I will maximize my time to briefly clarify the nature of the work of the AEPF, the civil society organizations that compose its network and its accountability mechanisms. Over the years, the AEPF with the trade unions, have lobbied for the integration of the social dimension in the ASEM process not only because of the dire consequences of globalization on people's lives but more importantly, because social protection is central to equitable and sustainable development. These efforts over the past decade resulted in ASEM Labor Ministers formally endorsing the need for a social dimension, including the Decent Work Agenda of the ILO. AEPF's task here is to continue advocating for a social dimension to Asia-Europe relations, and to hold state and non state actors acccountable for realizing the social dimension to globalization. Essentially, AEPF is mobilizing around the notion that globalization should be beneficial for all.

But to date there has been no realization for civil society participation in ASEM-- in spite of the many calls by the European Parliament for ASEM to engage civil society, in spite of the recommendation of the official study on ASEM at 10 that “bottom-up initiatives such as the AEPF should be welcomed and harnessed”. And during the ASEM Summit last year, the Finnish EU Presidency through the Prime Minister had a dialogue with the AEPF and its representative was allowed to speak at the ASEM Summit. Notwithstanding these developments, ASEM lacks the structural relations with civil society that enables its meaningful participation in the decision-making process of ASEM.

However, this is not only about lobbying or securing consultative status with ASEM. It is about various groups in Asia and Europe caucusing and working together in articulating alternatives and developing campaigns. Essentially, the AEPF which for a long time now has been independent of the ASEM, is fostering a new kind of democracy and politics where people matter and where people have control over political and economic decisions which affect their lives. To this end, the network has undertaken these core activities a) biennial forums parallel to ASEM summits since 1996; b) bi-regional circles on key thematic concerns e.g., trade, anti-privatization of essential services such as water, alternative regionalism, participatory democracy through local governance and activist political parties, alternative regionalism, security issues and the “war on terror” c) campaigns such as on the EU-Asean FTA.

Secondly, let me clarify further the civil society organizations in the AEPF. The paper underlines the diversity of civil society organizations, therefore “the difficulty to reach cohesion and to organize difference”. Moreover it questions whether these organizations are in touch with target groups affected by ASEM policies.

Last September AEPF6 took place in Helsinki just before ASEM6. There were 450 participants from 30 countries and from more than 200 NGOs and social movements - from labor, peasant and urban poor networks, food sovereignty networks, environmental movements, human rights organizations, women’s, indigenous and peace movements, debt and trade justice, anti-privatization campaigns.

Not all of these organizations are active in- between the biennial forums. In Europe, the active organizations are ngos and campaign organizations dealing with Asian issues and the democratization of Asia-Europe relations. In Asia, the active organizations are mainly regional alliances, sectoral and campaign networks and national organizations in the ASEAN. Their members are grassroots organizations and these organizations participate in AEPF country and regional activities, and in the parallel summits.

These ngos and social movements are culturally diverse and with their sectoral and issue-based agendas. However, the diversity of identities, instead of being a drawback is a strength, offering richer knowledge and lessons that can be used in coming up with more effective strategies and alternative visions, such as towards a participatory and people-centered regionalism.

There are larger commonalities and bases of unities that bind the constituents of AEPF offsetting the fragmentation effect of their differences. They could be categorized as people-centered because they take up urgent social issues and are in touch with target communities affected by ASEM issues. They subscribe to the charter of principles of the AEPF, its Vision Paper and help craft its Final Declarations at the end of the parallel summits. Needless to say, they support the World Social Forum and the global movement for peace and promote globalization from below.

Regarding the “dominance of European organizations”, they did play leading roles in the network, e.g., the Transnational Institute (TNI) shouldered the coordination in the past, and Asia House in Germany spearheaded with FES the lobby for a social dimension. But they did not set the agenda. In fact Thai, Korean and Vietnamese groups led the preparations of the biennial forums in their respective countries. This year, the EU's FTA strategies have galvanized Asian members, and there has been strategy meetings and Asia-Europe capacity-building discussions in Bangkok, Manila and Jakarta. Next month there will be exchanges and strategy meetings with labor federations and ngo campaigners in Pattaya, Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur.

