October 9, 2010

From 4-5th October 2010, heads of state and governments from across Asia and Europe met in Brussels for the eighth Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM8) to discuss their future priorities and plans. From 2-5th October around 600 civil society, NGO and people’s organisations representatives, activists and parliamentarians from across Asia and Europe, met in Brussels for the 8th Asia Europe People’s Forum (AEPF).

The de-privatisation and reclaiming of the commons in many different ways – nature, knowledge, information, political participation – is critical. If this stays in the hands of individuals, corporations or as financial commodities – then they fall outside the realm of democratic control and participation. This is an approach that can help us to link together the struggles in the North and South.

Nicola Bullard, Focus on the Global South
Another world is possible and is also happening – we need to be inspired, committed and to work for the change we are all fighting for.
Andy Rutherford, One World Action

AEPF is a strategic civil society gathering of Asian and European social movements fighting poverty and inequality and working for social justice. AEPF began in 1996 in Bangkok, in parallel, and in response to the first ASEM summit which pushed for stronger regional blocs and the promotion of corporate power. AEPF is grounded in the common desire of people’s organisations and social justice networks across Asia and Europe to open up new venues for dialogue, solidarity and action.

AEPF8 was a week of discussions, dialogues, strategy sessions and actions focussed on corporate power in relation to food, climate, trade, decent work and governance.

2nd October – Institut des Hautes Etudes des Communications Sociales (IHECS)
First Plenary

Asia-Europe relations in a changing global context – the impact of the crisis in Asia and Europe and changing contexts, realities, and relations between Asia and Europe

Speakers: MP Walden Bello (Philippines), John Hillary (War on Want), Marica Frangakis (Attac Greece)
Moderator: Fiona Dove (TNI)

Welcome – Nicolas Van Nuffel, CNCD – Economic, climatic and food crises have deepened and now over a billion people in the world suffer from hunger. However faced with multiple crises our leaders have had one obsession – economic growth, cuts and trade, trade and trade. But citizens have not remained inactive – millions have protested to denounce the policies of our governments and three days ago 100,000 people marched in Brussels to protest against the cuts. In Copenhagen thousands mobilised behind the slogan, ‘Change the system not the climate.’ The AEPF is an opportunity not only to meet, to exchange views and to strengthen our ties – but to build an Asian and European regional civil society to challenge and influence governments and regional institutions.

Fiona Dove, TNI – This is the fourteenth year that we, as civil society have been watching and following ASEM, developing common agendas, statements and actions. This session will explore and debate the history, dynamics and opportunities of current Asia-Europe relations.

Walden Bello – Our historical relationships, regional dynamics and interests have been shaped by perceived opportunities for economic growth and trade. The response to the current crisis has been for the European Union to investigate how it can take advantage of Asia in order to pull itself out of the crisis. There have been very few structures created across state lines to support Asia-Europe dialogue. ASEM is a talk shop – it has done very little with few processes and virtually no institutionalised structures within it. Filipino President Noynoy Aquino had no problem in saying he wasn’t coming to ASEM, especially after meeting with Obama. We find that Washington matters much more than Brussels in the Asia-Pacific region.

John Hillary – I want to give an overview of how Europe is looking to Asia. There is now the perception of Europe in Asia is as an inferior economy, a junior power. The statements coming out of Europe in relation to ASEM or Asia echo this – they are almost like an apology – We used to enjoy supremacy but now we are in long term decline etc. So the twenty first century will be multi-polar veering towards Asia-centric. The leaders in Europe see Asia as both a threat and an opportunity. They are following an explicitly corporate agenda and so everything they are saying is in the interests of corporations and capital. Due to a decline in other places European companies see Asian markets as their most important salvation and escape clause. The EU is almost entirely dependent (90%) on energy imports – they lack the huge quantities of natural resources, minerals and metals needed and therefore European companies are desperate to keep access open to Asia.

If the world is now locked into global competition then EU companies will find it more and more difficult to compete. There is a profound self doubt in the heart of the EU’s relations with Asia – they now have none of the agricultural or manufacturing strength (e.g. recent death of German car manufacturing due to competition from Korean manufacturers). Even in services, such a key sector previously, making up 75% of economies and employment – we now recognise that Europe can not compete in the longer term. So Europe is now a very junior and nervous player.

ASEM is no more than a talking shop but from the European side they still see it as important because of the issue of political will. There will be discussions on FTA, investment, technical dialogue etc but the point of ASEM is to have political discussions at the highest level to keep EU in touch with Asia – which is why it is still given importance.

Marica Frangakis – The financial sectors are now heavily integrated which is why the crisis hit in the developed countries. India/China and other emerging economies are improving and were never as badly hit as in the EU/US. The crisis started in the US and very quickly it spread to EU with recession and deflation leading to a slump and the associated poverty, inequality, social discontent, wage decreases etc

The Greek people are now living it and Greece was a trigger – per capita income is now amongst the lowest in Europe – pensions are low, poverty is increasing. The trade imbalances between North and South Europe are similar to the dynamics between Asia and Europe. There is a deficit in the public budget and the state is vulnerable to pressures from financial markets and is trying to find new ways to cover the deficit – borrowing, printing money, raising taxes etc Printing money is what Japan and the US are doing now but the EU countries can’t do this because they are locked into the Euro and this threatens the stability and existence of the Euro.

Global Europe’s trade strategy aims to open up Asian markets to force new opportunities for European companies and is an explicit and aggressive statement towards this aim. The theme of EU trade relations for the last four years has been about government contracts, accessing natural resources and freeing companies from regulations- and at the moment the EU is preparing its new trade strategy, again focussing on Asia as its primary target. At the same time as trying to force external liberalisation it must also force more liberalisation internally – and the harmonisation of standards – reducing them so there are no obstacles to business. There is a change now in terms of the crisis. Every country is in deficit – a hundred billion pounds is being spent on nuclear programmes whilst governments tell schools and hospitals they don’t have enough money to run. For the first time in the last 15-20 years the people of Europe are waking up to the fact that the model of global capitalism which they have been told has been so beneficial is being questioned, in terms of peoples lives – the economy and financialisation of the economy has turned against them and been damaging.

There is 9.7-10% unemployment rate in US with no sign of improvement and this is a very dangerous position. If there is some significant growth in Asian economies then there is some hope for stimulus – but any major structural reforms to raise domestic consumption have not been taken in China because the leadership are still waiting for a recovery in the West. So we will also see stagnation in Asian economies soon – so this is quite an unusual situation and the liberalisation of speculative capital is part and parcel of this crisis.

The situation in Greece and Southern European countries is similar to the crisis in Indonesia and Thailand which was caused by rigid Structural Adjustment Programmes – squeezing economies in order to pay off the banks. Structural Adjustment Programmes have migrated and are now coming full force now to Europe – this is a globalised world in crisis.

Debt has been caused by structural reasons and the high spend on military. An indirect taxation on goods and services is very regressive and so we have high expenditure and unequal distribution of taxation. Austerity is institutionalised now across Europe and we need global financial reform and public banking.

John Hillary – We need to see this time as an opportunity to promote an ideological revolution. Governments are using a language of cuts and austerity which completely undermines the model of European social justice. All around – privatisation, liberalisation etc – are all going in one strong direction and being rolled out across country after country. We are now seeing the lived reality of crisis and need to take advantage of growing disillusionment. In the UK the majority of people agreed with cuts but now that has shifted because as people realise its their reality, their local services, schools, hospitals – they are turning against them – and that is where the politics comes in – to build an alternative movement of resistance. Not to think that elites are going to change their minds but building a movement and different groups to stand together. If we can bring a broad mass of people and link with Latin America, Africa and Asia then we have a broader resistance to the model as a whole.

