March 17, 2019

The AEPF strongly condemns the terror attack on Muslims at a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand, where innocent worshipers were targeted on account of their identity.

It is evident that this attack is the outcome of the Islamaphobia and rising racism that is sweeping across many countries. Even as there are widespread condemnations and the victims and their families receive support, it is time for the leadership and people of all countries to take concrete steps to stop such incidents.

Although New Zealand has no history of violent culture, this incident is an indication how things can change overnight. We are surrounded by the politics of fear which is inherent to the growing inequality that accompanies neoliberalism. These policies need to be replaced with the politics of solidarity. As the Prime Minister of New Zealand said after the massacre about the victims: ‘they are us’.

Countries must make strict gun laws to curb the availability of weapons. Governments, communities and institutions must take firm steps to stop the increasing radicalisation of young people across cultures and communities. The fear of others and the different that is fanned by all forms of media and leaders from the community up to political classes for the sake of political gain must be stopped.

The culture of violence and retribution needs to be stopped as it shifts from the public to private actions, destroys states, families and individuals. The culture of violence threatens all social and economic relations, breaking apart the fabric of our societies, democracy, and nationalism. Governments have to take the lead in educating and inculcating tolerance, pluralism and acceptance in all institutions from schools to judiciary. There should be zero tolerance for any group that propagates the use of force to achieve their objective.

AEPF calls on all states to take these immediate steps in view of the possible recurrence of such terror.

February 27, 2019

The AEPF appeals to India and Pakistan to immediately and simultaneously de-escalate the current military tensions between them, that can escalate into a war between two heavily armed nuclear powers.
AEPF appeals to both countries to announce a mutually acceptable peace and initiate a political dialogue.

There have been difficulties in the relationship between India and Pakistan on account of long unresolved conflicts and terrorism where people have suffered. In a situation where a terror attack on Indian paramilitary forces prompted retaliation by India, is leading to a spiral of militarized retributions. The situation is alarming and despite India’s claim that it was non-military measures, most experts think that with roughly 6000 pounds of bombs dropped, the situation remains precarious.

Both these countries have large sections of their people in poverty and struggling for livelihoods and education. In these circumstances, to divert funds to military strife and violent terror is unlikely to help matters. It is ordinary people that suffer on account of war and militarism and it is on this basis that civil societies groups from both these countries have for long years tried to build people to people friendship. The suddenness with which the current armed episode occurred shows that a lot remains to be done.

It is imperative that the two neighbouring countries move towards political negotiations, with the help of facilitators acceptable to both, and concentrate on peace building. We appeal to a process of de-militarisation on both sides of Kashmir and an end to terror tactics. A number of neighbouring countries including China have called for peace. We believe other countries in the region, including SAARC should make a concerted appeal for regional peace.

The AEPF appeals to both India and Pakistan that there should be no escalation between the two heavily armed nuclear powers, but it is necessary to de-escalate tensions and move towards a strong peace process. Any war between the two would be a threat to humanity itself.

December 14, 2018

On the eve of the sixth anniversary of the enforced disappearance of Lao civil society leader Sombath Somphone, we, the undersigned organizations, reiterate our calls for the Lao government to conduct an independent, impartial and effective investigation to reveal his fate and whereabouts.

Sombath was last seen at a police checkpoint on a busy street of the Lao capital, Vientiane, on the evening of 15 December 2012. Footage from a CCTV camera showed that Sombath’s vehicle was stopped at the police checkpoint and, within minutes, individuals forced him into another vehicle and drove him away in the presence of police officers. CCTV footage also showed an unknown individual driving Sombath’s vehicle away from the city center. The fact that police officers were present at and witnessed Sombath’s abduction and failed to intervene strongly indicates state agents’ involvement in, or acquiescence to, human rights violations committed against Sombath, which include the crime of enforced disappearance. Later that evening, witnesses reportedly saw Sombath at a police holding facility in Vientiane yet to date officials have provided no information about what he was doing there and subsequently what happened to him.

