1. The 11th Meeting of the Foreign Ministers of ASEAN and the People’s Republic of China, Japan and the Republic of Korea was held in Ha Noi on 21 July 2010. The Meeting was chaired by H.E. Dr. Pham Gia Khiem, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam.
2. The Ministers noted with pleasure the significant progress achieved so far in ASEAN Plus Three cooperation and in the implementation of the 2nd Joint Statement on East Asia Cooperation and the ASEAN Plus Three Cooperation Work Plan (2007-2017). They stressed the need for further strengthening policy coordination and sustaining economic growth in the region.
3. The Ministers noted with appreciation the ASEAN Leaders’ Statement on Sustained Recovery and Development issued at the 16th ASEAN Summit in Hanoi on 9 April 2010, ASEAN’s initiative to develop a Master Plan on ASEAN connectivity, and ASEAN’s continuous effort to explore effective financing instruments and policies, including a possible ASEAN Infrastructure Development Fund, which would contribute to developing East Asia into a region of enhanced connectivity and dynamic growth.
4. The Ministers noted with satisfaction recent developments in the ASEAN Plus Three financial cooperation. They welcomed the realisation of the Chiang Mai Initiative Multilateralisation (CMIM) on 24 March 2010 and noted the on-going preparation for the ASEAN Plus Three Macroeconomic Research Office (AMRO). They also welcomed the agreement of the 13th ASEAN Plus Three Finance Ministers’ Meeting on 2 May 2010 to endorse the establishment of ASEAN Plus Three Bond Market Forum (ABMF) and the Credit Guarantee and Investment Facility (CGIF) and hoped for the CGIF’s operationalisation before the end of 2010.
5. The Ministers welcomed the contribution of US$ 3 million by the ASEAN Plus Three countries in the ASEAN Plus Three Cooperation Fund (APTCF) and looked forward to the increasing number of projects to be proposed by the ASEAN Plus Three countries for funding by the APTCF.
6. The Ministers recognised the rapidly expanding ASEAN Plus Three economic cooperation activities, particularly the realisation of the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement (ATIGA) on 17 May 2010, the establishment of ASEAN-China Free Trade Area on 1 January 2010 and other efforts to liberalize trade among ASEAN Plus Three countries, including studies on the East Asia Free Trade Area (EAFTA) and the Comprehensive Economic Partnership for East Asia (CEPEA).
7. The Ministers were pleased at the achievements recorded in ASEAN Plus Three cooperation on other areas, particularly labour, culture and arts, tourism. They noted that two new areas, namely, information and education, have been added to ASEAN Plus Three cooperation. They welcomed the Inaugural Meeting of the ASEAN Plus Three Ministers Responsible for Information (AMRI+3) on 6 November 2009 in Vientiane, Lao PDR which explored ways and discussed mechanisms of ASEAN Plus Three cooperation in information .
8. They also appreciated Thailand’s efforts to initiate the ASEAN Plus Three cooperation on education and looked forward to the convening of the 1st ASEAN Plus Three Senior Officials’ Meeting on Education (SOM-ED+3) in November 2010 in Thailand to consider a draft ASEAN Plus Three Plan of Action on Education.
9. The Ministers reaffirmed the importance of ensuring food and energy security in the region. In this regard, they welcomed the efforts to create the ASEAN Plus Three Emergency Rice Reserve (APTERR) as a permanent mechanism to ensure food security in the region and the intention to develop a comprehensive strategy on sustainable and integrated food and bio-fuels production and consumption.
10. The Ministers expressed their commitment to work closely together towards a positive outcome at COP-16/CMP-6 to be held in Mexico in December 2010. In this regard, they welcomed the ASEAN Leaders’ Statement on Joint Response to Climate Change on 9 April 2010 as well as Viet Nam’s initiative to convene an East Asia Forum on Climate Change. They encouraged enhanced regional and sub-regional cooperation including in the Greater Mekong Sub-region and the Mekong River Commission (MRC).
11. The Ministers reaffirmed the need to strengthen cooperation in addressing threats of disease outbreaks and were satisfied with the successful completion of the ASEAN Plus Three Emerging Infectious Diseases (EID) Programme Phase II and looked forward to the commencement of the next phase of cooperation with active participation of ASEAN Plus Three countries. The Ministers welcomed ASEAN’s efforts to develop an ASEAN Roadmap on Control of Avian Influenza to ensure the attainment of HPAI (Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza)-free ASEAN by 2020.
12. The Ministers noted new proposals for cooperation in the ASEAN Plus Three framework which, among others, includes cooperation in food safety and standards, water management, deforestation prevention and reforestation, disaster management, including the “ASEAN Plus Three International Conference on Disaster Management” to be held in August 2010 in Tokyo.
13. The Ministers reaffirmed that the ASEAN Plus Three process would continue as one of the main vehicles towards the long-term goal of building an East Asian community with ASEAN as the driving force. At the same time, the Ministers reaffirmed their support for ASEAN centrality in the evolving regional architecture and recognised the mutually reinforcing and complementary roles of the ASEAN Plus Three process and such regional fora as EAS, ARF and APEC to promote East Asian community building.
14. On regional and international issues of common concern, the Ministers noted that despite downside risks to the global recovery from an unprecedented international financial crisis, the East Asian economies are among the first to rebound soundly, and have become one of the key drivers of the global economic recovery. They reiterated the commitment to accelerating and deepening economic structural reforms, promoting domestic demand and employment, resisting protectionism and further promoting trade and investment for the recovery and long-term prosperity of the world economy.
15. The Ministers recognised the importance of issues discussed in the G-20 process in pursuit of strong, sustainable and balanced growth. In this regard, they welcomed the chairmanship of the Republic of Korea in the G-20 Summit in Seoul this November and reiterated their support for the ASEAN Chairman to participate at the forthcoming Seoul G-20 Summit and for the continued participation of the ASEAN Chairman in the future G-20 Summits on regular basis.
16. The Ministers deplored the sinking of the Cheonan ship of the Republic of Korea on 26 March 2010, resulting in the tragic loss of lives. They extended their deep sympathy and condolences to the people and Government of the ROK and welcomed the restraint shown by the ROK. In this connection, they expressed support for the 9 July 2010 United Nations Security Council Presidential Statement, which included the Council’s condemnation of the attack which led to the sinking of the Cheonan ship.
17. The Ministers stressed the importance of maintaining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in the region, and called on the concerned parties to resolve all disputes by peaceful means. They reaffirmed their support for the complete and verifiable denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula and encouraged the parties to return to the Six Party Talks in due course. They stressed the need to fully implement the relevant resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. They also emphasised the importance of addressing the issue of humanitarian concerns of the international community.
18. The Ministers looked forward to their next meeting in Indonesia in 2011.
Chairman’s Statement of the 11th ASEAN Plus Three Foreign Ministers’ Meeting
Post Ministerial Conferences between ASEAN and Dialogue Partners (PMCs+1)
ASEAN today hold a series of Post Ministerial Conferences in Ha Noi with 10 Dialogue Partners, namely China, Japan, Republic of Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, EU, the US and Canada. These meetings serve as crucial preparatory steps for the upcoming Related Summits between ASEAN and its Dialogue Partners in the second half of the year. As usual practice, at these Meetings, the ASEAN Foreign Ministers and their counterparts reviewed relationships in the past year and set forth ways and means to promote future cooperation. The main Agendas of these Meetings include:
1. Strengthening effective, substantive and comprehensive cooperation between ASEAN and its Dialogue Partners: from assistance to ASEAN in realising its community-building goal and promoting connectivity to addressing the emerging challenges such as climate change, natural disasters, epidemics, maritime security… At these Meetings, ASEAN adopted Plans of Action in the new period with some Dialogue Partners namely India, Canada and New Zealand.
2. Preparing for the important Related Summits which shall be held at the end of the year, including the annual Summits between ASEAN and China, Japan, the Republic of Korea and India as well as those special Summits with Russia, the US, the United Nations, Australia and New Zealand. The Ministers agreed in principle on the agenda, priorities and documents for these Summits.
3. Exchanging views on strengthening regional cooperation, including the possibility of wider participation and deeper engagement of Dialogue Partners in the process of shaping the regional architecture. The Dialogue Partners reaffirmed their support for ASEAN’s central role in the region and shared ASEAN’s common vision of a future regional architecture that will be multi-level, mutually-supportive, and being built upon existing mechanisms.
ASEAN welcomed Russia and the U.S’s expressed interest in engaging deeper with the evolving regional architecture, including the participation in the EAS as members, with appropriate arrangement and timing.
