Taikichiro
Mori Grants Research REPORT
Name
of the Researcher: Thassarany
Noivong (80825719)/ noivong5sfc.keio.ac.jp
Name
of the Research Project: “The
Asia-Pacific Regionalism: Multilateral Security Cooperation in the Post-Cold War
– The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF)”
Affiliation:
Human
Security and Communication program
Graduate School of Media and Governance,
Keio
University
Table
of Content:
1.
Theme
of the Fieldwork Research
2.
Activities
conducted
3.
Research
Questions
4.
Interviewing
5.
Data
collecting
…………………………………..
Theme
for the Fieldwork Research:
“The
Asia-Pacific Regionalism: Multilateral Security Cooperation in the Post-Cold War
– The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF)”
= The research
is to analyze cooperation in political and security dimensions in Asia-Pacific
by exploring the role of an ASEAN-centered institution, the ARF, as one of an
important regional security and political arrangement, including how and to what
extent this institution meet political and security challenges. This is because
even though the ASEAN has created the ARF as a new cooperative forum with the
attempt to deal more effectively with trans-border security issues in the post
Cold War, the political dogma held by ASEAN is continue to affect cooperation in
the ARF.
ARF cooperation on Disaster
Relief (DR) - will be explored as one of cooperation on NTSs in the ARF,
reflects changes in cooperation on security issues towards the non-traditional
type. Even though natural disaster is a common threat to humanity that never
respect national boundaries and social differences per se, DR is relied on one
of the principles suggested that “DR must be conducted with the consent of disaster-affected countries
(receiving countries), which has the first and foremost responsibility to take
care of the victims occurring on its
territory.” This implies that traditional “non – interventional principle”
is still having an impact on cooperation on NTSs. But at the same time, such
cooperation reflects changes in the ARF’s effort to address with new security
issues in many extents. This is
through exploring the questions;
1.
What could be the example case of ARF cooperation on DR: failure and success?
How and Why? – Tsunami assistance to Indonesia and US military forces (2004);
Nargis in Myanmar (2008), why did military forces from the US and EU intended to
provide assistance fail to do so?
2.
What could be the factors/ conditions determine the success of such cooperation?
Activities
conducted:
Period:
6th August – 17th September 2009
Venue: 1. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bangkok,
Thailand
2.
Thammasart University, Bangkok, Thailand
3.
The Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok,
Thailand
4.
Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation, Ministry of Interior, Bangkok,
Thailand.
5.
National Disaster
Warning Center (NDWC), Ministry
of Information, Communication and Technology, Bangkok, Thailand
6.
Ministry of Defense, Bangkok, Thailand
Activities:
1. Studying, investigating and observing the policy and the role of
Thailand and other countries towards ASEAN and the ARF.
2. Observing Thailand’s role during the ASEAN chairmanship
3. Collecting of related and useful data and information for future
research.
4. Conducting interviews.
…………………………..
1.) Exploring
research questions to be answered:
2.)
Interviewing questions:
1. How relevant
is the ASEAN in dealing with contemporary problems in its region has implication
for the ARF in managing problems beyond sub-region, South East Asia as
well?
2. How ASEAN
members cooperate to solve intra-mural problem and extend such capacity to
cooperate with non-ASEAN members in ARF?
3. How ASEAN’s
traditional practice of “non-intervention” mismatches the nature of
transnational problem, ranging from environmental pollution, disaster
management, financial crisis, as well as terrorism, and affects the attempt to
deal with such problems?
4. How changes
in ASEAN will help ARF to be more efficient and relevant in Asia-Pacific? What
is the obstacle?
5. When/ what
drove the realization among ASEAN members about states’ limitation to handle
security challenges? What is the example of ASEAN failure?
6. What are the
conditions/ factors for ASEAN and ARF to tackle with NTS
challenges?
7. How regional
institution reorients in response to emerging or challenging transnational
threats and security environment?
8. How ASEAN
Charter or ASEAN’s attempt to move into a rule-based organization will help
ASEAN to tackle with security challenges or overcome obstacle caused by
non-intervention principle?
9. How ARF will
help create mutual intervention/ stabilize ASEAN by dealing with any problems
ASEAN cannot deal effectively?
Disaster
Relief:
10. The role of
military and civil in DR.
11. The
Civilian – military cooperation: Line of control; opportunity and
obstacles.
12. Military
cooperation with other countries; with whom, how, and what are
difficulties.
13. Current
exercise on DR.
14. Prospect of
military of DR in the region.
3.)
Interview:
1. Government
Official, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; 06/08/09
1. The ARF’s objectives from its inception is to create “informal” forum
for talking without “pre-set agenda”, which will provide chances and channel for
participants to air and listen to opinion and policy of each other. This forum
is therefore aimed at building confidence and mutual trust.
2. Although there are attempts to move ARF to another stages, but there
are contrast among (East – West) members over how the ARF should evolve? As
while most ASEAN and China want to keep comfort level for participant through
informal consultation, western members (ex. US. and EU) want to see ARF move
into a formal arrangement.
3. ARF is at the same time facing competition with other arrangement
particular ASEAN and ASEAN+3 that also moving into cooperation on
Non-Traditional issues. As a result, ASEAN needs to seek for security issues
that can make added value to the ARF.
