Porta and Tarrow (2005), Tarrow (2005), Risse Kappen (1995), and Risse

(2002) – suggest that three variables explain the rise and outcomes of
THINKING AND NURTURING TRANSNATIONAL ACTIVISM: GLOBAL contemporary transitional activism: the current complex internationalization
CITIZEN ADVOCACY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA (growing density of international institutions, regimes, and contacts among
Dominique Caouette states officials and nonstate actors), and multiplication of linkages between
local, national, and international issues [Tarrow 2005, 8]; between complex
internationalization and domestic structures (i.e., ‘’institutional features of the
state, society, and state-society relations’’ [Risse-Kappen 1995,20]); and the
Introduction
emergencies of a stratum of activists best described as rooted cosmopolitans
In December 2005, Hong Kong hosted the Sixth Ministerial Conference of the (‘’a fluid, cosmopolitan, but rooted layer of activists and advocates’’ [Tarrow
World Trade Organization (WTO), following previous ones in Singapore 2005,34]).
(1996), Geneva (1998), Seattle (1999), Doha (2001), and Cancun (2003).
Very seldom do transitional activists work exclusively at the global level.
Beginning with Geneva, and especially the year after, with the ‘’Battle of
Instead, they tend to be ‘’rooted’’ at local and national levels, simultaneously
Seattle’’, civil society parallel meetings and protests were occasions for
engaging different levels of government institutions. Today, these networks
transitional movements and networks to gather and act collectively to resists
are led by activists engaged in transnational activism after having been
and protest decision making processes deemed undemocratic and
involved in local and national advocacy. In fact, many have remained involved
exclusionary (Smith and Johnston 2002; Bandy and Smith 2005). For many
in national struggles, arguing that advocacy and policy engagement at one
participants, trade liberalization as embodied in the WTO agenda constitutes
level do not deter activism at another level. Transnational activists are able to
a global challenge that calls for cross-border collective action to shift the
create linkages and coalitions among various types of actors operating on
current neoliberal economics in favor of social justice and equity (Prokosh
different levels (local, national, regional, international) in order to respond to
and Raymond 2002; Clark 2003).
various political contexts, each offering a different range of political
In its bare form, transitional activism has been defined as ‘’social movements opportunities.
and other civil society organizations and individuals operating across state
It is nearly impossible to identify a single episode or a historic birthmark for
borders’’ (Piper and Uhlin 2004, 4 – 5). This definition was further refined by
the emergence and accelerated growth of contemporary transnational
della Porta and Tarrow (2005, 7) who referred to transitional collective action
activism, although certain events acted as important catalysts. While
as ‘’the coordinated international campaigns on the part of networks of
transnational social movements have been around for a long time, global
activists against international actors, other states, or international institutions.’’
mobilization of the 1990s, including the Zapatista uprising in January 1994
Recent works on transitional collective action – notably the works of della
and its call for transcontinental (and even, intergalactic!) resistance to global
neoliberalism and the ‘’Battle of Seattle’’, have been particularly significant, therefore building on the works of Keck and Sikkink (1998) and Risse, Ropp,
highlighting the importance of cross-border solidarity and collective action and Sikkink (1999).
(Schulz 1998; Price 2003). Unsurprisingly, the study of transnational activism
and its links to globalization has become a thriving research area, both in In this article, I examine how and why transnational activism expanded
international relations and political sociology (Khagram, Riker, and Sikkink significantly in Southeast Asia. I suggest that this type of activism is a
2002; Bandy and Smith 2004; della Porta and Tarrow 2005). Despite its response to socioeconomic and political processes associated with
growing richness, the geographic coverage of this research domain has globalization, as well as a consequence of the relative and limited political
remained largely confined to North America, Europe, and, to some extent, liberalization that has characterized some Southeast Asian countries (Taylor
Latin America (Risse 2002; Price 2003). Today, there are few analyses 1996). As Loh and Öjendal (2005, 3) correctly note: "For although the
tracing the genealogy and the influence on public policy of such form of Southeast Asian countries enjoyed unprecedented high rates of economic
collective action in Southeast Asia (Hewison 2001; Piper and Uhlin 2004). growth in the 1980s and 1990s, and experienced pluralization of their
societies, nonetheless, the state authorities continued to dominate over their
Yet, the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, and, increasingly, Indonesia host societies." Kingsbury (2005, 416) concurs, stating, "almost regardless of the
various forms of transnational activist organizations In fact, one can observe political model adopted-or invented-in the region, some more traditional forms
that this tendency accelerated after the 1997 financial crisis (Lizée 2000; Loh of authority continue. Most notably, variations on patron-client relations
2004). Bangkok, Manila, and Jakarta have become "nodes of transnational continue to dominate, running afoul of conventional statist notions of propriety
activism," places that "provide not only the practical infrastructure required by and political party, not to mention law and human rights." Unsurprisingly,
transnational NGO networks, but also a political climate that is not too hostile transnational activist organizations established themselves in countries where
toward civil society activism" (Piper and Ulhin 2004, 14). relative political space existed, or at least allowed, for global organizing. In
some instances transnational organizing became a way to reach out to the
A better and informed understanding of this modality of activism in relation to state for further democratization, somehow reminiscent of the boomerang
the broad range of initiatives for social transformation in Southeast Asia is model developed by Keck and Sikkink (1998).
