Celia A. Harvey, Jonah Busch and Muhammad Farid, Jakarta | Thu, 11/11/2010 10:05 AM | Opinion
A | A | A | - Klipping the Jakarta Post
The international community is currently tackling two urgent global problems: the rapid increase in climate change and the ongoing loss of biodiversity. Two weeks ago, delegates from around the world gathered in Nagoya, Japan to discuss the failure of countries to meet their 2010 biodiversity targets and to propose new targets for reducing further biodiversity loss. And, at the end of this month, country delegates will convene in Cancun, Mexico, to continue the ongoing climate negotiations and seek solutions to the climate crisis.
One topic that is critical is how to deal with deforestation and degradation of the world’s tropical forests.
Each year, roughly 13 million hectares of forests are cleared globally, resulting in the emission of around 4.4 billion tons of CO2, or roughly 15 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change.
This deforestation also leads to the loss of hundreds — or perhaps even thousands — of plant and animal species, and negatively impacts local and indigenous communities who depend on these forests for their livelihoods.
In Indonesia alone, it is estimated that roughly 1 million hectares of forests are lost each year, resulting in the annual emission of more than a billion tons of CO2, and negatively impacting Indonesia’s biodiversity. Indonesia has a very rich biodiversity, including at least 58 amphibian species, 182 bird species and 141 mammal species that are endemic to its forests and are found nowhere else on earth.
REDD+ offers an opportunity to tackle both of these problems simultaneously. REDD+ is an international policy mechanism in which developed countries provide incentives to developing countries to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation, and to enhance carbon sequestration through forest conservation, carbon stock enhancement and sustainable management.
For Indonesia, REDD+ is an unprecedented opportunity to conserve its remaining forests, significantly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and earn revenue in support of sustainable development. It is also a unique opportunity to conserve forest habitat for the country’s remarkable biodiversity.
Although the REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) mechanism is designed primarily to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the forest sector, there are several reasons why it is also likely to provide unprecedented benefits for biodiversity.
First, for REDD+ to be successful, policy-makers will need to find ways to address the many drivers of deforestation and degradation of tropical forests. Most of these drivers of deforestation are also the key threats to biodiversity conservation.
Second, the approaches that policy makers will use to conserve and sustainably manage forests will likely build on approaches already developed and implemented by the conservation community. These key approaches include payments to local communities and jurisdictions that conserve forest, the expansion of the protected area system, the improved management of existing protected areas, recognition of indigenous communities and community-managed areas, prevention of fires, as well as the use of agroforestry systems and agricultural intensification on degraded land to reduce pressure on remaining forests.
Third, both REDD+ and biodiversity conservation are dependent on good governance. Under REDD+, governments will need to strengthen their forest governance, enhance their capacity to monitor forest cover and illegal logging, and develop clear legal and financial frameworks and law enforcement to protect remaining forests.
In addition, they will need to clarify land tenure issues and carbon rights. All of the steps towards improving forest governance will not only help ensure that REDD+ conserves forests and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, but also benefit the biodiversity that relies upon these forests.
Finally, the success of both REDD+ and biodiversity conservation efforts will depend on active participation and support of local stakeholders. If local communities and stakeholders are well-informed and supportive of efforts to reduce deforestation and degradation and actively involved in decision-making and implementation of REDD+, it is more likely that forests will be conserved over the long term, providing both mitigation and biodiversity benefits.
Of course, REDD+ on its own is not enough to solve either the climate change or biodiversity crisis. In order to tackle climate change, additional mitigation activities such as reducing fossil fuel use, using renewable energy and promoting energy efficiency through development of a low carbon development strategy are needed.
To achieve biodiversity conservation, additional conservation measures will be needed in non-forest ecosystems and in areas that may have little mitigation potential but are of important conservation value.
However, if REDD+ is well-designed and appropriately implemented, it would be a giant and historic step forward towards solving both the climate and biodiversity crises. With its vast (but rapidly disappearing) forests and extraordinary biodiversity, Indonesia is a unique position to provide global leadership in ensuring REDD+ delivers both climate mitigation and biodiversity benefits.
Dr. Celia Harvey is vice president of Global Change and Ecosystem
Services at Conservation International. Dr. Jonah Busch is a climate and forest economist at Conservation International. Muhammad Farid, MSc. is a climate change
specialist for Conservation International Indonesia Program.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Climate change, biodiversity and REDD+-Klipping Jakarta Post
Celia A. Harvey, Jonah Busch and Muhammad Farid, Jakarta | Thu, 11/11/2010 10:05 AM | Opinion
A | A | A |
The international community is currently tackling two urgent global problems: the rapid increase in climate change and the ongoing loss of biodiversity. Two weeks ago, delegates from around the world gathered in Nagoya, Japan to discuss the failure of countries to meet their 2010 biodiversity targets and to propose new targets for reducing further biodiversity loss. And, at the end of this month, country delegates will convene in Cancun, Mexico, to continue the ongoing climate negotiations and seek solutions to the climate crisis.
One topic that is critical is how to deal with deforestation and degradation of the world’s tropical forests.
Each year, roughly 13 million hectares of forests are cleared globally, resulting in the emission of around 4.4 billion tons of CO2, or roughly 15 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change.
This deforestation also leads to the loss of hundreds — or perhaps even thousands — of plant and animal species, and negatively impacts local and indigenous communities who depend on these forests for their livelihoods.
In Indonesia alone, it is estimated that roughly 1 million hectares of forests are lost each year, resulting in the annual emission of more than a billion tons of CO2, and negatively impacting Indonesia’s biodiversity. Indonesia has a very rich biodiversity, including at least 58 amphibian species, 182 bird species and 141 mammal species that are endemic to its forests and are found nowhere else on earth.
REDD+ offers an opportunity to tackle both of these problems simultaneously. REDD+ is an international policy mechanism in which developed countries provide incentives to developing countries to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation, and to enhance carbon sequestration through forest conservation, carbon stock enhancement and sustainable management.
For Indonesia, REDD+ is an unprecedented opportunity to conserve its remaining forests, significantly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and earn revenue in support of sustainable development. It is also a unique opportunity to conserve forest habitat for the country’s remarkable biodiversity.
Although the REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) mechanism is designed primarily to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the forest sector, there are several reasons why it is also likely to provide unprecedented benefits for biodiversity.
First, for REDD+ to be successful, policy-makers will need to find ways to address the many drivers of deforestation and degradation of tropical forests. Most of these drivers of deforestation are also the key threats to biodiversity conservation.
Second, the approaches that policy makers will use to conserve and sustainably manage forests will likely build on approaches already developed and implemented by the conservation community. These key approaches include payments to local communities and jurisdictions that conserve forest, the expansion of the protected area system, the improved management of existing protected areas, recognition of indigenous communities and community-managed areas, prevention of fires, as well as the use of agroforestry systems and agricultural intensification on degraded land to reduce pressure on remaining forests.
Third, both REDD+ and biodiversity conservation are dependent on good governance. Under REDD+, governments will need to strengthen their forest governance, enhance their capacity to monitor forest cover and illegal logging, and develop clear legal and financial frameworks and law enforcement to protect remaining forests.
In addition, they will need to clarify land tenure issues and carbon rights. All of the steps towards improving forest governance will not only help ensure that REDD+ conserves forests and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, but also benefit the biodiversity that relies upon these forests.
Finally, the success of both REDD+ and biodiversity conservation efforts will depend on active participation and support of local stakeholders. If local communities and stakeholders are well-informed and supportive of efforts to reduce deforestation and degradation and actively involved in decision-making and implementation of REDD+, it is more likely that forests will be conserved over the long term, providing both mitigation and biodiversity benefits.
Of course, REDD+ on its own is not enough to solve either the climate change or biodiversity crisis. In order to tackle climate change, additional mitigation activities such as reducing fossil fuel use, using renewable energy and promoting energy efficiency through development of a low carbon development strategy are needed.
