1

ENGAGING APEC: Relevance for theTibet Movement

October 2014

2

Asia presents an array of geographic, political, cultural and economic variety equal in diversity to any location on earth. Dense human populations, ancient cultures and religions, high levels of growth in industry and technology, low labour costs, and pockets of deep poverty as well vast wealth characterize Asia’s people and landscapes. It is an impressive combination of blessings and curses.

In contrast to the colonial economies of the early and mid-20th century, late 20th century and early 21st century efforts to capture and build prosperity in the region have sought to build economic strength through economic cooperation organizations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and its spin-off affiliations with China and India. APEC remains the largest of these trade organizations, encompassing not only East and Southeast Asian countries but notably their North and South American trading partners with Pacific borders. As a result of its size and the combined clout of its membership, APEC plays a significant role in guiding policy-making and the political agendas of the region.

APEC differs from other regional trade associations in that its members do not participate as States but as “economies”, a configuration that allows both Hong Kong and Taiwan (Chinese Taipei) to join as independent members. APEC currently includes 21 economies: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of South Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Republic of the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Thailand,

and the United States. [Among its]…partners include the world’s super power (USA), the world’s largest Islamic nation (Indonesia), the most populous Spanish-speaking country (Mexico), an oil-rich sultanate of just 300,00 people (Brunei), and the expanding economic powerhouse of 1.2 billion people (China) which is governed by a one-party dictatorship that outlaws all forms of political dissent2.

APEC’s member economies “comprise 2.6 billion people or 30% of the world population, account for approximately 60% of the world Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and nearly 72% of world economic growth.”3 APEC is also unique in that it lacks a binding treaty that would provide an institutional framework for economic integration and cooperation. The annual meetings of APEC leaders have been unique opportunities not only for promotion of trade and investment liberalization between members, but also for discussion about the political challenges in the region and around the world.

On November 10 and 11, 2014, the political leaders of Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) members will meet in Beijing, China. This paper offers a short analysis of APEC’s relevance for Tibet-related organizations, noting that APEC is the largest free trade cooperative in Asia.

This paper is an updated version of Apec: a briefing paper for Tibet Support Groups (Canada Tibet Committee, 1997) available at http://tibet.ca/_media/PDF/apec.pdf. The paper has been updated by its original author, Catherine James. Catherine resides in Mountain Green, Utah, USA. She was an active member of the Canada Tibet Committee from 1989-1995. A graduate of McGill University in law (LLB) and medical anthropology (MA), she has written about the intersection of law and culture in the contexts of sustainable development and human rights.

Background

2 Ibid., 3.3 Lui, Chenglin. Research Guide on the Trading Systems in the Asia-Pacific Region: APEC, ASEAN, and their Members. GlobaLex: http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/APEC_ASEAN.htm

3

The APEC vision of free market trade policies and unrestricted growth were its initial defining features. In the decades since it began, APEC’s annual summits have provided an on-going opportunity to expand, develop or refine the trade liberalization policies that were its initial basis for forming, as well as to craft and discuss responses to emerging issues or crises as they appeared4.

A review of APEC summits in recent years reveals a trend away from vision statements and a focus on developing and implementing measures to turn goals and aspirations into actual trade practices. To take sustainable growth as one example, APEC has developed policies to harmonize or minimize non-tariff barriers applicable to green products (such as testing procedures, certification processes and standards, etc.)

Like other similar arrangements, APEC’s formation triggered a passionate debate over the supposed virtues of free trade. Opponents argue that liberalizing trade and investment has far-reaching, adverse effects on the ability of governments to legislate in the public interest. Proponents argue that increased liberalization will automatically result in more democracy and rule of law. Once a certain level of economic growth is achieved, so the argument goes, levels of employment and education also rise, and the society becomes more democratic as a result.

