Hail the coffee shop.
Categories
Category: ASEAN
Surin Pitsuwan will be the new secretary-general of ASEAN.
The foreign ministers of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations have endorsed former Thai foreign minister, Surin Pitsuwan, as the new ASEAN secretary general.
Mr Surin will succeed Singapore’s Ong Keng Yong who will end his five-year term at the end of this year.
He will be the first ASEAN secretary general to serve under the ASEAN charter, a legal instrument proposed to be ready in November and aiming to transform ASEAN into a rules-based association. [ASEAN endorses new secretary general. Radio Australia. July 31 2007.
While I am pro-ASEAN, perhaps especially so after witnessing the frustrating Doha Round, I am unsure how the new secretary-general would affect me as an ASEAN citizen.
This is even more so when I read that the Singaporean Foreign Minister, George Yeo said the ASEAN Charter is expected to be signed later during the ASEAN Summit planned in November this year in Singapore.
SINGAPORE : Foreign Minister George Yeo has said he is optimistic that the final ASEAN Charter will be signed when the group meets in Singapore later this year. [ASEAN Charter likely to be signed at Singapore meeting: George Yeo. S. Ramesh. Channel NewsAsia. July 31]
When the idea of a charter for ASEAN was mooted, I was expecting what many Europeans had gone through: referenda. Alas, far from it, ASEAN processes are so far detached from the governed.
If ASEAN desperately wants to be relevant to its people, if ASEAN member states want to create a truly organic ASEAN identity, participation of its citizens in ASEAN is essential. When the citizens themselves are disfranchised from something as important as the formulation of a constitution, it is hard to see how the regional grouping would be relevant to its citizens.
I do not think too many of us, the citizens of ASEAN, think of ourselves as citizens of ASEAN. The best way for ASEAN to change that is to include its citizens into its processes. Referenda to the people of ASEAN to approve the Charter is a golden opportunity to set alight the common people interest in ASEAN.
ASEAN must stop pretending that those bureaucrats that are deliberating on matters relating to the Charter are representing the citizens of ASEAN. After all, Southeast Asia is a region with little real democratic tradition.
The ASEAN Charter must source its legitimacy only through the citizens of ASEAN, not from the bureaucrats. Unless that is done, ASEAN risks irrelevancy at home while it develops a reputation of a coffee shop internationally. The ASEAN Charter should be a milestone for a new democratic and modern Southeast Asia, not a projection of an old autocratic or paternalistic region instead.
In game theory, tit-for-tat is one of the most common strategies utilized with cold effectiveness. Recently within the realm of ASEAN, Thailand played such tactics on Malaysia due to the latter’s protectionist automotive policy. Accusing that thee Malaysian approved permit system acts as a non-tariff barrier, Thailand refused to grant ASEAN Free Trade Agreement tariff on Malaysian vehicles. Malaysia later relented, probably realizing that a better outcome could be reached if the two cooperated with each other to lower down trade barrier. Defection is a sad strategy, no matter how efficient it is.
Thanks to such sensibility, Thailand has agreed to lower down the barrier its imposed on Malaysian automotive goods:
The Thai Cabinet agreed on Tuesday to slash the country’s import tariff on Malaysian cars in line with the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), an assistant government spokesman said Tuesday.
The move came after Malaysia had abolished its own trade restrictions protecting its automotive sector, Mr. Chotechai Suwannaporn said.
The reciprocal moves are recognised both as gestures of goodwill within ASEAN, but also as tangible steps on the part of both countries to work towards an integrated regional trade area.
The former Thaksin administration delayed implementing tariff cuts for Malaysian cars, arguing that the neighbouring country had been implementing trade measures that were the main obstacle keeping Thai-built cars from penetrating its market. [Thailand to cut tariff on Malaysian Cars. Bangkok Post. June 27 2007]
Ah. A tit-for-tat with a happy ending. Hip hip hooray. More free trade please and let us tore down the wall of protectionism!
Is there hope for us not to go though the hazy experience we had gone through in the previous years?
I have strong feeling that the answer is unfortunately no. Even if Indonesia rectified the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution, chances are, it would change nothing.
For last few weeks have seen northern Thailand as well as Myanmar and Laos engulfed in haze with level comparable to what had occurred in Southeast Asia last year. It is so bad that emergency has been declared:
CHIANG MAI, Thailand (Reuters) — Thick smoke from forest fires and slash-and-burn farming has spread over northern Thailand in the worst haze in 14 years, disrupting airline flights and irritating eyes and lungs, officials said on Monday.
The smoke from fires in Thailand and neighboring Laos and Myanmar slashed visibility in scores of towns and villages, including the major tourism hub of Chiang Mai. [Thailand haze ‘worst in 14 years’. Reuters via CNN. March 14 2007]
Meanwhile, more than two thousand kilometers south:
The Republic experienced a slightly hazy start to the week, with the overall PSI just falling out of the “good” range.
At 7pm yesterday, the PSI reading went into the “moderate” range for a reading of 52 — the highest level in March. [Singapore not spared from Thailand’s worst haze in 14 years. Today via Channel News Asia. March 20 2007]
I checked the Air Pollution Index at the Malaysian Department of the Environment and found out that for March, the readings for Kuala Lumpur having been hovering between 40 and 60. It seems, a typical day unaffected by haze would read in between 20 and 40.