The G20 can directly influence global economic governance through soft power – for example the IMF which was revived by the G20. The WTO is in terminal decline but has again revived, so the G20 is an important focus for us. We need the G192 as alternative to the G20 which is an unaccountable, untransparent and illegitimate body ruling the word.

Second Plenary
Corporate Capture of our Lives and Governments: Consequences and Impacts of the Consolidation of Corporate Power on the People of Asia and Europe

Speakers: Climate: Praful Bidwai (TNI Fellow), Trade: MP Charles Santiago (MSN), Food: Tom Lines (Researcher), Decent Work: James Howard (ITUC)
Moderator: Dorothy Guerrero (Focus on the Global South)

Tom Lines
Clearly bound up with the financial crisis has been the crisis of the food sector. What are the linkages between these two elements? What has happened with the food sector and the way food commodities are now traded is new and has massive implications for issues of corporate control. In addition we also need to look at these three sectors – Food Processing Companies, Supermarkets and Agricultural Trade.

During the wheat market crisis in 2007/2008 the price shot up to levels not seen in real terms since the 1970s however these markets settled down and by June the price had fallen to its price in 2005 price. A lot more wheat was grown and therefore the stocks recovered. However this year there was no real reason for wheat prices to suddenly explode as they did – there was a shortage in Russia, Europe and the Ukraine but that did not justify a 60% increase in wheat prices in a matter of weeks because wheat is being grown elsewhere in the US and Australia.

The price of maize and export crops for the Global South like cotton, cocoa etc have had very big price fluctuations. What we have also seen recover is the profits of the global investment banks which were at the source of the crisis two or three years ago. Why have these happened and where are the linkages?

Over last ten years it was shown to be dangerous to put all your money in shares and so the doctrine was to diversify and one of the areas to diversify into was commodities. Particularly over the last 5 years there was a lot of propaganda from investment analysts saying, ‘Well if you put your money in a range of commodities then their prices do not move at the same time as other assets. With economic cycle share prices, property prices go up and then fall at the end of the business cycle – but commodity prices are not correlated with this – so they have different rhythms.’

Goldman Sachs played a major role in 3 ways:

• Their analysts did a hard sell on this commodities super cycle and although you only make money if the price rises and if you buy shares or bonds then you get dividends/interest. Commodities had been falling so how did they encourage people to do this despite these two off putting factors? By saying things had changed – China and India were buying a lot of oil and other goods such as iron ore/copper etc and markets had changed forever because of rise of East Asia but it was very generalised and misleading to say that all commodities will rise.
• As well as their main speculators it was also their market analysts who were pushing hard that the oil price would rise and this shows the power of corporate propaganda.
• They also enabled their investors to put money in a range of commodities through Index Funds. Therefore trading on the commodity markets dramatically increased. For example trading increased ten times on the London Metals Exchange and Chicago Maize Futures rose from around $500,000 in 2003 to $2.5 million 5 years later.

Commodities were not due for such a massive increase in prices, this came on the back of the change in the markets. In 2008 investors saw that with the beginning of crisis that share prices were weakening, property markets collapsed and they wanted to go somewhere else. They all piled into commodities and they were being advised to do so. What problems arose from this?

The crises were collated – the biggest commodity price collapse was in 2008 as people pulled out their money to put it somewhere else. Markets used to be operated for trading purposes and the banks played the role of banks. They lent money and gave deposits however now they are completely dominated by a few investment banks and the consequences are four fold:

1. Now prices are more volatile – without any justification in supply and demand
2. Huge impact on poor people in rural and urban areas who have to buy their food with low incomes
3. Investors have been swindled – they haven’t got what they were promised by the propaganda.
4. Futures markets where prices are set have been financialised, dominated and controlled by the banks.

Praful Bidwai
Climate Change is a story of no saints, no heroes and lots of victims. It is the largest crisis facing humanity and we are at a tipping point where afterwards any action will make no difference. Scientists told us that the maximum level of warming that the earth can tolerate is 2 degrees over pre-industrial levels – 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But since then understanding has dramatically increased about the impact that positive feedback will have which will lead to indirect warming happens. So for example when glaciers melt rapidly the snow cover decreases so sunlight is no longer reflected back and is absorbed as heat. So they are now saying that 2 degrees is far too high and that the present levels of 380 parts per million has to be brought back down to around 350 parts. This will need extremely co-ordinated, progressive and drastic measures to be taken by those historically responsible but also action from emerging economies.

We are already seeing in India drastic droughts and then flooding in arid areas a loss of diversity, habitats, and changes in composition. For example apples which you can only grow in fertile areas are now being cultivated much higher up. Increased humidity is also leading to increases in malaria. The current damage from climate change on the South is estimated to be around $150-350 billion and total net aid flows is around $50 billion.

Trying to negotiate a series of negotiations where the North has resisted attempts to acknowledge responsibility. The world only has one agreement which is legally enforceable, Kyoto which only came into effect in 2005 – this is a band aid and very minimal cuts of 5% by 2012 in relation to 1990 emissions. At this rate the world would need around 30 protocols to stabilise and even these targets are not being met.

Kyoto also allows carbon quota trading and offsets so that emissions are not being cut. You can buy credits in the South on the presumption that certain projects financed by this money will help adaptation. However carbon trading is based on completely the wrong presumptions and is completely swindling the public. It has created huge interest in the Global South to trade in carbon – so in the next round of negotiations these market solutions will be even more important and this is one of the most profound influences of corporate power. They are creating a speculative market in carbon to which the world will be held hostage. So you can trade in a future carbon credit and carbon quotas. In 2008 the price of carbon collapsed and solutions have to be far more radical than market solutions or techno-fixes.

We thought Copenhagen would lead to dramatic, legally enforceable targets and a strong commitment to finance developing countries for mitigation and adaptation but a tiny fraction of what is needed was promised. This is also being controlled by IMF, WB etc. There were no targets, no enforceable cuts – just a free for all. Instead of stabilising the concentrations, carbon will increase as a result of Copenhagen and it is now estimated that temperatures will rise by 4c which will devastate the world.

The Copenhagen Accord has no UN stature, is not legally binding and has set a terrible precedent – in Cancun now no one expects dramatic results. Corporates have played a particularly nasty role in derailing negotiations. We need new sources of energy and none will be possible under existing regimes of intellectual property. In the same way that HIV vaccines were exceptions in trade agreements we need the same for energy technologies.

Charles Santiago
The question we need to ask is: Do Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) promote trade and growth or are FTAs about promoting investor rights and the control of trade?

As an MP my task is to uphold the Constitution of my country – however I am being prevented from doing this. I want to argue that what we are now seeing is companies writing a new Constitution that we have no control of through illustrating 3 illogical arguments:

1. The China/ASEAN FTA
Malaysia, Philippines and others were jumping over backwards to negotiate for market access to China, and China also wanted to access South East Asia. The FTA began on Jan 1st 2010. However in January, February and March the business communities of Malaysia and Indonesia said, ‘Stop this FTA because we are losing market access in our own countries and many small industries are closing.’ In Malaysia they called on their government to reduce the level of commitment made to China. So the mantra was market access, profitability and free trade but when it finally started happening, the weaker guy tried to stop it.

2. The Definition of Trade
What is trade? The production and distribution of goods and services. In Thailand in 2006/2007 they exported 45.2% of electrical products made to the US and imported X% of electrical products from the US.
Why do you need a FTA to regulate this – to ensure investor rights?

3. Rate of return on investments. The US Department of Commerce recently produced statistics on the rate of return for Asian countries in US markets. The stats showed that it made no difference who had an FTA with America, and in fact Singapore who had an FTA had lowest rate at 0.4%. FTAs are supposed to proved preferential access but this doesn’t happen.