The contention that increased prosperity often leads to calls for democracy and human rights appears generally

true although within a broad spectrum of possibilities. Nonetheless, it is also clear that such social progress occurs only if specific measures are taken to ensure that the money-making market actually benefits the larger society and does not instead contribute to increased disparity in the distribution of wealth. The most recent expression of the tension between growth, wealth and concerns about social equity, the Occupy movement, attests to the unresolved nature of the on-going argument and in 2011, activists with Occupy Honolulu marched in protest during the APEC leaders meeting5.

Engaging APEC: Relevance for the Tibet movement

The APEC Agenda

4 A summary of past declarations can be found on the APEC website and is attached as an appendix at the back of this paper.5 http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/14/occupy_honolulu_hawaiian_musician_makana_performs

Each APEC Leaders’ Meeting includes a group photo of the leaders wearing the national dress of the host country. This photo was taken in Vietnam in 2006.

4

There are reasons to take APEC seriously. As a non-binding forum for discussion, the consensus-style decision making of APEC encourages deal-making and the informal understandings that build alliances between democratic countries and some of the most repressive regimes in the world6. A second reason to view APEC as a powerful force is the depth and breadth of the measures it proposes for economic change, and the sheer size of the member economies involved. In 1996, Antonio Tujan argued that the Bogor (1994) and Osaka (1995) Leader’s Declarations were not merely mechanisms to remove trade barriers and develop technical and economic cooperation, but that they represented an effort to “hasten economic integration or globalization… while global powers compete to put East Asia under their control of area of influence.”7

Recent statistics confirm that Tujan’s prediction was on target. APEC member’s GDP in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) terms has increased almost three-fold from $14.8 trillion in 1992 to $46.6 trillion in 2012. Goods and services exported by APEC members to the world have increased from US$2.1 trillion in 1992 to US$10.3 trillion in 2012 while goods and services imported by APEC members have risen from US$2.0 trillion in 1992 to US$10.8 trillion in 2012.8

Despite the long list of its praise worthy aspirations ranging from green growth to inclusion of women, transparency, curbing global terrorism and so forth, the nature of APEC’s structure limits its effectiveness. The looseness of the organization and its focus on a purely economic agenda minimizes the attention given to the significant social and political differences that divide the member economies and keep them from cooperating in other areas such as international human rights or democratic development (for

example, APEC is one forum where China, Hong Kong and Taiwan sit together as independent bodies). APEC’s lack of rule-making mechanisms means it cannot enforce directives or compliance. Thus, while its institutional structure cultivates a “culture of cooperation”, it cannot implement, monitor or enforce commitments that it may boast on paper9. APEC has been described as nothing more than “a ramshackle framework of shifting premises, held by a loose hodge-podge of countries bound together more by expediency than any economic and political principles its members can truly claim to hold in common”.10

The fact that APEC’s decision-making structure demands consensus only makes the prospect of agreement between its diverse members all the more difficult, particularly when political relations are implicated.

Adding to the weaknesses inherent in APEC’s structure is the system of the rotating chairmanship of the organization among its member economies, which disrupts the continuity of the organization’s agenda by continually generating annual declarations of goals and aspirations that supplant the previous year’s declarations.11

APEC Strengths and Weaknesses

6 Ibid.7 Tujan, Antonio Jr. The APEC and Globalization IBON People’s Advocacy and Policy Studies June 1996 1-16 at 8.8 Australian Gov’t. Dept. of Foreign Affairs and Trade: APEC’s Economic and Trade Highlights. http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/stats-pubs/downloads/APEC-2013.pdf9 Hsiao, I-Chun, Hsiao, Jerry I-H. An Analysis of APEC’s Green Growth Strategy in the Context of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. http://basc.berkeley.edu/ascc/papers/Hsiao_Paper.pdf10 International Centre for Human Rights and Development (ICHRDD) APEC’s Missing Agenda, published pamphlet, 1997. P. 811 Ibid

5

China’s extraordinarily repressive human rights abuses against the Tibetan people, combined with its efforts to exploit Tibet employing a classic colonial model of wealth extraction and social and political marginalization of the native population, clearly challenge the notion that economics and human rights are separable in principle or practice.12