4. Thailand: views ASEAN+3 process as a most potential way to achieve
East Asian Community, though not refuse the community to be more inclusive,
ASEAN+3 is more manageable than other arrangement such as A+6 (East Asian
Summit: EAS).
5. Mutual intervention: such as in Myanmar issue
How the
non-ASEAN member in ARF will help create mutual intervention and bring change in
Myanmar behaviors? Myanmar understands more about its position and tries to
change the behavior according to pressure from international community, but
Myanmar is under pressure of domestic politics. Myanmar’s attempt to make a
constitutional change is facing restriction due to ethic groups in the country
especially Karen group. The military junta may need to balance between internal
and external relations that will not harmful to the position of the military
junta.
6. ASEAN: Charter and Human Rights body may push change to Myanmar,
although the mechanism is not strong enough. But as the human rights issues is
once a stumbling block as EU and US have ever used such issue to be an accuse of
not consulting with ASEAN in some issue. The establishment of HRB will increase
ASEAN credibility.
7. Rather than
using sanction or isolation approach towards Myanmar, engagement of Myanmar into
cooperative arrangement is considered more useful. This is by increase Myanmar
awareness that relations and interdependence with others are important and
Myanmar needs to adept itself to be relevant to international environment.
2. Journalist,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs; 13/08/09
1. Condition of analyzing the ARF is nature of the forum: as an informal
arrangement, created for the confidence building rather than problem solving
mechanism, not touch upon any particular security issues, keep comfort level to
all (even among enemy) that means the ARF is not intended to solve any problem
or make any commitment, as well as keep being as a talk shop that make the forum
survive in this security environment.
2. Cooperation on both TS and NTS threats are facing the same problem due
to ASEAN in a driver seat. However, ASEAN can also be a positive condition for
the ARF, ASEAN is forming cooperation in every dimensions in the ARF. Action in
ASEAN is therefore can be positivity for the ARF as well. Cooperation in NTS can
potentially move the arrangement forwards. ISM – DR is now creating the Civilian
– Military cooperation after the Tsunami after 2004. Such cooperation is based
on humanitarian assistance, but also require the consent of involving states to
get into the area such as in the Nargis case. Therefore, question that ASEAN
needs to address is how to draw a line between “Sovereignty” and
“Non-Interference”.
3. North Koran Nuclear crisis: in 2003 the ARF created “Friend of the
Chair”, ASEAN appointed Cambodia to be a mediator that convince North Korea to
commit herself to the SPT. However, North Korea rejected the role of Friend of
the Chair. This is to reflect one of the failure of ARF in tackling security
issue caused by “sovereignty” and lacking of proximity to the problem that
harden ASEAN to drive the ARF.
4. Cooperation NTS threats such as on DR:
- Positive
factors:
1. NTS creates
common threat
2. NTS is
normal threat that transcend states’ border.
3. NTS is less
sensitive as it is not in the form of states’ conflicts
(military).
4. NTS
cooperation supports political status of states that participate in the
cooperation.
5. ARF
cooperation in NTS is benefited from geopolitics factor/ geographic connection.
The US has military base in many places in Asia-Pacific that can mobilize when
threats emerge.
6. ASEAN as a
driver of the ARF creates continuity and can utilize existing resource in
ASEAN.
7. ARF
participate and mobilizing of resources, exchanging of expertise and capacity
building among participants.
- Negative
factors:
1. ASEAN’s
cardinal “Non-Intervention” principle.
2.
Institutional burden
- The ARF is too big to mobilize resource in emergency situation such as
in case of Tsunami, and pandemic. This means when emergency occurs, ASEAN is a
preferable means to deal with security problems.
3. Structural
informality/ non-institutionalized – lack of mechanism, no-specific mission, and
depend on issues raised in each annual meeting.
4.
Inclusiveness: Russia and China occasionally obstruct ASEAN in tackling on
Myanmar issue.
5. ASEAN: the ARF Chair – how to activate
the ARF and make it more relevant in security environment? ASEAN has lots of
diplomatic tools to pick up, whether the ARF is picked up compare to
others?
5. Expectation:
1. ARF to make
policy option.
2. How to keep
comfort level and deal more on both TS and NTS threats.
3. ASEAN’s more
active role.
- To noted that
although the ARF per se cannot tackle with many security issues, it provides a
change for the ministers of participants to meet and talk at the sidelines of
the ARF.
3. Academics,
Thammasart University; 17/08/09
1. Non-Intervention principle and National
Interest:
- Many ASEAN
countries, including Thailand, India and China, relies on energy and forest
sources from Myanmar that make they refrain from pushing too hard on Myanmar’s
problem as international community expect.
- Thailand as a
country shares the borderline with Myanmar invests in many businesses in Myanmar
that led to the question how foreign policy is influenced by domestic interest
groups.
- Balancing
Myanmar and prevent her to rely much on China could be a factor that make ASEAN
reluctant on Myanmar issue.
2. Factors
should be concerned in the ARF such as diversity – democracy level,
developmental level and ethnic (cooperation on
anti-terrorist).
4. Academic,
The Institute of Asian Studies, Chulalongkorn University; 3/08/09
Points of
discussion:
1. NTSs are per se can be
obstacle to cooperation in spite of being a common threat to most states. This
is because the threats is not clear in itself; when it will occur, and how to
response are unknown, while the way to manage such threats is different from the
traditional security threat, which is in itself more obvious. Most states have
to learn how to response, especially the role of military to play a part. The
threat is potentially make states to discuss and cooperate more, but the way to
deal with it is still a long way to learn and adjust.
