• 
• 

During the historic visit of Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to the Asean Secretariat yesterday, Asean Secretary-General Surin Pitsuwan asked him to view Asean more positively, at the same time welcoming Canberra's ambition and vision for a larger Asia-Pacific Community. "We want to help you construct that wider community," he told Rudd, who became the first leader of an Asean dialogue partner to visit the secretariat.

Before he left for a tour of Japan and Indonesia, Rudd proposed the setting up of new region-wide community that would encompass all the major powers, including the US, China, Japan and India, as well as Indonesia. Asean was absent from this configuration. It is interesting to note that Rudd has given emphasis to the existing regional architecture that has guided Asia. He highlighted three areas in which Asean is in the driving seat. The first is the Asean Regional Forum, the premier forum for 22 member countries to discuss mutual security problems. For the past 14 years, the forum has provided a platform for discussion and has carried out action plans. Unfortunately, non-Asean members want a more active ARF and security programmes, but Asean and China prefer a slower approach, which has made several members lose interest.

Then there is Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, which Canberra helped found in 1989. This organisation has progressed slowly, with 21 economies trying to find ways to reduce tariffs and improve trade relations. From time to time they lapse into discussion on security-related issues. After September 11, 2001, the US pushed for wider discussion on counter-terrorism issues. It looks as if the trade agenda has been hijacked.

In 2005, Australia joined Asean, India and New Zealand in establishing another regional forum, the East Asian Summit. This was a success in the Howard government's dealings with Asia. After all, it was he who caused so many controversies surrounding his Asian policies in the first half of his administration. It is interesting to note that Rudd's idea of establishing an Asia-Pacific-wide community came after Australia's insistence that the EAS forum should serve as the main pillar for East-Asian community-building. This overture has been repeatedly rejected by Asean, which prefers the Asean Plus Three process. Indeed, the improvement of Sino-Japanese relations in the past year has contributed to optimism about building a larger community involving these two powers.

Indeed, other EAS members such as India and New Zealand share the frustration. Both want to construct a new regional forum that is not dictated by Asean. This is a problem. Asean has served for three decades as the main platform for all powers to talk about problems and prospects. Major powers involved in the region do not trust each other, so Asean serves as a cushion. Now that the other powers have improved relations, they want to abandon Asean for good.

Now it is incumbent on Surin to convince Australia that it is in the regional interest to have Asean at the core, despite its weaknesses. Certainly, Surin must also convince the countries in the region, and the world, that Asean is still relevant. Indeed, Asean is transforming quickly, but still not quickly enough.

Over the past few weeks the grouping has been confronted by a huge humanitarian crisis in Cyclone Nargis. Surin was handed a mandate to coordinate the rescue mission and international relief effort. Obviously, the international community is not happy with the arrangement Asean has with the Burmese junta. Yet there is no option. By next year, the grouping will have a legal identity once its charter has been approved by all members. Asean cannot cry over spilt milk. The grouping has to show that it can become a decent organisation that respects human rights and ideas of free expression. The establishment of the Asean human-rights body would also boost its position in the world, provided that it is effective. This is a wake-up call for Asean. Coming from Australia, it is a bit earlier than expected.