For organizations hoping to engage APEC as an advocacy target, the broad questions about its social, economic and environmental impacts can be recast into specific questions related to topics relevant to Tibet. For example:

• How does APEC’s free trade agenda affect the movement of populations within China and Tibet? • What impact do APEC policies have on climate change and the already corrosive levels of air and water pollution? • How will increasing levels of world demand for China’s mineral resources and cheap products affect the dismal observance of labour and human rights in Tibet?• What impact does economic development have on land rights, particularly in nomadic areas? • What attention does APEC give to the development of corporate social responsibility, including human rights due diligence around access to information and stakeholder engagement?

Perhaps the most obvious concern for Tibetans is that China is an inappropriate and dismal choice for representing Tibetan interests at the APEC negotiating table. As China engages in an aggressive campaign to encourage foreign investment and industrial development inside Tibet, Tibetans are excluded from the decision-making process establishing the conditions for those developments.

Generally speaking, Tibetans have not been the beneficiaries of China’s economic opening – instead they are largely consigned to operating as an underclass while Chinese entrepreneurs hold positions of power in both business and government. Tibetans have little access to the capital or permits required to set up a business or tender offers for development projects while Chinese-run businesses rarely hire Tibetans because of political maneuvering and discrimination.13

A further concern regarding APEC’s trade liberalization is that China’s marketing campaign and incentive program will continue to attract thousands of Chinese entrepreneurs and migrant workers into Tibet. Given the already repressive conditions in which Tibetan society survives, further influxes of people hostile to Tibetan culture and religion promise only to exacerbate the problems of the Tibetan minority. The supposed benefits of the growing economy are unequally distributed according to a two-track system based on racial lines.

These examples demonstrate the significant connection between APEC’s free trade agenda and economic and social conditions in Tibet. Tibet advocacy groups thus share many concerns with other civil society organizations in the region -- those concerned with the environment, working condition, human rights, land rights etc. These common concerns should encourage cooperative efforts with Asian non-governmental organizations seeking to influence the APEC agenda by challenging the narrow focus it now maintains.

Relevance for Tibet Groups

12 Tibet Justice Center, Human Rights And The Long-Term Viability of Tibet’s Economy, 1997 at http://www.tibetjustice.org/reports/enviro/apec_paper.html.13 Andrew Martin Fischer: The Economic dimension of autonomy and the right to development in Tibet, 2004. http://tibet.ca/_media/PDF/en/Economic_Dimensions_of_Autonomy___the_RTD_in_Tibet.pdf.

Engaging APEC: Relevance for the Tibet movement

6

Since 1993, APEC has inspired a unique and enthusiastic collaboration between divergent civil society organizations from across the region and issue concerns. Tibetans have been prominent participants in the street demonstrations that often accompany leaders’ meetings and they have participated in parallel forums organized by Asian solidarity networks by providing speakers, films and other resources.14

At the 1993 APEC Leader’s Meeting in Seattle, the Tibetan Rights Campaign organized what was called at the time “the largest pro-Tibet rally ever held in North America”.15 The rally confronted Chinese President Jiang Zemin during his bilateral meeting with US President Bill Clinton.

In 1996, the Canada Tibet Committee sent two Tibetan representatives to participate in civil society parallel forums in Manila, the Philippines. Their presence in those events marked the first time that most participants had interacted directly with Tibetans or heard their testimony about conditions in Tibet. CTC delegates made presentations about population transfer, political prisoners, women’s rights, and mining. Moreover, the interaction with other NGOs was an enriching experience for the Tibetans and an opportunity for them to better understand the broader Asian perspective on issues related to economic development.