For the last six years, the Lao government has failed to provide any credible answers with regard to the disappearance of Sombath Somphone. In its most recent pronouncements, made during the review of Laos’ initial report by the Human Rights Committee (CCPR) in July 2018, the Lao government said it had been “trying very hard” to investigate Sombath’s fate and whereabouts. However, this statement has been contradicted by the government’s refusal to accept international assistance in conducting the investigation and to provide any details about the progress of its investigation. Lao authorities have failed to disclose any new findings from their investigation of Sombath’s case to the public since 8 June 2013 and have met with his wife, Shui Meng Ng, only twice since January 2013.

Despite the government’s recent claim that police had the “capacity and techniques” to reveal Sombath’s fate and whereabouts, we remain extremely concerned by the lack of progress in the investigation by Lao authorities into his case and reiterate our call for Vientiane to allow international assistance towards conducting an independent, impartial and thorough investigation according to international law and standards.

The Lao authorities have international legal obligations to conduct such investigations and to bring persons responsible for serious violations to justice under treaties to which they are party, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture.

We also urge the Lao government to ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, which Laos signed in September 2008, to incorporate the Convention’s provisions into the country’s domestic legislation, and implement it in practice.

Until Sombath Somphone’s fate and whereabouts are revealed, we will not stop demanding that Sombath be safely returned to his family and we will continue to ask the Lao government: “Where is Sombath?”

1. 11.11.11 Belgium
2. Action from Ireland (Afri)
3. Addison Road Community Centre Organisation (ARCCO)
4. All India women Hawker Federation
5. Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma (ALTSEAN-Burma)
6. Amnesty International
7. Armanshahr/OPEN ASIA
8. ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR)
9. Asia Pacific Movement for Debt and Development (APMDD)
10. Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD)
11. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Forum-Asia)
12. Attac France
13. Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt (BWGED)
14. Bank Information Center
15. Borneo Dayak Forum International
16. Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino – BMP (Workers Solidarity Philippines)
17. Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR)
18. Cambodian Human Rights and Development Association (ADHOC)
19. Cambodian League for the Promotion and Defense of Human Rights (LICADHO)
20. CCFD-Terre Solidaire
21. Centre for Environmental Justice
22. China Labour Bulletin
23. Christian Development Alternative (CDA)
24. CLEAN (Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network)
25. CNCD-11.11.11
26. Coalition against Trafficking in Women-Asia Pacific
27. Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS)
28. Community Action Network (CAN)
29. Community Resource Centre Foundation (CRC)
30. Corner House
31. EarthRights International
32. Ecologistas en Acción
33. Environics Trust
34. Equitable Cambodia
35. Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières (ESSF)
36. Families of Victims of Involuntary Disappearance (FIND)
37. FIAN International
38. FIDH – International Federation for Human Rights
39. Finnish Asiatic Society
40. Focus on the Global South
41. Fresh Eyes — People to People Travel CIC
42. Function 8
43. Fundacion Solón
44. Global Justice Now
45. Human Rights Commission Pakistan (HRCP)
46. Human Rights in China (HRIC)
47. Human Rights Watch
48. Indian Social Action Forum – INSAF
49. International Coalition Against Enforced Disappearances (ICAED)
50. International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
51. International Peace Bureau
52. International Rivers
53. Internet Law Reform Dialogue (iLaw)
54. Jagaran Nepal
55. KATARUNGAN (Kilusan para sa Repormang Agraryo at Katarungang Panlipunan)
56. Kesatuan Nelayan Traditional (KNT)
57. Keshav Gore Smarak Trust
58. KRuHA – People’s Coalition for The Right To Water
59. Labour Education Foundation
60. Land Watch Thai
61. League for the Defence of Human Rights in Iran (LDDHI)
62. Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center–Kasama sa Kalikasan/Friends of the Earth
63. LILAK (Purple Action for Indigenous Women’s Rights)
64. Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET)
65. Maldivian Democracy Network
66. Manushya Foundation
67. MARUAH
68. Migrant Forum in Asia
69. National Hawker Federation
70. Network for Transformative Social Protection
71. New Trade Union Initiative
72. NGO Forum on ADB
73. Nomadic Livestock Keepers’ Development Public Fund (NLKDF)
74. Nouveaux Cahiers du Socialism
75. Odhikar
76. Pakistan Bhatta Mazdoor Union
77. Pakistan Kissan Rabita Committee
78. Participatory Research Action Network- PRAN
79. Peace Union of Finland
80. People’s Health Movement
81. People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy(PSPD)
82. People’s Watch
83. Progressive Labour Federation
84. Progressive Voice
85. Project SEVANA South-East Asia
86. Project X
87. Resonant Strategic
88. Rural Poor Institute for Land and Human Rights Services, Inc. (RIGHTS, Inc.)
89. Solidarité des Jeunes Lao
90. South Asia Alliance for Poverty Eradication (SAAPE)
91. Stiftung Asienhauses
92. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
93. Sustainability and Participation through Education and Lifelong Learning (SPELL)
94. Taiwan Association for Human Rights (TAHR)
95. Tameer Nau Women Workers Association
96. Thilak Kariyawasam, Sri Lanka Nature Group
97. Think Centre
98. Timor-Leste Institute for Development Monitoring and Analysis
99. Transnational Institute
100. Ulu Foundation
101. Union Syndicale Solidaires
102. Vietnam Committee on Human Rights (VCHR)
103. Woman Health Philippines
104. Women’s Legal and Human Rights Bureau (WLB)
105. World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)
106. World Rainforest Movement
107. York Psychotherapy Centre

