From daga at HK.Super.NET Mon Sep 2 09:09:56 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 08:09:56 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 85] from the conference facilitator Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960902080443.08c7d9c0@is1.hk.super.net> Because of some technical problem, we would all have received what is called null mail, without any text. Nothing to worry about. conference facilitator asia-apec From daga at HK.Super.NET Mon Sep 2 09:55:48 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 08:55:48 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 86] DAGA homepage on APEC and MPFA Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960902085035.088faf04@is1.hk.super.net> Dear All, Please do announce to the general public, that a DAGA home page on APEC and the Manila People's Forum on APEC (MPFA) is now available at the following URL (Uniform Resource Locator) address-- http://www.hk.super.net/~daga/apec.htm This is open to the general public, while [asia-apec] is a closed subscribers' list. Happy surfing! Mario Mapanao ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Documentation for Action Groups in Asia (DAGA) 96, 2nd District, Pak Tin Village Mei Tin Road, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong Tel : (852) 2691 6391/ 2691 1068 ext 54 Fax: (852) 2697 1912 E-mail: daga@hk.super.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From brucevv at HK.Super.NET Mon Sep 2 14:46:24 1996 From: brucevv at HK.Super.NET (Bruce Van Voorhis) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 13:46:24 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 87] Re: Letter to People of Okinawa Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960902140037.135796ea@is1.hk.super.net> Thank you for including us in the list of organizations that received your "Letter to the People of Okinawa." Please add Documentation for Action Groups in Asia (DAGA) to this letter. If there is anything else that we can do in the future, please keep us informed. With Peace, Bruce Van Voorhis From daga at HK.Super.NET Mon Sep 2 21:11:39 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 20:11:39 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 88] APEC Summit Tests Manila's Mettle Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960902200625.1f7704d0@is1.hk.super.net> APEC Summit Tests Manila's Mettle Philippines Hopes a Successful Meeting Will Dispel Backwater Image by Jan Liden Staff Reporter The Asian Wall Street Journal, 2 September 1996 MANILA - The Philippines' drive to revitalize its economy in recent years has won praise from businesspeople. But many Filipinos fear the news hasn't spread far enough to shake the country's lingering reputation for natural disasters, crime and economic stagnation. To them, successfully hosting November's summit of Asian- Pacific leaders is just what the publicist ordered. It's a tall order. The logistics alone are forbidding: Meetings will take place in two locations 100 kilometers apart, separated by roads prone to mudslides. On top of that, coaxing dramatic agreements from the annual leaders' meeting of Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum members will require diplomatic finesse, diplomats and business executives say. Organizers are undaunted. "We want to sell our country," says former Foreign Secretary Roberto Romulo, now chairman of the APEC Busines Advisory Council. "When we get this congregation here of [leaders], top CEOs and businessmen, we hope that they will look at our eloquent story of growth here in the Philippines." A major chapter of that story has been Manila's success in harnessing the private sector to address longstanding problems such as power shortages. Now President Fidel Ramos aims to make this year's summit remembered for applying that strategy to APEC. "We are keen on putting in (to APEC's work process) a greater participation of the business sector in decision-making," the president says, "That is a new kind of equality in APEC." President Ramos has invited the 54 executives who make up the APEC Business Advisory Council to meet with the 18 heads of state for what Mr. Romulo expects to be a "frank discussion" about the business sector's concerns. The Philippines has also invited 22 leading executives from each member country to participate in an APEC Business Forum in the days before the leaders' meeting. The executives will join the advisory council in discussions about how APEC can help promote business ties among member countries and in conveying these ideas to trade ministers. Politicians won't lecture to executives at the forum, Mr. Romulo insists, adding, "The leaders are meant to listen to the businessmen." So intent are Philippine officials on this goal that they have coined a slogan: "APEC means business." But diplomats from some other countries say this year's priority should be getting down to business of another sort: taking further steps towards APEC's stated goal of regional trade by 2020. Each of the past summits has ended in a milestone on the road to that goal. In Seattle in 1993 the leaders gathered for the first time, catapulting APEC from an economic talking shop to a high-priority international forum. In Bogor, Indonesia, in 1994, leaders agreed on the goal of free trade by 2020. And last year in Osaka, Japan, they set a formula for reaching that goal. As the host and leader of APEC's meeting this year, the Philippines has accepted the responsibility of making the 1996 summit a similar turning point. Problem is, the work that remains is hammering out details -- essential but not glamorous. "It's a thankless task," a diplomat from an APEC country says about arranging this year leaders' meeting. "All the spectacular decisions have been made. What is left now is hard work, and nothing exciting will come out of it this year." All APEC member countries have submitted action plans -- for many countries little more than sketches -- outlining how they will achieve free trade following the formula set in Osaka. Finalizing the plans will take years, says Ambassador John Wolf, the U.S. senior coordinator for APEC. "We expect a concrete start to be made this year," he says. "But it would be a mistake to assume that the answers will be contained in the individual action plans this year." Customs Procedures Yet Manila has been driving efforts in committee meetings throughout the year to get some concrete results to show in November. Philippine officials and business leaders expect that at least some APEC nations will agree by then on conditions for a unified multi-entry business visa. Ths would allow business representatives to travel without further formalities to these countries for a certain period, perhaps a year. There is also hope -- although less expectation -- of an agreement this year on harmonizing customs procedures. Manila is earning praise for its efforts. "Most (countries' officials) agree that this year has been surprisingly successful so far, but that is in part because the expectations were low," says an Australian diplomat involved in the work. "The Philippines has been able to argue very well for its initiatives and convince the other members that they are good ones," another diplomat adds. Still, the line between success and embarrassment--even disaster-- is thin. The hosts will have to pull off a gargantuan feat of logistics to lodge, transport and assure the safety of the 18 heads of state and the 8,000 other visitors the summit is expected to draw. By deciding to hold the meeting both in Manila and in Subic Bay, a former U.S. naval base turned free port zone, President Ramos has given the organizers a few extra challenges. The only road between Subic and Manila is threatened by millions of tons of volcanic mud washing down from Mt. Pinatubo every time it rains. As a result, most transport will have to be by air and sea. Yet the Manila and Subic airports don't have enough spare parking space to accomodate the planes of all 18 heads of state, admits the media coordinator for the APEC meeting, Rodolfo Reyes. The hosts have suggested that 10 of the leaders fly to Subic in two chartered jets, but none of the leaders have so far accepted the idea. Some diplomats comment that it seems risky to put all the eggs in one basket, or as it were, in two planes. And protocol is tricky: Which leaders and their aides will get to sit in the front of the plane? Then there is the security threat. Terrorists have been known to use Manila as a base. Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, currently being tried on charges related to the bombing of New York's World Tade Center, was arrested here. Organizers will also have to worry about a group of Muslim separatists in the south of the country who have refused to participate in a peace agreement between another rebel group and the government. The splinter group may mount an attack during the APEC meeting to undermine the peace deal, warns intelligence experts at some foreign embassies in Manila. "This is the biggest, the most elaborate, the most difficult [security plan] . . . since the founding of our republic," says Philippine Gen. Lisandro Abadia, who is in charge of the summit organizing committee. Gen. Abadia plans to deploy more than 10,000 security people during the meeting. In addition, each country will bring its own security contingent. All this is scheduled to take place in a city of 10 million people that is chaotic at the best of times, with traffic often clogged for hours. Manila has just 7,300 four and five-star hotel rooms, estimates the Department of Tourism-- meaning the 8,000 APEC guests and journalits will drive most other guests out of the city for nearly a week. Full of Praise Logistical tangles could unravel any goodwill earned by Philippine officials' efforts to get results from this year's APEC summit. Although its officials in charge are optimistic and foreign diplomats are full of praise for the country's efforts so far, fears linger among the population over whether the summit may be too big an event for the Philippines to arrange this early in its recovery. When it comes to the substance of the meetings, "The Philippines has done the necessary homework," writes President Ramos's special APEC adviser, Jesus Estanislao, in a book about APEC published last month. The former finance minister adds, however, that "doubts are widespread among Filipinos and are shared by many foreigners . . . about our ability to chair and play host to the APEC meetings." From laborrights at igc.apc.org Wed Sep 4 02:49:42 1996 From: laborrights at igc.apc.org (Pharis Harvey) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 17:49:42 +0000 Subject: [asia-apec 89] Re: Letter to People of Okinawa Message-ID: <199609032252.PAA05516@igc3.igc.apc.org> Ron: It was good to see your name on the Okinawa letter. We haven't been in touch for too many years. Please add my name to the list. Pharis Harvey Executive Director International Labor Rights Fund From daga at HK.Super.NET Wed Sep 4 15:02:01 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 14:02:01 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 90] APEC's Place in US Trade Policy Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960904135651.3e872ef4@is1.hk.super.net> APEC's Place in US Trade Policy by Walden Bello* The US is the powerhouse of APEC, with a $6.7 trillion dollar economy that accounts for close to half of APEC's total GNP. But perhaps the most telling statistic, the one that is the key to understanding the US's strategy in APEC, is its trade balance with APEC's ten Asian economies. This was a deficit of $120.2 billion in 1995, or over 75 per cent of the total US trade deficit of $159.6 billion. In 1995, the US suffered a trade deficit with all the East Asian economies, with the exception of Korea. Turning the trade deficit with East Asia into a surplus has been the driving force of US participation in APEC, where it is leading the campaign to turn a loose consultative grouping into a free trade area with fixed rules and schedules for liberalization. While US negotiators in APEC have offered the vision of a free trade area as a "win-win" situation for everyone, in fact, when they speak candidly before US institutions like the US Senate, they strike a different note--one that is distinctly nationalist. For instance, C. Fred Bergsten, the head of the (now disbanded) Eminent Persons' Group, told the Senate in November 1994 that the reason an APEC free trade area is in the US interest is that: "Given the fact that all of the countries in the region, outside North America in particular, have lots of trade barriers...very little would actually be required from the United States...So trade liberalization, or particularly moving to totally free trade in the region, means enormous competitive gain to the United States." >From Cold War Allies to Economic Antagonists Washington's drive to institutionalize APEC as a free trade area cannot be understood without placing it in the context of the transformation of US foreign economic policy since the end of the Cold War. Prior to Ronald Reagan's ascencion to power in 1981, the US's policy toward Asia consisted of subordinating economic relations with the region to the overriding priority assigned to the containment of communism. Thus, Washington, for the most part, tolerated the growing trade surpluses of its Asian allies, as well as significant deviations from free market and free trade in their trade, investment, and domestic economic practices, which could best be characterized as "state-assisted capitalism." The prosperity of America's allies was regarded as one of the key weapons in dampening the appeal of communist revolution in a key battleground of the Cold War. With the winding down of the Cold War since the mid-eighties, however, there has occurred a tectonic shift in US foreign economic policy, with the priority being assigned to "opening up" the markets of US allies to US goods and US investment. Pressures for this shift had been building for years, and it was based on the growing perception of both US corporate executives and trade officials that the prosperity of Japan and the so-called NICs ("newly industrializing countries") had been purchased at the expense of US economic interests. Emblematic of Washington's aggressive new approach were the words of David Mulford, then undersecretary of the Treasury, at the Asia-Pacific Capital Markets Conference in San Francisco in 1987: "Although the NICs may be regarded as tigers because they are strong, ferocious traders, the analogy has a darker side. Tigers live in the jungle, and by the law of the jungle. They are a shrinking population." Washington has employed several weapons in its drive to open up Asian markets and regain a trade and investment presence in a part of the world that has steadily slipped from the US economic orbit. APEC as well as GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) must be seen as part of a menu of options, the most prominent of which over the last decade has been unilateral trade pressure. With the US market continuing to account for 20 to 25 per cent of the exports of many Asian economies, unilateralism, or a strategy based on the threat and use of trade retaliation, has been an attractive option. The Unilateralist Approach A wide range of unilateralist weapons has been deployed against Asian economies over the last decade. o They have been subjected, for example, to anti-dumping suits and import quotas in such products as textiles, garments, cars, and steel. Between 1980 and 1991, for instance, nine out of the ten Asian APEC trade partners of the US were subjected to 55 import restrictions imposed by the US on various products. o The more successful among them--Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia--have been knocked off the US General System of Preferences (GSP), which accords Third World countries preferential tariffs to assist their development. o Some economies, in particular Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, have been forced by Washington to drastically revalue their currencies relative to the dollar in order to make these countries goods more expensive in dollar terms, thus dampening demand from US consumers. The Plaza Accord of 1985, which saw a massive revaluation of the yen was followed by US pressure on Korea and Taiwan, which were forced to appreciate their currencies, the won and the New Taiwan dollar, by more than 40 per cent between 1986 and 1989. o All have been subjected to the threat of trade retaliation under the notorious Super 301 and Special 301 clauses of the US Trade Act of 1988, which authorize the president to take retaliatory measures against those regarded as "unfair traders" or "abettors" of the intellectual property rights (IPRs) of US corporations. This year, for instance, most of the US's APEC trade partners made what is now known as the US Trade Representative's Office "hit list" of IPR violators: China was on top of the list as a "priority foreign country;" Japan, Indonesia, and Korea achieved the distinction of being on the "priority watch list;" and the Philippines and Thailand were placed on the "watch list." Unilateralist trade diplomacy (an oxymoron this!) has been regarded as highly successful by Washington officials. Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor has boasted that "under President Clinton's leadership, the Administration has negotiated nearly 200 agreements to open foreign markets, which has helped fuel record growth and the creation of one million jobs." Other officials promised the continuation of the same policy of "achieving practical, market-based, results-oriented agreements" carried out with the stated or unstated threat of invoking Super 301. As prima facie evidence of the virtues of unilateralism, US trade officials refer to the case of South Korea. When Korea developed a $9.7 billion surplus with the US in 1987, US trade officials saw the emergence of another Japan, and they moved decisively to head it off at the pass. A whole panoply of weapons--anti-dumping suits, import restrictions, Super 301, Special 301, currency appreciation, etc.--was employed on the most successful Asian tiger in an all-encompassing assault that targetted, among other sectors, agriculture, telecommunications, maritime services, financial services, the foreign investment regime, the fishing industry, cosmetics, and government procurement practices. By 1991, the US deficit with Korea had turned into a surplus, and in 1995, Korea was the only East Asian economy with which the United States enjoyed a surplus in its trade account. Unilateralism is, however, merely one prong of US policy towards its trading partners. The unilateralist approach is complemented by a "multilateralist" game plan and a "regional" strategy. The multilateralist prong has been an effort to make the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) a medium for the reduction of trade barriers globally as well as an iron framework of global rules governing trade and trade-related acitivties. The regional thrust has led to the creation of free trade areas like the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) and APEC, where greater concessions on trade than were obtainable under GATT can be negotiated with selected trade partners. GATT, Free Trade, and Monopoly While in the view of its trading partners, unilateralism contradicts multilateralism as a way of resolving trade disputes, in the US view, these are complementary approaches that are tied together by the goal of achieving freer trade. But Washington's commitment to free trade is hardly doctrinal. It is a pragmatic position based on the assessment that free trade at this point translates into US competitive advantage. Again, this is evident in the case of GATT. If the US was committed to the passage of the Uruguay Round of GATT, this was based not on a benign vision of everyone gaining from free trade in an equitable fashion, but of the US gaining disproportionately from it. As EPG chief Bergsten told the US Congress, under GATT, the US would derive greater benefits from GATT than others because while foreign tariffs on US exports would come down by 40 per cent on the average, US tariff cuts would amount to only 32-33 per cent on the average. More broadly, Washington believes that the so-called "level playing field" introduced by freer trade under GATT will translate into a tremendous advantage for US corporations, whose size, resources, and technological edge, would allow them to beat a competition shorn of the artificial advantage conferred by protectionist laws, subsidies, cheap credit, state-supported research and development, and other mechanisms of the "state assisted capitalism" that is the hallmark of East Asian economies. But GATT also illustrates that the US commitment to free trade is conditional, not doctrinal. For when the freer flow of resources contradicts powerful US interests, Washington supports a position under GATT that reinforces monopoly or oligopoly instead of promoting free trade. This is the case with the GATT Agricultural Accord, which is basically an entente cordiale between the US and the European Union on the question of dumping their highly subsidized agricultural surpluses on third-country markets. While the Accord commits all signatories, including Third World countries, to reduce export subsidies, it institutionalizes the direct income subsidies provided by the US government and the European Union for their farmers. As economist Brian Gardner notes, the agreement merely swaps one form of subsidization for another, "taking away direct support of markets and replacing it with direct subsidization of [northern] farmers." It is estimated that in 1995, the first year of the implementation of the GATT Uruguay Round, 20 per cent of the cost of US farm production was financed by state subsidies totalling $25 billion. This, of course, has massive implications for the Asia-Pacific countries, whose agricultural markets have been targetted by the United States Department of Agriculture to absorb 60 per cent of US agricultural exports by the year 2000, up from the figure of 40 per cent at present. Another GATT agreement that reinforces monopoly instead of the free flow of resources is the accord on "trade-related intellectual property rights" (TRIPs). This accord was pushed by Washington with the full support of Bill Gates and the US high tech lobby that wanted to tighten up what it considered a loose framework of global rules that was facilitating too free and too fast a flow of technological innovation from the North to the South. By institutionalizing such draconian measures as a generalized minimum patent protection of 20 years and placing the burden of proof on those accused of patent infringement, the accord represents what UNCTAD describes as a "premature strengthening of the international intellectual proerty system...that favors monopolistically contolled innnovation over broad-based diffusion." As many observers have noted, the main targets of the TRIPs accord have been Japan, Korea, and the East Asian NICs that have successfully mounted "industrialization-by- imitation," particularly in knowledge-intensive industries. APEC's Place in Washington's Strategy Like GATT, APEC is a key element of US trade strategy. However, APEC offers US trade officials advantages that GATT lacks. o First of all, APEC is seen as a "GATT-plus arrangement" where the US can extract more trade and trade-related concessions from its partners than they were willing to grant under the GATT Uruguay Round Agreement. An example of this was the 1995 proposal of Bergsten's Eminent Persons' Group that APEC members should reduce by half the transition period for implementing trade liberalization and full adoption of other trade-related reforms that they had already committed themselves to under GATT. For instance, in this proposal, APEC's developing economies would make their legislation governing intellectual property rights GATT-consistent by 1998 instead of the Uruguay Round deadline of 2000. o Second, APEC is seen as a framework for building institutions that lash the US economy more firmly to East Asia, which is seen as the engine of the world economy far into the first decades of the 21st century. Many Washington economic strategists worry about trade and investment trends that might "marginalize" the US from the Asia-Pacific, such as the fact that intra-Asian trade as a proportion of total Asian trade has risen from an already high 47 per cent in 1990 to 53 per cent in 1995. What worries people such as Clinton adviser Paula Stern is that Asia might be moving toward becoming an integrated market and production base, whose trade dependence on the US will increasingly decrease. A trans-Pacific APEC free trade area is, in this sense, a preemptive move against proposals such as Malaysian Prime Minister Mohamad Mahathir's "East Asia Economic Caucus," a formation that would include only the Asian economies with the intention of forging even closer trading and investment ties among them. In Washington's view, the institutionalization of APEC would eliminate such efforts to "place an artificial dividing line down the center of the Pacific," as Assistant Secretary of State Winston Lord puts it. o Finally, APEC provides a process whereby the US can consistently pressure its Asian trading partners to go beyond limited trade liberalization in "reforming" their economies. Via APEC mechanisms, the US can build pressure for the dismantling of the heavy state presence in the economies of its Asian trading partners--an "interventionist" presence that US officials consider the "mother" of all trade and investment barriers to the US private sector. As Undersecretary of State Joan Spero put it before a US congressional committee: "APEC has a customer. APEC is not for governments; it is for business. Through APEC, we aim to get government out of the way, opening the way for business to do business." In sum, an APEC free trade area must be seen as an integral part of a broader foreign economic policy that employs the rhetoric of free trade but is driven by economic realpolitik, by a determined drive to regain global economic primacy for the US. Mickey Kantor is the personification of this approach. Proudly admitting that he is a non-economist, the US Secretary of Commerce candidly declares to one and all that his mission consists of one thing, and one thing only: to pry markets wide open in order to drive down the US trade deficit. Kantor is not a doctrinal free trader but one who can just as readily appeal to nationalist sentiment as to free trade in pursuit of his perception of US economic interest. Washington insiders contend that Kantor told Clinton in 1993 that he was just as ready to argue against NAFTA as for NAFTA, depending on Clinton's political needs of the moment. Perhaps, the spirit of economic realpolitik that pervades the Clinton administration's foreign economic policy is best captured by Kantor's celebrated assertion before the US Senate in April 1994: "We will continue to use every tool at our disposal--301 Super 301, Special 301, Title VII, GSP, the Telecommunications Trade Act, or WTO accessi! onto open markets around the globe." *Dr. Walden Bello is co-director of Focus on the Global South, a program of Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University and professor of sociology and public administration at the University of the Philippines. He is the author of a number of books on Asian politics and economics, including Challenging the Mainstream: APEC and the Asia-Pacific Development Debate (Hong Kong: 1995). **This article came out in Focus-on-APEC APEC's Place in US Trade Policy From daga at HK.Super.NET Wed Sep 4 15:02:12 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 14:02:12 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 91] Japan's Strategy of Attrition in APEC Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960904135657.0b2fc9d2@is1.hk.super.net> Japan's Strategy of Attrition in APEC by Walden Bello* APEC was originally Japan's idea. But the Japanese have become, in Washington's eyes, the wild card in APEC. Indeed, Washington's relationship with Japan in APEC is representative of the broader relationship it has with that country--one that the Americans see as tremendously important yet one that they also find quite infuriating. Washington's Japan Conundrum Japan is, on the one hand, Washington's closest Asian ally, serving as the host of numerous US bases and installations and some 45,000 US troops. On the other hand, the US sees it as a potential military rival, one with tremendous capability in military technology, which can, among other things, manufacture a nuclear bomb within, at the most, two months after the political decision to build the weapon has been taken. Washington and Wall Street see Japan, with its $4.3 trillion economy, as a vital market and a valuable source of capital to finance, among other things, the US budget deficit. Yet Japan's massive trade surplus with the US, which stood at nearly $60 billion in 1995, continues to be regarded as one of America's biggest economic headaches, though it has been decreasing in recent months. In APEC as well, the Japanese have behaved in a manner that alternately disarms and infuriates Washington. On the one hand, the Japanese rhetorically endorse the goal of freer trade in the Asia-Pacific region, and they have continued to refuse to endorse Prime Minister Mohamad Mahathir's alternative economic grouping, East Asia Economic Caucus, which would exclude the United States. But Japan, by working behind the scenes, has, in Washington's view, been more effective than Mahathir in derailing Washington's free trade thrust in APEC. Japan was the main engineer of the 1995 Osaka Declaration, which slowed down the momentum toward converting APEC into a free trade area by diluting its focus on trade liberalization and enshrining the principle that liberalization must be flexible, voluntary, and non-binding. This moved APEC away from the US's preferred strategy of binding, comparable, collective liberalization, with fixed schedules, that appeared to be dominant after the Bogor Summit of 1994. Why is Japan against the sweeping liberalization that Washington pushes so hard for in APEC? Protecting Agriculture and Domestic Business One reason is, of course, Japan's farmers. Tokyo knows that, while Washington this year has avoided pressing the issue of agricultural liberalization, it is no secret that one of the key reasons it values APEC is that it would provide a mechanism of getting Japan and the Asian NICs ("newly industrializing countries") to open up their agricultural markets more widely than they were willing to do so under GATT in order to absorb government-subsidized US agricultural surpluses. But the Japanese government is responding not only to pressure from the Japanese farmers. It is also responding to the Japanese populace, who by and large prefer Japanese to foreign rice, as well as to pressure from a strong environmental and consumer lobby that says that free trade will make agriculture in Japan unprofitable, thus submitting the country's food supply almost entirely to external sources, and subjecting it to the vagaries of world trade. Another reason Japan is fearful of the emphasis on liberalization in the APEC agenda is because it knows that Washington has an extraordinarily expansive view of liberalization--one that goes beyond the reduction of tariffs or the elimination of quantitative restrictions. Tokyo knows that Washington, in its free trade crusade, would also include so-called "structural factors" as impediments to to free trade. As the United States Trade Representative's (USTR) 1996 report on foreign trade barriers puts it, "While Japan has reduced its formal tariff rates on imports to very low levels, invisible, non-tariff barriers--such as non-transparency, discriminatory standards, and exclusionary business practices--maintain a business environment protective of domestic companies and restrictive of the free flow of competitive foreign goods into the Japanese domestic market." Agreeing to APEC as a medium of liberalization, Tokyo fears, might lead to that body eventually adopting, under US pressure, such an expanded definition of trade barriers to include "structural impediments," and thus provide Washington with a multilateral mechanism to supplement its unilateralist trade offensive on Japan, which has moved away from a preoccupation with bringing down tariffs to bringing down "invisible barriers" to trade. This fear of an expansive definition of trade barriers becoming eventually institutionalized in APEC is shared by many other Asian governments, among them the Korean government, whose campaigns exhorting its citizens to "Buy Korean" have been denounced by the USTR as "creating a trade barrier." Japan's De Facto Trade and Investment Bloc But the main reason that Japan does not want an APEC free trade area to form is that it is well on the way to creating a de facto trade and investment bloc--thanks, ironically, to the US. In 1985, Washington, in a desperate move to erase its trade deficit with Japan, forced the latter to accept the Plaza Accord, which sharply raised the value of the yen relative to the dollar, in the hope that this would dampen American consumers' enthusiasm for Japanese products. The agreement did little to relieve America's trade deficit, but, by making production costly and non-competitive in a global context, it provoked a massive migration of Japanese capital seeking to lower production costs to cheap labor sites in East and Southeast Asia. In the period 1985 to 1994, some $51 billion worth of Japanese investment swirled through the Asia-Pacific region in one of the most massive and swiftest movements of capital to the developing world in recent history. By the end of the period, Japanese conglomerates had created an impressive array of complementary manufacturing facilities producing components for one end product in different parts of ther region. Toyota, for instance, produces gasoline engines and stamped parts in Indonesia, steering links and electrical