Following are the salient features of these Meetings:
At the ASEAN Post Ministerial Conference with China
The Meeting was chaired by H.E Dr. Pham Gia Khiem, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Viet Nam, as Country Coordinator of the ASEAN-China Dialogue Relations. On future direction for cooperation, ASEAN and China agreed to: i) hasten the drafting of a new Plan of Action to Implement the Joint Declaration on ASEAN-China Strategic Partnership for Peace and Prosperity for the period of 2011-2015 to be submitted to the 13th ASEAN-China Summit for adoption.; ii) realize the initiatives for ASEAN-China cooperation, including infrastructure, energy, ICT... as well as the use of China-assisted funds namely the China-ASEAN Investment Cooperation Fund worth US$ 10 billion and the Credit Fund for Commercial Exchange of US$ 15 billion; iii) enhancing cooperation for peace, stability and prosperity in the region, including cooperation within the framework of ASEAN+3, EAS, ARF and in implementing the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC); iv) recommend the commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the ASEAN-China Dialogue Relations throughout the year of 2011.
At the ASEAN Post Ministerial Conference with Russia
The Ministers welcomed good progress in implementing the ASEAN - Russia Comprehensive Program of Action to Promote Cooperation for 2005-2015; discussed preparations for the 2nd ASEAN-Russia Summit hat will be held later in the year, including recommendation for a draft Statement, convening of the Russia-ASEAN Business Forum; the ASEAN-Russia Cultural Cooperation Agreement; discussed and agreed on specific activities in preparations for the Commemoration of the 15th Anniversary of ASEAN-Russia Dialogue Relations, including the holding of Days of Russian Culture in ASEAN Member Countries.
At the ASEAN Post Ministerial Conference with the United States of America
To further implement the decisions of the 1st ASEAN-US Leaders’ Meeting in 2009 and prepare for the 2nd ASEAN-US Leaders’ Meeting in 2010, the two sides agreed to finalise a Plan of Action to Implement the ASEAN-US Partnership for the new period of 2011-2015; strengthening cooperation in areas of mutual interest, particularly economic, trade and investment cooperation, science and technology, education as well as in addressing emerging challenges like epidemics, energy security, disaster management, climate change… ASEAN welcomed the establishment of a US Mission to ASEAN in Jakarta. ASEAN and the US agreed to work closely toward the convening of the 2nd ASEAN-US Leaders’ Meeting to be held later in the year.
At the ASEAN Post Ministerial Conference with Japan
ASEAN welcomed Japan’s proposal to further promote the cooperation between ASEAN and Japan toward economic growth through enhancing ASEAN connectivity within the framework of “ASEAN-Japan Partnership for New Growth in Asia”. Japan reaffirmed its continued support to ASEAN Community building efforts, including narrowing development gap through contribution to the ASEAN-Japan Integration Fund; and offered to provide 800 million Yen assisting the implementation of the Master plan on ASEAN Connectivity. ASEAN and Japan committed for the early entry into force and effective implementation of the ASEAN-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership (AJCEP).
At the ASEAN Post Ministerial Meeting with Republic of Korea(ROK)
ASEAN and the ROK agreed to work closely for the effective implementation of ASEAN-ROK FTA agreement with a view to increasing two-way trade volume to US$ 150 billion by 2015. The Ministers agreed to submit the proposal to elevate the ASEAN-ROK Dialogue Relations to Strategic Partnership, and a draft Joint Declaration on ASEAN-ROK Strategic Partnership to the Leaders at the forthcoming ASEAN-ROK Summit in Ha Noi later this year.
ASEAN expressed its appreciation to the ROK for inviting Viet Nam, as the Chair of ASEAN, to attend the G-20 Summit in Seoul this November. On this occasion, ASEAN extended deep sympathy and condolences to the Government and people of the ROK for the loss of lives resulting from the sinking of the Cheonan ship; called on all parties concerned to exercise utmost self-restraint and resolve all differences by peaceful means.
At the ASEAN Post Ministerial Conference with India
The two sides adopted the Plan of Action to implement the ASEAN-India Partnership for Peace, Progress and Prosperity for 2010-2015; agreed to strengthen cooperation in trade-economics, science and technology, ICT, environment as well as in response to challenges like terrorism, trans national crimes. The Ministers tasked their officials to initiate projects to be sponsored under the ASEAN-India Green Fund and the ASEAN-India Science and Technology Development Fund. The two sides discussed preparations for the 20th Anniversary of the ASEAN-India Dialogue Relationship in 2012.
ASEAN Post Ministerial Conference with Australia
The two sides emphasized on the significance and importance of effectively implementing the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand FTA (AANZFTA) which entered into force early this year; agreed to accelerate the implementation of the Plan of Action to realise the ASEAN-Australia Enhanced Partnership with focus on areas of education, trade and investment, transport, sustainable use of resources, disaster management, culture, people-to-people exchange etc. ASEAN and Australia agreed to convene an ASEAN-Australia Summit on the sideline of the 17th ASEAN Summit in the second half of 2010 to give strong impetus to the Dialogue relations.
ASEAN Post Ministerial Conference with New Zealand
The Ministers adopted the ASEAN-New Zealand Joint Declaration on Enhanced Partnership for 2010-2015; focusing on cooperation in education, culture and people-to-people exchange. ASEAN welcomed New Zealand’s new proposals for cooperation, including a $ 54 million support for ASEAN students to be trained in New Zealand in the next 3 years. The two sides appreciated the significance and importance of effectively carrying out the AANZFTA which entered into force at the begining of this year. ASEAN and New Zealand agreed to convene the ASEAN-New Zealand Commemorative Summit back-to-back with the 17th ASEAN Summit in Ha Noi.
ASEAN Post Ministerial Conference with Canada
The Ministers adopted the Plan of Action to implement the Declaration on ASEAN-Canada Enhanced Partnership for 2011-2015; agreed to work toward an ASEAN-Canada Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) to enhance trade and investment relations. ASEAN welcomed Canada’s signing of the Instrument of Accession to the TAC, which marks another significant progress in the Dialogue relationship, as well as Canada’s commitment to peace, stability and cooperation in the region.
At the ASEAN Post Ministerial Conference with the EU
ASEAN and the EU agreed to promote the implementation of programmes and activities to realise the ASEAN-EU Enhanced Partnership; especially boosting region-to-region economic cooperation.
ASEAN appreciated EU’s determination to accede to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia and informed the EU of the signing of the 3rd Protocol amending the TAC to be held on 23 July which would pave the way for the EU’s accession to the TAC at an early stage.
Is China failing SE Asia’s test?
With all the bombast surrounding the 60th anniversary of China-Indonesia relations in the last few months, many seem unaware of recent developments in the South China Sea. In the last fortnight, details have emerged regarding the Chinese Navy’s growing assertiveness and naval projection capability in the region.
According to a recent report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a flotilla of six ships from the North Sea Fleet sailed on March 18 on a “long-distance training exercise” in the vicinity of the Fiery Cross Reef in the Spratly Islands — and reportedly near the Malacca Strait as well.
In mid-April, the Japanese media reported a second taskforce of at least 10 ships from the East Sea fleet (including destroyers and frigates) sailed through the Miyako strait, stopped east of Taiwan,
and conducted anti-submarine warfare exercises.
The group apparently stopped when Vietnamese fishermen surrounding Chinese fishing patrols in the South China Sea — which they might have been sent to rescue — withdrew from the area.
The North Sea Fleet Commander was quoted saying that “China needed to protect its maritime territorial integrity through long-distance naval projection.”
These developments signify China’s growing naval capability — and its intention of possibly using them in territorial disputes. After all, studies have shown that while Chinese leaders clearly view China as a defensive power, Beijing has been willing to use “calibrated force” in the past, especially when it comes to territorial disputes.
It should be noted however, China resolved most of its border issues peacefully (17 out of 23 disputes since 1949) — which Chinese leaders believe is necessary in order to focus on economic development and to show the world that they could be a responsible world leader.
Although, given the current complexities surrounding China’s defense policy-making, it remains difficult to fully assess under what conditions would China today use force to defend what it sees as its “undisputed sovereignty”.
The March and April training exercise also demonstrate the Navy’s ability to organize and conduct distant operations with multiple platforms and the growing integrative capabilities of its three fleets.
This allowed the Navy for the first time to move beyond the “First Island Chain” (a term used to describe the line formed by the Aleutians, the Kuriles, Japan, the Ryukyus, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Borneo) — which will have huge strategic ramifications for the regional balance of power in the coming years.
Regional expert Michael Auslin argued that this is part of China’s new “far sea defense” strategy — a departure from its traditional “Offshore Defense” — that may signal its intention to play “an expanded role in the region”.
