To: Multiple recipients of list TSG-L (Tibet Support Group List)
REPORT ON APEC NGO FORUMS
Manila, Philippines
NOV. 21 - 24, 1996
by Tenzin Khangsar and Tenzin Jimpa, the CTC delegates
Why was it important for a TSG to attend these conferences? Today it has never been more obvious that the voice of business and trade speaks volumes, sadly more so than the voice of a struggling people or even a respected world leader like His Holiness the Dalai Lama. APEC is the forum for such corporate voices, where its sole emphasis and goal is the promotion of free trade. (A background paper explaining APEC is available from the CTC) There is little or almost no regard for matters such as labour and human rights. As an NGO whose mandate it is to protect the oppressed in Tibet, it is necessary for the CTC to join in solidarity with NGO's around the world and ensure that free trade is also fair trade and necessitates sustainable development for all peoples. Also, these NGO conferences in Manila were among the biggest and most important NGO conferences organized in Asia. It is vital that the issue of Tibet become more apparent with our neighbouring countries and their NGO networks. Ironically, Tibet awa
reness is greater as one gets further away from Tibet. Finally, the issues of global trade, APEC, WTO and free trade are economic matters that Tibetans-in-exile must grasp and understand in order to develop a greater economic voice, both in our exiled communities and when Tibet is independent again.
There was no united NGO parallel conference during the APEC Leader's Summit in Manila, Philippines. The large number of existing NGO's in the Philippines made it near impossible and a political struggle between the NGO's of the host country was very evident. Therefore the strategy of the Canada Tibet Committee was to send two delegates and have both attend as many conferences as possible. Three NGO conferences were identified to be the most important. Tenzin Khangsar attended the Manila People's Forum on APEC (MPFA), Tenzin Jimpa participated in the Peoples' Conference against Imperialist Globalization, and both were to attend the International Subic Conference on the Social Cost of Globalization. However, at the last minute only Jimpa was able to reach Subic Bay.
MANILA PEOPLES FORUM ON APEC:
Report by Tenzin Khangsar
The MPFA organizing committee was made up of a several major NGO's in the Philippines, many of whom had left-leaning (communist) political views as demonstrated in the conference's opening statements, remarks and jokes. The conference's main organizers included Horacio Morales, a popular NGO activist in the Philippines, and Dr. Walden Bello, a staunch adversary of APEC and U.S. international economic intimidation. An invitation was given to 1996 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Jose Ramos Horta of East Timor, but the Philippine government refused his entry.
The conference was organized under four theme clusters: Self-Governance, Ecology, Labour and Migrant Rights, People's Right and Democratization. I attended the latter cluster. A three day pre-forum conference was also available for participants in each respective cluster theme. This enabled people to meet and network before the official forum and to take advantage of field expeditions to learn of the concerns of the Filipino people. Unfortunately I was not able to attend the pre-forum because of time limitations.
The conference included several international speakers, including many well-known labour activists and opponents of free trade movements. Each speech concluded with a discussion session, a chance for participants to comment or question each issue raised. A heavy debate ensued on a united strategy regarding APEC. It seemed participants were divided on whether to completely oppose APEC "expose and oppose" or to "engage and change" APEC and try to ensure a social voice within the APEC process. The Canada Tibet Committee did not have a stance on this issue as of yet. We are still waiting for more discussions and clarifications before a decision is made.
Consensus was not reached, but the conference did precede with the undertones of "engage and change". Workshops on the cluster issues were an extension of work achieved during the pre-forum. This left those who did not attend the pre-forum, like myself, in a precarious situation. During the forum workshops, NGO's from different countries prepared drafts of resolutions denouncing human rights and environmental violations in each respective country. I was able to quickly prepare a resolution on Tibet during the workshop which is appendixed to this report.
It was disappointing to see that more interaction between participants was not initiated on behalf of the conference organizers. That onus was left on participants. I did meet and develop many international contacts. People from Mongolia, Indonesia, Japan, Nepal, Thailand and the host country, Philippines. The Filipino people are generally well-educated, fluent in English and are very involved in social movements. So many were interested when they heard or read of the situation of Tibet, especially the younger ones. With the existing multitude of NGO's, a Tibet support group in the Philippines would be most plausible and useful. It could even act as an hub for an eventual APEC-Asian TSG network. However within the conference, and especially amongst the organizers, there existed a strong support of the communist ideology. China is viewed as the " ideal" nation. Henceforth, the issue of Tibet met strong opposition during the voting-consensus of country resolutions.