now timely. This is especially true for international development agencies that
find themselves increasingly involved in supporting this type of work, Such specific combination of these two factors is peculiar to the region since
sometimes at the expense of local community organizations and national contemporary transnational activism in Western Europe and North America
NGOs and peoples' organizations. Another reason is to be able to understand takes place in relative open democracies with well-established civil society
how such form of transnational collective action "fits" within the repertoire of organizations (see Tarrow 2005). Moreover, trade liberalization and other
collective action in Southeast Asia, and how distinctive this form of regional global economic processes have not marked domestic processes as rapidly
activist knowledge creation is compared to other regions of the South, and suddenly as the economic boom of the 1980s and, eventually, the 1997
financial crisis did in certain Southeast Asian countries. To explore this
argument, I trace the genealogy and analyze the objectives and activities of authorities vary. All four networks had expanded since their formation,
four transnational activist organizations-the Asian Regional Exchange for New especially in the 1990s at a time when Southeast Asia was becoming
Alternatives (ARENA) now based in Seoul and Hong Kong but with a history increasingly linked to the global economy, and when various social sectors
closely linked to Southeast Asia, Third World Network (TWN) based in (labor, farmers, migrant workers, women, and students) were increasingly
Penang, Focus on the Global South (Focus) based in Bangkok, and the Asia organizing and seeking alternative knowledge to the dominant neoliberal
Pacific Research Network (APRN) based in Manila. These organizations paradigm.
represents a specific type of transitional activist organization, one that
intervenes in the realm of ideas, knowledge production, and alternative Before turning to the analysis of these four transnational organizations, one
discourse and acts primarily at the regional and global levels. One could should note that this comparative exercise is still very much a work in
argue that they can be considered as "think tanks" of civil society.? What progress. At this point, my focus is on understanding the emergence and
makes them transnational is that the knowledge they produce seeks to development of one type of transnational organization-those that may be
explain regional and global processes and sustain collective action nationally considered as think tanks-rather than assessing its policy impact. As
and regionally to challenge not only national states but the very processes mentioned earlier, Southeast Asia, in particular the Philippines, Thailand,
represented by, for example, the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), Malaysia, and Indonesia, host various forms of transnational activist
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), or the WTO. For instance, organizations (Verma 2002; Loh 2004). An overall picture of the region that
in December 2005, at the WTO Ministerial Conference, various civil society would examine the range of transnational social movements, international
organizations attended seminars that involved APRN and marched under the NGOs, and advocacy networks remains to be developed. For now, I examine
APRN banner (Tujan 2006). Prior to the conference, Focus produced easily these four transnational organizations to understand their genealogy; the
accessible digital versatile discs that were used as educational and context for their emergence and their expansion, highlighting how the
consciousness- raising tools. It also was active in a number of forums international and national contexts interplayed with specific thematics chosen;
organized by the Hong Kong People's Alliance on WTO. TWN, on the other and the various organizing modalities adopted by each organization in their
hand, explained and described at length its understanding of what was efforts to nurture and sustain regional and global activism in Southeast Asia.
happening during the meeting (Khor 2006). In each case, the specific national context in which these networks are
established will be examined, revealing how their specific location had to do
The four networks are connected to various international formations around with the relative political space allowing for different forms of transnational
international development issues, global financial architecture, food security, activities.
