[asia-apec 163] Will Manila lead Apec to people-friendly waters?

[daga]

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."