Dialogue Partner in the ASEAN Development:

Their Significance

1. Introduction

After the formation of ASEAN on 1967 which was signed by five founding fathers

namely Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand, ASEAN has been

taken many efforts to its development. Now ASEAN has become a successful

regional organization in bringing the attention of the other countries in rest of the

world. Generally, ASEAN has successfully nurtures the cooperation in political,

economic, social and cultural with establishment in exercise and research facilities for

shared interest.

In case of ASEAN, regional development activities carried out under ASEAN

cooperation. This is included the cooperation with external relation, particularly with

dialogue partner which had become significant contributors to the overall ASEAN

development. The mechanism of ASEAN dialog partner cooperation is conducted in

bilateral and multilateral relationship as well as funding scheme as a donor for

ASEAN development.

ASEAN dialogue partner cooperation had been taken since 1967, however the formal

principles of ASEAN dialogue partner relation was strengthen and promoted in the

declaration of ASEAN Vision 2020 on 1997 and ASEAN concord II on 2003. In

1997, ASEAN also began to lunch several regional initiatives such as the Chiang-Mai

Initiative which brought together ASEAN plus three countries namely Japan, Korea

and China. The following years exactly on 2005, another initiative of interest is the

launch of the East Asia Summit (EAS) as an annual forum of dialogue on regional

affairs bringing together leaders of ASEAN10, Japan, China, South Korea, EU,

Canada, The United States, India, Australia and New Zealand or (ASEAN+6).

In addition, ASEAN also accorded dialogue partner status to the UNDP, the only

multilateral agency that provides regular and substantial technical assistant to

ASEAN. Presently, ASEAN has a sectoral dialogue partner with Pakistan. Pakistan

was accorded sectoral dialogue status in 1993.

2

In this paper, the significance of dialogue partner contribution in ASEAN

development will be explained based on historical approach along with the

establishment of political security and economic cooperation since its inception on

1967 until over the forty years of ASEAN development in it endeavor to achieve

ASEAN community 2015. I analyze both pillars in order to give a clear picture of the

shift of cooperation strategy from political security then focus more economic in

ASEAN dialogue partner relation.

Below are the ASEAN dialogue partner list and the years of their commencement:

Partner Years

Australia 1974

Canada 1977

China 1996

European Union 1975

India 1995

Japan 1973

Korea 1991

New Zealand 1975

Russia 1996

United States 1977

Pakistan (Sectoral) 1997

UNDP 1972

Source: www.asean.org

2. ASEAN Dialogue Partner Cooperative Mechanism

The cooperative mechanism of ASEAN Dialogue Partner relation is conducted in the

form of agreement or joint management agreement (ISEAS, 1997). This is become a

useful mechanism for coordinating ASEAN common positions on various issues

which are primarily political and economic in nature. This mechanism also reinforces

other dealings by ASEAN with these countries and provides the dialogue country with

a machinery to complement their respective bilateral relations. In case of some of the

dialogue countries (that is, Canada, Republic of Korea, and New Zeland), they

existing structures such as joint managements committees is purposed to oversee the

more detailed operational aspect of programee and project implementation.

3

The guidelines adopted by the ASEAN regarding the dialogue partner have been set

forth in the 1976 declaration of concord and the treaty of amity1. Collective dialogue

with dialogue partner are conducted by various functional and policy making bodies

formed by ASEAN.

Based on Hamzah, B.A, (1989), generally, the forms of ASEAN dialogue partner

relation have become a forum for the followings:

a. Technical and development assistance for common Asean Projects

b. Trade and economic concessions through Asean collective lobbying

c. Strengthening of political relation with the dialogue partner

d. Boosting Asean economic standing

Consultations between ASEAN and its Dialogue Partners are held at the Foreign

Ministers‟ level on an annual basis. ASEAN also has a system of appointing the

country or the Asean Secretariat to coordinate policies pertaining to dialogue relation

on rotation basis that has worked very well. The ASEAN Secretariat held co-ordinates

relationship with the UNDP on a permanent basis. The ASEAN member country, or

country co-ordinator , makes the official representation on behalf of ASEAN to the

dialogue partner, and serves as the official channel of communication for ASEAN

dialogue partner activities.

