Transcript of Remarks to Singapore media by Singapore Foreign Minister Prof S Jayakumar after the 36th AMM/10th ARF/PMC, 19 June 2003, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Q (CNA): We'd like a wrapup, your views on the meetings here, how do you see the outcome, your impression about the dynamics, etc.
Minister: In response to your question on my overall impression of the meeting, I will divide it into two parts.
First, as far as ASEAN meetings and discussions among the ten who are members of ASEAN, I would say the Retreat to me was the high point of the meeting. We have had Retreats for some years now, started by us in Singapore. This year's Retreat, by far, was the most successful of the Retreats, not only because we discussed sensitive matters, or what might have been regarded as sensitive matters some years ago - we discussed Myanmar, we discussed developments in Aceh - and the Ministers of the countries concerned felt comfortable in having these matters discussed.
It was also the most successful Retreat in the sense that the comfort level amongst the Ministers was very good, so much so where in previous years' Retreats normally took two hours - and that was it - this year, the Retreat spilled over to the following morning.
In terms of the atmospherics, the comfort level as well as the substance of matters discussed, it was an excellent Retreat. So there is value clearly in having closed door meetings where Ministers don't have to have to look over the shoulders and say things for the record, say things for the note-takers to capture.
The second part of the ASEAN Meeting was something that was not extensively reported, which is that the firm of McKinsey gave us a briefing. They have been commissioned by ASEAN to do an independent survey of competitiveness of ASEAN. I cannot go into the details of their study or their recommendations because it has not been made public, but their briefing to the ASEAN Foreign Ministers drove home the point very clearly, that ASEAN has to get its act together to be competitive and if we do not do so, and we do not have a competitive edge, then ASEAN's relevance to the region and to the world would be very adversely affected. I think the ASEAN Foreign Ministers came away from the briefing clearly with the awareness that we have a very narrow window in which to get our economic act together.
This of course is going to be driven by the Economic Ministers in ASEAN. I believe they have a high-level task force and they will have to factor in the recommendations and findings of the McKinsey report when they fleshed out the ASEAN Economic Community concept and make their recommendations to the ASEAN Leaders at their Summit in October.
Moving away from ASEAN-10 meetings as such and the larger meetings we had in ARF and Post Ministerial Meetings, I would say that there are two important features of this year's meeting.
One is, both ASEAN countries as well as the Dialogue Partners were very much focused on the new threats, either to security or to - shall I say - "health security" of the world as posed by SARS. It is very difficult to compartmentalise 'this is security and this is not security' because SARS has so severely affected the economies of so many countries.
So there was a heightened awareness at these meetings that ASEAN countries as well as our Dialogue Partners have to work hand in hand in (countering) terrorism, which is going to be an on-going continuous problem; have to work hand in hand for SARS and even if SARS were to be licked, there was an awareness that there may be other forms of diseases which may crop up, and so ASEAN, together with other countries, let us use our experience to cooperate similarly - let us hope it doesn't happen - but if and when other pandemics or outbreaks of diseases arise.
The second aspect of the meetings with the Ddialogue Partners was that we may need to think through in the ASEAN Regional Forum how we can be responsive to events or problems that arise in between two annual forums.
It so happened, for example, that the situation in the Korean Peninsula is a timely topic - so everybody was seized with it - but if a crisis occurs when ASEAN Ministers are not meeting with the ARF, then how do we respond?
Many ideas were put forward, for example, if the situation warrants, should we meet in a special or emergency Ministers' meeting? Another idea put forward was, can we have the mechanisms of the 'Friends of the Chair' i.e. the existing Chairman of ASEAN, who is also Chairman of ARF, and maybe assisted by the previous chairman or future chairman. Well, some such ideas. There was a view, and I think this was shared by many, that because we have seen the need to respond quickly to new problems, we need mechanisms and we cannot just wait for once-a-year meetings - the problem might have overwhelmed us. That is my take on these meetings.
Q (ST): Now that you have sent, the ASEAN Ministers and ARF Ministers, have sent a clear message to the Myanmar government, what does ASEAN plan to do next in case things run into a jam again? Do you see this as recurring problem - not prejudging things, but ASEAN has to deal with this. Is this a recurring problem or do we see solutions coming out after this meeting has taken place?
