So what does the ASEAN Charter mean to you?
-
One of the placards that the protesters were holding up.
- from TOC. -
yes provided SG has that leadership and political savoy. do u think LHL is demonstrating that ?Originally posted by LazerLordz:I would disagree. With the ASEAN integration drive, our role and prominence will increase.
In the end, every grouping needs a globally relevant nation to be it's conduit.
Maybe that's why our neighbours aren't too happy, especially some segments of Indonesians who are seeing their status as ASEAN's figurehead diluted.
-
just wonder if this means more FTs will come in ,
not that there is too few of them now. -
Perhaps this is one area where our diplomats will be needed more than LHL.Originally posted by Arapahoe:yes provided SG has that leadership and political savoy. do u think LHL is demonstrating that ?
Time to recruit more FSOs. -
Discord at the 'Family Dinner'
Myanmar's refusal to allow Gambari briefing dampened leaders' spirits
By Ravi Velloor & Cheong Suk-Wai
MOODY MONDAY: The mood was tense on Monday as regional leaders, including (facing, from left) Malaysian PM Abdullah Badawi, Philippine President Gloria Arroyo, Asean Secretary-General Ong Keng Yong and Singapore PM Lee Hsien Loong, had a dinner discussion over Myanmar's refusal to allow Prof Gambari's briefing. -- AFP
IT WAS meant to be a family gathering amid a lush setting, with consomme, seabass, roast veal, ice cream and some plain speaking on the menu.
As it turned out, Monday's informal dinner among the 10 Asean heads of government at the Shangri-La Waterfall Terrace became the most dissected event - the morning after.
What prompted the leaders to make a surprise announcement late on Monday night that they had aborted a briefing by UN Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari on the Myanmar situation?
Ahead of the meeting, Singapore's Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo had billed it as a 'family dinner where each member is invited to speak his mind'.
Whatever was spoken, the effect was this, said a diplomat who was present: 'Myanmar looked Asean hard in the eye and the rest of us blinked.'
Host Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong opened the discussion by telling his nine fellow leaders that it would make sense for the grouping to ride on the UN Secretary-General's effort to tell the world that there indeed had been movement inside Myanmar.
After all, no less than Myanmar's icon of democracy, Ms Aung San Suu Kyi, had endorsed the Gambari efforts for a national reconciliation. Besides, he said, it would be a message to the world that Asean was trying to be on top of the situation in its backyard.
After all, Asean had issued a strong statement on Sept 27 in New York.
'It cannot be business as usual. That was why Singapore thought it would be a good idea for Gambari to brief the East Asia Summit. That was Mr Lee's point,' said a person who listened to the speech.
Diplomats familiar with the developments said that there were some murmurs when Singapore initially mooted the proposal. But as no one objected to the idea, Singapore went ahead and invited Professor Gambari to address the summit.
However, even as the UN envoy was winging his way to Singapore from New York, the winds shifted.
Another diplomat said that as late as last Wednesday, Myanmar had said explicitly that it had no objections to the Gambari briefing.
But around the weekend, Myanmar sent word that the briefing was not a good idea, but did not reject it.
By then, said a summit participant, the Chinese had also voiced objections to the Gambari briefing for the EAS. But their concerns centred on whether the briefing would be in a formal setting, hence lending the EAS more weight over the Myanmar situation than China felt necessary.
Singapore, acting as the Asean chair, reassured China that the setting would be informal. The Chinese then relented.
Even as early as Monday morning, Myanmar Foreign Minister Nyan Win told his fellow Asean foreign ministers that it was acceptable for Prof Gambari to brief the Asean grouping, but not the EAS. The Asean leaders accepted this position, according to a source, especially after initial rumblings that some did not like the idea of the briefing going beyond the group's 10 members.
But by the time Myanmar's Prime Minister Thein Sein arrived in Singapore, there was a volte face. No Gambari briefing, he said.
'It was obvious he was here on a short leash,' said a diplomat.
'The real issue was never Gambari. The real issue is what role you want Asean to play,' he added.
At Monday's dinner discussion, which some observers described as 'heated', Mr Thein Sein simply would not budge.
There was no need for Prof Gambari to brief the East Asia Summit or the Asean leaders, he said firmly. Every Asean nation is a UN member and if they wanted Prof Gambari's report, they could ask their envoys to the United Nations in New York to get a report from him.