Individuals

1. Ajaya Kumar Singh, India
2. Ame Trandem, The Netherlands
3. Andrew Nette, Australia
4. Anne-Sophie Gindroz, Switzerland.
5. Anuradha Chenoy, India
6. Chansophearet, Cambodia
7. Charlie Thame, Thailand
8. Chayan Vaddhanaphuti, Thailand
9. Christophe Aguiton, France
10. Colin Archer
11. Corazon Valdez Fabros, Philippines
12. Cristina Machado, Portugal
13. David Bruer, Canada
14. Edeliza P. Hernandez, Philippines.
15. Elenita Daño, Philippines
16. Glenn Hunt, Australia
17. Jenina Joy Chavez, Philippines.
18. Kamal Chenoy, India
19. Kirsten Han, Singapore
20. Maria Elena Grace D. Katigbak, Philippines
21. Mary Ann Manahan, Philippines
22. Mika Levesque
23. Miriam Lang, Ecuador
24. Mu Sochua, Cambodia
25. Murray Hiebert, U.S.
26. Nicolaas Bakker, Portugal
27. Paul-Emile Dupret, Belgium
28. Radhika Balakrishnan, USA
29. Raffy Simbol, Philippines
30. Rajeev Patel, USA.
31. Randall Arnst, USA
32. Rosanna Barbero, Australia
33. Saturnino M. Borras Jr., The Netherlands
34. Soren Sondergaard, Denmark
35. Tony Salvador, Philippines
36. Walden Bello, USA
37. William H. Dangers, USA

November 25, 2018

Jakarta, 25 November 2018. On 22 November 2018, the Constitutional Court issued a verdict of the case No.13 / PUU-XVI / 2018 concerning the testing of Law No.24 of 2000 on International Agreement of the 1945 Constitution. This case was filled by the Advocacy Team for Economic Justice on February 14, 2018 to the Constitutional Court.

There are at least 4 reasons as the background of why the International Treaty Law was sued to the Constitutional Court, namely: First, international agreements (specifically trade, investment and debt) have a broad impact on people’s lives; Second , the loss of democracy; Third, the power of the Government is too large (absolute power); and fourth, to restore people’s sovereignty.

