i | P a g e

Centre for East and South-East Asian Studies Lund University, Sweden Masters Dissertation Fall 2007 (15,0 Credit)

Framing Processes in Transnational Activist Networks The Case of Anti-Free Trade Movements in Southeast Asia

Jewellord Tolentino Nem Singh Supervisor: Dr. Anders Uhlin

ii | P a g e

Abstract In Southeast Asia, transnational activist networks on WTO protests are relatively new networks linking domestic and global activism. This research explores collective identity formation in transnational activist networks, which constitutes the building blocks of social mobilisation. Using the case study of the anti-WTO coalition, networks and social movements particularly in the Philippines and generally in Southeast Asia, the research argues that there is a distinct regional activist movement emerging as a response to neoliberal globalisation. Through framing processes – the construction of meanings to locate, perceive and label social occurrences within their life space and the world at large – social movements shape their goals, mobilisation strategies and motivations. In sum, transnational activism requires framing to construct collective identity and sustain mobilisation. The research draws on multiple methods to demonstrate the process of transposing domestic claims into the transnational sphere. It empirically traces core framing tasks and constitutive master framing among movement participants and leaders. Keywords: Transnational social movements; framing processes; global social justice; anti-WTO

movements; Southeast Asian activism; Philippine social movements

iii | P a g e

Acknowledgement This dissertation is the witness of my journey towards the academic career starting from its

conceptualisation back in my Political Science 299 class in 2005 at UP Diliman to my participation in

the UNRISD project on “International Civil Society Movements and National Implementations” . In

this paper, I demonstrate how NGOs and social movements connect their advocacies to the broader

movement against neoliberalism using a social constructionist view in the fields of International

Relations and Sociology. This project owes debts to several researchers, activists, and fellow

students who have been critical but at the same time sympathetic to my attempt of theorising social

activism in Asia.

First, let me thank the Centre for East and Southeast Asian Studies for extending their research

facilities, human resources, and networks to my project, especially on the institutional support to my

application for the Summer Institute in Malaysia where I presented the rough sketches of my

theoretical piece and initial findings last August 2007. The Nordic Institute for Asian Studies provided

library facilities for my research last June 2007. I have likewise been fortunate to have Anders Uhlin

as my supervisor, who served as both mentor and critic of my work. Whilst eve ryone was out in

Stadsparken having beer and cheese last summer, I was at Anders’ office figuring out my analytical

framework. Moreover, his support extended beyond thesis work as he read all my articles which are

under review for publication not to mention the books he shared with me whilst writing the papers. I

would also like to thank Pernille Gooche, Catarina Kinnvall, and Kristina Jonsson for the discussions

during the thinking process of my proposal. Moerover, Doming Caouette of University of Montreal

read and reviewed this paper and my PhD proposal for polishing.

I also wish to thank the Asian Political and International Studies Association (APISA) and my fellow

Laureates in the Summer Institute on Democracy, Social Movements and Governance held in Kuala

Lumpur, Malaysia from August 5-31, 2007, who have believed in my capacity to integrate theoretical

and empirical research in this project. Special mention to the Latin American gang who gave me a

relaxed summer, relaxed defined as clubbing every week, drinking in hotel rooms, and shopping

around the city. Patricia Marin and Roberto Calleja housed me in KL in September like their little

brother whilst Olga Castillo was the editor of this thesis. Also, Luis Marola Santos is the hot Brazilian

geographer who made the maps for this research. Nos vemos despues!

Third, this project owes tremendous debt to Focus on the Global South, who mentored me since my

university days until today. They not only became my key informants, they even went to the extent

iv | P a g e

of giving me international networks to contact the global and regional anti -WTO activists. I cannot

imagine how to thank them except to dedicate my PhD research on social movements and global

justice. To Walden, Mary Lou, Mary Anne, Joseph, Joy, Herbert, Lou and Julie, thank you.

In Sweden, I would not have survived without the support of the Filipino community in Lund,

particularly Tony, Mariana, Lucy, Erma, Imelda, and Maria. Thank you for the coffee, Absolut vodka,

and all the experiences that came in between. Speaking of transnational network, I am likewise

happy to have my UP colleagues and friends, most especially my aunts in Sikatuna and California.

Also, I am happy to have my siblings and my grandparents around, always telling me how much they

are proud of my achievements. I could only have hoped the my lolo see the result of my hardwork.

My Lund experience would not have been fun without my friends here. The Asian Studies class has

been the best set of group I can imagine. Our parties, coffeebreaks, and seminars were just bloody

brilliant. It was a pleasure to have worked on seminars and studied (in the library) with you. Special

mention to Eliza, Chanin, Mario, Mine, Pat, Kim, and Rishi who were with me in the past one and a

half year. You’ll be invited in my PhD graduation for sure! Lastly, thank you to my bestfriends in

Lund, Sonsri Samart and Stephanie Limuaco (and my Russian boy Dima!) who have been with me,

believing in me, making dreams with me.

Finally, this project will never be completed without the full support of the activists who agreed to

be interviewed in Manila and through cyberspace. Whilst this may seem a ‘conservative’ paper and

full of jargons from the academia, I hope that it contributes to the body of knowledge capturing your

work on social justice but also it is reflexive and critical of the status of activist and academic

theorising of social movements.

I dedicate this project to my mom and dad, Remedios Tolentino and Leonardo Nem Singh, who have

always loved me and supported my dreams. Maraming Salamat po!

v | P a g e

Table of Contents

Acknowledgement ...................................................................................................................... iii

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ v

Table of Figures .......................................................................................................................... vi

List of Tables ..............................................................................................................................vii

Abbreviations ...........................................................................................................................viii

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1

Literature Review ........................................................................................................................ 2 Transnational Activism in the Neoliberal Order The Study of Transnational Politics Regionalisation and Civil Society Movements

Research Questions ..................................................................................................................... 5

Framework of Analysis ................................................................................................................ 6

Frames as Interpretive Constructions of Activists Core Framing Tasks Master Framing in Social Movements Framing and Movement Strategies

Methodology and Research Design ............................................................................................ 15

Sources of Data

Context: Overview of Transnational Activism ............................................................................. 25

Framing Processes in Anti-Free Trade Movements ..................................................................... 30

Core Framing Tasks in Transnational Activism From Domestic to the International Public Spheres: Framing Processes in Activist Networks Framing, Movement Strategies and Collective Identity

Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 35

References ................................................................................................................................ 38

Tables ....................................................................................................................................... 42

Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 56

Endnotes ................................................................................................................................... 59

vi | P a g e

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Framing Processes and Collective Identity Formation among Social Movement Organisations ................................................................................................................. 10

Figure 2: Linking Master Framing and Strategies of Social Movements in Transnational Activist Networks ....................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 3: Global Distribution of the Anti-WTO Movements............................................................ 21 Figure 4: Regional Distribution of the Anti-WTO Movements in Asia .................................................24 Figure 5: Using Arts to Express Neoliberal Resistance ........................................................................ 34

vii | P a g e

List of Tables

Table 1: Members of the Stop the New Round! Coalition ............................................................. 42 Table 2: List of NGOs/Coalition Groups involved in the Global Trade Justice Movement (Non-

exhaustive............................................................................................................................. .. 44 Table 3: Major Calls of Action in the 2003 and 2005 SNR! Coalition Campaigns ................................ 49 Table 4: Core Framing Tasks in the Regional Anti-WTO/Anti-FTA Campaigns .................................... 50 Table 5: Core Framing Tasks in the Global Trade Justice Campaign ...................... ............................. 52 Table 6: Sectoral Analysis of the SNR Campaign .................................................................................53

viii | P a g e

Abbreviations

AFA - Asian Farmers’ Association for Sustainable Rural Development AGOA - Africa Growth and Opportunity Act AoA - Agreement on Agriculture APEC - Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation APT - ASEAN Plus Three ASEAN - Association of Southeast Asian Nations FOCUS - Focus on the Global South FTA - Free trade agreement FTAA - Free Trade Area of the Americas GSJM - Global Social Justice Movement IFI - International financial institution IGOs - Inter-governmental organisation INGOs - International Non-governmental organisation NAMA - Non-Agricultural Market Access NGOs - Non-governmental organisation OWINFS - Our World is Not for Sale PPP - Plan Puebla Panama SAP - Structural Adjustment Programme SNR - Stop the New Round! Coalition SPDC - State Peace and Development Council TLC - Thai Labour Campaign TNC - Transnational corporation TSM - Transnational social movement WTO - World Trade Organisation

1 | P a g e

Introduction

Whilst there are various studies written on “global social movements” or “transnational social

movements” (Della Porta et. al. 2006; Tarrow 2005; Della Porta & Tarrow 2005; Smith & Bandy 2005;

Smith & Wiest 2005), the focus on Asian transnational advocacy networks participating in campaigns

for global justice remains scarce (see Piper & Uhlin 2004). The process of identifying if these loose

but reticulate networks of social movements and NGOs are emerging as a coherent transnational

social movement (TSM) is the primary concern of this research.1 In this paper, TSMs are defined as

“organisations with social change goals that have constituents in at least two states interacting

contentiously and working collectively through sustained and coordinated social mobilisations

against power holders such as international institutions and multinational economic actors”

(Khagram et. al. 2002; Tarrow 2001: 11). Hence, whether a transnational movement is emerging or

not can be answered by exploring collective identity, or the ways activists see their domestic

grievances as similar to the broader transnational social justice agenda. It is also manifested when

social movements adopt similar mobilisation strategies that target actors within and beyond state

institutions.

In understanding transnational politics and collective identity formation among social

movements, the research takes the anti-free trade network in Southeast Asia as a case of

transnational social mobilisation. This network is connected in the national-based anti-WTO/anti-

FTA campaigns launched mainly in the Philippines and Thailand but with some small campaigns of

NGOs in Indonesia and Malaysia. In a comparative fashion, it seeks to investigate the process of

collective identity formation among social movement participants who joined the anti-WTO

campaigns in 2003 and 2005.2

The paper argues that framing processes – the construction of meanings to locate, perceive

and label social occurrences within their life space and the world at large, which become essential

for social movements to act on their grievances (Benford & Snow 2000; Goffman 1974) – are central

to collective identity formation within transnational activist networks, thereby facilitating successful

social mobilisation. Although influenced by available resources and political opportunities, social

movements define, deconstruct and negotiate their goals, strategies, and motivations through

intensive and complex social constructions of master frames. This finding is supported by the

empirical research done on anti-WTO movements in Southeast Asia primarily in the Philippines. As

observed, the political environment influences the spaces for activism and thereby the

2 | P a g e

concentration of these anti-neoliberal campaigns is in countries with democratic institutional

contexts (Nem Singh 2007).

The research uses the conceptual tools in the social movements literature to analyse

contentious politics, which involves the “interactions in which actors make claims bearing someone

else’s interests that leads to coordinated efforts on behalf of the shared interests or programs” (Tilly

& Tarrow 2007: 4). Specifically, framing process perspective is employed to explain expressions of

and changes in collective identity among a plethora of actors engaged in neoliberal resistance. Using

the two WTO campaigns and networks, it shows the complex process of transposing domestic claims

into the transnational sphere through frame alignment, frame bridging and frame transformation.

Literature Review

Social movements are defined in terms of their capacity and potential to collectively act towards

common purposes and solidarity to challenge existing power structures and distribution through

sustained interaction with elites, opponents and authorities (Meyer & Tarrow 1998: 4). Unlike other

forms of contentious behaviour, social movements likewise serve as public spaces for deliberation

and communicative action aimed towards the deepening of democracy. What differentiates social

movements from revolutions, democratic movements, and ethnic mobilisation is their commitment

to act within institutional politics – the use of lobbying, petitions, and government consultations as

key strategies in achieving their political goals. Unlike these other movements, they do not aim to

overthrow the state but rather to work with or against states in order to achieve their social change

objectives.

In the 1980s onwards, protests have increasingly come under state control as they occur in

negotiated public sites, receive public legitimation, and NGOs undergo intense professionalisation.

Scholars in the post-Cold War era started rethinking their conception of social movements. The

spontaneity that characterised collective mobilisation in the 1960s and the conflictual interaction

with other actors both declined. Like the old labour, ‘new social movements’ (identity-based

collective action) have undergone institutionalisation: they have relied on internal and external

resources rather than on protests to mobilise support, they have formalised and expanded

membership as they build organisational structures, and social movements have blended within the

structures of civil society without producing increased levels of protest, violence and contention

(Meyer & Tarrow 1998: 18-20).

3 | P a g e

Transnational Activism in the Neoliberal Order

The rise of anti-globalisation movements, popularly known as the global social justice movement

(GSJM), opened new theoretical and empirical research with regard to collective action. Unlike NGOs

which either provide services in humanitarian crises or extend research assistance to inter-

governmental organisations (IGOs), the GSJM challenges states in promoting neoliberal policies and

question the democratic accountability of international financial institutions (IFIs). Hence, scholars

have specified their analytical tools in theorising collective action by referring to “activism”, defined

as political activities taking place (at least partly) outside the formal political arenas, which are based

on conflict of interests against some clearly defined opponents, and that involves the participation of

non-state actors linked by dense informal networks who challenge or support certain power

structures, and share a distinct collective identity (della Porta and Diani 2006: 20, 28; Piper and Uhlin

2004: 4). More than just service provision, activism involves people willing to take risks and make

sacrifices to effect social change.

With some organisational structure and spontaneity at the same time, collective action aims to

reconfigure power relations, shape the trajectory of state-society relations, and expand the

mechanisms for citizen activism. This research focuses on this balance between structure and

spontaneity: framing attempts to analyse how resistance against neoliberalism are spontaneous

responses to economic restructuring brought about by globalisation. The organisational form and

social networks created in the process of transnational activism are products of the way some

movement participants frame their situation, proposed solutions, and motives for collective action.

The Study of Transnational Politics

The literature on transnational politics that embrace sociological studies on social movements

emerged only after the Cold War. In the 1970s, transnationalism emphasised the economic relations

beyond the state level with political economy as the focal point, owing to the dominance of the

realist paradigm and security studies in International Relations (IR) (Keohane & Nye 1971). The

empirical research on transnational politics focuses on migration, diaspora, and identity, where

questions of citizenship and collective identity have been discussed within the context of the nation-

state. For instance, studies tend to look at how states have responded to pressures of labour

migration both in the receiving and sending countries, and the implications this phenomenon carries

4 | P a g e

to individual and collective identities. The construction of transnational identities is an on-going

negotiation brought about by “sustained ties of persons, networks and organisations across the

borders across multiple nation-states, ranging from little to highly institutionalised forms” (Faist

2000: 189). With regard to TSMs, migrant workers have emerged as new actors in contentious

politics. Especially, in the 2005 WTO protests as they see global economic restructuring as the

fundamental cause of migratory processes (Malig 2006).

