![]() | ||
| ||
| ||
The RAG Newsletter, Issue No.1The Contents
The APEC Roadshow Hits Malaysia
THE APEC ROADSHOW HITS MALAYSIA The APEC events in November will bring massive disruptions to KL. The meetings in Manila in 1996 were marked by appalling traffic jams, the militarisation of the surrounding area, human rights abuses, and the suppression of domestic opposition to APEC. Thousands of poor Manila dwellers were relocated and squatter communities demolished as the government sought to hide the visible effects of APEC’s liberalisation agenda from view. (with info from “Overview”, May 1998)
MAHATHIR:GLOBALISATION FOR THE RICH Mahathir singled out the IMF for its policy flip-flops in response to the Asian crisis. “Just two weeks before the July 2 ‘currency hurricane’ struck, the IMF director Michel Camdessus was handing bouquets to Malaysia for its sound economic management,” he said. The IMF and like-minded institutions keep pushing globalisation as the remedy, but, according to Mahathir, so far the advantages have only accrued to the rich. Mahathir’s frustration with the current economic system was obvious recently when he lamented the state’s declining power in the face of global capital. “If we cannot direct the banks, then our objectives cannot be realised. But if we try to order the banks then we will not only be criticised, but our ringgit will depreciate further,” he said. Yet, while Mahathir attacks liberalisation of the financial sector, the Malaysian government engages in agreements and multilateral forums that further this process. APEC is a prime example. At last year’s APEC Trade Ministerial, “Ministers were unanimous in their view that continuing trade and investment liberalisation and facilitation is essential to economic growth and employment in our economies, and acknowledged their responsibility for helping to promote a better understanding of these benefits.” And, at this year’s Finance Ministerial, Ministers, including Malaysian Deputy PM Anwar Ibrahim, reaffirmed “our commitment to doing our part to support the goal of free and open trade and investment” and endorsed “the approach of the IMF, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank in addressing the financial instability in Asia.” Despite the obvious causes of concern generated by the recent crisis in Asia, APEC’s liberalisation agenda is moving ahead without any assessment of its impacts. In Vancouver, APEC Leaders called for a study of the impacts of liberalisation, but the study will only be a PR job. The request for proposals states that “the aim of the . . . project is to provide tangible and easily-understood examples of the benefits of liberalisation” in order to “obtain community support for APEC’s trade and investment liberalisation and facilitation agenda.” (Info from The Star, June 3, 1998 and The Sun, July15, 1998)
WHAT THE HECK IS APEC? The June Trade Ministerial in Kuching, Malaysia highlights one of APEC’s key functions: APEC is a springboard for WTO agreements (see p.4). Once again, the US is trying to use consensus on voluntary liberalisation to push forward binding commitments at the WTO. But the relationship between APEC and the WTO functions in other directions as well. Most of APEC’s activities are designed to build the capacity within the region to implement WTO liberalisation agreements. Thus, APEC has workshops and roundtables on such issues as infrastructure financing, government procurement, and human resource development. These meetings and workshops are part of APEC’s “economic and technical cooperation” (ecotech) programme. It builds capacity, but it also makes recommendations that rapidly develop into government action plans and strongly influence government policy. The areas of focus for APEC’s ecotech activities are largely determined by the recommendations of the APEC Business Advisory Council, a grouping of regional corporate leaders that represents the business community in an official capacity. Corporate business is well represented in ecotech activities while representatives of other social sectors are excluded. You will find plenty of agribusiness representatives at the agricultural workshops but you won’t find farmers. APEC’s motto after all is “APEC Means Business”. Upcoming issues of The Rag will look more closely at some of APEC’s ecotech programmes.