China’s decision in December 2008 to join the international anti-piracy operation in the Gulf of Aden, its Navy’s continued expansion, and the 2009 USS Impeccable incident, seem to add further weight to this argument.
It would be difficult therefore for Southeast Asian countries to positively welcome China’s growing naval assertiveness. Especially with the ASEAN-China Free Trade Area already causing domestic discontents within some member states.
Thus, while the growing economic interdependence between ASEAN and China has been a positive force in dissuading regional fears — which Beijing’s diplomatic “charm offensive” also helped facilitate — the ultimate litmus test of China-Southeast Asia’s mature relations lies in the South China Sea.
This decades-old dispute (involving Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei, Taiwan, and China) is critical not just over sovereignty, but it also entangles marine and energy resources with the geo-strategic significance of the waterways controlling the Sea Lanes of Communication between the Pacific and Indian oceans.
For Indonesia, the waters surrounding the Natuna islands are also at stake here.
Given these interests, it would be counter-productive for any disputant country to use, or threaten to use, military force to resolve the dispute.
However, as the 2002 ASEAN-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea was not legally binding, and existing mechanisms of dialogue avoid “tough questions”, the strategic trust between Southeast Asia and China is resting on shaky grounds.
For one thing, China’s rapid naval modernization, its aggressive and seemingly insatiable drive for energy sources, and its seemingly tough stance when it comes territorial disputes, makes it harder to dissuade regional fears in the long run.
For another, the political and economic gap within Southeast Asia, and the differing strategic interests of its key member states in handling China, has made it hard for ASEAN to present a unified front in assisting its member states to deal with the South China Sea dispute.
More importantly however, Southeast Asian countries need to understand China’s fear that compromising on the South China Sea may send the wrong signal to Taiwan and Tibet, while its growing energy demands and huge dependence on the Malacca Strait necessitates the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to consider military options to secure them.
China on the other hand also needs to understand why using military force in any fashion cannot
be peacefully understood by Southeast Asia.
And why diplomatic and economic “charm offensive” alone will not suffice to sustain long-term strategic trust in a growing region where nationalism and sovereignty remains a political trump card.
This of course is easier said than done. But avoiding the tough questions simply means postponing the inevitable.
The writer is a researcher with the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Jakarta, and currently an ASC fellow at the Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies in Honolulu.
ASEAN presence a prerequisite in any future Asia Pacific community
Lilian Budianto, The Jakarta Post | Sat, 05/01/2010 10:45 AM | Discourse
Question: What led to the decision to welcome Russia and the US into the EAS?
Answer: It is an undoubted fact that the geopolitical trend today and for the immediate future rests on the increasing prominence of Asia, East Asia, and Asia Pacific in general. Whatever we do in our region, in terms of its regional architecture, geopolitical underpinning and structure, will have not only regional but also global implications.
To put things in the global context, our national perspective is to ensure what we call dynamic equilibrium in the Asia Pacific region. Dynamic equilibrium marked by the absence of domination of any single power; dynamic equilibrium where countries can engage with one another in a mutually beneficial and peaceful way. Given this kind of background and geopolitical concerns, we have become recently aware of ideas such as the Asia Pacific Community and the East Asia Community as suggested by some countries. We are looking at where we are now and how we should proceed. Inaction is not an option.
We are aware that we have to think this through. In the first months of my tenure I am very much in the listening mode. I want to know what are the latest ideas and thoughts. Having listened to the Australian and Japanese ideas, we come to several conclusions. One, we must continue with the ASEAN community building track. We must not be diverted away from the ASEAN community track because any future Asia Pacific community must have as a constituent element the ASEAN community. It’s a prerequisite. So, first and foremost we must continue to integrate ourselves into ASEAN community building efforts by 2015.
However, you can walk and whistle at the same time. So, when I said we must concentrate and put emphasis on ASEAN community building, it does not mean that everything else must be put on hold.
Where there are gaps, where there is room for improvement, then we must have the courage to improve and to undertake that. This is where the East Asia Summit comes in, especially vis a vis how best to engage or find the right modalities for the deepening of US and Russia engagement in the region. This is still the ongoing discussion. We have yet to find the right modality, whether via the East Asia Summit or other.
Does ASEAN look to have both Russia and the US joining at one time or it can come in sequence?
Russia has been knocking on the door for some time. They are there and want to join the EAS. We have formally stated that we welcome Russia’s participation in the summit, which is an evolution in our position. At the same time we would also welcome, the US in the EAS, if they wish to join. But we have yet to hear formally from them. Now in terms of the sequence, as to which comes before, that is something we can think through further. Ideally, it would be nice to think that they can do things in tandem or in concert in terms of procedures.
Why not just do it in one go. But there is also the geopolitical context as well, that it would be ideal if both these relatively large countries proceeded in concert.
But these are all still possibilities. It is not Indonesia’s business to suggest anything to these countries because we are yet to fully ascertain what is the preferred modality.
Do all ASEAN member states already agree in principle to include Russia and the US?
This is still being discussed. The leaders in their summit in Hanoi have tasked foreign ministers to consider fully.
the whole subject of regional architecture. I think, to be honest, this will be forever a work-in-progress. There won’t be one day when we can say that it is all done. This is something fluid and dynamic, constantly evolving. There won’t be a moment in time when we say we are not perfect right now and after the two countries join us, this is it. No, we are constantly evolving in a dynamic and fluid situation. Indonesia revels in this kind of dynamic. We are not worried.
We find this dynamic equilibrium is the type of diplomacy that will make progress. We need to be alert to the evolving situation.
I don’t want to reduce it to the whole issue of expansion per se. It is more than simply an expansion. The fact is we have the ministerial meeting in Hanoi this July and then we have the summit this October and so there will be at least those opportunities to see whether progress can be made.
Indonesia will be chairing ASEAN in 2011 and this is a good opportunity along the line for us to be part of the effort to help shape our regional architecture. For us, sooner is better than later. No need to postpone things that can be done. But at the same time, we are very much aware that this is about comfort levels, we must proceed as they said in ASEAN language: at the best comfortable rate for all.
Source: The Jakarta Post
Challenges of shaping a regional architecture
Hadi Soesastro, Jakarta | Sat, 04/17/2010 12:20 PM
In the economic realm, East Asia may well continue to be a status quo power in the sense that it is not seeking to introduce a radically new economic order although it may want to see adjustments being made here and there.
In popular parlance there is talk of revisions to the Washington Consensus, and indeed greater caution about global capital flows is currently a legitimate policy issue in the corridors of the International Monetary Fund, but there is no serious talk about replacing it with a Beijing Consensus.
East Asian economic cooperation is about strengthening the economic fundamentals of rapidly growing and rapidly transforming East Asian economies and how to maintain their open economic policies.
East Asian economic cooperation is about strengthening the economic fundamentals of rapidly growing and rapidly transforming East Asian economies and how to maintain their open economic policies.
In the region's current agenda there are the issues of more balanced, inclusive (including socially resilient), and sustainable (including green) growth. This agenda has been set to also adjust the region's development to current and future global challenges.
Here, the region developed a mechanism, known as ASEAN Plus Three (APT), that can address these issues and develop cooperation programs to strengthen its capacity to undertake this big task.
The APT should be seen as the region's premier economic institution for cooperation. In some areas of cooperation it may make sense to selectively invite non APT countries to take part.
Some other areas of cooperation are better suited to be pursued in the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) process. But the APEC process has its own strategic underpinning, namely by ensuring continued US economic engagement with the region that in turn could help prevent volatile changes in US policies toward the region.
Unlike the APT, APEC does not deal directly with political and security issues. The US has also been invited to participate in a regional, multilateral process to enhance regional security, the ARF, also with a similar objective in mind. Unlike the APT and APEC, the ARF does not directly engage the political leaders in a summit process.
The EAS, which does not involve the United States, but has been broadened to include Australia, India, and New Zealand, besides the APT members, has been established as a "leaders-led" dialogue forum on issues of strategic interest to the region.
This "ASEAN plus six" process has yet to define what it is and to clearly differentiate itself from the APT. There is a tendency to duplicate APT's program but with the involvement of more participants. This will cause of major overstretch of regional activities in many regional countries.
In the politico-strategic realm, the region should have an interest in shaping a regional order as well as influence the behavior and interaction of global powers.
One basic premise is that while the US appears to be the only remaining superpower she cannot be allowed to go it alone.
The US is a Pacific power and it has a great stake in Asia, and therefore, it should be encouraged to participate effectively in a regional structure. The EAS, with some adjustments, could be the vehicle for this kind of engagement.
