2 September 2014

Introduction

HDFF’s fifth Chairman’s Circle of the year, in coordination with The Asia Foundation (TAF), was held on Tuesday, 2 September 2014 at the Imperial Queen’s Park Hotel in Bangkok. Discussion was based on the ASEAN Political Security Community (APSC) following the title, “Non-Traditional Security Issues.” The dialogue focused on current non-traditional security challenges with key presentations from representatives of the Human Development Forum Foundation (HDFF), the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Office for Migration (IOM), and the Philippine Institute for Peace, Violence and Terrorism (PIPVTR).

This session of the Chairman’s Circle saw attendees from a wide range of prominent governmental agencies and organizations, both domestic and foreign. Guests included the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Peru, representatives from the Danish, Israeli, Canadian, Indonesian, Philippine and Timor-Leste Embassies, World Vision, UNHCR, UNDSS, UNODC, the Ministry of Public Health, and TNN.

Panel Speaker 1: Dr. Wilfried A. Hermann

After a welcome and brief introductions from Ms. Gorawan Guntawong, HDFF Program Officer, and first moderator and panel chair, Dr. Punchada Sirivunnabood of Mahidol University, the forum commenced with a presentation from the first panel speaker, HDFF Executive Director, Dr. Wilfried A. Herrmann, on the topic of “ASEAN Non-Traditional Security Challenges.”   For the convenience of guests whom were first time attendees, Dr. Herrmann opened with an organizational overview and background covering different organization activities, including its long-term commitment to  the Thai Research Fund project study on land ownership and land rights issues in Thailand. The importance of the partnership with The Asia Foundation (TAF) for the Chairman’s Circle events was emphasized.  One of the goals of these forums is to promote further understanding and exploration of the direction in which ASEAN is headed.  Dr.  Herrmann then went on to speak in great detail regarding challenges to the ASEAN community goals for 2015.

After reviewing the traditional security challenges that are many are familiar with (diplomacy, economy, military [policy], and economy), Dr. Herrmann began his in-depth presentation on non-traditional security challenges.  One of the most prominent and ongoing non-traditional security situations that has impacted, and will continue to impact, ASEAN is the issue of the sea lanes of communications (SLOC) and piracy, especially in the South China Sea and Indian Ocean regions.  Following the discussion of this case study, Dr. Herrmann moved on to illustrate other non-traditional security threats including that of terrorism/organized crime, religious extremism, trans-border diseases, migration, ecology & natural disasters, information, information technology and mass social media.  With religious extremism, the common and most reported narratives address only Islamic radicalism and rarely the radicalism and extremism present in Buddhism; the latter has impacted the state of ASEAN security as much as Islamic extremism.  One of the more interesting factors that Dr. Hermann mentioned concerned human rights as a security issue.  With many ASEAN member states viewing human rights as an invasion of their principles — which include non-interference as well as “Asian values,” — and the further promotion of Western imperialistic values, the lack of response to human rights issues aggravates all other challenges such as organized crime (i.e. trafficking, illegal arms and drug trade) and illegal migration.

After discussing the different threats, Dr. Herrmann proceeded to address the current systems and agreements that ASEAN has in place for these challenges.  These mechanisms include the Zone of Peace, Freedom, and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) 1971, the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC) 1976, and the Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone (SEA-NWFZ) 1995.  Dr. Hermann also gave an overview of other ASEAN institutions and declarations that have been created.  Despite the agreements, declarations, and various bodies presently in place, there is currently no cohesiveness, multilateral coordination, nor legally binding actions behind these mechanisms. An example of this is found in the three pillars of ASEAN Economic Community 2015.  AEC 2015 illustrates that multilateral consensus is possible and the potential to compromise and reach additional agreements is present; however, of the 3 pillars, ASEAN Political Security Community (APSC), ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), and the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC), only the AEC has a published charter.

