Information Update #63 (May 2004):
Highlights:Tenth Annual ASEAN Regional Forum,
Phnom Penh, June 18, 2003

KOREAN PENINSULA: "TOP OF THE AGENDA"

Most headlines about the 2003 ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) trumpeted the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue as being on "top of the Asian security agenda." In the lead-up to the ARF, with the downward spiraling of relations between the DPRK and the United States, both who are participants at the ARF, ASEAN undertook some initiatives with respect to the situation on the Korean Peninsula. In a March 19, 2003 press release, Nor Namhong (then Chair of the ASEAN Standing Committee and the ARF) expressed concern about the situation, reiterating the importance of a denuclearized Korean Peninsula, and declaring that, "ARF remains an important forum for constructive dialogue on political and security issues, such as the Korean Peninsula." At the same time, ARF members, such as Australia and Indonesia, pushed for a senior officials meeting on the crisis, with Australia's Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, saying: "Australia and Indonesia are members of the ASEAN Regional Forum and we both agreed…that if the forum is to demonstrate its real role as a significant regional security institution, it needs to address the issue of North Korea, not just at its June ministerial meeting but as soon as possible." (1) Indonesian Foreign Affairs Minister, Hassan Wirajuda, reiterated that the ARF is the place to seek peaceful solution to the crisis. The Jakarta Post (9April 03) reported: "Hasssan pointed out that all the countries involved with the North Korean issue were member countries of the forum, which was established to strengthen confidence-building among the members countries and to conduct preventive diplomacy." By early April 2003, member states of ASEAN had agreed to help mediate the nuclear situation between the DPRK and the US at the upcoming ARF.

By the beginning of June, however, Cambodian officials announced that the DPRK, in fact, would not be sending its foreign minister to the ARF, dashing hopes that further talks at the ARF could help reduce tensions. Though no formal reason was given, DPRK apparently made the decision after the Cambodian foreign ministry issued a draft statement for the meeting that included discussion of the Korean Peninsula. Cambodia is one of the few countries that has strong ties with the DPRK and it had hoped to facilitate both multilateral and bilateral talks between DPRK Foreign Minister Paek and Colin Powell, who would be representing the US.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Founded in 1967 as a multilateral mechanism for promoting peaceful relations, ASEAN includes Burma (Myanmar), Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. ASEAN holds an Annual Ministerial Meeting of ASEAN nation foreign ministers, the ASEAN Regional Forum, and a Post-Ministerial Conference with ASEAN dialogue partners and invited observers. ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) The ARF was established specifically to address regional security issues. Its first annual meeting was held in Thailand in 1994 and the eleventh will take place in Jakarta on July 1, 2004. Considered Asia’s major security forum, the first ARF agreed on “the need to develop a more predictable and constructive pattern of relations in the Asia-Pacific region.” The ARF is characterized by minimal institutionalization, consensus decision-making and the use of "first and second track" diplomacy. The ARF has agreed on a gradual three-stage evolution of confidence building, preventive diplomacy and, in the longer term, conflict resolution. ARF Participants -- Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 2003 Australia, Brunei, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, Canada, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (North Korea), European Union, India, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Mongolia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peoples Republic of China, Philippines, Republic of Korea (South Korea), Russian Federation, Singapore, Thailand, United States, Vietnam, Guest of the Chair: East Timor (Lorosae)

The ARF is one of the few international bodies to which the DPRK belongs. The ASEAN Ministerial Meeting (AMM) which preceded the ARF confirmed that "the ARF could be a useful venue for facilitating dialogue on the Korean peninsula…." [In contrast, James Kelly (US Asst. Secretary of Defence and representative to the Six-Party Talks), in remarks before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, commented on the efficacy of the ARF as a forum for dealing with the Korean Peninsula issue. He said, "…numerous and intensive security dialogues of Europe are not matched in East Asia, where the only comparable institution is the annual and slow-growing ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF).] (2)

By the time of the ARF on June 18, Reuters reported that, DPRK, "…found its nuclear ambitions the lead item on the agenda of the ASEAN Regional Forum despite Pyongyang's decision to snub the security meeting by keeping its foreign minister at home." According to Joongang Ilbo (19June03), the Cambodian Foreign Minister, Hor Namnong, who chaired the ARF, "deplored the absence, saying Mr. Paek's participation could have enhanced the dialogue and contributed to the peaceful settlement of the Korean issue."

