[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index
][Thread Index
]
Asean needs to chart clearer path f
- Subject: Asean needs to chart clearer path f
- From: ausgeo@xxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 03:47:00
Subject: Asean needs to chart clearer path for ARF
02 Jun 1997
The Nation
Asean needs to chart clearer path for ARF
BY KAVI CHONGKITTAVORN
What is the future direction of the Asean Regional Forum? This question needs
a clear answer as the ARF enters its fourth year. When the ARF was first
established in Bangkok in July 1994, it was acceptable that it be a talk-shop
for addressing issues in general without any substance or direction.
At that time, the founding members agreed that the ARF process should progress
in three stages. It would start with confidence-building measures, to be
followed up by a second stage involving preventative diplomacy. The final
stage, if it ever came, was to be an ''elaboration of approach to conflict"
a euphemism for conflict-resolution.
A strong feeling prevails among ARF members that as the only East Asian
security forum, the ARF should move forward with concrete plans that go beyond
the current confidence-building measures. But since not all the 20 countries
and the European Union are in synch regarding the future direction of the ARF,
any idea or plan to broaden the current agenda is viewed with scepticism by
some observers.
The ARF has held several inter-sessional meetings involving all members on key
areas of confidence building such as search and rescue operations,
peace-keeping operations, and disaster relief. In fact, some of these
activities could be considered as preventative diplomacy. But while some ARF
members believe the ARF process has already moved into the second stage,
others are not comfortable with this interpretation.
Within the ARF, the Western members US, Australia, Canada, the EU and New
Zealand and Japan desire to see the ARF proceed with greater speed and more
activities. But Asean, which continues to be the main driving force behind the
forum, wants to make sure that any moves are welcomed by all its members.
China and Russia, for different reasons, have stood alone. Since China's ARF
membership is the only security link the Asian giant has with the world,
Beijing is extremely careful not to lose control and move too fast in the ARF
process.
Having said that, it is not surprising that China's attitude to the ARF has
been a mixture of enthusiasm and caution. Beijing's primary aim has always
been to move slowly and stay engaged in the process at a level that other
members would not complain about. Beijing's recent co-chairing of a
confidence-building inter-sessional meeting was a case in point.
Although Russia is an ARF founding member, its role is still marginal. This is
partly due to the domestic crisis inside Russia that has weakened its
international creditability. But the situation is changing. As President Boris
Yeltsin consolidates power, and with the success of the Russia-Nato agreement,
its security clout in the ARF could be boosted in the future.
Against this background, there have been new developments in the ARF process.
At the recent ARF senior officials meeting in the sea resort of Langkawi
Island, defence and security officials accompanying the ARF delegations had an
informal lunch hosted by Malaysia. It was the first time these officials had
informally discussed security issues among themselves, separate from the
plenary sessions. With defence and security personnel links moving closer,
Washington has proposed defence or security officials be included in the
plenary session.
The ARF plenary session is normally restricted to a foreign minister and one
senior official. If the coming ARF meeting in July approves the idea, defence
and security officials would be included in the fifth ARF in the Philippines
next year.
Nonetheless, the future of the ARF is still far from clear. Various ideas have
been discussed, but no consensus reached. For instance, as part of
preventative diplomacy, a greater role for the ARF chairman in handling
disputes or acting as a mediator has been sought.
In fact, this was the outcome of the forceful role played by Indonesian
Foreign Minister Ali Alatas, who chaired the last ARF meeting in Jakarta last
year. He used his chairmanship to prevent discord among members over the
Burmese issue, and ushered in Rangoon as a member of the ARF.
A proposal that ARF members designate a contact person in their respective
embassies, who would meet with his counterparts as frequently as deemed
necessary, has been discussed but no decision made.
With the Asean decision to admit Laos, Cambodia and Burma as new members, the
position of the regional grouping has been strengthened, but it also now
carries new responsibilities. Though serious security hotspots such as the
South China Sea, Burma and the Korean Peninsula have been highlighted in past
ARF meetings, Asean has yet to play a leading role in these issues.
For instance, on the South China Sea disputes, efforts have been made, mainly
by Beijing, to move the discussion away from the ARF. China has argued that
all the other claimants are members of Asean. In addition, the claimants are
already holding annual consultations at senior officials level on this problem
and other bilateral issues.
Only in recent weeks have Asean members finally realised that to make the ARF
an effective institution they need to learn and be more active in regional
security, especially the situation on the Korean Peninsula. Malaysian Foreign
Minister Abdullah Badawi's recent visit to Pyongyang was part of his
familiarisation tour to learn first hand about the famine situation and the
needs of North Korea.
Foreign Minister Prachuab Chaiyasan has also said that Asean must adopt a
higher profile in regional security and that Asean foreign ministers need to
exchange information and views on regional issues more frequently.
Asean still lacks knowledge and expertise in international security issues as
well as management of conflicts. Asean's experience in managing regional
conflicts has yet to be applied elsewhere. While it is accepted by ARF
members, Asean's main regional instrument, the Treaty of Amity and
Cooperation, has yet to make an impact on serious issues such as arms control,
security cooperation and conflict prevention in the broader Asia-Pacific
region.
If Asean fails to lead and give a clear direction, its future role in the ARF
will be inevitably diluted.