Global Competitiveness
Why is Europe turning to Asia? Because of the investment opportunities for European Multi-National Corporations (MNCs), market access and to ensure European MNCs are not beaten by US and Asian companies. Europe is now doing everything to encourage a pro-business environment and to challenge and influence policies that are barriers to trade. The European ‘Towards a New Asia Strategy’ explicitly states that Europe will – ‘pursue all actions necessary to ensure open markets and non-discriminatory practices towards European businesses.’

What will this require? liberalisation, regulatory changes, convergence and harmonisation.

What does ASEAN want? Free movement of goods, services, skilled labour and capital. So in fact the interests of European and Asian Governments are now one and the same.

It was recently the 43rd anniversary of ASEAN – the title of the event was bridging markets and connecting people. This is testimony to their efforts in integrating markets through FTAs.

ASEAN has said that, ‘National and regional interests are one and the same. We need to accelerate regional integration, harmonise national interests with that of the region.’ So they are pushing liberalisation and integration and pushing towards a particular kind of convergence – to liberalise, harmonise and integrate, through neo-liberal principles.

FTAs are negotiated on the promise of reciprocity – where similar levels of obligation are expected. However this equal treatment of parties is likely to result in unequal outcomes thus exacerbating existing asymmetries between people and nations. The older FTAs in Latin America and Africa clearly demonstrate that all gains have gone to TNCs and local elites, whilst people are left with poverty, loss of livelihoods, water, jobs etc.

FTAs are not about controlling trade but promoting investor rights and a new constitution is being written – a new integration policy that we have no say, or control over. Our parliaments are happily signing onto them – and signing our interests over to business and profits.

James Howard
The ITUC represents 176 million workers and has members in most countries of ASEM. Currently there are 220 million people unemployed, 34 due to the crisis. The decent work deficit is likely to worsen due to millions of younger people joining workforce each year. Before the crisis we already had an unacceptable level of unemployment, insecurity and poverty – precarious work and food insecurity. So even if we could get back to a pre-crisis situation it would not be acceptable. OECD/UNCTAD etc are all saying reactions and policy responses are inadequate, but governments are not responding, they are just cutting and slashing jobs. Why? Due to collective pessimism where no one taking action, particularly the G20. This is leading to depression, anger, acceptance and denial.

We need alternatives – what could the world be like if we didn’t accept the economy we have? There are 6 ways in which world economy needs to be changed:

• Maintain and withstand economic stimulus programmes.
• Establish and increase social spending and social protection for everyone – it is affordable and would generate spending as poor people use extra income.
• Invest in skills and training – particularly for young unemployed to prevent lost generations and to generate future growth.
• Address climate change – move towards carbon neutral/low carbon economy and make necessary changes in transport and agriculture.
• Regulate the financial sector and return it to its original purpose of channelling savings to investments. Introduce a financial transaction tax and the G20 should do more.
• Strong global governance appropriate to the degree of integration within the global economic system to deliver protection to every human in the world. Look at how the G20 works – what would a world economic social and environmental Security Council look like? Elections, rotation, representation etc

What can ASEM do on these issues? It is a talking shop but at a governmental level it could do a lot in these areas and channel funds from richer to poorer to address these basic challenges that the world faces.

Discussion and Questions

• How to stop hedge funds and banks expanding to Asia?
• Even the CEOs of big companies have no idea how the system works – all they care about is profits – how they do it is a secondary issue. There is a need to regulate finance structures and banks must go back to their original role of banking, and banking alone not lending to other banks, and financial engineering – they should lose their licenses if they go beyond this remit. They are now using every possible opportunity to collateralise debt for example.
• Income distribution – people are borrowing money to support middle class lifestyles in the US – so the problem is not just financial instruments, lack of regulation etc but capital-labour relationships. So core is income distribution.
• Global agricultural crisis – in Europe farmers are not able to make enough money to survive and younger people not going into farming because it is not profitable and such hard work. Who is getting the money out of food along the supply chain? The middle man and so we need to get back to farming that is done locally – seeds, varieties, breeds – suited to local needs.
• So many people are in precarious work – we need to reduce contract labour (no more than 20% employees on contract basis). What can unions and progressive forces in different countries do to stop the erosion of rights?
• One way to increase support for climate cuts is to give people confidence that where they face job cuts that there is public support for investment in alternatives and training. No government has done proper employment assessment into the employment impacts of climate change adaptation.
• Severity of agrarian crisis in India – 200,000 farmers have committed suicide in last 20 years and this is continuing. We need to find alternative ways of cutting carbon while supporting poor people’s livelihoods – whether in Bangladesh, Belgium or Rajasthan.

Workshops on the Four Major Themes – Space for more detailed discussions of strategies and alternatives to the problems outlined in the morning sessions.

TRADE AND INVESTMENT
Speakers: Marc Maes (11.11.11), Ranja Sengupta (Third World Network), Joseph Purugganan (EU-ASEAN FTA Campaign), Ryu Mikyung (KCTU), Seely Ashley (ITGLWF) Moderator: Cecilia Olivet (TNI)

DECENT WORK, DECENT LIFE FOR ALL
Speakers: PART 1 Georgis Altinzis (ITUC), Sri Wulandari (AMRC); PART 2: Dwight Justice (ITUC), Bismo Sanyoto (World Solidarity), Anannya Bhattacharjee (Asia Floor Wage Alliance), Cristine Ebro (Network on Transformative Social Protection) Moderator: Gareth Richards (Journalist)

FOOD SOVEREIGNTY
Speakers: Uwe Hoering (policy analyst), David Pred & Seng Sohkeng (Bridges Across Borders Cambodia), Fathima Burnad (Natesan), Mae Azhar (La Via Campesina) Moderator: Thierry Kesteloot (Oxfam Solidarity)

CLIMATE CHANGE
Speakers: Fabby Tumiwa (Institute for Essential Services Reform, Indonesia, Ms. Jutta Kill
(FERN, tbc), Nizamuddin Nizamani, Lidy Nacpil (Jubilee South Asia) Nicola Bullard (Focus on the Global South) Moderator: Dorothy Guerrero (Focus on the Global South)

BRUSSELS NIGHT – The world in crises and alternative pathways

Analysts and commentators from around the world discussed with AEPF participants the multiple-crisis and ways out from the current failing development models.

Speakers: Francois Houtart (Cetri), MP Walden Bello, Achin Vanaik (Delhi University), Marica Frangakis (Attac Greece) Moderators: Tran Dac Loi (VPDF), Fiona Dove (TNI)

2nd October – Institut des Hautes Etudes des Communications Sociales (IHECS)

Open Space Events

EU/Asian Free trade agreements: resistance and alternatives (Part 1)
Org: EU-ASEAN FTA Campaign, Seattle to Brussels Network, Focus on the Global South, WIDE, CEO, TNI

Extractives Industry, Climate Change and Indigenous Peoples: Discussions and Responses from Civil Society
Org: Revenue Watch-Philippines, CAFOD, Philippinenbeuru, Publish What You Pay, Christian Aid, 11.11.11, Alyansa Tigil Mina (ATM)

Upholding Peoples’ Food Sovereignty: Issues for Asia and Europe
Org: People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty

Struggling for Climate Justice: concrete steps and strategies on climate and finance
Org: Ecologistas en Acción, Jubilee South, PRRM

Trade Unions and Development Effectiveness
Org: International Trade Union Confederation

North-South Solidarity
Org: South-South People’s Solidarity Network, Action Aid, Rosa Luxembourg Foundation, Vietnam Peace and Development Foundation, Institute for Popular Democracy

Asia Floor Wage: Stitching a living wage across Asia
Org: Asia Floor Wage Alliance

Migrant Worker Rights Promotion & Protection: A Global Responsibility
Org: Clean Clothes Campaign International Secretariat +Network of Action for Migrants, Committee for Asian Women