The studies of transnational advocacy networks are initially based on new social movements,

such as on women, indigenous peoples or human rights discourses. In Latin America, economic

globalisation has been linked to the rise of indigenous movements and transnational contention

(Martin 2003; Yashar 1998). Beyond these studies, only after the Battle for Seattle have scholars

paid attention to transnational collective identity intersecting the discourses between old and new

social movements. Hence, the current literature tends to bypass transnational anti-free trade

movements as new forms of transnational activism since they seem to be a repetition of the

discredited discourse of socialism (Rucht 1999).

Transnationalism today refers to the interaction and diffusion of ideas and identity across

borders (Tarrow 2001; Risse-Kappen 1995). As the wave of protest against neoliberalism exploded

after the Battle for Seattle, transnational movements for social justice make collective identity

claims through the rapid diffusion of ideas and interconnections of social sites. Hence, identity is

beyond the homogeneous generation, gender, or social position, which typically characterise old and

new social movements. With collective action frames embracing diagnostic and prognostic frames of

various movement participants, TSMs are able to identify themselves as global in terms of advocacy

and localised in terms of individual strategy to campaigning. In the case of the Stop the New Round!

(SNR) Coalition, membership ranges from political organisations, research advocacy groups, farmers,

coalitions and alliances, academia, and women’s organisations (see Table 1). Such diversity is united

by the common platforms which members have negotiated, as stipulated in the Unity Statement

they signed since the coalition’s inception.

Regionalisation and Civil Society Movements

In the neoliberal era, regions are new sites of contestation, where the potential for regional activism

emerges from a unique set of political opportunities, resources and subjective interpretations of

participants. Therefore, it makes sense to study and compare social movements in their specific

5 | P a g e

political-historical contexts. Transnational activism varies among regions since democratic

institutional contexts provide more channels for campaigns towards social change (Smith 2005,

2004; Khagram 2004). Whilst organised collective action against the neoliberal ideology is strong in

Latin America and Africa, social protests and transnational activism is a relatively new phenomenon

in Southeast Asia. In Latin America, most research on transnational activism gives emphasis on the

effects of democratisation to social mobilisation, such that the prominence of indigenous

movements is considered as expressions of opposition to military regimes, exploitation of the

capitalist class, and social inequality (Martin 2003; Yashar 1998). Since the breakdown of

authoritarian regimes in the 1980s, the greater access to political power and resources gave these

movements the ability to frame citizenship, identity, and cultural claims as resistance to

neoliberalism. Access includes direct links between political parties and social movements,

independent political and legal institutions outside executive control, or presence of

international/regional pressures for democratic reforms (Khagram 2004; Smith 2004; Khagram et. al.

2002).

Whilst there are new studies on Southeast Asia, there is still a lack of enthusiasm to study

activism in this region due to the seeming stasis in the political environment (TWSC forthcoming;

Caouette 2006; Quinsaat 2006; Ghimire 2005). These countries have been staunch supporters of

open regionalism as a regional economic strategy and free market principle as a guiding ideology of

development. In addition, they have successfully maintained closed political systems that limit civil

society participation. In Southeast Asia where national governments consciously detach

development agendas from democratisation efforts, most activists seek to pursue one campaign at

the expense of the other. Meaning work within transnational activist networks, which requires

conscious efforts to go beyond differences in cultural and political experiences, can connect these

disparate agendas. Through inclusive framing, social movements can focus their energy and

maximise their dense networks to connect various frames. Successful mobilisation against

international institutions depends on the success of aligning these frames and working upwards or

downwards between the national and international levels across different campaigns.

Research Questions

This research explains the process of collective identity formation among social movements in

transnational networks and coalitions coordinating on WTO protests. In a loose network of activists,

the process of transforming grievances into collective action is more difficult especially if there are

6 | P a g e

political and cultural differences that prevent sharing of values and belief systems. Further, collective

identity is closely linked to campaign strategies, which are dictated by opportunity structures and

resources. Domestic politics influence movement activities and consequently their involvement in

framing processes at the transnational level. Hence, this research seeks to answer three major

questions:

1. What accounts for the distinctiveness of activism in Southeast Asian countries? 2. What master frames (and changes in frames) have been used in the 2003 and 2005 anti -

WTO campaigns and how did these frames affect the success of social mobilisation at the national and transnational levels?

3. What processes are involved in collective identity formation among transnational activist networks and to what extent do these processes link domestic and transnational claims challenging the neoliberal discourses?

Given these questions, the research focuses on the goals, strategies, and mobilisation outcomes of

the two campaigns. First, it attempts to map out the nature of transnational activism in Southeast

Asia by analysing the social movements’ political environment, framing of issues, and mobilisation

strategies. Second, it relates framing processes and mobilisation outcomes. From the four strategies

discussed by Keck & Sikkink (1998a) – informational, symbolic, leverage and accountability politics, it

maybe discerned that transnational networks and domestic social movements maybe more

successful when they use them in combination. The research makes two inter-related arguments:

1. Southeast Asian activism is distinctive in its historical, political and economic experiences of economic development and democratisation with other regions, therefore, core framing tasks seek to work out these multiple aspects of diversity to compensate for the absence of political opportunities and resources available to social movements in other developing regions;

2. Domestic claims undergo intensive political negotiations requiring frame alignment and bridging among social movement organisations to successfully integrate their claims with transnational activist networks; however, the inability of Southeast Asian activists to use their frames to forge a distinctive Asian collective identity makes the network less of a social movement, hence, limiting the prospects for actual regional civil society formations.

Framework for Analysis

Within the social movements literature dominating the field of TSMs, political opportunity structures

and resource mobilisation theories have become pervasive explanations of transnational activism,

especially on the emergence of social movements (e.g., Levi & Murphy 2006; della Porta & Tarrow

2005; Smith & Bandy 2005). For instance, social networks forged through previous experience of

campaign work and the presence of transnational allies like INGOs, activist states, or inter-

7 | P a g e

governmental institutions lead to transnational networks (della Porta et. al. 2006; Martin 2003; Keck

& Sikkink 1998a). As conventional political opportunities at the national level closes, international

opportunities play a greater role in social mobilisation. In this project, these structural variables are

taken as contextual to transnational activism.

Framing processes, which deviates in its epistemological and ontological position wi th these

structuralist approaches, have become relevant in answering questions related to ideology, culture,

and social mobilisation (Klandermans et. al. 1999; Johnston & Snow 1998; Jasper 1997; Johnston &

Klandermans 1995). The emphasis on subjectivity, discourses and the agency is crucial to understand

why participants accept the costs of activism and mobilise enormous amount of resources not only

to work for the movement but also to work beyond national borders. Framing processes aim to

understand how advocacy goals, strategies, and movement identity are created, negotiated, and

sustained during the cycle of protests (Johnston 2002; Benford and Snow 2000; Snow et. al. 1986). In

sum, framing perspectives address issues of “grievance construction and interpretation, attribution

of blame/causality, movement participation, mobilisation of popular support for a cause, strategic

interaction, and the selection of movement tactics and strategies”, which constitute collective

identity (Benford 1997: 410).

Frames as Interpretive Constructions of Activists

Frames are “schemata of interpretation that enable participants to locate, perceive and label

occurrences within their life space and the world at large” (Goffman 1974: 21). Social movements

construct meanings in particular ways to mobilise potential adherents and constituents, expand

membership, attract media attention, demobilise antagonists, and forge collective identity (Snow &

Benford 2000; Benford 1997; Snow et. al. 1986). In its strategic function, collective action frames are

action-oriented, constituted by the core framing tasks – ‘diagnostic’, ‘prognostic’, and ‘motivational’

framing (Snow & Benford 1992). Social movements define the “self”, the “enemy”, and the “calls for

actions”, thereby setting the parameters in framing battles. Diagnostic frames assign ‘who to blame’

through problem identification and attribution, where the most commonly used is the injustice

frame (Gamson et. al. 1982). Prognostic frames create strategies and specific steps to mobilise

action among participants, thereby offering a solution. Motivational frames identify the social

movement actors to “provide a ‘call to arms’ or rationale for engaging in ameliorative collective

action” (Benford and Snow 2000: 617).

8 | P a g e

These core framing tasks are complemented by master framing, which enables social

movements to overcome their differences in interests and ideologies. By reframing their domestic

claims through frame bridging, frame alignment, and frame transformation , transnational claims are

formed. Overall, they connect experience to collective action and this process becomes the basis for

identity construction. Master frames may include justice, injustice, hegemonic and rights frames;

they contain specific frames which developed through unique historical experiences of social

movements within defined national contexts (Benford 1997). When frames are constructed and

diffused to different social movement sectors at the international and domestic levels, social

movements “appeal to belief systems, life worlds, stories, myths, and folktales in many different

cultures and political contexts” (Keck & Sikkink 1998b: 224).

Core Framing Tasks

However, core framing is not a simple and automatic process since the identification of the sources

of causality, blame, and/or culpable agents are not givens and need to undergo the process of

negotiation and consensus mobilisation among participants (Benford & Snow 2000: 615). In della

Porta et. al.’s study on global justice movements (2006), intra-movement conflicts often erupt

among organisations within the social movement. In movements where there are multiple targets,

such as the agrarian mobilisations in Netherlands and Spain (Klandermans et. al. 1999) or campaigns

against regional/bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) (Foster 2005), each actor perceives the

causes of the problem differently and such variation needs to be bridged by master frames

embracing these interpretations. The transnational campaigns face greater challenge because the

attributional component of diagnostic framing is filtered by political and cultural differences,

wherein some social movements feel that one’s enemy can be a friend in winning certain issues.

Therefore, framing becomes an activity that is mostly dominated by movement innovators,

intellectuals, and allies rather than bystanders and ordinary people.3 Their main role is to provide

the credibility and entrepreneurial skills to frame issues that would embrace multiple causalities into

a broad inclusive master frame.

A more problematic process is the prognostic framing, where solutions are laid down in their

political platforms. Prognosis depends on the position of movement organisations, and such tension

among social movements is best captured by the prominent global civil society activist Walden Bello

(2001):

9 | P a g e

While Northern activists are more open to the idea of expanding global trade rules to include environmental and labour regulations, Southerners want no part of an effort to expand the jurisdiction of an already very powerful and Northern-controlled regime.

There are frame disputes within movements, where meanings are continuously reinterpreted and

diagnostic and prognostic frames negotiated. They likewise refute the solutions proposed by the

opponents as well as the rationale for their remedies as a better alternative (Benford & Snow 2000:

617). For protests to be an effective mobilisation strategy, participants need to have strong

emotional connections with the goals and advocacies of the movement (Jasper 1997). Integrating

different frames normally would result to common strategies, joint protests, and solidarity

statements but real solutions against the opponents’ frames (whether the elites or state authorities)

remain divided among different organisations (Brooks 2005; Haines 1996).

Finally, the intellectuals and participants must negotiate the “appropriate vocabularies of

motive” – the agency component in collective action frames (Gamson 1995). The motivational frame

has been the least explored both theoretically and empirically. In Benford & Snow’s review (2000),

the only study they cited to illustrate this is Benford (1993), who used four generic vocabularies of

motive emerging in the claim-making of different actors in the nuclear disarmament movement:

severity, urgency, efficacy and propriety. Combined with emotions and cultural values, these four

vocabularies in specific combinations either lead to successful social mobilisation or contradictory

effect depending on its saliency to the targets/participants. Since little work has been done here,

future research must focus on the conditions that allow for specific combinations of these four

motives as well as their impacts to movement participation and collective identity (Benford & Snow

2000).

Master Framing in Social Movements

This research focuses on three constitutive processes in transposing domestic claims to the

transnational level: frame bridging, frame alignment and frame transformation (Tarrow 2005;

Benford and Snow 2000; Snow et. al. 1986). In figure 1, the model is specified. Domestic claims are

constructed by members of coalition groups in a national context to bring in the experiences of

movement participants. Since social movements have learned to use social networks and political

opportunities to boost their campaigns, activists become more aware of their political environment

and the wider context of social activism. For instance, the knowledge of existing allies in the

legislature or the expressed interest of international funders to support a national campaign can

10 | P a g e

develop new strategies. As Diani (1996) argues in his discussion of framing and political

opportunities, collective action occurs when activists’ mobilising messages are integrated with the

dominant representation of the political environment. If perceived political opportunities and

resources become favourable to collective action, social movements become important actors in the

political arena who use protests and other strategies to transform political culture (Diani 1996:

1058). In the Philippine case, civil society movements have been integrated so well in the political

life that people refer to social activism as a way to achieve social change rather than reforms within

governmental institutions. A clear illustration is the way elites and activists use “people power” for

mobilisation in the name of civil society and defence of liberal democracy. In some cases,

movements misperceive the closure of domestic opportunities and automatically resort to

international opportunities. Once social movements recognise particular structures in their political

environment, frame alignment becomes an essential tool in pursuing domestic claims to be

reframed as a transnational/global issue.

Della Porta et. al. (2006) argue that frame bridging is the process that connects different

specific frames used by domestic social movements to the broader framework of GSJM in

understanding their life experiences. Since there are several organisations within a transnational

network, they are expectedly diverse in opinion as to who has to be blamed and what strategies

should be used to best achieve the goals. Whilst domestic social movements have shared grievances

rooted on common social position, gender, or political status, transnational activists frame issues

using the least common denominator approach to identify common grounds among movement

participants. Considering the differences of historical contexts of every social movement,

transnational activism bridges the sectoral concerns of every SMO and brings them in forums for

deliberation and negotiation. Hence, internal democratic procedures must necessarily be practised

within social movements, such as consensus-building in decision-making, to connect the plethora of

sectoral frames and fit them in inclusive master frames of global movements. This difficulty is

illustrated by a simple example: bridging must somehow make the connections between a farmer’s

experience of hunger and a woman’s concern of the feminisation of labour in the factory and place

them within the broad framework of trade liberalisation.

In between the macroprocesses and microprocesses of social change, social movements

occupy the meso-level of social change. Whilst they are agents of change, they neither alter the

entire political system as what revolutions or secessionism do, nor do they limit their capacity for

11 | P a g e

Figure 1: Framing Processes and Collective Identity Formation among Social Movement

Organisations

12 | P a g e

change at the individual and family levels. Social movements gain relevance because they have

transformative capacity. In this regard, specific movement concerns (bridging) and perceptions over

political environment (alignment) are transformed into collective action frames through ideological

congruence or successful synthesis of frames by activists (Andretta 2003; Snow et. al. 1986). Snow

et. al. (1986) refers to frame transformation as the process of changing the world view of the

targeted actors, either through the adoption of new values and ideologies or through the changes in

the status of the movement. In domestic collective action, movements can transform the world view

of the public if they persuade them to adopt their ideological stance or values and join their

campaign activities such as protests, petitions, lobbying, or direct action. Frame transformation

likewise occurs if social movements gain prominent status or its nature changes, such as when

environmental movements turned into green parties in Europe. However, since transnational activist

networks are not social movements but rather still on the process of becoming one, it is difficult to

know whether there has been frame transformation to the targeted actors. Hence , this research

utilises a more realistic measure: whether the network has adopted internal democracy in its

operations and mechanisms of decision-making are instituted. Transnational collective identity at its

final stage has transformed frames if participating organisations have acceded to formal and/or

informal rules to negotiate their movement identity and approach to policy issues. In the analysis,

the project heavily draws on the insights of transversal politics, which refers to solidarity building

strategies among feminist movements towards a transnational political project to emancipate

women (Angeles 2003; Mendoza 2002). With its emphasis on dialogue processes and recognition of

differences before similarities, transnational activist networks can learn about overcoming political

differences, cultural barriers, and multiplicity of agendas. However, it must be noted that discussions

on transversal politics exist in the literature, but they are under the rubric of “collective identity” or

“solidarity building”.