Though DPRK's foreign minister stayed home, Powell and DPRK's ambassador-at-large, Ho Jong, managed to bump into each other just as lunch was breaking up and took the opportunity to have a three-minute conversation. It is reported that Powell urged Ho to agree to wider multilateral talks to solve the issue, rejecting DPRK's insistence for bilateral talks with the US. The ROK later reported that the DPRK was not opposed to multilateral talks, but wanted to sit down with the US first to confirm the US's real intentions. Mr. Ho said he appreciated Powell's assurance about the absence of any US intention to attack the DPRK, "But there are wills in Washington that are different from Mr. Powell's." (3)

Chairman's Statement: Tenth ASEAN Regional Forum
Korean Peninsula Situation

"Views were expressed on the situation on the Korean peninsula. The Ministers supported the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. They urged DPRK to resume its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and to reverse its decision to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). They called for a peaceful solution of the nuclear problem there for the sake of durable peace and security in the region. In this regard, the Ministers were of the view that the ARF has played a useful and constructive role and agreed to support further efforts by the ARF Chair to help ease tensions on the Korean Peninsula. The Ministers welcomed the resumption of high-level inter-Korean talks held in Pyongyang on 28-29 April 2003 and recognized the importance of inter-Korean dialogues and exchange at various levels as a channel to pursue peaceful resolution of outstanding security concerns. They welcomed the talks held in Beijing on 23-24 April 2003 among the People's Republic of China, the DPRK and the United States of America as a good start in the right direction. The Ministers were also of the view that outstanding security and humanitarian issues should be addressed through increased dialogues."

As the first round of Six-Party Talks got underway in Beijing in August, the new Chair of the ASEAN Standing Committee (and the ARF) issued the following statement:

"His Excellency Mr. N. Hassan Wirajuda, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia, Chairman of the 37th ASEAN Standing Committee (ASC), on behalf of the ASEAN member countries, issues the following statement:

1. In the interest of global and regional peace and security, ASEAN has been following closely the situation on the Korean Peninsula and has consistently encouraged the parties concerned to pursue dialogue and negotiation to address the issue therein.
2. Indonesia, as the current Chairman of the 37th ASC, therefore welcomes the covening of the Six-party Talks in Beijing on 27-30 August 2003 as a positive step towards a peaceful resolution of the situation on the Korean Peninsula. It believes that such an outcome would in turn contribute to building an environment conducive to durable peace, stability and prosperity in the region.
3. ASEAN expresses its appreciation for the commitment showed by parties concerned and their efforts to resolve the situation on the Korean Peninsula. Jakarta, 27 August 2003."

In October 2003, it was reported that South Korea was seeking to turn the Six-Party Talks into a permanent multilateral forum to discuss security issues in Northeast Asia, casting doubt on the ARF's effectiveness on this issue. The Korea Times (29Oct03) as part of an interview with Ban Ki-moon, a presidential advisor for foreign affairs, reported that, "Although the ASEAN Regional Forum plays the role as the only security forum in Asia, it has failed to meet the needs of the Seoul government as it mainly comprises Southeast Asia nations." Ban said, "ARF has a very complicated structure composed of 23 nations." Despite this point of view, it is expected that the ARF can support the Six-Party Talks by offering additional opportunities for the parties to meet.

In anticipation of this year's ARF, Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda (current ARF Chairman) visited North Korea to extend a personal invitation to the DPRK attend the ARF "at the highest level possible."(4) ABC Radio News (7May05) reported that Paek has accepted the invitation.

Burma/Non-Intervention: ASEAN "Bares Its Claws?"

"For several years, Burma's fellow members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations have assured the world that 'constructive engagement' would persuade the generals to embark on a transition to civilian rule. It has done no such thing." [Jonathan Manthorpe, "People in these repressive regimes are on their own," Vancouver Sun, 3June03]

Aung San Suu Kyi's detention by Burma's military government in the weeks before the 2003 ASEAN meetings provided a good test of ASEAN's (and by extension, the ARF's) principle of non-interference. Calling it "unprecedented," commentators reported ASEAN had "broken more than 30 years of diplomatic practice and criticized a member" by calling on Burma to release the detained opposition leader and resume talks. Some commentators suggested this marked the abandonment of ASEAN's "sacred" principle not to comment on the internal affairs of member states.(5) One dramatic headline claimed: "ASEAN shows signs of baring its claws."(6)

Other observers suggested that these "breathless reports from the Cambodian capital" were in fact exaggerated and the "unprecedented move" was "unprecedented" only in the "narrowest sense."7 At the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting (AMM) that preceded the ARF, it appears only Philippines and Singapore openly demanded the release of Suu Kyi, and some members, including Thailand, blocked any form of ultimatum to force Rangoon to abide by the request. The AMM Joint Communiqué was weaker than many had hoped stating: "…we urged Myanmar to resume its efforts of national reconciliation and dialogue…We welcome the assurances given by Myanmar that the measures taken following the incident were temporary and look forward to the early lifting of restrictions placed on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD members." The ARF "Chairman's Statement" was no stronger and generally reiterated the AMM Communiqué. The Sydney Morning Herald (21June03) reported that, "…the congenitally reticent ASEAN members were forced into a rare and divisive debate about the behaviour of the Burmese regime which spilled into the subsequent meetings of the ARF. But by week's end, Ms. Suu Kyu was still in detention, the generals were still refusing to say when she would be freed and ASEAN officials were busily attempting to paper over the cracks in the crumbling façade of their policy of appeasement with the region's last military dictatorship."

