From notoapec at clear.net.nz Thu May 4 05:01:13 2000 From: notoapec at clear.net.nz (APEC Monitoring Group) Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 13:01:13 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1438] Fw: Editorial from this week's NZ Listener magazine Message-ID: <000601bfb53a$56737100$0acca7cb@notoapec> >NZ Listener > >Vol 282 No 3130 May 06 2000 - May 12 2000 > >SOS security > > >by Bruce Ansley, Senior Writer > > > >How watching police bashing heads in Washington took one back! Anti-war >rallies, race riots, our own 1981 Springbok tour protests. Mostly, the >protesters won in the end. Their causes became respectable. The United >States now only fights wars that do well in the ratings. Everyone agrees >that racism is bad. The Springboks bite ears. So the tear-gas last week >moistened eyes far beyond the streets of downtown Washington. > >World financial leaders from the rich nations met in the US capital to >discuss financial reforms. Outside, the protesters complained that their >policies hurt the poor and destroyed the environment. The US government sent >in the long batons. This was not war stuff nor wussy race relations. This >cause was definitely not respectable. It struck at the foundations of the >new world order. It was rank economic subversion and bad for business, too. > >The other side of the world, meanwhile, was grappling with its own kind of >economic threat. University lecturer David Small battled the police in a >Christchurch courtroom. In the winter of 1996, Small caught two Security >Intelligence Service (SIS) agents pursuing their shady business at the home >of his friend, Aziz Choudry. Apec trade ministers were meeting in >Christchurch that week. Choudry was one of the organisers of an alternative >conference, whose proponents argued that the free trade proposals on the >ministers' agenda were bad for the world in general and us in particular. >Not a radical view, just different to that of the New Zealand government. > >At that time, the SIS's powers had just been expanded. Our economic >wellbeing was placed in its care, along with its routine diet of espionage, >terrorism and subversion. Although one of the palliatives offered with its >extended powers was, allegedly, strengthened rights of protest and dissent, >the SIS's interpretation of that guarantee was to bug Choudry's home. > >A week later the police discovered a fake bomb, labelled "bomb", such a >cunning ploy that Small immediately suspected that the SIS had planted it. >They searched Small's home, found nothing, laid no charges. > >Choudry sued the SIS and eventually won a cash settlement and an apology. >The SIS is protected from public scrutiny on all but the most rudimentary >front. But the Court of Appeal declared that the service did not have the >power to go around breaking into people's houses. Small went to court also. >The police acknowledged that their search was illegal, but said it had been >an honest (sic) mistake. So this was the outcome: pursuant to its new >powers, but without regard for the caveat attached to them, the SIS set out >to bug the house of a dissenter, and was impeded only by its own legendary fallibility. With or without the SIS's direction, but in suspicious circumstances, the house of an innocent man was searched. The government's response was immediate. It changed the law to make all of this legitimate. It gave the SIS power to break into homes, and made it retrospective, with, of course, the usual range of useless guarantees. Labour firebrands who had breathed hot and heavy over SIS excesses were reduced to damp matches by the pressing need for change - which remained invisible to the public, for politicians counter the pressing need to laugh by according our secret service solemn silence. Still, everyone made it clear that our economic wellbeing was too important for scruple. As Small and the police slugged it out in court, Switzerland's International Institute for Management Development produced new world competitiveness ratings. New Zealand rated number one for lack of protectionism, lack of price controls and access for foreign finance. We rated near-bottom for the brain drain, export growth, current account balance and domestic savings. Despite a decade of the world's most advanced economic reform, we remained among the world's most economically challenged. You might conclude that the nation's leading economic subversives are nowhere near the courtrooms with Choudry and Small. Our best advice to those masterminds is to listen for clicks on the line, keep those ministerial houses locked at all times, and always take a hard hat to Washington. From src_st at hyd.netasia.com.pk Fri May 5 15:21:11 2000 From: src_st at hyd.netasia.com.pk (SRC-A.L.Adv.) Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 11:21:11 +0500 Subject: [asia-apec 1439] [OppAnn] Fw: Summer internship Message-ID: <004201bfb661$9d960200$510038d2@ayazl> -----Original Message----- From: Scott Codey SUMMER INTERNSHIP PHNOM PENH, CAMBODIA The International Human Rights Law Group (the Law Group) is a non-profit organization of human rights and legal professionals engaged in human rights advocacy, litigation and training around the world. Our mission is to help empower local advocates to expand the scope of human rights protection for men and women and to promote broad participation in building human rights standards at the regional, national and international levels. The Law Group?s Cambodian Defenders Project (CDP) promotes rule of law and human rights by providing free legal representation to victims of human rights abuses and poor Cambodians, sponsoring community mobilization campaigns and coordinating NGO and legal commentary on draft laws. The position may include assisting with commentary on draft law, joint planning of advocacy campaigns, helping in investigations, interpreting client data, creating basic human rights training materials and/or developing outreach materials. CDP is looking for law students with a demonstrated commitment to human rights and international law. Ability to work independently required. Previous community activism preferred. Applicants must have completed at least two years of law school. Some schools may provide academic credit for internships with the Law Group. All internships are unpaid. Evacuation insurance provided. Applications Please direct resume, cover letter, and two letters of recommendation to: Southeast Asia Coordinator International Human Rights Law Group 1200 18th Street, NW Suite 602 Washington, DC 20036 Fax: 202-822-4606 Email: seasia@hrlawgroup.org The Law Group is an equal opportunity employer. Join 3 leading Email Lists for Law, Announcements & Info: LawJuC-subscribe@egroups.com , OppAnn-subscribe@egroups.com , helpasia-subscribe@egroups.com Visit: http://www.angelfire.com/az/Sindh/misc.html For unsubscribing: OppAnn-unsubscribe@egroups.com From amittal at foodfirst.org Sat May 6 01:58:59 2000 From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal) Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 09:58:59 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1440] Action Alert - Support Landless Protesting in Brazil Message-ID: <0.700000824.242925192-212058698-957545939@topica.com> Food First Action Alert May 5, 2000 MILITARY POLICE ATTACK LANDLESS MARCH, KILLING ONE AND INJURING DOZENS IN PARANÁ STATE, BRAZIL On May 2, close to 1,000 military police intercepted 50 buses carrying roughly 500 sem terra (landless laborers) on highway BR 277 about three miles from Curitiba, the capital of southern Paraná state. Before the landless had exited the buses, police began throwing tear gas canisters and firing rubber bullets (and some real bullets) at them. One of the landless, Antonio Tavares Pereira, 30, the father of five children, was shot in the chest and later died. Another man was seen by witnesses after having been shot in the head. He has not been seen since, however. Other landless are reported missing. Local groups continue to investigate their whereabouts. In addition to the death of Antonio Tavares Pereira, and the possible disappearances, the results of the violent action were at least 60 injured (and treated at local hospitals). The landless believe that number to be above 150, given that most of the injured did not receive any treatment and thus were not registered as such. We request that you please forward this information to relevant E-mail lists and write to the relevant Brazilian authorities, expressing concern: Governador Jaime Lerner: Praça N.S. da Salete, s/n Curitiba, PR - Brasil E-mail: scgg@pr.gov.br Fax: 55-41-254-7345 Telephone: 55-41-350-2400 President Fernando Henrique Cardoso Praça dos Três Poderes Palácio do Planalto, 3° andar 70.150-900 Brasília DF E-mail: pr@planalto.gov.br Fax: 55-61 322-2314 Telephone: 55-61-411-1169 ### Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst@foodfirst.org. ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics From amittal at foodfirst.org Sat May 6 03:24:09 2000 From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal) Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 11:24:09 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1441] JOIN RALLY FOR BLACK FARMERS Message-ID: <0.700000824.1713299566-212058698-957551049@topica.com> **Congressional Representatives Support Family Farmers** Join Over 500 Black Farmers and Small Family Farmers at the Rally USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, Washington, DC, May 8, 2000, 10:00 am Co-Sponsored by Food First/ The Institute for Food and Development Policy & the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association (BFAA) Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Black Congressional Caucus, including Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Earl Hilliard (D-AL) and Maxine Waters (D-CA), will join over 500 Black farmers and small family farmers from around the country in front of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) on May 8, to protest decades of on-going discrimination by the agency and to demand support for America's small family farmers. This rally, endorsed by over 60 groups follows the March 6 and March 20, 2000, arrests of 18 Black farmers at the USDA offices, when they tried to meet with the Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman. The Rally for Black Family Farmers and the Family Farm Movement is co-sponsored by Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy and the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association (BFAA). In January 1999, lawyers representing Black farmers in a class-action suit against the USDA (Timothy Pigford, et al. v. Glickman) signed a consent agreement compensating each farmer with $50,000 for discrimination suffered in the distribution of loans and disaster relief by the USDA between the years 1981 and 1996. Now the USDA is stalling in paying the compensation. According to Gary Grant, President of the BFAA, "the Consent Decree is no panacea for what has happened to us, but the terrorism with which the Decree is being implemented, with over 40% of farmers already rejected, it will lead to sure death of black family farmers in this nation." The situation of Black farmers in the U.S. is very serious. In 1920, 925,000 farmers were African Americans. In 1999, less than 18,000 African American farmers remained. In 1990 a House of Representatives committee found that Black owned farms were going out of business at a rate five times that of white farmers, and that Black farmers, who represented less than 1% of U.S. farmers, were on the verge of extinction. Black farmers point to USDA discrimination as