Several articles were tested on the International Treaty Law, namely Article 2, Article 9, Articles 10 and 11. The four articles were tested because they were thought to have caused legal uncertainty for the people as a result of losing control and involvement of the people in the process of negotiating international agreements.

In fact, the seemingly confidential negotiation process with the closed participation and public access to information and the text draft of the agreement in the negotiations on free trade agreements and international investment has threatened democracy and the protection of human rights. Moreover, this free trade and international investment agreement was ratified without requiring the approval of the Republic of Indonesia Parliament so that the loss of function of the people’s control over the Governments’ power.

New Legal Norms in the Judge Verdict of the Constitutional Court

The Constitutional Court has presented new legal norms in the international agreements. In reading the verdict, the Constitutional Court ruled that Article 10 of the International Treaty Law was contrary to the 1945 Constitution, specifically Article 11 paragraph (2) and Article 28 D paragraph (1). Although, the Constitutional Court only granted part of all the requests, but for the advocacy team of economic justice, article 10 is the heart of the lawsuit. This is because this verdict has become a breakthrough for the renewal of the national legal system, especially in relation to the International Agreement with the changing dynamics of the global community that needs to be adjusted.

The core issue in this lawsuit is related to the distribution of international agreements that require the approval of the house of representative/DPR and which are not. These provisions are regulated in articles 10 and 11 of the UUPI. This is a gray area in the practice of policy making, which if not carefully decided will have a fatal consequences for the national interests.

Article 10 of the UUPI regulates the category of International Agreements that require the approval of the DPR RI, which is related to the problem: (1) political issues, peace, defense and state security; (2) changes in territory or territory determination of the Republic of Indonesia; (3) sovereignty or sovereign rights of the state; (4) human rights and the environment; (5) the establishment of new legal rules; (6) loans and / or foreign grants.

At the same time, Article 11 of the UUPI regulates the category of international agreements that do not require the approval of the DPR RI, namely those relating to material that is tend to be procedural and requires implementation in a short time without affecting national legislation, including the main agreement concerning cooperation in the fields of science and technology, economics , engineering, trade , culture, commercial shipping, double tax evasion, and investment protection cooperation , as well as agreements that are tend to be more technical “;

The advocacy team considers that the international treaty division in Article 10 and Article 11 is contrary to Article 11 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, because in practice there are international agreements that have a broad impact on the lives of the people but not through the DPR RI approval process so that checks and balances by the DPR RI unable to be done. An example is the trade agreement and investment protection agreement (Bilateral Investment Treaty / BIT) in the dynamics of global development today, it turns out to have a broad impact on the lives of the people but in the process of ratification does not require the approval of the DPR RI. Therefore, these two agreements can no longer only be called international agreements that regulate technical and procedural matters.

In fact, there are also practices that are out of sync with the implementation of Article 10 and Article 11 of the UUPI, when the Government of Indonesia ratifies the Agreement of AIIB- Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (debt) not with the approval of the DPR. This certainly causes the consequences of legal uncertainty for the people as stipulated in Article 28D paragraph (1).

Therefore, the approval of the DPR RI which is a representation of the people’s voice is very important to international agreements that have a broad impact on the lives of the people, including those that have an impact on state finances and cause changes and / or forming legislation. Article 11 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia which states: “The President in making other international agreement which have a broad and fundamental consequences for the lives of the people related to the burden of state finances, and / or require changes or the formation of laws must be approved by the House of Representatives”.

On that matter, the Constitutional Justice Board in its consideration stated that the DPR’s Approval was needed for an International Agreement which was deemed important only. Agreements that are considered important, in accordance with those stipulated in the Constitution.

In general, in consideration of the judge, the criteria for the important agreement were mentioned: the Agreement with political dimension that has is relevant with state sovereignty such as an agreement influencing state borders, which affect federation relations with other states, which affect the burden of state finance that must be borne by the people, which affects the balance or division of the king’s power with parliament, which has a broad impact so that new laws are needed. And it can increase according to the needs or considerations of each country.