To achieve biodiversity conservation, additional conservation measures will be needed in non-forest ecosystems and in areas that may have little mitigation potential but are of important conservation value.
However, if REDD+ is well-designed and appropriately implemented, it would be a giant and historic step forward towards solving both the climate and biodiversity crises. With its vast (but rapidly disappearing) forests and extraordinary biodiversity, Indonesia is a unique position to provide global leadership in ensuring REDD+ delivers both climate mitigation and biodiversity benefits.
Dr. Celia Harvey is vice president of Global Change and Ecosystem
Services at Conservation International. Dr. Jonah Busch is a climate and forest economist at Conservation International. Muhammad Farid, MSc. is a climate change
specialist for Conservation International Indonesia Program.
A | A | A |
The international community is currently tackling two urgent global problems: the rapid increase in climate change and the ongoing loss of biodiversity. Two weeks ago, delegates from around the world gathered in Nagoya, Japan to discuss the failure of countries to meet their 2010 biodiversity targets and to propose new targets for reducing further biodiversity loss. And, at the end of this month, country delegates will convene in Cancun, Mexico, to continue the ongoing climate negotiations and seek solutions to the climate crisis.
One topic that is critical is how to deal with deforestation and degradation of the world’s tropical forests.
Each year, roughly 13 million hectares of forests are cleared globally, resulting in the emission of around 4.4 billion tons of CO2, or roughly 15 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change.
This deforestation also leads to the loss of hundreds — or perhaps even thousands — of plant and animal species, and negatively impacts local and indigenous communities who depend on these forests for their livelihoods.
In Indonesia alone, it is estimated that roughly 1 million hectares of forests are lost each year, resulting in the annual emission of more than a billion tons of CO2, and negatively impacting Indonesia’s biodiversity. Indonesia has a very rich biodiversity, including at least 58 amphibian species, 182 bird species and 141 mammal species that are endemic to its forests and are found nowhere else on earth.
REDD+ offers an opportunity to tackle both of these problems simultaneously. REDD+ is an international policy mechanism in which developed countries provide incentives to developing countries to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation, and to enhance carbon sequestration through forest conservation, carbon stock enhancement and sustainable management.
For Indonesia, REDD+ is an unprecedented opportunity to conserve its remaining forests, significantly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and earn revenue in support of sustainable development. It is also a unique opportunity to conserve forest habitat for the country’s remarkable biodiversity.
Although the REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) mechanism is designed primarily to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the forest sector, there are several reasons why it is also likely to provide unprecedented benefits for biodiversity.
First, for REDD+ to be successful, policy-makers will need to find ways to address the many drivers of deforestation and degradation of tropical forests. Most of these drivers of deforestation are also the key threats to biodiversity conservation.
Second, the approaches that policy makers will use to conserve and sustainably manage forests will likely build on approaches already developed and implemented by the conservation community. These key approaches include payments to local communities and jurisdictions that conserve forest, the expansion of the protected area system, the improved management of existing protected areas, recognition of indigenous communities and community-managed areas, prevention of fires, as well as the use of agroforestry systems and agricultural intensification on degraded land to reduce pressure on remaining forests.
Third, both REDD+ and biodiversity conservation are dependent on good governance. Under REDD+, governments will need to strengthen their forest governance, enhance their capacity to monitor forest cover and illegal logging, and develop clear legal and financial frameworks and law enforcement to protect remaining forests.
In addition, they will need to clarify land tenure issues and carbon rights. All of the steps towards improving forest governance will not only help ensure that REDD+ conserves forests and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, but also benefit the biodiversity that relies upon these forests.
Finally, the success of both REDD+ and biodiversity conservation efforts will depend on active participation and support of local stakeholders. If local communities and stakeholders are well-informed and supportive of efforts to reduce deforestation and degradation and actively involved in decision-making and implementation of REDD+, it is more likely that forests will be conserved over the long term, providing both mitigation and biodiversity benefits.
Of course, REDD+ on its own is not enough to solve either the climate change or biodiversity crisis. In order to tackle climate change, additional mitigation activities such as reducing fossil fuel use, using renewable energy and promoting energy efficiency through development of a low carbon development strategy are needed.
To achieve biodiversity conservation, additional conservation measures will be needed in non-forest ecosystems and in areas that may have little mitigation potential but are of important conservation value.
However, if REDD+ is well-designed and appropriately implemented, it would be a giant and historic step forward towards solving both the climate and biodiversity crises. With its vast (but rapidly disappearing) forests and extraordinary biodiversity, Indonesia is a unique position to provide global leadership in ensuring REDD+ delivers both climate mitigation and biodiversity benefits.
Dr. Celia Harvey is vice president of Global Change and Ecosystem
Services at Conservation International. Dr. Jonah Busch is a climate and forest economist at Conservation International. Muhammad Farid, MSc. is a climate change
specialist for Conservation International Indonesia Program.
ASEAN eyeing investment in regional connectivity - Klipping Jakarta Post
Mustaqim Adamrah, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Fri, 11/05/2010 10:20 AM | World
A | A | A |
ASEAN is inviting countries outside the region to invest in Southeast Asia, as ASEAN member states are working on numerous projects to connect with one another and integrate, creating a single market.
ASEAN Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan reaffirmed the importance of building intra-regional connectivity within ASEAN.
ASEAN connectivity will enhance trade, investment, tourism, infrastructure, people-to-people exchanges and development among member countries, which are the main goals of the people-oriented ASEAN Community by 2015, he said.
“Goods being shipped from Bangkok to Los Angeles are cheaper than goods shipped from Bangkok to a small port in the southern Philippines, because there is no connectivity,” Pitsuwan said Thursday in an address at the ASEAN secretariat before ambassadors to ASEAN and Indonesia.
ASEAN declared the adoption of the ASEAN Connectivity master plan on Oct. 28, during the 17th ASEAN Summit in Hanoi.
With the association’s decision to promote connectivity, all are now looking at an opportunity to make (or improve) investment in the region, Pitsuwan said.
Japan had reaped ¥280 billion (US$3.45 billion) in profits each year from its investments in ASEAN, he said.
“This is just to show you that we’re productive and that ASEAN should not be considered only a boutique of collections,” he said.
According to Pitsuwan, last year’s total trade among ASEAN members stood at $1.5 trillion, $3.3 trillion among members of ASEAN+3 (China, Japan and South Korea), $13.2 trillion among ASEAN+6 (plus India, Australia and New Zealand) and $28.5 trillion among ASEAN+8 (plus the US and Russia).
Pitsuwan said those trade figures would increase further if there was better connectivity.
Indonesian Ambassador to ASEAN Ngurah Swajaya, who also spoke at the ASEAN secretariat, said Japan, China, Australia and New Zealand had expressed an interest in improving connectivity in the region.
“In Indonesia alone there are at least 12 flagship projects to be offered to ASEAN’s partners in the form of [official development assistance], and [public private partnerships],” he said.
A | A | A |
ASEAN is inviting countries outside the region to invest in Southeast Asia, as ASEAN member states are working on numerous projects to connect with one another and integrate, creating a single market.
ASEAN Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan reaffirmed the importance of building intra-regional connectivity within ASEAN.
ASEAN connectivity will enhance trade, investment, tourism, infrastructure, people-to-people exchanges and development among member countries, which are the main goals of the people-oriented ASEAN Community by 2015, he said.
“Goods being shipped from Bangkok to Los Angeles are cheaper than goods shipped from Bangkok to a small port in the southern Philippines, because there is no connectivity,” Pitsuwan said Thursday in an address at the ASEAN secretariat before ambassadors to ASEAN and Indonesia.
ASEAN declared the adoption of the ASEAN Connectivity master plan on Oct. 28, during the 17th ASEAN Summit in Hanoi.