equipment in Malaysia, transmissions in the Philippines, and diesel engines, stamped parts, and electrical equipment in Thailand. The cars assembled from these components are then exported to Japan, the United States, or to the Asian market itself. This "horizontal integration" of the region via component specialization by subsidiaries of the same conglomerate was accompanied by "vertical integration," whereby the big electronic and car assemblers were followed to their new East Asian and Southeast Asian sites by the smaller companies that supplied them with parts and components. A third phase of Japanese-sponsored industrial deepening may be about to begin, consisting of the migration of selected heavy and chemical industries that provide steel and petrochemical inputs to the assemblers and their suppliers, as well as selected knowledge-intensive firms specializing in high tech products and production processes. Japan's current recession has hardly blunted this process; while investments in Europe and the U.S. have slowed considerably, the movement of capital to the Asia-Pacific continues at a brisk pace: Japan's investment in the region rose from $5.9 billion in FY 1991 to $6.4 billion in FY 1993, while its investment in Europe fell from $9.4 billion to $7.0 billion, and its investment in the U.S. from $18.8 to $14.6 billion. Moreover, in 1993, profits from Japan's operations in Asia exceeded those from the U.S. for the first time, an astonishing development when considered against the fact that as recently as 1980, only two percent of Japan's corporate profits originated in Asia. Interestingly enough, then, Japan's recession has accelerated the regionalization of the Japanese economy, as pressures have built up on more firms to save on labor costs by moving their operations to China and Southeast Asia. This paradoxical phenomenon was captured by one commentary which asserted that "'the hollowing out' [of Japanese industry] is tantamount to an increased 'interdependence' [with Asia]." This process of corporate-driven horizontal and vertical integration has resulted, over the last decade, in the creation not of a regional economy with plural centers but in the regionalization of the Japanese economy. In the candid words of Hisahiko Okazaki, Japan's former ambassador to Thailand, "Japan is creating an exclusive Japanese market in which Asia-Pacific nations are incorporated in the so-called keirestsu [financial/industrial] bloc system." The essential relationship between Japan and Southeast Asia, he contends, is one of trading "captive imports, such as products from plants in which the Japanese have invested," in return for "captive exports, such as necessary equipment and materials." This de facto trading and investment bloc has been created without formal free trade agreements. As a US Congressional Research Service report noted, discussion on whether a Japanese-dominated regional bloc would arise in reponse to NAFTA and the European Union "is somewhat immaterial because a de facto trading bloc is already emerging. It is arising out of economic necessity, and, barring draconian barriers, will continue to grow regardless of whether or not free trade among the various economies develops." It concluded, with undisguised envy: "Japan's business executives do not need free trade to operate." Free Trade as Geoeconomic Counter-Strategy For the US, indeed, the figures were a source of alarm. By the end of 1993, total Japanese investment in East and Southeast Asia came to over $67 billion, while US investment totalled $40 billion. In the view of geoeconomic strategists in Washington, such as APEC advocate and Clinton adviser Paula Stern, these figures indicate that "US economic power and influence in East Asia are declining in relative terms" at the same time that the region is becoming the engine of the world economy. Tokyo realizes that, in terms of geoeconomics, Washington's agenda in pushing APEC is to create a bloc uniting the Western and Eastern Pacific to prevent the Western side from moving in its "natural direction" of becoming a Japan-centered trade and investment bloc-a trend indicated by the fact that intra-Asian trade as a proportion of total Asian trade has risen from an already high 47 per cent in 1990 to 53 per cent in 1995. By dismantling the trade and investment practices by which the Japanese have built a trade and investment area through written rules that facilitate the flow of goods and capital, Washington, Canberra, Wellington, and Ottawa--the "Anglo-Saxon" periphery, as some Asian economists have tagged them collectively--hope to integrate their economies, trade and investment-wise, more solidly to the dynamic Western wing of the Pacific. In this sense, APEC is, even in Tokyo's eyes, a brilliant strategy in the ongoing geoeconomic competition. Japan and Asia's Economic Elites The Asian industrial economic elites themselves are ambivalent about the massive Japanese presence, and complaints about Japanese hesitation to transfer technology are rife in the region. Nevertheless, most of them see themselves as having a more strategic relationship with Japan than the United States in economic terms. For one, as Okazaki has noted, "Few domestic entrepreneurs in Asian countries have had to develop in direct competition with Japan. The majority of these companies received capital and technology from Japan." In this regard, unlike western companies that prefer directly owned subsidiaries, Japanese firms have been much more receptive to joint venture arrangements with Asian firms. Thus, Japanese corporate prosperity has translated into benefits for Japan's Asian corporate appendages (or as the Japanese are fond of saying, "co-prosperity"). Related to this is the fact that whereas the United States and US corporations demand that host economies accommodate themselves to foreign investment and foreign trade by rewriting their trade and investment regimes, the Japanese have largely accommodated and adjusted themselves to the rules of the host economy, with little complaint. Third, Asian elites find that they have more negotiating leverage with the Japanese on a whole host of economic and political issues, compared to superpower Washington behind whose economic power lies a whole structure of political and military power that dwarfs Japan's. Finally and perhaps most important for their subtle closing of ranks against the United States is the fact that, in varying degrees, the structures of their economies are similar to Japan. The "Japanese model" has, in the last few decades, been universalized into the "Asian way of capitalism." As in the case of Japan, protectionism, mercantilism, the use of trade policy to pursue high-speed industrialization, and other state interventionist tools have been used by activist Asian governments to create "economic miracles" or near-miracles from Korea to Malaysia. And this is the reason that, with the exception of Singapore and Hong Kong and naive Philippine technocrats, most of the Asian governments have largely united behind the Japanese geoeconomic counterstrategy strategy of talking up free trade and free markets but in practice, blunting and eventually killing the move towards an APEC free trade area. This strategy of attrition, with its smokescreen of free trade verbiage and its emphasis on consensus, is presented, so as to disarm the "Anglo-Saxon" competition, as the "Asian way." A Third Way? In conclusion, it might be noted that to many other Asian groups, including the NGO's, people's organizations, and many local communities, a Japanese-dominated de facto trading and investment bloc is just as problematic as a US-dominated APEC free trade bloc. In their view, both are guided by the pursuit of elite interests that diverge from that of the majority of the peoples of the region. Thus, as the Subic Summit approaches, many groups throughout the region are talking about coming up with alternative ways of regional cooperation to both APEC and the Japan-NIC bloc. Elaboration of these strategies will be the focus of the coming Manila People's Forum on APEC, just as it was that of the Kyoto NGO Forum in November 1995. *Dr. Walden Bello is co-director of the Bangkok-based Focus on the Global South and professor of sociology and public administration at the University of the Philippines. He is the author of numerous articles and books on East Asian economics and politics. **This article came out in Focus-on-APEC. 4 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Documentation for Action Groups in Asia (DAGA) 96, 2nd District, Pak Tin Village Mei Tin Road, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong Tel : (852) 2691 6391/ 2691 1068 ext 54 Fax: (852) 2697 1912 E-mail: daga@hk.super.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org Wed Sep 4 14:02:08 1996 From: RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org (RVerzola) Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 21:02:08 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 92] Where will they stay? Message-ID: <12f_9609041358@phil.gn.apc.org> According to local newspapers, this is where the APEC heads of state will stay while in Manila: HEAD OF STATE HOTEL US President Bill Clinton Manila Hotel Japanese Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto Diamond Hotel Australian Prime Minister John Howard Mandarin Oriental Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien Peninsula Singaporean Prime Minister Go Chok Tong Hotel Inter-Continental Indonesian President Soeharto Manila Hotel Brunei Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah Manila Hotel Korean President Kim Young Sam Westin Plaza Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo De Gortari Westin Plaza New Zealand Prime Minister James Bolger Westin Plaza Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Bin Mohamad Shangri-La Manila Thai Prime Minister Banharn Silpa-Archa Shangri-La Manila Chinese Taipei President Lee Teng Hui New World Chilean President Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle New World China Prime Minister Jiang Zemin Century Park Sheraton Obet Verzola From norbert at forum.org.kh Wed Sep 4 22:18:57 1996 From: norbert at forum.org.kh (Norbert Klein) Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 22:18:57 Subject: [asia-apec 93] Re: Letter to People of Okinawa Message-ID: <94@f1.forum1.org.kh> >Ron: > >It was good to see your name on the Okinawa letter. We haven't been >in touch for too many years. > >Please add my name to the list. > >Pharis Harvey >Executive Director >International Labor Rights Fund > Ron, Pharis, What a world! I did not even know who is still alive after so many years. Ron, you may add my name (in my personal capacity) too to the list if it is not too late. Norbert -- Norbert Klein | norbert@forum.org.kh Open Forum Information Exchange | system@forum.org.kh P. O. Box 177 | Phnom Penh / CAMBODIA | FaxPhone: +855-23-360 345 From RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org Fri Sep 6 11:38:13 1996 From: RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org (RVerzola) Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 18:38:13 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 94] Japan's Strategy of Attrition in APEC Message-ID: <6b0_9609051955@phil.gn.apc.org> >Japan's Strategy of Attrition in APEC >by Walden Bello* I would like to thank Walden about the very illuminating analysis of the interaction between Japanese and U.S. strategies within APEC. Obet Verzola From ectadem at hk.net Sat Sep 7 11:41:01 1996 From: ectadem at hk.net (Ed Tadem ) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 10:41:01 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 95] Help! In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19960904135657.0b2fc9d2@is1.hk.super.net> Message-ID: To all APEC-related mailing list administrators: I speak only for myself but I'm sure others share my concerns. First, this APEC related mail system seems to be getting out of hand. Our e-mail quotas are being stretched to the limit by the deluge of APEC-related stuff. I appreciate the enthusiasm and committment to relay all APEC-related stuff that come your way but I think there must be some form of editing and filtering before they are passed on to subscribers. For example, a message from Pharis Harvey thanking someone for something and another message from Obet Verzola thanking Walden for his paper should have just been directed at the intended recipients. Secondly, we have been receiving duplicate documents from MPFA Host Committee, from FOCUS on APEC and asia-apec. Please make sure that the documents have not been previously sent before they are passed on. Lastly, since all asia.apec mailings get sent to both arena@hk.net and my ectadem@hk.net addresses, it would be good to just send them to one address. I therefore wish to unsubscribe to asia.apec. I can always access the ARENA main address anytime. Thanks, Ed Tadem From ectadem at hk.net Sat Sep 7 11:42:29 1996 From: ectadem at hk.net (Ed Tadem ) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 10:42:29 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 96] Re: Japan's Strategy of Attrition in APEC In-Reply-To: <2.2.16.19960904135657.0b2fc9d2@is1.hk.super.net> Message-ID: To whom it may concern, I wish to unsubscribe to asia.apec mailing list. I can always access the documents through the ARENA main address anytime. Thank you and keep up the good work. Ed Tadem From daga at HK.Super.NET Sat Sep 7 14:37:51 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 13:37:51 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 97] "Globalization" and its Implications on Trade of Labor Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960907133233.1aef31aa@is1.hk.super.net> "GLOBALIZATION" AND ITS IMPLICATIONS ON TRADE OF LABOR by May-an Villalba (This paper was submitted to the Social Sciences Institute, Socialist Republic of Vietnam for a consultation on migration of women and foreign invested companies in Vietnam, 1994. May-an was then Director of the Asian Migrant Centre, Hong Kong.) I. Features of "globalization" It is fashionable to speak of globalization as if it is already an accomplished fact. With the demise of East European socialism and market liberalization in socialist Asia, it would seem that international capital has finally achieved what Marx called its historic role -- that of breaking down all national, credo, religious, political, cultural, territorial and other barriers. It would seem that international capital has finally globalised all relations. In truth, "globalization" is more myth than reality. Even among TNCs which are its main proponents, globalization is much more a convenient slogan than a real aspiration. If globalization benefits a TNC, that TNC will sing paens to it. But when real globalization cuts the bottom line, they will cry "national protection", "import quotas", "local component requirement", "higher interest rates", "labor standards", "human rights requirements", etc. The recently concluded Uruguay Round was primarily about protecting European and American markets. It was not about "opening markets" to the Third World. World trade is still dominated by one third of the globe represented by Japan, US and the EC. The Third World (which represents 70% of the globe) was nowhere in the GATT picture. Uruguay Round negotiations was about opening markets only to the big trade competitors, specifically a few large trading TNCs. This is globalization of TNCs and not real globalization. This "globalization" is a reality that benefits a few hundred giant TNCs and nothing more. For the rest of the world, "globalization" is an expensive illusion. It means "cut-throat competition", non-access to markets, lack of new and real investments, national competition of workers, loss of national sovereignty, "negative net transfer of resources" from south to north, etc. Richard Barnet and John Cavanaugh published an article in Third World Network Features (115793) describing the phenomenon of globalizing TNCs thus: "By acquiring earth-spanning technologies, by developing products that can be produced anywhere and sold everywhere, by spreading credit around the world, and by connecting global channels of communication that can penetrate any village or neighborhood, ... (TNCs) are becoming the world empires of the 21st century..." "A relatively few companies with worldwide connections dominate the four intersecting webs of global commericial activity on which the new world economy rests: the Global Financial Network, the Global Cultural Bazaar, the Global Shopping Mall, and the Global Workplace.... Further: "The Global Financial Network is a constantly changing maze of currency transactions, global securities, Mastercard, Euroyen, swaps, ruffs and an evermore innovative array of speculative devices for repackaging and reselling money. This network is much closer to a chain of gambling casinos than to the dull gray banks of yesteryear... Banking activities have become more global and more speculative. The credit needs of billions of people and millions of small businesses are not met... "The Global Cultural Bazaar is the newest of global webs and the most nearly universal in its reach. Films, TV, video, radio, music, magazines, T-shirts, games, toys, theme parks are the media for disseminating global images and spreading global dreams... Centuries old ways of life are disappearing under the spell of advanced communication technologies... "The Global Shopping Mall ... is a supermarket with a dazzling spread of things to eat, drink, wear and enjoy. Dreams of affluent living are communicated to the farthest reaches of the globe, but only a minority of people can afford to shop... The rest are window shoppers... "The Global Workplace, is a network of factories, workshops, law offices, hospitals, restaurants and all sorts of other places where goods are produced, information is processed and services of every description are rendered. Everything ... contains materials from dozens of countries pieced together in a globally-integrated assembly line... A worldwide labor market for ... every other marketable skill ... coexists with a global labor pool waiting to be "contracted"... II. "Globalization" and the polarization of Asia The forced "globalization" of Asia, is creating conditions for rapid economic polarization of Asian countries. A few countries, historically favored by both Japan and the West, have risen to become NICs (Newly Industrialized Countries). Serving as cheap production bases for Japanese and Western manufacturers in the 60s and 70s, and granted preferential access to aid, investments and to to European and American markets (also as a means to "contain communism"), the NICS were able to grow consistently for a period of some twenty years. On the other hand, "socialist" Asia -- China, Vietnam, India, Sri Lanka remained isolated from global investments, markets and technology and have remained largely underdeveloped. (That is not to say that there has been no industrialization in countries like China and India.) The integration of "North" (industrial) Asia into the global market, and the isolation of "South" agricultural, underdeveloped, "socialist" Asia has created an effective division, which is the basis for labor trade in the region, which is roughly estimated to be in the region of five million and still growing. These conditions include, on one hand, "push factors" in the "South" for labor trade. Ali Taqi, chief of staff of the International Labor Organization (ILO), was reported in a HK newspaper in 9 Feb 94 to have issued a report stating that 820 million people, majority of whom are from Asia, are unemployed or are underemployed. The implication of this is that there are hundreds of millions of people in Asia who cannot find economic well-being within their national borders while across the border are other countries that promise jobs and economic security. Poverty and the lack of jobs (of the magnitude suggested by ILO) are push factors for massive labor migration. On the other hand, there are "pull factors" for labor trade. An economic intelligence report from the Political and Economic Risks Consultants (PERC) published in a HK news report on 19 Feb 94 suggested that Asia (i.e., "North" Asia) is no longer the cheapest place for foreign investors. Rising property rates, rentals and wage costs have placed Asia (meaning Japan, the NICs, the new NICs including southern China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand) above or at the same rate of structural costs as the Americas and Europe. This rising cost structure, PERC went on to say reflects the "shift away from Asia's role as a cheap production base for exports to the West, to its new role as the world's most rapidly growing market." In addition, the report stated that Japan, and all the old and new NICs are facing serious labor shortages. Even Thailand and Indonesia which have plenty of cheap and unskilled labor are facing shortages in experienced and skilled laborers. South China too has experienced labor shortages, which is causing massive migration of rural workers to Guangzhou and Jiangsu, the industrialized provinces of China. The demands of global competition for Japan and the old and new NICs, neccessitate the importation of labor. This is surprisingly a hard fact for Japan and the NICs, both of governments and workers organizations, to accept. Surprisingly because labor trade (at least, export of labor) has been a part of official policy of these countries since the 70s. After all, Korea was once a top exporter of workers too. Import of labor seems to be another matter altogether. In order to compete in the world market, many corporations in Japan and the NICs especially the larger ones, have already relocated production overseas or across borders -- Southeast Asia and China. But the small and medium companies in both Japan and NICs, especially those that are export-oriented, and a great many still are, cannot compete without cheap labor which is no longer available locally. Thus. the need to import labor. Through the lobby work and pressure tactics of associations of small and medium companies, Japan and the NICs are slowly opening up to labor imports even in competitive sectors -- in manufacturing and services. Some examples can be given: The governments of Indonesia and Malaysia have signed an agreement that would facilitate the importation of some one million Indonesian workers to Malaysia. The Indonesian workers will work in construction, electronics, health and in plantations. This will bring to two million, the number of foreign workers in Malaysia. In Singapore, which already depends on a 30% foreign labor force is experiencing acute shortages of clerks, sales and secretarial positions even with monthly salaries offered in the range of US$628. South Korea, which has a policy of not accepting foreign workers, has been forced to recognize 20,000 illegal foreign workers because of the severe shortage of construction workers and workers in the manufacturing sector. The KFSB, an association of small and medium sized companies, is requesting government to allow 20,000 more foreign workers to enter every year. Taiwan which is conservatively forecast to have a labor shortage of 283,000 towards the end of this century is currently revising its Foreign Labor Regulations Law to allow for more foreign workers to work in Taiwan. The ban on foreign domestic workers is to be lifted in June 1994. In Hong Kong, the Legislative Council was discussing a scheme to import 1,000 professionals from the mainland. In China, the government has set up a scheme involving eight provinces in which 130 million surplus rural workers will systematically be integrated into factories in Guangzhou and Jiangsu, which are currently experiencing labor shortages. III. Implications to worker relations Marx' slogan "Workers of the World Unite" is still a valid battle cry because as long as capital is able to exploit the inequalities of workers (expressed in national, cultural, linguistic, political differences) no "workers' state" can be consolidated anywhere. Because of the law of uneven development of societies, the implication is that no socialist state can be consolidated in isolation from other states. While accepting therefore that nation-states are the only existing mechanism by which workers can protect themselves from capital today, it must be pointed out that workers in Asia cannot have a "nationalist" bias against "foreign workers". It has been the near-universal experience of migrant workers to be discriminated against by workers movements and trade unions in many host Asian countries. It has been the universal feeling of trade unions to be hostile to foreign workers. In many countries, "foreign workers" are unfairly considered as "international scabs". There is a need for workers to reexamine the basic principles of workers solidarity. If they consider foreign workers as "scabs" what were they when they accepted foreign companies into their countries? Weren't they international scabs in a sense, to accept "foreign capital?" In conclusion, the implication of this to workers solidarity is that an internationalist (non-nationalist) worker consciousness needs to be developed in the host countries so that migrant workers are protected from national discriminatory laws or from no laws. At the same time, workers from different countries must begin to develop experiences of struggle and collective bargaining across borders, if they expect to overcome migrant capital in the future. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Sat Sep 7 17:02:52 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 16:02:52 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 98] from the conf facilitator: re help! Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960907155735.1d0f02da@is1.hk.super.net> Dear Friends, Please be assured that we are coordinating on the issue of avoiding double postings of articles-- especially the online versions of APEC Watch, Focus on APEC, ALARM Update, and announcements from the Philippine Hosting Committee for the Manila People's Forum on APEC (MPFA). For private mail, please take note of the e-mail address of the original sender. For that matter, please review past announcements from the conf facilitator on "ground rules"/instructions for participating in this electronic conference. Since this may be a new medium for most of us, we will be posting an evaluation form soon to assess our use of this channel of communication on APEC-related issues. Hopefully, this will tighten whatever "loose nuts and bolts." Thank you for your patience and understanding. mario mapanao conf facilitator, asia-apec e-mail: daga@hk.super.net From 3942475 at msn.com Sun Sep 8 22:04:23 1996 From: 3942475 at msn.com (Victor Hsu) Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 13:04:23 UT Subject: [asia-apec 99] RE: from the conf facilitator: re help! Message-ID: Mario, Good clarification! Thanks. Victor Hsu. From RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org Tue Sep 10 02:34:58 1996 From: RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org (RVerzola) Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 09:34:58 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 100] Cholera in Manila Message-ID: <341_9609091301@phil.gn.apc.org> Four people have already died in a cholera outbreak in Manila. Health authorities are afraid that the epidemic will get worse, because of the poor sanitation facilities in the city's urban poor areas. Obet Verzola From laborrights at igc.apc.org Tue Sep 10 04:17:38 1996 From: laborrights at igc.apc.org (Pharis Harvey) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 19:17:38 +0000 Subject: [asia-apec 101] Re: Help! Message-ID: <199609100002.RAA00560@igc3.igc.apc.org> Ed: Thanks for pointing out the need to direct e-mail only to the intended addressee. Inexperience caused me to wrongly send the note to the whole list rather than just to Ron Fujiyoshi. If others get this message, my apologies again. As far as I can discern, it is going only to Ed. By the way, it was good to learn where you are, Ed. I hadn't had any contact with you since leaving DAGA in 1979. Hope you're doing well. Pharis Harvey From daga at HK.Super.NET Tue Sep 10 12:35:49 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:35:49 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 102] APEC Watch #8 Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960910113035.1ccf1fa6@is1.hk.super.net> APEC Watch #8 (online version) August 1996 A publication of the Manila-based Secretariat of the International Convenors Committee, MANILA PEOPLE'S FORUM ON APEC '96 WHAT'S UP, APEC? Senior Officials and Ministerial Meetings on Sustainable Development 9-12 July 1996, Makati City, Philippines Brave words all, but will they ever work out? This is the general sentiment generated at the heel of the Senior Officials (SOM) and Ministerial Meetings (MM) on Sustainable Development held at the Hotel Intercontinental in Makati City, Philippines. Indeed, the two meetings came up with declarations that are very strong in commitment as far as the language went. But, as always, these were not enough to dispel fears that environmental integrity and protection will be compromised by APEC's objective to achieve unrestrained trade and investment in the Asia Pacific. Senior officials of APEC member economies submitted for consideration of the APEC environment ministers a six-point guideline on how to promote economic progress and improve the quality of life in the region without sacrificing the environment. The guideline centered on the following principles: (1) the promotion of public-private partnership; (2) the need to avoid duplication and to concentrate on the value added of projects; (3) sharing of innovative approaches; (4) enhancing capacity through human resource development, information sharing and technology exchange; (5) the importance of outcome-driven approaches; and, (6) the benefits of incentive-based approaches. The ministers, in turn, drafted a declaration that urged APEC members to pursue sustainable development in accordance with the following concerns: (1) the development of sustainable cities within APEC; (2) the transfer of clean technology and policies between and among APEC economies; (3) the protection of the region's seas and oceans; and, (4) the identification of innovative approaches toward sustainable development. In addition, the adoption of the International Standard Order (ISO) 14000 was endorsed. ISO 14000, which was developed by the International Standards Organisation based in Geneva, is an international system that will grade and evaluate industries with respect to their environmental activities or how their production processes affect the environment. First developed during the 1992 World Summit on the Environment in Rio de Janeiro, ISO 14000 has never been released. Still, APEC officials are optimistic that ISO 14000 will gain wide acceptance in APEC. But is there really a place for sustainable development in a grouping like APEC? Many doubt this, especially now that the APEC 2010/2020 agenda is getting more aggressive by the day. Juxtaposed with the more thorny issues of trade and investment liberalization, environmental protection will at best take a backseat. There is also apprehension, notably among developing countries, that the rhetoric of "clean production" will serve as another trade barrier against the technologically-disadvantaged smaller economies. In an international regime where big countries try to find less obvious means of retaining protection to their own industries at the same time that they preach the virtues of free trade, people cannot but hold supposedly noteworthy agenda like "sustainable development in APEC" suspect. Ministerial Meeting on Trade and Investment Liberalization and Facilitation 14-16 July 1996, Christchurch, New Zealand APEC Comes To Aotearoa - Trade Ministers Meet At Christchurch* By: Aziz Choudry Billed as probably the most significant economic event that New Zealand had held, and chaired by Trade Negotiations Minister (and New Zealand ABAC representative) Philip Burdon, the APEC Trade Ministers Meeting in Christchurch marked yet another opportunity for the government to sell its neoliberal model of economic development internationally. It was another chance to plea for more foreign investment after the hard sell at the 1995 ADB and Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings. Local opponents of unbridled free trade and investment, such as GATT Watchdog, which organised a very successful international forum "Trading with Our Lives: The Human Cost of Free Trade," a citizens meeting and protest action just prior to the Ministers Meeting have long drawn the parallels between the extremist domestic market reforms of the past 12 years and regional and global pushes for free trade. These reforms - structural adjustment policies - have left one in five New Zealanders living in poverty and given us the dubious distinction of "enjoying" the fastest growing gap between rich and poor in any OECD country over the past 15 years. We are left with one of the most open economies in the world - a deregulated labour market, a slash-and-burn approach to social spending, and a lemming-like rush to privatise and sell off state-owned assets to transnational buyers, as the country has been transformed into a bargain basement investment playground for transnational corporations. Normally the Trade Ministers Meeting would have met just prior to the November Leaders Summit. The date was advanced to canvass ways of adding further impetus to liberalise global trade and investment leading up to the WTO ministerial meeting in Singapore. WTO director-general Renato Ruggiero was in town for "informal" talks with APEC delegates and a lunchtime address on the opening day of the meeting. His message was much the same as on his March visit to this country. Part of his role involves panic-mongering and instilling a sense of urgency in the proceedings. The gospel according to Ruggiero is that globalization is "unstoppable," but cannot be taken for granted. The fires of hell await any who oppose this process