Furthermore, to support the mechanism of ASEAN‟s dialogue partner relations,

ASEAN has established committees composed of heads of diplomatic

missions/ASEAN ambassadors2. The Ambassador of the ASEAN member country

holding the country co-ordinatorship for the dialogue partner acts as chairman of the

committee and is responsible for co-ordinating with various officials and making

representations on behalf of ASEAN to the host country, subject to the directives of

the Asean Standing Committee (ASC).

3. ASEAN – Dialogue Partner Cooperation

3.1 Political Security Cooperation

In 1967, the similarity history of ASEAN countries which just independence from

colonialism underpinning the focus objective in ASEAN formation that is about to

keep the peace and stability in the region3. During that time ASEAN countries

1 “Declaration of ASEAN Concord,” “Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia,” Indonesia, 24

February 1976 <http://www.aseansec.org/1217.htm> Accessed on 30 December 2013. 2 ASEAN Ambassador, www.asean.org, Accessed on 30 December 2013.

3 “The ASEAN Declaration (Bangkok Declaration),” Thailand, 8 August 1967 <http://www.aseansec.org/3628.

htm> Accessed on 12 January 2014.

4

were very young; these countries faced tremendous internal political instability,

ethnic conflict, unity problem and weak security and defense system (Mohammed

Ayoob, 1995:5). Even after ten years of its existence, ASEAN was still

preoccupied with the intra-ASEAN dispute including the unfortunate conflict

between Malaysia and Indonesia was brought to an end in August 1966; the

Filipino claims on Sabah, advanced in 1969, has all the ingredient of another

territorial conflicts in the region and the other important one is cold war conflict.

As such, ASEAN, with the hope that security institutionalism can reduce and

neutralize threat perception and strategic mistrust, has engaged actively with the

dialogue partners at both bilateral and multilateral levels. ASEAN has established

a chain of mechanisms including the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), East Asia

Summit (EAS), and ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting Plus (ADMM Plus). The

ASEAN Maritime Forum is going to be another important forum on maritime

security cooperation between ASEAN and its dialogue partners from the EAS.

Indeed, it is true that ASEAN have attempted to limit the involvement of outsiders

through the Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality (ZOPFAN) declaration of

1971, the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) in Southeast Asia signed in

1976, and the Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon Free Zone

(SEANWFZ) signed in 1995. However, they have made efforts to ensure peaceful

and positive relations with extra-regional powers after the cold war and the

resolution of the Cambodia problem on 1990s. In addition, powers in the South

China Sea, on the basis of the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the

South China Sea.

The decision to hold the ARF was made at the AMM of July 1993. The ARF was

an ambitious attempt to expand the intra-regional security cooperation methods of

confidence building and preventative diplomacy that ASEAN had developed to

the Asia-Pacific region. ASEAN was attempting to build a security framework

that would also include the participation of the powers outside the region, and the

fruit of its initiatives after the ARF was the conclusion of the Treaty on the

Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone (SEA-NWFZ) in December 1995.

Further, on 2003, the turning point of ASEAN security cooperation is the ASEAN

Security Community concept which was developed against the backdrop of

changes in ASEAN‟s strategic environment from the latter half of the 1990s up

until the present day. These changes were wrought by the expansion of ASEAN,

5

the Asian economic crisis, and the increasing threat of terrorism. During the 1990s

was also in accordance with the birth of ASEAN10 meant that the organization

included the political diversity of all the member nations. In addition to these

changes, the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 2001 have made

terrorism the focus of security throughout the world.

ASEAN needs support from the dialogue partners in professional development

and capacity building of the security forces and joint efforts in addressing above

non-traditional security threats.

Hence, it was strengthen and stipulated in the preamble to the Bali Concord II in

which ASEAN reaffirmed commitment to the principles enshrined in the Bangkok

Declaration, the ZOPFAN Declaration, the TAC, the Bali Concord I, and the

SEA-NWFZ, and it reiterated that the TAC is an effective code of conduct for

intra- and extra-regional relations of ASEAN.

It is starting with the opening up of ASEAN‟s Treaty of Amity and Cooperation

(TAC) in Southeast Asia to the non- ASEAN member state or dialogue partners.