With the association’s decision to promote connectivity, all are now looking at an opportunity to make (or improve) investment in the region, Pitsuwan said.
Japan had reaped ¥280 billion (US$3.45 billion) in profits each year from its investments in ASEAN, he said.
“This is just to show you that we’re productive and that ASEAN should not be considered only a boutique of collections,” he said.
According to Pitsuwan, last year’s total trade among ASEAN members stood at $1.5 trillion, $3.3 trillion among members of ASEAN+3 (China, Japan and South Korea), $13.2 trillion among ASEAN+6 (plus India, Australia and New Zealand) and $28.5 trillion among ASEAN+8 (plus the US and Russia).
Pitsuwan said those trade figures would increase further if there was better connectivity.
Indonesian Ambassador to ASEAN Ngurah Swajaya, who also spoke at the ASEAN secretariat, said Japan, China, Australia and New Zealand had expressed an interest in improving connectivity in the region.
“In Indonesia alone there are at least 12 flagship projects to be offered to ASEAN’s partners in the form of [official development assistance], and [public private partnerships],” he said.
ASEAN to bring in US as counterbalance to China - Klipping Jakarta Post
Tini Tran, Associated Press, Hanoi, Vietnam | Fri, 10/29/2010 3:58 PM | World
A | A | A |
Southeast Asian nations are welcoming the United States into their club, a move seen as bringing a counterweight to China following a series of aggressive maritime moves by Beijing.
The 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, will formally invite the U.S. and Russia to join their annual East Asian Summit on Saturday in the Vietnamese capital.
During a stop in Hawaii en route to Hanoi, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton stressed that the U.S. would remain a major power in the Asia-Pacific region and called on China to expand cooperation with the U.S.
"It is not in anyone's interest for the United States and China to see each other as adversaries," she said.
Southeast Asian nations have become increasingly rattled in recent months, accusing China of being a bully following a series of territorial spats on the high seas, including run-ins with Vietnam and a nasty row with Japan.
China has strongly pushed to keep territorial disputes over islands in the South China Sea out of talks held by ASEAN, preferring instead to deal with clashes one on one. But the smaller countries have refused to back down.
"ASEAN should have one voice before we venture (into) talking to other claimants," Philippine President Benigno Aquino III said, adding that he and other Southeast Asian leaders' aired concerns during a dinner Thursday centered around maintaining peace and keeping busy shipping lanes open in the South China Sea.
At another meeting in Hanoi this summer, Clinton enraged China by announcing that the U.S. has a national interest in seeing territorial disputes in the South China Sea resolved, ensuring vital shipping lanes remain open and that navigation within international waters be free for everyone.
China has laid claim to strategically placed and potentially oil-rich islands in the South China Sea, but parts of the territory are also claimed by several Southeast Asian countries, including Vietnam.
Meanwhile, China and Japan met Friday in an attempt to repair soured relations over a maritime territorial dispute, with Japan also asking for the lifting of a block on rare earth exports crucial to its high-tech manufacturing.
Japanese companies have said those exports were frozen after the dispute flared up in late September, though the Beijing government denied that it has blocked the exports.
China's Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi and his Japanese counterpart Seiji Maehara went into private talks on the sidelines of a regional Asian summit, hoping to lay the foundation for a meeting between Premier Wen Jiabao and Prime Minister Naoto Kan.
"The discussion took place in a good atmosphere. It was held calmly while both sides said what we should say. I believe it is likely that the leaders of China and Japan will hold a meeting here in Hanoi," Maehara told reporters after the hour-plus talks in the Vietnamese capital.
The two countries have sought to repair ties brought to a new low after a Chinese fishing trawler collided with Japanese patrol boats last month near disputed islands in the East China Sea. Tensions have remained high, despite Japan's release of the boat captain, with anti-Japanese protests flaring up in cities across China.
Japan also asked China to unblock the export of rare earths and reopen talks on the joint development of gas fields in the East China Sea, Maehara said, adding that China responded that it would consider both requests. Beijing suspended the gas field talks during the spat.
A day earlier, Maehara met with Clinton in Hawaii where she said the restrictions served as a "wake-up call" for the global high-tech industry to diversify its suppliers. China currently produces 97 percent of the world's exotic metals, used in everything from laptops to cell phones.
China said Thursday it will not use the metals as a "bargaining tool."
Tokyo recently said it planned to mine rare earths in Vietnam as a way to reduce its dependence on China, which ships 60 percent of its metals to Japan.
Maehara also said that Japan "repeated its position firmly" regarding the territorial issue over the East China Sea islands, known as Senkaku in Japanese and Diaoyu in Chinese. Both countries claim the islands.
Anti-Japan sentiment has continued to flare in China with multiple protests across several cities, including one earlier this week where a Japanese flag was torched outside a consulate in southwestern China.
Japan on Tuesday said it was considering increasing the size of its navy submarine fleet amid growing concerns that China's maritime muscle is becoming too strong and could tip the balance of power in the Pacific, where the United States also maintains a strong presence.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao is expected to meet with leaders from Japan and South Korea when in Vietnam.
----
Associated Press writer Jim Gomez contributed to this report
A | A | A |
Southeast Asian nations are welcoming the United States into their club, a move seen as bringing a counterweight to China following a series of aggressive maritime moves by Beijing.
The 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, will formally invite the U.S. and Russia to join their annual East Asian Summit on Saturday in the Vietnamese capital.
During a stop in Hawaii en route to Hanoi, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton stressed that the U.S. would remain a major power in the Asia-Pacific region and called on China to expand cooperation with the U.S.
"It is not in anyone's interest for the United States and China to see each other as adversaries," she said.
Southeast Asian nations have become increasingly rattled in recent months, accusing China of being a bully following a series of territorial spats on the high seas, including run-ins with Vietnam and a nasty row with Japan.
China has strongly pushed to keep territorial disputes over islands in the South China Sea out of talks held by ASEAN, preferring instead to deal with clashes one on one. But the smaller countries have refused to back down.
"ASEAN should have one voice before we venture (into) talking to other claimants," Philippine President Benigno Aquino III said, adding that he and other Southeast Asian leaders' aired concerns during a dinner Thursday centered around maintaining peace and keeping busy shipping lanes open in the South China Sea.
At another meeting in Hanoi this summer, Clinton enraged China by announcing that the U.S. has a national interest in seeing territorial disputes in the South China Sea resolved, ensuring vital shipping lanes remain open and that navigation within international waters be free for everyone.
China has laid claim to strategically placed and potentially oil-rich islands in the South China Sea, but parts of the territory are also claimed by several Southeast Asian countries, including Vietnam.
Meanwhile, China and Japan met Friday in an attempt to repair soured relations over a maritime territorial dispute, with Japan also asking for the lifting of a block on rare earth exports crucial to its high-tech manufacturing.
Japanese companies have said those exports were frozen after the dispute flared up in late September, though the Beijing government denied that it has blocked the exports.
China's Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi and his Japanese counterpart Seiji Maehara went into private talks on the sidelines of a regional Asian summit, hoping to lay the foundation for a meeting between Premier Wen Jiabao and Prime Minister Naoto Kan.
"The discussion took place in a good atmosphere. It was held calmly while both sides said what we should say. I believe it is likely that the leaders of China and Japan will hold a meeting here in Hanoi," Maehara told reporters after the hour-plus talks in the Vietnamese capital.
The two countries have sought to repair ties brought to a new low after a Chinese fishing trawler collided with Japanese patrol boats last month near disputed islands in the East China Sea. Tensions have remained high, despite Japan's release of the boat captain, with anti-Japanese protests flaring up in cities across China.
Japan also asked China to unblock the export of rare earths and reopen talks on the joint development of gas fields in the East China Sea, Maehara said, adding that China responded that it would consider both requests. Beijing suspended the gas field talks during the spat.