or support trading blocs. "At the end of the process we should have one big free trade area. I think this is what was in the mind and the vision of the builders of the multilateral system, which was based on non-discrimination," he opined. Ruggiero hopes for an activist APEC caucus within the WTO to propel it forward and prepare it for the next round of negotiations, taking it beyond a mere review of implementation of the Uruguay Round. Whether, when, and how the semantics translate into action in Manila or Singapore remains to be seen. So do Burdon's claims that at Christchurch, a "very positive and ambitious achievement" was reached, with APEC members agreeing to settle their differences and form a united APEC push for further global trade liberalization to the Singapore WTO meeting. Cracks appeared in the facade of collective unity. The last public session was delayed for an hour as Malaysian, Korean and Indonesian delegates objected to the speed of proposals to open up markets and others put forward on trade and the environment, and trade and labour issues. One US delegate dryly observed that "APEC is all about conflict diminishment rather than conflict resolution." It was also hard to escape the impression that the actual APEC meeting was overshadowed by bilateral meetings. All the other members sought meetings with the USA. Japanese and US delegates discussed the issue of access to the Japanese market for semiconductors. Japan asserts that foreign companies already have 30% of the market, while the USA seeks more access. The issue was left until the end of July to be resolved. US and Indonesian delegates met over Indonesian plans to build a "national" car, the "Timor." The name has supposedly nothing to do with the territory invaded and occupied by Indonesia for over 20 years, but an acronym for Teknologi Industri Mobil Rakyat. The USA, Japan and others have been outraged at the plan to grant special tax concessions from the government enabling Tommy Suharto (the President's son) to produce a car for sale at half the price of similar cars. This issue is earmarked for supposed resolution by November. Australia and New Zealand signed a food inspection pact that would allow most food passing between the two countries to be subject to only to the same checking as applied to local food. At the APEC meeting itself, US trade representative Charlene Barshefsky claimed that "widespread consensus among members" was reached that information technology products was an area which deserved APEC action, and that there would be active discussion on it prior to Singapore. It was claimed that this consensus could enable work towards a global decrease in tariffs on IT equipment and software. The USA tabled a plan to push for zero tariffs, covering mainframes down to cellular phones. Barshefsky claimed "extraordinary progress" on this "tariff-cutting exercise on the information superhighway." Ironically, a few days after both Barshefsky and Burdon had firmly called for further commitments to trade liberalization the USA announced a round of dairy export subsidies into Asia! New Zealand officials see this move as unfair and at odds with the American commitment to trade liberalization and the spirit of the Uruguay Round. On July 18, US Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman demanded "the elimination, not just the reduction, of all trade distorting subsidies in agriculture" in the next round of global trade talks scheduled to start in 1999. Once again, US actions showed a huge gap between the free trade rhetoric which it so zealously expounds, and reality. The move put Burdon's comments during the meeting about New Zealand's disadvantages in the area of its natural benefit, agriculture, with dairy and red meat products still facing huge tariffs in some nations, into sharp relief. A major step towards progress in agriculture had been claimed in Christchurch in approving a "substantive and balanced" work programme to prepare for new negotiations, overcoming objections from Korea, which wanted no further work to be done on this till after its 1997 presidential elections. The Christchurch meeting broadly reaffirmed the APEC 2010/2020 timetable. APEC support for China's entry to the WTO was signalled, though US criticism over China's denial of market access to US goods and other protectionist measures had characterised the lead-up to the meeting. A week after the APEC meeting, a story of a sinister bungled break-in at the house of GATT Watchdog spokesperson Aziz Choudry on 13 July by two state intelligence agents, and subsequent police raids on his house, and that of a speaker at the Trading With Our Lives forum, Dr. David Small, supposedly for bomb-making equipment grabbed national media attention - and continues to do so 10 days later as more and more evidence mounts to support initial suspicions. The market myths that enshroud APEC are very fragile. Obviously, abuse and ridicule are not the only weapons employed by the New Zealand government to try to suppress debate and demonise and discredit those who threaten to expose the APEC agenda. Dissent is met with anti-democratic, covert state repression. Such is the "stability" demanded by the free traders. * Excerpts. More information may be obtained from GATT Watchdog at telefax number (643) 3484763 or e-mail . Third Senior Officials Meeting 22-29 August 1996, Davao City, Philippines APEC senior officials met in Davao City, Philippines on 21-23 August 1996 to thresh out details of APEC's trade and investments liberalization and facilitation agenda. This was the third of such meetings. The first was held in Manila in February and the second in Cebu in May. In Davao, APEC members submitted improved versions of their individual action plans (IAPs) turned in during the second SOM. The IAPs will be harmonized and integrated by the host, the Philippines, into the Manila Action Plan for APEC or MAPA '96 in November. Only then will the IAPs become public. Another highlight of the SOM was the initiative put forward by the Philippine delegation to formalize a development cooperation framework for APEC. This broad framework will serve as the basis for and give direction to the various projects being proposed within APEC. Aside from the Philippines, the initiative to complete the framework was also sponsored by the United States and the People's Republic of China. The framework will be presented to APEC Ministers in November when they meet prior to the Leaders' Summit. For the first time in its history, APEC is embarking on a project that will measure the impact of trade liberalization in the region. The two-year project will monitor economic gains and possible losses brought about by trade liberalization. The core of the project entails the creation of a model that would show differences in economic before and after liberalization. This model will involve over 5,000 economic variables and several mathematical equations, and will be handled by a special task force under the APEC Economic Committee. People might ask, how will non-economic variables, such as human displacements and environmental destruction, come in with this model? At this point, it is still unclear how. The model's primary concern is to show that liberalized trade is "generally good for the economy because it brings up gross domestic product." Calendar of APEC and Other Related Events August to November 1996 AUGUST Singapore SCSC: APEC Electro-Magnetic Compatibility Seminar Sydney, Australia 2nd Meeting of Energy Ministerial Committee Honolulu, USA REC: Workshop on Energy Efficient Gas Technologies Singapore BAC Meeting Davao, Philippines Experts Meeting/WG/Subcommittees: CTI and EC Third Senior Officials Meeting Victoria, Canada HRD: Workshop on HRD-BMN Project on Cross-Cultural Management of Technical Collaboration Davao, Philippines Workshop on Competition Policy Sydney, Australia REC: Preparatory Meeting of Energy Senior Officials Sydney, Australia REC: Energy Ministers' Meeting California, USA REC: Planning Workshop for APEC Sustainable Cities Program China SCCP Seminar on Risk Management Vancouver, Canada HRD: Conference on Best Practices on Labour Market Information Cebu, Philippines SME Policy Group Meeting Seoul, Korea MRC: APEC Workshop on Integrated Management of Semi-Enclosed Bays Australia Ministerial Meeting on Telecommunications and Information Industry Los Banos, Philippines Launching of the APEC Center for Technology of Exchange and Training for the SMEs Cebu, Philippines Ministerial Meeting on SMEs Seoul, Korea PECC: 9th Trade Policy Forum Los Banos, Philippines Experts Meeting on Food (tentative) Tokyo, Japan 2nd APEC Investment Symposium Tokyo, Japan APEC Investment Expert Group Meeting Santiago, Chile 9th Meeting of TWG Tokyo, Japan Small and Medium Sized Companies International Conference (MITEC '96) Canberra, Australia 11th Meeting of IST Phuket, Thailand 9th Meeting of MRC California, USA REC: Workshop on Sustainable Cities California, USA REC: 9th Meeting of Expert Group on Energy Efficiency and Conservation Brisbane, Australia Cities of Asia Pacific Conference Manila, Philippines 1st Meeting of the APEC-Council of Academies of Applied Science and Engineering (APEC-CASE) Manila, Philippines Fourth SOM and Related Meetings Manila, Philippines Conference of Customs Administrators of the Pacific Basin; International Conference of Customs Brokers; Customs Symposium Exhibition Tokyo, Japan HRD: 5th Workshop on Cross-Cultural Technology Transfer Philippines 13th Meeting of REC Cape York, Australia HRD: BMN - Continuing Education Seminar on Human Resources for Sustainable Development Project Manila, Philippines 6th Asia Pacific International Trade Fair Seoul, Korea APEC Ministers' Conference on Regional Science and Technology Cooperation; S&T SOM Seoul, Korea TPT: Urban Transport Forum Manila, Philippines 20-21 Nov.: Informal SOM 22-23 Nov.: 8th APEC MM Subic, Philippines Fourth APEC Leaders' Meeting Phuket, Thailand 10th Meeting of TPT Legend: MM - Ministerial Meeting; SOM - Senior Officials Meeting; SCSC - Sub-Committee on Standards and Conformance; REC - Regional Energy Cooperation; BAC - Budget and Administrative Committee; WG - Working Group; CTI - Committee on Trade and Investment; EC - Economic Committee; HRD - Human Resources Development; BMN - Business Management Network; SCCP - Sub-Committee on Customs Procedures; SME - Small and Medium Enterprises; MRC - Marine Resources Conservation; TWG - Technical Working Group; IST - Industrial Science and Technology; TPT - Transportation; TEL - Telecommunications; TBA - To Be Advised AT THE PHILIPPINE FRONT MPFA Appeals to Asian Senior Officials and Trade Ministers Philippine groups within the Manila People's Forum on APEC issued an appeal to senior officials of the Asian governments in APEC to "stop Washington and Manila from undermining the Osaka Agenda." The appeal, published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on 22 August 1996, called the attention of Asian senior officials in APEC to the alarming direction the regional body is apparently taking. APEC is being pushed more and more to becoming a free trade bloc. The free trade agenda is a product of the Northern countries', most notably the United States', lobby to fully liberalize trade and investments in the Asia Pacific by the year 2020. Worse, the Philippines as this year's host is playing a big role in seeing this radical transformation of the APEC through. This is a clear violation of the agreement reached in Osaka last year that sought to preserve APEC as a consultative regional body, whose decisions are voluntary and non-binding. The Philippine members of the MPFA '96 went on to say that they are not against liberalization. They believe in "a pragmatic trade policy, where the national government retains the ability to liberalize or to protect the economy, depending on the circumstances" and a trade policy that "recognizes other national priorities, like industrial deepening, equitable income distribution, and sustainable development." They believe that "the flexible employment of trade policy to achieve industrial deepening and other broader national development objectives" is "one of the key instruments of the so-called Asian miracle." The appeal ended urging the Asian senior and trade ministers to: ? "forcefully remind the Philippine government that the Asian consensus is that APEC will remain a consultative group, not turned into a free trade area;" ? "demand that the Philippine government cease making its program of blanket, unilateral, and irreversible liberalization the model for other Asian countries in APEC;" ? "insist that the Philippine government synchronize its stands with other Asian countries around a cautious, non-doctrinal approach to liberalization that does not give up flexibility to use trade to achieve goals essential to national security and sustainable development;" ? "follow the spirit of Osaka by moving away from a focus on free trade toward more relevant and more important principles-such as sustainable development, fair trade, and economic cooperation-as the basis of regional cooperation." Run-up to November ? Tax Free Funds for APEC Foundation The Philippine government is granting the APEC Philippines Foundation, the business sector counterpart of the government in the preparations for the APEC Summit in Subic, a zero-tax rate on all monetary donations it receives. So far, pledges have exceeded the Foundation's initial target of P145 million. Among the big donors are: the Filipino-Chinese taipans (P50M); the Management Association of the Philippines and Financial Executives (P40M); the Bankers Association of the Philippines and the Philippine Stock Exchange (P30M); the Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (P15M); the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Federation of Philippine Industries, Employers Confederation of the Philippines and Philexport (P10M); and, William Gatchalian (P5M). With these huge pledges, one cannot help but wonder: what's the trade-off? ? Satellite for APEC To service the telecommunications needs of the APEC Meetings, the Mabuhay Philippines Satellite Corporation has launched into orbit the newest and the country's first satellite named Mabuhay. The satellite was launched prior to the completion of the space center built for the purpose of monitoring it. The space center, located in the Subic Free Port, is expected to be in full operation in September. ? "Conventions City Manila" Hotels and convention centers in Manila are in a rush to renovate in time for November, when an influx of business tourists are expected to arrive. The biggest renovation is happening at the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC). The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas is allegedly bankrolling the renovation and improvement of PICC's facilities to the tune of P500 million. PICC will be the site of the two-day Ministerial Meeting that precedes the Leaders' Meeting in Subic. All other convention and hotel facilities have their own projects in hand, either adding in new hotel rooms or expanding ballrooms to worldclass standards. INSIGHTS SUBIC 1996: Make or Break for APEC's 2010/2020 Vision?* The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) is an economic forum composed of 18 countries that border on the Pacific which account for 46 per cent of the world's merchandise trade and over half of the world's gross national product. "Four Adjectives in Search of a Noun" Beyond this description, there is no consensus among APEC members on what APEC is or should be. To borrow the classic definition of the forum by former Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans, APEC is still "four adjectives in search of a noun." To the Malaysians, backed covertly by the Japanese, APEC is and should remain a consultative group where technical cooperation on economic matters among governments could be facilitated. To the US and Australians, in particular, APEC is a formation that is consolidating into a formal free trade area, where tariffs will eventually be brought down to zero or thereabouts and all other barriers to trade eliminated. To Washington and Canberra, the essence of APEC is contained in the Bogor Declaration of November 1994, which in their interpretation committed the member governments to establishing borderless trade by the year 2020. But even as they signed the Bogor Declaration, the Malaysian and Thai governments were quick to append their understanding that the declaration was aspirational in nature and "non-binding." Beijing also issued a formal statement supporting the Malaysian and Thai interpretation. There is, in fact, an ongoing, though for the most part, silent battle to define the direction of APEC, and the Summit in Subic in November 1996 will be critical in determining whether APEC will remain a consultative group or solidify into a formal free trade area. Subic: A Return to Bogor? However, the individual country submissions during the senior officials' meeting in Cebu in May underlined the difficulty of harmonizing 18 plans submitted by governments with differing commitments to the Bogor ideal. According to a report of the Japan Economic Institute in Washington, the proposals submitted in Cebu "vary considerably in their scope and specificity...Although the plans remain confidential, some generalized assessments became available. Australia and Japan, for example, reportedly submitted lengthy documents with fairly detailed proposals in each of 15 economic areas. Some APEC officials have hinted, though, that even these proposals leave room for improvement. The American proposal, too, is considered among the most complete of those submitted in Cebu, although it reportedly contains only sketchy coverage of certain areas--such as competition policy and trade in services. Plans submitted by Indonesia and the Philippines also received high marks." The report, however, went on to describe China's action plan as "not every detailed, providing only a general outline of Beijing's strategy for meeting the forum's goals. Thailand's proposal, too, addressed only a handful of 15 areas...Some APEC officials also described Malaysia's initial offers as disappointing." The situation had apparently not improved by the time APEC's trade ministers met in Christchurch two months later, in mid-July. Putting the best face to what was obviously a disappointing process, Department of Trade and Industry Secretary Rizalino Navarro of the Philippines, the APEC ministerial chairman, said that the action plans were of "uneven quality." A key Thai trade official predicted that, in fact, there would be little chance to discuss, much less harmonize, action plans before the Subic summit because "each APEC member would likely wait until the last meeting of senior officials, immediately before the November summit, before submitting its full action plan." Which means that the process of consultation on the plans will have to be deferred to 1997, with the burden of harmonizing the plans falling on Ottawa, next year's host, rather than Manila. The stalling strategy adopted by some of Asia's APEC members has been paralleled by other developments subversive of the regional free trade ideal--which indicates that the "Bogor spirit" might be difficult to resurrect this year. For instance, in a virtual rerun of its behavior in 1995, the US has shown that it continues to prefer unilateral action to multilateral resolution of trade disputes, threatening to again club China with Special 301 on "intellectual piracy" and pressing Japan to give US and other foreign firms a guaranteed 20 per cent share of its semiconductor market. South Korea and Japan have served firm notice that they will not open their agricultural markets any more than they have already committed themselves to under GATT. Ironically, even the Suharto government, whose pro-free trade instance was instrumental in the adoption of the Bogor Declaration, has decreed a series of protectionist measures designed to create a local car industry (connected to members of the Suharto family, of course!) that the US has denounced as violations of both GATT and the spirit of Bogor. In a speech delivered in Sydney in June, Malaysian International Trade Minister Rafidah Aziz said that the idea that APEC will eventually become a free trade area is turning more and more into a "dream," and predicted that the body will remain what it is now, that is, a "loose consultative forum of economies of different levels of development." As host of the coming summit, the Philippines would do well to listen to what its neighbors are saying--and doing--and distance itself from the US-led effort to convert APEC into a free trade area. The APEC free trade design may well be an idea whose time has come...and gone, and the only thing that can result from leading a charge towards a goal that few Asian countries share is a diplomatic disaster. *Excerpted from APEC: The Unauthorized History, a chapter in the APEC Primer being put together by Dr. Walden Bello, co-director of Focus on the Global South and chair of the International Convenors Committee of the MPFA '96. APEC Watch Editorial/Production Team Jenina Joy Chavez-Malaluan, FOCUS Allen M. Mariano, PPI ANNOUNCEMENTS!!! * Regular mail and shortened faxed versions of FOCUS-on-APEC are available upon request. Due to our budget constraints, however, we are unable to airmail the bulletin to many people/ groups, so we kindly ask you to print the e-mail version and regular mail it to interested groups in your country who do not have access to e-mail. Thank you. * Focus on the Global South has offices at: c/o CUSRI, Wisit Prachuabmoh Bldg., Chulalongkorn University, Phyathai Road, Bangkok 10330, THAILAND Tels.: (662) 218-7363, 64 & 65 Fax : (662) 255-9976 E-mail: focus@ksc9.th.com URL: http://www.nautilus.org/focusweb/focus.html. We have limited copies of the APEC Watch. Please share your copy with others who might be interested. This APEC Watch is produced by the Manila-based Secretariat of the International Convenors Committee (ICC) which holds offices at the Manila PFA'96 Philippine Hosting Committee Secretariat Office (please see address below). Information on the PFA and the ICC can also be obtained from: Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ANGOC) No. 14-A 11th Jamboree St., Brgy. Sacred Heart, Kamuning, Quezon City 1103, PHILIPPINES Tel. Nos. (632) 9283315/9293019 Fax No. (632) 9215122 E-mail: angoc@philonline.com.ph or angoc@igc.apc.org BE COUNTED! If you want to participate in the PFA '96 activities, please write and tell us so. We will be glad to send you information, and will be more than happy to receive inputs from you. Please address all inquiries re: PFA '96 to: The Secretariat Philippine Hosting Committee Manila People's Forum on APEC 1996 Room 209, PSSC Building, Commonwealth Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City, PHILIPPINES Tels.: (63-2) 929-6211/(63-2) 922-9621 loc. 315 Fax: (63-2) 924-3767 E-mail: omi.apec@gaia.psdn.iphil.net From rbudd at deakin.edu.au Tue Sep 10 16:20:17 1996 From: rbudd at deakin.edu.au (Robert Budd by way of daga ) Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 15:20:17 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 103] Conference on Labour, Rights and Globalisation: Aust. & Asia-Pacific Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960910151502.3c97ebe2@is1.hk.super.net> The Centre for Citizenship and Human Rights would appreciate it if you could display the following text on your internet site (if you have one) with a link to our homepage at http://www2.deakin.edu.au/cchr Labour, Rights and Globalisation: Australia and Asia-Pacific. November 1-3, 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, explore governmental and non-governmental strategies for action, and prepare discussion positions for the NGO forums preceding the meetings of APEC (November) and WTO (December). Location--- Deakin University, Toorak Campus, Melbourne Registration Rates---Early Bird rate-- $175 (Conc. $125 ) i.e. paid before 4/10/96 Paid after 4/10/96 -- $195 ( Conc. $145 ) Concession applies to anyone not in full time employment. Telephone numbers for further info.---Aust 052 272062 (re Reg'n queries) All other queries ring 052 272173 or 052 272113 If you do not have access to an internet homepage, it would be appreciated if you could disseminate the information by any other means at your disposal (eg newsletter, email to members, etc) if this option is preferred could you also include the following- A CALL FOR PAPERS- Papers are invited for the following thematic sections: * Globalisation: shaping the future (including globalisation and localisation, trade and economics, social, environmental and cultural impacts, women and globalisation, information technology and transnational data flows, etc) * Working conditions and labour markets (including labour market restructuring, working conditions, formal and informal economies in Australia and Asia-Pacific, etc) * Rights and protections (including international and national legal frameworks, labour law, the governance of TNCs, human rights and labour rights, public policy in a globalising world, etc) * Global citizenship (including mass media, internet and new communication systems, local and global identities, governmental and non-governmental action strategies, etc) Abstracts of 200 words are due by 13 September. Robert Budd Administrative Officer Centre for Citizenship and Human Rights Deakin University GEELONG 3220 Phone: 052 272173 Fax: 052 272155 E-mail: cchr@deakin.edu.au Internet: http://www2.deakin.edu.au/cchr From ipk at pactok.peg.apc.org Wed Sep 11 11:01:37 1996 From: ipk at pactok.peg.apc.org (IPK by way of daga ) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 10:01:37 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 104] URGENT - BAKUN - ABB - SIGN ON TODAY Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960911095628.1b47efb8@is1.hk.super.net> Dear friends, For your info. meng chuo ******************************** The message below shows other international NGOs efforts on the issue. We would appreciate if you could influence ABB in reconsidering the contract with the project. for your information, the signing of the contract is further postponded to 30th September. Wong meng chuo IDEAL, (member of the 40 Malaysian NGOs concerned on Bakun Dam) ************************************************* URGENT - PLEASE ACT TODAY RE: ABB and the BAKUN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PLEASE REPLY BY 4.00pm UK time or 12 noon US time on TUESDAY 10th SEPTEMBER. Thank you. Dear friends, On Wednesday September 11th, in Malaysia, ABB are signing the contract with Ekran for their part of the Bakun Hydroelectric Project. You will recall that we sent a joint letter to ABB on the 2nd of July 1996 drawing attention to the many reasons it should not be involved with the project. However, they are going ahead regardless. We are now circulating this (and would be extremely grateful if you could send this on to other groups who signed the first letter) to ask you to sign on to a fax to be sent to ABB on Wednesday, the text of which is below. We do think that we should let ABB know that we are deeply disappointed and that we are not going to go away. IF YOU ARE WILLING TO SIGN ON TO THIS, PLEASE COULD YOU EMAIL OR FAX YOUR NAME, ORGANISATION AND COUNTRY TO GLOBAL WITNESS BY TUESDAY 10th SEPTEMBER. Email: gwitness@gn.apc.org Fax: +44 181 563 8613 Sorry it is rather rushed but the date of signing has just been announced. The more groups that sign on the better. The fax will be sent to ABB headquarters and also, with a press release, to European, Malaysian and international media. With best wishes, Patrick McCully James Lochhead Monique Baker International Rivers Network KEHMA-S Global Witness The fax reads: Mr Percy Barnevik CEO, ABB Asea Brown Boveri AG Zrich Dear Mr Barnevik, We are deeply disappointed to learn that you are planning to sign a contract on Wednesday 11th September with Ekran, for your part in constructing the highly controversial Bakun Hydroelectric Project. As you know, the project will have severe effects on people (including the more than 9,000 indigenous people to be forcibly resettled) and the environment. You will also know that the recent delay in the signing of the contract came about because of a Malaysian High Court decision which found Ekran and the federal and Sarawak state governments in breach of Malaysian legislation regarding the Environmental Impact Assessment process. In particular, the rights of the indigenous peoples within the project area were deemed to have been severely infringed. We are disappointed that the September 3rd letter from ABB does not address this issue. Since the appeal made by Ekran and others has not been heard, perhaps you can explain to the indigenous peoples, all other Malaysians, your shareholders, to us and to the world at large why it is that you are signing a contract to participate in a project which at this present moment is so clearly in breach of standards of procedure which Ekran and ABB ought to respect. Why are you endorsing the illegitimacy of the way in which the Bakun Hydroelectric Project has been planned? Why are you disregarding the decision of the Court and colluding in abusing the rights of the affected indigenous peoples? Why are you not at least waiting for the appeal to be heard and then reviewing your involvement in the project thereafter? ABB's action in hurrying to sign the contract is a disreputable one. This letter is an expression of the widespread disappointment felt around the world over your planned action. The negative social and environmental effects of the project are certain to be extensive. Moreover, the economic viability of the project has been called into question by an independent financial analyst. Despite promises to the contrary, the cost of Bakun's electricity is already the highest in Malaysia's history. Participating in the Bakun project, especially while the legal issues remain unresolved, will tarnish ABB's reputation. We urge you not to sign the contract. Yours sincerely, --- From RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org Thu Sep 12 01:55:37 1996 From: RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org (RVerzola) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 08:55:37 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 105] Globalization or Internationalism? Message-ID: INTERNATIONALISM VERSUS GLOBALIZATION While internationalism would celebrate the achievements, struggles and creativity of the poor, and the equal rights of all peoples of the world to develop in dignity, sufficiency and security, globalisation and global capitalism requires the humiliation of hundreds of millions of people and keeping them in constant insecurity, pitting them against one another in a competitive struggle for survival. By Jeremy Seabrook Third World Network Features We are all globalisers now. The insistence on globalisation has eclipsed and usurped internationalism; indeed sometimes masquerades as if it were the same thing. It is time to rescue what internationalists have always worked for from the clutches of a rapaciously expansive and ultimately, colonising, globalisation. We hear the arguments daily from the holders of power; the very fatalism with which they speak about the inevitability, the irreversibility of globalisation, suggests they are aware that control over events is slipping through their fingers. The rhetoric becomes more and more desperate: We must compete in an increasingly integrated world. We must educate and train our people for the challenge of the 21st century. We have to take on the Asian tigers and beat them at their own game. (Of course, it was our game originally, which is why we find it so disconcerting when they beat us. What's more, it isn't a game; it's deadly serious, particularly for the losers, the people of those countries prematurely used up by work and want, and whose children are dying daily from avoidable sickness and malnutrition.) Globalisation then, means the absorption of all the countries of the world into a single economic entity: a bleak vision of a choiceless future, in which 'choice' nevertheless figures so prominently. Internationalists spoke of other forms of integration, more harmonious, less violent, more just, long before the apostles of globalisation began promoting their lurid vision of a whole world refashioned in the image of the universal market-place, from every platform, at every conference, at every international gathering, in every transnational meeting- place on earth. That other version of integration required only that the powerless unite, that the disadvantaged combine in order to resist and make common cause against what William Morris 100 years ago referred to as 'the iron rule of the World-Market'. The fading of that internationalism is the distant, and perhaps most disastrous, consequence of the death of the Soviet Union. It is not the loss of the ideology of Communism that has cancelled hope for the poor: it is rather the absence of any check upon the florid and aggressive necessities of unchecked capitalism. Whenever poverty and inequality are 're-discovered' by the media, this is no longer accompanied by a sense of moral outrage. These are now simply facts of life. Much of the internationalism which animated the early labour movement has now declined into a desultory and ritualistic exchange of fraternal greetings on special occasions; organised labour having been, for the main part, enlisted in the grisly crusade of 'integrating' unequal partners into an interdependent world. For interdependence between unequals means the institutionalising of subordination. In this sense, the exalted project of 'globalisation' is yet another refuge for racism, because the majority of the world's poor are non-white, and the rich white or Japanese. The freezing of relationships of existing inequality annuls hope for the poor. The 1996 UN Human Development Index report states that in the last 40 years the richest 20% of people have seen the differential between themselves and the poorest 20% double: where in the 1950s the richest one-fifth of humanity received 30 times as much as the poorest fifth, this has now increased to 60 times as much. And this outcome occurred even while a potential alternative - however malign - still to some degree inhibited a capitalism as yet unsure of its 'ultimate' triumph. The governance of the poor countries has ceased to rest with their nominal leaders, and has increasingly been passed over to Western financial institutions, and those transnational entities for whom the preservation of Western dominance is axiomatic. Their talk of poverty abatement, structural adjustment, their touting of economic success stories - once Brazil, now New Zealand, once even Nigeria, now Thailand - are calculated to conceal the real purpose of the 'integrated world economy', which is the supranational management of worsening inequality. Those who control the vehicles of this noble endeavour often speak of themselves as if they were helpless functionaries, compelled to comply with higher laws, as if they were merely 'carrying out orders', were sacerdotal intermediaries of a providential distribution of human destinies. They don't put it quite like this. They invoke economic realities, the necessities of the market, as though these things were aspects of universal natural laws. 