His message came down to this, said a person who listened to Mr Thein Sein's speech: 'I look after my own house. You cannot come in and rearrange the furniture. The furniture may not be great but I do it the way I want it. Period.'
Faced with his intransigence, other senior summit members spoke up. Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines and Malaysia suggested that this no longer could be considered a domestic matter.
One diplomat reported what was said by one leader: 'The rest of the world thinks that this is a matter that concerns Asean also and have begun to hit at us.'
Mr Thein Sein remained immovable. It is a matter between Myanmar and Prof Gambari, he said, and between Prof Gambari and his UN bosses.
Asean? The grouping has no role in it.
The entreaties were in vain. Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia wilted and made the point that 'one of our members is objecting'.
That was the end of the consensus.
That triggered the three-hour brainstorm among the leaders to come up with a Chairman's Statement to explain why they had to call off the Gambari briefing.
Just as family quarrels will inevitably have its eavesdroppers, the night's drama was heightened when a microphone was accidentally switched on and it fed back into the media room snippets of the leaders' angst-filled exchange on how to word the statement.
When Mr Lee finally appeared before the media, flanked by the others, the message had been crystallised to this: Myanmar was 'on its own' in its dealings with the UN and the international community.
Less than eight hours later, the man without an audience to brief landed here and immediately declared himself 'very disappointed' with Myanmar's stance.
But Asean's loss, as it turned out, proved to be individual members' gain, as several of them sought to meet Prof Gambari separately, including at cocktails just before last night's gala dinner. Some even hugged him.
He met Philippine President Gloria Arroyo briefly and is scheduled to meet other leaders today.
One delegate described Myanmar's decision as one 'they will regret'.
But on Monday night, Mr Thein Sein did not look like he had lost his appetite He ended his meal with ice cream ensemble and fruit, after he was done with his plain speaking.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_178756.html
-----------
Disgusted. Totally disgusted. -
yes alot have to do with leader. I already see that the world is lookin for leadership and direction from Singapore hopping to take appriate action, but while western countries expectation may not be the interest of Asia. I don't think LHL is explaining or convincing the world leaders that Asean decision is justified either.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Perhaps this is one area where our diplomats will be needed more than LHL.
Time to recruit more FSOs.
One of the key characteristics that LKY was successful in his early statementship was because he spoke and the rest of the leaders were convince and go along. He was pursausive enough. LHL does not have the interest to explain. His interview with CNN was crap. We see that leadership are here to make hard choice. not sure if LHL could do it. -
Which is why I mentioned that if LHL cannot do the job, our professional diplomats will have to take up the slack.
As it is, MFA is one of the smallest Ministries at the moment, and their staffing is inadequate.
Anyway, it will be interesting to note how ASEAN-US relations might be impacted should a Democrat adminstration come to power next year. -
His message came down to this, said a person who listened to Mr Thein Sein's speech: 'I look after my own house. You cannot come in and rearrange the furniture. The furniture may not be great but I do it the way I want it. Period.'
I think this is not a matter of rearranging furniture within a house but the master of the house kill its own children. And the neighbors come and take the gun away.
Mr Thein Sein remained immovable. It is a matter between Myanmar and Prof Gambari, he said, and between Prof Gambari and his UN bosses.
Asean? The grouping has no role in it.
I am surprise that Asean foreign minister has not thought about this issue of Asean role in bringing Myanmar to reconciliation. if we have no role why do we keep saying sanction doesnÂ’t work!
The entreaties were in vain. Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia wilted and made the point that 'one of our members is objecting'.
this reminded me of Chinese history of the 7 states against the great Ching dynasty. Asean still have a long way to go.
Most western country would probably temporary stop or delay trade talks against Asean .instead it would be towards China, it would be qui pro quo against china
At the end of the day China is the Trade Winner, not Asean, not Myanmar. -
You know what ASEAN has just done by saying that? It's telling the world that it has no power over its own members, at signing day.Originally posted by Arapahoe:[
I am surprise that Asean foreign minister has not thought about this issue of Asean role in bringing Myanmar to reconciliation. if we have no role why do we keep saying sanction doesnÂ’t work!
[
It's called shooting oneself in the foot.
