Background
The Asian IOC meeting in Ho Chi Minh City held on 12-14 March 2006 was called for to
reflect upon a decade of AEPF engagement in the ASEM process so as to better position itself
as a stronger bi-regional network of civil society working for the democratisation of Asia-
Europe relations. This reflective meeting has enabled the Asian IOC to creatively strategise
the advancement of AEPF’s peoples’ vision and, at the same time, to maximise the space
conducive to strengthening the solidarity of civil society organisations across Asia and
Europe. Attention was to the Asian context of evolving issues as well as immediate and
future AEPF endeavours.
The three-day HCMC meeting was essentially composed of two interrelated activities: (1)
the Asian IOC’s consultative meetings mainly attended by the IOC members and other
associates of the AEPF; and (2) the conference on ’Strengthening the Social Aspects in the
ASEM Process’ jointly organised by the Vietnam Peace and Development Foundation
(VPDF), Vietnam Union of Friendship Foundation (VUFO), and the Friedrich-Ebert Stiftung-
Vietnam (FES-VN). The meeting aimed to meet a number of objectives with specific Asian
dimension:
[a] to consolidate significant ideas generated from the discussions in the
conference that could help assess the AEPF processes and facilitate
ways forward;
[b] to have a clear grasp of key issues confronting the Asian region in the
context of Asia-Europe relations and recent developments at the
WTO, FTA, and ASEM so as to strategically organise AEPF in a
more proactive role vis-a-vis the ASEM process and in contemporary
developments in global, regional, and national civil society
movements;
[c] to develop key themes from the Asian side in relation to the various
clusters and workshops in the AEPF-6;
[d] to review and delegate tasks among Asian IOC in the preparatory
activities for the AEPF-6;
[e] to situate the AEPF member organisations’ campaign initiatives within
their respective domestic constituencies in Asia towards mobilising
support for their capability building and lobbying activities and
activate working partners as well; and
[f] to come up with a timetable for pre-conference plan of action between
March and September 2006.
The Conference: ’Strengthening the Social Aspects in the ASEM Process’
The Conference on 13-14 March was attended by 37 participants from across Asia and
Europe, mainly coming from IOC members of the AEPF and from several other NGOs,
academic institutions, farmer organisations, and trade unions who have shared interest in the
democratisation of Asia-Europe relations (See Annex 1). Its main objective was to provide a
venue for informal brainstorming of issues among state and non-state stakeholders in the
upcoming ASEM-6 Summit in Helsinki. The Conference was programmed for discussions to
be focused on the potential contribution of the AEPF to the advancement of the ’social issues’
in the ASEM process in general and the forthcoming 1st
ASEM Ministers of Labour Meeting
in particular.
Presentations: The Robles and Bersick Papers
The Conference featured a number of presentations delivered by: Mr. Daniel Reichart
(FES-VN), Dr. Klaus Fritsche (Asienhaus), Mr. Charles Santiago (MSN-Malaysia), Mr.
Nguyen Manh Cuong (Ministry of Labour, Vietnam), Mr. Zhang Tao (China Workers’ Centre
for International Exchange), Mr. Tran Van Ly (Vietnam Confederation of Labour), and Mr.
Nguyen Manh Hung (Vietnam Farmers’ Union) - all of which were directed at the social
concerns and labour issues in the context of contemporary process of globalisation and the
upcoming 1st
ASEM Labour Ministers Conference in Berlin on September 2006.
The major presentations in the conference were delivered by Dr. Alfredo C. Robles,
Jr. (professor of international studies at the De La Salle University - Manila) and Dr.
Sebastian Bersick (Research Fellow at the European Institute for Asian Studies), namely:
[a] Alfredo C. Robles, Jr., ’New Perspectives on Asia-Europe Relations
and Necessary Advocacy’; and
[b] Sebastian Bersick, ’Democratising Inter-regional Relations: A Decade
of ASEM-AEPF Dynamics’.
Dr. Robles argued that the European Union’s primary objective in the ASEM dialogue is to
facilitate its market access in Asia as well as to obtain Asian consent to its positions at the
WTO issues. He then proposed at least two valuable objectives for AEPF, if it is to pursue its
agenda on poverty reduction, economic cooperation, and social issues, to undertake at the
level of ‘bilateral dialogue’ between the EU and individual Asian states - the level in which
development strategies are negotiated. The first is for AEPF to influence ASEM’s overall
development strategies that are backed up by EU funding. The other is to carry out
independent assessment of EU poverty alleviation and economic cooperation projects on a
continuing, not merely biennial, basis. These objectives are all directed at EU’s poverty
alleviation and economic cooperation projects - projects that enable the EU to have a direct
impact on the lives of many Asians in the developing world.