During the question and answer session with the audience, two concerns that were voiced regarded the security situation surrounding the Indian Ocean region and other territorial disputes including maritime and land border disagreements.  The involvement of the United States, China, and Japan makes these issues extremely complicated.  The lack of response and action from the European Union, an institution many regard ASEAN as attempting to emulate, has ensured that the US, China, and Japan are now the dominating forces in addressing ASEAN issues; however it should also be noted that ASEAN’s interest in the EU is purely economic and this, along with the EU’s delayed response, may be one of the reasons as to why EU involvement in ASEAN is not as deep as it could be.

In conclusion, with the information and background given by Dr. Herrmann and the discussion of guests’ questions, it would seem that the biggest obstacle to achieving the ASEAN community goals of 2015, and the common platform by 2022, is the lack of solidarity between the member states.  The inability to reach a compromise regarding one voice for all ten member states is impact all areas.  This shortcoming is reflected in the policies and the effectiveness of the organizational bodies created to tackle these issues and challenges.  With so much contention still present, and an inability to come to an agreement as well as compromise on policy, the challenges of the ASEAN community seem insurmountable. Nonetheless, the fact that these organizational bodies are in place, and the fact that agreements have been reached despite the vast differences between member states, indicates progress.  If ASEAN were a completely ineffective organization, this progress would be non-existent.

Panel Speaker 2: Professor Rommel Banlaoi 

The second presentation was given by esteemed panelist and speaker, Professor Rommel Banlaoi, Executive Director of the Philippine Institute for Peace, Violence and Terrorism (PIPVTR).  Professor Banlaoi spoke on the contentious issue of religious extremism and the rise of ISIS and its impact on ASEAN security.  His presentation focused specifically on the case study of the Philippines and the rise of al-Qaeda and ISIS activities currently based there.  Professor Banlaoi gave an overview of the history of ISIS and its global spread and emphasized that the threat to Southeast Asia is very real with concrete evidence illustrating the that Black Flag movement, also used by jihadists and militants, has cemented roots in Mindanao.  The latter is especially significant after the movement was confirmed as officially declaring loyalty to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self proclaimed Caliph of the ISIS caliphate.

Professor Banlaoi opened his presentation with an overview of the creation of ISIS and the difference between the actions of ISIS and al-Qaeda (the former was the original operating body of al-Qaeda).  The actions of ISIS are currently heavily centered in Syria and Iraq, but its goal is international. The actions of ISIS are far reaching and the rise is being observed and felt in South and Southeast Asia.  It is of particular interest to note that al-Qaeda has denounced the actions of ISIS due to its extremely violent and excessive destructive methods in its mission to create and establish a caliphate.  Following this development, ISIS, itself, declared independence from al-Qaeda in spring of 2013.  The brutality is especially horrendous in Syria and Iraq and, with waves of extremists being recruited from the United States and the United Kingdom, there is no shortage of willing volunteers for the cause. The declaration of ISIS members in the Philippines officially stating their allegiance to the Black Flag movement, along with prominent terrorist leader Abu Bakar Bashir in Indonesia also pledging his loyalty to the movement, is incredibly alarming because of the sheer volume of followers that subscribe to his ideals and viewpoints. Indonesia and the Philippines, two very important players in ASEAN, are now embroiled in the highly concerning issue of ISIS, with rising numbers of nationals from both countries joining the cause.  The turmoil and dangers have spread to other ASEAN member states such as Malaysia, and the potential danger of it spreading even further inland is likely, especially considering the security situation and unrest in the Deep South of Thailand.

Professor Banlaoi focused the majority of his presentation on case studies specific to the Philippines, including coverage of the Australian Islamic preacher, Musa Cerantonio, who traveled to and from Australia and the Philippines advocating a plan to make the Philippines, specifically Mindanao and Sulu,  a center for jihadist training. This emphasized Professor Banlaoi’s point that the effects of ISIS are not isolated to the Middle East. Professor Banlaoi, when discussing the success of ISIS and its networks in the Philippines, drew particular attention to how the networks are established.  In the case of the Philippines, strength is found not in numbers but in familial ties.  Many of the known ISIS members were able to effectively operate due to their ties either directly by blood or through marriage to one another.

