, removed their exhibit (Letter to the Editor by Gareth W.R. Smith inCanberra Times , Sept 17, 1996). Refusing to co-exist with East Timorese and their supporters, even in international business, cultural and sport events, also seems to become a more popular tactic of the Indonesian diplomatic corps. In Maputo, Mozambique, Indonesia's ambassador to Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Swaziland, recently issued another unsophisticated attack on human rights activists in that African country, which has provided refuge for many East Timorese activists. In a statement released by the Indonesian official newsagency, Ambassador Sutedja Kartawidjaja said that "Ramos Horta and Mar'ie Alkatiri followers" had tried to disturb an Indonesian trade exhibition in Maputo. According to him, that attempt was not successful, and will not occur again, "because the local security apparatus have promised that they will take tough actions against them, including threatening them to shoot them on sight and kick them out of Mozambique," said the ambassador on the phone to Antara from Harare, on Sept 3, 1996. It is hard to believe that the Mozambiquean authorities, who have provided sanctuary for the East Timorese refugees for more than two decadess, and have constantly opposed Indonesia's occupation of East Timor in the UN, did indeed made such blatant promise to the Indonesian ambassador. Nevertheless, the very fact that the Indonesian diplomat could make such a statement through the official news agency is in itself a major diplomatic scandal. That public statement indicates an increasingly higher degree of desperation of the Indonesian diplomatic corps, an increasingly higher level of penetration of Indonesia's military into the civilian diplomatic corps. Or, it could have simply drawn inspiration from the "tough actions" taken against the PDI activists in Jakarta on that bloody Saturday of July 27, 1996. A similar desperation was shown, again by the Indonesian consulate general in Hong Kong, when a Hong Kong-based Portuguese soccer player, Pedro Xavier, was denied an entry visa to take part in an international soccer match in Indonesia. Xavier's South China team was going to play an Indonesian team in Bandung on Sept 19, 1996, in the Asian Cup competition. Visa problem The manager of South China soccer team, Lee Yun-Wah, who was born in Macau and holds a Portuguese passport, was also prohibited to travel with his team to Indonesia because of the visa problem (Lusa , Sept 19, 1996). Ironically, in another international sports event, Indonesian athletes could not avoid playing Portuguese athletes, who openly expressed their support for East Timor. This happened in Yerevan, Armenia, during the 13-th Chess Olympiade on Sept 30, when two Portuguese athletes, Tania Saraiva and Aida Ferreira, faced their Indonesian counterparts, Upi Tamin and Lisa Lumongdong, on the chess boards, wearing black arm bands with "East Timor" in big letters on their upper arms. According to the Indonesian news agency, Antara , the two Indonesian athletes won the game, although they were strongly annoyed by the pro-East Timor symbols worn by their Portuguese competitors. That, in itself, was a double irony, considering the fact that both teams were playing in the territory of a nation, Armenia, whose independence has been denied by its two powerful neighbours, Russia and Turkey, who have both been guilty of horrendous massacres of the Armenian people. Next: The carrots Dr George Aditjondro is an Indonesian academic currently in exile in Australia. At present he teaches at the University of Newcastle From aditjond at psychology.newcastle.edu.au Fri Oct 11 15:22:19 1996 From: aditjond at psychology.newcastle.edu.au (George J. Aditjondro) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 17:22:19 +1100 Subject: [asia-apec 154] The Slorc, Suharto link Message-ID: Article in The Nation, Bangkok, September 30, 1996 The Slorc, Suharto link * Burma's military regime and the family of Indonesia's President Suharto are no strangers to each other, writes George J. Aditjondro in Sydney [actually, Newcastle] Next week, from Oct 7 to 9, more than 300 students and others across the USA, Canada, South Africa, and Australia, will participate in a fast sponsored by the Free Burma Coalition. One of the themes of the fast is to support the call of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy (NLD) for immediate and complete withdrawal of all foreign business from Burma. Ironically, this call has fallen on the deaf ears of the Indonesian ruling family, who have lately even intensified their investment and other business deals with Burma's State Law and Order Council (Slorc). For them it has been business as usual, as if nothing had happened on that dreadful day on August 8, 1988, when hundreds of people lost their lives, and as if the NLD had never won the election with an overwhelming 82 per cent vote, two years later. As I have written in an earlier article ("Suharto clan's global forestry interests," The Nation, Sept 9), one of the first Indonesian investors in Burma was PT Rante Mario, one of the numerous companies under the Humpuss Group, controlled by President Suharto's youngest son, Hutomo Mandala Putra, also known as as Tommy Suharto. Through a joint venture with a Burmese state company, Myanmar Timber Enterprise (MTI), PT Rante Mario is planning to build a wood processing industry with an investment of US$ 75 million. In the first five years (since 1994), this joint venture will only produce logs and lumber. After that, it will go into plywood production, with a total disregard for Burma's natural resources and beauty. According to WWF data, Burma's natural environment is already worse off than Indonesia. As published on page 42 in the Nov 20, 1995 edition of another business journal, Warta Ekonomi, Burma has already lost 71per cent of its natural habitat, compared with 49 per cent in the case of Indonesia. Area wise, Indonesia still has nearly 750,000 square kilometres of natural habitat, while Burma only has nearly 226,000 square kilometres. So, one can say that to conserve Indonesia's own natural forest, President Suharto allows his beloved youngest son to destroy a friendly nation's forest. This young member of Suharto's kleptocracy has not only began to do business with Burma's forestry industry. He began his acquantance with Burma through his familiarity with the international oil companies, which has been a 'family business' of the Suharto clan since the boom time of Indonesia's national oil and gas mining company, Pertamina, which was led in the 1970s by a Suharto crony and fellow Army general, Ibnu Sutowo (Asiaweek , May 5, 1995, page 47). Two years ago Tommy Suharto was already doing business with Unocal and Total, two of the oil companies targeted to be boycotted by the world-wide pro-Free Burma movement. He has a 20-year contract with Unocal and Total to supply natural gas to Tommy's fertilizer industry in East Kalimantan, PT Kaltim Methanol Industry (KMI). It is still unclear where the natural gas comes from. According to Abdul Wahab, KMI's director, the methanol will be imported, "among others, methanol from Sabah, Malaysia, since the production of Pertamina's methanol factory on Bunyu island in East Kalimantan, is not sufficient" (Swasembada , February 1994). However, around the same time that he began to construct his fertilizer factory, Tommy has also began to export explosives to Burma. This was carried out by another of his numerous companies, PT Bina Reksa Perdana, through a joint venture with Oiltech Service Singapore. Two years ago, this company, in which Tommy owns 55% shares, has already received orders amounting to more than US$ 4 million from Burma, India, Iraq, and Australia (Tempo , June 4, 1994). So much for Suharto's youngest son, Tommy. Meanwhile, Bambang Trihatmojo, Suharto's second son, is involved in the telecommunication industry in Burma. PT Elektrindo Nusantara, has invested its capital in small telephone central units for 256 subscribers in Rangoon, as a pilot project for a much bigger deal with the Slorc. Elektrindo's stepping stone to Rangoon was Bangkok, where three years ago, it had already become a supplier for the Royal Thai Airforce as well as the Thai Department of Interior (Warta Ekonomi, Sept 13, 1993;Swasembada, Aug 1995). This company is 5i per cent owned by Bambang Trihatmojo, and forms one of the main money-makers of Bambang's conglomerate, the Bimantara Group. One of Bambang's brothers-in-law, Indra Rukmana, who is married to the Suhartos eldest daughter, Siti Hariyanti Rukmana, also known as Mbak Tutut, is an old school-mate and major business partner in Bimantara as well. Meanwhile, last year another Bimantara company, PT Japfa Comfeed, had already made plans to invest in animal feed companies in Burma, Vietnam, and India (Warta Ekonomi, Nov 20, 1995). As it turned out from further research in my Indonesian business data base, Bambang has also indirectly entered Burma's forestry industry. According to an Indonesian business magazine, Info Bisnis of July 1884, another Indonesian conglomerate, Barito Pacific, has also stretched its forestry arm into Burma, apart from a multitude of other countries (Cambodia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Suriname, Gabon and Zaire). What has Barito Pacific to do with Bambang Trihatmojo? A lot. Although he controls his own business group, Bimantara, Bambang is also a major shareholder in Barito Pacific. This group is led by a Sino-Indonesian businessman, Prajogo Pangestu. In the group's bank, Andromeda Bank, Bambang owns 25 per cent shares, Prajogo 50 per cent, and another Sino-Indonesian businessman, Henry Pribadi, also 25 per cent. The third member of the extended Suharto family who plans to invest in Burma is Hashim Djojohadikusumo. This rising star on the Indonesian business firmament is a younger brother of Prabowo Subianto, one of President Suharto's sons-in-law. Not only that. Prabowo's wife, Siti Hediyati Harijadi, also known as Titiek Prabowo, is also an active partner Hashim's numerous business enterprises. In fact, Hashim's Eka Persada Group and Titiek Prabowo's Daya Tata Matra (Datam) Group have numerous overlapping shareholders, including in one of Hashim's cement factories. On Sept 19, Hashim anounced his plan to invest US$ 200 million in a new cement factory in Burma. Although he already owns three cement factories in Indonesia, he hopes that in October he might sign a memorandum of understanding to build that cement factory with the Slorc. The planned company will be 70 per cent owned by Indonesian companies, and 30 per cent by a Burmese state company. With a capacity of one million tons of cement per year, Hashim hopes that his cement factory may be able to compete with China and Thailand made cement on the Burmese market, which still imports 1.8 million ton of cement per year. Another reason why Hashim for to invest in Burma is that he is optimistic that in two years time, Burma will become a full member of the Asean. Consequently, Burma will also become a member of the Asean Free Trade Area (Afta). This means that Indonesian companies will be able to market their products freely in all Asean member countries, as all other Asean citizens-owned companies are also free to market their products in Indonesia (Media Indonesia, Sept 21, 1996). As has happened with most of the juicy businesses of the Suharto family, Hashim's businesses are also milking cows for the Indonesian Army. In particular, milking cows for the most feared Army unit, Kopassus , also known as the Red Berets. These troops, which have been involved in quelling every major independence and other uprisings in Indonesia and East Timor, are now commanded by Hashim's older brother, Mayor General Prabowo Subianto. More thant wo years ago, in an interview with The Asian Wall Street Journal on Feb 2, 1993, Hashim stated that "if Prabowo needs funds, as a loyal and dutiful brother, I'll provide them. He has a lot of soldiers to take care of." At that time Prabowo was still a Lieutenant Colonel, and had fewer soldiers to take care of compared with now, after he became the commander of 3,000 Red Beret soldiers, which will soon be beefed up to 5,000 soldiers (Straits Time , May 23, 1996). Therefore it is no surprise that the Slorc generals like to do business with Hashim, who also know how to please the Army. In fact, three years ago, one of Hashim's companies, PT Prima Comexindo Trading (PCT), has already bartered medicines made by an Indonesian state-owned company, Indo Farma, with Burmese products (Gatra , April 29, 1995). To avoid the confusion about the who-is-who's in the Suharto clan's business relationship with the Slorc, let me summarize those involved as follows. The Suharto couple have three daughters, Tutut, Titiek, and Mamiek, and three sons, Sigit, Bambang, and Tommy. Tutut is married to Indra Rukmana, and Titiek is married to Prabowo Subianto. Bambang and Indra Rukmana, are involved in the Burma's telecommunication business. Bambang himself, through his partnership in the Barito Pacific Group, is involved in Burma's forestry business. So is Tommy, who is also involved in Burma's mining and construction business, by supplying the dynamites and probably be a customer of Total and Unocal's natural gas fields. Tommy's eldest brother, Sigit Harjojudanto, as well as Sigit's son, Ari Haryo Wibowo, are minor shareholders in Tommy's Humpuss Group. Meanwhile, Titiek, through her partnership with her brother-in-law, Hashim Djojohadikusumo, will certainly become involved in Burma's cement business. Finally, with all those first family members involved in doing business fields with the Slorc, it is most likely that they have also been involved in exporting PepsiCo products to Burma. Why? Because Indonesia's largest conglomerate, the Salim Group, in which a foster brother of Suharto, Sudwikatmono, and two of Suharto's kids, Sigit and Tutut are involved, is the franchise holder of PepsiCo for Indonesia (Warta Ekonomi, June 13, 1994). This might be an additional reason for a world wide boycott of PepsiCo. This answers the question, why Suharto is so eager to cement -- both literally as well figuratively -- his oligarchy's partnership with the SLORC, by endorsing the Slorc's membership in Asean. This also explains, why Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's appeal to foreign companies, to cancel their investment and trading plans with the Slorc, falls on the deaf ears of the Suharto oligarchy. From aditjond at psychology.newcastle.edu.au Fri Oct 11 16:02:08 1996 From: aditjond at psychology.newcastle.edu.au (George J. Aditjondro) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 18:02:08 +1100 Subject: [asia-apec 155] Suharto's global forestry interests Message-ID: Article in The Nation, Bangkok, September 9, 1996: SUHARTO CLAN'S GLOBAL FORESTRY INTERESTS George J. Aditjondro A new trend of South-South colonialism has emerged recently, where southern transnational companies are making heavy investments in more backward Thirld World countries. This observation was raised by a spokesperson for the World Rainforest Movement, Marcus Colchester, in an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald , on Saturday, August 31, 1996. In this article, titled "How Asia's logging companies are stripping the world's forests," several examples of this new trend has been mentioned, with Malaysian and Indonesian companies at the forefront. The only Indonesian company mentioned explicitly is Musa, which has a 60,700-hectare concession in Suriname. This is actually an understatement, because Indonesian companies have also began to log, or began large timber plantations and associated wood-based industries, in several other countries. The brief reference to MUSA is also an understatement, because it omits the high-power backing which this company enjoys in Suriname and in Indonesia. It is, in fact, a company owned by President Suharto's relatives from his home village of Kemusu in Yogyakarta, which has branch offices in Suriname, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Hence, the following cases delineate some of the (known) overseas forestry and/or wood-processing industries controlled or owned by the Suharto clan. How military regimes support each other The first Indonesian investor in Burma is PT Rante Mario, one of the numerous companies under the Humpuss Group, controlled by President Suharto's youngest son, Hutomo Mandala Putra, aka as Tommy Suharto. Through a joint venture with a Burmese state company, Myanmar Timber Enterprise (MTI), PT Rante Mario is planning to build a wood processing industry with an investment of US$ 75 million (Bt 1.8 billion). In the first five years (since 1994), this joint venture will only produce logs and lumber. After that, it will go into plywood production. "Rante Mario will become a test case in involving foreign investors in Myanmar in forest management," said Herry Sunardi, general director of PT Rante Mario to an Indonesian business magazine, Swasembada , in its December 1994 edition (page 41). "If this projects succeeds, then other investors will be attracted, and that is when Myanmar will be a challenge to Indonesia's timber export market," adds the Humpuss Group executive. Sunardi bases his argument on his data of Burma's excellent forestry potentials. According to him, from Burma's total forest of 66 million hectares, 32.4 million consists of high-density forest. The Humpuss executive's data, however, contradicts some other sources. According to WWF data, Burma's natural environment is already worse off than Indonesia. As published on page 42 in the November 20, 1995 edition of another business journal, Warta Ekonomi , Burma has already lost 71per cent of its natural habitat, compared with 49 per cent in the case of Indonesia. Area wise, Indonesia still has nearly 750,000 Km2 of natural habitat, while Burma only has nearly 226,000 Km2. So, one can say that to conserve Indonesia's own natural forest, President Suharto is allowing his beloved youngest son to destroy a friendly nation's forest. No wonder that Suharto so vehemently opposes any "Western interference" in Asean's "domestic affairs", after the Slorc's Myanmar -- not Aung San Suu Ky's Burma -- has been accepted as an observer in Asean. Especially since another son of the Indonesian ruler is also involved in the telecommunication industry in Burma. PT Elektrindo Nusantara, which is 51% owned by Bambang Trihatmojo, Suharto's second son, has followed his younger brother's step by investing in small telephone central units for 256 subscribers in Rangoon, as a pilot project for a much bigger deal with the SLORC (Swasembada , Aug1995). Forestry interest in Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, and China While his younger brother operates directly in the global forestry sector, Tommy's older brother, Bambang Trihatmojo, operates in this field more indirectly. Bambang, who himself controls his own business empire, the Bimantara Group, is a major shareholder in another conglomerate, the Barito Pacific Group. This group is led by a Sino-Indonesian businessman, Prajogo Pangestu. In the group's bank, Andromeda Bank, Bambang owns 25 per cent shares, Prajogo 50 per cent, and another Sino-Indonesian businessman, Henry Pribadi, also per cent. Under Prajogo Pangestu's leadership, Barito Pacific has ventured into various forestry operations in Malaysia and Papua New Guinea. Two years ago, Barito Pacific acquired a Malaysian company, Cash (Construction and Supplies Houses Berhad) for M$ 1.3 billion (Bt 13 billion), to reforest 500,000 hectares of land in Sabah, East Malaysia. Apart from that, Prime Minister Mahathir has contracted Cash to establish a one million hectares timber plantation in Malaysia. To finance that project, the Malaysian government has issued 'timber bonds' to be sold on US and European stock-markets, with the full support of Mahathir. Apart from Cash, Prajogo Pangestu also owns three other overseas forestry operations, namely Rindaya Wood Processing in Malaysia, Lombda Pty Ltd in Papua New Guinea, and Nantong Plywood Industry in Shanghai, China (Info-Bisnis, April 1994; Swasembada, December 1994: 41; Asia, Inc., July 1995). With all these business connections between the Indonesian and Malaysian elites, it is also no wonder why Mahathir is as vehemently opposed as Suharto against international criticism of their countries environmental policies. The Musa group in Suriname Suharto is indeed a very family-type person, who always wants to please all his family members. Not only his immediate family, but even his relatives in his home village of Kemusu in the province of Yogyakarta. The notorious Musa (Mitra Usaha Sejati Abadi), which has been mentioned in the SMH article, is owned by Yayasan Kemusuk Somenggalan, a family foundation of Suharto's relatives in his childhood village. Musa, which first came to Suriname in 1993, has had big ambitions in this country, with a large ethnic Javanese population. Despite protests from the Afro-Maroon people, it soon managed to obtain logging rights of 150,000-hectare in the Apura district in West Suriname, without the approval of Suriname's parliament. According to an Indonesian independent journalist's bulletin, Suara Independen , Musa's investment approval was obtained after visits to Indonesia by Suriname's Minister for Social Affairs, Willy Soemita, who is of Javanese origin. A subsequent visit of Suriname's president, Mr Venetiaan, to Indonesia in 1994, had established a 20-years cooperation agreement between Indonesia and Suriname in the field of forestry. Despite international protests from the world rainforest movement, Musa is said to stand side by side with the Berjaya Group from Malaysia and another Indonesian company, PT Suri Atlantic, in eyeing another concession rights of more than 1 million hectare. The Indonesian anti-deforestation organisation SKEPHI has found inextricable links that Suri Atlantic may be coming from the same timber industry sources in Indonesia, as Musa did (SKEPHI press release on Apakabar , 28 Aug 1995; Suara Independen, Aug 1995; Guardian Weekly, July 21, 1996). So, from this case we can see, how successfully Suharto has transformed his international political role as head of the Non-Aligned Movement into financial assets for his extended family, from his children all the way to his relatives in his home village of Kemusuk in Yogyakarta. From mtachiba at jca.or.jp Fri Oct 11 17:56:26 1996 From: mtachiba at jca.or.jp (TACHIBANA Masahiko) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 17:56:26 +0900 Subject: [asia-apec 156] Re: Please announce: IAPs on the Internet Message-ID: <9610110853.AA02359@brahman.phy.saitama-u.ac.jp> At 8:43 PM 96.10.7 +0800, daga wrote: >They have volunteered to host the leaked Individual Action Programs (IAPs) >of the 18 member economies of APEC [see asia-apec 112]. The IAPs of the >following countries are presently vailable: Aotearoa (New Zealand), >Australia, Brunei, Canada, China, Chile, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, south >Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, and USA. > >For those with ftp access, please directly go to . Kindly >announce also to the more general public. Let me show you the URL in full path; ftp://ftp.jca.or.jp/pub/doc/IAP1996/ which will bring you more directly to the items. JFYI. TACHIBANA Masahiko Japan Computer Access From priggs at rbf.org Sat Oct 12 07:05:20 1996 From: priggs at rbf.org (priggs@rbf.org) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 17:05:20 -0500 Subject: [asia-apec 157] Information about your APEC activities Message-ID: <199610112118.OAA21777@cdp.igc.apc.org> Can you please send me by e-mail information about your APEC activities. Thank you very much. Peter Riggs FAX 1-212-315-0996 priggs@rbf.org From deb at pactok.peg.apc.org Fri Oct 11 23:47:00 1996 From: deb at pactok.peg.apc.org (deb) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 00:47:00 +1000 Subject: [asia-apec 158] Alternative ASEAN Mtg on Burma Message-ID: <538_9610130600@pactok.peg.apc.org> DEAR FRIENDS, IT WILL BE GREAT IF YOU COULD ATTEND - HOWEVER, THERE ARE MANY WAYS YOU CAN SUPPORT THIS: 1. CONTACT US FOR A DRAFT OF THE ALTERNATIVE ASEAN DECLARATION ON BURMA FOR YOUR ENDORSEMENT 2. TO DISTRIBUTE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION AMONGST YOUR NETWORKS. YOURS IN SOLIDARITY DEBBIE STOTHARD __________________________________________________________ October 7, 1996 THE ALTERNATIVE ASEAN MEETING ON BURMA, OCTOBER 29 -30, BANGKOK, THAILAND The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), and Initiatives for International Dialogue (IID), in cooperation with the Burma Solidarity Group Malaysia (BSGM), Thai Action Committee for Democracy in Burma (TACDB) and the National Council of the Union of Burma (NCUB), are jointly organizing the "Alternative ASEAN Meeting on Burma". on October 29-30, 1996 at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. The meeting will bring together about fifty human rights activists, trade unionists and academics from within and outside ASEAN together with representatives of the democratic movement of Burma. The meeting aims to make an ASEAN-based assertion of solidarity and support with the people of Burma in their struggle for human rights and democracy and to develop alternatives to current official policy and practice adopted by ASEAN member governments. It will also provide the launching point for a broader regional campaign through the establishment of an ALTERNATIVE ASEAN NETWORK to mobilize grassroots people and civic organizations. Another intended significant outcome of the meeting will be the adoption of an ALTERNATIVE ASEAN DECLARATION ON BURMA. FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: (In Thailand) The Secretariat, Alternative Asean Meeting on Burma c/- Forum-Asia. Tel: 66 2 275 4230 - 3 Fax 66 2 276 2183 or 275 4230 Email: chalida@mozart.inet.co.th (In Philippines) Evelyn Balais-Serrano Forum-Asia Tel/Fax: 632 936 8056 ebserrano@phil.gn.apc.org (In Malaysia) Debbie Stothard Burma Solidarity Group Malaysia Tel: 603 733 7701 Fax: 603 732 7325 deb@pactok.peg.apc.org From ecwa at iinet.net.au Sun Oct 13 12:53:04 1996 From: ecwa at iinet.net.au (The Environment Centre of W.A.) Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 11:53:04 +0800 Subject: [asia-apec 159] Asia-Pacific Anti-Militarism Forum Message-ID: <199610130353.LAA18719@grunge.iinet.net.au> Asia-Pacific Anti-Militarism Forum A conference for activists in the Asia-Pacific Region 28 March to 1 April 1997 Melbourne Australia Invitation and information. Campaign together. A collective of activists has formed in Australia to organise a forum to inspire people to focus on issues of peace and structural violence; to support related struggles; and to improve cooperation between anti-militarists in South East Asia and the South Pacific. Militarism is an extreme form of the power structures used to oppress people. It is important to acknowledge the relationships between militarism and capitalism, industrialism, colonialism, violence against women, racism, exploitation of workers, and environmental destruction. By recognising the connections between these various forms of oppression we can come together from our different campaigns to support each other's struggles. Sharing our different strategies and analysis can enrich our activism, making it more effective and powerful. This conference for progressive left activists in South East Asia and the South Pacific will take place in Melbourne over the Easter holidays 1997, from Friday March 28 to Tuesday April 1. We encourage you to join the organising collective in your area; or contact us with your ideas or other contributions to make this conference as inclusive, vibrant and politically challenging as possible. This conference is not just talking heads, there will be: * sharing of activist skills like media work, making effective leaflets, public speaking and street theatre; * an arts component including videos and films, an activist poster exhibition and other visual arts; music and dancing; and * a demonstration to put activism into practice. We welcome all expressions of interest in these areas of the conference. Structure. We will start the conference with an orientation afternoon for activists to get to know each other and to find out background information. We hope this orientation session will enable participants to get more out of the conference. There will then be four days of presentations and workshops sharing information, skills and ideas. Themes identified for discussion include: * A survey of militarism in the region; * The role of the US military in the Asia-Pacific region (bases, aid and troop training); * The arms trade; * Policing and internal repression; * The relations between industrialism, capitalism and militarism; * The repression of workers movements; * Colonialism; * Indigenous peoples struggles; * Militarism and environmental destruction; * Australia's military role in the region (foreign troop training, joint military exercises, military aid); * Women and militarism; * Higher education and the military; * The relationship between constructions of gender, race and militarism; * Alternatives including industrial conversions from military to civilian uses, conflict resolution strategies and grassroots community empowerment; * Improving coordination of anti-militarist campaigns. Participation. We actively encourage the participation of marginalised groups. We will endeavour to provide appropriate language services where possible. Encouraging gender balance is a priority for the forum organisers. We are also working towards paying for overseas activists to travel to Australia - all donations will be greatly appreciated! The Forum continues... The conference will end with a powerful and positive action or demonstration. We are also hoping to organise a speaking tour of some overseas activists to various Australian cities. This would give these activists and their campaigns wider exposure and help build support for their campaigns. We hope the experience gained and contacts made at this conference will be used for continuing informal networking and cooperation. The Resource kit and directory should help activists build working relationships across South East Asia and the South Pacific. What you can do. This event is going to take a lot of organising. We need ideas and support to develop this forum; and require practical assistance in networking, fundraising, publicity and coordination. If you have anything to contribute, from ideas to assistance in organising the forum, please contact Campaign Against Militarism in Perth or Melbourne. Keep in touch. Please send us your name, address, telephone, fax and email details if you want to stay in touch. Also, let us know if you: * want to join the organising collective * have any skills and/or resources to offer * are enclosing a list of contacts * sending a donation * want more information * have any comments. Resource kit. The organising collective is compiling a resource kit to accompany the conference, gathering information from activists around the region. If you can provide us with any of the following information please indicate this below and send us the details by December 1996. * 1-2 page overview of issues affecting your part of the region. * Information about your group for a regional contact list. Include your groups name, contact details, what you do and the strategies you use to do it! * Even if you can't come to the conference your ideas can. Send us an article. Conference papers & other contributions. If you would like to give a paper or workshop at the conference please include some details. If you would like to contribute visual, performance or other art forms, please provide us with details. Register now with Campaign Against Militarism. Perth: Shane Guthrie and Jessie Vintila PO Box 186, Northbridge, WA 6865, Australia tel + 61 9 227 7880 fax + 61 9 227 7882 email ecwa@iinet.net.au (temporary email address - current for 1996) Melbourne: Nicole Oke and Rachel Schmidt PO Box 1351, Collingwood, Vic 3066, Australia tel + 61 3 9419 8700 fax + 61 3 9416 2081 email genccso@lusta.latrobe.edu.au --------------------------------------------------------------- ___________________________________________________________________ The Environment Centre of Western Australia Third Floor, 102 Beaufort Street, Perth Phone: (+61 9) 227 7881 Fax: (+61 9) 227 7882 All mail to: PO Box 7375, Cloisters Square, Perth 6850 AUSTRALIA ___________________________________________________________________ CHECK OUT OUR WEB PAGE - http://www.iinet.net/~ecwa/ ___________________________________________________________________  From foewase at igc.apc.org Tue Oct 15 11:24:23 1996 From: foewase at igc.apc.org (Northwest FOE Office) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 19:24:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [asia-apec 160] Re: Information about your APEC activities Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961014192727.2c7f0ad0@pop.igc.org> At 05:05 PM 10/11/96 -0500, priggs@rbf.org wrote: >Can you please send me by e-mail information about your >APEC activities. Thank you very much. > >Peter Riggs >FAX 1-212-315-0996 >priggs@rbf.org > 14 October 1996 In 1993, the Northwest Office of Friends of the Earth helped organize a citizen response to APEC in Seattle, WA. Working with a coalition of human rights, labor and environmental groups under the theme of "The hidden costs of free trade", FOE helped publish four issues of ECO - APEC watch which was distributed to the press and APEC delegates. A two-hour meeting between NGO's and the APEC Secretariat was also held. Andrea Durbin will be attending APEC '96 in the Philippines next month. She can be reached at 202- 783-7400 ext. 209. The Northwest office of Friends of the Earth will also be involved in helping organize a citizen response to APEC '97 which will be hosted in Vancouver, B.C. by Canada, next year's host country. David E. Ortman Director Northwest Office Friends of the Earth > From amrc at HK.Super.NET Tue Oct 15 16:33:28 1996 From: amrc at HK.Super.NET (AMRC) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 15:33:28 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 161] Eden dispute - Thailand Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961015152751.1ab7a68a@is1.hk.super.net> EDEN UPDATE # 2 Friday October 11, 1996 EDEN Update will be sent out on a regular basis, while the dispute at the Eden Group Company continues in Bangkok, Thailand. Please distribute as widely as possible, or contact this office if you wish to be put on the distribution list. Eden Update is available via fax, or the text can be sent via email. For further information contact TIE - Asia, or CLIST at: +66-2-586 0158 ph/fax or tieasia@ksc8.th.com After nearly 4 weeks of negotiations, the Eden Workers Union is stepping up its campaign for international solidarity and support, in order to bring an end to the long-running dispute with the Eden Group Company, based in Bangkok. As outlined in the previous issue of Eden Update, Eden Group is an Austrian-owned TNC, which is part of the export-oriented garment and textile industry of Thailand. On the 13th September, 1996, 345 workers at the plant were given notices of dismissal for the following day. Since that time, the Union has been fighting for a just compensation for dismissed workers, and is also tackling broader issues of social security for unemployed workers, and the use of child labour in Thailand. Austrian Embassy On Tuesday, 8 October, the Eden Workers Union organised a rally outside the Austrian Embassy, requesting the Ambassador mediate negotiations between the Union and the company. Five attempts to negotiate with the company before the Labour Ministry, the most recent on 7 October, have ended in stalemate. The lively march to the Austrian Embassy, along some of Bangkok's busiest streets attracted a lot of attention with placards reading "Children belong in school, not in the workplace!", "Austrian Embassy - Say Yes to Thai Workers Rights!" and "Austrian companies who exploit Thai workers - Go Back Home!". An effigy of Eden Group Chairman, Adam Lisowski was burnt in front of Embassy gates. The Austrian Ambassador participated in discussions with Union representatives, but declined invitations to become involved. Company violations The Eden Workers Union, with support from other labour organisations, has been conducting an investigation into the company's operations, both in Thailand and abroad. The Union has photographic documentation of an Eden Group sub-contractor in Bangkok using child labour, and reports that many more also engage in this illegal practice. Investigations reveal that an Eden Group sub-contractor in Bangladesh, pays its workers US$14 per month, far less than the Government declared minimum wage of $23.25 per month. There is no paid maternity leave for women workers, comprising 80 per cent of the company workforce. There is no canteen, no doctor, no appointment letter, and no union. Workers receive some holidays, but far short of that stipulated in the labour law of Bangladesh. Union campaign builds "It is time to step up the campaign", said Union President, Charuay Mauay. "We have given the company ample opportunity to address our demands, yet they refuse to negotiate. "We are dealing with a very rich and very powerful transnational company, which seems to violate the labour law wherever it goes", she said. The Eden campaign has already won international trade union support from the International Textile, Garment and Leather Workers Federation. Discussions with the seven-and-a-half million strong organisation will continue to increase pressure on the company. WHAT YOU CAN DO! 1. The Eden Workers Union desperately needs your financial support. A lot of money has been spent so far running the campaign, and maintaining a 24-hour picketline outside the factory gates for the past four weeks. Please collect donations from your workplace, union, community or church group, then contact this office to arrange transfer of funds to the Union. 