2. ASEAN Political and Security Community (APSC) and ASEAN Charter, which
the ARF is under, will make the ARF become more formalized and legalized, but
the “Non-Intervention Principle” tightly held by ASEAN is the most significant
barrier to the successful cooperation.
3. The changing role of military caused by cooperation in disaster relief
and other NTSs, including the cooperation between civilian and
military.
4. The needs to develop networking of information exchange and
development of CBMs as a pre-condition for the cooperation on NTSs.
5. The unclear definition of internal and external affairs, conflict of
national interests, conflicting role of agencies within each state, and how
ASEAN will integrate the outcomes of each meeting (such as ASEAN Foreign
Ministerial Meeting, ASEAN Economic Ministerial Meeting, and etc.).
5. Government
Officials, National
Disaster
Warning Center (NDWC); 07/09/09
1. Divided the disasters into 2 types: sudden disaster such as earthquake
and tsunami, and non-sudden disaster.
2. Thailand (NDWC) is now developing the early warning system, especially
that related to disaster water and landslide that happen often in Thailand. But
it is needed to integrate works of each governmental agencies to make the
warning and relief system become more effective, rather than work separately.
3. Early warning system and disaster relief: local, national, and
regional level. Thailand received technical assistance and material from many
countries especially Japan and the US. The broadening cooperation in the wider
regional level is therefore beneficial as the cooperation in the sub-regional
level is still limited in many extents.
6. Government
Officials,
Ministry of Defense; 08/09/09
1. The role of military in DR: military is the first unit who can get
into the affected area due to resources; materials and personnel, the military
has. But when they get into the area they have to withdraw first, then civilian
can continue the work. The difficulty is how to make affected country accept the
assistance provided by the military.
2. The ARF ISM – DR is divided into 5 working groups: Regional
coordination of Capacity-Building Efforts; ARF Military and Civil Defense Assets
(MCDA) Voluntary Model Arrangement; ARF Strategic Guidance; ARF DR Workplan; and
ARF Exercise Planning.
3. In part of civil – military coordination is still facing the
difficulties caused by duplication of work, interpretation of agreement or
textual material, and misunderstanding among each other, Standard Operating
Procedure for Regional Standby Arrangements and Coordination of Joint Disaster
Relief and Emergency Response Operation (SASOP) (ASEAN’s SOP on DR is an example
problem in military part about the procedure of operation.
4. Nargis case: 1. Contacting problem in Myanmar’s capital
area.
2.
The material is kept at the airport, could not get into the affected
area.
3.
The role of negotiation made by ASEAN is one of the positive factors due to
closeness of culture and tradition among members.
4.
Make realized the need of civil society role, the creating of civil society and
military connection to make the cooperation in the future become more smoothly.
The ASEAN is establishing “ASEAN Defense Establishments and Civil Society
Organisations (CSOs) Cooperation on NTS (Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster
Relief). The civil society is important player due to the role of military is
limited.
5. Military cooperation: knowing the capacity is useful not only for
confidence building, but also can make use of it when disaster occur. The
cooperation on DR under ARF will be easier as it is concerned less with politics
matter and less sensitive issue. However, it is needed for ARF to streamline
many attempts on DR within the region.
6. The operation of MNF, when crisis occurs: Make a break down of works
among military forces – the role of civilian > NGOs, and civil society.
4.) Data
collecting:
1.) To
understand the evolution/ development of the forum through Chairman
statements:
1.1) 1994: the
First meeting in Bangkok:
1. Emphasized the need to develop a more predictable constructive pattern
of relationships for the Asia-Pacific region through security cooperation within
the region as a means of ensuring a lasting peace, stability, and prosperity.
2. Recognized constructive dialogue and consultation on political and
security issues, Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC) is used
as a code of conduct and diplomatic instrument.
3. Security issues: Nuclear non-proliferation, maritime security,
peacekeeping cooperation, and preventive diplomacy.
1.2) 1995: the
Second meeting in Brunei:
1. Membership of Cambodia
2. Document in preparation for the ARF “The ASEAN Regional Forum - A
Concept Paper” is obtained.
3. Goal: the ARF is to be a forum for open dialogue and consultation on
regional and security issue to discuss and reconcile the differing views among
members, but also recognizes the concept of comprehensive security – political,
economic, social, and other issues.
4. Method and approach: ASEAN undertakes the role of primary driving
force, the ARF processes at a pace comfortable to all participants in an
evolutionary way in three broad stages; Confidence Building (CBM), Preventive
Diplomacy (PD), and elaboration of approaches to conflicts. Decision is made
through consensus and consultation.
5. Participation/ Organization: moves along two tracks – track one
activities carried out by government, while track two carried out by strategic
institutes and relevant non-governmental organizations.
6. Implementation: Inter-Sessional Support Groups (ISGs) on CB;
Inter-Sessional Meetings (ISMs) on cooperative activities such as PKO, CBMs, disaster relief, and search and rescue
missions.
7. Security issues: overlapping sovereignty claims in the region, Korean
Peninsular issue, Cambodia issues, and nuclear weapons non-proliferation.