Decent Work for Domestic Workers: Campaign Strategies for a strong rights based ILO Convention
Org: Migrant Forum in Asia, TNI, Task Force on ASEAN Migrant workers

People, Politics, and Poverty: Need for an alternative development paradigm
Org: LDC Watch, South Asia Alliance for Poverty Eradication

Religious diversity, secularism, citizenship and democracy
Org: Centre Lebret-IRFED + Bandung Spirit Network + Pax Romana ICMICA

EU/Asian Free trade agreements: resistance and alternatives (Part 2)
Org: EU-ASEAN FTA Campaign, Seattle to Brussels Network, Focus on the Global South, WIDE, CEO, TNI

Transform the System: Illegitimate Debt and SDR Finance
Org: Jubilee South, CADTM, Eurodad, 11.11.11

Getting Rid of the Weapons of Mass Destruction
Org: AEPF Finland, Peace Union, No to Bases, Vietnam Association for the Victims of Agent Orange

From Copenhagen to Cancun: Pathways for a People’s Protocol on Climate Change
Org: Peoples Movement on Climate Change

How to guarantee Decent Work for the workers employed in interim, short-term contracts?
Org: World Solidarity – ACV/CSC

Right to the City and Strategising on Transformative Social Protection
Org: Network for Transformative Social Protection, People’s Empowerment Foundation

The Urgent Appeal system of the Clean Clothes Campaign
Org: Clean Clothes Campaign

EU-ASEAN FTA: Its impact on the people’s health
Org: Platform for Action on Health and Solidarity, IBON

People’s Global Action/GFMD in an era of Crises: Regional Consultative Process & New Challenges in Migration Policy Coherence
Org: Migrant Forum in Asia, TNI, Task Force on ASEAN Migrant workers

Civil society and upcoming electoral processes in Southeast Asia
Org: Euro-Burma Office, Burma Centrum Nederland, Asia House

Decent Work and Dalits: The case of the Manual Scavengers in South Asia

Org: Solidarité Dalits Belgique, IDSN, ICMICA, Pax Romana

Sunday Plenary

A Civil Society Message for ASEM – Discussion with Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme
Chair: Andy Rutherford, One World Action

How can we as activists across Asia and Europe can contribute towards a more just and equal world?

There is a democratic deficit and how can we close and influence it through stronger accountability and restructured political institutions? We have developed a statement that tries to be focussed as much as possible on corporate power – it does not include all our issues and struggles. It focuses on our recommendations and actions and how we can work together. This is the first time that ASEM have received our statement beforehand and they will also send us a written response – this is a first and shows some progress in addressing the democratic deficit.

Global crises have been at the core of our discussions as they will be at the core of yours and over the last few days we have linked this to the growing power of TNCs in relation to states and citizens – that is why we are asking for regulation and to fight inequalities – in addition to progressive taxation. Over a trillion dollars is lost each year from tax evasion whilst EU governments are adopting austerity measures. Structural Adjustment Programmes proved to be counter-productive and cyclical – how can ASEM strengthen financial regulation? How can Belgium Presidency push for the financial transaction tax?

Decent work is also linked to regulation – and we have seen increased pressure on salaries and erosion of safety nets. How can ASEM be a concrete place to counter the race to the bottom?

How ASEM can be a place of dialogue to strengthen and to ensure ASEM countries sign and implement ILO Conventions and Core Labour Standards – particularly 87 and 98.

PM Response – We believe that ASEM should not just be a meeting of governments but also of civil society and peoples organisations. We are grateful for this strong message and the signal it give to us and civil society – very important that it gets put forward so people see ASEM is not just about big money, big governments and economics but also about the ordinary people of 26 countries

We have to curb many of the negative trends that have been worsening throughout the last few years – we need to ensure economic growth benefits all. People have gradually achieved their social rights and we need to learn from each other on this – our social model has to be fought for – as it enables people here to take profits from economic progress, growth and globalisation.

We must cut our budgets and deficits but not in a way that damages our economic growth. Promotion of a good social model is key – not only from political decisions but in dialogue with trade unions and civil society representatives.

On the issue of financial regulation I am very glad that Belgium holding the Presidency and that for 50% of this time we can say that economic regulation is being tackled within the European Parliament – a European systematic body to fight against risk and this will make a difference. The earlier overwhelming power of the free market was very damaging.

At the G20 in Seoul we can also move this forward and we need new measures here to act against what happened two2 years ago and to give more voice to countries which are not yet represented in IMF.

There is a law (2003) in Belgium on a Tobin Tax based on the condition that other countries in the world would do the same. We are one of the 70 countries advocating for this tax both economically and politically – so we strongly support this tax and are one of the strongest advocates – so we will promote this at the opening address just like Sarkozy at the MDG summit. More countries are supporting this in Europe than Asia and we need to tackle these global issues on a global scale with global financing.

On the issue of decent Work a key factor is giving enough space and empowering trade unions and associations of workers in country. The history of Belgium shows improvement from the time when trade unions became active. So I am a strong believer in role of unions and of social dialogue and new architecture in ASEM. This will be one of the ideas I will promote tomorrow as well as social safety nets, corporate social responsibility and the abolition of child labour. We need to build up fundamental rights that are guaranteed in any country – including within FTAs.

Lidy Nacpil (Jubilee South Asia) – Access to food and water are fundamental rights and we are delighted that this has been recognised recently in the UN but there has been a diminishing of access to water due to the policies of Asia and Europe governments. Privatisation is being pursued by European countries, along with an export orientated agriculture model which is allowing speculation in staple food commodities.

PM Response – European integration began with the integration of coal and steel policies, followed by the Common Agricultural Policy which guaranteed food security and access at a fair price for both consumer and producer, in a sustainable way.
In the allocation of development aid by new emerging economies priority is being given to other domains (infrastructure, minerals, less human development related activities) and this needs to change.

I have always seen Bio fuels as a risk. Consumption of fuel in Belgium is very low and we always need to check the sustainability of where they are coming from.

Charles Santiago – There is a democratic deficit within trade policies that are being dictated by businesses – there is no access, secrecy on both sides, we don’t know what is being agreed or asked for. We are very worried about the detrimental impact that patents will have on access to medicines and affordable health care.

We need to recognise that trade is not the be all and end all but it’s a question of livelihoods, particularly for 70% of India’s people.

PM Response – Yes fully agree and we are very reluctant to abolish subsidies. Agriculture and food is not a product like a car or computer – I think we have the right as a continent to provide enough, good quality affordable food to our people through the CAP. You have to have a balance to lowering barriers to export to Europe but also I stand for a CAP as it is still very important in providing both fair prices for producers and consumers but we have exaggerated protectionism and we need to be careful of this in the next generation of FTAs that we are negotiating. The reality is that a lot of products are subject to trade in a totally free market situation.

On the content of FTAs we need transparency and good functioning democracy at a global level – good and timely information. In very important negotiations there was information and people were aware – for example in Belgium/Korea negotiations we were under a lot of pressure that this could damage our car industry. Farmers are aware of possible consequences and they do put pressure on us. But we need a better balance – so same can be done and shared in other countries. Trade discussions are not as transparent as aid discussions and there is a genuine request to see how that balance can be addressed.

Praful Bidwai – We are seeing market based solutions being promoted fairly recklessly and the EU has been dependent on particular forms of mechanisms (e.g. carbon trading). A tonne of carbon produced in Europe can not be treated the same as a tonne of carbon used in Asia in the future. Very generous permits being given to extractives and credits are being given to companies who are doing nothing for mitigation and adaptation. They are funding non-existent projects or projects that would have happened anyway.