2. BOYCOTT the Eden Group products under the following brandnames: AMERICANWEAR, MICHEL ADAM, BUGS BUNNY AMERICANWEAR, LOONIE TUNES AMERICANWEAR, MICKEY MOUSE AMERICANWEAR, MTV'S BEAVIS & BUTTHEAD, BLOWOUT, BLOWOUT L.A., BLOWOUT KID, LEMON GRASS NATURAL CONCEPT, POWER RANGERS, SINDY, CASPER, CLUB VOUGE, ESSY FIZZY, ALADIN 3. Write letters of protest to retailers who stock these products, explaining why you are boycotting. 4. Write letters of protest to Eden Group explaining why you are boycotting: Eden Group - FashionWear Ltd 10 K Vipawadee-Rangsit Road Don Muang, Bangkok, 10210 THAILAND Fax: +66-2-551 1651 and 552 2103 5. Eden's biggest markets are in Europe, particularly Germany. Please write to your nearest sales office, or all of them! Americanwear Europe GMBH Georg Glock Str. 3 40474 Dusseldorf, GERMANY Tel: +49-211-439 340 Fax:+49-211-424 483 AWA Bekleidungshandelsgesellschaft MBH Gonzagagasse 3 Vienna 1100 AUSTRIA Tel: +43-1-533 6345 Fax: +43-1-535 0610 Americanwear Europe 1st Floor, 37/38 Margaret St London WIN 7FA UNITED KINGDOM Tel: +44-71-493 4442 Fax: +44-71-493 7378 AB Fougstedt's Palsvarufabrik Americanwear Box 17114 Ostra Ronneholmsvagen 13 200 10 Malmo SWEDEN Tel: +46-40-977 160 Fax: +46-40-611 5712 Scemama 36 Rue D'Hauteville 75010 Paris FRANCE Tel: +33-1-4523 2825 Fax: +33-1-4247 1639 Marketing Office Tel: +33-1-4280 6940 Fax: +33-1-4082 9185 Bergamo ITALY Tel: +39-35-361 015 Fax: +39-35-361 408 Tel: +39-35-593 821 Fax: +39-35-593 822 Raymond Bollag & Co Modeagenture Talackerstr. 17 8065 Zurich Glattbrugg, SWITZERLAND Tel: +41-1-829 2100 Fax: +41-1-829 2099 Euro Trend S.A. C/Actor Llorens, 7, Bajo 46021 - Valencia Zaragoza SPAIN Tel: +34-76-211 4445 +34-76-393 2193 Fax: +34-76-211 4445 HONG KONG Tel: +852-2304 0983 Fax: +852-2343 3626 6. Ask the local affiliate of the International, Textile, Garment and Leather Workers Federation to also take action on the campaign. 7. Write letters of protest to the Thai government: The Prime Minister Government House Nakon Pathom Road Dusit, Bangkok, 10300 THAILAND 8. Send letters of Solidarity to the Eden Workers Union Tel/Fax: + 66-2-586 0158 Email: tieasia@ksc8.th.com From columbandc at igc.apc.org Tue Oct 15 18:11:48 1996 From: columbandc at igc.apc.org (Michael J. Dodd) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 09:11:48 +0000 Subject: [asia-apec 162] Re: Alternative ASEAN Mtg on Burma Message-ID: <199610151319.GAA16531@igc3.igc.apc.org> Please forward this office a draft of the Alternative Declaration on Burma for our perusal and possible endorsement. (Rev) Michael J Dodd Columban Fathers' Justice & Peace Office Washington. DC. 20017. Email: columbandc@igc.apc.org > From: deb@pactok.peg.apc.org (deb) > Date: 12 Oct 96 00:47:00 +1000 > To: asia-apec@jca.or.jp > Cc: aditjond@psychology.newcastle.edu.au > Cc: calliope@ihug.co.nz > Cc: infolink@portalinc.com > Cc: wbello@phil.gn.apc.org > Cc: ondawame@coombs.anu.edu.au > Cc: barbedo@garfield.fe.up.pt > Cc: tapol@gn.apc.org > Cc: rajendra@rad.net.id > Cc: nairn@essential.org > Cc: links@igc.apc.org > Cc: gunawan@silas.cc.monash.edu.au > Cc: tolincoln@dist.gov.au > Cc: zoerey@ozemail.com.au > Cc: wpra@peg.apc.org > Cc: bows@mole.gn.apc.org > Cc: Amokmar@amokmar.antenna.nl > Cc: Contours@pg.frlht.ernet.in > Cc: otto@geni.nusa.or.id > Cc: johnly@geni.nusa.or.id > Cc: prdint1@peg.apc.org > Cc: rich@pencil.math.missouri.edu > Cc: clpjkt@usia.gov > Cc: mhutton@melb.alexia.net.au > Cc: daga@HK.Super.NET > Cc: crocha@banda.ntu.edu.au > Cc: ecwa@iinet.net.au > Cc: sharont@bluesky.net.au > Cc: michael@cbn.net.id > Cc: ysuprapt@scu.edu.au > Cc: tecnoman@ix.netcom.com > Cc: dode@geni.nusa.or.id > Cc: hnasution@JUNO.COM > Cc: uf204ap@sunmail.lrz-muenchen.de > Cc: J.Sluka@massey.ac.nz > Cc: robert.kyle@anu.edu.au > Cc: renuttall@netinfo.com.au > Reply-to: asia-apec@jca.or.jp > Subject: [asia-apec 158] Alternative ASEAN Mtg on Burma > > DEAR FRIENDS, IT WILL BE GREAT IF YOU COULD ATTEND - HOWEVER, THERE ARE MANY > WAYS YOU CAN SUPPORT THIS: > > 1. CONTACT US FOR A DRAFT OF THE ALTERNATIVE ASEAN DECLARATION ON BURMA FOR > YOUR ENDORSEMENT > > 2. TO DISTRIBUTE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION AMONGST YOUR NETWORKS. > > YOURS IN SOLIDARITY > > DEBBIE STOTHARD > __________________________________________________________ > > October 7, 1996 > > THE ALTERNATIVE ASEAN MEETING ON BURMA, > OCTOBER 29 -30, BANGKOK, THAILAND > > The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), and Initiatives > for International Dialogue (IID), in cooperation with the Burma Solidarity > Group Malaysia (BSGM), Thai Action Committee for Democracy in Burma (TACDB) and > the National Council of the Union of Burma (NCUB), are jointly organizing the > "Alternative ASEAN Meeting on Burma". on October 29-30, 1996 at Chulalongkorn > University, Bangkok, Thailand. > > The meeting will bring together about fifty human rights activists, trade > unionists and academics from within and outside ASEAN together with > representatives of the democratic movement of Burma. > > The meeting aims to make an ASEAN-based assertion of solidarity and support > with the people of Burma in their struggle for human rights and democracy and > to develop alternatives to current official policy and practice adopted by > ASEAN member governments. > > It will also provide the launching point for a broader regional campaign > through the establishment of an ALTERNATIVE ASEAN > NETWORK to mobilize grassroots people and civic organizations. > > Another intended significant outcome of the meeting will be the adoption of an > ALTERNATIVE ASEAN DECLARATION ON BURMA. > > FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: > > (In Thailand) > The Secretariat, Alternative Asean Meeting on Burma > c/- Forum-Asia. > Tel: 66 2 275 4230 - 3 > Fax 66 2 276 2183 or 275 4230 > Email: chalida@mozart.inet.co.th > > (In Philippines) > Evelyn Balais-Serrano > Forum-Asia > Tel/Fax: 632 936 8056 > ebserrano@phil.gn.apc.org > > (In Malaysia) > Debbie Stothard > Burma Solidarity Group Malaysia > Tel: 603 733 7701 > Fax: 603 732 7325 > deb@pactok.peg.apc.org > > From daga at HK.Super.NET Wed Oct 16 13:33:14 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 12:33:14 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 163] Will Manila lead Apec to people-friendly waters? Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961016122737.2047c9a0@is1.hk.super.net> Will Manila lead Apec to people-friendly waters Johanna Son Inter Press Service The Sunday Chronicle, 15 September 1996 FOR ITS own sake and that of other emerging economies that fear being swallowed up by the bigger fish in Apec's free-trade drive, the Philippines will need to be in good voice as hosts of this year's Asia-Pacific leaders' summit. Critical will be the Manila government's ability to walk the tightrope between the free-trade focus by Apec's Western members and efforts by developing nations to raise the profile of issues like the need for economic cooperation. Already, President Ramos has called for a "new model of development cooperation" to be agreed on by the 18-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) when its leaders meet this November in Subic Bay freeport north of Manila. "Liberalizing and facilitating trade and investment alone cannot do it (sustain Apec in the long term) however important though they may be in sustaining the dynamism and growth of Asia-Pacific economies," he said in speech late last month. "Development cooperation" in this context has nothing to do with traditional financial aid, which is a bad word in a forum that has no place for donor-donee ties. Instead, Filipino officials are packaging it as "partnership" among equals in economic and technical cooperation in areas like human resources, energy and agricultural technology. "Apec needs a new model of economic and technical cooperation -- one where initiative and participation are not limited to governments, where everyone contributes commensurate with capabilities, where priorities are jointly set, and where there are no 'junior partners' but only 'equal partners,' " Ramos said. Filipino officials are drafting a "framework paper" on a new cooperation model that aims to boost the capability of Apec's poorer economies. Experts keen on pushing free trade now also say that it has to be placed alongside larger development concerns. Some say the tariff reduction plans to be submitted by Apec members in the Philippines do not appear to go that far. Thus, Manila may do well to focus on the economic cooperation aspect in order to leave a lasting mark on the Apec process. Some activists are urging Filipino officials to go further by incorporating policies that place trade and investment issues within the parameters of equitable growth and environment preservation. Apec aims to remove barriers to trade and investment issues within the parameters of equitable growth and environment preservation. Apec aims to remove barriers to trade and investment among members and have free trade in place by 2010 for developed nations and 2020 for developing nations. The grouping makes up 56% of world output and half of global trade in goods. Apec's members are Australia, Brunei, Canada, China, Chile, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and the United States. At the 1993 Seattle summit in the United States, Apec leaders spelled out their goal of free trade. At Bogor, Indonesia in 1994, they set dates for the accomplishment of this goal. The focus shifted a bit at the 1995 summit in Osaka, Japan. Apec members affirmed the aim of freeing up economies but Japan, playing the power broker as host, stressed the need for forum to look beyond freeing up trade and investment. Tokyo too unveiled a fund for technical cooperation with developing nations. The Osaka document says: "Apec economies will pursue economic and technical cooperation in order to attain sustainable growth and equitable development in the Asia-Pacific region, while reducing economic disparities among Apec economies and improving economic and social well-being." Walden Bello of the Bangkok-based Focus on the Global South says "the Asian Lobby won out" in Osaka, but the battle to make Apec more people-friendly is far from won. He warns that Apec members like the United States "know that Osaka was not the last word and are hoping that Manila might be a more hospitable arena" for getting the free trade agenda back on track after being slowed under Japan's leadership. Apec's free-trade goal created differences in approach between Western members that want to see categorical and binding commitments, and Asian ones that stress consensus and flexibility in assuring that this goes with national concerns. Bello warns that in fact, the individual action plans on tariff cuts to be submitted in Manila would be used by Washington "as a basis for a free trade area" it wants in the future. The Philippines has accelerated its own tariff reduction process to "lead by example" in Apec, and to get other members to submit meaningful action plans for implementation next year. But Bello warns the Philippines may be getting itself into a fix if it commits to liberalization under Apec instead of doing it on its own. "Unilateral liberalization is one thing, but making it part of Apec makes the process irreversible, and can be reversed only under pain of retaliation," he said. Other activists are a bit more optimistic that the Philippine government still has a chance to tame the free-trade agenda. Nicanor Perlas of the Center for Alternative Development Initiatives, said: "We can see a debate happening even in the (Philippine) bureaucracy" between departments that put focus on freer trade and those that stress sustainable development. Filipino officials tend to downplay difference in approach within Apec, though Foreign Secretary Domingo Siazon agrees that the Philippines' work on economic and technical cooperation sends the message that this is as important as freer trade. "The hypothesis of Apec is recognized disparities in economic levels," Siazon said. "So those who are less advanced will have to be assisted in some areas, put them up so it's easier for them to liberalize." Even Apec's avid backers believe that as the forum talks more about issues like education, human resources and the environment, it should no longer be limited to the ususal trade and foreign ministers. Jesus Estanislao, a member of the defunct Apec Eminent Persons Group and president of the Manila-based University of Asia and the Pacific, says it is time to "fully integrate" development and social concerns into the Apec process. "Once we take in the long-term development perspective, there is no way by which we can neatly set aside trade and investment on one corner and push to another corner such legitimate concerns as employment and welfare, productivity and technology transfer, education and culture, to name but a few," Estanislao to a workshop on Asia-Pacific cooperation recently. "if we are to put people at the very center of the Apec program of building a community in the Asia-Pacific, this imperative must be heeded sooner than later," Estanislao said. "We cannot even give the impression that these are merely subsidiary agenda items or, at worst, that these are unneccessary distractions from the main Apec agenda item." Filipino officials are busy working on the "framework paper" on economic cooperation. Since major donor countries like the United States are allergic to any hint of foreign aid, the paper is likely to shun the term "development cooperation." "If the Philippines succeeds (in pushing issues on sustainable development), then the move towards free trade may yet be hijacked," Perlas pointed out. But Siazon says he sees no conflict between the Philippines' pushing both Apec's free-trade agenda and economic and technical cooperation. "They are complementary. It's easier to go for the free trade and free investment scenario when you are at about the same strength level." From daga at HK.Super.NET Wed Oct 16 13:33:28 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 12:33:28 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 164] Lutheran leader attacks 'totalitarian' global economy Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961016122753.1f073c28@is1.hk.super.net> Lutheran leader attacks 'totalitarian' global economy Ecumenical News International, 9 October 1996 by Stephen Brown The president of the Lutheran World Federation has launched an outspoken attack on the international economic system, describing the all-embracing free market economy as the "most modern form of totalitarianism," and calling on the LWF to resist the "destructive forces" of globalisation. Gottfried Brakemeier, a prominent Lutheran theologian from Brazil, told the opening session on 24 September of a meeting in Geneva of the LWF's council - or governing body - that "by globalising the market", neo-liberalism had "undermined the hard-fought-for social guarantees of the nation states". "The welfare state is crumbling and being ridiculed. Poverty is growing. Justice only exists in the form of the law of the fittest," Brakemeier said. Pointing to the example of the Internet - the world-wide computer network - Brakemeier said the process of globalisation was developing a "breathtaking dynamic". The LWF was called, he said, "to resist, not globalisation per se - for this is something that cannot be undone - but the destructive forces it releases." Human rights and labour rights were excluded from this process of globalisation. "If we had global rules [in these areas] things would be different. We have an Olympic games without rules - and that is war, that is not competition," Brakemeier said. "How could the Lutheran World Federation be true to itself it it capitulated in the world economic war euphemistically called international competition?" Brakemeier asked the LWF Council. "It will have to insist that global justice prevails, and, with many allies, fight for the establishment of the necessary structures on the planet." The LWF has 122 member churches which between them represent 56 million Lutherans world-wide. This year's meeting of the LWF council is particularly significant, as it is the last full council meeting before next year's LWF Assembly which takes place in Hong Kong a week after the handover of power to the People's Republic of China. Next year will also be the 50th anniversary of the founding of the LWF. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Oct 16 15:33:11 1996 From: aditjond at psychology.newcastle.edu.au (George J. Aditjondro) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 17:33:11 +1100 Subject: [asia-apec 165] GJA on Jakarta's ET diplomacy (II) Message-ID: Article in The Nation, Bangkok, Monday, October 14, 1996: Comment/George J. Aditjondro Big carrots used in Indonesia's diplomatic policy on East Timor SO much for the sticks in Jakarta's East Timor diplomacy which I wrote about last week. What about the carrots it has used to deal with its international critics? As far as I have been able to discover from my library research, Indonesian diplomats and other members of the Jakarta ruling elite have repeatedly used financial and other material means to seduce their critics and reward their supporters, in all the five continents -- in America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia. Indonesia's former ambassador to the Netherlands, Ret. Gen Alamsyah, once bragged in an Indonesian newspaper, how he seduced the president of an unnamed state, to cease his support for the outlawed South Moluccan Republic (RMS). When this RMS-supporter was visiting the Netherlands, Alamsyah presented him with pieces of silver wrapped in fine batik from Java, with the request to detain the RMS leader who was residing in his country. According to Alamsyah, that bribe had done the trick, and he suggested that Indonesia should also not hesitate to bribe the US Senators, who had put pressure on Indonesia after the Nov 12, 1991 Dili massacre. This report in the Indonesian daily,Pikiran Rakyat , of Dec 7, 1991, did not specify which head of state was bribed, for an insulting cheap price, by the then Ambassador Alamsyah. However, from researching South Moluccan politics one can know that only Beninhad at one stage officially recognized three Indo-Melanesian independence movements -- the South Moluccas, West Papua, and East Timor. In mid 1987, the then Indonesian defense minister Gen Benny Murdani "contributed" US$ 139,000 to Ret. Gen Ted Diro, former PNG defense minister and forestry minister in Paias Wingti's cabinet, to assist Diro's People's Action Party's election campaign. The exposure of this bribe -- and many others in the forestry sector -- ended Diro's political career. Earlier this year, the Australian media publicised the close business partnership of Victorian Labour Left politician Gerry Hand, with the Indonesian Christmas Island casino baron, Robby Sumampouw. This Indonesian businessman has profitted tremendously from his more than long association with Gen Benny Murdani and President Suharto's youngest son, Tommy Suharto. Then, the third diplomatic carrot in the South Pacific region was a shady business deal between a company owned by the Suharto family, PT Harapan Insani, with a Vanuatu-registered company, Dragon Bank, owned by a Malaysian Chinese. Harapan Insani itself is directed by Ibnu Widoyo, a brother-in-law of President Suharto. With funds channelled through this mysterious bank, Harapan Insani was supposed to build a 101-storey telecommunication tower, an 'Eiffel Tower of the East' in Jakarta, worth US$ 8 billion, plus a US$ 80 billion tourist resort on Langkawi Island in Malaysia. The Vanuatu connection enjoyed the full blessing of Vanuatu's Reserve Bank Governor and finance department secretary, Barak Sope, while the Langkawi mega-project had the blessing of Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir as well. Both schemes collapsed when the Dragon Bank branch in Jakarta could not honour its committments with the Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) and the Hongkong Bank branch in Jakarta. Eventually, after this scandal broke out in the media, the Indonesian government cancelled the operating permit of this mysterious bank, while Ibnu Widoyo had to face police interrogations in Jakarta. This case, which smells of money laundering, might not just stop in Jakarta, where Ibnu Widoyo's powerful brother-in-law still rules the country. What have all those three South Pacific scandals in common? They all involved local politicians, -- Ted Diro, Gerry Hand, and Barak Sope -- , who were once known to support the West Papuan and East Timorese independence struggles. Another important businessperson-cum-diplomat who has worked hard to counter the international East Timor solidarity movement is Siti Hardiyanti Rukmana, also known as Tutut, the eldest daughter of President Suharto. Apart from controlling a large business empire, Citra Lamtoro Persada (CLP) Group, she is also a chairperson of Indonesia's ruling party, Golkar, and heads a number of charities as well as an Indonesian-Portuguese friendship association. She only befriends, however, Portuguese and East Timorese who support Indonesia's occupation of East Timor. These friends can thereby enjoy preferential business deals with Indonesia. Three East Timorese 'friends', who have enjoyed her patronage are Abilio Araujo, who lives in Portugal, the late Jose Martins, who also lived in Portugal, and Manuel Tilman, who lives in Macao. Interestingly, they were all at some stage East Timorese freedom fighters, or had at least attacked Indonesia's policy publicly. Recently, representatives of the East Timor diplomatic front have met South African president Nelson Mandela in Johannesburg, presenting the anti-apartheid veteran with a letter from the jailed East Timor leader, Xanana Gusmao. They asked Mandela to use his charisma as a statesman of global fame to support the East Timor independence struggle, in return for the support with the two largest Lusophone countries in Africa, Mozambique and Angola, had rendered to Mandela's African National Congress (ANC) during his anti-apartheid struggle. Unfortunately, Mandela might not be the right person to ask that favour, since an ANC-affiliated fund raising agency, the Foundation for Peace and Justice, had suffered huge losses in a sanction-busting US$ 40 million bungled bank loan that also leads to the doorstep of President Suharto. That loan, which had been invested in two lucrative business projects in London and the Cape Peninsula, were provided by an Indonesian bank, Bank Putera Sukapura. DR GEORGE ADITJONDRO is an Indonesian academic, currently in exile in Australia. At present he teaches at Newcastle University. PS: The Clinton-Lippo case has been cut out by The Nation editor, due to space limitations, and will be addressed in a separate article which I am still working on, to be published, hopefully, later From alarm at pw.net Wed Oct 16 20:14:22 1996 From: alarm at pw.net (alarm) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 19:14:22 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 166] APEC Raps Manila for leak of papers Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961016190844.1b77ae08@is1.hk.super.net> APEC RAPS MANILA FOR LEAK OF PAPERS (Published in Philippine Daily Inquirer, October 16, 1996) This year's host of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders' summit slated next month is finding out that one can't keep a secret in Manila. Diplomatic sources told the inquirer that APEC members like the United States were irked upon learning that the contents of their Individual Action Plans (IAPs) were divulge to the media last month by Walden Bello, a UP professor and head of the Manila People's forum on APEC, a group critical of the APEC Forum. Bello, in that conference, had particularly hit the Philippine Government for submitting an IAP that he stressed intend to turn its liberalization policies into an international commitment without seeking approval from congress. All the 18 member-economies of APEC have submitted to Manila their IAPs, which contain the steps they intend to take to meet their goal in liberalizing trade in their respective countries. The IAPs will be up for review by senior officials from AEPC member economies who will be here in Manila this week for the last senior officials' meetings and Foreign Under secretary Federico Macaranas told a news conference yesterday. CURIOUS, SURPRISED Antonio Basilio, deputy chair of the fourth APEC Senior Officials' Meeting which is scheduled this week, confirmed that some delegates like the United States and Australia had called up and were "curious to find out how it happened." Basilio acknowledge that some of the delegates were "surprised" about the leakage of the content of the IAPs. He said that while the IAPs are public documents, these were considered temporarily confidential" at this point because they were being prepared for the APEC leaders' summit next month. Diplomatic sources said that a ranking official from the Department of Trade and Industry turned over the IAPs to a member of congress who asked for them. The congressman later gave them to Bello. UPSET Last month, sources privy to APEC preparations said security conscious APEC delegates were "upset" by the disclosure to the media of the Hotel accommodations for their respective heads of state. Macaranas said that the Manila Action Plans for APEC (MAPA), which contains the IAPs of the 18 member-economies, are just among documents that APEC senior officials will be submitting to the AEPC Ministerial Meeting on November 24. He said the senior officials will analyze the IAPs, which have been revised by some member-economies, in order to come up with a common format. From bogus@does.not.exist.com Wed Oct 16 20:14:22 1996 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 19:14:22 +0800 (HKT) Subject: ***no article*** Message-ID: ***no article*** From daga at HK.Super.NET Thu Oct 17 15:44:07 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 14:44:07 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 168] Vision for new labour-management relations Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961017143830.1c3fca24@is1.hk.super.net> Vision for new labour-management relations Korean Worker, September 1996 (Newsletter of the Yong Dong Po Urban Industrial Mission) In April the Kim Young-Sam government administration presented a "vision for new labour-management relations" which aims to transform the existing labour management relations (LMR) into a new co-operative and participatory model. The government presented five principles to be incorporated into the VNLMR: maximising the common good; participation and co-operation; labour-management autonomy and responsibility; emphasis on education and human dignity; and globalisation of institutions and attitudes. Following this presentation, in May President Kim established a presidential commission for labour reform (PCLR), comprising management, labour and public interest representatives. Of particular note was the decision of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), which has been seeking labour reform and carrying out its own battle for legal recognition, to participate in the presidential commission. >From the beginning the PCLR has had a tough task of satisfactorily meeting the differing demands of the different groups through national and social consensus under the leadership of the government. On the one hand labour groups, such as the KCTU, are demanding overall revision of collective labour-management law, including the lifting of the bans on multiple trade unions and interference by third parties in line with international standards. On the other hand, employer groups, such as the Korean Employers Federation (KEF), are demanding separate revision of individual labour-management law, including the relaxing of conditions for the dismissal of workers, introduction of a flexible working hours system, and labour dispatch law. Among the challenges facing the PCLR are whether or not the current political leadership can secure a solution to the inevitable intense conflict between labour and management; whether or not the focus on the reform of LMR can include the full participation of the KCTU, whether or not the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) can recognize the KCTU, and whether or not the disagreement of capital headed by the KEF can be minimized. Both the KCTU and the FKTU have strongly stated that they are opposed to any detrimental revision of the labour laws. In mid-July the PCLR outlined seven basic principles for the improvement of LMR agreed to by all representatives: 1) Improvement of labour-management co-operation and rational arbitration of conflict. 2) Respect for labour-management autonomy and equality. 3) Elevation of the quality of workers' lives and increasing the power of the labour market. 4) Focus to be on variety for the sake of balanced development and improvement of international competitiveness. 5) Clarification of basic ideology and consolidation of formal standards. 6) Respect for international standards and customary practice. 7) Respect for labour management consensus and concern for national well-being. These principles provide a general direction with regard to all sensitive issues between labour and management. However while the committee managed to reach consensus on a general direction for the improvement of the labour law and systems, considerable difficulty is being experienced in reaching consensus on the revision of detailed labour clauses. A prime example is in the case of the granting of basic labour rights to civil servants and teachers. Whilst in July the PCLR hinted at the possibility of allowing civil servants and school teachers to organise trade unions, in September their position again reversed. It now seems unlikely that public servants and school teachers will be granted the rights to collective bargaining and actions. On the other hand in late September the PCLR agreed to lift a ban on the political activities of trade unions. On other key issues however, the commission has as yet failed to reach agreement. Due to the big differences between management and labour representatives, at the end of September, the public interest representatives drafted a report, which is currently being internally circulated within the PCLR. The Position of the KCTU The position of the KCTU with regards to the PCLR, was discussed in detail during a membership training session for individual union representatives which was held in July by the KCTU. This session provided time to review the income increase and collective bargaining struggle set up by the KCTU in the first half of the year, and to examine the situation with regards to the revision of the labour law currently in progress. In addition on the basis of this review, the direction needed in the second half of the year was discussed. Many representatives expressed their deep concern for the current situation with regards to the content of the labour law revision and cautiously questioned whether or not the KCTU should "withdraw from the presidential commission on labour reform (PCLR)". This position arose due to the PCLR's complex character and the differing views on the PCLR within the democratic labour camp. Various opinions were submitted in relation to participation in the PCLR and many representatives presented the opinion that they should make it clear whether they would withdraw from the PCLR or not by the end of August when the PCLR presents its proposals and that they should concentrate on mass struggle. Others suggested that while the labour law revision struggle was unfolding, maintenance of maximum participation in the PCLR was needed. The matters above, which have been being brought up continuously since the PCLR's inauguration, reflects the continuing anxiety about the current situation regarding reform discussions with the PCLR. With the release of the internal report drafted by the public interest representatives of the PCLR at the end of September, the KCTU has officially withdrawn from the PCLR citing the fact that it is not possible for the KCTU to reach consensus on the proposed reforms in this report. (Sources: Korean Institute for Labor Studies and Policy, KCTU Newspaper, Korean Herald) From Ross4242 at aol.com Fri Oct 18 00:10:26 1996 From: Ross4242 at aol.com (by way of daga ) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 23:10:26 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 169] Philippines: Ban on ET Nobel Laureate Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961017230447.0c2f65ce@is1.hk.super.net> --------------------- Forwarded message: From: bardsley@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET (Alex G Bardsley) Sender: SEASIA-L@MSU.EDU (Southeast Asia Discussion List) Reply-to: SEASIA-L@MSU.EDU (Southeast Asia Discussion List) To: SEASIA-L@MSU.EDU (Multiple recipients of list SEASIA-L) Date: 96-10-16 20:38:11 EDT X-within-URL: http://www.smh.com.au/daily/world/961017-world3.html October 17, 1996 Anger at ban on Nobel laureate By MARK BAKER, Herald Correspondent in Bangkok The Philippine Government is facing protest over plans to stop the Timorese activist and Nobel peace laureate, Mr Jose Ramos Horta, from attending a human rights forum at next month's Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. Regional human rights groups are planning demonstrations in the lead-up to the summit if the Philippines refuses to lift a long-standing ban on Mr Ramos Horta entering the country. They warned the protests could disrupt the Manila summit on November 24-25, to be attended by leaders of 18 nations including the United States President, Mr Bill Clinton, and the Australian Prime Minister, Mr Howard. Mr Ramos Horta, who was named joint winner of the Nobel Peace Prize last week, is due to give the keynote address at an alternative forum to be attended by about 400 representatives of human rights groups. But the Philippine Government is believed to have recently renewed a blacklist under which Mr Ramos Horta and about 100 other Timorese activists are banned from entering the country. Under pressure from Indonesia, the Philippines barred Mr Ramos Horta from attending a conference on East Timor in Manila in 1994, provoking an international outcry. Governments of the seven-member Association of South-East Asia Nations, including the Philippines, accept that the Timor problem is an internal matter for Indonesia. But the convener of the Manila People's Forum on APEC, the Bangkok-based academic Dr Walden Belo, said the Philippines would face international condemnation if it did not drop its ban. He said the APEC meeting would be overshadowed if the ban stayed. "It would be fairly stupid for the Philippine Government not to allow a Nobel peace prize winner into the country, but they are under intense pressure from the Indonesians," he said. Despite the country's generally favourable human rights record, he said, the Philippine President, Mr Fidel Ramos, was indebted to Indonesia for brokering a peace deal with Muslim rebels on the southern island of Mindanao. Mr Ramos Horta said in Sydney that he remained optimistic the ban would be lifted. "It is just too humiliating for the Philippines for Indonesia to keep dictating what they should be doing," he said. [8]Signpost This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or mirroring is prohibited. From daga at HK.Super.NET Fri Oct 18 12:16:55 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 11:16:55 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 170] east timor updates from the philippines Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961018111117.11afc682@is1.hk.super.net> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 22:40:32 +0800 From: Infolink Subject: east timor updates from the philippines 17 october 1996 dear friends, we are sending you a copy of this article which came out today in the phil. daily inquirer,the most widely-circulated national newspaper in the country. the information about horta's visit was not supposed to come out in public until the scheduled press conference tomorrow, 18 october but the reporter could no longer wait until tomorrow. anyhow, since it is already out in the open, we would have to map out our strategies on how to maximize the situation for the cause of east timor. in this endeavor, we will need your utmost cooperation, all of you in the international solidarity community to: 1. make sure that pressure to our government does not come ONLY from soharto to ban horta; but, from all of us, to put a counter pressure, stronger and more intense on the phil. government to allow horta to come in. a. pressure can come in the form of letters to president fidel v. ramos, media releases, and other creative ways that you can think of; b. can be a soft approach (e.g. "returning the peace gesture of suharto" when they mediated in the phil-mnlf peace talks; urging the phil. government to be peace maker/mediator for the indonesian-east timor peace) talks) c. or hard approach, hit the phil. government for its subservient/weak foreign policy, etc. the above are some of our suggestions IN THE EVENT that the phil. government shows signs of, once again, succumbing to pressure from indonesia. the difference in the situation now and two years ago during apcet 1 is that the phil. government cannot afford to be confronted with any controversies/ issues that will jeopardize its desire to project a positive image of the phil. government. at the same time, of course, the nobel peace award, hot as potato, is something that can work to horta's and east timor's advantage. but please note that this early, there have been signs of pressure to downplay, curb, abort or ignore efforts to project the issue of east timor. last saturday there was an article about 100 east timorese being turned away at the airport citing apec security reasons. there are also constant telephone calls to philseti/pcisp office from the malaysian embassy based here, asking for information about apect2 --who are the participants, the local (malaysian organizers, etc) =========================================== "nobel peace prize winner to visit rp" (philippine daily inquirer, october 17, 1996, p.3) "guess who's coming to town next month? this year's nobel peace prize winner and exiled east timor human rights activist jose ramos-horta has confirmed tuesday that he will be attending a parallel forum to the asia-pacific economic cooepration leaders' summit in november. organizers of the manila people's forum on apec --an international gathering of people's movements and ngos critical of the apec's liberalization agenda --said yesterday horta had accepted the group's invitation as early as last year. horta will keynote the mpfa conference on november 19, according to omi royandoyan, mpfa coordinator. but the question of whether horta will actually be able to come to the country is up in the air. in 1994, the philippine government, giving in to pressure from the indonesian government, barred east timor activists from entering the country to attend a human rights conference here. indonesia is sensitive about the human rights issue in east timor, a former portuguese colony which it invaded in 1975. the indonesian government recently complained about the nobel peace prize awarded to horta, who continues to campaign for his country's independence overseas. royandoyan, meanwhile, said apec members and governments should be rapped for "failing to inform the people of the trade and investment commitments they are making to the apec, all of which will have huge social, ecological and political consequences." the mpfa was reacting to an Inquirer report that quoted diplomatic sources as saying that certain apec members like the us were irked by the leakage of the individual action plans they submitted for the apec leaders' summit on november 24-25. the iaps were disclosed in a news conference held by the mpfa last month. royandoyan said the reaction of the apec members were "typical of a forum that has largely been untransparent and undemocratic in its processes." he said the mpfa was particularly concerned about the philippines iap, which it says "compromised the national interest and contravenes the 1987 constitution" in the "extremely liberal measures" it intends to undertake. each of the 18-member economies of apec has submitted its iap, which contains the actions they plan to undertake in meeting the goal to liberalize trade in their respective countries." =============================== "100 east timorese refused entry" apec security cited by armand nocum, phil daily inquirer, 0ctober 12, 1996 the immigration bureau has turned away 100 east timorese on a mere suspicion that they would stage rallies in manila next month to protest the indonesian occupation of east timor during the visit of indonesian president suharto. suharto, along with 17 other heads of state, is expected to attend the asia-pacific economic cooperation (apec) meeting at the subic freeport in zambales in november. indonesia annexed east timor, a former portuguese colony, in 1975. orlando dizon, intelligence division chief of the bureau of immigration and deportation (bid), said the government has denied the 100 east timorese entry on the ground that they could be human rights activists out to disrupt the apec meeting. "We would have granted them entry, but we were suspicious of their motives," dizon told bid reporters. dizon said the non-admission of the east timorese was part of the security measures aimed at preventing the entry of extremists and agitators who could embarass the country during the apec meeting. dizon said the east timorese arrived at the ninoy aquino international airport (naia) tuesday at 4 pm on a phil. airlines (pal) flight. they were en route to south korea purportedly to seek employment. jaime mendoza, naia-bid travel control assistant chief, said the east timorese had asked that they be allowed to stay in manila temporarily as "transient passengers" while waiting for the connecting flight. but the bid denied the request. instead, the bid "properly escorted and confined" the east timorese and the philippine village hotel where they stayed overnight, mendoza said. the east timorese were scheduled yesterday afternoon to take pal flight 416 bound for seoul. observers said the bid move could spark a new round of clashes between the phil. human rights groups sympathetic to the cause of the east timorese and the police (?) they note that the east timorese were denied entry without "due process." "they did not even check on their backgrounds to see if they are really activists," a bid source told the inquirer. the east timorese are demanding that indonesia leave their country. in 1994, the philippine government tried to stop the holding of an international conference on east timor in manila at the instance of the indonesian government. the phil. government failed to secure a court order to stop the conference but was able to prevent a number of foreign delegates from attending the conference." --we tried to verify this report from the airport offices but they would not divulge any information to us so finally, we called up the indonesian embassy only to be told that they did not receive any formal communication from the phil. government about it and therefore they could not comment on it. PRESS RELEASE. 