'The market is our master,' proclaims Michael Heseltine. In a more spiritual age, this would have been called idolatry. It is now considered both improper and unthinkable that anyone should try to stand in the way of 'the global economy', as it rolls over the world, crushing ancient patterns of living, destroying benign symbiosis between resource base and humanity, breaking modest ways of answering need, evicting people from forests, subsistence agriculture, forcing them from the security of traditional settlements, and sweeping them up in vast involuntary migrations to a single destination - the stifling, loveless embrace of the universal market. People object in vain that the global free market is not even what its defenders and proponents claim for it. It is not even free. Only goods and capital are permitted to move unhindered around the globe, while people and labour are not. Free markets, captive people. When they try to escape from the ghettoes, the enclosures, the camps, the kraals, the homelands, the free trade zones - which are also sometimes graced by the term 'countries' -in which they are confined, they are called economic migrants and sent home. Home to the places where the regimes, the ruling elites, the emissaries and representatives of a misshapen global unification, have been suborned to ensure that the real flow of wealth is maintained from poor to rich; at a rate which no one really knows - some say it reaches at least $400 billion annually, when terms of trade, transfer pricing within transnational companies, usurious debt and the brain drain, and all the multiple forms of dispossession dreamed up by the ideology of political economy are all taken into account. And here is an interesting paradox. The West - the official West, that is - talks endlessly about its abhorrence of racism. All European countries, the US, Canada and Australia have enshrined this sacred principle in legislation of various kinds. But how is that racism to be kept at bay in the civilised Western heartlands? Only by perpetual economic growth and expansion, which alone will keep the people of the West from those melancholic distractions which convulsed Europe earlier this century, from that racism which animated centuries of imperialism in the centuries that preceded it. And how is that growth and expansion to be assured? Why, as it always has been: by the exploitation of primary commodities and the resources of others, by control of trade, by the exploitation of workers on plantations, in agribusiness and on industrial estates, in the spreading sweatshops of the cities, in the infernal workshops, forges and factories in the towns and cities of the South. Only this way can the rich countries remain rich enough to keep their fractious and insecure peoples from turning against marginalised and threatened minorities. In other words, the official detestation of racism at home can be given practical shape only by practising it more an more intensively abroad. This is how the age of imperialism has survived all the liberation movements and the struggles for freedom from colonialism. Organised, institutionalised hypocrisy has woven an elaborate fabric of concealment to shroud the real relationships between North and South; any discussion of which is rigidly excluded from mainstream political discussion in the West. This is why we, in the popular imagination, figure primarily as givers of aid, as rescuers, as deliverers, as bestowers of assistance, instruction and wisdom to a poor, suffering, wasting Third World. The distaste for racism in the West is merely another luxury of privilege, paid for by turning over lands of Brazil to vast agribusiness enclosures, and sending the people to squat in the violent suburbs of Nova Iguacu in Rio and the favelas of Sao Paulo; by the million or more young women who have entered the garments industry, where they receive less than $1 for a 14-hour day for the privilege of providing us with the amenity of cheap clothing; by the continued transfer of produce and treasures of most of the countries of Africa at knock-down prices to their former political masters. Racism abroad to serve a non- racial society at home; what a formidable, cunningly wrought construct it is. In the first half of July 1996, India, for instance, figured in the so-called quality press and television of Britain, not because of the energy, endurance and heroism of its poor in their efforts to survive, but because there was a stampede at a Hindu shrine in Madhya Pradesh, because India will have the largest number of people with HIV in the world within the next five years, because there was another atrocity against low-caste labourers in Bihar, because of government corruption and the usual floods and excesses of nature which come with every monsoon. The relationships in a globalised world are the object of rigorous and tightly- controlled misrepresentation. It is the work of internationalists to unmask this, to celebrate the achievements, the struggles and the creativity of the poor, to recognise our common humanity and the equal rights of all peoples of the world to develop in dignity, sufficiency and security. Dignity, sufficiency and security. Potent words, for these are the elements of a noble, realisable project of internationalism. It is what a real 'Commonwealth' might have looked like, after the dissolution of empire, if uneven and lopsided 'development' had not been the objective of the former imperial power. Such a version of internationalism must be snuffed out by globalisation, which depends for its 'success' precisely on the avoidance of dignity, sufficiency and security. It requires that the people of the world should aspire to more and not to sufficiency, because this alone will feed the engines of perpetual economic expansionism. It requires that people remain prey to constant insecurity, because this is guaranteed to set them against one another in an ever fiercer competitive struggle to survive. Globalisation is inherently unstable and violent; and that even before it starts to strike against the limits of the earth's resource base. The most urgent task is to retrieve internationalism from globalisation - this caricature and distortion of a coming together of global humanity. Globalisation presses a whole planet into the service of a system that has long since outlived its usefulness in serving us, and indeed, frequently no longer even pretends to do so: autonomous, triumphant, while we anxiously await news of the health of the economy, the weakness or vitality of markets recovering from a bout of nerves or a spectacular fall, their buoyancy or depression, as though the market were a perpetually ailing monarch, whose well-being is of paramount concern to his subjects; while all around us, the people perish. And not only in the poor countries. The UN Human Development Index states that Canada and the USA occupy the first two places in the world. If the USA is presented as the goal and summit of human achievement, with its 20,000 annual shotgun murders, its million prisoners in jail, its 28 million recorded crimes, its addicted, obsessive and isolated humanity, as one person in three lives alone, as well as its prodigality and waste, its loss of cohesion and community, its extremist individualism, and pathological inability to understand all the things that people can and must do together if the world is not to perish - well, if the USA is the object of universal aspiration, then we have lost even the capacity to formulate a vision of what a decent society might look like. Disengagement, self-reliance, a celebration of the local and of our capacity to answer our needs for ourselves and each other; breaking the dependency - not on welfare, but on a global market - so that our daily bread no longer comes courtesy of transnational conglomerates, and we are not compelled to drink value- added chemicalised beverages because there is no safe drinking water. The satisfaction of all our needs has been enclosed and held captive, precisely by those 'globalised' monopolistic interests which promote themselves as representing free markets. We are then bidden to bless our unfreedoms as the highest liberty. The language of internationalism has been plundered and distorted for alien purposes. The meaning of words has also been polluted, contaminated by the effluent of hyperactive and insomniac media interests; the resulting incoherence ensures that we can scarcely perceive the difference between human and economic well- being, between the needs of people and the necessities of economic growth. Global integration means a more systematic abuse of people and their resource base all over the world. For the privileged it means more waste, excess and superfluities while basic needs remain unanswered; for the poor a more total dispossession of livelihood and life. Internationalism is a rescue mission of all the people of the world from a globalisation that represents nothing less than the usurping of the whole of creation by capitalism. - Third World Network Features About the writer: Jeremy Seabrook is a freelance journalist and author based in London. For more information, please contact: Third World Network 228, Macalister Road, 10400 Penang, Malaysia. Email: twn@igc.apc.org; twnpen@twn.po.my Tel: (+604)2293511,2293612 & 2293713; Fax: (+604)2298106 & 2264505 From jagdish at igc.apc.org Wed Sep 11 17:38:16 1996 From: jagdish at igc.apc.org (Jagdish Parikh) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 08:38:16 +0000 Subject: [asia-apec 106] (Fwd) - APEC - Will Trade be Relegated to the Old Backburner? Message-ID: <199609111244.FAA03191@igc3.igc.apc.org> ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- From: contours@pg.frlht.ernet.in Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 15:10:42 Organization: CONTOURS Bangalore. APEC : Will trade be relegated to the old backburner? (The Apec agenda has always been dominated by talks on free trade, but as Johanna Son of Inter Press Service writes, the Pacific region is coming increasingly under a green spotlight.) When government officials and economists talk about the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, they mostly discuss how to tear down economic barriers among the group's 18-members and promote growth. Indeed free-trade jargon has dominated Apec conferences in the last four years, highlighted by its goal of a tariff-free economic zone by the year 2020. But in the face of repeated criticisms from environmental activists concerned about the preoccupation with trade-related issues, as well as by its own realisation, the group now acknowledges the need for environmental priorities on its long-term agenda `so as to ensure that the region's economic prosperity is sustainable'. To illustrate Apec's concern about the environment, officials held recently a ministerial meeting on sustainable development - the first of its kind in the region. "The Asia-Pacific region's fast expanding population and rapid economic growth are forecast to sharply increase the demand for food and energy and the pressures on the environment," said a declaration issued by Apec ministers at the end of the two-day meeting in Manila. The ministers, meeting ahead of the Apec Summit in November, noted that with fast growth, many cities are becoming more polluted, congested, and that quality of life may soon be threatened. Addressing the meeting, Philippine President Fidel Ramos said: "We have agreed that the environment should not be sacrificed on the express train of economic growth." Philippine environment secretary Victor Ramos said there is a realisation that "there is no place for lone rangers when it comes to the environment in the Asia-Pacific, because one country's power production can become acid rain the next country." Formed in 1989 as a loose forum for economic cooperation and trade and investment ties, Apec has come under fire from Asian members that find its aim of helping poorer nations has taken a back seat to richer nations' agenda of free trade. The member economies of Apec, which bridges North America and Asia-Pacific, account for more than 56 per cent of global output and more than 46 per cent of world trade in goods. Apec groups Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico. New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and the United States. Activists say discussions of greener, more people-friendly brand of free trade may just remain talk. "Apec is usually rick in rhetoric but if you look closer, the contents of its commitments are not that substantive. It's strong in words, but implementing agreements are very weak," said Horacio Morales of the Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement. Still, officials say getting recognition is a crucial step forward. "The acceptance of the concept of sustainable development by Apec ministers is a first step," says Philippine environment undersecretary Delfin Ganapin. Officials added that Asia-Pacific economies must do more to make their cities more inhabitable by tackling problems like air and water pollution, lack of sanitation and traffic congestion. They agreed that Apec economies must clean up the marine environment, particularly the Pacific Ocean. "It makes economic sense to preserve the environment, especially in a world where the market itself is starting to dictate that firms and farms use environment-friendly processes," says economic planning secretary Cielito Habito. At the end of the meeting, the ministers agreed that green strategies would be pursued not by seeking huge aid funds but by exploring "innovative strategies like pollution charges and other green fees". The Philippines, this year's Apec chair, says there is a need to find "the proper balance between economy and environment" at a time when the race to be competitive business hubs could put pressure on pulling down environmental and labor standards. In a report called `Apec and the Philippines,' the government urged Apec economies to draft their own consistent rules on the environment to guide new investments. The report also reflected Manila's optimism: "Only in this way can economic growth be reconciled with sustainable development and can the country lay claim to being the first `green tiger'." At an Apec meeting, in June, development experts urged members to study the introduction of environment and natural resources accounting into national income accounts, and the use of market-based measures like fees for exploiting environmental resources. The experts advised Apec economies to price the use of their natural resources by their true value, and to look beyond growth rates and locus on environment and social costs. For instance, gross domestic product growth rates would most likely fall if national income accounts reflected environmental degradation. But some Apec members may worry about losing comparative advantage - at least in the short term - as a result of higher environmental standards or environmental pricing. Asian nations are wary of linking trade with green issues, thinking it may be a disguised form of protectionism. Ganapin agreed that Apec's member economies are in varying stages of development. For instance, Japan's gross national product per capita is $19,970 compared to Indonesia's $320. However, all Apec economies, he said, are keen on protecting their environment while pursuing growth strategies: "What we would like to do is close the gap, both in terms of the economy and environment, within Apec." The UNDP had also pushed for Apec's greater focus on environment issues, urging the forum to continue efforts to "minimise waste, utilise raw materials and energy more efficiently to eliminate toxic raw materials and to reduce impacts along the entire life cycle." Asian Age, Bombay 26 August 1996 From steve at nautilus.org Thu Sep 12 03:34:21 1996 From: steve at nautilus.org (Steve Freedkin, Managing Director) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 11:34:21 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 107] Re: Globalization or Internationalism? Message-ID: <3.0b16.32.19960911113421.00694410@nautilus.org> Hello -- I would appreciate if you would change the subscription address for us on your list. Instead of nautilus@nautilus.org, please make it: LZarsky@nautilus.org At 08:55 AM 9/11/96 -0800, you wrote: > >INTERNATIONALISM VERSUS GLOBALIZATION > >While internationalism would celebrate the achievements, struggles and >creativity of the poor, and the equal rights of all peoples of the >world to develop in dignity, sufficiency and security, globalisation >and global capitalism requires the humiliation of hundreds of millions >of people and keeping them in constant insecurity, pitting them >against one another in a competitive struggle for survival. > >By Jeremy Seabrook Third World Network Features > >We are all globalisers now. The insistence on globalisation has >eclipsed and usurped internationalism; indeed sometimes masquerades as >if it were the same thing. It is time to rescue what internationalists >have always worked for from the clutches of a rapaciously expansive >and ultimately, colonising, globalisation. > > We hear the arguments daily from the holders of power; the very >fatalism with which they speak about the inevitability, the >irreversibility of globalisation, suggests they are aware that control >over events is slipping through their fingers. The rhetoric becomes >more and more desperate: We must compete in an increasingly integrated >world. We must educate and train our people for the challenge of the >21st century. We have to take on the Asian tigers and beat them at >their own game. (Of course, it was our game originally, which is why >we find it so disconcerting when they beat us. What's more, it isn't a >game; it's deadly serious, particularly for the losers, the people of >those countries prematurely used up by work and want, and whose >children are dying daily from avoidable sickness and malnutrition.) > > Globalisation then, means the absorption of all the countries of >the world into a single economic entity: a bleak vision of a >choiceless future, in which 'choice' nevertheless figures so >prominently. > > Internationalists spoke of other forms of integration, more >harmonious, less violent, more just, long before the apostles of >globalisation began promoting their lurid vision of a whole world >refashioned in the image of the universal market-place, from every >platform, at every conference, at every international gathering, in >every transnational meeting- place on earth. That other version of >integration required only that the powerless unite, that the >disadvantaged combine in order to resist and make common cause against >what William Morris 100 years ago referred to as 'the iron rule of the >World-Market'. > > The fading of that internationalism is the distant, and perhaps >most disastrous, consequence of the death of the Soviet Union. It is >not the loss of the ideology of Communism that has cancelled hope for >the poor: it is rather the absence of any check upon the florid and >aggressive necessities of unchecked capitalism. Whenever poverty and >inequality are 're-discovered' by the media, this is no longer >accompanied by a sense of moral outrage. These are now simply facts of >life. > > Much of the internationalism which animated the early labour >movement has now declined into a desultory and ritualistic exchange of >fraternal greetings on special occasions; organised labour having >been, for the main part, enlisted in the grisly crusade of >'integrating' unequal partners into an interdependent world. For >interdependence between unequals means the institutionalising of >subordination. > > In this sense, the exalted project of 'globalisation' is yet >another refuge for racism, because the majority of the world's poor >are non-white, and the rich white or Japanese. The freezing of >relationships of existing inequality annuls hope for the poor. The >1996 UN Human Development Index report states that in the last 40 >years the richest 20% of people have seen the differential between >themselves and the poorest 20% double: where in the 1950s the richest >one-fifth of humanity received 30 times as much as the poorest fifth, >this has now increased to 60 times as much. And this outcome occurred >even while a potential alternative - however malign - still to some >degree inhibited a capitalism as yet unsure of its 'ultimate' triumph. > > The governance of the poor countries has ceased to rest with their >nominal leaders, and has increasingly been passed over to Western >financial institutions, and those transnational entities for whom the >preservation of Western dominance is axiomatic. Their talk of poverty >abatement, structural adjustment, their touting of economic success >stories - once Brazil, now New Zealand, once even Nigeria, now >Thailand - are calculated to conceal the real purpose of the >'integrated world economy', which is the supranational management of >worsening inequality. > > Those who control the vehicles of this noble endeavour often speak >of themselves as if they were helpless functionaries, compelled to >comply with higher laws, as if they were merely 'carrying out orders', >were sacerdotal intermediaries of a providential distribution of human >destinies. They don't put it quite like this. They invoke economic >realities, the necessities of the market, as though these things were >aspects of universal natural laws. 'The market is our master,' >proclaims Michael Heseltine. In a more spiritual age, this would have >been called idolatry. > > It is now considered both improper and unthinkable that anyone >should try to stand in the way of 'the global economy', as it rolls >over the world, crushing ancient patterns of living, destroying benign >symbiosis between resource base and humanity, breaking modest ways of >answering need, evicting people from forests, subsistence agriculture, >forcing them from the security of traditional settlements, and >sweeping them up in vast involuntary migrations to a single >destination - the stifling, loveless embrace of the universal market. > > People object in vain that the global free market is not even what >its defenders and proponents claim for it. It is not even free. Only >goods and capital are permitted to move unhindered around the globe, >while people and labour are not. Free markets, captive people. When >they try to escape from the ghettoes, the enclosures, the camps, the >kraals, the homelands, the free trade zones - which are also sometimes >graced by the term 'countries' -in which they are confined, they are >called economic migrants and sent home. > > Home to the places where the regimes, the ruling elites, the >emissaries and representatives of a misshapen global unification, have >been suborned to ensure that the real flow of wealth is maintained >from poor to rich; at a rate which no one really knows - some say it >reaches at least $400 billion annually, when terms of trade, transfer >pricing within transnational companies, usurious debt and the brain >drain, and all the multiple forms of dispossession dreamed up by the >ideology of political economy are all taken into account. > > And here is an interesting paradox. The West - the official West, >that is - talks endlessly about its abhorrence of racism. All European >countries, the US, Canada and Australia have enshrined this sacred >principle in legislation of various kinds. But how is that racism to >be kept at bay in the civilised Western heartlands? Only by perpetual >economic growth and expansion, which alone will keep the people of the >West from those melancholic distractions which convulsed Europe >earlier this century, from that racism which animated centuries of >imperialism in the centuries that preceded it. > > And how is that growth and expansion to be assured? Why, as it >always has been: by the exploitation of primary commodities and the >resources of others, by control of trade, by the exploitation of >workers on plantations, in agribusiness and on industrial estates, in >the spreading sweatshops of the cities, in the infernal workshops, >forges and factories in the towns and cities of the South. Only this >way can the rich countries remain rich enough to keep their fractious >and insecure peoples from turning against marginalised and threatened >minorities. > > In other words, the official detestation of racism at home can be >given practical shape only by practising it more an more intensively >abroad. This is how the age of imperialism has survived all the >liberation movements and the struggles for freedom from colonialism. >Organised, institutionalised hypocrisy has woven an elaborate fabric >of concealment to shroud the real relationships between North and >South; any discussion of which is rigidly excluded from mainstream >political discussion in the West. This is why we, in the popular >imagination, figure primarily as givers of aid, as rescuers, as >deliverers, as bestowers of assistance, instruction and wisdom to a >poor, suffering, wasting Third World. > > The distaste for racism in the West is merely another luxury of >privilege, paid for by turning over lands of Brazil to vast >agribusiness enclosures, and sending the people to squat in the >violent suburbs of Nova Iguacu in Rio and the favelas of Sao Paulo; by >the million or more young women who have entered the garments >industry, where they receive less than $1 for a 14-hour day for the >privilege of providing us with the amenity of cheap clothing; by the >continued transfer of produce and treasures of most of the countries >of Africa at knock-down prices to their former political masters. >Racism abroad to serve a non- racial society at home; what a >formidable, cunningly wrought construct it is. > > In the first half of July 1996, India, for instance, figured in the >so-called quality press and television of Britain, not because of the >energy, endurance and heroism of its poor in their efforts to survive, >but because there was a stampede at a Hindu shrine in Madhya Pradesh, >because India will have the largest number of people with HIV in the >world within the next five years, because there was another atrocity >against low-caste labourers in Bihar, because of government corruption >and the usual floods and excesses of nature which come with every >monsoon. The relationships in a globalised world are the object of >rigorous and tightly- controlled misrepresentation. It is the work of >internationalists to unmask this, to celebrate the achievements, the >struggles and the creativity of the poor, to recognise our common >humanity and the equal rights of all peoples of the world to develop >in dignity, sufficiency and security. > > Dignity, sufficiency and security. Potent words, for these are >the elements of a noble, realisable project of internationalism. It is >what a real 'Commonwealth' might have looked like, after the >dissolution of empire, if uneven and lopsided 'development' had not >been the objective of the former imperial power. Such a version of >internationalism must be snuffed out by globalisation, which depends >for its 'success' precisely on the avoidance of dignity, sufficiency >and security. > > It requires that the people of the world should aspire to more and >not to sufficiency, because this alone will feed the engines of >perpetual economic expansionism. It requires that people remain prey >to constant insecurity, because this is guaranteed to set them against >one another in an ever fiercer competitive struggle to survive. > > Globalisation is inherently unstable and violent; and that even >before it starts to strike against the limits of the earth's resource >base. The most urgent task is to retrieve internationalism from >globalisation - this caricature and distortion of a coming together of >global humanity. > > Globalisation presses a whole planet into the service of a system >that has long since outlived its usefulness in serving us, and indeed, >frequently no longer even pretends to do so: autonomous, triumphant, >while we anxiously await news of the health of the economy, the >weakness or vitality of markets recovering from a bout of nerves or a >spectacular fall, their buoyancy or depression, as though the market >were a perpetually ailing monarch, whose well-being is of paramount >concern to his subjects; while all around us, the people perish. > > And not only in the poor countries. The UN Human Development Index >states that Canada and the USA occupy the first two places in the >world. If the USA is presented as the goal and summit of human >achievement, with its 20,000 annual shotgun murders, its million >prisoners in jail, its 28 million recorded crimes, its addicted, >obsessive and isolated humanity, as one person in three lives alone, >as well as its prodigality and waste, its loss of cohesion and >community, its extremist individualism, and pathological inability to >understand all the things that people can and must do together if the >world is not to perish - well, if the USA is the object of universal >aspiration, then we have lost even the capacity to formulate a vision >of what a decent society might look like. > > Disengagement, self-reliance, a celebration of the local and of our >capacity to answer our needs for ourselves and each other; breaking >the dependency - not on welfare, but on a global market - so that our >daily bread no longer comes courtesy of transnational conglomerates, >and we are not compelled to drink value- added chemicalised beverages >because there is no safe drinking water. The satisfaction of all our >needs has been enclosed and held captive, precisely by those >'globalised' monopolistic interests which promote themselves as >representing free markets. We are then bidden to bless our unfreedoms >as the highest liberty. > > The language of internationalism has been plundered and distorted >for alien purposes. The meaning of words has also been polluted, >contaminated by the effluent of hyperactive and insomniac media >interests; the resulting incoherence ensures that we can scarcely >perceive the difference between human and economic well- being, >between the needs of people and the necessities of economic growth. > > Global integration means a more systematic abuse of people and >their resource base all over the world. For the privileged it means >more waste, excess and superfluities while basic needs remain >unanswered; for the poor a more total dispossession of livelihood and >life. Internationalism is a rescue mission of all the people of the >world from a globalisation that represents nothing less than the >usurping of the whole of creation by capitalism. - Third World Network >Features > >About the writer: Jeremy Seabrook is a freelance journalist and author >based in London. > >For more information, please contact: Third World Network 228, >Macalister Road, 10400 Penang, Malaysia. Email: twn@igc.apc.org; >twnpen@twn.po.my Tel: (+604)2293511,2293612 & 2293713; Fax: >(+604)2298106 & 2264505 > > > Steve Freedkin ====================================================================== PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW EMAIL ADDRESSES: @nautilus.org where is one of the following: LZarsky, PHayes, Huntley, JHunter, NKraft, SFreedkin or Steve, publications, NAPSNet, newsletter, APRENet, or Nautilus (gen. info) ====================================================================== Managing Director | Steve@nautilus.org The Nautilus Institute | 1831 Second Street for Security and Sustainable Development | Berkeley, CA 94710-1902 Tel. 510/204-9296 * Fax 510/204-9298 | USA ====================================================================== From daga at HK.Super.NET Thu Sep 12 19:56:28 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 18:56:28 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 108] HK groups meeting, 13 Sept. Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960912185110.1b5743cc@is1.hk.super.net> Friends, tomorrow, Friday the 13th, regional and local groups will be meeting by 3:00 pm at the CCA conference room with representatives of the Manila People's Forum on APEC (MPFA) -- Walden Bello (chair of the International Convenors' Committee) and June Rodriguez (co-cordinator of the Philippine Hosting Committee). Proposed agenda is as follows: 1. Update on MPFA preparations 2. Update on HK-MPFA media team activities 3. Discussion on the press conference for HK and wire services on 14 Sept 4. Update/assessment of asia-apec electronic conference 5. Other organizational and administrative matters On Saturday (14 Sept.) at 3 pm, Horacio "Boy" Morales (chair of the Philippine Hosting Committee) and Lee Cheuk Yan (Hong Kong Legislative Councillor and General Secretary of the HK Confederation of Trade Unions) will join Walden and June in a press conference that will critique the APEC member economies' (with particular reference to Hong Kong/China) commitment to free trade. Messages that can be received by 3 pm Friday, Hong Kong time, may be posted on this public conference, or private mail care of . Thank you. mario mapanao ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Documentation for Action Groups in Asia (DAGA) 96, 2nd District, Pak Tin Village Mei Tin Road, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong Tel : (852) 2691 6391/ 2691 1068 ext 54 Fax: (852) 2697 1912 E-mail: daga@hk.super.