| |
ARF breaks new ground
By Brad
Glosserman
The recent meeting of the ASEAN
Regional Forum (ARF), the Asia-Pacific region's premier
Track 1 security dialogue, has been applauded as a
watershed for the institution - and rightly so. The
group's pledge to fight international terrorism breathed
new life into the forum. But the real significance of
this year's meeting is to be found in the substance of
those commitments. Implementation of the measures
endorsed at this year's get-together would mark a
turning point in the ARF, shifting both its focus and
its role.
This year's meeting was considered a
real test of the ARF's continuing relevance. The failure
to respond with more than words to the threat of
international terrorism - especially when Southeast Asia
has been identified as the "second front" in the war on
terror - would have confirmed the view of critics who
argue that it is little more than a "talk shop", long on
rhetoric but short on concrete action. Fortunately, the
ARF rose to the challenge.
The ARF Statement on
Measures Against Terrorist Financing lays out specific
steps that the members will take to fight the terrorist
threat. The language is important. The statement does
not say that participants "should" or "agree that ...".
Instead it is quite emphatic: "ARF participants will
implement quickly and decisively measures that the
United Nations has identified as mandatory to combating
terrorist financing. We will block terrorists' access to
our financial system. We will work with other relevant
international bodies ..." The statement goes on to list
concrete steps that the participants have agreed to take
pertaining to:
freezing terrorist assets;
implementation of international standards;
international cooperation on the exchange of
information and outreach;
technical assistance; and
compliance and reporting.
Moreover, the
chairman's statement, the only "official" document that
the ARF issues, refers to the terrorist financing
statement and notes that the ARF has "agreed to review
its implementation". In other words, both the language
and context of the statements commit the ARF members to
concrete steps.
Apart from silencing the
critics, the agreement marks two other important shifts
for the forum. The first concerns the maturation of the
forum itself.
It is generally accepted that the
particulars of the Asia-Pacific security environment
necessitate a go-slow approach to institution-building.
As a result, the ARF had to start with the most
elementary confidence-building before it could consider
conflict prevention, and finally move on to the most
sensitive topic of all, conflict resolution. (This is
especially sensitive because it could involve military
intervention to resolve disputes.) At this stage, it is
argued, the focus belongs on confidence-building
measures that would increase trust among members,
although there have been some tentative forays into the
realm of preventive diplomacy.
Yet the Statement
on Measures Against Terrorist Financing calls for
clearly defined action. For example, the steps on
international cooperation enhancing international
exchange of information or setting up a Financial
Intelligence Unit go considerably beyond mere
confidence-building measures. In other words, ARF
members have agreed to do things that are a good
distance beyond what had previously been argued was
possible. This could be a watershed for the forum.
The second important development of this year's
meeting concerns the focus of the discussions. About
one-third of the section of the chairman's statement
that highlights the issues discussed is devoted to
terrorism. In fact, as much space is given to terrorism
and related issues (treaties and conferences controlling
weapons of mass destruction) as is given to
geographically focused East Asian security concerns
(such as developments on the Korean Peninsula or the
South China Sea).
This shift toward
"transnational" threats requires a broad-based approach
to security, and that formulation takes us closer to the
notion of "comprehensive national security" that China
has championed. On the other hand, such an approach has
potentially ominous implications for governments that
have been zealous protectors of national sovereignty and
national prerogatives. Those sensitivities were on full
display during the negotiations among Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states that
preceded the US-ASEAN Joint Declaration for Cooperation
to Combat International Terrorism. Indonesia and Vietnam
were both reluctant to sign any agreement that might
legitimize foreign intervention on their soil. To meet
their concerns, the agreement recognizes "the principles
of sovereign equality, territorial integrity and
non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other
states", the guiding principles of ASEAN diplomacy.
Nevertheless, ASEAN still endorsed information
sharing, the development of more effective
counter-terrorism policies, and enhancing liaison
relationships among law-enforcement agencies. While
bounded by "their respective domestic laws and their
specific circumstances", each of these measures once
again seems to move ASEAN member governments beyond mere
confidence-building.
Of course, genuine
evolution of the ARF depends on governments taking
concrete steps to implement these agreements. They could
still falter. But if they do, the fault will be their
own, and not that of the institution. This year, both
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the ASEAN
Regional Forum have taken a real step forward.
It is vitally important that the United States
acknowledge that progress. It appears to have done so.
Secretary of State Colin Powell was given high marks by
regional diplomats and analysts after his recent tour of
the region. Also significant, curiously enough, was
President George W Bush's cameo in the video prepared
for the traditional dinner that followed the ARF.
Southeast Asian diplomats appreciate how busy the US
president is; his willingness to take time from his
schedule to make a brief appearance in the US
presentation made an impression. Engagement comes in
many forms, and the United States needs to recognize
that a little effort can go a long way.
Brad Glosserman is director of
research of Pacific Forum
CSIS. He recently spent
10 days in Southeast Asia. This article is used with
permission. The ARF chairman's statement is
available at http://www.aseansec.org/amm/progarf1.htm
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
