PCDS letter to the Secretary General and all Foreign Ministers attending the 12th Annual ASEAN Regional Forum in Vietiane, LAOS in July 2005

Pacific Campaign for Disarmament and Security

May 27, 2005

HE ONG Keng Yong
Secretary-General of ASEAN
70 A, Jalan Sisingamangaraja
PO Box 2072
Jakarta, INDONESIA

Re: 12th. Annual ASEAN Regional Forum -- Vietiane, LAOS

Dear Sir:

We are writing to you on behalf of the Pacific Campaign for Disarmament and Security (PCDS). PCDS is a research, information, and support network that has worked for peace in the Asia-Pacific region since 1985. We are sending this letter to foreign ministers of all states and groups of states who will be attending the 12th Annual ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) to be held in Vietiane, Laos. As you are aware from our previous correspondence, PCDS has closely followed the development of the ARF and have issued annual reports on the ARF. Enclosed is our most recent report entitled, Asean Regional Forum (ARF) #11 -- Jakarta, Indonesia -- July 2004.

In previous letters to you, we have consistently raised the subject of a Northeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone (NEA-NWFZ), as we believe the ARF could promote this initiative and thereby, have significant influence on peace and security in Northeast Asia. Last year, we included a briefing paper on the subject and we wish to update you on the status of this important measure. An actual Model Treaty, developed by NGOs, is now in hand. We enclose Draft 4 of the Treaty (July 3, 2004) along with its accompanying Notes. The Treaty is a work-in-progress with a number of unresolved issues and areas that require refinement. The Treaty is currently being circulated for comment and we invite your feedback. It is noted that an NGO presentation on the Draft Treaty was made at the NPT Review Conference on May 11, 2005.

The ARF clearly appreciates the value of such instruments as evidenced by the ARF Chairman's Statement, Jakarta, 2 July 2004 that reads: "The Ministers also reaffirmed their support for the concept of

internationally recognized nuclear-weapons-freezones (NWFZs) established on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among States in the region, and emphasized the contribution of such zones to enhancing global and regional peace and security."

Last year we recommended two initiatives that the ARF could take relative to this subject:

Establish an Inter-Sessional Group (ISG) on a Cooperative Security Framework in Northeast Asia: ARF could take greater advantage of its existing mechanisms in order to contribute to the resolution of the impasse on the Korean Peninsula and ensure greater stability in NEA generally. A NEA-NWFZ could be an important aspect of the work of this ISG.

Establish a Track II Study Group for the Application of Preventive Diplomacy (PD) to Northeast Asia: We believe that the issue of the peace and security of Northeast Asia will not be solved by addressing problems on the Korean Peninsula alone. At minimum, relations among the Peninsula, Japan and China require consideration in the context of the ARF's work on preventive diplomacy. We note that the ARF's founders conceived PD as being the second of ARF's three major stages of evolution. We suggest that the ARF organize a Track II Study Group with participation of local NGOs in order to examine the potential application of PD to the peace and security of Northeast Asia.

Has the ARF considered these recommendations? If not, why not? What other initiatives has the ARF taken relative to the situation in NE Asia? Although we appreciate the efforts the ARF has made in bringing parties together at the sidelines of the ARF, we recommend that the ARF facilitate more substantial bilateral talks between the United States and North Korea.

On another topic, it appears that the ARF may be stressing greater military cooperation for regional security issues, including rescue/relief efforts and piracy interdiction. For example, at the ARF Maritime Security Conference in March, Singapore proposed that the ARF move beyond dialogue and hold maritime security exercises. We believe security threats such as rescue/relief and piracy policing should be conducted by civilian-based bodies as much as possible. Employing the same troops to both fight the so-called war on terror and provide other security functions is unwarranted and counterproductive. For example, as Medicins Sans Frontiers suggests, this practice "…can cloud the distinction between military and humanitarian actors and erode the trust that allows humanitarians to gain access to populations in danger." The paramount role of the ARF must remain constructive dialogue and the building of confidence by non-military means.

Finally, along with a number of other ASEAN states themselves, we are concerned by the prospect of Burma assuming the ASEAN Chair in 2006. In late March, PCDS was among signatories to a letter to ASEAN that read: "Deferring Burma's chairmanship until such a time that the military regime has proven a genuine commitment to fulfill its promises of political and economic reforms is critical to preserve the credibility and international status of ASEAN."

We are grateful for your attention to our concerns and we look forward to your reply. We wish you a productive and substantive twelfth session of the ASEAN Regional Forum.

In Peace,

Hiromichi Umebayashi, International Coordinator

Patricia Willis, Resource Coordinator

Pacific Campaign for Disarmament and Security