Regarding in what way or in the circumstances of how an international treaty material causes broad and fundamental consequences related to the financial burden of the state and / or requires changes or the formation of laws, the panel of judges considers that it cannot limitatively determined but must be assessed casuistry based on consideration and developments in legal needs nationally and internationally.

Previously Article 10 of the International Treaty Law limited only six categorizations of international agreements that had a broad impact on people’s lives. Of course, the enthusiasm in Article 10 of the International Treaty Law has made exhaustive criteria or qualifications limited to the six aspects in question, while Article 11 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution makes an open criteria. Article 11 paragraph (2) of the Constitution states: “The President in making other international agreement which have a broad and fundamental consequences for the lives of the people related to the burden of state finances, and / or require changes or the formation of laws must be approved by the House of Representatives”.

Therefore, the Constitutional Court through its verdict to expand the categorization of international agreements that has a broad impact on people’s lives that is not only contained in Article 10 of International agreement Act. So, the issue of trade, economy, investment, double taxation, and even foreign debt can be part of a broad-based international agreement that requires people’s approval, in this case through the DPR RI.

Legal consequences on the verdict of Constitutional Court Judge

One important point in the consideration of the Constitutional Court Judge that the involvement of the state in international treaties under the pretext of world order should not conflict with the principles of independence, peace and social justice. Before the Constitutional Court’s verdict, there were very many bilateral, regional and multilateral agreements that were far from social justice and adopted the spirit of people’s interests. In fact, when the agreement is ratified in national law, it will have an impact on all elements of society. Of course, after this Constitutional Court ruling, actions that harm the interests of the people and injure social justice over the implementation of the international agreement are not allowed to be returned.

The advocacy team for economic justice sees that there are a number of things that have legal consequences to look at:

1. Whereas in the previous practice there was a potential where international agreements that were ratified without the approval of the DPR RI that could have a broad impact on the lives of the people, which could later harm social justice. For this reason, the advocacy team encouraged them to do the process of reviewing all international agreements, especially against trade, investment and foreign debt agreements to fulfill the elements of social justice and in harmony with the mandate of the Constitution.

2. That for the International Agreement to be ratified, it must comply with this Constitutional Court’s verdict. Particularly related to free trade agreements and investments, there are some that have been discussed and will enter the ratification stage such as Indonesia-Australia CEPA, Indonesia-Europe FTA (IEFTA), and Indonesia-Singapore Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). Therefore, the agreements to be ratified must be examined as agreements that are “important” so that they require the approval of the DPR.

3. Because the constitutional panel of judges has accepted the constitutional loss of the Petitioners who have never been involved in the decision-making process of international agreements, especially trade, investment and foreign debt, then in the case of international agreements that have a broad and fundamental impact on people’s lives, then The Government and Parliament of the DPR RI must open and involve the public at large in the process of public consultation to get the views on the impact that will result from the agreement on the state’s financial burden weighing on the public and on the formation of the new legislation.

4. Specifically on the Trade Law No.7 of 2014 concerning Trade, the Advocacy Team considers that Article 84 paragraph (3) and (4) of the Trade Law have contradicted the verdict of the Constitutional Court No.13 / PUU-XVI / 2018. This is because, the time limit for The DPR RI to determine an international agreement whether it needs the approval of the DPR RI or not as stipulated in Article 84 paragraph (3) and (4) has not been in accordance with the Constitutional Courts’ verdict. In its verdict, the Constitutional Court judges argued that to assess an international agreement that was important or not important, it must be carried out by the DPR RI. Therefore, related to the takeover of 6 trade agreements that were being discussed by the DPR some time ago by the Government and unilaterally stating that the agreements were deemed not to require the approval of the DPR RI, it is fitting to say that the actions of the Government were contrary to the mandate of Article 11 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution which has been decided by the Constitutional Court in Case 13 / PUU-XVI / 2018. That the evaluation of an international agreement is important and has a broad impact must be carried out carefully and based on the meaning of the mandate Constitution.