Treaty of Amity (TAC) aims to promote regional peace and stability by enhancing

regional resilience4. Regional resilience shall be achieved by cooperating in all

fields based on the principles of self-confidence, self-reliance, mutual respect,

cooperation, and solidarity, which shall constitute the foundation for a strong and

viable community of nations in Southeast Asia. China became the first dialogue

partner to sign the TAC followed by India at the recent Bali Summit, Russia, New

Zealand, Republic of Korea, The United States, Canada, EU, Japan and Australia.

The other strategies is include developing an ASEAN Charter, full

implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China

Sea, compliance with the ZOPFAN and SEA-NWFZ protocols, and isisalso the

conclusion of an ASEAN Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement, an ASEAN

convention on counter-terrorism, and an extradition treaty.

Lastly, the ASEAN Defense Ministers‟ Meeting (ADMM) was one of the results

arising in 2006 from the movement to form the ASC. The objectives of the

ADMM given in the concept paper were to promote regional peace and stability

through security dialogues; to give guidance to the existing security dialogues

within ASEAN and between ASEAN and its dialogue partners. The ministers also

4 Purpose of Treaty of Amity (TAC), www.asean.org, Accessed on 12 January 2014.

6

confirmed that the ADMM should be open, flexible and outward-looking, and

should actively engage ASEAN‟s friends and dialogue partners5.

3.2 Economic Cooperation

ASEAN effort in economic development began since the ASEAN inception on

1967 as stipulated in Bangkok Declaration on 1967:

“To accelerate the economic growth, social progress and cultural development in

the region….”

However, the efforts on the economic development process in the early years of

ASEAN establishment are not significance. As explained in point 3.1, the political

instability in the region was the driving force behind ASEAN, and it has been

argued that much of the attraction of regional economic integration was merely its

use as a „cover‟ for political cooperation, in particular, vis-a-vis instability in

Indochina.

In 1970s, the need to develop external relations with the developed countries

merely due to an effect of synthetic rubber on ASEAN exports of natural rubber to

japan. Japan‟s massive production of synthetic rubber posed a threat to the natural

rubber industry in Southeast Asia (ISEAS, 1997).

Dialogue partner took a foot steps in ASEAN economic cooperation began on

1997. This is the years when ASEAN was hit by Asian financial crises which

were affected profoundly in ASEAN countries. A number of them were

undergoing the dazzling economic growth known as “the East Asian miracle.” To

overcome this problem, the Leaders of the ten ASEAN member countries, PRC,

Japan and Korea initiated the ASEAN+3 process in 1997 which focused on

macroeconomic and financial issues. One of their attempts is Chiang Mai

Initiatives (CMI). The CMI is a landmark liquidity support facility in East Asia,

which is intended to reduce the risk of currency crises and manage such crises or

crisis contagion6. An important feature of the CMI is that crisis-affected members

requesting short-term liquidity support can immediately obtain financial

assistance.

5 “Joint Press Release of the Inaugural ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting,” Kuala Lumpur, 9 May 2006 <http://

www.aseansec.org/18412.htm> Accessed on 12 January 2014. 6 Kawai, Masahiro. 2010. From the Chiang Mai Initiative to an Asian Monetary Fund. Asian Development Bank

Institute. Retrieved from: http://aric.adb.org/grs/papers/Kawai%205.pdf.

7

Considering the importance of dialogue partner in ASEAN economic

development, in the same years, ASEAN introduced the ASEAN vision 2020 in

which two of their concern were addressed to enhance economic growth. They

promote a partnership in dynamic development and an outward-looking ASEAN.

In convergence of interests of ASEAN Member Countries in dynamic

development, ASEAN vision 2020 is to deepen and broaden economic integration

through existing and new initiatives with clear timelines. While as outward-

looking economies, the prosperity of ASEAN nations depend on foreign market

and foreign investment. It also envisions ASEAN to having an intensified

relationship with its Dialogue Partners and other regional organizations based on

equal partnership and mutual respect. It is then followed by the Declaration of

ASEAN Concord II of October 2003 and 12th ASEAN Summit in January 2007

which the Leaders affirmed their strong commitment to accelerate the

establishment of an ASEAN Economic Community 2015 (AEC).

However in 1990s, this marked with the admission of CLMV countries as

ASEAN member states in which countries are extremely diverse in terms of

economic structure and stage of development. Note that the disparity of income

between the members was already large at the inception of the association.