Framing and Movement Strategy

Finally, this research utilises the analytical concepts of Keck & Sikkink (1998a: 16-25) to relate master

framing, movement strategies, and mobilisation outcomes. TSMs use four strategies or typology of

tactics in persuading, socializing, and pressuring actors. First, information politics is the ability to

quickly and credibly produce politically usable information and utilise it where it will have maximum

impact. Through the combination of hard facts and testimonies of ‘participants’ in the process, e.g.

farmers hit by liberalisation, activists move people to act based on human stories and real life

experiences. Its goal is to show that the problems are neither natural nor accidental, to identify the

13 | P a g e

responsible party or parties, and to propose credible solutions. Second, symbolic politics is the ability

to call upon symbols, actions, or stories that make sense of a situation for an audience usually far

away. Activists frame the issue in such a way that it will convince the target audience through

powerful symbols to act upon it. This symbolic interpretation is necessary to persuade people to join

the movement, create awareness, and expand the network. For instance, the footage of the

Brazilian rainforest burning in 1988 convinced people in the United States that global warming and

tropical deforestation are real world threats to everyday life. Third, leverage politics is the ability to

call upon powerful actors to influence the process and outcome where the weaker me mbers of the

movement are unable to have influence. Network campaigns identify material and moral leverages

to persuade key decision-makers to favour the advocacy of the movement. The former uses money,

goods and other benefits to gain leverage (e.g. the US policy tying human rights clauses on economic

aid) while the latter involves “mobilisation of shame” where behaviour of target actors is held up to

be in the limelight of international scrutiny. Finally, accountability politics is the effort to hold

powerful actors to their previously stated policies, principles, or commitments. These networks

extend extra efforts to convince governments to publicly change their positions on issues, constantly

remind them of their principles and positions, and expose the distance of discourse and practice.

This is manifested in the case of the human rights network using the human rights provision of the

1975 Helsinki Accords to pressure Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to change their policies.

Through these framing processes, the research traces the linkages of regional activist networks

to the national coalitions in promoting “global social justice” frames.4 In doing so, it makes it clear

that regional civil society movements have yet to emerge in Southeast Asia and that most activists in

the region are being embedded in national and international levels of activism. In a limited sense,

the research takes democratisation in Southeast Asia as a problematic process, which are

consciously realised by activists through framing processes.

14 | P a g e

Figure 2: Linking Master Framing and Strategies of Social Movements in Transnational Activist

Networks

Source: Keck & Sikkink 1998a

15 | P a g e

Methodology and Research Design

The research takes the constructivist framework developed in IR, which perceives the world as

reified, constructed and deconstructed not only by states but also by non-state actors. By

emphasising the interactive construction process between domestic and transnational actors, this

approach veers away from state-centric analysis and blurs the delineation between the national and

international in IR. Constructivism is likewise critical of the objective-subjective truths and structure-

agency lines drawn in social research. Because it explores issues of collective identity, negotiation,

and solidarity building, political opportunities and resources become relevant only if activists

perceive them as sources for collective action. Whilst it recognises the existence of objective truths

through “political opportunity structures”, there are also subjective constructions through “meaning

work”. Therefore, it makes sense to use scientific epistemological approach to discover knowledge,

in this case, the interactions of objective and subjective variables in explaining continuity in social

mobilisation. It also seeks to make a theoretical argument that can be traced through rigorous

empirical research, using a ‘thick description’ of transnational activist networks. It sees empirical

analysis as the litmus test for theory construction as this study (a) validates the soundness of the

current theoretical propositions on transnational social mobilisation, (b) remedies the bias towards

structural explanations by emphasising the importance of collective identity through framing

processes, and (c) proposes a way to use framing in empirical research.

Since most studies investigating processes of transnational mobilisation has focused on

industrialised society or Latin American contexts (della Porta 2007; della Porta et. al. 2006; Keck &

Sikkink 1998a, 1998b), the research contributes in the empirical testing of these propositions in the

context of Southeast Asia. Hence, case study is the most appropriate research design since it allows

for a detailed description of the process of social mobilisation, identifies the contextual and

explanatory variables in Southeast Asian activism, and gives the freedom to the researcher to choose

strategic cases to achieve the research objectives (Hakim 2000). Such research design allows the

theoretical propositions on framing to be modified through the thick case generated within the

specific political and historical contexts of the social phenomenon (George & Bennett 2004; Yin

2002). Further, the principle of triangulation is applied as multiple methods are being used to

provide a holistic analysis of transnational activism (See Olsen 2004; Booth et. al. 1998; Denzin

1970). In this study, key informant interviews, frame analysis and informal participant observation

are used to analyse data. As a research strategy, the 2003 and 2005 campaigns to derail the WTO

Ministerial Meetings are treated as a constitutive single case of transnational activism within a

16 | P a g e

three-year time frame. This is justified because the project seeks to trace the interactions of master

frames in national and international campaigns, thereby showing a logical and complex progression

of framing in order for domestic claims to be transposed to the transnational public sphere. Through

frame analysis and semi-structured interviews, empirical evidence on meaning construction of

activists in national and regional coalitions and campaigns can be gathered (Blee & Taylor; Johnston

2002). These major strategies are complemented by the experience of the researcher as a me dia

campaign strategist and intern of the coordinating organisation of the 2005 campaign to derail the

WTO. In a way, this experience on mobilisation can be claimed as a participant observation method.

Therefore, the whole case study provides a ‘thick case’ of transnational activism that supports a

theoretical argument through comparative method within the case and process tracing of two

disparate campaigns within a timeframe (George & Bennett 2004; Ragin 1987).

The empirical focus of the research is the informal transnational network engaged in building

coalition movements such as in Thailand and the Philippines but also the sporadic globalisation-

related work of civil society activists in Malaysia. While there is no representative case for Indonesia

due to the lack of available access to activists, this project roughly provides some insights as to who

are the major political actors involved in collective action against neoliberal institutions in Southeast

Asia. Further, Indonesian activists’ framing of WTO can be captured in the migrant workers’

discussion of trade because most migrant workers in the region who joined the 2005 campaign are

Filipino and Indonesian workers especially those located in Hong Kong. In this study, informal

transnational networks are ad hoc, campaign-based coalitions with specific and time-bound goals.

Unlike international NGOs, they lack formal organizational structures and hierarchy; rather, they are

horizontal networks linking local, national, regional and global social movements.

This study takes the SNR Coalition in the Philippines as starting analysis of these informal

networks. Whilst major sources of data are movement intellectuals (key informant interviews) who

construct frames, ideologies and movement identity, the conclusions drawn are on the transnational

social movements since framing processes in international campaigns are more strategically done by

movement intellectuals working at transnational activities rather than individuals recruited to join

the movement. This strategy is likewise bolstered by the fact that TSMs are professional

campaigners travelling around the world attending events like conferences, global forums, or

protests in industrialised countries.

17 | P a g e

Sources of Data

The research uses three main sources of data – key informant interviews, frame analysis of the four

WTO videos, and documents and public statements of anti -free trade movement organisations from

2003 to early 2006. In all sources, strategic core framing tasks and the master framing are carefully

traced whilst the discussion of the movement trajectory is clearly discusses in materials produced

around 2006. While it focuses on the two campaigns, it is logical to extend the discussion to the

decline of the movement (end of the campaign) and the transformation of the frames of national

movements from WTO to regional/bilateral free trade regimes.

Key Informant Interviews

Preliminary interviews have been done already by the researcher from March to May 2006.

Appendix 1 shows the questions of the interviews. Although they were not formulated around the

specific research questions of the paper, most of the data provide insights on networking and

coalition building from national and international perspectives. As such, this is an excellent primary

source to map out the anti-WTO movements in Asia. Since case studies require prior knowledge for

suitable cases to be selected (Hakim 2000: 62), these in-depth interviews offer the necessary

background information for the anti-free trade and anti-WTO movements in Asia. Further, email

correspondence is used extensively to follow up the previous interviews. In addition, new interviews

with specific questions on framing are conducted, where the follow up questions are listed in

Appendix 2. These people were chosen based on their experience and active participation in

transnational networking within the region as well as availability of time to respond. All of them

work as researcher-campaigners of development-oriented NGOs based in Asia. Their personal

accounts generate the thick descriptions of the process of negotiating goals, strategies and

motivations within to join the WTO campaign. Since personal and professional ties exist between the

researcher and Focus on the Global South (FOCUS) – a regional organization in Asia serving as a

coordinator of various campaigns and networks globally, regionally and nationally – follow-up

interviews and constant internet-based correspondence are the most essential complementary

source of information on frames. In fact, the sectoral analysis of frames to demonstrate frame

bridging is based on the interviews of different member organisations working on Asia. Most

informants are Filipinos working at the regional level, which confirms the argument, that political

activism even at the regional level is strongest in the Philippines.

18 | P a g e

Analysis of Four WTO Videos

To discuss regional/international frames on goals, strategies, and motivations, the research applies

frame analysis on four WTO videos produced by Focus on the Global South. These documentaries

show a general pattern of transnational framing since the WTO videos have been distributed

worldwide and most activists have referred several times to the concepts in the videos during

interviews and press releases.

Documents and public statements of anti-free trade movement organisations

Public statements represent the mobilising messages that movement organizations want to resonate

in the public sphere, with specific targets explicitly visible in the unity statements and press releases,

such as WTO negotiators, executive branch, legislature, and directly to citizens. While press

conferences maybe valuable sources of frames, written press releases are more accessible and most

likely reach broader audiences. Table 3 shows the detailed frames used in the Philippine campaigns

against WTO. With respect to data on collective identity, a few internal documents have been

acquired by the researcher. These include campaign assessments, activist guide to campaign and

coalition work, and research/updated data analysis from organisations. Through Elizabeth Tang, the

coordinator of the Hong Kong People’s Alliance on Globalization (HKPA), the researcher was able to

get hold of documents such as their publications and a few press rele ases on the 2005 Hong Kong

campaign.

Context of Activism: Overview of Anti-Free Trade Movements in Southeast Asia

In 1998, the diverse network of organisations which successfully mobilised against the Multilateral

Agreement on Investments (MAI) formed a loose grouping of organisations, activists and social

movements with the overall aim of “fighting the current model of corporate globalisation embodied

in global trading system... committed to a sustainable, socially just, democratic and accountable

multilateral trading system”, and today is popularly known as the Our World is Not for Sale

(OWINFS). Whilst it recognises the important role of national campaigns in stopping unfettered

trade liberalisation by applying pressures at the national levels, OWINFS is a realisation of the need

for a global network that would coordinate all these efforts to increase available resources, explore

new and effective strategies in collective action, and expand the social base of resistance against

neoliberal policies. OWINFS members are all part of national and regional campaigns fighting unfair

trade agreements, including the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), the Africa Growth and

Opportunity Act (AGOA), the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and the Plan Puebla

19 | P a g e

Panama (PPP). Although scholarly research has attempted to separate international and regional

activism for analytical purposes, the dense, informal network embedded within OWINFS shows the

complexity of social relations among social movements. For this reason, the research takes caution

in arguing for the distinctiveness of a regional civil society in Asia; rather, emphasis is put on the

complex interactions of social actors pursuing transnational social mobilisation. This confirms that a

transnational network against trade liberalisation indeed has emerged but has not transformed itself

as a transnational social movement. The latter requires sustained mobilisation towards targeted

actors to fully realise collective identity, such as coordinated action beyond WTO protests. Figure 3

shows the membership of OWINFS and attests to the density of activist organisations involved in

neoliberal protests whilst Table 3 puts the list of NGOs and coalitions appearing in various unity

statements and declarations with regard to WTO protests since 2000.

In framing the debate on liberalisation, the global network defines itself as “a ‘hub’ for social

movements and NGOs working on globalization issues who are interested in sharing analysis and

coordinating action efforts internationally” (OWINFS 2007). Obviously, it defines international

institutions promoting neoliberalism particularly WTO as “the other”, with its emphasis on the

severity of the consequences of trade liberalisation to local farmers, workers, etc., and the urgency

of immediate action to stop further intergovernmental negotiations as motives for action. Although

it does not present clear strategies to replace, reform, or simply disrupt the trading system, the

network offers political opportunities and resources to enhance mobilisation potentials of national

campaigns. These include:

Convening regular international conference calls, meetings and e-mail discussions that provide movement leaders with the opportunity to share and develop ideas and strategy;

Organising delegations of social movement actors to Geneva, Switzerland where the WTO is headquartered, to lobby negotiators and to provide them with critical analysis of the impacts of existing and proposed WTO policy; and

Organising international press conferences, days of action and demonstrations in order to pressure government leaders and trade negotiators to roll-back harmful trade policy provisions, and to cease to craft more agreements that undermine the public interest (OWINFS 2007).

From the global network, these frames are transposed down to the regional and national levels

through the sustained interactions among movement coordinators and leaders. In a way, these

global social processes transform the conception of the public space to include the transnational

sphere as a way to further democratise the international system dominated by states calculating

their ‘national interests’ in terms of political power and economic benefits. The rise of such forums

for critical deliberation of global policies and institutions is fundamentally altering how the

20 | P a g e

international community is constituted. As non-state actors increase their access to nodes of power,

transnational networks and coalitions critically raise questions of what constitutes the international

system and the rationale for the existence of international institutions. Despite all the critiques to

NGOs of their representativeness and accountability, social movements engaged in social change

activities still politicise the understanding of power in the international system and present a

normative framework towards a more just international society.

What makes Southeast Asian activism distinctive? In Latin America, the presence of activist

states gives social movements the leverage as access to power and resources are crucial for

successful mobilisation. The region shares similar patterns in the history of resistance against

colonialism, US imperialism, and neoliberal experiments in addition to the wave of democratisation

that dismantled authoritarian regimes of the 1970s. In particular, Yashar (1998: 3-5) argues that

ethnic-based collective mobilisation is a recent trend of neoliberal resistance that questions the

validity of Latin American states in promoting democratic citizenship rights and responsibilities.

Martin (2003) similarly documents the impact of transnational collective action to indigenous social

movements, wherein regional civil society formations offer transnational opportunities affecting

social movement strategies and policy changes both at the domestic and international levels. In this

case, the international financial institutions (IFIs) and its collusion with the dominant elites are

normally framed as the ‘enemies’, since most neoliberal reforms are being progressively

implemented through the structural adjustment programs (SAPs) since the 1980s.