The question and answer session with the audience that followed focused on what counter efforts are feasible and could possibly be effective against ISIS.  Professor Banlaoi indicated that by developing a counter ideology, one not rooted in democracy, the momentum of the movement may decrease, however, as the situation currently is, ISIS will only continue to grow. He emphasized the importance of the role that local government plays in addressing grievances and mitigating extremism.  The strengthening of local government is important in tackling the issue of recruitment from nationals and also the role of education is crucial in offering a counter measure to terrorism. Another theory Professor Banlaoi explored as to why ISIS has been so successful is the overall widespread social failure in various countries.  If a closer exploration and analysis of this approach were to be taken, it is very likely that this pattern is proven to be true.  If this is the case, then, as Professor Banlaoi mentioned, local government is in desperate need of strengthening.

In conclusion, the threat that ISIS represents for ASEAN is imminent and very real.  Some may even argue that the threat is already upon the ASEAN members and that the time for preventative and counter measures is now.  In the case of the Philippines, if ISIS members continue to be recruited from entire families, this represents an even more complicated challenge for ASEAN.  In following with the “Asian-values” principle, whole communities, especially the ties within families, are incredibly difficult to break and by recruiting entire families, ISIS stands to build a powerful base that extends beyond ideology.  The solution that Professor Banlaoi suggests, a counter ideology to that of ISIS, may very well be the best and most effective resort; however, as illustrated in the examples and discussion of Dr. Herrmann’s presentation, there is still much disagreement between ASEAN members in how to address security related issues and challenges.  ISIS is not only a high security risk issue for ASEAN member states but the turmoil and chaos that follows the movement may also negatively impact the goals of the ASEAN Economic Community 2015.

Panel Speaker 3: Dr. Yonas Tegegn

The afternoon session commenced with an introduction from panel chair and moderator, Dr. Arnaud Leveau of Chalulongkorn University, and was followed by the third panel presentation which was given by public health expert, Dr. Yonas Tegegn, Thailand Country Representative from the World Health Organization (WHO).  Dr. Tegegn spoke in depth about the WHO vision for global wide health security system and other health initiatives in place.  The goals of the global wide health system are to reach an adequate level of readiness in order to keep the world safe from infectious and non-infectious diseases that represent security threats.  The four threats that the WHO monitors for consist of food-borne, chemical, radiation, and communicable diseases.  ASEAN and the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) have developed and have their own systems in place to mitigate these issues.  These systems indicate that they are capable and ready to address health related security concerns.

The globalized state of the world has ensured that health issues and the issue of security are no longer isolated from one another.  This can be especially seen in the case of the infectious disease Ebola and its worldwide impact. Dr. Tegegn also spoke at length about the changing state of health threats.  What were once seen as isolated health issues (i.e. HIV) are now seen as international security risks.  Other examples of this include bacteria that are becoming drug resistant and the weaponized usage of diseases like anthrax.  A specific case study that Dr. Tegegn illustrated was the nuclear meltdown of the Fukushima and the far reaching health effects of the radiation on all life forms, from vegetation to humans to animals. Dr. Tegegn then went on to discuss the existing WHO frameworks that Asia and Southeast Asia currently have in place, which includes the SEA Region Benchmarks for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Asia Pacific Strategy for Emerging Diseases, and the Asia Pacific Strategy for Strengthening of Health Laboratories.