In 1997, the APEC leaders meeting took place in Vancouver, Canada where a consortium of civil society organizations joined forces to host a parallel forum and mass street demonstrations. Ven. Palden Gyatso and Ama Adhe were invited guests of the forum. Tibet captured significant media attention as a controversy developed over the forced removal of the Tibetan flag at the University of British Columbia’s graduate student centre. During a subsequent RCMP inquiry into the incident, a spokesperson for Canadian Prime Minister

Jean Chretien testified that the government did “not want to embarrass APEC leaders.”16

In 1998 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Ama Adhe was invited by Malaysian women’s groups to be their special guest at the parallel forum and her story was included in the final civil society conference reports which were widely distributed across the region. Ama Adhe was also invited to meet with the Foreign Ministers of Canada, Australia and the United States.

In Auckland, New Zealand in 1999, hundreds of Tibetans and their supporters staged peaceful street protests wherever China’s President Jiang Zemin was scheduled to appear.

More recently, in 2011, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton raised concerns about repressive policies in Tibet directly with Chinese leader Hu Jintao during the Honolulu Summit. Tibetans were a visible part of the street demonstrations during the Honolulu leader’s meeting.

Visibility of the Tibetan issue within the APEC process has produced results. First, it introduced Asian civil society organizations to the Tibetan struggle and built bridges with influential regional activist networks. Second, it offered unique media opportunities, as a large number of journalists cover APEC leaders’ travel in Asia. Third, participation at APEC offered opportunities for Tibet activists to speak directly to senior officials from various countries – access that is often difficult to achieve at home.

Past Engagement by the Tibet Movement

14 This initiative was a joint project of the Canada Tibet Committee and Milarepa Fund.15 Statement by,Tibetan Rights Campaign, November 10, 1993 archived at http://www.tibet.ca/en/library/wtn/archive/old?y=1993&m=11&p=10_4 16 Timeline compiled at http://www.ubcpress.ca/pepper/timeline.html

7

The weight of historical experience offers convincing proof that market forces must be harnessed and regulated if harmful social consequences and rampant environmental destruction are to be avoided. Advocacy organizations seeking to improve conditions inside Tibet must therefore engage the debate by creating partnerships with regional organizations, and developing the capacity to understand and to advocate the connection between economic policies and social conditions within Tibet.

ConclusionAs we approach the 2014 APEC leaders’ meeting in Beijing, the opportunity to engage our leaders in this debate is unprecedented. The meeting takes place against a backdrop of ongoing pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong that will place China’s authoritarian system in the spotlight. There has never been a better time to press the argument that success of the APEC Agenda is dependent on a renewed commitment to human rights.

Engaging APEC: Relevance for the Tibet movement

In Manila in 1996, Tibetans marched in solidarity with representatives of people’s movements from across the region.

8

2013 - Indonesia: APEC economies provide the push needed to conclude the “Bali Package” at the 9th World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference. A package of measures to enhance regional connectivity is endorsed, including an APEC Multi-Year Plan on Infrastructure Development and Investment prioritizing public-private partnership projects. A target of one million intra-APEC university students per year by 2020 is also set. The first Joint APEC Ministerial Meeting on Women and SMEs issues directives to promote women entrepreneurship.

2012 - Russia: APEC economies endorse a ground-breaking APEC List of Environmental Goods that directly and positively contribute to green growth and sustainable development objectives. APEC seeks to address transparency as a new next generation trade and investment issue, and Leaders endorse the APEC Model Chapter on Transparency for RTAs/FTAs to be used as a guide by APEC economies.

2011 - United States: APEC Leaders issue the Honolulu Declaration in which they commit to taking concrete steps toward a seamless regional economy; addressing shared green growth objectives; and advancing regulatory cooperation and convergence. To reach these goals, APEC resolves to reduce, by the end of 2015, applied tariff rates of environmental goods to 5 percent or less, taking into account economies’ economic circumstances, without prejudice to APEC economies’ positions in the WTO.