Dr. Bersick painted an overall picture of the process of democratisation in Asia-
Europe relations. Using the empowerment of non-state actors within ASEM affairs over the
years as an indicator of increasing democratisation, he identified two different, and somewhat
contending, developments in the democratisation of the ASEM-AEPF dynamics for the first
decade. The first is that an increasing democratisation in Asia-Europe dialogue over the years
has already taken place. This is manifested in the increasing mediation and communication functions of the civil society in the ASEM processes. The second development is about the
realisation that this trend of increasing democratisation of the Asia-Europe dialogue, in
particular the legitimate role played by civil society in the ASEM affairs, is not self-
sustaining. The ASEM-5 Summit in Hanoi, with its failure to endorse the civil society-crafted
Barcelona Report - hence, its refusal to accept the Asia-Europe Foundation’s (ASEF) function
as facilitator in the formation of a ’political civil society’ and the AEPF’s demand for a social
pillar within the official ASEM process, is a manifestation of this turbulent development.
Within these seemingly contradictory developments, Bersick pointed out the challenge of
sustaining the democratisation momentum by supporting the transformation of civil society
from a pre-political to political actor. He then highlighted the need for a vertical dialogue
between state and non-state actors in Asia-Europe affairs.
For AEPF’s Engagement with the 1st ASEM Labour Ministers Conference
The Conference elicited insights important for AEPF engagement with the 1st
ASEM
Labour Ministers Conference in Berlin on September 2006. While cognizant of the emergent
futility and a dim prospect of this upcoming meeting of labour ministers, AEPF members -
facilitated by FES-VN - also recognised the importance of the meeting in opening an
opportunity for ASEM member governments to seriously reflect upon and take concrete
political action to put real development at the centre of Asia-Europe relations. Hence, the
participants in the conference had drafted key advocacy points for the AEPF to advance for
the 1st
ASEM Labour Ministers Conference, to wit:
[a] The development policies pursued by governments in both Asia and
Europe in the name of globalisation have been unable to deliver
’development, jobs, and prosperity for all’ and have in fact had negative
consequences on the lives and livelihoods of the world’s poor. The
drive to liberalized trade and investment and the quest for greater
market access has undermined social protection for the most
vulnerable sectors - the farmers, the fishers, and workers. The negative
impact of globalisation on lives and livelihoods is what is fuelling the
ever growing movement of peoples around the world against the
prevailing development paradigm, and the search for better
alternatives.
[b] The global, regional, and national competitiveness projects and the
relentless drive for market competition heighten pressure to lower
wages and poor labour conditions. These competitiveness projects that
result in ’race to the bottom’ have to be stopped. Governments must
ratify and implement ’core labour standards’ and ILO Conventions.
[c] The Labour Ministers Meeting in Berlin should aim to put social
dimensions not at the centre of globalisation but at the centre of real
development, outside the current paradigm, where the benefits are
shared equitably and where peoples’ rights are adequately protected.
Asian IOC Consultative Meeting
The Asian IOC Consultative Meeting aimed at providing updates on the AEPF-6
preparations, developing key themes for cluster plenaries and workshops, and ironing out
organizational issues and concerns related to AEPF-6 activities.
Suggested Advocacy for AEPF Under Conditions of Contemporary Global Developments
The IOC Meeting started with presentations of Mr. Joseph Purugganan (Focus on the
Global South) and Mr. Charles Santiago (Monitoring Sustainablity of Globalisation),
situating Asia-Europe relations in the context of contemporary and evolving configuration of
the processes of neo-liberal globalisation. Mr. Purugganan presented Asia-Europe relations in
the context of the aftermath of the recently concluded WTO Ministerial in Hong Kong; and
hence, the broader relationship between ASEM and the WTO. He provided a post-Hong
Kong update, emphasising on the actions and positions taken by the EU and other developing
countries within Asia. Drawing on the Philippine case, he discussed the implications of the
Hong Kong ’deal’ on developing countries. Mr. Santiago, on the other hand, captured the
ASEM process against the background of emergent free trade areas within Asia (eg.,
ASEAN-China and ASEAN-India), and across Asia and Europe as well. He proposed the
extension of AEPF advocacy to the ASEAN regional integration issues and also the
exploration of an alternative regionalism project.