a major contributing factor in their declining numbers. To add to their woes, the Reagan administration eliminated the USDA's civil rights complaint division in 1983. That ended any federal investigation of complaints filed by minority farmers. According to Anuradha Mittal, Policy Director of Food First, "Black farmers have been the proverbial "canary in the mineshaft" of American agriculture. Everything that happened to them, happened to all family farmers later. Last year American taxpayers paid a record $22 billion in farm support payments, which went overwhelmingly to the largest and wealthiest 25% of American farms. That’s a lot to pay for a system that drives family farmers off the land, destroys rural America, and erodes our soil, while subsidizing Cargill and ADM." The rally on May 8 will inform the nation and the world of violations of the basic human rights of Black farmers and small family farmers by the USDA and the US Justice Department, as they continue to cause undue and unnecessary anguish for Black farmers and small family farmers. The rally is calling for: o Fulfillment of the consent decree; o Return of foreclosed lands to the Black farmers; o Access to credit without discrimination in the future for all family farmers; o Support for outreach, technical assistance and funding of education; o Democratization of the USDA/Farm Services Agency; o Full implementation of the Civil Rights Action team (CRAT) and National Small Farm Commission Recommendations; o A Farm Bill to strengthen America's family farmers. For more information, please contact Anuradha Mittal at 510-654-4400 or 510-684-5993 (cell phone). A background report on the situation of Black farmers in the US, can be found at: http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/2000/w00v6n1.html. May 8th Rally Endorsers: (Farm and Agriculture Groups) African American Food Association, Los Angeles, CA Arkansas Land and Farm Development Corporation (ALFDC), Brinkley, AR Black Farmers of Tennessee, TN California Sustainable Agriculture Working Group, CA Center for Rural Affairs, Walthill, ME Community Food Security Coalition, Venice, CA Community Food Security Project, Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA Community Harvest, Washington, DC Coordinating Council of Black Farm Groups, Atlanta, GA Family Farmers Defenders Inc., MO Farm Workers Support Committee, Berkeley, CA Federation of Southern Cooperatives, AL Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis, MN Kentucky Minority Farmers Association, KY Land Loss Prevention Project, Durham, NC National Family Farm Coalition, Washington, DC Rural Vermont, Montpelier, VT (Other Endorsers) AFL-CIO African American Environmental Justice Action Network, Atlanta, GA Animal Welfare Institute, Washington, DC Birmingham Human Rights Project, Birmingham, AL Black Social Workers of the Triangle, Chapel Hill, NC Campaign for Labor Rights, Eugene, OR Center for Community Change, Washington, DC Center for Economic Justice, Washington, DC Center for Poverty Solutions, Baltimore, MD Common Counsel, Oakland, CA Community Change, Inc, Boston, MA Concerned Citizens of Tillery, Tillery, NC Downtown Cluster of Churches, Washington, DC Earth Rights Institute, Scotland, PA Grassroots International, Jamaica Plain, MA Grassroots Policy Project, Washington, DC Green Party of Tennessee, TN Green Party of Texas, TX Harlem Reclamation Development Corporation, New York, NY Human Rights Action Service, St. Louis, MO Million Family March, Washington, DC National Association for Socially Responsible Organizations, Washington,DC National Lawyers Guild, San Francisco-Bay Area Chapter, CA Oakland Tenants Union, Oakland, CA Organic Consumers Association, Little Marais, MN Payday Men's Network Peninsula Peace & Justice Center (PPJC ), Palo Alto, CA Philippine Peasant Support Network (PESANTE) - USA Pine Island Organics, Pineland, FL Progressive Alliance of Alameda County, Oakland & Berkeley, CA Progressive Challenge, Institute for Policy Studies, Washington, DC Richard Levins, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA South Alabama Rural Business Enterprise, Inc. Southern Organizing Committee, Atlanta, GA Texas Landowners Association, Houston, TX The Edmonds Institute, Edmonds, WA The International Black Women for Wages for Housework The International Wages for Housework Campaign The National Caucus and Center on Black Aged, Inc, Washington, DC The Organization for Black Struggle, St. Louis, MO The Southwest Florida Organizing Committee for Global Justice, Tampa, FL The St. Louis Coalition for Human Rights, St. Louis, MO U.S. Program of Oxfam, Boston, MA West Tennessee Farmers, TN WHY (World Hunger Year), New York, NY Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst@foodfirst.org. ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics From putratan at indosat.net.id Sat May 6 15:56:21 2000 From: putratan at indosat.net.id (North Sumatra Peasant Union) Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 13:56:21 +0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1442] "All'attenzione dell'Avv. Montarsolo" Message-ID: <3913C215.78FB80FB@indosat.net.id> Dear Mr. Montarsolo, I wish to express my disapproval and indignation for the decision by the Fiera di Genova to host "TeBio", 1st Congress-Fair on Biotecnology. TeBio presents itself as "an opportunity to learn about biotechnology", but experiments on genetical manipulation have been carried out for several years in secrecy: GM plants have been grown near people's homes and GM food introduced in their meals without them knowing. Not to mention genetical manipulation of animals, and the abhorrent perspective of xenotransplants, implying the creation of hideous hybrids. The only aim of the TeBio fair is to launch GM products on a large scale: behind the fa?ade presenting it as a scientific congress it is but a commercial initiative. But the logic of profit must not prevail over the world peoples' right to health and information. I expect the Fiera di Genova to keep its distance from such initiatives for the future, sponsoring instead those events that associate the city's name with sustainable development, respect for the environment and human health, organized in a democratic and transparent way. Muhammad Yunus Nasution President of NSPU/SPSU Serikat Petani Sumatera Utara/SPSU (North Sumatra Peasant Union/NSPU) Jl. Karya Jasa 58, Pangkalan Masyhur, Medan, North Sumatera, Indonesia 20143 Tel/Fax: +62 61 7862073, Email: putratan@indosat.net.id ************************************************************ Serikat Petani Sumatera Utara/SPSU (North Sumatra Peasant Union/NSPU) is the federation of peasant organization consists of 105 local peasant organizations in North Sumatera Province as its member. SPSU is declared by the peasant of North Sumatera in Parsariran, South Tapanuli District, North Sumatera Province Indonesia on June 3 1994. SPSU is member of La Via Campesina (International Peasant Movement) at International Leve. SPSU is founder and member of Federasi Serikat Petani Indonesia/FSPI (Federation of Indonesian Peasant Union/FIPU). FSPI or FIPU declared on July 8th 1998 by several peasant organization of Indonesia. SPSU has two main bodies : Peasant Representative Board as the legislative body and The Peasant Executive Body. Both of them are elected by Congress directly. In order to implement its program SPSU will set up the Special Task Force and recruit the Consulates in local, regional, national, and international level. Special task force and Consulates are the supporting system of The Peasant Executive body consists of everyone and every institutions who concern to the Agrarian Reform, Indigenous People, Sustainable Agriculture, Democracy, and Peasant Movement. ************************************************************ 1) What is the protest about, what is TEBIO and what are GMO's? TEBIO - to be held in Genoa, Italy, on the 24th, 25th and 26th May, 2000, is the first international congress-fair of biotechnology, a display of multinational corporations that will try to impose large-scale production of GMOs in Italy. GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms), as is well known, are plants and animals whose DNA has been modified. DNA contains genes, which determine the living being's characters (colour, form, sex?). An example of GMO is the strawberry in which a gene from an arctic fish has been introduced, to make it resistant to low temperature. GMOs find their application in agriculture, breeding, and in the medical field. In Europe, large amounts of genetically modified corn, soy, rapeseed and tobacco are currently on the market, for the most part imported from the USA. Soy by-products alone (oil, flour, lecithin) are contained in 60% of food industry products (cookies, snacks, chocolate etc.) Despite the reassuring information boasted by some media, these products are a hazard for both human health and the environment. Allergy and interference with the immunitary system are effects already ascertained. But, since some of the genes introduced in GM food have not been eaten by humans (or animals) before (e.g. potatoes with a scorpio gene, corn containing bacterium), one cannot predict the reaction of the organisms which feed on them. Equally unpredictable are the effects of the introduction of GMOs (entirely new organisms, which never existed in nature before) in the environment. GM plants resistant to insects and erbicides, for example, may spread incontrollably, replacing the natural plants, with effects on the whole foodchain. ********************************** Please send your message to Fiera di Genova and as Cc to the President of Centro Biotecnologie Avanzate di Genova indicating as Object: "All'attenzione dell'Avv. Montarsolo" From putratan at indosat.net.id Sat May 6 15:56:21 2000 From: putratan at indosat.net.id (North Sumatra Peasant Union) Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 13:56:21 +0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1443] "All'attenzione dell'Avv. Montarsolo" Message-ID: <3913C215.78FB80FB@indosat.net.id> Dear Mr. Montarsolo, I wish to express my disapproval and indignation for the decision by the Fiera di Genova to host "TeBio", 1st Congress-Fair on Biotecnology. TeBio presents itself as "an opportunity to learn about biotechnology", but experiments on genetical manipulation have been carried out for several years in secrecy: GM plants have been grown near people's homes and GM food introduced in their meals without them knowing. Not to mention genetical manipulation of animals, and the abhorrent perspective of xenotransplants, implying the creation of hideous hybrids. The only aim of the TeBio fair is to launch GM products on a large scale: behind the fa?ade presenting it as a scientific congress it is but a commercial initiative. But the logic of profit must not prevail over the world peoples' right to health and information. I expect the Fiera di Genova to keep its distance from such initiatives for the future, sponsoring instead those events that associate the city's name with sustainable development, respect for the environment and human health, organized in a democratic and transparent way. Muhammad Yunus Nasution President of NSPU/SPSU Serikat Petani Sumatera Utara/SPSU (North Sumatra Peasant Union/NSPU) Jl. Karya Jasa 58, Pangkalan Masyhur, Medan, North Sumatera, Indonesia 20143 Tel/Fax: +62 61 7862073, Email: putratan@indosat.net.id ************************************************************ Serikat Petani Sumatera Utara/SPSU (North Sumatra Peasant Union/NSPU) is the federation of peasant organization consists of 105 local peasant organizations