Tabel 1

GDP per capita of ASEAN-10, 1995-2003 (in millions of US$)

If we take into account, the disparity and the gap was presented in above matrix is

much wider. In 1995, Myanmar was the poorest country in the region with GDP

US$ 239 mn, Singapore was 93 times richer than Myanmar in that years. In such a

8

setting, economic integration is not easy to achieve. The newer ASEAN member

state except Brunei Darussalam is less develops. Therefore, it‟s also impossible to

achieve the integration without dialogue partner assistance. Developing countries

which seek to build a regional community cannot advance their goals

independently, unlike their developed counterparts elsewhere. They need support

and input from other external partners in order to realize their socioeconomic and

political security aspirations7.

The other challenge is at that time it was also coincide with the rising regionalism

in the other parts of the world as well as increasing competition from the regional

giants China and India. This situation spurred ASEAN efforts at economic

integration.

Hence, ASEAN began to introduce a framework of economic cooperation with

dialogue partner. The first framework is the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA)

then following by the ASEAN Investment Area (AIA) and the ASEAN

Framework Agreement on Services (AFAS) and another important regional policy

is the Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI).

3.2.1 ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA)

ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) was concluded in January 1992 (see

ISEAS, 1992). This aimed of the liberalization of intra-ASEAN trade, but

according to key witnesses even more to stimulate investment in the

region8.

The threat of China and India; and rise of trade regionalism are the two

key factors that drove the ASEAN to create its own AFTA. This is the

platform for ASEAN to compete in the trade regionalism and attract the

foreign investment. Moreover, the setting up a FTA will benefit the

member‟s state through economic integration.

Based on Imada and Naya (1992), the decision of creating a Free Trade

Area in the ASEAN which is considered as the most successful regional

grouping among the developing countries.

The instrument of AFTA is Common Effective Preferential Trading

Arrangement (CEPTA), under CEPTA the members will gradually remove

7 Thambipillai, Puspha. External Partner in ASEAN Community Building; Their significance and

complementarities. http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/singapur/04601/2007-3/pushpa.pdf. 8 Ludo Cuyvers and Wisarn Pupphavesa, 1996, From ASEAN to AFTA,

http://webh01.ua.ac.be/cas/pdf/cas06.pdf. Accessed on 16 January 2014.

9

barriers to intra-regional trade. All tariffs will eventually be eliminated or,

at least, no more than 5% will be imposed on the products of the member

states. Within the framework of AFTA, there should be no barriers to trade

so that an open trading system among the members may develop. The

original six members of ASEAN (Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the

Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand) established AFTA in1993, and the

other four members (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam) joined the

area in the second half of the 1990s, making it a free trade area of 10

countries.

Table 2

According to Table 2, the number of items in the CEPT inclusion list with

zero tariffs in ASEAN6 increased significantly in 2003 and 2010.

However the growth in CLMV was more modest. In percentage terms, the

growth in ASEAN6 showed a break in 2005 and 2006; but it was due to

the rapid increase of the number of items in the CEPT IL.

While the development in intra and extra trade, Look at table 3, ASEAN

trade reached US$2.0 trillion in 2010, an increase by 33.1%, owing to

expansion in trade with both intra-ASEAN and extra-ASEAN partners.

Intra-ASEAN‟s share to ASEAN total trade in 2010 stood at 25.4%,

slightly higher than 24.5% in 2009. Meanwhile, extra-ASEAN, accounting

10

for three- fourths of total ASEAN trade, grew by 31.5%, in 2010 following

recovery from the 2008 global economic downturn.

Table 3

In extra- ASEAN partner, China, Japan and EU-27 being ASEAN‟s top

third trade partner in 2011 (Table 4). Trade and economic ties between

ASEAN and China have been growing rapidly over the past years,

especially after the signing of the Framework Agreement on

Comprehensive Economic Cooperation in November 2002 to establish the

ASEAN-China Free Trade Agreement (ACFTA). China continued to be

ASEAN‟s largest trading partner since 2009. Trade between ASEAN and

China increased by 20.9% from US$232 billion in 2010 to US$280.4

billion in 2011. China has also maintained its position as the second

biggest export destination for two consecutive years.