US-China relations will become the most important relationship affecting the region and the world as a whole. While the two countries may be attracted to manage this relationship under a G2 framework, the stability of the relationship can be better ensured if the two powers would make use of a regional, multilateral arrangement that is embedded within an environment of confidence and community building.
To conclude, I sensed that a kind of consensus on the architecture of regional arrangements is emerging. It has the following four elements:
1. The ASEAN Plus Three should be the anchor for regional cooperation and community building. Its focus should be on the strengthening of functional cooperation in key economic and social areas.
Institutional strengthening should evolve in line with the deepening of the cooperation. In some areas of cooperation, APT programs can selectively invite non-APT participants.
2. The East Asia Summit (EAS) should be developed into an effective dialogue forum of leaders on issues of strategic importance to the region.
Concrete proposals for cooperation could be proposed to be taken up by existing processes such as the APT, the ARF, or even APEC.
It appears to be essential to bring in the US into this forum, and this process already started with the decision of the ASEAN Summit in Hanoi a few days ago to invite both the US and Russia.
3. If ASEAN is to continue to play as a key driver of the wider regional cooperation processes, ASEAN must realize the ASEAN Community through vigorous implementation of the plans. Otherwise, it would rapidly lose its credibility.
4. APEC remains relevant in promoting trans-Pacific relations, especially in the economic field. It serves to ensure US continued economic engagement in the region and in turn may prevent volatile changes in US policies that will be detrimental to the region.
The writer is a senior fellow at the, Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Jakarta.
clipping from The Jakarta Post
EAS expansion a ‘response to new regional architecture’
After long disagreement over admitting new members, ASEAN leaders wrapped up their summit two weeks ago in Vietnam expressing encouragement for “Russia and the US to extend their involvement” in the regional forum.
The statement comes on the heels of Indonesia and Singapore’s announcement to endorse the US and Russia bid to join in the East Asia Summit (EAS), which brings together the 10 ASEAN member states and China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand.
Singapore has coined the potential formation ASEAN+8. Until recently, both Singapore and Indonesia had resisted moves to admit new members.
In a briefing of the ASEAN Summit outcomes on Friday, ASEAN Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan said the endorsement to admit new members into the EAS was a response to the new initiatives of regional architecture proposed by the group’s members. “Earlier there was a sense of uncertainty of ASEAN’s centrality... That it was being challenged,” Surin told diplomats and reporters at the ASEAN Secretariat.
“But the leaders turned the coin around and looked at what existing ASEAN-led architecture — whether it is ASEAN Regional Forum, ASEAN Plus Three, East Asian Summit or ASEAN Plus One — required enlargement and improvement. This would respond to the notion that East Asia needs something more comprehensive: a more equipped and more overarching architecture.”
Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has wooed ASEAN support for his initiative of the East Asian Community and Australian PM Kevin Rudd for his idea of an Asia Pacific Union.
“Rather than looking at new architectures being proposed across the horizon as a challenge, ASEAN leaders turned around and looked at them as an opportunity for ASEAN and East Asia to look into ourselves. [ASEAN leaders] want an answer to the question from those proposing the new architecture: can ASEAN play the central role and pull the global community out of the global crisis?” Surin said.
When The Jakarta Post asked Surin what he preferred to call the new EAS, Surin said: “There are nuances in the names as it would reflect the number, the weight and the size, but we will leave it to the ministers and senior official meetings”.
Responding to the idea of new members in the EAS, Japan has said it expected ASEAN to focus first on the existing group that consisted of only 16 members China has said it welcomed the expansion but that integration should remain focused on ASEAN, China, Japan and South Korea (ASEAN Plus Three). South Korea, India and New Zealand said they did not have any position at the moment while Australia has not officially commented on the issue.
==================================
Letter to the editor (Thursday, 22nd April 2010)
Clarification from Permanent Representative of the Republic of Singapore to ASEAN
Your article “ASEAN FM Working on Expansion of East Asia Summit: Surin”, “EAS Expansion a Response to new Regional Architecture”, and “Pacific Countries could boost EAS’ Profile: Expert” dates April 16, April 19 and April 20, 2010 respectively, imply that there has been agreement within ASEAN to expand the membership of the East Asia Summit (EAS).
This is not accurate. At the 16th ASEAN Summit in Hanoi, the leaders discussed the feasibility of engaging the US and Russia in the region through either expanding the EAS, or creating a separate ASEAN+8 Summit.
In contrast to the EAS, the ASEAN+8 Summit would meet regularly every few years taking advantage of the presence of the US and Russian presidents when they come to the region for the APEC Economic Leaders Meeting (AELM).
However, the leaders did not make a decision on whether to expand the EAS or to create a separate ASEAN+8 Summit. Instead, ASEAN leaders have tasked the ASEAN Foreign Ministers to study this issue in more detail and to come up with a recommendation.
Thuan Kuan Lim
Permanent Representative of the Republic of Singapore to ASEAN
Jakarta
Indonesia endorses expansion of EAS
Lilian Budianto , The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Wed, 03/24/2010 9:29 AM | Headlines
Jakarta has endorsed the expansion of the East Asia Summit (EAS) by welcoming membership for the US and Russia in the 16-strong regional forum.
The move marks a shift in Indonesia’s EAS policy, previously geared away from admitting new members.
Officials previously said expanding the forum to include the two would risk turning the EAS into “a mini UN”, and diverting the focus of the regional grouping established under ASEAN leadership.
Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa announced the shift in policy on the sidelines of a press conference last Friday, saying Indonesia was anticipating EAS expansion because of “the merits of having more powers as members”.
The EAS comprises the 10 ASEAN member states and China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand.
Its main focus is to seek political stability amid the power play between the three regional powers: Japan, China and South Korea.
“We think the EAS can be further improved by having more members, which can make a difference within the organization,” Marty said.
“Indonesia’s strategic interest is to see the region free from domination by a single power; this doesn’t imply a policy of containment.”
Russia has since 2004 expressed interest in joining the EAS.
In 2005, during the inauguration of the forum, its closest approach to date was reportedly thwarted by US lobbying of ASEAN member states.
Indonesia and Singapore were said to be behind US efforts to stymie Moscow’s ambitions.
For its part, the US’ intention to join the EAS was touched on in a speech by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton earlier this year in Hawaii.
Analysts say the US is re-engaging in the Asian political arena in a bid to counterbalance China’s growing influence in most ASEAN countries.
Jakarta’s new policy stance comes just as an array of regional partnerships are being proposed to seek Indonesia and ASEAN’s endorsement.
The US, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Chile, Brunei, Peru and Vietnam began negotiations earlier this year for a new Trans-Pacific Partnership, ultimately seeking an Asia-Pacific free trade zone.
Australia has also separately wooed support for its Asia Pacific Union, and Japan is touting its East Asia Community concept.
Russian Ambassador to Indonesia Alexander Ivanov said Moscow welcomed the remark by Marty that it could become an EAS member in the near future.
“Russia and ASEAN have substantial relations,” he said.
“We have been a dialogue partner since 1996 and will hold the second Russian—ASEAN Summit later this year in Hanoi.”
Rizal Sukma, the executive director at the Centre for Strategy and International Studies, however, warned of the risk of a bloated EAS.
“It’s not going to be effective if it has too many members with diverse interests,” he said.
Regional Architecture in Asia: US Principles and Priorities
by Hillary Rodham Clinton (US Secretary of State) speech delivered in Imin Center-Jefferson Hall, Honolulu, Hawaii, January 12, 2010
It is hard to even imagine how different the region we’re talking about today was back in 1959 when Lyndon Johnson proposed creating an institution where thinkers from East and West could come together. And during the five decades since the Center opened, no region has undergone a more dramatic transformation. This progress is the product of hard work and ingenuity multiplied across billions of individual lives. And it has been sustained by the engagement, security and assistance provided by the United States.
The East-West Center has been part of this sea change, helping to shape ideas and train experts, including one young woman who became a pioneer in microfinance and rural economic development and the mother of our President. And I thank all of you for bringing greater awareness and understanding to the economic, political, and security issues that dominate the region and the world today.
By now – almost a year into the new Administration – it should be clear that the Asia-Pacific relationship is a priority of the United States. President Obama spent his formative years here in Hawaii and in Indonesia. His world view reflects his appreciation of -- and respect for -- Asia and its people. I am deeply committed to strengthening our ties across the Pacific and throughout Asia. And I know the President is personally looking forward to Honolulu – his hometown – hosting the APEC leaders meeting in 2011. (Applause.) Now, I’ve been informed by the congressman, the governor, the mayor and others that the most difficult decision will be figuring out the aloha shirt that will be given to all of the leaders.