and global social justice. While they may be part of the same international
networks, they are recognized as distinct actors with their own specificities. Transnational Activist Organizations in Southeast Asia:
Four Examples Asian Regional Exchange for New Alternatives (ARENA)
The four emerged at different times, and their "repertoire of collective action,"
their linkages with social movements, and their interaction with government
ARENA is the oldest transnational organization among the four examined with human rights and linked with various social movements, including anti-
here. It was established in 1980 with its offices located outside Southeast dictatorship movements, like in the Philippines. During its first decade, the
Asia (Hong Kong and Seoul). ARENA was set up after an initial consultation Christian Conference of Asia¹¹ played a central role in supporting the network;
that brought together "progressive scientists and church people" who fellows helped identify other fellows and their works focused mostly on
recognized at the time that it was not possible to do critical research in research and advocacy while providing a certain degree of protection for
mainstream universities (Nacpil- Manipon and Escueta 1998). ARENA's initial those scholars living in repressive contexts (Nacpil-Manipon and Escueta
location in Hong Kong was not fortuitous. In the early 1980s, many Asian 1998). At the time, the Christian Conference of Asia was very active in the
countries were under dictatorship or under semi-authoritarian rule that region helping to set up various regional organizations, including the Asia
constrained the possibility of setting up an organization such as ARENA. Monitor Resource Center, the Committee for Asian Women, the Asian Human
Rights Commission, and later on the Asian Migrant Center (Cheong n.d., 12-
Since its formation, ARENA has always had an Asia-wide approach, striving 15; Tadem 2005).
to bring together "intellectual activists" to collaborate across borders in
producing research outputs and conceptual work that would be relevant to Following a five-year evaluation, ARENA became more formalized in 1992-
social movements in Asia. In the process, ARENA would build a community of 1993, with the Hong Kong secretariat assuming greater responsibilities as
concerned Asian scholars. In fact, this precise constituency is a key feature of program coordinator. At the same time, ARENA began expanding rapidly,
the organization: "ARENA is a unique NGO because it has chosen to focus with its number of fellows eventually reaching sixty, an executive board
on the concerned Asian scholars as its immediate constituency, believing that established, and a greater inclusion and participation of women fellows. In its
this sector can play a vital role in the process of social transformation early days, ARENA was quite "an old boys network" loosely connected
(ARENA n.d.a)."It seeks to strengthen and sustain civil society organizations (Nacpil- Manipon 2005). After 1992, the number of women fellows increased,
by providing knowledge and research that can be acted upon, recognizing putting women's and gender concerns on the agenda, thus enlarging the
that these organizations "play an important role in the process of social range of interests from political economy to comparative studies of culture
transformation and the search for peace and social justice" (ARENA n.d.a). At and interdisciplinary approaches (Nacpil-Manipon 2005). As explained by
the same time, its perception of its role has gradually evolved as fellows' Eduardo Tadem, ARENA's coordinator between 1993 and 1997, once
perceptions evolved: "Before, Asia was a rallying point for anti-imperialist ARENA had secured a more solid base of funding and was able to launch
struggles. Now, it has shifted, as people want to problematize what it means various research initiatives, it built and enlarged a community of fellows: "We
to be a new center for global economic activities" (Nacpil-Manipon and had our own research projects and we had to tap different scholar-activists in
Escueta 1998). different countries. That way, we were getting them into ARENA by being
involved in its projects. This is how we were recruiting fellows" (Tadem 2005).
Until 1992, the network grew slowly, gathering about twenty individuals into its Beyond funding availability, there was also a shared understanding that
Council of Fellows, who were left-wing academics; many of them concerned ARENA needed to develop a genuine community of scholars since many of
the ARENA members had been handpicked by ARENA's first coordinator. Attended by forty-two fellows, a three- year plan, entitled "People's Alliance in
The appointment of women coordinators since 1989 was also a positive factor the Age of Globalisation: Sustaining Equity, Ecology and Plurality," was
in terms of establishing a greater gender balance and bringing on board a approved and served as the basis of programming. Beyond understanding
clearer feminist perspective among some members. and deconstructing "globalization" and analyzing the impact of global trade
and investment, ARENA emphasized the need to contribute to the creation
At the moment, the ARENA Council of Fellows has seventy- nine fellows and nurturing of people's alliance, "being built across borders by social
based mostly in East, Southeast, and South Asia¹³ but with a small number movements, grassroots organizations, NGOs and like-minded groups"
based in Australia, the United States (US), and the United Kingdom (UK). Its (ARENA n.d.b). Its next three-year program (2000-2003), entitled
present goals reflect a broader set of concerns such as: "Reimagining Asia': Redefining 'Human Security' and 'Alternative
1. Promotion of equity among social class, caste, ethnic groups, and gender. Development': Movements and Alliances in the Twenty-First Century," came
in the wake of the financial crisis that hit many countries of the region. The
2. Strengthening of popular participation in public life as against authoritarian crisis fostered a greater sense of regional identity, and this was reflected in
centralization. the program's emphasis on the importance of acting jointly:

3. Prevention of marginalization of communities in the face of incursion by The process of orienting the future and of "reimagining Asia" will
modern influences. also entail the pooling together of Asian people's political energies and
