THE "Asian Flu" which began in Bangkok in July 1997 was initially considered a "mere" currency crisis which existed in Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and South Korea. After one year, it spread quickly to other parts of the region and the world. The "flu" has reached epidemic proportions prompting US President Bill Clinton to describe it as "the worst threat to the global economy in 50 years." This was confirmed, although grudgingly and to a lesser degree, by the World Trade Organisation (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank (WB), and their regional groupings, like the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC).

By such admission, a global recession is inevitable. We can expect the general slowdown of economies, sharp currency devaluation’s, higher inflation (and possibly deflation or stagflation), acute unemployment and underemployment, grinding poverty, heightened social ills and even unrest.

Apologists for neo-liberal globalisation (NLG) – led by the WTO, IMF, WB, and TNCs – blamed Asia’s alleged "lack of transparency" and "poor economic fundamentals" for the crisis. Their local counterparts among the Asian governments have accused unscrupulous currency speculators. This line of argument virtually exonerates NLG’s inherent and primary role in the crisis. For example, economic liberalisation, structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) and high interest rates which are being imposed on "developing" countries.

Buried in the avalanche of data and forecasts on the crisis are its real victims. Workers, peasants, women, and youth who even before the crisis were deprived of both economic and political power. More than 70% of the world’s 1.5 billion "poorest of the poor" are living in Asia. They will further suffer in the succeeding "economic recovery programmes". The polices of NLG regards the masses as "expendables" and their organisations as "obstructions to development."

Here lies the challenge for IFWEA’s 20 affiliates in the Asia-Pacific. They are working with and advocating for the "faceless" casualties of NLG and the Asian crisis.

IFWEA’s tasks, made more difficult by the present "crisis," may appear as Herculean and diverse. The Association must consider the variety of cultures, traditions, organisational experiences and distinct sectoral and national traits among the IFWEA Asia-Pacific members.

The calls made during the IFWEA Belfast Conference are more than ever relevant today. IFWEA members must vigorously develop, and formally integrate into their education programmes, study modules which discuss and offer alternatives to NLG.

Paraphrasing an overused cliché, there is indeed a unifying factor in the membership’s diversity, ensuring strength in their unity. Even the broad line of work and assigned sectors of each member organisation is an advantage after all. Our regular and potential "clients" include trade unionists, rural and urban dwellers, women, youth, professionals and academics who are either current or future leaders in their respective organisations or communities. Our primary education work will hopefully strengthen our own NGOs.

We must also earnestly develop regional networking efforts and co-operation. For example, regular regional meetings, visits, education activities, communications (letters, e-mails or through the Internet, sending of newsletters and other publications), campaigns and other joint undertakings.