At the end of July, Burmese Foreign Minister Win Aung visited Indonesia, and Indonesian Foreign Minister, Hassan Wirajuda, said Win Aung pledged to resolve the crisis by the time of the October ASEAN summit, though when questioned on this point, Win Aung was not as explicit. In September, Suu Kyi was allowed to return to her home but remained under house arrest. At its October Summit, ASEAN failed to issue a strong statement on the situation and as some commentators suggested, "closed rank behind Burma's junta - endorsing the regimes so-called 'road map' for political reform and criticizing international sanctions."8 By March 2004, Ms. Suu Kyi remained confined to her home without a telephone and visitors requiring government permission. Though late in that same month, Burma's military government announced that it will convene a convention in May to draft a new constitution as the first step of its so-called "road map to democracy," it is unclear whether the opposition NLD will participate in what may be expected to be a flawed and inadequate process. In mid-April, the ASEAN Secretary-General Ong Keng Yong, reported that Burma had indicated that its "roadmap" does involve Suu Kyi and thus, there was optimism that she might be released. However, by late April, Burma claimed it was too busy to attend the next round of the Bangkok Process on the country's future, hosted by Thailand, meaning that hopes for Suu Kyi's release before the May convention may be unfounded. As the BBC (26April04) suggested, by avoiding the Bangkok Process, Burma sidesteps the inevitable questions it would have had to answer about the Nobel laureate's continued detention.

On April 18, 10 Asian nations (7 ASEAN nations+ China, Japan and South Korea) rejected EU demands that Burma's ruling military junta make political concessions, such as releasing Ang San Suu Kyi, before it is admitted along with Cambodia and Laos into the Asia-Europe meeting (ASEM) in May when the EU brings in its 10 new member states.(9) As of this writing, it appears that ASEAN still has not made good on its promise to deal with Burma once it had been admitted into ASEAN, and the ARF.

"War On Terrorism" Thrives In The Asia-Pacific

Consistent with the 2002 ARF, the subject of terrorism remained front and centre at the 2003 ARF. The ARF "Chairman's Statement" stated: "The Ministers reaffirmed their resolve to strengthen further the cooperation among their countries in the fight against international terrorism, which continued to menace the security of nations and peoples around the world, including in the Asia-Pacific region. They deplored the terrorist bombing attacks in Bali, Riyadh and Casablanca. They reiterated their condemnation of terrorism and expressed determination to take all necessary steps in order to raise public awareness and take effective action against terrorism. At the same time, they rejected any attempt to associate terrorism with any religion, race, nationality or ethnic group. They reaffirmed the significance of enhancing capability in the region to counter terrorism effectively, and the importance of cooperation and coordination by participants in building capacity for those who need assistance, within the framework established by the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373." Six additional clauses dealt with the issue of terrorism. As well, ARF adopted the "ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) Statement on Cooperative Counter-Terrorist Action on Border Security" and the "ARF Statement on Cooperation Against Piracy and Other Threats to Maritime Security."

It would not be an overstatement to say that counter-terrorism can almost be seen as a "growth industry" in the Asia-Pacific. For example, in the months leading up the 2003 ARF, it was announced that Singapore would launch the first terrorism research centre in the Asia-Pacific, ironically named -- "The Regional Centre for Terrorism and Political Violence." On July 1, 2003, Malaysia, in cooperation with the United States, opened the Southeast Asia Regional Center for Counter-Terrorism, designed primarily to serve officials of the 10 ASEAN states. In early January 2004, Foreign Minister Wirajuda announced that a regional anti-terrorism center would also be set up in Indonesia.