The European ngos don't impose the liberal democracy discourse on Asian organizations within the AEPF. In fact what is promoted in the Democracy and Human Rights plenary and workshops at the parallel summits is the deepening of liberal democracy and its transcendance into to a more participatory and egalitarian one. In addition, the idea that there are unique Asian values that make liberal democracy unsuitable for Asia has been used as an alibi by authoritarian Asian states, and the Asian groups in AEPF do not share this perception.

It is understandable that scholars would highlight the weaknesses of civil society organizations in Asia since a number of Asian states refuse to provide the political space and proper mechanisms for greater civil society participation, and many popular organizations have often found themselves coopted by the state. However let us not forget that an activist civil society has thrived in the region. Strong civil society movements in the 80s and 90s aided in the overthrowing of authoritarian rule in the Philippines, South Korea, Thailand, Taiwan and Indonesia. And whereas mass demonstrations are rare in Malaysia and Singapore, civil society organizations have tried to challenge authoritarianism on broad range of political, economic and cultural issues. In societies in transition, there are a growing number of committed ngos using innovative albeit discreet ways to expand restricted political space to reach target groups and project goals.

Lastly, on the issue of accountability, basic mechanisms have existed to insure internal and external accountability, though up to now AEPF has remained a loose and flexible network. It is worth mentioning that in 2003, the International Organizing Committee (IOC),the coordinating body of the AEPF, as part of its review, resolved that there was a need to to restructure the AEPF into a more inclusive, transparent, democratic and open network. Towards this end, a working paper by One World Action (OWA), based in London, helped the organization to embrace these values in the coordination and operations of the AEPF. This far, points of coordination and coordinators have been established by consensus, in Asia and Europe, who report/work with the IOC in managing the activities of the network.

The IOC is geographically represented with 6 European and 6 Asian NGO who are represented in the body. Though the body is largely made up of NGO representatives who were responsible for AEPF's formation, the newer members joining the it have been nominated by groups in their respective countries. Major policy decisions are made at the IOC meetings, and emails as well as tele-meetings are used on a-need basis to follow-up on decisions or if there is a need for a new decision or mandate. Also, consulting and reporting to network partners on a project basis, as in the case of the EU-ASEAN FTA. But this has to be extended to the rest of the work of the network.

The restructuring of the AEPF entailed the activation of bi-regional networks of circles working on key issues common to both regions. It involves various groups working independently of the IOC yet report/work with it on its on-going work. These circles are represented at the IOC. In this sense, there is a direct link between the work of circles and IOC in terms of information dissemination, decision making. In this way, the work, concerns, and issues confronting circles are incorporated in the overall direction of the organization. This is the extent of empowering and de-centralization of decision making that we have established. However there is the need to enhance information dissemination, reporting and monitoring, and the need to stimulate feedbacks, recommendations and initiatives. The use of e-groups as a powerful medium is now seen in the case of EU-ASEAN FTA network.

In a paper drafted by TNI just before the parallel summit last year, People's Visions: Building Solidairty Across Asia and Europe, some priorities were identified to make-up a strategic plan that could take the work of the AEPF forward in the next two years. These priorities include systematizing mechanisms that would improve accountability and participation, and formalizing organizational policies that would deepen a democratic, pluralist and non-sectarian way of working together. These are important in the light of an expanding network, with the incorporation of Vietnamese organisations, and the request of Chinese organisations for membership to the IOC, and the interest of organizations from India and Pakistan.

To close ---
Asia is presently high on the Europan Union's global strategy agenda as the EU strengthens its FTAs in the region. As many of you are aware, these FTAs aim at the highest degree of liberalization, not only in trade but also in services and investment, and will impact on the lives of farmers, workers, women, and other vulnerable groups in both regions. As demonstrated in Latin America, it would result in the loss in jobs and people's livelihoods.

Therefore this makes bringing together people's movements in Asia and Europe towards reflecting collectively, raising awareness, mobilizing and developing alternatives all the more urgent. This makes the relevance of civil society formations such as the AEPF all the more critical in both regions.