A day earlier, Maehara met with Clinton in Hawaii where she said the restrictions served as a "wake-up call" for the global high-tech industry to diversify its suppliers. China currently produces 97 percent of the world's exotic metals, used in everything from laptops to cell phones.
China said Thursday it will not use the metals as a "bargaining tool."
Tokyo recently said it planned to mine rare earths in Vietnam as a way to reduce its dependence on China, which ships 60 percent of its metals to Japan.
Maehara also said that Japan "repeated its position firmly" regarding the territorial issue over the East China Sea islands, known as Senkaku in Japanese and Diaoyu in Chinese. Both countries claim the islands.
Anti-Japan sentiment has continued to flare in China with multiple protests across several cities, including one earlier this week where a Japanese flag was torched outside a consulate in southwestern China.
Japan on Tuesday said it was considering increasing the size of its navy submarine fleet amid growing concerns that China's maritime muscle is becoming too strong and could tip the balance of power in the Pacific, where the United States also maintains a strong presence.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao is expected to meet with leaders from Japan and South Korea when in Vietnam.
----
Associated Press writer Jim Gomez contributed to this report
ASEAN gears up to challenge Asia’s giants - Klipping Jakarta Post
Abdul Khalik, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Mon, 10/25/2010 9:26 AM | Headlines
A | A | A |
The leaders of the 10 ASEAN member countries will convene this week to discuss a new master plan for enhancing ties and building new infrastructure that would allow the group to compete with rising economic giants China and India.
The 10 leaders will convene from Thursday to Saturday in Hanoi, Vietnam, to discuss the so-called Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity, which would anchor the region’s long-term strategy to improve infrastructure and institutional and people-to-people relations, the ASEAN Secretariat said in Jakarta on Saturday.
“Enhancing intra-regional connectivity within ASEAN and its subregional grouping would benefit all ASEAN member states through enhanced trade, investment, tourism and development,” the draft of the master plan read.
“The deepening and widening of connectivity in the region would reinforce ASEAN’s position as the hub of the East Asia region and preserve its centrality.”
Experts have praised the plan as a necessary step to improve economic integration that would allow the region to compete with China, which has become a huge magnet for investors.
“ASEAN integration is becoming even more urgent as we prepare for the rise of China and India, as well as the possible normalization of Japan’s military role. As rivalry heightens, these major powers will use economic and military means to achieve their national goals,” Rizal Sukma, executive director of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Jakarta, said.
By enhancing connectivity, investors would see the nation grouping of 560 million people as one united market rather than as separate countries, the expert said.
The master plan proposes strategies to boost road, rail, shipping, air and other networks between ASEAN members to reduce economic disparities in Southeast Asia and help ASEAN achieve its goal of becoming an economic community by 2015.
Indonesian Foreign Ministry secretary-general for ASEAN Djauhari Oratmangun said Indonesia was the coordinator for achieving maritime inter-connectivity in the region. ASEAN plans to build 42 new seaports in the region.
“We propose that the focus will be the eastern part of ASEAN, meaning also the eastern part of Indonesia. According to the plan, 16 ports will be built in the eastern part of Indonesia. This way, we can connect Indonesia’s isolated islands with ASEAN,” Djauhari said.
He said the master plan called for efforts to improve the region’s connectivity in three areas — physical connectivity such as transport and ICT infrastructure, institutional connectivity such as trade and investment liberalization, and people-to-people connectivity such as tourism and education.
The leaders will also likely discuss criticism of the group’s stance on Myanmar’s decision to bar foreign observers and journalists form entering the country during its elections, scheduled to take place on Nov. 8.
ASEAN will host the United States and Russia in the East Asian Summit, along with the six existing partners — China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand.
Analysts say the US is likely to lobby ASEAN to question Myanmar’s approach to its elections, which have been criticized as non-transparent and unfair, given that democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi’s opposition party has chosen to boycott the election.
A | A | A |
The leaders of the 10 ASEAN member countries will convene this week to discuss a new master plan for enhancing ties and building new infrastructure that would allow the group to compete with rising economic giants China and India.
The 10 leaders will convene from Thursday to Saturday in Hanoi, Vietnam, to discuss the so-called Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity, which would anchor the region’s long-term strategy to improve infrastructure and institutional and people-to-people relations, the ASEAN Secretariat said in Jakarta on Saturday.
“Enhancing intra-regional connectivity within ASEAN and its subregional grouping would benefit all ASEAN member states through enhanced trade, investment, tourism and development,” the draft of the master plan read.
“The deepening and widening of connectivity in the region would reinforce ASEAN’s position as the hub of the East Asia region and preserve its centrality.”
Experts have praised the plan as a necessary step to improve economic integration that would allow the region to compete with China, which has become a huge magnet for investors.
“ASEAN integration is becoming even more urgent as we prepare for the rise of China and India, as well as the possible normalization of Japan’s military role. As rivalry heightens, these major powers will use economic and military means to achieve their national goals,” Rizal Sukma, executive director of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Jakarta, said.
By enhancing connectivity, investors would see the nation grouping of 560 million people as one united market rather than as separate countries, the expert said.
The master plan proposes strategies to boost road, rail, shipping, air and other networks between ASEAN members to reduce economic disparities in Southeast Asia and help ASEAN achieve its goal of becoming an economic community by 2015.
Indonesian Foreign Ministry secretary-general for ASEAN Djauhari Oratmangun said Indonesia was the coordinator for achieving maritime inter-connectivity in the region. ASEAN plans to build 42 new seaports in the region.
“We propose that the focus will be the eastern part of ASEAN, meaning also the eastern part of Indonesia. According to the plan, 16 ports will be built in the eastern part of Indonesia. This way, we can connect Indonesia’s isolated islands with ASEAN,” Djauhari said.
He said the master plan called for efforts to improve the region’s connectivity in three areas — physical connectivity such as transport and ICT infrastructure, institutional connectivity such as trade and investment liberalization, and people-to-people connectivity such as tourism and education.
The leaders will also likely discuss criticism of the group’s stance on Myanmar’s decision to bar foreign observers and journalists form entering the country during its elections, scheduled to take place on Nov. 8.
ASEAN will host the United States and Russia in the East Asian Summit, along with the six existing partners — China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand.
Analysts say the US is likely to lobby ASEAN to question Myanmar’s approach to its elections, which have been criticized as non-transparent and unfair, given that democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi’s opposition party has chosen to boycott the election.
Friday, November 5, 2010
APLEAS Bookshelf
- Southeast Asia in the New Century – An Asian Perspective, Edited by Samuel C.Y.Ku, Center For Southeast Asian Studies, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Singapore University Press, 2002.
- East Asian Security in the Post-Cold War Era, Sheldon W. Simon ( Editor ), Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data, 1993.
- ASEAN – India – Australia : Toward Closer Engagement in a New Asia, Edited by William T. Tow and Chin Kin Wah, ISEAS, Singapore 2009.
- Korea’s Changing Roles in Southeast Asia – Expanding Influance and Relations, Edited by David I. Steinberg, ASEAN-Korea Center ( Seoul ) & ISEAS ( Singapore ), 2010.
- Australia’s Foreign Economic Policy and ASEAN, Jiro Okamoto, Ide Jetro, ISEAS, 2010.
- Economic Regionalism a la ASEAN, East Asia & APEC, Mohamed Ariff, Malaysian Institute of Economic Research, 2008.
- Regional Political Economy of China Ascendant – Pivotal Issues and Critical Perspective, Emile Kok-Khen ( Editor ), Institute of China Studies University of Malaya, KL, 2009.
- Ensuring Interests : Dynamic of China-Taiwan Relations and Southeast Asia, Edited by Ho Khai Leong and Hou Kok Chung, Institute of China Studies University of Malay, KL, 2006.