12 October 1996 The Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (pahra) is alarmed at the report that 100 east timorese have been denied entry even as "transient passengers" by the bureau of immigration and deportation (bid) "on the ground that they could be human rights activists out to disrupt the apec meeting." besides the fact that the right to due process was not given to them, pahra perceives a not too unmistakable signal from the government that the same could be done to other foreigners for the same reason. it is ironic that the news regarding the denied entry came on the same day as the granting of the joint award of the nobel peace prize to two east timorese -bishop carlos belo and an independence activist jose ramos-horta. of grave concern too for pahra is that the actuation of bid may be indicative of an instilled paranoic alert and of corresponding actions against anything government officials judge could "embarass" the country during the apec meeting next month. but securing the 18 heads of economies does not, at any time, warrant the suppression of human rights. signed: max m. de mesa, deputy secretary general, pahra. note: pahra is a member of the steering committee of the phil. solidarity for east timor and indonesia. all for now. thank you. in solidarity ellene sana people's council for international solidarity and peace/ phil. solidarity for east timor and indonesia (phil-seti) e-mail: From aditjond at psychology.newcastle.edu.au Fri Oct 18 14:14:56 1996 From: aditjond at psychology.newcastle.edu.au (George J. Aditjondro) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 16:14:56 +1100 Subject: [asia-apec 171] GJA on Jakarta's ET diplomacy (III) Message-ID: NB: after I circulated the previous article, I received the third part of the long article on Indonesia's East Timor diplomacy, which mentioned the notorious Lippo-Clinton connection. Hence, I feel obliged to send it to you, now, especially to all those friends who have received the original paper, and have waited for it to be published. Thanks for your patience. GJA Article in The Nation, Bangkok, Monday, Wednesday, October 16, 1996: Comment/George J. Aditjondro Diplomatic blackmail, Jakarta-style * US President Bill Clinton's decision to go soft on Indonesia could be relatred to huge contributions made by the Riyadi family to the presidential campaign On Monday, I talked about the big carrots used by the Indonesian government to silence its East Timor critics. Now, we also have to consider the diplomatic effect of Indonesian conglomerates investing overseas. Since conglomerates and state companies owned by Suharto's family and cronies have aggressively expanded their overseas markets, some governments which initially supported East Timor's right to self-determination have now changed their votes in the United Nations. China and Vietnam, for instance, were among the countries which recognised the aborted "Democratic Republic of East Timor", declared on Nov 28, 1975, and had also voted against Indonesia in various UN forums. Yet, since Indonesian conglomerates owned by Suharto relatives and associates began to invest in China and Vietnam, these two socialist countries have began to toe the Indonesian line in the UN. This "diplomatic effect" of Indonesian conglomerates may also explain the official US government decision to render de facto recognition of Indonesia's occupation of East Timor. One of the factors may be the long-standing friendship of the Riyadi family, which owns the majority shares in the Lippo Group, has with the Clinton family. The Riyadi family had made contributions to Clinton's governatorial campaign as well as his 1992 and current presidential campaigns. Senate hearings During the hearings of the Senate Special Committe on Whitewater, it emerged that Webster Hubbel, a former law partner in Hillary Clinton's law firm in Arkansas and former associate attorney-general in the Clinton administration, had received a retainer from the Lippo Group during the 18-month interim period between resigning as associate attorney-general and going to jail to serve a two-year sentence for fraud. On top of that, a Lippo employee, John Huang, who had handled the US$ 200,000 (Bt 5 million) "donation" from the Riyadisfor Clinton's presidential campaign fund, had even been appointed as a staff member for Ron Brown, the late secretary of trade. The Riyadi family were, indeed, no strangers in Litte Rock, Arkansas. Togethrer with the family of Jackson Stephens, a big businessman in Arkansas and a Clinton backer, they are part-owners of the Worthen Bank. The Riyadis also have joint business ventures with the Stephens' in Hong Kong (Wall Street Journal , March 1, 1996; Australian Financial Review , Sept 17, 1996; William Safire, "The Asian connection," The New York Times , Oct 7, 1996). Therefore, it is understandable why Clinton refused to meet the 29 young East Timorese who camped in the US Embassy in Jakarta during the 1994 Apec meeting. Likewise, the choice of Indonesia's aircraft industry, IPTN, to locate its branch company in Alabama is closely connected with the seat of the head of the appropriation committee in the US Senate. This aircraft industry is one of the 10 state companies headed by President Suharto's most trusted minister, Rudy Habibie. The minister's younger brother, Fanny Habibie, has also supported Suharto's eldest daughter's -- Tutut -- in East Timor diplomacy from his post as Indonesia's ambassador to the UK and Ireland. Two meetings between the pro-independence and pro-Indonesian Timorese took place in London, brokered by Fanny Habibie and Tutut. With all these developments in mind, one has top realise that the international East Timor solidarity movement is facing an increasingly tougher battlefield. This is all the more a reason to combine economic pressure with political pressure, just like what the Jakarta regime has done, by targeting Indonesian business overseas as well as Indonesian diplomatic units. Solidarity movement In response to the stick and carrot diplomacy of the Suharto regime, East Timor activists and their supporters should more actively picket the branch offices of Indonesian state and private business offices, factories, and showrooms, and organise massive consumer boycotts of Indonesian products marketed overseas by companies owned by the Suharto clan and its cronies. Therefore, it is a big bonus to the East Timor solidarity movement and their Indonesian comrades to learn about the Sept 18 decision of the Maritime Union of Australia to ban Australian wheat to the Suharto-family owned Bogasari flour mills in Java. This is a replay of a similar ban which lasted for three years from the end of 1975 until the end of 1977, in protest against the illegal occupation of East Timor by the Indonesian military. Hopefully, more similar actions will be declared by other labour, environment, and human rights movements, worldwide. DR GEORGE ADITJONDRO is an Indonesian academic, currently in exile in Australia. At present he teaches at Newcastle University. From chalida at mozart.inet.co.th Fri Oct 18 19:17:15 1996 From: chalida at mozart.inet.co.th (Chalida Tajaroensuk. Ms) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 18:17:15 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 172] Urgent Burma Appeal Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961018181136.1ed7c326@is1.hk.super.net> URGENT BURMA APPEAL (please directly respond to ) Dear Friends, The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), and Initiatives for International Dialogue (IID), in co-operation with the Burma Solidarity Group Malaysia (BSGM), Thai Action Committee for Democracy in Burma (TACDB) and the National Council of the Union of Burma (NCUB), are jointly organising the "Alternative ASEAN Meeting on Burma". on October 29-30, 1996 at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. The meeting will bring together about fifty human rights activists, trade unionists and academics from within and outside ASEAN together with representatives of the democratic movement of Burma. The meeting aims to make an ASEAN-based assertion of solidarity and support with the people of Burma in their struggle for human rights and democracy and to develop alternatives to current official policy and practice adopted by ASEAN member governments. It will also provide the launching point for a broader regional campaign through the establishment of an ALTERNATIVE ASEAN NETWORK to mobilise grassroots people and civic organisations. Another intended significant outcome of the meeting will be the adoption of an ALTERNATIVE ASEAN DECLARATION ON BURMA. Please read that attached draft Alternative ASEAN Declaration On Burma for your endorsement and feedback. We would appreciate if you could distribute this draft declaration amongst your networks for feedback and endorsement as well. Your support is urgently needed and will be greatly valued. It is anticipated that there will be some amendments and additions to the Draft Declaration before it is finalised and adopted, however, such changes will only be made with the acceptance of Burmese groups engaged in the movement, in the spirit of the principles supporting the restoration of human rights, democracy and peace in Burma. Please send your endorsement in the following format: "I wish to endorse the draft Alternative ASEAN Declaration on Burma and understand that this draft may undergo amendments which do not contradict the spirit of its current content. My details are as follows: NAME: ORGANISATION: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: FAX NO: EMAIL: SIGNED (IF SENDING BY FAX): Please forward your feedback and endorsement by WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23, to The Secretariat, Alternative ASEAN Meeting on Burma c/- Forum-Asia 109 Suthisarnwinichai Road Samsennok, Huaykwang Bangkok, Thailand Tel: 66 2 275 4230 - 3 . Fax 66 2 276 2183 or 275 4230 Email: chalida@mozart.inet.co.th Please feel free to contact the Secretariat if you require further information on the Alternative ASEAN Meeting on Burma. Thank you. Yours in solidarity, on behalf of the organisers. __________________________________________________________ DRAFT ALTERNATIVE ASEAN DECLARATION ON BURMA 1. WE, THE PARTICIPANTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE ASEAN MEETING ON BURMA, WISH TO AFFIRM OUR SUPPORT FOR AND SOLIDARITY WITH THE MOVEMENT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY IN BURMA, ALSO KNOWN AS MYANMAR. 2. WE VIEW WITH GRAVE CONCERN the violations perpetrated by the brutal military regime in Burma known as the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) upon the 47 million people of Burma. These violations are being inflicted in contempt of universal values which recognise and uphold the humanity and dignity of all human beings. These violations are also in direct contravention of a range of international instruments adopted by a number of nations throughout the world, notably: 3. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 4. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 5. The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, Degrading Treatment and Punishment 6. The Slavery Convention and the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery 7. The Convention on the Rights of the Child 8. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 9. The Vienna Declaration on Human Rights 10. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and 11. The Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities 12. WE ALSO VIEW WITH GRAVE CONCERN the SLORC's flagrant violations of the principles encompassed by the International Labour Standards and Conventions promoted by the International Labour Organisation, including: 13. The Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention 14. The Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention 15. The Forced Labour Convention and the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention 16. The Discrimination of Employment and Occupation Convention 17. WE VIEW WITH ABHORRENCE the fact that these principles continue to be flouted by the SLORC through: 18. Its long-running harassment of the ethnic nationalities of Burma by military attacks 19. Its widespread use of forced labour for so-called development projects 20. The abduction of people to be used as porters and human mine-sweepers for military activities 21. Rapes and sexual assaults perpetrated by military personnel, with the sanction of their commanding officers upon men, women and children 22. Tortures, beatings, and other forms of cruel and degrading punishments inflicted by military personnel with the sanction of their commanding officers upon men, women and children 23. The public and secret murders of men, women and children committed by military personnel acting under orders of their leadership 24. Maintenance of extremely oppressive conditions and practices in prisons and camps where political prisoners are detained 25. The recruitment of child soldiers into the military 26. The destruction of sources of food and livelihood, including domestic food crops, to intimidate, harass and force the relocation of communities, particularly those belonging to ethnic nationalities in the border areas and members of religious minorities 27. The perpetuation of the crisis of internally displaced people and refugees along Burma's borders through attacks, human rights violations and other forms of intimidation, as well as the orchestration of forced repatriations 28. The forced relocations of communities in central Burma to make way for so- called development and/or to undermine support for the democracy movement 29. Use of quotas and coercive mechanisms to deny access to equal opportunities to education and employment to a range of people on the basis of gender, religion, ethnicity and political beliefs 30. The statelessness imposed by the SLORC upon a significant proportion of the people of Burma through military harassments and the denial of their rights to citizenship 31. Deliberate harassment and persecution of supporters of the movement for human rights and democracy through illegal arrests, detentions, torture, perversions of justice and impositions of lengthy jail terms on activists, particularly those belonging to the National League for Democracy 32. Promulgation of laws and regulations to inhibit and threaten people to prevent their engagement in legitimate and peaceful actions to effect positive change in Burma 33. The manipulation of the process of formulating a new Constitution in Burma, including the harassment and unreasonable pressure calculated to deny democratic forces their rightful influence and input into such deliberations 34. Widespread censorship and the imposition of onerous penalties on those seeking to legitimately disseminate information of national and international significance in Burma 35. The manipulation and perversion of the judicial system and other mechanisms aimed at upholding justice and legal redress 36. The diversion of funds away from public education, which has contributed to plummeting literacy rates amongst children in Burma. 37. The diversion of funds away from public health, which has contributed to the tragic growing epidemic of HIV/AIDS in Burma 38. The maintenance of conditions which prolong the continuing illicit production and trafficking of heroin and opium 39. The maintenance of conditions which make many communities vulnerable to the trafficking of women and children 40. The obstructions maintained by the SLORC to prevent international humanitarian agencies, including the UN Special Rapporteur on Burma, International Committee of the Red Cross and the UNHCR, from freely engaging in legitimate fact-finding, monitoring and relief work 41. The SLORC's continuing refusal to acknowledge or uphold the human and political rights of the peoples of Burma and 42. The SLORC's refusal to recognise the outcome of the 1990 elections which it conducted and which saw the National League for Democracy win 82% of the seats. 43. WE NOTE that the above-mentioned violations, degradations and harassments perpetrated by the SLORC have been extensively documented by a number of well respected organisations, including agencies of the United Nations. 44. FURTHER, WE VIEW WITH ABHORRENCE the SLORC's initiation of projects and practices which pose a severe danger to the ecological stability of the country, including the unsustainable exploitation of Burma's marine and forest resources in return for foreign exchange and the proposed Salween River project, and the ensuing human costs of such short-sighted endeavours which are aimed at extracting short-term maximum profit. 45. WE ALSO VIEW WITH ABHORRENCE the activities of foreign companies operating in co-operation with the SLORC to extract profits from the oppression of the people of Burma. WE ARE GRAVELY CONCERNED that such activities, have in some situations contributed to human rights violations. WE ARE ALSO GRAVELY CONCERNED that the foreign exchange and material profits gained by the SLORC from such exploitative activities provide the notorious junta with the means to further oppress the people of Burma. WE SUPPORT the efforts of peoples' organisations in the international community to implement selective buying campaigns and to seek legal action to hold such foreign investors accountable for their complicity in the abuses taking place in Burma. 46. WE VIEW WITH DEEP CONCERN the growing phenomena of migrant workers from Burma who, in their desperation to flee the harsh conditions of their country, are being subjected to exploitative conditions in countries where they have sought work. WE NOTE that the Burmese authorities' refusal to take responsibility for them has rendered them illegal migrant workers in most of the countries they are seeking work. THEREFORE, WE RESPECTFULLY URGE these countries to apply the principles contained in the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families in their dealings with these people. 47. WE RECOGNISE AND SUPPORT the aspirations of the people of Burma for a peaceful, democratic society which respects the civil and political rights of all its members. 48. WE RECOGNIZE that the prerequisites for a just peace in Burma include: 49. The recognition of the outcome of the 1990 election, including the handing over of power to a democratic, civilian government 50. The reconstitution of the composition and processes of the National Convention for the drawing up of a new Constitution to reflect the aspirations and desires of the peoples of Burma 51. The unconditional release of all political prisoners, including those held under house arrest 52. The formation of a genuine Federal Union of Burma which recognises the rights of all communities and ethnic nationalities 53. The cessation of human rights violations against the peoples of Burma, including killings, torture, rape and sexual assault, forced labour and other forms of persecution and violations as described above 54. The cessation of harassments, attacks and discrimination targeted at the ethnic nationalities of Burma 55. The cessation of all forms of harassments and the abolition of unjust laws aimed at inhibiting the formation of a democratic, civil society which values human rights 56. The re-organisation of the economic system of Burma and a re- prioritisation of the national budget to reflect the true needs and desires of its population, and 57. A continuing, genuine dialogue between all the key political groups of the country as part of the process to achieve long-lasting reconciliation 58. WE RECOGNISE AND SUPPORT the desire of the people of Burma for a democratic, civilian government as expressed through the results of the 1990 election. 59. WE ASSERT that the crisis in Burma is a matter of grave concern to the international community, particularly to the citizens of ASEAN nations and do no accept that it is an "internal matter". 60. WE ASSERT that the on-going crisis in Burma is a threat to the long-term peace, economic growth and security of the world, in particular, the ASEAN and South- Asian regions. The prolongation of the long-term crisis in Burma will have severe destructive effects on the citizens of the region. 61. WE BELIEVE that ASEAN is in a position to ensure that genuine positive change takes place in Burma. 62. WE DO NOT AGREE with ASEAN's current policy known as "constructive engagement" on the grounds that such a policy has done nothing to promote genuine reconciliation in Burma, in fact, it has given the SLORC legitimacy to perpetuate its rule of terror over our neighbours in Burma, as demonstrated by the junta's renewed crackdowns on democracy activists in the past six months. 63. WE OPPOSE ASEAN membership for the SLORC on the grounds that: 64. The SLORC is not the legitimate government of that country 65. ASEAN membership would provide the SLORC with a de facto licence to continue its attacks on the peoples on Burma, and 66. The SLORC's activities are a direct contradiction to the aims and objectives of ASEAN 67. WE BELIEVE that ASEAN and the international community, including regional and international groupings such as the European Union and the United Nations and its agencies have, at their disposal, the means to support, encourage and facilitate the restoration of human rights, democracy and ultimately, peace, to Burma 68. WE CALL UPON ASEAN, as a grouping, and member nations of ASEAN, as sovereign states to exercise their right to review their position vis-a-vis Burma, and formulate a progressive position to support genuine dialogue and reconciliation in Burma 69. WE CALL UPON members of the United Nations, European Union, the ASEAN Regional Forum and other governments who have dealings with ASEAN as a grouping, and individual member nations of ASEAN, to exert their good offices to encourage a positive change in ASEAN's approach to the crisis in Burma. WE BELIEVE that change is possible, with sufficient support and a willingness to dialogue in the spirit of international co-operation and goodwill 70. WE FURTHER CALL UPON the aforementioned members of the United Nations, European Union, the ASEAN Regional Forum and other citizens of the world, including Non-Governmental Organisations and international agencies to renew their commitment and efforts to support, encourage and facilitate the restoration of human rights, democracy and ultimately, peace, to Burma through engaging in all forms of firm, peaceful, diplomatic strategies, including the application of diplomatic and trade sanctions against the SLORC 71. TO THIS END, we urge the aforementioned groups and individual countries to provide concrete support towards activities undertaken by organisations and groups working within and without Burma in support of human rights and democracy in that country through prioritising the flow of information and resources, the free movement of activists in their work, and commitment to the implementation of cross-border relief work and humanitarian assistance. 72. FURTHER, WE URGE the citizens of the world not to support the SLORC's Visit Myanmar campaign, by postponing plans to visit the country until the human rights situation improves in that country, further that they communicate the grounds for their decision to representatives of the SLORC and their local travel industry. 73. WE ALSO URGE THAT the United Nations, as the ultimate body of world authority, take immediate steps to eject the SLORC from the UN General Assembly on the grounds that the SLORC is not the legitimate government of Burma, further that its continuing brutality and oppression of the people of Burma are anathema to the values and vision of the UN. 74. WE, THE PARTICIPANTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE ASEAN MEETING ON BURMA, RE-AFFIRM OUR COMMITMENT to support the movement for human rights and democracy in Burma. WE WILL DO THIS by working in co-operation with Burmese and non-Burmese peoples' organisations working within and without Burma to further the cause of the movement. WE WILL DO THIS through the formation of the Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma, as an expression of the support of the peoples of ASEAN for the struggle in Burma. WE WILL ENGAGE in activities on the local, national and regional levels to raise awareness of and mobilise support for our 47 million neighbours in Burma. 75. WE MAKE THIS COMMITMENT with the understanding that we are diminished as human beings and as supporters of human rights if we fail to act to alleviate the tragic crisis taking place in Burma. WE UNDERSTAND THAT our support for human rights, democracy and peace in Burma is also support for human rights, democracy and peace in our communities. 76. THEREFORE, WE CALL UPON our home governments and other members of the international community to support us in our endeavours and allow us to freely engage in legitimate activities which are informed by the universal values for human rights, democracy and peace, held dearly by all peoples of the world. 77. WE MAKE THIS DECLARATION ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1996, AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE ALTERNATIVE ASEAN MEETING ON BURMA, CHULALONGKORN UNIVERSITY, BANGKOK, THAILAND. SIGNED: (Participants) ALSO ENDORSED BY: (Endorsing organisations who could not attend meeting) Draft: Alternative ASEAN Declaration on Burma, as at 10/14/96 From boonthan at mozart.inet.co.th Sat Oct 19 04:02:00 1996 From: boonthan at mozart.inet.co.th (Boonthan T. Verawongse) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 02:02:00 +0700 (GMT+0700) Subject: [asia-apec 173] Asia Pacific NGO Human Rights Congress 1996 Message-ID: Dear Friends, Warm Greetings! Please find an enclosed invitation letter for our forthcoming Asia Pacific Human Rights NGOs Congress and the annex documents. The Human Rights Congress is a joint effort of various human rights and development NGOs throughout the region in follow up the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights (1993). The Congress will be held from 6 - 10 December 1996 in New Delhi, India. It is just one and a half week after the APEC Summit in Manila. Sorry if you may receive this invitation more than once from different mailing list. We just want to make sure that this invitation reach you properly. In case you cannot participate in the Congress, kindly send your solidarity message to the Congress by the end of November 1996. Your generous support will be very meaningful. With best regards, Boonthan T. Verawongse Asian Cultural Forum on Development (ACFOD), Liaison Coordinator, for the Asia Pacific Human Rights NGOs - Facilitating Team P.O. Box 26, Bungthonglang, Bangkok 10242, Thailand Tel. (662) 377 9357, 370 2701 Fax. (662) 374 0464, 370 1202 Email: boonthan@mozart.inet.co.th ---------- Forwarded message ---------- INVITATION: Asia Pacific NGO Human Rights Congress Congress Secretariat: South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC) C-16/2, DDA Flats (SFS), Saket New Delhi 110017, India Phones: + 91-11-685 9622 & 686 5736 Fax: + 91-11-686 5736 Email: sadc@unv.ernet.in 4 October 1996 Dear friends, The South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC), India, on behalf of the Asia-Pacific Human Rights NGOs Facilitating Team, Thailand, takes great pleasure in inviting you to the Asia- Pacific NGO Human Rights Congress. The Congress is to be held in New Delhi from the 6 to 8 December 1996. The venue of the Congress is the Convention Centre, Jamia Hamdard University, Hamdard Nagar, New Delhi 110062, India. The organisers are not in a position to pay travel costs of participants. All participants are requested to approach their donor agencies or funding partners for the requisite travel assistance. Two tickets per country may be provided by the Secretariat of the Asia-Pacific Human Rights NGO Facilitating Team in Thailand subject to the availability of funds. Please fill the appropriate column in the Registration Form. No travel assistance will be provided for Indian participants. All International participants are requested to apply for Tourist visas at Indian diplomatic missions. On the 9 and 10 December 1996, immediately following the Congress, a Special Training Workshop on International Human Rights Procedures will be held at the same venue. The Training Workshop will be facilitated by the International Service for Human Rights, Geneva. Please indicate in the Registration form whether you want to stay on for the workshop. The Congress Secretariat will be responsible for lodging participants of all invited and registered participants from 12 noon of 5 December to 12 noon of 9 December 1996. Those registering and accepted for the Special Training Workshop will be able to stay on up to 12 noon of 11 December 1996. The Asia-Pacific NGO Human Rights Congress will address four important themes of human rights concern in the region - 1. Reasserting Universality, 2. Integrating Womens' Rights in the day to day activities of the human rights NGOs, 3. Human Rights violations under the National Security Laws and 4. Developing a qmodule for coordination amongst the Asia-Pacific Human Rights NGOs. The Congress Secretariat will be presenting resolutions for the consideration of participants at the Congress. A package of resolutions will be mailed to invited participants on receipt of their registration forms. The Congress Secretariat will place these resolutions before the Congress for formal adoption. The Congress Secretariat will forward these resolutions to Asian Governments and other concerned governments, inter-governmental organizations, specialized agencies, bodies of the United Nations and non-governmental organizations. Invited and registered participants may submit resolutions for the consideration of the Congress to the Conference Secretariat on or before 15 November 1996. If you need any further information or clarifications, please contact the undersigned. Yours in solidarity, Ravi Nair on behalf of the Congress Secretariat Encl: Annexure 1: Approach paper for the Asia-Pacific NGO Human Rights Congress. Annexure 2: Registration Form Annexure 3: Provisional Agenda and Timetable Annexure 4: Rules of procedure for Discussion and submission on resolutions ---------------------------- Annexure 1 Asia-Pacific NGO Human Rights Congress Congress Secretariat: South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC) C-16/2, DDA Flats (SFS), Saket New Delhi 110017, India Phones: + 91-11-685 9622 & 686 5736 Fax: + 91-11-686 5736 Email: sadc@unv.ernet.in Approach Paper for the Asia-Pacific NGO Human Rights Congress The Asia-Pacific Human Rights NGO Facilitating Team is a body of Asian NGOs that participated in the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights in June 1993. It was formed in 1994 during the Post- Vienna Conference of the Asian NGOs in Bangkok, which evaluated the outcome of the Vienna conference. The members of the Asia-Pacific Human Rights NGO Facilitating Team were elected for a period of two years to help coordinate the Asian human rights movement in a more cohesive and concerted manner. The members of Asia-Pacific Human Rights NGO Facilitating Team presently are: For South East Asia and Overall Coordination: Asian Cultural Forum on Development, Thailand (Mr Boonthan Verawongse); For South Asia: South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre, India (Mr Ravi Nair); For East Asia: Korea Human Rights Network, Korea, (Mr Anselmo Lee); For China and Coordination in North America: Human Rights in China, USA, (Mr Xiao Qiang); For the Pacific: Pacific Concern Resource Centre, Fiji, (Mr Lopeti Sintuli); For West Asia: Al Haq, Palestine, (Ms Merwat Rishmawi); For Indigenous Peoples: Asian Indigenous Peoples Pact, Thailand (Mr Luingam Luithui); For Women: Asia-Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development, Malaysia, (Ms Nimalka Fernando); For Children: Child Rights Asianet, Thailand, (Prof Vitit Muntarbhorn); For the Workers: Asia Pacific Workers Solidarity Link, New Zealand (Mr Robert Reid); For Regional Organizations: Hotline/ACPP, Hong Kong (Mr Samydorai Sinapan). The Asia-Pacific Human Rights NGO Congress is an attempt of the Asia-Pacific Human Rights NGO Facilitating Team to discuss the human rights issues and challenges in the Asia-Pacific region and set the agenda of the Asian NGO movement for the 21st century. The Long Road from Vienna The issue of human rights has never been so much in the forefront of the international scenario as it is today. In a euphoric spirit after the end of the Cold War, the member states of the United Nations passed a resolution to convene the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in June 1993. The Conference was held after a span