But for these reasons and more, we began last January to lay the foundation for a revitalized Asia-Pacific relationship. My first trip as Secretary of State was to Asia – in fact, this will be my fourth to the region in the last eleven months. President Obama participated in the APEC Summit in Singapore as well as visiting China, Japan, and South Korea; we supported the creation of a regular G-20 leaders summit with strong Asian participation reflecting the new global balance of financial and political power; we held the first ever U.S.-ASEAN summit; we signed the Guam International Agreement that helps sustain a strong U.S. military presence in the region; and we signed the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation. And it was no accident that the first state visit hosted by President and Mrs. Obama was for an Asian leader, Indian Prime Minister Singh.
So we are working to deepen our historic ties, build new partnerships, work with existing multilateral organizations to pursue shared interests, and reach beyond governments to engage directly with people in every corner of this vast region.
We start from a simple premise: America’s future is linked to the future of the Asia-Pacific region; and the future of this region depends on America. The United States has a strong interest in continuing its tradition of economic and strategic leadership, and Asia has a strong interest in the United States remaining a dynamic economic partner and a stabilizing military influence.
Economically, we are inextricably linked. American companies export $320 billion in goods and services to the Asia-Pacific countries every year, creating millions of good-paying jobs. Hundreds of thousands of our servicemen and women provide the region with security – a task that our military has shouldered for generations. As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has noted, the United States is not a visiting power in Asia, but a resident power.
And conversely, Asia is an important presence in the United States. More than 13 million Americans trace their ancestry to this part of the world. Asian countries that were destitute a generation ago now boast some of the highest living standards in the world. East Asia has already surpassed the Millennium Development Goal of reducing extreme poverty to half its 1990 levels by 2015.
Asia is also indispensable to meeting global security and humanitarian challenges. Asian nations are helping to prevent nuclear proliferation in Iran, build schools and clinics in Afghanistan, keep peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and combat piracy off the Horn of Africa.
Yet at the same time, Asia’s progress is not guaranteed. Asia is home not only to rising powers, but also to isolated regimes; not only to longstanding challenges, but also unprecedented threats. The dangers of nuclear proliferation, military competition, natural disasters, violent extremism, financial crises, climate change, and disease transcend national borders and pose a common risk.
And we must acknowledge that different countries in the Asia-Pacific region face their own different challenges. Some have made more progress politically than economically, and others the reverse. Some are consolidating reforms, others are struggling with ongoing or renewed instability. Regional cooperation must account for these diverse challenges and create more opportunities for broad-based prosperity and political progress.
A core strategic fact is that this region confronts these challenges and opportunities with a dynamic mix of influential actors, from rising powers like China and India, to traditional leaders like Japan, South Korea, and Australia, to the increasingly influential states of Southeast Asia, like Indonesia. And the United States not only continues to have dynamic and durable bilateral ties, but plays a central role in helping to deal with the difficulties that individual states and this region confront. This new landscape requires us to build an institutional architecture that maximizes our prospects for effective cooperation, builds trust, and reduces the friction of competition.
For years, Asian leaders have talked about strengthening regional cooperation, and Asia’s economic, political and security architecture is evolving. Regional institutions have already played a significant part in Asia’s evolution. Yet looking forward, we know that they can – and I would argue must – work better. That’s a common message I have heard from many of my conversations with Asian leaders and citizens during this past year. There is now the possibility for greater regional cooperation, and there is also a greater imperative.
Now, like any architecture of this building and anywhere else, regional architecture among and between nations requires a firm foundation. And today, I would like to outline the principles that will define America’s continued engagement and leadership in the region, and our approach to issues of multilateral cooperation. In formulating this approach we have consulted widely with our Asia-Pacific partners, and these are discussions that I look forward to continuing during my upcoming trip and the months ahead.
First, the United States' alliance relationships are the cornerstone of our regional involvement. The United States’ alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia, Thailand, and the Philippines are among the most successful bilateral partnerships in modern history. The security and stability provided through these relationships have been critical to the region’s success and development. Our shared values and strategic interests enabled generations to grow up and prosper in a region largely at peace, and they remain key to maintaining stability and security. Our commitment to our bilateral relationships is entirely consistent with – and will enhance – Asia’s multilateral groupings.
Beyond our treaty alliances, we are committed to strengthening relationships with other key players. We are pursuing a strategic dialogue with India, a strategic and economic dialogue with China, and a comprehensive partnership with Indonesia. We are working on strengthening our partnerships with newer partners like Vietnam and longstanding partners like Singapore. Strengthened multilateral cooperation should and must respect and build on our already proven bilateral partnerships.
Second, regional institutions and efforts should work to advance our clear and increasingly shared objectives. These include enhancing security and stability, expanding economic opportunity and growth, and fostering democracy and human rights.
To promote regional security, we must address nuclear proliferation, territorial disputes, and military competition – persistent threats of the 21st century.
To advance economic opportunity, we must focus on lowering trade and investment barriers, improving market transparency, and promoting more balanced, inclusive, and sustainable patterns of economic growth. Regional organizations such as APEC have already shown considerable progress in these areas. In addition, the United States is engaging in the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade negotiations as a mechanism for improving linkages among many of the major Asia-Pacific economies.
And to build on political progress, we must support efforts to protect human rights and promote open societies. We applaud ASEAN’s decision to establish a new Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights when the Association’s new charter went into effect in December of 2008. Over time, we hope the Commission and other regional initiatives will enhance respect for fundamental freedoms and human dignity throughout the region.
Third, our institutions must be effective and be focused on delivering results. This has been a priority for President Obama and me since Day One. Because we believe that Asia’s rise over the past two decades has given the region an opportunity for progress that simply didn’t exist before.
The formation and operation of regional groups should be motivated by concrete, pragmatic considerations. It’s more important to have organizations that produce results, rather than simply producing new organizations.
Now, dialogue is critical in any multilateral institution. But as Asian nations become regional and global players, we must focus increasingly on action. Groups should assess their progress regularly and honestly, and emphasize that all participants are responsible for playing a positive role.
For example, in the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami that devastated South and Southeast Asia, the world witnessed how concrete collective action and a relentless focus on results can provide hope in the face of tragedy. Beyond immediate assistance to areas hit by the tsunami, the disaster response was a catalyst for cooperation across the broader region. It helped to forge enduring political, military, and civilian relationships that have enhanced our ability to respond collectively to natural disasters. We should learn from this example, and act with similar urgency and efficiency in dealing with challenges such as climate change and food security. I am proud that the United States has been and will continue to be a leader in this area. Just this last year, we played a critical role in the civilian-military response that helped bring relief to areas ravaged by cyclones, such as the Philippines and others.
Now, to produce consistent results, institutions need effective governance. That doesn’t mean that every organization will use the same mechanism to make decisions. But it does mean that they should embrace efficient decision-making processes and, where appropriate, differentiated roles and responsibilities. At the same time, building serious multilateral institutions requires us to share the burden of operating them. Systems that reward free riders and minimalist contributions are designed to fail.
So on security matters, we are eager to strengthen the ASEAN Regional Forum. The United States will continue to participate in the Forum, and we hope to build on some recent successes, including an inaugural civil-military disaster relief exercise last May. The ASEAN Regional Forum should make good on the vision laid out at our meeting in Thailand last July for it to assume greater responsibilities for disaster relief and humanitarian operations. And the United States stands ready to assist in facilitating that. It should also build on the Forum’s demonstrated recognition that Burma and other regional human rights issues will have a substantial effect on regional peace and security. One reason I have established an ambassadorial post to ASEAN in Jakarta is to strengthen this institutionalized process.
Fourth, we must seek to maintain and enhance flexibility in pursuing the results we seek. Now, in some instances, large multilateral institutions may lack the tools necessary to manage particular problems. Where it makes sense, we will participate in informal arrangements targeted to specific challenges, and we will support sub-regional institutions that advance the shared interests of groups of neighbors.
Another example of that is the Six-Party Talks, which show the potential of an informal arrangement to advance shared interests. Key regional actors have joined together to pursue the verifiable denuclearization of North Korea. Now, making progress toward the complete and irreversible denuclearization of North Korea we know will strengthen security across Asia-Pacific countries, and we are working with our Six-Party partners for a resumption of the Six-Party Talks in the near future.
We have engaged in an enhanced relationship the Lower Mekong countries. We have a Trilateral Strategic Dialogue with Japan and Australia, with Japan and South Korea, and we have informal arrangements guiding cooperation in the Straits of Malacca. And these are each examples of how this kind of multilateralism can produce effective outcomes. And I’m on my way to Australia, where Secretary Gates and I will be meeting in a 2+2 setting with our counterparts there. So we welcome further opportunities to engage this way, for example in trilateral dialogues with Japan and China, and with Japan and India.