In Southeast Asia, the complexity of activism is best captured if one looks at the patterns of

economic development that brought “Asian Renaissance” in the late twentieth century. There is

continuous tension between neoliberalism and developmental state, which prevents the ideological

hegemony of the former in the region. Although the tide towards privatisation, deregulation and

liberalisation has reached Southeast Asia, these policies have not been systematically implemented

even after the 1997 Financial Crisis. Economic crises typically attract international intervention in the

economy as in the case of Latin America and Africa’s WB and IMF-sponsored conditional loans.

Although IMF imposed conditionalities of economic restructuring in Thailand, South Korea and

Indonesia, many liberalisation policies were stalled after 1997 as governments refused to

simultaneously implement trade liberalisation with privatisation and deregulation of public and

financial sectors. Instead, regional initiatives spur defensive mechanisms against unfettered financial

globalisation through the ASEAN Plus Three (APT) processes. The developmental state challenges the

neoclassical model as Asian states excessively intervened in the economy through industrial

assistance, flexible trade policies, and discrimination to foreign businesses in favour of domestic

21 | P a g e

Figure 3: Global Distribution of the Anti-WTO Movements

22 | P a g e

capitalist class – revisionism in neoliberalism in Berger’s terms (2003). Scholars argue that a

distinctive state-business alliance guaranteeing protection of infant industries against foreign

competition in the 1970s is instrumental in the post war boom (Wade 1990; Amsden 1989). The East

Asian Miracle forced international institutions to negotiate their position with respect to the role of

the state in development. Even after the crisis, the state remains an agent of development in Asia

with its key role on poverty alleviation and inequality reduction. Although forced to give up its

extensive regulatory role, there is support from scholars and policy makers on the developmental

state. Neoliberalism is not as pervasive as in Latin America and Africa both in its policy

implementation and the negative consequences. To this end, there is no consensus in Southeast Asia

that the free market model is automatically wrong for economic development; social movements

take a more nuanced position when framing their advocacies. They point the increasing levels of

poverty, widening gap between the rich and the poor, and the lack of attention given to agricultural

sectors in the region as the negative consequences of the model. In fact, the lack of political

liberalisation rather than progressive opening of the economy are given greater attention in the

globalisation and poverty discussions.

Furthermore, transnational networks offer new resources – material, ideological, and social capital –

as well as international opportunities to domestic campaigns since national political systems are

relatively closed compared to other regions. Most regimes in Southeast Asia are under partly free or

not free categories using the minimum standards of civil liberties and political rights by Freedom

House. As of today, all Southeast Asian countries which took the road of democratisation since the

1980s are in deep crisis of legitimacy and authority: Thailand remains vulnerable to military

participation in politics; Indonesia faces an ever greater threat of disintegration and misgovernance

after Suharto’s fall; and the Philippine democratic procedures are being subverted and manipulated

by politicians, renegade and active military officers, and secessionist groups. In addition, the extra-

judicial killings purportedly conducted by the military right under the nose of the President has

skyrocketed the body count of human rights violations and increased animosity from civil society

groups (Amnesty International 2006). In these countries struggling to consolidate democracy,

several setbacks persist, such as the presence of strong executives manipulating the mechanisms of

decision-making, the high level of participation of military in governance, and the embedded

oligarchical structures feeding social inequality. In addition, Malaysia and Singapore are usually

referred to as semidemocratic states with a strong executive making decisions for society and a

complete monopoly of force thereby controlling the growth of civil society. These two cases refute

the modernisation argument that higher levels of economic development will eventually bring about

23 | P a g e

democratic political culture. Brunei Darussalam is a sultanate whereas Indochinese states are under

socialist states with the exception of Myanmar, which is ruled by the military-led State Peace and

Development Council (SPDC). Overall, social movements taking an anti-free trade position in a region

with neoliberal consensus and states with recurrent patterns of using force against resistance would

face far greater challenges compared to social movements in Latin America.

In Southeast Asia, grassroots mobilisation is strongest in the Philippines, Thailand and

Indonesia. In the Philippines, the national anti-WTO campaign led by the SNR Coalition was launched

in 2003 as part of the global strategy to use national political opportunities to break the consensus in

WTO. The FTA Watch Thailand, which is coordinated by FOCUS, links various campaigns and

networks in different sectors and offers the resources available at the transnational levels to

pressure governments in signing regional and bilateral free trade agreements. Since Thailand is in

the race for FTA negotiations, the resources of the campaign are diverted to FTAs than to WTO.

Indonesian activists involved in the trade campaign are migrant workers such as the Indonesian

Migrant Workers Union (IMWU) and the Hong Kong Indonesian Migrant Workers Organization

(KOTKIHO) and research bodies like Institute for Global Justice (Malig 2006; HKPA 2006). In Malaysia,

the most visible research-based campaign is the FTA Malaysia, led by the Third World Network,

Consumers’ Association of Penang and Sahabat Alam Malaysia. Although there are protest actions,

much of the work of FTA Malaysia focuses on coordination with transnational activities and

engagement in institutionalised mechanisms such as lobbying and government consultations.

Although these organisations are not representative of the civil society groups working on social

justice, it is fair to say that political activism has revolved around these organisations. In Tabl e 4, the

list of organisations and coalitions working in the Asian region which participated in various strategy

meetings and signed unity statements/declarations is listed (non-exhaustive).

Critical to the formation of these national campaigns are activist organisations like FOCUS and

ARENA, which attempt to bridge grassroots mobilisation of local communities and NGOs and critical

scholarship of progressive academics in the region (Caouette 2006). Southeast Asian activism is

concentrated on professional NGOs forging alliances among different NGO sectors, mobili sing

resources for campaigns, and participating in international protests. Many of them have researcher-

activists monitoring the developments in Geneva and passing insider information to national

campaigns and activists. In recent years, NGOs and social movement organisations from East and

Southeast Asia have started holding strategy meetings and capacity-building workshops for their

24 | P a g e

Figure 4: Regional Distribution of the Anti-WTO Movements in Asia

25 | P a g e

fellow activists. In a way, transnational activism is transposed downward to national processes to

better facilitate campaigns in derailing both the WTO and FTA negotiations. In fact, the prevalent

strategy after 2003 has been to strengthen national campaigns rather than merely focus on protests

in big events because negotiating positions would have already been finalised before they reach the

Ministerial Meeting (Malig 2006).

Framing Processes in Anti-Free Trade Movements

This section has two objectives: first, to map out the diagnostic, prognostic and motivational frames

in the global, regional and national activist coalitions and networks in the 2003 and 2005 WTO

campaigns; and second, to empirically trace the process of transposing domestic to transnational

claims. Like most movements in other campaigns, trade justice movements define their identity by

separating the protagonists from the antagonists and providing a “call to arms” to act on the issue at

stake. From OWINFS to the regional activist network down to the national SNR Coalition,

movements emphasise their diversity and capacity to call upon unity despite the spectrum of claims,

interests, and ideological positions of various organisations. All of them define themselves as

networks of organisations, activists and social movements representing the interests of peasants,

women, migrants, workers, urban and rural poor, fisherfolks, and civil society organisations (from

their respective spatial positions) calling to continue the struggle against corporate-led globalisation

and posing the vision of a global economy built on the principles of economic justice, ecological

sustainability, and democratic accountability. Unlike previous social movements whose political

identity is based on shared grievances through class, gender or political status, anti-free trade

movements celebrate diversity as a source of political identity.

However, defining the “enemy” is difficult and fragments collective identity. At the national

level, the SNR Coalition treats WTO as a political space where the major players are government

officials representing national interests. Coalition members do not treat the state as a monolithic

actor but rather see the plurality of actors and interests, wherein the divisions among elites and

authorities serve as political opportunities to promote their advocacy. For instance, there are party

list members (representatives of sectors in Congress), leftist political parties, and individual advocacy

legislators who joined the campaign and therefore served as allies in pressuring the negotiators from

the Executive department (Department of Trade and Industry and Department of Agriculture) to

disclose the negotiating position of the country. However, this stands in contrast with Malaysian

activists who are threatened by the UMNO-dominated coalition-state supporting trade liberalisation.

26 | P a g e

As the campaign moves up to the transnational level, the antagonists become less clear because

there are multiple targets of mobilisation as social movements act contentiously beyond state

borders. As Day points out,

“there is no single enemy against which the newest social movements are fighting... [but] a disparate set of struggles... addressed in its peculiarity...the neoliberal project providing a shared background or context within which they occur... [it] includes the on-going globalization of capital, the intensification of the societies of control... and perpetuates shifts in the organization of the system of states (NAFTA) and the construction of superstates, such as the EU (2005: 5-6).”

The Asian activists identify their enemies with greater circumspect especially that regional context

defines the degree of resonance of their claims. The balance of power politics between Japan and

China, the US military presence, and the proliferation of state-initiated free trade arrangements

weaken the anti-WTO agenda. The regional context is conducive to the neoliberal agenda compared

to Latin America where strong anti-US sentiments persist and activist states pursue protectionist

policies. Further, the increasing economic interest of the West to Asia Pacific particularly on China

makes social movements more wary of their democratisation and development agendas. Until

recently, many NGOs and social movements have not directly opposed the free trade principle but

emphasise reforms within WTO and reorientation of trade policies. The success of the

developmental state – especially the combination of export oriented industrialisation and import

substitution – casts a shadow of doubt on the viability of the anti-free trade position in a region

branded by World Bank as a “model of market-assisted development”. As Asian states deepen their

commitment towards an economic integration project based on the principle of competition and

free movement of goods, capital and labour, the regional activist network is most likely to remain

invisible in the global social justice debate.

Compared to the SNR Coalition, the OWINFS and regional network define WTO as an actor

whose interests it serves are those of the rich countries and transnational corporations. The farmers

perceive WTO as vehicles of unbridled agricultural liberalisation leading to dumping and food

insecurity (Penunia 2007). In addition, civil society groups frame poverty and underdevelopment as

by-products of neo-liberal globalisation and US militarism particularly after the US occupation of

Iraq. As an actor, global civil society is a counter force attempting to break the hegemonic position of

the historic bloc of the dominant social forces in the global economy – the collusion of US

imperialism and transnational capitalist class. However, this raises the problem set earlier: the

“capitalist class” maybe framed in different ways. They can be national elites protecting the

economy, transnational corporations, or government officials protecting oligarchic interests. Hence,

27 | P a g e

framing tasks may be more difficult than expected in forging collective identity on the basis of a

“common enemy”. Nevertheless, trade justice movements build their identity by presenting

themselves as political forces checking against state and international institutions for greater

accountability in trade negotiations. The transformative potential of social movements is realised

when they face their opponents in framing battles and claim representation of grassroots interests.

Core Framing Tasks in Transnational Activism

More than identifying the political actors, framing tasks require a “blueprint” for social change –

diagnosis, prognosis and motivations for action. Tables 3, 4 & 5 show the framing tasks produced by

activists since 2003. In the global movement, diagnostic frames demonstrate the voices speaking out

against unfair trade practises, ecological destruction in exchange of profit, and expansion of WTO

mandate to other policy areas. Broad in scope but lacking in depth, the network of transnational

activists rely on the specific frames constructed by national and regional movements to make

credible claims of representation, grievance, and identity. More than generic critiques to

neoliberalism found in global justice frames, the anti-WTO master frames are more specific in its

diagnosis of trade issues: (1) the unfair subsidies of the US, EU and Japan, (2) the declining food

security/sovereignty in developing societies, (3) the de-industrialising effects of NAMA, AoA, and

Singapore issues, and (4) the direct linkages between corporate monopolies and free trade. Since

government opposition to free market policies are based on unfair access to the consumer and

labour markets of Asia by industrialised economies, social movements raise the equitable

distribution of economic growth as the measure of development. Whilst the middle class and

national elites take advantage of competition and free trade, the working class, small scale

entrepreneurs, fisherfolks, women, migrant workers, and peasants bear the costs of growth both

under the developmental state and the democratised regimes of Southeast Asia. This is clearly

manifested if we look at the national campaigns. FTA Watch Thailand and FTA Malaysia both argue

that the rice should be excluded in the bilateral negotiations with the US, Japan and EU to guarantee

food security among peasants and the poor. In addition, the right to produce generic drugs for public

health reasons have been defended by the Thai and Malaysian governments – a critical issue in the

Doha Round which most governments have given up. Campaigns against FTAs express the same

analysis over the implications of trade liberalisation but within national contexts. With regard to

SNR! Coalition’s calls, the movement rejects AoA as a comprehensive agreement that binds the

government to liberalisation and halts the expansion of WTO mandate in fisheries, petroleum and

natural resources. Acceding to a bad deal is a slippery slope to the loss of control over industrial and

28 | P a g e

trade policies vis-a-vis the industrialised states. In the 2005 campaign, SNR! sought the government

to recast its tariff structures and its overall development strategy.

Whilst there is coherence in diagnostic frames of movements, the strategies and calls for

action are the more contentious issue. The prognosis among social movements varies depending on

the sector, priorities, and ideological positions of members. The Philippine WTO campaign against

including the fisheries in negotiations and rejecting AoA was stronger than in other national

campaigns in Asia since these were focal issues in the WTO Ministerial. Although labour is well

debated in WTO, the limited resources of TLC are being used to other campaigns and take other

social sites of resistance to pursue labour rights. Framing labour issues in the broader context of

WTO in Thailand does not seem as important as in bilateral/regional contexts. This trend of moving

to bilateral and regional negotiations is likewise noticeable in the Philippines. After the collapse of

Doha in 2006, SNR members have launched campaigns against the Japan-Philippine Economic

Partnership Agreements (JPEPA), ASEAN-EU FTA, and Philippine-China FTA. In this sense, social

movements in Southeast Asia have prioritised the need to counter neoliberalism at the regional

levels in the form of overlapping FTA agreements with major powers. Developing countries stand to

lose in all forms of free trade agreements, whether multilateral, regional or bilateral, if power

relations dictate the outcomes of trade negotiations. However, i t remains questionable whether

Asian social movements will eventually succeed in delegitimising neoliberalism and free trade since

many governments have successfully concluded their FTA negotiations. Most notable are the

Malaysia-US FTA, Thailand-US FTA, and ASEAN-China FTA. More FTAs are being negotiated and the

extent social movements can halt their proliferation depends a lot on coordination, networking, and

mobilisation strategies. The so-called Asian Renaissance may mean sustaining the development

project inherited from the developmental state, which combines limited political liberalisation and

commitments to the free market with the limited state as a model.

In a national coalition with at least 20 organisations, it seems a daunting task to come up with

consensus. Whenever there are important decisions to make, the coalition refers back to its Unity

Documents members signed-on and endorsed, where ideological positions – the major source of

conflict among social movements – are muted to give way for common ground to work together on

a campaign. Decisions were made with respect to disposal of resources, choice of mobilisation

strategy, and conflicts with other campaigns and commitments. Meaning work is essential in

resolving these issues because collective identity comes from a sense of coherence and solidarity

beginning from the conception of collective grievance to mobilisation strategies until the end of the

29 | P a g e

campaign. This long process of interactions among participants paves way for movements to

establish stronger bonds, broader social networks, and increased social capital. Collective identity

formation is a contentious process of construction and deconstruction of multiple realities as

perceived by the participants. If movements successfully agree on formal rules and informal norms

of decision-making, conflict resolution, and trust building, collective identity becomes the basis of

future mobilisation. The presence of resources and political opportunities are therefore necessary

but insufficient requirements for social mobilisation. A sense of solidarity can therefore make

movements perceive political opportunities and create resources to be used for mobilising collective

action.