of 25 years since the first conference held in Tehran, Iran. The Preparatory Committee Meetings and the Vienna Conference brought into sharp focus many facets of human rights reality. Many authoritarian and totalitarian governments continue to rule in Asia. Besides cultural cleansing of the Tibetans and Jummas of the Chittagong Hills in Bangladesh, the East Timorese and the Bougainvillaeans demand their independence. Northern and Eastern parts of Sri Lanka continue to be in turmoil, democracy is gerry- mandered in Indonesia, the Palestinian entity violates human rights while the new Israeli Government scuttles the peace process. India represents a miniature of the ethnic conflicts taking place across the region, while Pakistan sanctifies extrajudicial executions in Karachi. There are more than a dozen major ethnic conflicts across the Asia-Pacific region, all seeking varying degrees of self determination. Most ethnic conflicts have a background of domination, injustice and repression of one ethnic group by another. The list is long and woeful. Prior to the Asian Regional Inter-Governmental Meeting (March- April 1993) in preparation for the Vienna Conference, regional NGOs gathered at the Asia Pacific NGO Conference on Human Rights, which took place from 25-28 March 1993 in Bangkok. The Bangkok NGO Declaration on Human Rights reflected the true spirit of Asian aspiration for fundamental freedoms and human rights. This, despite the fact that the governmental document, the Bangkok Declaration, attempted to trample upon the inalienable human rights of Asians under the cover of cultural, historical and regional particularities. During the Third Preparatory Committee Meeting, Asia-Pacific Human Rights NGOs formed a Coordinating Committee for follow up of the Vienna Conference. After the Vienna Conference, Asia-Pacific NGOs were the first to meet again to evaluate the conference and set the agenda for the future. About 107 NGOs participated in the meeting in 1994 in Bangkok and formed the Asia-Pacific Human Rights NGO Facilitating Team for a period of two years. Building Asian Solidarity The Asia-Pacific NGO Facilitating Team has been functioning on an adhoc basis and has undertaken several activities. It campaigned for human rights issues during the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Foreign Ministers Meeting in Bangkok in 1994. It also helped organize the Asian Conference on National Security Laws in Seoul from 22-25 November 1995. The lack of institutional set-up or module for coordination have stymied the activities of the Asia-Pacific Human Rights NGO Facilitating Team. More and more NGOs have been expressing their desire to join the Facilitating Team, however, expansion of the Facilitating Team has been constrained by the necessity for substantive discussion amongst the NGOs in the region. There is an urgent need to convene an Asian NGO Congress in order to frame and institutionalize a model or medium of coordination for Asian solidarity and to face the emerging challenges of human rights struggle in the region. The Challenges Ahead Asians face many challenges ahead. The most serious challenge is, of course, as many government delegates say, " cultural specificity," - the peculiar patriarchal Pattern of democracy in which "an authoritarian Government considers itself as the sole guardian of the State and which see its own good as public good and equates all opposition and criticism as treason." In a host of countries in Asia like China, North Korea and Burma there are simply no independent NGOs. Singapore and Malaysia represent the epitome of the Asian patriarchal pattern of democracy. Democratic dissent is extremely restrictive and NGOs face the brutal force of the State. In most of the countries, international assistance to NGOs, with the exception of "Government Organized" NGOs (GONGOs), is contingent upon the whims of the intelligence agencies. The right to freedom of association of NGOs is greatly curtailed across Asia. Human rights NGOs have been facing denunciation, vilification and physical assault by the State and its agencies, whenever they take up the cause of the democratic rights of the downtrodden, unorganized labourers, minorities and indigenous peoples, and when they take up the case of ordinary citizens caught in an armed conflicts. The State-sponsored hate campaign against human rights NGOs, hitherto carried out by bureaucracy, the police and a section of the media, has in recent years received a fillip by the direct leadership provided the authoritarian Governments. Universality of Human Rights Because of Asian Government's over-emphasis on cultural specificities as a means to escape international scrutiny, the need for regional human rights instruments like the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and African Charter on Human Rights and Peoples' Rights to defend and promote human rights, has not been realized. It reflects the hollowness of the self proclaimed "Asian Concept of Human Rights". In fact, many of the proponents of "Asian Concept of Human Rights" can not articulate the difference with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights except in terms of justifying human rights abuses, legitimizing authoritarian laws and the patriarchal State. Asian Governments have never shown any serious commitment to the administration of justice, accountability to or compensation for the victims of human rights abuses. Rather, the attempt by Asian Governments to strengthen civil and democratic society has excluded NGOs in the consultation process and has seen NGOs as an enemy of the Government. Attempts to Muzzle Asian NGOs The conspiracy to exclude NGOs goes beyond the regional human rights instruments for the Asia-Pacific region. During the 51st Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in February-March 1995, Asian Governments created stumbling blocks to prohibit Indigenous Peoples' NGOs from participating in the Commission-level drafting process of the Draft Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples. Their strategy: to simply deny the existence of indigenous peoples in the region. A similar attitude was displayed in the 52nd Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in March - April 1996 on the discussion on the Draft Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. Despite significant events in Asia, such as the release of Burmese Nobel Laureate, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and China's hosting of the Fourth World Conference on Women, the human rights situation in Asia has not improved. The illegitimate military Government, the State Law and Order Restoration Council of Burma is yet to hand over the power to the legitimate government of the National League for Democracy and thousands of prisoners of conscience continue to be detained in Burma. In China, the controversial venue for the NGO Forum at the Beijing Conference and the denial of visas to many Tibetan women spoke for itself of the Chinese concern for human rights. The Continuing Denial of Human Rights Human rights violations across the Asia Pacific region continue to be appalling. Arbitrary detention, torture, rape, custodial deaths, disappearances, trafficking of women, sexual exploitation, denial of freedom of expression continue unabated. Workers rights and the International Labour Organization (ILO) guidelines continue to be flouted. The treatment of migrants workers in the Gulf States, Singapore and Malaysia is barbaric, to say the least. Many of the migrants workers in Singapore and Malaysia are victims of medieval savagery. Yet, Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Mahatir Mohammed point their fingers to the West crying racial discrimination. While human rights violations by any Government should be condemned both nationally and internationally, there is no space for domestic criticism of the Mahatir Mohammeds and Lee Kuan Yews. This, despite the fact that the treatment of migrant workers in both Singapore and Malaysia is akin to racism. Asian Governments feel more confident arming themselves with further draconian powers and clamping down on human rights, since such measures gain sustenance from acquiescence, whether direct or indirect by western powers. National Security Legislation, with sweeping powers to arrest and prosecute, has been used as a tool against political dissidents and to violate human rights of the citizens. Under the cover of national security, serious human rights are violated in internal armed conflict situations. Security forces violate basic principles of International Humanitarian Law by resorting to indiscriminate arrests, killings of innocent people, maltreatment of civilians and in many situations by using rape as a weapon to intimidate, torture and degrade women. Such human rights violations in extremely difficult circumstances have caused large movements of refugees and internal displace peoples. With geo-political equations determining the status of refugees, involuntary repatriation have taken place consistently across the region. The principles of the United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and 1966 Optional Protocol however inadequate, have constantly been flouted. UNHCR in many areas in the Asia Pacific region has not fulfilled its Protection mandate. Armed Opposition Groups One of the main features of human rights violations in armed conflict situations is the involvement of the armed opposition groups. The armed opposition groups are responsible for serious human rights violations like kidnapping, extortion and killings of civilians. The need to draw guidelines for ethics of the human rights community active in armed conflict situations is an issue which requires wider discussion. There has been no accountability for human rights abuses by the State and non-state agents. Blanket immunity is being given to State agents from prosecution for human rights abuses. Legislation is being enacted to ensure that State officials are not prosecuted for human rights abuses without the prior permission of the Government. Across Asia, a climate of impunity is being encouraged. Civil and Political Rights Sacrificed for Economic Development Asian countries led by Malaysia, Indonesia, China and others have been espousing economic, social and cultural rights and have been propagating that without attaining a certain level of economic development, civil and political rights can not be fully realized. It implies positioning of economic, social and cultural rights over civil and political rights. This, of course, is contrary to the Principles of the Vienna Declaration that all human rights are indivisible, interdependent and interrelated, to which they have all agreed. Moreover, most of these States, which are allegedly concerned with economic, social and cultural rights, have neither ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights nor given their First Periodic Report to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. There are many issues that need to be debated on the issue of economic, social and cultural rights. There has been much debate on the Bretton Woods institutions namely the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF). The need to streamline guidelines on these institutions and to establish accountability processes is of utmost importance, however, issues like the need for equitable income distribution within the country and institutionalization of equity have not been addressed so far. The study undertaken by Mr Josse Bengoa, a member of the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, on the Human Rights dimension of income distribution is an interesting one in this context. Unless, the issue of income distribution within the country is addressed in the right perspective, streamlining of guidelines for the World Bank and IMF can not be the panacea for the ills of society. The post-Cold war situation has also led to emergence of many new nation States in Central Asia and East Asia. These countries like Uzbekistan, Kazhakstan and Mongolia have been under the iron rule of the Communists. There was and is little respect for human rights in these regions. The notion that NGO's can contribute to strengthening civil society is still emerging. Fledgling NGOs from these regions must be brought into the mainstream NGO movement in Asia. This can help widen their understanding and contribute in strengthening the civil society in their countries in a more substantive way. The initiative to hold the Asia Pacific NGO Human Rights Congress is being undertaken by the representative bodies of the Asia Pacific NGOs. This is the first initiative being undertaken by the Asian NGOs to discuss the human rights issues and the challenges the human rights community face in the region. While human rights are universal and there is a need for international solidarity, the time has come for Asians and Oceanians to express their opinion on many human rights issues against their own repressive governments. Only a concerted and cohesive initiative by the Asian and Oceanian NGOs can face the challenges. The Asia- Pacific NGO Human Rights Congress is an attempt in that direction. ----------------------- Annexure 2 Asia Pacific NGO Human Rights Congress Congress Secretariat: South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC) C-16/2, DDA Flats (SFS), Saket New Delhi 110017, India Phones: + 91-11-685 9622 & 686 5736 Fax: + 91-11-686 5736 Email: sadc@unv.ernet.in REGISTRATION FORM FOR PARTICIPANTS NOTE: TO BE RETURNED TO THE CONGRESS SECRETARIAT ON OR BEFORE 15 NOVEMBER 1996 1. Name of the delegate/observer : ............................ (strike out as applicable) 2. Postal Address : ........................................... ........................................... ........................................... ........................................... 3. Telephone: (OFF) : ...................(RES) :............... 4. Fax : .....................5. Email:........................ 6. Organizational affiliation if any : ........................ 7. Arriving on (date) : ............. (time) :................. 8. Leaving on (date) : ..............(time) :................. 9. Do you require accommodation : Yes/No 10. Any other special requirements : ........................... ........................... 11. I would like to attend Working Group ....... on 6 December, and Working Group ....... on 7 December 1996. (Delegates may choose to attend two out of four of the Working Groups) 12. I wish to attend the Special Training Workshop on International Human Rights Procedures on 9 & 10 December 1996 : Yes/No Signed : ...................... Date : ................... NOTE: There will be a registration fee of Indian Rs 300/- for each individual participant. This is towards lunch, dinner and tea to be provided on the three days, as well as accommodation arrangements for out-station participants. All participants are required to make their own travel arrangements. ------------------------ Annexure 3 Asia Pacific NGO Human Rights Congress Congress Secretariat: South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC) C-16/2, DDA Flats (SFS), Saket New Delhi 110017, India Phones: + 91-11-685 9622 & 686 5736 Fax: + 91-11-686 5736 Email: sadc@unv.ernet.in PROVISIONAL AGENDA AND TIMETABLE Day 1 : Opening Plenary (Open to invitees, observers and the media) 6 December 1996 Chairperson for the day: Mr Ravi Nair Rapporteur : Mr Adilur Rehman Khan Minutes : Ms Nina Mishra 9.30 am to 11 am 9.30 am to 9.45 am : Welcome and practical announcements Confirmation of appointment of Chairperson and Alternate Chairperson of the Congress. 9.45 am to 10 am : Introduction of participants and Observers. Report of the Credentials Committee. Adoption of Standing orders for conduct of meeting. Approval of the agenda and timetable. 10 am to 10.15 am : Asia Pacific Human Rights Facilitating Team's spokesperson's address Speakers : 10.15 am to 10.40 am : Speaker A from Country C 10.40 am to 11.00 am : Speaker B from Country D (Speakers have been invited by the Congress Secretariat, as confirmations have not been received, the final list of Speakers will be notified with the Resolutions package). 11 am to 11.15 am : Tea Open Session ends CLOSED SESSIONS : OPEN ONLY TO PARTICIPANTS 11.15 am to 11.30 am: Constitution of Working Group Sessions in Plenary 11.30 am to 1 pm : Working Group Sessions Working Group 1 : Reasserting Universality Chairperson : Dr Fateh Azzam Rapporteur : Ms Maja Daruwalla Working Group 2 : Integrating Womens Rights in the work of Human Rights NGOs Chairperson : Ms Mervat Rishmavi Rapporteur : Ms Ratna Kapur 1 pm to 2 pm : Lunch 2 pm to 4 pm : Working Group Discussions continue 4 pm to 4.30 pm : Tea 4.30 pm to 6 pm : Plenary : - Presentation by Special Invitees and Reports from specific participants - General discussions and constitution of drafting committee for resolutions 6 pm to 7.30 pm : Meeting of only Drafting Committee Members Other participants may wish to use this time for fringe meetings 7.30 pm : Dinner for Participants Informal discussions to continue after dinner. Participants wishing to organize fringe meetings may contact the Congress Secretariat in writing before 15 November 1996. 9 pm : Meeting of Drafting Committee members to continue Day 2 7 December 1996 Chairperson for the day : Ms Cecilia Jimenez Rapporteur : Mr Boonthan Verawongse 9.30 am to 10.30 am : Report back by drafting committees 10.30 am to 11.30 am : Working Group Sessions WORKING GROUP 3 : Human Rights Violations under National Security Laws Chairperson : Mr Anselmo Lee Rapporteur : Mr Xiao Qiang WORKING GROUP 4 : Developing a module for Coordination amongst the Asia Pacific Human Rights NGOs Chairperson : Mr Sivarasa Rasiah Rapporteur : Ms Nimalka Fernando 11.30 am to 11.45 am: Tea 11.45 am to 1 pm : Working Group continue 1 pm to 2 pm : Lunch 2 pm to 3 pm : Working Groups continue END OF CLOSED SESSION FOR THE DAY (Drafting Committee Members to meet at this point separately) 3 pm to 3.15 pm : Tea 3.15 pm to 6 pm : Special session of South Asian Parliamentarians on East Timor To be presided over Mr Jose Ramos Horta, Special Representative, National Council of Maubere Resistance (CNRM). 7.30 PM TO ? : Social Evening Day 3 8 December 1996 Plenary : 9.30 am to 11.00 am : Report back by drafting committees 11 am to 11.15 am : Tea 11.15 am to 1 pm : Discussion on Working Party resolutions 1 pm to 2 pm : Lunch 2 pm to 3 pm : Adoption of Resolutions 3 pm to 4 pm : Constitution of the Asia Pacific Human Rights NGO Facilitating Team for the next two years. Closed Session ends 4 pm to 4. 15 pm: Tea 4.15 pm to 5.30 pm : Formal Concluding Session and Meeting open to invitees, observers and the media) Valedictory Address by .... Vote of Thanks 7.30 pm : Dinner for All Participants 9.30 pm : Meeting of new Asia Pacific Human Rights NGO Facilitating Team NOTE : All participants are requested to indicate their preference for attending one Working Group on each day on the registration form. (Annexure 1). This is only a preference, the Preparatory Committee reserves the right to assign individuals to specific Working Groups. ---------------------- Annexure 4 Asia Pacific NGO Human Rights Congress Congress Secretariat: South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC) C-16/2, DDA Flats (SFS), Saket New Delhi 110017, India Phones: + 91-11-685 9622 & 686 5736 Fax: + 91-11-686 5736 Email: sadc@unv.ernet.in Rules of procedure for Discussion and submission on resolutions 1. English shall be the working language of the Congress. 2. Participants wishing to submit resolutions should ensure that the resolutions are not more than one page each in A4 size and each resolution should be accompanied by another page that could be circulated along with your draft resolution as an explanatory memorandum. This will facilitate an informed discussion. The Congress Secretariat reserves the right to edit as appropriate, if the stipulated length is not adhered to. It would be possible to circulate your draft resolutions to all participants in advance if you could ensure that they reach the Congress Secretariat by 15 November 1996. 2.1 Each resolution should be related to the four themes of the Congress. 2.2 Each resolution should have an approximate financial computation for it's implementation. There should also be mention of the proposed implementing agency. 3.1 Each resolution included in the agenda shall be proposed at the meeting either by a delegate attending the consultation proposing the resolution or in writing by the Congress Secretariat. All resolutions should be seconded. Should any resolution not be so proposed and seconded when called, a vote shall taken immediately on the question of whether the resolution should remain on the agenda. If the vote is carried, any delegate may propose the resolution. 3.2 An amendment to a resolution may be proposed by any two delegates subject to the following conditions: (a) that it is submitted in writing to the Chairperson of the Congress. (b) that it does not constitute a direct negative to the original resolution. (c) that it is relevant to the resolution to which it is moved and is framed so as to form with it an intelligible and consistent sentence or sentences. 3.3 If the proposer of the resolution accepts an amendment, then the resolution as amended shall become the substantive resolution with the same proposer as for the original resolution. If the amendment is not accepted by the proposer, the amendment shall be put to the meeting before the resolution and, if carried, the resolution as amended shall be put to the meeting. 3.4 The proposer of the resolution shall have the right to sum up immediately before a vote is taken. 4.1 Points of order may be raised by participants and shall have precedence over all other business, except during the act of voting unless they relate specifically to the procedure of the vote. 4.2 Points of order shall relate specifically to the conduct of the meeting or the debate, shall not refer to the subject matter under debate and should contain no argument. 4.3 The following matters may be raised as a point of order: a) a request for the chairperson's ruling b) a challenge to the chairperson's ruling c) a motion of no confidence in the chair, which must be seconded d) that a vote be taken immediately. The motion shall be considered at the discretion of the chairperson e) that a vote not be taken on the resolution f) that the matter be referred to the Congress Secretariat or any other committee formed by the Congress 4.4 Points of information may be raised by participants and may consist only of information offered to or asked of the chairperson or the speaker. They shall contain no argument. 5.1 The chairperson of the Congress and an alternate shall be proposed by the Congress Secretariat and confirmation sought from the Congress. The Chairperson of the Congress shall take the chair when meetings of the Congress begin, declare the meeting open and conduct the business of the meeting. In the absence of the chairperson or the alternate, the Congress Secretariat, or such other person appointed by it, shall perform the duties mentioned while a chairperson is elected by the Congress. 5.2 The chairperson confirmed by the Congress shall be responsible for the order and conduct of the meeting. 5.3 As and when required, the chairperson shall rule on the interpretation of these Standing Orders and on all other disputed questions of procedure relating to the conduct of the meeting. 5.4 In the event of a dispute with regard to a ruling by the chairperson, the ruling shall be submitted to the meeting for an immediate decision by a simple majority vote of delegates. 5.5 The chairperson may at any time propose the imposition of a limit for speeches. The chairperson may also inform the meeting of the number of delegates or observers wishing to speak and recommend that the list of speakers be closed. 5.6 The chairperson may at any time propose the imposition of a time limit for the discussion on a particular item on the agenda and on the expiry of that time limit put the issue to the vote or declare the discussion closed. The adoption of this procedure should not infringe the rights of a person in presenting a report or in proposing a resolution to be entitled to a reply before the vote is taken. NNNNNN From gab at mnl.sequel.net Sat Oct 19 18:38:27 1996 From: gab at mnl.sequel.net (GABRIELA-Philippines) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 17:38:27 +0800 Subject: [asia-apec 174] WOMEN SAY NO TO APEC! NO TO IMPERIALIST GLOBALIZATION! Message-ID: <199610190934.RAA01856@mnl.sequel.net> Dear Friends: On November 25, 1996, the APEC Leaders' Summit shall be held in Olongapo City, Philippines. It will be attended by heads of states of its eighteen member countries, including the Philippines. APEC is the regional bloc dominated by the US which shall ensure the unified implementation of the globalization process in the region. GABRIELA, the national alliance of women's organizations, together with other people's organizations under BAYAN, the center for the patriotic movement in the Philippines, is sponsoring the "People's Conference Against Imperialist Globalization" from November 18 to 25 to highlight the people's resistance to APEC and the whole schema of renewed imperialist drive for global domination. Among the activities lined up for the conference are workshops and fora on the effects of globalization on women, to be organized by GABRIELA. We therefore request for your support in soliciting signatures (names) of women who support our calls against APEC and imperialist globalization. Herewith is a statement entitled, "WOMEN SAY NO TO APEC! NO TO IMPERIALIST GLOBALIZATION!" which will be circulated and read during the People's Conference and will likewise serve as a springboard for future joint actions on these issues. We will appreciate receiving the list of signatures (names) together with their organizations, full office address, phone/fax numbers, and e-mail addresses on or before 08 November. Thank you very much. GABRIELA gab@mnl.sequel.net **************************************************************************** WOMEN SAY NO TO APEC! NO TO IMPERIALIST GLOBALIZATION! (statement) More than 27,000 families are bound to lose their homes and livelihood as preparations for the coming APEC summit are being feverishly undertaken by the Philippine government under General Fidel V. Ramos. Demolitions occur almost everyday in Metro Manila alone as infrastructural projects for the comfort and convenience of the Summit delegates are being built. The Summit is scheduled to take place in November 25, 1996 in Olongapo City and will be attended by heads of states of the 18-member countries from around the Pacific Rim. Beggars, mainly women and streetchildren, are being rounded off the streets by the police in an effort to hide poverty in the country, cosmeticize the adverse impact of General Ramos' "Philippines 2000" program, attract more foreign investments, and in the process, enhance his carefully-built image as the exemplary spokesperson for US imperialism in the region. The US, on the other hand, has undertaken an active campaign of recruitment for intelligence agents tasked to monitor the activities of anti-imperialist organizations. A clampdown on known anti-imperialist activists is not a remote possibility. The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation or APEC is the regional trade bloc which started as a loose economic forum but has now evolved into a formal regional mechanism dominated by the US and with Japan jockeying for control. It has now become a mechanism for hastening economic liberalization and ensuring implementation of commitments to GATT-related policies by member-countries. This the US aims to do by pushing for the unification of policies and implementation programs among its members. Through these measures, APEC thus complements the World Trade Organization (WTO) in ensuring the globalization process in the Asia-Pacific region. The region includes some of the fastest growing economies in the world and so-called "transition" economies which constitute a vast market for surplus goods and services from the North. But there are more reasons for women around the world to say NO TO APEC, NO TO IMPERIALIST GLOBALIZATION. For these can only result to the unprecedented displacement, commodification and modern-day slavery of women. Globalization is hostile to working women of both North and South as technological development and capitalist schemes such as labor flexibilization lead to the severe reduction of jobs and falling wage rates as in the case even of the US, the bastion of imperialism. As national economies are more and more integrated into the global capitalist system through liberalization, deregulation, and privatization policies, transnational corporations acquire full rights to own, plunder, and control the world's natural and human resources which spawns the poverty and deprivation of peoples at an unparalleled scale. Under the so-called "globalization," women have become a primary commodity traded in the international market through massive migration and trafficking. Asia is the scene of a booming "migration industry" of about 35 million migrant workers providing labor to some of the world's wealthiest and most dynamic economies. This occurs at such a high human cost ranging from the breakdown of families on a social scale, violations of labor rights, abuse and deaths of migrant women, etc. With the phenomenon of "jobless growth" under globalization, various forms of prostitution easily become an attractive alternative for women. All these imperialist-dictated policies can only be implemented through the use of sophisticated global scheme of repression and deception machinated by global powers such as the US and their client states. Militarism and repression of labor and human rights shall become an indispensable feature of globalization to repress peoples as the consequences of imperialist stranglehold intensify. All these trends shall negate whatever gains the international women's movement has already achieved. These can only worsen the political and economic conditions of toiling women everywhere in the coming decades. Women have reasons to oppose APEC and imperialist globalization. >>>We affirm our support for the struggles of women in their respective countries against imperialist-dictated policies. We affirm the need to advance the anti-imperialist struggles of toiling and progressive women from around the world. We call for a global economic order free from imperialist dominance and which respects the sovereign and democratic rights of peoples.<<< NO TO APEC! NO TO GATT! OPPOSE GLOBALIZATION AND IMPERIALIST DOMINATION! ADVANCE THE ANTI-IMPERIALIST STRUGGLES OF WORKING WOMEN WORLDWIDE! signed: NAME ORGANIZATION ADDRESS PHONE/FAX/EMAIL **************************************************************************** GABRIELA (A National Alliance of Women's Organizations in the Philippines) P.O. Box 4386, 2800 Manila, Philippines telephone numbers +63-2-9288034/9269653 fax number +63-2-9246901 e-mail: gab@mnl.sequel.net **************************************************************************** From mario_m at HK.Super.NET Sun Oct 20 14:34:46 1996 From: mario_m at HK.Super.NET (mario mapanao) Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 13:34:46 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 175] Deadlock leaves Apec applicants out in the cold Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961020132906.10d70fc2@is1.hk.super.net> Deadlock leaves Apec applicants out in the cold Ray Heath and Agencies in Singapore South China Morning Post Business Post, 19 October 1996 Senior officials of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (Apec) forum are deadlocked over whether to lift a three-year moratorium on accepting new members in November, casting doubts on the fate of 11 applicants. Antonio Basilio, deputy chairman of the Senior Officials Meeting (SOM) that began yesterday in Manila, said the 18-member trade bloc still had to agree on a set of criteria for accepting new members. "Membership would be discussed in terms of criteria," Mr. Basilio said. "It is possibly a three-step process, so there are three major decision areas here. "The first one of course is whether the moratorium is lifted or not." He said the criteria would focus on several topics, including the applicant's degree of interest, its proximity and its existing economic links with current members. Only after establishing the criteria would Apec economies deliberate on the applications of the 11 economies: India, Macau, Mongolia, Pakistan, Peru, Russia, Colombia, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Panama and Ecuador. A handful of member-economies have suggested that if a decision was not reached by the end of the three-day meeting, the moratorium should be regarded as having expired. Mr. Basilio said this would not mean automatic membership for the applicants. He said the ban on membership was imposed to help members achieve Apec's primary goal, namely the removal of trade barriers by 2020 for developing members and 2010 for industrialised members. The SOM is the fourth and last such meeting before the fourth Apec leader's summit begins at the Subic Bay Freeport Zone in November. At the summit, Apec leaders are expected to approve the Manila Action Plan, which will contain individual and collective plans for increasing trade and investments among Apec members. The Manila Action Plan has already come under fire. The criticism follows the leaking of documents, earlier this month, that showed some Asian members of Apec-- notably China, Japan and Malaysia-- were prepared to make only limited and vaguely worded trade liberalisation offers, while Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US had delivered much more positive offers. Yesterday, Mr. Basilio said substantial progress would be made at the Manila summit. He said that later versions of the Individual Action Plans submitted to Apec had contained more specific offers than the earlier versions, which had been leaked. Apec members are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and the US. From mario_m at HK.Super.NET Mon Oct 21 15:40:58 1996 From: mario_m at HK.Super.NET (mario mapanao) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 14:40:58 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 176] People's Conference Against Imperialist Globalization Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961021143518.301f2988@is1.hk.super.net> for everyone's information -- the programme for the People's Conference Against Imperialist Globalization, mainly sponsored by BAYAN in Manila this November is available at: http://www.sequel.net/~bayan mario From omi.apec at gaia.psdn.iphil.net Mon Oct 21 20:24:52 1996 From: omi.apec at gaia.psdn.iphil.net (Philippine Peasant Institute) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 19:24:52 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 177] Urgent: Ramos-Horta Campaign Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961021191909.27af83a8@is1.hk.super.net> Dear Friends: As you know, the Philippine Government has issued a directive saying that it will ban people who are suspected of being ?disruptive? to the APEC Summit from the Philippines in the next few weeks. Though he was not mentioned by name, Jose Ramos Horta, the Noble Prize Winner who has been invited to keynote the Manila People?s Forum, is the target of the directive. The response of the MPFA is that since Horta was not named and since he is a man of peace, he does not fall under the government ban and our operarting assumption is that he will be here to keynote the conference on Nov. 21. Jose is publicly holding the same line, saying he expects to be in the Philippines from Nov. 19-24. The reality is that unless there is countepressure from our side, the Ramos government, under pressure from Suharto, will in fact explicitly prevent Horta from coming. To make sure Horta can come in, we propose a massive international campaign to press the Philippine government to admit Horta. We propose several prongs of such a campaign: One, organizations and individuals in your respective countries should press the head of state to refrain from attending the APEC summit should the Philippines ban Horta. Please try to get meetings with your head of state to press the issue and get the press to cover these meetings. Two, key national organizations must be encouraged to send letters and faxes both to President Ramos in the Philippines and the country?s head to state. Your should ask for copies of these letters, fax them to us, so we can release it to the press here in the Philippines. Letters or faxes to President Ramos should be addressed to the following: Office of the President Malaca?ang Palace Compound JP Laurel Street, San Miguel, Metro Manila 1005 Philippines Tel. No. +632 521-2301 to 10 or at Department of Foreign Affairs 2330 Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City, Metro Manila Philippines Tel. No. +632 834-400 Fax. No. +632 832-1597 or +632 832-3307 Three, members of Parliament or Congress should be encouraged to write public letters urging the head of state to refrain from coming if Horta is banned. These letters should be sent to us. Four, mini-demonstrations at the Philippine Embassy or consulate in your country can be staged, with photos made of the participants meeting with the ambassador and handing over a letter requesting entry for Horta. Five, petititions can be circulated, especially among notables, and the list of signatories should be sent to us. We are now holding press conferences on this issue every two or three days, and we plan to stretch this campaign until the Forum takes place. So we need information from you on any key developments on your end that we can feed the press. This can be a terribly resonant campaign, and we can win this one if we work at it. From LBAUTIST at drew.edu Mon Oct 21 22:16:47 1996 From: LBAUTIST at drew.edu (LBAUTIST@drew.edu) Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 09:16:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [asia-apec 178] Re: Asia Pacific NGO Human Rights Congress 1996 Message-ID: <01IAWDYYPOAGAFUWD9@drew.edu> Congratulations for what appears to be a substantive consultation on human rights in Asia. I wish I could attend. But please include me in your future mailings. Previously, I served for aalmost ten years as the human rights coordinator of the National Council of Churches in the Philippines and served in the International Affairs Committee of the Christian Conference of Asia based in Hongkong. Beginning November, I am assuming a new posts in New York: Assistant General Secretary, United Nations Ministry, General Board of Church and Society of The United Methodist Church. My new office address is: 777 United Nations Plaza, 8/F New York, NY 10017 USA. In future, because of the nature of my job, I may have the chance to join meetings like what you will have. Please send me documentation of your consultation as I certainly look forward to reading it, as Asia Pacific region remains to be my main focus in my academic research. (I am preparing a dissertation on Human Rights and Human Dignity). Thank you very much. And again, congratulations. LIBERATO C. BAUTISTA From amrc at HK.Super.NET Tue Oct 22 13:38:41 1996 From: amrc at HK.Super.NET (AMRC) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 12:38:41 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 179] Re: Asia Pacific NGO Human Rights Congress 1996 Message-ID: <199610220438.MAA09718@hk.super.net> At 09:16 AM 10/21/96 -0400, you wrote: >Congratulations for what appears to be a substantive consultation on human >rights in Asia. I wish I could attend. But please include me in your future >mailings. Previously, I served for aalmost ten years as the human rights >coordinator of the National Council of Churches in the Philippines and served >in the International Affairs Committee of the Christian Conference of Asia >based in Hongkong. Beginning November, I am assuming a new posts in New York: >Assistant General Secretary, United Nations Ministry, General Board of Church >and Society of The United Methodist Church. My new office address is: 777 >United Nations Plaza, 8/F New York, NY 10017 USA. > >In future, because of the nature of my job, I may have the chance to join >meetings like what you will have. Please send me documentation of your >consultation as I certainly look forward to reading it, as Asia Pacific >region remains to be my main focus in my academic research. (I am preparing >a dissertation on Human Rights and Human Dignity). > >Thank you very much. And again, congratulations. > >LIBERATO C. BAUTISTA > From cnic at kiwi.co.jp Tue Oct 22 14:42:26 1996 From: cnic at kiwi.co.jp (Citizens' Nuclear Information Center) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 14:42:26 +0900 Subject: [asia-apec 180] Japan's Nuclear Export to Asian Region Message-ID: <199610220540.OAA02076@kiwi.co.jp> Dear Friends, Japanese companies have spoken out just after the Taiwanese government's approved the construction of 4th N-plants. The same details were come up on Sunday's Japan Times. ////////////////////// RTw 10/21 0319 Hitachi,Toshiba to build nuclear reactor in Taiwan Copyright, 1996 Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved. The following news report may not be republished or redistributed, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of Reuters Ltd. TOKYO, Oct 21 (Reuter) - Leading Japanese electric machinery makers Hitachi Ltd and Toshiba Corp are teaming up to build a nuclear reactor in Taiwan, becoming the first Japanese firms to make a reactor for foreign use. The Taiwan project to build a boiling water reactor, in which General Electric Co of the United States is the main contractor, is worth 180 billion yen ($1.60 billion), a Hitachi spokesman said. The main part of the reactor will be built in Japan and then shipped to Taiwan in three to four years from now, the spokesman said. "We are attracted to a number of projects in Asia in light of delays in nuclear plant construction plans at home due to environmental concerns among the public," said the spokesman. As of the end of 1995, there were 28 nuclear power plant projects in Asian countries excluding Japan, compared with only two in Japan, according to the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum, a government-affiliated institution. But an official of the body said there are major obstacles to building nuclear reactors in Asia by Japanese firms alone, because they are not able to re-import nuclear waste for recycling or permanent disposal. The reactor is an advanced version of a boiled water reactor jointly developed by Hitachi, Toshiba, General Electric and Tokyo Electric Power CoInc. The same type of reactor is currently being built by Tokyo Electric Power in Japan, the spokesman said. That reactor is expected to start operating by the end of this year. The Taiwan project became certain when Taiwan's parliament voted on Friday to restore funding for the island's fourth nuclear power station. The parliament had voted in May to cancel funding. But Taiwanese anti-nuclear activists remain strongly opposed. ($1-112 yen) REUTER ///////////// Mika Obayashi From RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org Tue Oct 22 19:49:55 1996 From: RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org (RVerzola) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 02:49:55 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 181] Re: Philippine visa Message-ID: <8f6_9610221818@phil.gn.apc.org> The Philippine government has just announced that it will turn back foreign visitors who are coming in to "disrupt" the APEC meeting in November. It also announced that recent Nobel Peace Prize winner Jose Ramos-Horta will not be allowed into the country to attend the Manila People's Forum on APEC. I am not sure about the implications of this new policy for all those participants who are coming for the various conferences in Manila this November. Perhaps it might be simpler if those who could come in as tourists simply stated that they are coming in as such, instead of explicitly stating that they are attending one of the alternative APEC conferences. It would be good to hear what others think about this potential harassment situation by the Philippine government. Obet Verzola From foewase at igc.apc.org Wed Oct 23 01:36:45 1996 From: foewase at igc.apc.org (Northwest FOE Office) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 09:36:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [asia-apec 182] Re: Japan's Nuclear Export to Asian Region Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961022094053.2e677ee8@pop.igc.org> 22 October 1996 There have been occasional postings to this list server which contain explicit copyright warnings against the unauthorized republishing or redistribution without prior written consent of the news source. A recent example was a 21 Oct Reuter article on Toshiba building nuclear reactors in Taiwan. What is the policy of this list server regarding clearly marked copywright material? Perspiring minds want to know. David E. Ortman NW Friends of the Earth Seattle, WA > From rbudd at deakin.edu.au Wed Oct 23 12:36:28 1996 From: rbudd at deakin.edu.au (Robert Budd) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 13:36:28 +1000 Subject: [asia-apec 183] (No Subject in original) Message-ID: The Centre for Citizenship and Human Rights(Deakin Uni. Aust.) together with the Aust. Council For Overseas Aid is holding a conference on the subject of Labour,Rights and Globalisation in Australia and Asia- Pacific. In order to maximise publicity for the Conference,it would be appreciated if you could arrange to have the following text displayed on your organisation's internet homepage or if none, then disseminate the information to your membership however you see most appropriate. CONFERENCE ON LABOUR,RIGHTS AND GLOBALISATIION:AUSTRALIA AND ASIA-PACIFIC 6-8 Dec 1996, Melbourne, Australia. This conference for academics and practitioners will examine the effects of globalisation on human rights and labour conditions in Australia and the Asia-Pacific,and explore governmental and non-governmental strategies for action. For further details see the homepage for the ( Centre for Citizenship and Human Rights) Information can also be obtained by faxing +61 +52 272155 or ringing +61 +52 272062 Robert Budd CCHR Administrator Robert Budd Administrative Officer Centre for Citizenship and Human Rights Deakin University GEELONG 3217 Phone: 052 272173 Fax: 052 272155 Internet: http://www2.deakin.edu.au/cchr From sonny at nation.nationgroup.com Thu Oct 24 05:15:38 1996 From: sonny at nation.nationgroup.com (sonny@nation.nationgroup.com) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 15:15:38 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [asia-apec 184] (No Subject in original) Message-ID: FOR CIRCULATION ---------------- JAKARTA, Wednesday, Oct 23 -- Agence France-Presse GERMAN Chancellor Helmut Kohl's four-day visit to Indonesia beginning SATURDAY will be focused at forging closer economic and trade ties between the two countries, State Secretary Murdiono said Wednesday. But Kohl has also been urged to take up the issue of human rights in the disputed territory of East Timor during his visit. "The main aim is to enhance bilateral ties which have so far been quite good, (and) especially to increase economic and trade ties," Murdiono said. Kohl is to arrive here Saturday and will be flown to the Bira private island in the bay of Jakarta where he will spend the night. Indonesian President Suharto will be on hand at Bira to greet his guest and the two leaders are scheduled to indulge in a bout of fishing in the nearby waters. The official state welcoming ceremony will be held at Jakarta's Merdeka Palace on Monday, followed by talks between the two leaders, Murdiono said. They will also witness the signing of a bilateral commercial shipping accord, Murdiono said, without elaborating. JOSE Ramos-Horta, this year's co-winner of the Nobel Peace prize, urged Kohl to push for human rights in East Timor during the visit. "No other European country has as much weight in Indonesia as Germany," he said in Tuesday's edition of the German daily "Frankfurter Rundschau". He also urged Kohl to halt German arms sales to Jakarta. Ramos-Horta said the people of East Timor are hopeful that Germany can help find a peaceful solution to the conflict pitting Jakarta against East Timorese who seek self-determination. Kohl will be accompanied by his Economic Minister Gunther Rexrodt, Post and Telecommunications Minister Wolfgang Boesche, Technology and Research Minister Jurgen Ruettgiers and a delegation of over 70 business leaders. Kohl is scheduled to leave for the Philippines on Tuesday and will also travel to Tokyo for the final leg of his Asia tour. From sonny at nation.nationgroup.com Thu Oct 24 07:51:19 1996 From: sonny at nation.nationgroup.com (sonny@nation.nationgroup.com) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 17:51:19 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [asia-apec 185] EAST TIMOR/apec/Jose Ramos-Horta ban Message-ID: PHILIPPINE LEADER REJECTS PEACEMAKER ROLE IN EAST TIMOR ------------------------------------------------------ MANILA,Wednesday, Oct 23, 1996 -- Agence France-Presse PRESIDENT Fidel Ramos on Wednesday rejected a suggestion by 1996 Nobel Peace prize winner Jose Ramos-Horta that the Philippine leader broker peace talks between East Timor and Indonesia. "While some of us are known to be peacemakers in our own country, we would not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries," Ramos said in his weekly news conference. "I think we better leave it in that manner unless we are also from the other parties involved," he added. Horta, a roving advocate of East Timor's independence from Indonesia, made the proposal for Ramos to broker peace negotiations between Jakarta and East Timor during a telephone interview on Tuesday with Manila-based journalists from his exile base in Sydney. He said this would reciprocate Indonesia's brokering of a peace treaty between Manila and Muslim rebels that ended a 24-year Islamic rebellion in the southern Philippines last month. The Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper quoted Horta as saying he would nominate Ramos for the Nobel Peace prize if he successfully brokers a peace pact between Jakarta and East Timor. The Philippine government on Monday ordered the Nobel laureate banned from entering the Philippines to attend a non-government conference that will coincide with the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) forum summit hosted by Manila. Among the 18 Pacific Rim leaders who will attend the Apec Summit on November 25 is Indonesian President Suharto, and Manila fears that admitting Horta into the country would embarrass the Indonesian leader. Ramos, at the news briefing, said Horta's presence during the Apec summit was "inimical" to the interests of the country, which considers hosting the summit as its coming out party on the international scene. "It is not so much the threat to national security that we are banning foreigners from this announced fora related to Apec. It is that it is inimical to our national interest," he said. Ramos said the ban on Horta "emnates precisely from what is mandated in our constitution and existing laws in regard to the non-interference of foreigners in our internal affairs." From lzarsky at nautilus.org Tue Oct 22 22:27:38 1996 From: lzarsky at nautilus.org (Lyuba Zarsky) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 06:27:38 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 186] Re: Information about your APEC activities Message-ID: <2.2.32.19961022132738.006b9d14@nautilus.org> Hi Peter--See attachment "Peter Riggs Memo" for info about APEC. Also attached is the Program from our Workshop at the Asia Foundation last Friday; and an announcement about a new conference on sustainable development in Manila in November. I reckon it's probably the one that will be closest to my general APEC orientation. I have been asked to speak at the opening plenary and have accepted. If possible, I will then not go to Cebu. The susdev conference is, thankfully, in Quezon City. Let me know if you'd like me to send more info. Your best bet would be to get in touch with CADI/Nicky Perlas directly. On the APEC activities, we are scrambling hard to find financial support for our 1997-1998 program. Any help would, as always, be deeply appreciated and gratefully received. We had a great Workshop last week. I think it has helped to set a common foundation for many stakeholders. Sorry you couldn't make it. All the best, Lyuba At 05:05 PM 10/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >Can you please send me by e-mail information about your >APEC activities. Thank you very much. > >Peter Riggs >FAX 1-212-315-0996 >priggs@rbf.org > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Peter Riggs memo.doc Type: application/msword Size: 21504 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/asia-apec/attachments/19961022/92bd833f/PeterRiggsmemo.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Program.doc Type: application/msword Size: 790016 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/asia-apec/attachments/19961022/92bd833f/Program.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: susdevconf manila.doc Type: application/msword Size: 15360 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/asia-apec/attachments/19961022/92bd833f/susdevconfmanila.doc -------------- next part -------------- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lyuba Zarsky Director Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainable Development ph:+1 510.204.9296 fax:+1 510.204.9268 e-mail: lzarsky@nautilus.org http://www.nautilus.org From sonny at nation.nationgroup.com Fri Oct 25 03:04:55 1996 From: sonny at nation.nationgroup.com (sonny@nation.nationgroup.com) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 13:04:55 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [asia-apec 187] JOSE RAMOS-HORTA'S APPEAL Message-ID: NOBEL WINNER APPEALS FOR AUSTRALIAN ACTION ON EAST TIMOR -------------------------------------------------------- SYDNEY, Wednesday Oct 23, 1996: East Timorese Nobel Peace Prize winner, Jose Ramos-Horta has appealed to Australia to change its stance on East Timor, saying it was responsible for Canberra's failure to get a seat on the United Nations Security Council. Ramos-Horta told a meeting of independence activists here Wednesday that Australia's humiliating failure to secure the seat was a "direct fallout" of the government's East Timor policy. Australia's high hopes of success after a two-year lobbying campaign to win one of two temporary seats on the UN's most powerful forum were crushed by Sweden and Portugal in a three-way ballot in New York. Horta said his meeting with Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer on Saturday would provide a perfect opportunity for Australia (the only country to recognise Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor) to change its stance. "Now Australia has lost a lot for Indonesia, what has Indonesia done for Australia?" the Nobel Peace prize winner said. Horta said the prize, shared with fellow independence activist Roman Catholic Bishop Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, had placed East Timor high on the international agenda and was an embarrassment for Australia. "Maybe Foreign Minister Downer will listen and will initiate some policy change," Horta said. "We are not asking Australia to cut diplomatic ties with Indonesia or impose sanctions, there are a number of things it can do." These measures included offering temporary sanctuary to East Timorese refugees and initiating secret international talks aimed at forcing Indonesian concessions to the territory. Ramos-Horta said Portugal's elevation to the UN Security Council gave the East Timorese resistance movement an unprecedented chance to raise the independence issue on an international stage. **He said US Congressional Speaker Newt Gingrich had invited him to address Congress, but he would only accept on condition he could speak about East Timor and not become a "political ping pong ball" on the issue of financial donations by Indonesian businessmen to the Democratic Party presidential coffers. From sonny at nation.nationgroup.com Fri Oct 25 04:13:17 1996 From: sonny at nation.nationgroup.com (sonny@nation.nationgroup.com) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 14:13:17 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [asia-apec 188] KOHL'S VISIT TO INDONESIA Message-ID: EAST TIMOR OVERSHADOWED BY BUSINESS ON KOHL INDONESIA VISIT: ANALYSTS -------------------------------------------------------------------- JAKARTA, Thursday, Oct 24, 1996 -- Agence France-Presse German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, due here Saturday, is under intense pressure to raise human rights issues in East Timor during his visit, but analysts and officials say he will not do so at the expense of trade ties. Nobel peace prize co-winner Jose Ramos-Horta, Portuguese Prime Minister Antonio Guetteres, Germany's Social Democratic Party and Amnesty International have all urged Kohl to push for respect for human rights in East Timor when he meets President Suharto on Monday. "It will be made public and reported in the press but the tone will not be confrontational or condecending, but gentle pressure," analyst Juwono Sudarsono, vice governor of the National Defence Institute, told AFP. Germany, as a member of the European Union, does not recognise Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor, where more than 200,000 people have died in a prolonged conflict since the invasion, according to unofficial estimates. Sudarsono said Kohl "must" flag the issue of East Timor with Suharto during the 90-minute formal talks to satisfy pressure groups in Germany but he will keep the issue "low key" in contrast to economic topics. The two heads of state have met numerous times and have a "cordial and correct but not particularly warm" relationship, according to one palace watcher. The two are due to spend Saturday and Sunday fishing in waters off the exclusive Bira Island, north of Jakarta, where some analysts say Kohl may raise the issue of East Timor, away from international cameras. "I think the president will listen, but as a former soldier and a Javanese he will be adamant in insisting any improvements (in East Timor) would be on our terms," Sudarsono said. Jakarta is clearly hoping economic concerns and not human rights will top Kohl's agenda. "I don't think he will raise the issue (of East Timor) because he comes with the intention to expand trade and increase investment," said Ghaffar Fadyl, spokesman for the Indonesian Department of Foreign Affairs. "I don't think he's coming to find an issue or criticism of Indonesia." Germany is the tenth largest foreign investor in Indonesia, having ploughed 5.04 bilion dollars into the country over the last 29 years. It ranks behind Japan, Netherlands, South Korea and Australia, among others. "Quantity wise, investment is not at the level we want. Germany's investment is lacking," said Fritz Kliensteuber, director of the German-Indonesia Economic Association. While Germany exported 2.54 billion dollars in products-- mainly machinery and electronic equipment -- to Indonesia in 1995, Indonesian exports to Germany -- mainly garments and wood products -- stood at only 1.89 billion dollars. Germany will be using Kohl's visit to seal involvement in the 40 billion dollar Natuna Islands gas project off the eastern coast of Kalimantan, as well as the Memberano power plant and chemical reduction works in Irian Jaya (West Papua), Kliensteuber said. The Natuna development is viewed as a pet project of the German-trained Indonesian Research and Technology Minister, Jusuf Habibie, who is seen as a driving force behind the bilateral relationship. A bilateral agreement on commercial shipping and joint ventures on life insurance and education are also to be signed. But analysts say it is likely East Timorese youths could steal the spotlight from multi-million dollar business if they take advantage of Kohl's visit and attempt to enter the German Embassy grounds. A total of 89 East Timorese have been granted asylum in Portugal after entering 10 foreign embassies in Jakarta over the last 18 months. The last group which entered the German Embassy, in April, were expelled by security guards and handed over to Indonesian military police who pinned them down on the foothpath outside the embassy, kicked and beat them up. Germany lodged an official protest over the incident. Kohl is scheduled to leave for the Philippines next Tuesday before travelling to Japan. From sonny at nation.nationgroup.com Fri Oct 25 04:42:53 1996 From: sonny at nation.nationgroup.com (sonny@nation.nationgroup.com) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 14:42:53 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [asia-apec 189] URGENT/ JOSE RAMOS-HORTA OFFICIALLY DENIED VISA Message-ID: PHILIPPINES REFUSES EAST TIMOR NOBEL LAUREATE VISA -------------------------------------------------- FOR IMMEDIATE CIRCULATION ------------------------- Sydney, Thursday, Oct 24, 1996 -- Reuters The Philippines on Thursday refused a visa application by East Timorese Nobel peace laureate Jose Ramos-Horta, impending a ban on him entering the country during next month's APEC summit. The Philippines has imposed the ban, to avoid embarrassment to Indonesian President Suharto at the November 25 summit of the APEC forum. Ramos-Horta has been invited to address a parallel conference in Manila. But the East Timor resistance campaigner delivered his visa application to the Philippines consulate in Sydney anyway because he said he had not been officially told of any ban. "I have been informed they cannot issue the visa. That's the decision," Ramos-Horta told Reuters after a brief meeting with the Philippines consul-general Ariel Abadilla. "I told the consul-general, who was very friendly, very warm, that no matter the decision, it does not affect my good feelings and impressions of the Philippines government." After Philippines consulate officials refused to take delivery of his application and his battered Portuguese passport, Ramos-Horta was at his diplomatic best, saying he hoped President Fidel Ramos would reverse his decision. "Governments change their minds all the time on matters that are more important than that, you know. Granting a visa to a harmless person like me should not cause such a major problem in the Philippines," Ramos-Horta said. "So once President Ramos gets my message that I will not use his soil to attack Indonesia as such, I presume he will relent on his decision," he said. "I have nothing but admiration for the Philippines government ... even if they bow under pressure from Indonesia. I can only sympathise with them. It's a great country and I know deep down they don't like what they're doing." From focus at 203.155.33.48 Thu Oct 24 18:43:27 1996 From: focus at 203.155.33.48 (focus) Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 16:43:27 +0700 Subject: [asia-apec 190] Message for Sonny (The Nation) from FOCUS Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19960603185223.202fc730@203.155.33.48> At 02:42 PM 24/10/1996 -0500, you wrote: >PHILIPPINES REFUSES EAST TIMOR NOBEL LAUREATE VISA >-------------------------------------------------- > >FOR IMMEDIATE CIRCULATION >------------------------- > >Sydney, Thursday, Oct 24, 1996 -- Reuters > >The Philippines on Thursday refused a visa application by East Timorese >Nobel peace laureate Jose Ramos-Horta, impending a ban on him entering the >country during next month's APEC summit. > >The Philippines has imposed the ban, to avoid embarrassment to Indonesian >President Suharto at the November 25 summit of the APEC forum. Ramos-Horta >has been invited to address a parallel conference in Manila. > >But the East Timor resistance campaigner delivered his visa application to >the Philippines consulate in Sydney anyway because he said he had not been >officially told of any ban. > >"I have been informed they cannot issue the visa. That's the decision," >Ramos-Horta told Reuters after a brief meeting with the Philippines >consul-general Ariel Abadilla. > >"I told the consul-general, who was very friendly, very warm, that no >matter the decision, it does not affect my good feelings and impressions >of the Philippines government." > >After Philippines consulate officials refused to take delivery of his >application and his battered Portuguese passport, Ramos-Horta was at his >diplomatic best, saying he hoped President Fidel Ramos would reverse his >decision. > >"Governments change their minds all the time on matters that are more >important than that, you know. Granting a visa to a harmless person like >me should not cause such a major problem in the Philippines," Ramos-Horta >said. > >"So once President Ramos gets my message that I will not use his soil to >attack Indonesia as such, I presume he will relent on his decision," he >said. > >"I have nothing but admiration for the Philippines government ... even if >they bow under pressure from Indonesia. I can only sympathise with them. >It's a great country and I know deep down they don't like what they're >doing." > >24 October 1996 Dear Sonny, Just sent an e-mail few minutes ago in your nation e-mail account mentioning that we will be forwarding APEC/Horta press releases to Walden but I just realized after reading the stuff that Walden is also one of the recipients. Sorry for the error. Many thanks, Joy Obando FOCUS > From columbandc at igc.apc.org Wed Oct 23 23:55:35 1996 From: columbandc at igc.apc.org (Michael J. Dodd) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 14:55:35 +0000 Subject: [asia-apec 191] Re: Urgent Burma Appeal Message-ID: <199610241221.FAA07653@igc3.igc.apc.org> Enclosed please find our endorsement. Best wishes Mike Dodd. Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 18:17:15 +0800 (HKT) To: asia-apec@jca.or.jp From: "Chalida Tajaroensuk. Ms" (by way of daga ) Reply-to: asia-apec@jca.or.jp Subject: [asia-apec 172] Urgent Burma Appeal URGENT BURMA APPEAL (please directly respond to ) Dear Friends, The Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), and Initiatives for International Dialogue (IID), in co-operation with the Burma Solidarity Group Malaysia (BSGM), Thai Action Committee for Democracy in Burma (TACDB) and the National Council of the Union of Burma (NCUB), are jointly organising the "Alternative ASEAN Meeting on Burma". on October 29-30, 1996 at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. The meeting will bring together about fifty human rights activists, trade unionists and academics from within and outside ASEAN together with representatives of the democratic movement of Burma. The meeting aims to make an ASEAN-based assertion of solidarity and support with the people of Burma in their struggle for human rights and democracy and to develop alternatives to current official policy and practice adopted by ASEAN member governments. It will also provide the launching point for a broader regional campaign through the establishment of an ALTERNATIVE ASEAN NETWORK to mobilise grassroots people and civic organisations. Another intended significant outcome of the meeting will be the adoption of an ALTERNATIVE ASEAN DECLARATION ON BURMA. Please read that attached draft Alternative ASEAN Declaration On Burma for your endorsement and feedback. We would appreciate if you could distribute this draft declaration amongst your networks for feedback and endorsement as well. Your support is urgently needed and will be greatly valued. It is anticipated that there will be some amendments and additions to the Draft Declaration before it is finalised and adopted, however, such changes will only be made with the acceptance of Burmese groups engaged in the movement, in the spirit of the principles supporting the restoration of human rights, democracy and peace in Burma. Please send your endorsement in the following format: "I wish to endorse the draft Alternative ASEAN Declaration on Burma and understand that this draft may undergo amendments which do not contradict the spirit of its current content. My details are as follows: NAME: Mike Dodd ORGANISATION: Columban Fathers' Justice & Peace Office, USA ADDRESS: P.O. Box 29151. Washington, DC 20017-0151 TELEPHONE: (202)529-5115 FAX NO: EMAIL: SIGNED (IF SENDING BY FAX): Please forward your feedback and endorsement by WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23, to The Secretariat, Alternative ASEAN Meeting on Burma c/- Forum-Asia 109 Suthisarnwinichai Road Samsennok, Huaykwang Bangkok, Thailand Tel: 66 2 275 4230 - 3 . Fax 66 2 276 2183 or 275 4230 Email: chalida@mozart.inet.co.th Please feel free to contact the Secretariat if you require further information on the Alternative ASEAN Meeting on Burma. Thank you. Yours in solidarity, on behalf of the organisers. __________________________________________________________ DRAFT ALTERNATIVE ASEAN DECLARATION ON BURMA 1. WE, THE PARTICIPANTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE ASEAN MEETING ON BURMA, WISH TO AFFIRM OUR SUPPORT FOR AND SOLIDARITY WITH THE MOVEMENT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY IN BURMA, ALSO KNOWN AS MYANMAR. 2. WE VIEW WITH GRAVE CONCERN the violations perpetrated by the brutal military regime in Burma known as the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) upon the 47 million people of Burma. These violations are being inflicted in contempt of universal values which recognise and uphold the humanity and dignity of all human beings. These violations are also in direct contravention of a range of international instruments adopted by a number of nations throughout the world, notably: 3. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 4. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 5. The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, Degrading Treatment and Punishment 6. The Slavery Convention and the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery 7. The Convention on the Rights of the Child 8. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 9. The Vienna Declaration on Human Rights 10. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and 11. The Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities 12. WE ALSO VIEW WITH GRAVE CONCERN the SLORC's flagrant violations of the principles encompassed by the International Labour Standards and Conventions promoted by the International Labour Organisation, including: 13. The Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention 14. The Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention 15. The Forced Labour Convention and the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention 16. The Discrimination of Employment and Occupation Convention 17. WE VIEW WITH ABHORRENCE the fact that these principles continue to be flouted by the SLORC through: 18. Its long-running harassment of the ethnic nationalities of Burma by military attacks 19. Its widespread use of forced labour for so-called development projects 20. The abduction of people to be used as porters and human mine-sweepers for military activities 21. Rapes and sexual assaults perpetrated by military personnel, with the sanction of their commanding officers upon men, women and children 22. Tortures, beatings, and other forms of cruel and degrading punishments inflicted by military personnel with the sanction of their commanding officers upon men, women and children 23. The public and secret murders of men, women and children committed by military personnel acting under orders of their leadership 24. Maintenance of extremely oppressive conditions and practices in prisons and camps where political prisoners are detained 25. The recruitment of child soldiers into the military 26. The destruction of sources of food and livelihood, including domestic food crops, to intimidate, harass and force the relocation of communities, particularly those belonging to ethnic nationalities in the border areas and members of religious minorities 27. The perpetuation of the crisis of internally displaced people and refugees along Burma's borders through attacks, human rights violations and other forms of intimidation, as well as the orchestration of forced repatriations 28. The forced relocations of communities in central Burma to make way for so- called development and/or to undermine support for the democracy movement 29. Use of quotas and coercive mechanisms to deny access to equal opportunities to education and employment to a range of people on the basis of gender, religion, ethnicity and political beliefs 30. The statelessness imposed by the SLORC upon a significant proportion of the people of Burma through military harassments and the denial of their rights to citizenship 31. Deliberate harassment and persecution of supporters of the movement for human rights and democracy through illegal arrests, detentions, torture, perversions of justice and impositions of lengthy jail terms on activists, particularly those belonging to the National League for Democracy 32. Promulgation of laws and regulations to inhibit and threaten people to prevent their engagement in legitimate and peaceful actions to effect positive change in Burma 33. The manipulation of the process of formulating a new Constitution in Burma, including the harassment and unreasonable pressure calculated to deny democratic forces their rightful influence and input into such deliberations 34. Widespread censorship and the imposition of onerous penalties on those seeking to legitimately disseminate information of national and international significance in Burma 35. The manipulation and perversion of the judicial system and other mechanisms aimed at upholding justice and legal redress 36. The diversion of funds away from public education, which has contributed to plummeting literacy rates amongst children in Burma. 37. The diversion of funds away from public health, which has contributed to the tragic growing epidemic of HIV/AIDS in Burma 38. The maintenance of conditions which prolong the continuing illicit production and trafficking of heroin and opium 39. The maintenance of conditions which make many communities vulnerable to the trafficking of women and children 40. The obstructions maintained by the SLORC to prevent international humanitarian agencies, including the UN Special Rapporteur on Burma, International Committee of the Red Cross and the UNHCR, from freely engaging in legitimate fact-finding, monitoring and relief work 41. The SLORC's continuing refusal to acknowledge or uphold the human and political rights of the peoples of Burma and 42. The SLORC's refusal to recognise the outcome of the 1990 elections which it conducted and which saw the National League for Democracy win 82% of the seats. 43. WE NOTE that the above-mentioned violations, degradations and harassments perpetrated by the SLORC have been extensively documented by a number of well respected organisations, including agencies of the United Nations. 44. FURTHER, WE VIEW WITH ABHORRENCE the SLORC's initiation of projects and practices which pose a severe danger to the ecological stability of the country, including the unsustainable exploitation of Burma's marine and forest resources in return for foreign exchange and the proposed Salween River project, and the ensuing human costs of such short-sighted endeavours which are aimed at extracting short-term maximum profit. 45. WE ALSO VIEW WITH ABHORRENCE the activities of foreign companies operating in co-operation with the SLORC to extract profits from the oppression of the people of Burma. WE ARE GRAVELY CONCERNED that such activities, have in some situations contributed to human rights violations. WE ARE ALSO GRAVELY CONCERNED that the foreign exchange and material profits gained by the SLORC from such exploitative activities provide the notorious junta with the means to further oppress the people of Burma. WE SUPPORT the efforts of peoples' organisations in the international community to implement selective buying campaigns and to seek legal action to hold such foreign investors accountable for their complicity in the abuses taking place in Burma. 