1995 - The ARF:
A Concept Paper:
8. Although the armed-conflict in the Asia-Pacific came silent, the
participants are concerned over diversity within the region ranging from level
of development, culture, ethnic, religion and history. ASEAN has a pivotal role
to play in the ARF by fostering habits of cooperation and encouraging regional
cooperation in the wider Asia-Pacific region.
9. There are concerned over: 1. the rapid economic growth that may be
accompanied by significant shifts in power relations, 2. diversity, and 3.
unresolved territorial that could spark conflagration.
10. The Concept Paper affirmed the phase of the ARF process by
concentrating on CB as the initial phase and suggested two complementary
approaches to security cooperation using ASEAN practices of consultation and
consensus (musyawarah and mufakat), and TAC as diplomatic means to regional
security.
11. Two baskets of CBMs are set the first to be implemented in the
immediate future and the second in the longer run.
1.3) 1996: the
Third meeting in Jakarta
1. Future participation – shall be participants that directly affect the
peace and security of the region – geographical footprint. This implied that the
ARF concerned over the rapid growing of membership beyond its manageable level,
while the ARF process per se was facing slow progress. The inclusion of Myanmar
and India was not well received by some participants including the US and Japan
that have preferred a deepening rather than an enlargement of the diplomatic
process. The meeting adopted the set of criteria for new participants. The
participants needed to be sovereign states, which excluded Taiwan’s future
involvement (Commitment). Moreover, how the ARF can response to both views of
all participants and the special needs and interests of the ASEAN States is
taken into consideration.
2. Security issues: nuclear testing and proliferation, elimination of
anti-personnel mines, conflicts in the South China Sea, and the Korean
Peninsular.
3. For the first time stated about coordination and cooperation on Search
and Rescue (SAR) through sharing of information, training facilities and
expertise activities, as well as Peacekeeping Operations (PKOs) together with
the UN.
- Established
the ISM on Disaster Relief (ISM-DR).
1.4)
1997: the Fourth in Subang Jaya
-
The debilitative effects of the region-wide financial crisis started this year
made the meeting yielded almost no progress or significant developments.
However, it is a turning point that ARF participants have increasingly concerned
more about how to deal with transnational/ non-traditional challenges, which may
be obstructed by non-intervention principle. The economic development has become
the main focus of all countries as the economics has laid a solid foundation for
political (in)stability in both national and regional levels.
4.
ASEAN (Thailand)’s proposed idea of “flexible engagement” in the context of
economic crisis must be viewed in the broader context of ASEAN’s handling of
intra-regional problems. It is intended to address newly emerging transnational
issues that require an approach beyond ASEAN’s tradition policy of
non-intervention (Archarya 2001: 152-3).
5.
The inclusion of Myanmar into ASEAN is viewed as a means to engage Myanmar
constructively, while the development of positive relations with major countries
in Asia-Pacific under the ARF can help sustain stability in the region.
6.
Security issues: chemical weapons, anti-personnel mines, nuclear test,
trans-boundary movement of nuclear waste, Korean Peninsular, Cambodia issue, and
the South China Sea dispute.
-
ISM – DR:
track I activities that possibly contribute towards the wider objective of
enhancing cooperation.
7.
1997: Disaster Relief: 3 points in disaster management:
1.
National delivery of DR (domestic response to disaster)
-
Disasters do not respect political boundaries, but are a common problem for all
states of the region. Defense authorities’ role is significant as resources,
skills, discipline and assets. Comprehensive approach to disaster management
involves national plan of action, effective coordination and line of authority
to mitigate the impact of disasters.
2.
International delivery of DR (international response to disaster in another
country)
-
In case when national authorities request assistance (supplement not supplant),
regional cooperation could enhance mutual confidence and regional security and
reinforce sense of good neighborliness among the ARF members. The responses
needed to be flexible, appropriate to need and well-targeted as well as conduct
with the full involvement of the recipient government. To be implied that
disasters can not only challenge states’ ability to response to disasters, but
also reveal domestic
weaknesses of many particular states and states structure. Thus, while acquire international
assistance, states also preserve their authority over the managing of delivering
of disaster relief.
3.
Enhancing cooperation in delivering disaster relief among ARF
members
-
Useful exchange of information (among key points of contact), training resource,
expert groups.
-
Comprehensive approach from prevention, mitigation, relief and
recovery.
-
Standardization of procedure, synergy between diverse national capabilities and
regional cooperation, including regional collaboration between military and
civil authority.
1.5)
1998: the Fifth meeting in Manila
1.
The inclusion of Mongolia
2.
Recognized the important contribution of defense and military interaction and
networking in the ARF’s activities. However, economic slowdown, high levels of
economic interdependence and the presence of potential sources of conflict
became highly concerned during the financial crisis. The crisis could impact on
the peace and security of the region and agreed that the ARF would have an
important role to play in addressing these effects.
3.
Security issues: Four-Party Talks Peace Process on Korean Peninsular, Peaceful
dispute settlement of the dispute on the South China sea, Cambodia peace
process, personnel landmines, nuclear weapons free zone, disarmament, and
non-proliferation.
-
1998: Disaster Relief
4.
Constituted a concrete manifestation of the ARF’s will to cooperate on matter of
common interest affecting the comprehensive security of states. The cooperation
aimed to provide an impetus for a more structured framework for formulating
regional responses to disasters.
5.