in North Sumatera Province as its member. SPSU is declared by the peasant of North Sumatera in Parsariran, South Tapanuli District, North Sumatera Province Indonesia on June 3 1994. SPSU is member of La Via Campesina (International Peasant Movement) at International Leve. SPSU is founder and member of Federasi Serikat Petani Indonesia/FSPI (Federation of Indonesian Peasant Union/FIPU). FSPI or FIPU declared on July 8th 1998 by several peasant organization of Indonesia. SPSU has two main bodies : Peasant Representative Board as the legislative body and The Peasant Executive Body. Both of them are elected by Congress directly. In order to implement its program SPSU will set up the Special Task Force and recruit the Consulates in local, regional, national, and international level. Special task force and Consulates are the supporting system of The Peasant Executive body consists of everyone and every institutions who concern to the Agrarian Reform, Indigenous People, Sustainable Agriculture, Democracy, and Peasant Movement. ************************************************************ 1) What is the protest about, what is TEBIO and what are GMO's? TEBIO - to be held in Genoa, Italy, on the 24th, 25th and 26th May, 2000, is the first international congress-fair of biotechnology, a display of multinational corporations that will try to impose large-scale production of GMOs in Italy. GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms), as is well known, are plants and animals whose DNA has been modified. DNA contains genes, which determine the living being's characters (colour, form, sex?). An example of GMO is the strawberry in which a gene from an arctic fish has been introduced, to make it resistant to low temperature. GMOs find their application in agriculture, breeding, and in the medical field. In Europe, large amounts of genetically modified corn, soy, rapeseed and tobacco are currently on the market, for the most part imported from the USA. Soy by-products alone (oil, flour, lecithin) are contained in 60% of food industry products (cookies, snacks, chocolate etc.) Despite the reassuring information boasted by some media, these products are a hazard for both human health and the environment. Allergy and interference with the immunitary system are effects already ascertained. But, since some of the genes introduced in GM food have not been eaten by humans (or animals) before (e.g. potatoes with a scorpio gene, corn containing bacterium), one cannot predict the reaction of the organisms which feed on them. Equally unpredictable are the effects of the introduction of GMOs (entirely new organisms, which never existed in nature before) in the environment. GM plants resistant to insects and erbicides, for example, may spread incontrollably, replacing the natural plants, with effects on the whole foodchain. ********************************** Please send your message to Fiera di Genova and as Cc to the President of Centro Biotecnologie Avanzate di Genova indicating as Object: "All'attenzione dell'Avv. Montarsolo" From amittal at foodfirst.org Thu May 11 10:30:00 2000 From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal) Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 18:30:00 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1444] Representative Maxine Waters calls for end of "USDA's Foot-dragging Tact Message-ID: <0.700000824.1968195726-212058698-958008600@topica.com> MAY 10, 2000 Contact: Anuradha Mittal 510-654-4400 **Representative Maxine Waters calls for end of "USDA's Foot-dragging Tactics"** Black and Small Family Farmers Rally Against Discrimination Co-Sponsored by Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy & the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association (BFAA) Washington, DC, May 8 - Black and small family farmers, accompanied by law makers, unions and small farms advocacy organizations, rallied outside the USDA building, demanding an end to "decades of racial discrimination." In a non-violent rally, hundreds of African-American and small family farmers from Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Pennsylvnia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, New Jersey, California, Texas, and Wisconsin, protested racist practices that are leading to the virtual extinction of black-owned farms and demanded support for all of America's family farmers. Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA), who held the first Congressional hearings on the issue in 1997, joined the demonstrators. According to demonstrators, in 1999 less than 18,000 black farmers remained, down from 925,000 farmers in 1920. Since 1965, including a 1990 congressional committee, found that black-owned farms were going out of business at a rate five times that of white farmers and it was predicted that be the year 2000, there would be no black-owned land in the country. "Each day black farmers lose 1,000 acres of land. Today they claim 53 percent of USDA land holdings formerly belonged to them," said Anuradha Mittal, co- director of the Institute for Food and Development Policy/Food First. Further adding to farmers' woes, President Ronald Reagan cut the USDA budget in 1983 by eliminating its civil rights complaint division which ended any federal investigation of complaints filed by minority farmers. In 1997, more than 1,000 Black farmers sued the USDA, seeking three billion dollars in compensation, covering claims from 1983 to 1997. Then in January 1999, the agency and attorneys for the farmers reached an out-of-court settlement calling for forgiveness of the plaintiffs' government debts and a one-time tax-free $50,000 disbursement to each farmer. The process for payment of farmers is moving too slowly, however, and 40 percent of those who applied to receive payment under the settlement were rejected. "With over 40 percent of farmers already rejected, it will lead to the end of Black family farmers in this nation,'" said Gary Grant, president of the BFAA. "Here we go again, " said Representative Maxine Waters at the rally. "Once again Black farmers have been forced to resort to demonstration and protest to secure what a court of law has previously substantiated: that Black Farmers have experienced discrimination at the hands of the USDA employees. When will this travesty of injustice stop? We can no longer stand by and allow the rights of America's Black farmers to be trampled on by unjust policies." Waters assured protestors that she and the Congressional Black Caucus would go through each farmers' complaints individually to ensure that the farmers received the funds they were entitled to. Demonstrators, led by Waters, then marched to the entrance of the USDA where Waters, Gary Grant and Attorney Stephan Bowens, Darlene Smith and associate asked to talk with Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman. The armed guards kept Congresswoman and the agreed upon delegation waiting out in 90 degree temperature for more than 15 minutes while they checked to see if the Congresswoman could enter the building. It was only upon Rep. Water's threat to enter the building any way, were they allowed to enter. While this delegation met with Secretary Glickman, thirteen protestors including three women and a 73 year old farmer from Alabama who tried to enter the building were arrested. The rally for Black and small family farmers was endorsed by over 60 organizations, both local and national, representing a wide array of interests and goals. Their common endorsement represented a broad-based support for Black and small family farmers. The recent decline in the number of Black farmers has presaged the current drop in small-scale, family owned farms throughout the nation, said Mittal. With federal subsidies overwhelmingly going to the largest and wealthiest factory-like farms, small-scale farms are feeling the crunch, she said. "Black farmers have been the proverbial 'canary in the mineshaft' of US agriculture," she said. "Everything that happened to them, happened to all family farmers later." The rally called for a healthy rural America, one that supports family farmers of all races and protects American farmland for future generations. Gary Grant, president of the BFAA, promised to persevere. "We have achieved much today, but we will keep coming back until justice is served. We are not going to stop before we get justice. We will not go away and the USDA needs to honor its signature on the Consent Decree and live up to its agreement. Justice will prevail!" exclaimed Grant. For more information, please contact Anuradha Mittal at 510-654-4400. Visit Food First at www.foodfirst.org and BFAA at http://www.coax.net/people/lwf/bfaa.htm. A background report on the situation of Black farmers in the US, can be found at: http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/2000/w00v6n1.html. ### Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst@foodfirst.org. ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics From bayan at iname.com Mon May 15 13:10:14 2000 From: bayan at iname.com (BAYAN) Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 21:10:14 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1445] JAKAT-Relief drive for Moro Evacuees in Central Mindanao Message-ID: JAKAT means HELP. A Relief Drive for the Moro Evacuees of Central Mindanao DEAR FRIENDS, Thousands of Moro peasants have swelled in evacuation centers due to the AFP?s heavy bombing and shelling of Moro communities in Maguindanao and other provinces of Central Mindanao. Vastly affected by the dislocation are the elderly, children and women. Worse, almost half of the evacuees are not being served by the government, which ironically, is spending millions for its current war in Mindanao. The Moro evacuees of Central Mindanao need our help.? Aside from material donations, they need our active campaign for the cessation of military offensives and the resumption of the peace negotiations? in order for them to return to their lands. The JAKAT Solidarity Relief Mission is an initiative of Moro and Christian organizations. We enjoin you to support this relief drive. Our Moro brothers and sisters are counting on you. Place # of evacuation?? # of family??? # of # of ?????????????????? centers ????? heads???? dependents?? individuals Parang 6 ?? 1,790 10,463? 12,253 Buldon 1 ????? ?? 963 ?? ? 5,776???????? ? 6,739 Barira 1 ??????? ???? 54??????? ???? 325????????????????? 379 Aleosan ????? 8 ????? ?? 867 ? 3,406??????????????? 4,273 Pikit 4 ?? 5,515 27,575?????????? 33,090 Cotabato City 2 ????? ?? 608 ? ? 3,648??????????????? 4,256 Midsayap 3 ?? 1,258 ? 6,767??????????????? 8,025 Partial Total 25????????? ??? 11,515 60,057????????????? 