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org Fri Sep 13 23:04:56 1996 From: RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org (RVerzola) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 06:04:56 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 109] Posting from DAWN (part 2 of 2) Message-ID: <6b8_9609130702@phil.gn.apc.org> (con't) affected by increases in the prices of commodities and inflation that resulted from drastic fiscal and monetary policy shifts, when compared to their rural counterparts. Moreover, the massive forcible eviction of long-time urban pioneers have been ongoing in many places to pave the way for factories and infrastructure facilities that are constructed in support of free trade. In defence of Southern women's interests The complications and increased hardships brought about by globalization on the lives and aspirations of poor Southern women and their families and communities, make it difficult for anyone to see real winners among them. If globalization is to work for the interest of the poor, the question "who benefits?" cannot be left for states, multilateral agencies and TNCs to answer. The agents of globalization will say women have been gainers because the labor market that had been curved out of export growth have been filled predominantly by women workers (flexible labor, migrant labor, subcontracted labor). But what kind and conditions of work, we need ask. Moreover, what real impact has this kind of work had on gender relations and gender equity questions even just within the realm of production - labor segmentation, wages, employment conditions? The agents of globalization will, further, say that women, their families and communities who had been displaced from traditional productive work have been absorbed into other jobs or given support to cultivate non-traditional export crops. They are, therefore, gainers. But what we see are women being displaced not just from productive work but from reproductive, life sustaining activities, as well. For poor Southern women, there is a reproduction-production continuum in their daily lives. Women work to produce and work some more to take care of their families. What good would a few more cents a day do if these are not even enough for basic needs that are now to be bought because they could no longer be freely acquired from the privatised surroundings? The real voice of poor women and men - through the institutions of civil society - will need to be heard and defended. One way to do this is to ensure that women's groups are able to participate in advocacy and action around policy debates on trade and development, at the international, regional and national levels. Very often women are left out of public consultations mainly because civil society institutions and processes are themselves traditionally controlled by "compacts of male power". Moreover women's inability to participate in substantive discussions around issues and perspective on globalization, even on occasions they are invited to, reflect an immediate need for enabling processes and information that would make women better analyse the link between their micro realities and globalization. Globalization & poor women in East/South East Asia Rural poor women in East/South East Asia have been impacted by processes of globalization in a number of ways. Foremost among these is the increased pressure on poor women to find new, often more cumbersome, ways of negotiating for their family's entitlements. As rural families are displaced by land conversions, environmental resources are depleted in the name of profits, and traditional livelihoods are destroyed and taken over by export-oriented production - all of which aggravate problems associated with access and control of resources for household maintenance - women's reproductive functions are made more difficult. These new factors increase the pressures and complicate conditions that have been generated by persistent problems of low income, inadequate basic services, and unchecked social prejudices against women, including the cultural tolerance of domestic violence. Poor rural women who have been eased out of agriculture have been absorbed into "women specific/female prone work" a phenomenon that has emerged out of NIE strategies of export competitiveness. This type of work is characterised by low pay, labor intensiveness, and reliance on low skills & technological know-how. Assembly-line work and its extension, namely, sub- contracted outwork, are two sectors whose engines of production and profit have been fuelled by women's labor or female prone work. Eviota (1995) speaks of the problem of Asian women's de- skilling resulting from their concentration in low skill production work. Added to this is the problem of vulnerability of women's employment as seen in the disappearance of certain export-oriented companies and their transfer to another NIE country where labor and labor and wage policies are more favorable to increased to increased profit. Moreover, Eviota mentions the spread of automation and the reliance of new technology on male work, the combined impact of which is to ultimately make Asian women's work redundant. Globalization has encouraged the growth of labor migration between the countries of East/South East Asia, and with this the emergence and incrased importance of 'labor exproting' and labor importing' economies. In Asia, the demand for highly skilled workers are met by white male expatriates while that for manual workers, by Asian women contract workers. Intra-regional trading of women domestic workers, mainly coming from the Philippines, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia has reached significant proportion and now constitutes a big industry in the region (APDC, 1988; 1994). Women migrant workers were found to engage in repeat or serial migration, extending or obtaining new contracts even before current contracts expire. While the costs of labor migration are high for the migrants and their families - discrimination, absence of adequate labor protection, illegal recruitment, low wages, and vulnerability to physical and sexual abuse, even death, - massive unemployment and underemployment in their home economies push many more women to migrate every year. The development of tourism, retail trade, airline/travel and the entertainment industries in many countries of East/South East Asia is linked to the demands of, and the opportunities opened up by, globalization. Consumerism and travel for recreation purposes characterise the lifestyle and value of capitalist accumulation and competition. High and upper-middle class recipients of the benefits of economic growth who have disposable incomes (North and South) visit Asian countries to enjoy the 'world of the exotic and the enticing'. Closely linked to these industries is a well established subterranean enterprise of domestic prostitution and transnational trafficking in Asian women. It is estimated that every year close to 1 million children, mostly girls in Asia, are forced into prostitution (HDR 1996). Just as the link between growth and improvement in human development is never automatic, so is that between growth and gender development and empowerment. The latest HRD (1996) revealed that certain high and medium growth countries, in fact, posted low values in their gender development indicators (GDI) and/or gender empowerment measures (GEM) while countries that posted low GDP ratings earned high values in their GDI and/or GEM. Singapore and Korea are examples of countries where women's human development has been enhanced by growth but where women continue to be 'politically and socially managed' by men. Concluding remarks The region of East/South East Asia contains in a nutshell all of the intricacies, complexities and contradictions spawned by the process of globalization - uneven growth, poverty amidst affluence, winners and losers, accumulation and dislocations. The APEC, the leading mechanism for free trade in the region, is itself a microcosm of the interplay of dynamics between economically affluent countries and economically disadvantaged economies; between Southern NICs, NIEs, and Economies in Transition; and between states and TNCs. The "eye of the storm" in as far as globalization is concerned, is definitely in the East/South East Asian region. In terms of women's development and empowerment, there are statistics to show (for instance, HRD 1996) that economic growth per se does not lead to greater gender equality and equity. And while Asian women's employment had expanded as a result of job creation linked to trade growth, more recent studies indicate that for some countries, such as the Philippines, growth through a liberalised economy had not resulted to more jobs (see, for instance, "1996 Mid-Year Economic Trends and Assessment" by R. B. Guzman, July 1996). Fears about Asian women's work eventually ending up as "redundant" in the face of advancement in technology and adjustments in labor policies by TNCs, have been raised (see, for instance, Eviota, 1995). When this happens (and it may already be happening), a further increase in the volume of intra-regional trading of documented and undocumented female labor migration will probably follow. Quite bewildering is the fact that up to this time of the Manila APEC Summit, member countries had consistently refused to recognise the existence and contribution of "migrant workers" in their growing economies. Instead, they are preoccupied with concerns about "human resources development" for and in the service of the demands of investments, production and trade. Finally dramatic transformations are taking place at the level of traditional habitats, ecosystems, communities, and families that result from rapid economic restructuring and policy changes. Poor Asian women who are nurturers of families and carers of community needs, together with men, children and the youth, are being uprooted and thrown into an existence of increased difficulties and new uncertainties, all in a cataclysmic way. Origin: A-team, Antipolo, Rizal (6:751/401.266) From RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org Fri Sep 13 23:04:09 1996 From: RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org (RVerzola) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 06:04:09 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 110] Posting from DAWN (part 1 of 2) Message-ID: <6b7_9609130702@phil.gn.apc.org> Excerpted from: "Background paper for AGRA-EAST Workshop on Women and Globalization of the Economy: Gendered Impact on East/Southeast Asia" by Josefa S. Francisco. Full text can be obtained from Oxfam-UKI-Philippines (oxfam-uki@phil.gn.apc.org) or from DAWN-Southeast Asia (A-Team@phil.gn.apc.org). Globalization and the global political economy For DAWN (the south-based network, Development Alternatives with Women of the New Era), many of the issues and problems in the South that are now associated with new forms of globalizing forces are but "continuations from the past - i.e. manifestations of basic flaws in a global economic process that continues to reproduce great and growing inequalities of wealth and income within and between countries" (The DAWN Debates on Alternative Development, 1995) These are: (1) crisis of basic livelihoods, food and income insecurity (2) unemployment (3) environmental degradation (4) class/caste/racial/and gender violence (5) inadequacy and re-privatization of public services essential to human reproduction (6) increased burdens on women and (7) reduced entitlements of resources and legitimacy. However the manifestations and implications of these age-old problems are now being felt with increased intensity and in more varied ways, amidst an intricate web of new features and conditions that have been spawned by bewildering processes of economic restructuring that had touching all spheres of life in the current decade. These include: (1) The speed and range of the globalization of economy, politics and culture. New technological revolutions in microelectronics and biotechnology are changing labor processes, altering relations of production and distribution, feminizing some sectors of the labor force, and leading to a hitherto unprecedented globalization of the production and economic power of TNCs. Female labor is being used more flexibly and women workers are more mobile than they have ever been before. (2) Transformations in global trade and finance that increased the flows of global capital many fold and rendered global and national monetary systems volatile and difficult to manage. This instability has been used to further justify fiscal stringency and press for greater exports. (3) Uneven processes of globalization are reshaping traditional economic and political alignments among countries. New trade and economic zones, and growth poles are emerging. The geographic South, never a very unified entity, has fragmented; its erstwhile members now include some of the fastest growing economies as well as some of the slowest in the world; with consequent divergences in interests and concerns. Consequently, the conditions women face in different parts of the South vary widely, so do their needs and concerns. (4) The role of the state as an economic agent guiding economic activity has been considerably undermined by processes of economic globalization; by the collapse of the Soviet bloc; and by the relentless ideological assault of the Bretton Woods Institutions (BWI). However, the repressive capacity of the state in much of the South has not been weakened; governments have often responded quite ruthlessly to any opposition to globalization. (5) The world armaments industries have increasingly turned their attention to the South. Further, a growing subterranean economy based on narcotics, weapons, money-laundering has altered the political culture of a number of countries; its fingerprints can be seen in many recent outbreaks of localised wars ad violence. The majority of the victims (and refugees) of such violence are women and children. (6) Of immense concern to women is the resurgence of patriarchal forces globally and locally, in the guise of religious fundamentalism and cultural nationalism. (7) its flip-side is the globalization of culture made possible through new communications technology, and a growing hegemony of different forms of media, affecting tastes, consumption patterns, aspirations, and gender relations in far corners of the world. The objectification of women's bodies and female sexuality is becoming a universal phenomenon. Globalization and the crisis of development in the South Contrary to the overzealous and premature claims by proponents of neo-classical liberalism, the global experimentation on free market economics has not been as successful in reducing unemployment, raising incomes, and alleviating poverty in the South. The latest UNDP report on World Human Development (1996) reveals that even among regions of the South that are experiencing growth, such as South East Asia, disturbing levels of poverty and serious food, income, habitat, health, sanitation and nutritional problems, persist. In describing the South, the concepts of 'winners' and 'losers' are now part of the standard language of global development. 'Winners" refer to economies in the geographic South that have emerged/are emerging as strong competitors in the global market. 'Losers', on the other hand, are not confined to national economies alone, but include a broader range of economic sectors, groups of people, or regions within countries, that have become/remained poor, marginalised or vulnerable precisely because they have been impacted negatively by structural and policy shifts related to globalization. Poor southern women, in particular, have been documented as having generally 'lost out' in the rapid transformations of communities and sectors brought about by globalization (see Shiva, 1992; LeQuesne, 1996; Sen, forthcoming). 'Losers' may be found within and among 'winners', such as in the case of impoverished sub-region of South Asia which is a member of the fastest growing, most economically dynamic region in the world; or the cases of Thailand, Indonesia and Philippines (countries experiencing impressive to moderate growth), where a significant proportion of the population still live in poverty. Another way to look at the impact of globalization on the South is through the lens of 'costs'. Various documentations reveal that Southern economies that have been able to achieve/are achieving 'growth' are having to contend with problems made more serious or newly spawned by structural adjustments and policy shifts in their macro-economic management, e.g food security, brain-drain and de-skilling from labor migration, environmental degradation, trafficking in women, child labor, inflation, increase in the price of commodities, high interest rates, to name a few. Rather than help ease poverty, these tend to aggravate what, in the first place, are already serious and massive problems that make life difficult for the poor. Many of these issues invariably point to the concern for the long-term sustainability of current growth-oriented economic management and restructuring. The uncertainties, complexities and contradictions generated on the South by new processes and mechanisms of modern-day globalization challenge us to take stock of the dynamic transformations taking place - in particular, to understand how poor women and men in various habitats/ecosystems, ethnicities, occupational categories, and religious groups, are negatively impacted, as rapid economic transformations at the community, society, state, regional, and global levels impinge upon their lives and destinies. Globalization and poor women in the South There are two ways to look at poor women in the South and understand how their lives are linked to globalization. One is to view them from the agenda and demands of global trade; the other, from the perspective of defending women's basic interests and rights. A perspective that carries the full agenda of globalization views the empowerment of poor women in the South primarily and, almost exclusively, in relation to free markets and economic efficiency and growth (TWN, 1995). Enhancing women's participation in market-driven economic activities, through the provision of credit schemes and skills training, is today a major WB & ADB strategy in promoting 'women's rights' in poor countries (e.g. Vietnam, Cambodia, Philippines). While this represents a marked shift away from the previous viewing that tied poor women down to token welfaristic plans and grand population control programmes, the frame remains limited and limiting. The concern for women's empowerment in this instance boils down to an opportunistic means for promoting a free market economy, rather than ensuring that economic policies are sensitised and made more responsive to the real empowerment interests of poor Southern women, their families and their co mmunities. The second perspective, on the other hand, views with grave concern the essence, processes and costs of globalization, not only on poor women but, also, on poor men in the South. To begin with, poor women and men in the South do not just want economic growth; they want people-centered sustainable economic growth and equity. Poor women and men in the South are concerned about food, health, and other basic needs for the survival of their persons, families, communities/habitats, and environment; they do not want destruction of livelihoods, land conversions, and increased prices of commodities that have been associated with the further opening of their economies to global trade and foreign investments. Poor women and men in the South want to be able to control their lives, to have dignity of labor, and participate in the shaping of societies; they do not wish a continuing life of disempowerment, vulnerability and subordination in the midst of repressive political forces and powerful economic interests that remain unaccountable and non-transparent. Poor southern women, in particular, who are already caught in the quagmire of differing traditional axes of inequalities/hierarchies - i.e. gender, class, caste, ethnicity/culture, and religion - and who have long been burdened with multiple roles and responsibilities, are now having to face newer difficulties and vulnerabilities, in the face of rapid economic transformations. For instance, poor southern women provide the 'cheap flexible labor' for TNCs in many parts of the South, as well as, the 'cheap exportable labor' for governments and TNCs that are engaged in the international trading of labor/services. Asian women (Filipinas, Thais, Vietnamese), together with drugs and weapons, are trafficked as entertainers, prostitutes, and mail-ordered brides, across continents and between and within countries, in what DAWN has referred to as the 'subterranean economy' of modern-day globalization. In all of these vulnerable occupations, women are denied the protection of just labor laws. Very often, too, they are managed by men who, also, physically and sexually molest them. Current indications point to the sustained expansion of 'flexible labor', 'internationally traded services', and, even of, trafficking. Changes in the environment and climate - many of which are traceable to land conversions; appropriation of land and water resources for 'big development projects, such as, dams; pollution and waste discards of industries and non-traditional agribusinesses, such as prawn farming; tourism; and lifestyles and consumption of the elites - have led to the dislocation of entire communities, severely jeopardised agricultural livelihoods, and made more difficult the reproductive burdens of rural southern women. The indiscriminate distribution and marketing in rural areas (and urban centers) of cheap alcoholic beverages produced by TNCs, together with the intrusion of hegemonized media that portray women as objectified sex objects and of beauty products sold through the newest approach to marketing called "networking", had effected changes in gender and family relations, and in certain cases, had been cited as factors for the rise in the abuse, battering and commodification of femal es in poor rural households everywhere. The claiming and privatization of the hinterlands (mountains and forests) and of public or international water resources and marine life, and their interconnections with the demands of free trade through the rapid establishment of 'growth corridors' or 'growth areas' have been most drastic on indigenous peoples, upland farmers, lowland peasants and the artisanal fisherfolk who for so long have maintained their environment through local customs and practices. Further, export-oriented agricultural policies have resulted to the rapid decline and disappearance of certain 'under-utilised crops' that were traditional sources of food and medicine for indigenous peoples and peasants, thereby seriously disrupting the balance of life sustaining practices that had enabled women to take care of their and their families' health and survival. In the last three decades, there had been rapid urbanization going on in the South. But rather than carefully planned cities and towns, what have mushroomed are overcrowded enclaves and colonies of slums where there are inadequate basic services, high unemployment, and depressed health/sanitation conditions. An initial review of SAPs in selected countries revealed that the urban poor have been more adversely From henry_leveson-gower at MGDESTMX01.ERIN.GOV.AU Sat Sep 14 00:00:48 1996 From: henry_leveson-gower at MGDESTMX01.ERIN.GOV.AU (henry_leveson-gower@MGDESTMX01.ERIN.GOV.AU) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 10:00:48 EST Subject: [asia-apec 111] NAFTA strikes again Message-ID: <9608138426.AA842634150@MGDESTMX01.ERIN.GOV.AU> NAFTA today..... ______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: NAFTA strikes again Author: blairs@igc.org at mgdestmx01 Date: 12/9/96 8:26 PM WSJ, 9/11/96, p. A10: "Ethyl Acts to Avert Losses If Canada Bans Fuel Additive." "Ethyl Corp. announced a US$201 million damage action against the Canadian government to recover estimated losses from a proposed Canadian ban of an octane-boosting fuel additive produced by the Richmond, VA., company. ... "Ethyl served notice with the Canadian government yesterday that it intends to make its claim against Canada under a seldom-used arbitration provision of the North American Free Trade Agreement.... The NAFTA Provision allows a company to bring before an arbitration panel claims against NAFTA governments for alleged violations of their obligations toward investors. [!!!] ... "A spokesman for Canadian Environment Minister Sergio Marchi said the government intends to proceed with legislation to stop the sale of MMT [methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl] in Canada, because of lingering health concerns about the product and because of the auto industry's warnings that the aditive would hamper the operation of auto computer systems which monitor tailpipe emissions. The government's legislation is expected to be approved by Parliament...." ************* Under NAFTA, governments have obligations to investors, but not to environment or public health. Blair Blair Sandler blairs@igc.org From daga at HK.Super.NET Sat Sep 14 12:52:09 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 11:52:09 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 112] Statement at Press Conference on APEC, Hong Kong Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960914114650.31cf1634@is1.hk.super.net> Statement at Press Conference on APEC Date : Sept. 14, 1996, 3:00 pm Venue: Confederation of Trade Unions Yaumatei, Hong Kong by Walden Bello* Good afternoon to all our friends from the press. First of all, we would like to say that this afternoon, the International Convenors Committee of the Manila People's Forum on APEC is releasing the Individual Action Plans (IAP) for all 18 countries. This include the action plans of China and Hong Kong. These action plans contain all the commitments being made by these 18 countries to liberalize their trade and investment regimes. These documents are highly confidential, and will not be released to the public until after the November APEC Summit in Manila. Democratizing Information Please do not ask us how we got them. We can only say that people who are central to the APEC process have provided them to us because they are worried about where that process is heading. We are releasing them here today becauyse we feel that one of the conditions for the exercise of democracy is access to information. People in the Philippines and the other Asia-Pacific countries must know what their governments are committing them to, without their knowledge. As far as we know, very few, if any, of these plans, have been discussed and approved democratically, either via popular referenda or by national legislative mechanisms. US Pressure for Liberalization Having said this, let me say that many governments in Asia, including those of China and Hong Kong, have submitted these liberalization plans largely because of pressure from the United States. Despite the fact that the Osaka Summit of APEC last year came out with a declaration that liberalization must be carried out voluntarily, flexibly, and in a non-binding fashion, Washington has consistently pursued its goals of making trade and investment liberalization collective, comparable, and, most of all, binding. In subverting Osaka, Washington has followed a four-stage plan: First, it has demanded the submission of what US APEC Ambassador John Wolf has specified as "solid," comprehensive, and detailed liberalization plans. Second, it has pressured the Philippine government, as host, to take the lead in making these plans comparable, both in scope and in the solidity of their liberalization commitments. Third, the US will use this base of comparable country commitments as the yardstick for measuring the different countries' progress in liberalizing their economies, thus creating considerable pressure on those who, for various reasons, fail to undertake their commitments are on schedule when it comes to implementation. Fourth, the action plans of the different countries, once they are harmonized, will serve as the basis of a future free trade treaty like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Malaysian Trade Minister Rafidah Aziz may call the idea of a free trade area by the year 2020 a "dream," but make no mistake about it, Washington and Canberra, in particular, are deadly serious in pursuing it. The Struggle of Two Visions for APEC In conclusion, let me say that former Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans once described APEC or the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation as "four adjectives in search of a noun." What that noun will be depends on the outcome of the struggle between two strategic visions of APEC that is going on in that forum. Most Asian countries want APEC to remain faithful to the original vision of it as simply a loose forum for consultation on technical economic issues, much like the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). They do not favor a free trade area because, by committing them to eliminate all trade restrictions and bring down tariffs to zero, they would lose the flexibility of using trade policy for larger developmental objectives, like deepening their industrial sector, strengthening their small and medium industries, and promoting sustainable development. Washington, however, backed mainly by Australia and New Zealand, has a different vision, and that is to create a free trade area via collective, comparable, and binding liberalization plans, with fixed schedules. As the US Action Plan puts it, "free and open trade in the APEC region" by the year 2020. As the Asian governments know only too well, Washington's goal is to reassert a significant trade and investment presence in a part of the world that has steadily slipped from the US economic orbit by using free trade mechanisms to dismantle the system of tariffs and other mechanisms by which they have created prosperous economies. These action plans bring us closer to the realization of the US vision for APEC. Thank you. *Dr. Walden Bello is chairperson of the International Convenors Committee of the Manila People's Forum on APEC. He is a professor of sociology and public administration at the University of the Philippines and co-director of the Bangkok-based Focus on the Global South, a program of Chulalongkorn University. He is the author of several books on Asian political and economic issues, including Dragons in Distress: Asia's Miracle Economies in Crisis (London: Penguin, 1991). From daga at HK.Super.NET Sat Sep 14 13:58:44 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 12:58:44 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 113] U.S. Set to Cut Tariffs, APEC Plans Show Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960914125325.19ef1748@is1.hk.super.net> U.S. Set to Cut Tariffs, APEC Plans Show by Jon Liden and Eduardo Lachica Staff Reporters The Asian Wall Street Journal, Sept. 13-14, 1996 The U.S. is offering to reduce its average tariff rate for products from most other countries to 3.5% by 2004 from 4.9%, according to drafts of proposals for trade and investment liberalization by members of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. A copy of these confidential plans was obtained by The Asian Wall Street Journal Thursday, and an APEC official, who declined to be identified, indicated that the plans were authentic. U.S. trade officials declined to confirm the veracity of these drafts. They pointed out, however, that offers like these "will be broadly evolving until the APEC members sit down on the first day of the conference," says a spokeswoman for the U.S. Trade Representative. The documents also indicated that the U.S. will guarantee that 51% of its imports will be free of tariffs. In addition, the drafts show that the U.S. is prepared to phase out its textile quotas by 2004. However, U.S. trade analysts point out that the U.S. is already bound by law to complete a phase-out of textile quotas by no earlier than Jan. 1, 2005. Moreover, U.S. textile importers complain that 89% of the quotas will remain in place until that date. Analysts note that any changes in the phase-out schedule have to be approved by the U.S. Congress. Apart from the Philippines, Australia, Hongkong, Taiwan, Papua New Guinea and Singapore, the other major economies of the region have made only general statements of intention to reach free trade by 2020 in their action plans. The plans are part of a process agreed upon last year, whereby APEC members will voluntarily lower trade barriers to reach their goal of free trade, rather than to negotiate binding agreements. The action plans have been kept confidential while the member countries discuss how to align them into a formal plan by the time the APEC leaders' meeting takes place in Subic, Philippines, in November. They were leaked to news organizations by the Manila People's Forum on APEC, a coalition of nongovernmental organizations. The group said that it had recieved copies of the confidential action plans from "officials close to the APEC process" who are concerned about the need for public discussion of the trade-liberalization commitments made by the member countries. "Few, if any, of these action plans have been discussed and approved democratically, either via popular referenda or by national legislative mechanisms," said Walden Bello, a professor at the University of the Philippines who represents the Forum. He said the plans would be posted on the Internet within a few days. Philippine APEC Secretariat officials were either unavailable for comment or not willing to make any statements, but an official from the Philippine Foreign Affairs Department said the action plans were only drafts in a process that would lead to a final result in time for the APEC summit in November, and that each country's commitments could not be judged on the basis of these early drafts. Dr. Bello says that the U.S. and Australia are still putting pressure on APEC's members to come up with binding commitments that will move APEC toward a free-trade area, undermining the agreement made in Osaka during last year's leaders' meeting that made commitments voluntary and non-binding. "We are not against trade liberalization, but it should be a pragmatic process driven by the country's needs rather than the doctrinal line our country is taking at the moment," said Mr. Bello. He said that while the Philippines makes detailed commitments, countries such as Thailand and Malaysia give only vague and uncommitted statements about intentions in their action plans. "Countries such as Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia are actively resisting the pressure (from the U.S.), while the Philippines is trying to outdo the other nations in its commitments," he said. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 kdpnet at usa.net Sun Sep 15 14:23:32 1996 From: kdpnet at usa.net (KdP Net) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 13:23:32 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 114] KdP: IT - Differences over farm sector shadow ASEAN talks Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960915131814.19b71738@is1.hk.super.net> Kabar dari PIJAR X-within-URL: http://www.indocon.com/itolnews/today/o1.htm [1]The Indonesia Times _________________________________________________________________ Differences over farm sector shadow ASEAN talks By Anil Penna JAKARTA (AFP) -- Trade ministers from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) meet here Wednesday to try and resolve differences over opening up the sensitive farm sector which threaten to undermine their ambitious free-trade effort. The meeting of the AFTA Council will review progress towards the creation of an ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) by 2003 and discuss how to speed up the process of economic integration, officials said. But the talks seem set to be dominated by differences over liberalising the farm sector which cropped up at a preparatory meeting here Monday when Indonesia and the Philippines backpedalled and called for a go-slow approach. The main sticking point is liberalising trade in rice, the Asian staple, and sugar which ASEAN giant Indonesia, supported by the Philippines, believes are "highly sensitive" products, officials said. "There are products considered sensitive or highly sensitive by some countries," said ASEAN Secretary General Ajit Singh. "At this meeting, they will be considering this 'highly-sensitive' list in determining the phasing-in period and the ending date for these products (to be included in the free-trade agenda)," he said. The seven-nation grouping has set a separate timetable for opening up trade in unprocessed agricultural products that are considered sensitive because it could hurt the livelihood of farmers in importing nations. Under the timetable, the "sensitive" products are to be phased into the free-trade effort by no later than 2010, seven years after the creation of AFTA, which will lower tariffs on all other products traded in the region to zero-to-five percent. The inclusion of unprocessed farm products in the tariff reduction scheme has been a thorny issue for ASEAN, which groups Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Barring trade-driven Singapore and oil-rich Brunei, ASEAN members have a sizeable rural base and face pressure from powerful domestic lobbies opposed to opening up the farm sector too quickly. Rahardjo Jamtomo, director-general of the ASEAN department at the Indonesian foreign ministry, said Indonesia proposed to begin phasing-in rice and sugar only on January 1, 2010 and end the process 10 years later. He said Indonesia's level of economic development dictated that it go slow, acknowledging that members had been unable to come to "same terms" over the issue. Thai delegate Krirk-Krai Jirapaet warned that the credibility of ASEAN's free-trade push risked being undermined by any delays in implementing the tariff-reduction schedule. "The length of time must be reasonable," he said. "If you say you want to go for free trade in 100 years' time, it doesn't make sense. You say you go for free trade in 25 years' time, it also doesn't make sense because most of the free trade elements will mature in 10 years or 15 years at most." Thailand is the world's largest rice producer and would benefit from tariff reductions on the commodity. Other coutnries also have their own "sensitive" products, with Malaysia recently adding pineapple to its list of such commodities besides raw timber and tobacco while the Philippines wants to open its doors more slowly to imports of chicken and poultry products. But Malaysia was agreeable to the 2010 deadline, officials said. The differences over farm products apart, ASEAN secretary-general Ajit Singh said the road to AFTA was "fairly smooth and well mapped-out". Member-countries have enacted laws revising their tariff schedules up to 2003 and arrangements to bring the free trade area into existence are well-entrenched, he said. The trade ministers will discuss how to accelerate AFTA by "maximising" the number of items on which tariffs can be 1 percent tariffs by 2003, and discuss movement towards opening up the services sector such as financial services, tourism and telecommunications, he said. ASEAN, with a collective external trade of 700 billion dollars, is the world's fourth largest trader afer the United States, Japan and the European Union. AFTA would be one of the world's largest free trade areas. _________________________________________________________________ ) COPYRIGHT THE INDONESIA TIMES From daga at HK.Super.NET Wed Sep 18 10:52:49 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 09:52:49 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 115] FOCUS-on-APEC#7 Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960918094728.1abfc5b0@is1.hk.super.net> For those who do not receive FOCUS-on-APEC, you can send e-mail to: FOCUS on the Global South c/o CUSRI, Wisit Prachuabmoh Building Chulalongkorn University, Phyathai Road Bangkok 10330, Thailand Tel: 662 218 7363/4/5 Fax: 662 2559976 E-mail: focus@ksc9.th.com FOCUS-on-APEC _______________________________________________________________ A regular bulletin produced by Focus on the Global South (FOCUS) Bangkok, Thailand Number 7, September 1996 FOCUS was designated the NGO Information/Monitoring Center on APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum) by the participants of the 1995 NGO Forum on APEC in Kyoto, Japan. It was out of this commitment that FOCUS-on-APEC was created. FOCUS-on-APEC carries APEC-related news, the latest items of interest and concern, and informed and critical analysis from a progressive perspective -- with a broad geographical concentration on East Asia and the Western and South Pacific. FOCUS-on-APEC is where you can learn about other people's APEC-related work and they can learn about yours. Please send us your APEC-related information (by e-mail, fax or snail-mail!) -- including news items, research papers, opinion pieces and information on grassroots activities happening in your respective country. Your contributions will be incorporated into the bulletins. We welcome your comments and suggestions! ------------------------------------------------ CONTENTS: ------------------------------------------------ - REGIONAL ANALYSIS - APEC: The Unauthorized History - APEC's Place in US Trade Policy - Japan's Strategy of Attrition in APEC - The Costs of "Adjustment" for Mexico - REGIONAL ROUNDUP - APEC Senior Officials' Meeting in Davao - An Appeal to the Senior Officials of the Asian Governments in APEC - APEC Ministers Aim to Secure Energy Supplies - International appeal to APEC Energy Ministers Conference - APEC HIGHLIGHTS - Available: Individual Action Plans of APEC Members! - RESOURCES - About the Center for International Environmental Law - APEC-Related Websites - ANNOUNCEMENTS - Job Opening for a Research Associate at FOCUS ____________________________________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Documentation for Action Groups in Asia (DAGA) 96, 2nd District, Pak Tin Village Mei Tin Road, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong Tel : (852) 2691 6391/ 2691 1068 ext 54 Fax: (852) 2697 1912 E-mail: daga@hk.super.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org Thu Sep 19 15:13:01 1996 From: RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org (RVerzola) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 22:13:01 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 116] Re: MINUYAN RELOCATEES/APEC VICTIMS Message-ID: PRESS RELEASE September 18, 1996 MINUYAN RELOCATEES: "GOVERNMENT REMOVED US FROM A DANGER AREA BUT BROUGHT US TO MINUYAN, A VIRTUAL DEATH ZONE, ALL BECAUSE OF APEC." Urban poor people from the temporary relocation site in Bo. Minuyan, Sapang Palay staged today protest actions at the National Housing Authority in Quezon City and later at the HUDCC office along Makati Avenue, Makati City. Nestor Gonzales, president of the Bonifacio Drive Homeowners Association, bitterly recalled that their story has been a long one of pain and suffering, of promises made and not fulfilled ever since government decided to remove "eyesore" communitites before the APEC meeting in November. Last June 26 to 27 government demolished their shanties at the foot of Del Pan bridge. A woman suffered miscarriage, five women gave premature births of which two babies died. The local government said they would not relocate the evicted people because they are living on a danger area and according to their reading of the law which a Manila judge upheld, people living on such places should not be given relocation lots. This caused an uproar from peoples organizations, non-government organizations and church people who pointed out that the Philippine government had very recently signed the Istanbul Declaration on June 14 at the end of the Second UN Conference on Human Settlements. The document committed governments to protect its people from forced evictions and to provide them with adequate housing. HUDCC Chiarman Dionisio de la Serna who held a press conference on June 28 on the Philippine government's participation in the Istanbul conference agreed to meet with the evicted people who were demonstrating outside the HUDCC office in Makati. He promised the people would be relocated in two weeks time to Barrio Minuyan, Sapang Palay where an abandoned warehouse would be converted to a temporary relocation site. The two weeks stretched to almost two months. Finally on August 20 the people were transferred to Minuyan. Manila City Hall demolition crews burned the people's housing materials, saying the people would not need them since all families will be given cubicles. Of the 250 families relocated in Minuyan only 86 families received cubicles, the families without cubicles built shelters in the corridors or makeshift shanties near the abandoned bodega. Between 50 to 60 people share one toilet. A container of brownish water costs two pesos. Drainage is inadequate and water from the lavatories form dirty pools. Garbage is not collected but is either buried in pits or burned. The unsanitary conditions have brought about so much sickness among the people such as cholera, dengue, diarrhea, cough and fever. Aling Vivian Orque said, "each family here has a sick person, usually a young child." Holy Spirit Sister Arnold Maria says the dirty water has caused diarrhea among the children. The children also have stopped their schooling because local government schools raised so many impossible requirements before they would accept the schoolers. For example, the parents are required to produce copies of demolition notices, report cards, birth certificates, entry permits to temporary relocation sites, good character certificates, etc. George Lapuri says, "My work at the piers brings me some P150 per day. If I go home everyday I have to set aside P36 for fare. I take the bus in Avenida at 8:00 in the evening and reach Sapang Palay nearly at midnight. But by 3:00 in the morning I have to leave for Manila, otherwise I would be caught in the traffic." Aling Alvie Salvador laments, "Government officials told us they had to remove us from our old place because it was a danger zone, but Minuyan is worse, it is virtually a death zone." Robin Orque, a third grader, says he wants to help his parents and neighbors fight against government's inhuman and callous treatment, "We children wrote to President Bill Clinton to ask him to tell President Ramos that he need not violate our housing rights because of his visit to the Philippines for the APEC meeting. The White House said it has received our letter." The Minuyan relocatees, their children, the NGOs and poor people in other areas under demolition threat declared they will hold more mass actions to make the government feel their unhappiness and anger at its shabby and callous treatment of poor people's rights. Mang Aniceto Basada says, "I have nothing against APEC. Perhaps it will do good for the country and others. I really do not know what it is all about. But it has meant for me and my family endless pain and suffering ever since June 26 when government demolished our houses." URBAN POOR ASSOCIATES contact: Ted Anana, Denis Murphy or Lanie Francia Tele/fax: 920-2434 From suaram at pactok.peg.apc.org Thu Sep 19 22:06:06 1996 From: suaram at pactok.peg.apc.org (SUARAM by way of daga ) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 21:06:06 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 117] STILL URGENT - BAKUN - ABB - SIGN ON Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960919210045.08a7fe64@is1.hk.super.net> We received this appeal for more signatures, especially from Asia. Please respond directly to: Thank you. Mario Mapanao URGENT - ACTION STILL REQUIRED RE: ABB and the BAKUN HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Dear friends, We have delayed sending this fax to ABB because the press in Malaysia and Switzerland were informed on 10th September that the signing of the contract has been postponed to 30th September. The reason given by Ekran was that the Prime Minister of Malaysia, who was scheduled to witness the signing, had to go overseas on an official visit. Many thanks to all of you who responded so quickly to our previous alert! It is particularly important that we collect as many signatures as possible prior to the signing date in order to give ABB a clear message that opposition is widening. Consequently, we're extending the deadline for endorsements to 25th September. Please circulate this as widely as you can. However a swift reply would be very much appreciated because it is possible that the signing may take place before 30th September. Please note that the letter has been amended slightly. If you have already signed up, please let us know only if you wish to withdraw your name, otherwise we will assume that you are happy with this revised version. IF YOU ARE WILLING TO SIGN ON TO THIS, PLEASE COULD YOU EMAIL OR FAX YOUR NAME, ORGANISATION AND COUNTRY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO GLOBAL WITNESS, BY WEDNESDAY 25th SEPTEMBER AT THE VERY LATEST. Email: gwitness@gn.apc.org Fax: +44 181 563 8613 The fax will be sent to ABB headquarters and also, with a press release, to European, Malaysian and international media. With best wishes, Patrick McCully James Lochhead Monique Baker International Rivers Network KEHMA-S Global Witness The fax reads: Mr Percy Barnevik CEO, ABB Asea Brown Boveri AG P.O. Box 8131 8050 Zrich September 30, 1996 Re: Bakun Hydroelectric Project in Sarawak, Malaysia Dear Mr Barnevik, We are deeply disappointed to learn that ABB is planning to sign a contract on Monday 30th September with Ekran Berhad for its part in constructing the highly controversial Bakun Hydroelectric Project. As you know, the project will have severe effects on people (including the more than 9,000 indigenous people to be forcibly resettled) and the environment. You will also know that the recent delay in the signing of the contract came about because of a Malaysian High Court decision which found Ekran and the federal and Sarawak state governments in breach of Malaysian legislation regarding the Environmental Impact Assessment process. In particular, the rights of the indigenous peoples within the project area were deemed to have been severely infringed. We are disappointed that the letter from ABB dated September 3rd in reply to the NGO letter of July 2nd does not address this issue. Since the legal appeal made by Ekran and others has not yet been heard, perhaps you can explain to the indigenous peoples, all other Malaysians, shareholders of ABB, to us and to the world at large why it is that ABB is signing a contract to participate in a project which at this moment is so clearly in breach of standards of procedure that ought to be respected. Why is ABB endorsing the illegitimacy of the way in which the Bakun Hydroelectric Project has been planned? Why is ABB disregarding the decision of the Court and colluding in abusing the rights of the affected indigenous peoples? Why is ABB not at least waiting for the appeal to be heard and then reviewing its involvement in the project thereafter? ABB's action in hurrying to sign the contract is a disreputable one. This letter is an expression of the widespread disappointment felt around the world over ABB's planned action. The negative social and environmental effects of the project are certain to be extensive. Moreover, the economic viability of the project is in serious doubt. Despite promises to the contrary, the cost of Bakun's electricity is already projected to be the highest in Malaysia's history. Participating in the Bakun project, especially while the legal issues remain unresolved, will irreversibly tarnish ABB's reputation. We urge you not to sign the contract. Yours sincerely, Signatures obtained to date: Aviva Imhof, AID/WATCH, Australia Anja Light, Rainforest Information Centre, Australia Brigitte Parnigoni, Friends of the Earth, Austria KEHMA-S (European Committee for Human Rights in Malaysia & Singapore), Belgium Sian Pettman, FERN, Belgium Alejandro Argumedo, Cultural Survival, Canada John Thibodeau, Probe International, Canada Martin Arnould, SOS Loire Vivante, France Roberto A. Epple, European Rivers Network, France Reinhard Behrend, Rettet den Regenwald, Germany Hermann Edelmann, Pro REGENWALD, Germany Peter Franke, Suedostasien Informationsstelle, Germany Sylvia Hamberger, Gesellschaft fr kologische Forschung, Germany Bernhard Henselmann & Sascha Timm, Artists for Nature, Germany Wolfgang Kuhlmann, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Regenwald und Artenschutz, Germany Christoph Meyer, Robin Wood, Germany Heffa Schucking, Urgewald, Germany Katrin Seifert, EURONATURE, Germany Barbara Unmussig, WEED, Germany Mario Mapanao, Documentation for Action Groups in Asia, Hong Kong Shripad Dharmadhikary, Narmada Bacaho Andolan (Struggle to Save The Narmada River), India Francesco Martone, Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale, Italy Kazuko Matsue, Shinrin Renmei (Forest Association), Japan Gaku Takayama, Sarawak Campaign Committee, Japan Carlos Heredia, Equipo Pueblo, Mexico Nina Drolsum, FIVAS, Norway Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center-Kasama sa Kalikasan (LRC-KSK/Friends of the Earth), Philippines Liddy B. Nacpil, Freedom from Debt Coalition, Philippines Al Santos, Asian Council for People's Culture, Philippines Isagani Serrano, Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement, Philippines Katarina Bjork & Ola Larsson, Faltbiologerna, Sweden Kristina Bjurling, Action 21/ PeaceQuest, Sweden Nils Hannerz, Fair Trade Center, Sweden Susanne Lindberg, Social democratic Students of Sweden Jenny Lundstrom, Friends of the Earth, Sweden Peter Bosshard, Berne Declaration, Switzerland Lennart Nyman, WWF, Sweden Monica Borner, WWF, Switzerland Roger Graf, Bruno Manser Fund, Switzerland Monique Baker, Global Witness, UK George Gelber, Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, UK Douglas Gibbs, Oxford Forestry Institute, UK Jo Hamilton, Lloyds and Midland Boycott Campaign, UK Nicholas Hildyard, The Ecologist, UK Sophie Mustapha, Sarawak Solidarity Campaign, UK Lekara Nwinia, MOSOP, UK Saskia Ozinga, FERN, UK Louise Platt, Empowering Widows in Development, UK Sue Tibballs, Women's Communication Centre, UK Sarah Tyack, Friends of the Earth, England, Wales & Northern Ireland Stuart Wilson, Forests Monitor, UK Dr Kate Young, WOMANKIND Worldwide, UK Mark Dubois, WorldWise, USA Amy Fedde, Colorado Group Against Bakun Dam, USA Jo Marie Griesgraber, Centre of Concern, USA Pharis J. Harvey, International Labor Rights Fund, USA Randall Hayes, Rainforest Action Network, USA Jason Hunter, Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainable Development, USA Tim Keating, Rainforest Relief, USA Orin Langelle & Anne Petermann, Native Forest Network, USA Alexis Latham & John Clark, Friends of Nitassinan, USA Patrick McCully, International Rivers Network, USA Timothy J. McGloin, Friends of the Filipino People, USA Colin Rajah, Overseas Development Network, USA Dr George J. Aditjondro, Deparment of Sociology & Anthropology, Newcastle University, Australia Elizabeth Brady, Canada Joanna Fuller, UK Elizabeth Goggins, US Virgin Islands Professor Jane Kelsey, Law Faculty, Auckland University, New Zealand Duncan Kennedy, USA Chris Lang, UK Avonice Martin, US Virgin Islands Jerome Rousseau, Professor, Department of Anthropology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada Mutang Urud, Canada Dr Weiluo Wang, Department Of Spatial Planning, University of Dortmund, Germany From 82451260 at people.or.jp Fri Sep 20 00:54:54 1996 From: 82451260 at people.or.jp (by way of daga ) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 23:54:54 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 118] Japanese NGOs demand the government re. the 7/27 crackdown Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960919234932.2fcfba06@is1.hk.super.net> Japan NGO Network on Indonesia (JANNI) Press Conference Report Foreign Ministry Officials Say, "We are expressing our concern to Indonesia." Today, on September 19, representatives of fifty Japanese NGOs and two MPs visited the Foreign Ministry and handed a petition addressed to Foreign Minister Yukihiko Ikeda regarding the recent crackdown in Indonesia to Section Chief Kenji Hiramatsu. The meeting with Foreign Ministry officials was held in a room in the Ministry and lasted for 80 minutes. The officials of the Indonesian section who received the representatives said that they personally acknowledged that what happened in Indonesia was terrible, but they asserted that as a government it would be difficult for Japan to ask Indonesia to do this or that. They also said that the Japanese government had communicated its concerns to the Indonesian government and said that the detainees should be treated in accordance with the law. The Government of Japan (GOJ) understands that significant political elements exist behind the July 27 incident. From the begging the GOJ demanded the Government of Indonesia (GOI) to solve the problems peacefully. Also the government has been concerned about the ongoing crackdowns after the riots.a The following is the answers given by the officials in the meeting to the five points of the joint petition. 1. The Japanese government cannot say which party is wrong, therefore cannot condemn the government's use of violence against Megawati supporters. 2. The Japanese government cannot demand an immediate release of the detainees while the facts behind their charges have not been clear. 3. The Anti-Subversion Law has existed as a law accepted by the people of Indonesia for the past thirty years with their own historical factors. A foreign government cannot say that it should be repealed. 4. The Japanese government will continue to monitor the developments and actually is asking that information regarding such as contents of charges and the names of the arrested or detained should be disclosed. 5. "The basic human rights and freedom" can vary from country to country according to history and culture. If the Indonesian government clearly violates its own law to an intolerable extent, then the Japanese government will reconsider its aid policies. There was a heated discussion between the NGO representatives and the officials regarding the concept of "basic human rights". The officials say they are different in various countries and Japan (and other governments) cannot impose their own concepts to others. The NGOs asserted that "basic human rights" are not supposed to be different, and this is why they are called "basic". The overall policies can be comprehensive because of diplomatic considerations, but assessment of human rights situation is not supposed to be case-by-case. This is why NGOs are asking the government whether it thinks the present crackdown in Indonesia constitutes a violation of basic human rights. The assessment should be made according to international standard, not by double-standard. Apart from the meeting, the Mainichi shimbun on September 14 carried an interesting article on a talk among the four Japanese ambassadors to Asia. In the article, Ambassador to Indonesia Mr. Taizo Watanabe said, "there occurred demonstrations and stone-throwing, but it does not seem that they are trying to topple down the government. .... The feeling that they need to reform the government is widespread among the Indonesians. After the meeting, the NGOs made a press conference at the Kasumi Club (of journalists attached to the Foreign Ministry) and explained to them about the Indonesia's crackdown and activities of NGOs concerned with Indonesia. For further information; Japan NGO Network on Indonesia(JANNI) Ohmura Bldg. 3F, 2-36-8 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, JAPAN Tel: +81-3-3818-7012 Fax:+81-3-3818-1734 ----------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Yukihiko Ikeda Minister of Foreign Affairs Dear Sir, We are deeply concerned about the July 27 raid conducted by Indonesian police authorities on the headquarters of the Indonesian Democratic Party, the forcible eviction of supporters of Ms. Megawati Sukarnoputri from the headquarters, and the Indonesian Government's subsequent response to the rioting which was triggered by this raid. The July 27 raid on the Indonesian Democratic Party headquarters has its origins in the Indonesian Government's interference with the party's internal affairs: the supporters of Ms. Megawati who were evicted had been occupying the headquarters to oppose the Government-backed removal of Ms. Megawati as chairwoman of the Indonesian Democratic Party. Following the rioting, the Indonesian Government arrested on July 30 Muchtar Pakpahan, leader of the Prosperous Labor Union (SBSI), and subsequently several others, including Budiman Sudjatmiko, leader of the Democratic People's Party (PRD), and other PRD supporters, who the Government suspects of being involved in the July 27 rioting. Yet, all those arrested have denied the Government's accusation that they were involved in the July 27 rioting. Furthermore, there are among those arrested some whose location of detention has been kept secret, and who are denied access to family interviews or legal counsel, and some have reportedly been subjected to torture. The Subvervsion Law, upon which the charges are made, allows the Government to arrest and detain without any solid proof of evidence anybody who criticizes the Government. Because it ignores the fundamental rights of those detained or arrested, and encourages a grave violation of human rights, including torture, "disappearances", and extra-judicial executions, Indonesia's National Commission on Human Rights has long called for a repeal of this law. These actions by the Indonesian Government clearly represent a step backwards in the process of democratization. It has been reported in the press that the Japanese Government plans to present, through Mr. Watanabe, the Japanese Ambassador to Indonesia, to the Indonesian Government by August 14 an official request stating that the Japanese Government is "keeping an eye on the situation, and requests that the arrested pro-democracy activists are treated under the proper legal procedures."(Mainichi Sokuho, Aug. 15) However, we consider this statement to be inadequate, and demand that the Japanese Government further take the following measures: 1. Make an official statement of protest against the Indonesian Government's decision to use violent force, employing the police to raid the headquarters of the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI), which left scores of injured people. 2. Demand that the Indonesian Government immediately release the names of all detainees/arrestees, their whereabouts and detailed account of charges which have been laid against them. Furthermore, demand the immediate unconditional release of Muchtar Pakpahan, Budiman Sudjatmiko and all others who have been arrested or detained solely for peaceful activities. 3. Convey to the Indonesian Government in clear terms Japan's objection to the reported acts of torture and to the denial of the detainees/arrestees right to access to family and legal counsel, and furthermore to the application of the Subversion Law, which allows such violations of fundamental human rights. 4. Demand that the upcoming trials are both open and fair. Make it known that, if someone whose only "crime" was to carry out peaceful activities is found guilty, the Japanese Government may feel obliged to adopt new measures against the Indonesian Government. 5. Seriously consider the suspension of ongoing Japanese ODA projects in Indonesia and postponement of planned projects, based on the Japan Official Development Assistance Charter, which states specifically that "full attention should be paid to efforts for promoting democratization ... and the situation regarding the securing of basic human rights and freedoms in the recipient country." 19 September, 1996 Endorsed by; Institute for Alternative Community Development (IACOD) Japan NGO Network on Indonesia (JANNI) Japan Tropical Forest Action Network (JATAN) Pacific Asia Resource Center (PARC) Friends of the Earth Japan (FOEJ) Japan International volunteer Center (JVC) Many East Timor Support Groups and other 43 NGOs and 26 individuals From acpc at mnl.sequel.net Fri Sep 20 01:02:20 1996 From: acpc at mnl.sequel.net (Asian Council for People's Culture by way of Mario R R Mapanao ) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 00:02:20 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 119] for general discussion: Does Culture Play A Role? Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960919235658.0abf058a@is1.hk.super.net> Few days ago, I received a glossy invitation from the APEC Foundation of the Philippines for a "Festival (that) brings together artists from the APEC economies... As APEC cultural ambassadors, they will project the APEC vision of Unity in Diversity not only through their music-making but as teachers and role models for the different communities that they visit." The Festival's title: Festival of the Ring, From the Lands of Fire and Water Building the Spirit of Community Question: How does the Manila People's Forum on APEC (MPFA) see the role of culture in building and/or re-building Asia-Pacific communities? Al Santos ----------------------------------------- Asian Council for People's Culture (ACPC) P.O. Box 1861, Central Post Office NIA Road, Quezon City 1168, PHILIPPINES e-mail: acpc@mnl.sequel.net tel/fax: (632) 9271923 or (63) 915-7042554 From henry_leveson-gower at mgdestmx01.erin.gov.au Sat Sep 21 07:58:06 1996 From: henry_leveson-gower at mgdestmx01.erin.gov.au (henry_leveson-gower@mgdestmx01.erin.