Symbols are important, none was shown.
Did you know the Charter was not even mentioned in BBC or CNN? How globally relevant are we then? As much as ASEAN doesn't like it, it is only the Burma crisis that has gotten the world public focused on ASEAN.
And they couldn't seize the opportunity to show that they are a visible regional grouping in the international order. -
Singapore formally opposed sanctions against Burma but then there are reports that SingaporeÂ’s govt quietly imposed de facto financial sanction on Burma.
What is going on? The words and action donÂ’t match. -
since when vietnam has democracy?
if we trace back history, maybe we can restore the former outsed prime minister of south vietnam.
why no one issue big sanction on china during the tiananmensq incident?
is it because the Junta are weak opponents that the world jump onto them? -
Singapore formally opposed sanctions against Burma but then there are reports that SingaporeÂ’s govt quietly imposed de facto financial sanction on Burma.
What is going on? The words and action donÂ’t match.
why? maybe we need to ask the govt how much temasek invest in burma? -
I think financial institution needs to self imposed sanction because they operate globally if they do not self imposed it is bad business.Originally posted by googoomuck:Singapore formally opposed sanctions against Burma but then there are reports that SingaporeÂ’s govt quietly imposed de facto financial sanction on Burma.
What is going on? The words and action donÂ’t match. -
Originally posted by reyes:
the point is not even what position we stand, the point being we couldn't even decided what, and where is our position.
[b]Singapore formally opposed sanctions against Burma but then there are reports that SingaporeÂ’s govt quietly imposed de facto financial sanction on Burma.
What is going on? The words and action donÂ’t match.
why? maybe we need to ask the govt how much temasek invest in burma?
[/b] -
We're too used to playing family games at the dinner table. You know, mother telling her sons "I won't punish you here because of face, but when you get home then you know ah".Originally posted by Arapahoe:the point is not even what position we stand, the point being we couldn't even decided what, and where is our position.
Sums up the ASEAN way with regards to Burma very well. The difference is that the son is a monster at home, and the mother has been always abused. -
i wonder if the original 6 ASEAN member should now come out of ASEAN and form a unity group
-
The original ASEAN 6 - Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand ?Originally posted by Arapahoe:i wonder if the original 6 ASEAN member should now come out of ASEAN and form a unity group
The Executive Powers in Indonesia and Philippines today are at odds with their respective Legislatures - and are in no position to make any decision that commit their countries to any foreign policies compared to the ''good old days'' under their respected deposed dictatorial Presidency.
Thailand is in a state of limbo, with the military coup leaders forming a Supreme Council having the final authority behind a Civilian Government.
Only three countries in the original 6 continue to have leadership that has control over their respective national ineterests at the ASEAN table. -
Since when has this Singapore Government ever match their words with actions ?Originally posted by googoomuck:Singapore formally opposed sanctions against Burma but then there are reports that SingaporeÂ’s govt quietly imposed de facto financial sanction on Burma.
What is going on? The words and action donÂ’t match.
The biggest embarrassment can be seen in the manner that this Ruling Party has bastardized the Singapore Constitution to a piece of nonsensical paper.
Singapore was the prime mover of this ASEAN Charter, with the current ASEAN Secretary-General being a Singaporean {ex-Private Secretary to GCT} - and it is not a surprise that the ASEAN Charter turned out to be a sham.
The words stated in the charter encourage the expression of freedom and human rights for the citizens of the respective ASEAN Countries, yet as prime mover of this ASEAN Charter the Singapore Government has totally contradicted the ASEAN Charter in the actions taken against the recent political actions by the SDP and the Myanmar students in Singapore. -
Yes i hear you but the original 6 have a better gov structure than the rest at least it has degree of structure in the civil gov. i think in order to till the balance of power within the 6 we need thailand to be on SG side. need to plot a civilian coup against the thai military Junta. Thai has always play a pivotal role for SG.Originally posted by Atobe:The original ASEAN 6 - Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand ?
The Executive Powers in Indonesia and Philippines today are at odds with their respective Legislatures - and are in no position to make any decision that commit their countries to any foreign policies compared to the ''good old days'' under their respected deposed dictatorial Presidency.
Thailand is in a state of limbo, with the military coup leaders forming a Supreme Council having the final authority behind a Civilian Government.