National, Sub-regional and regional delivery of DR: coordination with existing
organizations – Asian Disaster Preparedness Center, focal point, (ADPC),
ASEAN (ASEAN Expert Group on Disaster Management: AEGDM), Military and Civil
Defense Assets: MCDA in DR in Asia Pacific, and disaster preparedness proposal
within the framework of APEC. The organizations are to provide technical
support to the ARF in the areas of training, information sharing and
dissemination strategic planning, disaster management and protocol development.
Early coordination of information and responses would be valuable on similar
situations occurring in the future such as from local environments and ecologies
problem – haze reduction.
1.6)
1999: the Sixth meeting in Singapore
1.
Paid attention to the security implications of the economic crisis on national
and regional resilient and how the ARF can play a role in containing the crisis.
2.
Concerned over increased tension in the South China Sea, while the Korean
Peninsular crisis remained concerned.
3.
Discussed more on trans-boundary problems such as arms smuggling, and illegal
migrants, while the activities in DR was moved forward with increasing
cooperation between track I and track II activities notably workshop.
-
1999: DR
4.
Means to bring together defense and no-defense officials to serve the overall
objectives of CB of the ARF, as well as to improve security from national to
regional levels.
5.
ARF cooperation on DR
1)
Promote awareness through producing relevant materials and sharing experiences
in information and disaster planning, and making disaster management more open
and transparent to the public.
2)
Enhance capabilities through inter-connected with improvements in the regional
security environment and formulating of common approaches.
3)
Facilitate cooperation through collaboration among ASEAN members about
acceptable format (national and sub-regional levels) before being shared with
the broader group of the ARF participants. According to the report “the
supportive role of the military in disaster relief. It was noted that national
and multilateral military capabilities should be engaged in disaster relief
operations according to the concrete circumstances and the regulations in each
country, in a transparent manner, but only upon the request of the country
suffering damage. Issues of disaster relief cooperation should contribute to
enhancing contacts among ARF participants, including military-to-military, and
complement rather than duplicate other agencies' activities and avoid projects
that put heavy financial or organizational burdens on ARF
participants.
-
Humanitarian Office (ECHO) of European Commission provides fund and assistance.
1.7)
2000: the Seventh meeting in Bangkok
1.
There was continued recovery from the economic and financial crisis and greater
interaction and exchanges between and among countries in the region. However, it
was felt that in responding to globalization, it was necessary for nations to
strengthen their individual and collective capacities to meet the various
challenges affecting their common security. A united democratic and economically
prosperous Indonesia was viewed as fundamental to the maintenance of regional
security. Support for Indonesia's territorial integrity was thus
needed.
2.
Security issues: Korean Peninsular, Peaceful dispute settlement of the dispute
on the South China sea, Myanmar issue, nuclear weapons free zone, disarmament,
non-proliferation and transnational crime – human and arms smuggling, and
illegal migrant.
3.
2000 DR
-
ARF recognized: 1. The
importance of inter-agency coordination, especially between the military and
civilian agencies in disaster relief and to have a steering body comprising of
representatives from the concerned agencies and headed by a high ranking figure,
and to have clear-cut regulations for inter-agency coordination.
2.
Disaster relief co-operation should contribute to enhancing contacts among ARF
participants, including military-to-military.
3.
How to access updated data on- disasters of each country in order to forecast
and monitor disasters?
4.
ADPC's efforts in developing an inventory of Early Warning Systems of the ARF
participants. Assistance should also meet different types of disasters.
Information sharing should be more in details.
5.
Promoting awareness is of importance in disaster preparedness and mitigation,
especially for developing countries, where the public awareness of disasters is
still low and the government’s capabilities are limited due to financial
constraints.
6.
Concerning about a balance in pursuing, objectives of ARF cooperation in
disaster relief, namely between confidence-building and operational
requirements. Activities should also be undertaken at a pace comfortable to
all.
1.8)
2001: the Eighth meeting in Hanoi
1.
The meeting reiterated the decision-making by consensus and non-intervention
principle, and the role of ASEAN in a driver seat.
2.
Security issues: 1. The impact of accelerated and multi-faceted
globalization
to both developed and developing countries, as well as the widening gap between
those two.
2.
Relatively stable situations in the Korean Peninsular and the South China Sea,
as well as peaceful transition and economic recovery in Indonesia.
3.
Non-Proliferation of WMDs, and transnational crimes
1.9)
2002: the Ninth meeting in Brunei
1.
Despite positive
signs of recovery and growth in the global economy, the region continued to face
uncertainties and challenges such as the sustainability of the economic recovery
process and the threats of terrorism, which had a tremendous impact on the
overall security environment. This led to encouraging of early accession to or
ratification of relevant international Conventions and Protocols relating to
terrorism and the establishment of an Inter-Sessional Meeting on
Counter-Terrorism and Transnational Crime (ISM on CT-TC). The management of
the consequences of a terrorist attack was viewed as a possible area for future
ARF activity/work and recommended that this be given further consideration at
the next ARF Inter-Sessional Meeting.
2.
ASEAN committed to further accelerate its economic integration, embarking on far
reaching economic cooperation, bridging the development gap in ASEAN and
reiterated support for the territorial integrity and national unity of Indonesia
after economic recovery and political transition.
3.
Other security issues: independence of East Timor, Myanmar issue, India-Pakistan
tension, and non-proliferation and arms control.