- Different Societies, Shared Futures – Australia, Indonesia and the Region, Edited by John Monfries, Indonesia Update Series Research Schoool of Pacific and Asian Studies The Australian National University, ISEAS, 2006.
- The International Relations of Northeast Asia, Edited by Samuel S. Kim, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Oxford, 2004.
- If China Attacks Taiwan – Military Strategy, Politics and Economics, Edited by Steve Tsang, Routledge, London, New York, 2006.
- Regionalism and Multilateralism, Essays on Cooperative Security in the Asia-Pacific, Amitav Acharya, Times Academic Press, 2002.
- India & Southeast Asia – Towards Security Convergence, Sudhir Devare, ISEAS, 2006.
- The United States and the Defense of the Pacific, Ronald D.McLaurin and Chung-in Moon, Westview Press & Kyungnam University Press, 1989
- Security and Southeast Asia – Domestic, Regional and Global Issues, Allan Collins, Viva Books Private Limited, 2005.
- Major Powers at a Crossroads – Economic Interdependence and an Asia Pacific Security Community, Ming ZhangLynne Rienner Publisher, London, 1995.
- Challenges To India’s Foreign Policy in the New Era, Annpurna Nautiyal ( editor ), Gyan Publishing House, New Delhi, 2006.
- Singapore’s Foreign Policy – The Search for Regional Order, Amitav Acharya ( University of Bristol UK, World Scientific, Institute of Policy Studies, 2008.
- The Economics of the Enterprise For ASEAN Initiative, Seiji F.Naya & Michael G. Plummer, ISEAS 2005.
- Malaysia Foreign Policy in the Mahathir Era 1981-2003 – Dilemmas of Development, Karminder Singh Dhilon, Nus Press Singapore, 2009.
- Globalization Change in Asia, Edited by Dennis A.Rondinelli & John M. Heffron, Lynne Rienner, London, 2007.
- The East Asian Development Experience – The Miracle, The Crisis and The Future, Ha-Joon Chang, Zed Books-TWN Third World Network, 2006.
- China and Malaysia In A Globalizing World – Bilateral Relations, Regional Imperatives and Domestic Challenges, Emile Kok-Kheng Yeoh, Hou Kon Chung, Institute of China Studies, University of Malaya, 2006.
- ASEAN-China Economic Relations, Edited by Saw Swee-Hock, ISEAS, 2007.
- Strategy and Security in the Asia-Pacific, Edited by Robert Ayson and Desmond Bal, Allen & Unwin, 2006.
- The Southeast Asian Economic Miracle, Edited by Young C.Kim, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick ( London ) and London ( UK ), 1995.
- ASEAN Towards 2020 Strategic Goals and Future Directions, Edited by Stephen Leong, ISIS Malaysia, 1998.
- Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia – ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order, Amitav Acharya, Routledge, London, New York, 2001.
- The European Union, United States and ASEAN – Challenges and Prospects For Cooperative Engagement in the 21st Century, Edited by K.S. Nathan, ASEAN Academic Press, 2002.
- Southeast Asia in Search of An ASEAN Community – Insights from the Former ASEAN Secretary General, Rodolfo C. Severino, ISEAS, 2006.
- Asia-Europe on the Eve of the 21st Century, Edited by Suthiphand Chirathivat, Franz Knipping, Poul Henrik Lassen and Chia Siow Yue, Centre For European Studies at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, ISEAS, 2001.
- Malaysia-Africa Relations – Searching For Common Goals, Hamidin Abd Hamid, Rhytm Publishing C.Sdn.Bhd, 2003.
- Empire and Neoliberalism in Asia, Edited by Vedi R. Hadiz, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London & New York, 2006.
- ASEAN’s Diplomatic and Security Culture – Origin, Development and Prospects, Jurgen Haacke, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2005.
- The China Threat : Perceptions, Myths and Reality, Edited by Herbert Yee and Ian Storey, Routledge Curzon, 2002.
- Historical Perspectives On Contemporary East Asia, Edited by Merle Goldman & Andrew Gordon, Harvard Univerty Press, 2000.
- Monarchy in Southeast Asia – the Faces of Tradition in Transition, Roger Kershaw, Routledge, 2001.
- China’s Megatrends – The 8 Pillars of a New Society, John & Doris Naisbitt, Herper Business, 2010.
- A History of Malaysia, Barbara Watson Andaya and Leonard Y.Andaya, Palgrave, 1982.
- China’s New Great Leap Forward – An Emerging China and Its Impact on ASEAN, David N. Abdulai, MPH Publishing, 2007.
- Beyond Bilateralism : US – Japan Relations in The New Asia-Pacific, Edited by Ellis S. Krauss and T.J. Pempel, Standford University, 2004.
- North Korea – The Paranoid Peninsula – A Modern History, Paul French, Zed Books, 2005.
- ASEAN – China Relations – Realities and Prospects, Edited by Saw Swee-Hock, Sheng Lijun, Chin Kin Wah, ISEAS, 2005.
- India-ASEAN Economic Relations – Meeting the Challenges of Globalization, Nagesh Kumar, Rahul Sen & Mukul Asher ( Editor ), RIS & ISEAS, 2006.
- East Asian Security in the Post-Cold War Era, Sheldon W. Simon ( Editor ), Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data, 1993.
- ASEAN – India – Australia : Toward Closer Engagement in a New Asia, Edited by William T. Tow and Chin Kin Wah, ISEAS, Singapore 2009.
- Korea’s Changing Roles in Southeast Asia – Expanding Influance and Relations, Edited by David I. Steinberg, ASEAN-Korea Center ( Seoul ) & ISEAS ( Singapore ), 2010.
- Australia’s Foreign Economic Policy and ASEAN, Jiro Okamoto, Ide Jetro, ISEAS, 2010.
- Economic Regionalism a la ASEAN, East Asia & APEC, Mohamed Ariff, Malaysian Institute of Economic Research, 2008.
- Regional Political Economy of China Ascendant – Pivotal Issues and Critical Perspective, Emile Kok-Khen ( Editor ), Institute of China Studies University of Malaya, KL, 2009.
- Ensuring Interests : Dynamic of China-Taiwan Relations and Southeast Asia, Edited by Ho Khai Leong and Hou Kok Chung, Institute of China Studies University of Malay, KL, 2006.
- Different Societies, Shared Futures – Australia, Indonesia and the Region, Edited by John Monfries, Indonesia Update Series Research Schoool of Pacific and Asian Studies The Australian National University, ISEAS, 2006.
- The International Relations of Northeast Asia, Edited by Samuel S. Kim, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Oxford, 2004.
- If China Attacks Taiwan – Military Strategy, Politics and Economics, Edited by Steve Tsang, Routledge, London, New York, 2006.
- Regionalism and Multilateralism, Essays on Cooperative Security in the Asia-Pacific, Amitav Acharya, Times Academic Press, 2002.
- India & Southeast Asia – Towards Security Convergence, Sudhir Devare, ISEAS, 2006.
- The United States and the Defense of the Pacific, Ronald D.McLaurin and Chung-in Moon, Westview Press & Kyungnam University Press, 1989
- Security and Southeast Asia – Domestic, Regional and Global Issues, Allan Collins, Viva Books Private Limited, 2005.
- Major Powers at a Crossroads – Economic Interdependence and an Asia Pacific Security Community, Ming ZhangLynne Rienner Publisher, London, 1995.
- Challenges To India’s Foreign Policy in the New Era, Annpurna Nautiyal ( editor ), Gyan Publishing House, New Delhi, 2006.
- Singapore’s Foreign Policy – The Search for Regional Order, Amitav Acharya ( University of Bristol UK, World Scientific, Institute of Policy Studies, 2008.
- The Economics of the Enterprise For ASEAN Initiative, Seiji F.Naya & Michael G. Plummer, ISEAS 2005.
- Malaysia Foreign Policy in the Mahathir Era 1981-2003 – Dilemmas of Development, Karminder Singh Dhilon, Nus Press Singapore, 2009.