Leading from the discussion of the WHO framework currently in place, Dr. Tegegn delved in to an exploration of the International Health Regulations (IHR) that was established in 2005 for the global community.  It is a set of regulations that are legally binding for all members of the WHO and has been since 2007 and is meant as an indicator of a country’s capacity to deal with and resolve potential health issues and risks.  Its parameters outline specific steps and the different approaches needed in order to effectively approach and resolve a health crisis.  Essentially, the IHR ensures that WHO members states notifies the WHO immediately and keeps them appraised of any and all developments and efforts to resolve the issue(s).  Continuing on with the topic, Dr. Tegegn discussed the eight core capacities, including but not limited to resources, national legislation, coordination, and finances, that are vital in ensuring the IHR is effective.  By adhering to one international standard, a formal set of criteria, to determine if the situation warrants an emergency and needs to be reported, the process will not only improve accuracy but will also aid tremendously in ensuring that the spread of diseases is contained. In the specific case of Asia, many countries are asking for a 2 year extension in order to meet the standards of IHR; however Thailand is not among the countries asking for an extension.  The Thai government, specifically the Ministry of Health, has declared that they are ready to meet this standard and ready to mitigate any and all issues and concerns.  Thailand is also one of the few ASEAN member states that have been able to establish universal healthcare at only $500/capita.. This accomplishment illustrates that it is a case of dedication and “political will” rather than an issue of finances that enables a country to introduce a universal healthcare system.

The following question and answer session with the audience focused on what the IHR represents for ASEAN and how ASEAN can address the various health related security risks posed by diseases such as Ebola.  One of the topics addressed, and the focus of a question, concerned the AEC 2015 challenge of not being able to currently establish a point where multilateral efforts to ensure the borders and system is actually in operation.  Dr. Tegegn suggested that one way to change this is to urge the establishment of universal healthcare in all ASEAN member states.  A universal system will aid tremendously in mitigating any situations that may develop.   Following this, an audience member inquired as to how Indonesia, due to the sheer volume of its population, would achieve its goal of universal healthcare. In reply to this question, Dr. Tegegn emphasized the need to focus on primary healthcare and preventative healthcare rather than to focus solely on hospital care.

In conclusion, the world, as a whole, is not fully ready for an international standard and system of preventing and addressing health related security risks and events.  If there were to be a pandemic related to the spread of a highly infectious disease, no one is immune and, specifically using the United States as an example, millions of dollars wasted not to mention the sheer volume of loss of life would be unavoidable.  Dr. Tegegn drew attention to this and emphasized the need for several practical frameworks to be established. Categorizing everything under the health industry or the health sector is not sustainable and will not be able to adequately mitigate health related security issues.  ASEAN needs to implement a national information system that allows communication between member states and a system that also has matching procedures for the diagnosis of conditions and symptoms, as well as quarantine and treatment procedures as needed.  The issue of vulnerable migrant workers and trans-border diseases in Thailand and other ASEAN member states is one among one of the many challenging issues to resolve.

Panel Speaker 4: Ms. Yuko Hamada

The last panel presentation was given by the highly accomplished and knowledgeable Ms. Yuko Hamada, Senior Regional Labor Migration/Migration and Development Specialist for the International Organization for Migration (IOM) Asia and the Pacific Region.  In light of the ASEAN goal to open borders and promote free movement of highly skilled workers, Ms. Hamada presented an analysis on the multiple factors that contribute to increased levels of migration in various ASEAN member states, as well as outside of ASEAN in Korea, China, and Japan.  Ms. Hamada showcased a series of data that illustrating migration levels of workers continuing to exponentially increase and leading it to become a vital contributor of all ASEAN member states GDP.  In addition, Ms. Hamada also drew attention to the fact that the movement of migration between ASEAN members is asymmetrical, with states like Myanmar experiencing a skewed outward migration in comparison to its inward migration.

Ms. Hamada also discussed the different sectors in the labor market and emphasized the particular movement within ASEAN member states from primary sector (agriculture, forestry, fishing, and mining) to the value added sector (electronics, financial, banking, intelligence services).  The latter industry is emerging to become the dominant and preferred industry of migrant workers; however Ms. Hamada reiterated that agriculture still maintains an important role in the GDP of ASEAN member states.  She illustrated this fact with case studies from the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia who are massive producers and exporters of various products like palm oil, coconuts and coconut oil, as well as rice. The different skilled sectors, high and low, especially for low skilled workers (who face issues like exploitation, poor pay, injury, and poor living conditions), presents a special challenge in ensuring that migrant workers are treated well and activities are kept legal. The measures that were suggested in order to ensure the correct protections are in place include the empowerment of migration workers, having a support network in place, and other support mechanisms.