When it comes to sub-regional institutions, we really believe that ASEAN is an important success story. It has made a bold decision to integrate across the economic, socio-cultural, and political-security spheres. We believe that a strong, integrated ASEAN will serve broader regional interests in stability and prosperity. And so we will continue to support ASEAN and we will continue emphasize capacity-building activities under the enhanced U.S.-ASEAN Enhanced Partnership and the economic-focused U.S.-ASEAN Trade and Investment Framework Agreement. President Obama had that valuable first-ever meeting with ASEAN’s ten leaders in Singapore.
Now, I know some people, their eyes may glaze over when you hear all these acronyms, but we need to recognize that these regional organizations are very important to the actors who are in them. And the failure of the United States not to participate demonstrates a lack of respect and a willingness to engage. And that is why I made it very clear upon becoming Secretary of State that the United States would show up. I don’t know if half of life is showing up, but I think half of diplomacy is showing up.
And as we’ve also seen new organizations, including the ASEAN Regional Forum, ASEAN+3, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, we hope that we will be able to participate actively in many of those.
Fifth, we need to decide, as Asia-Pacific nations, which will be the defining regional institutions. So although we respect and will work with the organizations that countries themselves have created, some of recent vintage, it’s important that we do a better job of trying to define which organizations will best protect and promote our collective future.
Now, each may have its place and its purpose. But the defining ones will include all the key stakeholders. And these may be well-established, like APEC, or they could be of more recent vintage, like the East Asia Summit, or more likely, a mix of well-established and new. This is a critical question that we must answer together through consultation and coordination.
During his visit to Tokyo last year, President Obama conveyed the United States’ intention to engage fully with these new organizations. And as a part of this strategy, we propose to begin consultations with Asian partners and friends on how the United States might play a role in the East Asia Summit, and how the East Asia Summit fits into the broader institutional landscape, and how major meetings in the region can be sequenced most effectively for everyone’s time.
There is also a continuing need for an institution that is aimed at fostering the steady economic integration of the region based on shared principles and objectives. I think APEC is the organization that we and our partners must engage in, ensuring that it moves toward fulfilling that responsibility.
U.S. involvement and leadership in Asia-Pacific institutions, ranging from our support for and contributions to APEC to our response to the Indian Ocean Tsunami, can benefit everyone. We can provide resources and facilitate cooperation in ways that other regional actors cannot replicate or, in some cases, are not trusted to do. No country, however – including our own – should seek to dominate these institutions. But an active and engaged United States is critical to the success of these.
As we reexamine our structures for cooperation, we should remember that power is not just concentrated in governments. We should develop organizations that harness the positive role of non-state groups such as civil society movements, NGOs in development enterprises, and businesses that play important and constructive roles in development. We should look for more ways to enhance military-to-military cooperation and decrease mistrust and misunderstanding.
Tomorrow, as I leave for Australia, I will be looking forward to our discussions with Prime Minister Rudd, who has been a leader in promoting dialogue in this region. We value his contributions, and I will use this trip, along with my stops in New Zealand and Pacific islands, as an opportunity to continue our consultation.
The people of the Asia-Pacific region have endured centuries of upheaval. The ultimate purpose of our cooperation should be to dispel suspicions that still exist as artifacts of the region’s turbulent past, and build in their place a future of openness, honesty, and progress for all of our people.
I visited the USS Arizona earlier today, which is always a moving experience, I’m sure, for everyone, as it is for me. And as we were leaving the memorial, Lieutenant General Darnell told me that he had recently hosted officials from Vietnam. And as they came out of the memorial, the Navy had flown a Vietnamese flag from the boat waiting. It was a stunning moment, stunning on both sides, certainly stunning for our Vietnamese visitors, and stunning for the United States. What other country would do that? What other country applauds the success, the prosperity, and development of former enemies, of competitors, of those who have different systems and different cultures and different points of view?
So I don’t think there is any doubt, if there were when this Administration began, that the United States is back in Asia. But I want to underscore that we are back to stay. (Applause.)
In the space of two generations, Asia has become a region in which the old is juxtaposed with the new, a region that has gone from soybeans to satellites, from rural outposts to gleaming mega-cities, from traditional calligraphy to instant messaging, and most importantly, from old hatreds to new partnerships.
Regional cooperation in our part of the world must reflect these new realities and the extraordinary potential that resides within. And the United States looks forward to expanding its engagement, and to working with our partners to help ourselves and this region realize our extraordinary promise.
Thank you all very much. (Applause.)
MR. MORRISON: Now, we want to thank the Secretary for her inspiring speech. I also want to let her know that the architect of this building is the famous Chinese American I.M. Pei. And so we have every confidence your architecture will be as successful as his architecture.
Now I think we have time for maybe 10 minutes of questions.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Sure, absolutely.
MR. MORRISON: And so let me see if I can start with a student. And here’s Vijay.
QUESTION: Secretary Clinton –
MR. MORRISON: Please mention your name and your country.
QUESTION: Sure. Vijay Paul Chattergy. I’m a student fellow with the East-West Center’s Asia-Pacific Leadership Program, and I’m actually from Honolulu, Hawaii.
SECRETARY CLINTON: A good country to be from. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, thank you very much for helping to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the East-West Center by giving a major policy speech here. My question has to do with APEC 2011, which, as you said, will be here in Honolulu, Hawaii. I wonder if you would be willing to offer some advice and guidance to the leaders and the people of the state of Hawaii on how to take advantage of this one-in-a-lifetime opportunity to showcase the home state and birthplace of President Obama.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t think it takes much to showcase Hawaii. (Laughter.) It is – I would come here every month on my way to somewhere, but that would be too obvious. (Laughter.) And so I have to ration myself, and I waited nearly a whole year.
I think, seriously, the opportunity for Hawaii, which is such a meeting place for East and West, is just extraordinary. And you have a lot of very smart, experienced leaders and experts not only here at the university and at the center, but elsewhere in this state who can put together a program that not only showcases the culture and the history, but the diversity, the extraordinary mixture of people from across the Asia-Pacific region, and do so in a way that I think serves as a reminder to our friends coming about what is possible, that certainly with the values that our country has and with the aloha spirit that Hawaii exhibits this could be a model for the imagination of what could be in the 21st century in many of the countries that will be visiting.
I also think there will be tremendous interest in President Obama’s childhood here, and I’m sure you’ll have to put together tours and do whatever else is necessary. But I think also his mother’s association with the East-West Center is a tremendous message. I never met her, but we were scheduled actually to be on a panel together on microfinance at the Beijing Conference on Women in 1995. Unfortunately, that was not possible. But I have studied her work and I have followed what she did when she returned and was here at the Center. So I think there will be a lot of interest in the President and his family.
Now, APEC itself, we have a great opportunity, as I was discussing with Foreign Minister Okada earlier today, because Japan will host the APEC summit in 2010 and then, of course, it will be here in Hawaii. I think APEC has an opportunity under the leadership of Japan and then of the United States to begin to build out this architecture that I was speaking of. What more can be done through APEC? And it has been very focused on trade, which is all too important and must be pursued, but I am increasingly focused, as the last APEC meeting in Singapore began to be, on sustainable prosperity, on broadly shared prosperity. We do not want to see the inequalities of a previous century being replicated amidst the steel and glass skyscrapers of a new age. And it is important for us to look for ways to encourage more equitable distribution of resources and opportunities in many of the countries that will be represented.
So I think that there’s a lot to be done, and I would be remiss if I didn’t end by saying that we also have the opportunity to highlight the role of women in this region. It is something that I have worked on for many years. I hope that APEC can do more on these issues, on women, on climate change, on food security, on global health. There’s a whole range of them. But the more work we do on these transnational problems and on the stubborn challenge of inequity in societies, the more important it becomes to focus on women – (applause) – women as leaders of change within their families as well as their communities. In fact, as we have put together our food security initiative, depending upon the region of the world and the country, 60 to 70 percent of the farming in the world is done by women, and yet they are very often at the back of the line when it comes to having access to new technology, new seeds, new irrigation methods, and so much else.
So I think that it could be an exciting time, and I think Hawaii would be a particularly ripe environment for many of these exchanges to occur.
MR. MORRISON: Evelyn, did I see your hand up?