- Globalization Change in Asia, Edited by Dennis A.Rondinelli & John M. Heffron, Lynne Rienner, London, 2007.
- The East Asian Development Experience – The Miracle, The Crisis and The Future, Ha-Joon Chang, Zed Books-TWN Third World Network, 2006.
- China and Malaysia In A Globalizing World – Bilateral Relations, Regional Imperatives and Domestic Challenges, Emile Kok-Kheng Yeoh, Hou Kon Chung, Institute of China Studies, University of Malaya, 2006.
- ASEAN-China Economic Relations, Edited by Saw Swee-Hock, ISEAS, 2007.
- Strategy and Security in the Asia-Pacific, Edited by Robert Ayson and Desmond Bal, Allen & Unwin, 2006.
- The Southeast Asian Economic Miracle, Edited by Young C.Kim, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick ( London ) and London ( UK ), 1995.
- ASEAN Towards 2020 Strategic Goals and Future Directions, Edited by Stephen Leong, ISIS Malaysia, 1998.
- Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia – ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order, Amitav Acharya, Routledge, London, New York, 2001.
- The European Union, United States and ASEAN – Challenges and Prospects For Cooperative Engagement in the 21st Century, Edited by K.S. Nathan, ASEAN Academic Press, 2002.
- Southeast Asia in Search of An ASEAN Community – Insights from the Former ASEAN Secretary General, Rodolfo C. Severino, ISEAS, 2006.
- Asia-Europe on the Eve of the 21st Century, Edited by Suthiphand Chirathivat, Franz Knipping, Poul Henrik Lassen and Chia Siow Yue, Centre For European Studies at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, ISEAS, 2001.
- Malaysia-Africa Relations – Searching For Common Goals, Hamidin Abd Hamid, Rhytm Publishing C.Sdn.Bhd, 2003.
- Empire and Neoliberalism in Asia, Edited by Vedi R. Hadiz, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London & New York, 2006.
- ASEAN’s Diplomatic and Security Culture – Origin, Development and Prospects, Jurgen Haacke, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2005.
- The China Threat : Perceptions, Myths and Reality, Edited by Herbert Yee and Ian Storey, Routledge Curzon, 2002.
- Historical Perspectives On Contemporary East Asia, Edited by Merle Goldman & Andrew Gordon, Harvard Univerty Press, 2000.
- Monarchy in Southeast Asia – the Faces of Tradition in Transition, Roger Kershaw, Routledge, 2001.
- China’s Megatrends – The 8 Pillars of a New Society, John & Doris Naisbitt, Herper Business, 2010.
- A History of Malaysia, Barbara Watson Andaya and Leonard Y.Andaya, Palgrave, 1982.
- China’s New Great Leap Forward – An Emerging China and Its Impact on ASEAN, David N. Abdulai, MPH Publishing, 2007.
- Beyond Bilateralism : US – Japan Relations in The New Asia-Pacific, Edited by Ellis S. Krauss and T.J. Pempel, Standford University, 2004.
- North Korea – The Paranoid Peninsula – A Modern History, Paul French, Zed Books, 2005.
- ASEAN – China Relations – Realities and Prospects, Edited by Saw Swee-Hock, Sheng Lijun, Chin Kin Wah, ISEAS, 2005.
- India-ASEAN Economic Relations – Meeting the Challenges of Globalization, Nagesh Kumar, Rahul Sen & Mukul Asher ( Editor ), RIS & ISEAS, 2006.
ASEAN’s legal personality - Klipping Jakarta Post
Hikmahanto Juwana and Sari Aziz, Jakarta | Thu, 08/26/2010 9:55 AM | Opinion
On Nov. 20, 2007, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states adopted the ASEAN Charter. Currently, all 10 ASEAN member states have ratified the Charter.
One of the features of the Charter is the recognition of ASEAN’s legal personality. The legal personality of ASEAN is provided for under Article 3 of the Charter, which states that, “ASEAN, as an intergovernmental organization, is hereby conferred legal personality”. This article will discuss the significance of ASEAN having a legal personality.
A legal personality is endowed on an entity to make it a subject of law. With legal personality, a subject of law will have duties and obligations. In addition, it grants the subject legal capacity and the powers to act.
Most legal textbooks will define a legal subject as a natural person and an artificial person. However, this may be misleading, as the two are persons recognized under private law, not other branches of law.
In fact, depending on which areas of law, persons recognized by law are varied.
Under international law, a subject of law consists of states and non-state entities. The non-state entities include international organizations, the Holy See, the International Committee for the Red Cross, and belligerents and individuals committing international crimes.
An international organization, as a subject of international law, has a legal personality. The legal personality is derived from its constitution. The constitution of an international organization is in the form of a treaty agreed by states establishing such an organization.
The constitution will provide a provision conferring the organization with legal status. There are two terms frequently used, namely, legal or juridical personality, and legal capacity.
It should be noted that the two terms can be used interchangeably after the International Court of Justice rendered its advisory opinion in the renowned case dubbed the Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations.
The United Nations Charter, under Article 104, uses the term legal capacity, whereas the International Labor Organization (ILO) uses the term juridical personality under its Article 39.
However, the World Trade Organization uses both terms, legal personality and legal capacity, under its Article 8, Paragraph (1).
In discussing ASEAN’s legal personality, distinction has to be made before the Charter was adopted (pre-Charter) and after its adoption (post-Charter).
In the pre-Charter era, since its formation in 1967, ASEAN did not have a constitution. In addition, there were no documents that contained specific provisions on ASEAN as an institution, nor the Secretariat, having a legal personality.
For such reason, it may be questioned whether the founders of ASEAN have, from the beginning, conceived ASEAN to be an international organization or, as suggested by its name, only an “Association of States”.
Legally, there are distinctions between an international organization and an association of states. The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), for example, is not an international organization. This is also true with respect to the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).
Scholars had been debating whether ASEAN qualified as a proper international organization or only an association of states lacking legal personality.
Nevertheless, ASEAN state members in the pre-Charter era recognized and treated ASEAN politically as an entity having legal personality and legal capacity.
If examined closely, the legal personality and capacity of ASEAN in that era was not endowed on ASEAN, but was endowed on the ASEAN Secretariat.
This can be seen from the 1979 Privileges and Immunities Agreement between the government of Indonesia and ASEAN. The title of the agreement clearly states that privileges and immunities are rendered to the ASEAN Secretariat.
Furthermore, Article 2, Paragraph (2) made reference to the Secretariat having legal capacity, and not ASEAN.
This provision is different from, as an example, the ILO constitution. Under Article 39, reference is made to the ILO, not the Secretariat of the ILO, maintaining the legal capacity.
In the pre-Charter era, it may be argued the legal status of ASEAN was similar to APEC or NAM. These groupings, even though they are not international organizations, however, maintain the Secretariat.
In the post-Charter era, ASEAN becomes an international organization that is endowed with its members’ legal personality.
As an entity with legal personality, ASEAN is vested with rights and obligations under international law and domestic law.
The legal personality means that ASEAN has the legal capacity to enter into international agreements with other international organizations and states. In this context, ASEAN is acting in its public capacity (jure imperii).
However, it should be noted that ASEAN may not enter into certain international agreements on behalf of the member states of ASEAN. ASEAN does not act as a federal or central government among its members.
Another characteristic of ASEAN’s legal capacity is that it may enter into a private contract with domestic law’s private entities. In this context, ASEAN is treated as a private entity and as acting in its private capacity (jure gestionis).
Thus, it may acquire and dispose of assets and institute proceeding within the domestic jurisdiction under its own name. As a private law entity, it has to relinquish or waive its immunity.
In the post-Charter era, the Secretariat becomes one of the organs within ASEAN and does not maintain a legal personality of its own. The Secretariat, headed by the secretary-general, may represent ASEAN in its day-to-day interactions with third parties.