MONSANTO AND AHP MERGE IN LATEST MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR MERGER Monsanto and American Home Products merged this June to form a combined company with market capitalisation in excess of US$96 billion. Monsanto has just completed a US$6 billion buying spree of seed companies and its merger with AHP makes the combined company the largest agrochemical/life-industry company in the world. This marks a giant advance in the ability of Monsanto to control global agriculture. The Monsanto-AHP deal comes in the wake of a series of massive buy-outs and mergers between such corporations as NationsBank and BankAmerica, SBC Communications and Ameritech, Daimler-Benz and Chrysler, and the US$37 billion merger of WorldCom and MCI. In June, the largest merger in American history took place when Travelers Group bought-out Citicorp for US$70 billion. The new company, Citigroup, will force other mergers in the financial services industry as corporations struggle to compete. Company spokesmen say the merger will improve customer services, but others argue that the merger will limit competition and further reduce services to low-income communities. According to one US community activist, “I am honestly scared at the thought of them getting together, getting bigger, getting even less interested in anyone who is not already part of their world.” (info from Washington Post, WSJ)
THE MAI DROWNS IN A FLOOD OF PROTEST This April, ministers at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development were to finalise the Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI). It is intended to remove obstacles to international investment among its signatories by eliminating investor performance requirements and discriminatory treatment of investors by host nations. It would allow any investor to sue the government of its host nation if it considers laws or regulations to be discriminatory and detrimental to its profits. The MAI would therefore disable regional development and national measures to protect the wellbeing and culture of people, create employment, safeguard small business, conserve resources and protect the environment. And while developing countries were not party to the MAI negotiations, it is clearly the intent of MAI supporters to force the agreement upon the developing world once it is finalised. Public outcry against the MAI has been fierce. Protests and international and national campaigns successfully exposed the MAI and forced government officials to respond. In a clear effort to appease the opposition, the Ministerial Statement conceded that “the MAI must be consistent with the sovereign responsibility of governments to conduct domestic policies.” The statement goes on to say that “Ministers note the increased convergence of views on the need for the MAI to address environmental protection and labour issues” and that “Ministers are committed to a transparent negotiating process and to active public discussion on the issues.” (with info from http://www.islandnet.com/~ncfs/maisite)
FORCING GOVERNMENT TO LISTEN The solidarity in opposition to the MAI negotiations is representative of the growing resistance to globalisation across the world. In a parallel gathering to the Second Summit of the Americas in April, over 1000 delegates met to oppose free-trade in the hemisphere. In early May, thousands of peasants, agricultural labourers, tribal people, and industrial workers took to the streets of Hyderabad, India to demand India’s withdrawal from the World Trade Organisation (WTO). To coincide with the May Ministerial Meeting of the WTO, Global Street Parties against the WTO were held in over 35 cities across the world, and 50,000 landless, homeless, and unemployed joined in a protest march into Brasilia, Brazil. Governments had to respond. At a press conference during the WTO Ministerial, Charlene Barshefsky, the US Trade Representative, remarked, “The greatest threat to the global system comes . . . from the failure of public trust and the public suspicion of the system, the public mistrust of secretive organisations.” Of course, Barshefsky would not admit that it is the global system itself that the public is reacting against. The US is now looking at ways to soften public resistance to its agenda. We should brace ourselves for a major public relations campaign and more long battles.
THE FINANCE MINISTERS' MEETING (Kananaskis, Canada, May 23-24, 1998) It is somewhat surprising that this year’s Finance Ministers’ Meeting proceeded so smoothly. Certain APEC nations, in particular Malaysia, have been openly grumbling about IMF policies, currency speculators, and ratings institutions. Yet, there was firm consensus in the Ministers’ statement on the need to continue with financial deregulation and market liberalisation. Discussions during the meeting focussed on two dimensions of the regional crisis: restoring stability and promoting recovery and developing and strengthening financial markets. Within the first, Ministers acknowledged the deep social impacts of the crisis and urged that social safety nets be expanded in the worst hit areas. But they stopped short of offering any new analysis or solution, choosing instead to applaud the IMF’s activities in the region and to support the “movement towards open markets” The Ministers’ statement on developing and strengthening financial markets calls for improved supervision and prudential regulatory frameworks to prevent future crises. But it also urges nations to pursue market deregulation and liberalisation in order to increase foreign investment and restore confidence. For APEC Finance Ministers, the objective is “to promote freer flows of capital while maintaining macroeconomic and financial stability.” This begs the question: If free flows of capital generated instability, why would you want to make them any freer? Of course, this question will never be addressed by a forum whose stated objective is liberalisation.
THE TRADE MINISTERS' MEETING (Kuching, Malysia, June 22-23, 1998) The Trade Ministerial had a little more colour than its financial counterpart. This was bound to happen with the presence of US Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky. APEC’s consistently soft discussions retreated in the face of hard-nose negotiations and lobbying by the US and Japan. Disagreement between the US and Japan centred upon the early voluntary sectoral liberalisation (EVSL) agreements that were reached last year in Vancouver. Nine sectors are scheduled for EVSL by next year: environmental goods and services, fish products, forest products, medical equipment, energy, chemicals, toys, gems and jewelry, and telecommunications. Barshefsky is aggressively promoting EVSL “as a package” backed by a strong APEC consensus so that the US can advance it in the WTO. Once in the WTO, the commitments would no longer be voluntary, and all WTO nations would have to comply with the tariff reductions. The US used APEC for similar purposes when it pushed through the Information and Technology Agreement in the WTO. Japan, on the other hand, wants comprehensive negotiations where deals can be made to avoid liberalisation in certain sectors in exchange for facilitation and cooperation or liberalisation in others. But the final statement of the meeting did not concede to Japanese demands, offering flexibility only in terms of timelines for implementation. As Barshefsky said, “We will come out of Kuching quite well-positioned to move forward on these initiatives and ultimately take them to the WTO so we can get a larger group of economies participating.” The “package” approach to liberalisation makes APEC a very useful tool for the US’s strategy to open world markets. (with info from AP and Reuters)
CONFRONTING GLOBALISATION: REASSERTING PEOPLES’ RIGHTS This year’s Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Leaders’ Meeting will be held in November in Malaysia. Since the first Leaders’ Meeting in 1993, representatives of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), people’s organisations, and social movements have met in parallel gatherings to highlight concerns about the “free trade, free market” model of trade and investment liberalisation that APEC promotes. Today, a strong global movement continuously monitors, educates and mobilises people to fight the neoliberal economic programmes causing untold hardship to workers, women and peoples the world over. More than 500 participants from the Asia-Pacific region are expected to attend the Peoples’ Assembly in Kuala Lumpur. This year’s assembly is of utmost importance given the current financial crisis in Asia, the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and upcoming negotiations at the WTO. Issues and sector forums, some of which may take place outside of Malaysia prior to the Peoples’ Assembly, will feed into a two-day plenary session on November 13-14 in Kuala Lumpur. Each Forum will be required to commit to at least two specific actions that it can present at the plenary session. The plenary will build a common analysis and a plan of action with the overall objective to strengthen the peoples’ movement against globalisation.