71,572 Data on evacuation as of May 7; source: Task Force Tulong OUR MORO BROTHERS & SISTERS ARE IN NEED OF: FOOD Rice Sardines Dried fish Beans Noodles Coffee/Milk Sugar/Salt MEDICINES Paracetamol Antibiotics Anti-diarrheals Vitamins Skin ointments antitussives OTHER NEEDS Soap Toothpaste Toothbrush Mats Slippers Mosquito Nets Cooking utensils Sacks Or FINANCIAL DONATIONS Send Check/cash to MISFI Account No. 00-016-000025-7 (Unionbank) A???? J O I N T???? P R O J E C T???? O F KHADIDJA MORO WOMEN PROMOTION OF CHURCH PEOPLE?S RESPONSE (PCPR) HALAD-MINDANAO Katipunan ng Kabataan Moro Karapatan - Southern Mindanao Mindanao Interfaith People?s Conference (MIPC) GABRIELA-Davao Children?s Rehabilitation Center (CRC) Pagsambok Development Foundation Citizens Disaster Response Center STOP MILITARY OFFENSIVES AGAINST THE MORO PEOPLE! UPHOLD THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE MORO PEOPLE! RESUME THE GRP-MILF PEACE TALKS! Write to: Pres. Joseph Estrada ? Malacanang Palace Manila, Philippines Fax (02)8323793 e-mail: erap@erap.com Secretary Orlando Mercado Department of National Defense Camp Aguinaldo 1110 Quezon City Fax (02)9116213 Gen. Angelo Reyes AFP Chief of Staff Camp Aguinaldo 1110 Quezon City Fax (02)9117783 Sec.Alexander Aguirre Natl Security Adviser Malacanang Palace Manila Fax (02)8323793 JAKAT SOLIDARITY RELIEF MISSION SECRETARIAT c/o Promotion of Church People?s Response Diakonia Center, Iglesia Filipina Independiente Compound F. Torres Street, 8000 Davao City, Philippines Telefax 224-0913 e-mail: mipc@yahoo.com ???? --------------------------------------------------------- B A Y A N Bagong Alyansang Makabayan or New Patriotic Alliance No. 23 Maamo Street, Sikatuna Village Quezon City, PHILIPPINES ????? Telephone: (63-2) 435-9151?????? Telefax: (63-2) 922-5211 Email:?? Bayan webpage URL:???????????????????????????????? http://www.bigfoot.com/~bayan-phils ????? ----------------------------------------------------------- From bayan at iname.com Mon May 15 13:10:28 2000 From: bayan at iname.com (BAYAN) Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 21:10:28 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1446] Stop military operations now! Message-ID: <200005141324.VAA26430@tucows.skyinet.net> MEDIA RELEASE May 4, 2000 STOP MILITARY OPERATIONS NOW The Bagong Alyansang Makabayan today demanded an immediate and unconditional halt to military operations in Mindanao, blaming the government's total war policy as the culprit in? the escalation of violence and bloodshed in the island. "On humanitarian grounds and for the safety of millions, the massive deployment of military troops and their attacks on Moro communities must stop," BAYAN National Chairperson Rafael Mariano referring to the all-out war by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) against .the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. "The US-Estrada regime bears full responsibility for the Mindanao conflagration. Had it not resumed bombing of bombing MILF territories, deployed thousands of military troops and materiel, this would not have happened," Mariano said, referring to the escalation of armed clashes between the two groups and the recent collapse of MILF-GRP peace negotiations. "This revived all-out war policy by the government has already claimed many lives and destroyed people's livelihood. It is clear that? the US-Estrada regime is hell-bent in repeating the US-Marcos dictatorship's vain attempt to quell through a genocidal war the Moro people's resistance to their oppression," said Mariano. According to reports from Bayan chapters in Mindanao, four major thoroughfares linking Southern, Far South and Central Mindanao have been crippled due to the fighting. Bayan-Kidapawan reported that many people are fearing for the lives and property due to the militarization of their communities and amid clashes between government troops and the MILF. At the same time, BAYAN joined KARAPATAN-Southern Mindanao in appealing to the Most. Rev. Antonio Franco, the Papal Nuncio to the Philippines, to exert pressure on the government to stop military operations in Mindanao as a crucial step in resolving the raging war in the poverty-stricken island. The appeal was first made yesterday by Dr. Robinson Montalba, S. Th. D., of KARAPATAN-Southern Mindanao who issued an open letter to the Papal Nuncio who is now visiting Mindanao. Specifically, KARAPATAN-Southern Mindanao asked the Papal Nuncio to: 1) call on the government to stop military offensives and exhaust all peaceful means in resolving the armed conflict; 2) encourage the government to initiate confidence-building measures leading to the resumption of peace negotiations between the government, the MILF and NDFP; 3) ask for the immediate and unconditional release of political prisoners; and 4) demand the government's adherence to international standards of human rights and international humanitarian law. "Peace prospects are dim under the US-Estrada regime. How can we resolve the problems that spawn armed conflict nationwide when we have a government that counts warring against the people as a workable solution?," Mariano said.? ### ???? --------------------------------------------------------- B A Y A N Bagong Alyansang Makabayan or New Patriotic Alliance No. 23 Maamo Street, Sikatuna Village Quezon City, PHILIPPINES ????? Telephone: (63-2) 435-9151?????? Telefax: (63-2) 922-5211 Email:?? Bayan webpage URL:???????????????????????????????? http://www.bigfoot.com/~bayan-phils ????? ----------------------------------------------------------- ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A? The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics ???? --------------------------------------------------------- B A Y A N Bagong Alyansang Makabayan or New Patriotic Alliance No. 23 Maamo Street, Sikatuna Village Quezon City, PHILIPPINES ????? Telephone: (63-2) 435-9151?????? Telefax: (63-2) 922-5211 Email:?? Bayan webpage URL:???????????????????????????????? http://www.bigfoot.com/~bayan-phils ????? ----------------------------------------------------------- From bayan at iname.com Mon May 15 13:10:21 2000 From: bayan at iname.com (BAYAN) Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 21:10:21 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1447] =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bayan_hits_AFP=92s_malicious_red-baiting_in_?= Mindanao Message-ID: NEWS RELEASE May 5, 2000 Bayan hits AFP?s malicious red-baiting in Mindanao The Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) today accused the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) of red-baiting and using the armed conflict in Mindanao to hit back at cause-oriented groups and non-governmental organizations critical of the Estrada administration. Bayan?s accusation followed a military report released to the media in Davao City tagging leaders of various people?s organizations and cause-oriented groups in Mindanao as top NPA commanders who have allied with the MILF. Last May 2, a certain Capt. Felix Mangyao of the AFP?s Public Affairs Group based in Camp Panacan, Davao City, told the local media that the following Bayan leaders were now serving as commanders of the NPA in Mindanao and have allied themselves with the MILF: Joel Maglungsod of the Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU), Valerio Mante and Frank Sagahun of Bayan, Antonio Flores of the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP), urabn poor leaders Marilou Soco and Rose Licong, and Joel Virador of Karapatan. Calling the military report an attempt to exploit public outrage and confusion over the worsening situation in Mindanao, Bayan Secretary General Teodoro? A. Casi?o said this latest military move was aimed at making Bayan leaders and members vulnerable to harassment, illegal arrests and searches and even violent reprisals from vigilante groups and anti-Muslim cults. "We suspect that this is another scheme by the AFP to silence the Estrada administration?s critics in Mindanao, which include Bayan and other cause-oriented groups,? said Casi?o. Bayan has been critical of the government?s stepped-up military campaigns in Mindanao, saying it would not help resolve the roots of the armed conflict in the island. ?Mr. Estrada and the AFP have not learned the lessons of the past 100 years. You cannot stop the Moro people's revolutionary struggle by brute force. The only way to achieve peace is through a political settlement with the Moro people and their leaders,? said Casi?o. Such a settlement, he added, could only be reached if there is mutual respect, sincere dialogue and substantial negotiations with the MILF, something which the Estrada regime has refused to undertake. # ???? --------------------------------------------------------- B A Y A N Bagong Alyansang Makabayan or New Patriotic Alliance No. 23 Maamo Street, Sikatuna Village Quezon City, PHILIPPINES ????? Telephone: (63-2) 435-9151?????? Telefax: (63-2) 922-5211 Email:?? Bayan webpage URL:???????????????????????????????? http://www.bigfoot.com/~bayan-phils ????? ----------------------------------------------------------- From amittal at foodfirst.org Wed May 17 00:52:34 2000 From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal) Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 08:52:34 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1448] US Patent on Neem Revoked Message-ID: <0.700000824.1465811142-951758591-958492354@topica.com> Friday 12 May 2000 US Patent on Neem Revoked By The Times of India News Service NEW DELHI: After six years of legal battles, the controversial Neem patent has been revoked. This is the second patent, after turmeric, which has been revoked. At the conclusion of a two-day proceeding, the European Patent Office revoked the neem patent, granted to the US department of agriculture and the multinational corporation, W R Grace. The patent was for a fungicide derived from the seeds of the neem tree. The legal opposition to the patent was lodged about five years ago by Research Foundation, headed by environmental activist, Vandana Shiva. The panel judged that there was no inventive step involved in this as neem has traditionally been used as a fungicide, Ms Shiva said. The neem patents are a clear case of piracy of Indian indigenous knowledge, she said. ``We were certain from the beginning that the US patent did not satisfy the basic requirements for a patent. How could they say they invented something which has been in public use for centuries and on which modern scientific research has been carried out in the country for decades,'' Shiva said. A statement from the president of the International Federation of Organic Agricultur Movement, Linda Bullard, who also fought the legal battle, said, ``This is a great day not only for us but for all people throuhgout the world, especially for the Third World, who have been fighting to take back control of their resources and knowledge systems from the patent regimes of the north.'' The revocation of this patent has important implications for the cases of biopiracy, the TRIPs review and for amendments in India's patent laws, Shiva said. For reprint rights: Times Syndication Service For comments and feedback send Email to Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. 2000. Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst@foodfirst.org. ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics From amittal at foodfirst.org Wed May 17 02:21:30 2000 From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal) Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 10:21:30 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1449] Anti-China Trade Campaign - Part 1 of 2 Message-ID: <0.700000824.850654093-212058698-958497690@topica.com> Dangerous Liaisons: Progressives, the Right, and the Anti-China Trade Campaign By Walden Bello and Anuradha Mittal* Institute for Food and Development Policy May 2000 [ Part 1 of 2 ] Like the United States, China is a country that is full of contradictions. It is certainly not a country that can be summed up as "a rogue nation that decorates itself with human rights abuses as if they were medals of honor."1 This characterization by AFL-CIO chief John Sweeney joins environmentalist Lester Brown's Cassandra-like warnings about the Chinese people in hitting a new low in the rhetoric of the Yellow Peril tradition in American populist politics. Brown accuses the Chinese of being the biggest threat to the world's food supply because they are climbing up the food chain by becoming meat-eaters.2 These claims are disconcerting. At other times, we may choose not to engage their proponents. But not today, when they are being bandied about with studied irresponsibility to reshape the future of relations between the world's most populous nation and the world's most powerful one. A coalition of forces seeks to deprive China of permanent normal trading relations (PNTR) as a means of obstructing that country's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO). We do not approve of the free-trade paradigm that underpins NTR status. We do not support the WTO; we believe, in fact, that it would be a mistake for China to join it. But the real issue in the China debate is not the desirability or undesirability of free trade and the WTO. The real issue is whether the United States has the right to serve as the gatekeeper to international organizations such as the WTO. More broadly, it is whether the United States government can arrogate to itself the right to determine who is and who is not a legitimate member of the international community. The issue is unilateralism--the destabilizing thrust that is Washington's oldest approach to the rest of the world. The unilateralist anti-China trade campaign enmeshes many progressive groups in the US in an unholy alliance with the right wing that, among other things, advances the Pentagon's grand strategy to contain China. It splits a progressive movement that was in the process of coming together in its most solid alliance in years. It is, to borrow Omar Bradley's characterization of the Korean War, "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." The Real China To justify US unilateralism vis-…-vis China, opponents of NTR for China have constructed an image of China that could easily have come out of the pen of Joseph McCarthy. But what really is China? Since the anti-China lobby has done such a good job telling us about China's bad side, it might be appropriate to begin by showing the other side. Many in the developing world admire China for being one of the world's most dynamic economies, growing between 7-10 per cent a year over the past decade. Its ability to push a majority of the population living in abject poverty during the Civil War period in the late forties into decent living conditions in five decades is no mean achievement. That economic dynamism cannot be separated from an event that most countries in the global South missed out on: a social revolution in the late forties and early fifties that eliminated the worst inequalities in the distribution of land and income and prepared the country for economic takeoff when market reforms were introduced into the agricultural sector in the late 1970's. China likewise underlines a reality that many in the North, who are used to living under powerful states that push the rest of the world around, fail to appreciate: this is the critical contribution of a liberation movement that decisively wrests control of the national economy from foreign interests. China is a strong state, born in revolution and steeled in several decades of wars hot and cold. Its history of state formation accounts for the difference between China and other countries of the South, like Thailand, Brazil, Nigeria, and South Korea. In this it is similar to that other country forged in revolution, Vietnam. Foreign investors can force many other governments to dilute their investment rules to accommodate them. That is something they find difficult to do in China and Vietnam, which are prepared to impose a thousand and one restrictions to make sure that foreign capital indeed contributes to development, from creating jobs to actually transferring technology. The Pentagon can get its way in the Philippines, Korea, and even Japan. These are, in many ways, vassal states. In contrast, it is very careful when it comes to dealing with China and Vietnam, both of whom taught the US that bullying doesn't pay during the Korean War and the Vietnam War, respectively. Respect is what China and Vietnam gets from transnationals and Northern governments. Respect is what most of our governments in the global South don't get. When it comes to pursuing national interests, what separates China and Vietnam from most of our countries are successful revolutionary nationalist movements that got institutionalized into no-nonsense states. What is the "Case" against China? Of course, China has problems when it comes to issues such as its development model, the environment, workers rights, human rights and democracy. But here the record is much more complex than the picture painted by many US NGO's. - The model of development of outward -oriented growth built on exports to developed country markets of labor-intensive products is no scheme to destroy organized labor thought up by an evil regime. This is the model that has been prescribed for over two decades by the World Bank and other Western-dominated development institutions for the developing countries. When China joined the World Bank in the early eighties, this was the path to development recommended by the officials and experts of that institution. Through the strategic manipulation of aid, loans, and the granting of the stamp of approval for entry into world capital markets, the Bank pushed export-oriented, labor-intensive manufacturing and discouraged countries from following domestic-market-oriented growth based on rising wages and incomes. In this connection, it must be pointed out that World Bank policies vis-…-vis China and the Third World were simply extensions of policies in the US, Britain, and other countries in the North, where the Keynesian or Social Democratic path based on rising wages and incomes was foreclosed by the anti-labor, pro-capitalist neoliberal policies of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and their ideological allies. - True, development in China has been accompanied by much environmental destruction and must be criticized. But what many American environmentalists forget is that the model of double-digit GDP growth based on resource-intensive, waste-intensive, toxic-intensive production and unrestrained levels of consumption is one that China and other developing countries have been enouraged to copy from the North, where it continues to be the dominant paradigm. Again, the World Bank and the whole Western neoclassical economics establishment, which has equated development with unchecked levels of consumption, must bear a central part of the blame. Northern environmentalists love to portray China as representing the biggest future threat to the global environment. They assume that China will simply emulate the unrestrained consumer-is-king model of the US and the North. What they forget to mention is that per capita consumption in China is currently just one tenth of that of developed countries.3 What they decline to point out is that the US, with five per cent of the world's population, is currently the biggest single source of global climate change, accounting as it does for a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions. As the Center for Science and Environment (CSE) points out, the carbon emission level of one US citizen in 1996 was equal to that of 19 Indians, 30 Pakistanis, 17 Maldivians, 49 Sri Lankans, 107 Bangladeshis, 134 Bhutanese, or 269 Nepalis.4 When it comes to food consumption, Lester Brown's picture of Chinese meat eaters and milk consumers destabilizing food supply is simply ethnocentric, racist, and wrong. According to FAO data, China's consumption of meat in 1992-94 was 33 kg per capita and this is expected to rise to 60 kg per capita in 2020. In contrast, the comparable figures for developed countries was 76 kg per capita in 1992-94, rising to 83 kg in 2020. When it comes to milk, China's consumption was 7 kg per capita in 1992-94, rising marginally to 12 kg in 2020. Per capita consumption in developed countries, in contrast was 195 kg and declining only marginally to 189 kg in 2020.5 The message of these two sets of figures is unambiguous: the unchecked consumption levels in the United States and other Northern countries continue to be the main destabilizer of the global environment. - True, China is no workers' paradise. Yet it is simplistic to say that workers have no rights, or that the government has, in the manner of a pimp, delivered its workers to transnationals to exploit. There are unions; indeed, China has the biggest trade union confederation in the world, with 100 million members. Granted, this confederation is closely linked with the government. But this is also the case in Malaysia, Singapore, Mexico, South Africa, Zimbabwe, and many other countries. The Chinese trade unions are not independent from government, but they ensure that workers' demands and concerns are not ignored by government. If the Chinese government were anti-worker, as AFL-CIO propaganda would have it, it would have dramatically reduced its state enterprise sector by now. It is precisely concern about the future of the hundreds of millions of workers in state enterprises that has made the government resist the prescription to radically dismantle the state enterprise sector coming from Chinese neoliberal economists, foreign investors, the business press, and the US government--all of whom are guided by a narrow efficiency/profitability criterion, and are completely insensitive to the sensitivity to employment issues of the government. The fact is that workers in China probably have greater protection and access to government than industrial workers who live in right-to-work states (where non-union shops are encouraged by law) in the United States. If there is a government that must be targeted by the AFL-CIO for being anti-labor, it must be its own government, which, in collusion with business, has stripped labor of so many of its traditional legal protections and rights that the proportion of US workers unionized is down to only 13 per cent of the work force! - True, there is much to be done in terms of bringing genuine democracy and greater respect for human rights in China. And certainly, actions like the Tienanmen massacre and the repression of political dissidents must be condemned, in much the same way that Amnesty International severely criticizes the United States for relying on mass incarceration as a principal mechanism of social control.6But this is not a repressive regime devoid of legitimacy like the Burmese military junta. As in the United States and other countries, there is a lot of grumbling about government, but this cannot be said to indicate lack of legitimacy on the part of the government. Again and again, foreign observers in China note that while there might be disaffection, there is widespread acceptance of the legitimacy of the government. Monopolization of decision making by the Communist Party at the regional and national level is still the case, but relatively free elections now take place in many of the country's rural villages in an effort to deconcentrate power from Beijing to better deal with rural economic problems, according to New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who is otherwise quite critical of the Chinese leadership.7 Indeed, lack of Western-style multiparty systems and periodic competitive elections does not mean that the government is not responsive to people. The Communist Party is all too aware of the fact that its continuing in power is dependent on popular legitimacy. This legitimacy in turn depends on convincing the masses that it is doing an adequate job its fulfilling four goals: safeguarding national sovereignty, avoiding political instability, raising people's standard of living, and maintaining the rough tradition of equality inherited from the period of classical