The important insights that were gathered in the presentations highlight the following
suggestions that will be integrated in the immediate and future advocacy of the AEPF (See
Annex 2):
[a] Reject the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration as it reflects the
initial elements of new trade deals in agriculture, NAMA, services,
TRIPS, trade facilitation, among others, and sets clear timelines for
the conclusion of the Doha Round by 2006.
[b] Expose the Doha Round as an Anti-Development Round. And
project the possible implications of new trade agreements under the
Doha Round for the livelihoods of farmers, fishers, women, and
job security for workers.
[c] Push for greater transparency and access to information for an in-
formed public debate on the merits and dangers of WTO agree-
ments.
[d] Expose how WTO agreements push for greater and deeper liberali-
sation not just on trade but investment as well and the implica-
tions on local livelihoods and jobs and loss of economic
sovereignty.
[e] Work with national and international movements campaigning
against WTO agreements.
[f] View ASEM as an institution that reinforces the neo-liberal agenda.
ASEM’s main pillar (or the real pillar) is the economic pillar. The
advocacy on a ‘social pillar’ should be anchored on the critique of
the primacy being given to the economic pillar and the lip service
given, and hypocrisy being displayed, by both European and
Asian countries to so- called social aspects of development.
[g] Highlight the worsening conditions of workers - the ‘race to the
bottom’ towards downward wage pressure and poor labour condi-
tions - that result from the neo-liberal policies on deep institution-
al reforms for competitiveness and global market competition.
[h] Expose the hypocrisy of European and Asian governments and cor-
porations who refuse to adhere to ‘core labour standards’.
Preparations in Finland and National-level initiatives
Ms. Anu Juvonen, the AEPF-6 Coordinator in Finland, gave an update on the
preparations being made in Helsinki. She provided a timetable for the AEPF-6 in September:
Date | Activity |
---|---|
Saturday, 2 September | Arrival of participants |
Sunday, 3 September | Arrival of participants. Possible informal get-together in the evening. |
Monday, 4 September | Opening session. Start of conference. Evening reception. |
Tuesday, 5 September | Conference continuation. |
Wednesday, 6 September | Conference continuation. Closing ceremony in the evening. |
Thursday, 7 September | Street party with soup kitchen in the centre of Helsinki. Meetings and exchanges with residents of Helsinki. Departure of participants. |
She then stressed that the AEPF-5 experience in Hanoi should not be repeated - that is,
having too many workshops and not enough time for discussions. Hence, the AEPF-6, as
agreed upon during the IOC meeting in Helsinki on December 2005, will be limited to four
(4) workshops for Cluster 1, six (6) workshops for Cluster 2, and four workshops for Cluster
3. Each workshop will last 4-4½ hours, excluding breaks. There will be three (3) speakers for
cluster plenaries and workshops, which will come each from Asia, Europe, and Finland. The
workshop organisation and structure is already uploaded at the AEPF website
(http://www.aepf.net). The deadline for the finalisation of the workshop concepts will be on
17 April 2006, and the next IOC meeting will be on 21-23 May in Helsinki.
After Ms. Juvonen’s briefing, the Asian IOC member organisations and associates from
the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Korea.gave their updates
on the preparations, initiatives, and consultations with their respective constituencies related
to the AEPF-6 event.
Development of Themes for Clusters, Plenaries, Workshops
KEPA has properly documented the details of this part of the discussion, including the
names of keynote speakers to be invited as well as prospective partner organisations. In
addition, KEPA reminded the IOC of the logistical arrangements that have already been made in Finland. As such, proposals for additional workshops and other suggestions should take
into account the number of rooms available in the conference venue.