The fear we have is that corporations are driving the agenda and promotion of market based solutions is derailing effective and sustainable agreements. What we saw at Copenhagen was a collusive agreement between five countries – if you go by these agreements then carbon will double and then temperatures will rise by 4c – this is being strongly driven by companies.

We need a complete transformation of production and consumption and not business as usual whilst looking for techno-fixes – the very same process that originally caused the problems.

The EU is now moving away from the multi-lateral agenda that was put together with such painstaking efforts and labour – it is being dismantled and this opens up a Pandora’s Box where you have a free for all and instead of legally binding, enforceable, well negotiated and researched agreements you have chaos and countries bargaining in separate groups.

PM Response – The EU has lived up to its commitments in terms of reducing CO2 emissions and providing structural financing for developing world adaptation. ASEM is not where we negotiate agreements but where we can generate good will and this issue will also be raised in the opening session tomorrow.

Climate change is raised in every bilateral meeting and it is sometime very difficult to convince people that we will have to be successful in Cancun – South Africa will soon have legally binding obligations. Europe takes and is ready to take its responsibility in meeting goals and in putting money on the table – we are advocating for legally binding agreements. We were frustrated that inappropriate tactics and strategies in Copenhagen led to Ministers leaving the room with our very generous position on the table. As donor countries we need to commit ourselves to specific agreements and contributions.

BRUSSELS NIGHT – The world in crises and alternative pathways

Analysts and commentators from around the world discussed with AEPF participants the multiple-crisis and ways out from the current failing development models.

Speakers: Samir Amin (WFA), Mr. Boris Kagalitsky (TNI), Pedro Paez (Former Minister of Economic Cooperation, Ecuador), Nicola Bullard (Focus on the Global South), MP Walden Bello (Philippines),

Moderators: Tran Dac Loi (VPDF), Fiona Dove (TNI)

Samir Amin
We need to choose strategic issues for our future campaigns – what image of transformation do we want to pursue? The challenge is whether or not people on this planet will look beyond capitalism and move to a new phase or will they move out of capitalism in crisis completely, so that we can move ahead on the long road to a transition from global capitalism to global socialism.

Capitalism is based on the dispossession of people on a massive and continuous scale – and always has been since 1500. The initiative for shaping this world was exclusively in the hands of the ruling classes of Atlantic-Europe. The people resisted but they had to adjust to the new system and simultaneously this system was made possible only by the possibility of a massive out migration from Europe, linked to the imperialist paradigm.

There were revolutions throughout the twentieth century announcing a change for the rights of the people, why? Because capitalism can’t be disassociated from imperialism, the system is based on imperialist ends which condition the reproduction of the condition both from the centres at the global level and periphery.

People are starting to question global unequal and deepening unequal relationships – questioning the imperialist dimension leads logically to questioning the capitalist dimension. The past crisis of capitalism led to WW II, the colonisation of Africa and depressions. However private property and the monopoly of capitalism was not questioned and so then nothing changed at the centre. Thus history is repeating itself and a second long crisis which started a century later in the 1970s again led to a crisis. In 1991 we predicted that this long crisis would lead to financial breakdown which then happened.

Where are we going now? A long period of chaos, wars, revolutions etc.

What is new? Attempt and strategy of military control over the planet by US and subordinate armies of NATO – maintaining an exclusive access to resources for reproducing the imperialist system. It can not be maintained except through this military control. The tools of control of the global system are over protection and the control of globalised financial and monetary system.

What is the solution? A global solution is a fallacy. When the problem is global then we first need to dismantle the global system. History does not move through wishful thinking and global consensus. There are power imbalances, struggles through war, revolutions, chaos etc before creating a new vision that will be better.

This is why I think that looking at global consensus is losing ground – the challenge is independent initiatives that support popular, dominated, and exploited classes from all regions. This has started already? But who is going to lead, control or use these initiatives in their own strategies.
We have seen this in Latin America and Nepal where power has been taken from below and from above. They are simultaneously contradictory and complimentary – they question the global order and so can potentially replace it. We need to remake the remake the twenty first century based on the internationalisation of the working classes.

Boris Kagalitsky
An era of wars and revolutions is what Stalin promised which is echoed by Samir. There are ways of globalisation and de-globalisation and one of the readings of this crisis is that it is the beginning of de-globalisation because capitalism is going this way. So what should be done by us as the global left, as social movements, as forces opposing the current paradigm?

We praise ourselves on great mobilisation – is this success? No, it is about winning and achieving goals. If you brought a lot of people together and didn’t win anything you have failed.

Just saying you want socialism is not going to work – we need a particular set of demands and general ideas about what our enemies consider to be the danger? Blackmailing societies with the threat of default, not being able to service debts etc This is exactly where we have to say yes! Cancel these debts, call for a global default as default is an excellent thing. Argentina was in a terrible crisis; it defaulted and then recovered because of it. Russia was the same in 1998. We have to fight for default – in Greece, Ireland and potentially the UK.

We can’t avoid protectionism – the liberals see this as evil by definition but it is not. Capitalists will bring in protectionist measures and be forced to do so, despite the WTO. But what type? What will we achieve through it? It is not about protecting capitalists but protecting societies. The market has created export orientated models – China, India, Russia, and Germany. Capitalism is not always based on cheap labour – at times there has been expensive labour backed by resources of the periphery. People are not cheap in the South – this is the struggle.

How can we mobilise resources? This is not the main problem – we can have an economy growing with limited resources but it needs specific industrial policies and an environmental growth model. We need democratic planning – to mobilise but not in a technocratic way – one that will allow us to move – not towards an old fashioned soviet style but a new democratic model based on new technologies. One that will accept and integrate new proposals and alternatives. If they can break our strategy into small pieces then it will break up and not be implemented comprehensively. We have to fight for our own logical and social/political change. For politics we need an agency – a party, movement or coalition – we don’t have it now but this is the task ahead for the current period.

Walden Bello
What now? We are in a long period of stagnation, the US has not recovered and the Chinese economy is export led. Elements of alternatives have been there for some time but how we can craft this into a credible political programme which will enable people to intervene on mass. The problem is not that the alternative doesn’t exist but it is the failure of political leadership to turn this into a viable political movement and programme. It might help us if we look at the experience of the Obama administration – this is vital because if there is a return to the right then it will have severe implications for us all.

Obama is part of the left in the US and his failure has been a spectacular collapse – he had broad based support and we had great hope in him. What showed here is that there is no such thing as objective determination. Why did it collapse?

He took responsibility for the crisis in contrast to Thatcher and Reagan who blamed the people before them. Propaganda thrust took him into major contradictions – he blamed the banks for creating the problem but also bailed them out of bankruptcy. This was his greatest loss of credibility. He brought out problems with neo-liberalism in his campaign but once in power he backed off. He relied on the left before and then on neo-liberal advisors afterwards. Whilst a social democrat he adopted a strategy of change that was principally technocratic and toned down the social aspects. He didn’t put social transformations at the cutting edge but just relied on the stimulus package to bring about a low unemployment economy with a respectable growth rate. This approach was not put within the context of a broader structural transformation programme. This was the perfect situation to offer a new approach to the neo-liberal model.

What could he have done?

• Democratic decision making at all levels of the economy
• Significant income and asset redistribution
• Push for a more co-operative ethic in production, distribution and consumption rather than competitive.

A top down approach was accompanied by a failure to mobilise the mass base of the administration. He had a diverse (race, age, background) mass base in him coming to power but he allowed this to whither away relying instead on technocrats.

The Republicans adopted a hard line opposition – in contrast to his desire to reach compromise solutions. He tried to do away with a class conflict element and so the radical right used a popular base to capture the Republican Party. Political leadership is central – as well as defining the strategic direction.

Lessons?