Motivational frames are the raison d’etat of collective action forged in the process of

mobilisation. Since the network has only become active after Cancun in preparation to Hong Kong,

the activist network has not developed a nuanced ‘call to arms’ statement. Like the global

movement, it makes use of a combination of severity, urgency, propriety and efficacy motives. In

blaming neoliberal institutions and processes, the network together with OWINFS call for the people

to “reclaim their right to development” from the free trade system (severity) whilst they seek for

joint mobilisation as the key to succeed against militarism and neoliberalism (efficacy). When

developed states attempted to revive the Doha Round in mid-2007, the motivation for mobilisation

is one of urgency to finally end an unfair trading system and start building alternatives to a WTO-led

trading system. The network of Asian activists likewise lamented the death of Korean farmer Lee

Kyung Hae and emphasised the role of world social forum processes in developing alternatives by

civil society (propriety). Further, social movements call it urgent to address bilateral and regional

FTAs as the new agenda being pushed by industrialised countries in undermining the development

strategies of Asia. Based on these frames, the motives for mobilisation are historically specific and

contextualised to the developments in trade negotiations. Unfortunately, there is no discernable

pattern upon which we can trace how movements combine these motivational frames.

From Domestic to the International Public Spheres: Framing Processes in Activist Networks

After broadly discussing the framing tasks of global, regional and national coalitions and networks, it

is imperative to look at how particular claims and discourses are transposed from one social site to

another. In particular, this research is interested in the process of making domestic frames

compatible with transnational claims by tracing frame bridging, alignment and transformation.

30 | P a g e

Frame alignment refers to the intersection of structures of political opportunities, social

networks/cultural resources and framing processes. SNR emerged as a domestic response to the

global wave of protests against neoliberalism, where ‘political entrepreneurs’ – movement

intellectuals, advocates, and NGOs – came together to sustain their resistance to the free market

agenda launched by the Aquino and Ramos administrations. SNR consists of familiar faces in the

anti-privatisation and anti-military base movements as well as the debt relief coalition which

perceive the Philippine government as weak in resisting ‘globalisation from above’ being imposed by

the United States and the IFIs. SNR sees the problem of trade liberalisation as detrimental to the

livelihoods of the people – the constitutive bloc of society – and takes an organisational structure

from these previously loose campaigns. It is assumed that a loose framework of coordination in

addition to consensus-building as the mechanism for decision-making is the most effective way to

run a campaign consisting of multiple and competing ideologies, political agendas, and emancipatory

strategies.

Through the broad national and international networks of and the trust of other NGOs and

social movements to Focus on the Global South, the 2003 campaign was launched and conceived as

part of the broader global movement changing trade rules and barriers aimed to radically alter the

trading system by preventing WTO from expanding its mandate. Whilst there are opportunities at

the domestic level, such as presence of allies among elites and within government structures, the

international opportunities have been relevant in strengthening the domestic campaign. SNR linked

its agenda to internationally coordinated actions against WTO and shared useful analysis regarding

regional and international aspects of trade liberalisation and campaigns. This positive perception of

opportunities is arguably a catalyst for NGOs and social movements within the region to work

together in preparation for the 2005 Hong Kong protest. The WTO protest has been symbolic for the

regional activist network in two ways. First, it generated interest and political will for activists to

coordinate their action plans in response to possible railroading of the negotiation, the repressive

tactics of Hong Kong police forces, and sustained/effective pressure tactics to negotiators. Second,

as observed in the solidarity statements and declarations of the regional activist network, the

intensification of US militarism in global and regional contexts was recognised as a facilitative force

enhancing the hegemony of neoliberal globalisation. To this end, the “urgency frame” has been

utilised in aligning the movement’s perceptions and opportunities for mobilisation.

Knowing the regional/international opportunities and constraints is not enough to transform

domestic claims into inclusive transnational frames. Frame bridging, a constitutive process that links

31 | P a g e

various specific frames into coherent interpretations of the world, must accompany the realisation

of the political environment. This research demonstrates this by showing how specific frames of

various sectors have inserted themselves in the broader trade justice frame. As regional activists

concurred:

“WTO, free trade agreements (FTAs) and investment agreements are imposing and deepening neo-liberal economic programs in collusion with local ruling elites and transnational corporations (TNCs)... Trade liberalisation should not be at the expense of the right to food, agriculture, fisheries, public services, natural resources and livelihoods” (my emphasis).

This embraces the goal of the farmers’ organisation, which is “to promote fair and just treatment of

farmers in developing countries” (Penunia 2007), wherein the SNR is perceived as a movement and

campaign machinery, whose members share common analysis of WTO and DOHA and plans,

coordinates, and implement direct actions to articulate its positions and influence decision-makers,

both at national and regional levels. Further, Aleroza (2007) perceives trade liberalisation as the

opening-up of the local fisheries industry for foreign capital and market access, wherein

multinational corporations aim to have control over natural resources through ‘direct financial

investments’ thereby having greater access to fishing and farming sectors of the developing world.

In the insightful analysis of Viajar (2007), she explicitly links SNR to the broader goal of the labour

movements in the developing world:

“Labour organisations need to engage with other civil society groups and social movements to have a broader engagement on globalisation issues. The SNR is our platform at the national level to campaign against FTAs and WTO in coordination with the anti-globalisation movement at the international and regional levels.”

Bridging perceptions over globalisation and trade also leads to concrete interconnectedness of the

social movements. As a strategy, Global Network-Asia and the Alliance of Progressive Labor (APL)

employ discussions and forum involving the mass membership to effectively mobilise the labour

constituency and integrate the SNR advocacy issues in educational activities, union assemblies and

newsletters thereby raising the overall consciousness of the working class on mobilisation. In this

way, SNR gains grassroots participation and social activism from ordinary citizens.

An important issue that has been picked up by WTO campaigns is women’s rights in the

context of employment security and migration. The regional activist frame recognises the

disproportionate impacts of neo-liberal globalisation to job security wherein more than half of the

irregular workers are women thereby making them more vulnerable and where the privatisation of

public services has drastically sacrificed access to housing, proper healthcare, and education. For an

international women’s organisation like ISIS, SNR opened the opportunity for gender and trade

32 | P a g e

issues to be systematically linked. For instance, whilst there are several NGOs working on the

impacts of trade to the food security and livelihoods of women in rural areas, SNR and the

transnational networks provide a bigger picture of how women have been receiving the negati ve

consequences of economic restructuring through labour migration. Moreover, the campaign allowed

ISIS to start its discussions with other groups on gender and women’s rights hence, fostering

dialogue processes within the women’s rights movement.

Transversal politics – the reconciliation of social conflict by means of recognising their

differences rather than their similarities – is a fundamental aspect in transposing domestic claims to

the transnational levels (Angeles 2003; Mendoza 2002). The transformative potential of social justice

movements is realised when various groups are able to work out their differences from the

ideological realm and move to discussions of strategies and goals. Frame transformation occurs

when internal democratic procedures are increasingly institutionalised within the movement to

resolve political differences among the participants. Internal democracy reflects that social

movements have agreed on a common ground upon which they can discuss how to achieve their

political goals. In the SNR coalition, all key informants mention the value of participatory consensus

building, brainstorming and discussions, and respect for ideological differences as key to the

successful resolution of tensions. Further, skilful diplomacy and negotiation skills of the members

have kept the coalition cohesive. Purugganan (2007) likewise mentions that the coalition adopts

positions on key issues only if all or the majority of the members agree upon. Position on issues

beyond the SNR calls are not considered coalition statements but individual statements of the

members. For instance, during the height of the protests seeking the president to resign, there is a

big debate whether the coalition will carry an anti-GMA campaign simultaneously with the anti-WTO

campaign. The argument is that civil society actors cannot work with a president whose legitimacy is

based on rigged electoral victory. In the end, the coalition decided to focus all resources and energy

on trade issues but give greater flexibility to members regarding the political issue. Another issue is

who gets to access the funding for activities and participation in international networking

engagements, which was resolved by discussion. Overall, it can be argued that transnational claims

are easily transposed when coalition members adhere to common standards of conflict resolution

and surpass ideological tensions by reminding the members of their overall objectives.

33 | P a g e

Framing, Movement Strategies and Collective Identity

Framing results to movement strategies that are historically and politically specific. In the

industrialised world, consumer rights movements have called upon citizens to boycott goods and

buy fair trade and ecology-friendly products to express their public support for trade justice. In the

developing world where purchasing power is lower and most are factory workers and professionals

in transnational companies, social movements have called upon direct action against companies and

pressure against their own governments. Whilst these are efforts to involve the public in the

campaign, social movements are likewise concerned with intensifying their social networks. In

comparison to OWINFS, the regional activist network performs the same functions, such as

coordination in days of protests, organisation of workshops and capacity-building activities, and

provision of an avenue for local experiences to be shared to other fellow activists. Frames, which

guide the leaders and the participants to view their struggles as anti-institutional, affect movement

strategies both to the public and towards other members.

The research looks at the link between framing and strategies using Keck & Sikkink’s (1998a)

framework. Framing trade liberalisation as a danger to sustainable livelihoods integrates the claims

of social movements and hard facts. During the forums and grassroots consultations of SNR, most

Luzon farmers spoke of losing against cheap imports from China, US and EU whilst labour workers

have complained of massive layoffs due to capital flight. Master framing instructs the public to reject

globalisation as inevitable and trade liberalisation as pro-development, in which sustained media

engagement has been instrumental in making such frame successful to mobilise public support

(Familara 2007; Purugganan 2007). In the campaigns, SNR and the regional network argue that

market access is not necessarily development, since Asian governments seem to be contented with a

few concessions being made by industrialised countries. They attack the very logic of neoliberalism

particularly trade liberalisation, rather than superficially change the trade rules to be less harsh to

the developing world. Informational politics – convincing people that the current world is neither

accidental nor natural – is an outcome of framing.

If there is anything that comes out directly from framing, this would be symbolic politics. SNR

linked the struggles of small scale farmers and fisherfolks, factory workers in EPZs, and small and

medium enterprises (SMEs) to the macrolevel processes of liberalisation at the global and national

levels. For SNR participants, trade negotiation is not a matter of lowering down tariffs but a question

of sustainable livelihoods, food security, and ability to pursue individual development. Cultural

34 | P a g e

symbols representing the dismal state of Filipinos under the intense pressures of globalisation have

been deployed in the media, academic community, and other avenues. Figure 5, wherein typical

Filipino Mang Juan is passing through Coca Cola, captures the core concept of the art exhibit

Globalisasyon at Dislokasyon (Globalisation and Dislocation). Although this picture can be read in

different ways, all of them resemble the negative connotations attached to corporate power, labour

exploitation, and ultimately social dislocation. Activists know the concrete power of media icons and

cultural symbols to bring down the complex issue of trade to ordinary people.

Figure 5: Using Arts to Express Neoliberal Resistance

Source: SNR Coalition Media Icon

This research does not see leverage politics as directly applicable to the movement since most

powerful actors are advocates of free trade. However, the transnational network hails the

courageous acts of government negotiators in Cancun when they refused the deal being offered by

the more powerful states. The CAIRNS and G-20, which are groupings of developing states which

was formed in the Cancun Ministerial, have been considered as allies by civil society groups (at least

until some of them defected and signed the deal in Hong Kong). Whilst they do not receive material

support from these governments, they serve as moral/ideational sources to gain leverage against

international institutions.

Finally, accountability politics is the effort to hold powerful actors to their previously stated

policies, principles, or commitments. In this case, the movements hold their governments

accountable to trade negotiations. With IFIs having very little democratic accountability and trade

35 | P a g e

negotiations done with limited transparency, breaking the consensus through national campaigns is

the primary strategy civil society actors adhere. Since transnational social movements aim to directly

democratise democracy, they have consciously maintained consensual decision-making,

consultations, and open dialogues as key decision-making processes. In a way, framing neoliberalism

as anti-democratic necessarily compels the global movement to practise internal democracy. This

calls for reflexive examination of the current processes (such as World Social Forum and the

concomitant participatory forums) involved in building the alternatives to neoliberal globalisation.

Clearly, framing has implications to movement strategies if we observe both internal and external

processes surrounding the WTO protests.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Social movements offer a common interpretation of reality that nurtures solidarity and collective

identity. Although social movements have been institutionalised after the Cold War thereby opening

formal channels of communication between the state and social movements,5 the Battle for Seattle

revived the old repertoires of contention particularly protest and combined them with new forms of

contention, such as mobilisation through the internet or the creative use of arts. Protest is an

outside strategy that pressures political institutions with the overall goal of disrupting everyday

routines and acquiring public attention whilst lobbying and formal consultations are inside strategies

that civil society movements employ in international protest events such as WTO Ministerial

Meetings (Malig 2006). In Southeast Asia, various repertoires of contention were employed

depending on the domestic context, such that protest is a more common strategy in the Philippines

and Thailand and lobbying and research work are the standard strategies in Malaysia. Finally, they

sustain mobilisation by continuously working in informal networks linking individuals, groups and

organizations into dense, web-like structures that may sometimes resemble some organizational

form for coordination of ad hoc, campaign-based activities (Della Porta et. al. 2006: 18-60). The use

of protest is largely affected by framing processes.

This research contributed in the literature on social movements and transnational politics in

two ways. First, it attempted to theoretically and empirically ground the discussion of framing – a

key process in collective social mobilisation. It has shown that anti -WTO protests carry more specific

frames than the GSJMs upon which they derive their mobilisation strategies and forge collective

identity. Further, scholars can make analytical distinctions between the global and regional frames

as these are still cultural symbols, inter-subjective interpretations, and historically-specific

36 | P a g e

worldviews. Hence, it argues that a distinctive Southeast Asian master frame exists, that which

recognises US militarism and neoliberal globalisation as influencing the political dynamics in Asia as

well as the role of Asia in the rapidly changing global order. These transnational frames are broad

and inclusive and are substantiated only by claims of domestic movements, which carry life

experiences and culturally bound views on globalisation. They represent increased global

consciousness without displacing localism and identities built around the state, which is to say that

localised experiences are building blocs of neoliberal resistance. This leads to the argument on

collective identity, that framing process is instrumental in creating and maintaining a sense of

solidarity among movement participants working beyond state borders. More importantly, the

research shows that regional activism is predominantly occupied by Filipino activists, wherein the

democratic institutional context of the Philippines plays a facilitative role in framing and

mobilisation.

Second, the research argues that framing processes can be systematically linked to

mobilisation strategies, which as discussed above manifests in forms such as protests, lobbying,

media work, and dialogue/consultation processes. Using Keck & Sikkink’s (1998) analytical

framework, social movements socialise states to engage with non-state actors, pressure institutions

to believe in their claims, and reject the current world order as just and fair. Transnational activists

in Asia emphasise symbols of resistance, identify potential allies and possible leverages against

powerful antagonists, and raise questions of accountability. Overall, the research reflects on the

different ways framing processes can affect social mobilisation.