46. WE VIEW WITH DEEP CONCERN the growing phenomena of migrant workers from Burma who, in their desperation to flee the harsh conditions of their country, are being subjected to exploitative conditions in countries where they have sought work. WE NOTE that the Burmese authorities' refusal to take responsibility for them has rendered them illegal migrant workers in most of the countries they are seeking work. THEREFORE, WE RESPECTFULLY URGE these countries to apply the principles contained in the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families in their dealings with these people. 47. WE RECOGNISE AND SUPPORT the aspirations of the people of Burma for a peaceful, democratic society which respects the civil and political rights of all its members. 48. WE RECOGNIZE that the prerequisites for a just peace in Burma include: 49. The recognition of the outcome of the 1990 election, including the handing over of power to a democratic, civilian government 50. The reconstitution of the composition and processes of the National Convention for the drawing up of a new Constitution to reflect the aspirations and desires of the peoples of Burma 51. The unconditional release of all political prisoners, including those held under house arrest 52. The formation of a genuine Federal Union of Burma which recognises the rights of all communities and ethnic nationalities 53. The cessation of human rights violations against the peoples of Burma, including killings, torture, rape and sexual assault, forced labour and other forms of persecution and violations as described above 54. The cessation of harassments, attacks and discrimination targeted at the ethnic nationalities of Burma 55. The cessation of all forms of harassments and the abolition of unjust laws aimed at inhibiting the formation of a democratic, civil society which values human rights 56. The re-organisation of the economic system of Burma and a re- prioritisation of the national budget to reflect the true needs and desires of its population, and 57. A continuing, genuine dialogue between all the key political groups of the country as part of the process to achieve long-lasting reconciliation 58. WE RECOGNISE AND SUPPORT the desire of the people of Burma for a democratic, civilian government as expressed through the results of the 1990 election. 59. WE ASSERT that the crisis in Burma is a matter of grave concern to the international community, particularly to the citizens of ASEAN nations and do no accept that it is an "internal matter". 60. WE ASSERT that the on-going crisis in Burma is a threat to the long-term peace, economic growth and security of the world, in particular, the ASEAN and South- Asian regions. The prolongation of the long-term crisis in Burma will have severe destructive effects on the citizens of the region. 61. WE BELIEVE that ASEAN is in a position to ensure that genuine positive change takes place in Burma. 62. WE DO NOT AGREE with ASEAN's current policy known as "constructive engagement" on the grounds that such a policy has done nothing to promote genuine reconciliation in Burma, in fact, it has given the SLORC legitimacy to perpetuate its rule of terror over our neighbours in Burma, as demonstrated by the junta's renewed crackdowns on democracy activists in the past six months. 63. WE OPPOSE ASEAN membership for the SLORC on the grounds that: 64. The SLORC is not the legitimate government of that country 65. ASEAN membership would provide the SLORC with a de facto licence to continue its attacks on the peoples on Burma, and 66. The SLORC's activities are a direct contradiction to the aims and objectives of ASEAN 67. WE BELIEVE that ASEAN and the international community, including regional and international groupings such as the European Union and the United Nations and its agencies have, at their disposal, the means to support, encourage and facilitate the restoration of human rights, democracy and ultimately, peace, to Burma 68. WE CALL UPON ASEAN, as a grouping, and member nations of ASEAN, as sovereign states to exercise their right to review their position vis-a-vis Burma, and formulate a progressive position to support genuine dialogue and reconciliation in Burma 69. WE CALL UPON members of the United Nations, European Union, the ASEAN Regional Forum and other governments who have dealings with ASEAN as a grouping, and individual member nations of ASEAN, to exert their good offices to encourage a positive change in ASEAN's approach to the crisis in Burma. WE BELIEVE that change is possible, with sufficient support and a willingness to dialogue in the spirit of international co-operation and goodwill 70. WE FURTHER CALL UPON the aforementioned members of the United Nations, European Union, the ASEAN Regional Forum and other citizens of the world, including Non-Governmental Organisations and international agencies to renew their commitment and efforts to support, encourage and facilitate the restoration of human rights, democracy and ultimately, peace, to Burma through engaging in all forms of firm, peaceful, diplomatic strategies, including the application of diplomatic and trade sanctions against the SLORC 71. TO THIS END, we urge the aforementioned groups and individual countries to provide concrete support towards activities undertaken by organisations and groups working within and without Burma in support of human rights and democracy in that country through prioritising the flow of information and resources, the free movement of activists in their work, and commitment to the implementation of cross-border relief work and humanitarian assistance. 72. FURTHER, WE URGE the citizens of the world not to support the SLORC's Visit Myanmar campaign, by postponing plans to visit the country until the human rights situation improves in that country, further that they communicate the grounds for their decision to representatives of the SLORC and their local travel industry. 73. WE ALSO URGE THAT the United Nations, as the ultimate body of world authority, take immediate steps to eject the SLORC from the UN General Assembly on the grounds that the SLORC is not the legitimate government of Burma, further that its continuing brutality and oppression of the people of Burma are anathema to the values and vision of the UN. 74. WE, THE PARTICIPANTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE ASEAN MEETING ON BURMA, RE-AFFIRM OUR COMMITMENT to support the movement for human rights and democracy in Burma. WE WILL DO THIS by working in co-operation with Burmese and non-Burmese peoples' organisations working within and without Burma to further the cause of the movement. WE WILL DO THIS through the formation of the Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma, as an expression of the support of the peoples of ASEAN for the struggle in Burma. WE WILL ENGAGE in activities on the local, national and regional levels to raise awareness of and mobilise support for our 47 million neighbours in Burma. 75. WE MAKE THIS COMMITMENT with the understanding that we are diminished as human beings and as supporters of human rights if we fail to act to alleviate the tragic crisis taking place in Burma. WE UNDERSTAND THAT our support for human rights, democracy and peace in Burma is also support for human rights, democracy and peace in our communities. 76. THEREFORE, WE CALL UPON our home governments and other members of the international community to support us in our endeavours and allow us to freely engage in legitimate activities which are informed by the universal values for human rights, democracy and peace, held dearly by all peoples of the world. 77. WE MAKE THIS DECLARATION ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1996, AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE ALTERNATIVE ASEAN MEETING ON BURMA, CHULALONGKORN UNIVERSITY, BANGKOK, THAILAND. SIGNED: (Participants) ALSO ENDORSED BY: (Endorsing organisations who could not attend meeting) Draft: Alternative ASEAN Declaration on Burma, as at 10/14/96 From daga at HK.Super.NET Sat Oct 26 12:30:34 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 11:30:34 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 192] notes from the e-conference facilitator Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961026112447.116f9292@is1.hk.super.net> Dear Friends, a couple of reminders please: 1. As indicated in the welcome instructions, please do not send files more than 18K. Illustrated by the file attach example of [asia-apec 186] which was all of 54K, this caused problems alright in reported disk full storage systems and bounced mail from Thailand, Philippines, India, Singapore, etc. 2. Kindly check the header if a response is expected directly to the sender's e-mail address, or to the public area. When publicly responding, kindly delete the redundant original message, as in the example of [asia-apec 191], which unnecessarily totalled all of 21K. 3. For specific campaigns and sub-postings, it may be best to make a general announcement for groups that may want to directly subscribe to such mailing lists. Example are similar messages from different mailing lists and conferences on Indonesia that have found there way to [asia-apec]. 4. Especially for those who will not be able to make it to Manila mid-November, we are working on making available online the papers and proceedings of the various APEC-related initiatives. In solidarity, Mario Mapanao asia-apec facilitator ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 infolink at portalinc.com Sat Oct 26 12:41:23 1996 From: infolink at portalinc.com (kakammpi) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 11:41:23 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 193] ramos-horta news from phil-seti Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961026113536.1a67c430@is1.hk.super.net> "WRONG MISTAKE" by Conrado de Quiros, Columnist, Phil. Daily Inquirer, 25 October 1996, p.8, editorial and opinion page. Well, there's no sign of Fidel Ramos relenting and letting Jose Ramos-Horta --his "distant cousin" as Ramos-Horta playfully puts it --into the country. And so what was once touted as the crowning glory of Ramos' administration, which is Apec, might well turn out to be its albatross. None of those elaborate preparations could be worth a hoot with the sight of this year's Nobel Prize winner for peace being gagged with Apec streamers. It's the small thing that wreck the best laid out plots of mice and presidents. Though it's hard to see how a human rights issue could be such a small thing. You grant that the people who invited Ramos-Horta to their conference wanted only to embarrass Ramos--which takes a lot of granting --and you still have to ask why the correct response to that would be stopping Ramos-Horta from coming in. People who are struggling for freedom will naturally use any forum --bigger the better --to press their cause, and the people who are supporting them will strive to accommodate them, even at risk, or with the express intention, of embarrassing their own governments. That was how it was with us too, during Marcos' time. The American groups who supported the anti-Marcos struggle in the Philippines did openly invite anti-Marcos Filipinos to rally against him during his state visit to the US. No American public official said it would embarrass the US government and cause a security risk. No American public official said the groups should be prevented from coming in, or shouting themselves hoarse. Nobody said the protesters could have their say at another time and another place. Some things may not wait. Stopping wholesale slaughter may not wait. Surely, Ramos-Horta will compete for attention against Apec. Well, what of it? Lest we forget, that is what Apec is all about. It is all about competition, it is about allowing goods to flow freely into countries, it is about letting the best things win in the market. Or has Ramos suddenly forgotten all that talk of globalization and competitiveness? If you can allow goods to flow freely into countries, why can't you do the same thing for ideas? If Apec can only lose out in competition with the struggle of the East Timorese to be free, then it ought to. That is the law of the market. That is the message of Apec. But even more than this, why should Ramos-Horta's message naturally compete with, or run counter to, the message of Apec? Why shouldn't it naturally blend with, or even enhance, it? Why should human rights and human striving be naturally antithetiical to a conference that means to chart the course of human progress? For that is what many of the world's leaders are flying here for. They are not flying here just to sign a document about trade, and finance, and investment. They are flying here to carve out the vision of a new world. What a vision that would be if human rights has no place in it. What a world that would be if material progress should rise above the bones of the dead. Of course, Ramos-Horta's message will naturally embarrass Indonesia --as it should. But is pleasing Indonesia worth incurring the ire of the civilized world? For Ramos-Horta is this year's Nobel Prize awardee for peace, one of the highest honors known to civilization. Is pleasing Indonesia worth painting a bloodstained picture of development? For Ramos-Horta has a right to cry out against slavery, which is anathema to civilization. Elsewhere in the world, freedom is the condition of development. Elsewhere in the word, freedom is the end of development. A development by slaves and for slaves is not development. It is retrogression. That's the monkey, the size of King Kong, that will ride on the back of Apec. The critics of Apec couldn't have said it better. None of their barbs has been this devastating. By preventing Ramos-Horta from talking about the struggle of his people, a struggle not unlike the one Corazon Aquino waged in this country not too long ago, Ramos has said a mouthful about what Apec, and his concept of development, really are. Or more importantly, what they are not. They are not about justice, they are not about dissent, they are not about people being free to say what kind of development they want. Freedom has no place in economic progress. Human rights have no place in economic progress. AT the end of the day, principle must give way to expedience. Growth must take precedence over the moral imperative to right wrongs. It is the national doctrine all over again, gone globally competitive. Or desperately trying to do so, since it can hardly stand up to the mere presence of one single solitary individual. Truth is the loudest whisper of all, justice is the keenest competitor of all. But surely we ought to look after ourselves first? Surely we ought to scorn other people's struggle to be free and embrace first our own struggle to survive? Well, the East Timor people's struggle to be free is our own too. Not least in a literal sense. You agree to a concept of development that serves human rights and dissent and justice up the altar of material progress, and you agree to the tribal communities being pushed off the land to make way for golf courses, you agree to them being murdered when they protest. The East Timor people's cry to be heard is our own cry to be heard too. The East Timor people's cry to stop the murder is our own cry to stop the murder too. But more than this, the East Timor people's struggle to be free is our own too in that we belong to the same human community. If that community had not felt that way toward us when we were struggling to throw off the yoke of oppression , we should not be there to host anything. Least of all a conference that means to bring the world together to share a common vision, to build a common dream. That is what Apec says it wants to do. How can Ramos-Horta's cause possibly thwart that? From tieasia at ksc8.th.com Sat Oct 26 16:06:19 1996 From: tieasia at ksc8.th.com (Maureen and Somyot, TIE - Asia) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 15:06:19 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 194] Eden Update Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961026150031.28579fde@is1.hk.super.net> EDEN UPDATE # 3 Friday October 25, 1996 EDEN Update will be sent out on a regular basis, while the dispute at the Eden Group Company continues in Bangkok, Thailand. Please distribute as widely as possible, or contact this office if you wish to be put on the distribution list. Eden Update is available via fax, or the text can be sent via email. For further information contact TIE - Asia, or CLIST at: +66-2-586 0158 ph/fax or tieasia@ksc8.th.com WHY DO WE ASK FOR 15 MONTHS COMPENSATION? WHY DO WE NEED SOCIAL SECURITY FOR UNEMPLOYED? Introduction The government always tell us industrialization will create more jobs and improve our living standard. Every government talks about how to make Thailand the next tiger of Asia, to become a newly industrialized country (NIC) without taking into account the suffering of people, most of whom are factory workers. The lust to becomea NIC of Thai government has forced workers into inhuman working conditions - low wages, long hours, unreasonable risks to health and safety, lack of job security, and overwhelming struggle. The reality is painful. During economic boom factory workers are those who keep working hard to increase productivity, but they are also the first to be fired in the time of economic decline. This experience has repeated over and over again, and has deeply wounded the spirit of the Thai working class. When we fight, when we ask for our basic rights as a human beings, what we receive is the capitalist exercises his economic power to suppress us by closing down the factory.The price of this is only to pay 6 months compensation required by law. One example is the case of Thai Melon Polyester factory. In 1984, the company shut down its plant in response to the strike, bringing the union to the end. And GS Steal closed down its factory simultaneously against the strike led by the factory-based union in 1990. Another case is Thai Patraporn which closed down in 1993 responding to the long-running strike (more than 10 months) organised by Aporn Thai Union. And many more cases that the companies got away by dissolving their business and avoided their responsibility of compensation payment. Dissolving business has far been a very easy thing to do because the compensations required by law has been too low. It is too low for workers whom no one wants to employ because they are over 30 years of age. It is too low because the capitalist can easily get rid of dedicated militant union leaders by firing them and pay the low price. As for the case of Eden Group, the real story is not that the company wants to dissolve their business, nor they are bankrupt! But the story is they want to maintain the certain level of profits by reducing costs of production. Without any morality, the company has been subcontracting works out to independent subcontractors, and be able to avoid the employer's obligations. Subcontractors use child workers whom they can easily buy at Hua Lam Pong railway station, or agents who buy/sell labour for profits.That is why we cannot agree to accept compensations according to the labour law, but we are asking for 15 months, one time higher than required by law. THE REASONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Most of the dismissed workers are aged between 30-40 years old, and are unable to get a new job as most employers only want hire those under 25 years of age. As a result, they need a higher compensation for their living and family during the search for a new employment or to be used in starting their own business. We only ask for compensations required by law and a special sum to relieve our economic losses. More importantly, these dismissed workers bear family responsibility- tuition fee, rent, etc. 15 months compensation is an equivalent of 68000 Baht which is not a great amount comparing to the high living costs in the present. 2. The Eden Group has generated great profits. In the company's business catalog, the management reveals that the company is one of the biggest garment producers and exporters and its consolidated worldwide revenues topped US$ 70 million or 1750 million Baht in 1991 and 5000 million Baht in 1993. The total amount of 15 months compensation which we ask for is only 21 million Baht, and the company should not have any problems paying this amount. 3. The company has not dissolved its business, but subcontracted works out to subcontractors in the informal sector to avoid labour laws. These subcontractors also exploit child and migrant workers, in which we have evidences and witnesses. Child workers in a sweatshop of subcontractor for Eden Group are aged between 12-15 years old. The children work for free, because the subcontractors paid a sum to their parents. They are not different from slave labour. 4. 15 months compensation is also to be a lesson for the capitalists and TNCs not to take advantage of Thai workers. And the company cannot easily get away from their responsibility by laying of workers and paying a cheap price. More importantly, this would help prevent the company attempting to destroy workers' unions. 5. 15 months compensation is an average of international standards. The longer period workers render their service to the company is the more compensations they receive. This is keen especially the case of Thailand where social security is not yet provided to unemployed. A special sum in excess of legal compensations is necessary to help the workers survive during the search for a new job. 6. Garment workers create goods, product values, profits, generating a high gross domestic product (GDP) of several hundred thousand million Baht per year. They deserve protection when dismissed or laid off. They deserve social security when unemployed. Compensation redundancy and a special assistance are thus the responsibilities of the employer and the government. By the Garment Industry Workers Union and CLIST SOME ANSWERS TO COMMON QUESTIONS * The 345 dismissed workers are demanding for just compensation and not for re-instatement because of unsuccessful attempt to be re-instated was made before in March this year when 800 workers were laid off. * The 800 workers laid off in March this year received 10 months compensation - 6 months required by law and a special sum of 6 million Baht to be shared among old ages workers ( on average 800 workers received 10 months each ). This time, 345 dismissed workers are also willing to receive 10 months compensation if the company agrees to pay right away. But the problem is that the company has never wanted to negotiate with the Union. 15 months compensation is favorable but not definite! The workers are willing to negotiate and lower their demand if the company negotiates with them. * At the beginning of the Eden dispute, when 345 workers were given notices terminating their employment on September 13, 1996 to be effective on 14 Sep., the Union was trying to negotiate with the company for just compensation. Since then six attempts for negotiation have been made by the Union, but the employer has never turned up. The company instead sent someone who had no decision-making power to the negotiations and thus they failed. * The company has been trying to get away ; at first it did not want to pay any compensations at all; instead it made up a situation that it was going bankrupt, machinery at the plant was taken by the company's raw material suppliers; when the union discovered that such a situation was only a set up, and that the company had been subcontracting works out to independent subcontractors and home workers, which made the situation of bankruptcy even more apparent because the company wouldn't need to keep those machines as manufacturing was no longer done in the factory ; the company only considered the Union's demand for compensation when it could not tolerate much pressures received from both local actions (workers' rally and picketline) and international campaign against the company's product brandnames; then it offered the amount of legal compensation - 7 months ( 6 months compensation + 1 month damage for termination without a notice ) required by Thai labour law to the dismissed workers. Importantly, 345 workers were unfairly dismissed !! * In Thailand, social security for unemployed does not exist !! Dismissed workers only receive compensation payments and that's it ! Dismissed Eden workers had been paid at the level of minimum wage ( 5.8 US$ / day ) even though they had rendered their service to the company for more than 10 years. * We have evidence of child labour exploitation in a sweatshop of subcontractor for Eden Group. The children are aged between 12-15 year olds. They are bought by the subcontractor who paid a sum to their parents. The children thus work as slave labour : without pay and long hours. * By subcontracting its operation out which involves child labour exploitation, the company unfairly dismissed workers who are aged between 35-45 and unlikely to find a new career. The above reasons are to explain why workers demand 15 months. The most important thing to keep in mind is that 15 months is not important in itself but the company must negotiate with the workers/Union who are willing to accept reasonable compensation. From sonny at nation.nationgroup.com Sun Oct 27 04:54:40 1996 From: sonny at nation.nationgroup.com (sonny@nation.nationgroup.com) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 14:54:40 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [asia-apec 195] URGENT/ APEC BLACKLIST/ Message-ID: FOR CIRCULATION ---------------- MANILA , Saturday, Oct 26, 1996 -- Kyodo News Agency Philippine immigration authorities will ban the entry of 100 foreigners who are scheduled to attend a non-governmental organisation's forum that will coincide with the November summit of Apec, local reports said Saturday. Among those on the blacklist are Japanese Bishop Aloisus Nobuo Soma, South African Bishop Desmond Tutu and former French first lady Danielle Mitterrand. A Portuguese couple, Marcelo and Luisa Perreira, whose books delve into Indonesia's repression in East Timor, are also on the list, the Philippine Daily Inquirer reported. The government earlier denied the visa application of this year's Nobel Peace Prize winner Jose Ramos-Horta, a leading figure in East Timor's quest for independence from Indonesia. The blacklisted foreigners were invited to the Manila People's Forum on Apec, which will run parallel with the official Apec meetings culminating with the leaders' summit on Nov 25. President Fidel Ramos, explaining Manila's decision to ban the entry of Ramos-Horta and other foreigners, said Friday that "with due respect to our friends from abroad, we honour and respect those who have attained international recognition." "We would not, however, want to expose them to embarrassment and possible disturbances which might arise from their presence in Manila at the time we are having the Apec meeting," he told reporters through a teleconference in Washington. From bien at pw.net Sat Oct 26 22:33:21 1996 From: bien at pw.net (bien) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 21:33:21 +0800 Subject: [asia-apec 196] Message from MPFA Message-ID: <32721321.2C6E@pw.net> October 26, 1996 Dear Friends, We are sharing with you the most detailed article that came out in Manila newspaper this morning. The Philippine Government came out with the so-called "List E," a list that contains the names of "100 potential troublemakers" who will be banned from entering the country. You will notice that there is special and particular mention of the MPFA, although many of the prominent names cited are not in our official list of delegates/invitees. We do not have the list, but we are are trying our best to get a copy, if indeed it exists. (Note that Philippine President Fidel Ramos is a known brutal psywar expert.) The current situation is reminiscent of the harassment experienced by the APCET in 1994. The MPFA is not only about human rights. There are equally important economic, environmental and social issues that will be tackled in the conference. Our main objective is to hold the MPFA and have all interested parties join it. We must, therefore, be wary of harassment of this kind. There have been no official moves from the MPFA yet, but we'll keep you updated of developments. Meanwhile, please forward this message, the article, and the MPFA statements to your networks who are not asia-apec subscribers and to other groups and individuals who might be interested. We'll see you all in November! Manila People's Forum on APEC 1996 From alarm at pw.net Sat Oct 26 22:37:40 1996 From: alarm at pw.net (alarm) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 21:37:40 +0800 Subject: [asia-apec 197] RP to Bar 100 "trouble makers" Message-ID: <32721424.4EFC@pw.net> RP TO BAR 100 "TROUBLEMAKERS": BISHOP TUTU HEADS OF APEC BLACKLIST By: Rocky Nazareno and Cynthia D. Balana Published in Philippine Daily Inquirer, 26 Oct. 1996, Page 1 What do Daniel Mitterrand, wife of the former president of France, Japanese Bishop Aloisus Nobuo Soma, South African Bishop Desmond Tutu, and Portuguese educators Marcelo and Luisa Perreira have in common? They are all "potential trouble makers", from the viewpoint of the Filipino Officials. As such, they are among at least 100 people from 18 nations whom the Philippine government banned from entering the country, lest they disrupt the Asia-Pacific economic Cooperation summit late next month. Immigration officials were told to watch out for them after the Ramos administration rejected the Visa application of East-Timorese resistance leader and Nobel prize co-winner Jose Ramos-Horta. But trouble-making may be the least thing on the minds of these eminent personages. The worst they can do is to steal the thunder from the APEC leaders by attending the alternative gathering, The Manila Peoples' Forum on APEC. For Filipino Officials, however, that's trouble enough. Among other issues, the MPFA 96 will tackle the plight of East Timor, the former Portuguese colony that Indonesia invaded in December 1975 and later annexed as its 27th province. Stoking that sensitive issue can embarrass Indonesian President Suharto, one of the leaders attending the 18-nation APEC summit. An Filipino officials, anxious to play their hosting role to the hilt, appear bent on sparing the Indonesian Leader the littlest inconvenience. Explaining the ban on Ramos-Horta, President Ramos yesterday said the Nobel Laureate was not really a threat to the security of the state leaders attending the APEC conference but his presence could jeopardize the Philippines' preparations for the event. COME ANOTHER TIME In a tele-conference with members of the US National Press Club in Washington DC., The President said Ramos-Horta might be allowed to come here after the APEC summit. Referring to the East Timorese leader and other people invited to the alternative forum, he said: "With due respect from our friends abroad, we honor and respect those that have attained international recognition. We would not, however, want to expose them embarrassment and possible disturbances which might arise from their presence in Manila at the time we are having the APEC meeting." "So maybe, (they can come) some other time," the president said. "It is to our national interest to have a successful and productive 1996 APEC Meeting," he stressed. "Security in the physical sense is not very much involve here." The President explained: "We've worked hard for the last 10 months to ensure a harmonious regime here In the Philippines in order that we can be seen as complying with our hosting and providing hospitality and harmony for our colleagues." He recalled that a government ban on Ramos-Horta's entry here was questioned before the Supreme Court in 1994. The high court upheld the government action. CABINET CLUSTER E The 100 potential trouble makers whose names were contained in a list submitted Cabinet Cluster E to the Bureau of Immigration, were classified under three categories: Those who attended the Asia-pacific conference on East Timor (APCET) here in 1994; those involved in similar forums; and those invited by the Manila People's Forum. The list includes nationals from France, Japan, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Australia, Thailand, Indonesia, South Africa, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Mexico, Nicaragua and Taiwan. Ms. Mitterand was refused entry during the 1994 APCET. Bishop Nobuo Soma's church in Japan has given refuge to distress Filipinas. Marcelo and Luisa Perreira have written books criticizing the Indonesian government for human rights violation in East Timor. Indonesia's annexation of East Timor has been widely criticized in the international community and has never been recognized by the UN. VISA CAMPAIGN Unfazed by the government action against Ramos Horta and other foreign nationals, the Manila People's Forum on APEC vowed to solicit international and local endorsements to persuade the Ramos Administration to grant the east Timorese leader a Philippine Visa. The international campaign is now being waged in at least four countries, forum organizers said. Aside from the campaign, Omi Royandoyan, MPFA coordinator said, they would question the legality of the ban before the Supreme Court. Ramos-Horta was invited to be the keynote speaker at the alternative forum. "The government had no firm basis for denying the Nobel laureate entry into the country." Royandoyan said. MPFA International Convenor, Walden Bello said MPFA delegates across the Asia-Pacific would urge APEC- members governments not to attend the APEC summit should the Philippine Government insist on banning Ramos-Horta. He warned the Ramos administration might find itself at the "loosing-end" should it continue giving in to pressure from the Indonesian government on the Issue. SYMPATHY FOR RAMOS-HORTA Royandoyan said there was a "great" deal of sympathy within APEC-member countries for Ramos-Horta's cause and that the on-going conflict in East Timor also affected the security in the Asia-Pacific region. "Mr. Ramos-Horta's sole intention in coming to the Philippines is to maximize support for efforts to begin peace processes with the Indonesian government" he said. "How can he be a threat to the Philippine interest, much less to national security?" Organizers of the Alternative forum described the ban on Ramos-Horta's entry as a "blow" to the Philippine Democracy. From alarm at pw.net Sat Oct 26 22:41:44 1996 From: alarm at pw.net (alarm) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 21:41:44 +0800 Subject: [asia-apec 198] MPFA News Release Message-ID: <32721518.207F@pw.net> NEWS RELEASE (10/26/96) For further information, please contact CES OCHOA or MENCHIE FLORES Telephones 929-6211; 922-9621 loc. 314/339 MPFA urges government to rescind ban on 100 HR, peace advocates Says policy is "misguided, irrational and paranoid" Organizers of the Manila People's Forum on APEC (MPFA) today urged the Ramos government to rescind its ban on 1996 Nobel Peace Prize winner Jose Ramos Horta and some 100 other peace and human rights luminaries "before it makes a complete diplomatic embarassment out of itself and before it earns a reputation equal to the most repressive governments in the Asia Pacific region." MPFA Coordinator Omi Royandoyan said the government blacklist--which includes such distinguished peace advocates as Nobel laureate Bishop Desmond Tutu and Japanese Bishop Aloisius Soma--is "indicative of the irrational, misguided, and downright deluded diplomatic policy of the Philippine government in relation to the APEC summit and to international gatherings parallel to it." "It boggles our imagination how such renowned and internationally recognized peace advocates as Nobel laureates Jose Ramos Horta and Bishop Tutu could seriously be considered as ?troublemakers.' What is even more disturbing is that a country known in the Asia-Pacific region as one of the few bastions of democratic rights could bar these and over a hundred other people from coming to the Philippines to discuss matters of regional significance--the fate of millions of people who will be affected by the far-reaching liberalization policies that the APEC advocates," Royandoyan said. The coordinator of the international gathering parallel to the APEC Summit this November said the Ramos government's "paranoid stance" toward foreign peace and people's rights advocates is "costing the Philippines its well-earned record of upholding democratic rights and processes. Already, the Philippine government is being compared with the Burmese SLORC regime--one of the most repressive in the region--which denied former President Aquino's bid to meet with another Nobel laureate, Aung Suu Kyi." Moreover, the blacklist issue has gained international attention, with several human rights groups joining in the clamor to let Horta and other banned personalities into the Philippines. "Groups from the United States led by Essential Information will stage a protest in front of the Philippine embassy in Washington DC this coming Tuesday, October 29, against the Philippine ban on the East Timor resistance leader. Other international groups that have asked President Ramos to rescind the ban are Forum Asia, an umbrella organization of human rights advocates across the region, and Human Rights Watch, a Washington DC-based human rights monitoring group. Royandoyan said that with the blacklist, "the Philippine government is effectively denying people across the Asia Pacific region its right to freely discuss the social, political and ecological costs of APEC and its agenda for full and fast economic liberalization. In fact, its actions seem to affirm that there is no space for transparency, accountability and democratic participation