5. Specifically related to trade and investment agreements, in determining the agreement including agreements that are important and have a broad and fundamental impact on people’s lives in accordance with the Constitutional Courts’ Verdict, it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive impact assessment by the DPR before giving an approval for a trade investment agreement. Impact assessments can be made on their impact on the economy, social, environment and human rights. The results of this impact assessment must be the basis arguments for the DPR RI and the Government to determine whether that International Agreement is important or not.

6. This Constitutional Court Verdict must be immediately responded by the DPR RI where the Act No.24 of 2000 concerning the International Agreement is no longer appropriate, and it is necessary to immediately make changes to the law. The Constitutional Court’s verdict must be a reference for the DPR RI and the Government in the process of change. And specifically, the formulation of a consultation process that must involve wider public participation must be carried out because international agreements have a broad impact on people’s lives, in economic, trade, debt, double taxation, investment and other issues. And legal consequences must be included if an international agreement is passed without involving the public in it.

Advocacy Team for Economic Justice:

Indonesia for Global Justice (IGJ), IHCS, Indonesian Peasants Union (SPI), FIELD Indonesia, KIARA, Bina Desa, Indonesian Peasants Alliance, Women Solidarity , Palm Oil Farmers Union, and 5 Salt Farmers (Amin Abdulah, Mukmin, Fauziah, Baiq Farihun, Budiman).

Contact the Advocacy Team:

Henry Oliver David Sitorus (Coordinator of the Lawyer Team): 0813-17066828
Rachmi Hertanti (Alliance Coordinator for Advocacy Team / IGJ Director): 0817-4985180

April 24, 2018 | ASIA-EUROPE PEOPLES’ FORUM

The 13th Asia Europe Finance Ministers’ Meeting convenes anew on 26 April in Bulgaria to discuss, among others, the all too real possibility of another global financial crisis. This time, it is feared, developing countries will experience greater difficulties than before, with their increasing integration in the global economy and greater vulnerability to economic crisis and downturns.

But there are more fundamental factors. The crisis will find peoples in Asia caught in ever-deepening poverty, deprivation and inequality, and facing intensifying climate events. As a tiny handful of elites and multinational corporations continue to amass immense wealth, around 1.2 billion people remain without the most basic necessities for a decent life. From food, water and electricity to shelter, health and education, significant gaps persist and widen as they remain largely unmet.

Developing countries’ increased risk to external shocks also comes from the huge loss of domestic financial resources in proportion to their GDP. More dependable than debt or aid, taxation ought to provide a predictable, sustained source of revenues for public, affordable, adequate provision of basic social services, which help strengthen peoples’ capacities to survive. Yet billions of dollars are relinquished and/or spirited away through various means, and with the impunity that can only come from the power to influence the highest levels of decision-making, circumvent the law or emplace loophole-ridden regulations, and evade public inquiry and accountability.

The UN Conference on Trade and Development estimated tax abusive behavior by multinational companies costs developing countries $100 billion a year in lost corporate income tax. IMF research pegged estimates even higher, at $213 billion/year lost to tax avoidance. Studies further indicate that what developing countries receive in foreign aid, they lose three to ten-fold in tax evasion. These are more than enough to bridge UNESCO’s calculation of $39 billion/year total domestic financing gap to ensure universal pre-primary to secondary education in low and lower-middle income countries and the $32 billion needed for basic healthcare to save the lives of 6 million children worldwide each year.

Tax dodging of such massive proportions cannot occur without channels that guarantee little/zero tax, and secrecy, to shield against scrutiny by tax authorities and citizens. Many of these are in Europe, such as the Netherlands, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Ireland, the UK and its crown dependencies, but Asia’s tax havens are also growing to include Indonesia, Taiwan, South Korea and Malaysia in addition to Hong Kong, Singapore, Macau and other long-standing financial secrecy jurisdictions. Not surprisingly, the OECD names and shames more non-member countries than the very large tax havens in its own backyard.