Resolutions on Burma, East Timor and Chiapas passed without opposition. Actually after the conclusion of the initial workshop where the resolutions were drafted, opposition was not expected. However immediately after the Tibet resolution was read aloud, a leading member of the conference questioned the role of His Holiness the Dalai Lama as the accepted representative of the Tibetan people. I answered the question, by saying the role of the Dalai Lama is hundreds of years old. It is definite part of Tibetan history for the many centuries. Several other participants, all Filipinos, had other reservations to points raised in the Tibet resolution. These points included the sovereignty of Tibet, the number of exact deaths and victims, and discussion of what would happen once Tibet would gain its independence. The latter point was more of a concern that a free Tibet would return to a theocratic "dictatorship". To that question, I reiterated the stance of His Holiness, mentioning his desire to let Tibetans r
un a free Tibet and that democracy has already been existing for several years in our Tibetan government-in-exile. Despite every answer I provided, Dr. Bello, the conference chairperson, attempted to have the resolution thrown out on the basis that no one knew enough on the situation in Tibet. Regardless of that argument, the Chiapas resolution was passed without a hitch.
The mediator of the session suggested a popular clapping of the hands to see if participants agreed on the passing of the Tibet resolution. The resolution was passed, but during the ensuing debate on the next resolution on Vietnam, many opponents of the Tibet resolution spoke up again. This despite the consensus achieved minutes before. It was then decided by the chair of the conference, Dr. Bello, for both Tibet and Vietnam to hold a separate session. That session would decide the form of the final resolution, with the prior consent of the board. This would give a chance for opponents to debate with the resolution drafters and change whatever was agreed upon. Only one opponent to the Tibet resolution showed up for the special meeting on the Tibet resolution, despite the many who spoke out publicly during the public reading of the resolution. His argument consistently revolved around his discomfort with the "general" context of the resolution. Needless to say, the resolution remained nearly unchange
d.
During closing ceremonies, the MPFA's final action platform was read aloud and made available. This included the updated Tibet resolution, passed for a second time and again it faced opposition. This time a vote was held with a show of hands to settle the issue. I'd guess about 90% of the hall voted for the resolution. Dr. Bello accepted the vote, the resolution was passed for the third time, but he added that "disunity in a conference is not desirable."
The whole debate on Tibet generated much interest for the issue. Many participants approached me for more information and documentation. Others just wanted to show support and solidarity for the Tibetan cause by denouncing the hostile reaction from the conference organizers. One young woman even cried and said she wished she could have said something to help me while I was questioned incessantly. She also wanted me to know that in no way did the opinion of the organizers represent how the participants felt. Overall the issue of Tibet received much attention, both through networking and the spotlight received because of the opposition it faced.
The day after the MPFA conference, most participants took part in a people's caravan to Subic; the meeting place of APEC leaders. A small group of people did reach Subic despite heavy police presence and demonstrations by pro-APEC Filipinos. I did march with the Filipino in the streets of Manila. I was overwhelmed to see about thirty thousand people all vigorously denouncing APEC. It was incredible to see so many people adamant about a cause. I did not reach Subic however to meet up with Jimpa. But my luggage did. (It's a long story.)
"I guess you can say the seeds were planted, and maybe even watered. Now let's see how the plant grows, with the all the TSG support they need and will get."
- Tenzin Khangsar
THE PEOPLE'S CONFERENCE AGAINST IMPERIALIST GLOBALIZATION:
Report by Tenzin Jimpa
This conference was hosted by BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN (or BAYAN for short), the largest network of Filipino People's Organizations (known as NGO's to us in the West), and GABRIELA, an international Filipino women's organization. GABRIELA was very supportive of the Tibetan women-in-exile delegation in Beijing, that I was also part of, during the UN's Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995. I noted that in the Philippines and perhaps most of Asia, NGO's are considered too institutionalized and too close to governments. NGO's are viewed as a hybrid of a true people's movements and a tool of government. There were some 500 international participants, most of whom were Filipino. Some delegates were from non-APEC countries in Africa and Latin America.