In addition to new counter-terrorism institutions, numerous multilateral and bilateral wargames have taken place in the region with distinct anti-terrorism themes and components. Noteworthy are the Balikatan exercises in the Philippines, along with separate counter-terrorism training exercises since 911. The New York Times (1Mar04) reports that, "The Philippines, one of Washington's closest partners in the global war against terror, is the world's second -- and Asia's biggest -- beneficiary of the U.S. International Military Exercise and Training Program." Even Burma got in the act, announcing that it would launch a series of anti-terrorism operations across the country and would seek assistance of US anti-terrorism instructors. Just last month, US experts began a training course on counter-terrorism for over 100 authorities from 5 of the 10 ASEAN countries (Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand). Conferences and workshops on the subject multiplied in the region including the International Maritime and Port Security Conference hosted by Singapore, the ARF Inter-Sessional Meeting on counter-terrorism and transnational crime, and the meeting between ASEAN nations and Japan on joint measures against terrorism in the region. A multitude of bilateral and multilateral, "anti-terrorism coalitions," agreements, MOUs, "Work Plans," "Action Plans," and communiqués have been signed or enacted in the region with a goal to tightening security and counter-terrorism. In addition, various countries passed tough anti-terrorism legislation.

A letter to the ARF (June 13, 2003) from Human Rights Watch puts this buoyant counter-terrorism in perspective. Though agreeing that the ARF has "rightly focused on the threat international terrorism poses to the security and stability of the Asia-Pacific region…Combating terrorism requires reaffirming human rights values, not setting them aside. State repression and human rights abuse closes off the peaceful and political expression of dissent and can channel alienation and grievances into extremism and violence. The United Nations has stressed the importance of protecting human rights in the context of counter-terrorist measures…but ASEAN and its dialogue partners have been conspicuously silent on this point, sending an unfortunate signal that human rights abuses can be justified in the campaign against terrorism. For instance, previous ASEAN statements on this issue, most notably the 2001 ASEAN Declaration on Joint Action to Counter Terrorism, makes absolutely no reference to human rights principles. Nor do some of the major bilateral agreements between ASEAN and its dialogue partners…human rights safeguards are urgently needed in the Asia-Pacific region. Many members of the ASEAN Regional Forum have followed the terrible example set by some of their western dialogue partners, including the United States, and have used the campaign against terrorism as a pretext for human rights abuse. In some cases, they have enacted new security laws that violate basic rights and freedoms, or have denied terrorist suspects due process and the protection of law. In other cases, they have used the campaign against terrorism to justify the repression of opponents or arbitrary and punitive measures against asylum seekers and other non-nationals…Safeguards are also needed to ensure that military and security cooperation among ARF members does not contribute to repression and human rights abuse."

There are estimates that the global war on terrorism is costing the Asia-Pacific region billions of dollars through reduced tourism, lost trade, and extra costs associated with increased security measures. When this is coupled with a recent report by Japan's Public Security Investigation Agency that identifies Asia/Oceania as the region with allegedly the most terrorist incidents in 2003, and reported terrorist threats against Asia-Pacific US allies in the "War on Terrorism" (such as Australia, Japan, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand), one can expect that the subject of terrorism will again be high on ARF's agenda.

Related to the broader issue of security, the Financial Times (16June03) reported that, "Indonesia has urged ASEAN to establish a 'security community' to ensure that flare-ups of unresolved territorial disputes and other transnational problems do not undermine efforts to strengthen the region's economic ties." Indonesia, which took over the chairmanship of the ASEAN and the ARF after the June 2003 meetings, claims that the idea of "flexible non-interference" doesn't imply an end to the association's non-interference principle. Indonesian Foreign Affairs Minister Wirajuda said that there is now a degree of comfort among ASEAN members that allows them to recognize that there are domestic security issues that could harm regional security. He said the concept would be a main agenda item during Indonesia's tenure as chair. However, by October, for all intents and purposes, it appeared ASEAN leaders had officially rejected some of Indonesia's ideas. They signed the Bali Concord II which "strongly reiterates the obligation by members to abide by the magic words, non-interference." (10) Among comment on ASEAN's move: "… ASEAN continues to refrain from expanding its validity of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), allegedly the primary forum for the enhancement for political and security cooperation in the wider Asia-Pacific region. The ARF still lacks a code of conduct in its endeavors to establish and ensure security in the Asia-Pacific, in going through its three stages of cooperation, confidence building, preventive diplomacy and conflict resolution…" (11) AFP (7Jan04) reported that former Indonesian Foreign Minister Ali Alatas said: "Respect for sovereignty will remain a basic principle for ASEAN, but increasingly we realize that we have to be flexible, that we have to be non-doctrinaire in some of these things…We realize that we have to reinvent ourselves in order to remain relevant, in order to remain effective."

The Pacific Campaign for Disarmament and Security (PCDS) has closely followed the development of the ARF. In July 1994, PCDS and the Thai Peace Seminar Organizing Committee sponsored the Bangkok Peace Seminar to coincide with the inaugural meeting of the ARF. Since that time, PCDS has published an annual report on the ARF along with a letter of recommendations to all ARF foreign ministers and the ASEAN Secretary-General in advance of each ARF meeting.

Pacific Campaign for Disarmament & Security

©2007 Pacific Peace Working Group