2010 - Japan: APEC Leaders issue the Yokohama Vision to provide a roadmap for members to realize an economically-integrated, robust and secure APEC community. This includes

the formulation of a comprehensive, long-term growth strategy. APEC completes an assessment of the progress towards the Bogor Goals and finds significant gains in the areas of liberalizing trade in goods, services and investment, as well as trade facilitation. APEC formulates the APEC Strategy for Investment holds its first-ever APEC Ministerial Meeting on Food Security.

2009 - Singapore: APEC resolves to pursue balanced, inclusive and sustainable growth, while Leaders agree to extend their standstill commitment on protectionism until 2010. The first-ever joint meetings of APEC senior trade and finance officials are held to address the economic crisis. APEC launches the Supply-Chain Connectivity Framework and the Ease of Doing Business Action Plan to make doing business in the region 25 percent cheaper, faster and easier by 2015. Member economies also commence work on an APEC Services Action Plan and an Environmental Goods and Services Work Program.

2008 - Peru: APEC focuses on the social dimensions of trade and on reducing the gap between developing and developed members, in accordance with the 2008 theme, “A New Commitment to Asia-Pacific Development”. Leaders also addressed the global financial crisis in the Lima APEC Leaders’ Statement on the Global Economy. They committed to take all necessary economic and financial measures to restore stability and growth, to reject protectionism and to intensify efforts to advance WTO Doha Development Agenda negotiations.

2007 - Australia: For the first time, APEC Member Economies issue a Declaration on Climate Change, Energy Security and Clean Development outlining future action in support of a new international climate change arrangement and announcing

Appendix: Key APEC Milestones 17

17 http://www.apec.org/About-Us/About-APEC/History.aspx

9

a forward program of practical, cooperative actions and initiatives. Leaders also adopted a major report on closer Regional Economic Integration, including structural reform initiatives, and welcomed the new APEC Trade Facilitation Action Plan which will reduce trade transaction costs by a further five per cent by 2010.

2006 - Viet Nam: APEC Economic Leaders endorsed the Ha Noi Action Plan which identifies specific actions and milestones to implement the Bogor Goals and support capacity-building measures to help APEC economies. They also issued a statement on the WTO Doha Development Agenda calling for ambitious and balanced outcomes. To prioritize its agenda, APEC takes a strategic approach to reform working groups and strengthen the Secretariat.

2005 - Korea: APEC adopts the Busan Roadmap, completes the Mid-Term Stocktake which has found that APEC is well on its way to meeting the Bogor Goals, and the APEC Privacy Framework. Leaders issue a stand-alone statement in support of a successful conclusion to the WTO’s 6th Ministerial Meeting in Hong Kong, China and agree to confront pandemic health threats and continue to fight against terrorism which could cause deep economic insecurity for the region.

2004 - Chile: APEC issues a strong statement of support for progress in the WTO Doha Development Agenda and sets a target date for achieving a breakthrough in the stalled negotiations. APEC adopts Best Practices for RTAs and FTAs, and the Santiago Initiative for Expanded Trade and a Data Privacy Framework. APEC reiterates its “unmistakable resolve” to confront the threat of terrorism, and takes further action in this regard by identifying key elements of effective export control systems; establishing guidelines on the control of man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS), and continuing to implement the STAR initiative. APEC makes a political commitment to fight corruption and ensure transparency, and endorses a specific Course of Action towards this end.

2003 - Thailand: APEC agrees to re-energize the WTO Doha Development Agenda negotiations and stresses the complementary aims of bilateral and regional trade agreements, the Bogor Goals and the multilateral trading system under the WTO. APEC dedicates itself not only to promoting the prosperity of member economies, but also to improving the security of the peoples of the Asia-Pacific region. APEC pledges to take specific actions to dismantle terrorist groups, eliminate the danger of weapons of mass destruction and confront other security threats.