• In present crisis politics and affiliations tend to be volatile and unstable.
• Need to move the people and inspire them.
• Need to develop a transformatory political programme.
• Politics is the art of creating a political movement out of diverse classes and forces.
• Economic conditions and junctures may condition outcomes they do not determine them.
• No objective determinism – need to use spaces, contradictions and unite to create a progressive, political mass.
• Progressive politics – we need to engage in practical compromises but not in a strategic compromise with the elites (main failure of Obama was that he made a compromise with the neo-liberals).

Lessons?

• In present crisis politics and affiliations tend to be volatile and unstable.
• Need to move the people and inspire them.
• Need to develop a transformatory political programme.
• Politics is the art of creating a political movement out of diverse classes and forces.
• Economic conditions and junctures may condition outcomes they do not determine them.
• No objective determinism – need to use spaces, contradictions and unite to create a progressive, political mass.
• Progressive politics – we need to engage in practical compromises but not in a strategic compromise with the elites (main failure of Obama was that he made a compromise with the neo-liberals).

Can change the President but not the system and therefore we can never expect substantial change.

Marica Frangakis (Attac Greece)
Greece is a politically sovereign state with a non-sovereign currency and therefore it can only finance itself through borrowing and taxation and has had to borrow with ever increasing interest rates. A bail out was arranged and it is now on a bloodline from the EU and IMF. What are the options?

To keep going, pay off creditors and carry on with what has been set by the IMF

We have been given till 2013 to bring back public debt and the deficit in relation to GDP with savage conditions attached, which translate into severe cuts in real and nominal wages and pensions. Prices are rising due to increases in taxation which is regressive. Unemployment and poverty are rising and we have the highest rates of poverty and inequality in Europe. These measures are deepening the recession and so they are going to make these problems worse. As GDP falls then the debt and deficit will rise so it becomes obvious that there will need to be an extension till 2020. The squeeze is so strong on Greek people that I can’t see them taking this for so long especially as it won’t have the right effect. People are paying for a crisis they are not responsible for.

Default – In this case Greece will have to leave the euro zone and find ways of financing the public deficit (expenditure, civil servant wages, pensions etc) and we import more than we export so we need to pay for this. The middle and upper class have sent money abroad and this will cause chaos and insecurity. The euro-zone will then go through a crisis (Spain, Portugal and Ireland) and it will create a lack of credibility and another type of crisis and chaos. We have had two fascist regimes – there is a rise in the right and divided left and we have had enough of this chaos.

To restructure our debt: To negotiate with creditors, reduce the amount we are going to pay and say I can’t pay so you may as well get some money. Give us time to get our house in order and breathing space. Reduce expenditure on armaments, introduce progressive taxation system, increase public expenditure on social protection etc

What would the left suggest? The second option but in fact the third is much better – we don’t have the luxury for debating for much longer. We need to change the architecture of the EU. If it doesn’t change it will collapse. There is no monetary or fiscal solidarity – it was built by Germany to serve their idea of how things should be run. We need a new political programme.

Pedro Paez (Former Minister of Economic Cooperation, Ecuador)
Behind all aspirations of goodwill, co-operation, multi-lateralism you have an iron fist of the imperialists. We need to deploy a planetary agenda to unlock the potential for people and not lead to wars and conflict. We have to understand the dialectics of the problem – not related to financial crisis but the loss of profit of the capitalist mode of production. In Latin America we are trying to formulate these new horizons – political and philosophical – learning from indigenous peoples. We have a responsibility to past and to the future. To get an idea of the velocity and ferocity of this crisis we have to follow clues.

The dislocation of private property is not a marginal issue – short selling something you do not own is a violation of the mechanisms of the market. Asphyxiating the market through over-production and accumulation – the problems are the markets as a universal compromise. Structural problems – there is no way out of this crisis within capitalism. The real business of profitability is war, conflict and more speculation. A huge process of resignation and acceptance and the alienation of human relations. People are saying that I’ve done nothing wrong and yet I am losing my job and the precarious job that I had. For 6 billion people this is massive and so political action from the progressive forces has to be reclaimed and is vital – building up a planetary projection of the democratic and participatory world we want to construct.

We need resources to challenge the authoritarian forces and unequal exchange. We need to recreate an autonomous programme to block out the Mafioso agenda. Not a linear left to right agenda but a totally new paradigm. Key to the progressive movement is to block the authoritarian agenda.

Nicola Bullard (Focus on the Global South),
We can talk about elements and principles but the world and its crises were not planned. Things unravel and evolve in ways that are very unpredictable and all we can do is to arm ourselves with orientation.

Another way to look at the crisis is a question of speed – the rate at which we produce and consume is incompatible with our social and natural capacity to reproduce our society and nature. The time it takes to look after children, gardens etc is not compatible with the rate of consumption and extraction – therefore relationships between production and consumption need to be recalibrated.

The limits of our society and nature need to be taken into account and the current system will always exclude vast populations. We need redistribution and dramatic change in how we do things – if we are to ensure well being for everyone – then there can’t be business as usual.

Where does political leadership come from? Where are the leaders? We need to look towards the international solidarity of the oppressed – this is where I would put my efforts. We need to be modest and self conscious about the role we have in this process – we have an important contribution to make but it needs to be done modestly. To see how we can support the process and make audible voices heard, and make invisible struggles visible. How can we use the privileged access we have to support the oppressed – how can we support this process of reimagination and emancipation, of self-realisation.

We need to understand how we see our role and engagement with these issues.

The de-privatisation and reclaiming of the commons in many different ways – nature, knowledge, information, political participation – is critical. If this stays in the hands of individuals, corporations or as financial commodities – then it falls outside the realm of democratic control and participation. This is an approach that can help us to link together the struggles in the north and south.

Let us not romanticise or idealise the struggles of Latin America – they are very volatile and we are looking at a very complex scenario however we need intellectual exchanges between Asia and Latin America.

Despite existing laws, regulations, standards and mechanisms, governments have failed to prioritise human rights, environmental security and labour rights, over the profits of companies. There has been a lack of political will in implementing regulation and establishing redress mechanisms for companies operating in, and beyond their territories.

October – Residence Palace

Policy Dialogues

TRADE
Speakers: Peter Berz, Deputy Head of Unit for relations with South Asia, Korea and ASEAN, MP Charles Santiago (MSN), Ranja Sengupta (Third World Network)

FOOD SOVEREIGNTY
Speakers: Leonard Mizzi (Head of Unit, EC DG on Agriculture-Unit A3), MP Walden Bello (Philippines)

CLIMATE CHANGE
Speakers: Praful Bidwai (TNI Fellow) and Bas Eickhout (MEP for the Greens)

SOCIAL PROTECTION
Speakers: Francesca Mosca (Director, EC EuropeAid Cooperation Office), Sandeep Chachra (ActionAid-India), MP Tian Chua (Malaysia), Rafendi Djamin (Indonesian Representative, ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights), Prof. Koen de Feyter (Antwerp University), Bart Verstraeten (WSM/European Working Group on Social Protection)
Chair: Paul Graham Meadows (Former Director General, DG Regional Policy, European Commission)

PEACE AND SECURITY
Moderators: Kalle Sysikaski (AEPF Finland), Varsha Berry (Focus on the Global South), Achin Vanaik (Delhi University), Colin Archer (International Peace Bureau), Jan Oberg (TTF)

Brussels Lobby Tour – Organised by Corporate Europe Observatory visiting Brussels Corporate Lobby Agencies

Side Events

• Round table – Route map for companies to an Asia Floor Wage (Asia Floor Wage Alliance)
• Collusion, capture, complicity. Big business lobbying in China, India and the EU

Protest Action Against the EU-India FTA

Against the backdrop of the 8th ASEM, the Belgian Platform for Action on Health and Solidarity held a protest action against the EU-India FTA in front of the European. The Action highlighted that:

India is known as the pharmacy of the developing world. It is one of the few developing countries with its own pharmaceutical industry and exports a plentiful supply of good, affordable medicines to dozens of other developing countries. India is the source of 90% of the HIV/AIDS drugs used in developing countries.