The question and answer session with the audience revealed concerns surrounding the issue of illegal migration and the non-binding labor initiatives present in ASEAN.  Ms. Hamada spoke at length regarding the importance of IOM cooperation with other regional organizations and bodies to address these concerns and drew attention to the fact that ASEAN is working on a legally binding framework, a framework which will be discussed at ASEAN’s summit later this year.

In conclusion, the opening of borders with AEC 2105 and the goal of ASEAN to promote free movement of highly skilled labors will result in a positive outcome for the labor market and thus increased GDP for ASEAN.  However, the challenges that ASEAN faces includes the lack of domestic legislation, information sharing, licensing issues, as well as immigration issues.  The development of a regional labor market is vital in ensuring that the GDP of ASEAN member states grow, however the frameworks currently in place and those that are being proposed focus more on increasing the flow of skilled labor rather than encompassing all areas. Another challenge that ASEAN faces is the fact that much of the trade is dominated by bilateral agreements rather than multilateral, the latter of which is essential in order to establish a common platform.  This is an important point to note due to the overall goal of AEC 2015, which is to establish Southeast Asia as a highly competitive economic region.  If multiple member states are unable to retain their labor levels, it will negatively impact the overall performance of the region.  Other challenges come in the form of visa issues as well as the issue of illegal migration. Language is also another factor that hinders the free movement of labor, despite efforts of ASSEAN with various ministries of education to produce and distribute language textbooks. ASEAN member states still meet regularly to address the issues and challenges faced by migrant workers, however the existing initiatives are non-binding and, as with previous challenges, this is an obstacle to overcome as well.

Conclusion

Based on the presentation and discussion surrounding the Chairman’s Circle forum on 2 September 2014, the overall consensus indicates that ASEAN still has some major obstacles to work through.  Despite this, ASEAN is on track to achieve its vision of one community, however key elements must be addressed and resolved, including but not limited to the issues of migration, diseases, and religious extremism.  In the face of all this knowledge, it may seem impossible for ASEAN to work towards its common platform 2022, but it must be noted that ASEAN has show significant progression over the past several years. The rate at which these landmark decisions are being made is not an ideal in the face of the constantly changing political and social environments, especially extremes such as Ebola and ISIS, however the efforts made have indicated that ASEAN members states are very aware there is a pressing need to address these wide range of issues. The discussion of non-traditional security topics illustrates that a need to adopt new procedures in order to adapt to evolving environments is as crucial as the commitment to continue to adhere to existing frameworks.  An increasingly unstable political environment created by the rising movement of ISIS and continued efforts of ISIS leaders to recruit from all over Asia and especially in ASEAN member states poses not only a security threat, but also a threat to the economic stability of the tourism industry.  With the threat of religious extremism, and the movement of international bodies, come the threat of high infectious communicable diseases and the weaponized use of these diseases.  Thailand, with one of the most desirable locations for migrant works, both highly skilled and lower skilled, is a prime example of an ASEAN state that has will have to address health issues and other security risks associated with the high volume movement of workers once the borders are opened for the AEC 2015.  The ability and the effectiveness of ASEAN in mitigating all these issues and being able to implement binding framework to address these risks and issues will determine how strong the community is and will most definitely go a very long way in cementing the goal of one community by 2022. Unlike the past, the new challenges that ASEAN faces are multifaceted in various ways.  ASEAN must adapt its approach in order to reach its goal.  The challenges are vast and some incredibly difficult, but the outlook remains positive.

Download Professor Rommel Banlaoi’s presentation here.

Download Dr. Wilfried A. Herrmann’s  presentation here.

Download Dr. Yonas Tegegn’s presentation here.

Download Ms. Yuko Hamada’s presentation here.

 

HDFF would like to thank all its speakers and guests for attending the forum and we look forward seeing you at the next one! 

If you would like additional information, you can contact HDFF at info@hdff.org or Event Coordinator, Ms. Tracy Vangh, at hdff.vangh@gmail.com