QUESTION: It’s an honor, Secretary Clinton. My name is Evelyn Pusal. I’m a citizen of Papua New Guinea, I place I know that you’ll be visiting, so thank you very much. I am also funded by the U.S. State Department here at the East-West Center to study. Leading up from your talk on women, out of the 109 seats in our parliamentary system, one seat is held by a woman in our country. Now, we have a very – our cultural system there is predominantly male-oriented and dominated, and so my question to you is for the women who want to take on more responsibility in leadership positions and also to make that transition to have more participation for women, how do you propose that we overcome these challenges to break through and have more women representation in our parliamentary system? Thank you.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I’m very excited about going to your country. I’m looking forward to being there. I will be talking about women and women’s roles while I am in Papua New Guinea.
Let me just make three general points and then one specific about your country. First, the barriers that restrain women’s rights and responsibilities are legal in many places still. They are definitely cultural and to some extent political and social. And they are not easily removed unless there are enough women exercising leadership so that the barriers begin to just dissolve as people see what is possible.
So first, you have to tackle any remaining legal barriers in society. There are still countries where women can’t vote, where women can’t drive, where women can’t inherit property, and other challenges like that. And I think it’s imperative to have a full analysis of those kinds of barriers.
Now, with respect to cultural, political, social, it has been my experience over many years working in this field that there has to be a critical mass of men and women in a country speaking out. And what you will find in a number of societies that there is a sort of thin crust of the elite where women have all kinds of opportunities, where they get advanced education, where they have business opportunities, they travel, but then there is a big drop-off where most of the rest of women live and where they’re still most likely to be underfed, unschooled, unhealthy, and so much else.
And I think you have to go at that both politically, but also in a person-to-person approach. One of the reasons you may notice that the State Department is funding disproportionately women on some of these scholarships from some of these countries is because we hope you’ll go back and be able to make the case and be a model and be an example of what is possible. And of course, the NGO community, the United States Government, other institutions and individuals stand ready to help.
But finally, it seems that the old habits that prevent women from participating just have to be taken head on. There’s no way around it. (Applause.) You just have to be willing to confront it, and at some times at great personal cost. This is something that is not easy in many societies.
I will be meeting in Papua New Guinea with a new group of women military officers and security officers who have been recruited. Never happened before. And what we’ve seen is that there are ways of opening up opportunities for women by identifying problems that within the cultural norm of a society women are better able to address. So that for example in Pakistan, which has a very serious problem with domestic violence, as Papua New Guinea does, there was very little sympathy for women going to police stations. So part of the solution to deal with what is a crime was to train more women police officers and to have special sections of police stations so that women could go and report these crimes.
And I think that there’s lots of ways once you identify the problem of going straight ahead and saying this is the only way we’re going to solve it. Now, some countries have set quotas, as you may know, in electing women. And in some places it’s worked. Rwanda now has the highest proportion of women. Part of it is because with the massacre, disproportionately men were murdered, but it was also because the leadership of Rwanda concluded that having more women in positions of responsibility would create a better atmosphere for making some of the tough decisions on reconciliation to move the country forward.
So there are many different ways of approaching it, but I will be discussing it and speaking about it when I am Papua New Guinea.
MR. MORRISON: And our last question will be this woman.
QUESTION: Thank you very much for your wonderful speech. My name is Jia Qiong, East-West Center Ph.D. graduate student from China. Actually, you have been my role model for many years. (Applause.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you. I have a question regarding U.S.-China relations.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.
QUESTION: U.S.-China relations play very important role in the stability for the world and for the Asia-Pacific region in particular. 2009 witnessed stable improvement of U.S.-China relationship with a collaborative effort of the two countries, including the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, U.S.-China military high-level exchanges, and President Obama’s visit China (inaudible).
Recently, however, some media and think tanks expressed their worries and their pessimist view toward U.S.-China relations. For example, The Washington Post says the United States and China are headed for a rough patch and the Eurasia Group announced that U.S.-China relations the number one risk. And what is your opinion toward this kind of statement and prediction? Thank you so much.
SECRETARY CLINTON: You’re very welcome. Thank you. And I’m delighted you’re here at the East-West Center. We are very committed to the positive, cooperative, comprehensive relationship that both President Obama and President Hu stated was our goal during their summit in Beijing. And we intend to pursue our Strategic and Economic Dialogue, which I co-chair along with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, to create a broad range of issues on which the United States and China are working together, are engaged together.
We know we have differences. We have differences with every country – countries that have been our friends for many, many decades. Two people have differences, so certainly two complex countries will have differences. We have differences of experience and perspective, but we are working to develop a relationship that will be a mature one, that will not be knocked off course when we do something or the other does something that we don’t agree with.
I’m well aware that there are many who on both sides, in China and in the United States, who are very skeptical of whether the United States and China can develop this kind of working relationship over the long term. But my view is that we should be committed to doing so and working very hard to do so. It is in both of our nations’ interests for China and the United States to have a productive relationship. It will be challenging and it will not come easily or quickly, but certainly President Obama and I are committed to that. And I hope that we have a similar level of commitment and confidence building in China as well.
I guess finally, because, of course, the relationship that China has with its neighbors as well as with the United States and the rest of the world will be so crucial to what happens in the 21st century, we hope that there will be increasing openness politically in China. We hope that there will be an opportunity for more of the Chinese people to exercise the full range of human rights and freedoms. And we say that to our friends in China in the leadership meetings that we have, and it is something that we believe would be in the best interest of China.
Similarly, we hope that there will be increasing trust building between our militaries so that General Xu’s visit and other visits by American military leaders to China will build confidence. We each have our national interests. We each have to be primarily responsible for our own people. But I honestly believe that both the Chinese and the American people will be safer and more prosperous in the future if we have a good, solid relationship between our two countries. And that’s what I’m working to achieve. Thank you. (Applause.)
Source: US Department of State
Admitting the US and Russia to the regional architecture
By Kavi Chongkittavorn
But they do share a common objective - to become parts of the ongoing dynamism in the region - whether it be East Asia, Asia or Asia-Pacific.
Proposals by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatomaya to establish a new regional institute have generated heated debates over the shape of things to come. Rudd's framework on the Asia Pacific community is more specific and widely discussed than Hatoyama's East Asia community, which up until now has not provided any details or modalities. However, both ideas support the ongoing regional institutions within Asean and would not dismiss the grouping as a foundation for future cooperation. Additional features, mandates, functions and members could be refined and added later on.
Numerous ideas have been proposed and discussed, concentrating on |mandates and membership that will cope with 21st century challenges. Participation of the US and Russia has repeatedly been mentioned as pivotal to any new set-up, particularly future membership of the East Asia Summit (EAS). For the US, the one-year-old Obama Administration's new attitude towards Asia and the ascension of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) has created an overall favourable atmosphere to expand and intensify its engagement within the region -commensurate with Obama's pronouncement as a Pacific power.
Akin to the US, Russia is also a member of regional organisations such as the Asean Regional Forum (ARF) and Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec). Both the US and Russia have fulfilled the three requirements set forth by Asean for admission to EAS�a dialogue partner and a signatory of TAC that has substantial relations with Asean. However, Moscow has been more assertive on this front. As far as Russia-Asean relations are concerned, Moscow has been pushing for closer economic and security cooperation but with little success. The Asean Centre at the Moscow State University of International Relations will soon be established.
In the early 1980s, Moscow tabled several proposals to establish a new regional security forum in anticipating post-Cold War strategic imperatives. Unfortunately, they fell on deaf ears. Moscow continues to view itself as a Europe-Asia power. One major impediment was the grouping's hostile attitude towards Moscow's support of proxy wars in the region. Once the Berlin Wall crumbled and the Soviet empire disintegrated, its pragmatic approaches and policies have propelled better cooperation and friendship with Asean and individual members.
In Kuala Lumpur, December 2005, Russia came close to becoming a foundation member of EAS or Asean plus six. Only last minute forceful intervention by certain Asean members stopped such an ambition after former US State Secretary Condoleeza Rice expressed serious concern over the planned admission. To save Moscow's political embarrassment, Malaysia, the host, quickly invited Russia as a guest to the inaugural EAS. Since then, Russia has continued to push for early EAS membership. Last year, it failed to convince Thailand, as the Asean chair, to push for its EAS membership and the second Asean-Russia summit.
Political turmoil inside the country and uncertainty surrounding a series of summits rendered twin initiatives impossible. At the next EAS in Hanoi in October, the second Asean-Russia summit has been scheduled. It is an open secret that Vietnam wants the second Asean-US leaders' meeting to be held also in the country. Obama offered to host the follow-up leaders' meeting with his Asean colleagues in his country this year when he met them last November.
