Who calls the shots?
Who calls the shots?
Updated 01:18am (Mla time) Nov 24, 2004
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the November 24, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
LEADERS at the recently concluded APEC Summit rolled out a communiqué with four resolutions. The first, and most important proclaimed terrorism a hindrance to economic growth. Because of this, APEC countries pledged themselves to take unified action by protecting food stocks, building up adequate petroleum reserves, improving the safety of commercial flights, firming up shipping security and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The leaders took pains to say they would work together to close off avenues for terrorist funding by tightening regulations on the international transfer of funds as well as against money laundering.
The other three resolutions expressed the leaders' commitment to reduce the disparities among their economies, stamp out corruption, and lower global trade barriers under the auspices of the World Trade Organization.
Overall, the communiqué was testimony to most of the participating countries falling in line behind the twin obsessions of the newly reelected president of the United States: terrorism and the WTO.
US President George W. Bush, in fact, spent most of his time lobbying fellow leaders to put pressure on North Korea, which may or may not have put off the Chinese, who are still allies of the eccentric North Korean government. The lavish state dinner, which was planned as the culminating activity of the summit, was cancelled when Chinese officials refused to submit to US Secret Service security demands, including having dignitaries pass through metal detectors. Instead of being simply a case of over-sensitivity, the scuttling of the state dinner by China sends the message that it is increasingly prepared to flex its diplomatic and military muscle in the region.
However, for the time being (or until the next APEC summit in South Korea, when Russia will most likely be admitted as a new member, adding yet another power increasingly eager to compete with the United States), America calls the shots. Soon after the summit ended, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi began issuing statements critical of North Korea. The Philippine government, officially given the cold shoulder by the US president, milked the seating arrangement that saw President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo seated beside Bush at a dinner for all it was worth. This can only indicate the return of the slavish pro-Washington agenda of the administration.
This is, indeed, the challenge posed by the APEC leaders' communiqué. Will it be concerted action solely according to the dictates of Washington, or will it be a genuine multinational effort to address common concerns? Any Filipino who has seen the large "War Risk Tax" levied on plane tickets knows the heavy price of terrorism on the global economy. Trying to keep everybody safe is fine, but how will such safety be achieved? Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi said it should be achieved by better understanding the roots of terrorism, something our country should be echoing. Instead, it's almost certain we will see Manila increasingly trying to whistle Washington's latest tunes.
If dealing with terrorism poses a challenge, the renewed APEC commitment to WTO presents an equally clear and present danger. The Philippines, whether out of opportunism or genuine conviction (the collapse of negotiations in Cancun, due to a rebellion by developing countries led in part by Brazil), joined in the wave of pride and joy that swept the nations of the Third World when the WTO negotiations broke down. In the wake of the refusal of developing countries to simply accept the dictates of industrialized nations, American prestige suffered a big blow. Even industrialized nations later grew angry when the United States, too, decided to flout trade agreements by protecting American steelworkers and lumber producers, to the disadvantage of Europe and Canada.
The question is whether the Philippines will pay lip service to the Santiago communiqué, or whether it will, once again, accept the WTO prescription hook, line and sinker. As of now, the Philippines remains in the camp of developing nations that refuse to drop their economic defenses until the European Union and the United States decrease or eliminate their unfair agricultural subsidies and begin acting with greater respect for the rules that are supposed to apply to all.
Once again, the country has a choice between being a lackey of a big power, or trying to chart its own course, in the company of countries caught in a similar situation.
Updated 01:18am (Mla time) Nov 24, 2004
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the November 24, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
LEADERS at the recently concluded APEC Summit rolled out a communiqué with four resolutions. The first, and most important proclaimed terrorism a hindrance to economic growth. Because of this, APEC countries pledged themselves to take unified action by protecting food stocks, building up adequate petroleum reserves, improving the safety of commercial flights, firming up shipping security and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The leaders took pains to say they would work together to close off avenues for terrorist funding by tightening regulations on the international transfer of funds as well as against money laundering.
The other three resolutions expressed the leaders' commitment to reduce the disparities among their economies, stamp out corruption, and lower global trade barriers under the auspices of the World Trade Organization.
Overall, the communiqué was testimony to most of the participating countries falling in line behind the twin obsessions of the newly reelected president of the United States: terrorism and the WTO.
US President George W. Bush, in fact, spent most of his time lobbying fellow leaders to put pressure on North Korea, which may or may not have put off the Chinese, who are still allies of the eccentric North Korean government. The lavish state dinner, which was planned as the culminating activity of the summit, was cancelled when Chinese officials refused to submit to US Secret Service security demands, including having dignitaries pass through metal detectors. Instead of being simply a case of over-sensitivity, the scuttling of the state dinner by China sends the message that it is increasingly prepared to flex its diplomatic and military muscle in the region.
However, for the time being (or until the next APEC summit in South Korea, when Russia will most likely be admitted as a new member, adding yet another power increasingly eager to compete with the United States), America calls the shots. Soon after the summit ended, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi began issuing statements critical of North Korea. The Philippine government, officially given the cold shoulder by the US president, milked the seating arrangement that saw President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo seated beside Bush at a dinner for all it was worth. This can only indicate the return of the slavish pro-Washington agenda of the administration.
This is, indeed, the challenge posed by the APEC leaders' communiqué. Will it be concerted action solely according to the dictates of Washington, or will it be a genuine multinational effort to address common concerns? Any Filipino who has seen the large "War Risk Tax" levied on plane tickets knows the heavy price of terrorism on the global economy. Trying to keep everybody safe is fine, but how will such safety be achieved? Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi said it should be achieved by better understanding the roots of terrorism, something our country should be echoing. Instead, it's almost certain we will see Manila increasingly trying to whistle Washington's latest tunes.
If dealing with terrorism poses a challenge, the renewed APEC commitment to WTO presents an equally clear and present danger. The Philippines, whether out of opportunism or genuine conviction (the collapse of negotiations in Cancun, due to a rebellion by developing countries led in part by Brazil), joined in the wave of pride and joy that swept the nations of the Third World when the WTO negotiations broke down. In the wake of the refusal of developing countries to simply accept the dictates of industrialized nations, American prestige suffered a big blow. Even industrialized nations later grew angry when the United States, too, decided to flout trade agreements by protecting American steelworkers and lumber producers, to the disadvantage of Europe and Canada.
The question is whether the Philippines will pay lip service to the Santiago communiqué, or whether it will, once again, accept the WTO prescription hook, line and sinker. As of now, the Philippines remains in the camp of developing nations that refuse to drop their economic defenses until the European Union and the United States decrease or eliminate their unfair agricultural subsidies and begin acting with greater respect for the rules that are supposed to apply to all.
Once again, the country has a choice between being a lackey of a big power, or trying to chart its own course, in the company of countries caught in a similar situation.
posted by Dante at 1:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home