The conference's theme advocated the complete rejection of APEC, viewed as an instrument of US and Japanese imperialism. Participants and guest speakers were selected and invited by the organizers to reiterate this position. Throughout the conference, many people employed the continuous use of communist and Maoist rhetoric. This could explain the presence of delegates from non-APEC countries; as long as you reject the policies of neo-liberalism, you were welcome. This could also explain why human-rights-NGO's were not welcome. For example, Amnesty International is believed to be too institutional and is disliked by communists for targeting communist regimes for human rights violations. Many human-rights-NGO's would opt for working for change within the system, i.e. engage and change or try pushing for a social clause and/or a voice for civil society within APEC. However, these are strategies that The People's Conference absolutely rejects. Their view is expose and oppose.
Obviously, this made it very difficult for me to raise the Tibetan issue at this conference. I distributed our "Globalization, APEC and Tibet" pamphlets, inserted them into the conference press kits and talked informally to individual. Overwhelmingly many of the participants knew nothing about present-day Tibet, or only knew the Chinese version of Tibetan history. Our own neighbours in Asia have no clue about what's happening in Tibet. Some of them simply stared at me with disbelief.
During a Q&A session following a lecture by an American Maoist political economist, a staunch advocate of revolution based on socialism, I introduced myself as Tibetan and asked if his solution and his glorification of Mao's revolution was realistic based on the occupation of Tibet, Inner Mongolia, East Turkestan, and the well-known human rights violations in China. I was immediately verbally attacked by the guest speaker and another American Maoist intellectual who repeatedly debated with me with popular Chinese propaganda. The debate grew rather hostile, more so on the part of the Maoist, and was then dismissed by the convenor. I was reminded how it is the story of the Tibetan people's lives, to be attacked, insulted and ignored
This altercation raised much controversy at the conference. It made me very visible and many participants expressed their support. Many admitted to me their lack of knowledge concerning Tibet. No one was comfortable with the aggressive nature of the attack and several complaints were lodged to the conference organizers. There was even concern for my safety during the conference. As a result of the incident, I gained a lot of sympathy and participants showed a sincere interest in hearing about the lives of Tibetans living in exile. Many participants wished to learn more about Tibet and wanted to maintain contact with the CTC, leading into the APEC summit in Vancouver in 1997. I was able to make up an informal Tibet solidarity group, with a goal of simply distributing information about Tibet to Asian peoples' organizations, NGO's and trade unions.
"Tibetans live in Asia, thus we need the support of our neighbours. Support for Tibet has fared well in North America and Europe. The cause must be just as prevalent in Asia, our immediate neighbours. If we (Asian countries) can all see beyond our ideological differences, we will find that we all have the same problems" - Tenzin Jimpa
THE INTERNATIONAL SUBIC CONFERENCE
ON THE SOCIAL COST OF APEC:
Report by Tenzin Jimpa
Subic Naval Base in Olangapo City (about 100 miles northwest of Manila), was the site of the official APEC Leader's Summit. In 1992, the US was forced to close down its the military base there in the face of increasing opposition from the Philippine people. The base has now become an export processing zone. It is an industrial park where foreign businesses can operate factories without paying taxes or dealing with trade unions.
THE INTERNATIONAL SUBIC CONFERENCE ON THE SOCIAL COST OF APEC was the only event that took place in the Subic area itself, right across the bay from where the Leaders' Summit was held. The conference was sponsored by IBON, an economic databank and research center, and the Asian Women's Human Rights Council, who were also very supportive of The Tibetan Women-in-Exile's Delegation in Beijing. Approximately 100 delegates took part, including 30 foreign participants from several APEC countries.
The Subic Conference also promoted the absolute rejection of APEC itself, but at the same time it did advocate strategic campaigns relating to the social issues resulting from APEC policies. The conference had strong communist undertones from many Filipino participants, but with much less rhetoric and a wider scope of issues and workshops. This was evidently lacking at The People's Conference Against Imperialist Globalization. Issues such as landlessness, environment, women's rights, children's rights, and labour rights were discussed.