Minister: I think we must be clear that what transpired in the discussions concerning Myanmar is not a case of ASEAN, or the rest of ASEAN, telling Myanmar what they should do, what specific solutions they must take in their internal processes and it was not a case of ASEAN foisting a solution or imposing a solution on Myanmar.
What happened was - and this was a significant developnment - that we discussed the issue with the Myanmar Foreign Minister, just as there was a discussion of Aceh, and it was a discussion which was not opposed or resisted by the Myanmar Foreign Minister because he took the view that he knows that there is concern internationally, there is concern in the region, and he want to give his explanation; at the same time he said, 'I am willing to listen to various views', he was also prepared to convey these views to the authorities. So I think we have to be careful to understand what took place and what did not take place.
It is not ASEAN dictating to a fellow member that this or that solution ought to occur. So, in that sense, it is not a question of ASEAN having to meet again and ensure compliance and so on. But it is really a sharing of views and expression of concern by fellow ASEAN members on a matter which took place in one of our member-countries but yet, others felt that it was also a matter of concern for ASEAN.
Some newspapers have reported it as a departure from the principle of non-interference. I don't think that issue ever arose in our meeting. So in that sense it is a good development that ASEAN members now have reached a point where they feel comfortable talking about these matters.
Q (ZB): On the issue of Myanmar and North Korea, there are some observers saying that ASEAN has double standards. In one way, Myanmar maybe we say it is a family member, but on North Korea, ASEAN sounds more stronger in the language. Would you like to comment on this?
Minister: Well, there will always be criticisms. But I think we have to take it in context. We have to take it in context in the sense that in the case of the Korean Peninsula and the issue of nuclearisation, it's not a matter concerning just ASEAN, it is a matter which concerns all of Asia, and beyond Asia, because it is viewed as a matter of Weapons of Mass Dstruction and the threat of nuclear proliferation - and withdrawal from the NPT and so on is a matter of international concern. When ASEAN expresses a view on that, it is an expresssion of a view which is a matter concerning serious implications for the security and stability of the region. So, I would not say the two are exactly on the same plane.
Q (ST): I would just like to come back to Myanmar, just to probe your views. You described this as a setback, on what had happened on May 30 incident, her detention. But surely all these talks must lead to something, because if it doesn't, then we are back to square one, right? So, we are not imposing these views on Myanmar but you must be telling them something with effect or you are ineffectual.
Minister: Well, I would say these have to be taken step-by-step. When ASEAN members felt and expressed the view of their setback, for example, Singapore and other ASEAN countries have been discussing with the EU to urge the EU countries to admit Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar into the Asia Europe process, ASEM.
In fact, this is carrying out the instructions of our Leaders who urged the Ministers that Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar should be admitted to this Forum. But to give one example of what I mean by setback - this will make it very difficult because the Europeans have indicated to us that they had been on the verge of agreeing to it but now it may be very difficult for them to agree to it. So this is just one example.
What we are really conveying to Myanmar is that in order for us to be helpful to them and assist them, they too have to make some concrete steps in full process of addressing the issues which is of concern to the international community.
Q (ST): Just on the EU, this year's representation is of lower level and very little heard from them this time. What's going on this time? Are they interested or not?
Minister: I think the EU is very interested because I know that from my conversations with Chris Patten that the EU views the relationship with ASEAN very seriously. On this particular instance, it is only the EU which is represented, other Ministers could not come; it is just EU in the ARF and in the PMC. I believe that there was a logistical problem in the Minister attending but what I am hoping is that Asia-Europe Meeting to be held in July in Bali, I hope that there will be a good turnout by European Ministers.
One of the problems they have which they told me is a scheduling problem because their Ministers are meeting very often. But in terms of commitment to the process, commitment to engaging with ASEAN, commitment to Asia-Europe meeting, I do believe that they view it as an important process.
Q (ST): So you don't think that there is a waning of interest even though that they are very pre-occupied?
Minister: I do not think so. If you listen to the interventions made by the Deputy Minister of Greece who was representing the Chair of the EU and his participation on various topics, they were quite focused in cooperation with ASEAN.