Furthermore, neither could corporate profits be so easily shifted, untaxed, from developing countries without governments themselves conceding a significant part of the sovereign authority granted them by citizens, such as by providing preferential tax treatment for foreign investors and failing to amend legal infirmities. Asian developing countries offer wide-ranging tax incentives in the unproven belief that these will attract investments for their development. In so doing, they lose the very wherewithal to make the public investments required for citizens to enjoy rights. Social service provision is opened instead to profit-driven private sector investment, which constricts access especially of the poor to water, healthcare, education, decent habitats and other needs. Consumption taxes are levied to recover forgone revenue, resulting in even greater financial burdens for those already barely surviving on low wages and insecure conditions of work, many of whom are women.

It is claimed that over the years millions of people have been taken out of poverty, but tragically, millions are also being pulled back into deprivation and impoverishment by inaction and inequitable policies. We urge finance officials in Asia and Europe alike to be guided by what they should already know – that public finance is a key instrument in fulfilling human rights, democratizing access to resources, advancing efforts to end poverty in all its dimensions and in building vibrant, resilient and sustainable economies and societies.

April 15, 2018

The Asia-Europe People’s Forum (AEPF) condemns the April 14 US-led missile strike on Syria’s territory.

The US-France-UK attack, targeting Syria’s Homs province, which the US and their allies claimed was in response to the Syrian Army’s use of chemical weapons, not only heightens tensions in the region but also threatens people’s lives and livelihood.

The situation in the so-called chemical weapon zone is murky and UN chemical weapons inspectors should visit the area and ascertain if chemical weapons were used. They should be given all necessary facilities by the Assad Government to ensure a thorough and unbiased investigation.

It is also important to highlight the Turkish aggression in the Northern Syrian region of Afrin where the Kurdish minority is facing an armored attack by Turkey.

We urge the US, its allies and the Russian Federation, as well as all parties to immediately stop using or threatening to use force and violence in all settings, contexts, and circumstances and start an inclusive dialogue.

The AEPF expresses its solidarity with and support for all Syrian people working for a just peace and peaceful, negotiated end to the conflicts in Syria and those who are victims, internally displaced and refugees from the conflicts. AEPF calls on all peace-loving movements to urge an end to hostilities enabling conditions for a peaceful resolution of hostilities. We ask for an immediate cease-fire monitored by the UN to ensure peace throughout this region.

February 12, 2018

Assuring affordable, accessible and quality Public Services for all: Tool for leveling inequality, mobilizing for transformative change!
Manila, 13-15 February 2018

February 11, 2018

PROGRAMME

*** NOTE

At 2.00 to 4.30pm on February 15, a RoundTable Dialogue with Legislators will be held, and this will be covered by the Media. Academics and CSO Representatives will also participate.

On February 16, RoundTable Discussions on Advocacy Strategies with key Campaigners are being planned.

On Feb. 12 at 10:00 AM a Press Conference will be conducted regarding the event, the venue is at the Marina Seafood’s Restaurant, Mother Ignacia cor. Scout Reyes Street, Quezon City.

Feb.12, 2018 – 2 PM – visit to a community of informal settlers

Feb. 15, 2018 – 2:00-4:30 PM – Roundtable Dialogue with Parliamentarians and Academics (with media coverage, UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies, Bahay ng Alumni, UP Diliman, Quezon City

Feb.16 2018 – University Hotel Cafeteria, UP Diliman, Quezon City

Small Group Discussions on specific issues (water, housing, education, health and transport) with Resource Person:

1. On Health (with Vittorio Agnole)
2. Water (with Miriam Planas)FDC
3. Housing (with Meena Menon) IPD and KM
4. Transport (with Mladen Domazet)
5. PPPs and Privatization (David Hall)