Despite the attempt of the research to comprehensively analyse framing, two potential

research areas are worth exploring. First, there has been no systematic study to have analysed

framing battles among political actors. Although media is a powerful tool to influence public opinion

and government decisions, it is not a passive object that is being used by activists and authorities.

Media practitioners are likewise engaged in framing, they (a) choose what angle of the movement to

feature, (b) have their own interests, values, and objectives affecting master framing, and (c) are

driven by some ideological apparatus pervasive in society. Hence, scholars must analyse framing and

social mobilisation without ignoring the multiplicity of sites of framing and resistance. This

suggestion must be extended to the transnational level wherein the portrayal of activists by the

international mass media has been reductionist and negative. A systematic theory of media framing

is necessary to account for the transnational-domestic dynamics of framing and counter-framing.

37 | P a g e

Second, there is still much work to be done to integrate political opportunity structures and

framing perspectives. Although Diani (1996) has pointed out how framing alignment can be

redefined to explain collective action, there has been no follow up discussion of broadening this

idea. Future research must specify which structures of political opportunities if perceived through

framing will lead to collective action. Further, his two dimensions of political opportunity structures

(stability of political alignments and opportunities for autonomous action within the polity) need to

be tested elsewhere in order to stand Benford & Snow’s (2000) critique that it is an irrelevant frame.

Scholars should pay attention to the changing dynamics of opportunity structures at both

transnational and domestic levels and combine it with framing process perspective.

38 | P a g e

References Consulted:

Amnesty International. 2006. Amnesty International's Philippine Report on Political Killings, Human Rights and the Peace Process, Online, accessed on 5 May 2007 at http://web.amnesty.org/library/pdf/ASA350062006ENGLISH/$File/ASA3500606.pdf.

Amsden, A. 1989. Asia’s Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization. New York: Oxford University Press.

Andretta, M. 2003. Transnational activists: From shared ideas to collective identity: The Case of the First European Social Forum, Paper presented at the Colloque “Les mobilisations altermondialistes”, Paris, December 3-5, 2003.

Angeles, LC. 2003. Creating Social spaces for transnational feminist advocacy: the Canadian International Development Agency, the National Commission on the Role of Filipina Women and Philippine women’s NGOs, The Canadian Geographer, 47 (3), 283-302.

Asia People and Social Movements’ Call to Action. Unity Statement produced in the Strategy Meeting in Seoul, Korea, June 14-15, 2004.

Ayres, J. 2004. Framing Collective Action against Neoliberalism: The Case of the “Anti-Globalization” Movement, Journal of World-Systems Research, 10 (1), 11-34.

Bello, W. 2001. Future in the Balance: Essays on Globalization and Resistance. Diliman: University of the Philippines Press.

Benford, RD. 1997. An Insider’s Critique of Social Movement Framing Perspective , Sociological Inquiry, 67 (4), 409-430.

Benford, RD. 1993. ‘You could be the hundredth monkey’: collective action frames and vocabularies of motive within the nuclear disarmament movement, Sociological Quarterly, 34, 195–216.

Benford, R & Snow, D. 2000. Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment, Annual Review Sociology, 26, 611-639.

Berger, M. 2003. The Battle for Asia: From Decolonization to Globalization. London: Routledge. Blee, K & Taylor, V. 2002. Semi-structured Interviewing in Social Movement Research. In B

Klandermans & S Staggenborg, (Editors), Methods of Social Movement Research. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 92-117.

Booth, D, Holland, J, Hentschel, J, Lanjouw, P, & Hebert, A. 1998. Participation and Combined Methods in African Poverty Assessment: Reviewing the Agenda. DFID, Social Development Division, African Division. www.dfid.gov.uk/Pubs/files/sddafpov.pdf

Brooks, DC. 2004. Faction in Movement: The Impact of Inclusivity on the Anti -globalization Movement, Social Science Quarterly, 85 (3), 559-577.

Brooks, E. 2005. Transnational Campaigns against Child Labor: The Garment Industry in Bangladesh. In J Smith and J Bandy, editors, Coalitions across Borders: Transnational Protest and the Neoliberal Order. Boulder, Colorado: Rowman & Littlefield, 121-140.

Call to Action: Resisting Free Trade, Building Alliances, Alternatives and Common Strategies . Unity Statement produced in the Strategy meeting in Bangkok, Thailand, August 24-26, 2007.

Caouette, D. 2006. Thinking and Nurturing Transnational Activism: Global Citizen Advocacy in Southeast Asia, Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies, 21 (2), 3-33.

David, HT. 2007. Transnational advocacy in the eighteenth century: Transatlantic activism and the anti-slavery movement, Global Networks, 7 (3), 367-382.

Della Porta, D. 2006, editor. The Global Justice Movement: Cross-National and Transnational Perspectives. Boulder and London: Paradigm Publishers.

Della Porta, D & Tarrow, S. 2005. Transnational Protest and Global Activism. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Della Porta, D, Andretta, M, Mosca, L & Reiter, H. 2006. Globalization from Below: Transnational Activist and Protest Networks. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.

Della Porta, D, Kriesi, H & Rucht, D, editors. 1999. Social Movements in a Globalizing World. New York: Macmillan.

39 | P a g e

Denzin, NK. 1970. The Research Act in Sociology. Chicago: Aldine. Diani, M. 1996. Linking mobilization frames and political opportunities: insights from regional

populism in Italy, American Sociological Review, 61, 1053–1069. Faist, T. 2000. Transnationalization in International Migration: Implications for the Study of

Citizenship and Culture, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 23 (2), 189-222. Foster, J. 2005. The Trinational Alliance against NAFTA: Sinews of Solidarity. In J Smith and J Bandy,

editors, Coalitions across Borders: Transnational Protest and the Neoliberal Order. Boulder, Colorado: Rowman & Littlefield, 209-229.

Fox, J & David, L. 1998. The Struggle for Accountability: The World Bank, NGOs, and Grassroots Movements. Boston: MIT Press.

Gamson, WA. 1995. Constructing social protest. In H Johnston& B Klandermans, editors, Social Movements and Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 85–106.

George, A & Bennett, A. 2004. Case Study and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Ghimire, K. B. 2005. The Contemporary Global Social Movements: Emergent Proposals, Connectivity and Development Implications, Anib: The Official Newsletter of the UNRISD-Philippine Research Team on Global Civil Society Movements, 1, 3-29.

Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Haines, HH. 1996. Against Capital Punishment: The Anti-Death Penalty Movement in America, 1972–

1994. New York: Oxford University Press. Hakim, C. 2000. Case Studies, in Research Design: Successful designs for social and economic

research, 2nd edition. London & New York: Routledge. Jasper, JM. 1997. The Art of Moral Protest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Johnston H & Klandermans, B, editors. 1995. Social Movements and Culture. Minneapolis: University

of Minnesota Press. Johnston, H & Snow, DA. 1998. Subcultures and the emergence of the Estonian nationalist

opposition 1945–1990, Sociological Perspectives, 41, 473–97. Keck, M & Sikkink, K. 1998a. Activists beyond Borders. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Keck, M & Sikkink, K. 1998b. Transnational Advocacy Networks in the Movement Society. In D Meyer

& S Tarrow, editors, The Social Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century . Lanham, Boulder, New York & Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 217-238.

Keohane, RO & Nye, JS, editors. 1971. Transnational Relations and World Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Khagram, S. 2006. Dams and Development: Transnational Struggles for Power and Water. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Khagram, S, Riker JV, & Sikkink, K. 2002. Restructuring World Politics: Transnational Social Movements, Networks, and Norms. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.

Klandermans, B & Staggenborg, S. Editors. 2002. Methods of Social Movement Research. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.

Klandermans B, de Weerd M, Sabucedo JM, & Costa M. 1999. Injustice and adversarial frames in a supranational political context: farmers’ protest in the Netherlands and Spain. In D Della Porta, H Kriesi, & D Rucht, editors, Social Movements in a Globalizing World. New York: Macmillan, 134-147.

Levi, M & Murphy, GH. 2006. Coalitions of Contention: The Case of the WTO Protests in Seattle, Political Studies, 54 651-670.

Martin, PL. 2003. The Globalization of Contentious Politics: The Amazonian Indigenous Rights Movement. New York & London: Routledge.

McAdam, D, Tarrow, S & Tilly, C. 2001. Dynamics of Contention. New York & Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mendoza, B. 2002. Transnational feminisms in question, Feminist Theory, 3, 295-314.

40 | P a g e

Meyer, D & Tarrow, S. 1998. A Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century. In D Meyer & S Tarrow, editors, The Social Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century. Lanham, Boulder, New York & Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1-28.

Nem Singh, JT. 2007. Democratizing Trade Policies in the Neoliberal Order: Framing Processes in Transnational Activist Networks, Unpublished paper.

Nem Singh, JT. 2008. The Role of Philippine Social Movements in Southeast Asian Activism: Framing Processes in Transnational Activist Networks, Unpublished paper.

Olsen, W. 2004. Triangulation in Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Methods can really be mixed. In M Holborn, editor, Developments in Sociology. Ormskirk: Causeway Press.

Piper, N & Uhlin, A, Editors. 2004. Transnational Activism in Asia: Problems of Power and Democracy. London and New York: Routledge.

Quinsaat, S. 2006. Analytical Report on Stakeholders’ Meeting/Validation Workshop: Changing International Trade Rules and Barriers, Anib: The Official Newsletter of the UNRISD-Philippine Research Team on Global Civil Society Movements, 2, 12-17.

Ragin, C. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Risse-Kappen, T. Editor. 1995. Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non-State Actors, Domestic Structures and International Institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rucht, D. 1999. The Transnationalization of Social Movements: Trends, Causes, Problems. In D Della Porta, H Kriesi, & D Rucht, editors, Social Movements in a Globalizing World. New York: Macmillan.

Sandberg, S. 2006. Fighting Neo-liberalism with Neo-liberal Discourse: ATTAC Norway, Foucault and Collective Action Framing, Social Movement Studies, 5 (3), 209-227.

Smith, J. 2005. Building Bridges or Building Walls? Explaining Regionalization among Transnational Social Movement Organizations, Mobilizations, 10 (2), 251-269.

Smith. J. 2004. Transnational Activism, institutions and global democratization. In N Piper & A Uhlin, editors, Transnational Activism in Asia: Problems of Power and Democracy . London & New York: Routledge, 61-77.

Smith, J & Bandy, J, editors. 2005. Coalitions across Borders: Transnational Protest and the Neoliberal Order. Boulder, Colorado: Rowman & Littlefield.

Smith, J & Wiest, D. 2005. The Uneven Geography of Global Civil Society: National and Global Influences on Transnational Association, Social Forces, 84 (2), 621-652.

Stop Corporate Globalization: Another World is Possible! Statement of Unity from the Our World is not for Sale Network, May 15, 2006.

Stop the New Round! Coalition. 2005a. Campaign against the Doha Round and other Free Trade Agreements in the Philippines Campaign Report 2005, Focus on the Global South Publications.

Stop the New Round! Coalition. 2005b. The Philippine Campaign to Stop the New WTO Round . Manila: SNR/Focus on the Global South Publications.

Stop the New Round! Coalition. 2006. Stop the New Round! (SNR!) Coalition Assessment Report for the 2005 Campaign, Focus on the Global South Publications.

Tarrow, S. 2005. The New Transnational Activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tarrow, S. 2002. The New Transnational Contention: Organizations, Coalitions, and Mechanisms.

Paper presentation at the Panel on Social Movements and Transnational Social Movements, APSA Annual Meeting, Chicago, September 01, 2002.

Tarrow S. 2001. Transnational Politics: Contention and Institutions in International Politics, Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 1-20.

Third World Studies Centre. On-going. UNRISD-TWSC Project on Global Civil Society Movements: Dynamics in International Campaigns and National Implementation: Philippine Case Study on Movements to Change International Trade Rules and Barriers, Online, Accessed on 10 May 2007 at http://www.upd.edu.ph/~twsc/research-GCSM.html.

Tilly, C & Tarrow S. 2007. Contentious Politics. Boulder and London: Paradigm Publishers.

41 | P a g e

Wade, R. 1990. Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of the Government in the East Asian Industrialization. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Yashar, DJ. 1998. Contesting Citizenship: Indigenous Movements and Democracy in Latin America, Comparative Politics, October issue, 23-42.

Yin, RK. 2002. Case Study Research, Design and Methods, 3rd edition. Newbury Park: Sage. We Reject the Revival of the Doha Round. Statement of Social Movement Organisations in East and

Southeast Asia, September 3, 2007. WTO out of Food and Agriculture. Declaration of Our World is Not for Sale, November 12, 2001. Organisations/Coalitions Consulted: Alliance of Progressive Labor (www.apl.org) Asian Farmers’ Association (www.asianfarmers.org) Focus on the Global South (www.focusweb.org) FTA Malaysia (www.ftamalaysia.org) FTA Watch Thailand (www.ftawatch.org/en) Institute for Global Justice (www.globaljust.org) Migrant Forum in Asia (www.mfasia.org) Our World is Not for Sale (www.owinfs.org) Tambuyog (www.tambuyog.org) Thai Labour Campaign (www.thailabour.org) Interviews Conducted: Aleroza, U. Current Chairperson, Kilusang Mangingisda (Fisherfolks Movement – Philippines),

Interview on Fisheries and WTO, interviewed online December 2007. Chavez-Malaluan, JJ. Focus on the Global South Coordinator for the Philippines Program , Interviewed

March 2006. Familara, A. 2007. ISIS Women International Manila Coordinator, Interview on Gender and

Development perspectives, interviewed April 2006 & December 2007 (online). Malig, ML. Focus on the Global South Regional Coordinator for Trade and Development Issues ,

Interviewed March 2006. Manahan, MA. Focus on the Global South Researcher on Alternatives and Reclaiming the Public

Commons, Interviewed online 20 August 2007. Mata, J. Coordinator/Member of Alliance for Progressive Labor (APL), SEAFISH and Global Network ,

Interview on Labour, Southeast Asia, and WTO, interviewed online January 2008. Penunia, ME. Coordinator of Asian Farmers’ Association for Sustainable Rural Development ,

Interview on Farmers’ interests and Anti-WTO movements, interviewed online December 2007.

Purugganan, J. Focus on the Global South Trade and Development Research-Campaigner, National Coordinator for the Stop the New Round! (SNR) Coalition to Derail the WTO Ministerial (2003 and 2005 Campaigns), Interview Correspondence from 2006 up to 2007.

Viajar, V. 2007. Global Network Asia/Labor Education Network Campaigner, Interview on Labour Solidarity and Anti-WTO Campaign, interviewed online September 2007.