Cluster | Remarks |
---|---|
Cluster 1: Peace and Security, with 4 workshops [Presented by Ms. Pietje Vervest] | - Keynote speakers are yet to be identified. – A workshop on the impact of weapons of mass destruction was proposed. – A separate workshop on migration was suggested. |
Cluster 2: Economic Security and Social Rights, with 6 workshops [Presented by Mr. Klaus Fritsche and Mr. Charles Santiago] |
- Issues on poverty, corporate social responsibility, and the Millenium Development Goals were suggested to be part of the workshops. – That free trade agreements should take into account the Doha Round outcomes was pointed out. – Issues on the resurgence and increasing nationalism, racism, and conservatism in both Asia and Europe were proposed to be discussed in the workshops. – The Finnish NGO workshop proposal entitled ’How to defend life and environment of rural, forest & indigenous communities against globalised rights of agribusiness, mining and forestry’ was presented for comments. – Proposals related on the workshop on labour must be relayed to Mr. Fritsche and Mr. Santiago. |
Cluster 3: Democracy and Human Rights, with 4 workshops [Presented by Mr. Bonn Juego] |
- On Workshop 1 on local governance, a speaker from PSPD based in Korea was proposed. – On Workshop 2 on rights of indigenous people and cultural minorities, a Muslim was proposed to be invited as speaker. – The Chinese IOC associates objected to the inclusion of the case of Tibet in the workshop discussions and the invitation of Kesang Takla as speaker to a workshop. They then proposed the China Association for Preservation and Development of Tibetan Culture (CAPDTC) to be a co-organiser of the workshop. It was then asserted by IOC members that AEPF is an ’open forum’ of people’s dialogue. |
Selection and Identification of Speakers and Working Partner Organisations
The cluster organisers are the ones who determine the speakers to be invited.
Proposals for workshop speakers should be sent to cluster co-organisers by 25 March. The
prospective speakers must be able to identify with the AEPF Charter of Principles, with
reputation and expertise and the language capability to speak in English. Invitation of women
speakers is encouraged.
Prospective working partner organisations must also identify with the AEPF Charter
of Principles, progressive, with constituencies in the grassroots, active in the social
movements, and with Asia-Europe dimension.
Quota for Participants (by country)
The following quota does not automatically mean that the funding is secured for this
number of people. Fund raising activity is needed. The quota is set here to ensure
geographical balance for participants across Asia and Europe. Finland can accommodate a
total of 400 people to participate in the Forum. Participants to the AEPF-6 must apply for visa
by mid-June.
Europe: Finland (incl. organisers): 100, CEE EU members: 30, Other EU: 50
Asia: Cambodia: 5, China: 20, Hong Kong SAR: 5, Indonesia: 25, Japan: 5, Korea (South): 5, Laos: 5, Malaysia: 10, Philippines: 20, Singapore: 3, Thailand and Burma: 20, Timor Leste: 5, Vietnam: 15, South Asia: 10
Regional organisations: 7
Extraregional organisations: 3
Early registration: 30
Speakers: 27
Total: 400
Finnish and European media are not included
Deadlines
The following are the upcoming deadlines set in the meeting:
Date | Activity |
---|---|
25 March | Proposal of speakers of workshops sent to co-organisers |
17 April | Cluster plenaries and workshops finalised |
15 May | Quota of participants for each country, names of participants sent to Anu |
21-23 May | IOC meeting at Helsinki / List of speakers to be finalised |
15 June | Start visa application |
30 July | Registration closed |
ANNEX 1: List of Participants
- Liu Kayang, Research Fellow, Chinese Association for International Understanding
- Niu Jian Rong, Program Officer, UNA
- . Zhang Tao, China Workers’ Center for International Exchange (CWCIE)
- Zhu Fagen, Program Officer, CAFIU
- Christina Ebro, Overseas Seconded Personnel of EED (Bonn) to IPD (Philippines)
- Hanneke van Eldik Thieme, Country Coordinator, 11.11.11
- Pietje Vervest, Transnational Institute
- Felix Schmidt, Resident Representative, FES-Vietnam
- Daniel Reichart, FES-Vietnam
- Klaus Fritsche, Asia House
- Sebastian Bersick, Research Fellow, European Institute for Asian Studies
- Bonn Juego, IPD
- Joseph Purugganan, Focus on the Global South
- Alfredo C. Robles, Jr., Professor of International Studies, De La Salle University-Manila
- . Anu Juvonen., KEPA - Service Center for Development Cooperation
- Henri Myrttinen, KEPA
- Akbarudin Arif, KOMPIP
- Djuni Thamrin, IPGI
- Somphanh Sibounheuang, LFTU
- Khamtanh Sophimmavong, LFTU
- Charles Santiago, Director, MSN
- Agnes Khoo, Executive Director, ARENA
- Anselmo Lee, Executive Director, Forum-Asia
- Chalida Tajaroensuk, Advisor, Forum-Asia
- Bui Ba Binh, Director, European Department, VUFO
- Pham Tuan Phuc, FES-Vietnam