socialism. The drama of recent Chinese history has been the way the party has tried to stay in power by balancing these four concerns of the population. This balancing act has been achieved, Asia expert Chalmers Johnson writes, via an "ideological shift from an all-embracing communism to an all-embracing nationalism [that has] helped to hold Chinese society together, giving it a certain intellectual and emotional energy and stability under the intense pressures of economic transformation."8 - As for demand for democratic participation, this is certainly growing and should be strongly supported by people outside China. But it is wishful thinking to claim that US-style forms of democratic expression have become the overwhelming demand of the population. While one might not agree with all the points he makes, a more accurate portrayal of the state of things than that given by the anti-China lobby is provided by the English political philosopher John Gray in his classic work False Dawn: China's current regime is undoubtedly transitional, but rather than moving towards "democratic capitalism," it is evolving from the western, Soviet institutions of the past into a modern state more suited to Chinese traditions, needs, and circumstances. Liberal democracy is not on the historical agenda for China. It is very doubtful if the one-child policy, which even at present is often circumvented, could survive a transition to liberal democracy. Yet, as China's present rulers rightly believe, an effective population policy is indispensable if scarcity of resources is not to lead to ecological catastrophe and political crisis. Popular memories of the collapse of the state and national defenselessness between the world wars are such that any experiment with political liberalization which appears to carry the risk of near-anarchy of post-Soviet Russia will be regarded with suspicion or horror by the majority of Chinese. Few view the break-up of the state other than a supreme evil. The present regime has a potent source of popular legitimacy in the fact that so far it has staved off that disaster.9 [ This article continues in Part 2 ] For the full article, visit the Food First website at: http://www.foodfirst.org/media/opeds/2000/5-china.html === Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst@foodfirst.org. ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics From amittal at foodfirst.org Wed May 17 02:21:56 2000 From: amittal at foodfirst.org (Anuradha Mittal) Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 10:21:56 -0700 Subject: [asia-apec 1450] Anti-China Trade Campaign - Part 2 of 2 Message-ID: <0.700000824.1403754339-212058698-958497716@topica.com> Dangerous Liaisons: Progressives, the Right, and the Anti-China Trade Campaign By Walden Bello and Anuradha Mittal* Institute for Food and Development Policy May 2000 [ cont'd... Part 2 of 2 ] The Anti-China Trade Campaign: Wrong and Dangerous It is against this complex backdrop of a country struggling for development under a political system, which, while not democratic along Western lines, is nevertheless legitimate, and which realizes that its continuing legitimacy depends on its ability to deliver economic growth that one must view the recent debate in the US over the granting of Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) to China. PNTR is the standard tariff treatment that the United States gives nearly all its trading partners, with the exception of China, Afghanistan, Serbia-Montenegro, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. Granting of PNTR is seen as a key step in China's full accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) since the 1994 Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO requires members to extend NTR to other WTO members mutually and without conditions. This is the reason that the fight over PNTR is so significant, in that it is integrally linked to China's full accession to the WTO. Organized labor is at the center of a motley coalition that is against granting PNTR to China. This coalition includes right wing groups and personalities like Pat Buchanan, the old anti-China lobby linked to the anti-communist Kuomintang Party in Taiwan, protectionist US business groups, and some environmentalist, human rights, and citizens' rights groups. The intention of this right-left coalition is to be able to use trade sanctions to influence China's economic and political behavior as well as to make it difficult for China to enter the WTO. There are fundamental problems with the position of this alliance, many of whose members are, without doubt, acting out of the best intentions. First of all, the anti-China trade campaign is essentially another manifestation of American unilateralism. Like many in the anti-PNTR coalition, we do not uphold the free-trade paradigm that underpins the NTR. Like many of them, we do not think that China will benefit from WTO membership. But what is at issue here is not the desirability or non-desirability of the free trade paradigm and the WTO in advancing people's welfare. What is at issue here is Washington's unilateral moves to determine who is to be a legitimate member of the international economic community--in this case, who is qualified to join and enjoy full membership rights in the WTO. This decision of whether or not China can join the WTO is one that must be determined by China and the 137 member-countries of the WTO, without one power exercising effective veto power over this process. To subject this process to a special bilateral agreement with the United States that is highly conditional on the acceding country's future behavior falls smack into the tradition of unilateralism. One reason the anti-China trade campaign is particularly disturbing is that it comes on the heels of a series of recent unilateralist acts, the most prominent of which have been Washington's cruise missile attacks on alleged terrorist targets in the Sudan and Afghanistan in August 1998, its bombing of Iraq in December 1998, and the US-instigated 12-week NATO bombardment of Kosovo in 1999. In all three cases, the US refused to seek UN sanction or approval but chose to act without international legal restraints. Serving as the gatekeeper for China's integration into the global economic community is the economic correlate of Washington's military unilateralism. Second, the anti-China trade campaign reeks of double standards. A great number of countries would be deprived of PNTR status were the same standards sought from China applied to them, including Singapore (where government controls the labor movement), Mexico (where labor is also under the thumb of government), Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states (where women are systematically relegated by law and custom to second-class status as citizens), Pakistan (where a military dictatorship reigns), Brunei (where democratic rights are non-existent), to name just a few US allies. What is the logic and moral basis for singling out China when there are scores of other regimes that are, in fact, so much more insensitive to the political, economic, and social needs of their citizenries? Third, the campaign is marked by what the great Senator J. William Fulbright denounced as the dark side of the American spirit that led to the Vietnam debacle--that is, "the morality of absolute self-assurance fired by the crusading spirit."10 It draws emotional energy not so much from genuine concerns for human and democratic rights in China but from the knee-jerk emotional ensemble of anti-communism that continues to plague the US public despite the end of the Cold War. When one progressive organizer says that non-passage of the PNTR would inflict defeat on "the brutal, arrogant, corrupt, autocratic, and oligarchic regime in Beijing," the strong language is not unintentional: it is meant to hit the old Cold War buttons to mobilize the old anti-communist, conservative constituency, in the hope of building a right-left populist base that could--somehow--be directed at "progressive" ends. Fourth, the anti-China trade campaign is intensely hypocritical. As many critics of the campaign have pointed out, the moral right of the US to deny permanent normal trading rights to China on social and environmental grounds is simply nonexistent given its record: the largest prison population in the world, the most state-sponsored executions of any country in the world, the highest income disparities among industrialized countries, the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, and quasi-slavery conditions for farm workers.11 Fifth, the anti-China trade campaign is intellectually flawed. The issue of labor control in China lies at the core of the campaign, which blames China's government for the low wages that produce the very competitively priced goods that are said to contribute to displacing US industries and workers. This is plain wrong: the relatively low wages in China stem less from wage repression than from the dynamics of economic development. Widespread poverty or low economic growth are the main reasons for the low wages in developing countries. Were the state of unionism the central determinant of wage levels, as the AFL-CIO claims, labor costs in authoritarian China and democratic India, with its formally free trade union movement, would not be equal, as they, in fact, are. Similarly, it is mainly the process of economic growth--the dynamic interaction between the growing productivity of labor, the reduction of the wage-depressing surplus of rural labor, and rising profits--that triggers the rapid rise in wage levels in an economy, as shown in the case of Taiwan, Korea, and Singapore, which had no independent unions and where strikes were illegal during their periods of rapid development.12 Saying that the dynamics of development rather than the state of labor organizing is by far the greatest determinant of wage levels is not to say that the organization of labor is inconsequential. Successful organizing has gotten workers a higher level of wages than would be possible were it only the dynamics of economic development that were at work. It is not to argue that labor organizing is not desirable in developing economies. Of course, it is not only desirable but necessary, so that workers can keep more of the value of production for themselves, reduce their exploitation by transnational and state capitalist elites, and gain more control over their conditions of work. Sixth, the anti-China trade campaign is dishonest. It invokes concern about the rights of Chinese workers and the rights of the Chinese people, but its main objective is to protect American jobs against cheap imports from China. This is cloaking self-interest with altruistic rhetoric. What the campaign should be doing is openly acknowledging that its overriding goal is to protect jobs, which is a legitimate concern and goal. And what it should be working for is not invoking sanctions on human rights grounds, but working out solutions such as managed trade, which would seek to balance the need of American workers to protect their jobs while allowing the market access that allows workers in other countries to keep their jobs and their countries to sustain a certain level of growth while they move to change their development model.13 Instead, what the rhetoric of the anti-China trade campaign does is to debase human rights and democratic rights language with its hypocrisy while delegitimizing the objective of protecting jobs--which is a central social and economic right--by concealing it. Seventh, the anti-China trade campaign is a classic case of blaming the victim. China is not the enemy. Indeed, it