For Japan, In 2011, the total trade was US$273.35 billion, an increase of

32.3 per cent from 2010. Japan maintained its position as ASEAN‟s

second largest trading partner after China. While EU-27, Trade and

investment relations between ASEAN and EU remained substantial. Total

trade between ASEAN and the EU grew modestly by 12.6%, amounting to

US$ 234.8 billion in 2011.

11

The other dialogue partner that have been adopted ASEAN-AFTA is New

Zealand, India, Japan and Korea. Hence, developed countries are

important trading partners of ASEAN countries primarily because of the

complementarity of the economies.

Another main goal of AFTA is to attract foreign direct investment into the

production sectors of the ASEAN economies, with the aim of bringing

about benefits to the Southeast Asian region by promoting intra-regional

trade on the basis of the “rules of origin” requirement. AFTA will attract

more investment into the region; moreover, it also increases the volume of

trade among the members, and thus contributes to the goals of creating an

economic community. ASEAN depends heavily on extra-regional sources

for investment funds. Intra-regional investment flows are beginning to

show some increase, especially from advanced members such as

Singapore.

Table 5

Obviously seen in 2010, Singapore was the major recipient of the ASEAN

FDI inflows, with 46.6% share of the total ASEAN FDI, followed by

Indonesia and Malaysia at 17.5% and 12.0%, respectively. Viet Nam,

accounted for the bulk of FDI in CMLV at US$8 billion. In the same year,

FDI inflows to the ASEAN6 accounted for 87% of total ASEAN FDI

inflows.

12

While for dialogue partner contribution in FDI inflows on 2010; EU-27,

USA and Japan remained to be the top providers of ASEAN FDI inflows

for 2010 (Table 6). EU-27 contributed 22.4%, followed by USA (11.3%)

and Japan (11%). However, now in 2011, Japan stepped up from the third

to become the second largest source of FDI for ASEAN after EU-27.

Foreign direct investment from Japan to ASEAN increased significantly

by 39 per cent from US$11.0 billion in 2010 to US$15.3 billion in 2011

(Table 7)

Table 6

3.2.2

3.2.3

3.2.4

ASEAN in their effort to accelerating the implementation of AFTA, two

agreement had been formulated, these are:

a. ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services (AFAS), which was

signed in 1995. It aims to substantially eliminate restrictions to trade in

services amongst ASEAN Member Countries; improve the efficiency

and competitiveness of ASEAN service suppliers by progressively

liberalizing services sectors; and promote cooperation amongst service

suppliers across the region.

b. Framework Agreement on the ASEAN Investment Area (AIA), which

was signed in 1998. The objective of the AIA Agreement is to

substantially increase the flow of investments into ASEAN from both

13

ASEAN and non-ASEAN investors through a liberal and transparent

environment amongst ASEAN Member Countries.

3.2.2 The Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI)

ASEAN is strongly committed to regional economic integration with a

special emphasis on narrowing the development gap among its members.

Within this context, the Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI) Work Plan

for Narrowing the Development Gap within ASEAN was adopted to assist

new member Countries with the aim of narrowing the development gaps

among. Since it was launched in 2000, IAI has a six-year work plan for

two phases, work plan I (July 2002–June 2008) and work plan II (2009-

2015). Currently, IAI has seven priority areas. According to 35th Meeting

of the IAI Task Force, status update of the IAI work plan I (2002-2008) as

of 19 October 2009 there are 258 projects at various stages of

implementation.

To accelerate the pace of implementing the IAI, the IAI Development

Cooperation Forum (IDCF) was established to serve as the main venue for

engaging ASEAN's Dialogue Partners and other donors in a collective

dialogue on the IAI Work Plan. Four Forums have been organized since

20029.

Dialogue partner have contributed to implement above project. This is

reflected the commitments of dialogue partner to assist ASEAN

particularly the CLMV countries to narrowing development gap and

accelerate the economic integration. In the first phase on 2002-2008,

dialogue partners and development agency are providing funding

assistance to 84 projects totaling US$ 21.92 million. The top five donors

are Japan, the Republic of Korea, India, Norway, and European Union,

contributing about US$ 18.4 million (or 87% of the total funding by

donors).