Once again, it became obvious that most participants knew almost nothing about Tibet. However, the openness of the participants made it much easier for me to discuss social issues in Tibet resulting from China's implementation of APEC policies. I was able to discuss Tibet's environmental situation and provide insight into possible recommendations and actions leading up to APEC 97 in the Environment Workshop. The main obstacle seemed to be that many participants just wanted to blame the US and Japan (viewed as imperialists) for everything. They couldn't accept that in Tibet, China is to responsible for everything. Eventually, there was agreement that imperialist globalization could not take place without the state's approval, and thus governments are also responsible for its devastating results.
The conference site resembled a war zone at times. The Ramos government had closed roads to Subic Bay, placed several checkpoints and had military surveillance between Manila and Subic Bay. All in the name of security during the Leader's Summit. Foreign participants had to be taken into Subic in small groups of 6-8 in the days preceding the conference, disguised as tourists or media. Although almost everyone succeed to reach the conference site, however once there they became prisoners and were prevented to leave the site by military and by local Filipinos who were pro-APEC supporters. This was a scene very similar to my experience when I was part of The Exiled Tibetan Women's Delegation and our encounter with the pro-Chinese Tibetan women at the UN Women's conference in Beijing. Nevertheless, participants held the only anti-APEC demonstration in Subic and planted a large "NO TO APEC!" banner on a hilltop in plain view of the site of the Leaders' Summit.
International press covered the event which featured a large Tibetan flag held that I carried with my new friend from Chiapas. After three days under containment, lawyers from the Free Legal Aid Group (FLAG) were able to negotiate the departures of 16 foreign delegates. We then travelled by jeep for 12 hours (instead of 4) via an alternate route to Manila. This was due to a people's caravan with thousand of protestors from Manila. The protest and police blocked access to Subic in a move to show that APEC Leaderss and their free trade agenda were not welcome.
"It was all very exciting, but what I remember the most is my dear friend Arnold waving goodbye as I left Subic, and the look of worry on his face. He was concerned for my safety. Arnold is a young Filipino social worker who works with the Amerasian orphans and street children. We became friends and I told him all about Tibet. He was very eager to know more because he had never heard any of this before. As I told him more, he looked disturbed and guiltily confessed that his hero had always been Chairman Mao, and he thought I would hate him for this. I told him that maybe I could change his mind about his hero, but that I really didn't care about his ideological beliefs as long as he was open-minded and supportive of the Tibetan people's struggle. I told him that we are not against an ideology, but a totalitarian military occupation. He understood that. After all, suffering is universal."
- Tenzin Jimpa
1997: FOLLOW-UP
By Tenzin Khangsar and Tenzin Jimpa
Both of the goals set before attending these conferences were fulfilled. We were able to make many NGO contacts in Asia and both came out with a better understanding of the APEC process, or rather the role of globalization, and its role with civil society's real concerns.
Most evident is the fact that very few Asians are aware of the situation of Tibet. Many of these countries have relatively free access to information. The presumption would be that information about Tibet was not available in their language, or even in English.
1.) Asian Outreach:
Therefore, our first follow-up is to maintain contact with the Asian NGO's that we were able to meet and become friends with. Without bombarding them at first with information, we decided to send a our CTC Newsletter and some urgent actions (Panchen Lama and Ngawang Choepel), along with a friendly letter. Then if they choose to have more information, we would make it readily available. We did decide not to hand over our contacts names and addresses immediately to the Office of International Relations and Information in Dharamsala. Our contacts knew of Tibet only through us, so we would take charge of making them more aware through a friend-contact for the time-being. Again, if they choose do to so, they could contact Dharamsala. Also, many of our Japanese contacts were made aware of the Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama in Tokyo.
2.) Canada hosts APEC NGO 1997 conference:
The 1997 NGO conference on APEC will take place, here in our backyard, in Vancouver, Canada. We let our contacts know that we could do all that we could to help them come here. It is most important to have NGO voices from developing countries present, instead of an overwhelming presence from NGO's in developed countries. CTC Montreal has taken the lead in the 1996 TSG APEC campaign, however we will solicit the participation of more TSG`s, especially those based in APEC nations, to participate in the 1997 campaign. This campaign actually entails more than just APEC. It is thematic of the discussion on the roles of civil society (including the issues of human, environmental, and labour rights) and international trade. During this time, we would like to develop a strong stance as a TSG about the APEC process, be it "expose and oppose" or "engage and change".
Above all, there needs to be more attention given to Tibet awareness in Asia. It is shocking to know that our Asian brothers and sisters know so little about our struggle.