Q (ST): On China, they are going to accede to this Amity treaty. Have they given you any indication exactly when they will accede to it?
Minister: I believe that they are keen to accede to the TAC (Treaty of Amity and Cooperation) but they have some procedural steps to follow within their own constitutional or legal system. I guess it needs to be approved by their legislature or whatever. But they have made it very clear to us that they have decided to accede. It is a matter of them complying with their internal processes.
Q (ST): So that is going to happen and also ZOPFAN, I think they are going to...
Minister: I don't remember ZOPFAN.
Q (ST) : I think they did.
Minister: We've got to check on that.
Q (ST): The Russians took a half step, if I am not wrong. You know what they did just now - instead of going to the Amity treaty, they did what they did just now, you know, with all those statements. You know any reasons why they are holding back?
Minister: Am I right that they have also indicated that they are prepared to accede to the treaty?
Q (ST): But why do they need to do this if they are going to do that?
Minister: Well, I viewed it differently - and I would have added this in my earlier comments about the meetings here - ASEAN has to be outward-looking and has to engage with key Dialogue Partners and I am very encouraged by the fact that many of the Dialogue Partners want to reflect this, in either their economic or political dialogue with ASEAN, in a variety of ways.
So, you would have seen that on the economic front, China has a framework of economic cooperation, and we have discussions on the FTA with China; Japan is engaged in a CEP with ASEAN; India has expressed an interest. On the political dialogue, you have seen Russia wanting to indicate interest in concretising its relationship through the declaration we adopted.
You may also be aware that China has proposed agreement or aprobation on Strategic Cooperation for Peace and Prosperity with ASEAN.
Q: Is that something new?
M: No, they have mentioned it to us. And Japan, which has a commemorative summit with ASEAN later this year in December, is also talking to ASEAN about a document which can reflect the relationship between ASEAN and Japan.
So ASEAN ought to be outward-looking, and I'm glad that many of the key countries themselves are showing a deep interest in either projects with ASEAN or to have declarations which will have captured all the existing projects and approaches to cooperation with ASEAN. So, I would not say that it is holding back - if they want to sign the TAC - now or later, it's all right - but they have expressed a commitment to sign the TAC, which is a good sign. At the same time, the other documents and declarations have an effect of signalling on the part of the Dialogue Partners their ernest interest in engaging with ASEAN. So that's how I see it.
Q (ST): You mentioned just now that the Chinese are saying a strategic partnership?
M (ST): It is a "non-paper".
Q (ST): What's that about? Is it building on something new?
Minister: It is not too different from the same ideas of the Russian document. But (my officials) can fill you in on this.
Q (ST): Do you see any significance in it?
Minister: Well, the Chinese want to signal that they would like a document that encapsulates all the various aspects of their relationship - economic cooperation, political cooperation, and dialogue. So, I see it in the same light as the Russians have promulgated with ASEAN in a declaration.
Q (ZB): On SARS - it's fortunate that it's under control and maybe that's why at this platform, we don't see much talk about SARS. But I understand this morning, you did raise the issue of SARS and China too. What concrete things did you put forward, and what message did you give, especially on urging the other countries that when they issue their travel advisories, that they be more sensitive?
Minister: Basically, I was the lead speaker on SARS, and it was arranged that China would respond. We can give you the comments which I made. It was just to highlight that while we wished this had not happened, it has happened and all the countries are resolved to learn from the experience and to prepare for similar calamities that might befall us.
Second, it requires international cooperation. Third, that ASEAN countries work closely with other regional countries in a whole series of meetings - tourism officials, aviation officials, immigration and health officials. I also highlighted ASEAN Leaders meeting, which was the first time ASEAN leaders met in an emergency or special session, and the fact that China's Premier joined us back-to-back for an ASEAN+China meeting.
So it was to inform the rest of the PMC partners that ASEAN countries acted quickly, and expeditiously, to deal with the problem, that we are resolved to overcoming the problem of SARS, and we continue to work with WHO and other countries to share experiences, pool our knowledge and prepare ourselves for any future similar problems. Finally, we made the point that we are not letting our guard down.
Some of it I say off-the-cuff, some of it were from a prepared text.
. . . . .