4 Conclusion

The ASEAN development which engaged the “development intervension” from

dialogue partner was began since its inception on 1967. According to Bangkok

9 IAI Development Cooperation Forum (IDCF), www

14

declaration, of August 8, 1967, the de facto founding declaration of ASEAN,

generally states the objective for the creation of ASEAN as, first and foremost,

cooperation in the economic, social and cultural spheres; it only touches on political

and security cooperation in abstract terms, however, stating that a goal of ASEAN is

“to promote regional peace and stability.” As such, in the early years of ASEAN

establishment the focus of cooperation with dialogue partner were merely about

political security instead of economic growth.

In political security cooperation, eventhough apparently there is no any security

problems happen since the formation of security mechanisms but these existing

security mechanisms and institutions are actually overlapped and intertwined.

Nonetheless, Stability in the region should be maintained in order to keep the running

of economic activity.

While in the economic cooperation, Asia Crisis is underpinning the first concrete

relation between ASEAN and dialogue partner. ASEA build a framework of

economic cooperation such as AFTA, AFAS, AIA and IAI. Those frameworks have

two-pronged goals; these are to narrowing development gap in ASEAN countries and

accelerating integration to the ASEAN economic community 2015. However, look at

the point 3.2.1, the trade and investment is still low; the GDP is wider between the

member states. Hence, ASEAN still rely much on the markets of the dialogue

partners. Additionally, in the effort of NDG, ASEAN need official development

assistance (ODA) from dialogue partner to run the IAI‟s project.

5 Recommendation

5.2 In political security, ASEAN should clearly map out different functions and

objectives of each mechanism and redesign it in a way that can support each other.

More effective collaboration among the mechanisms can generate more concrete

results.

5.3 In economic cooperation, ASEAN should encourage the member state (ratification

of agreement) to accelerate trade and investment liberalization in order to facilitate

an advanced economic cooperation with dialogue partner.

6 Reference

ASEAN Secretariat. 1997. ASEAN Economic Co-operation Transition and

Transformation. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Pasir Panjang Road;

Singapore.

ASEAN VISION 2020. Retrieved from: http://www.asean.org/5228.htm

15

ASEAN Community in Figures. 2011. The ASEAN Secretariat. Retrieved from:

www.asean.org

Asean Economic Community Blueprint. 2009. Retrieved from:

http://www.asean.org/archive/5187-10.pdf.

Asean Political-Security Community Blueprint. 2009. Retrieved from:

http://www.asean.org/archive/5187-18.pdf.

ASEAN Investment Report 2012. 2013. The Changing FDI Landscape: The ASEAN

Secretariat. Retrieved from: http://www.asean.org.

Cordenillo, L Raul. The Future of the ASEAN Free Trade Area between ASEAN and

its Dialogue Partner. Retrieved from:

http://www.asean.org/archive/The_Future_of_the_AFTA_and_the_FTAs_

with_Dialogue_Partners.pdf

Hamzah, B.A. 1989. ASEAN Relation with Dialogue Partner. Pelanduk Publication

(M) Sdn. Bhd. Selangor Darul Ehsan; Malaysia.

Hill, Hal and Menon, Jayant. 2010. ASEAN Economic Integration: Features,

Fulfillments, Failures and the Future No 69. Asian Development Bank.

Retrieved from:

http://aric.adb.org/pdf/workingpaper/WP69_Hill_Menon_ASEAN_Econo

mic_Integration.pdf.

Imada, P. & Naya, S., 1992. AFTA: the way ahead, Singapore: Institute of Southeast

Asian Studies

Kawai, Masahiro. 2010. From the Chiang Mai Initiative to an Asian Monetary Fund.

Asian Development Bank Institute. Retrieved from:

http://aric.adb.org/grs/papers/Kawai%205.pdf

Menon, Jayant. 2012. Narrowing the Development Divide in ASEAN: The Role of

Policy No. 100. Asian Development Bank. Retrieved from:

http://aric.adb.org/pdf/workingpaper/WP100_Menon_Narrowing_the_Dev

elopment_Divide.pd.

Mohammed Ayoob. (1995). The Third World security predicament: State making,

regional conflict and the international system. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

Mohamad, F. K., Hishamudin, Md. S., Mohamad, N. S., Md, Shukri.