-
Establishment of Early-warning system.
1.10)
2003: the Tenth meeting in Phnom Penh
1.
Mainly focused on cooperation on anti-terrorism and related
issues:
-
Korean Peninsular
-
Terrorism “reiterated
their condemnation of terrorism and expressed their determination to take all
necessary steps in order to raise public awareness and take effective action
against terrorism. At the same time, rejected any attempt to associate
terrorism with any religion, race, nationality or ethnic group.” Enhanced
cooperation under the Inter-Sessional Meeting on Counter-Terrorism and
Transnational Crime (ISM on CT-TC).
-
Combat money-laundering and terrorist financing, man-portable air defense
systems (MANPADS), the establishment of the Southeast Asia Regional Centre for
Counter-Terrorism (SEARCCT), the rising incidence of piracy at sea in the
Asia-Pacific region in cooperation with the International Maritime Organization
(IMO) and the International Maritime Bureau (IMB).
-
The growing cooperation in the Asia-Pacific, including cooperation within ASEAN,
in dealing with transnational crime - the Joint Declaration of ASEAN and China
on Cooperation in the Field of Non-Traditional Security
Issues.
2.
Other issues: the South China Sea dispute, national reconciliation in Myanmar,
the sovereignty, territorial integrity and national unity of Indonesia, as well
as deny the separatist movement access to means of violence through arms
smuggling into the Aceh province, and non-proliferation of WMDs and small arms
and light weapons.
3.
Improve ARF through: Enhanced Role of the ARF Chair, Friends of the chair to
assist the Chair in dealing with international situations, which affect the
peace and security of the region, and enhance confidence and cooperation in
addressing common security threats, including international terrorism,
transnational crime, piracy and other maritime crimes.
1.11)
2004: the Eleventh meeting in Jakarta
1.
Admission of Pakistan
2.
Due to the
Declaration of ASEAN Concord II (Bali Concord II) at the 9th ASEAN Summit, the
ARF’s role as the primary forum in enhancing political and security cooperation
in the Asia Pacific region is affirmed. Further welcoming of the endorsement of
the ASEAN Security Community, as one of the pillars of the ASEAN Community,
supporting of the realization of the ASEAN Security Community in 2020 and the
development of its Plan of Action.
3.
Accession by the People’s Republic of China and India to the TAC during the
ASEAN+China Summit and ASEAN-lndia Summit in October 2003, and by Japan and
Pakistan during the 11th ARF.
4. Current concerns over situation in Iraq – the importance of
full
implementation of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546 (2004) on
Iraq, and the importance of all nations supporting the full transfer of
sovereignty to Iraqi authorities, and the presence of the multinational force in
Iraq for the time period described in UNSCR 1546.
5.
Intensified cooperation over non-traditional security between ASEAN and China
(and India). Overall key focus of security cooperation is on anti-terrorism such
as support
for the center forming complementary working relations, including cooperation in
the training of officials involved in counter-terrorism with other relevant
regional bodies, such as the International Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA) in
Bangkok and the Southeast Asia Regional Center for
Counter Terrorism (SEARCCT) in Kuala, Lumpur, and through ISM on
CTTC.
6.
Moving to the PD – conduct activities listed in the PD at a pace comfortable to
all.
1.12)
2005: the Twelfth meeting in Vientiane
1. Cooperation on DR was vividly concerned. The tsunami disaster in
26th December 2004 led to the Declaration on Action to Strengthen Emergency Relief, Rehabilitation,
Reconstruction and Prevention on the Aftermath
of Earthquake and Tsunami Disaster of 26 December 2004, which underlined the
importance of ARF partners in working together in emergency relief,
rehabilitation and
reconstruction as well as prevention and mitigation efforts in addressing
natural disaster. The establishment
of an
effective and durable tsunami
early warning system for the Indian Ocean under the co-ordination of
the United
Nations which must be tailored to the specific circumstances of the
Indian Ocean and the individual
requirements of countries. Importantly it led to the
reconvening of the ARF Inter-Sessional Meeting on Disaster Relief and Related Issues
for the inter-Sessional year 2005-2006 to be co-chaired by Indonesia and
China.
2. Goals: the establishment of regional mechanisms on disaster reduction,
including preparedness and mitigation and
supported the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response.
(Result?)
Initiated action – oriented programs to strengthen emergency relief and
rehabilitation in the aftermath of the tsunami, especially a Tsunami warning
system in the Indian Ocean (IOTWS) and other ocean – related hazard warning
system.
-
2005 ISM-DR:
3.
Goals: stock-taking
the capabilities of individual countries in deploying their civil and military
assets to the disaster-affected areas, enhancing civil-military relations in the
ARF process on disaster relief operations, exchanging views and experiences on
disaster preparedness and relief operations including sharing of information,
transfer of knowledge, and capacity building as well as updating the ARF contact
points and training institutions on disaster relief.
4. Setting up an ARF database of assets and capabilities, capacity
building, particularly in civil-military cooperation in disaster relief as well
as raising public awareness.
-
Coordination with other international agencies such as the UN and
others.
5. Civil-Military cooperation in DR:
1.
Legal framework for military to participate in emergency situation (such as
China enacted the First Constitution in 1954, National Defense Law in 2000, and
Regulations on the Army’s Participation in Emergency Rescue and Disaster Relief
in 2005).