The central question Asean has to tackle is whether the US should be invited to join EAS along with Russia, either in Hanoi this year or later on. In her speech last month at the Hawaii-based, East West Center, US State Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton made clear that Washington is interested in EAS and is studying how her country can associate with the five-year-old summit. She said the US proposed to begin consultations with Asian countries on how the US might play a role in the EAS and the summit would fit into the broader institutional landscape. That much was clear. At this juncture, Asean has yet to reach a consensus on the EAS enlargement even though there is no official moratorium policy. Several Asean dialogue partners who have fulfilled the three criteria also want to join EAS.
EAS could serve as a new overarching structure where concerned countries in the region can discuss pertinent transnational issues and subsequently deliver results.
Expansion of EAS will be less problematic because the membership is still small. Both ARF and Apec have big members straddling Asia, as well as North and South America. ARF has 27 members and Apec 21, but the latter includes Taiwan and Hongkong while India, the region's rising power, has been left out. After the September 11 tragedy, the Bush administration tried with some success to intensify anti-terrorism cooperation among the trade-focused members.
One way of sustaining Asean centrality within the common call for a new architecture is to admit the US and Russia together to EAS. Then, the so-called Asean plus six (Asean 10, India, Australia, New Zealand) will be transformed into Asean plus eight, leaving Asean plus three (APT) unchallenged--to be the only institution that represents real East Asian regional building. China, the APT prime mover would not object to such an arrangement as it would continue to be the APT driving force. Japan and South Korea have already utilised the APT as a platform to strengthen their ties with Asean and China.
The larger EAS has begun tackling broader issues including nuclear proliferation, climate change and food security - and would answer in part Rudd's proposal and Tokyo's insistence on having the US participate in a new regional architecture.
Finally, Asean would also need creative ideas to sequence a series of summits with dialogue partners to allow their leaders with super-tight schedules to attend them. Obviously, one cannot expect a US president to join Asean-initiated summits and leaders' meetings twice or thrice a year.
Source: The Nation
Read More..
2009 strategic political, economic trends in E. Asia (Part 2 of 2)
By Jusuf Wanandi
That is why regional cooperation institutions should assist them in finding the right modus vivendi. The role of the United States in supporting Japan is not helpful. It should be left to China and Japan to find the balance in their relationship. In the early 1990s, following the bursting of its economic bubble, Japan entered a decade-long recession and deflation — a period that was prolonged by inadequate government policies, especially in the financial and banking sector. In the past few years, the economy has started to grow again, albeit slowly.
But now, again, Japan’s economy is in recession. Although the financial sector has been notably strengthened, dependency on exports is still high and demand has already slowed, while domestic consumption has not increased. Japan still faces several economic constraints, such as demographic problems including an aging society, inadequate productivity levels, low levels of foreign direct investment, rising poverty and worsening income inequality.
These are real issues that need to be tackled. It appears that Japanese leaders have been paying a great deal of attention to foreign policy and security, as well as to social issues such as education, but have not focused enough attention on the economy — especially in terms of continuing Koizumi’s economic reforms.Moreover, Japan’s economic needs intersect with the ambitious security goals of some of the country’s recent leaders: Japan needs to be economically stronger if it is going to be able to play a bigger role in East Asia. Meanwhile, political reforms have not been moving as fast as needed, which is hampering any other reforms.In the end, the most important relationship for China is with the United States. Since the spy plane incident early in his first term, relations have been stable under President Bush. Both have tried to find common ground and expand on both security and economic ties, as well as on issues such as democracy and human rights.
The relationship between these two countries will always be one of both cooperation and competition. The intricate integration of their economies provides significant motivation for cooperation. China’s strategy not to push its own global and regional order but instead to adapt to the existing system of world governance (with a few exceptions when vital interests are involved) has greatly alleviated a lot of prejudice and misjudgment on the part of the United States (and the “West” in general).
Especially at this juncture, when the United States is under siege and has lost some soft power and ability to lead, China and East Asia in general have been farsighted and statesmanlike enough not to gloat or be arrogant regarding the mistakes of the United States. Not only is this wise, as the United States still has a lot of “power” left, but as history has shown, its political and economic system is flexible and innovative enough to be able to make corrections swiftly and come out even stronger. So the future of the United States is not completely a lost cause. After all, we are all in this financial mess together.Besides, China does not have ideas incompatible with the rest of East Asia and has in general benefited from the existing international system, despite the occasional setback. It has not always been consistent, as many interests have to be balanced simultaneously.
In the end, Japan’s leaders may be forced to take action to address problems associated with the country’s lackluster growth and aging population (much as Koizumi did with nonperforming loans) because these issues will place heavy financial pressures on voters.
Trends suggest that, in the longer term, the international system will be multipolar and see greater input and more ideas coming from East Asia and China.
How this current crisis of capitalism is ended, as dictated by the West, should be an indication of how soon this change in values and norms will happen.
East Asia and China should, as always, learn from history. Shifts of power have always been painful and many historical mistakes have been made as a result of arrogance and impatience.
We in East Asia, having always had a long historical perspective, should therefore be patient, cooperative and inclusive in all future developments of the global system of governance.
We have to be aware of our own weaknesses and deficiencies and improve on them. We should also be aware of our obligations (and rights) in this process of change in the international order. We must support a system that will bring welfare, peace and stability to East Asia.
The writer is vice chair of the Board of Trustees, CSIS Foundation, Jakarta. Source: The Jakarta Post
Stretegic Trends in East Asia (Part 1 of 2)
by Jusuf Wanandi
China is doing well; it hosted the Olympic Games earlier this year and the world continues to talk about the nation’s excellent achievements. Despite the global financial crisis, China is forecasting economic growth of 8 percent for next year. This is a reduction from the current 11 percent, but still a very good achievement considering the circumstances.
Yet the crisis has yet to fully unfold and the extent of its damage remains something of a mystery. For China, global funds and foreign direct investment will be limited and exports will be curtailed because of the deep recessions that developed nations are facing. That is why China’s new policies, which will encourage domestic consumption and inject money into the banking system, are very wise.
The big question for China is how to maintain economic growth, while ensuring political stability and good governance. But the real challenge is preventing future crises: How can China keep its leadership united and not only determine but also enact the right policies for its future?
This will require the support of the military and the obedience of local governments and party leaders.These are big challenges, but the Chinese leadership aptly demonstrated its ability to make positive decisions, with the support of the people, during the dramatic earthquake in Szechuan last May.
For the Chinese leadership, stability is of paramount concern. If the nation is to continue to develop so rapidly, rising demand, unemployment, poverty and inequality must be dealt with.Following several years of tension related to former Japanese prime minister Koizumi’s visit to the Yasukuni shrine (which was seen as being extremely insensitive given past imperial ambitions), China has now established more cordial relations with Japan, since, with more US$200 billion worth of bilateral trade annually, both need each other economically.
While it is true that China has not paid sufficient attention to democratic developments in Japan post-World War II and its establishment of peaceful relations in the region and around the world, Japan needs to do more to recognize its past atrocities, including the “Nanking” massacre, and the abuses of Chinese prisoners by the Group 871 in Manchuria, as well as the so-called “comfort” women, with more consistency and openness.Hopefully, a willingness to study history together and exchange large numbers of youth can slowly overcome prejudices on both sides.
Meanwhile, relations between the two peoples have become quite intense: Four million Japanese visit China annually on more than 700 flights between the two countries weekly, more than 250 cities and prefectures have sistership relations and 70,000 Chinese students currently study in Japan.The writer is vice chair of the Board of Trustees, CSIS Foundation, Jakarta.
However, China’s internal problems are huge, as Prime Minister Wen Jiabao himself admitted in a recent interview with Newsweek (Oct. 6, 2008). Poverty, a schism between coastal (urban) and inland (rural) populations, demographic and environmental problems (water, climate, desertification, energy, etc.), and how to properly govern with such rapid economic growth are all areas of concern.
They are aware of the problems. On the issue of good governance and the public sphere, they are trying a long-term, gradual approach, starting with elections in villages. The other big challenge is how to keep corruption under control. Questions have been raised as to whether efforts to stem corruption are too slow and tentative, and if the political system will allow a dramatic effort to get rid of such a systemic problem.
Rapid growth has become an important source of legitimacy for China’s now pragmatic leadership. Socialism has been practically abandoned (except rhetorically) in favor of a nationalist ideology that uses the Confucian tradition as a basis for Chinese identity.
But trust has to be created on both sides. East Asian regional cooperation organizations have been helping with this, but more could be done.
For Japan, trust will require greater transparency in Chinese policies, especially defense, along with political development toward good governance and pluralism. For China, it is Japan’s commiserations on history, especially regarding the period since 1936, that are important.
Source: The Jakarta Post
Read More..