S., Mohd, Na'e‟m. A. 2011. The development of ASEAN form Historical

Approach. Asian Social Science. Vol.7, No 7, Retrieved from:

www.ccsenet.org/ass

16

Rieger, Hans Christoph. 1991. Asean Economic Co-operation Handbook. Institute of

Southeast Asian Studies. Singapore Packaging Industries Pte.Ltd :

Singapore

Status Update of the IAI Work Plan I (2002-2008). 2009. ASEAN Secretariat:

Jakarta. Retrieved from: www.asean.org.

The Asean Declaration (Bangkok Declaration) Bangkok, 8 August 1967, Retrieved

from: http://www.asean.org/.

Tomotaka, Shoji. ASEAN Security Community; An Initiative for Peace and Stability.

Retrieved from:

http://www.nids.go.jp/english/publication/kiyo/pdf/2008/bulletin_e2008_3

.pdf.

Thambipillai, Puspha. External Partner in ASEAN Community Building; Their

significance and complementarities. Retrieved from:

http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/singapur/04601/2007-3/pushpa.pdf.

Vannarith, Chheang. 2012 . ASEAN and Dialogue Partners. CICP Policy Brief No. 7

Phnom-Penh: Cambodia.

17

Appendix

Table 4 ASEAN Statistics

Top ten ASEAN trade partner countries/regions, 2011

as of november 2012

value in US$ million; share in percent

Trade partner country/region1/

Value Share to total ASEAN trade

Exports Imports Total trade Exports Imports Total trade

ASEAN 327,531.8 270,710.4 598,242.2 26.4 23.6 25.0

China 127,908.5 152,497.1 280,405.5 10.3 13.3 11.7

Japan 145,197.7 128,149.4 273,347.1 11.7 11.2 11.4

EU-27 126,593.5 108,182.6 234,776.2 10.2 9.4 9.8

USA 106,305.6 92,480.3 198,785.9 8.6 8.1 8.3

Republic of Korea 54,468.0 70,002.9 124,470.9 4.4 6.1 5.2

Hong Kong 81,312.9 15,402.1 96,714.9 6.5 1.3 4.0

Taiwan 33,650.7 47,214.9 80,865.6 2.7 4.1 3.4

India 42,754.7 25,674.1 68,428.8 3.4 2.2 2.9

Australia 37,253.9 22,220.5 59,474.4 3.0 1.9 2.5

Total top ten trade partner countries 1,082,977.3 932,534.2 2,015,511.5 87.2 81.4 84.4

Others2/

159,309.1 213,771.7 373,080.7 12.8 18.6 15.6

Total 1,242,286.4 1,146,305.9 2,388,592.3 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source ASEAN Merchandise Trade Statistics Database (compiled/computed from data submission, publications and/or websites of ASEAN Member States' national

ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) units, national statistics offices, customs departments/agencies, or central banks)

Notes

- not available as of publication time 1/ identified/ranked based on share of total trade

x not available/not compiled 2/ includes trade of all other countries and those that could not be attributed to specific countries

Some figures may not sum up to totals due to rounding off errors.

18

Table 7

Foreign direct investment net inflow to ASEAN from selected partner

countries/regions

as of 14 January 2013

percent

Partner country/region Share to total net inflow Year-on-year change

2009 2010 20112/ 2009-2011 2009-2010 2010-2011

ASEAN

13.4

15.5

23.0

18.5 127.3 83.4

USA

12.2

13.8

5.1

9.6 123.9 -54.7

Japan

8.1

11.7

13.2

11.7 183.8 39.6

European Union (EU)

17.2

18.4

16.0

17.1 111.0 7.2

China

4.0

3.0

5.3

4.2 50.3 116.7

Republic of Korea

3.8

4.1

1.9

3.0 109.8 -43.2

Australia

2.1

2.8

1.2

1.9 160.3 -48.2

India

1.3

3.6

(1.6)

0.8 443.7 -155.2

Canada

1.5

1.5

0.9

1.2 93.4 -29.3

Russian Federation

0.3

0.1 0.0

0.1 -56.9 -64.2

New Zealand 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 -96.5 289.8

Pakistan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 110.1 -54.9

Total selected partner countries/regions

64.2

74.6

64.9

68.3 128.8 7.5

Others1/

35.8

25.4

35.1

31.7 39.5 71.1

Total FDI inflow to ASEAN

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0 96.8 23.7