Through a free trade agreement with India, Europe is seeking to impose stricter intellectual property right regulations. This will make it more difficult for Indian manufacturers of generic medicines to bring their products onto the market, thereby pushing up prices. The EU-India free trade agreement therefore not only threatens to dry up a source of good, affordable medicines, but also puts countless human lives at risk in developing countries.

More information:
Executive summary: European free trade agreements and the right to health in the South (http://www.sante-solidarite.be/files/summary%20health%20and%20trade.pdf)

Briefing paper on EU trade policy and the right to health: http://www.sante-solidarite.be/files/Briefing%20paper%20FTAs%20andHealth_final_0.pdf

Video of action
http://vimeo.com/15803106

5th October – European Parliament

Beyond Free Trade: Alternatives for EU-Asia relations”?

Asian MP’s:
Walden Bello (Akbayan, Philippines),
Charles Santiago, Democratic Action Party, (Malaysia)

Members of the European Parliament:
Helmut Scholz, coordinator of INTA Committee for the GUE/NGL,
Yannick Jadot, coordinator of the INTA Committee for the GREENS-EFA,
Joe Higgins, member of INTA Committee for the GUE/NGL,
Ska Keller, member of DEVE Committee for the GREENS-EFA,

CSO Representatives of Trade Campaigns:
Ryu, Mikyung, International Director, Korean Confederation of Trade Unions,
Ashim Roy – New Trade Union Initiative (NTUI) India,
Joseph Puruganan – Co-ordinator, EU-Asean Trade Campaign,
Marc Maes, Trade Policy Officer, 11.11.11,

Brid Brennan, Programme Co-ordinator Transnational Institute,

Introduction – We need to review trade within the context of the current crisis. Trade remains a pillar of European Commission policy and is at the forefront of the EU recovery plan. It is through trade policy that markets stay open and goods and services keep flowing for the good of businesses and public finances.

We hear a very strong reiteration of business as usual but we believe it is with an added aggressive assault on people and the South in regard to access to markets, services and government procurement.

Ska Keller, member of DEVE Committee for the GREENS-EFA,

We are very concerned at the current shift to EPAs and free trade that is being marketed as the very thing that brings growth and therefore development. Free trade doesn’t necessarily bring growth or development – or a strengthening of social justice or society.

We are seeing an export led expansion and promotion of EU goods and services.

We could veto FTAs due to the Lisbon Strategy but this is unlikely to happen because we don’t have a majority. Once an FTA is agreed it is very hard to then say no. We demand that the Parliament is involved in early stages – in a timely manner and then to be involved at all stages. But we don’t see documents, we don’t know what’s going on and get very vague answers. (e.g. on the impact on access to medicines). There is no formal way for us to make amendments to the FTAs. The Development Committee also have the same concerns – about the lack of policy coherence and damage done to long term development through FTAs.

We are very concerned about impact on access to medicine, human rights, environment and agriculture as a result of the current India-EU FTA and agriculture.

This event is important for MEPs who are working on this issue and asking for information. We hope that we can support you in your struggle and you are supporting us today by being here.

Charles Santiago – Democratic Action Party, (Malaysia)

Two years ago when I took the oath as a first time parliamentarian I took the oath to protect the Constitution, sovereignty and rights of the people of my nation. Yesterday when hearing the European Commission officials speak on FTAs and Global Europe I was worried and concerned. FTAs will ensure that corporations and investors have rights – that people matter but in the case of access to medicines and retro-virals they will matter less.

Corporations now have a right to access to government procurement and this undermines nation’s right to provide for its people. The Lisbon Treaty gives the EC a mandate which means that consultation is not necessary. Indirect expropriation is being included in all FTAs – so that when a corporation perceives that its profitability is in jeopardy it can sue governments in court and this undermines the sovereignty of nations.

FTAs are leading to corporations running the world. And they are designed to do so.

We as parliamentarians need to reclaim the state and the nation for our people – to ensure our oath is realised. Therefore my call here today is to work together to promote a different type of globalisation where people mater and not corporations. We need to understand the impacts of FTAs, strengthen our resistance and alternatives.

Ryu, Mikyung, International Director – Korean Confederation of Trade Unions

Tomorrow the Korea-EU FTA is officially signed. The EU can’t compete with cheaper labour and lower union rights. Media propaganda is promoting the FTA to say that the car industry in Korea will benefit from it and that we need the FTA. But the FTA will also promote deregulation, protection for foreign investors and privatisation – so we need more voices to raise concern about the real benefits.

Korea is promoting cheap labour, long working hours, lack of working rights and devaluation of the Korean currency. The same policies in China which we can’t compete with and so they are pushing for an FTA with Europe. To remove all tariffs and barriers and provide more protection and intellectual property rights for capital. There is no obligation or duties to factories – they can close at any time and move elsewhere.

During negotiations Korea promised to ratify ILO Conventions but this didn’t happen.

Ashim Roy – New Trade Union Initiative (NTUI) India,

People here represent millions of people and anti-poverty movements – we want to say with one clear voice that we want to halt the EU-India treaty. India has a third of the global poor, most are primary producers and we need to make a transition that allows us to sustain our people and environment. We want to negotiate what the people want rather than what the corporations want. If we can’t decide our prices then how can we control our conditions? We have fought against all corporate agendas – we have fought and won generic and affordable drugs. We nationalised our banks and now have inclusive, accessible banking which will collapse with this FTA. We produce half the garments of the world made by people working at a poverty level wage. We are all now in a globalised world – the farmers are informed and will resist and will not allow this FTA to go ahead.

Joseph Puruganan – Co-ordinator, EU-Asean Trade Campaign,

There are two realities in South East Asia – a market of 550 million of growth, trade and investment but also a region of poverty and inequality where 30-40% of people live below the poverty line, are vulnerable to climate change and where the richest control 80% of the economy and corner the benefits of development.

Trade negotiators only see the first reality.

There is a distinction between ASEAN governments and their people – policies do not address even the most basic needs. The notion of equal partnership is driving negotiations but this doesn’t exist – the ambition for comprehensive trade agreements reflects only the interests of EU and ASEAN corporations. In 2007 the EU provided a mandate to the EC to negotiate with ASEAN – according to the rhetoric this is supposed to aid ASEAN to address the asymmetries which exist between the two regions.

When it became clear the EU would not get the level of ambition hoped for then it shifted to a bi-lateral cherry picking approach. EU-Malaysia negotiations were launched today. So beyond the rhetoric of EU being a champion of regional integration – to hold ASEANs hand in moving towards a situation where benefits are shared equally – it is very clear that for the EU that they want their ambitions to be realised at any cost. They will work to pursue an aggressive corporate agenda even if they need to shift to bi-lateral. For example the EU- Singapore negotiations and we worry that the level of ambition within this agreement will become standard for all.

So they will throw aside the notion of equal partnership and EU bottom lines are:

• To slash tariffs and so create job losses – even EU’s own studies show this. For example Philippines fishery and cereals sectors already mired in poverty.
• TRIPS+ – that will undermine access to cheap drugs.
• Government procurement that will have serious implications on domestic policy space.
• Aggressive access to raw materials – to access resources and land by indigenous peoples
• Erosion of policy space

The message from the Vietnamese is that workers in textile and leather industries, mostly women are at threat from anti-dumping measures from discriminatory policies of the EU. The ambitious aims of the EU will have dire consequences for the people of the region (not of governments and corporations) but people and communities who are already suffering from poverty and inequality.