42 | P a g e

Table 1: Members of the Stop the New Round! Coalition

ORGANIZATION NATURE* YEAR ADMITTED

1. Action for Economic Reforms (AER) Research Advocacy on economic issues 2003

2. Akbayan! Citizens Party Left national political party 2003

3. Alab Katipunan Political party 2005

4. Alliance of Progressive Labor Labor network 2003

5. Alternate Forum for Research in Mindanao (AFRIM) Social research and advocacy group in Mindanao issues 2003

6. Aniban ng mga Manggagawa sa Agrikultura 2005

7. AR Now! Coalition on agrarian reform advocacy 2003

8. Asian Tribes Forum 2005

9. Bayanihan International Solidarity Secretariat 2003

10. Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP) Labor organization 2003

11. Bukluran sa ikauunlad ng Sosyalistang Isip at Gawa (BISIG) Political party 2003

12. Center for Agrarian Reform, Empowerment and Transformation (CARET)

Research advocacy group 2003

13. Confederation of Independent Unions in the Public Sector (CIU) Confederation of labour unions 2003

14. Focus on the Global South-Philippine Programme Policy research and advocacy group 2003

15. Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC) National coalition against debt and for development 2003

16. Global Network-Philippines Alliance of trade unions, labour NGOs and campaign organizers 2003

17. Greenpeace Southeast Asia Environmental group 2003 only

18. Integrated Rural Development Foundation (IRDF) NGO on rural development – agriculture, food security, peasants’

welfare 2003

19. International Gender and Trade Network-Asia (IGTN) Network of feminist gender specialists looking at the nexus of

trade-globalization and gender 2005

20. Isis International-Manila Women’s group 2005

21. Katipunan para sa Pagpapalaya ng Sambayanan (Kalayaan) Political organization 2003

22. Katapat Social movement 2003

23. Kilusang Mangingisda (KM) Fisherfolks alliance / social movement towards a development

agenda in the fishing industry

2003

24. Kilusan para sa Pambansang Demokrasya (KPD) Multisectoral political organization for national freedom and

democracy

2003

25. Kilusang Makabansang Ekonomiya (KME) A movement for a nationalist economy 2003

26. Labor Education and Research Network (LEARN) Workers’ based NGO 2003

43 | P a g e

27. Pambansang Katipunan ng mga Samahan sa Kanayunan (PKSK) National federation of organizations of different sectors (rural

development) 2003

28. Pambansang Samahan ng mga Magsasaka para sa Likas -kayang Pananakahan (SAKAHAN)

Farmer’s group 2005

29. Partido ng Manggagawa Labor political party 2005

30. Partnership for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Services (PARRDS)

A progressive coalition and a pragmatic service center for farmers 2003

31. PATAMABA National Network of Homeworkers National network of homeworkers – primarily a women’s group 2003

32. Peoples’ Global Exchange Resource and service center organization geared towards

“building channels for international cooperation and solidarity” 2003

33. Philippine NGO Liaison Committee on Food Security and Fair

Trade (PNLC)

Alliance on fair trade and food security 2005

34. Philippine Network of Rural Development Institutes (Philnet-RDI) Alliance on rural development 2003

35. Philippine Peasant Institute (PPI) NGO advancing Philippine peasantry’s interest for agrarian

reform and rural development 2003

36. Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM) NGO committed to peasants and rural reconstruction thru

sustainable development 2003

37. Rural Enlightenment and Accretion in Philippine Society (REAPS) Foundation with community-based projects on people

empowerment, rural development, and agrarian reform in local

settings

2003

38. Samahang Demokratiko ng Kabataan (SDK) Youth political organization 2005 39. Sandigan at Ugnayan ng Magbubukid sa Pilipinas

40. (SUMAPI)

Farmers’ group 2003

41. Sanlakas Political party 2003

42. Sarilaya (MODE) People’s organization of women and the Luzon coordinator of

Philnet-RDI 2003

43. Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE)

Research advocacy on people-oriented and community-based development

2003

44. Tambuyog Development Center (TDC) NGO promoting sustainable fisheries and community-based

coastal resources management 2003

45. WomanHealth Philippines Women’s group 2003

*These descriptions have been taken from individual websites, brochures, and organizational profiles from Stop the New Round! Campaign materials. The list is based on SNR 2005b

44 | P a g e

Table 2: List of NGOs/Coalition Groups involved in the Global Trade Justice Movement (Non-exhaustive)

ORGANIZATION COUNTRY

Australia Fair Trade and Investment Network Australia

A SEED JAPAN (Action for Solidarity, Equality, Environment and Development) Japan

African Initiative on Mining, Environment and Society (AIMES) Ghana

Alliance of Progressive Labor Philippines

Altermonde Japan

Alternative Information and Development Centre South Africa

ANDHRA PRADESH VYAVASAYA VRUTHIDARULA UNION-APVVU India

Anti Debt Coalition (KAU) Indonesia

Asian Migrant Center Hong Kong

Asian Peasant Coalition (APC) Philippines

ATTAC Denmark

ATTAC France

ATTAC Japan Japan

ATTAC Norway Norway

Attac Sweden Sweden

Australian Services Union Australia

Biodiversity and Community Rights Action Thailand

Both ENDS Netherlands

BUND Germany

Canadian Council for International Co-operation Canada

Center for Asian American Studies in Political Economy United States

Centre pour le Commerce International et Development (CECIDE) Guinea

CHANCE ! pono2 Japan

Christian Confernec of Asia China

CIECA (Centro de Investigación Económica para el Caribe) Dominican Republic

45 | P a g e

Coastal Development Partnership Bangladesh

CONFEDERATION TO CORROBORATE DALITS - CONCORD India

Consumers Association of Penang Malaysia

Consumers Union of Japan Japan

CONTAG Brazil

Council of Canadians Canada

Diakonia Sweden

Economic Justice Coalition Mozambique

Economic Justice Network South Africa

Ecumenical Coalition on Tourism China

Europe solidaire sans frontières (ESSF) France

FAIR, for a fairer world Italy

FAT (Frente Autentico del Trabajo) Mexico

Federation of Indonesian Peasant Union (FSPI) Indonesia

Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) Korea, South

Federation Syndicale Unitaire France

Focus on the Global South Philippines

Focus on the Global South Thailand

Foro Ciudadano Dominican Republic

Forum Syd Sweden

Foundation for Gaia United Kingdom

Friends of the Earth Germany

Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland United Kingdom

Friends of the Earth Malaysia Malaysia

FTA Watch Thailand Thailand

Fundação Vitória Amazônica Brazil

Gender and Economic Recovery in Africa (GERA) Ghana

46 | P a g e

General Agricultural Workers Union of Trade Union Congress Ghana

Global Exchange United States

Global Network Philippines

Globalization Monitor Hong Kong

Greenpeace Netherlands

HAPPY FM RADIO Ghana

Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions (HKCTU) Hong Kong

IBON Foundation, Inc. Philippines

Individual/ A creative writer China

INESC Brazil

Institute for Global Dialogue (IGD) South Africa

Institute for Global Justice Indonesia

Instituto del Tercer Mundo Uruguay

International Metalworkers Federation - IMF Switzerland

IRENE Network Netherlands

Irish Congress of Trade Unions Ireland

IUF Switzerland

JDHR (Shafqat) Pakistan

Kababaihan ng Kilusang Mangingisda Philippines

KALAYAAN Philippines

Kenya Human Rights Kenya

Kilusan para sa Pambansang Demokrasya Philippines

Kilusang Mangingisda Philippines

Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) South Korea

LOKOJ Institute Bangladesh

Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns United States

MAUDESCO Mauritius

47 | P a g e

Medecins Sans Frontiers-Belgium Thailand

Mesa Global de Guatemala Guatemala

MSGG - Millennium Solidarity Switzerland

Mwengo Zimbabwe

National Association of Nigerian Traders Nigeria

Norwegian Council for Africa Norway

Oikos – Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Portugal

Peace Boat Japan

Polaris Institute Canada

Public Services International (PSI) France

REDGE (Red de Genero y Economía) Mexico

Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology India

Roba dell Altro Mondo Italy

Rusa Jeremic KAIROS Canada

Salinlahi Foundation, Inc. Philippines

Sierra Club US and Canada United States

Social Watch Italy Italy

SOCIETY FOR RURAL EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT India

Stop the New Round! Coalition Philippines

Sustainable Agriculture Network for Timor-Leste (HASATIL) Timor Leste

Tearfund UK

Tebtebba Foundation Philippines

Thai Action on Globalisation Thailand

Thai Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS Thailand

Thai NGO Coalition on AIDS Thailand

The Berne Declaration Switzerland

The Mexican Action Network on Fr ee Trade (RMALC) Mexico

48 | P a g e

The Oakland Institute USA

Trade for Development Centre Pakistan

Trade Justice Movement UK

UNISON United Kingdom

Unnayan Onneshan - The Innovators Bangladesh

UNT (Unión Nacional de Trabajadores) Mexico

URFIG France

War on Want United Kingdom

Washington Biotechnology Action Council USA

WILPF UK Section United Kingdom

Woman Health Philippines

Womyns Agenda for Change Cambodia

Worldview-The Gambia Gambia, The

WTO Watch Group Pakistan

Sources: Full NGO statement on HK; OWINFS NAMA Statement; Reject Revival of Doha Round; Statement FTA Watch

49 | P a g e

Table 3: Major Calls of Action in the 2003 and 2005 SNR! Coalition Campaigns

Framing Strategies of SNR 2003 Campaign in Cancun 2005 Campaign in Hong Kong

Major Objectives

1. Opposition to a new round of WTO trade negotiations;

2. Opposition to further WTO trade and trade-related liberalisation, and; 3. Opposition to the incorporation of the “new issues” of investment,

competition policy, government procurement and trade facilitation

into the WTO agenda.

1. Prevent consensus on the proposed new agreements under the Doha Round;

2. Expose the dangers of and stir public debate on the bilateral and regional agreements being negotiated, and;

3. Pressure the government to recast the Philippines’ tariff structure.

Calls for Action

1. Basic/Specific demands pertaining to negotiations and policies in

agriculture, fisheries, services (via the GATS), industrial tariffs and industrial policy, and TRIPS’s;

2. Call for the Philippine Government “work with other developing

countries to prevent the launching of a new round of trade liberalisation in Cancun”; and

3. “Coordinate work in defending Philippine national interests in the WTO negotiations and in other multilateral negotiations, particularly

in the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA)”.

1. Pressure the Philippine Government to oppose new trade agreements under

the WTO ; 2. Mobilise Public Opinion and support against the Doha Round and other fr ee

trade agreements;

3. Build a strong national constituency against the WTO and WTO related free trade agreements, and; 4. Link the national coalition and campaign to the global campaign.

Key Strategies for Mobilisation

1. Public Launch of SNR through press conferences, editorial writing, and public appearances (Media Engagement);

2. Provincial foras and discussions on WTO and the Cancun Round with specific sectoral concerns being addressed at various instances (Public

Awareness); 3. Dialogues with key government officials like the Agriculture and Trade

and Industry Ministries (Government Engagement);

4. Appearances in Congressional hearings and committee meetings (Tapping possible Allies within the Government);

5. National sectoral forums that include extensive networking with academia, research community, and different sectors (Capacity

building), and; 6. Sustained and visible protests such as marches, pickets, and solidarity

mobilization with different sectors and with international events (International networking).

1. Public Launch of SNR through press conferences, editorial writing, and public appearances (Media Engagement);

2. More extensive provincial and regional, island-wide forums/discussions on the WTO and the Hong Kong Ministerial focusing on the impacts of the

negotiations and the key battles to fight (Expanding Constituency); 3. Production of popular materials on WTO (Public Awareness); 4. Dialogues with Executive Departments (DA, DTI, DOLE, NEDA) and

participation in government task forces on WTO AoA Renegotiation (WAAR) (Government Engagement);

5. More active Lobbying in Congressional hearings (Tapping possible Allies within the Government);

6. National sectoral forums, training of key members as spokespersons, and internal discussions of WTO (Capacity building);

7. Cultural and media events, which links artists to the ideological battle of globalization and;

8. Sustained and visible protests especially with international events which intensified in 2005 (Global Week of Ac tion).

Source: SNR! Coalition Campaign Reports, 2005a and 2005b (This table will appear in the researcher’s paper “Democratising Trade Policies in Southeast Asia: Framing Processes in Transnational Activist Networks”, APISA Working Paper Series, 2008).

50 | P a g e

Table 4: Core Framing Tasks in the Regional Anti-WTO/Anti-FTA Campaigns

Social Sites of Contention Diagnostic Prognosis Motivational Frames

Response to World Economic Forum, Seoul, South Korea (June 2004)

1. Neo-liberal globalisation and militarism go hand in hand. The US Occupation of Iraq and the WTO/FTAs are the key sites of struggle as

they symbolise the two faces of “armed globalisation”;

2. People of Asia are suffering from the effects

of militarism and global capitalism especially after 1997 when the full effects of neo-liberal policies swept across the region and economies are “restructured” and

“liberalised” at the expense of people; 3. Asia is home to a number of military bases,

which is crucial for the US to project power

in pursuit of its economic and strategic interests.

1. Join the global actions to protest against the legitimisation of US’ illegal occupation in Iraq and Palestine;

2. Continue to pressure our governments to stop further deployment of Asian troops;

3. Block the current negotiations on

agriculture and not allow the EU and US to revive the WTO;

4. Commit to mobilise in Hong Kong, as well to coordinate our actions, broaden and

strengthen our struggles in Asia.

1. Reclaim our rights from the so-called “free trade system” (Severity motive);

2. Joining mobilisation is key to the success of resisting militarism and neo-liberal globalisation (Efficacy

motive).

Response to the Revival of the Doha Round (September 2007)

1. NAMA texts reflects the interests of the developed countries; increasing market access must not be equated to

development; 2. Negotiations ignore the demands of

developing countries for more flexibilities to protect its small farmers, fishers, and

workers. They demand to abolish the right to special products and special safeguard mechanisms while subsidies in agriculture remain;

3. Majority of proposals promote the interests of the rich countries and transnational corporations;

4. WTO is an instrument of neo-liberal globalisation and inherently anti-development. Trade should not be at the expense of right to food, agriculture,

1. Call governments to abandon the Doha ‘Development’ Round and reject attempts to revive it;

2. Call governments to listen to people and build alternative trade relations;

3. Commit to mobilise at the national, regional, and international levels to stop

the revival of the Doha Development Round;

4. Call on other social movements, peoples’ organisations and civil society groups to

join the struggle to end the Doha Round

1. Urgent call of attention to the attempts of big trading powers to revive the Doha Development

Round and imbalanced texts as basis of negotiations (Urgency motive);

2. A World without WTO is not only

possible but necessary (Urgency motive).

51 | P a g e

fisheries, public services, natural resources and livelihoods ;

5. East and Southeast Asia continue to suffer the negative impacts of neo-liberal economic

policies as same with other peoples across the world.