within APEC. It is also confirming the fear of many people's movements that human rights, ecological rights and the people's right to determine their own future will be denied or traded away in the APEC economies' single-minded pursuit of profit, markets and investments." He added that the MPFA "does not seek to embarass any of the APEC members, but merely wishes to remind heads of state of their responsibility and accountability to the people that economic growth should primarily benefit." He added that the MPFA wished to engage in a constructive international dialogue, "so that the issues such as labor rights, farmers' rights, women's rights, and people's rights to sustainable, self-determined and equitable development are no longer simply ignored by such fora as the APEC." "We, the MPFA POs and NGOs in the Philippines, have always attempted to engage the Philippine government in a dialogue," Royandoyan asserted. "We have long presented to them our agenda and specific proposals for action. But government has simply ignored these recommendations, again underscoring the unilateral, undemocratic and arbitrary character of government commitments and policies related to APEC." From alarm at pw.net Sat Oct 26 22:43:35 1996 From: alarm at pw.net (alarm) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 21:43:35 +0800 Subject: [asia-apec 199] MPFA News Release Message-ID: <32721587.3D9F@pw.net> NEWS RELEASE (10/25/96) For further information, please contact CES OCHOA or MENCHIE FLORES Telephones 929-6211; 922-9621 loc. 314/339 Organizers of the Manila People's Forum on APEC said they would still seek to reverse the ban on the entry of Jose Ramos Horta in time for their parallel conference to the official APEC Summit in Manila. This, despite the statement from President Ramos that the Nobel laureate would be welcome to the Philippines after the November APEC meeting. "Mr. Ramos-Horta made it clear in his last teleconference that the Manila People's Forum is a unique opportunity for him, as it gathers people's movements and NGOs from across the Asia-Pacific to discuss regional issues," said MPFA Coordinator Omi Royandoyan. "He would very much want to present his proposals for peace in East Timor and his perspectives on regional issues to this wide-ranging audience, just as the other delegates to the forum are eager to hear from him. We thus cannot simply give up in our campaign to have Mr. Ramos-Horta here with us in Manila come November." The MPFA added that they found it "difficult to understand why the simple and peaceable exercise of the right to free expression, on a matter that could potentially benefit not just Indonesia and East Timor but the entire Asia-Pacific region, could be construed as injurious to the national interest." Several Philippine and international groups have expressed support to the bid to reverse the Philippine government's ban on the 1996 Nobel Peace Prize winner. Among them are the influential Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), Forum Asia, and Human Rights Watch Asia, a Washington DC-based monitoring and lobby group. The MPFA said it would continue with its international and Philippine campaign to gather support for Ramos-Horta's entry into the Philippines, including a bid to make APEC heads of state boycott the official summit should Horta be denied entry. The organizers added that they would file a legal case questioning the basis of the ban; and seek the intervention of Philippine courts to allow Ramos-Horta into the country. From sonny at nation.nationgroup.com Sun Oct 27 12:05:21 1996 From: sonny at nation.nationgroup.com (sonny@nation.nationgroup.com) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 22:05:21 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [asia-apec 200] UN Security Council seat Message-ID: (Free to reproduce) Editorial in The Nation, Bangkok, Saturday, Oct 26, 1996. Don't blame the stars for Australia's UN debacle ------------------------------------------------- Australia seems bewildered after its crushing defeat to Portugal in a vote held Monday for one of the five non-permanent seats at the United Nations Security Council. Canberra had embarked on a two-year diplomatic campaign to secure the seat on the UN's most powerful policy-making body. More than US$500,000 was spent on that campaign and at the end of the day in New York, all Australia had to show for it was 57 votes compared to Portugal's 124. The result marked a personal defeat for UN ambassador Richard Butler, criticised for his manner by his peers who have nicknamed him "the pope". Butler offered no immediate explanation for Australia's stunning defeat, saying that the "idiosyncratic result defied all logic." For certain the "defying all logic" reasoning simply will not hold. The crux of the matter is that Australia had taken for granted that its current diplomacy in the region would have easily landed it the coveted seat on the Security Council. What Canberra failed to realise is that domestic policies and ties with neighbouring countries also matter in the manner in which Australia is portrayed and perceived internationally. There has been much speculation in the Australian media on two issues dominating the debate -- whether Canberra's perceived anti-Asian immigration policy swung the Asian vote, or if Australia's pro-Indonesia stance on East Timor made UN member nations think twice about admitting the country into the Security Council. There is currently an anti-Asian rush in Australia under the Howard government, with certain politicians openly making racist statements in the name of "free speech". But little does Canberra realise that this on-going anti-Asian immigration debate spreads internationally and makes Asian nations, whose votes count in the UN, perceive Australia as a whites-only, skin-conscious nation. The Labor government under Paul Keating brought Australia closer to Asia, but the conservative Liberal administration of John Howard seems to have undone that. The East Timor factor was taken into account because of Portugal's support for Timorese pro-independence activists. And this gave rise to some malicious gossip circulating in New York that this year's Nobel Peace prize winner, Jose Ramos-Horta, had used his new found influence to sway the vote. Ramos-Horta admitted in a radio interview that some UN delegations did consult him about Australia's policy on East Timor before the vote. And to them, he did express concern that Australia's membership in the UN Security Council might be favourable to Jakarta when it came to East Timor issues. But to say that he mounted a smear campaign against Australia would be blatant misrepresentation of the facts. Though the Nobel laureate's disagreements with Australia on East Timor are profound, he, however, has a sense of loyalty to the country where he lives in exile as a permenant resident. Ramos-Horta's calls for a peaceful settlement to the East Timor conflict are with good intentions. In an interview with the Agence France-Presse, where he spoke about his meeting with Australia's Foreign Minister Alexander Downer this week, he said. "We are not asking Australia to cut diplomatic ties with Indonesia or impose sanctions. There are a number of things it can do." The Nobel laureate cited measures like offering temporary sanctuary to East Timorese refugees and intitiating secret international talks aimed at forcing Indonesian concessions to the troubled territory. Perhaps Monday's debacle for Australia in the UN can be explained in Shakespearean terms: "The answer dear Brutus, lies not in the stars but in ourselves." From sonny at nation.nationgroup.com Sun Oct 27 12:17:52 1996 From: sonny at nation.nationgroup.com (sonny@nation.nationgroup.com) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 22:17:52 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [asia-apec 201] UN sponsored talks on East Timor Message-ID: New talks on future of East Timor to open in December ----------------------------------------------------- LISBON, Friday, Oct 25, 1996, Agence France-Presse: UN Secretary-General Boutros-Boutros Ghali is to sponsor talks in New York in December on the future of East Timor annexed by Indonesia 20 years ago, offficials said here Friday. The island's long struggle for independence has been firmly thrust into the international spotlight since two pro-independence activists were awarded the 1996 Nobel peace prize earlier this month. The December 21 talks will be between Indonesia's Foreign Minister Ali Alatas and his Portuguese counterpart Jaime Gama. It will be the ninth round of negotiations lanunced in New York in December 1992 which have so far failed to make much progress. The only concrete result has been a decision to set up an East Timorese cultural centre in the capital Dili and an accord for Portuguese aid to Dili University. So far Indonesia has refused pointblank a Portuguese proposal to open interests sections representing both countries on the island. Gama has also pressed for a Portuguese delegation to be authorised to visit Indonesia to meet jailed resistance leader Xanana Gusmao who is serving a 20-year sentence imposed in 1992. From sonny at nation.nationgroup.com Sun Oct 27 12:48:32 1996 From: sonny at nation.nationgroup.com (sonny@nation.nationgroup.com) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 22:48:32 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [asia-apec 202] Bangkok appeal for Jose Ramos-Horta Message-ID: BANGKOK GROUP APPEALS FOR JOSE RAMOS-HORTA'S ENTRY -------------------------------------------------- Saturday, Oct 26, 1996: A Bangkok-based human rights group urged Philippine President Fidel Ramos to reconsider his decision to ban the entry into the Philippines of Nobel Peace laureate Jose Ramos-Horta. "One man cannot destroy a true democracy. This is the time true democracy can be put to a test," Forum Asia said in an open letter to President Ramos. Signed by the forum's secretary-general Somchai Homla-or, the letter noted that this was the second time Mr Horta had been barred from entering the Philippines, following the first ban during the first Asia-Pacific Conference on East Timor held in Manila in 1994. "We in the Asian region have looked looked up to the Philippines as a democratic country with high regard for the rule of law and respect for human rights," the letter added. "We do not like to think you are doing this (barring Mr Horta's entry) because of the pressure of Indonesia, whose rule in East Timor has caused so much misery to its people," the letter stated. "Mr Horta, together with his fellow Nobel Peace prize awardee Bishop Carlos Ximenes Belo and all the other groups and individuals advocating human rights and self-determination for East Timor, are men and women working for peace for their homeland," added the letter. "Putting restricitions on peaceful activities related to East Timor and Indonesia is closing the door for the peaceful resolution of the conflict in East Timor," it said. "We believe the Asean governments have an obligation to support all efforts towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict." ---------------------------------------------- Further information: Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development Tel:662-2769846-7, Fax:662-2762183, 2754230 e-mail:chalida@mozart.inet.co.th From kdpnet at usa.net Sun Oct 27 13:55:31 1996 From: kdpnet at usa.net (KdP Net) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 12:55:31 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 203] ID/ET: Indonesia Day of Action-October 28 Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961027124943.253f2324@is1.hk.super.net> Kabar dari PIJAR /* Written 6:06 PM Oct 24, 1996 by ccpj in web:web.announceme */ /* ---------- "Indonesia Day of Action-October 28" ---------- */ NEWS RELEASE 24 OCTOBER 1996 CANADIANS JOIN INDONESIAN GROUPS TO CALL FOR DEMOCRACY IN INDONESIA On 28 October, the International Day of Action for Indonesia, a number of Canadian NGOs and church and labour groups will join Indonesian activists and opposition politicians in calling for democracy in Indonesia. Our concerns are laid out in the attached joint statement addressed to President Suharto and Prime Minister Jean Chretien. In Indonesia, we are calling for accountability following a brutal crackdown during public unrest in June and July. In Canada, we are calling on our government to take note of human rights concerns in Indonesia, given its extensive trade agreements with that country. This Day of Action comes at a time when much world attention is focused on Indonesia after Bishop Carlos Belo, the Roman Catholic Bishop of East Timor, and Jose Ramos-Horta, a leader of the East Timorese independence movement-in-exile, were awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace for their pursuit of freedom in their Indonesian- occupied homeland. On 25 November, leaders of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) countries will meet in the Philippines. Ramos-Horta has already been banned by the Philippine government from attending a parallel NGO conference. Prime Minister Chretien and Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy will attend the APEC conference. We hope they do not choose to remain silent in the face of growing international complaints against the repressive actions of the Indonesian rulers. To mark this day, vigils and demonstrations will be held around the world at Indonesian consulates and embassies, including in Australia, Canada, Germany, India, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, South Africa, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. The day was initiated in Australia and has been endorsed by Indonesian activists and opposition parties. The undersigned Canadian groups are joined by a student-based rights organization, PIJAR INDONESIA. PIJAR publishes the electronic mail service KdP-Net, in addition to a printed magazine, whose editor, Triagus Siswomiharjo, is serving a two-year jail for defaming President Suharto. In Toronto on the 28th, there will be a 24-hour fast and vigil at the Indonesian Consulate at 129 Jarvis St. starting at 11am. In Ottawa, Bob White of the Canadian Labour Congress will join Bella Galhos, representing Timorese solidarity with Indonesia, at a press conference in the press room on Parliament Hill at 10:30am. In Vancouver, Carmel Budiardjo, a former political prisoner in Indonesia now running TAPOL, the Indonesia Human Rights Campaign, and 1995 winner of the Right Livelihood Award, will speak at a press conference on the Shell oil company's role in Nigeria and Indonesia, to be held at 10:30am (PST) in the Student Union Building at UBC, room 207. Contacts: - Canada Asia Working Group (Bern Jagunos), tel: 416 921-5626, e-mail: cawg@web.net - CCPJ (Wayne Sharpe), tel: 416 703-1638, e-mail: ccpj@web.net - East Timor Alert Network, Ottawa, e-mail: kerryp@jungle.achilles.net - Indonesia Solidarity Network (ISN), Toronto (Maggie Helwig), tel: 416 537-7290, e-mail: maggie@web.net - ISN, Vancouver (David Webster), tel: 604 261-7930, e-mail: etanvan@web.net - Ogoni Solidarity Network, Vancouver (Jaggi Singh), tel: 604 873-8554, e-mail: ogoni@vcn.bc.ca - PIJAR Indonesia, fax: +62 21 809 3304 ======================================================================== OPEN LETTER TO THE INDONESIAN AND CANADIAN GOVERNMENTS In 1965 -- the "Year of Living Dangerously" -- General Suharto swept to power in Indonesia, replacing then-President Sukarno in a bloody coup that claimed over half a million lives. He has ruled Indonesia with an iron fist for the last thirty-one years. But on July 27 this year, his attempt to shut down an opposition political party -- the PDI, led by Sukarno's daughter Megawati -- caused an unprecedented outburst of popular anger. The Indonesian government has openly admitted to only three deaths, but some government representatives have privately said that they believe some 75 were killed that day. The National Human Rights Commission -- a quasi-governmental organisation -- has admitted that about 74 people are "missing" even now. During the events of July 27, a blockade prevented journalists from covering the seizure of PDI headquarters. According to local sources, soldiers seized video footage belonging to Associated Press Television and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. In addition, two local journalists covering the crackdown sustained beatings. And since June, senior Indonesian army officers have delivered explicit warnings to the local press about reporting on the conflict with Megawati loyalists. According to local sources, warnings have been issued to two leading dailies -- "Kompas" and "Merdeka" -- for their critical coverage of the crackdown. Suharto has used the riots to crack down on all forms of peaceful dissent. In recent weeks: * Almost one hundred people have been arrested and detained for nonviolent political activity. Many have been refused access to lawyers or visits from their family. One family member who was permitted to see his detained relative said that burns and scars from torture were clearly evident; * House to house searches, raids on university campuses, and arrests of nonviolent activists continue even now; * Many NGOs working for human rights and democracy, including long-established and internationally respected organisations, have suffered repeated searches of their offices, confiscation of materials, and repeated interrogations of their members; * The head of Indonesia's largest independent trade union, Muchtar Pakpahan, is in prison awaiting a possible death penalty, although the government cannot name a single criminal act he may have committed; * Other trade union organisers are being held in isolation cells; * Journalists already serving long prison sentences for publishing an underground magazine have been transferred to a remote prison where families and lawyers can barely contact them; * Megawati, and all her supporters, have been prevented from standing in the 1997 elections. The United States and the European Union have expressed concern to the Indonesian government. The European Parliament has called for an arms embargo and restrictions on trade and diplomatic relations with Indonesia. But the Canadian government has been silent. We believe that peaceful democratic participation of all sectors of Indonesian society is the best way to address the growing unrest in Indonesia. We do not condone the riots of July 27, but we also strongly condemn the use of force by government troops in dealing with the protesters, and the crackdown which has followed. Most of the NGOs which have been targeted for harassment are seeking peaceful alternatives to violence in their attempt to create social change in Indonesia. They are the best hope for removing the underlying causes of the riots -- decades of repression by the Indonesian government, widespread corruption, growing social and economic disparity and the lack of democratic channels for the expression of the people's frustrations and aspirations. We call on the Indonesian government to: -- end the wave of arrests and stop all forms of harassment of human rights advocates and supporters of democracy -- drop all charges of subversion; release unconditionally all those who have been arrested for nonviolent political activity, most particularly Mochtar Pakpahan, Dita Sari, Coen Hussein Pontoh and Mohammed Soleh; Budiman Sudjatmiko, I Gusti Anom and Wilson; and journalists Ahmad Taufik, Eko Maryadi and Tri Agus Susanto Siswowihardjo -- ensure that those in custody are not tortured, that they have access to legal counsel of their choice and to family members -- account for all those still "missing" since July 27 -- establish the rights of freedom of association, including the right to form or join trade unions, and freedom of expression, including press freedom; immediately repeal all laws and ordinances restricting these basic freedoms -- allow a free and fair referendum on self-determination in East Timor -- halt all military campaigns in West Papua, and the expansion of the Freeport mining operation -- postpone the 1997 elections until such time as candidates can be chosen without government interference or coercion, and a genuinely free election can take place. We call on the Canadian government to: -- publicly condemn the excessive force used on July 27 and the subsequent crackdown, and call for the release of all those imprisoned for nonviolent political activity -- immediately halt any and all arms sales to Indonesia -- impose a moratorium on any new trade deals or missions with Indonesia, and on any government delegations to Indonesia -- call for the repeal of laws restricting basic freedoms in Indonesia. Archdeacon Jim Boyles, General Secretary, Anglican Church of Canada John Vandenberg, Co-chair, Canada Asia Working Group Canadian Committee to Protect Journalists Canadian Auto Workers Abe Barreto Soares, CNRM Canada East Timor Alert Network, Canada Indonesia Solidarity Network Ferry Haryono Machsus, chairman, PIJAR INDONESIA Peter Hutton, Shair International Resource Centre Stuart Wulff, South Pacific Peoples' Foundation Rhea Whitehead, Division of World Outreach, United Church of Canada Veronica Barufatti From rob at essential.org Mon Oct 28 23:42:42 1996 From: rob at essential.org (Robert Weissman) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 09:42:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: [asia-apec 204] Protest Philippine Ban on Peace and HR Activists Message-ID: Friends: Essential Information (parent organization of Multinational Monitor and the Multinationals Resource Center) is sponsoring a protest against the Philippine ban on Jose Ramos-Horta and other activists. The demonstration is scheduled for 12:30 on Tuesday, October 29, outside the Philippine Embassy in Washington, D.C. Further information is contained in the electronic flyer which follows below. Note that it was composed before the announcement of the ban on activists other than Jose Ramos-Horta. Robert Weissman Essential Information | Internet: rob@essential.org Protest The Philippine Government's Bar on Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Jose Ramos-Horta Date: Tuesday, October 29, 1996 Time: 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Place: The Philippine Embassy, 1600 Massachusetts Avenue, NW (17th and Massachusetts, NW) Sponsored by: Essential Information. For more information, call 202-387-8030. In early October, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee awarded the Nobel Prize to Jose Ramos-Horta and Bishop Carlos Ximenes Belo for their work on behalf of East Timor. Indonesia invaded the small nation of East Timor in 1975. In the two subsequent decades, one-third of all East Timorese -- more than 200,000 people -- are estimated to have lost their lives in massacres carried out by the Indonesian military and due to forced starvation. Jose Ramos-Horta is the special representative of the National Council of Maubere Resistance, the underground umbrella organization representing East Timorese groups opposing Indonesian occupation. Ramos-Horta, on behalf of the National Council of Maubere Resistance, has called for a 10-year phase out of Indonesian occupation, to be followed by a UN-sponsored referendum on self-determination for East Timor. Ramos-Horta sought to enter the Philippines to participate in a citizens' conference scheduled to occur during a November summit meeting of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Indonesia, the United States, Japan and the Philippines are among the 18 members of APEC. The Philippines refused Ramos-Horta's visa request, however. Letting Ramos-Horta into the Philippines would be "inimical" to the country's interest, Philippine President Fidel Ramos told Agence France-Presse. From amrc at HK.Super.NET Tue Oct 29 16:22:11 1996 From: amrc at HK.Super.NET (AMRC) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 15:22:11 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 205] asian labour update article Message-ID: <199610290722.PAA23998@hk.super.net> Dear Maureen, I am writing to check if you have finished the piece on the Thai workers visiting S. Africa with some analysis of the importance/impact of cross border solidarity actions? We would really like to include it in the ALU which should be finished next week. If you can please send it to me as soon as you can. On Email is the easiest. Thanks. in solidarity, Jennifer Porges P.S. I will be in Bangkok on my way back from a meeting in CHianmai on Nov. 10-12. Is there any way we can meet while I am there? From amrc at HK.Super.NET Tue Oct 29 16:22:13 1996 From: amrc at HK.Super.NET (AMRC) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 15:22:13 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 206] asian labour update article Message-ID: <199610290722.PAA24004@hk.super.net> Dear Maureen, I am writing to check if you have finished the piece on the Thai workers visiting S. Africa with some analysis of the importance/impact of cross border solidarity actions? We would really like to include it in the ALU which should be finished next week. If you can please send it to me as soon as you can. On Email is the easiest. Thanks. in solidarity, Jennifer Porges P.S. I will be in Bangkok on my way back from a meeting in CHianmai on Nov. 10-12. Is there any way we can meet while I am there? From omi.apec at gaia.psdn.iphil.net Tue Oct 29 18:20:49 1996 From: omi.apec at gaia.psdn.iphil.net (Philippine Peasant Institute) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 17:20:49 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 207] acfoa letter to FVR Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961029171459.26cfa576@is1.hk.super.net> October 21 1996 President Fidel V. Ramos Malacanang Palace Manila PHILIPPINES Dear President Ramos, I write on behalf of the member agencies of the Australian Council for Overseas Aid, to express our distress at reports that large numbers of squatter families are being forcefully evicted from Metro Manila in the lead up to the APEC Ministerial and Leaders' meetings in November. We have received reports that there are plans to demolish the shanties of over 400,000 families and that almost three million people will suffer not only housing dislocation but also from economic and social difficulties. Are these families to be relocated? If so, will they be relocated within commuting distance to their work places? We would like to suggest that rather than hiding the poverty in which so many Filipino families live, the evidence of the extent of poverty in the Philippines should be used to support the argument that the Development Cooperation, or Technical and Economic Cooperation, 'leg' of APEC should receive greater priority. If the leaders of APEC economies are serious about their commitments made at Bogor, that the objectives of measures undertaken under APEC are to improve the lives of all people in the Asia-Pacific region, then they must begin to address together the causes and effects of poverty, especially where the poverty of many people is being exacerbated by trade liberalisation. Hiding the poverty is not a solution. The reported evictions are disturbing, not only because of the impacts they have on those who are already disadvantaged, but also because they come shortly after the Philippines' Government signing the Declaration of Habitat II in Istanbul, declaring that a decent place to live is the right of every human being and condemning all forms of forced evictions. To now evict squatters in order to present an "eye-sore-free" Manila to foreign dignitaries attending the APEC meetings, casts doubt on the sincerity of the Philippines Government's commitment to international declarations and agreements. I urge you to personally address the reported injustice and announce that housing will be provided for all displaced families and that the Philippines will promote within APEC discussions on strategies to address the negative social impacts of integration into the global economy and the growing disparities in wealth within and between APEC economies. I look forward to your reply. Yours sincerely, JANET HUNT Executive Director ________________________________________________ Australian Council For Overseas Aid (ACFOA) Private Bag 3 Deakin ACT 2600 Australia ph: +61 6 285 1816 fax: + 61 6 285 1720 acfoa@peg.apc.org ________________________________________________ From Ross4242 at aol.com Wed Oct 30 08:12:52 1996 From: Ross4242 at aol.com (by way of daga ) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 07:12:52 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 208] NGOs urge sanctions against Burma Message-ID: <2.2.16.19961030070702.281f7a10@is1.hk.super.net> By Deborah Charles BANGKOK, Oct 29 (Reuter) - Asian human rights activists urged southeast Asian nations on Tuesday to follow the United States and Europe and put more pressure on Burma's military rulers over human rights abuses. ``We think the situation in Burma is getting worse,'' Somchai Homlaor, secretary general of the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, told Reuters. The seven-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) ``should work harder to put pressure on SLORC,'' he said, referring to Burma's ruling State Law and Order Restoration Council. The European Union imposed strict limits on Monday on contacts with SLORC officials. The action, similar to recent moves by Washington, bars visas to SLORC members and their families and to some senior military members as part of a build-up of pressure on Burma's ruling junta. The 15-member EU also suspended all high-level EU visits to Burma. Somchai was speaking before the start of a two-day ``Alternative ASEAN'' meeting involving more than 80 activists, academics and exiled Burmese from 50 organisations around Asia. The aim of the meeting was to discuss how ASEAN -- which groups Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, Singapore, Brunei and Vietnam -- could better influence Burma. ASEAN has a policy of ``constructive engagement'' aimed at keeping Burma from becoming isolated in order to try and reform it from within. Rangoon has observer status to ASEAN and has applied to join the group at its next formal meeting in July. Western nations oppose Burma's entry into ASEAN because of the military regime's human rights record and its failure to enter into dialogue with the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD) led by Nobel Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. Organisers of the Alternative ASEAN meeting welcomed the pressure on Burma's military government by the EU and United States but said further steps needed to be taken by Asian countries. ``It is the first step, but it is not enough. The international community should put harder pressure on SLORC, like economic sanctions,'' said Gothom Arya, a political scientist at Chulalongkorn University and host of the meeting. ``ASEAN should do the same,'' he said. ``We are in a much more important position, at least geographically. We are from the same culture ... As neighbours to Burma we should do more.'' A Burmese official said on Monday that the EU move would have little impact because Burmese officials did not travel much to the West. The junta's latest crackdown on the democracy movement -- when it detained 573 activists to prevent an NLD meeting from taking place in late September -- and detention last week of Kyi Maung, deputy chairman of the NLD, sparked world condemnation. The SLORC has said all the activists have since been freed. Kyi Maung, 75, was released on Monday after being held in a government guesthouse for a week for questioning over his alleged role in a rare student protest. The NLD won a landslide victory in a 1990 election but never assumed power after the SLORC, which organised the poll, refused to recognise the results. ASEAN's constructive engagement strategy came into question earlier this month when Philippine President Fidel Ramos said leaders of the group might review the policy. His comments followed the fresh crackdown on the NLD. REUTER 03:22 10-29-96 From aditjond at psychology.newcastle.edu.au Wed Oct 30 10:33:33 1996 From: aditjond at psychology.newcastle.edu.au (George J. Aditjondro) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 12:33:33 +1100 Subject: [asia-apec 209] Re: Lippo-Clinton connections Message-ID: Dear Robert; As one of the persons on the list of 100 persons black list to enter the Philippines, I thank you for organizing the protest in front of the Phil embassy, yesterday. When are you doing something in front of the Indonesian and Burmese embassies? Multinational Monitor might be interested in my following study of the Lippo Group, which has been bribing the Clinton administration all the way along to protect the interests of the Suharto oligarchy. Please tell me if you feel it fit to run in your magazine, which interviewed me years ago about US MNC operating in Indonesia/West Papua (mainly Waeyerhouser and Freeport at that time (1981)). You are also free to disseminate this paper to all the other NGOs and activists and your media friends in the US, especially those who have taken part in actions on behalf of East Timor and the Indonesian and Burmese pro-democracy movements. I will also email you later my study of the Suharto family's business connections with the SLORC in Burma. PS: please send my regards also to Ralph Nader. I wished that he could become the President of the USA, and clean up all this international corruption mess. Yours sincerely, George ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ press release: Mochtar Riady? Yes! Mochtar Pakpahan? No! Background to the Lippo-Clinton-Suharto connections Introduction: In the wake of the media reports in the USA, on the controversial issue of donations by managers and staff persons of an Indonesian conglomerate, the Lippo Group, to President Clinton's re-election campaign, Indonesian Foreign Minister Ali Alatas has categorically stated, that "the Indonesian government has nothing to do with that donation" (The Australian , Oct 23, 1996; and similar reports in Bisnis Indonesia and Kompas ). After carrying thorough library research in my data base of Indonesian business journals and other material on the Indonesian oligarchy, it can be safely stated that Mr. Alatas statement is, as usual, far from the truth. The Riady family who control the Lippo Group as well as the Mayapada Group, and have still shares in the Salim Group's Bank Central Asia, have numerous business connections with the Suharto family and the family of one of Suharto's daughter's in-laws, namely the Djojohadikusumo family. Since these two families possess tremendous political and economic power, as well as intellectual prestige in the Indonesian political arena, it can not be said that the Indonesian government has nothing to do with the Lippo donations for the Clinton presidential campaign. I will back up this statement with the following sections in this paper. First, the business links between the Suharto and Djojohadikusumo families with the Lippo Group. Second, Mochtar Riady's first attempt to enter the US financial market, which preceded the forging of friendship with now US President Bill Clinton. Third, the Riady family's close business links with the children of their business partner. Fourth, lobbying the GSP debate. The Lippo Group's business links with the Suharto family The following is a list of joint ventures of the Lippo Group with President Suharto's extended family, including the family of one of the Suharto children's in-laws, namely the Djojohadikusumo family, and the family of Suharto's closest crony, Liem Sioe Liong, of the Salim Group. This list may not be exhaustive, yet, and still need to be updated. Bank Central Asia (BCA): This largest private bank in Indonesia, part of the Salim Group, the largest conglomerate in Indonesia, which is controlled by Indonesia's richest business tycoon, Liem Sioe Liong, who is also Suharto's closest crony. BCA, however, owes its success to Mochtar Riady (Lee Mo Sing), who was asked to join the bank in 1975 by Liem Sioe Liong, and obtained a 17.5% share in BCA. Two other important shareholders in BCA are Siti Hardiyanti Rukmana and Sigit Harjojudanto, Suharto's eldest daughter and son, who jointly owned 30% of the bank's shares. Over time, Mochtar Riady's shares were increased to 20%. When Mochtar Riady left BCA in December 1990 to concentrate on his own business empire, the Lippo Group, he sold 15% of his BCA shares and the BCA management contract to Anthony Salim, Liem Sioe Liong's second son and "crown prince." He kept 5% shares in BCA, though, while the Suharto siblings continue to own 16% BCA shares each. So, Mr. Riady and the Suharto family have a long history of joint ownership in this bank. And when the Liem Sioe Liong family and the Riady family began to concentrate on their respective Salim and Lippo conglomerates, the business partnership between the Lippo Bank and BCA still continued. James Riady, the Lippo "crown prince", has transformed the New York branch of the Arkansas-based Worthern Bank - which shares the Riady had bought in the 1980s -- into a BCA branch. BCA itself, has set up a couple of joint ventures with other financial institutions all over the world, such as the Chemical Bank and Jardine Fleming in the USA and the Long Term Credit Bank of Japan (sources: Eddy Soetriyono, n.d. Kisah Sukses Liem Sioe Liong. Jakarta: Indomedia, pp. 47, 63; Adam Schwarz and Jonathan Friedland, "Indonesia: Empire of the Son," Far Eastern Economic Review , March 14, 1991: 46-53; A Study of Top-300 National Private Business Groups in Indonesia, 1991-1992. Jakarta: PT CISI, pp. 44-64;Info Bisnis , 1994 Special Edition, p. 99; Gatra , Febr. 4, 1995: 89). PT Astra International: After the take over of this holding company from the Soeryadjaja family in early 1994, Mochtar Riady became a shareholder (0.21%), together with two companies owned partly by members of the Suharto extended family, namely PT Bogasari Flour Mills (4.54%) and the Sahid Group (0.04%). The Bogasari flour mills is one of the