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 17:58:06 EST Subject: [asia-apec 120] Discussion group on NGO organising around APEC Message-ID: <9608208432.AA843267959@MGDESTMX01.ERIN.GOV.AU> Dear fellow list members I am a post graduate at the Australian National University and am currently doing research into NGO organising and campaigning around international economic organisations. I am interested in the theoretical basis for and practicalities of such action and am looking at NGO action around APEC as a case in point. I was wondering if any members of the list would be interested in joining an email discussion group on this topic so we can share ideas. We could discuss such issues as: 1) Key aims of organising and campaigning around APEC; 2) Major challenges of working regionally on APEC issues; 3) Means that have been or should be used to attempt to overcome the above challenges. If you are interested, you could send me a message and I will then create a list for this discussion. This should be confidential and the sources of ideas used by discussion members should not be disclosed. The facilitator of the asia-pacific list has suggested that we could post some of the discussion to the main list in order to stimulate discussion on that list if we were happy to do that. I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards 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 Sat Sep 21 17:24:32 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 16:24:32 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 121] Free trade rush 'to hurt territory' Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960921161911.1b7f4860@is1.hk.super.net> Free trade rush 'to hurt territory' by Fiona Holland South China Morning Post, 15 September 1996 TRADE union leader Lee Cheuk-yan has warned that Hong Kong's economic miracle would fade if China no longer relied on the territory's business expertise. The legislator was speaking at the Manila People's Forum, a group that opposes the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation organization's "head-long rush" towards free trade. The forum, a coalition of non-governmental groups, released what it said were the confidential action plans of organisation members. Mr Lee said China's plan confirmed its intention to develop a service industry - which would hurt Hong Kong. "Our success is from being a service and management centre at a time when China has opened its doors to foreigners," he said. But being in the right place at the right time was a passing phase and no substitute for a solid economic base, he said. "Our development is shaky and without solid foundation when we depend on the service industry." Instead, Hong Kong should look to the Asian dragons of Korea, Taiwan and Singapore which had developed their own manufacturing bases. Mr. Lee also said the gap between rich and poor would widen after the handover. He said the new government would collude with tycoons to suppress workers' rights. From achis at igc.apc.org Tue Sep 24 16:13:29 1996 From: achis at igc.apc.org (Alex Chis) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 15:13:29 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 122] Support Democracy in Indonesia Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960924150807.0a775588@is1.hk.super.net> From: achis@igc.apc.org (Alex Chis & Claudette Begin) [The following is a statement issued by the U.S. political organization "Solidarity" concerning the recent events in Indonesia. Solidarity endorses the October 28 International Day of Protest for Human Rights and Democracy in Indonesia. They ask that you read the background information (below) about the Indonesian government's state terrorism, and write a protest letter along the lines indicated. (This material has been taken from ASIET and Amnesty International UK Section.)] INDONESIA: AN EMERGENCY APPEAL Having seen reports and television coverage of the events of the past weeks in Jakarta, we call on the Indonesian government to: * release all people detained following the military assault on the headquarters of the Partai Demokrasi Indonesia (PDI) on 27 July, including those like Muchtar Pakpahan, later taken into custody; * release the arrested members of the Peoples Democratic Party (PRD): Budiman Sujatmiko, Dita Sari, Hussein Pontoh, Mohamed Soleh, Petrus Hariyanto, I Gusti Astika Anom, Wilson and others; * end all intervention into the internal affairs of the PDI and restore recognition of the elected Megawati Sukarnoputri leadership; * end all repression against the PDI, PRD and other pro-democracy organizations and permit freedom of assembly and association. * Encourage trade unions and other organizations to send messages of protest to the Indonesian government: Please send to: 1. Indonesian Minister of Justice: Uahi Utoyo Usman S.H. Menteri Kehkiman Jl. H.R. Rasuna Said Kav. 6-7 Kuningan Jakarta Selatan, Indonesia Fax: + 62 21 525 3095 2. Indonesian Minister of Foreign Affairs: Ali Alatas S.H. Menteri Luar Negeri JL Medan Taman Pejambon No 6 Jakarta, Indonesia Fax: + 62 21 380 5511 3. Indonesian Embassy 2020 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-775-5200 Fax: 202-775-5365 4. Please send copies of your letters or faxes to ASIET. ASIET NATIONAL SECRETARIAT: PO Box 458, Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia Phone: 02 690 1032. Fax: 02 690 1381. E-Mail: asiet@peg.apc.org Home page: http://www.peg.apc.org/~asiet NOTE: A focus within trade unions could be to campaign for the release of Dita Sari and Muchtar Pakpahan, the heads of the only two independent trade union organizations in Indonesia. Dita Sari of the PRD is president of the Indonesian Center for Labor Struggles (PPBI), and Muchtar Pakpahan is the more moderate president of the Indonesian Prosperity Trade Union (SBSI). BACKGROUND: The Indonesian security forces, dressed as supporters of the pro-government faction of the Partai Demokrasi Indonesia (PRI), raided the PRI office in Jakarta on July 27, 1996. This raid was an attempt to remove supporters of the former party chairwoman, Megawati Sukarnoputri, who had been ousted by the PDI leadership at a breakaway party congress orchestrated by the authorities in June. According to Amnesty International as many as 241 people were arrested as a direct result of the raid and subsequent riots, at least five--and possibly more--are believed to have died and up to 90 more are thought to have been wounded. Since then the Indonesian government has issued threats against individuals and non-governmental organizations that it alleges played a role in the riots. The government is blaming the Partai Rakyat Demokratik (PRD) for masterminding the disturbances and has singled out its members for arrest on some of the most serious charges, some of which carry the death penalty. People have been arrested at their homes and while engaging in peaceful protests. For example, Coen Hussein Pontoh, a leader of the STN, a peasant union, Dita Sari, president of the PPBI and Mohammad Sholeh, an activist from the Students in Solidarity with Democracy in Indonesia--and all members of the PRD--were arrested on July 8 at a demonstration of 20,000 workers protesting wages and working conditions. In the context of a broadening democratic struggle behind ousted PDI Megawati Sukarnoputri, the PRD has emerged as a leading force and the organization most committed to involving the broadest layers of Indonesian people in the struggle. Consequently, the regime's crackdown has also focused on the PRD; most of the activists now under arrest--with the exception of the independent trade union leader, Mochtar Pakpahan--almost all are members of PRD or their affiliated mass organizations. These include PRD president Budiman Sujatmiko, PRD secretary-general Petrus Hariyanto and Dita Sari, president of the trade union organization affiliated to the PRD. The PRD itself has been outlawed. Today the PRD and its activists must be defended in order to defend the democratic movement as a whole. Some of those arrested are being held in police custody, and some in military custody. Not all have access to lawyers and some are being held in isolation. Meanwhile Megawati Sukarnoputri continues to assert that she is the legitimate leader of the PRI and has called on the government to allow the people to decide who they want to support. Over 200 PDI local branches have begun launching legal action in the courts, making this the largest action in any political case in Indonesian history. INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PROTEST FOR INDONESIA The first major international event in the campaign will be an International Day of Protest for Human Rights and Democracy in Indonesia scheduled for October 28. October 28 is the anniversary of the 1928 Indonesian Youth Congress which helped united Indonesia's youth in its struggle against Dutch colonialism. Amongst the 150 or so endorsements over the last three weeks from the U.S. include various branches of the Green Party, from California, to Massachusetts to New Orleans as well as numerous activists and branches of the progressive political network and Solidarity. Leaders and activists from labor groups include Jobs with Justice, Washington DC., Communication Workers of America, International Union of Operating Engineers, Washington, DC., Coalition of University Employees, California, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Immigrant Rights Action Network, Nashville Tennessee, American federation of Government Employees, and the Service Employees International Union. Endorsements have also been sent from a range of community and activist organizations, ranging from the National Organization of Women to Chicano and Pacific Islander migrant support organizations. In Canada, support has come from leaders and activists from the Canadian Auto Workers Social Justice Fund British Columbia Teachers federation, Hamilton Coalition against Poverty, "As soon as details of planned October 28 actions in the US and Canada are finalized, we will publicize them in Australia also, along with other international events." From apcjp at igc.apc.org Tue Sep 24 22:26:32 1996 From: apcjp at igc.apc.org (Asia Pacific Center for Justice and Peace) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 06:26:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [asia-apec 123] Internet control Message-ID: <199609241326.GAA11927@igc4.igc.apc.org> Title: 19 Sept 96 ASEAN Nations--Letter Opposing Proposed Internet Restrictions On September 4, the ASEAN member nations (Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam) stated that they had agreed to collaborate on finding ways to control expression on the Internet. On September 16, a number of human rights, free expression and electronic privacy organizations wrote the following letter to the ASEAN secretariat in Jakarta, Indonesia to convey their concerns about this development. Similar letters were also sent to the ASEAN members. We, the undersigned organizations, are writing to express our deep concern about the decision announced on September 4 by ASEAN member nations to collectively regulate communication on the Internet. The agreement was announced in Singapore, at the close of a meeting of officials from ASEAN member nations that was organized by the Singapore Broadcasting Authority. We would like to respectfully remind the ASEAN nations that content-based restrictions on online communication violate internationally guaranteed rights of free expression. As stated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression: this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. The agreement did not include the adoption of a common regulatory framework by ASEAN member nations. However, we are concerned that a number of delegates to the meeting reportedly expressed support for Singapore's recently established Internet Code of Practice. Human Rights Watch/Asia has written to the Singaporean government to oppose these new regulations, which impose sweeping controls on content, including political discussion. The regulations have already resulted in arbitrary censorship of at least one newsgroup message. They will surely induce a chill on on-line speech in Singapore, and, as evidenced by the ASEAN decision, they will affect online speech throughout the region. It has been reported that one of the reasons for the ASEAN agreement was a concern for preserving cultural values. While we recognize the importance of representation for all cultures on the Internet, we oppose censorship as a means of ensuring respect for cultural norms. We believe that the most effective means of responding to offensive content is by disseminating more content. Censoring offensive material will not remove it from the Internet; it will simply cause it to be reproduced on additional Internet sites. We believe that the lack of agreement on a common regulatory strategy by ASEAN member nations demonstrates the futility of attempts by nations or groups of nations to introduce online content regulation schemes. Within the ASEAN group itself, the cultural values of Vietnam, for example, differ significantly from cultural values of the Philippines. It is unlikely that the diverse group of ASEAN nations will reach an agreement on the specifics of what should be censored, and how that censorship should be accomplished. Moreover, because the Internet is a global medium, moves to restrict online content will initiate battles for competing cultural values on an international scale. In closing, we would like to add that the attempt to restrict Internet communication will detract from the many benefits that electronic communication is bringing to the region. We hope that the ASEAN nations will reconsider their unfortunate decision and instead focus on the new opportunities that the Internet can provide to the citizens of the region. Human Rights Watch/Asia (http://www.hrw.org) CITADEL-Electronic Frontier France (http://www.imaginet.fr/~mose/citadel) Les Chroniques de Cyberie, Canada (http://www.cyberie.qc.ca/chronik/) Electronic Privacy Information Center, USA (http://www.epic.org) American Civil Liberties Union, USA (http://www.aclu.org) cyberPOLIS, USA (http://www.cyberpolis.org/) Electronic Frontiers Foundation, USA (http://www.eff.org) ALCEI-Electronic Frontiers Italy (http://www.nexus.it/alcei) Association des Utilisateurs d'Internet (AUI), France (http://www.aui.fr) Fronteras Electronicas Espana (FrEE)--Electronic Frontiers Spain (http://www.lander.es/~jlmartin/) Electronic Frontiers Austin, Texas USA (http://www.eff.-austin.org), Digital Citizens Foundation Netherlands--DBNL (http://www.xs4all.nl/~db.nl) Article 19, 33 Islington High Street, London N1 9LH, UK PEN American Center, 568 Broadway, NY, USA CommUnity, UK Gopher Address://gopher.humanrights.org:5000 Listserv address: To subscribe to the list, send an e-mail message to majordomo@igc.apc.org with "subscribe hrw-news" in the body of the message (leave the subject line blank). Human Rights Watch 485 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10017-6104 TEL: 212/972-8400 FAX: 212/972-0905 E-mail: hrwnyc@hrw.org 1522 K Street, N.W. Washington D.C. 20005 TEL: 202/371-6592 FAX: 202/371-0124 E-mail: hrwdc@hrw.org ------------------------------ End of SEASIA-L Digest - 21 Sep 1996 to 22 Sep 1996 *************************************************** ................................................. To unsubscribe from palaris-l, send an e-mail to: palaris-l-request@lists.best.com in the message text, type unsubscribe From RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org Wed Sep 25 12:14:09 1996 From: RVerzola at phil.gn.apc.org (RVerzola) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 19:14:09 -0800 Subject: [asia-apec 124] Internet control Message-ID: > We would like to respectfully remind the ASEAN nations that > content-based restrictions on online communication violate > internationally guaranteed rights of free expression. As stated in To those who posted this letter to ASEAN governments referring to Internet censorship in Asia, may I pose a question: If I send a copy of a U.S. commercial software to a friend over the network, or even on this mailing list, I am also exercising my right to exchange information with others. Yet the U.S. is at the lead of criminalizing this act, and in APEC it is very strongly pushing for strict implementation of intellectual property concepts. Apparently, unrestricted communication is OK if it only undermines Asian governments, but not if it undermines US commercial interests. A number of Asian groups are therefore opposing the introduction of intellectual property issues in APEC. Do you also have a stand on this issue? Regards. Roberto Verzola From foewase at igc.apc.org Thu Sep 26 03:40:16 1996 From: foewase at igc.apc.org (Northwest FOE Office) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 11:40:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [asia-apec 125] Re: Re[2]: Discussion group on NGO organising ar Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960925114404.2577a7dc@pop.igc.org> 25 September 1996 APEC '93 summary. Forwarded for your information. >Return-Path: foewase@igc.apc.org >Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 11:15:37 -0700 (PDT) >X-Sender: foewase@pop.igc.org >To: henry_leveson-gower@mgdestmx01.erin.gov.au >From: Northwest FOE Office >Subject: Re: Re[2]: [asia-apec 120] Discussion group on NGO organising > ar >Sender: foewase@igc.org > >At 01:38 PM 9/25/96 EST, henry_leveson-gower@mgdestmx01.erin.gov.au wrote: >> Thank you for your offer. I am very keen to take it up. Thanks also >> for your paper, which I will examine closely. >> >> As to APEC '93, if you could comment on all or any of these questions >> I would be very grateful: > > >> 1) What was actually the nature of the body that organised APEC '93? >> Who set it up? Who did it involve? >> >* Briefly, as Director of the Northwest Office of Friends of the Earth I saw >APEC '93 as a strategic event around which to organize on trade issues. >1993 was also the year in which NAFTA was voted on in Congress (in fact, the >NAFTA vote came in November right during APEC. Together with an intern, >Emily Kaplan, who worked on most of the logistics, we brought together >environmental groups (from Project Lighthawk who volunteered to fly >reporters and delegates around western Washington to see our clearcut >logging, Western Anceint Forest Campaign, Greenpeace, to WorldWise, a San >Francisco based group), human rights groups (including Chinese Human Rights >Alliance, Tibetan Rights Campaign, etc.) to labor groups (Jobs with Justice) >in an ad hoc coalition. > >Our main goal was to have a unified (enviro, human rights, labor) message >centered on the "Hidden Costs of Free Trade" and allow each of the three >interest groups to operate as they saw fit. > >> 2) What involvement did NGOs from the APEC region have in the >> organisation process and actual event? What NGOs were most active and >> from what countries? How did APEC NGOs communicate? Was any sort of >> APEC wide network set up? >> >* Up until 1993 APEC had been a meeting of finance ministers that drew >little NGO attention. Pres. Clinton made APEC '93 a heads of state meeting >which brought enormous press coverage to this event. However, outside of >Friends of the Earth, national environmental groups basically did not pay >any attention to APEC besides signing on to a letter of concern. Therefore, >we were mostly on our own as to how to proceed. Also in 1993, we did not >have a Pacific Rim network in place electronically (as there is now) to work >with NGO's in other countries. In fact, we still have trouble contacting >(either by fax or e-mail) our FOE International affiliates in Indonesia, >Philippines, Malaysia, etc. The human rights groups may have had the most >APEC NGO contacts. We had virtually none (again, aside from a sign on >letter) with any other APEC environmental NGOs. > >> 3) What did APEC '93 actually consist of and why? Who were NGOs >> trying to influence and how? Was any interaction achieved with APEC >> delegations or the secretariat? What were the major achievements of >> APEC '93? >> >* APEC has been described as four adjectives in search of a noun. APEC '93 >cemented in place the notion that the Pacific Rim was important enough for >heads of state to meet (the largest gathering of heads of state outside the >UN). As I recall, the press could not identify any major accomplishments out >of APEC '93 except that the heads of state were generally civil to each other. > > We had a number of specific goals. > >- To bring together a coalition of enviro, human rights and labor groups. > >- To ensure that the public was not ignore. We also called ourselves the >Seattle Citizens' Hosting Committee both to remind ourselves to be good >hosts and to counter the impression that the Seattle Hosting Committee >(Business and Commerce folks) were the only representative of Seattle. > >- To publish an ECO - APEC WATCH newspaper for the press and the delegates >and present alterntive trade models that incorporate sustainable >development, poverty alleviation measures and protection of the environment. >We published four issues during the week. > >- To have public workshops and demonstrations. > >- To obtain press credentials and meet with as many U.S. and foreign press >as possible. > >- To submit a letter of concern signed by national and international NGO's. > >- To secure a meeting with the APEC Secretariat on behalf of a delegation of >enviros, human rights and labor organizations. We were able to have what >was scheduled for a 1/2 hour meeting turn into a two hour meeting with >Ambassador Bodde. > > The delegates were extremely hard to interact with. Because there were >virtually no APEC NGO reps, we could not send country citizens to meet with >their APEC officials. > >> 4) Were any joint NGO statements/declarations made at APEC '93? Did >> all NGOs present participate in their drafting? Were there any major >> differences in position? > >* Yes. A 13 November 1993 letter to APEC leaders was published in ECO and >presented to the APEC Secretariat. It covered, ten areas and was signed >mostly by US environmental NGOs. Jim Barnes of our FOE-D.C. staff drafted >and circulated the letter. Since there were major splits in the US >environmental NGO positions over NAFTA, there may have been differences, but >you would have to check with Jim Barnes (e-mail:jbarnes@igc.apc.org> > >In summary, the Seattle Citizens' Host Committee promoted the following: > > - Workers rights. The right to a job and job security. The right to >organize unions, bargain and strike. The right to health care and a decent >standard of living. A swift end to all forms of discrimination. Corporate >responsibility in the community. > >- Human rights. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. Release all >political prisoners. Respect for international law. Recognize human >dignity. Due process for all. > >- Environmental rights. Sustainable development. Energy conservation. >Preservation of sensititve areas and of wildlife habitats. Clean air and water. > > >> 5) What were the major challenges of NGO organising of NGOs around >> APEC '93 - e.g. practical, ideological, cultural? What were the major >> lessons from the event? What steps have been taken since then to act >> on these lessons in the region? How do you see the future of NGO >> cooperation in the APEC region? >> >* Major challenges included: > >Organizing a major NGO event with virtually no funding. We brought Alex >Hittle one of our FOE-D.C. international staff out to Seattle to assist with >the ECO publication. Our entire FOE budget was around $1,000.00. I believe >we raised another $1,000 from Seattle groups to help pay joint costs of >sound systems for rallys, printing of flyers, etc. > >Because we were a big tent, we had everybody from the Puget Sound >Gillnetters to the Black Dollar Days Task Force to the King County Labor >Council. I believe we were successful in keeping an extremely diverse >coalition together. > >Unfortunately, I was unable to attend APEC '94 in Indonesia or '95 in Japan. >Therefore, I am unable to saw whether or how any of our efforts in Seattle >impacted these events. Omi Royandoyan, head of the Philippine Hosting >Committee for APEC '96 visited me in Seattle in June. This was extremely >helpful, both for him to get background on APEC '93 and for me to understand >how planning for APEC '96 was progressing. As you are aware, Canada is the >host country for APEC '97 in Vancouver, B.C. so we need to review APEC's >93-96 to see what will work best for APEC '97. > >One overall problem (two actually) consists of a) Should NGO's continue to >engage with the APEC process, or is the APEC process so hostile to NGO's >that it would be better to mount outright opposition; and b) What specific >goals do we have for a reformed APEC if that is the direction NGO's are >moving (e.g. sustainable development, NGO's in APEC working groups, >environmental impact statements on major trade related measures). > > >> I hope this isn't not too much of an ask. Please just write brief >> notes against any of the questions you feel able and have enough >> energy to answer. >> >> I am also interested, as a matter of comparison, to know about the >> processes, challenges and lessons (basically the same sort of >> questions as above) from international NGO organising around NAFTA and >> even the GATT/WTO. Again anything very welcome. You will have >> certainly earned a copy of my hopefully earth shattering thesis when >> finalised. >> >* NAFTA/GATT/WTO > > In 1988, I had an intern here at the NW Office of Friends of the Earth in >Seattle from the U. of Ohio. Since the U.S/Canada free trade agreement had >just passed, I asked him to do some research on the environmental impacts of >trade, talk to the Ports, Trade offices, etc. He came back in three weeks >and said he was quiting and goint to Nepel and that this was the stupidest >project he had ever worked on, that there was no information and there were >no impacts on the environment. Ah, I thought, virgin territory, an untapped >issue. Eight years later I have filing cabinents full of studies and >reports and clippings on environmental impacts of trade. > >The best summary of the environmental NGO involvement in NAFTA (including >the FOE, Sierra Club, Public Citizen lawsuit against the Trade Reps office >for failing to prepare an EIS on NAFTA (and later GATT)) is found in Chapter >3 ("The Environment: Unwelcome Quest at the Free Trade Party, Jan Gilbreath >and John Benjamin Tonra) in The NAFTA Debate ed.by M. Delal Baer/Sidney >Weintraub, 1994, Lynne Pienner Publishers. > >Basically, both the NAFTA and GATT work was organized by the Citizens Trade >Campaign. They are still operating out of our Friends of the Earth's office >in WA D.C. (202) 783-7400 ext. 297/298 (don't know their e-mail, but you >might get Andrea Durbin in the FOE D.C. office to run an e-mail over to >their office (adurbin@foe.org> > >* There is another book written on this subject by a California professor >back in 94-95. I obtained a proof copy, but can't see to locate it for the >title and author. I'll keep looking. > > >- Response by David E. Ortman > Director, NW Office > Friends of the Earth > Seattle, WA > >P.S. Because of your excellent questions, this information is also likely to >be of interest to the APEC '96 listserve so I will go ahead and post it there. > >DEO > > >> Thank you very much for your assistance in advance. >> >> Cheers >> >> Henry >> >> >> >> >> >>______________________________ Reply Separator >_________________________________ >>Subject: Re: [asia-apec 120] Discussion group on NGO organising aroun >>Author: Northwest FOE Office at mgdestmx01 >>Date: 24/9/96 10:36 AM >> >> >>23 September 1996 >> >>Greetings: Thank you for your e-mail. I helped organize the citizen NGO >>response to APEC '93 in Seattle, WA "The Hidden Costs of Free Trade". >> >>I would be happy to provide additional information concerning our efforts at >>APEC '93, as well as info on our NAFTA-GATT work, as well. >> >>Let me know how you want to proceed. >> >> >>Andrea Durbin from our FOE-D.C. office will be going to APEC '96 in the >>Philippines and APEC '97 will be back in the Pacific Northwest (or is that >>Pacific Rim Northeast?) at Vancouver, CANADA next year. >> >>I will also e-mail you a two part paper I did back in 1989 that covers some >>of the trade-environment issues. >> >>Cheers. >> >>David E. Ortman >>Director, Northwest Office >>Friends of the Earth >>Seattle, WA >> >> >>cc: Andrea Durbin, International Program, FOE-D.C. >> >> >> >>At 05:58 PM 9/20/96 EST, henry_leveson-gower@mgdestmx01.erin.gov.au wrote: >>> Dear fellow list members >>> >>> I am a post graduate at the Australian National University and am >>> currently doing research into NGO organising and campaigning around >>> international economic organisations. I am interested in the >>> theoretical basis for and practicalities of such action and am looking >>> at NGO action around APEC as a case in point. >>> >>> I was wondering if any members of the list would be interested in >>> joining an email discussion group on this topic so we can share ideas. >>> We could discuss such issues as: >>> >>> 1) Key aims of organising and campaigning around APEC; >>> 2) Major challenges of working regionally on APEC issues; >>> 3) Means that have been or should be used to attempt to overcome >>> the above challenges. >>> >>> If you are interested, you could send me a message and I will >>> then create a list for this discussion. This should be confidential >>> and the sources of ideas used by discussion members should not be >>> disclosed. The facilitator of the asia-pacific list has suggested >>> that we could post some of the discussion to the main list in order to >>> stimulate discussion on that list if we were happy to do that. >>> >>> I look forward to hearing from you. >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> >>> 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 Fri Sep 27 13:42:15 1996 From: daga at HK.Super.NET (daga) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 12:42:15 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 126] Early Blueprints for APEC Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960927123650.1b6f04d0@is1.hk.super.net> Early Blueprints for APEC: Leaked drafts show little action in action plans by Alejandro Reyes Asiaweek October 4, 1996 In Osaka, the talk was of an "action agenda." This year in Manila, it's all about "action plans." In November, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum holds its annual ministerial and informal leaders' meetings in the Philippines. Last year, the 18 members each submitted "downpayments" or initial measures to open their economies further to trade and investment. Each pledged to come to the 1996 conference with an action plan, specifying just how it would meet the APEC-wide goal of free trade and investment by 2010 for developed members and 2020 for developing ones. But as APEC has gotten down to the nitty-gritty of who lifts what tariff when, reality has tempered the initial zeal. Recently, drafts of each member's action plan current to Aug. 22 were released to the press by the Manila-based People's Forum on APEC, a group of non-governmental organizations that is planning a fringe conference. The documents bear the stamp of the APEC Secretariat in Singapore, but People's Forum organizers will not say how they were obtained. The final action plans will not be released until after the Nov. 22-25 APEC meeting. Judging by the draft proposals, the heady days of big-picture pronouncements that marked the Seattle and Bogor summits are definitely gone. In 1993, U.S. President Bill Clinton scored a PR coup when he convened an informal meeting of his counterparts. In Indonesia the following year, the decision to adopt the 2010/2020 timetable stole the show. Osaka in 1995 moved the process a step further, while the behind-the-scenes leadership in APEC was shifting from the U.S. and Australia to the Asian core. This year's proposals for the various plans contains a few specifics. Korea's list, for example, says that by the year 2000 it will allow foreigners to take up to a 33% share in telecom suppliers, except for Korea Telecom which will be limited to 20% overseas ownership. But there is no timetable for further liberalization. China says that by 2000 it will "reduce the simple average level of tariffs to some 15%," but over the longer terms it says only that it will "further reduce the level of tariffs. The proposals, of course, could be beefed up in coming weeks. Beijing, for example, surprised many at the end of last year's APEC meetings when it announced a package of sweeping tariff reductions. "Most Asia countries want APEC to remain faithful to the original vision of it as simply a loose forum for consultation on technical economic issues," says Walden Bello, a University of the Philippines professor who chairs the People's Forum. "They don't favor a free trade area because, by committing themselves to eliminate all trade restrictions and bring down tariffs to zero, they would lose the flexibility of using trade policy for larger developmental objectives." The American vision, Bello arugues, is to create a free trade area "via collective, comparable and binding liberalization plans, with fixed schedules." Nancy Adams, the U.S. trade representative for APEC Affairs, says, "The U.S. market has for years taken a huge portion of the world's exports, and efforts will continue to be necessary to pursue similar access in other markets." The U.S. plan is part of those efforts. For example, items under the "objective 2010/2020" column are often accompanied by the phrase "free and open trade in the APEC region." Washington is offering to bring down average tariffs for most products to 3.5% by the year 2004 from 4.9%. And the Americans are promising that slightly more than half of its imports will be tariff-free. Problems could arise when Washington demands the same in return. "American trade policy is driven by an unhealthy obsession with reciprocity," says Jagdish Bhagwati, professor of economics at New York's Columbia University. Asks one Western diplomat in Singapore: "Would the U.S. really be willing to open its economy in 2010, ten years before China opens its market fully?" In a speech last week in Singapore, Bhagwati spoke skeptically about APEC and regional trade initiatives. "What we have now is what I call a spaghetti bowl phenomenon, where discrimination cuts through the world trading system the way it cut through it in the 1930s." The only way to move toward free trade is globally, through the World Trade Organization (WTO), he argued. Still, the resistance of APEC's Asian members to Washington's agenda is a positive development, Bhagwati reckons. "Asian members refused to play along with the intellectual lazy drift to preferential trade agreements of the U.S. Asia is now providing the leadership that the U.S. has relinquished on the issue. But that is, perhaps, as it should be, now that the Asian nations have come of economic age." Over the long term, however, if the WTO gets moving, Asia and the rest of APEC will have to decide whether APEC itself is worth the bother. From cnic at kiwi.co.jp Sat Sep 28 13:11:55 1996 From: cnic at kiwi.co.jp (Citizen's' Nuclear Information Center) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 13:11:55 +0900 Subject: [asia-apec 127] Re: Early Blueprints for APEC Message-ID: <199609280410.NAA08479@kiwi.co.jp> Dear ASIA - APEC Friends, We got a followed message from Taiwan. If you are interested in or could give your help, please contact them. Mika Obayashi Citizens' Nuclear Information Center the message begins ///////////// Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 15:29:43 +0000 Reply-To: nirsnet@igc.apc.org Sender: owner-nukenet@envirolink.org Precedence: bulk From: "Michael Mariotte" To: NIRS.ALERT.LIST@igc.org Subject: Help needed against GE in Taiwan X-Sender: nirsnet@igc.org X-Old-Sender: X-Total-Enclosures: 1 X-Enclosure-Info: DOS,"pleasepo.txt",,,,Text X-mailer: Pegasus Mail/Windows (v1.22) X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.0 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN X-UIDL: bb9aedcc215b4a4c2fca73caf46eda12 -------------- Enclosure number 1 ---------------- September 20, 1996 News From: TAIWAN ANTI-NUCLEAR ACTION COALITION AN URGENT APPEAL FOR HELP SUBJECT: Campaign against the construction of the fourth nuclear power plant by Taiwan government and General Electric Company (GE). Dear Friends, The Taiwan Anti-Nuclear Action Coalition is in its campaign against the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant (4th NPP) construction in Taiwan. The Notorious GE go the bid of two reactors (ABWR, 1356MW each) and signed the constract with Taiwan Power Company (Taipower) this May, despite that the parliamentary Legislative Yuan passed the resolution to abolish all the construction project of nuclear power plant the day (May 24, 1996) before the bidding. Serious doubts have been raised about the legitimacy of this contract, but the Executive Yuan claims that the resolutionwill be vetoed in Legislative Yuan during this section of the assembly and that the construction will continue. As we all know, nuclear power is dangerous, inefficient, expensive, and unsustainable. So far, there are three operating nuclear power plants (six reactors) in Taiwan, two of which were built by GE. These plants have caused the damage of environment, and the suffering of people, especially the ethnic minority. The government has dumped a lot of radioactive waste to the disposal site on Orchid Island where a minority tribe lives. The construction of the 4th NPP supported by Taiwan government and GE company under the guise of economic development is in fact aiming at protecting the interest of international nuclear corporation at the cost of the well-being of Taiwanese people. We urgently request the internatinal green groups to take action to express your concerns on this issue and press Taiwan government and GE to abolish the 4th NPP construction immediately. If you support our campaign, please give us the name of your organization to one of the following address: 01) THE CAMPAIGN CENTER TAIWAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION UNION FAX: (886 2) 362 3458 E-Mail Address: tepu@ms1.hinet.net 02) THE INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN WORKSHOP GREEN PARTY TAIWAN FAX: (886 2) 362 1361 E-Mail Address: gptaiwan@ms10.hinet.net (( RECOMMENDED ACTION )) Express your opposition to 4th NPP by sending letter to: 1) President Lee Teng-Hui The Office of the President of the R.O.C. Fax: (886 2) 311 9574 or 314 0746 E-Mail: webmaster@www.oop.gov.tw 2) Prime Minister Lien Chan Executive Yuan E-Mail: lienchan@inform.nii.gov.tw or eyes@inform.nii.gov.tw 3) General Electric Company The office of GE in Taipei, Taiwan Fax: (886 2) 712 8340 Is there any one knows the communication add (e-mail or fax) of GE head office in the U.S., please post it for the letters heading in. your supporting action on this campaign will be highly appreciated. No Nukes !!! TAIWAN ANTI-NUCLEAR ACTION COALITION TAIPEI, TAIWAN ////////////// the message ends From amrc at HK.Super.NET Sat Sep 28 16:26:29 1996 From: amrc at HK.Super.NET (AMRC) Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 15:26:29 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 128] Toy Campaign: Toy workers' rights Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960928152104.092f3efc@is1.hk.super.net> The Toy Campaign: A Strong Commitment to Safeguard the Toy Workers' Rights The origin 1. Thai Kader fire on May 10, 1993 killing 188 workers and more than 1,000 were injured. The Kader factory produced Bandai toys. 2. Shenzhen Zhili fire in China on November 11, 1993 killing 87 workers and more than 60 were injured. The Zhili factory produced Chicco toys. 3. 