Only three countries in the original 6 continue to have leadership that has control over their respective national ineterests at the ASEAN table. -
What does charter mean to me?
Politics. -
It is just another platform for that Siao Ah Loong to attract ppl attention!!!!
-
Indonesia should forget outdated ASEAN ideas
Endy M. Bayuni, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
Following the signing of the ASEAN Charter, Indonesia must rethink its position vis-a-vis the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, especially with regard to the group's usefulness as Indonesia's main vehicle for pursuing its foreign policy objectives.
What was supposed to be a historic moment for ASEAN, during the summit in Singapore last month, quickly turned into something of an anticlimax, as we saw the extent to which the charter had become a watered down version of the original "bold and visionary" principles laid down by ASEAN's eminent creators.
The charter is indeed a watershed in ASEAN's 40-year history, which is putting the brakes on the region's march toward a unified community by 2020.
The charter is nothing more than a collection of old principles which the ASEAN's 10 members have agreed on. It is not exactly a document that takes us to the next level of cooperation.
Community building, in other words, has become more rhetoric than an objective ASEAN is seriously or actively pursuing.
The only thing the charter will achieve, once ratified, is to turn the group into a formal organization, from the loose network of nations it has been for the past 40 years.
The loose and informal nature of ASEAN has actually worked wonders, and won the group accolades as a model for a regional organization in the 1990s. Thanks to ASEAN, Southeast Asia was transformed, from a region of conflict in the 1960s, into a region of peace and development for the majority of member states in the area by the 1990s.
ASEAN's informality, the non-binding nature of its decisions, the consensus principle in its decision-making process and the principle of non-interference in members' affairs, have all served their purpose to make ASEAN meet most of the objectives and serve in the national interests of its members -- primarily in the security and development sectors.
There is a growing realization, however, the "ASEAN Way" no longer serves the group's interests in the 21st century, in which the geopolitical environment has drastically changed.
ASEAN needs to change its ways to meet the challenges of the times. The rise of China and India as regional economic superpowers and rapid economic globalization make it necessary for ASEAN to come up with a unified response.
Sadly, the charter does not take ASEAN any further than where it stands at present. Decisions will still be made largely on consensus, countries must refrain from commenting on the domestic affairs of other members and Indonesia's proposals for the insertion of universal democratic values and for the creation of a human rights council were largely shot down during the deliberation process.
What worked for ASEAN in the past may not necessarily work again for the present or future. The 40th anniversary was supposed to bring momentum for ASEAN leaders to make the leap, and take their people into the 21st century.
This, they failed to achieve as bureaucrats worked hard to turn what was essentially a bold visionary proposal by ASEAN's eminent creators, into an almost meaningless charter.
Indonesia, as the largest member, stands to lose most from the lost momentum. After a hiatus of almost five years, in 2002 a new and more democratic Indonesia resumed the leadership of ASEAN by coming out with a proposal to turn the region into a regional community by 2020, and once agreed on, came up with a proposal to make ASEAN a formal organization.
Is Indonesia is moving too fast for the rest of ASEAN?
No. Indonesia is simply responding to the challenges of the new Asia, given the emergence of China and India as the region's economic powers. The single community idea and the charter are the correct responses, if ASEAN member states wish to remain relevant as one group in the emerging Asia. The alternative is for ASEAN members to go their own separate ways in meeting the new challenges.
Where does this leave Indonesia today?
Indonesia should go ahead and ratify the ASEAN Charter, but, at the same time, must realize the limitations of ASEAN under present regimes in other member countries, in pursuing many of our foreign policy objectives.
It is not so much a lack of leadership that makes ASEAN a weak organization, as it is the lack of willingness of other members to change their ways, including the adaptation of universal democratic values and human rights principles.
ASEAN and its charter is increasingly becoming a straitjacket for Indonesia's foreign policy.
Rather than pursuing a partnership on the basis of geographical proximity, Indonesia should be looking at forging partnerships and alliances with countries that share the same values and interests with us.
As far as democracy and freedom are concerned, this would mean closer relations with Japan, Australia and India in our own neighborhood and the United States and the European Union further afield.
ASEAN, meanwhile, will develop only as fast as its slowest members.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailheadlines.asp?fileid=20071210.A04&irec=3