- Ta Xuan Hung, VPDF
- Pham Minh Hong, HUFO
- Dao Ngoc Ninh, VPDF
- Phan Dang Cuong, VUFO
- Nguyen Thi My Tien, HUFO
- . Le Thi Thanh Ly, VPDF
- Ha Thi Thu Huong, VUFO
- Nguyen Manh Hung, Director of ICD, Vietnam Farmers’ Union
- Nguyen Manh Cuong, Deputy Director for International Relations, Ministry of Labour
- Tran Van Ly, Director, International Department, Vietnam General Confederation of Labour
- Nguyen Van Manh, Chief of Section for Friendship Affairs, HUFO
ANNEX 2: AEPF Advocacy Areas
AEPF-IOC MEETING IN HO CHI MINH CITY: SUGGESTED ADVOCACY AREAS
THE PUSH FOR THE CONCLUSION OF THE DOHA ROUND (New trade Agreements under the
World Trade Organization)
§
Reject the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration as it reflects the initial elements already of new trade
deals in agriculture, NAMA, services, TRIPS, trade facilitation among others and sets clear timelines
for the conclusion of the Doha Round by 2006. In many of the critical areas, a new trade deal under the
Doha Round would prove to be disastrous to livelihoods and jobs of farmers, fishers, women, and
workers across the developing countries in the South.
In agriculture, a new trade deal would mean further tariff reduction for developing countries even as farmers are
hardly able to bear the brunt of previous tariff cuts that have opened up local markets to competition from
cheaper highly subsidised agricultural products. The farmer suicides in Asia are grim reminders of the level of
despair and desperation that persists in the region.
The promise by the European Union to eliminate export subsidies by 2013 is an illusory gain. The reality is that
EU and The United States would have not just the privilege but the mandate to continue with their high levels of
subsidisation even as they aggressively push for greater market access opening to markets of developing
countries. (Around 90 billion euros for the EU and around 74 billion dollars for the US).
A deal on Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA), would force developing countries to bind all their
remaining industrial (including fisheries and forestry products) lines and commit to an ambitious formula for
tariff reduction which could lead to massive de-industrialization in the South.
In services, the adoption of Annex C with the benchmarking and plurilateral approach undermines the more
flexible request and offers process of the GATS and would force developing countries to open up more sectors
and commit to deeper liberalisation in the wake of stronger pressures from countries with aggressive interests in
the services sector.
§
Expose the Doha Round as an Anti-Development Round. The Doha negotiations have clearly shown
that ‘development objectives’ are secondary compared to the market access objectives of the Round.
We should challenge the notion that the conclusion of the Doha Round would serve the interests of the
world’s poor.
§
Project the possible implications of new trade agreements under the Doha Round for the livelihoods of
farmers, fishers, women, and job security for workers. The ‘real situation’ of the crisis facing these sec-
tors should be the central message.
PUSH FOR BILATERAL AND REGIONAL FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS, PARTNERSHIP AND
COOPERATION AGREEMENTS AND ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS
§
Push for greater transparency and access to information for an informed public debate on the merits
and dangers of these agreements.
§
Expose how these agreements push greater and deeper liberalisation not just on trade but investment
as well and the implications for local livelihoods and jobs and loss of economic sovereignty.
§
Work with national and international movements campaigning against these agreements.
VIEW ON ASEM : ASEM AS AN INSTITUTION/MECHANISM THAT REINFORCE THE NEO-
LIBERAL AGENDA
§
European governments use ASEM to consolidate support for greater economic liberalization; Asian
governments use ASEM to secure funds in the name of economic cooperation to push the same agenda
of economic liberalisation.
§
ASEM’s main pillar (or real pillar) is the economic pillar and the two other so called pillars (political
and cultural pillars) are only side pillars aimed at presenting a ‘balanced’ view of development.
§ The advocacy on a ‘fourth pillar’, a social pillar should be anchored on the critique of the primacy be-
ing given to the economic pillar and the lip service given and hypocrisy being displayed by both Euro-
pean and Asian countries to so called social dimensions or aspects of development.
§ Highlight the worsening conditions of workers; the erosion of workers rights, the contractualisation,
informalisation of labour and the ‘race to the bottom’ effect of neoliberal policies on deep institutional
reforms for competitiveness.
§
Expose the hypocrisy of European and Asian government and corporations who refuse to adhere to
‘core labour standards’.