cultural imagination-bringing linkages between the local, national, and the
4. Improvement of the quality of life for Asia's underprivileged.
regional-toward articulating and interpreting the experiences of resistance and
5. Nurturing of ecological consciousness. reconstruction. (ARENA 2000,7)

6. Drawing upon aspects of indigenous knowledge systems which enhance For its three-year program for 2003-2006, the context was post- September
social emancipation. 11 and the US-led invasion of Iraq. Its Council of Fellows met from March 28
to 31, just a few days after the invasion on the theme "Hope Amidst Despair:
7. Articulation of new visions encompassing a holistic worldview. (ARENA Resistances and Alternatives to Hegemonies." Its orientation echoed the
n.d.b) specific context at the time:

The search for alternatives-for "other" possibilities that transform the

prevailing relations of power and usher in a more just and equitable order-
During the 1990s, ARENA also took on a more significant collective life,
necessarily confronts and addresses the violence that is engulfing the world
holding regular congresses and developing three-year plans of action. Its first
today. The violence of relentless hegemonic pursuits and Empire building.
coordinated plan was developed in its October 1996 congress held in Seoul.
The violence of militarism and wars of aggression. The violence of deeply response to the limited space that existed for critical discourse in Asian
rooted structure of patriarchy. The violence of racism and the culture of universities and the need to create a "community" of scholars that could
prejudice and intolerance. The violence of capitalist exploitation of humanity engage each other at the regional level and then feedback such discourse
and all the earth's resources. (ARENA 2003) within existing domestic grassroots organizations. In an interview in 2005,
Tadem recalls an activity organized for ARENA fellows in Kerala:
Beyond its regular congresses and its publications (its primary means of
disseminating ideas), ARENA established what it called the "exchange- In Kerala, people who went there from different countries were really excited
schools for alternative praxis." This was an opportunity to "blur the division about commonalities that they found, especially those who were doing
between intellectuals and activists by providing an educational environment organic farming in Japan and Malaysia, alternative forestry initiatives in
for them to transgress their roles," and as a "platform and an information Nepal, things like that. So my feeling is that the transnational aspect was
network for sharing of ideas and resources among alternative education there, although it was never really articulated in that way, but somehow being
organizations and NGOs" (ARENA ca. 1999, 4). together in one conference and the similarities in your experiences brought a
very strong feeling of solidarity. That is the word that I would use actually-
As a transnational activist network, ARENA has sought to provide a critical solidarity. It would always come out from these regional gatherings of
space for intellectuals to meet and explore areas of thinking that could inform ARENA. (Tadem 2005)
collective action, nationally, and regionally. This sense of community and
solidarity among ARENA fellows has been a distinct feature of the network. With the growing density and importance of regional multilateral organizations
As explained by Tadem in an interview in 2005, this is probably a dimension (such as ASEAN, APEC, and the Asian Development Bank) and global
that distinguishes ARENA from other networks: economic and political processes (such as the Asian crisis and the war
against terrorism), ARENA's fellows increasingly developed plans of action
With ARENA, the research is not done in-house; the research is not done by that embodied their goal to act collectively at the regional level. The fellows
the members or [the] staff. The work is done by fellows because what is more are able to provide alternative analyses and a critical standpoint on these
important for ARENA is to nurture, develop, and expand the community, not developments. For example, in 2002, ARENA took an active stand on
put out publications.... It is just a means of achieving the ultimate, the bigger spearheading the Asian Peace Alliance (APA). In its Inaugural Assembly,
goal of the community: developing, expanding, nurturing, and making active APA gathered over a hundred peace activists from NGOs, social movements,
such a community. (Tadem 2005) and research institutes within the region. ARENA became responsible for the
When ARENA was first established, this type of critical Intellectual coordination and dissemination of the outcomes of the assembly and acted as
engagement was not tolerated, if not directly repressed; within traditional its secretariat. 14 ARENA's creation of a series of alternative schools for
academic circles and universities operating under authoritarian or semi- activists is another instance in which it sought to contribute directly to
authoritarian governments. In many ways, its emergence in the 1980s was a transnational activism. These alternative schools for activists are a modality
through which ARENA fellows' expertise and knowledge are shared and The Third World Network (TWN) describes itself as "an independent nonprofit
discussed transnationally with participants originating from various countries international network of organizations and individuals involved in issues
in the region. Finally, ARENA's publications taking a regional standpoint relating to development, the Third World and North-South issues" (TWN n.d.).