THE THIRD WOMEN'S CONFERENCE AGAINST APEC Resisting the integration of globalisation and the disintegration of people Trade liberalisation and globalisation impact women adversely. The current economic and political agenda in the Asia-Pacific region disempowers women, feminises poverty, and disintegrates families and communities. It has also given rise to dangerous anti-globalisation forces, based on narrow, chauvinistic nationalisms. In South Asia, fundamentalism increases violence against women. In East Asia, nationalist reactions to the crisis amplify harsh treatment of migrant workers. In Australia, the lobby against Asian immigration escalates. These emerging local and national trends are especially worrying for women. It is essential that we define and build a resistance: one that is people-centred and feminist in perspective and practice. There is a more positive reaction to globalisation: the people’s and women’s resistance from the grassroots, which is gaining ground throughout the world. There are many examples of such struggles: the Forum of the Poor in Thailand, the Wheat Revival Movement in Korea, the movements against the trafficking of women, and the anti-dam movement in Malaysia. There are movements for alternative development that support ecological agriculture, that ensure community livelihoods, and that empower women. These efforts are becoming more prominent as the impacts of globalisation are felt at all levels. Women need to share, strengthen, and be a part of these movements. Women are not victims; they are survivors-- a force of resistance The Women’s Conference will be held on November 8-9 in Kuala Lumpur. The forum intends to enhance women’s participation and leadership in developing alternatives, build a women’s network against globalisation that will maintain discussions, analysis, and actions, and develop strategies of resistance. Conference workshops will include: Labour; Migration; Trafficking; Land, Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture; Indigenous Women; Health, Privatisation and Reproductive Rights; UN Instruments; and Struggles, Gains, Strategies and Challenges for Women. Keynote speakers include Vandana Shiva and Irene Fernandez. At least 100 participants from outside of Malaysia are expected to attend. To find out more about the conference or to register please contact PAN-AP at tel: 604-6570271 fax: 604-6577445 email: panap@panap.po.my
NATIONAL FORUMS THE FINANCIAL CRISIS AND GLOBALISATION: The APPA Secretariat will organize a public seminar on the financial crisis and its relationship to globalisation. The seminar will take place on August 29 from 9:30-16:30 at the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall (1 Jalan Maharajalela, Kuala Lumpur). Admission is 10 RM and includes lunch. Invited speakers have yet to be confirmed. Contact the APPA Secretariat for more information (tel: 03-28336245 fax: 03-2833536 email: appasec@tm.net.my) STUDENTS: A campus tour will take place across Malaysia from July 25-August 2, 1998. The tour will address the issues of globalisation and APEC through talks and speeches. A second national workshop on globalisation is scheduled for September during the Commonwealth Games in Kuala Lumpur. For further information, call Christian Kumar at 016-2250194 or Nusrat Muhammad at 012-7385988. URBAN POOR: The first of a series of workshops for urban poor communities will be held on 22&23 August 1998 in Johor Baru. It will be followed by another workshop in Kuala Lumpur in September and a final one in Ipoh in October. The workshops will focus on making communities aware of the impact of a globalising economy on their lives and what can be done to confront it. For further information contact Abdul Rahim Ishak at 03-6262989or 03-7744531.
The RAG is the official newsletter of the Asia-Pacific Peoples’ Assembly (APPA). All organisations and individuals from within and outside of Malaysia that are concerned about globalisation are encouraged to participate and join in hosting APPA. If you or your organisation are interested in participating in or hosting or assisting with a Peoples’ Assembly event, an issue or sector forum, or a cultural activity, please contact the Secretariat for more information. The intention is to create a genuine space to contest crucial ideas and issues in an open and participatory way. Comments about and contributions to The RAG should be addressed to the Secretariat.
APPA, The Secretariat, 57 Lorong Kurau, 59100 Lucky Garden, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, tel: 603-2836245, e-mail: appasec@tm.net.my
| ||
|