2.
Clearly define scope of cooperation
6. National capacity: how to integrate various types of resources to
support member countries (such as the Incident Command System (ICS), as one
component of National Incident Management System (NIMS), which is now utilized
for all emergency response in the US).
7. Regional capacity: capability to ensure the rapid response of both
civil and military operations (such as how to combine capability of EU and ASEAN
on DR: European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid Department (ECHO) and ASEAN
Cooperation on Disaster and Emergency Relief or in supporting of the ASEAN
Standby Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (ADMER). Or how
to combine various available frameworks on DR cooperation to develop guidelines
for ARF?
8. The
sign of changing perception on security cooperation was reflected in the ARF
Seminar
on Enhancing Cooperation in the Field of Non-traditional Security Issues and
workshop on “evolving the changes in the security perceptions of the ARF
countries”.
9.
They have
emerged against diverse historical and cultural backgrounds. They were more
diversified and had both intrastate and interstate implications and propagated
more rapidly than traditional ones and their effects were increasingly complex.
States need to shared their best practices and experiences in coping with
non-traditional threats such as terrorism, illicit drugs, piracy, smuggling and
HIV/AIDS, corruption, illegal logging. This is required a holistic and
comprehensive approach to address non-traditional security issues that involve a
more diverse set of actors to identify and address both the symptoms and root
causes of these threats. However, the non-interference principle is still
regarded.
10.
Security concerns caused by; increasing economic interdependence, but with
increasing economic disparity; remaining traditional interstate security issues,
but with more prevalent and common NTS threats; major powers tension, but with
non-state actors playing a greater part in regional and international affairs.
These require effective multilateralism, increased commitment and cooperation,
common actions, as well as stability in major powers relations.
1.13)
2006: the Thirteenth meeting in Malaysia
1. Maritime security: to ensure the safety of navigation, environmental
protection and maritime security in the Malacca Straits, while maintaining the
balance between the sovereign rights of the littoral states and the legitimate
interests of the international community.
2. Newly urgent NTS threat is pandemic influenza – cooperate with
existing organization rather than duplicate such as with the
WHO.
-
2006 ISM – DR
3. ARF-DR:
to develop cooperative framework, norm, procedure and direction of cooperation.
ARF SOPs on Civil – Military Coordination, and the ARF General Guidelines for
Disaster Relief Cooperation as a basis for the rules of procedure of the ARF
standby arrangement and rapid response system.
4.
ARF General Guidelines for Disaster Relief Cooperation:
-
Defines scope of “disaster” and “Relief”.
-
Principles: - assisting and receiving countries: respecting of sovereignty and
territorial integrity and timely, consent of receiving country, and fair and
distribution of relief.
- Measures to prevent disaster within territories from spreading abroad.
- Facilitating of the work of foreign disaster relief teams within its
territory.
- Not involve in local disputes and avoid having adverse effect on the
local economy.
- Not carry arms.
5.
ARF
Standby Arrangements for DR and Emergency Response: guiding principle for both
civilian and military and ensure consistency with existing UN guidelines and
ASEAN mechanism on DR.
-
Principles: mitigate disasters and minimize risks to disaster and voluntary
basis.
-
The role of ‘ARF Center’: as a communication hub and facilitator of information
sharing.
-
Coordination among agencies on providing assistance to reconcile and integrate
the assistance before moving cross border.
-
Civil-military cooperation.
6. ARF Strategic Guidance for HADR (Daft): recognizes the role of
Multinational Force (MNF), refer to the entire organization of nations
participating forces sharing interests in DR, as one of stakeholders in a large
community aid and relief organizations, operated under the guideline “MNF SOP”.
The term coalition applied to task force that based on ad-hoc (non-treaty)
multinational effort and is normally “crisis action” in nature.
-
Using of military asset in the emergency is needed for effective humanitarian
assistance and DR.
-
Military: major contributor due to the rapid mobilization and logistic
capabilities, as well as health facilities in an emergency, but not take a
responsibility on rule of law implementation.
-
NGOs: especially UN – UNOCHA as an agency that mobilize and coordinate effective
and principled humanitarian action in partnership with national and
international stakeholders. , IOM to facilitate relief directly to those
effected from disasters.
-
Others: logistics support, and health support.
1.14)
2007: the Fourteenth meeting in Php.
1. Adoption of the ARF General Guidelines on DR Cooperation and welcoming
of the Philippines and the US for a 2009 DR Exercise
2. Initial Planning of DR Exercise noted that while civilian agencies had
overarching responsibility for DR efforts, the military often had the best
capacity to respond swiftly to immediate DR need. However, the respect for
sovereignty in the promotion of the tie and inter-agency coordination among DR
stakeholders is still important. It is concerned how the ARF will move toward
further practical outcomes in DR cooperation.
1.15)
2008: the Fifteenth meeting in Singapore
1. Cyclone Nargis and the earthquakes in Sichuan, China: the first led
to the establishment of ASEAN-led
mechanism involving ASEAN Member States individually and collectively, as well
as the United Nations and the international community. This is reflected that
many of the ARF countries are in a region prone to natural disasters,
which is needed for the forum to intensify cooperation in the areas of emergency
preparedness, disaster relief and management, rehabilitation and recovery
including with existing mechanisms and the United Nations. Endorsing
of proposal by the Php. and US to conduct an ARF DR
Exercise.