reflect this orientation toward creating bridges and fostering space for Its international secretariat based in Penang was established in 1984. Today,
exchange among intellectual activists. TWN has offices in New Delhi, Montevideo, Geneva, and Accra, and affiliates
in many countries such as Philippines, Thailand, Brazil, Bangladesh, Peru,
Overall, ARENA's key contributions are to provide knowledge on and to Ethiopia, Mexico, South Africa, Senegal, and China (TWN n.d.).
document existing transnational activist endeavors launched by various social
sectors, such as peasants, workers, women, environmentalists, and migrants. TWN has been regularly involved in multilateral processes such as the United
A recent evaluation described ARENA's early years: Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the ASEAN (Khor n.d.). Beyond
participation in official and parallel summits, TWN produces a wide range of
In its earliest phase, ARENA flourished-with minimal institutional structures, publications: two magazines (Third World Resurgence and the bimonthly
minimal formal procedures, modest financial resources and overhead costs. It Third World Economics), books, occasional briefing papers, and regular press
maintained a small Secretariat in Hong Kong that sought to nurture close links releases. Its website has become its primary portal for the dissemination of its
with social movements; provide solidarity for the diverse struggles of various materials and analyses.
Asian peoples; provide a caring, nurturing environment for a small, young
core staff; provide a space for self-reflection and creative thinking for both The history of TWN goes back to the late 1970s, when Martin Khor, working
activists and concerned intellectuals; and be a forum for the exchange of at the time as research director with the Consumers' Association of Penang
(what was somewhat tautologically called) "new alternatives" in development (CAP), proposed with other local and foreign activists to establish such
theory and practice. (Dias and Francisco 2004, 4) network. 15 Khor recalls in an interview,

At present, ARENA is in the process of reorganizing its institutional structure CAP got in touch with other NGOs in Asia and other parts of the world, and by
after having to confront an institutional challenge. This is to ensure continued 1984, we realized that many local problems had global roots. Together with
relevance within the realm of transnational activism in Asia. As noted in the many of these other NGOs, we formed the Third World Network in 1984, to
evaluation: "While it continues to widely enjoy the prestige and respect of link the local problems of communities in the South to the global policy-
being one of the progressive regional organizations in the Asia Pacific, it is making arenas. (Khor 2004)
not exactly a 'sought-after' organization in more activist-oriented regional
coalitions and formations that are working on alternatives to globalization" The formation of TWN took place well before the newest wave of
(Dias and Francisco 2004, 6-7). transnational activism referred to as the "anti-globalization movement." As
two program officers from Inter Pares, a Canadian social-justice organization
Third World Network (TWN) and one of the original supporters of TWN, noted: "The creation of TWN
emerged from the process of taking a broader view at consumerism, linking legitimacy within limited democratic space in Malaysia, especially for
issues of public health, environment to North- South relations. In fact, TWN domestic advocacy.
emerged very much with the logic of the non-aligned movement" (Seabrooke
and Gillespie 2005). Malaysia's political system, despite its democratic façade, has had limited
tolerance for direct political challenges and has been able to control and, in
What distinguishes TWN from the three other organizations examined here is some cases, effectively prevent the formation of important local and national
its explicit commitment to work whenever possible with government officials to NGOs (Trocki 1998; Verma 2002; Loh 2005). In this context, the shift from
affect public policies. Asked how TWN can reconcile the two roles of being a local and transnational issues appears to have been in part a response to
civil-society activist network as well as an advisor to Southern governments, limited domestic political space, as well as to the growing and rapid
Khor offers the following response: integration of Malaysia into the world economy.