is a prisoner of a global system of rules and institutions that allows transnational corporations to take advantage of the differential wage levels of counties at different levels of development to increase their profits, destabilize the global environment by generalizing an export-oriented, high-consumption model of development, and concentrate global income in fewer and fewer hands. Not granting China PNTR will not affect the functioning of this global system. Not giving China normal trading and investment rights will not harm transnational corporations; they will simply take more seriously the option of moving to Indonesia, Mauritius, or Mexico, where their ability to exact concessions is greater than in China, which can stand up to foreign interests far better than the weak governments of these countries. What the AFL-CIO and others should be doing is targeting this global system, instead of serving up China as a proxy for it. A Positive Agenda The anti-China trade campaign amounts to a Faustian bargain that seeks to buy some space for US organized labor at the expense of real solidarity with workers and progressive worker and environmental movements globally against transnational capital. But by buying into the traditional US imperial response of unilateralism, it will end up eventually eroding the position of progressive labor, environmental, and civil society movements both in the US and throughout the world. What organized labor and US NGO's should be doing, instead, is articulating a positive agenda aimed at weakening the power of global corporations and multilateral agencies that promote TNC-led globalization. The first order of business is to not allow the progressive movement to be sandbagged in the pro-permanent normal trade relations, anti-permanent normal trade relations terms of engagement that now frames the debate. While progressives must, for the time being, oppose the more dangerous threat posed by the unilateralists, they should be developing a position on global economic relations that avoids both the free trade paradigm that underlies the PNTR and the unilateralist paradigm of the anti-PNTR forces. The model we propose is managed trade, which allows trading partners to negotiate bilateral and multilateral treaties that address central issues in their relationship--among them, the need to preserve workers jobs in the US with the developing countries' need for market access. Advocacy of managed trade must, however, be part of a broader campaign for progressive global economic governance. The strategic aim of such a campaign must be the tighter regulation, if not replacement, of the model corporate-led free market development that seeks to do away with social and state restrictions on the mobility of capital at the expense of labor. In its place must be established a system of genuine international cooperation and looser global economic integration that allows countries to follow paths of national and regional development that make the domestic market and regional markets rather than the global market the engine of growth, development, and job creation. This means support for measures of asset and income redistribution that would create the purchasing power that will make domestic markets viable. It means support for trade measures and capital controls that will give countries more control over their trade and finance so that commodity and capital flows become less disruptive and destabilizing. It means support for regional integration or regional economic union among the developing countries as an alternative to indiscriminate globalization. A key element in this campaign for a new global economic governance is the abolition of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization that serve as the pillars of the system of corporate-led globalization and their replacement with a pluralistic system of institutions that complement but at the same time check and balance one another, thus giving the developing countries the space to pursue their paths to development. The IMF, World Bank, and WTO are currently experiencing a severe crisis of legitimacy, following the debacle in Seattle, the April protests in Washington, and the release of the report of the International Financial Institutions Advisory Commission (Meltzer Commission) appointed by the US Congress, which recommends the radical downsizing or transformation of the Bank and Fund.14 Now is the time for the progressive movement to take the offensive and push for the elimination or radical transformation of these institutions. Yet, here we are, being waylaid from this critical task at this key moment by an all-advised, divisive campaign to isolate the wrong enemy! Another key thrust of a positive agenda is a coordinated drive by civil society groups in the North and the South to pressure the US, China, and all other governments to ratify and implement all conventions of the International Labor Organization (ILO) and give the ILO more effective authority to monitor, supervise, and adjudicate implementation of these conventions. This campaign must be part of a broader effort to support the formation of genuine labor unions in China, the Southern United States, and elsewhere in a spirit of real workers' solidarity. This, instead of relying on government trade sanctions that are really self-serving rather than meant to support Third World workers, is the route to the creation of really firm ties of solidarity across North-South lines. This social and economic program must be tied to a strategy for protecting the global environment that also eschews sanctions as an approach and puts the emphasis on promoting sustainable development models in place of the export-led, high-consumption development model; pushes the adoption of common environmental codes that prevent transnational firms from pitting one country against another in their search for the zero cost environmental regimes; and promotes an environmental Marshall Plan aimed at transferring appropriate green process and production technologies to China and other developing countries. Above all, this approach must focus not on attacking China and the South but on strategically changing the production and consumption behavior and levels in the North that are by far the biggest source of environmental destabilization. Finally, a positive agenda must have as a central element civil society groups in the North working constructively with people's movements in China, the United States, and other countries experiencing democratic deficits to support the expansion of democratic space. While the campaign must be uncompromising in denouncing acts of repression like the Tienanmen Square massacre and Washington's use of mass incarceration as a tool of social control, it must avoid imposing the forms of Western procedural democracy on others and hew to the principle that it is the people in these countries themselves that must take the lead in building democracy according to their rhythm, traditions, and cultures. Abandoning Unilateralism The anti-PNTR coalition is an alliance born of opportunism. In its effort to block imports from China, the AFL-CIO is courting the more conservative sectors of the US population, including the Buchananite right wing, by stirring the old Cold War rhetoric. Nothing could be a more repellent image of this sordid project than John Sweeney, James Hoffa, President of the Teamsters, and Pat Buchanan holding hands in the anti-China trade rally on April 12, 2000, with Buchanan promising to make Hoffa his top negotiator of trade, if he won the race for president. Some environmental groups and citizens groups which have long but unsuccessfully courted labor, have, in turn, endorsed the campaign because they see it as the perfect opportunity to build bridges to the AFL-CIO. What we have, as a result, is an alliance built on the assertion of US unilateralism rather than on the cornerstone of fundamental shared goals of solidarity, equity, and environmental integrity. This is not a progressive alliance but a right-wing populist alliance in the tradition of the anti-communist Big Government-Big Capital-Big Labor alliance during the Cold War, the labor-capital alliance in the West that produced the Exclusion and Ant-Miscegenation Acts against Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino workers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and, more recently, the populist movement that has supported the tightening of racist immigration laws by emphasizing the divide between workers who are citizens and workers who are not, with the latter being deprived of basic political rights. It is a policy that will, moreover, feed global instability by lending support to the efforts of the US right and the Pentagon to demonize China as The Enemy and resurrect Containment as America's Grand Strategy, this time with China instead of the Soviet Union as the foe in a paradigm designed to advance American strategic hegemony. As in every other instance of unprincipled unity between the right and some sectors of the progressive movement, progressives will find that it will be the right that will walk away with the movement while they will be left with not even their principles. It is time to move away from this terribly misguided effort to derail the progressive movement by demonizing China, and to bring us all back to the spirit of Seattle as a movement of citizens of the world against corporate-led globalization and for genuine international cooperation. *Walden Bello is executive director of Focus on the Global South, a program of research, analysis, and capacity building based in Bangkok; Anuradha Mittal is co-director of the Oakland-based Institute for Food and Development Policy, better known as Food First. We would like to thank Nicola Bullard, Peter Rosset, and Sal Glynn for their invaluable advice and assistance. Footnotes: 1. Quoted in John Gershman, "How to Debate the China Issue without China Bashing," Progressive Response, Vol. 4, No. 17, April 20, 2000. 2. Lester Brown, Who Will Feed China? (New York: Norton, 1995). 3. Anil Agarwal, Sunita Narain, and Anju Sharma, eds., Green Politics (New Delhi: Center for Science and Environment, 2000), p. 108. 4. Ibid., p. 16. 5. FAO and IMPACT data cited in Simeon Ehui, "Trade and Food Systems in the Developing World," Presentation at Salzburg Seminar, Salzburg, Austria, May 11, 2000. 6. Amnesty International, Unted States of America: Rights for All (London: amnesty International Publications, 1998). 7. Thomas Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree (New York: Farrar, Straus Giroux, 1999), p. 50. 8. Chalmers Johnson, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2000), p. 50. 9John Gray, False Dawn (New York: New Press, 1998), pp. 189-190. 10. J. William Fulbright, quoted in Walter McDougall, Promised Land, Crusader State (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997), p. 206. 11. See Anuradha Mittal and Peter Rosset, "The Real Enemy is the WTO, not China," Peaceworks, March 1, 2000; and Jim Smith, "The China Syndrome--or, How to Hijack a Movement," LA Labor News, Aprl 2, 2000. 12. For the state of the labor movement in these societies in the period of rapid growth, see Walden Bello and Stephanie Rosenfeld, Dragons in Distress: Asia's Miracle Economies in Crisis (San Francisco: Institute for Food and Development Policy, 1990). 13. For more on managed trade, see, among others, Johnson, p. 174. 14. Report of the US Congressional International Financial Institution Advisory Commission (Washington: DC, US Congress, Feb. 2000). For the full article, visit the Food First website at: http://www.foodfirst.org/media/opeds/2000/5-china.html ### Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst@foodfirst.org. ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics From rverzola at phil.gn.apc.org Sat May 27 06:08:04 2000 From: rverzola at phil.gn.apc.org (Roberto Verzola) Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 06:08:04 Subject: [asia-apec 1451] Italy, Genua: 10,000 close up biotech exhibition Message-ID: <200005270236.KAA02793@phil.gn.apc.org> Here's an inspiring story from Italy. -- Roberto Verzola From: "Giuliano" Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 14:08:44 +0200 Subject: [caravan99] (en) Italy, Genua: 10,000 close up biotech exhibition Hello A determined, battling demonstration closed up yesterday for a few hours the 1st worldwide biotech exhibition in Genua. But victory is not limited to this, and the exhibition is doomed to a real FIASCO. Alas, we count several wounded among comrades and 2 arrestations of youngsters accused of having broken down the glasses of a bank. But let's proceed in good order. Many thousands demonstrants gathered since 9 AM in front of the station Genua Brignole for the so called (by the media) Italian Seattle. There was people from all over Italy, and loosely, comrades from Switzerland, France and Germany. More than 400 grassroot groups endorsed this demonstration: there were the Anarchists from Milan, Genua and Rome; the Social Centers from all over Italy, a lot of groups from the "Green galaxy", Greenpeace, WWF, and a lot of other people. Also two political parties, the Greens and the Refounded Communist Party, decided to drop any exhitation and join a demonstration which openly called for Civil Disobedience to close up this new offspring of global speculation. At 10.30 AM the demo started. Despite the working day, we were 10,000 and more. The head of the demo was taken by the promoters, the coordination "MobilTebio"; immediately after, at least 1,000 White Coveralls ready for civil disobedience with gas masks, shields and paddings all over the body -- but no offence arms, no sticks, stones or bottles. Just all what you need to face peacefully a police attack. Behind, there were the Anarchists and after the rest of the people. Greens and Refounded Commies closed the demo. And that was a mistake, because they could not avoid the infiltration of the group of youngsters which later on -- for the extreme joy of media, cops and politicians of all sorts -- would have attacked and broken the windows of a bank, causing a police attack when we were still far away from the exhibition, our real target (wake up, babies: banks are insured, uhu!). Without losing time, we marched directly from the station to the exhibition, guarded by 3,000 antiriot policemen. Once arrived, the confrontation was almost immediate. We wanted to enter, they wanted to keep us out and away, while some dozen CEOs and "scientists" were inside deciding our future protected by an entrance fee of 350 dollars (and think that the exhibition's official slogan was: "Biotechnology: to inform yourself is natural" -- quite an expensive bit of information!). A first police attack started when the White Coveralls advanced almost till the entrance gate -- it was wild, and coordination was made extremely difficult by an helicopter flying all the time some 10 meters above our heads! However, the White Coverall's protections were good enough to resist the attack and push back the cops against the gate. There followed an half an hour full of tension, then came the second police attack. This was extremely difficult to contain, because they attacked on two sides (front and right side) and the right side was not protected by the padded-up White Coveralls, so people had to resist with bare hands. And there we had the wounded comrades, at least 4 -- one reached in a leg by something unknown, maybe a rubber bullet, was taken to the hospital. However, also the second attack was pushed back, and the exhibition was besieged. Under a very hot sun, more than 5,000 people kept on yelling slogans blocking the entrance gate. Nobody could enter or exit anymore, not even the cops which retreated themselves behind the closed gates. The large square in front of the exhibition was completely ours! Finally, they gave up, and the exhibition was suspended for the whole afternoon. This announcement raised a lot of enthusiasm among the demonstrants, which slowly started to move toward the "MobilTebio Village", where a camping was set up a week ago and large tends host the coordination point, an exhibition of biological products and (one) the people arriving in Genua without tend. Today, Friday, there will be a conference with the partecipation of mr. Nanjundaswami, from KRRS, South Indian farmers union. So, we showed again that people determination and clever civil disobedience can have a strong impact on the apparently unmodifiable global mechanisms. In front of our protest, the only choice for them was to close down the exhibition. But this, as said, is not the only victory. The Italian government withdrawn its endorsement to the exhibition. Half of the biotech companies invited did not show up, fearing protests. Exhibitors of other industrial products (the Genua exhibition is quite large, and the biotech exhibition was not the only one going on these days) denounced a sudden drop of visitors, asking the biotech organizers to pay damages; and many Italian cities declared themselves "biotech free territory", i.e. no biotech activity will be allowed on their territory. In short: it was a good kick in their fat asses. And when the demo was over, I could see from the deserted parking in front of the exhibition few large Mercedes exhiting the exhibion gates and running away as fast as possible in the Genua traffic -- a symbol of the isolation into which we are throwing the whole biotech business. Let's go ahead, and sink them definitively! Giuliano =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= AUTONOOM POLITIEK INFOCENTRUM Burgtstraat 3 NL-6701 DA Wageningen infocent@wnet.bos.nl Giro 3464211 tel: 0317- 423 588 fax 0317- 450144 Autonoom Politiek Infocentrum is een kantoorruimte voor organisaties die achtergronden van politieke besluitvorming belichten. Het Infocentrum is gespecialiseerd in problematiek rond * medische biotechnologie (NoGen en Werkgroep Xenotransplantatie Vraagstukken) * Inheemse volken (documentatiecentrum De Ekster en De Olifant) * illegaal verklaarde vluchtelingen (Vluchteling Onder Dak) en verzet tegen vrijhandel. =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= ++++ STOP THE EXECUTION OF MUMIA ABU-JAMAL! ++++ ++++ if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig ++++ ++++ more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm ++++ =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The address for any administrative command like unsubscribe, subscribe or help is: GENTECH-REQUEST@gen.free.de The searchable WWW list archive is available at http://www.gene.ch/archives.html From rcpd at mail.info.com.ph Tue May 30 10:07:37 2000 From: rcpd at mail.info.com.ph (rcpd) Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 09:07:37 +0800 Subject: [asia-apec 1452] Is Genuine Social Development Possible Under Globalization? Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20000530090737.0080b1d0@pop.info.com.ph> Social movements, people's organizations, NGOs and concerned individuals who are taking part in and around the events during the World Summit on Social Development in Geneva on June 26-30 are cordially invited to a forum-workshop... Is Genuine Social Development Possible Under Globalization? organized by International South Group Network (ISGN) Resource Center for People's Development (RCPD) - Philippines ATTAC - France Geneva, Switzerland June 23, 2000 On June 26-30, 2000 world leaders will gather in Geneva to assess the progress made on the implementation of commitments made in the 1995 United Nations World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen. Among the key issues to be addressed in the Geneva Summit include poverty eradication and improvement of living conditions, employment, social integration, access to basic social services, empowerment, etc. This early, the shortfall of many governments to realize even the narrow targets of the Copenhagen Declaration and Program of Action can be gleaned from official documents of the Geneva Summit. There is an open admittance that people living in poverty increased since 1995, of an increase in causal and informal employment and that many countries still fall short of the targets particularly for the provision of basic social services. Likewise, the worsening terms of international trade is recognized as among the factors that undermined measures to poverty eradication. These are to be expected in an institution that sticks to the narrow confines of the current world order where a few rich and powerful nations dictate the terms of socio-economic and political relations at the expense of people particularly in developing countries. It can never address the fundamental problems that have kept nations and peoples impoverished and powerless. In fact the Social Summit pursues the same neo-liberal policies of liberalization, deregulation and privatization that have deprived many of the even the barest needs for survival. It will be utilized by global powers in its agenda towards further liberalizing world trade and investments. We are aware that globalization is the biggest stumbling block towards the attainment of genuine social development. It drives poor countries further into underdevelopment and the people to more miserable situation. It denies the people their means of livelihood - i.e. peasants of their land and workers of decent employment. The acute mal-development of the majority of the world's population cannot be cured by simply instituting appropriate reforms, as the Social Summit prescribes, in order to strengthen the current national and international arrangements. In the same light, structural adjustment programs cannot be expected to effect social development, especially eradication of poverty. But the Social Summit in Geneva provides another avenue for social movements from different parts of the globe to muster strength and relentlessly pursue the struggle against globalization. Build on the significant gains of the anti-globalization struggles in Seattle and in Bangkok and continue the fight in Geneva. As the question of poverty and social development takes center stage at the Social Summit in Geneva, there should be more than enough space to espouse the bases of our resistance against and alternatives to globalization. Involve in the continuing debate, exchange and struggles against globalization. Join a forum that will tackle the meaning of genuine social development in the era of globalization. Date - June 23, 2000 Time - 9: 00 am - 12: 00 nn Place: Geneva Switzerland (exact venue to be announced later) For more information: Alice Raymundo Resource Center for People's Development (RCPD) 24 Unit-7 Mapang-akit St., Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon City, Philippines Tel/fax: (63 2) 436 18 31 Tel: (63 2) 435 08 15 e-mails: rcpd@info.com.ph and alice@info.com.ph (use both) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SEND YOUR REGISTRATION FORM NOW! (send only this form) Name (Last then first): Title: Organization: Home Address: Office Address: Telephone Fax: E-mail: Web page: Brief description of your organization: Resource Center for People's Development #24, Unit 7, Mapang-akit St, Pinyahan, QC, Philippines telefax- (632)4361831 tel - 4350815 email: rcpd@info.com.ph