2. Expectations: Review of the ARF, including the need to strengthen the role of all
ARF participants; enhance practical cooperation; maintain the moratorium on
membership; focus on concrete areas of cooperation; enhance the role of the ARF
Chair and the ARF Unit, develop an ARF Vision Statement, standardise the format
of the voluntary Annual Security outlook, enhance cooperation with Track II
organisations; and improve the ARF's operating mechanisms.
- 2008 DR:
3.
Close cooperation between Indonesia – Australia on Joint exercise – noted that
it reflects desire to coordinate and share experiences and knowledge in DM.
4. DM stakeholders are defined.
-
Affected nations
-
Assisting nations
-
UN
-
International NGOs
-
International organizations
*
Strategic and operational cooperation> tactical level
5. Coordination process:
Start from local coordination to ASEAN
(ASEAN Coordinating Center for Humanitarian Assistance on DM: AHA Center), UN
Relief
*
ARF SOP: to describe the flow of information and best
practices.
6. Preventative measures for potential disasters:
-
Transition to civil support of the host nation during recovery and
reconstruction such as waste management
-
Development of a long - term stabilization plan in coordination with development
agencies
7. The ARF meeting agreed to draw up an ARF DR “Work Plan aimed at coordinating ARF-wide
or sub-regional training for disaster preparedness” (draft) encompasses relevant
aspects of DM cycle and make a concrete progress where in can bring added value
to reduce risk and recovery, given its geographic focus.
Defined the priority areas of cooperation into 3
tiers:
1.
Active
priority areas and projects under ARF Framework.
-
Disaster
risk and vulnerability identification, reduction, and
prevention
-
Improving
government emergency response, relief and early recovery
-
Capacity
identification and improving coordination
2.
Priority
areas and projects to be considered.
-
Risk
mapping, monitoring, and early warning.
-
Disaster
rehabilitation and reconstruction
3.
Possible,
future priority areas: private-public partnerships, and NGOs in
DM.
1.16)
2009: the Sixteenth meeting in Phuket
1.
Changes in ASEAN: roadmap for the establishment of ASEAN Community by 2015 under
the ASEAN Charter that drove the adoption of ARF Vision
Statement.
2. Security issues: The situation in Korean Peninsular was highly
concerned. DPRK was “condemned” especially for the US over non-commitment to the
UNSC Res. 1874 (2009) and recent activities. “Comfortable to all” practice in
the ARF is therefore challenged.
3. Myanmar: to further support close cooperation between the Government
of Myanmar, the UN, and ASEAN in the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis and to continue
to engage constructively with and contribute to the economic and social
development, as well as the path of democratization.
4. The US accessed to the TAC, a code of conduct between
states.
5. DM: develop synergies and links between ASEAN and ARF effort on
DR
- ASEAN: efforts
to further develop regional standby arrangement, rapid response teams, including
initiatives on cooperation over use of military assets in humanitarian
assistance and disaster relief on voluntary basis, and the designation of
Secretary-General of ASEAN as coordinator for humanitarian assistance in cases
of major disasters and pandemics.
The
conduct of the ARF Voluntary Demonstration of Response on Disaster Relief
(ARF-VDR)
Co- Chair: Php. – US. in
the Philippines on 4-8 May 2009.
First
field exercise by ARF as a civilian-led, military-supported activity.
They
considered that the exercise was a major step for the ARF in developing concrete
and tangible contributions to a transnational security issue like disaster
relief and recommended a follow-on exercise along with the adoption of ARF Work
Plan on DR. The
exercise provides to nations who lack an effective national disaster
coordination organization an excellent demonstration on effective disaster
response coordination. The exercise provided a major deliverable to strengthen
ARF in transnational security issues, at the same provided a chance for civilian
and military officials to cooperate, which increases the comfort level among ARF
members. Moreover, it is a way to improve understanding, planning, and execution
by host and assisting nations in disaster relief and related procedures,
including streamlining of various DR approaches of regional, and national
agencies.
-
2009 DR
6. The
importance of the 8th
ARF
ISM DR is to learn important lessons especially from the experiences of China
and Myanmar in dealing with devastating natural disasters, in order to enhance
disaster relief preparedness and responses under the ARF and the need for the
ARF participants to deliberate better and concrete activities and proposals in
the areas of capacity building and disaster management cooperation to address
disaster relief issues more effectively in the future.
7. The ARF Desktop Exercise on Disaster Relief, for example, was to build
interoperability among ARF participating countries in disaster relief
cooperation as well as to practice the draft ARF Standard Operating Procedures
(SOP) for Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief.
8.
Many participating countries proposed idea for DR cooperation such as Japan’s
“Tokyo Defense Forum” reflects efforts to improve equipment, inter-agency
cooperation mechanisms and civil-military cooperation, as well as
Australia-Indonesia Partnership on DR Exercise.
9. Linking
relief, recovery and reconstruction cycle: the
relief of human suffering, restoring livelihoods, the reestablishment of stable
conditions, building national and international capacities to respond to crises,
enhancing the phasing of the response to a crisis and mainstreaming Disaster
Risk Reduction into development cooperation.
10. Expectations: Prepare a specific project proposal to further the work
on the Strategic Guidance. Work Plan on DR is the area that would move faster
than others and give ARF some added value amid the existing
mechanism.