In the post-Charter era, the international community should regard ASEAN, not the Secretariat, as subject to international law and states’ domestic law.
As such, Indonesia, as the host government for ASEAN’s headquarters, must enter into various new agreements to reflect the post-Charter legal status of ASEAN, including amending the host and privileges and immunities agreements.
The agreements should be concluded between the government of Indonesia and ASEAN, and not with the Secretariat.
As to other member states of ASEAN, each member state should recognize and accord ASEAN with legal status under its domestic laws. In the pre-Charter era, it is not clear whether the ASEAN Secretariat had a legal personality under member states’ domestic laws.
It should be noted that in 2009, member states signed the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of ASEAN. Once the agreement enters into force, member states will have to recognize ASEAN as a legal entity in their domestic legal systems.
Unless protected by the laws on immunity, in cases where ASEAN, in its private law capacity, breaches domestic law, ASEAN can be held liable under the relevant domestic laws.
As to the non-member states of ASEAN, they are free to acknowledge or disregard the legal personality of ASEAN in their domestic laws.
There is progress being made for ASEAN to be recognized as an international organization having legal personality by non-member states. Currently, 39 non-member states of ASEAN have sent representative missions. These states should treat ASEAN as having legal personality under their domestic legal systems.
Hikmahanto Juwana is a professor of International Law at the University of Indonesia. Sari Aziz is a research associate at the Centre for International Law (CIL at the National University of Singapore (NUS).
The shows of South Korea, Japan and Indonesia
Kornelius Purba, Jakarta | Thu, 11/04/2010 9:59 AM | Opinion A | A | A |
Next week South Korean President Lee Myung-bak and Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan separately will host two crucial multilateral summits. For President Lee this is a magnificent opportunity to demonstrate the achievements of the world’s 15th largest economy, while for PM Kan this is a good chance to lift a “demoralized” nation whose economy and global influence have been overpowered by China.
On Nov. 11-12 President Lee will preside over the summit of the world’s 20 largest economies (G20) in Seoul and over the following two days (Nov. 13-14) it will be the turn of PM Kan to chair the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Yokohama. The president is luckier than the prime minister because all members of G8 are also members of the G20, which means in terms of content, the Seoul meeting is much more attractive for the world media than Yokohama. APEC reached its glorious peak in the 1990s when Indonesia hosted the second summit in 1994.
The Seoul event is also an occasion to “tease” leaders of North Korea as the country continues to face economic hardships. For Kan, his top priority includes his bilateral meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao in which he will aim to cool down tensions after a recent clash over a territorial dispute. A meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to discuss territorial disputes is also on the top list for domestic political consumption.
The G20 comprises Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom, the US and the European Union. The group represents about 90 percent of the world’s GDP.
APEC includes all the ASEAN members (except Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos), the US, Australia, China, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Mexico, Chile, Peru, Papua New Guinea, Taiwan, Russia, Hong Kong and Canada.
President Lee recently expressed his nation’s pride at hosting the summit. “Korea is a country with first-hand experience in economic development that propeled a country out of poverty all within the living memory of a substantial fraction of its population. Korea has also experienced the devastating impact of a financial crisis and understands the efforts necessary to secure a robust economy. However Korea’s experience cannot always be translated directly into off-the-shelf solutions for other countries.”
According to President Lee, in Seoul the G20 leaders will make decisions on how to implement financial sector reform to strengthen bank capital and liquidity standards and to address systematically important financial institutions and resolution issues.
“The new rules will build a more resilient financial system that serves the needs of the world’s economies, reduces moral hazards, limits the build-up of systemic risk and supports stable economic growth,” the president said as quoted by Korean media.
Meanwhile on the APEC meeting, PM Kan remarked, “Japan would like to continue to contribute to the Asia-Pacific and global economy’s recovery and development by addressing issues in three areas in an integrated manner to revive the Japanese economy: “economic growth”, “sound fiscal policy” and “social security reform”.
As Indonesia will host the APEC meeting in 2013 and one day will get have its turn to chair the bi-annual G20 meeting, we need to set clear and achievable goals starting now. It is natural that President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono will require Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa to ensure that he will host the G20 summit before ending his second presidential term in September 2014. He wants to leave a long-standing legacy for the nation.
Hopefully when Indonesia has its turn to chair the two groups, our situation will be closer to South Korea’s current condition where the economy is booming and not Japan’s. No one is expecting the worse, where our leaders will use the all available means just to accumulate their political power at the cost of millions of Indonesians.
On Wednesday, The Jakarta Post quoted Columbia University’s Prof. Xavier Sala-i-Martin as saying that the G20 has no relevance in improving the welfare of the people of its member states. “You may think the way to resolve issues is through the G20. But at the end of the day, nothing binding happens. The policies that will help Indonesia come from Indonesia. Indonesia is on its own,” the professor told a Jakarta economic forum.
The professor is completely right because both APEC and the G20 are non-binding multilateral forums.
The co-founder of the Global Competitiveness Report also pointed out that Indonesia should prioritize boosting its per capita income.
But we also need to remember that the G20 represents major political and economic capital in the international community. Many Indonesians do not realize or do not see the significance of our membership in the club. One of the reasons is probably because many Indonesians do not see the direct and concrete impacts of the G20 in their daily lives. For many it is just a waste of money and energy.
When President Yudhoyono shakes hands with President Lee in Seoul on Nov. 11, we hope he can say, “When Indonesia hosts the next G20 summit, my country’s situation will be much more prosperous than South Korea’s”.
And to PM Kan, the President may say, “We will never be as big as Japan, but we will have better relations with our neighbors”.
Anyway, Yudhoyono may have great hope but the two hosts have very concrete achievements.
The writer is a staff writer at The Jakarta Post.
On Nov. 20, 2007, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states adopted the ASEAN Charter. Currently, all 10 ASEAN member states have ratified the Charter.
One of the features of the Charter is the recognition of ASEAN’s legal personality. The legal personality of ASEAN is provided for under Article 3 of the Charter, which states that, “ASEAN, as an intergovernmental organization, is hereby conferred legal personality”. This article will discuss the significance of ASEAN having a legal personality.
A legal personality is endowed on an entity to make it a subject of law. With legal personality, a subject of law will have duties and obligations. In addition, it grants the subject legal capacity and the powers to act.
Most legal textbooks will define a legal subject as a natural person and an artificial person. However, this may be misleading, as the two are persons recognized under private law, not other branches of law.
In fact, depending on which areas of law, persons recognized by law are varied.
Under international law, a subject of law consists of states and non-state entities. The non-state entities include international organizations, the Holy See, the International Committee for the Red Cross, and belligerents and individuals committing international crimes.
An international organization, as a subject of international law, has a legal personality. The legal personality is derived from its constitution. The constitution of an international organization is in the form of a treaty agreed by states establishing such an organization.
The constitution will provide a provision conferring the organization with legal status. There are two terms frequently used, namely, legal or juridical personality, and legal capacity.
It should be noted that the two terms can be used interchangeably after the International Court of Justice rendered its advisory opinion in the renowned case dubbed the Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations.
The United Nations Charter, under Article 104, uses the term legal capacity, whereas the International Labor Organization (ILO) uses the term juridical personality under its Article 39.
However, the World Trade Organization uses both terms, legal personality and legal capacity, under its Article 8, Paragraph (1).
In discussing ASEAN’s legal personality, distinction has to be made before the Charter was adopted (pre-Charter) and after its adoption (post-Charter).
In the pre-Charter era, since its formation in 1967, ASEAN did not have a constitution. In addition, there were no documents that contained specific provisions on ASEAN as an institution, nor the Secretariat, having a legal personality.
For such reason, it may be questioned whether the founders of ASEAN have, from the beginning, conceived ASEAN to be an international organization or, as suggested by its name, only an “Association of States”.