Outcome of Strategy Meeting “Resisting Free

Trade, Building Alliances, Alternatives and Common Strategies” (August 24-26,

2007)

1. Trade liberalisation should not be at the expense of the right to food, agriculture,

fisheries, public services, natural resources and livelihoods;

2. WTO, free trade agreements (FTAs) and investment agreements are imposing and

deepening neo-liberal economic programs in collusion with local ruling elites and transnational corporations (TNCs);

3. Neoliberal economic integration through

economic partnership agreements such as ASEAN-China, ASEAN-Korea and the ASEAN plus Three (APT) process is having a negative

impact; 4. We need to emphasise that women are

disproportionately and negatively affected by neo-liberal policies. More than half of

irregular workers are women and makes them vulnerable. Privatisation of services severely limits women’s access to housing,

health, and education.

1. Mobilise and strengthen our joint actions against all neo-liberal trade and

investment regimes; Commit to mobilise in Hong Kong;

2. Commit to continue and strengthen our struggle against neo-liberal globalisation,

to work together in a more sustained, coordinated, and systematic manner, and to begin the process of building peoples’ alternatives in East and Southeast Asia;

3. Focus of struggle is the trade and invest ment aspects of neo-liberal globalisation, as manifested by WTO, FTAs

and bilateral/multilateral trade and investment agreements;

4. Recognise the importance of creating strong links, communication and

solidarity between mass movement organisations such as trade unions, migrants’ groups, peasants, fisherfolks

and women, and social and civic movement groups.

1. Urgent need to tackle every proposed FTA, especially between

government and the EU and US, as well as WTO to address the poverty-generating effects of trade liberalisation (Urgency motive);

2. Support the calls for solidarity of Via Campesina to commemorate Lee Kyung Hae and the calls from World Social Forum processes to work

against neo-liberalism, war, colonialism, racism, and patriarchy (Propriety motive);

3. Necessity of looking into effects of neo-liberal trade agreements on development, particularly on the displacement of workers and

society’s right to development (Severity motive).

Sources: Call to Action on Resisting Free Trade, November 2007; Reject the Revival of Doha Round, September 2007; Call to Action on WEF, June

2004

52 | P a g e

Table 5: Core Framing Tasks in the Global Trade Justice Campaigns

Global Campaigns Diagnosis Prognosis Motivational Frame

2003 Campaign in Cancun

Nature of WTO as an undemocratic international institution

Trade issues are monopolised by corporate

power and interests of developed countries Food security, plight of agricultural markets in

developing countries, and expansion of WTO

mandate in new areas as central policy issues

“Join the Anti-WTO Campaign in Cancun”

Enhance transparency in trade

negotiations thru NGO engagement Protest mobilisations for visibility

NGOs and social movements as agents of resistance (stop new trade negotiations)

International protest sites as effec tive means to derail WTO negotiation

2005 Campaign in Hong

Kong

Role of social movements pivotal in the

Cancun victory July framework is an institutional coup of

developed countries

De-industrialisation as a crucial issue due to banning of the use of industrial policies under new WTO rules

Fisheries out of agriculture

Stronger l inkages between national

and local constituencies necessary for successful mobilization

Reject the July Framework because it is

worse than the previous deal in Cancun

“No deal is better than a bad deal”

Strengthen the linkages between

national and international campaigns on trade

Social movements must work to

voice out dissatisfaction on trade through public opinion

Visibility and protest mobilisation in WTO headquarters in Geneva

Post-Hong Kong Situation6

Hong Kong deal is anti -development: the

“Integrated Framework” is a new form of structural adjustment program

Aid for trade are loans that make national laws consistent with WTO rules

Developed countries will continue to revive WTO; G8 monopolises WTO

No concessions from EU and US in agriculture

means a failure of development for developing countries

Need for anti-competitive multilateralism such as South-South trade, Bolivarian alternative

and de-globalisation as opposed to offensive bilateral and multilateral FTAs

Call for actions: (1) Spread analysis

that the deal in HK was a bad deal; (2) national campaigns play a crucial and critical role to challenge commitments and block implementation of deals; (3)

civil society need to intervene in Geneva; and (4) social movements must build alliances from international

up to local levels “A World without WTO is good” No deal: “Abolish WTO”

Social movements need to sustain

derailing WTO negotiations and stop bilateral FTAs

Going back to the national and local campaigns to cripple WTO

negotiations The collapse of trade rounds must

not build complacency but rather

sustained pressure from civil society movements

Sources: “Why the WTO is Bad for You” Video Series, produced by Focus on the Global South; Table used in the researcher’s paper “The Role of Philippine Social Movements in Southeast Asian Activism: Framing Processes in Transnational Activist Networks”

53 | P a g e

Table 6: Sectoral Analysis of the SNR Campaign

Sector* Diagnosis of WTO from Sectoral

Perspectives Mobilisation Strategies

Contentious Issues within

Movement

Farmers group/Agriculture

Key advocacy: "to promote fair and just treatment of farmers in developing countries"

Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) and Doha Rounds are unjust and bring serious damages to the livelihoods and culture of

small scale subsistence farmers and producers. Unbridled, rapid agricultural trade

liberalisation has led to massive dumping of cheap agricultural imports from developed countries and their

transnational corporations. Key Outcomes: 1) Destroyed the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of

farmers and agricultural workers; 2) increasing reliance on imports is threatening our countries' abilities to produce our peoples' staple food.

Role of SNR: A movement and campaign machinery, whose members share common analysis of

WTO and DOHA and who plans, coordinates, and implement direct actions to articulate its positions and influence decision-makers, both at national and

regional levels. AFA participates and works with other national and regional groups, such as jointly

organising conferences, participating in their conferences, joining common direct actions.

Effective Strategies: Lobbying; dialoguing with government negotiators; direct actions/protests

Very minimal contentious issues among the agricultural working group.

Brainstorming, dialogue and discussions were major processes employed by SNR

SNR adapts the consensus position.

Fisheries

Trade liberalisation means the opening-up

of the local fisheries industry for foreign capital and market access.

Multinational and transnational corporations will intensify its effort to control natural resources under the guise of direct financial investments, to take

advantage of raw derived from sectors such us farming and fishing –key sources

Role of SNR: KM will translate into reality its

objective to mobilise the broad fishery sector towards advancing agenda for sustainable fishing industry development

and to become a campaign centre of small scale fishers only if it supports the broad goal of dismantling oppressive structures/ institutions such as WTO.

SNR allowed in-depth discussions for fishers

Consensus building resolves these

issues quite well

54 | P a g e

of livelihood of small sectors. groups and leaders through series of round table discussions, media advocacy and forums to improve its analyses on the issues. Direct actions manifesting fisherfolk

position on issues were also expressed in the campaign.

Effective Strategies: Forums and Media strategies.

Labour

The neo-liberal project is biased against the working people and other marginalised sectors of society particularly

in developing countries. Key Outcomes: The market and TNCs are given free reign

at the expense of the working class. The state becomes reconstituted to promote neo-liberal policies at the same time

diminishing its policy-space and control over the market. The trade unions believe that the market

should be within social control and trade be an instrument to ensure development for those that needed it most.

Role of SNR: Labour organisations need to engage with other civil society groups and social

movements to have a broader engagement on globalisation issues. The SNR is our platform at the national level to campaign against FTAs and WTO in coordination with

the anti-globalisation movement at the international and regional levels.

Strategies: 1) Discussions/forums involving the mass membership is the most effec tive way of mobilising our labour constituency; 2) publicising the activities of the coalition

through the mainstream media is also effec tive in broadening public support for the campaign; and 3) at the workplace

level, we usually integrate our advocacy issues in the education activities, union assemblies and newsletters to raise consciousness of members and ensure their

participation in mobilisation activities.

The language on written positions usually opens to points of contention.

Mechanisms: Skilful diplomacy and

negotiation strategies in consensus building

Serious contentions are avoided when all the aspects about the coalition are open and the

processes are transparent. There was a period of confidence-building for different organisations with different personalities to get to

know each other. These are through open discussions, debates and other interactions .

Women Neoliberalism as a global policy and Role of SNR: Since ISIS International works I suppose the most contentious

55 | P a g e

ideology builds its rationale on a concept of economic development that also reinforces patriarchal relations.

We seek to promote women's participation in development and economic systems that allow for equality

and empowerment of the marginalised (including women, and those discriminated against by race and class).

on facilitating the networking and communication among the global women's movements, it decided to go into trade advocacy in relation to its critique of global

media. SNR! is an established network that locates gender and trade issues .

Effective Strategies: Media is important because it brings the discussion to a level in which the public can engage with policy. At the same time, the dialogues with policy

makers are also a good approach. Key limitation: Since SNR was a broad

coalition, our concerns about Trade in Services, specially around media and telecommunication policy in the WTO seemed low priority among the issues being

carried by the coalition.

issue is representation . In a broad coalition, having so many issues implies having to seek a common ground.

The consensus building is slow , but some good leadership and trust has allowed the coalition to move. Also

there were minor issues about who gets to access the funding for activities and participation in international networking

engagements. I think this was resolved by discussion also.

Sources: Interviews conducted by the researcher. * The organisations interviewed were selected on two criteria: a) that they have contributed substantively in the SNR and therefore have working knowledge over internal issues surrounding the campaign; and b) that they work at the regional level and represent broad inte rests on the sector. This reduces the national bias and prejudices normally attached with domestic social movements working on singular issues. Unfortunately, the peasant and migrant workers’ sectors have not been interviewed.

56 | P a g e

Appendix 1: Guide Interview Questions for Staff of Focus on the Global South

Nature of Organization

1. What is the history of the organization?

2. To what extent have the goals have changed and where would you attribute these changes?

3. How does the organizational structure look like? How many members and what scope of

activities does the staff undertake?

4. What advocacies does the organization promote? What is the nature of the advocacy?

(policy-oriented, public education, analytical purposes only)

5. How would you describe the campaign of your organization on free trade?

6. What are the strategies that the organization usually undertakes?

7. What have been the impediments in achieving these goals?

Relationship with other actors

1. How would you characterize your organization’s relationship with the government?

2. Has this relationship changed since you engaged with the state?

3. What are the links of your organization with other local NGOs? What sort of activities does

your organization engage with them?

4. How did you establish such linkages? How would you characterize the linkages?

5. What alliances have your organization formed at the transnational level?

6. How would you characterize your relationship with these groups? How do the

alliance/coalition-building works?

7. What issues have the alliance carried?

8. Would you say that there are significant convergence and divergence of issues in the process

of addressing the multiple issues? What are these points of convergence and divergence?

9. How would you map out the ties among the anti-free trade movements in the region?

10. How significant has your organization played in the alliance?

11. In terms of mobilization strategies, are there substantial differences among the members

of the group?

12. What are the facilitating factors?

13. What are the constraints?

14. Would you say that there is a sense of regional consciousness among the group members?

57 | P a g e

15. Can you assess the level of effectiveness of the campaign? Would you say that it is

successful?

16. What global issues has the organization carried and how did the organization carry such

issues?

17. Did the organization participate in any global movement on free trade? What key advocacy

issues did the movement carry?

18. What are the factors which facilitated your work in the global level?

19. What have been the constraints?

20. What are the major accomplishments of the global campaign? The shortcomings and

failings? How would you assess the results of the campaign? In a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being

the highest, please measure the level of success of the anti-free trade campaign.

Other issues

1. Would you like to add anything?

2. Are there other people that you would like to suggest that I see?

3. Do you have literature or documents on these matters that I might use to help understand

your program and the movement?

58 | P a g e

Appendix 2: Interview Questions for Anti-WTO/anti-FTA activists on Framing

1. What is the nature of your organization and how do you see the SNR’s goal as a way to

achieve your organizational objectives?

2. How does your organization view trade liberalization and neoliberalism?

3. Does your organization get involved in any international and regional (more on regional

– Southeast Asia) activities that promote these objectives?

4. What were the major calls for actions and campaign strategies that your organization

advocates? Do you think SNR was able to pick them up? Kindly specify which campaign

of SNR you got involved with.

5. Which strategies of the campaign would you consider most successful in terms of (a)

mobilizing members to join and (b) encouraging the public to sympathize with the

coalition's calls?

6. What contentious issues did the coalition encounter? How did the coalition resolve

these contentious issues in which member organizations and individuals differ in

opinion? What formal and informal rules did the coalition employ to sort out

differences?

59 | P a g e

End Notes:

1 Distinctions are made among transnational advocacy networks, transnational coalitions, and transnational social movements. Transnational advocacy networks are the least formally structured where actors are linked across borders and share common values and discourses. Transnational coalitions have denser social networks with institutionalised mechanisms of coordination and may share common strategies and tactics in achieving their clearly defined goals. They are social movement organisations with collaborative, means-oriented arrangements permitting pooling of resources and crafting rules in defining goals and membership. Transnational social movements are the most developed since they follow clearly defined rules, share tactics and strategies, and form a collective identity (Levi & Murphy 2006: 654-656; Khagram et. al. 2002, quoted in David 2007: 368). 2 Before the paper looks at TSMs, it is important to clarify that social movements in Southeast

Asia tend to become more organised, professionalised, and engaged in well-funded campaigns rather than loose, decentralised, grassroots-based groups. This is in stark contrast with the grassroots-based groups in Latin America such as the indigenous rights or peasant movements whose actions have evolved from sporadic reactions to state policies into organised collective action linking up to the transnational level (Khagram 2006; Martin 2003; Fox & David 1998; Yashar 1998). And whilst it attempts to look at TSMs as a collective formation, it still refers to TSMs as networks, coalitions and movements – a public space with multiple actors – engaged in contentious collective action. 3 The International Review of Social History in its Supplement pages (2004, Volume 49, 1-18, 197-217) makes the distinctions among the actors themselves who actually do the framing activities:

“‘‘Innovators’’ carve out discursive spaces and ‘‘invent’’ new political discourses for emerging social movements; they may remain loosely connected to a movement but may also become its intellectual leaders. ‘‘Movement intellectuals’’ emerge in the development of social movements and include core activists and leaders. Movement allies include intellectuals who lend their expertise to a specific movement. The roles of these three types may be linked to the trajectories of social movements” (197).

4 There is growing consensus of what a global social justice frame constitutes and how it has become the master frame for the emerging global social movement. See della Porta 2007; della Porta et. al. 2006; Ayres 2004; Tarrow 2002. However, Brooks (2004) argues that the anti-globalization movements use the “global democracy/inclusivity” frame. 5 In the same fashion the labour unions were co-opted as the welfare state is being established, some scholars claim that the world has seen new social movements being increasingly pacified by state institutions through the deployment of NGOs in development projects or the consultative mechanisms in place within branches of government in the 1990s (della Porta et. al. 2006). This is especially true for social movements in the industrialised world where state-social movement relations is rather harmonious since the state has cleverly devised inclusive mechanisms of political participation. In Latin America and Africa, most social movements remain in opposition against the state as neoliberal policies are implemented in a one-way fashion with no mechanism for civil society movements to be consulted or for society to resist them. 6 The post-Hong Kong situation includes the analysis of why a deal were struck last minute and its negative consequences. It also covers the recent failure of EU and US to come into terms to

60 | P a g e

reform their agricultural policies especially on subsidies, which ultimately led to the breakdown of talks in mid-2006. As of now, the Doha Round has been stalled but US and EU are attempting to revive it.