main money-machines of the Salim Group, while the Sahid Group is owned by the family of Sukamdani Sahid Gito Sarjono, a brother of the late Mrs. Suharto (sources: Swasembada , January 1994: 31; Indonesian Capital Market Directory 1994, p. 190). Pantai Indah Kapuk [Beautiful Kapuk Beach]: In this 1,200 Ha water front city near the Jakarta international airport, which has caused a major environmental controversy since it caused the main airport road to be flooded, Mochtar Riady is also a shareholder, together with Sudwikatmono from the Salim Group. This controversial project was managed by Ciputra's Jaya Group. However, as a group Lippo has not joined any project directed by Ciputra, since they objected to sell any of their shares to the real estate tycoon (sources: Detik , 30 March-5 April 1994: 19; Properti Indonesia , August 1994: 35, 41-42, 45). PT Mandara Permai: This real estate complex in Tangerang, east of Jakarta, is a joint venture of the Lippo Group with the Salim Group, where the interests of the Suharto clan is represented by Sudwikatmono, Suharto's cousin (sources: Info Bisnis , May 1994: 12, July 1994: 6; Properti Indonesia , Oct. 1994: 23; Soetriyono, n.d.: 116). PT Lippo Life Insurance: This fifth largest insurance company in Indonesia is a joint venture of the Lippo Group with Sudwikatmono, Suharto's half-brother, who is also a major shareholder in the Salim Group (sources: Info Bisnis , May 1994: 6, Special Edition 1994: 97). PT Marga Pusaka: This insurance company, set up in 1984, is a fifty-fifty joint venture between Lippo Indah Trading and Anthony Salim (source: Soetriyono, n.d.: 63, 117). Bank Umum Asia: The Riady family is also heavily involved in this bank, which is often been listed under the Salim Group. Mochtar Riady and his two sons, Andrew Taufan Riady and Stephen Tjondro Riady, jointly own nearly 50% of the bank's shares, while Liem Sioe Liong and his two sons, Anthony Salim and Andre Halim, also jointly own nearly 50% of the bank's shares (source: Soetriyono, n.d.: 63). PT Cikarang Listrindo: This private electric power generating company is owned by Sudwikatmono and other business partners, the first of its kind in Indonesia. With an investment of US$ 137 million, in June 1994 it was already supplying 100 MW of electricity to five industrial estates in Bekasi, east of Jakarta. One of those industrial estates, PT Kawasan Industri Jakabeka, is also partly owned by Sudiwkatmono. While three others -- PT Hyundai Bekasi Industrial Estate, PT East Jakarta Industrial Estate, and PT Gunung Cermai Inti -- are owned by PT Gunung Cermai Industrial Estate, in joint ventures with Hyundai from South Korea and Mitsubishi from Japan. PT Gunung Cermai Industrial Estate itself is 60% owned by the Lippo Group. Hence, Lippo had also its interests in the regulation of privately generated electric power in Indonesia, in addition to the need for electricity for its Lippo Village (= Lippo Cikarang) newly built suburb near Sudwikatmono's power station (sources: Swasembada , March 1992: 32; Warta Ekonomi , June 22, 1992: 25). PT Royal Sentul Highlands: This first class real estate and shopping centre, on 2,000 Ha of land, near Tommy Suharto's US$ 3 million new car racing circuit in Sentul, Bogor, south of Jakarta, is a joint venture of the Lippo Group through PT Gasentra Businesspark (20%) with Bambang Trihatmojo (30%), Suharto's second son, and other business partners (sources: Swasembada , August 1996: 40, 45; Indonesian Business Weekly , Dec. 1994: 29). Lippo City Sprint Rally: In April 1993, before Tommy Suharto had finished his own the management of Lippo City sponsored an auto rally, called the Lippo City Sprint Rally, where several of Indonesia's main auto rallyists took part, among others Tommy Suharto (source: Editor , April 24, 1993: 11). Television tax monopoly: All television owners in Indonesia are obliged to pay their television tax to PT Mekatama Raya, a company owned by Suharto's eldest son, Sigit Harjojudanto. This tax has to be paid to Lippo Bank, two other private banks, or to a state bank (sources: Arena , No.1/Vol. 28, 1993: 14; Prospek , March 7, 1972: 68). Sahid Lippo International Hotel: This four star hotel in the 2,000 Ha newly built Lippo City suburb in Bekasi, south of Jakarta is a joint venture of the Lippo Group with Sukamdani Sahid Gito Sardjono, a cousin of the late Mrs. Tien Suharto. It was inaugurated in August 1994 (source: Info Bisnis , July 1994: 13-14, 19). PT Sarana Jateng Ventura: Twelve big firms and six big powerful business people established this Rp 15 billion (+ US$ 7.5 million) venture capital company in Semarang, Central Java, in late 1994, to assist small-scale firms in the province. Among the big firms are Lippo Bank, the kretek (clove cigarette) producer PT Djarum, and the large timber company, PT Barito Pacific. Suharto's youngest son, Tommy, holds the monopoly over all clove trade in Indonesia, hence, he is indirectly involved with PT Djarum. While two of Suharto's siblings, Bambang Trihatmojo and Siti Hardiyanti Rukmana (Tutut) are business partners of Prajogo Pangestu, the major shareholder in the Barito Pacific Group (source: Indonesia Business Weekly , December 1994). Siloam Gleneagles Hospitals: In 1994, the construction of this high-class hospital commenced in Lippo City, prior to obtaining a permit from the Health Department of Health. This US$ 70 million investment is a joint venture of the Lippo Group (30%), some Indonesian partners from the Salim Group (Ibrahim Risyad and Anthony Salim), two other Indonesian partners, The Nien King and Ferry Sonneville, and the Singapore-listed Parkway Holdings, a leading regional healthcare group. Parkway itself is partly owned by the Sino-Malaysian entrepreneur, Vincent Tan, his close friend Mohkzani Mahathir, second son of Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, and Indonesian entrepreneur Johannes Kotjo, a business partner of Bambang Trihatmojo. Lippo's grand strategy is to build 50 of such uptown hospitals all over Indonesia, beginning with three, namely the one in Lippo City, another one in Lippo Village, and another one in Sentul Highland, where Lippo is involved in a joint venture with Bambang Trihatmojo. Meanwhile, another Gleneagles hospital is also being built in Medan, North Sumatra, by Probosutedjo, Suharto's half-brother, and a Sino-Indonesian businessman, Kaharuddin Ongko, with a 75% share of Parkway (sources: Indonesian Business Weekly , April 22, 1994: 38, and Dec. 9, 1994: 28;Sinar , Oct. 21, 1995: 17; The Bulletin , Febr. 6, 1996: 48, Oct. 9, 1996: 53; Swasembada , January 1994: 42, 22 August-11 Sept. 1996: 113). GMAC Lippo Finance: This joint venture between General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC) and Lippo Finance, was established with a permit from Indonesia's Finance Minister on November 28, 1995, with 80% shares controlled by General Motors. The aim of this joint venture is to promote the sales of General Motor cars in Indonesia. Interestingly, GM already has an assembling plant in Jakarta, owned by PT Garmak. 84% shares of this company is owned by Probosutedjo and his wife, Ratmani. So, indirectly, Lippo is also helping to promote the Probosutedjo's family business (sources: Ian M. Chalmers. Economic Nationalism and the Third World State: The Political Economy of the Indonesian Automotive Industry, 1950-1984. Ph.D. thesis at the Australian National University (ANU), Dec. 1988, p. xv; Gatra , February 3, 1996: 83). PT Dwibras Darma: This Indonesian franchise holder of Toys 'R' US is owned by James T. Riady, Sudwikatmono, Brasali, and Peter Darmawan. Apart from the Toys 'R' US shop in Lippo Group's Lippo City (= Lippo Karawaci), which was officially opened on May 29, 1996, James Riady and his business partners are also planning to open similar shops in several other (mega) malls in Jakarta (source: Warta Ekonomi , June 3, 1996: 28). PT Wiraswasta Gemilang Indonesia: This used lubricating oil recycling company is owned by several key shareholders of the Salim Group, namely Ibrahim Risyad, Wilson Pribadi, and Hendra Liem. 60% of its US$ 100 million investment comes from three international financial institutions, namely the Asian Development Bank, the Commonwealth Development Corporation, the Asian Finance and Investment Corporation, Banque Nationale de Paris, and Lippo Bank. (source: Tiras , March 28, 1996: 29) Mayapada Group: This business group was established in the early 1980s by Tahir, a graduate in business administration from the Golden Gate University in San Francisco, who married Mochtar Riady's eldest daughter, Rosy. At first, the core business of this group was in the distribution of cars, particularly brands assembled in Indonesia in Liem Sioe Liong's Indomobil Group, such as Suzuki, Mazda, etcetera. In the early 190s, however, that car business declined, and Mayapada switched to large scale garment manufacturing and export. The group now operates six garment plants in Jakarta, apart from being involved in tourism and banking. Initially, the group's PT Mayatexdian Industry offerred nearly 30% of their shares to the public on the Jakarta Stock Exchange, retaining 70% of its shares in control of the Lippo Group. Then, in January 1994, the Lippo shares were sold to another textile giant, Robby Tjahjadi from the Kanindo Group. Eventually, after all of Robby's shares in PT Kanindotex and PT Mayatexdian Industry were taken over by Bambang Trihatmojo and three of his business partners, through their joint venture, PT Lamicitra Nusantara, which manages those two textile companies together. Nevertheless, while the majority of PT Mayatexdian Industry's shares are owned by Bambang and his friends, a minority of the shares of this licence holder of Manhattan men's wear -- and the company's management -- is still controlled by the Riady family (sources: A Study on Top 3000 National Private Business Groups in Indonesia, 1991-1992. Jakarta: PT CISI Raya Utama, pp. 434-436; Indonesian Capital Market Directory 1994. Fifth Edition, Jakarta: Institute for Economic and Financial Research, pp. 90-91;Warta Ekonomi , January 24, 1994: 76; Swasembada , August 1995: 40, 42, 47; Gatra , August 5, 1995: 86). PT Masato Prima: This real estate agent and contracting firm is a joint venture between the Lippo Group (through Lippo Land Development), the Metropolitan Linggajaya Group and PT Aditya Toa Development. The latter is a joint venture of Hashim Djojohadikusumo, a Sino-Indonesian businessman, Herry Wijaya, and Kajima Corporation from Japan. PT Masato Prima has been involved in constructing the Permata Hijau luxury residential complex in South Jakarta, with 182 units of houses valaued at US$ 1,600 per m2, a club house, a business centre, designed by the Californian architect Richard Dalrymple, and completed in 1992 (sources: Swasembada , February 1992: 110, March 1992: 18 and 10-pages advertisement). Lippo Investment Management (LIM); The executive director of LIM is Didier J. Lemaistre. This French-born financial executive, who was brought into Lippo by Mochtar Riady in 1988 and assigned to direct LIM in 1991, is a member of the powerful Djojohadikusumo family. His three powerful brothers-in-law are Dr Soedradjat Djiwandono, a Harvard-graduate who is the governor of Indonesia's central bank (Bank Indonesia), Mayor Gen Prabowo Subianto, commander of Kopassus , the Indonesian army special force and a graduate of Fort Benning, USA, and the previously mentioned business tycoon, Hashim Djojohadikusumo, a graduate in politics and economics from Claremont College, California, USA. Didier and Soedradjat are both sons-in-law of the respected Indonesian economic guru , Prof. Soemitro Djojohadikusumo, founder of the University of Indonesia's Economic Faculty and long time minister in Suharto's cabinets (sources:Prospek , May 8, 1993: 80-81; Raphael Pura, "Hashim emerges in corporate Indonesia," Asian Wall Street Journal , February 2, 1993). >From all this business links and many others which I have not been able to unearth, it can be concluded that the Riadys do have close connections with the Suharto, Djojohadikusumo, and Liem Sioe Liong families. Hence, the Lippo connections with the Clinton Administration are certainly influenced by Suharto's interests in the public (political) as well as in private (economic) domains. Mochtar Riady's first attempt to enter the US financial market Prior to buying the Worthern Bank's shares in Arkansas, which eventually led to the close relationships between the Riadys and close financial friends of the Clintons, Mochtar Riady has already attempted, unsuccessfully, to become an important player in the US financial market. That move took place during the Carter Administration, in 1977, when at the age of 47, Mochtar Riady offered to buy 200,767 shares owned by Bert Lance in the National Bank of Georgia. Bert Lance was at that time an important financial official under the Carter Administration, and was in personal financial difficulties, due to unfavorable banking practices (e.g. overdrafting). Mochtar Riady saw that as a chance to get into the US financial (and possibly, political) arena, and ask the favour of an intermediary, Robert B. Anderson, to buy Lance's shares. He tried to buy those shares via the Chemical Bank of San Francisco, which was a joint venture partner of BCA in PT Multicor, and wrote a letter of intent to Lance. Unfortunately for Riady, at that time. Before the shares purchase could be carried out, the US media got to know about this plan, and Riady's name was splashed over the newspaper pages, and the deal was cancelled. Only five years later did Mochtar Riady's plan, at that time still on behalf of BCA, to purchase a significant portion of a US bank's shares, succeeded. The target this time was the Hibernia Bank in San Francisco, which had since the beginning of the New Order handled the financial arrangements of the sale of US wheat to Indonesia. It was no coincidence, that this bank was chosen, because another Liem Sioe Liong-Suharto (Salim Group) venture, the Bogasari flour mills, had had the monopoly of milling the US wheat exported to Indonesia under the PL 480 subsidy to American wheat farmers (Soetriyono, n.d.: 55-57). In other words, the take over of Hibernia Bank by BCA strengthened the Salim Group's control over -- and thereby, income from -- the American wheat exported to Indonesia under a subsized price. With its monopoly over flour milling, the Salim Group eventually advanced its monopoly over Indonesia's instant noodle market, and has now become the largest exporter of this traditionally East Asian specialty. The take over of Hibernia Bank, however, did not bring Mochtar Riady -- and his political backer in Indonesia -- closer to the White House, assuming that that was still his political agenda. This probably explains, why after his unsuccessful bid to buy a significant portion of shares in National Bank of Georgia (President Carter's home province), the Riadys shifted their attention to an Arkansas bank. The Riady family's close business links with the children of their business partner, the late Hasjim Ning The US media reports about the "Indonesian connection" seem still to beunclear about the relation of the Wiriandinata couple (Arief and Soraya), who donated the amazing US$ 425,000 for the Clinton presidential campaign, and the Riadys. In other words, was it a donation from the company, hence, a donation from a "foreign national", or a donation from a US resident, made from funds generated in the US during their stay in the USA. Personally, I believe that that political donation came straight from the Lippo Group, and is generated from Lippo's business activities in Indonesia, Hong Kong, or China. I also do not believe that the Wiriandinatas were acting on their own behalf. Why? First of all, Soraya Wiriandinata's father, Hasyim Ning, one of the few indigenous Indonesian businesspeople who successfully survived the transition from the Sukarno to the Suharto administration, was not simply an ordinary friend or small business partner of the Riadys in the Lippo Group. Until November 1995, he was still listed at the Jakarta stock market as the "president commissioner" of Lippo Bank (Gatra , Nov 25, 1995: 77). Secondly, in one of his interviews with the Indonesian media, Mochtar Riady had expressed his eagerness to train an unnamed child of Hasyim Ning to join the Lippo Group's management. He had assigned that task to one of his own sons. In particular, he had asked that child of Hasyim Ning, not to relinquish the agency of Cherokee jeeps, since the child's father, Hasyim Ning, "the automobile king" during the Sukarno administration, had lost most of his car agency rights to other business people during the New Order (Sinar , Oct. 21, 1995: 19). Based on this information, it is most likely, that Arief and/or Soraya were or was the child of the late Hasyim Ning, who was being prepared to join the management rank of Lippo Group. This only further strengthen the view, that their donation to the Clinton presidential campaign, was a task they had to carry out, as part of their "management training." Another offspring of Hasyim Ning, Ismail (27 years), who studied economics at the Trisakti University in Jakarta, may also have been groomed for a managerial position in the Lippo Group. While still studying in university, three years ago, he was already a director of the Ning Associates investment company (Prospek , July 10, 1993: 20). But, based on the information I have gathered so far, it does not seem that Ismail Ning has also been involved in the lobbying activities in the USA. Lobbying the GSP debate Influencing President Clinton's East Timor policy, might not be the only political agenda, which the Riadys had in mind, by maintaning a close relationship with the Clinton administration. I believe that influencing US trade policy towards Indonesia, was a more urgent and important one. I base this belief on the fact that one of the Lippo Group companies, namely Lippo Industries, had been the casualty of US trade policy to Indonesia. In particular, the possibility that the Clinton administration might abolish the GSP (general system of preferences), which would harm Indonesia's export to the US. The debate on whether to abolish or continue the GSP facility for Indonesia was sparked, three years ago, due to the campaign of human rights organizations (i.e. Asiawatch and the International Labor Rights Education and Research Agency) and trade unions (i.e. AFL-CIO) in the USA against the violation of workers' rights in Indonesia and East Timor. These violations include the manipulative recruitment of young East Timorese to work for Suharto-related businesses in Indonesia, organized by Suharto's eldest daughter, Tutut; the repression of independent trade unions in Indonesia, especially the SBSI under the leadership of Dr Mochtar Pakpahan; and the murder of the female worker activist Marsinah in Surabaya. The US threat to abolish the GSP facility for Indonesia was a real threat for the Indonesian business community, because exports to the US under the GSP program had impressively grown 70% a year, from US$ 87 million in 1988 to US$ 216 million in 1990, mainly dominated by manufactured products. During that occasion, the Indonesian ambassador in Washington, DC and former governor of the Indonesian central bank, Arifin Siregar, the Indonesian economic guru , Prof. Soemitro Djojohadikusumo, whose son-in-law is an important Lippo manager, and "a source in the [Indonesian] Foreign Ministry", emphasized the need to utilize Democratic Party lobbies in the US to counter what they perceived as the damaging effect of those US pro-worker rights' lobbies (sources:Prospek , March 7, 1992: 28-29;Indonesia Business Weekly , August 13, 1993: 14, August 20, 1993, Cover Story;Tempo , Sept. 25, 1993: 24). Hence, it is reasonable to believe that here the Lippo connections were really utilized -- successfully, as it later turned out -- by the Jakarta regime to maintain the US GSP facilities for Indonesian products. Especially since the Riady and Suharto families jointly own one of the largest textile factories in Indonesia, PT Mayatexdian Industry. Nevertheless, members of the Lippo Group themselves did not want to take future risk of this kind. Fearing the abolition of the GSP scheme for loudspeaker boxes exported by a Lippo Industries subsidiary, Daiwa Industrial Indonesia (DAI), 35% of that company's shares were sold to a Taiwanese company (source: Info Bisnis , May 1994: 17). In that light it is interesting to observe that currently, despite the detention of two Indonesian independent unionists, Mochtar Pakpahan from SBSI and Dita Sari from PPBI, who face the threat of the death penalty under the Indonesian anti-subversion law, the Clinton Administration has not taken out the GSP stick from their diplomatic arsenal. They have even gone ahead with their offer to sell F-16 military planes to Indonesia. So, in conclusion one can say, that the aspirations of the East Timorese freedom fighters as well as Indonesian workers have been overshadowed by the overlapping business interests of the Indonesian and US ruling elites. Clinton has prefered to listen to Mochtar Riady than to Mochtar Pakpahan, despite Pakpahan's belief that the US Embassy was supporting his cause -- and despite, or because of, Pakpahan's public support for a UN supervised referendum to respect the East Timorese people's right to self-determination. Newcastle, October 30, 1996 Dr George J. Aditjondro Jakarta oligarchy researcher University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia Department of Sociology and Anthropology phone: (61-49) 677 053 (h) (61-49) 215 536 fax: (h): (61-49) 677 053 (w): (61-49) 216 902 From RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org Wed Oct 30 12:40:43 1996 From: RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org (RVerzola) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 19:40:43 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 210] PROCLAMATION NO. 890 Message-ID: Below is a recent proclamation by the President of the Philippines. It is interesting to note that the highest ejection rate of urban poor probably occurred during this month in Metro Manila, thanks to APEC. Obet MALACANANG Manila BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES PROCLAMATION NO.890 DECLARING THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 1996 AS THE NATIONAL SHELTER MONTH WHEREAS, cognizant of the vital role of housing in economic recovery and the general well-being of our people, the Government has placed housing as one of the priority concerns; WHEREAS, the Government was an active participant in the Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements or HABITAT II held this year in Istanbul (Turkey); WHEREAS, the Government joins the community of nations in the annual celebration of the World Habitat Day, which falls on the first Monday of October of every year, to bring to fore the imperative need to address homelessness; WHEREAS, The Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC) and its shelter agencies together with the private sector, notably the Subdivision and Housing Developers Association, Inc. (SHDA) and other organizations, have calendared activities and events in October since 1994 to draw public attention on the various aspects of housing; WHEREAS, with its policy of encouraging a stronger partnership between the government and the private sector, the Government recognizes the need to obtain popular support to these different activities relative to housing; NOW, THEREFORE, I, FIDEL V. RAMOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby declare the month of October 1996 as the "National Shelter Month". IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the Republic of the Philippines to be affixed. Done in the City of Manila, this 1st day of October in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and ninety six. By the President: (signed) (signed) FIDEL V. RAMOS RUBEN D. TORRES Executive Secretary From sonny at nation.nationgroup.com Thu Oct 31 10:56:15 1996 From: sonny at nation.nationgroup.com (sonny@nation.nationgroup.com) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 19:56:15 -0600 (CST) Subject: [asia-apec 211] EAST TIMOR/APEC Message-ID: Free to circulate and reproduce. THIRD EYE column in The Nation, Bangkok by Sonny Inbaraj -------------------------------------------------------- Wednesday, October 30, 1996: When Thai Prime Minister Banharn Silapa-archa referred to Queen Elizabeth II as Elizabeth Taylor, he became the butt of jokes. Now, it seems, Philippine President Fidel Ramos has caught this "disease" carried by the winds of authoritarianism blowing through the Asean region. In a gaffe that titillated Manila's rambunctious press, Ramos referred on Saturday to the very much alive widow of late French preident Francois Mitterrand as already dead. All this came about because of an immigration ban list of about 100 people who have been invited by the Manila's People's Forum for an alternative conference to the Apec heads of state summit, scheduled to be held in Subic Bay on Nov 25. Among the issues to be discussed in the alternative forum is East Timor, and the Philippine government has officially banned this year's Nobel Peace laureate Jose Ramos-Horta from entering the country, for fear that admitting him might embarrass Indonesia's President Suharto. Also in the ban list is Danielle Mitterrand, the former French first lady, South Africa's Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Japan's workers' rights advocate and East Timor activist Bishop Aloysious Nobuo Soma. When questioned about the ban list by reporters, President Ramos replied: "Why should we (ban) the French first lady, Danielle Mitterrand, who died already," he said. "I should know. I wrote a letter of condolence to President Mitterrand," he said, apparently referring to condolences he sent Mrs Mitterrand when her husband died of cancer in January. Early this week, Malacanang Palace went into damage control. "Okay, I made a mistake and I apologise to everybody and I will apologise by way of a letter to Madame Mitterrand," Ramos told reporters. "I'm sorry about it. We'll try to make amends to Madame Mitterrand and the people of France and the government of France." This is not the first time that President Ramos is apologising to Danielle Mitterrand. In 1994 after he banned her from entering Manila to address the first Asia-Pacific Conference on East Timor (Apcet), he later went on an official tour of Europe and stopped by in Paris to meet the first lady, with his tail behind his legs -- after doing Suharto's bidding. The former French first lady heads the human rights group Fondation France-Libertes which also campaigns for Tibet's independence from China. In her speech, read in absentia at Apcet, Mrs Mitterrand strongly condemned Indonesia for interfering in an international conference. "Does Jakarta fear that solidarity for East Timor might spread? Do they fear to such a degree the incontrovertible reports emanating from NGOs represented here? Or do they fear the calls that have been smothered since the invasion in 1975, might at last be heard by political leaders in each country of the region?", she asked. Later at a press conference in Paris, the former first lady told reporters that Jakarta blackmailed Manila into blocking her visit by threatening to suspend contracts worth US$30 million to the Philippines. Further gaffes cannot be ruled out, if Ramos' insistence to please Indonesia at all costs goes overboard. In May 1994, when Apcet was going on, one of the embarrassing incidents, besides the forceful deportation of Irish Nobel Peace laureate Mairead Maguire, was the turning away of an Australian businessman, Harold Moucha, who had arrived in Manila for a holiday. Speaking to journalists at Sydney airport, after he was deported from Manila, Moucha demanded an apology form the Philippine government for detaining him for 28 hours, failing which he threatened a legal suit against President Ramos. "I went there for holidays and to visit friends. Just because I was born in East Timor doesn't mean I should be banned". Despite appeals from regional and international human rights monitors, like the New York-based Human Rights Watch Asia, there is little likelihood that President Ramos will reverse his ban on Ramos-Horta and other Timorese pro-independence activists who have been invited to the parallel Apec forum. Even to the extent of compromising the Philippines' sovereignty, Ramos will please Suharto, regardless of the damage done to the country's international reputation. The president's behaviour in 1994 can serve as a good indication. Despite the scathing attacks he had been subjected to for banning foreign participants to Apcet, President Ramos remained confident that he had made the right decision. In a reception for visiting television executives from Asean, the Philippines president voiced confidence that the Apcet flap, would eventually be a "win-win" situation for his administration. Ramos defended his decision banning foreigners from the country, saying US$700 million of Indonesian investments to the country were at stake. A day after the end of Apcet, Jakarta said it was satisfied with Manila's reaction to the conference. As if patting President Ramos on the back, Jakarta announced that Suharto's daughter Siti Hardiyanti, would be visitng the Philippines in July to present a proposal for a US$450 million road project in Manila. On June 15, President Ramos delivered a letter to Suharto, through his sister, Senator Shahani Ramos Leticia, who was on an official visit to Indonesia. In the letter, Ramos gave his assurances that the Philippines would host no more conferences on East Timor. The people Asean have always looked up to the Philippines as a democratic country with high regard for the rule of law and respect for human rights. Now, however, the Philippine body politic under Ramos is a sorry sight, with public opinion being disregarded completely for the sake of the president's date with free trade at the Apec summit. Ramos must seize hold of himself and learn to govern the country for the good of every Filipino and not just the scabrous, self-important filth that call themselves the political and business elite -- men and women who have, through their corruption and evil, previously reduced the Philippine nation single-handedly to a half-living cadaver scouring the dung heaps of Asia. From sonny at nation.nationgroup.com Thu Oct 31 11:46:47 1996 From: sonny at nation.nationgroup.com (sonny@nation.nationgroup.com) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 20:46:47 -0600 (CST) Subject: [asia-apec 212] SMEAR CAMPAIGN BY JAKARTA AGAINST JOSE RAMOS-HORTA Message-ID: (Please respond immediately. Reply to editor@nation.nationgroup.com) LETTER TO THE EDITOR, THE NATION,BANGKOK, Wednesday, October 30, 1996, FROM INDONESIAN EMBASSY, BANGKOK. -------------------------------------------------------------- Ramos-Horta not deserving of peace prize ---------------------------------------- The Nobel Prize Committee announced its decision to award Bishop Carlos Felipe Ximenes Belo and Jose Ramos-Horta, in two equal parts, the Nobel Peace Prize for 1996. The Indonesian government has always shared Bishop Belo's determination to enhance the welfare and well-being of the people of East Timor and to ensure that they live in peace in an atmosphere of religious freedom and tolerance. The growth in the number of adherents of the Catholic religion and other religions in East Timor as well as the dramatic increase in the number of churches in the province attests to this fact. The Indonesian government, however, has been astounded and surprised at the reason given for the award to Bishop Belo and Ramos-Horta. It has been announced that the award was for their "sacrifices for the oppressed people of East Timor." This is not true, for in no way are the people of East Timor being oppressed. The Indonesian government has always given the highest priority to the social and economic welfare of the people of East Timor. The record shows that it was only when East Timor integrated itself with Indonesia that the East Timorese began to enjoy universal suffrage, adequate political representation in decision-making centres of government, and real opportunities for socio-economic upliftment so that they could break away from the stagnation that had been the result of centuries of exploitation by the former colonial power. In fact, during the last meeting of the UN-facilitated all-inclusive intra-East Timorese dialogue in Burg Schalining, Austra on March 22, 1996, East Timorese representing all shades of opinions, including Ramos-Horta, stated that they were "encouraged by the substantial role of the East Timorese in the administration and development of East Timor." The Nobel Prize Committee has also stated that Bishop Belo has "tried to create a just settlement based on his people's right to self-determination". On this matter, it is pertinent to note that Bishop Belo himself, in his pastoral letter of August 1994, took the position that he opposed referendum in East Timor as he believed that it would lead to renewed civil war in the province. Bishop Belo has also supported endeavours at reconciliation among the East Timorese, a process that the Indonesian government has whole-heartedly encouraged, supported, and promoted. What the Indonesian government finds difficult to understand is the choice of Ramos-Horta as recipient of the Nobel Peace prize along with Bishop Belo. Ramos-Horta was a key leader of the Fretilin, a radical and violent political group which was responsible for unspeakable atrocities perpetrated on a massive scale against their fellow East Timorese when they briefly took control of East Timor by force until mid-1975. Bishop Belo himself publicly condemned the brutality of that brief rule by the Fretilin. As a key member of the central committeee of the Fretilin at the time of the atrocities, Ramos-Horta has yet to account for his complicity and responsibility in that bloodbath. Thousands of widows and orphans of the Fretilin massacre are still alive today and are easily accessible for testimony. It is perhaps the ultimate irony that the person whose hands are stained with the blood of Fretilin's reign of terror should be the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. It is no wonder, therefore, that his claims to being a spokesman for the people of East Timor has been firmly and repeatedly rejected by the overwhelming majority of East Timorese people. The Nobel Prize Committee has also mistakenly cited Ramos-Horta for making a significant contribution through "reconciliation talks and by working out a peace plan for the region." In fact, Ramos-Horta would have nothing to do with the ongoing all-inclusive East Timorese Dialogue (AIETD) when the idea was being developed, although he was finally persuaded to participate, perhaps because he thought that he could inflict more damage to the process by joining it. His behaviour during the deliberations of the AIETD has been disruptive and served mainly to sow confusion and raise tensions. The Nobel Peace Prize may have been awarded to Ramos-Horta, a man whose career has been devoted to subverting peace, but there is nothing he can do with the prize that will raise his dismal record of his past misdeeds. Madam Sri Rahayu Poernomo Minister Counsellor (information) Indonesian Embassy BANGKOK. Fax:662-255-1267. 600-602, Petchburi Road Bangkok 10400, THAILAND From yukihiro at klact.co.jp Thu Oct 31 02:12:18 1996 From: yukihiro at klact.co.jp (YASUDA Yukihiro) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 02:12:18 +0900 Subject: [asia-apec 213] JCA FTP service unavailable Message-ID: <199610301712.CAA02566@buzzy.klact.co.jp> All, Anonymous FTP server (ftp.jca.or.jp) which have IAPs are temporaly unavailable because of replacing hard disk. We expect the service will be resumed in a few days. Sorry for inconvinience. Yukihiro From laborrights at igc.apc.org Thu Oct 31 04:48:44 1996 From: laborrights at igc.apc.org (Pharis Harvey) Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 19:48:44 +0000 Subject: [asia-apec 216] Re: Lippo-Clinton connections Message-ID: <199610311917.LAA05493@igc3.igc.apc.org> Thanks for your very informative article summarizing the Lippo GRoup's political and economic connections with the Suharto family. As one of the filers of the GSP petition you mentioned, I read this with great interest. It is still not clear whether the Lippo Group's lobbying was the decisive factor in the caving of the Clinton Administration on the GSP issue, since there were so many other U.S.-based MNCs with the same idea in mind and even more political clout with the Clinton White House. However, it appears not to be a coincidence that the famous DNC contribution was made just prior to a decision by the White House in early January 1994 to move the GSP decision out of the committee's hands and directly into the White House itself, and that this decision was followed shortly by a statement by the Indonesian government promising "reforms" that were transparently fraudulent, and which we refuted in a lengthy document submitted to the GSP Subcommittee on January 28. Despite this, barely three weeks later, the decision to "suspend" the GSP review for six months was made by the White House. That "suspension", for which there is no legal or administrative provision, was then made semi-permanent in November, just before the APEC summit, in response to another memo that basically repeated the same fraudulent "reforms" that had been announced in January. One brief correction to your analysis: textiles and garments are not included in the U.S. GSP program, so it is unlikely that concern about the future of textile exports of the Mayatexdian Industries joint venture of the Suharto and Riady families was a specific factor. Thanks for you many informative submissions. Please continue the good work. Sincerely, Pharis Harvey International Labor Rights Fund (formerly the International Labor Rights Education and Research Fund.)