34th ASEAN MINISTERIAL MEETING/8th ASEAN REGIONAL FORUM/ POST-MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE
Remarks by Singapore Foreign Minister Prof S Jayakumar to the Singapore media in Hanoi on 26 July 2001
"I'll make some general observations about this series of meetings that we've had in the past few days. I'll start off by saying this was quite a significant meeting in the sense that it's the first time that the Foreign Ministers' meeting, ARF and the PMC has been held in one of the newer countries. Previously, for the past many years, it's been held in either the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei, and now you have the newer countries.
Second, many of the Foreign Ministers of ASEAN countries as well as the Dialogue Partners like US, Japan, for many of these Foreign Ministers, it's the first time they are attending an ASEAN meeting or ARF. I'm glad that there was very good attendance. Foreign Minister Tanaka of Japan was there, in fact the Foreign Ministers of all the major powers - Colin Powell of the US, Russia's Ivanov, China's Tang Jiaxuan - they were here from day one right on to the end. It was useful because not only did this enable us to meet Japan, some of us bilaterally, but they were able to see for themselves what ASEAN is about and also understand some of the issues preoccupying us in ASEAN and in the region.
I'll take each of the separate meetings and make some comments. For the AMM, I'll make two comments. First, the significant, useful discussions were, I believe, in the Retreat. So I continue to believe that the Retreat is a good format because without officials, the ASEAN Foreign Ministers tend to have more in-depth and candid discussions. And as at the other Retreats - this is the 3rd or 4th Retreat - as we progress, I find that the Ministers are willing to discuss more frankly and even touch on what was previously regarded as "sensitive" topics.
At this Retreat, as far as Singapore is concerned, our main message was that ASEAN has to be outward-looking and ASEAN must stay on track on important projects like AFTA, review existing mechanisms by engaging external countries which are major powers, as well as explore new ways, linkages with countries outside the region. In other words, we cannot stand still, we have to come up with new ideas in order to continue to be useful and relevant as an organisation to external Dialogue Partners and countries. For example, the idea that we threw up, which struck some resonance, was that at the ARF, we should explore ways and means of having greater interaction among Defence officials of ARF countries. I'll come to that in a minute. I think it struck some resonance.
The other interesting point which some newspapers mentioned, was that the ASEAN meeting was overshadowed by developments in Indonesia because when the meetings began on Monday (23 July), the events were fast developing in Indonesia. I'm not sure whether the word "overshadowed" is correct because the problems of Indonesia previously, the political crisis, have a direct relationship to ASEAN and the region; so it was highly relevant. As you know from the statements made by many countries, the news that there had been orderly, peaceful transition in Indonesia was welcomed by both ASEAN and non-ASEAN countries. There was a sense of relief and perhaps even an expectation, I would say - there was a sense that for the first time in several years, that Indonesia would now get on the road to stability and economic recovery. This was a refrain that you heard both at the official meetings as well as in the corridors when the news came through. But at the same time, I think everybody is realistic that the problems of Indonesia, which the new leadership has to face, are enormous. We do not expect them to solve the problems overnight. But as I said, the general mood was one of expectancy that maybe for the first time, there's a ray of hope. Those are the two comments I have to make about AMM.
About the ARF, just to highlight two or three points. One was that Vietnam (Chairman) asked Singapore, or me, because I attended seven ARFs, to give an overview or stock-take, which I did. And my main message on the ARF was that we have evolved from humble beginnings to where we are now. We've developed a certain comfort level, but we must press on; we cannot just be a talk shop. We must press on, but press on in action, orientation and method. We should implement some of the mechanism we have recently adopted. It is essential because the ARF is a unique forum. It is the only forum that we have in the region to deal with security issues. It is unique in several other senses because participation is not limited to countries in the region, it involves most of the key external powers. In that sense, it's unique. It is also unique in that it was not conceived of as a response to any conflict and it's not directed against anyone, so we have some unique instrument growing here. The trick is how to nurture it.
The second point I want to highlight is that Singapore had taken the initiative to draft the paper on Preventive Diplomacy, which later took in amendments from other countries. I'm glad to say that the paper was adopted at this ARF. It is a step forward because ARF was conceived of as evolving in three stages: First, the Confidence Building Measures; next, Preventive Diplomacy; and further down the road, the long-term objective is, Conflict Resolution. But it was important that we moved towards Preventive Diplomacy. So the aim of this paper is to try to give some common ground as to what we understand by Preventive Diplomacy, what are the norms, what are the concepts. In that sense, it's a step forward.
The third aspect of the ARF was the agreement to our proposal for the Defence officials to have greater interaction. Let me explain: from the first ARF till two years ago, it has really been the Foreign Ministry officials who have been participating quite intensely. Two years ago, it was agreed that when the ARF meets, there will be a lunch for Defence officials. I feel that it was rather ironic, when the cornerstone of the ARF is security discussions, that we do not have more interaction amongst the Defence officials at the ARF. So the ARF senior officials have been tasked in the Chairman's statement to look into ways and means of having greater interaction amongst the defence officials when the ARF meets.
Finally, the PMC. Singapore was asked to explain to our Dialogue Partners on the Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI) which was adopted at last year's Summit in Singapore. This was really the Summit's decision last year, to address the problems of integration, prevent a two-tier ASEAN, how to cooperate and give assistance so that the newer ASEAN countries (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam) can reduce the gap between the older ASEAN countries and themselves. It was felt that we should explain this to the Dialogue Partner countries, and the way in which we explained was to say that this is really a self-help project on the part of ASEAN where the more advanced ASEAN countries help the newer countries. But this can get an impetus if some of the Dialogue Partners join hands with us in this project. I know there is some considerable interest in this. Many of the Dialogue Partners of course have existing bilateral schemes under ASEAN's umbrella. Korea and others expressed interest in working with us in this project...
Maybe I ought to have said also - one other observation was that at this meeting, ASEAN Foreign Ministers acknowledged the reality of our difficulties. I think that is a good sign. In other words, we cannot be in a denial mode and the best example I would give is ASEAN Secretary-General Rod Severino's report. I'm not sure if you noted it - the Secretary-General of ASEAN in his report says ASEAN has slipped to its worst of times, both in reality and in perception. Last year, I made a wake-up call. In a sense, the Secretary-General of ASEAN is also making a wake-up call and no Foreign Minister disagreed with him. Some people have said ASEAN is in a denial mode; good that we begin to openly acknowledge this."