The haze in Thailand is caused by open burning. Farmers in Myanmar look to clear out their land through the easiest method and that method is open burning; same story, different location.
Some however have blamed it on El Niño:
The average dust particles smaller than 10 microns around Chiang Mai, Thailand’s second-biggest city, are now around 240 micrograms per cubic meter of air, double the 120 micrograms standard, Kasem said.
He blamed the drought on the El Nino weather phenomenon hitting Thailand and neighboring Myanmar and Laos. [Thailand May Declare Emergency in Haze-Hit Northern Provinces. Bloomberg. March 13 2007]
Talking about El Niño, it seems that its effects on Malaysia has been rather mild. Instead of having a hot dry season, it is typical for rain to fall on almost daily basis. Sometimes, it rains so heavily that it floods.
Now, here is the killer: Thailand, Myanmar and Laos are parties to the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution. If Thailand, Myanmar and Laos are parties to the agreement and the parties are doing nothing to fight the haze, I starting to doubt having Indonesia as a party would improve the likelihood of Malaysia seeing a haze-free 2007; I am rethinking the need to encourage Indonesia to ratify the agreement as well.
In the recent ASEAN Summit, member states agreed to a pact that calls for alternatives to fossil fuel:
CEBU, Philippines: Leaders from 16 Asian nations signed an energy security accord Monday that they said would reduce the region’s dependence on fossil fuels and promote the use of alternative energy sources.
Briefly mentioned was the reduction of carbon emission:
The Cebu Declaration on East Asian Energy Security, announced Monday, set a wide range of goals, including a promise to “mitigate greenhouse gas emissions through effective policies and measures.”
Those alternatives seem to mainly include biofuel and nuclear energy. Unfortunately, the pact, much like other ASEAN-initiated treaties, is practically unbinding:
The same scepticism holds good for other agreements reached at the latest summit: one to improve the rights of the millions who move between ASEAN countries seeking work; another to improve co-operation against terrorism; and a third, signed with other East Asian powers, to cut greenhouse-gas emissions and promote renewable energy supplies.
Read the fine print and you will find few significant commitments, let alone concrete targets. ASEAN leaders like the rhetoric of union but not the obligations of it.
The new energy pact is of course a step into the right direction, just like the u-turn made by Bush weeks after the ASEAN Summit. It signals the growing realization in Southeast Asia that we need to do something with our dependency on fossil fuel. Regardless whether climate change is part of the realization, the reduction in carbon emissions which is part of the target is definitely a welcoming target.
Even before the energy pact was signed in Cebu, the Phillipines, member states Malaysia and Indonesia were gearing for biofuel. Almost outrageous plans on both sides of the Malay Archipelago were buzzing. One of them included a mega palm oil plantation on Indonesian Borneo. The plan has since been defeated after protests from environmentalists:
WWF successfully defeated a proposal for the world’s largest oil palm plantation, which threatened to destroy the last remaining intact forests of Borneo.
In Malaysia, a compulsory mixed of biofuel into civilian ground vehicle-worthy gasoline will be enforced in the near future:
Malaysia has announced plans to switch from using diesel oil to a part bio-fuel alternative.
Commodities Minister Peter Chin said laws were being drafted to make the use of such fuel compulsory by 2008.
Negotiations have begun with petroleum companies, to persuade them to produce fuel using both mineral and vegetable oils, the government has revealed.
The government favours fuel from 19 parts diesel to one part palm oil, and says engines do not need modification.
Similar measure is being implemented in the Philippines:
San Fernando City, La Union (15 January) — With the signing of the Biofuels Act into law by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, will pave the way for the Philippines to become self-reliant on energy.
According to the Act, the law will promote the use of alternative, renewable energies such as compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, hydrogen, electricity, and any liquid at least 85% of the volume of which consists of methanol, ethanol, or methyl ester such as coco-biodiesel.
Apart from biofuel, Indonesia is planning to construct four new nuclear power plants:
The Indonesian government has proposed building four nuclear plants at the foot of a 1,600-metre dormant volcano in central Java as part of a long-term plan to meet its energy needs.
The four reactors will cover the size of about 600 football fields near the farming village of Balong, to be built in stages over 10 years.
While the government is enthusiastic about commissioning the first plant by 2015, many are concerned about the proposed site in the shadows of Mount Muria, which has been dormant for 3,000 years.
Malaysia is also mulling the idea of nuclear power plant though nothing definite has been brought to the table yet. Instead, for better or for worse, hydro power is seen as a major source of electricity for years to come.
While the two alternatives diversify the countries’ — as well as ASEAN’s if the pact is adhered at all — energy sources, there are issues related to them.
The expansion of palm oil will eventually bring about deforestation. While biofuel is carbon-neutral, deforestation is not. In fact, Brazil is one of world’s major emitters of carbon due simply to the current massive deforestation of the Amazon. In combat climate change, the expansion of palm oil plantation for the purpose of biofuel production provides a dilemma for policymakers, if not downright paradox.
In contrast to all other energy sources, nuclear produces almost no carbon emission and does not involve deforestation the way biofuel or even hydroelectric dam requires. It is perhaps the ultimate answer to the problem of climate change. Of course, radioactive waste is a major issue that blunts environmental appeal of nuclear power.
While I prefer the pact to stress more on green renewables energy such as wind and solar, the greatest failing is not the exclusion of green renewable energy. The greatest disappointment really is the non-binding nature of the agreement.
What is the point of signing a non-binding agreement?