In the end, the social activist wants to achieve concrete results in terms of TWN's success is linked to the capacity of its members to provide alternative
better public policies and improvement in the lives of people... Yes, the analysis and policy discourse on issues of the day for many Third World
government has invited us to take part in some consultative processes and activists and even government officials. With its long tradition of analyses,
institutions in which we are able to put forward our views and inputs for having been established in the mid-1980s, TWN became particularly
government policy making. Taking part in these processes helps us put prominent during the 1990s, especially with its analyses on the Asian crisis
forward our perspectives more directly. But it does not compromise our ability and more recently with its analysis of WTO processes, a time when social
to have independent views and to remain critical. (Khor 2004) movements and activists in the region were seeking critical perspectives.

Such an approach challenges other networks that consider that participation A quick analysis of the various annual reports produced by TWN between
in government processes could reduce their level of autonomy and 1993 and 2003 revealed an amazing increase in its participation in
independence. At one level, this methodology can be seen as rooted in an international and regional events (TWN 1993-2003). TWN's participation in
analysis that emphasizes the need to influence policy-making processes in civil society activities and government and multilateral organizations meetings
the most effective possible way—that is, by engaging directly with state and increased threefold from fifty in 1993 to 158 by 2003. Throughout the period,
multilateral organization officials (Hewison 2001, 225). Such orientation is TWN consistently participated in United Nations (UN)-sponsored processes,
also consistent with the underlying analysis of TWN that "divides the world often at the request of the agencies themselves (TWN 1993-2003). At the
into the North (rich, industrialized) and South (poor, underdeveloped);" at the same time, TWN maintained its rhythm in terms of organizing civil society
same time, it reflects Khor's faith in "a revitalized United Nations" (Hewison activities, spearheading a dozen of seminars and forums each year, mostly in
2001, 224-25). At another level, this approach might be a way to enhance Asia (Malaysia, Bangladesh, India, and the Philippines) and also in Ghana,
Peru, Switzerland, and Norway. Today, its website has become a key tool for many other local NGOs. In conceiving Focus, the two shared a common set
disseminating its analyses. As reported in its 2003 Annual Report: of ideas:

Overall, for the year 2003, the website recorded nearly 8.2 million hits, with Both were dissatisfied with the existing North-South division paradigm. They
the month of November recording the highest number of hits at 826,056. In were also skeptical about mainstream economic analysis, and the economics-
2002, the website registered around 7.8 million hits, while in 2001 it registered culture-politics methodology ... They saw the need for linking micro-macro
around 4.8 million hits. (TWN 1993-2003) perspectives in analyzing current situations... They both saw the gap between
activists who mobilize while holding incomplete or simplistic analysis, and
In fact, TWN, along with Focus on the Global South and Brazil's Movimento researchers and academics who have abilities to make good analysis but lack
dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (Landless Rural Workers' Movement), the opportunities for action... They saw the importance of East and Southeast
is listed on The Global Activists Manual as a key reference in the global south Asia as a locale in light of its dynamic economic, social, and political
movements "directory," referring to it as "a platform for Southern interests in dimension in global development. (Kaewhtep 1999, 45-46)
global meetings and institutions" (Prokosh and Raymond 2002, 295). After
more than twenty years of existence, TWN is a recognized network, both by The choice of its name reflected a specific lens on how globalization was
multilateral and national organizations as well as of civil society groups and affecting both the South and the North. Early on, this understanding of the
movements in the areas of trade negotiations, especially WTO agreement on international economy was presented: "The current globalization process is
agriculture, issues on trade-related intellectual property rights (TRIPS), making the traditional definition of South and North less clear-cut" as there "is
biodiversity, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). a rapidly growing North in the South, and at the same time a rapidly growing
South in the North" (Focus ca. 1997). Moving away from a traditional North-
Focus on the Global South (Focus) South perspective, Focus sought to propose a different conception: "North
Conceived between 1993 and 1994 by its first two co-directors, Kamal and South are increasingly redefined as concepts to distinguish between
Malhotra and Walden Bello, Focus on the Global South (hereafter referred to those who are economically able to participate in and benefit from globalized
as Focus) was officially established in Bangkok, Thailand, in January 1995 markets and those who are excluded and marginalized from them" (Focus ca.