Joe Higgins, member of INTA Committee for the GUE/NGL

The theme of ASEM is ‘Greater Prosperity and Dignity for all Citizens’ – but this will only be achieved for big businesses of both regions. The reality is that all governments primarily represent the major corporations, financial institutions and capitalism. As we have seen in recent years it is their interests that are put first.

EU global interventions have been very controversial and detrimental to small producers and workers. The EU-Columbia FTA was enacted in the face of huge opposition but the EU-India FTA will be the most controversial of them all. European big business sees the potential for dazzling profits and this is the prize they are striving for, irrespective of the consequences. To achieve this agreement they have to bludgeon India into submission on crucial areas – free access to goods and services. This will swamp India with subsidised goods and destroy the livelihoods of manufacturers and workers.

Trade and investment negotiations remain secretive and closed. The ongoing trade discussions between the EU and India are indicative of this approach. Behind closed doors, negotiators on both sides are working hand-in-hand with company and business representatives to push a business-first agenda that undermines governments,’ threatening the lives and livelihoods of millions of small farmers, street traders and access to affordable medicines.

Dharmendra Kumar, India FDI Watch

After the orgy of speculation that has taken place what have EU service providers got to offer India. They like to pretend they are models of democracy. Genetic modification of seeds is also of major consequence – we do not know the impact of GM seeds under different climatic conditions.

The European Parliament has a neo-liberal, right wing majority but we will continue to fight. But workers and trade unions all have a responsibility to sit down to fight for public resources, to make sure they are under democratic control and to advance the general good of society.

FTAs need ratification by European Parliament so they have a vital role to play. In Pakistan – all agreements from IFIs, Paris Club etc – are all seen in terms of privatisation. Nestle for example has taken over water privatisation. How can movements in Europe advice and protest on these agreements in Pakistan which are anti-people.

The struggle against FTAs is becoming the struggle against corporations and businesses. We all need to come together to challenge instruments of domination and to move towards systems change in a fundamental way.

Yannick Jadot, Coordinator of the INTA Committee for the GREENS-EFA,

There are new competencies for the European Parliament under the Lisbon Treaty but the European Commission does not depend on us to develop a new mandate or to check the different steps of the negotiations. Political balance – fiscal, monetary, environmental dumping – before it was a civil society debate and now it’s within the European Parliament. The INTA -international trade committee is dominated by the right.

Japan-ACTA for example – the Parliament were out of the negotiation and despite a strong resolution against the lack of transparency we didn’t manage to achieve it. We were not part of the debate – we were here to claim our right to know what it means in terms of generics but failed to bring transparency.

With the Lisbon Treaty the Parliament has to give consent to all agreements and negotiations. We now have a bigger responsibility and we need you to give us the capacity to deal with these issues.

For example the Korean FTA is a 1500 page document – we can’t have a clear and precise analysis because we have 20 similar documents arriving all the time – on investments, bananas etc. We need your help to alert us to what is at stake – what the impact might be. I am working on Export Credit Agencies and member states don’t understand the role of the European Parliament on mining, oil, minerals etc and it is clearly seen by member states as their sovereignty but now the Parliament has power on this to better understand the impact of big dams, impact on developing countries etc

We could not be as good as we are and try to be without the help of NGOs to bring pressure on this Parliament. Trade policies are needed that are the outcome of internal national policies, food sovereignty, human rights etc and not imposed from outside based on the needs of corporations.

We need to make sure that trade policies are the tool and not the end and to do this we need to change the dynamics of all committees.

Marc Maes, Trade Policy Officer, 11.11.11,

Trade policy has escaped democratic control since the middle-ages. It is completely under executive power and there is a desperate need to bring it into democratic space. There is exclusiveness, untransparency and technical difficulties. Sometimes a very clear examples of massive injustice but often its very piecemeal – the sum total is devastating but it is difficult to show this to the general public.

There are 10,000 lobbyists in Brussels with massive strength and very strong links to governments of member states. They serve the interests of their industries. Trade impacts employment, environment, jobs, indigenous peoples etc but they are there to serve business.

At a national and European level you can come with great analysis and arguments but they don’t want to look at it – they call a business association who says don’t both or worry about it. They don’t engage on the intellectual level. We are now faced with the European Parliament who has quiet new competencies on trade and investment, but it is still very difficult for them to exert themselves. The Commission is a very difficult nut to crack – DG Trade has to consult with DG Social, DG Environment etc…so this might be a first place to start.

The Council is an important pillar and since the new treaty the parliaments of member states don’t need to ratify agreements so they have less control over what they do. So MEPS say it’s a European issue and is therefore not following it so who is holding our European Governments to account? There is less and less control. National governments are completely unchecked by parliaments on their trade positions. Or they say our position is none of your business because it is an EU position and we are not willing to expose this – this is a massive problem.

Parliament has a right to information from the Commission – they have a weekly briefing – but the question is what is the Parliament doing with it – they are drowning in the information. Parliament needs to beef up its analytical capacity. Since the treaty gives Parliament the right to information then what are they doing with it – are they sharing it with constituencies, with general public? Analysing it? Producing briefings?
Ratification is to say yes or no and it is very difficult to say no to processes that have taken years.

The Parliament has to approve all trade laws and to set the mandate but it is unclear how they will feed back on this mandate to the Commission. Again they need for adequate time to do this. At present there is a great need not only to see but also to scrutinise their mandate.

Walden Bello (Akbayan, Philippines),

President Aquino decided not to attend ASEM possibly as it was going to be again a ratification of the neo-liberal agenda. There was a recent hearing in the Filipino Congress on EU-Filipino Partnership Co-operation Agreement. We questioned our Foreign Ministry, why are we doing this? We have the WTO, ASEAN-EU FTA, ASEAN-China FTA, ASEAN –Japan FTA. He said it it’s the EU that is pushing this.

ASEM began with a push from the EU in response to APEC in 1996, followed soon after by the Asian financial crisis but there was none of the desired and expected support to Asian economies from the EU. Now the meeting is in Brussels and interest is largely from European side with their need to respond to recession and crisis. We need these markets to get us out of this recession!

Can’t talk about trade and investments without talking about migration and the current crisis of migration (i.e. Laos, Thai and Cambodians in Sweden). Migrants must be treated with respect and dignity and integrated into workers organisations. They are being used as scapegoats for the crisis.

Actions

Create a parallel front to FTAs – to not be too pessimistic on the European Parliament – people are affected by FTAs both in Europe and Asia and we need to use this opportunity to rebuild.

How can civil society push for more space in the European Parliament? The most important thing is to keep together, create networks and have a permanent exchange and concrete alternatives.

The European Business Lobby does not stop in Brussels – also in China, who learnt techniques from Europe.

Investment policies are even worse than trade – collusion is even worse. There are 3000 bilateral investment treaties in the world, the EU own 1300 of them and they are completely biased in favour of businesses and against public interests. There are secret arbitration councils against which there is no appeal. Indirect expropriation issue – doesn’t exist in EU law – no one should say you are increasing my costs due to environmental protection so I need. Businesses are there at heart of negotiations and in drafting text. I have always denied a conspiracy for years – but now I see that civil society are being denied access and being prevented from engagement.

The number of people working on trade within civil society is going down – nothing is moving in the WTO and so all those who were watching it are no longer. We need to mobilise our civil society colleagues to focus on trade policies because that is where major decisions are being made.

Concluding Remarks – Andy Rutherford (One World Action)

We are confronting challenges and creating joint visions as active citizen’s organisations. We are networks and this is our strength. What do we now do with this privilege of being here of interacting and influencing. We need to take on the responsibility and move forward, Informed by our alternatives to become a progressive reality. Because they influence and affect the lives and livelihoods of millions of people.

Another world is possible and is also happening – we need to be inspired, committed and to work for the change we are all fighting for.