|
|
|
| |
| |
Life Onboard |
LAST UPDATE
July 12, 2005
|
|
| site design imagesparkle.com |
| October 26 2004 |
On the receiving end of ODA – Kiyokazu Koshida |
|
| |
Initially founded in 1954 as a way of compensating Asian countries for atrocities committed during World War II by the Japanese military, Japanese ODA (Official Development Assistance) celebrated it’s 50th anniversary this year of donating around $10 billion USD yearly to over 140 nations in need of financial assistance. However, while this aid is portrayed in a positive light domestically, Kiyokazu Koshida, an environmental and human rights activist from Hokkaido, Japan, explained how this aid no longer meets the needs of local people in the countries that receive the ODA, but rather causes environmental destruction, violates the human rights of the indigenous population and increases developing world debt.
 |
| Mr. Koshida with Peace Boat web reporter Kerys Williams |
Koshida’s interest in the rights of indigenous peoples across Asia led him to the Philippines in 1990, where he became heavily involved with the relocation of Filipinos from the mountains to the lowlands following the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. Upon his return to Japan he began working for PARC (Pacific Asia Resource Center) where he engaged in advocacy work and research into the Japanese ODA policies particularly related to the Philippines. Peace Boat web reporter Kerys Williams interviewed this passionate peace activist to learn more about the positive spin, and not-always-positive impact of Japan’s ODA. |
|
|
 |
| Sharing with participants the reality about how their taxes are being spent as ODA by the Japanese governmen |
What have been the effects of Japanese ODA in the Philippines?
In the Philippines many serious problems have been created by Japanese ODA. A typical case is in the port of Batangas. As part of the Philippine government’s plan to build industrial zones and expand Batangas port for both international and commercial uses, financial assistance (approximately $58 million USD) was given by the Japanese government in ODA. However Batangas is an old port and was originally a quiet place with tropical island beaches nearby, where local people earned money as street vendors or porters for tourists and these people protested against being relocated, but there was no negotiation and in 1994 the military police removed them by force, opening fire and injuring a couple of people. Around 1500 households were relocated and many people lost their jobs. This is a very typical case of how Japanese ODA is used in the Philippines.
Were you able to support the forcibly relocated people?
When we heard there were injuries, we went to the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Tokyo to ask them to stop funding this project immediately because our understanding was this: ODA is supposed to improve the quality of life of those in need, not contribute to the economic interests of both Japanese industry and overseas businesses. Furthermore, if we look at other donor countries, they don’t give financial support without taking into consideration the violation of human rights and environmental effects that can be caused in the process. Japan still clings to the old system of economic development being the gateway to developmental success. Nowadays the rest of the world focuses on human rights and sustainable development first and foremost. So why are we still stuck in the ice age?
We did manage to get the government to freeze funding for six months and we invited some representatives of the local Batangas people to talk to the Japanese government but they refused to meet them. Two years ago we brought two Japanese government representatives to the site in Batangas for the first time as they had never seen the repercussions of their acts and they believed there was nothing wrong. What the people from Batangas need, however, is adequate compensation for the disruption this project has caused to their lives. |
| |
What is the situation now?
The residents who strongly opposed the project began to rent a small portion of land near the port, where they lived for eight years campaigning for the right to work inside the newly built port, so that they could at least have a job there. However the investors didn’t want local vendors inside their multimillion dollar port terminal. For the most part they are now living in the mountains and are finding it so difficult to find alternative employment as their livelihood had been based around port life for so long. We need to ensure that the Japanese government goes to the countries they are helping to talk to the local people, look at the situation from their perspective, and not bulldoze them out of their homes through ignorance.
Have you directly approached the Japanese government about its ODA policies?
Yes of course. Our ODA research and study group, which is a collection of different NGOs and civilians, ranging from housewives to teachers, has drawn up a proposal to change Japan’s ODA policy. The main purpose of the ODA should be to alleviate global poverty rather than increase it. We want to implement regulations on funding so that if a project is going to cause environmental destruction for example, it is suspended. Our main point is that we have a beautiful, humanitarian Japanese peace constitution which states that it has a responsibility to deliver aid to people in hunger and in need. However, at the moment ODA has the conflicting interests of economic development.
I want to mention another huge disadvantage of this so-called assistance. In general, ODA only offers around 25 percent of its financial assistance as a grant while the rest is a loan that the receiving country has to pay back within 30 years. Not only this, but they must pay it back in yen, and so if their economy suffers in the meantime this puts tremendous stress on their repayment. At the same time, other countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and the Netherlands which have ODA programs don’t offer loans. They give grants where they are needed, and unlike Japan, don’t borrow money to give ODA. Japan’s current ODA charter therefore increases debt and allows Japan to make money at the same time.
Is this an example of Japanese ODA support in other countries as well as the Philippines?
There are also other sites in the Philippines which demonstrate this lack of concern for the environment and indigenous people, as major funding is also given to dam and road building projects, as is the shocking case in the village of Navitas. In most of the countries of South East Asia Japan is the biggest donor and there are very similar cases in Indonesia and Thailand where Japan has invested money for economic purposes without considering the impact on local people. This increases their debt and at the same time disrupts their lives with no future long-term benefits.
What do you hope to achieve on Peace Boat?
Well of course I am very happy to be travelling by ship and I am especially happy to be part of Peace Boat as they play a very active role in social movements and I appreciate their advocacy campaigns very much. But what I really want to do is engage in active dialogue with people who have different opinions. I tend to move in circles where other people are of a similar opinion to me, other NGOs and activists, but as this boat is a microcosm of Japanese society, there are different opinions everywhere and it’s great to be able to discuss these issues. There are also people on this voyage who used to work for the ODA program in the Philippines and so I am interested in hearing what they have to say. My main aim, I suppose, is to help people understand that what may seem the best thing to us is not always the best thing for others and that our governments must think before they throw their money around and consider the consequences of their actions from a more humanitarian point of view. |
| |
|
|
|