2002 - Mexico: APEC adopts a Trade Facilitation Action Plan, Policies on Trade and the Digital Economy and Transparency Standards. APEC’s second Counter-Terrorism Statement is delivered, along with the adoption of the Secure Trade in the APEC Region (STAR) Initiative

2001 - People’s Republic of China: APEC adopts the Shanghai Accord, which focuses on Broadening the APEC Vision, Clarifying the Roadmap to Bogor and Strengthening the Implementation Mechanism. The e-APEC Strategy is adopted, which sets out an agenda to strengthen market structures and institutions, facilitate infrastructure investment and technology for on-line transactions and promote entrepreneurship and human capacity building. APEC’s first Counter-Terrorism Statement is issued.

2000 - Brunei Darussalam: APEC establishes an electronic Individual Action Plan (e-IAP) system, providing IAPs online and commits to the Action Plan for the New Economy, which, amongst other objectives, aims to triple Internet access throughout APEC region by 2005.

1999 - New Zealand: APEC commits to paperless trading by 2005 in developed economies and 2010 in developing economies. APEC Business Travel Card scheme is approved and a Mutual Recognition Arrangement on Electrical Equipment and a Framework for the Integration of Women in APEC is endorsed. Leaders issue statement about East Timor.

Engaging APEC: Relevance for the Tibet movement

10

1998 - Malaysia: APEC agrees on the first nine sectors for EVSL and seeks an EVSL agreement with non-APEC members at the World Trade Organization.

1997 - Canada: APEC endorses a proposal for Early Voluntary Sectoral Liberalization (EVSL) in 15 sectors and decides that Individual Action Plans should be updated annually.

1996 - The Philippines: The Manila Action Plan for APEC (MAPA) is adopted, outlining the trade and investment liberalisation and facilitation measures to reach the Bogor Goals and the first Collective and Individual Action Plans are compiled, outlining how economies will achieve the free trade goals.

1995 - Japan: APEC adopts the Osaka Action Agenda (OAA) which provides a framework for meeting the Bogor

Goals through trade and investment liberalisation, business facilitation and sectoral activities, underpinned by policy dialogues, economic and technical cooperation

1994 - Indonesia: APEC sets the Bogor Goals of “free and open trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific by 2010 for developed economies and 2020 for developing economies.”

1993 - United States: APEC Economic Leaders meet for the first time, on Blake Island, Washington, and outline APEC’s vision, “stability, security and prosperity for our peoples.”

1989 - Australia: APEC begins in Canberra as an informal Ministerial-level dialogue group with 12 members.

11

The official APEC websitewww.apec.org

Statement on Fighting Terrorism and Promoting GrowthLeaders Declarations, Los Cabos, Mexico, Oct. 2002http://www.apec.org/Meeting-Papers/Leaders-Declarations/2002/2002_aelm/statement_on_fighting.aspx

“Transparency and Trade Facilitation in the Asia Pacific: What’s at Stake?” http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/0,,contentMDK:21459346~pagePK:64165401~piPK:64165026~theSitePK:469382,00.html

Transparency & Trade Facilitation in the Asia Pacific Estimating the Gains from ReformMatthias Helble, Ben Shepherd, John S. WilsonThe World Bank, Devlopment Research Group 2007

The Osaka Action Agenda. Implementation of the Bogor Declarationhttp://www.apec.org/~/media/Files/Groups/IP/02_esc_oaaupdate.pdf

The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Meetings in Vladivostok, Russia: Postscript CRS Report for Congress Michael F. Martin Congressional Research Service, November 19, 2012http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42842.pdf

APEC Energy Ministers Focus on Low-Carbon Energy SecurityClimate Change Policy & Practice 19 June 2010http://climate-l.iisd.org/news/apec-energy-ministers-focus-on-low-carbon-energy-security/

An Analysis of APEC’s Green Growth Strategy in the Context of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable DevelopmentI-Chun Hsiao, Jerry I-H Hsiao 2012http://basc.berkeley.edu/ascc/papers/Hsiao_Paper.pdf

References

Engaging APEC: Relevance for the Tibet movement

12