(Malhotra and Bello 1999). Its cofounders represent in many ways archetypes 1997). At the same time, Focus chose to "give priority to its work in
of transnational activists. Bello, a Filipino political economist, had lived in the developing countries, with a particular emphasis on the Asia Pacific region"
US for years where he was very active in the anti-Marcos dictatorship (Focus ca. 1997).
struggle and the international Third World solidarity movement. He had also The reputation, track records, and networks of its two directors helped the
worked with a Northern NGO-the Food First/Institute for Food and organization take off the ground with a set of funding agencies committing to
Development Policy. Malhotra, who is from India, had been involved for years support the initiative. Focus presented itself as a place where thinker-activists
with an international NGO-Community Aid Abroad- Oxfam Australia-and
within the Asia Pacific region can be connected (Focus ca. 1997). Its main Institute (CUSRI) were two key factors why Focus's head office was
goals are as follows: established in Bangkok (Kaewhtep 1999). Beginning with a small staff of six
in 1996, the Focus team expanded rapidly; in 1999, it already had close to
1. To strengthen the capacity of organizations of poor and marginalized twenty staff and about twenty-five by 2005. It has also opened two national
people in the South and those working on their behalf to better analyze and offices, one in India and one in the Philippines.
understand the impact of the globalization process on their daily life and
struggles; Within a few years, Focus became a key reference for civil society
organizations not only in Southeast Asia but also within the broader anti-
2. To improve critical and provocative analysis of regional and global globalization movement. Two types of factors can explain such success story.
socioeconomic trends and articulate democratic, poverty-reducing, equitable, The first is endogenous and has to do with Focus's capacities "to build
and sustainable alternative that advance the interest of the poor and networks and strengthen linkages between and among civil society
marginalized peoples around the world, but especially in the Asia Pacific organizations at the global, national and local level" (Sta. Ana 1999, 6).
region; and Through the years, Focus staff have been involved not only in the production
3. To articulate, link, and develop greater coherence between local of research and policy analysis but also in organizing civil society networks
community-based and national, regional, and global paradigm of change. within the region around a range of issues such as food security, APEC,
(Focus ca. 1997) ASEAN, and Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM). They were also closely involved
in many global processes, such as the World Social Forum, anti-WTO
Early on, Focus sought to combine analyses on the workings and the impact coalitions such as Our World Is Not for Sale, and the peace movement."¹
of regional and global economic processes with studies of local resistance Lastly, with Malhotra taking a leave of absence in the late 1990s to join the
and initiatives. Its two main programs-policy-oriented research and analysis UNDP, much of Focus's clout revolves around the persona of Bello, its
on critical regional and global socioeconomic issues (Global Paradigms current director. Similar to TWN with Khor, Bello's imprimatur is highly
Program), and documentation, analysis, and dissemination of "innovative civil significant despite a growing team of prolific and dedicated staff.
society, grassroots, community- based efforts in democratic, poverty-
reducing, and sustainable development" (Micro-Macro Paradigm Program)- The second type of factors is exogenous. One was the Asian financial crisis
reflected such orientation (Kaewhtep 1999, 46). that began in Thailand in 1997 before spreading to the region. Another was
the growing importance of global economic processes and regional and
multilateral organizations. These developments made Focus's analyses and
staff highly in demand. As one of the external evaluators noted: "The Asian
Thailand's relative political stability and democratic space, and the possibility
financial crisis and the role of the international financial institutions have
of being associated with the Chulalongkorn University Social Research
undoubtedly become the burning issues of the day. The controversies
revolving around WTO and APEC, in different periods, have likewise
occupied center stage" (Sta. Ana 1999, 24). The Asian crisis virtually
catapulted Focus to the center of critical discourse on the impact of economic
liberalization in Southeast Asia. However, the growing demand by civil society
organizations for analyses on multilateral processes and organizations such
as APEC, WTO, and ASEM meant that other research areas did not develop
as much, including its proposed research programs on the cultural responses
to globalization and the micro-macro connections.

In recent years, Focus's key areas of research and advocacy are the issue of
peace and the opposition to US foreign policy. In the wake of the US-led
invasion of Iraq, Focus played a central role in convening a peace conference
in Jakarta, which brought together representatives and organizations from the
larger peace movement that had emerged prior to the invasion. The
conference resulted in the creation of the Jakarta Peace Consensus. As it did
for the Asian crisis and the anti- WTO movement, Focus's capacities and
skills for networking as well as its capability to produce analyses and policy
documents placed the organization at the center of several transnational
coalitions on the