Legally, there are distinctions between an international organization and an association of states. The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), for example, is not an international organization. This is also true with respect to the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).
Scholars had been debating whether ASEAN qualified as a proper international organization or only an association of states lacking legal personality.
Nevertheless, ASEAN state members in the pre-Charter era recognized and treated ASEAN politically as an entity having legal personality and legal capacity.
If examined closely, the legal personality and capacity of ASEAN in that era was not endowed on ASEAN, but was endowed on the ASEAN Secretariat.
This can be seen from the 1979 Privileges and Immunities Agreement between the government of Indonesia and ASEAN. The title of the agreement clearly states that privileges and immunities are rendered to the ASEAN Secretariat.
Furthermore, Article 2, Paragraph (2) made reference to the Secretariat having legal capacity, and not ASEAN.
This provision is different from, as an example, the ILO constitution. Under Article 39, reference is made to the ILO, not the Secretariat of the ILO, maintaining the legal capacity.
In the pre-Charter era, it may be argued the legal status of ASEAN was similar to APEC or NAM. These groupings, even though they are not international organizations, however, maintain the Secretariat.
In the post-Charter era, ASEAN becomes an international organization that is endowed with its members’ legal personality.
As an entity with legal personality, ASEAN is vested with rights and obligations under international law and domestic law.
The legal personality means that ASEAN has the legal capacity to enter into international agreements with other international organizations and states. In this context, ASEAN is acting in its public capacity (jure imperii).
However, it should be noted that ASEAN may not enter into certain international agreements on behalf of the member states of ASEAN. ASEAN does not act as a federal or central government among its members.
Another characteristic of ASEAN’s legal capacity is that it may enter into a private contract with domestic law’s private entities. In this context, ASEAN is treated as a private entity and as acting in its private capacity (jure gestionis).
Thus, it may acquire and dispose of assets and institute proceeding within the domestic jurisdiction under its own name. As a private law entity, it has to relinquish or waive its immunity.
In the post-Charter era, the Secretariat becomes one of the organs within ASEAN and does not maintain a legal personality of its own. The Secretariat, headed by the secretary-general, may represent ASEAN in its day-to-day interactions with third parties.
In the post-Charter era, the international community should regard ASEAN, not the Secretariat, as subject to international law and states’ domestic law.
As such, Indonesia, as the host government for ASEAN’s headquarters, must enter into various new agreements to reflect the post-Charter legal status of ASEAN, including amending the host and privileges and immunities agreements.
The agreements should be concluded between the government of Indonesia and ASEAN, and not with the Secretariat.
As to other member states of ASEAN, each member state should recognize and accord ASEAN with legal status under its domestic laws. In the pre-Charter era, it is not clear whether the ASEAN Secretariat had a legal personality under member states’ domestic laws.
It should be noted that in 2009, member states signed the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of ASEAN. Once the agreement enters into force, member states will have to recognize ASEAN as a legal entity in their domestic legal systems.
Unless protected by the laws on immunity, in cases where ASEAN, in its private law capacity, breaches domestic law, ASEAN can be held liable under the relevant domestic laws.
As to the non-member states of ASEAN, they are free to acknowledge or disregard the legal personality of ASEAN in their domestic laws.
There is progress being made for ASEAN to be recognized as an international organization having legal personality by non-member states. Currently, 39 non-member states of ASEAN have sent representative missions. These states should treat ASEAN as having legal personality under their domestic legal systems.
Hikmahanto Juwana is a professor of International Law at the University of Indonesia. Sari Aziz is a research associate at the Centre for International Law (CIL at the National University of Singapore (NUS).
The shows of South Korea, Japan and Indonesia
Kornelius Purba, Jakarta | Thu, 11/04/2010 9:59 AM | Opinion A | A | A |
Next week South Korean President Lee Myung-bak and Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan separately will host two crucial multilateral summits. For President Lee this is a magnificent opportunity to demonstrate the achievements of the world’s 15th largest economy, while for PM Kan this is a good chance to lift a “demoralized” nation whose economy and global influence have been overpowered by China.
On Nov. 11-12 President Lee will preside over the summit of the world’s 20 largest economies (G20) in Seoul and over the following two days (Nov. 13-14) it will be the turn of PM Kan to chair the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Yokohama. The president is luckier than the prime minister because all members of G8 are also members of the G20, which means in terms of content, the Seoul meeting is much more attractive for the world media than Yokohama. APEC reached its glorious peak in the 1990s when Indonesia hosted the second summit in 1994.
The Seoul event is also an occasion to “tease” leaders of North Korea as the country continues to face economic hardships. For Kan, his top priority includes his bilateral meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao in which he will aim to cool down tensions after a recent clash over a territorial dispute. A meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to discuss territorial disputes is also on the top list for domestic political consumption.
The G20 comprises Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom, the US and the European Union. The group represents about 90 percent of the world’s GDP.
APEC includes all the ASEAN members (except Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos), the US, Australia, China, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Mexico, Chile, Peru, Papua New Guinea, Taiwan, Russia, Hong Kong and Canada.
President Lee recently expressed his nation’s pride at hosting the summit. “Korea is a country with first-hand experience in economic development that propeled a country out of poverty all within the living memory of a substantial fraction of its population. Korea has also experienced the devastating impact of a financial crisis and understands the efforts necessary to secure a robust economy. However Korea’s experience cannot always be translated directly into off-the-shelf solutions for other countries.”
According to President Lee, in Seoul the G20 leaders will make decisions on how to implement financial sector reform to strengthen bank capital and liquidity standards and to address systematically important financial institutions and resolution issues.
“The new rules will build a more resilient financial system that serves the needs of the world’s economies, reduces moral hazards, limits the build-up of systemic risk and supports stable economic growth,” the president said as quoted by Korean media.
Meanwhile on the APEC meeting, PM Kan remarked, “Japan would like to continue to contribute to the Asia-Pacific and global economy’s recovery and development by addressing issues in three areas in an integrated manner to revive the Japanese economy: “economic growth”, “sound fiscal policy” and “social security reform”.
As Indonesia will host the APEC meeting in 2013 and one day will get have its turn to chair the bi-annual G20 meeting, we need to set clear and achievable goals starting now. It is natural that President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono will require Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa to ensure that he will host the G20 summit before ending his second presidential term in September 2014. He wants to leave a long-standing legacy for the nation.
Hopefully when Indonesia has its turn to chair the two groups, our situation will be closer to South Korea’s current condition where the economy is booming and not Japan’s. No one is expecting the worse, where our leaders will use the all available means just to accumulate their political power at the cost of millions of Indonesians.
On Wednesday, The Jakarta Post quoted Columbia University’s Prof. Xavier Sala-i-Martin as saying that the G20 has no relevance in improving the welfare of the people of its member states. “You may think the way to resolve issues is through the G20. But at the end of the day, nothing binding happens. The policies that will help Indonesia come from Indonesia. Indonesia is on its own,” the professor told a Jakarta economic forum.
The professor is completely right because both APEC and the G20 are non-binding multilateral forums.
The co-founder of the Global Competitiveness Report also pointed out that Indonesia should prioritize boosting its per capita income.
But we also need to remember that the G20 represents major political and economic capital in the international community. Many Indonesians do not realize or do not see the significance of our membership in the club. One of the reasons is probably because many Indonesians do not see the direct and concrete impacts of the G20 in their daily lives. For many it is just a waste of money and energy.
When President Yudhoyono shakes hands with President Lee in Seoul on Nov. 11, we hope he can say, “When Indonesia hosts the next G20 summit, my country’s situation will be much more prosperous than South Korea’s”.
And to PM Kan, the President may say, “We will never be as big as Japan, but we will have better relations with our neighbors”.
Anyway, Yudhoyono may have great hope but the two hosts have very concrete achievements.
The writer is a staff writer at The Jakarta Post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)