11 workers were killed and 27 were injured in the collapse of dormitory of the Xiecheng Plastic Toy Factory on June 4, 1996. The factory building was a three-in-one dangerous building illegally built on a crumbling river bed. 4. several workers died of over work in a Shenzhen factory in 1995. These are the tip of the iceberg of accidents in the toy industry in Asia. Numerous toy workers are suffering from accidents, exploitation and violation of workers' rights. In a research by Hong Kong Christian Industrial Committee in the summer of 1995, 16 toy factories studied in the Pearl River Delta, China, including the Mettel, are all found to violate the Chinese labour regulations. In the face of ruthless exploitation of toy workers, several local and regional labour groups in Hong Kong established the Coalition for the Charter of Safe Production of Toys and initiated the toy campaign in the early 1994, and the campaign has been widely supported by various kinds of groups in different countries soon, including Thailand, Japan, Britain, France, Italy. Now the toy campaign has become a strong force to monitor the toy business. The Coalition has drafted the "Charter on the Safe Production of Toys" as the foundation of monitoring, and more than 60 local, regional and international groups have endorsed the Charter. The toy campaign tries to achieve the following purposes: 1. to safeguard the toy workers' rights through campaigning; 2. to monitor the toy business through information dissemination; 3. to lobby toy business, governments and the international community for the well-being of toy workers 4. to conscientize and organize toy workers in Asia to fight for their rights; 5. to educate the public and consumers about the exploitation of toy The achievement of the toy campaign Three main kinds of works in the toy campaign can be listed. 1. Research centre Hong Kong has become a key centre for information exchange about the working condition of the toy industry in Asia. A special bulletin on the Kader Fire, a report and a video on Chinese toy workers and a special issue on the toy industry in 5 Asian countries have been published, and an international conference was held in Hong Kong and the Conference's proceeding has been published. An intensive research on Vietnam and China will start soon. These materials are highly valued and immensely helpful to many campaigns in different countries against the toy industry. 2. Campaigning centre China is now the biggest toy producer in the world and Hong Kong, due to its geographical advantage, has become the biggest toy dealer in the world. The Coalition for the Charter of Safe Production of Toys has organized tens of demonstrations against the Hong Kong Toys Council. At least two mobile exhibitions about the sufferings of Asian toy workers are conducted in Hong Kong each year. Recently, an outdoor photo exhibition about Chinese workers has been organized. More importantly, the Coalition has organized three big demonstrations against the negligence by the toy business of workers' health and safety in the International Toys and Game Fair in Hong Kong last three years. Around a hundred demonstrators gathered together to raise voice against the international toy business each time. In January, 1996, more than 20 overseas industrial accident victims and unionists also joined the demonstration. Moreover, various toy campaigns in different countries also invite Hong Kong Coalition's members to attend their campaigns, e.g. the anniversary of Kader Fire, international mourning for the toy workers in New York on April 28, 1996, etc. 3. Lobbying centre The Coalition negotiate with the Hong Kong Toys Council for the Safety Charter and an independent monitoring system. Finally, the Toys Council is forced to draft another charter for their own members although they have not endorsed our Charter. Moreover, through the efforts of different groups in different countries, more and more toy manufacturers' association in various countries to have their own codes of conduct. Some of them are even trying to work out an independent monitoring system. Many transnational corporations (TNCs) are pressurized to draft up their own codes of conduct, most of which are applicable to their suppliers. Of course, the Business Practices for the Guidance of Toy Manufacturers of Europe (TME) is a significant achievement of common efforts of NGOs in the world., However, a piece of paper cannot safeguard workers' rights. In the TME's business practices, collective bargaining and maximum working hours are not guaranteed. More importantly, a beautiful code of conduct cannot prevent exploitation of workers without an independent monitoring system. A piece of paper is not enough In order to avoid criticism from trade unions and NGOs, many TNCs have drafted their codes of conduct. However, it seems that such codes of conduct are not seriously enforced. For example, Reebok has introduced a "Human Rights Production Standard" to its suppliers, and states that Reebok will check its suppliers each year to guarantee that they follow strictly the "Standard". Unfortunately, in August, 1994, the factory of Yue Yuen, one of Reebok's suppliers, in the Jida District, Zhuhai was found that Yue Yuen placed worker dormitory inside factory building. This violated Chinese fire regulations. Moreover, five of Reebok's suppliers in China, including the Yue Yuen Group, were found to violate the Reebok's standard in a survey conducted by Hong Kong Christian Industrial Committee in summer, 1995. Reebok's management replied that they had known nothing about violation of workers' rights by its suppliers. In short, Reebok fails to monitor its suppliers or perhaps it won't monitor. The beautiful "Standard" is just for public image. Therefore, nothing can be achieved if we leave TNCs or the business to monitor their factories. Yue Yuen factory, one of Reebok's suppliers, is found again to violate Reebok's standard, but Reebok still subcontracts orders to the company. No punishment has been done. It seems that workers' rights, to Reebok, is a lip service only. Independent monitoring system It is clear that a monitoring system which involves grassroots groups and workers must be introduced immediately. Especially the voice of women workers should not be neglected because most of toy workers in Asia are women. In fact, the toy business strongly resist an independent monitoring system. They excuse in the name of commercial secret, but what they wish is to stop foreign contact with workers. I realize that some unions are now discussing with the toy business about a monitoring system which involves an independent organizations, such as the Fair Trade in Britain. Due to no workers' involvement, it is not perfect but acceptable. However, we should also realize that there are no "really independent" NGOs in some countries, such as China, Vietnam. Those NGOs are GONGOs (governmental non-governmental organizations). The toy business will welcome the participation of such kinds of NGOs because nothing will be improved. Therefore, we must be very careful when we discuss with the toy business what kinds of NGOs should be involved. The Coalition is willing to provide our information and is glad if we are invited as a member of monitoring system. Attacks by the toy business While we are discussing how we monitor the toy business, the business also fight back against. They try to stop open demonstration. Even in Hong Kong, a so-called free city, five peaceful demonstrators have been charged and found guilty recently in the reason of their disorderly behavior which caused breach of public order at the 21st International Toys and Games Fair at the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre on January 10, 1996. One of them was even charged assault against a security guard of the Centre even though the peaceful demonstrators were attacked by security guards and police indeed. Fortunately, the evident of this charges are not well-grounded. Moreover, AMRC is also charged for its false reporting about the Kader Factory in Shekou, Shenzhen. These are not occasional cases. They should be regarded as a signal that the toy business will not tolerate any more the actions against their exploitation of workers and negligence of workers' safety. They try to keep NGOs' voice as low as possible. They work with government to stop any opposition actions. In China and Indonesia, independent unions are oppressed ruthlessly. This is not only some countries' own issue, but also the issue of international community because of capital globalizion. More and more toy workers in Asia suffer, more workers in other regions suffer too. It is not a battle for a civil society in some countries to resist against oppression by government and business, but also a battle for a global civil society against TNCs and autocratic governments. Future Plan There is no doubt that the Coalition will continue what they are doing, including research, campaign and lobbing. However, conscientization of Asian toy workers should be strengthened. The future plan in the coming year is as follows: 1. a follow-up research on the toy factories in the Preal River Delta 2. a comparative study on the township and village enterprises in two main industrial areas in South China 3. a comparative study on Chinese and Vietnamese workers 4. 3 demonstrations and exhibitions in Hong Kong 5. a workers' rights handbook in different languages. Mainland Chinese, Indonesian, and Thai versions are primarily considered. To continue and strengthen the toy campaign, we fervently hope that you will organize a toy campaign in your countries or your cities to safeguard the toy workers rights in Asia. Moreover, we also need support. Any kinds of support and donation are appreciated. by CHAN Ka Wai Associate Director Hong Kong Christian Industrial Committee for the Coalition for the Charter of Safe Production of Toys on September 12-21, 1996 From news at perryspc.demon.co.uk Sun Sep 29 10:42:07 1996 From: news at perryspc.demon.co.uk (news) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 09:42:07 +0800 (HKT) Subject: [asia-apec 129] Letter to ABB re Bakun project Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960929093642.27e7d550@is1.hk.super.net> Dear friends, Many thanks for endorsing the letter to Percy Barnevik, CEO of ABB, expressing our disappointment that the contract with Ekran was due to be signed on Monday 30th September. 203 NGOs from 30 countries, 35 Members of the European Parliament, 4 Presidents of GLOBE, and 32 individuals supported this letter. This is great, many thanks for your solidarity. We have received the good news today that the contract signing has been postponed for the 2nd time - no reasons were given nor a new expected signing date. However we have proceeded with faxing the letter to ABB today. The Swiss version of the letter can be found below - this was faxed to ABB's Zrich HQ by the Berne Declaration. The UK version of the letter has 5 UK groups as the lead signatories, and was faxed by Forests Monitor to ABB in Zrich and London. We also leafletted employees at the ABB UK office on 26th September. Groups in other countries should feel free to layout the letter on their own headed paper, change the lead signatory, and fax it to their local ABB office. Even though the signing has been delayed it will reinforce the message to ABB. Press releases have been issued in Switzerland, the UK and USA. A copy of a UK press release sent by the Ecologist is attached. We hope that the continued postponement of the contract signing is something positive, and are sure that it is of the utmost importance to maintain and, if possible, increase the pressure on ABB to withdraw from the Bakun project completely. With best wishes, Nicholas Hildyard James Lochhead Monique Baker The Ecologist KEHMA-S Global Witness PRESS RELEASE Bakun Signing Cancelled NGOs call on ABB - Europe's "most respected company" - to reconsider involvement For the second time in a month, the signing ceremony for the main contract to build the controversial Bakun Hydroelectric Project in Sarawak, Malaysia, has been cancelled. The ceremony was due to have taken place on September 30th. It has been postponed at the request of Ekran, the Malaysian company responsible for the privately-financed dam. No explanation has been given. The main contract for the dam has been awarded by Ekran to a consortium led by ABB Asea Brown Boveri, recently voted Europe's "most respected company" in a Financial Times survey. ABB's involvement in the dam, which will flood an area of tropical forest the size of Singapore and require the forcible relocation of 9,000 indigenous peoples, has been severely criticised by environment, human rights and development groups worldwide. In a letter faxed to ABB's Zurich headquarters earlier today, some 200 groups and parliamentarians urged the company to withdraw from the project. Reacting to the news of the cancellation of the signing ceremony, leading signatories to the letter welcomed the decision as "an opportunity not to be missed" for ABB to reconsider its involvement. The Bakun project has been dogged by controversy since it was first proposed in the early 1980s. A coalition of over 40 Malaysian groups has called for its abandonment. Controversy reached a head on June 19th when a Malaysian court ruled that the environmental impact assessment for the dam was in breach of Malaysian law and the rights of the affected indigenous people had been ignored. At the same time, doubts have been expressed as to the financial viability of the project. The proposed flotation of the Bakun Hydroelectric Corporation has been postponed twice. The cancellation of the contract signing ceremony has also raised speculation as to the overall state of the project's finances. LETTER TO ABB Mr Percy Barnevik CEO, ABB Asea Brown Boveri AG P.O. Box 8131 8050 Zrich September 27, 1996 Re: Bakun Hydroelectric Project in Sarawak, Malaysia Dear Mr Barnevik, We are deeply disappointed to learn that ABB is planning to sign a contract on Monday 30th September with Ekran Berhad for its part in constructing the highly controversial Bakun Hydroelectric Project. As you know, the project will have severe effects on people (including the more than 9,000 indigenous people to be forcibly resettled) and the environment. You will also know that the recent delay in the signing of the contract came about because of a Malaysian High Court decision which found Ekran and the federal and Sarawak state governments in breach of Malaysian legislation regarding the Environmental Impact Assessment process. In particular, the rights of the indigenous peoples within the project area were deemed to have been severely infringed. We are disappointed that the letter from ABB dated September 3rd in reply to the NGO letter of July 2nd does not address this issue. Since the legal appeal made by Ekran and others has not yet been heard, perhaps you can explain to the indigenous peoples, all other Malaysians, shareholders of ABB, to us and to the world at large why it is that ABB is signing a contract to participate in a project which at this moment is so clearly in breach of standards of procedure that ought to be respected. Why is ABB endorsing the illegitimacy of the way in which the Bakun Hydroelectric Project has been planned? Why is ABB disregarding the decision of the Court and colluding in abusing the rights of the affected indigenous peoples? Why is ABB not at least waiting for the appeal to be heard and then reviewing its involvement in the project thereafter? ABB's action in hurrying to sign the contract is a disreputable one. This letter is an expression of the widespread disappointment felt around the world over ABB's planned action. The negative social and environmental effects of the project are certain to be extensive. Moreover, the economic viability of the project is in serious doubt. Despite promises to the contrary, the cost of Bakun's electricity is already projected to be the highest in Malaysia's history. Participating in the Bakun project, especially while the legal issues remain unresolved, will irreversibly tarnish ABB's reputation. We urge you not to sign the contract. Yours sincerely, Peter Bosshard Berne Declaration Switzerland cc. World Business Council for Sustainable Development SUPPORTING ORGANISATIONS: Carolyn Deere, A SEED, Australia Aviva Imhof, AID/WATCH, Australia Joseph Kwok, University of New South Wales Student Guild, Australia Anja Light, Rainforest Information Centre, Australia Cam Walker, Friends of the Earth, Australia Brigitte Parnigoni, Friends of the Earth, Austria Shireen Sultana Shereen, Friends of the Earth, Bangladesh KEHMA-S (European Committee for Human Rights in Malaysia & Singapore), Belgium Hemmo Muntingh & Lesley O'Donnel, International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), Belgium Sian Pettman, FERN, Belgium Wendel Trio, European Alliance With Indigenous Peoples, Belgium Joao Gerson M Cardoso, GTA, Brazil Maria Clara Couto Soares, IBASE, Brazil Alejandro Argumedo, Cultural Survival, Canada Thubten Samdup, Canada Tibet Committee, Canada John Thibodeau, Probe International, Canada Cesar Padilla, Observatorio Latinoamericano de Conflictos Ambientales, Chile Gabriel Rivas-Ducca, Friends of the Earth, Costa Rica Valdur Lahtvee, Friends of the Earth, Estonia Martin Arnould, SOS Loire Vivante, France Roberto A. Epple, European Rivers Network, France Freda Meissner-Blau, ECOROPA, France Reinhard Behrend, Rettet den Regenwald, Germany Hermann Edelmann, Pro REGENWALD, Germany Peter Franke, Suedostasien Informationsstelle, Germany Sylvia Hamberger, Gesellschaft fr kologische Forschung, Germany Bernhard Henselmann & Sascha Timm, Artists for Nature, Germany Wolfgang Kuhlmann, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Regenwald und Artenschutz, Germany Christoph Meyer, Robin Wood, Germany Wolfgang Sachs, Wuppertal Institut, Germany Heffa Schucking, Urgewald, Germany Katrin Seifert, EURONATURE, Germany Barbara Unmussig, WEED, Germany Asian Legal Resource Centre, Hong Kong Sanjeewa Liyanage, Asian Human Rights Commission, Hong Kong Mario Mapanao, Documentation for Action Groups in Asia (DAGA), Hong Kong Shripad Dharmadhikary, Narmada Bacaho Andolan (Struggle to Save The Narmada River), India Smitu Kothari, Lokayan, India Kavaljit Singh, Public Interest Research Group, India Maria Anik, International NGO Forum on Indonesia Development (INFID), Indonesia Arimbi Walti, Friends of the Earth, Indonesia Francesco Martone, Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale, Italy Reiko Amano, Society Against the NAGARA River Estuary Dam Construction, Japan Keiko Ebina & Aya Saitoh, Friends of the Earth, Japan Muto Ichiyo, People's Plan 21 Council, Japan Hiroshi Kanda, Institute for Alternative Community Development (IACOD), Japan Kazuko Matsue, Shinrin Renmei (Forest Association), Japan Kazumi Mazane, Survival International Japan Network, Japan Yoshihiko Murata, Japan Committee on CHT Issues, Japan Takahiro Nanri, Japan Tropical Forest Network (JATAN), Japan Dr Osami Nomura, Peace in Nerima, Japan Mika Obayashi, Citizen's Nuclear Information Center, Japan Shinichi Sakuma, People's Action Network To Monitor Japanese TNCs, Japan Gaku Takayama, Sarawak Campaign Committee, Japan Yuu Tanaka, Group KIKI, Japan Mihoko Uramoto, Mekong Watch, Japan Yoshie Yokokawa, Global People's Foundation"EARTH TREE", Japan Reiko Yukawa, Women 1000, Japan Lee Tae Hwa, Green Korea, Republic of Korea ALAIGAL, Malaysia Ang Hiok Gai, Parti Rakyat Malaysia, Malaysia Sem Kiong Angin, Indigenous Peoples Development Centre, Malaysia David Anthony, Society for Christian Reflection, Malaysia Arul, Community Development Centre, Malaysia Chee How, Sarawak Access, Malaysia Steve Cheong, Selangor Graduates Society, Malaysia Diong Chi Tzuoh, Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall Youth Section, Malaysia Fan Yew Teng, Centre for Peace Initiatives, Malaysia Irene Fernandez, Tenaganita, Malaysia Ibrahim Halim, Mahasiswa UIA Y.g Prihatin, Malaysia Hasmayudin Hashim, Badan Perunding Mahasiswa Negara (BPMN), Malaysia Jerald Joseph, Community Communication Centre, Malaysia Marcos Juing, Baram Self-Development Association, Malaysia Zaiton Mohamed Kasim, All Women's Action Society, Malaysia Teresa Kok, Democratic Action Party Women, Malaysia Dr Kua Kia Song, DONG ZONG, Malaysia Lai Sin Siang, Jiao Zhong (Association of Chinese Teachers in Malaysia), Malaysia Jannie Lasimbang, Partners for Community Organisers, Malaysia Lee Siew Hwa, Youth Centre, Malaysia Ismail Mohammed, Secretariat Pelajar, Persatuan Ulamak Malaysia, Malaysia Mani Muthu, Federation of Malaysian Consumer Association, Malaysia Colin Nicholas, Centre for Orang Asli Concerns, Malaysia Ong Boon Keong, Penang Organic Farm, Malaysia G. Rajasekaran, Malaysian Trade Union Congress, Malaysia K. Ramakrishnan, ALIRAN, Malaysia Selvam, Suara Warga Pertiwi, Malaysia Debbie Stothard, Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development, Malaysia Sulaiman, Jawatankuasa Sokongan Peneroka Bandar, Malaysia Tian Chua, INSAN, Malaysia Elizabeth Wong, SUARAM, Malaysia Wong Meng Chuo, IDEAL, Malaysia Irene Xavier, Persatuan Sahabat Wanita, Malaysia Ronny Yap, Democratic Action Party Socialist Youth, Malaysia M Camilleri, Friends of the Earth, Malta Carlos Heredia, Equipo Pueblo, Mexico Jeanette Abma & Dennis Janssen, Int. Nat. Jeugduitwisseling, Netherlands Irene Bloemink & Bertram Zagema, Friends of the Earth, Netherlands Wouter Veening, Netherlands Committee for IUCN, Netherlands Marie-Jose Vervest, Both ENDS, Netherlands Nina Drolsum, FIVAS, Norway Carino V. Antequisa, Tri-People Partnership for Peace & Development (A network of 112 development organisations), Philippines Mila Arbozo, Peoples' Movement for Empowerment and Development (People's MEND), Philippines Reginald Benitez Jr., Regional Integrated Development Coordinating Council, Tri-People Partnership for Peace & Development, Philippines Anna Maria Gonzales Biglang-awa, Alternative Planning Initiatives (ALTERPLAN), Philippines Rogelio Cabiladas (Datu Sandigan sa Bayug), Higaonon Tribal Council of Rogongon, Philippines Leoncio Cabusas & Ernesto Marinduque & Ludicita Cawit, Democratic Movement of Farmers of the Philippines-Lanao Provincial Chapter (dKMP- Lanao), Philippines Datu Amenodin Cali, KALIMUDAN Inc. (Center for Community, Environment & Development), Philippines Prof. Luchi C. S. Castro (Bai Kalalagan sa Iligan/Higaonon Tribal Title) & Frederick R. Castro (Datu Ina-Ama ko Ranaw/Higaonon Tribal Title), LUNDUAN Human & Material Resource Development Services (RCDN, Inc.), Philippines Alex Gaviola, People's Council for International Solidarity and Peace, Philippines Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center-Kasama sa Kalikasan (LRC-KSK/Friends of the Earth), Philippines Ramon Loberiano Jr., District Youth Council, National Council of Churches of the Philippines, Philippines Liddy B. Nacpil, Freedom from Debt Coalition, Philippines Ma. Fe Nicodemus & Ma. Luz Anigan, Kakammpi, Philippines Prof. Geoffrey G. Salgado, RANAO Community Development Network, Inc., Philippines Ellene Sana, Phil-SETI, Philippines Al Santos, Asian Council for People's Culture, Philippines Vim Santos & Joy Obera, People's Global Exchange, Philippines Isagani Serrano, Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement, Philippines Krysztof Kamieniecki, Friends of the Earth, Poland Rev. Oswald B. Firth & Bernard Edirisinghe, People's Forum For Development Alternatives, Sri Lanka Lars Bern, The Natural Step, Sweden Katarina Bjork & Ola Larsson, Faltbiologerna, Sweden Kristina Bjurling, Action 21/ PeaceQuest, Sweden Nils Hannerz, Fair Trade Center, Sweden Susanne Lindberg, Social democratic Students of Sweden, Sweden Jenny Lundstrom, Friends of the Earth, Sweden Bo Thunberg, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, Sweden Gunnar Tidstrom, Utbildning for bistandsverksamhet, Sweden Goepf Berweger, Society for Threatened Peoples, Switzerland Monica Borner, WWF, Switzerland Armin Braunwalder, Fondation Suisse de l'Energie, Switzerland Gaby Fierz, Group Tourism and Development, Switzerland Roger Graf, Bruno Manser Fund, Switzerland Franziska Nydegger Gueven, Swiss Peace Council, Switzerland Annette Hug, Terre des Hommes, Switzerland Carmen Jud, Swiss Peace Council, Switzerland Werner Kueng, Swissaid, Switzerland Gerhard Meili, Swiss Labour Assistance, Switzerland Ursula Schaffner, Action Group Financial Centre, Switzerland Urs Sekinger, Solifonds, Switzerland Otto Sieber, Swiss League for Nature Protection (Friends of the Earth), Switzerland Brigitte Vonaesch, Incominidios, Switzerland Andres Wiederkehr, Helvetas, Switzerland Markus Wittmer, Swiss World Shop Association, Switzerland Premrudee Daoroung, Towards Ecological Recovery and Regional Alliance, Thailand Somchai Homlaor, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM- ASIA), Thailand Monique Baker, Global Witness, UK Peter Bunyard, FLS Wadebridge Ecological Centre, UK Marcus Colchester, Forest Peoples Programme, UK John Dent, Richmond & Twickenham Friends of the Earth, UK Hildegard Dumper, Singaporean, Malaysian and British Association (SIMBA), UK George Gelber, Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, UK Dr John Green, Friends of the Earth, Scotland Jo Hamilton, Lloyds and Midland Boycott Campaign, UK Nicholas Hildyard, The Ecologist, UK Kath McNulty, Norwich Earth First!, UK Yvette Mahon, Burma Action Group, UK Aubrey Meyer, Global Commons Institute, UK Sophie Mustapha, Sarawak Solidarity Campaign, UK Ross Nockles, Reforest The Earth, UK Lekara Nwinia, MOSOP, UK Saskia Ozinga, FERN, UK Louise Platt, Empowering Widows in Development, UK Martin Sharp, Bristol Rainforest Campaign, UK Mike Silvey, EarthAction International, UK Sue Tibballs, Women's Communication Centre, UK Sarah Tyack, Friends of the Earth, England, Wales & Northern Ireland Sue Wheat, Tourism Concern, UK Stuart Wilson, Forests Monitor, UK Dr Kate Young, WOMANKIND Worldwide, UK Angie Zelter, Tree Cover Project, UK Simon Billenness, Franklin Research & Development Corporation, USA Ron Bosch, Montague Technology Center for Media & the Arts, MCTV Montague Channel 6, USA Dang Ngo, UCLA Rainforest Action Group, USA Mark Dubois, WorldWise, USA Andrea Durbin, Friends of the Earth, USA Amy Fedde, Colorado Group Against Bakun Dam, USA Stephanie Fried and Bruce Rich, Environmental Defense Fund, USA John W. Friede, Worldview, USA Jo Marie Griesgraber, Centre of Concern, USA James Hansen, Wetlands Rainforest Action Group, USA Whitney Haruf, Amnesty International, USA Pharis J. Harvey, International Labor Rights Fund, USA Randall Hayes, Rainforest Action Network, USA Jason Hunter, Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainable Development, USA Tim Keating, Rainforest Relief, USA Robert Klein, Ecology Now, USA Sally Konrady, Iowa Rainforest Action Group, USA Orin Langelle & Anne Petermann, Native Forest Network, USA Alexis Latham & John Clark, Friends of Nitassinan, USA Patrick McCully, International Rivers Network, USA Timothy J. McGloin, Friends of the Filipino People, USA George Marshall, Rainforest Foundation International, USA Colin Rajah, Overseas Development Network, USA Mary Reed, Nebraskans For Peace, USA Carol Reed-Klein, Environmental Resource Center, USA Stephanie Rychlowski, Rainforest Action Group, USA UCLA Environmental Coalition, USA Robert Weissman, Essential Information, USA Kunzang Yuthok, Tibetan Rights Campaign, USA Marcos Arruda, ICVA Commission on Sustainable Development Antonio B. Quizon, Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ANGOC) SUPPORTING MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: Martina Gredler, Austria Johannes Voggenhuber, Austria Magda Aelvoet, Belgium Paul Lannoye, Belgium Lone Dybkjaer, Denmark Ulla Sandbaek, Denmark Heidi Hautala, Finland Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf, Germany Hiltrud Breyer, Germany Wolfgang Kreissl-Drfler, Germany Bernd Lange, Germany Edith Mller, Germany Elisabeth Schroedter, Germany Wilfried Telkmper, Germany Wolfgang Ullmann, Germany Friedrich Wolf, Germany Nuala Ahern, Ireland Bernie Malone, Ireland Gianni Tamino, Italy Jan Willem Bertens, Netherlands Nel van Dijk, Netherlands Doeke Eisma, Netherlands Maartje van Putten, Netherlands Maria Teresa Estevan, Spain Per Gahrton, Sweden Ulf Holm, Sweden MaLou Lindholm, Sweden Inger Schrling, Sweden David Bowe, UK Peter Crampton, UK Michael McGowan, UK Mair Eluned Morgan, UK Christine Oddy, UK Anita Pollack, UK Ian White, UK PRESIDENTS OF GLOBE (Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment): Akiko Domoto, GLOBE Japan Carlos Pimenta, GLOBE EU Vitaly Savastianov, GLOBE Russia Tom Spencer, GLOBE International INDIVIDUAL SUPPORTERS: Dr George J. Aditjondro, Deparment of Sociology & Anthropology, Newcastle University, Australia Higo Akemi, Japan Andres Calvo Barrantes, Institute of Social Studies, Netherlands Ryan Borrowman, USA Elizabeth Brady, Canada Joanna Fuller, UK Douglas Gibbs, Oxford Forestry Institute, UK Elizabeth Goggins, US Virgin Islands Dorothy Grace M. Guerrero, International Committee, SCHOLAS, Institute of Social Studies, Netherlands Heiner Hoellerl, University of Forestry, Germany Isomi Kagaya, Japan Datu Jamail Kamlian, Ph.D., Department of History, College of Arts & Social Sciences, Mindanao State University-Institute of Technology, Philippines Professor Jane Kelsey, Law Faculty, Auckland University, New Zealand Duncan Kennedy, USA Chris Lang, UK Luis Alberto Camargo M., Colombia Avonice Martin, US Virgin Islands Yoshitaka Mino, Japan T.K. Oey, Philippines Kathryn S. Quick, USA Marc Receretnam, University of Sydney, SRC Overseas Student Collective, Australia Dawn Robinson, Oxford Forestry Institute, UK Jerome Rousseau, Professor, Department of Anthropology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada Agus P. Sari, Energy and Resources Group, University of California at Berkeley, USA Maria Lourdes B. Suplido, MA Student Institute of Social Studies, Netherlands Masahiko Tachibana, Japan Daphne Thuvesson, Department of Rural Development Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden Mutang Urud, Canada Nikolei Vorortuov, Former President of GLOBE Russia Dr Weiluo Wang, Department Of Spatial Planning, University of Dortmund, Germany David V Williams, Treaty of Waitangi researcher, Aotearoa/New Zealand Alexey Yablokov, Environmental Adviser to President Yeltsin, Russia