Facing the opposition to ASEAN free trade

Facing the opposition to ASEAN free trade

By James Fahn

BANGKOK: Social issues were supposed to be one of the
highlights of the fifth ASEAN summit. In their opening addresses
many of the leaders remarked that it was necessary to bring
social cooperation up to the level of economic and political
cooperation in the Southeast Asian gathering.

Apart from the speeches, however, there was little actual
discussion of how to address the social and environmental
problems that have cropped up as a result of the region's
development. The details of such a program are left to ongoing
talks between senior officials.

In response to the trial of Filipino maid Flor Contemplacion
in Singapore, Philippines President Fidel Ramos did raise some
social issues concerning the rights of migrant workers. But he
received little support from other leaders.

Even Thailand which has hundreds of thousands of its own
citizens working abroad, is not ready to discuss the issue as it
also plays host to many illegal immigrants, especially from
Myanmar. In the end an ASEAN committee on transmigration was
quietly established.

Most of the talks at the summit centered on how to speed up
and expand the economic linkages which form one of the basic
pillars of ASEAN. The social and environmental issues meanwhile
were largely being "tackled" out on Charoen Krung Road.

There several hundred protesters from eight Asian countries
were being held back by police as they sought to march on the
summit site and hand ASEAN leaders a list of demands in the name
of Southeast Asia's poor and disenfranchised workers and farmers.

The demonstrators had just arrived from Ubon Ratchathani where
they had attended the Forum of the Poor. Such parallel meeting by
the grass roots groups and NGO network, which make up the
"People's Movement", are now a regular event whenever the high
and mighty gather in Bangkok.

In this case, however, one of the protest leaders Bamrung
Kayotha, the former head of the Small-Scale Farmers Federation of
the Northeast -- made a simple but striking statement. "I don't
believe in free trade," he said "it only helps the rich."

Bramrung commands a large following. His statement last week
probably marks the first time that such a prominent Thai figure
(apart from a few intellectuals) has actually come out to oppose
not just the government or its policies, not just mainstream
development or the World Bank, but the actual concept of free
trade.

Around the world, it's not exactly a novel position. In
developed countries, opposition to free trade is widespread
among farmers and workers.

French farmers are famous (or infamous) for having almost
single-handedly held up the talks on the Seventh Round of GATT,
now known as the World Trade Organization (WTO). Labor unions in
the U.S. led the opposition to the North American Free Trade
Agreement, which only squeaked through the U.S. Congress
following the adoption of social and environmental "side
agreements" with Mexico.

Liberals and environmentalists in the West are also uneasy
with free trade. The labor, environmental and public health
regulations they have fought to build up over many decades are
being subverted as companies move operations to developing
countries with fewer restrictions.

But so far in Southeast Asia, or at least in Thailand, there
has been little or no opposition to free trade per se from the
grass roots level.

Instead, the voice coming out of Asia is that of economic
ministers, who rail against attempts to regulate trade as a
protectionist ploy by the West. In many cases, they are just
that. But some trade regulations do have noble intentions.

The U.S., for instance, has passed a law known as the Marine
Mammal Protection Act in an attempt to ensure that tuna imported
to the U.S. was caught with dolphin-friendly fishing techniques.
But in a notorious verdict, a GATT panel of unelected bureaucrats
ruled that it was an undue "restraint on trade'. The WTO has come
out with similar rulings on other environmental measures.

This is a pity because many social and environmental problems
are a direct result of the failure of free market forces to
provide the quality of life and security that people want.

For instance, Thailand's pollution problems -- which have a
disproportionate impact on the poor -- arise because under a free
market companies and individuals have no incentive to clean up
their mess. Waste treatment only comes about once government
regulations are enforced, or there is a public protest by
affected people.

Some type of intervention by the public sector in trade and
markets is, therefore, necessary.

Free trade, like the free market, is in any case a myth. All
government already intervene in the economy at will, usually to
protect influential industries and interest groups.

To protect environmental quality, markets can be co-opted.
Intervention need not come in the form of old-style "command and
control" regulations. Fiscal incentives and disincentives can
often do the job much more efficiently. Markets in valuable
resources such as water can be set up by handing out tradable
property rights. "Eco-labeling" can be established so that
consumers can make informed purchasing decisions.

Protecting certain social groups, or protecting rate species
and ecosystems, is much more tricky because it is often intensive
development itself which causes damage.

Bamrung, for instance, wants to protect small-scale farmers.
Under a global free market, they are almost certainly doomed to
become extinct.

Small-scale farmers only survive in developed countries as a
result of massive subsidies or protectionist barriers. These have
been provided by governments both because farmers have a lot of
political clout and because they represent many of the
traditional values which societies cherish.

Southeast Asia is no different. The people's movement is in
some ways a reactionary movement, a response to the more dynamic
move toward globalization. But the march in Bangkok recently was
a sign that they are overcoming a tendency to simply act locally
and are now organizing across the region.

And while their march was largely ignored by ASEAN leaders, it
is no surprise that one of the main disputes surrounding the
ASEAN Free Trade Area is an argument over lowering tariffs for
agricultural products.

In a region where the overwhelming majority of people are
farmers, agricultural policy has far more social implications
than a committee of officials discussing "social cooperation".

ASEAN leaders have held up the European Union as a model for
Southeast Asia. It is an appropriate one. French farmers and Thai
farmers look a lot alike when they're marching through the
streets.

-- The Nation